2. WHAT ARE AN AIRPORT’S IMPACTS?

2.1 Introduction

This chapter briefly reviews the impacts of airports and aviation. The negative impacts
of airports and aviation include land take, noise, air pollution, climate change, water use,
and effects on the social structures of local communities. Positive impacts include direct
and indirect employment, and social (and economic) benefits to people who fly. These
impacts can typically be split into impacts from
• construction v. operation of airports and associated projects, and possibly closure
if, say, a runway is relocated;
• the airport terminal and ground operations, flights, access to the airport (cars,
buses, trains, parking etc.) and associated projects such as hotels and airport-
related office developments.

Table 2.1 shows the key impacts typically1 caused by each of these activities.

Table 2.1. Key impacts caused by airport and aviation activities

terminal & flights airport associated
ground access projects
operations
construction

construction

construction
operation

operation

operation

operation
Key impacts
- negative impact
+ positive impact

air pollution - - -
biodiversity impacts - - - - - -
climate change - - -
employment and economic benefits + + + + +
heritage - - - - -
land take - - -
landscape - - - - -
noise - - - -
risk and public safety zones -
social costs to nearby communities - - -
traffic - - - - - -
water pollution - -
water use - -

The rest of this chapter discusses each of these impacts in turn.

1
Not every airport development will have all of these, and a given airport development may also have other
impacts.

2-1
2.2 Air pollution

Airports and aviation generate air pollution through a range of sources:

• Combustion of aviation fuel – which is mostly composed of kerosene - produces
nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur oxides (SOx),
hydrocarbons and particulates. It also releases the greenhouse gas carbon
dioxide (CO2) which is discussed at Section 2.4.
• As engines are working inefficiently on approach (as they only use about 30% of
the available power) a certain amount of unburnt kerosene is released. These
unburnt fuel droplets are a source of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
give rise to odours.
• As aircraft tyres get worn and burnt during take-off and (especially) landing, they
release particulate matter (PM).
• Fuel dumping by aircraft releases unburned aircraft fuel into the air. This is a rare
occurrence and usually only takes place in emergencies. In these circumstances,
aircraft are expected to dump fuel over water where possible, and at an altitude
where they are likely to evaporate before reaching the surface.
• Vehicles travelling to and from the airport, and ground service equipment (tugs
for aircraft and baggage, fuel and catering lorries, buses and vans that transport
passengers etc.) generate NOx, CO2, particulates and (indirectly) ozone through
the burning of petrol and diesel fuel.
• Fuel storage tanks and transfer facilities can
lead to the release of VOCs.
• Aircraft and airfield maintenance (painting, metal
cleaning, de-icing etc.), and emergency and fire
training use complex chemicals which can
release VOCs.
• Construction of airport-related projects can lead
to dust, emissions from asphalt laying etc.
(Kenney, 2006).
http://www.photographersdirect.com

Air pollution can affect the health of people, animals and plants. It can promote
eutrophication (essentially over-fertilisation) of water, leading to excessive plant growth
and decay. It can also deteriorate buildings and materials and smell bad. Table 2.2
summarises the main impacts of air pollution.

The UK standards are derived from EU Air Quality Framework Directive 1996 and a
range of ‘daughter’ Directives. Each of these Directives has a set timetable for
implementation. Table2.2 shows relevant standards. In the UK, the NO2 standards
which must be achieved by 2010 are the most problematic. Several Member States are
currently seeking an amendment to issue derogations for non-compliant sites.

2-2
Table 2.2 Impacts of, and standards for, air pollutants
Pollutant Background Impacts on human health, habitats UK air quality
2
and species standard
3
Carbon CO is produced when When inhaled by people and animals, 10.0 mg/m
monoxide fuels are burned at CO bonds to the haemoglobin in the maximum daily 8
(CO) too high a blood, and reduces the oxygen- hour mean
temperature or where carrying capacity of the red blood
there is too little cells. The resulting lack of oxygen in
oxygen. the body causes cells to die.
Nitrogen Nitrogen oxides NO has no significant human health NOx 30 µg/m3
oxides (NOx) comprise nitric impacts. NO2 can increase a for vegetation
(NOx), oxide (NO) and person's susceptibility to, and the
3
nitrogen nitrogen dioxide severity of, respiratory infections and NO2 200 µg/m 1
dioxide (NO2). NO is asthma. Long-term exposure to high hour mean not to
(NO2) oxidised in the levels of NO2 can cause chronic lung be exceeded more
atmosphere to form disease. than 18 times per
3
NO2. NO2 is acidic year; 40 µg/m
and highly corrosive. High NO2 levels damage foliage, annual mean by 1
decrease plant growth, and reduce Jan 2010
crop yield. Deposition of nitrogen
compounds can lead to soil and water
acidification. NOx can cause
eutrophication of soils and water,
which alters the species composition
of plant communities and can
eliminate sensitive species. NOx is a
component of photochemical smog.
3
Ozone (O3) Ozone is generated Ozone can irritate the eyes, nose, 100 µg/m running
by photochemical throat and lungs. At high levels it can 8 hour mean.
reactions from NOx increase death rates due to lung and Daily maximum of
and volatile organic heart problems. It can reduce running 8 hr mean
compounds, and is visibility. not to be exceeded
an indicator of more than 10 times
photochemical smog. High ozone levels can be toxic to per year
wildlife, and can lead to a reduction in
growth of forests and crops, and
altered species composition in semi-
natural plant communities.

Ozone can damage materials such as

rubber, fabric, masonry, and paint.
Particulate Particulate matter is a Of the air pollutants, particulates are PM10: 50 µg/m3
matter complex mixture of worst for human health. They are 24 hour mean not
organic and inorganic responsible for up to 10,000 to be exceeded
substances. premature deaths through respiratory more than 35 times
3
Particulates are problems in the UK each year. PM10 per year; 40 µg/m
described by their can penetrate deep into the lung and annual mean
size in micrometres cause more damage, whilst larger
(µm), e.g. PM10 are particles are typically filtered out
those smaller than through the airways’ natural
10µm. PM2.5 mechanisms.
typically contain

2
From UK Air Quality Archive (no date). The World Health Organisation’s (2005) air quality guidelines are
also often cited.

2-3
 Pollutant Background Impacts on human health, habitats UK air quality
and species standard2
aerosols, combustion Particulates can damage surfaces
particles and re- and materials.
condensed vapours.
Larger particles
usually contain dust.
3
Sulphur SO2 is a gas, but SO2 can cause coughing, make 266 µg/m
Dioxide when it combines people more prone to respiratory 15 minute mean
SO2 with water, it forms infections, and aggravate asthma and not to be exceeded
sulfuric acid, which is chronic bronchitis. SO2 can attach more than (NE) 35
the main component itself to particles (see above) and, if times per year; 350
3
of acid rain. these particles are inhaled, they can µg/m one hour
cause more serious health effects. mean NE 24 times
3
per year; 125 µg/m
Acid rain acidifies soils and water. 24 hour mean NE 3
This can affect aquatic life, cause times per year; 20
3
deforestation, and alter the species µg/m annual mean
composition of plant and animal for vegetation; 20
3
communities. µg/m winter mean
(1 Oct – 31 March)
Acid rain can corrode building for vegetation
materials and paints.
Volatile VOCs include a wide Hydrocarbons can be hazardous to Benzene 16.25
3
organic range of organic human health even at low levels, µg/m running
compounds chemicals such as particularly if the exposure is long annual mean; 5
3
(VOCs), hydrocarbons (e.g. term. For instance, long-term µg/m
hydro- methane, benzene, exposure to benzene has been linked annual mean by
carbons toluene), halocarbons to an increased incidence of anemia end 2010
and oxygenates. and leukemia; toluene can affect the
VOCs have no central nervous system; and 1,3-Butadiene 2.25
3
colour, smell or taste, moderate levels of formaldehyde can µg/m
and they easily lead to irritation of the eyes, nose and running annual
vaporize at room upper respiratory track. Some VOCs mean
temperature. can cause cancer. Odours from
hydrocarbons are often annoying. Polyaromatic
hydrocarbons 0.25
3
Some hydrocarbons play a role in the ng/m
formation of photochemical smog. B(a)P annual mean
by end 2010
Sources: US EPA (2007), Environment Agency (2007)

Overall in the UK, emissions of air pollutants decreased between 1990 and 2004: NOx
by 45%, particulates by 48%, and sulphur dioxide by 77%. However, even with
improvements to aircraft, the rapid growth of aviation means that its contribution to air
pollution is increasing overall. Aircraft typically generate between 8 and 50 kg of NOx per
landing/take-off cycle (depending on aircraft type) and the number of aircraft movements
in the UK has increased from 3.1 million in 1996 to 3.6 million in 2006. The local impacts
of aviation-related air pollution can be significant. Air quality at Heathrow is particularly
bad, and Government has stated that it will only permit the development of a third
runway at Heathrow if it is confident that air quality limits can be met. Overall, the area
of sensitive ecological habitat where acid deposition and eutrophying pollutants
exceeded critical loads have also fallen over time; however in 2003, 56% of these

2-4
habitats still received too much acid deposition, and 59% too much eutrophying pollution
(Defra, 2006).

It is very difficult to reduce the air pollution impacts from aircraft except through more
efficient operations and technology. The use of the most polluting chemicals is covered
by pollution prevention and control regulations. The air pollution impacts of ground
traffic can be reduced by switching to less polluting forms of transport (bicycle, train and
bus rather than private vehicles). Dust from construction can be controlled by soil
damping and wheel washing. Some airports compile emissions inventories and carry
out air quality assessments to help identify how air pollution can best be tackled.

Some of the measures that have been proposed or carried out to mitigate the effects of
air pollution include measures to control the emissions or to penalise non-compliance.
Measures proposed in airport master plans and environmental statements for minimising
air pollution impacts are:
• Working towards a reduction if the total number of vehicles that commute to and
from the airport
• A system of penalties for polluting vehicles
• Introduction of charges to promote the use of lower emission aircraft
• Minimising dust emissions by wheel washing, damping down and employing the
use of covered vehicles for transportation
• Conducting a Code of Construction Practice relating to air emission
• Carrying out air quality assessments periodically

2.3 Biodiversity (or nature conservation, or flora and fauna) impacts

Biodiversity impacts refer to impacts on plants and animals. These include reduction in
the type and extent of habitats; bird strike and road kill; disturbance from light pollution,
noise and aircraft/vehicle movements; and air pollution.

Habitat loss occurs when previously ‘green’ areas3 are built on, destroying the habitats of
the plans and animals that live there. Habitat fragmentation happens when a larger area
of habitat is split into smaller areas, for instance if it is split by a road or fence. This can
make it difficult for animals to forage for food, breed and migrate. Animals with very
consistent foraging patterns (like badgers) or breeding patterns (like toads) may continue
to move from one habitat fragment to the other, and may be hit by cars. Some animal
species have large land requirements, and may be affected by habitat loss or
fragmentation even if these reduce the animals’ habitat a little bit.

Habitat degradation reduces the attractiveness of the habitat for the plants and animals
on it. This could result, for instance, from the ground being churned up and/or
compacted, vegetation clearance, replacement of one type of vegetation by another (e.g.
herb-rich grassland by turf), storage or disposal of rubble on the site, litter, or land
contamination.

3
These ‘green’ areas can include previously developed land that provides biodiversity benefits, for instance
disused industrial areas that have been recolonised by bodleia, brambles, rabbits and foxes. Rare and
unusual plants and animals often thrive on previously developed areas.

2-5
Bird strikes occur when aircraft hit birds during take-off and landing. Roughly 85% of
bird strikes involve aircraft below 800 feet, and up to 40% of bird strikes take place
beyond the airport perimeter (CAA, 2001). The number of bird strikes at a given airport
is a function of:
• The number of birds near the airport: airports in an area of high bird density are likely
to have more bird strikes than airports in areas of low bird density.
• The types of birds near the airport: the
likelihood of a bird being struck by an
aircraft depends in part on the height at
which it flies and its flight patterns. For
instance, oystercatchers and starlings are
much more likely to be hit by an aircraft
than pheasants and grey herons (DfT,
2006a).
• The number of aircraft landings and
takeoffs at the airport: the greater number
of aircraft movements, the greater the
likelihood of a bird strike. http://oopslist.com/Heli%20Bird.jpg

The Civil Aviation Authority (2006) suggests that, in the UK, 1000 air traffic movements
lead, on average, to roughly 0.54 bird strikes. In 2001, the CAA predicted that the risk of
a catastrophic accident due to bird strike would be 2.5 times higher in 2010 than 2000
due to a large increase in the population of large flocking birds and the forecast growth
in air traffic (CAA, 2001).

Because birds are a significant hazard to aircraft, control measures are used at many
airports to reduce bird strike. These measures can include landscaping, waste
management measures, use of noise and flare guns, and use of falcons. The whole
purpose of these measures is to disturb birds – there is a clear conflict between aircraft
safety and large bird populations.

Measures to control birds also extend beyond the airport boundary. 13km radius
safeguarding zones have been established around 27 airports, and 8 mile radius zones
around military airfields. Within these zones, planning authorities must consult the
owner or operator of the airport before giving planning permission for any development
that could attract birds (DfT, 2003a). Typically such developments are landfill and
mineral extraction sites. Several applications to create new water environments have
been rejected by the CAA unless the applicant can demonstrate that the area can be
successfully netted. A report by the British Geological Survey identified that 44% of
England’s land area falls within such safeguard zones (Henney et al., 2003).

Road kill occurs when animals get hit by vehicles, for instance on access roads to
airports. No formal data are collected on road kill numbers, but evidence suggests that
they can be significant. For instance, Naturewatch (2007) suggests that more than 10%
of the badger population is killed on Britain’s roads each year; and Mead (1997)
suggests that 10-30% of many bird species are killed by cars each year, with owls being
particularly badly affected. Road kill due to airport traffic is unlikely to be a major impact
over and above existing levels of road kill, but could be major if the airport requires a
new road.

2-6
Light pollution from airports and roads can attract animals either directly or indirectly
(e.g. they attract insect prey which, in turn, attract bats and birds – and their predators).
This can affect migration patterns where animals travel off-course because they are
attracted to light. Once they arrive at the light source, birds may circle the source,
become disoriented and exhausted, and collide with structures or other disoriented birds.
Light pollution can also affect animals’ rhythms of waking, sleeping and hibernation (Rich
and Longcore, 2006).

The sensitivity of wildlife to the noise of aircraft, airport ground operations and airport
access roads varies greatly from species to species. Such noise can cause some
wildlife – notably a range of grassland and woodland birds - to avoid areas near them,
reducing the density of those animal populations (Kaseloo and Tyson, 2004). Animals’
breeding success can also be reduced by noise. Studies have shown that some birds
are disturbed by noise affecting noise and migration, although other species can tolerate
exposure at the same level: see Figure 2.1.

Source: U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, 1985

Animals can be disturbed by the movement of aircraft and vehicles. For instance, a
study of birds near the Liverpool John Lennon Airport found that aircraft movement had

2-7
limited effect on the birds, but the cumulative impact of multiple sources of disturbance,
including dog walkers and vehicles, was significant (Peel Airports, 2006).

Biodiversity impacts are particularly significant if they affect sites of nature conservation
importance:
• at the international level: Special Protection Areas (for birds), Special Areas of
Conservation (for habitats) and Ramsar sites (wetlands)
• at the national level: Site of Special Scientific Interest
• at the regional level:
• at the local level:

If the project could have a significant on an international level site, then ‘appropriate
assessment’ of the project is required. This is a strong planning tool and is discussed at
Chapter 7.

Measures proposed in airport master plans and environmental statements for minimising
impacts on biodiversity are:
• Minimising intrusion
• Translocation, restoration and creation of habitats
• Rescue of important species
• Pond replacement and refurbishment
• Hedge restoration and improvement
• Designing river channels to minimise hydrological and ecological changes
• Mitigating the loss of mature trees as a result of height restrictions by substituting
small trees and shrubs and hedge thickening

2.4 Climate change

The so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ occurs when sunlight passes through the atmosphere,
warming the earth; heat from the earth’s surface is re-emitted; and this heat is partly
absorbed by the atmosphere, trapping the heat. Higher atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases - notably carbon dioxide (CO2)4 but also methane, NOx and others -
cause the atmosphere to absorb more heat from the earth’s surface, and lead to higher
levels of warming, or climate change.

The UK has already warmed by 0.6-0.7oC since

the Industrial Revolution. Because of the inertia
of the climate system, average global
temperatures are expected to rise by about
another 0.5oC simply as a result of emissions to
date. On current trends, global average
temperatures will rise by 2-3oC within the next
50 years (Stern, 2006). This will worsen
droughts in the summer, floods in winter, and
extreme events such as storms.

4
CO2 emissions are sometimes expressed in terms of carbon (C). One tonne of C is equivalent to 3.67
tonnes of CO2.

2-8
Planning Policy Statement 1, Delivering Sustainable Development, places climate
change issues firmly in the remit of local and regional planning bodies. It charges these
planning bodies with the task of ‘addressing the causes and potential impacts of climate
change – through policies which reduce energy use, reduce emissions..., and take
climate change impacts into account in the location and design of development”
(Communities and Local Government, 2005). About half of all local authorities in the UK
have also signed the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change (2000), which pledges
that they will actively tackle climate change in their area and work with others to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions country-wide.

Airports and aviation generate greenhouse gases in three main ways:

• Flights are by far the largest source. Aircraft emit large quantities of CO2 and NOx
during flights, particularly during take-off and landing. NOx emissions at altitude
react to either increase ozone concentrations or decrease methane concentrations
in the atmosphere. While this leads to global warming and cooling respectively, the
two occur in different regions and latitudes and do not cancel each other out.
Water vapour from combustion also contributes to the formation of contrails, and
persistent contrails are also thought to cause additional cirrus cloud formation
(although the scientific certainty of the precise impact is less compared to other
greenhouse gases);
• Ground traffic is the second largest source. Vehicles (including construction
vehicles) travelling to and from the airport, and around the airport generate CO2;
• Airport buildings require electricity and heating. Unless this comes from sources
that do not use fossil fuel (e.g. hydro- or wind power), the energy production will
generate greenhouse gases. Airport construction also generates CO2 through
‘embodied energy’5.

Flights International aviation is not included in the UK’s climate change inventory (or the
Kyoto Protocol) as there is no agreed method for allocating such emissions between
countries. In 2005, emissions from domestic flights plus international aviation departing
the UK accounted for 6.3% of UK CO2 emissions (Directgov, 2007).

The overall climate change effect of all aircraft emissions is roughly 2-4 times the effect
of CO2 alone: as such, aviation accounts for roughly 13% of current climate change
impacts in the UK. This ‘radiative forcing’ multiplier accounts for some of the differences
between statements about aviation’s climate change impacts. The aviation industry
typically do not use the multiplier; this accounts for some of the discrepancies between
different organisations’ statements about the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from
aviation. The aviation minister used a factor of two in a recent answer to Parliamentary
Questions, concluding that aviation accounted for approximately 13% of climate change
impacts attributable to the UK (Merron, 2007).

Emissions from aviation fuel use more than doubled between 1990 and 2004 (Defra
2006). On the most favourable (to the industry) credible projections and assumptions,
5
Embodied energy is the energy needed to produce and transport materials, and is typically measured as
megajoules per kilogrem (MJ/kg). The more energy is needed, the more greenhouse gases will typically be
used in the production of the material. Steel, aluminium, and glass – much used in airport construction – all
have high embodied energy. Concrete has relatively low embodied energy, but because such large
quantities of concrete are used in the construction of a typical airport, this adds to the project’s embodied
energy. Typically embodied energy accounts for about 10% of the energy used in a building.

2-9
by 2050 aviation’s CO2 emissions alone will equal a quarter of the UK target for
greenhouse emissions. On other projects and assumptions from peer reviewed
scientific literature, in 2050 emissions from aviation alone would significantly exceed all
of the carbon permitted under the UK’s climate change targets (Levett, 2007).

Modern aircraft generally produce fewer CO2 emissions per passenger kilometer than
older ones, and the aviation sector has adopted a target to improve fuel efficiency per
seat-kilometre by 50% by 2020 compared to 2000 (DfT, 2006). Improvements to the air
traffic control system are also thought to offer one-off improvements in the region of 8-
18% (IPCC, 1999)

It is possible to work out an ‘economic cost’ for greenhouse gas emissions, which
quantifies the cost of the emissions on society as a whole, and suggests how much the
airlines (or their passengers) should pay under the ‘polluter pays principle’. The official
‘cost of carbon’ is currently £77 per tonne. (This is the source of much debate – the
Stern report in Nov 2006 suggests the cost could be much higher.) The cost of X tonnes
of CO2 is thus X × £77 × 2.7 / 3.67 (the 2.7 multiplier is for radiative forcing, the 3.67
divider for the CO2 to C conversion).

The Government is supporting the inclusion of aviation in the European Union’s

emissions trading scheme (DfT, 2006). The scheme essentially allocates greenhouse
gas emission allowances to different industrial emitters: companies can buy more
allowances/credits from other sectors or sell their credits if they reduce their emissions.
However, aviation has not yet been included in this scheme; whether the scheme will
actually secure real emissions reductions is highly dependent on how (and whether)
some highly controversial questions about its implementation and design are finally
resolved; and it is not credible to hope that other sectors and other countries will be able
to offset the impacts of the UK’s proposed growth in aviation (Levett, 2007).

The Government is also proposing that decisions about major increases in aviation
capacity should be informed by an emissions cost assessment, which would ‘consider
whether the aviation sector is meeting its external climate change costs’ (DfT, 2003).
However it is not suggesting how the results of such assessments would inform planning
decisions. The DfT (2007) has consulted on an emissions cost assessment. This
develops scenarios for whether the industry is meeting its external costs based on a
range of carbon costs (from £83 - £207) and a radiative forcing index of 1.9 or 4. The
DfT has said that the emissions cost assessment would not inform decisions on
individual applications.

Airlines (or air passengers) can also sign up to a range of ‘carbon offset’ schemes, where
the carbon impacts of flying can be offset, for instance through tree planting or support
for renewable energy in developing countries. However, the schemes vary widely in
terms of the assumptions they make and price they charge; there is concern about their
‘additionality’ (whether they lead to new action or simply support action already taking
place anyway); and arguably they simply make people feel better about their
unsustainable behaviour rather than encouraging people to fly less.

Ground traffic generates CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels. As with air pollution,
this can be reduced by switching to cycling, trains and buses. Electric vehicles can be
used on-site, but they still generate greenhouse gases indirectly, since their power
comes from power stations, most of which burn fossil fuels. Car use can be discouraged

2-10
by making parking at airports expensive (although care needs to be taken that this does
not lead to parking in nearby neighbourhoods instead); provision of bus lanes; and
locating public transport terminals more conveniently to the airport than car access
points.

Airport buildings can be made very energy efficient, or even ‘energy negative’ if they
incorporate renewable energy technologies such as photovoltaics. Energy plants can be
made more efficient, and electricty supplies to airports can come from ‘green’ sources.
However airports use only a small proportion of the energy used for flying, so any gains
here are minor in the overall scheme of things.

Few if any measures for reducing the effect of aviation on climate change are proposed
in airport master plans and environmental statements. Mitigation measures are usually
aimed at reduction of air emissions and improvement in ground transportation rather
than directly targeting climate change as an issue on its own.

2.5 Employment and economic benefits

Airports and aviation often generate much employment and many economic benefits.
However they can also have economic costs.

The employment generated by airports and aviation can be split into direct, indirect,
induced and catalytic employment, as shown in Table 2.3. A study by Oxford Economic
Forecasting (1999) – mostly funded by the aviation industry – found that, in 1998,
aviation and airports in the UK directly and indirectly generated approximately 550,000
jobs.

Table 2.3 Types and amount of employment generated by airports and aviation
(based on York Consulting, 2002; Oxford Economic Forecasting, 1999)
Impact Definition Examples UK aviation-
category related
employment
in 1998
Direct Employment wholly or Airport operator, airlines, 180,000
largely related to the handling agents, control
operation of airports or authorities, concessions,
airlines freight agents, flight caterers,
hotels, car parking, aircraft
servicing, fuel storage
Indirect Employment supported in Utilities, retailing, 75,000 in travel
the chain of suppliers of advertising, cleaning, food, agencies plus
goods and services to the construction, IT, fuel 200,000 others
direct activities
Induced Employment supported by Retailing, restaurants, 100,000
the spending of incomes entertainment
earned in the direct and

2-11
 indirect activities
Catalytic Employment supported by Inward investors, exporting
the attraction, retention or companies, visitor attractions
expansion of economic
activity as a result of
access by air

The study also noted that aviation supports the UK’s large and growing tourism industry,
which in turn directly employed 1.75 million people in 1998; and contributed £10.4 billion
to the Gross National Product (1.4% of the total). It concluded that, if passenger
numbers were not allowed to increase beyond 1998 levels, £30 billion would be lost to
the economy by 2015.

Government used these figures in its Aviation White Paper (DfT, 2003) to help justify the
need for the continued growth of aviation. The White Paper also notes that airports can
act as a focal point for ‘clusters’ of business development and thus act as a focus for the
development of local and regional economies.

Generally, increased employment is a good thing. There is a clear link between

unemployment and low satisfaction with life, although the link between employment and
high life satisfaction is less clear6. Employment also improves people’s personal wealth,
which again contributes to life satisfaction, although relative income (individuals’ income
compared with that of other people) is a clearer contributor (Dolan et al., 2006).

However, many environmentalists claim that the basis of many of these calculations of
economic benefits, including that by Oxford Economic Forecasting, is flawed:
• The environmental costs of aviation are not included, which makes comparisons
between investment costs and the impact on GDP nonsensical;
• All the people employed in the aviation sector would not become unemployed if the
aviation sector did not grow. The economy would develop in different ways:
budgets and investment may well be spent elsewhere, leading to employment and
contributions to GDP in other areas of the economy; and
• Relating indirect, induced and catalytic jobs to a country’s overall employment is
essentially double counting. These jobs arise in other sectors. If all industries
made the same claims, the number of jobs created would exceed the total
workforce (CE Delft, 2005).

Jobs directly and indirectly related to aviation are typically relatively low-paid. Airlines
are cutting back jobs where possible, for instance by promoting e-ticketing and getting
passengers to carry their own luggage to the aircraft. Catalytic jobs are typically a
mixture of relatively poorly paid (e.g. tourism industry) and well-paid (many of the
knowledge-intensive industries that rely on air travel).

Where aviation-related employment is in areas of high unemployment, it is an undoubted

benefit. However where it occurs in areas of already high employment , then it can lead

6
For instance, casual work has been found to be detrimental to men’s mental health and women’s life
satisfaction.

2-12
of poaching of workers from other companies and contribute to over-heating the
economy.

The links between increased air travel and regional regeneration are also not as clear as
suggested in the Air Transport White Paper. The government’s Standing Advisory
Committee on Trunk Road Assessment examined the link between transport provision
(of all forms) and economic activity, and found that:
• there is no simple link between the provision of transport infrastructure and
regional regeneration;
• non-transport factors in a region (such as the availability of skilled labour) are
usually a more critical factor in regenerating a region than transport infrastructure;
• in a mature economy with an already well-developed transport system (as in the
UK) any increase in economic growth from improved transport is likely to be
modest (SACTRA, 1999).

Aviation also has significant economic costs which were not acknowledged in the Air
Transport White Paper (DfT, 2003). Air passenger duty – essentially a tax on flying -
does not make up for the tax breaks that the aviation sector benefits from. Air
passenger duty was £0.9 billion in 2003. However airlines do not need to pay taxes on
jet fuel: if such taxes were paid at the same level as those paid on petrol, they would
have raised £5.7 billion in the UK in 20037. The aviation industry also does not pay VAT
in the UK: this would have raised £4.0 billion in 2003. As such, the aviation industry
essentially received a government subsidy of around £9 billion in 2003 (Sewill, 2003).
This subsidy, which could be spent on other services such as education and hospitals,
will increase further as air passenger numbers rise (though not as fast as the growth in
air passengers, because of the significant recent increase in air passenger duty and the
increasing efficiency of aircraft).

Aviation also contributes to the trade deficit in two main ways. First, the difference
between what UK residents spent abroad (£35.1 billion) and what foreign residents
spent in the UK (£16.1 billion) was £19 billion in the 12 months ending July 2007
(National Statistics, 2007). This deficit has been consistently increasing: it was £2.6
billion in 1995, £9.1 billion in 2000 and £15.7 in 2005 (Ross, 2007). London is the only
region in the country with a small net benefit; all the other regions show large tourism
deficits.

Second, the difference between the amount spent by UK residents purchasing airline
tickets from foreign airlines (£7.1 billion) and that spent by foreign residents purchasing
tickets from UK airlines (£4.1) was £3 billion in 2005. This deficit has also been steadily
increasing, from a £0.6 billion surplus in 1995 (Ross, 2007).

Aviation also imposes external costs on society which it does not pay for. These include
the reduction in home values due to airport noise; the costs of treating respiratory
diseases caused by increased particulates; and the cost of cleaning buildings eroded by
air pollution. The Department for Transport (2003) estimated that, in 2000, the external
costs of aviation included:

7
In 2003 air passenger duty was £5 or £10 per ticket. It is now (autumn 2007) £10 for economy travel to
most EU destinations (£20 for business) and £40 for all other destinations (£80 for business). This is
projected to raise almost £2billion but still leaves a significant shortfall.

2-13
 • £1.4 billion due to global warming, expected to rise to £4.8 billion in 2030,
assuming no demand or supply side responses;
• £25 million due to noise impacts;
• depending on the methodology used, either minimal costs or between £119 and
£236 million due to air pollution; and
• additional costs due to congestion in the skies and from surface transport around
airports.
The DfT (2004) subsequently estimated that accounting for the costs of noise and
climate change alone would add between £3 and £20 to the cost of an airline ticket.

2.6 Heritage / culture

Heritage (or cultural) assets include archaeological remains, both above ground and
buried; historic buildings and sites such including listed buildings, cemeteries, parks,
village greens, bridge and canals; historic areas and landscapes; and other structures of
architectural or historic merit. Heritage designations include, at the international level
World Heritage Sites (e.g. Blenheim Palace); and at the national level Scheduled
Ancient Monuments, Areas of Archaeological Importance, listed buildings of different
grades (in decreasing order of importance Grades I, II* and II), conservation areas, and
parks and gardens of historic interest. Ancient woodlands are often valued and
protected for their biodiversity, but their sheer age also gives them heritage value.

The county archaeologist and local conservation officer(s) will normally keep a list and
map of heritage assets, including areas with potential but not yet confirmed
archaeological remains.

Heritage assets can be affected by aviation and airports several ways:

• They can be razed or built over to make way for airport-related development. This
would happen to a number of listed buildings, for instance, if a second runway was
built at Stansted;
• Their structure can be affected by vibrations from aircraft or road traffic: there are
concerns, for instance, that this could happen at Speke Hall, a Tudor building
situated near Liverpool John Lennon Airport;
• Their building materials can weather faster due to air pollution;
• The vegetation of historic parks and landscapes can be harmed by air pollution:
this is the case, for instance, with Hatfield Forest, a medieval forest near Stansted;
• Their curtilage (the enclosed area of land surrounding a house) or geneal
landscape setting can be eroded, so that one can no longer view them in context.

Ideally, heritage assets should be preserved in their context, including the wider
landscape in which they are seen. Mitigation (as opposed to avoidance) measures
include digging up archaeological artefacts, recording them, and moving them to a
museum; preserving buildings or archaeological remains in a different setting (e.g. as
part of the open space in an office development, or under a car park with a raised
ground floor); and taking them apart and moving them to a different location. However it
is impossible to replace the sheer age of heritage assets. Often it will not be possible to
mitigate impacts on them.

2-14
Measures proposed in airport master plans and environmental statements for minimising
impacts on heritage/ culture include the following:
• Carrying out archaeological surveys to reduce the loss of possible earthworks
during construction
• Rerouting of construction traffic
• Geological survey, evaluation and excavation where necessary
• In situ preservation of archaeology
• Design amendments and sensitive landscape works
• Keeping a careful record of details of character and construction
• Dismantling and reconstruction of timber-framed sections of some buildings

2.7 Land take and urbanisation

Land take refers to how much new land is required for the project. Depending on the
type of land that is built on or fenced in, land take can lead to:
• Wildlife habitat loss and fragmentation. This was discussed at section 2.3;
• Loss of land that could otherwise be used for housing, community facilities, open
space and playing fields etc.
• Loss of agricultural land. Agricultural land
is an important resource that allows the UK
to be more self-sufficient, thus reducing the
‘food miles’ needed to transport food from
the producer to our tables. Agricultural
land is classified from grade 1 (excellent)
to grade 5 (very poor). The Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(2003) promotes the protection of the ‘best
and most versatile’ land, namely grades 1,
2 and 3a.
• Loss of entire communities, such as
Sipson at Heathrow third runway. Guardian Unlimited,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/

More generally, land take for airport-related development can add to a drip-feed of
development in an area which adds up to a change from a rural to a more urban
atmosphere.

The re-organisation of farm units has been proposed in airport masterplans and
environmental statements for the use of land that would otherwise have been used for
farming.

2.8 Landscape and visual impacts

Airports and airport-related developments affect the landscape by removing existing

landscape features such as trees and hedges and replacing them with buildings and
tarmac. At night, the lights of the runways, aircraft and terminals increase light pollution.

The following components of the landscape can be affected by development:

2-15
 • physical factors: geology, landform, climate and
microclimate, drainage, soil, ecology
• human factors: archaeology, landscape history,
land use, buildings and settlements
• aesthetic factors: proportion, scale, enclosure,
texture, colour views as well as sounds, smells,
tastes and touch
• associations: historical (e.g. history of
settlements, special events) and cultural (links
http://photolibrary.baa.com to well-known personalities, literature, painting
and music) (Countryside Council, 1993).

Airports and airport-related development can also change the overall character of an
area to make it look harder and more urban. Natural England has divided England into
159 ‘joint character areas’, described their landscape8, and summarised whether
countryside quality in these areas is getting better or worse9 (Natural England, 2007).
This can be used as a starting point for discussion about urbanisation and impacts on
landscape character.

The less developed and more attractive the original landscape was, the bigger the
landscape impacts of an airport or airport-related development is likely to be. National
Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and (to a lesser extent) Heritage Coasts are
areas designated because of their attractive landscapes and managed so as to ensure
that these landscapes are preserved.

Airports and airport-related developments can also have visual impacts. These refer to
the impacts of landscape change on people: on the views that people have from their
homes, offices, footpaths, cars as they drive past etc. All developments have a ‘zone of
visual intrusion’ from which they can be seen, and an environmental statement will often
show this on a map. The more people can see the development, the closer they live
and work to the development, and the clearer their lines of sight are (rather than, say,
their views being blocked by high hedges), the bigger the visual impact will be.

The landscape and visual impacts of developments often change over time. For
example hoardings or bunds (long low hills made out of spare soil) may be put up during
construction and taken down during operation. Plantings will grow over time, softening
the features of the development. Deciduous plantings will shed their leaves in autumn
so that the development will be more visible in winter than in summer.

Landscape and visual impacts are closely related to other impacts, particularly noise.
For instance people tend to think that the noise from a development is louder if they can
also see the development. The Campaign to Protect Rural England has compiled maps
of ‘tranquillity’, which very roughly equates to a combination of lack of noise and lack of
visual impacts10.

8
Natural England, http://www.countryside.gov.uk/LAR/Landscape/CC/jca.asp.
9
Natural England, http://www.cqc.org.uk/publications/CQC_HeadlineIndicator_A1.pdf and
http://www.cqc.org.uk/publications/CQC_TrackingChange_A4_4pp.pdf.
10
Campaign to Protect Rural England, http://www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/landscape/tranquillity

2-16
Landscape and visual impacts often occur on a cumulative, drip-feed basis: deaths of
the landscape by a thousand cuts. The Campaign to Protect Rural England has
produced striking maps of how light pollution has increased between 1993 and 200011.

Typical mitigation measures include good design of buildings, possibly including green
roofs; the erection of some kind of screen (wall, planting, bund) between the viewer and
the development; locating parts of the development further away from viewers or hiding
taller buildings behind shorter ones to soften their impact; and careful use of colours,
choice of street furniture (lamps, benches, waste containers) etc. Light pollution can be
reduced by keeping lighting (e.g. of parking lots) to the minimum levels needed for
safety, and through the careful choice of light fixtures such as the use of flat-glass
lanterns in car parks. Some buildings, particularly airport terminals, can be very
attractive, and many people prefer the aesthetics of a well-designed and well-managed
development to those of derelict, scrubby areas. In such cases, the development is a
visual improvement. Other measures may include landscape engineering, tree planting
and ground modelling.

2.9 Noise

Noise from aircraft and from traffic going to and from airports is probably the most
obvious environmental impact of the aviation industry because it is easily perceived and
annoying, especially where this occurs frequently. Aircraft noise is generated by both
the engine and the airframe and is most evident during landing and take-off and under
frequently-used flightpaths. Other sources of noise include noise generated from taxiing
aircrafts, the application of reverse-thrust (an optional braking aid on landing), engine
tests and on-site vehicular traffic. Also, noise impacts can extend to vehicular and rail
traffic to and from the airport, and construction noise.

The effects of noise pollution include:

• Loss of concentration
• Sleep disturbance
• Anger, frustration and powerlessness to control the noise
• Fear of accidents and of potential increase in frequency of noise
• Cardiovascular effects (not well established)
• Mental health (may affect but not cause it)
• Diminished educational achievement (due to either direct effect or loss of
teaching time due to noise disruptions) (Parliamentary Office of Science and
Technology, 2003)
• Prolonged or excessive exposure to noise can cause hypertension and
ischaemic heart disease.
• Adverse effect on performance, for example in reading, attentiveness, problem
solving and memory. Deficits in performance can lead to accidents.
• Noise above 80dB may increase aggressive behaviour.
• The main social consequence of hearing impairment is the inability to understand
speech in normal conditions, which is considered a severe social handicap
(WHO, 2001).

11
Campaign to Protect Rural England, http://www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/landscape/light-pollution/light-
pollution-in-your-area

2-17
Noise also affects the breeding and feeding habits of birds and also encourages
unnecessary expenditure of energy as the move towards or away from the sound
source, thereby exposing them to predators (White Young Green Planning, 2006)

The significance of noise impact depends on a variety of factors such as volume,

duration, location (e.g. countryside vs busy street), time of the day and frequency of
noise (deep low noise travels longer distances and can be felt in buildings) (Defra,
2004).

Government defines the noise impact around UK airports by reference to the area
covered by the 57dB(A)Leq contour (measured between 7am and 11 pm). The 57 Leq
contour was chosen by Government as being representative of high levels of annoyance
based on social survey work undertaken in the 1980s. The Government has recently
published the results of a consultant’s report that aimed to review whether this
relationship between noise and annoyance was still valid. Attitudes to Noise from
Aircraft Sources in England was published in December 2006 and showed two
significant changes: that people were very much annoyed at much lower levels than 57
Leq, and that people were very sensitive to the frequency of aircraft noise events. Peer
review comments, published at the same time, highlighted some methodological
concerns, leading Government to announce that it would be undertaking further work
and not revising policy at this stage. Nevertheless, most of the findings are robust and it
should be regarded as an important commentary on aircraft noise in the UK today. .

To try and minimise these effects, Government has stated in the 2003 ATWP that:

“3.11 Our basic aim is to limit and, where possible, reduce the number of people in the
UK significantly affected by aircraft noise. This is a challenging objective, and meeting it
will require a combination of measures, including:
• promoting research and development into new low noise engine and airframe
technologies. We support the research target set by the Advisory Council for
Aeronautics Research in Europe that perceived noise should be reduced to one
half of current average levels by 2020;
• implementing the regulatory framework agreed by the International Civil Aviation
Organisation (ICAO)12. The key elements of this framework have now been
incorporated into UK law by the Aerodromes (Noise Restrictions) (Rules and
Procedures) Regulations 2003. These regulations currently apply at ten UK
airports, but we expect the underpinning principles to be applied at all significant
UK airports;
• implementing EU Directive 2002/49/EC, which requires periodic noise mapping
at many airports from 2007 to identify day and night noise problems and, from
2008, action plans to deal with them;
• retaining and, where necessary, strengthening the current regulation by central
Government of noise at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports. We will also
consider exercising similar powers at other airports if there is evidence that a
major noise problem is not being dealt with adequately through local controls.
However, the Government's preference remains that local solutions should be

12
The ICAO framework is referred to as the balanced approach to noise management. It comprises
reducing noise at source; land-use planning and management; noise abatement operational procedures,
and; operational restrictions.

2-18
 devised for local problems wherever possible, and we expect that airport master
plans… will describe the package of measures that an airport operator intends to
apply to deal with local noise (and air quality) problems;
• widening the use of economic instruments, including the use of differential
landing charges according to noise levels - for which powers already exist - at all
airports where a significant local noise problem exists. Funds from a noise-
related element in user charges could be used to finance local mitigation and
compensation schemes.”

While this may appear comprehensive, the Government still prefers noise problems to
be resolved at a local level. Consequently, while some Government imposed controls
exist at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, most airports are subject to planning
conditions or obligations.

Noise from aviation may be reduced by:

• Putting strict regulatory constraints on the amount of noise that can be generated
by aircrafts and on the flight paths to be followed
• Refusing planning permission where noise levels exceed 66dB(A)Leq at daytime
and 57 dB(A)Leq at nighttime
• Making technical adjustments to thrusts, angle of flight decent/ take-off, speed of
aircraft accent etc. (POSTNOTE, 2003).

The Government also acknowledges that it may not be possible to reduce noise to a
reasonable level. Consequently it states in the ATWP that:
“3.15 Our approach to noise impacts is first, to seek to control the scale of impacts;
second, to mitigate remaining impacts; and third, to compensate for those impacts
which cannot be mitigated. A variety of measures is available to help reduce noise
impacts at source, as described earlier in this chapter, but there is a limit to how far
noise nuisance near airports can be reduced… Accordingly, with immediate effect,
we expect the relevant airport operators to:
• offer households subject to high levels of noise (69dBA Leq or more) assistance
with the costs of relocating; and
• offer acoustic insulation (applied to residential properties) to other noise-sensitive
buildings, such as schools and hospitals, exposed to medium to high levels of
noise (63dBA Leq or more).”

As with emissions, the industry has been successful in developing relatively quieter
aircraft – the noise footprint of a modern jet is a fraction of that made by the first
generation of jet aircraft. Every new aircraft must comply with noise standards
developed by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The most stringent standard
to date (known as Chapter 4) came into effect last year, although it had not previously
been revised since the Chapter 3 standard was adopted in 1977. Furthermore, EU
regulations prevented the operation of Chapter 2 aircraft at EU airports from 1 April 2002
– this encouraged many airlines to speed up their fleet replacement. But while aircraft
have become less noisy, noise around many airports is getting worse due to an increase
in the number of flights. A DfT analysis of noise levels around UK airports shows that
more people will be affected in 2030 compared to 2000.

2-19
Noise mitigation measures proposed in various airport masterplans include:
• Incentive and penalty systems to encourage airlines to use quiet aircraft
• Requirements for arriving aircraft to maintain minimum heights above the
airport before starting on their descent path
impact avoidance

• Use of preferred flight routings and runways where possible, that impose less
noise on local properties
• Noise quotas on night flights, with the noisiest aircraft not allowed to land or
take off at night
• Ban on aircraft engine testing or training flights at certain times (e.g. nights,
weekends) unless in an emergency
• Encouragement of minimum use of auxiliary power units, and of reverse
thrust by aircraft on landing consistent with safety constraints
• Design of the airport so that buildings and/or bunds (long low hills made of
soil) shield nearby properties from ground noise
impact mitigation

• Sound insulation grants: for high specification double-glazing in the noisiest

areas, and secondary glazing across a wider area
• Property relocation schemes which cover most of the costs of moving house
for those people living in the areas of highest noise
• Public complaint handling services
• Noise monitoring systems that monitor the noise level of each aircraft.

Where problems exist outside of the planning system, remedies are few and far
between. Aviation has been afforded protection from legal action since the 1920s. In its
fledgling stages, the Civil Aviation Act (currently section 76) prevented any action in
respect of nuisance, but it has never been repealed. Some communities have taken
cases to the European Courts of Human Rights but to date, while the Court has
accepted that noise can be regarded as an infringement, the government’s defense of it
being in the national interest has always prevailed.

2.10 Risk to third parties

Airport-related development and aviation pose risks to air passengers and others (‘third
party risk’). These include road accidents from passengers and workers travelling to and
from airports, airplane crashes, terrorism threats, the effects of wake turbulence from
aircraft, and health problems of flying for passengers and airline staff. This section
discusses only third party risk to people who live and work near airports.

Road accidents related to airport operations. The UK has a good road safety record,
and the number of accidents is still decreasing whilst vehicle-kilometres continue to
increase. However, increased traffic near an airport is likely to increase the risk of
accidents. Increased use of bus and train – both safer forms of travel than the private
car – can help to reduce this risk.

2-20
Airplane crashes. Flying is a particularly
safe form of travel: someone is probably
more likely to be involved in an accident
when driving to an airport than during the
subsequent flight. That said, take-off and
landing are the most dangerous phases of
aircraft operations, so most crashes occur
at or near the ends of runways.
Government has responded to this risk by
designating Public Safety Zones (PSZs) at
many airports, which restrict what new
development can be located in these
zones. http://oopslist.com/C90-2.jpg

PSZs are usually triangular-shaped, pointing away from the end of the runway. Their
shape and size is determined based on the number of flights at the airport, the likelihood
of a crash, where the crash might occur, and the likely consequences of a crash. PSZs
have two contours:
• 1 in 10,000 individual risk: nobody should live or work all day in these zones; and
• 1 in 100,000 individual risk: new development in this contour is restricted and
existing development should be removed if suitable opportunities arise (Department
for Transport, 2002).

There are significant problems with the PSZ policy. For instance, PSZs are based on
risk to individuals rather than on total risk (the risk to an individual, times the number of
people affected), and so understate risk where many people live within the 1 in 100:000
contour (Aviation Environment Federation, no date). PSZs were also established in
2002, based on predicted air traffic levels in 2015; the Aviation White Paper of 2003
predicted much higher air traffic levels but did not change the PSZs.

The risk of bird strike to aircraft was discussed at Section 2.3.

Terrorism at airports and on aircraft. The tragedy of 11 September 2001 which involved
aircraft being flown into buildings in the US, and subsequent attempted terrorist threats
in the UK in August 2006 have highlighted the vulnerability of airports and aircraft to
terrorist activity. This could directly affect communities living near airports if a terrorism
attempt succeeds. It could also affect them indirectly in the form of increased police
activity, congestion when there are roadblocks, etc.

Effects of wake turbulence from aircraft. Flying aircraft produce wake turbulence as a
result of Newton’s Third Law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Wake turbulence is caused by the ‘downwash’ caused as aircraft rise in the air, and the
vortices (whirlwind) caused at the aircraft’s wing tips as the vacuum above the aircraft
wing and the pressure below the wing meet. The strength of the wing tip vortices is
proportional to aircraft weight, and inversely proportional to aircraft speed, wingspan and
air density.

At ground level, wake turbulence causes unusual wind currents, and sometimes small
whirlwinds. Wake turbulence may cause tiles to come off roofs. Opponents of an
incinerator in Surrey have also suggested that wake turbulence could cause dangerous

2-21
emissions from the incinerator to be driven towards the ground, “achieving exactly the
opposite intention of a chimney stack” (Sage, 2007).

It is possible to avoid some third party risk, for instance through application of the
existing PSZ policy, establishment of larger PSZs, traffic control measures that help to
reduce road accidents, and efforts to reduce bird strike as discussed at Section 2.4.
Repair and re-roofing programmes for damaged properties helps to mitigate for risks
from wake turbulence. However ultimately it is impossible to eliminate third party risk
altogether: compensation for accidents and loss of life is the only other ‘mitigation’
measure possible.

2.11 Social / community and equity impacts

Whilst air travellers gain benefits from airport-related development and aviation,
residents of nearby communities bear the brunt of the negative impacts. Airport-related
development can affect community cohesion in a number of interconnected ways.

Airport-related workers can buy homes in communities close to the airport so that they
don’t have to commute far to work. However they often work long and unsociable hours,
and may not participate in community activities as much as the previous residents did.
Airport operators may buy up local homes as a compensation for noise or other impacts.
They may rent out these homes, sometimes as houses of multiple occupation. A
common complaint at Stansted has been that the rental homes and their gardens are
maintained less well than the owner-occupied properties were (Sutton, 2007).

House values may fall due to noise, landscape and other impacts from the airport.
Residents may find it difficult to sell their houses at a time and price that they have
control over. Airport operators’ buy-up schemes may be restricted and divisive.
This drip-feed of factors could result in a greater proportion of empty and neglected
properties, further reducing the value of remaining local properties. This could lead to a
negative spiral of increased uncertainty about the future of the community, more people
moving out of the area, and more houses being rented out or empty. For instance, at
Stansted in summer 2007, of 170 properties owned by BAA, 36 (21%) were for sale, and
another 36 (21%) were vacant (Rhodes, 2007).

As a result, the number of children attending schools in the area could fall, as could the
number of people participating in community activities. This could affect the viability of
some community services, such as village halls and shops. Community cohesion may
start to erode. Neighbourhood watch schemes could be more difficult to run in areas
with a high turnaround of population. Local residents that were previously active in
Scouts, church activities or sports may need to divert their time from community
activities to fighting against airport expansion. The local planning department may need
to put so much time into dealing with the airport expansion that it has difficulty
responding to other issues, such as enforcement of planning conditions on other
developments.

Although many local residents will benefit from the improved access to overseas (and
some UK) destinations that airport development will bring, wealthier people will generally
benefit more than poorer people. The Department for Transport’s (2006b) most recent
travel survey showed that only 21% of respondents in the one-fifth of households with

2-22
the lowest income had made at least one international flight in the last year, whilst 61%
of those in the one-fifth of households with the highest income had made one or more
international flights. Only 4% in the lowest income ‘quintile’ had made three or more
flights in the last year, compared with 23% in the highest quintile. This suggests that
wealthier people are gaining more from flying than poorer people. In contrast, people on
lower incomes may well gain the most if the subsidies provided to the aviation industry
were available to be spent on improving hospitals, schools and public transport.

It is virtually impossible to avoid negative impacts on community life. Possible mitigation

measures include:
• Purchase of housing by airport operators where house values are likely to fall
significantly as a result of airport expansion. This is required by Government in
response to problems of blight arising from proposals for airport-related
development;
• Airport operators now allowing housing that they own to be rented out as houses of
multiple occupation;
• Ensuring that airport operator owned housing and their gardens are managed by a
good property management company.

Compensation may take the form of funding for local groups, or for improvements to
community facilities such as village halls. Airports also bring with them employment
opportunities for local residents. However none of these directly tackles the problems of
the erosion of community coherence, or the fact that local communities lose whilst
travellers win.

Measures proposed in airport master plans and environmental statements for minimising
noise impacts are:
• Diverting or closing rights of way could mitigate noise to certain communal areas
as well as effects on visual appreciation
• During construction, sound attenuation of plants and noise barriers within a site
compound would reduce the ground noise during the construction period
• The access routes of the contractors could be diverted to minimise the impact on
the local communities
• Where significant amounts of waste are generated the soil could be re-used or the
aggregates recycled
• Keeping construction waste to a minimum

2.12 Traffic

Airports and airport-related development generate traffic on nearby roads from:

• construction workers travelling to and from the site, and haulage of construction
and waste materials;
• operational workers travelling to and from the site;
• cargo/freight deliveries and pick up; and
• travellers arriving and departing from the airport.
Within the airport boundary, additional traffic can be caused by airport vehicles such as
tugs, fuel lorries, and buses and vans that transport passengers around the site.

2-23
Traffic can cause congestion, severance, and environmental problems such as noise
and air pollution. The environmental impacts of ground traffic are discussed in other
sections. Congestion and severance are discussed here.

Baseline levels without the proposed development are particularly important for traffic,
since general traffic levels in the UK are rising by 1-3% per year and will probably
continue to do so for many more years. So traffic that doesn’t cause congestion or
severance now may do so in the future even without the proposed development. For
this reason, transport impact assessments typically predict traffic levels when the
proposed project first becomes operational, and then 10-15 years after that.

Congestion occurs when the traffic flow on a road exceed the carrying capacity of the
road and its junctions (similar issues pertain to the rail network). Every road and junction
has a nominal carrying capacity. This is often shown as a diagram of lines (roads) and
nodes (junctions), with numbers next to each line and road showing their capacity.
Sometimes different capacities and/or traffic levels are given for the different traffic
directions on a road: e.g. north v. south-bound. Traffic levels at key roads and junctions
are regularly monitored by local authorities, and these levels may be shown alongside
the capacity figures.

Journey times are often discussed in traffic impact assessments. The more congestion,
the longer journey times will be. Similarly, the more congestion there is, the more likely
it is that traffic will move from the main roads to and from airports, and instead use side
roads as rat-runs to avoid the congestion.

Traffic impact assessments try to determine whether, and for how long, roads and
junctions are likely to be congested, with and without the proposed development. For
this, they generally concentrate on peak traffic levels. Typically peak baseline traffic
levels are the rush hour/school run in the morning, and the rush hour in the evening.
The peak traffic levels generated by air passengers may, for instance, be 5-6am as
people arrive to catch early flights; 9am as other airports’ early flights arrive; and a
similar double peak in early evening. The peak traffic level for operational workers may
occur about an hour before that of travellers in the morning, and an hour after them in
the evening. However what is important, in the end, is the total likely future traffic - from
the baseline, passengers, operational staff etc. – and whether this will exceed the
carrying capacity of roads and junctions.

Typical ways of trying to reduce congestion are to improve public transport provision,
use charging regimes such as tolls or high parking charges, provide bus-only lanes,
encourage airport workers to car pool, expand roads and junctions so that their carrying
capacities increase; and provide new roads. Regional Spatial Strategies and Local
Development Documents generally promote some combination of these measures.
However the delivery of these measures can be hampered by a range of factors:
• Without subsidies, bus/coach operators will only find it profitable to run frequent,
high quality services from a limited number of (primarily urban) areas. Unless bus
services are reliable, frequent and attractive, it will be difficult to shift people from
their cars to these services;
• Rail infrastructure is very expensive to provide, requires a long lead time, and
needs to be approved at a range of central government levels;
• Do we know anything about who operates parking at airports? is there a financial
incentive for airport operators to provide lots of parking?;

2-24
 • If adequate levels of parking are not provided at airports, car drivers may well park
at the periphery of the airport (with attendant problems for local communities) and
walk or take the bus in.

Severance occurs where communities are split by traffic (‘dynamic severance’) or

transport infrastructure (‘static severance’). Dynamic severance occurs when it is
difficult to cross a road because there is too much traffic or it is moving too fast. It leads
to pedestrian delay, diversion to other crossing points, and accident risk. Static
severance is caused when a new road or rail line splits a community, leading to detour
journeys and lengthier journeys. Severance is not often discussed in ESs, but can
significantly affect the social life of communities, with particular impacts on pedestrians
and cyclists.

Typical ways of mitigating for severance include pedestrian bridges or underpasses,

toucan and zebra crossings, and traffic lights (pedestrian operated or automatic).

Finally, as well as increasing traffic levels, the type of traffic in the local area could
change. For instance, residents living near Stansted have noticed a big increase in taxis
and buses, “which by their very nature always seem to be in a hurry”, and thus could
pose more danger to children, horse riders etc. They have also noticed more cars at
night, possibly due to the traffic patterns of shift workers, or to travellers or airline staff
looking for overnight accommodation (Sutton, 2007).

Measures proposed in airport master plans and environmental statements for minimising
traffic impacts are:
• Improve existing rail services
• Promote bus and coach services for staff and minimise the use of single
occupancy car trips.

2.13 Water pollution

Airports, airport-related development and aviation affect water quality in several ways.

First, building works can lead to polluted construction run-off which can affect nearby
water bodies. This is typically dealt with by setting up buffer zones around waterbodies
(streams, ponds, estuaries etc.) where machinery is not permitted.

Second, during operation, rainwater that falls on parking lots, building roofs, aprons and
taxiways, and other areas with hard surfaces will run off either into drains or (if good
drains are not in place) into nearby water bodies or ground water. The de-icing agents
used on runways can be particularly problematic. Typically a development will not be
allowed to go ahead unless it puts measures in place to treat the chemicals and other
pollutants from this surface water or rainwater run-off. However during hard rains the
drains and their controls can be overwhelmed, and pollution of waterbodies can occur.

Third, airports create a range of potential pollutants including de-icing agents,

maintenance and painting chemicals, testing of fire equipment, and fuel leakage and
spillage from refuelling and storage. These can either be leached into ground water or
can contaminate storm water run-off which can pollute nearby water sources. Such
instances are monitored by the authorities and fines can be levied. Nevertheless, it is

2-25
worth considering the height of the water table, whether the airport has an internal
drainage system and arrangements for monitoring. In some cases airport development
has necessitated the diversion or tunnelling of nearby water sources.

Wastewater (the nice word for sewage) from an airport’s operations typically goes to a
sewage treatment plant. That can be a problem if the plant is already at or near
capacity. In such cases it is often possible to expand the treatment plant or upgrade its
equipment to cope with the additional flow. However in some parts of the country, this is
not possible (for instance where the treatment plant discharges to a very sensitive
environment and is already as technically sophisticated as possible). The Environment
Agency’s discharge consent programme helps to ensure that developments are not built
where their wastewater cannot be adequately treated. The ongoing roll-out of the
European Water Framework Directive further strengthens this process.

On a less local level, fuel dumping from flying aircraft can cause water bodies to be
polluted by kerosene. Aircraft often dump excess fuel before landing as a safety
measure: to protect the aircraft’s structure and landing gear, reduce the chance of a
brake fire, and or to ensure a safe landing. During fuel dumping, jet fuel (mostly
kerosene) is ejected from the aircraft’s wing tips, tail or aft fuselage. Air traffic controllers
are instructed to direct planes dumping fuel away from populated areas, over large
bodies of water, and in specified areas where possible. Kerosene evaporates rapidly in
the atmosphere and typically little survives in liquid form when it reaches the Earth’s
surface; at that point it impacts water quality much like an oil or gas spill. Cumulatively
fuel dumping may be having a significant impact: it has been estimated that up to 15
million pounds of fuel were released over the world’s oceans by commercial and military
aircraft during the 1990s (Aerospaceweb, 2005).

Measures proposed in airport master plans and environmental statements for minimising
water pollution are:
• Minimise spillage
• Improve environmental management procedures
• Discharge and treat foul drainage and sewage
• Pass run off through oil interceptors
• Expand infiltration systems
• Provide attenuation to impermeable areas
• Use “friendly” de-icing agents
• Ensure the maintenance of equivalent Greenfield runoff rates
• Carry out Flood Risk Assessment
• Follow construction good practice and guidance from Environment Agency PPGs
1,3,5,6 and 21.

2.14 Water use

Construction of airports and airport-related development use water for mixing cement,
washing wheels and damping down dust, etc. Operation of such development involve
water use for food preparation, toilet flushing, cleaning of the airport and aircraft, fire
drills etc.

2-26
Over-abstraction of water can exacerbate problems of drought, including impacts on
ecological habitats. An airport management plan could thus have a significant indirect
‘in combination’ impact on Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation or
Ramsar sites and require appropriate assessment (see Section 7) because of this.

Generally the amount of water used by a given airport or related development is not
significant: figures from Heathrow suggest an average of 30-40 litres of water per
passenger. However where a large development is proposed in an area where water
resources are already a problem, this could lead to significant impacts.

Ways of reducing water use include dual flush toilets, use of water-efficient rigs for fire
drills, and leakage reduction. At Heathrow Terminal 5, rainwater collected from the
entire catchment (not just the roof of the terminal building) is used for toilet flushing and
irrigation.

References

Aerospaceweb.org (2005) Dumping fuel in flight,

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0245b.shtml.

Aviation Environment Federation (no date) ‘Public Safety Zones: Current policy and the
case for change’, AEF, London.

CE Delft (2005) The contribution of aviation to the economy: Assessment of the

arguments put forward, www.ce.nl.

Civil Aviation Authority (2001) Large flocking birds: An international conflict between
conservation and air safety, http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/srg_dps_flockingbirds.pdf.

Civil Aviation Authority (no date) ‘Emissions’,

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=68&pagetype=90&pageid=52

Communities and Local Government (2005) Planning Policy Statement 1, Delivering

Sustainable Development,
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/147393.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2007) e-Digest statistics about:
climate change, http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/globatmos/gagccuk.htm,

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2007a) Environmental Impact
Guidance. Significant Noise Impacts, http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/regulat/impact-
assessment/envguide/noise/point1.htm

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006) Sustainable development
indicators in your pocket 2006, http://www.sustainable-
development.gov.uk/progress/indicators/documents/sdiyp2006_a6.pdf.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2003) Agricultural Land
Classification: Protecting ‘the best and most versatile agricultural land’,
http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/environment/land-use/pdf/alcleaflet.pdf.

2-27
Department for Transport (2006) The future of air transport progress report,
http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/165217/185629/progressreport.

Department for Transport (2006a) Study on Safety Risks from Birds and Safety
Measures around Cliffe Marshes,
http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2002/fd/see/tr/spcm/studyonsafetyrisksfrombi
rdsa1559
http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2002/fd/see/tr/spcm/coll_studyonsafetyrisksfr
ombirds/birdmanagementattheairportpr1554

Department for Transport (2006b) Transport Statistics Bulletin: National Travel Survey
2006,
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/personal/mainresults/nts2006/
pdfnattravlsur06.pdf.

Department for Transport (2004) Valuing the external costs of aviation,

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/aviation/airports/valuingtheexternalcostsofavi2843.

Department for Transport (2003) The Future of Air Transport, Cm6046,

http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/whitepapers/air/thefutureofairtransportwhite5694.

Department for Transport (2003a) Safeguarding aerodromes, technical sites and military
explosives storage areas,
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/aviation/safety/safeguarding/safeguardingaerodromestechni29
88?page=1#a1000.

Department for Transport (2002) Control of Development in Airport Public Safety Zones,
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/aviation/safety/controlofdevelopmentinairpor2984.

Department for Work and Pensions (2007) In Work, Better Off: Next steps to full
employment, http://www.dwp.gov.uk/welfarereform/in-work-better-off/in-work-better-
off.pdf.

Directgov (2007) ‘Air travel and the environment’,

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Environmentandgreenerliving/Greenertravel/DG_064429

Dolan, P., T. Peasgood and M. White (2006) Review of research on the influences on
personal well-being and application to policy making, report for Defra,
http://www.sustainable-
development.gov.uk/publications/pdf/Wellbeing%20Project%202%20Final%20report.pdf.

Environment Agency (2007) Pollution Inventory http://www.environment-

agency.gov.uk/business/444255/446867/255244/substances/?version=1&lang=_e.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (1985) Aircraft Noise Effects, Washington DC

http://www.nonoise.org/library/ane/ane.htm

Henney, P.J., D.J. Cameron, J.M. Mankelow, N.A. Spencer, D.E. Highley and E.J.
Steadman (2003) Implications of CAA birdstrike safeguard zones for river sand and
gravel resources in the Trent Valley, British Geological Survey, Nottinghamshire.

2-28
IPCC (no date) Aviation and the global atmosphere ,
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/014.htm

Kaseloo, P.A. and K.O. Tyson (2004) Synthesis of noise effects on wildlife populations,
report for US Department of Transportation,
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ENVIRonment/noise/effects/.

Kenney, M. (2006) ‘Airport sources of air emissions’, talk to Technology Transfer

Program, University of California, Berkeley,
http://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/aviation06downloads/kenney.pdf

Levett, R. (2007) ‘The materiality of climate change’, proof of evidence on behalf of Stop
Stansted Expansion at the inquiry into expanded use of the Stansted runway, Doc. No.
SSE/21/a, case ref. 2032278.

Mead, C. (1997) Birds and Roads: Wilderness and wildlife at risk, Lecture to the British
Association for the Advancement of Science, 9 September,
http://www.birdcare.com/bin/shownews/85.

Merron, G. (2007) ‘Aviation: Carbon Emissions’, response to Parliamentary question, 2

May,
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070502/text/70502w00
05.htm.

National Statistics (2007) Overseas travel and tourism, July 2007,

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/ott0907.pdf.

Naturewatch (2007) ‘Quick facts’,

http://www.naturewatch.org/campaigns/Badgers/FactsandInformation.asp.

Oxford Economic Forecasting (1999) The contribution of the aviation industry to the UK
economy, summary report, http://www.oef.com/Free/pdfs/Sumavuk.pdf.

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2003) Postnote Number 197

http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn197.pdf.

Peel Airports (2006) Liverpool John Lennon Airport Draft Airport Masterplan to 2030,
http://www.liverpooljohnlennonairport.com/file_uploads/chapter_11_0.pdf

Rhodes, J.S. (2007) ‘Stansted Airport Generation 1 Inquiry, Proof of Evidence’, Doc.
BAA/1/A,
http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/documents/BAA_proof_of_evidence_John_Rhod
es.pdf.

Rich, C. and T. Longcore, Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, Island

Press, Washington DC.

Ross, B. (2007) ‘Economic impacts, Proof of evidence on behalf of Stop Stansted

Expansion’, Doc. No. SSE/8/a, Case ref. 2032278,

2-29
http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/documents/SSE8a_Proof_Economic_Impacts.pd
f

Sage, M. (2007) ‘Proof of Evidence of Dr. Maurice Sage, on the Impact of Wake
Turbulence ona Planned Incinerator at the Clockhouse Site, on behalf of Capel Action
Group, Capel Parish Council, Mole Valley District Council, to the Surrey Minerals and
Wate Development Framework Inquiry in Public.

Sewill, B. (2003) The Hidden Costs of Flying,

http://www.aef.org.uk/downloads/HiddenCost.pdf.

Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (1999) Transport and the
Economy,
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/economics/sactra/transportandtheeconomyfullre3148.

Sutton, M. (2007) ‘Community Cohesion (Erosion of the Community), Proof of evidence

on behalf of Stop Stansted Expansion’, Doc. No. SSE/20/A, Case ref. 2032278,
http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/documents/SSE20a_Proof_Community_Cohesio
n_(Erosion).pdf.

Thorpe, J. (1987) Civil Aviation Birds Record, Royal Aeronautical Society Bird Hazards
in Aviation Conference, October, London.

UK Air Quality Archive (no date) ‘Air quality standards’,

http://www.airquality.co.uk/archive/standards.php.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Indoor Air quality,

http://epa.gov/iaq/co.html

York Consulting (2002) ‘Employment and economic impacts of the expansion of

Stansted Airport’, report to Uttlesford District Council,
http://www.uttlesford.gov.uk/stansted+airport/planning+issues/yorkstansted.pdf

White Young Green Planning (2006) Broom South Quarry,

http://domino.bedfordshire.gov.uk/pdfs/bccm2006_30env_chap9.pdf.

World Health Organisation (2005) WHO air quality guidelines global update 2005,
http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E87950.pdf.

2-30