December 2000
Report summary
Overflying aircraft have the potential to adversely affect amenity values in National Parks and other areas that are highly valued for their natural character and tranquillity. Most concerns centre around the noise levels and the effect this has on other users of these areas.
Executive summary
This investigation was carried out in response to a letter received by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) expressing concern about the lack of legislative control of noise from aircraft overflying areas valued for their tranquillity and privacy. The management of tourist air traffic, particularly over natural areas, was also raised as an issue by many of those consulted for the PCE's 1997 Tourism report. Thus, the PCE decided that this issue was worthy of further investigation.
The investigation also addresses the question of whether environmental effects from low-flying aircraft are best dealt with under the Resource Management Act 1991(RMA) or the Civil Aviation Act 1990 (CA Act).
Under the RMA, territorial authorities can make rules to control noise emissions from airports, including takeoffs and landings. However, this is different from controlling noise from aircraft that are in flight. The investigation found that the management of noise from over-flying aircraft and the control of aircraft flight paths to limit noise for people on the ground was limited. However, section 29A of the CA Act does allow the Minister of Civil Aviation to make ordinary rules in relation to the use of airspace for any reason in the "public interest" - this includes rules to limit the noise emitted by over-flying aircraft in sensitive areas.
The investigation concluded that it is appropriate to leave the control of flight paths with the Civil Aviation Authority under the CA Act. While local authorities have expertise in dealing with environmental management issues and noise pollution, cross-boundary and public safety issues mean that is it more cost effective and safer to leave the responsibility with CAA. CAA has no expertise in environmental management and noise pollution, however, this could be overcome through the development of a Code of Practice that ensures CAA consults with MFE as well as other interested parties including tourist operators and public interest groups in the development of any rules and/or guidelines.
Conclusions
- Overflying aircraft have the potential to adversely affect amenity values in National Parks and other areas that are highly valued for their natural character and tranquillity. However, the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) which empowers territorial authorities to regulate activities on land and water affecting amenity values, does not currently enable the authorities to control noise from overflying aircraft.
- Amending the RMA to enable territorial authorities to control noise from overflying aircraft would have significant implications for the CAA and its responsibility for ensuring safe air transport operations.
- Noise from overflying aircraft can be controlled through section 29A of the Civil Aviation Act 1990. However, the procedure for the creation of designations of airspace in the public interest is currently only contained in the Civil Aviation Authority's internal procedures. There are no regulatory requirements for applicants to assess environmental impacts when they apply for an airspace designation.
This investigation reinforces the finding of the PCE's 1997 investigation into the management of environmental effects from tourism, that CAA has the authority to regulate flight paths for public interest reasons such as nuisance noise from aircraft overflying scenic areas. However, there appears to be a need for clarification of the procedures that will apply when designating airspace and flight paths for this purpose.
