Consultation outcome

Night flights restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports beyond 2024, plus national night flight policy

Updated 23 June 2023

About this consultation

We originally sought views and evidence on policy options for the government’s future night flight policy at the designated airports beyond 2024 and nationally, as part of the Night flight restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports between 2022 and 2024 plus future night flight policy consultation of December 2020.

We have subsequently decided, through this consultation, to allow extra time for consideration of these policy options.

Much of the information within this consultation will reference the December 2020 consultation, since the information remains unchanged from that time.

Background

The government recognises that noise from aircraft taking off and landing at night is often regarded by communities as the most disturbing form of airport operations. We also recognise that there is evidence, including in the World Health Organisation’s revised Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region, that sleep disturbance caused by aircraft night operations can have adverse health impacts on overflown communities.

At the same time, the aviation sector has material value to the economy and night flights are an important contributor to this at many airports. The aviation industry plays a significant role in the UK economy and it connects people and UK businesses with the world. Prior to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the UK’s aviation network was the third largest in the world, after the USA and China^{[footnote 1]}. In 2019, UK airports served over 370 destinations in around 100 countries and handled over 297 million passengers^{[footnote 2]}. Aviation also facilitates global trade with £95 billion of goods exported by air extra-EU countries in 2018^{[footnote 3]}. The sector directly provided around 230,000 jobs with many more employed indirectly^{[footnote 2]} and the sector contributed at least £22 billion annually to UK gross domestic product (GDP)^{[footnote 4]}.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the aviation sector. The core focus in government at this time is combatting coronavirus and working with the sector on restart and recovery. The report of the Global Travel Taskforce, published in November, is the next step towards recovery for the travel and tourism sectors. It is nevertheless important that we continue to work on longer-term priorities, including those relating to aviation noise and night flights.

COVID-19 has meant that many people have had to profoundly change the way they live, work and travel. It is therefore sensible that the government explores how these changes in behaviours should influence future policy decisions.

It is also important the government finds the right balance between limiting the adverse environmental impacts that night flights have on communities, while supporting the aviation sector (passenger, freight, general aviation and so on), and the businesses that depend on the availability of night flights to deliver critical goods and services.

This consultation process

This consultation has been created to allow extra time for consideration of what was originally part 2 of the Night flight restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports between 2022 and 2024 plus future night flight policy’ consultation.

We seek early views and evidence on policy options for the government’s future night flight policy at the designated airports beyond 2024 and nationally. This includes:

• whether we should amend our national noise policy to include specific policy for night noise
• revising our night flight dispensation guidance
• whether we should set criteria for airport designation
• what any future night flight regime at the designated airports should look like

This consultation will close at 11:59pm on Friday 3 September 2021.

The findings from this consultation will be used to inform policy options. We aim to set out firm proposals for the designated airports beyond 2024 in a consultation planned for 2022.

This process relates to the current designated airports in their current operational form and it does not consider any scenarios related to airport expansion proposals.

This consultation process will be of interest to:

• communities that live near airports or underneath flightpaths
• local authorities
• airlines
• airport operators
• businesses or consumers that depend on the aviation sector

Structure of this consultation

Revising our night flight dispensation guidance

We are seeking early views on the government’s night flights dispensation policy, which allows airport operators and the Secretary of State for Transport (SofS) to disregard movements from the existing restrictions in certain circumstances.

We will use responses to revise the guidance for airport operators and publish before October 2022.

The structure of the night flight restrictions at the designated airports beyond 2024

We are seeking early views on the current situation at the designated airports and the potential options for a future regime in the longer term. This includes but is not limited to:

• the structure of the government’s night noise quota count system
• the length of the future regime
• future movement and noise quota allowances

Evidence received in response to this section will inform firm policy options in the second-stage consultation in 2022.

Our national night flight policy

In this section we seek early views on:

• the health impacts of aviation noise at night
• the economic value of night flights
• the advantages or disadvantages that the emergence of new technology will have in the future in relation to night noise from aircraft
• whether the government’s aviation noise objective should include a night noise specific element
• whether the government should set criteria for airport designation

Airport designation allows for the SofS to publish notices for the purpose of limiting or of mitigating the effect of noise and vibration connected with the taking off or landing of aircraft at the aerodrome. This could, for example, allow the SofS to set operating restrictions at airports other than Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.

This could also allow for the SofS to de-designate airports that are currently designated, with decisions on noise controls instead being made locally.

How to respond

This consultation period will run between 4 March 2021 and 11:59pm on 3 September 2021. You are invited to respond to the consultation:

• through the online survey
• via email either directly to night.flights@dft.gov.uk or by sending the download form to this email address
• writing or sending the download form to:

Night Flights Consultation
Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London SW1P 4DR

Due to remote working for the foreseeable future, plus the health and safety issues with handling physical mail, we strongly encourage responses by the online form or by email. If you are unable to respond by the online form or by email, we would invite you to please let us know by asking someone to email on your behalf.

Your response must reach us before the closing date.

Revising our night flight dispensation guidance

Background

The legal framework through which the government sets night flight operating restrictions at the designated airports also allows airport operators or the SofS to disregard certain movements, providing they meet a specified criterion. Any movements that are granted a dispensation in this way do not count towards an airport’s movement or Quota Count (QC) allowance.

The 3 types of circumstances that currently allow operators to grant dispensations are set out in guidance and are as follows:

1. Emergencies.
2. Widespread and prolonged air traffic disruption.
3. Delays as a result of disruption leading to serious hardship and congestion at the airfield or terminal.

The circumstances under which the SofS grants dispensations relate to matters of state, where dispensations are required as a result of a government decision, or where the circumstances are an issue of national interest.

We have recently undertaken a review on the night flight dispensation process and are minded to revise the dispensation guidance. Without predetermining what a future regime may include, through this section of the consultation, we are seeking views on areas where the guidance on night flight dispensations is not clear or where it can be improved.

We will use responses to revise the guidance for airport operators and publish before the winter 2022 to 2023 season.

Night flight dispensation review

In the government’s 2017 night flight decision, it committed to carrying out further work to consider whether the current process for issuing dispensations is appropriate, including the guidance under which they are allowed. This commitment was given in response to concerns raised by community groups during the 2017 consultation about how airport operators apply dispensations.

We have now undertaken the review. The objective of the review was to analyse airport dispensation reports provided by the designated airports over a 3-year period (October 2016 to October 2019) to ensure that dispensations are being applied correctly and consistently. A summary of the main findings and proposals of the review are set out.

Summary of findings

Adverse weather was the primary factor that resulted in unscheduled flights needing to operate in the night quota period. Air Traffic Control (ATC) strikes, IT problems or system improvements, and medical emergencies are the next leading causes, but dispensations were also applied for other minor issues. Government dispensations were negligible, but used to help facilitate official visits of foreign dignitaries, and repatriation operations conducted following the failure of major airlines.

Dispensations were also applied as a result of disruptive passengers delaying flights, flights departing in the night quota period after a medical emergency had been resolved, or security incidents (for example the Gatwick drone incident). These are not specifically provided for in our guidance and Aeronautical Information Publications (AIP), but some could be seen to be sensible reasons that would warrant more explicit inclusion.

There was a trend observed at all 3 airports of dispensations being applied for airspace capacity-related delays, which did not have an underpinning causation that clearly met the government’s dispensation criteria. The government wrote to each designated airport in 2018 to state that airspace capacity-related delays, without an underlying cause that is exceptional and falls within a specified circumstance, are not dispensable. In response, airports and airlines have taken steps to reduce the risk of unscheduled capacity-related night movements occurring, and therefore reversing this trend.

Dispensations were mostly applied for delayed arrivals between 11:30pm and 12:30am. However, some had been applied at Heathrow Airport as a pre-emptive measure for flights between 05:30am and 6am on poor weather days. Heathrow is the only airport to adopt this practice. Heathrow believe applying pre-emptive dispensations reduces the risk of delays during the airport’s early morning busy hours, which could then have knock-on effects throughout the day, and possibly into the night period. The dispensation guidance does not explicitly permit or prohibit this, and there is not currently sufficient evidence to conclude whether the benefits of this approach outweigh its negative effects.

Each airport’s most prominent airline (in terms of numbers of operations) received the most dispensations for each respective airport. The low-cost carrier airlines are more susceptible to knock-on delays causing the final flight of the day to land in the night quota period. This is possibly because they will be more likely to encounter delays going through busy ATC sectors multiple times a day, but also because the business models of these airlines have less resilience to recover from delays.

Across a 4-year period between 2014 to 2018, there was a marked increase in dispensations noted as being applied at each airport, with the most notable increase being at Stansted Airport. However, there was a significant reduction in dispensations at all airports in 2019. The reduction was in part due to less weather disruption in summer 2019, but also due to the work the airports have undertaken to reduce capacity-related delays.

The general trend of increased night flight dispensations is likely to be because of airport growth and demand across both domestic and foreign ATC sectors, with less resilience in the system to absorb delays that do occur. In relation to Stansted, an element of this increase could be because, historically, the airport did not always apply dispensations to eligible movements because it had sufficient capacity to absorb the flights within its quota allocation.

It was also found that the level of dispensation data easily accessible or publicly available on airports’ websites was limited, although in some cases information was available at consultative committees, or sub-committees. Therefore, it was found improvements could be made to make the process more transparent.

Proposals

The government does not have significant concerns relating to how airports have used their powers to grant dispensations. However, it believes the interpretation of the guidance by some designated airports has meant that the granting of some movement dispensations may not strictly meet the criteria. As a result, it is proposed that the government refines the guidance, and future AIP, to provide better clarity.

It is also proposed that the guidance clarifies the process by which an airport’s decision to grant a dispensation can be rejected by the SofS in instances where the dispensation does not meet the criteria.

In relation to transparency, given airport noise and track-keeping groups already consider airports’ compliance with other noise controls, we propose to:

• make the dispensation process more transparent through greater scrutiny at each airport’s noise and track-keeping group
• provide guidance to airports on the information we expect them to share with the public, including a proposal that they publish this data on their website
• implement periodically reviews of night flight dispensations, to assess compliance as well as opportunities to further improve the process – this could be commissioned from the Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise (ICCAN) or the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)

The full review can be found in annex E and the government’s current dispensation guidance can be found in annex F.

Questions

What are your views on the findings of the night flight dispensation review?

What are your views on the proposals for the night flight dispensation review?

Revising our night flight dispensation guidance

The main areas identified during the review where we believe the guidance could be refined relate to the following:

Weather-related delays

The guidance allows for dispensations for disruptions caused by strong winds, snow and ice, and fog resulting in low visibility procedures. The definition of “widespread and prolonged” is broad and it could benefit from greater clarity. In most instances, airport operators have applied dispensations for local adverse weather events, some of which can last for several hours or even days, and which clearly meet the criteria for dispensations. What is not specifically covered in the guidance is whether weather events abroad that have prolonged impact at a foreign airport or en-route weather disruption should qualify for dispensations.

Questions

Should disruption due to local weather qualify for dispensations? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Should disruption due to en-route weather qualify for dispensations? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Should disruption due to foreign airport weather qualify for dispensations? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Delays caused by industrial action (referred to as strikes in dispensation guidance)

All the designated airports have applied dispensations for ATC industrial action abroad, which then affect their own operations. These do meet the current criteria for dispensation and the application of such is therefore not an issue of concern. The guidance is silent on delays caused by airport or airline staff industrial action, indicating they do not qualify for dispensations. While we do not condone industrial action as it unfairly penalises consumers, there is evidence to suggest industrial action in the aviation industry can be expected to occur at least on an annual basis. Therefore, there is an argument that this should be taken into consideration by airport operators during operational planning. We therefore seek views and evidence on which forms of industrial action, if any, should qualify for dispensations.

Questions

Should disruption caused by ATC industrial action qualify for dispensations? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Should disruption caused by industrial action by airport staff qualify for dispensations? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Should disruption caused by industrial action by airline staff qualify for dispensations? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Network capacity delays

Each of the designated airports have applied dispensations for capacity-related delays that do not have a root causation as detailed in the current guidance document. These delays often resulted from restrictions, imposed by ATC, on particularly busy ATC sectors due to high volumes of traffic, and staffing levels to safely transit aircraft though the sector. We are currently of the view that delays resulting from network capacity issues do not qualify for dispensations.

Questions

Should network capacity delays qualify for dispensations? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Delays caused by serious criminal or terrorist activity affecting multiple flights

Criminal activity, such as the drone incident that occurred at Gatwick in December 2018, can cause widespread and prolonged disruption. During such incidents, the SofS has granted dispensations. The government is introducing tough rules and restrictions against the unauthorised use of drones and we do not expect drone incursions, or other criminal or terrorist activity to become more frequent. However, such incidents may warrant more explicit inclusion. This would allow airport operators to make the decision without reference to central government.

Questions

Should delays caused by serious criminal or terrorist activity that affect multiple flights qualify for dispensations? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Cumulative delays

Delays caused during the first or subsequent flights of an aircraft during the day for reasons that would meet the dispensation criteria (for example, fog), or for multiple delay reasons incurred throughout a day, can often cause knock-on effects that lead to the last flight rotation landing in the Night Quota Period (NQP). By this point, the circumstance that led to the delay may no longer be ongoing. However, airport operators have granted a dispensation for the last movement on the basis of the circumstances that led to the initial delay.

Questions

Should cumulative delays qualify for dispensations? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Emergencies

The emergencies criterion states “flights involving emergencies where there is an immediate danger to life or health, whether human or animal”.

Clearly, safety is always paramount. Any airborne aircraft that encounters an emergency situation, be it medical, aircraft related or due to a disruptive passenger, should land as soon as safely possible. That movement should then rightly be granted a dispensation if it lands in the NQP.

However, there is evidence of both medical and disruptive passenger-related emergencies on the ground delaying flights, leading them to eventually depart in the NQP after the emergency has passed.

Under the current guidance, medical transport (for example, organ donation) repositioning flights are not strictly permitted. However, we are aware that this has caused issues in the past, with aircraft being out-of-position, potentially causing an indirect risk to health. Given this is a matter of health, we have informed the designated airports that such movements can be dispensed. We believe that any revised guidance should clearly reflect this.

Questions

Should dispensations be permitted for flights delayed to the NQP due to a medical emergency that has passed? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Should dispensations be permitted for flights delayed to the NQP due to a police emergency (for example a disruptive passenger) that has passed? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Should dispensations be permitted for the repositioning of emergency service (including medical transplant) aircraft? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Reducing carbon emissions

Airport operators are not currently allowed to grant dispensations based on reducing fuel emissions. For example, if an aircraft that has a scheduled arrival time after 6am arrives in UK airspace earlier than expected, the aircraft is held in a stack until it can land after the NQP. This causes unnecessary fuel-burn and increased carbon emissions. However, allowing these aircraft to land early would lead to noise for those living underneath the airport’s final approach routes earlier than the aircraft’s scheduled arrival time.

Question

Should dispensations on the basis of reducing carbon emission be permitted? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Pre-emptive dispensations

Heathrow is the only designated airport that allows pre-emptive dispensations to land flights early on poor weather days. Heathrow adopts this practice to reduce the risk of delays during the airport’s early morning busy hours, which could then have knock-on effects throughout the day, and possibly into the night period. The dispensation guidance does not explicitly permit this, and there is not currently sufficient evidence to conclude whether the benefits of this approach outweigh its negative effects.

Questions

Should pre-emptive dispensations be permitted? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Other airport operator granted dispensations

The guidance also provides airport operators with the discretion to apply dispensations for computer failures. While it is not possible for guidance to cover every eventuality, we seek views and evidence on what other issues, if any, should be grounds for airport operators to grant dispensations.

Questions

Should dispensations be granted for information technology failures? Please provide evidence to support your view.

If you have further views or evidence on the guidance allowing airport operators to grant dispensations, please provide it here?

Government dispensations

The use of government dispensations is very infrequent compared with dispensations granted by airport operators. On the rare occasion the government does grant night flight dispensations, they are usually granted in advance for flights of VIPs travelling on official government business (for example, state visits by foreign heads of state). Support flights, either carrying equipment or specialist personnel for the visits, are not specifically stated in the criteria, but they do play a vital role in facilitating state visits.

Separately, the government has agreed dispensations to ensure the safe departure of those attending major international events (for example, major football tournaments) immediately after the event has concluded. The intent of these dispensations has been to reduce the risks associated with passenger congestion at airport terminals.

Questions

What are your views on government dispensations overall? Please provide evidence to support your view.

The structure of the night flight restrictions at the designated airports beyond 2024

Background

We seek your views and evidence on the potential options for a future regime in the longer term. The proposals in this section will not be considered as part of the intended October 2022 to October 2024 regime, but will help to provide us with considerations for the night flight regime beyond October 2024.

Background information on the history of night flights and technical information on the government’s QC system can be found in annex B. Further information on the current situation at the designated airports, including statistical information, can be found in annex C and annex D. Noise contour maps can are in annex G.

Options for the regime beyond 2024

Length of the regime

Historically, night flight regimes have been for periods of 5 years or shorter. We are aware that some stakeholders have indicated that this does not allow for long-term planning. We therefore seek views and evidence on how long the night flight regime beyond 2024 should be, including whether there would be benefits of a much longer regime (10+ years). We have not proposed a regime of less than 3 years as consultation and notification requirements would mean that we would need to consult on the subsequent regime soon after the new regime was coming into effect.

We are mindful of the potential interactions between the night flight regime set by government beyond 2024, and any future decisions brought about by relevant external planning processes. For example, any decisions taken during the process of a development application under the Planning Act 2008, or under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The impacts of this could be that that the restrictions taken forward under the next night flight regime might be replaced by a bespoke regime brought in through the planning process, or that other separate restrictions could run alongside those introduced through this process.

Questions

What length should the night flight regime beyond 2024 be? Please provide evidence to support your position.

How do you think the length of the regime will affect you? Please provide evidence to support your view.

The QC system

The QC system for the designated airports has been in place since 1993 and the principles of the system are used at other UK airports to restrict night noise. We are of the view that it continues to be the best system for limiting noise at the designated airports. However, we welcome views and evidence on how it works in practice. More information on how the QC system works and a CAA study on QC classifications can be found in annex B.

Questions

Do you think that QC is the best system for limiting noise at the designated airports?

What do you think are the:

• advantages of changing to a new system?
• disadvantages of changing to a new system?

Do you have evidence of other noise management regimes being used elsewhere and how they compare with the current system? Please provide evidence to support your view.

A new QC category

Currently, the lowest QC categories are QC0.125 for aircraft with a noise classification of between 81 and 83.9 EPNdB, and QC0 for aircraft with a noise classification of below 80.9 EPNdB.

If a new category was introduced for the quietest aircraft, this could mean introducing a QC0.0625 band for aircraft between 78 EPNdB and 80.9 EPNdB, with QC0 becoming aircraft 77.9 EPNdB and below. If this was taken forward, it may interact with the option below on the reintroduction of an exempt category, if also taken forward. Annex H contains a list of aircraft expected to be covered under this new category.

Question

Should we introduce an additional QC category for quieter aircraft in the longer-term? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Reintroduce an exempt category

As part of the government’s 2017 night flights decision, the government removed an exempt category for the quietest aircraft to provide more transparency, meaning that all aircraft movements were included in an airport’s movement limit. However, we are aware that, due to their business model, the business general aviation sector has stated that there have been times when they could not obtain, on short notice, sufficient night slots to deliver services that were previously able to operate at night as exempt flights.

An exempt category could be based on a QC category, for example QC 0 (aircraft with a noise certification value of less than 80.9), the size and weight of an aircraft, passenger loading or variations of these options, or other criterion. Since 2018, when this QC 0 band was adjusted for less noisy aircraft, there have been relatively few QC 0 movements at Heathrow and Gatwick (0 and 18 respectively) but significantly more at Stansted (306). More information on night flight movements at each airport can be found at annex C. Examples of the noisier QC 0 aircraft and the impact of their operations can be found at annex H.

We therefore seek views and evidence on whether the economic benefit of these movements outweigh the adverse health impacts, and whether an exempt category should be reintroduced for the quietest aircraft. See the section on ring-fencing that addresses this issue.

Questions

Should the government reintroduce an exempt category? Please provide evidence to support your position.

Re-baseline the noise quota system

In recent years, there have been progressive introductions of new QC categories to account for new quieter aircraft that were not in operation when the system was introduced in 1993. This has resulted in the system whereby QC values have needed to be decimalised (for example, needing to use QC0.125 due to new aircraft being brought into service that are quieter than those aircraft that were classified at QC1); this has made the system appear more complicated. Furthermore, the higher QC categories of QC8 and QC16 only apply to aircraft that are no longer in regular service.

While we believe the methodology behind the QC system is sound, we are open to re-baselining the noise quota system with the aim of increasing the system’s accessibility. This could involve ensuring that we do not have a classification less than 1 in the new system. For example, we move the current noisiest aircraft into the categories (QC8 and QC16) as aircraft currently in these bands are categories, while current QC0.125, QC0.25, QC0.5 would then be moved to QC1 to QC4. We could also future-proof the system by creating QC categories for aircraft that do not yet exist.

Questions

Do you think we should re-baseline the night quota system in the longer-term? Please provide evidence to support your view.

What factors should we consider when anticipating how to best future proof a re-baselined QC system?

What costs, if any, would you anticipate in re-baselining the QC system?

Night Quota Period

Currently, the government’s movement and QC limits cover the period 11:30pm to 6am with this being referred to as the Night Quota Period (NQP). However, as the night period is 11pm to 7am, we are open to broadening NQP to cover this period. Movement and QC type limits would need to reflect movements that already exist in the shoulder periods (11pm to 11:30pm and 6am to 7am). A mechanism may also need to be developed if evidence shows certain periods of the night are more sensitive for communities than others.

Diagram illustrating the night period and the Night Quota Period and restrictions that apply during each period

Questions

Would you be impacted if the NQP was extended to 11pm to 7am? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Do you think night flights in certain hours of the NQP have a greater impact on local communities than other times of the NQP? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Would a mechanism that disincentivises aircraft movements in periods of the night that are more sensitive for communities impact you? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Banning the noisiest aircraft

Currently, the government imposes a strict operational ban on the loudest aircraft movements (QC8 and QC16 rated) between 11pm and 7am, although these aircraft are no longer in regular service.

As part of our proposals for 2022 to 2024, we are proposing to place an operational ban on QC4-rated aircraft movements between 11:30pm and 6am. We are open to extending this proposed operational ban, if taken forward, to 11pm and 7am beyond 2024. An operational ban means these aircraft movements would not be able to land or take off from a designated airport, even if delayed (unless dispensation criteria were met).

There are relatively few QC2-rated aircraft currently operating at night at the designated airports. We are therefore also interested in exploring whether there is potential to introduce a scheduling ban on QC2-rated aircraft movements between 11:30pm and 6am and eventually 11pm to 7am during the period covered by the regime after 2024. A scheduling ban would still allow these aircraft to take off or land from a designated airport if delayed. Statistics on flights during the NQP can be found in annex D.

We would be interested to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on airlines’ fleet replacement plans beyond 2024 and the future role of QC2 rated aircraft in airlines’ operations.

Questions

What would be the impact on you if QC4 rated aircraft movements were banned between 11pm and 7am after October 2024?

What would be the impact on you if a scheduling ban was placed on QC2 rated aircraft movements between 11:30pm and 6am after October 2024?

What would be the impact on you if a scheduling ban was placed on QC2 rated aircraft movements between 11pm and 7am after October 2024?

If bans are introduced, should the implementation be staged? Please provide evidence to support your position.

Future movement and noise quotas

In previous changes to the night flights regime, the government has aimed to maintain movement allowances but reduce the QC limit. This has ensured that the designated airports have been able to maintain the economic benefits while reducing noise impacts for communities.

Future regimes could include an increase or decrease in an airport’s movement limit and QC limit or alternatively maintain the existing limits.

Questions

In a future regime how should we manage the number of aircraft movements (detailing the airport or airports relevant to your view)?

In a future regime, how should we manage an airports’ noise (detailing the airport or airports relevant to your view)?

Managing night noise through QC limits only

Subject to changing relevant primary legislation, it would be possible in future to have a regime based on QC limits only, without any movement limits. This could be used to incentivise the use of quieter aircraft. We are seeking views on this approach.

Questions

Should we remove the movement limit and manage night flights through a QC limit only? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Ring-fencing

Currently, each designated airport’s movement and QC limits are split by each airport’s scheduling committee into separate pools (scheduled services, ad-hoc movements, and contingency). These pools are weighted towards scheduled services and this may not provide sufficient night slot availability for ad-hoc services, or for the purposes of airport resilience.

We are aware that the way decisions have been implemented have caused concerns for some airport users. For example, business general aviation and freight operators have found that there are limited or no night slots available to deliver their ad-hoc flight requirements, especially when the requirement is at short-notice.

We do not yet have sufficient evidence of the extent of this problem, or whether a more formalised ring-fencing mechanism that ensured each sector is provided with a fair share of slots is a proportionate response. Ring-fencing, if introduced, could include guidance to airports and/or the scheduling committees, or a legal mechanism that is supported by the government’s night flight regime. Ring-fencing an allocation for quietest aircraft (QC0) could be an alternative to reintroducing an exempt category.

Questions

Should we introduce a ring-fencing mechanism to ensure night slots are available for:

• commercial passengers
• dedicated freight
• business general aviation

Please provide evidence to support your view.

Unused allocation during seasons

Each designated airport’s movement and QC limits are split into separate quota pools by the respective airports’ scheduling committees. Within the scheduled service pool, each airline that has a service during the NQP is allocated a proportion of the pool, and they report to the airport when they use any allocated movements and QC. This means that if an airline has a service that was scheduled to depart in the NQP but departs in the day, it can ‘bank’ the movement and QC for use later in the season.

Questions

Should an airline be able to use unused allowances later in the season?

If the government decided that unused allowances should be returned to the airport’s pool, what would be the impacts on:

• communities
• airports
• airport users
• airlines
• business in and around airports

Carry-over of limits between seasons

The night flight regime allows airport operators to carry over limits between seasons and borrow from future seasons. An important aspect of this is to allow airport operators to manage their movements during the peak Easter period, which can fall in either season. Often, this results in airports using the process to effectively increase either their summer or winter limit on a regular basis, and this therefore calls into question whether the current process remains appropriate and proportional.

A different approach could involve decreasing the carry-over limit or introducing an annual allowance, or removing the carry-over process.

Questions

Do you agree or disagree that the current carry-over process benefits you? Please provide evidence to support your view.

What changes, if any, would you like to see to the carry-over process and how would this impact you?

Our national night flight policy

Background

Our approach to managing aircraft noise is based on the principles of International Civil Aviation Organisation’s (ICAO) Balanced Approach to Aircraft Noise Management. The Balanced Approach ensures that decisions in relation to an airport’s operations take into account both health and economic factors. It also means that where there is a noise problem at an airport, it should be addressed in accordance with the Balanced Approach and be managed in a cost-efficient manner. Operating restrictions should only be introduced at airports if there are no other ways of achieving the desired benefits. The Balanced Approach and its principles are enshrined in UK law. Further background can be found in annex A.

The government’s aviation policy framework recognises that the costs on local communities are higher from aircraft noise during the night, particularly the health costs associated with sleep disturbance. However, we also recognise the importance to the UK economy of certain types of flights, such as express freight services, which may only be viable if they operate at night.

In recognising these higher costs upon local communities, we expect the aviation industry to make extra efforts to reduce and mitigate noise from night flights. For example, we encourage the use of best-in-class aircraft and best practice operating procedures. We also expect the industry to seek ways to provide respite wherever possible and to minimise the demand for night flights where alternatives are available. We also commend voluntary approaches, such as at Heathrow, which ensures that early morning arrivals do not land before 4:30am.

Health impacts and economic value of night flights

The government recognises that noise from aircraft at night is often regarded by communities as the most disturbing form of airport operations and that there is evidence of adverse health impacts from these operations. Therefore, governments have historically sought to balance these adverse health implications against the economic benefit such flights bring to the UK economy. There is more information on the government’s approach to night flights in annex A.

Questions

How fair a balance between health and economic objectives do you think our current night flight approach is? Please provide evidence to support your view.

What are your views on the health impacts of aviation noise at night (including potential impacts on different groups in society)? Please provide evidence to support your view.

What are your views on the economic value of night flights (including the potential value on different businesses and aviation sectors)? Please provide evidence to support your view.

What are your views on changes to aircraft noise at night as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Future technology

We are keen to explore how future technology will benefit communities, consumers and the industry. In recent decades, there have been significant advances in airframe and engine technology that have helped reduce noise at source. Studies have shown that new generation aircraft such as the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 are significantly quieter than the aircraft they are replacing^{[footnote 5]}. Historically, these advances in technology have benefited both noise and carbon reduction aims. However, it is unclear what the future technological advances will be, and whether there will continue to be reductions in both forms of environmental emission.

Questions

What are the advantages or disadvantages that the emergence of new technology will have in relation to night noise from aircraft within the next 10 years? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Proposal to include a night noise reference in our noise objective

The government’s current policy statement, as set out in the aviation policy framework, is:

The government’s overall policy on aviation noise is to limit and, where possible, reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise, as part of a policy of sharing benefits of noise reduction with industry.

In 2018, the government consulted on revising its aviation noise objective, but we have yet to publish a revised objective.

Night noise is a significant element of aviation noise and we welcome views and evidence on whether there should be specific reference to the balance between the impacts of night noise and the economic benefits of both passenger and freight operations. It would be published when we publish our revised noise objective and it would apply across all 4 nations of the UK.

Subject to views and evidence in response to this section, the following additional statement could be included in our noise objective:

There should be a balance between the local and national economic and consumer benefits of night flights, both in terms of passenger and freight operations, against their social and health implications, in line with ICAO’s Balanced Approach.

The intent of including a night noise reference to the government’s objective would be to provide a framework that could be applied alongside the Balanced Approach, when competent authorities set individual noise abatement objectives at airports. The aim of this statement would be to ensure that both local and national factors are considered when a noise abatement objective is set at an airport. For example, we would expect a local planning authority, when setting a noise abatement objective whilst assessing a Town and Country Planning Act 1990 application or equivalent in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to consider this objective and ensure that both national and local factors are considered when making its decision.

More information on the Balanced Approach, including the legal framework for its implementation in UK law, can be found in annex A.

Questions

Should we include a reference to night noise when we publish a revised aviation noise objective?

What factors relating to night noise should we include if we do introduce a noise reference in our revised aviation noise objective?

Airport designation

Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports have been designated for the purpose of avoiding, limiting or mitigating the effect of noise from aircraft since 1971^{[footnote 6]}. The SofS powers to designate airports in England and Wales, and to set noise controls, which include the current night flight restrictions, are contained with the Civil Aviation Act 1982. These powers are devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

We recognise that currently there are no criteria for deciding whether an airport should be designated in England and Wales. There could be a number of factors that could be used when assessing the need for government involvement by way of designation. These could include population affected, number of night flights or the strategic importance of any airports.

We are not proposing to designate or de-designate any airports as part of this 2-stage consultation process. However, it is open to considering criteria for designation, that could in future be used as the framework for the designation of an airport in England and Wales. If criteria are developed, we would assess airports that are currently designated against those criteria. If an airport that is currently designated does not meet the criteria, this could result in their eventual de-designation.

Questions

Should the government set criteria for airport designation?

What do you think are the:

• advantages to the government setting criteria for airport designation?
• disadvantages to the government setting criteria for airport designation?

What factors, if any, do you think we should consider when setting criteria for designation?

How should any criteria for designation be agreed?

What impact, if any, do you think the designation of an airport would have on:

• communities
• airports
• airport users
• airlines
• business in and around airports

What impact, if any, do you think the de-designation of an already designated airport (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted) would have on:

• communities
• airports
• airport users
• airlines
• business in and around airports

Annex A: the Balanced Approach

This information is outlined at Annex A of the Night flight restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports between 2022 and 2024 plus future night flight policy consultation of December 2020.

Annex B: history of night flight operating restrictions at the designated airports and the QC system

This information is outlined at Annex B of the Night flight restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports between 2022 and 2024 plus future night flight policy consultation of December 2020.

Annex C: the current situation at the designated airports

This information is outlined at Annex C of the Night flight restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports between 2022 and 2024 plus future night flight policy consultation of December 2020.

Annex D: designated airport night flight statistics

This information is outlined at Annex D of the Night flight restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports between 2022 and 2024 plus future night flight policy consultation of December 2020.

Annex E: night flight dispensations review

This information is outlined at Annex E of the Night flight restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports between 2022 and 2024 plus future night flight policy consultation of December 2020.

Annex F: guidelines on dispensations

This information is outlined at Annex F of the Night flight restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports between 2022 and 2024 plus future night flight policy consultation of December 2020.

Annex G: noise contours for Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports

This information is outlined at Annex G of the Night flight restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports between 2022 and 2024 plus future night flight policy consultation of December 2020.

Annex H: impact of proposed QC 0.0625 operations

This information is outlined at Annex H of the Night flight restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports between 2022 and 2024 plus future night flight policy consultation of December 2020.

Annex I: glossary

This information is outlined at Annex I of the Night flight restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports between 2022 and 2024 plus future night flight policy consultation of December 2020.

1. International Air Transport Association analysis, based on passenger numbers to, from and within each country. ↩

2. DfT Analysis of CAA Airports Data (2019). ↩ ↩²

3. DfT Analysis of HMRC Overseas Trade Data (2018), based on good cleared for customs purposes at airports. ↩

4. Employment: DfT Analysis of ONS Annual Business Survey, GDP: DfT Analysis of GDP low level aggregates. Based on standard industrial classification of economic activities (SIC) codes covering various parts of air transport and aerospace. ↩

5. (CAP1191: Noise data for the first 17 months of Boeing 787 operations at Heathrow airport and CAP1733: Noise data for the first three years of Airbus A350 operations at Heathrow airport. ↩

6. Prior to the enactment of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, similar powers were available under Section 29 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971. Heathrow, Gatwick and Stanstead were designated for the purposes of Section 29 by the Civil Aviation (Designation of Aerodromes) Order 1981. ↩