Chapter 2Impacts of aircraft noise
2.1As an island nation, with a geographically dispersed population, Australia relies heavily on aviation transport to move people and goods across the country and internationally. Regional and remote parts of Australia are especially reliant on aviation, with food and groceries, medical supplies, essential services, mail, and consumer goods generally flown in through regional airports, then trucked to remote areas from regional hubs. Some remote areas are only accessible by plane.
2.2Noise is an unavoidable byproduct of aviation. Aircraft noise impacts people and communities in a variety of different ways and may impact some people more than others.
2.3This chapter begins by summarising international evidence on the health and social impacts of aircraft noise and outlining international approaches to restricting noise impacts. It then looks at evidence from inquiry participants—including aviation industry stakeholders, academics and noise-affected residents—outlining impacts on physical and mental health, as well as social, financial and environmental impacts.
2.4The committee acknowledges that, for those who are most affected by aircraft noise, these impacts can lead to significant distress. The committee thanks all of the individuals who made submissions and gave evidence during the inquiry to assist the committee in understanding these effects.
2.5The committee also acknowledges that people who work in the aviation industry are impacted by the debate around the noise. These impacts are considered in this chapter.
2.6The chapter finishes by outlining data on noise complaints and considering possible directions for future research.
Academic research and international approaches
2.7Academic research indicates that aircraft noise exposure is associated with a range of negative effects on physical and mental health. Exposure to aircraft noise can trigger psychological responses, such as annoyance and disturbance, as well as physiological responses such as activation of the cardiovascular system and the release of stress hormones. According to recent European research, chronic exposure to aircraft noise can put people into a continuous state of stress, which limits their ability to recover from the effects of the noise.
Figure 2.1The effects of noise on different organ systems and mental health
Source: Omar Hahad et. al, Noise and mental health: evidence, mechanisms and consequences, Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 26 January 2024.
2.8A 2011 World Health Organisation (WHO) study into the health impacts of environmental noise, including aircraft noise, found significant evidence that noise caused an increased burden of disease in terms of disability-adjusted life years. It was estimated that over one million healthy life years were lost every year in Europe from environmental noise. This included 61 000 years for ischaemic heart disease, 45 000 years for cognitive impairment in children, 903 000 years for sleep disturbance, 22000years for tinnitus, and 587 000 years for 'annoyance' in the European Union Member States and other western European countries.
2.9A United States (US) Department of Health study on the health effects of environmental noise, including aircraft noise, identified several impacts on physical and mental health, including sleep disturbance, cardiovascular disease, cognition, anxiety and depression.
2.10Contemporary research indicates that aircraft noise impacts mental health through several different pathways, and that noise-related sleep disturbance is strongly linked to mental health problems, including anxiety and depression. Annoyance caused by aircraft noise contributes to stress, which may cause or exacerbate mental health issues. Chronic exposure to uncontrollable stressors such as aircraft noise may also produce 'learned helplessness' and increase vulnerability to mental health problems.
2.11In July 2016 the European Commission published a summary of a report that examined the impact of aircraft noise over 55 decibels on wellbeing. It found that living within 'a daytime aircraft noise path (with noise at or above 55decibels) … was negatively associated with all measures of subjective wellbeing'.
2.12The Aviation Environment Foundation, a United Kingdom (UK) non-government organisation (NGO) campaigning on aviation's impact on people and the environment, found that exposure to aircraft noise can lead to short-term responses such as sleep disturbance, annoyance, and impairment of learning in children, while long-term exposure is associated with increased risk of high blood pressure, heart disease, heart attack, stroke, dementia, and may contribute to long-term mental health issues.
2.13A study by researchers at the Boston University School of Public Health and Oregon State University found that people who were exposed to aircraft noise levels of 45 decibels or more were more likely to be obese, with the highest risks linked to noise levels above 55 decibels.
2.14Inquiry participants noted there is a paucity of recent Australian research into the impacts of aircraft noise. One study—The health effects of environmental noise—was commissioned by the Commonwealth Department of Health and published in 2018 (2018 Health Department Study). However, the study did not include undertaking primary research in Australia. Instead, it consisted of 'a systematic review of international evidence on the influence of environmental noise on sleep, cardiovascular disease and cognitive outcomes'.
Mitigating health impacts
2.15To mitigate health impacts, the WHO has established environmental noise guidelines based on a systematic review of evidence. According to these guidelines, the average recommended sound level for aircraft noise is 45decibels, reducing to 40 decibels at night. The WHO recommends that mitigation measures be taken to meet these guidelines, including adapting the opening and closing times of runways and rearranging flight paths.
2.16While some inquiry participants supported the WHO's guidelines, Airservices Australia (Airservices) questioned the evidential basis for the WHO's recommendations, citing alternative research that recommends noise levels be limited to 55 decibels during the day and 50 decibels at night. Airservices also noted that 'no countries have adopted into legislation, regulation, or guidance material the WHO Guidelines for Environmental Noise for the European Region'.
Evidence from noise-affected individuals and communities
2.17Inquiry participants provided substantial evidence, including personal testimony and results of community surveys, about the effects of aircraft noise. Communities most impacted by aircraft noise encouraged the committee to understand 'how debilitating aircraft noise can be for some people's wellbeing, mental health and general amenity'.
Health impacts
2.18Brimbank City Council discussed a wide range of ways in which aircraft noise impacts the physical and mental health of affected individuals and communities, saying:
Aircraft noise is one of the most detrimental side effects of aviation. The effect of aircraft noise on affected communities is not just limited to annoyance and sleep disturbance, but includes impacts such as anxiety, depression, heart disease and cognitive impairment as well as poorer educational outcomes in children.
Cardiovascular disease
2.19According to the WHO, when people are exposed to aircraft noise, a stress response activates the nervous and endocrine systems. This produces changes in blood pressure, heart rate, and blood flow, while levels of stress hormones increase.
2.20Engineer, Dr Eric Ancich, reported on a major German study (2010) which involved an epidemiological survey of over one million residents around Cologne airport. Dr Ancich reported that the study found 'statistically significant increases in adverse health effects, particularly in relation to cardiovascular disease'.
2.21The 2018 Health Department Study concluded that exposure to aircraft noise is significantly associated with cardiovascular issues, including hypertension, increased blood pressure, hospitalisations for cardiovascular diseases, use of medications for hypertension and other cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular mortality.
2.22A number of submitters cited an increase in heart problems which they believe is related to aircraft noise.
Annoyance
2.23Many submitters told the committee about the annoyance caused by aircraft noise. According to the WHO, people annoyed by noise may experience a range of negative impacts, including anger, disappointment, dissatisfaction, withdrawal, helplessness, depression, anxiety, distraction, agitation or exhaustion and these impact their general health.
2.24Fareeha Ibrahim, a resident of Albany Creek—a suburb approximately 14kilometres from Brisbane Airport—highlighted the stress and annoyance caused by aircraft noise:
Trying to concentrate and meet work deadlines with relentless aircraft noise at all hours of the day and night is incredibly stressful… The noise generated and high numbers of low-flying aircraft that I've experienced is nerve-shattering. Any relaxation, indoors or outdoors, at my home will be interrupted by the high frequency and/or low-altitude of aircraft… To be experiencing this level of aircraft noise impact when I don't even live in close proximity to any airport, is just extraordinary… To describe this noise pollution as an 'annoyance', as AA describes aircraft noise on its website, massively understates the impact—this situation far exceeds 'annoyance'. It is more accurately described as an assault on the mental and physical health and well-being of affected residents.
Sleep disturbance
2.25A major concern for noise-impacted submitters was the sleep disturbance caused by aircraft noise.
2.26A resident of Blackheath argued that allowing Western Sydney International (WSI) to operate 24 hours a day will have a severe impact on sleep for Blue Mountains and Western Sydney residents, with consequential effects on mood, energy levels, work performance, driver fatigue, aging and longevity.
2.27Brimbank City Council cited the results of a health risk assessment for noise from the proposed expansion of Melbourne Airport. Community responses indicated that noise from aircraft take-offs and landings is causing sleep disturbance and increased levels of stress and anxiety in the impacted community, which are expected to worsen with the proposed airport expansion.
2.28Resident of Wallacia, NSW, Ms Bernadeta Cansdell submitted that the elderly, children, shift workers and people who suffer ill health are particularly vulnerable to noise-related sleep disturbance. Repeated exposure to aircraft noise impairs sleep quality through delaying sleep and early waking, less deep sleep, and more time spent awake. Short-term effects of noise-induced sleep disturbance include impaired mood, increased daytime sleepiness, and impaired cognitive performance.
2.29Dr Amelia Hagger told the committee that the impact of aircraft noise from Hobart Airport on her sleep patterns had forced her to sell her family home of three generations and move, saying:
On one particular occasion in May 2022, I was woken suddenly from a deep sleep by a deafening roar and the room filled with lights from an aircraft. We are off grid so there's no ambient light. Due to this sudden high-alert disturbance, I experienced palpitations and felt panic, assuming a plane was going to crash into the bluff.
Cognitive impairment
2.30Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance (BFPCA) submitted that there were 50 schools across Brisbane under low level flight paths. BFPCA cited research over two decades indicating that excessive, prolonged aircraft noise slows children's cognitive development and reading skills by 10 per cent, and may have negative lifelong effects. In response to community surveys, some parents reported that their children were not doing as well at school, their progress in learning new skills had slowed, and their test results were lower than before. BFPCA also noted the financial impacts of slower learning, if children needed to repeat a course or year of study.
2.31Brimbank Local Council submitted that epidemiological studies have found that aircraft noise has a significant impact on children's cognitive development, particularly in relation to reading and oral comprehension.
2.32A teacher living near Melbourne Airport submitted that noisy schools provide very poor conditions for learning, with the WHO suggesting that classroom noise levels not exceed 35 decibels. Quiet learning environments are particularly important for neurodiverse students, students with language difficulties, and students learning in a second language. Classrooms impacted by aircraft noise are frustrating for teachers and students alike, causing negative impacts on motivation, emotions and performance. Noise also disrupts good language development that students need to think, recall, plan, problem solve and engage with others.
2.33Melbourne Airport Community Aviation Consultation Group proposed that added emphasis be placed on the effect of aircraft noise on schools, identifying a multitude of schools, childcare centres and other academic institutions that are directly impacted by aircraft noise related to Melbourne Airport.
2.34Responses to aircraft noise may disrupt family units. Samford Area Aircraft Action Group described families where children were living away from the family home in order to be able to sleep and study for high school and university exams.
Mental health impacts
2.35Community Aviation Alliance Australia (CAAA) submitted that noise from the current operations of Melbourne Airport is causing sleep disturbance and increased levels of stress, anxiety and depression, which are expected to worsen with the proposed airport expansion.
2.36Dr Eric Ancich suggested the proposed expansion of Melbourne Airport would significantly increase the numbers of people who are annoyed by aircraft noise. A significant increase in sleep disturbance could lead to increased anxiety and depression in the affected communities.
2.37Ms Ruth Buttsworth, a nurse working in the Blue Mountains, noted that her community already experiences poorer mental health outcomes, including a suicide rate 1.3 times the NSW average. Ms Buttsworth argued that the planned 24/7 operation of WSI would add a major stressor to the community, and that the 'visual and noise irritation, and sleep disturbance' caused by aircraft 'can only negatively impact on the community's already poorer mental health status and wellbeing'.
2.38The Aircraft Noise Ombudsman (ANO) told the committee that its staff had noticed that complainants are experiencing increasing levels of distress, including talking about suicide. ANO staff have undertaken an 'Accidental Counsellor' training course, run by Lifeline, to better equip them to respond to complaints.
2.39BFPCA observed that, after receiving more than 25000 complaints about Brisbane Airport since 2020, Airservices began offering free mental health and suicide counselling to affected communities. BFPCA said that this response highlighted the true toll of aircraft noise on communities and the health system.
Social impacts
2.40Research indicates that aircraft noise disrupts the daily activities, communication and relaxation of residents living near airports. This disruption undermines quality of life and causes stress.
2.41Inner West Council submitted that the impact of aircraft noise on outdoor lifestyles is far-reaching. Socialising in backyards becomes unappealing when it is difficult or impossible to hear conversation over noise. Outdoor playgrounds become less safe when parents cannot be heard calling to their children. The Council suggested that aircraft noise could thereby divert people from traditional Australian outdoor lifestyle, towards more sedentary lifestyles in soundproofed homes, potentially increasing obesity, Type 2 diabetes and mental health disorders.
2.42Sutherland Shire Council suggested that aircraft noise makes recreation in outdoor spaces such as parks, back yards and the beach less popular. For affected populations, reduced outdoor activity may contribute to increased stress and anxiety, diminished social interaction and cohesion and increased risk of cardiovascular diseases. The Council called on the Federal Government to commission a study to examine the national economic and health impacts of aircraft noise with regard to the use of outdoor active and passive space, social cohesion, community health and wellbeing and business activity.
Exacerbating existing disadvantage
2.43Several organisations representing disadvantaged communities argued that decisions on flight paths often reinforce existing disadvantage. For example, the Carlton River, Primrose Sands and Forcett Flight Path Opponents Group (Flight Path Opponents Group) submitted that Australian Bureau of Statistics modelling ranked Primrose Sands as one of Australia's more socially disadvantaged areas.
2.44Brimbank City Council told the committee that people of low socio-economic status had been identified as a vulnerable group for the effects of aircraft noise:
This is due to the fact that people within these groups usually have poorer health status than people within higher SES groups. They may also have poorer access to medical care. In addition, they usually live in areas that are more polluted (e.g., near major roads or near industry) as property is generally cheaper in these areas.
Financial impacts
Small businesses
2.45Several submitters told the committee about the impact of aircraft noise on small businesses. ANO submitted that it receives relatively few complaints from small business owners and operators, compared to complaints received from residents. However, the recent growth in working from home has increased the impact of aircraft noise on small businesses.
2.46Inner West Council highlighted the direct impacts of aircraft noise on creative industries such as recording studios, audition rooms, meditation centres and artists' studios, noting that many of these spaces are in older, formerly industrial buildings with little or no noise mitigation. Noise also encourages people to stay indoors, creating reduced demand for outdoor spaces, and fewer customers in eateries, parks and plazas. Businesses are impacted by a reduction in 'passing trade' and incidental purchases.
2.47The Blue Mountains Conservation Society (BMCS) argued the impact of aircraft noise and the visual impact of low-flying jets in the Blue Mountains would therefore be detrimental to small business tourism operators in local villages and to those providing wilderness experiences such as hiking, canyoning, camping, birdwatching, and sightseeing.
Employment
2.48Aircraft noise impacts work patterns for people working outside and inside the home. For example, a nurse who does shift work at a hospital submitted that her sleep was 'greatly disrupted' by aircraft noise to the point she was unable to sleep to recover from working night shifts. Her husband, who works from home, is disrupted by aircraft noise during online meetings and phone calls, with aircraft noise in their home audible to other meeting participants.
2.49A doctor who works caring for children in a hospital emergency department described returning home in the early hours only to wake to 'near constant' aircraft noise during the morning peak between 6.00 am and 8.00 am, with flights approximately every five minutes. As a doctor who works on call, the option of using ear plugs to block the noise is not available, leaving him 'dangerously' tired the following day.
Property values
2.50Professor John Quiggin submitted that a large body of international literature indicates that aircraft noise has a direct impact on land values, with each additional decibel of noise above 60 reducing land value by 0.5 to 0.9 per cent. In relation to Brisbane Airport, an increase of 10 decibels in surrounding areas could reduce land values by $4 billion to $7 billion. Professor Quiggin compared this to the cost of constructing the second runway, at $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion.
2.51Some submitters highlighted the economic benefits of the new runway. For example, Brisbane Airport Corporation submitted that, by 2035 the new runway 'will lead to the creation of 7800 new jobs and contribute an additional $5 billion in annual economic benefit to the region'.
2.52A study of the impact of aircraft noise on house prices in Melbourne found that, compared to houses within 250 metres of Melbourne Airport, similar houses 1.64 km away sold at a 37 per cent premium.
2.53The Flight Path Opponents Group drew on the same research to suggest that the noise levels around 75 decibels experienced in their community indicated a potential decrease in property values ranging from 7.5 to 13.5 per cent. A median house value in Carlton River of $656 000 would therefore undergo a devaluation of approximately $49 200 to $88 560 as a direct consequence of aircraft noise.
2.54A resident living within 7 kilometres of Melbourne Airport stated that house prices in Keilor had fallen by 16.6 per cent since the possibility of a third runway was announced, eroding the value of what is often a person's most significant investment. Another resident of Keilor said that Melbourne Airport's third runway project will cause local property values would drop as people moved away, which would push the Brimbank area further down the socio-economic scale. Reduced property values would also significantly impact the City of Brimbank's rates revenue, reducing its capacity to maintain service levels and invest in local community projects.
Committee view
2.55Regular or prolonged exposure to aircraft noise may have detrimental impacts on people's health. This includes possible stress and annoyance, cardiovascular impacts, sleep disturbance and, potentially, impacting cognitive function.
2.56Individuals can be impacted differently. Some groups of people may be at greater risk of detrimental health impacts from aircraft noise exposure, including children, the elderly, people with disabilities or medical conditions, and people with pre-existing mental illness.
2.57Nighttime noise is also more detrimental to people's health, as it impacts the quality of sleep, which can contribute to the development of a number of health conditions.
2.58Some people may adjust to aircraft noise over time; others do not. While recognising the variable impacts to individuals, noise pollution from the operation of airports and specific runways, should be taken seriously by governments, regulators, and the aviation sector.
Environmental and heritage impacts
2.59Some inquiry participants were concerned about the environmental impacts of aircraft noise, including impacts on wildlife and habitats, National Parks and First Nations heritage. One of the biggest concerns raised during the inquiry was about the potential impacts of noise from WSI, with its intended 24-hour operation and flight paths over the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (GBMWHA).
Impacts of noise on wildlife and habitats
2.60BMCS explained that, in the presence of aircraft noise, birds may increase the pitch or volume of their calls. This can affect their ability to attract a mate, increase the likelihood of detection by predators, disrupt their ability to maintain social structures, and interfere with birds' ability to detect prey. These adverse effects on birds and other species such as bats, koalas and squirrel gliders have flow-on effects for the ecosystem, such as reduction of available habitat, loss of species diversity, loss of plant species that rely on animal pollinators and seed spreaders, and increased prevalence of rodents and other prey animals.
2.61These concerns were echoed by Inner West Council, which submitted that aircraft noise can overpower bird calls and therefore impact their social and mating behaviour.
2.62Blue Mountains City Council emphasised that the economy of the Blue Mountains is heavily reliant on visitors, with a nature-based recreation and tourism industry dependent on a high level of amenity and tranquillity in natural areas. The Council suggested that the levels of aircraft noise and overflights from WSI would have a significant impact on perceptions of the region as a place of tranquillity, solitude, respite and escape from urban living both for residents and visitors.
2.63BMCS called for an independent review of the biodiversity of the Greater Blue Mountains Area and the likely impact of WSI flight paths on biodiversity, to be conducted by species experts and to include the risk of wildlife strike and its impact on species at risk.
2.64Asked to explain how the Draft EIS addressed potential impacts on birds and animals, Mr Richard Wood from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (the department) said:
It is certainly a requirement in the conditions that were set on the scope of the environmental impact assessment that biodiversity and wilderness issues were considered in the environmental impact assessment, and we undertook work in that regard. It was considered acceptable by the department of environment prior to the release of the environmental impact assessment. Obviously, we have now had submissions in relation to the environmental impact statement, which we have considered and are required to respond to. That is still being finalised.
2.65Mr David Jansen, from the Western Sydney Airport Regulatory Policy Branch, added that the EIS found 'there would be a negligible impact from noise and light spill on those species, given the height our aircraft cross the World Heritage Area'. However, the department acknowledged there is not a lot of international or domestic research on 'the specific effects of aircraft noise on some bird species'. Commissioning such research would be a matter for government.
2.66Dr Antony Green noted that other countries restrict flights over World Heritage Areas and National Parks by aircraft, and recommended Australia restricts these flights to altitudes 'above 31000 feet, in line with international practice'.
First Nations and heritage
2.67Several submitters drew the committee's attention to the effects of aircraft noise on First Nations cultural heritage, historical sights and tourism. This was noted in the 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the flight paths for WSI, which acknowledged that noise and visual intrusion can impact cultural values, including disruptions to cultural practices, which could lead to use of certain sites being discontinued. However, inquiry participants argued that the Draft EIS did not adequately address these issues.
2.68The Draft EIS includes consideration of impacts on the World Heritage and National Heritage values and other values of the Blue Mountains; it concluded that:
Given the nature of the project, complete avoidance of potential impacts on the GBMA and [Matters of National Environmental Significance] MNES would not be possible. However, the design of the proposed flight paths is such that impacts expected to result from the project would have minimal direct impacts on the World Heritage or National Heritage values of the area, including the Outstanding Universal Values which contribute to its World Heritage status.
2.69Mrs Annette Cam, President of BMCS, described the draft EIS for WSI as 'flawed' because it failed to include 'baseline data or biodiversity data from the [Blue Mountains] World Heritage area', and you 'can't mitigate threats that you don't know exist'. Ms Madi Maclean, Second Vice-President of BMCS, added that the draft EIS demonstrates 'an inadequate understanding of World Heritage values and the Australian government's obligations; this threatens our treasured World Heritage status'.
2.70Blue Mountains City Council reported the views of local Traditional Owners that 'excess and constant noise pollution' in otherwise remote areas would have profound impacts on cultural activities and connections to Country. The Council noted that the Draft EIS had identified significant or severe impacts to multiple culturally significant sites across the GBMWHA, including the declared Aboriginal Place of the Three Sisters (Echo Point). However, no mitigation measures had been proposed.
2.71Other submitters identified the potential loss of approximately 1400 Aboriginal cultural heritage sites across the GBMWHA. For example, the Emu carvings across the region are linked to the Emu in the Sky constellation in the cosmology of the Dharug and Gundangara people. A high concentration of flights at low altitudes could threaten connections between land, constellation and Dreaming.
2.72Brisbane-based community organisation, the Samford Areas Aircraft Action Group, identified several areas of social, economic and cultural value in its region, including Australia's best preserved Aboriginal Bora Ring. These significant areas are all impacted by aircraft noise from Brisbane Airport, with no mitigation evident.
2.73Airservices submitted that, in the UK, the government provides Air Navigation Guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority, which includes the direction that, 'where practicable, it is desirable' that routes below 7000 feet should seek to 'avoid flying over Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks'.
Other impacts of aircraft activity on the environment
2.74Several submitters argued that low flying aircraft cause environmental impacts beyond the effects of noise. For example, Sorell Council told the committee about low-flying aircraft emitting kerosene into the air, causing contamination of tank water with aviation soot.
2.75Dr Lidia Morawska said airport aviation traffic results in the emission of pollutants, resulting in harmful exposure to residential areas.These pollutants include particulates, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide.
2.76BFPCA submitted that ultra-fine particle air pollution from the aviation industry, and its effects on ground and tank water, can have negative impacts on human and environmental health:
These particles can contain harmful chemicals and heavy metals, which can be toxic to aquatic life and can also pose a risk to human health if ingested through contaminated water. In addition, ultra-fine particles can accumulate in water tanks over time, leading to reduced water quality and the need for more frequent cleaning and maintenance.
For those who rely on rainwater harvesting and water tanks, the impact of ultra-fine particle air pollution from aviation can be particularly significant. Without access to other water sources, any contamination of their tank water can pose a significant risk to their health and wellbeing.
2.77At a public hearing in Canberra, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) told the committee that most general aviation aircraft around Australia use fuels containing lead. However, neither CASA, Airservices Australia, nor any other body collects, or is required to collect, data about the use of leaded aviation fuels.
Committee view
2.78Aviation, like most forms of industry, has an impact on the environment. These impacts must be measured, understood and mitigated wherever possible. Airports, airlines and regulators all have a role to play in reducing the harmful environmental impacts of aviation, while ensuring a strong aviation sector that can meet Australia's needs now and into the future.
2.79The committee appreciates the depth of community concern around the potential impacts of flights from Western Sydney International Airport (WSI) on the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. We note that 42 'strict' environmental conditions have been placed on the development of the WSI as part of its Master Plan, which address biodiversity, noise and heritage. The committee also notes that the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization World Heritage Centre issued a statementon the Greater Blue Mountains Area in 2017, thanking the Australian Government for its 'due diligence', and indicating it will continue to monitor the development.
2.80The committee recommends that the conditions for approval of the Western Sydney Airport include a requirement for the Western Sydney Airport Corporation to study the impact of its flights on Australian native species.
Impacts on aviation sector workers
2.81The committee heard concerning evidence about that community reaction to aircraft noise is leading to personal criticism and attacks on aviation sector workers, especially air traffic controllers.
2.82The professional association for air traffic controllers, Civil Air submitted that its members—particularly those in Brisbane—are coming under increasing scrutiny and blame for the impacts of noise on the community:
Our members are increasingly being scrutinised by the public for a perceived lack of expertise in managing noise outcomes for communities. This scrutiny is often delivered as personal attacks on the skills and character of our members. This is not acceptable.
2.83Civil Air reported that air traffic controllers were verballed while hosting a community open session at the Brisbane Air Traffic Services Centre, and that one member was subject to 'an intrusive personal attack', with 'threatening and intimidating information' delivered to their house.
2.84Noting the professionalism, extensive training and complex role performed by air traffic controllers, Civil Air argued that noise mitigation is not something air traffic controllers can do independently:
Managing the impact of aviation on environment can easily be construed as an airline, pilot and [air traffic control] 'problem'. However, the fundamental rules, regulations and operational concepts of the aviation system need to be carefully unpacked and examined, as does the resulting expectations of our 'duty' to the community which also must be carefully and thoughtfully managed.
2.85Civil Air explained that it is difficult to reconcile how 'global policy, and aspirations translate to the individual role of the air traffic controller'. Air traffic control takes place in a 'safety-first, heavily regulated air traffic control environment'. While Civil Air is keen to ensure its members can 'deliver world leading environmental outcomes', this will only be possible with 'a new focus on innovation, operational support tools, clear policies for planning and impact management, and [air traffic controller] education'.
Committee view
2.86The committee was deeply concerned to hear of targeted criticism and personal attacks on individual air traffic controllers, including those in Brisbane.
2.87It is understandable that Brisbane communities are frustrated with the ways in which aircraft noise is being managed and mitigated around Brisbane Airport. The committee appreciates that many people feel frustrated and believe their concerns are not being addressed.
2.88This inquiry has sought to listen to those concerns and to recommend regulatory and policy solutions that would improve the management and mitigation of aircraft noise in Australia. These solutions, outlined in subsequent chapters of this report, require action by the Government, along with government agencies, airports, state and local authorities, airlines and community representatives working together to find a balanced approach.
2.89Individual air traffic controllers are not trained or empowered to design and implement noise mitigation solutions in isolation, nor should they be targeted and blamed for the impacts of aircraft noise on communities.
2.90Even their employer, Airservices Australia does not hold the authority or statutory remit to single-handedly resolve many of the issues associated with Brisbane, and other airports. However, there is more Airservices could, and should be doing.
2.91Air traffic control plays an important and valuable role within our nation's transport system. Day and night, air traffic controllers manage airspace and guide hundreds of individual aircraft, working to ensure people and freight reach their intended destinations, safely and efficiently.
2.92Ultimately, it is up to the Government, in partnership with airports, airlines and Airservices, to develop and implement policies that better address community concerns around aircraft noise. Potential solutions are discussed throughout this report.
Complaints about aircraft noise
2.93Airservices provides the Noise Complaints and Information Service (NCIS), which accepts complaints about aircraft noise through online portals, by phone, or by post. A summary of the national contacts and complainants from 2019–2023 was provided by Airservices in its submission:
Figure 2.2Contacts and complaints by year, from 2019–2023
Source: Airservices Australia, Submission 42, p. 14.
2.94Airservices noted that over half of the total complaint contacts made in 2023 were made by 10 individual complainants, suggesting the substantial increase in complaint contacts from 2022 to 2023 does not necessarily represent an increase in the numbers of people affected by noise:
Figure 2.3Top ten complainants in 2023 by number of contacts
Source: Airservices Australia, Submission 42, p. 14.
2.95Interim CEO of Airservices, Mr Rob Sharp stated that Aircraft noise complaints, 'while significant, are relatively low compared to flight numbers'. Despite the fact that there were 5035 complainants who contacted the NCIS about aircraft noise in 2023, the number of actual complainants has decreased by about 15 per cent since 2019'.
2.96While individuals complaining through the NCIS may not have substantially increased in recent years, evidence suggested this may be because many people have begun to use other mechanisms to communicate their concerns. For instance, complaints to the ANO—which investigates Airservices' handling of noise complaints—rose sharply in that time. The ANO submitted that, for the ten years from 2010 to 2020 (before the third runway opened in Brisbane), it received a total of 66 actionable complaints about Brisbane. The Brisbane Airport new parallel runway opened in July 2020, leading to 1319 actionable complaints to the ANO between July 2020 and June 2024. The Ombudsman, Mr Kieran Tibor Pehm said:
When the runway opened, [complaints to the ANO] went up to 377. It was 355 the next year. After that, we started counting complaints that were not what we call actionable complaints—not things we could actually do anything about, like people calling for a curfew or writing to the minister, saying, 'This has got to stop.' We got so many of those. The owner never used to count them, but we started counting them because, after Brisbane, we were deluged by them. In 2022–23 we got 3,568 of those sorts of complaints.
2.97The ANO was asked about the safety and mental health of complaints have contacted its service, and confirmed that between 2020 and 2024:
four contacts have resulted in 'referral to Airservices' Security team, who contact local police for a potential welfare check';
two referrals were made to police in relation to a person 'making a threat related to aviation facilities or operations'; and
32 people were provided with details on mental support services, with 30 of the 32 living in the Brisbane region.
2.98BFPCA pointed out that complaints are 'higher [in Brisbane] than all complaints for all other Australian airports combined'. Despite this, complaints to the NCIS 'go nowhere', and people are now beginning to give up on using the service. While Airservices received 15406 complaints relating to Brisbane operations for the period 12 July 2020 to 31 January 2023, BFPCA submitted that Airservices' complaints team has not conducted a noise improvement investigation anywhere in Australia since at least 2018.
2.99In its Aviation White Paper, the Government noted recent community concern about aircraft noise has largely resulted from new and changed flight paths 'over already built-up areas', meaning land use planning cannot be used as a mitigation strategy. Since 2016, aircraft noise complaints and complainants 'have spiked following changes in flight paths':
Figure 2.4Noise complaints and complainants – Australia wide, 2016 to 2024
Source: DITRDCA, Aviation White Paper, 26 August 2024, p. 155.
2.100Hobart Airport flight path changes provide another example of this impact. While the number of individuals who complained through the NCIS in 2018 (96) and 2019 (86) are relatively low (compared with numbers in Perth, Sunshine Coast and Brisbane), the impacts on those people were substantial. The ANO also received 17 written complaints in 2018, and 15 in 2019, regarding Airservices' handling of consultations about the flight path changes and a proposed noise abatement trial.
2.101Airservices' handling of noise complaints is further discussed in Chapter 4 of this report.
Future research on impacts of aircraft noise
2.102Some inquiry participants recommended that Australian governments undertake further research into the impacts of aircraft noise. For instance, BMCS submitted that, although there is a significant international body of research on the impact of aircraft noise on birds, there appeared to be comparatively little research on the Australian context.
2.103Sutherland Shire Council highlighted that research on the health impacts of aircraft noise has generally focused on its effects on indoor spaces. The council recommended that research be undertaken to investigate the impact of aircraft noise on outdoor activities and businesses to develop a better understanding of the economic, social, environmental and health costs to the community.
2.104The Flight Path Opponents Group suggested that a new, independent aircraft noise agency be created, and that it conducts a national noise impact study to evaluate the health and social impacts of aircraft noise on communities across Australia. The new agency should collaborate on international research to 'enable the adoption of innovative strategies and technologies that have successfully reduced aircraft noise in other countries'.
2.105Dr Andrew Hede told the committee of a 'steady decline, over 40 years, in scholarly research on aircraft noise in Australia'. Dr Hede described his work with Dr Rob Bullen at the National Acoustic Laboratories in 1982 as 'the only national survey conducted in this country on community reaction' to aircraft noise. To address the 'dismal' lack of research, Dr Hede recommended that the Australian Government urgently commission two studies:
a new national survey around seven Australian airports, including a regional airport and a general aviation airport; and
before-and-after surveys of communities exposed to new noise—namely, Western Sydney airport, which is due to open in 2026, and Melbourne airport, when their recently approved third runway opens in the 2030s.
2.106The Australian Government recently imposed a range of conditions on Melbourne Airport in order for the third runway project to proceed, including a long-term research project. Melbourne Airport will be required to conduct a community health study before and after the establishment of the third runway. Data is to be recorded in the lead up to and for the first 20 years of the operation of the third runway. The airport will also be required to implement noise sharing between affected areas, as well as a noise amelioration program for communities most impacted.
2.107Dr Ancich noted with disappointment that the Aviation White Paper did not indicate the Government intends to undertake any research or health related initiatives 'to address the adverse health effects of aircraft noise'.
2.108Mr Ron Brent, Chair of the Brisbane Airport Community Airspace Advisory Board, proposed that what is needed is some 'serious research on costs and benefits, on health issues and on consequences for communities'. Mr Brent did not believe Airservices is 'resourced or equipped to fund' such a project, and neither is any community aviation consultation group.
2.109Issues relating to research on community reactions to aircraft noise are discussed in Chapter 6.
Committee view
2.110The health and economic impacts of aircraft noise are not as well understood as they could be. While there is a general consensus among researchers that prolonged exposure to aircraft noise can be detrimental to physical and mental health, the mechanisms of harm are not as well quantified.
2.111Research in the Australian context is limited and there is a lack of recent data.
2.112Committee members agree there is benefit in conducting further research in the Australian context. It is encouraging that the Government is requiring Melbourne Airport to conduct longitudinal research on the impacts of its third runway. All data and findings of this research must be publicly available.
2.113As long as this research is robust, uses adequate sample sizes, and is conducted using sound methods, the data and findings will be of use to regulators, communities and the aviation industry in assessing future airport developments and airspace changes.
2.114Aviation noise must not be measured in isolation where there are a range of other environmental noise factors affecting communities. Aviation is often not the only source of noise around major airports, such as the Port Botany area or the Brisbane River. These regions see significant marine traffic, heavy vehicle, general road, rail and aviation noise, yet aviation is the only transport mode subject to significant restrictions.
2.115Governments, at all levels, when creating noise policy should consider the cumulative impacts of noise in communities and historical exposure levels. Further study is required to understand the effects of both natural and human induced cumulative noise impacts.
2.116The committee recommends that the Australian Government researches the impacts of aircraft noise exposure on human health, including sleep, and associated economic impacts.