ࡱ> 4637 J?bjbjUU GT7|7|6il"""$F    " $F(rR h h h h h h h e(g(g(g(g(g(g($X* x,("h h h h h (""h h (h T"h "h e(h e(HHu&""e(h F ,SF 'e((0(/'6-L-e(FF"""" EMBED Imaging.Document  MEMBERS BRIEFING February 2004 ___________________________________________________________________________ The Aviation White Paper: An AEF Perspective Last December, the Government produced its aviation White Paper setting out a framework for the development of air transport over the next 30 years. This briefing provides an initial assessment and AEF reaction to the components of the White Paper. The focus is on the economic and environmental framework rather than the individual airport options. In some cases sections of the White Paper do not include definite conclusions or policies, but identify areas for further work or policy development. In these cases, the comments in this document reflect an initial reaction that may change, over time, in response to additional information or further analysis. _____________________________________________________________________________ AEF reaction Our overall reaction to the White Paper is one of considerable disappointment. While there are some encouraging statements about protecting the local environment and communities around specific airports, the thrust of the White Paper is all about meeting the projected 150% increase in demand. There is some discussion of mitigation and compensation, but little evidence of the sort of action that is needed to prevent ever-increasing impacts. Predict and provide not demand management The underlying philosophy of the White Paper is predict and provide. The demand for air travel is forecast to be 500m passengers in 2030 with lower and higher forecasts of 400m and 600m respectively. The White Paper proposes that more intensive use is made of existing runways and that extra runways and associated facilities are provided. These would cater for a level of demand of 470m passengers, which, given the timescale and inevitable uncertainties in forecasting, effectively meets the projected demand. A particularly disappointing aspect of the White Paper is that there is no real discussion of alternative scenarios to meeting unconstrained demand. Demand management is not mentioned. The AEF and other organisations prevailed upon the Department for Transport (DfT) to undertake some additional computer modelling to show what would happen if air transport paid its full share of environmental costs and taxes. The results from the new SPASM run were dramatic: demand at 2030 would be 315m instead of 500m. The model showed that no new runways would be needed anywhere in the country. Furthermore, there would be no increase in prices for passengers (in real terms), refuting claims that people would be priced out of flying. Projected technological improvements would offset to a greater extent this lower rate of growth, more nearly stabilizing the environmental impacts. Discussion of this option was completely omitted from the revised consultation and White Paper. The economic hype The government and industry hype about the economic benefits of expansion has been continued into the White Paper. The claims about the economic benefits to business of more capacity are misleading because the great majority of the projected growth is in leisure travel. While incoming tourists are good for UK businesses, the White Paper struggles to promote this issue having admitted to the large and growing balance of payments deficit that international tourism brings to the UK. The employment hype also continues. There is no mention of the economists vital conclusion that the volume of air travel does not affect the total employment in the UK. So while there are clearly local effects as a result of airport expansion, the total number of people employed (directly or indirectly) is of very little national significance. Sustainable development The White Paper is said to .. set out a strategic and sustainable approach .. but the evidence points to .. balancing the economic benefits .. and the environmental impacts that air travel generates .. This implies that environmental issues can be traded off for claimed economic benefits, subverting the concept of sustainable development. The government department responsible for sustainable development, DEFRA, makes it clear that sustainable development requires concurrent economic, social and environmental progress. External costs - Polluter Pays There are methods of assigning an economic cost to impacts such as noise, air pollution and climate change that are not reflected in the market price. These costs, which fall on society, are termed external costs. The AEF has lobbied consistently for the industry to pay for the environmental damage it causes in accordance with the Polluter Pays Principle. The White Paper says its approach .. ensures that, over time, aviation pays the external costs its activities impose on society at large. However, there is little evidence of intent. With a few exceptions there is no clarity on how this is to be achieved. Estimates of environmental costs are quoted in the White Paper. The largest is climate change, estimated at 1.4 billion pa in 2000, rising to 4.8bn in 2030. However, there is no policy to ensure that the cost is met by the industry. All that is offered is support for an emissions trading scheme (see climate change below). The government quotes an economic cost of noise of just 25 million pa at all airports. The main reason for this low figure is that the government continues to claim that only people exposed to 57dB Leq or more are affected by noise. An AEF estimate, based on international studies, puts the cost of noise at 750m pa. Apart from air pollution, all other external costs are ignored. Noise impacts The White Paper recognises noise as a major issue and accepts that technological developments will not alone be sufficient to address the problem. It states .. our basic aim is to limit and, where possible, reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise. However, there are no specific targets or limit values (although some airports have reference noise contours). The discussion of (daytime) noise levels is entirely in terms of average noise contours (Leq dBA). While this is an internationally recognised metric, it is by no means a complete measure of noise nuisance: the AEF and several local groups called for more information on the number of noise events above a given threshold. The White Paper continues to focus on noise issues at 57dB or over. However, it is generally recognised that noise nuisance can be caused by levels well below 57dB. The World Health Organisation, for instance, recognises 50dB as a cut-off for noise nuisance (55dB for high annoyance). To implement the EU Directive on noise measurement and mapping, it is proposed that noise contours should be produced for all airports where there are more than 50,000 flights per annum (at present they are only produced on a regular basis for Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted). We believe that contours should be produced down to 50dB Leq, rather than 57dB Leq. The government 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. We support this as a broad approach although compensation is not a substitute for prevention wherever possible. It is suggested that the number of airports subject to government regulation would be increased from the current 10: we expect the underpinning principles [of the Aerodromes Regulations 2003] to be applied at all significant UK airports. The Government intends to amend Section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 .. to strengthen and clarify noise control powers both at larger commercial airports and at smaller aerodromes. It also intends .. new powers to extend these controls [1983 Act] so that they can relate to overall use of the airport, thereby enabling clearer environmental objectives to be set. At present, overall contour or similar controls may only be set voluntarily or through the planning system, which means that generally they must be directly related to a specific development .. Although the changes in legislation could be very helpful, the real issue is the governments willingness to tackle the issues at individual airports. The government already has discretionary powers which it has chosen not to use. To be effective, government must be willing to designate airports where problems persist. The White Paper suggests .. widening the use of economic instruments, including the use of differential landing charges according to noise levels .. at all airports where a significant local noise problem exists. We support this as a means of creating a real incentive for both airport operators and airlines to minimise noise. The White Paper says that .. a proportion of the large economic benefits provided by airport development should be used to mitigate their local impacts. While there is an important role for mitigation, it must be recognised that there are limits to the value of mitigation. For example, no amount of building insulation can address the problem of noise outdoors. There are a number of proposals to protect those exposed to high noise levels and which offer some encouragement. The government expects airport operators to: Offer assistance with costs of re-locating households suffering >69dB Leq Offer acoustic insulation to houses/other noise-sensitive buildings suffering >63dB Leq Offer to purchase properties which suffer >69dB and where noise will increase by 3dB Leq However, the government appears to be relying on voluntary agreements to implement these measures. We consider it essential that they are backed up by statutory powers and that minimum standards are specified. These proposals should also apply to airports with <50,000 flight threshold. The Land Compensation Act is noted as a possible means of obtaining compensation for noise. The government also expects airport operators to adopt measures to address blight. We do not consider these to go far enough: should those affected have to rely on the courts or the goodwill of airport operators to be reasonably compensated? Local air quality The policy acknowledges the mandatory EU limits for air pollution. Indeed, a third runway for Heathrow was not given the green light due to concerns about the projected levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2). While recognition of the EU Directive is welcome, there is nothing to suggest that the UK Air Quality Strategy, local Air Quality Management Areas and Action Plans will be a significant consideration at any airport. The government encourages airports to make differential charges for aircraft according to their emissions. It will bring forward legislation that will allow this to be enforced in certain cases. We strongly support the principle of emissions-related charging. Climate change The White Paper does not try to hide the significance of aviations impact on climate: Attention has become increasingly focused on the growing contribution of air transport to climate change .. by 2030 CO2 emissions from UK aviation .. could amount to about a quarter of the UKs total contribution to global warming .. It is suggested that a 50% reduction per passenger km in fuel use, and hence in greenhouse gas emissions, could be achieved by 2020. While a worthy objective, it appears hopelessly optimistic without any price signals to encourage cleaner technology. The absence of tax on international aviation fuel is recognised as anomalous, but there are no concrete proposals to create an international debate on this issue, or to introduce any market-based measure other than in respect of emissions trading. The government appears to pin all its hopes for achieving its climate change objectives on emissions trading schemes. In particular, it has stated that it will use its Presidency of the EU to propose the inclusion of emissions from intra-European aviation in the EUs trading scheme. In theory, emissions trading is the most economically efficient method of pollution control. But many NGOs believe that it could be a licence to pollute unless effectively designed and enforced. A significant omission is the reconciliation of the growth in air travel with the Energy White Paper commitments. With government acknowledging the need to make 60% cuts in CO2 emissions by 2050 relative to 1992, aviation will take an increasingly large share of the UKs CO2 budget. Other impacts There is very little mention of any environmental impacts other than aircraft noise, air pollution and climate change. The important bird habitat around the Cliffe site was cited as a significant reason for its rejection, but the other considerable impacts on wildlife, habitats and biodiversity are rarely mentioned. Third party safety, loss of countryside, loss of heritage, adverse social impacts and all the other costs imposed on society by the increase in air travel are not addressed. Surface transport The need to provide better surface transport to airports is discussed. While an intent to increase the modal share of public transport is signalled, there is no indication that this will be sufficient to prevent a large increase in road traffic in and around airports. The potential for the transfer of passengers from air to rail is mentioned, but we consider the potential for transfer to be seriously underestimated. The environmental advantages of rail over air are not mentioned. Tax A key issue for campaigners is the relative tax-free status of air travel, which underpins the high growth rates. The issue of tax is not mentioned in the White Paper, but the minister has made it clear that he will not entertain the idea of further taxes unless they are related to external costs. However, no measures to internalize costs are signalled in the White Paper.  Members will be aware of the detailed airport proposals that affect them. In outline, Stansted is proposed to have a second runway while a new runway at the industrys preferred airport, Heathrow, has been put on hold pending resolution of issues about air quality (although discussions will begin on ending the Cranford Agreement). New airports at Cliffe (Kent) and Church Lawton (Warwickshire) were rejected, but new runways were outlined for Birmingham, Glasgow and/or Edinburgh in due course. Elsewhere, improved facilities, especially terminals, will be required.  The White Paper encourages local use of noise and emissions charges at airports, but with the exception of EU emissions trading see later discussion fails to set out measures to fully address wider issues such as climate or health costs. It is acknowledged that regulatory measures can prevent or limit externalities instead of applying market-based options, but these are only suggested for a limited number of airports.  While we support the introduction of noise maps at all airports, the 50,000 movement threshold is defined in the EU Directive. /<=Rk l stĿxoxxo`oxxxoxxoj0JCJOJQJU^JCJOJQJ^JCJOJQJ^JaJOJQJmH sH 5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH CJOJQJaJmH sH CJ OJQJaJ mH sH CJaJmH sH mH sH 5>*CJOJQJ\^JaJ>*CJOJQJaJ6>*CJ8OJQJaJ8j @ >*CJUVaJ>* j>*U"/=Rk l st$a$ $1$7$8$H$a$1$7$8$H$ 1$7$8$H$`$a$:I?VWfg]^ !!9$:$|%}%=(>((9TVZVWVWfg ]^ !!!!J"""3$9$:$|%}%%T&&e'=(>(m+t+L,M,`,a,(-)- . .//!/z///a0e0f016CJH*OJQJ]^JCJH*OJQJ^Jj0JCJOJQJU^JCJOJQJ^JaJ56CJOJQJ\]^JCJOJQJ^J6CJOJQJ]^JC(()))**L,M,`,a, . .//!/"/e0f0[2\2?4@4\5]5k5l5Y7Z7 & F 8`11[2\2?4@444R5S5\5]5k5l5Y7Z7l7m7V9W9\9]9::::===>>>H?J?CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH CJOJQJ^JaJ j0JUCJaJCJH*OJQJ^JCJOJQJ^JaJCJOJQJ^J6CJOJQJ]^J!Z7l7m7V9W9\9]9:=>H?I?J? 1h/ =!"#n$Q%# 01h/ =!Q"Q#$%Dd&.N#J  C A? "2]m[PޖO9D`!1m[PޖOh~F68,#x][WYƮW[Ӭyuz% H*.F*m/ wPAPQTALȸ̷ωLEVqw9I]RI[`?&7~${x/qݿ&uaI #礤5I̾+^f`>bpf]~ U9͒h~ {>1>1h\;g1XS1wnTU|6Abb`-X@cLDm6Q6`MEkM3>hg{DS~o}bs4MP; ~y^+>7i<AD}1vWj JL'j{j8Y'0"3`[g)72K7t=Ħz7vA3 v`?"%' WTX_48')>g&6=7dH5Ydm֋˘>1nk`pV Q~/ O J[".P%f#mev)"gL~|K&޲(!A oٕŧ[c|#T`T9QBce]A~!PDޟ=NbGWw cwkSkǑLs}z!9M~  M%;WDZ}me_~`/ hhkɱ/ײ,JuK$kUoҲ>iΊ O aͶzX~[ ;LaHa Ӈ U,HGzcocjGS=N替#l;=< s%Cȅ:q:3imш(| w^ C]8TΊCgёfߞĖgěNZܿzE+,q$,/p飩0?~Of`?%5͸+5^,> i O]A{`Ye|6_r-hl z T_t+sGJl2Ga1O+B3x}t߽v;ؕ 2\Ml <®p(ΨגL[YY0v[˶8Q>\8p .wDYtdM'KRY9&"1.?a;##Sem]8)N{lV8o4{!0v/͋94&wJ!iH{ߚ03|cM_|O 㠂,s3 7zn!+dL#bGꊈ+ə2 v/[I&?81%G1Dp7$)NJyXV -<9bP䪓[8ޕj တN@ZKkEt&~ymB;ӃbWў vC>",}^XX-2q[*wprUZ]A;)r%B!9H˿Z4{˿D0&87lQ3i_NE9uXDk?:[ZHvx:Ysqg[l 6/ZSM`bki1NMjdkfU.{h.|~MM k΅Ճ֢${dr{\vLߵ ]R/{17[m3 جmO`4;9+ul )S^WtR9:bdeOZJ,)W|E/̝k>7ΈD_/VbXE=h1'BTE1I K%z*XH'c"L+3Yp)EQhvj$ڬ9`?\I/='AD@&O:̞Pv~ʣ"J:u:*Rt1&⡉)=W?"ioe wi(M:9<#˄P:t]"o-:yb;Zʊ`7Zj-/q _hE@ͶƁ#ۡO/…g7Cǃ.vZ~/{sS="s%(:3 7{jvnA{cz&tU1ėb<ܓFqYcE:2'b,̖(ԥ+c繇ROd~P:yQ Jt힨,^X%$q…^rf{d'xX)2.=OkiTxݮi _xE0KiK@/iM\!@&R( 'R7ng>\]\Y16S  ū;>]u .A"]_KXIQRPhM 4x_N6PR^&등eed9_TIRikno@xME<ݟrqrwt{-}w|F u WyNS$Ps8wx7<,D(XhJoxUUIlxTT{V$i{&?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOQkUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijRoot Entry  F,S7@Data +WordDocumentGTObjectPool  ҡS,S_1074434293=+ ҡS@sSOle ObjInfoContents8=.  Oh+'0  $0 L X d p|"Aerodrome Environmental LicensingoseroEdododoNormalmMr N Ferridayro4 NMicrosoft Word 9.0n@EZB/S-'WANGZJFIFC     C   , }!1AQa"q2#BR$3br %&'()*456789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz w!1AQaq"2B #3Rbr $4%&'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz ?K>0( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (#8ϥ-P@P@P@P@P@P@P@P@P@zMsQF,5Wߧ_Q5063kZKG"X7Q: ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ('[kG٘(p9'5.I4Qm6oA붆ѵH\TNV1==1ujQq7vݹ{XxBf O;Y CX%cHkvϣ8|X|-QԴug^n9$6ݠq jedhqJ*RWoߊ_M#Kmm1A[}8xl2çi6VtWaP@P@P@P@P@P@P@P@O..nZe|;Qn ?连+%uQ[+ƚ|%Xz)e '0ZQ(w&{}NRm+6Z5&Ihx/J[au,pZ^ēK+DpI<5i8SeR4}>#GI5?3'ҹp8Iב*DyzP@P@P@P@P@P@P@P@kG66i˺a2ug>'YU0u%5RJ oKqeυhsۘ%wI}JWXT^j(҉})!G-P@P@P@P@P@P@P@P@}y/];GC7?;va؞i*o{ <އ|x,:ΣOڑ 7^qkP#y֫keWqP@P@P@P@P@P@!8E??:uP@N( ,itƥiajnH"QقJ 싌\}/T5*+'idpL5#$kxRr3jPY`Gˋ '5k\i]D'nDk*uiջcYӝ;s\ȭLx\n`څDӴjP %HaZ:iҕWshZ dE)$lQRd者Vci]Svv8Ϧi\u6? :_?mi3qS/O[C2 ( ( ( (o⧈D`qu6DV?Ok<Ί4eZ\>rkޤA_%_1YW,%*}.ΞWdf=1sEb~8zn/9,OEŧкɤclW<9cTzsR?5]o6 iе+av\QCV0z(Q%.U> @B5͞gq>*.Y_E^OQ<}k]oy菨47ν, ﵹD?<(+'Wߢ=Wk7?>/O̒<8">Μӡ>-diM|)+~ҟmhfC^ah%bk)ԡ<0Iȯ:OT}mO>ӏ5 ^4j>k= HHs;c\+b7Y+'D)ЕHVWoˬc?/ xS̭ ;ֳB:2E7'Nו9TPZ$i?RHJ5qnWfU8x9+,¥DtV0n6oٓœ6r^i}P?n@C<gz!Rg-=Vqϝu+Z}X)`ԌzMrenVFtcNVy$>j6^JV/$,hPہ$(: |ZFfiZMVMaKKIQY];[A?JRQt6޺_Kc; |9"xn;yd,4i&gݷ{8 O$֕gXjw{N#E֫dIᯄvs #l|gRb+WHj Mtמ%knbVnBSm̄#5ɗ*jγ[=7tc!N4s>9mփ7֑m+iN>Ϲ# dN'5F*VߩJn4!Cv/|}>fկE`Sjv ܑ1gv"tS۫,5Qwm[M_Gs2h$jH8r ceN*ZƆN>_khu}ot-kX❼l|99: UwT&sK:ogWy@P@P@oG.ZL}y2 c"-qQ[gG[ %ʎn& nb};_KQ_/ChT`i xrmy %aʨ`seUf3C|cS9g}zƩn[28S+*YOyS>Y!qZ%)A[Ogc|ԡg!ωvm-nj^]M5 4X$+~'F#o_ W[,2;#\UTQxP=|e8NEgQg?<'O~*]KVc[ي;;nxl40_s+Vi^_qKKLƽ\#3-l @= `W#*nz|ٖmOYxMiSPύkO><™["ܓ0lL5ٴ>ZW}O~)x{ ^ -v~X5j^Œi_^~֣j>*-&u V(#  y$֥HӋݒ3ڌug/>OxvrxWD}֡mt 6HU:t|Ҽ/ _)I;{jTls7-C_ tO"is SRySg_O UZ/~ 'sRmㆷ-< EmY*ӣ%ҡ+vq܁S !^U,LIR?j|)׼mǝbo2mDCcU1QIK~x;ռ7' ]L.4 k 7dȮ/a ةTRZ=>GO:H]tq>3KSz6tȒ8D`|Iv]x\BP¾#MJֱo=3$uqR?&K2,vV'w^<$\OxDkِ|PqOz}hc[GyؑYH?Xl;n*ؗUZa79$xx>6[&G9qgEKOrSr~?4OG=׉Ճj>hQ 0pNd!<WUl*m;F )b]8]JŘlǴKsx҂.. 9pz,D2E-:@ ( 2H1A@ ( (co E|H"#7OA4h?ͪQP_i5G'ƞ _ GYܪp+h#'.Hv?1y.'s$9Gc$$%d|wwc)}%i72.uI9;I f9 v\9(SnȱgCX|Tl#Ͽw:#0_ٛZ91$и$rNW'6 3.OST/=M -rDG[= (Pv9g 7QE׏-q  Xo͋ۯpD쭚WancOJ_R{,O^-wSDqZX-4z.O֮{qӥug^8w:޵?y6* $H:"22NIF hx5jJU'}Ǻ~:-I~G enr~*si{FoO*t^j7o")g<:}kڬRIne w#.4>(xW2\a^$,R<,f*t'YI$mZp Cۈ֧V/Wkj4)μ齖_i^ku Yܬ~aбX'M瞾FU_¥(҂Oo߆o 8ẹi-*ϰq`SGN&SE2Ɵ4 j7,[khfc}s>^t^*U*YA^8T)Z3 ^"֭k[&+< xUskէU!}ho>"%^Go`U`x: SWuNVT9ڿ|Wo rI~-!u6ܼ%\vrhb~l}&\S(%_ W@0w`ݹ8ގ'E[VdrRG&ğz6{]%ot_\uAI,:2ltOG;51V(NǤ'_ks]ַD_629\(_\Ey8aUo_S=9kįj0qH`yGɹԃ`eq׵tfUjF9t̰tJ:xQwiR/Uى!BpֽZ j5-u(Jmfs`P@Ph4Iǚn-I_e co5Gt 9?5ZX7+ѕ W(n񥕓Xũ?1/^[^gkQtkk\MK~<_x2O^a0. eGogcK62~h mS5v.]nͣo$dniז.rp*t+Sx F<+6 ńJhup8W5"*NcjYB2z?̪J^B-"ΘbjJ[d| Ǥ/%^j ƑlCj%gF2+{g%vb&~Ṕ9J7zNbB ( px_ ֍y([ct$?PX|fZ*q?jTq}O.xX&C!~A7t{_s~7'maw;Mx_MO8*玾G<ݖ|7u?+#v׾!&[Qr<ۖڈ>jcܓ1֌uTᬯ=v|G6IefODV*Q_aRO_g7YDeVԴ<`6=Jƃ]T{JҒ.q+gBgLiyrnG{pXa&ݮx ml|ixK: HWlT:qJEjHQ(xS MVTd>UV׊㥙֫^7^dtKNϏA<‘h uR.5k;cJ.=\(v_X(|k_DTƾ Kь<ůSԔhOhJm>5i:rdȧyg_hwᏌz8K:/|W"u'cy_۳Kb3þ'uZizFw:ծfCԮNs3US^Tw&4iTrX _i ''n5Yc.Y ]Hԟ(=vu!_Nɝ:3K{z.SᎷ3R<fvkqwhmYP8r1ʑ^ 1PdQЕGI'[~7c}Cmgu$Ym#3LֶSSx(Þrm'MAi&?xI NX\,heEF#:-Oᅗ||1\N\3 hߌ " wcUq2SJW4迦8QU9C_ |9{^' "&N|9sMX^OKiEJ4ZGGo/zW~xW[,ZYo0H3`6[xxUSK=3UÞ? 8{hO%0(ѝrW=CϭwET&&iTqǟyP@(J A @{W jV"%ڷ3HNGm }ISFN>qV{_O}ǤvX`M+ï(OJ.M17`kZ!6rѨe*BNO JT}VrG8WzDeDP2HʓЌڸ?('?yNŘ%9$5ax]]WB6$l7G2g;{v5z䨿R:2>nM5܁=2~fd㘫{3ۃTGŭ-M}֐ɠ9Be?|uW?eSrZFp!gױG G8կRFc.y+yS.rQ]O~']|6+դqwnyf+1jRϣQ謏mw,,u{Xon,d2G vFNx ½%^ݮmJü{+߈~,uF8㹽e-Y؀(P<QBp8삭GVNoOFjtMkKEK[J6 1@@'9²ƤBn7SŹAFQNo_5ZƯymYlyqW70ڶ`㉌bVgCɴr;!v,̲`>X$E,[M2R^EwO^h4>5쎡v.^S, :}5ڧ8c+Ƌ>'5=kN#/?/Zb0ӔEC'$9x^5Ilquk+HHH:!5^ktƝGNj=Z?ږ+Kw.o.f$`BI352ڏԜ~ |jO^hIYj* x!^2cE? jZfJ tسMł F'0e-B)J1#QOV k@1^ |RpHbr1U}aqvvbt+> GhB¶83;Y1簢u.i0_ Uo2CxZ=X+mF>q޹pRϩJSti7Oj!5쁖 U (U Q{Y7]@P@P@P@P@쿲Wſmf8ciങ$++{*yhzX*|yCguP@P@P@P@P@P@P@P@P@e~>H&)CWuIoʾK7UR]?SCs6$klimݡA?07谔}y8֣C( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (O +@{8)+h\n]ղi?6Ys;¾G cWw#߯/X+Ϟ ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (Q||gwIYF~2>B6r71pGv4?jO㿉sZZi(6p?+ɟ޸ -7{_+WT=^P@P@P@P@P@P@P@P@@/(o%{hW-^)< *t?)괯# ,I$y$'ֽ P@P@P@P@P@P@P@P@P)e{ ĐGt6&_t 3wS%udˋWVu I4?c;PaXJNoEZ ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( {:~=;2Pqֹv}\BDga($;Қ^*(^;ͩy쩼XMmUஆܡZ< V&kMAW+`7WNdK*_X&c4Er'y4>H8( +@C4Nt:bϕQcGWǑQ2zaJTiEY~V:x'tײ ƞMx5\=QOqq˹2|0)VlO MZz%##{8]y,--/#3h~g3-)|&Ppe'QP 玔|Ϲ $ѦGo#'2OOfCLX:|9$gEׅؿL$>lQ%Q_޴~Ŗ؆=9,obN-} ˚Dzh&Υv>1sMOyi[:|"mxV|Qٓ>%'vUX[*=v,ioe>lfϔv+Bl} K8L*.Y_/wR2@4Uld*w {ܰ3Ў&o["ť񾋞QDVmo=n`o`olf`o`ol/{m7iRؿC\1TableT-SummaryInformation( DocumentSummaryInformation8 8CompObjj> @&*@(@ 9?- ՜.+,0 hp|  AEF`7 "Aerodrome Environmental Licensing Title  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWo i8@8 NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH H@H Heading 1$$@&a$5CJOJQJ\^JB@B Heading 2$@&5CJOJQJ\^J<A@< Default Paragraph Font.>@. Title$a$ 5>*\@O@ Default Text1$7$8$H$mH sH 6@6  Footnote TextCJaJ8&@!8 Footnote ReferenceH*B2 Body TextF$d%d&d'dNOPQ5CJOJQJ\^J"W@A" Strong5\:P@R: Body Text 2CJOJQJ^JVJ;;hkJ;T"T/=Rkls t VWfg]^ 9 : |!}!=$>$$(%%%&&L(M(`(a( * *++!+"+e,f,[.\.?0@0\1]1k1l1Y3Z3l3m3V5W5\5]569:H;K;000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000000@0@0@0 01J?"&((Z7J?#%')I?$J;:o|wSVWZ~ks""###%&%~%%%%--e/i/00 223466687@7?8E8K;  Zc}  HLMO( 7 !!!!!""""""&&++++,,//12336;;K;3333333333333333333333333333333%%qr ]]ii{ | } ~ n M(a($)*)S)S))))))))*11R2X22234D4D4E4K45555556666689F;G;K;TimNicNic Mr N Ferriday Mr N FerridayNic$H:\Users\Nic\whitepaperbriefing3.docNicjC:\Documents and Settings\Nic\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of whitepaperbriefing3.asdNicjC:\Documents and Settings\Nic\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of whitepaperbriefing3.asdNic$H:\Users\Nic\whitepaperbriefing3.doc Mr N Ferriday5C:\My Documents\AirNat\Policy\whitepaperbriefing3.doc%`?~NLba xw<| fgT^XG Yxdqbäh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(^`OJPJQJ^Jo(-h pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(808^8`0o(()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.h^`OJPJQJ^Jo(-   ^ `OJQJo(o   ^ `OJQJo( xx^x`OJQJo( HH^H`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(h88^8`.h^`.h L ^ `L.h  ^ `.hxx^x`.hHLH^H`L.h^`.h^`.hL^`L.w<%`qbXG Yba fgT?          "                 $L!        ۪X                                   @2222J;P@UnknownG:Times New Roman5Symbol3& :Arial?& Arial Black?5 :Courier New;Wingdings"qhxSFTZfSFU?-`+.c!Q20d76 3QH!Aerodrome Environmental LicensingEd Mr N FerridayrdDocWord.Document.89q