5th Report - Airport expansion and climate and nature targets

While airport expansion is likely to provide some economic growth through growth of the aviation sector, the level of growth to the UK economy provided by airport expansion is unclear and the Government has so far failed to provide substantial supporting evidence. (Conclusion, Paragraph 13)

Before formally agreeing any airport expansion plans, the Government should: (Recommendation, Paragraph 14) 1) Commission more detailed and serious research into the net economic benefits. (Recommendation, Paragraph 15) 2) Clearly set out what level of growth to the UK economy it expects. This should be broken down into both individual and cumulative airport expansions. (Recommendation, Paragraph 16) 3) This should be done in a timely fashion to allow effective scrutiny of its plans and opportunities for challenge before a final decision is made. We recommend that the Government sets out in its response to this report how it will do this. (Recommendation, Paragraph 17)

We heard concerns that if airport expansion is focused around the South East of England it could concentrate wider growth in those regions. This could be detrimental to the aviation and airport sectors, and the local economy, around the rest of the United Kingdom. Whilst there were representations from regional airports in support of South East expansion, we are concerned that the Government to date has not adequately addressed these former concerns. (Conclusion, Paragraph 22)

In response to this report the Government should set out how the planned expansion of London Airports will impact the aviation and airport sector around the rest of the UK and the economic impact and level of growth in the wider regions. We recommend that this analysis should be published before a final decision is made on proposed airport expansion and prior to significant delivery of already agreed expansion to allow appropriate scrutiny. (Recommendation, Paragraph 23) 42 Planning considerations

The Government has confirmed that it is updating the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS). We welcome the letter from the then Aviation Minister, Mike Kane MP, to the Committee following his appearance which confirmed that the Heathrow decision would not be taken before the new ANPS is published. (Conclusion, Paragraph 33)

We are concerned that airport expansion plans will have been produced prior to the publication of a new ANPS which ought to be in place to provide the airports with strategic guidance. We are also deeply concerned that, given a number of airport expansions will have been approved prior to the update (such as Gatwick), the Government is relying on an outdated policy framework which is inconsistent with its objectives and that airport expansion plans will have been based on that outdated framework. (Conclusion, Paragraph 34)

The Government should be taking a more strategic approach that should consider wider growth and planning across the whole of the UK. Finally, we are very disappointed that this approach does not allow proper consideration and scrutiny of airport expansion proposals in the light of the new ANPS. (Conclusion, Paragraph 35)

Whilst air pollution around Heathrow has reduced in recent years due to cleaner aircraft and road vehicles, airport expansion will make it harder for Governments, both national and local, to deliver on air quality targets. The Airports National Policy Statement fails to sufficiently account for the impact airport expansion will have on air pollution. (Conclusion, Paragraph 49)

The Government, when updating the Airports National Policy Statement, should impose air quality limits for areas surrounding airports covering all key air quality pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. Having established those limits, government should require that any airport expansion is accompanied by measures to ensure no consequential net increase in air pollution including mitigating against the impact of road traffic growth surrounding airports. In response to this report, the Government must set out what measures it will put in place, including the level of pollution it deems acceptable, and how it will ensure they are met. (Recommendation, Paragraph 50)

The Government should set out in its response to this report what work and research it is supporting to reduce non-CO2 emissions that damage air quality around airports. It should also confirm whether it has identified which current aircraft have the least impact on air quality around airports. We recommend that the Government should consider incentivising airlines 43 to utilise airplanes that use technology or techniques that reduce such emissions. This should include consulting the aviation industry within six months of this report on the feasibility of reducing the age of the fleet. (Recommendation, Paragraph 51)

The Airports National Policy Statement fails to account for noise pollution. Whilst improvements have been seen in reducing the level of noise made by individual flights, more must be done to minimise the impact on those who live under and around flight paths. (Conclusion, Paragraph 58)

The Government should ensure that it is actively working to minimise and mitigate all impacts of noise pollution on relevant populations caused through flying. It should also include a target, within the new ANPS, on the level of acceptable noise from flights both individually and cumulatively. The Government should set out this target in the response to this report. (Recommendation, Paragraph 59)

We understand the need for the Government to modernise the airspace around the UK, particularly if this will minimise the queuing of planes at airports and reduce the time planes spend circling before they can land. However, this work is likely to expand the area covered by flight paths and thereby increase the number of people directly impacted by noise from flying. (Conclusion, Paragraph 60)

The Government must publish an impact assessment of its airspace modernisation work in regard to how it will change noise impacts as well as publish a map which allows people to see where the noise of aircraft is likely to exceed the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended levels. Where this work introduces noise pollution to new areas, the Government must expand its mitigation work including the requirement of industry funding for measures to decrease the impact on the population who live in the areas affected, such as improved sound insulation. This should be done alongside publication of the updated ANPS so that it can inform scrutiny of the Government’s proposals. We also express concern about the impact on biodiversity. The Government should undertake an impact assessment on the impact on biodiversity and put mitigations in place. (Recommendation, Paragraph 61) 44

The Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) is not fit for purpose and requires updating to reflect Government policy. The ANPS specifically fails to: • Provide an integrated view on the role of the aviation and airport system across the country as a whole, • Provide information on environmental limits including air pollution limits, noise limits and greenhouse gas emissions, • Set out how cumulative impacts from all current UK airports and future airport expansion should be accounted for in the planning process. This leads to environmental risks and leaves future expansion applications open to legal challenges, slowing progress of any airport expansion. (Conclusion, Paragraph 68)

The Government should update the Airports National Policy Statement no later than six months after the publication of this report. The updated Statement should: • set out a coherent plan from Government about the airport and aviation system that takes into account wider innovations such as flight path modernisation and airport capacity around the whole of the UK, • include specific, measurable limits for key aspects of air pollution, noise pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, • set out how the Development Consent Order process will account for cumulative environmental impacts from airports across a wide area to provide a holistic picture of the aviation system and ensure that all parallel airport expansion is sustainable. (Recommendation, Paragraph 69) Plans to mitigate environmental impacts of airport expansion

Whilst the Committee understands the Government position that it includes international aviation emissions within its carbon calculations, the UK is yet to formally legislate to include international aviation emissions within the Carbon Budgets, despite it agreeing to do so previously. (Conclusion, Paragraph 79) 45

We reiterate the recommendation made by the Climate Change Committee, our predecessor Committee and others that the Government makes Parliamentary time available to introduce the necessary legislation to formally include international aviation emissions within Carbon Budgets and its Net Zero targets. The Government should do this within the current Parliamentary session. (Recommendation, Paragraph 80)

Whilst a reduction in aviation emissions is necessary to deliver a net zero aviation sector, an important contribution to the UK’s efforts is the reduction of non-CO2 effects, such as contrails. (Conclusion, Paragraph 81)

Within six months of the publication of this report the Government must consult on airspace-wide contrail avoidance measures. Furthermore, given the significant role that non-CO2 effects play in global warming, the Government must account for these in its assessment of the overall impact of the aviation sector. (Recommendation, Paragraph 82)

The Government’s Jet Zero Strategy remains reliant on demand management measures that are as yet insufficient to deliver Net Zero objectives, especially if there is an increase in demand. The strategy relies on a far higher cost to industry to abate carbon emissions than are currently seen. It also requires significant carbon savings from the rollout of technology that is yet to be seen on a commercial scale including more efficient flying and Sustainable Aviation Fuel. Set alongside the Government’s call for an expansion in the aviation sector, this risky approach puts the Government’s delivery on carbon budgets and Net Zero in serious jeopardy. (Conclusion, Paragraph 108)

The government’s Jet Zero strategy is now a few years old and was commissioned under the previous government. Government should consider updating the analysis of the baseline and the pathways to net zero aviation. It should ensure that the plans have kept pace with technological developments in the time since the plan was published. If elements of the Jet Zero Strategy are no longer the policy of the Government, it should set out how they will ensure compliance with their environmental targets. (Conclusion, Paragraph 109)

If the Government proceeds with airport expansion it should set out to the Committee in its response to this report, in-depth analysis on: • How it will ensure carbon costs will reach the level the Government expected in the Jet Zero Strategy. It should also set out a realistic timeline and a plan in the event that these targets become unachievable; 46 • The emissions savings it considers can be delivered by the aviation sector through technological development such as Sustainable Aviation Fuel, including the most recent risk register for these innovations; • The penalties, such as fines, the Government will impose on the aviation sector if it fails to meet the Jet Zero Strategy targets; • The level of emissions targets it will set for the sector in relation to international flights and how it will monitor and enforce those targets; and, • What environmental mitigations will be put in place if the sector fails to decarbonise. (Recommendation, Paragraph 110)

The aviation sector does not fully pay for its carbon emissions, whether this is through the lack of a direct carbon tax, VAT on its fuel, or the greater benefits it receives through the Emissions Trading Scheme compared to other high emitting sectors. This makes aviation artificially cheap and provides the industry with benefits other essential sectors do not benefit from. (Conclusion, Paragraph 111)

The Government should ensure that the aviation sector pays its fair share towards mitigating its carbon emissions and the benefits it receives in comparison to other sectors. Aviation should be included in Emissions Trading Schemes and the government should include the use of Sustainable Aviation Fuels within the ETS. (Recommendation, Paragraph 112)

Government should also conduct a wider review of aviation taxation to ensure that the ‘polluter pays’ principle is upheld, and the aviation industry does not receive benefits which are denied to other important industries. The aviation industry will then be incentivised to decrease emissions. (Recommendation, Paragraph 113)

Whilst it may be possible for the Government to deliver airport expansion alongside its climate and environment targets, we are concerned that the proposed environmental impact from airport expansion will make such targets significantly more difficult to achieve and at much greater effort and cost. Furthermore, the Government has not demonstrated that the economic growth from airport expansion provides enough benefit to outweigh the negative climate and environmental impacts it will lead to. (Conclusion, Paragraph 114)

The Government must undertake a detailed review on whether significant airport expansion will realistically allow it to deliver on its legally binding climate, environment and biodiversity targets. This should include a detailed examination of the measures that need to be taken to remain within the aviation carbon budget. (Recommendation, Paragraph 115) 47

The results of this review should be published before or alongside the refreshed ANPS and before any further substantial airport expansion projects are underway. This is crucial to enable proper scrutiny. Failure to do so could put the Government and any airport expansion projects at risk of legal challenge which would increase costs, delays and introduce greater uncertainty. (Recommendation, Paragraph 116) 48