Ministers should weigh up the health and economic benefits of a Heathrow night flights ban, an MP has suggested.
Sarah Olney asked ministers for clarity over Labour’s position on the expansion plan for Britain’s biggest airport.
The Liberal Democrats’ Cabinet Office spokeswoman also called on ministers to consider a “do nothing” option for a Government-backed airspace modernisation programme.
Aviation minister Mike Kane did not say say whether he supported proposals for a third runway at the airport, to be built above the M25 motorway between Staines-upon-Thames and Slough, for an additional 260,000 flights a year.
But he confirmed the Government has supported an ongoing observational study, monitoring sound levels in participants’ bedrooms, which he said would “inform future policies for managing night-time aviation noise exposure, and assist with the management and mitigation of health impacts on local communities”.
Ms Olney, whose Richmond Park constituency lies west of the runway, told the Commons night flights have a “human cost”.
She said on Thursday: “Long-term exposure to nocturnal aircraft noise is strongly linked to sleep disorders and broader health impacts.
“For each additional 10 decibels of night-time aircraft noise that communities are exposed to, there is an increase of between 14% and 69% in residents’ risk of high blood pressure, increasing the risk of strokes and heart attacks.
Allowing the third runway, and the 260,000 flights it will add to London’s skies, is not only an annoyance to residents, it is a risk to their health
“Other researchers have found links between long-term exposure to aircraft noise and an increased risk of obesity, depression and cardiovascular issues.”
Ms Olney continued: “I urge the Government to commit to commissioning a full independent analysis on the impact of night flights on our economy, residents’ physical health, and local people’s mental wellbeing, to inform a potential ban on night flights at Heathrow.”
Turning to the third runway proposal, Ms Olney said: “Despite the efforts of dozens of MPs, the last government resolutely refused to abandon the project.”
Several opponents of the third runway have said it would add seven megatonnes of carbon dioxide to the environment annually.
“Allowing the third runway, and the 260,000 flights it will add to London’s skies, is not only an annoyance to residents, it is a risk to their health,” the Liberal Democrat frontbencher said.
She read comments made by now-Energy Secretary Ed Miliband in 2019, when he told the Commons: “If we are so serious about this climate emergency, I do not see how we cannot look at all the things that the Government and the private sector are doing and ask whether they make sense in a net-zero world.”
On airspace modernisation, Ms Olney said: “When the proposed flight path systems are put to public consultation next year, I would urge the minister to ensure that residents can choose a ‘do minimum’ option.
“New guidance systems can be integrated and small amendments to current systems made, but ultimately there should be an option to maintain the path in a roughly similar location.”
Responding, Mr Kane said: “We need to strike a fair balance (between) the impacts of aviation onto the local environment and communities, but also the economic benefits that flights bring.
“This is a challenge for aviation noise policy.”
The minister said the Government had supported one study called ANNE (Aviation Night Noise Effects), a survey of 4,000 people who live near eight UK airports which looked at night flight noise annoyance, and a second probe “to assess the association between aircraft noise exposure and objective sleep quality” by noise monitoring in bedrooms, which is “in the field”.
These studies he said would influence future policy and cost-benefit assessments around night flights.
“Our priority remains to deliver a high quality, robust evidence base and we’re all taking the necessary steps to deliver this,” he said.
When he turned to the issue of airspace modernisation, Mr Kane nodded when Munira Wilson charged him with labelling Ms Olney a “luddite”.
Intervening, the Liberal Democrat MP for Twickenham said: “I did hear him from a sedentary position calling (Ms Olney) a luddite when she was making her point about airspace modernisation.
“I’m afraid so, and clearly he’s making that point that we do need modernisation, and I do say to him, respectfully, that both I and my honourable friend and our constituents recognise the need for innovation and to move with technology as it changes and, of course, we want to reduce carbon emissions and, of course, we support a better Heathrow and not a bigger Heathrow.
“We understand it’s important to the economy but on airspace modernisation, you can still achieve some of those benefits by adopting a do-minimum approach, so looking at how you can gain the benefits of modernisation whilst not coming up with lots and lots of new flight paths and really intensifying noise over certain areas that perhaps aren’t even overflown at the moment.”
Mr Kane said: “I think we can make life better for all people and a rising tide floats all boats, and it will be open and transparent.”
The minister had earlier described aviation modernisation as a “key plank” of Labour’s manifesto.
“We have an analogue system in our skies in the UK, in a digital age, designed closer to the time that Yuri Gagarin went into space (1961) than today,” he said.
