Name
John Coates
Email
j.coates@richmond.gov.uk
Organisation
London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames
1. By what margin - in terms
of the number of people
affected - does the present
noise from Heathrow’s
existing flight paths exceed
the World Health
Organisation’s community
noise guideline values in the
day/evening period (07002300) and in the night period
(2300-0700)? How does this
compare with other airports
within the UK and the EU?
We understand that aircraft using Heathrow affect more people
than around any other airport in Europe. Clearly the WHO values
apply to every airport, but the scale of Heathrow means that more
people are affected. Whatever metric is used, the noise impacts are
compounded by Heathrow’s greater population density, the size of
the area over flown and the greater frequency of flights. Although
the ‘Air and Ground Noise Assessment’ from HAL indicates some
options for reducing the number of people overflown, these are only
possible by adopting new routes over new people. There is no
certainty that these new routes are actually achievable or will pass
the scrutiny of NATS. As the demand for extra capacity will not stop
with a 3rd runway, it makes most sense to stop expansion now. We
do not know the scale of the margin – but Heathrow has to get
‘better not bigger’. Greater recognition of WHO values has to be a
good start towards achieving compliance.
‘Air and Ground Noise Assessment’ in
http://your.heathrow.com/britainsheathrow/downloads/
2. Does the Environmental
Noise Directive enable the
UK to meet fully the
criticisms that were made in
the Heathrow Terminal Five
Public Inquiry Report that
the 57 decibel noise contour
was by itself an inadequate
measure for assessing the
full impact of air traffic
noise?
The limitations of the 57LAeq metric are well understood, and all
but accepted by the Government, short of actually replacing it.
Meantime the Lden metric has been adopted across Europe,
enabling inter comparison. It is on the basis of this metric that we
now know that Heathrow ranks as the worst European airport, in
terms of the number of people affected. What is now needed is a
metric that is sensitive to the increasing numbers of flights, together
with a fresh social survey that can calibrate the metric, both with an
initial value and as a longitudinal indicator of trend. From the
surveys that have been done, we now know that people have
become more sensitive to aircraft noise. We need a metric that can
reflect such changes. What we then need is for regulators to
appreciate what the metric indicates, and call a halt to unnecessary
and harmful expansion development.
3. What are the prospects for
significantly less noisy
aircraft at Heathrow over the
next ten years and are the
prospects in any way
dependent on the
development of the
proposed third runway? To
what extent is there a
conflict between the
optimum reduction of
aircraft noise and carbon
emissions?
Our understanding is that there will be some technological noise
reduction improvements but that they are likely to be incremental
rather than significant. The era for any step change improvements
seems to be over and in any event eventually there comes a point
where you cannot push a large tube of metal through the air any
more quietly regardless of technology improvements. The trade-off
clash between improvements in noise and climate change
emissions seems set to continue. We cannot rely on a win–win on
this to be just round the corner. Whilst reductions of both forms of
pollution are important, we would certainly not want noise
emissions to be allowed to get worse, in order to accommodate a
greater than fair share of climate change emissions. The position is
plain, that Heathrow has reached the limit of its expansion, and that
‘enough is enough’.
4. Are there additional
operational procedures for
noise reduction and respite
at Heathrow that could be
The scope for noise reduction from additional operational
procedures seems more likely than from technological ones.
However these procedural proposals require the greatest scrutiny,
as they appear to reduce the margins of safety. We are with the
introduced within the next
ten years; or are any such
noise improvements being
held back for the
development of a third
runway?
CAA on this one, that safety is paramount. However laudable it may
be to find ways to reduce noise levels, it must not be at the
expense of safely. Provided that safety is not compromised, it
would be eminently sensible to introduce any procedural
improvements as soon as possible, rather than to wait for the extra
capacity of a 3rd runway.
5. Over what areas will the
arrival and departure flight
paths for the proposed third
runway be routed, and which
of those areas are not
currently overflown by
Heathrow air traffic, either at
all or only occasionally?
The ‘Air and Ground Noise Assessment’ from HAL indicates some
potential new flight paths, based on minimising new people,
minimising ‘total’ people or maximising respite. Depending on the
option chosen, different minimum populations have been identified.
The common theme between them is that each of the proposed
routes involves approach paths which either curve or have a kinked
off-set. HAL alleges that these new routes will fly over fewer
people. As these are only desk top proposal routes, no real
assessment has been carried out as to the real feasibility of the
routes, nor how much extra noise will be made in the flying of tight
turns or failure to fly a minimum noise CDA glidepath. Clearly there
is a benefit to flying over fewer people, but that is a worse option for
those who end up with a new flight path going overhead. This is a
case of winners and losers, but only if unnecessary expansion is
pursued. If it were possible to reduce the population affected
without also worsening the impacts for some, then clearly it would
warrant introduction soon, without a 3rd runway.
6. Would the flight paths for
the third runway cause any
alteration to the present
routing of the flight paths for
the existing runways; and if
so, to what extent?
Each of the new flight paths, as identified in Q5 above, involves
changes to the existing flight paths, even the ones which minimise
‘new’ people. Understandably the exact routes would need very
thorough assessments, and the ones given are only indicative.
However, if the time comes to do a thorough assessment, it will
have to be dovetailed in to the raft of other initiatives being pursued
under the Future Airspace Strategy.
7. How would the proposed
segregated mode respite
periods operate with three
runways, compared with the
existing runway alternation
arrangements (between
0700-2300 and 2300-0700)?
Our understanding is that there could only be segregated mode on
two out of the three runways at any one time. The 3rd runway
would then be in mixed mode, and the two outermost runways,
which can operate mixed mode, would alternate. For safety
reasons, involving ‘go-rounds’, the central runway would not be
able to operate in mixed mode. Each community would get a period
of respite, but this would be on a reduced number of hours
compared to the current arrangement. Whilst it is commendable
that some respite would be retained by each community, that will
be small comfort for the loss of some of the respite, which is so
highly valued. Communities adversely affected would clearly prefer
to retain their respite than to gain an extra runway.
8. Would the third runway
enable Heathrow to operate
without flights in the night
period (2300-0700)?
Our understanding is that Heathrow could operate without any
flights in the night period (2300-0700), with or without a third
runway. The calculations are that there is daytime capacity now, to
take all of the night flights, so it should easily be possible to
accommodate them all with a third runway.
9. How quickly would
Heathrow with the proposed
third runway reach its stated
capacity of 740 000 aircraft
movements (ATMs) per
year? In view of the
resilience difficulties at
We have received mixed messages as to whether Heathrow will be
full or only partially full by 2040. Depending on which one is correct
will affect the noise levels and hence the accuracy of any
modelling. Appendix J of the ‘Air and Ground Noise Assessment’
from HAL indicates the modelling results of noise exposure change.
Although a composite contour is used, showing areas of
improvement and areas of worsening, the modelling was only
Heathrow with 480 000 ATMs
(a problem not identified at
the Terminal Five Public
Inquiry), how much
resilience would there be
with 740 000 ATMs?
10. Would the proposed
third runway hasten or delay
the date by which the air
traffic noise levels at
Heathrow would not exceed
the World Health
Organization’s guideline
values on community noise?
assessed for 2030. So we have not been presented with the
contour situation which we might anticipate, with the 3 runways
running full. We would anticipate that an increase in flights from
2030, to when it is full, would be likely to expand the contours
shown in Appendix J. On that basis, we can expect that there are
communities that may suffer worse noise than is indicated. It would
therefore be helpful if HAL would model the 3 runways, when they
are running at maximum capacity, rather than partially full.
It seems that a third runway would be likely to delay the date of
achieving the WHO guideline values. In addition to achievement of
these values, we need to remember that new metrics are needed,
to account for the increases in frequency. Likewise, a level of
resilience needs to be included from the start, so that congestion
issues are avoided. If the airport were made to operate at a
sustainable level of capacity, then the WHO levels would be easier
to achieve. Noise is an important issue, and more than just an
annoyance. Noise has an effect on health, which is why WHO
treats it as significant. It is vital the HAL, the Airports Commission
and the Government should take aircraft noise seriously.