Land‑use Administration
6.1 General
6.1.1 The technical factors
which form the basis of all methods used to evaluate total aircraft noise
exposure are not the only factors to be taken into account for the purpose of
land‑use control in the vicinity of airports. It is recognized that
economic factors are involved when determining compatible land uses. For this
reason, the authorities, local or central, The ECAA have an important part to
play in ensuring that aircraft noise exposure is taken into account when
planning land use in the vicinity of airports and that the ensuing plans are
fully implemented.
6.1.2 There are many
techniques for regulating development or bringing about conversion or
modification of existing land uses to achieve greater compatibility between the
airport and its environs. Some of these may be controls, such as zoning or
building and housing codes; other methods influence development through
acquisition or taxation. Experience has shown that any attempt to control land
use through easements and purchases is extremely expensive and cannot be
considered as a solution to the entire aircraft noise problem. A more practical
approach is the adoption of proper land‑use planning and zoning. Zoning,
however, is limited in its ability to effect changes around existing airports
located in developed areas. Land use can be controlled more effectively when
zoning is applied to new airports and existing airports in still undeveloped
areas.
6.1.3 Unfortunately, local
land development decisions are often made based on considerations which may
ignore both the need to minimize the impact of aviation noise on the community
and the importance of protecting the airport from encroachment by incompatible
development. The most common local issues are the return that the owners or
developers want from their properties, the local government's interest in
increasing the tax base, and the interest of the residents in maintaining or
improving the value of their homes. For the airport environs, the cumulative
total of such
local decisions can
seriously degrade a balanced, comprehensive planning approach and development
policy. The desired goal is for effective land‑use planning and controls,
based on objective criteria, to minimize the amount of noise‑sensitive
development close to airports, while allowing for other productive uses of the
land.
6.2 Land‑Use Control Systems
6.2.1 Introduction
Various measures are available for
controlling the use of land around airports. The effectiveness of these
measures for both existing and new airports should be considered on a case‑by‑case
basis. Based on a survey of land‑use measures and policies in the countries
Egypt reviewed, it can
be stated that no single strategy prevails over other strategies in dealing
with this issue. While land‑use control and noise-insulation measures are generally
transferable from one place to another, the selection of a particular measure
or measures over others and the precise manner in which any measure is
formulated, applied and financed depend to a great extent on specific national
and local circumstances. Overall, land‑use control measures can be
categorized as:
(a) planning instruments, including comprehensive
planning, noise zoning, subdivision regulations, transfer of development
rights, and easement acquisition;
(b) mitigating instruments, including building
codes, noise insulation programmes, land acquisition and relocation,
transaction assistance, real estate disclosure, and noise barriers; and
(c) financial instruments, including capital
improve merits, tax incentives and noise‑related airport charges.
6.2.2 Planning Instruments Comprehensive
Planning
6.2.2.1 Comprehensive
planning takes into account existing development and ensures that future
development is compatible with various community goals. In Egypt most
countries, the land‑use planning and control authority rests with local governmental bodies, which may be
obliged or advised to take into account aviation noise measures.
6.2.2.2 A well worked‑out
comprehensive plan that is used effectively to guide local land‑use
decisions and development controls (e.g. zoning, capital improvements planning,
subdivision regulations, and environmental review) is among the most powerful
and affordable of all compatibility strategies. This is particularly true in
still developing areas, but it can also be highly effective in guiding urban
renewal or redevelopment. The success of such comprehensive planning depends
upon its appropriate implementation through various developmental decisions and
controls.
6.2.2.3 As a land‑use
control system in relation to airports, comprehensive planning is applied in
varying degrees in all the countries surveyed. This strategy appears to be a
valuable instrument that is transferable to other countries.
Noise Zoning
6.2.2.4 Noise zoning for
land use serves a two‑fold purpose: the protection of the airport and the
protection of the residents. It can be applied to existing airports as well as
to future airport development. Zoning should take into account anticipated
future airport development so that when airport development takes place,
interference to the vicinity will be minimal.
6.2.2.5 Noise zoning
enables a national or local government to define the uses for each parcel of
land, depending on the level of noise exposure. It generally consists of a
zoning ordinance which specifies land development and use constraints, based
on certain noise exposure levels. The noise contours extending outward from the
airport delineate areas affected by different ranges of noise exposure. No uses
other than those specified for a particular area should be permitted.
6.2.2.6 A single authority
should have overall responsibility for developing land‑use criteria for
use and development area Local
zoning of an and land use should be
consistent with these criteria, and the authority should be empowered to make
amendments to ensure consistency.
6.2.2.7 Such a single‑
authority approach may overcome the problem of multi- Jurisdictional interests in the airport environs
which has sometimes prevented effective zoning. This of course involves the
transfer of zoning powers to some higher governmental level, such as an area
wide planning agency or the State, with the designated public agency exercising
the authority to ensure compatibility between
airports and their neighbours. Local jurisdictions with zoning power (cities,
towns or larger administrative units) have rarely taken effective zoning action
needed to alleviate the problem of multi-jurisdictional interests, because a given airport often affects several
jurisdictions and the coordination of zoning is difficult. Moreover, zoning has
proven extremely vulnerable to development pressures and local politics.
Another problem is that the interests of the affected communities are not
always consistent with the needs and interests of the airport operator nor with
those of each other. Within each community, there is usually a desire for a
larger tax base, population growth, and rising land values, and these goals are
often in conflict with the need to preserve the airport environs for "non‑sensitive"
activities.
6.2.2.8 Noise zoning can
and should be used constructively to increase the value and productivity of the
affected land. One of the primary advantages of zoning is that it may be used
to promote land‑use compatibility, while still leaving land in private
ownership, on the tax rolls, and as economically productive as possible.
6.2.2.9 Zoning is not
necessarily permanent and may be changed, although this may be difficult in
some countries because of the local legal system. Zoning is usually not
retroactive. Changing zoning primarily for the purpose of prohibiting a use
which is already in effect is generally not possible. Where such zoning is
allowed, an existing use may be allowed to remain as "nonconforming"
until a later date when it is changed voluntarily to a conforming use. For this
reason, zoning is most effective at airports that have not yet felt the impact
of buildings. Furthermore, the proposed use of vacant land must be related to
the market demand for the proposed activities, such as commerce or industry.
6.2.2.10 Noise zoning
around airports is applied in nearly all the surveyed countries
as a physical planning measure to prevent new noise‑sensitive
developments near the airport. However, it is sometimes only applied to the
larger or national airport(s). Ideally, noise zoning should be established for
all airports.
Subdivision Regulation
6.2.2.11 Noise zoning
ordinances may include subdivision regulations. These regulations may serve as
a guide to development in noise‑impacted areas by reducing building
exposure through orientation and density transfer and by providing open‑space
requirements.
6.2.2.12 Subdivision
regulations on their own can be useful in minimizing noise impacts on new
development. They would not affect existing development. By means of
restrictive covenants, the owner is legally notified that the property is
subject to noise from aircraft operations. Additionally, a covenant could
require buildings to be designed and constructed in such a way as to minimize
interior sound derived from exterior noise sources to the acceptable level.
This strategy is applied in Canada, Lithuania, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
Poland, and some parts of the United States.
Transfer of Development
Rights
6.2.2.13 Under this
concept, some of the development rights of a property are transferred to
another property that is far from the airport where the fights may be used to
intensify the level of allowable development. Landowners could be compensated
for the transferred rights by the sale of these fights at new locations or the
purchase of the rights by the airport. Depending upon the market conditions
and/or legal requirements, the airport could either hold or resell the fights.
6.2.2.14 The transfer of
development rights must be fully coordinated with a community's planning and
zoning. It may be necessary for zoning ordinances to be amended in order to
permit the transfer of development rights. Such transfers are usually effected
within a single jurisdiction. In the United States, some experience has been
gained in working with airport operators on the use of this instrument.
Lithuania also mentioned this as a useful instrument. However, its
transferability to other countries depends upon the prevailing legal systems.
Easement Acquisition
6.2.2.15 An easement
confers the right to use a landowner's property for a limited purpose. In the
context of airport noise‑compatibility planning, two general types of
easements are available:
(a) those which permit noise over land; and
(b) those which prevent the establishment or continuation
of noise‑sensitive uses on the subject property.
6.2.2.16 For maximum
effectiveness, easements should restrict the use of land to that which is
compatible with aircraft noise levels. Easements should also ensure the fight
of flight over the property, the fight to create noise and the fight to
prohibit future height obstructions into airspace. Restrictions that may be
addressed by such easements include types of buildings, types of agricultural
activity that may attract birds, electromagnetic interference, and light
emissions.
6.2.2.17 The first type of
easement described in 6.2.2.5.1 a), which simply buys the right to make noise
over the land, has fewer advantages. It does nothing to change the noise‑sensitive
character of the land or to reduce noise for people on the property. However,
it does legally protect the airport operator from noise litigation, financially
compensates property owners for noise, and wares potential buyers that a
property is subject to aircraft noise.
6.2.2.18 The second type of
easement described in 6.2.2.5.1 b) can be a highly effective strategy for
ensuring compatible development around airports in situations where land is
being developed for the first time or is being redeveloped in connection with a
land acquisition and relocation strategy or general urban redevelopment
programme. The easement has the advantage of being permanent. It is less costly
than outright purchase of land (if the land has not otherwise been purchased)
and it allows the land to remain in private ownership, in productive use, and
on local tax rolls. This latter type of easement is used most frequently in the
United States in combination with noise insulation. Such easements are often
required by airport owners in exchange for noise insulation. Easements are
possibly amenable to transfer to other countries, depending on the le al s stem.
6.2.3 Mitgating Instruments Building Codes
6.2.3.1 Minimum structural
construction techniques and material standards often determine whether changes
in current standards or the adoption of new standards can increase the interior
noise‑reduction levels of residential or commercial structures in noise‑impacted
areas. Building codes are essentially a legal means of requiring the incorporation
of adequate sound insulation in new construction. Any noise‑insulation strategy depends
upon a closed‑in structure for maximum effectiveness, and this in turn
usually raises the issues of adequate ventilation and air conditioning in warm
weather Building codes are usually applied in most countries.
Noise Insulation Programmes
6.2.3.2 Noise insulation
can lower interior noise levels for structures that cannot reasonably be
removed from noise exposed
areas (e.g. residential buildings). Noise insulation is particularly effective
for commercial buildings, including offices and hotels. However, it is much
more desirable to control insulation requirements for such buildings from the
outset, if they must indeed be constructed in noise‑exposed areas. While
there may be difficulties in getting sound insulation requirements incorporated
in building codes for new construction, these are slight compared with the problems of effective sound‑proofing
for existing buildings, particularly housing. Even if houses in high‑noise
areas were made of stonework, insulation and air conditioning may cost more
than the value of the additional rent or sales' prices. The degree of
insulation requirements varies from country to country. In some countries the
acceptable level of interior noise is prescribed by legislation. (An example of
soundproofing recommendations submitted by France is given in Table (6‑1.)
6.2.3.3 A noise‑insulation
programme should be preceded by a structural and acoustical
survey of all homes and other buildings car‑marked for noise insulation.
The cost of noise insulation can range from the equivalent in U.S. dollars of
$2 000 to $50 000 per dwelling, depending upon several variables, such as the
degree of insulation required (from insulating the attic only to insulating all
exterior walls and ceilings and upgrading doors and windows), size and
condition of the building, and location within the noise‑exposure area.
6.2.3.4 For effective noise
insulation, it is necessary to have a closed‑window condition, which may
not be desirable to homeowners in all seasons and which imposes additional
ongoing costs to homeowners for climate‑control systems. The major
drawback to noise insulation is that it does nothing to mitigate noise
outdoors. This drawback however does not apply as much to schools, hotels,
commercial structures, or even large apartment buildings, because they are
frequently constructed with a closed‑window condition and their
activities usually take place indoors.
6.2.3.5 Insulation
programmes for noise‑affected dwellings around airports (mostly in
coordination with noise zoning) are applied in: Australia, Denmark, France,
Germany, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, Latvia, New Zealand, Norway, Poland,
Republic of Korea, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United
States.
6.2.3.6 Noise insulation
appears to be transferable to other countries. However, in Greece and Italy,
for example, noise insulation is not considered to be an adequate measure due
to the warm climate which leads people to leave their windows open.
Land Acquisition and
Relocation
6.2.3.7 This strategy
involves the acquisition of land through purchase by the airport operator (or planning
authority ministry of planning in case of new developments) and the relocation
from the acquired land of residences and businesses that are not compatible
with airport‑generated noise levels. This strategy is within the direct
control of the airport operator (or planning authority)
and does not require additional action by another political entity.
6.2.3.8 Land
acquisition and relocation assure an airport of long‑term land‑use
compatibility. Acquired land can be cleared, sold with casements (to control
future development), and redeveloped for compatible land uses. However, this
strategy is not a practical solution to the total noise problem because it is
costly and socially disruptive to buy all significantly noise‑impacted
land.
Table 6‑1. Soundproofing recommendations in
France
|
|
Zone A |
Zone B |
Zone C |
Immediately outside of Zone C |
|
Housing buildings exceptionally accepted |
45 dB(A) |
40 dB(A) |
35 dB(A) |
30 dB(A) |
|
Premises used for teaching and caring |
47 dB(A) |
40 dB(A) |
35 dB(A) |
35 dB(A) |
|
Premises used as offices, hotels, etc |
45 dB(A) |
40 dB(A) |
35 dB(A) |
35 dB(A) |
6.2.3.9
Land acquisition and relocation have been widely used in the United States by
airport operators as the ultimate solution to land‑use compatibility in
certain areas with significant noise exposure. In Australia, Brazil, France,
Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, Latvia, Poland, Republic of Korea,
Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, this strategy has also been applied in
relation to new airport development and special cases.
Transaction Assistance
6.2.3.10 Transaction
assistance involves some level of financial and technical assistance to a
homeowner who is trying to sell a noise‑impacted property. It may involve
paying realtors' fees. In extreme cases, an airport actually buys properties
which have been on the market for an extended period of time and then resells
them. In order to become compatible with noise levels, the properties are noise‑insulated
prior to resale and usually resold with an casement. This strategy can be
useful in areas where it has been decided that existing residential neighbourhoods
will be maintained. It can also be less expensive than other acquisition
strategies. Home owners are sometimes given a choice of noise
insulation/easement or transaction assistance. These choices enable those
people most annoyed by noise to leave the area and prevent the airport
authorities or developers from having to buy out everyone.
6.2.3.11
Transaction assistance is a comparatively new programme in the United States.
It has not yet been comprehensively evaluated as a strategy in comparison to
noise insulation/easement alone. It does appear, however, to offer more
flexibility to property owners. Transaction assistance is also applied in
Australia and in some European countries, e.g. Germany (around Dusseldorf
Airport) and the Netherlands.
Real Estate Disclosure
6.2.3.12 The preparation of
real estate disclosure notices is a common practice in cases where
environmental regulations and issues affect development. Identification of the
aviation noise impact on real estate may foster an awareness of
airport/community relationships and serve notice to prospective buyers of
potential disturbances caused by aircraft noise.
6.2.3.13 Incumbent property
owners and realtors are often opposed to real estate disclosure because it
makes it more difficult to sell noise‑impacted property. It does not
reduce the noise impact or the non‑compatible land use. Instead, it may
deter buyers who are the most sensitive to noise. Still, real estate disclosure
ensures that a buyer who purchases a noise‑impacted property is fully
aware of the property's noise condition so that the buyer does not become a
noise complainant or noise litigant in the future.
6.2.3.14
The strategy is used in the United States, sometimes in combination with an
casement or an appropriate release with respect to noise from the buyer. The
advantages of this strategy are its relatively low cost and its retention of
otherwise viable residential areas. Real estate disclosure with respect to noise
impact appears to be transferable to other countries.
Noise Barriers
6.2.3.15 Noise barriers
consist of earthen berms or man‑made barriers on the ground which are
located between sources of loud ground‑level noise at the airport and
very close‑in, noise‑sensitive receptors. Noise barriers must be
both structured and positioned accurately to provide any meaningful relief.
They are of limited use at airports except for ground‑running operations,
etc. and do not mitigate in‑flight noise. However, they do appear to have
a psychological benefit ‑ people tend to hear less noise if they don't
see the aircraft on the ground or the maintenance facility that is the source
of the noise. It is also particularly beneficial to install earthen berms for
visual appeal. A proper positioning of airport buildings can also function as a
noise screen for adjacent communities.
6.2.3.16
Noise barriers are used in Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the
United States, as well as in many other countries in specific cases.
6.2.4 Financial Instruments
Capital
Improvements Planning
6.2.4.1 Development can be stimulated or discouraged by the presence or
absence of an infrastructure network, which typically includes roads and utilities (power, gas, water and
sewer). Other community facilities and services, such as schools, police, and fire
service, also tend to promote development. Capital city improvements can be
planned in order to locate infrastructure in areas where industrial and
commercial growth would be compatible. This strategy can also discourage
certain types of growth, such as residential development, from areas that are
deemed incompatible for such use. Similarly, the capital improvements programme
can be developed to encourage noise‑tolerant land uses with appropriate
types, size, and locations of infrastructure in the noise‑impacted areas.
6.2.4.2 This strategy may
be appropriate for directing new development or extensive urban redevelopment.
It is however not useful when the impacted areas are fairly well developed and
already have adequate infrastructure. There may also be legal impediments to
using this strategy when infrastructure improvements are required as part of
the development plan. The strategy is applied in Latvia, Poland, Republic of
Korea, Spain, and in some parts of the United States.
6.2.4.3 Capital
improvements planning, to the extent that it is useful, may be amenable to
transfer to other countries, particularly developing countries.
Tax Incentives.
6.2.4.4 Tax incentive
programmes are often used to promote noise‑insulation improvements. The
strategy is to provide tax incentives to existing incompatible uses in order to
encourage structural improvements which would reduce interior noise levels.
6.2.4.5 Additional tax
incentive programmes may be instituted by governmental bodies as a means of
redeveloping specific areas. For instance, a designated blighted zone or
foreign trade zone can be a catalyst for redevelopment.
6.2.4.6 Various tax
incentives, such as reduction or elimination of property taxes, may also be
introduced (usually to private industry) to encourage relocation or expansion
of industry as a means to increase the local ad valorem tax base or to diversify
the local economy.
6.2.4.7 Tax reduction or
differential tax assessment can be offered as incentives for development in
specific
areas. For example,
development of noise‑tolerant uses in areas subject to higher noise
levels can be encouraged, which may consequently discourage other noise‑sensitive
uses. Industrial development is particularly sensitive to taxation systems and
is more affected by taxation than residential or commercial development. This
type of strategy typically requires input and support from the local economic
development agency in terms of designation of areas, and planning and zoning
coordination with regard to compatibility and appropriate zoning issues.
6.2.4.8 In Canada and the
United States, this strategy is applied in some cases, but the value of tax
incentives for compatible land‑use purposes has not been evaluated. There
is also little information regarding its use and effectiveness. In some other
countries (e.g. the Netherlands), the housing tax depends on the location of
the house and the quality of its environs. Noise and less attractive
surroundings would thus imply a lower level of the housing tax.
Noise‑related Airport
Charges
6.2.4.9 Noise‑related
airport charges may be levied by airports with noise problems in order to
recover the costs incurred for the alleviation or prevention of noise. The
costs recovered should not exceed the costs incurred. The application of noise‑related
charges should follow the principles for such charges developed by ICAO ECAA
and contained in the ICAO's Policies on Charges for Airports and Air Navigation
Services (Doc 9082), paragraph 21. There are various systems of noise‑related
airport charges. One system divides all aircraft into several categories
according to the noise production and determines the airport charge. Another
system returns part of the landing fee if the aircraft meets certain noise
criteria. A third system levies extra noise charges on top of the normal
landing fee based on the noise production of the aircraft. In some countries,
extra charges are levied on night operations because of the additional
disruption during night hours.
6.2.4.10 There may be
competitive implications for noise charges, either between airports or States ECAA
. Noise‑related charges are applied at some, if not all, airports in
Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Latvia, Norway,
Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.