Transport Committee
Tuesday 8th September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
16:25
16:25
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think I was referring to the the jet zero strategy, which I think DFT has more optimistic assumptions about the level of staff deployment. But I would definitely agree with you that even the the slightly lower levels that the C.c.c. suggests are reasonable are still incredibly optimistic. Like that's still really, really high to get that level of SAF.
16:25
16:25
16:25
Jacob Collier
-
-
Jacob Collier
Yeah. Thank you. As you've recognised, obviously aviation is a huge contributor to our carbon emissions. How confident are you that zero emissions flying technologies, airspace modernisation and improved aircraft efficiency? How how do you think that this is going to help deliver the emissions reductions that are needed for Heathrow expansion, if at all?
16:25
16:26
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So yeah, I mean, I think a relatively minimal impact. So zero emissions propulsion technology. So hydrogen and electric planes are going to be incredibly difficult. Even the Department for transport, which is very techno optimistic, recognises that the proportion of emissions reductions by 2050 will be just a few percent. I mean, they're very, very far away. The DFT does rely more on efficiencies, but again, it's sort of marginal gains at this point. Jet engines are already very efficient.
The the industry is already financially incentivized to optimize for efficiency. And the government talks a lot about airspace modernisation. But really a key goal of that is to get more planes into the sky. So in terms of delivering actual emissions reductions from all of those, I think it's it's going to be relatively minimal.
The the industry is already financially incentivized to optimize for efficiency. And the government talks a lot about airspace modernisation. But really a key goal of that is to get more planes into the sky. So in terms of delivering actual emissions reductions from all of those, I think it's it's going to be relatively minimal.
16:26
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Yeah. I think just to add as well. So since the jet zero strategy came out, the department has reduced its level of optimism. Let's say about zero emission aircraft now are just not taken in. They're assumed not to arrive at all within the kind of periods that have been forecasted. Whereas in the jet zero strategy in 2022, they were assumed to come online sometime in the 2030s. I think similarly, the efficiency assumptions have also been downgraded by the department, even in the sort of six years, eight years since four years since since the jet zero strategy.
So yeah, the evidence is really showing that like, we can't rely on these technologies to arrive at at the pace and scale that we need.
So yeah, the evidence is really showing that like, we can't rely on these technologies to arrive at at the pace and scale that we need.
16:27
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I was just going to say, you only need to look at the aviation forecasts to see that the government's had to go back and start remodeling that, and they've already announced that they will be redoing the jet zero strategy in early 2027. We've got quite a big problem with that, because obviously, the Parliament's been asked to decide on whether this is adequate or not before that remodelling is being done. And if you can read what's just been announced in the aviation forecast that it is falling behind schedule, I can only imagine that that situation might not get better by next year, by which point it's been baked into the hemps that we can go ahead with this thing.
So I think that's a real problem for us. And if you go, you know, you really have to go into the modelling of it, but there's some quite significant changes on airspace modernisation, efficiency gains as well that have will be remodelled.
So I think that's a real problem for us. And if you go, you know, you really have to go into the modelling of it, but there's some quite significant changes on airspace modernisation, efficiency gains as well that have will be remodelled.
16:28
16:28
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I think sustainable aviation fuel as as I said, if we're already talking about a sector that is massively over its budget, the question about sustainable aviation fuel is just, you know, how how much can it limit the damage? But we're still expecting that even if SAF arrives at the mandate levels within the carbon budget seven period, it's still going to to bring us like tens of megatons over the budget. The only scenario that we modeled that actually kept us within our carbon budget was if SAF arrives at the mandate level, but demand is just held completely flat from this point onwards, demand does not increase.
So of course then if SAF doesn't arrive, then we're going to see that our emissions go over our budget. So it's critical of course. But also we just we cannot rely on it. And Ali mentioned the sort of precautionary approach. You know, looking at the SAF plants that have been funded, looking at the SAF plants that are being built, also bearing in mind that the I think the UK, of course, every single economy around the world is now looking to use this use SAF.
They want to decarbonize their own aviation. So we can't rely on importing that from anywhere. And the the amount of stuff that's forecast to be produced in the UK. I can follow up with the exact figures, but it doesn't look very promising after about 2030.
So of course then if SAF doesn't arrive, then we're going to see that our emissions go over our budget. So it's critical of course. But also we just we cannot rely on it. And Ali mentioned the sort of precautionary approach. You know, looking at the SAF plants that have been funded, looking at the SAF plants that are being built, also bearing in mind that the I think the UK, of course, every single economy around the world is now looking to use this use SAF.
They want to decarbonize their own aviation. So we can't rely on importing that from anywhere. And the the amount of stuff that's forecast to be produced in the UK. I can follow up with the exact figures, but it doesn't look very promising after about 2030.
16:29
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think the fundamental problem is there's just a very limited amount of alternative feedstocks available. There's not this huge, you know, alternative source on the scale of the aviation industries demand for kerosene. There's not the available agricultural land, there's not the available waste, there's not the available biomass. And the more that the aviation industry tries to take from other sources, the more potentially going to see problems elsewhere. So we're already seeing the sector is trying to lobby to reduce the the sustainability requirements so that it could use potentially fuels from crops.
Obviously, if they try to scale that up, that could have a potentially absolutely gigantic impact on food security, on deforestation. So I think that, yeah, there needs to be quite a lot of caution about about SAF.
Obviously, if they try to scale that up, that could have a potentially absolutely gigantic impact on food security, on deforestation. So I think that, yeah, there needs to be quite a lot of caution about about SAF.
16:30
16:30
16:30
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
We were actually quite surprised that the importance of SAF was not drawn out more than it, than we thought it would be. I know when it was , the Heathrow expansion plan was was unveiled in January 2025. It was kind of assumed that SAF would be the golden bullet. And, you know, we've discussed this internally. And I think that one of the reasons we think that is the case is. Because
17:05
17:05
17:05
17:05
17:05
17:05
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Well, it's it's essentially focused on two pollutants, PM 2.5, which was mentioned briefly, and nitrogen dioxide. So they're both in the air quality regulations and probably in terms of breaching current limits, nitrogen dioxide is the one that is closest to the limit. In fact, you only have to go back about five years. And lots of areas around Heathrow were actually above the the legal limit for NO2. They're now below PM 2.5 is is a really important air pollutant.
But actually aircraft engines don't generate very much PM 2.5. They generate these tiny fine particles that Anna's mentioned, so they don't add very much mass to PM 2.5. So they're a subset of PM 2.5. What the tests don't do, although they do mention monitoring of these things, is monitoring of ultrafine particles. But then there are a whole set of other pollutants which potentially may emerge in the future from the use of SAF like formaldehyde and so on.
So it's a very narrow legal interpretation of the bare minimum. I would say essentially as written, it's you can't break the law. But I think because we've seen such progress in air pollution in London in general, but also around Heathrow, it's worth unpacking, you know, why have those pollutants got better? Well, they've largely got better because the public and businesses have invested in cleaner vehicles. So as written, the test says, well, those investments that the public and businesses have made in cleaner vehicles can be reversed by growth in pollution at the airport.
And I don't think that's really made clear in the planning statement. And it actually is not consistent with the broader national planning policy statement around how pollution is treated. But we might cover that later.
But actually aircraft engines don't generate very much PM 2.5. They generate these tiny fine particles that Anna's mentioned, so they don't add very much mass to PM 2.5. So they're a subset of PM 2.5. What the tests don't do, although they do mention monitoring of these things, is monitoring of ultrafine particles. But then there are a whole set of other pollutants which potentially may emerge in the future from the use of SAF like formaldehyde and so on.
So it's a very narrow legal interpretation of the bare minimum. I would say essentially as written, it's you can't break the law. But I think because we've seen such progress in air pollution in London in general, but also around Heathrow, it's worth unpacking, you know, why have those pollutants got better? Well, they've largely got better because the public and businesses have invested in cleaner vehicles. So as written, the test says, well, those investments that the public and businesses have made in cleaner vehicles can be reversed by growth in pollution at the airport.
And I don't think that's really made clear in the planning statement. And it actually is not consistent with the broader national planning policy statement around how pollution is treated. But we might cover that later.
17:07
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
WHO. So apologies. I don't know what the air quality is like outside this building or really at Heathrow, but my understanding is that, sorry, we're some way away from meeting the WHO targets as a country in our towns and cities, and that's why they're not in law just now in the UK. But it does seem likely that at some point over the next decade, a government might put them in law and start working us towards them, probably over the decades to come.
But what I think what you're saying is that in and around Heathrow, if if we go ahead as planned, it's never going to meet those targets, those future legal, which could be future legally binding targets in the UK, it's never going to meet them up to the the decades that we're looking at in this model. Sorry to put words in your mouth. But yeah,
But what I think what you're saying is that in and around Heathrow, if if we go ahead as planned, it's never going to meet those targets, those future legal, which could be future legally binding targets in the UK, it's never going to meet them up to the the decades that we're looking at in this model. Sorry to put words in your mouth. But yeah,
17:08
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
no, I mean, it's and I'm going to sound like I'm sort of picking the words apart like a lawyer here. There is a quite a big difference between a guideline and a target. I mean, the guidelines are values at which the evidence for harm becomes clear. So those numbers are actually quite low. So there's very good evidence about low concentrations where Palmer Cruise of course a target is a pragmatic value that a government has to pick. And it may not necessarily be possible to align the guideline with with the target.
But you're right. I mean, we're likely to see further pressure to reduce the maximum limit for PM 2.5, although I don't think that's perhaps the biggest issue. It seems likely that in the future, some target will emerge on ultrafine particles. And we've already seen in the EU that the the limits that they've set for nitrogen dioxide have now moved from 40 micrograms to 20. So if you if you perceive that we might at some point align with those, then there are going to be some quite large jumps in the targets as well as it's written.
I believe that the draft plan actually only requires no breaches of the current targets. I don't think it's written in a way that says or any future target.
But you're right. I mean, we're likely to see further pressure to reduce the maximum limit for PM 2.5, although I don't think that's perhaps the biggest issue. It seems likely that in the future, some target will emerge on ultrafine particles. And we've already seen in the EU that the the limits that they've set for nitrogen dioxide have now moved from 40 micrograms to 20. So if you if you perceive that we might at some point align with those, then there are going to be some quite large jumps in the targets as well as it's written.
I believe that the draft plan actually only requires no breaches of the current targets. I don't think it's written in a way that says or any future target.
17:09
17:09
17:09
17:09
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Okay. Getting on for 20 years now, the PM 2.5 target was revised as part of the Environment Act in 2021. So that's a more up to date target. We don't have anything yet on UFP, although as Anna's mentioned, there are now guidelines around, certainly starting to monitor UFP, which is kind of the precursor to potentially setting a target. So it is quite a fast moving field, and we have to project on the timescales of this potential development that almost certainly the targets that are being worked towards will be lower.
Yeah.
Yeah.
17:10
17:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
very happy to on this one , specifically, Professor Lewis, are you aware of the National Highways air quality mapping service that did a review in last year in 2025 of the Boston Manor Road Hessian services, part of the M4, that it showed that the N02 concentration at that point was 39 micrograms per meter cubed. And of course, the 2010 limit value or tar target not. But but limit is actually 40.
So given the amount of work that needs to be done by heavy goods vehicles to create a third runway, is it actually possible to meet the test that's in the draft MPs that says the Secretary of State must be satisfied that with appropriate With appropriate.
So given the amount of work that needs to be done by heavy goods vehicles to create a third runway, is it actually possible to meet the test that's in the draft MPs that says the Secretary of State must be satisfied that with appropriate With appropriate.
17:26
17:26
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Surface access. strategies and operational measures. That's where these other health. outcomes would be considered. But it's just worth you being aware that the current tag for noise, the evidence, the health evidence is woefully out of date. We're evidence that's 20 years old for sleep and things like that. It doesn't have all these new health outcomes in there. So there should definitely be. consideration given to.
updating what appears in Tag. And I think a clearer statement in the draft. policy about the use of tag for noise. I think it's implicit in there, but it doesn't seem to get the same. attention that the others get. I do think.
updating what appears in Tag. And I think a clearer statement in the draft. policy about the use of tag for noise. I think it's implicit in there, but it doesn't seem to get the same. attention that the others get. I do think.
17:26
17:26
17:27
17:27
17:27
17:27
17:27
17:27
17:27
17:27
17:27
17:27
17:28
17:28
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Which I lead is funded by the Department for transport. They should know about it. Yeah, they do know about it. It's mentioned it is mentioned in the policy, but it doesn't. When you look at the low value that's cited, that is based on the survey of noise attitudes from 2014. The study is undertaken by the CAA Civil Aviation Authority. So is funded by them slash Department for transport. So they're both government funded.
studies that are designed to look at. annoyance and sleep.
studies that are designed to look at. annoyance and sleep.
17:28
17:28
17:28
17:29
17:29
17:29
17:29
17:29
17:29
17:29
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
feelings of noise, annoyance changing over time. Yes. And what's I think so, Anas, is the. aviation noise attitude survey and Annie is the. aviation noise effects. What's happened over time is that we've started to look for their big. population survey. So they involve social survey companies. But what's happened over time is that we've looked at people with lower and lower. exposure so that we can really try and hone in.
Where do these effects begin? A few years ago, we would have just looked at people with exposure of. 50dB and above and looked at them. So for example, my sleep study, we went right down to. 35dB at night. That's really quite quiet. That's people just with a couple of.
Where do these effects begin? A few years ago, we would have just looked at people with exposure of. 50dB and above and looked at them. So for example, my sleep study, we went right down to. 35dB at night. That's really quite quiet. That's people just with a couple of.
17:30
17:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
right up to people with a lot of planes. And the CAA study does the same. It doesn't go quite so low. And what you're seeing is that you're getting people are reporting more. annoyance at those lower levels than they ever did before. And so it looks like people are more disturbed, their sleep is more disturbed, and they're more annoyed by .
17:30
17:30
17:30
17:30
17:30
17:31
17:31
17:31
17:31
17:31
17:32
17:32
17:32
17:46
17:46
17:46
17:46
17:46
17:46
17:46
17:46
17:46
17:46
17:46
17:47
17:47
17:47
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
So yeah. Is the existing noise. mitigation scheme, which has been revised but is based on the conditions of the terminal five approval, I think, and maybe subsequent legislative changes? Is it rolling out at the speed it should be so that all of those homes that should be covered under the current standards? How long is it going to take till they get the noise. insulation that they would expect? And also, sorry, speaking for my constituents and constituents.
Are they also going back to homes that were done 20 or more years ago, where the double glazing is now failing, the ventilation bricks are no longer working, etc.? Are they also going . Back
Are they also going back to homes that were done 20 or more years ago, where the double glazing is now failing, the ventilation bricks are no longer working, etc.? Are they also going . Back
17:48
17:48
17:48
17:48
17:48
17:48
17:48
17:48
17:49
17:49
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
You're going to have the highest risk, you're going to have lower risk, but you're still going to have moderate risk in the people who are moderately exposed. And because there's more of them, they're probably going to, you know, be the the most of the public health burden is going to be there. So your best public health strategy is reducing . The
17:49
17:49
17:49
17:49
17:49
17:49
17:50
17:50
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
quieter. Are they going to keep getting quieter. I think I've been hearing this all my life. These quieter planes, they've got slightly quieter. I think the modelling in the annex actually suggests. 0.1dB per year is in the assessment. You can discern. Most people would be able to hear a. three decibel difference. If I played you two sounds, you would hear that.
I think there's far too. I think there's far too much reliance on planes getting quieter in the policy. I think once you dig into some of those.
I think there's far too. I think there's far too much reliance on planes getting quieter in the policy. I think once you dig into some of those.
17:51
17:51
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
It's we need high risk development, you know, investment to make it happen. A lot of it's. predicated on things that aren't in development yet. So I don't think you can rely on quieter aircraft. Also aircraft may get bigger okay. As capacity gets constrained. There's only really one way things can go and planes get they start using bigger, bigger planes again. So I really do not buy into that belief that planes are going to get .
17:51
17:51
17:51
17:51
17:52
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
But my understanding is not a lot, but it could for some. I've never heard anything that said it got quieter. They slightly. change the air pollution emissions. So they potentially a little bit lower on new FP. Exactly the same pretty much on NOx. And I suspect because it's combustion and a bit like NOx production, it's a . It's a
17:52
17:52
17:52
17:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Who will see a. significant noise annoyance additional people because they'll be the people nearer to runway three, mainly under the approach path on westerly operation, which is 70% of the time, are the. mitigations proposed in the draft NPS. adequate to take account of their needs, as opposed to changes in the overall aircraft noise, which they think won't get any worse. And, you know, are they consistent? Are the is the mitigation.
proposed adequate and consistent with current best.
proposed adequate and consistent with current best.
17:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Practice as well as the evidence based? So I think I think that number will be much larger once you use the new evidence. For one, I think that I believe that number is based on using the old 51. In you. You have the slightly quieter planes. If they are slightly quieter, you have the ability to turn the ends of runways on and off to offer people, you know, that that.
17:53
17:54
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
It's a lot of houses to insulate. And also when people. You have to. Also, we haven't mentioned this, but you have what we call a change effect. So if you live somewhere now that's. quieter and we start to fly planes over you, your annoyance and your. response actually is bigger than we would estimate because you're used to it being quiet. You chose your home probably for some of those.
17:54
17:54
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So actually your annoyance may be even higher than estimated in this. So I think in terms of the. mitigations for noise, it's always multiple. mitigations that you offer. There's no one quick fix for it. So I think you would be. relying mostly though other than. respite on the. insulation scheme. So I think that's for the committee to to ponder is that are the numbers .
That
That
17:54
17:54
17:54
17:54
17:55
17:55
17:55
17:55
17:55
17:55
17:55
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
But there has to be a commitment to ongoing evaluation of the health impacts. And I don't see that at the moment. There's a health impact assessment now, which is based on estimates. But we also want to see what happens when things start to become. operational and use that to guide, you know, the ramping . Up
17:56
17:56
17:56
17:56
17:56
17:56
17:57
17:57
17:57