HACAN
Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise
President: Professor Walter Holland CBE MD FRCP FFPHM
PO Box 339, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3RB
Tel: 0181 876 0455
Fax: 0181 878 0881
PROOF OF EVIDENCE
CHARLES ROLLS
HEATHROW NOISE DAMAGE ACROSS LONDON
June 1997
HAC 64
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
2
Personal Details
I hold an Honours Degree from Imperial College, London University, in Mineral Resources
Engineering, and an MBA from INSEAD. I am married with four children and living in Putney,
SW15. I am Managing Director of Coates and Co. Ltd, which trades as Plymouth Gin, producer of
the eponymous product for sale in the UK and for export.
I have lived in London for most of my life. In the last ten years, I have lived in Brook Green W14,
Chelsea SW10 and most recently in Putney SW15. In Brook Green I had to ensure all windows were
closed at night to try to shut out aircraft noise which I noticed early in the morning. I have had to
double glaze my homes in Chelsea and Putney solely for the purpose of shutting out some of the noise
caused by landing aircraft at Heathrow. Whilst living in Chelsea I had often been disturbed by planes
late at night and early in the morning.
I became involved with HACAN when my family moved to Putney. I was woken by planes, as was my
small son, on successive nights after we had moved in. We bought the house from a couple who told us
they had got used to the noise of aircraft. Regrettably, I have not got used to them after three years of
living here, nor can I imagine getting used to a source of noise which is so invasive, unavoidable,
frequent and unwelcome.
On moving to Putney I had to acknowledge that aircraft noise had been a problem to me in all three
locations where I had lived across west London, and that there is virtually nowhere to go to avoid the
problems caused by noise associated with operations at Heathrow.
I use commercial jets extensively on business, and until March of 1997 have possessed a British
Airways “Gold Card” for frequent use.
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
1.
3
Summary
1.1 Operations at Heathrow have already reached such a scale that they are producing unsustainable
levels of noise pollution right across the capital's major residential and amenity areas. We will show
that the current situation is not acceptable to residents and that they have noticed a significant
deterioration over the last five years. We will also show that noise from Heathrow is having a serious,
detrimental impact on London's position as one of the world's greatest capital cities in which to live and
work.
1.2 We will present data which will show that the problems caused by jet aircraft noise associated
with operations at Heathrow are not confined to "local residents" to the airport. Many of central
London's principal residential areas are already severely affected. We will also give evidence that
Terminal 5 is certain to make the situation noticeably worse than at present. Particular reference will be
made to the changing mix towards larger aircraft, and to the 16 hour Leq contours which hide much of
the problem.
1.3 The validity of the 57 Leq contour as a predictor of the limit of "community disturbance" will be
disproved. We will discuss the probable reasons why the contour is not the relevant predictor of the
onset of annoyance for residents of central London.
1.4 We will draw a different boundary defining the onset of annoyance, as delineated by reference to
letters to the Inquiry opposing Terminal 5, complaints, social surveys, and HACAN membership data.
We will back up many of these findings with noise measurements taken across the south and centre of
London. We will discuss the number of people contained within this new area and the potential impact
of aircraft noise on their ability to function effectively at work and at home.
1.5 We will conclude that it is not the threat of foreign airports taking our business which is at stake.
Rather, it is the far more devastating prospect that further expansion at Heathrow will irrevocably
damage London’s pre-eminent position. Certainly we need transport facilities in the south east, but not
concentrated in a location which causes such extensive and severe damage right across London.
1.6 This evidence will suggest that the only rational decision for the Inquiry to take will be to protect
London as one of the world's greatest cities by rejecting Terminal 5, to make further recommendations
to restrict Heathrow aircraft traffic especially at antisocial hours, and to make clear that if the future
demand for air travel is to be satisfied in the UK then a longer term solution must be found.
1.7 It is possible that the government and senior management at BAA and BA are unaware of the
severe adverse effects which Heathrow aircraft cause the population of London outside of the 57 Leq
contour. They are unlikely to have been shown actual noise measurement data as taken in real locations
up to 14 miles from the airport. We doubt whether they have had anyone present this data to them,
because until now the 57 contour has defined the official limit of the problem areas. The results of our
amateur measurements show the problem to be much more severe than is acknowledged by these
companies. We hope our surveys will not be swept aside, because if they are accepted, then the
government and the managers of BAA and BA will understand the need to re-evaluate the alternatives
for the future development of air transport in the south east.
1.8 Our conclusions are not designed to be confrontational. We will advocate changes to government
fiscal policy which would allow the management of both companies to look at longer-term, and
infinitely better solutions to the problem of serving the south east for the next 50 years. They are better
solutions both because they would improve the quality of life across the whole of London and because
they are solutions which are necessary to compete effectively with other European airports for this
growing business.
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
2.
4
There is ample proof that neither the 1994 57 Leq(16 hour), nor the 2010 57 Leq contours
published in BAA's statement of case are appropriate to predict the extent of aircraft noise
nuisance from Heathrow.
2.0.1 HACAN's members are not confined to areas covered by the 57 Leq(16 hour) contour (as published
by the CAA for 1994 (Figure 18(i) Heathrow statement of case)). There are HACAN members across
London who experience severe problems from the existing noise levels. Henley, Marylebone, Kentish
Town, Harrow, and Finchley all have residents who are current members of HACAN. To the south
HACAN has members in Wimbledon, Kingston, West Molesley, Malden, Esher, Coombe, and Walton
on Thames.
2.0.2 The areas outside of the 57 Leq contour where much greater numbers of people are members
include the postal areas of W7, W13, W14, W5, W6, SW3, SW1, SW9, SW11, SW6, SW15, SW18,
and SW19. The above mentioned postcodes constitute a catalogue of the main western and southern
residential areas of London: Ealing, Acton, Fulham, Chelsea, Pimlico, Kensington, Westminster,
Battersea, Vauxhall, Streatham, Wandsworth, Stockwell, Roehampton, Clapham, and Wimbledon.
2.0.3 Many of them are within 2 to 3 miles by road from Hyde Park Corner, the very centre of London
from which all distances are measured.
2.0.4 In order to try to quantify the noise pollution problem from jets, outside the 57 Leq contour, we
have carried out the following series of analyses:
2.1 HACAN Membership Distribution
2.1.1 Using the 1996 HACAN membership as the sample, 46% of HACAN's members live outside of
the 1994 57 Leq noise contour. 24% of HACAN's members live up to 1km (0.6 miles) outside the
1
contour and a further 22% more than 1km outside the contour . Bearing in mind that most HACAN
members live to the east of the airport and that the contour is only 2.7km (1.7 miles) wide on the
extended centre-lines of the runways to the east, it can be seen that to the east of the airport the area
containing affected residents almost doubles from what the Inquiry is led to believe by the 57 Leq
contour.
1
Analysis performed for HACAN by Wave Technology Ltd.
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
5
2.2 Complaints and Letters to the Inquiry
2.2.1 A strikingly similar pattern can be found in the postcode analysis of the letters opposing Terminal
5 which were sent to the Inquiry. This reveals that 27% of the anti-Terminal 5 responses came from
postcodes up to 1km outside the contour, and a further 18% from people in postcodes 1-5km (0.6-3.1
miles) outside the contour.
2.2.2 In Figure 2.2 below, we see further evidence that the problems extend well beyond the 57 Leq
contour. This shows an analysis of the location of complaints to the Heathrow noise complaints freephone number.
2.2.3 The largest numbers of complaints came from the densely populated areas to the east of the
airport. The largest concentrations of complaints also match the main flight paths under westerly and
easterly conditions, but both extending far beyond the 57 Leq contour.
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
6
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
7
2.3 Other Evidence
2.31 Residents’ Associations
2.31.1 Some 27 residents’ associations from outside the 57 Leq contour, and yet affected by Heathrow
operations, are affiliated to HACAN and represent in excess of 8000 residents.
2.31.2 The committees of most residents’ associations take great care to act in a way which they
believe reflects the wishes of the majority of members and/or is in line with the explicit aims of the
association. We would therefore ask that the Inquiry take particular notice of the locations of these
associations and accord them the probability that they represent the wishes of a significant percentage,
and perhaps the majority of those communities.
2.31.3 The list of the Societies is as follows:
Arlington Lodge Residents’ Association (SW2), Bedford Park Society, Brixton Water Lane Society
(SW2), Camberwell Society, Chelsea Society, Chislehurst Society, Christchurch Street Residents’
Association (SW3), Colville Area Council (W11), Cuddington Residents’ Association (KT4), East
Chiswick Residents’ Association, Grange Grove Residents’ Association (W5), Hammersmith &
Fulham FoE, Hampton Court Association, Hampton Court Green Association, Hampton Wick
Association, Kensington Society, Mid Chiswick Society, Mile End Old Town Residents’ Association,
Molesey Residents’ Association, North West Wimbledon Association, Oakhill Avenue Association
(NW3), Paultons Square Residents’ Association (SW3), Streatham Society, Vauxhall Association,
West End Priory Association (NW3).
2.31.4 The Kensington Society & the Chelsea Society (who represent 2000 members) issued the
following joint statement;
"The two foremost amenity societies in Chelsea and Kensington, The Chelsea Society and The Kensington Society,
announced today that they would be collaborating to fight BAA's Terminal 5 planning application to almost
double the size of Heathrow.
The Heathrow flight path passes directly over Chelsea and aircraft noise spreads across the Borough. The
number of flights over Chelsea has increased by over 50% in the last ten years without planning permission ever
being obtained.
The proposed increase from 420,000 flights a year to 500,000 flights would be an intolerable burden on residents
in the area. BAA has even admitted the noise impact from Terminal 5 will spread eastward across Chelsea. The
noise from night flights will also get far worse."
2.31.5 We also reprint here an excerpt from a recent Stockwell Park Crescent Association's newsletter;
"On 16/17 October 1996, a representative of HACAN monitored Stockwell, which is supposed to be well outside
the area that the BAA considers might suffer from aircraft noise. During the 16 hour daytime period the noise
levels exceeded 57 Leq, a measurement of noise quoted by the BAA to define the "onset of community
disturbance".
2.31.6 Of course the measurements represented only one day under westerly conditions. Nevertheless,
residents there have complained to us that the planes wake their children at any time from 4am, and the
resulting stress to the parents is a severe problem. Stockwell Park Crescent is 14 miles as the crow flies
from Heathrow.
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
8
2.32 Press Articles
The following are a selection of press articles concerning Heathrow jet aircraft noise associated with
problems outside the 57 Leq area.
th
BAA attempts to speed up long-running Heathrow inquiry, The Times, May 12 , 1997
Complaints about “sleep deprivation” caused by aircraft noise have been made by residents in areas
as far apart as Chelsea and south Oxfordshire.
Why does the Government allow planes to wake up the Queen at 5am? Skyport, date unknown
'Denis MacShane, Labour MP for Rotherham, lives in Pimlico during the week, and complains that he
is constantly being awakened by the noise of planes flying over SW1 early in the morning'
Obituary to Lord Kinnaird, The Times, Thursday March 6th, 1997
"His maiden speech (to the upper house) in 1973 was on the subject of noise - because he had been
advised to choose as topic "something that really makes me angry". He was a light sleeper in his top
flat in Durham Place (SW3) which he said was like an extension to the runway at Heathrow - in a later
exchange a minister was to acknowledge it was the Clapham Junction of the skies. Kinnaird described
noise as a living enemy. "Its waves of assault are like those of the sea. They come at you from all
directions, like flashes from a bomb as it bursts".
Standing Room Only at Opening of Globe, The Times, Wednesday May 28th, 1997
'The greatest problem facing the £22 million playhouse in Southwark is having an open top under the
Heathrow flightpath. Actors have been taking voice classes to project their lines.'
2.33 A letter to Sir George Young (Copied to HACAN) May 22, 1996, from Dr & Mrs George
Maddox, Raleigh, North Carolina
'We have been annual visitors for both business and pleasure for three decades and have enjoyed
particularly the beauty and peacefulness of Dolphin Square, Pimlico.
For the first time this year, particularly during the week beginning 26 April, we have been painfully
aware of jet aircraft along the Thames. This painful noise can begin at 5am and continue for hours.
The managers of Heathrow will be short sighted indeed if they bring yet more visitors only to subject
them to a noise polluted environment.'
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
9
2.4 Social Surveys
2.4.1 The evidence presented indicated to us that we would be likely to find unacceptably high levels
of community disturbance outside the published 57 Leq contour if we were to carry out some social
surveys. As mentioned previously in section 1.31, several residents' associations are members of
HACAN, many of them well outside the 57 Leq contour. Because HACAN membership is mainly
situated to the east of the airport, and because we wanted to survey areas of dense population well
outside the area encompassed by the published 57 Leq contour, we concentrated our surveys on the two
areas of Chelsea, SW3 and Camberwell, SE5. Details of the methodology are given in Appendices A
and B.
2.41 Threshold of Annoyance
2.41.1 Firstly let us refer to the "Threshold of Annoyance" where the "onset of community disturbance"
is predicted. This is said to be at a noise level of 57 Leq(16 hour). The CAA computer model has been
used to predict the location of this contour for a 92-day period in mid summer. This is the predicted
noise level generated exclusively by aircraft. To the east of the airport this cuts the Thames near Putney
Bridge.
2.41.2 The following is a quote from DORA 9023 page 8, where this threshold is discussed.
The question of a threshold of annoyance has always been an important practical consideration.
Unfortunately there does not appear to be a clear dividing line either between no annoyance and low
annoyance or between any other discrete levels of reaction. Researchers have analysed and
reanalysed data from many sources.. A common feature of the data is that below a certain level,
typically around 55 dBA Leq(24 hour), the fraction annoyed tends to stabilise at around 5-10% of the
population. For this reason it has been suggested as a desirable limit for suburban areas.
2.41.3 As has been discussed in Noise Proof HAC 62, this was changed to 57 Leq(16 hour),. The simple
but powerful premise is that beyond 57 Leq(16 hour), no significant levels of annoyance exist. All of the
data on complaints to the Inquiry, HACAN membership and personal experience suggest that this is
incorrect.
2.41.4 In our social survey results we have made mention of the percentages who registered only
"some problem", but have focused on those who responded that they experienced a "severe problem" or
worse. These people we will describe as being clearly above and beyond any reasonable definition of a
threshold of annoyance.
2.41.5 We will also be looking for percentages of a population, or community, above 10%. We will not
be claiming any exact statistical rectitude for the results, rather we will present the results as strong
evidence which will have to be disproved by a professional survey if it is to be challenged.
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
10
2.42 Paultons Square SW3
2.42.1 The Paultons Square area of Chelsea consists of some 50 houses and is a residential location in
SW3 just off the Kings Road. Paultons Square is 1.5 miles beyond the 1994 57 Leq contour and half a
mile north of the extended centre-line of the northern runway 27R. This is to say it is 19% further away
from Heathrow than the predicted limit of community disturbance. In addition, even though the contour
is predicted to move east by 2016 (scenario with Terminal 5), Paultons Square is predicted to remain
1.3 miles beyond the distance from Heathrow at which the onset of community disturbance is expected.
2.42.2 Despite considerable road noise at one end of the square, a committee decision was taken by the
Association in March 1994 to join HACAN because noise from landing jet aircraft at Heathrow had
already become a problem to a significant proportion of residents. In order for us to assess the true
impact of noise from jets landing at Heathrow, a two-page questionnaire was dropped through the letter
boxes of all the houses in the square. Amongst the questions, residents were asked to say whether or
not jet aircraft noise was a problem at various times during the day and night. The possible responses
were "No Problem", "Some Problem", "Severe Problem", and "Unbearable".
2.42.3 Nineteen households (38%) responded to our questionnaire. One lady is deaf and excused
herself for not taking part in the responses. 15 (30%) responded by saying they already experienced
"some problem" or worse due to landing aircraft at Heathrow at some stage of the day. 10 (20%) of
households said it was already a "severe problem" or worse and 2 (4%) that it was already "unbearable"
at some stage of the day. One household responded that they experienced no problems at any time and
alone welcomed Terminal 5. Copies of all questionnaire responses are available. These questionnaires
were not postage paid or pre addressed.
2.42.4 Despite being well outside the 57 Leq contour, this postal survey shows that in one small
community around Paultons Square, more than 20% of residents are already above any reasonable
interpretation of a threshold of annoyance and therefore well beyond "the onset of community
disturbance". This is a small sample and we have not had time to follow up with the other households.
Nevertheless it is only one of three areas surveyed and seems in line with the other findings.
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
11
2.43 Christchurch Street SW3
2.43.1 Christchurch Street Residents' Association encompasses the streets of Christchurch Street and
Caversham Street, SW3. The location is over 2 miles or 25% beyond the eastern limit of the 57 Leq
contour where the onset of community disturbance is predicted and over half a mile north of the
extended centre-line of the northern runway 27R. On a direct line from the Christchurch Street area to
the touchdown point of 27R, it is over 4 miles outside the 57 Leq contour.
2.43.2 Questionnaires and covering letters sent to a random 60 households of the Christchurch Street
Residents' Association produced 13 postal responses. All 13 said they experienced "some problem" or
worse at some stage of the day. 11 said they experienced a "severe problem" or worse and 5 said it was
an "unbearable problem" at some stage of the day.
2.43.3 A door-to-door follow-up survey was carried out on March 16, 1997 of those houses and flats
which had not responded by post. This brought the total responses to 34 households, and the two sets
of data were re-analysed together. Of the total 34 responses, 22 (65%) said they experienced "some
problems" or worse due to jets at some stage of the day. 17 (50%) said they experienced a "severe
problem" or worse at some stage of the day and 5 an unbearable problem. 12 (35%) said they
experienced "no problem" at any stage of the day.
2.43.4 We can therefore say for certain that somewhere between 28% (17 out of 60) and 50% (17 out
of 34) of a random sample of residents within the Christchurch Street Residents' Association are already
above a severe level of annoyance. If the same ratios of no problem, some problem etc. which we found
in the follow-up surveys were maintained at those unattended houses and flats, then an extrapolation
estimate for the actual figure severely annoyed in that community would be 40% (17 plus 7, out of 60).
2.43.5 If 40% of that community are already severely annoyed by aircraft noise, then residents of
Christchurch Street are well beyond any reasonable definition of "the onset of community disturbance".
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
12
2.44 Camberwell Society, SE5
2.44.1 We took the survey to another area even more distant from Heathrow which had joined
HACAN in 1995. The Camberwell Society represents a group of some 900 members whose objectives
are to promote the amenity interests of the area. The committee endorsed a decision to join HACAN
because of the noise disturbance from landing jets at Heathrow.
2.44.2 An initial postal survey in March 1996 was carried out with questionnaires being dropped into
100 households chosen at random from the membership. The questionnaires were accompanied by a
small sticker from the Society informing the reader that "the Camberwell Society is a member of
HACAN and this questionnaire is being delivered to 100 members of the Society".
2.44.3 This method of survey produced 24 responses posted back to HACAN. 19 (19%) said they
already experience "some problem" or worse, 10 a "severe problem" or worse and 4 an "unbearable
problem" at some stage of the day. The 4 who responded "unbearable" all referred to the night period.
3 responded that aircraft noise was "no problem" at any stage of the day.
2.44.4 A door-to-door follow-up survey was carried out on March 23, 1997 of three residential streets
in Camberwell where many members of the Society live. These included Grove Park, Camberwell
Grove and Love Walk SE5. This added a further 22 responses and brought the total responses to 46
households. The two sets of data were re-analysed together. Of the total 46 responses, 31 (67%) said
they experienced "some problems" or worse due to jets at some stage of the day. 13 (28%) said they
experienced a "severe problem" or worse at some stage of the day and 5 an unbearable problem. 12
(26%) said they experienced "no problem" at any stage of the day.
2
2.44.5 These two surveys show that somewhere between 11% (13 out of 122 ) and 28% (13 out of 46)
of a random sample of residents within the area encompassed by the Camberwell Society are already
above a severe threshold of annoyance. If the same ratios found in the follow-up surveys were
maintained to 100 responses, then an extrapolation estimate for the actual figure severely annoyed
would be 20% (13 plus 7, out of 100).
2.44.6 We believe that this survey shows that in Camberwell, 15 miles from Heathrow, 5 miles or 50%
beyond the distance from Heathrow at which the supposed onset of community disturbance is expected
to cease, severe community disturbance exists from jets landing at Heathrow. The reason is that
Camberwell, like much of South London, lies under the extended centre lines of both of Heathrow's
westerly runways.
2.44.7 Taken together the three areas surveyed in Chelsea and Camberwell suggest that jets flying into
Heathrow do not affect only local residents to Heathrow or even simply parts of west London, but in
fact a very large part of the population across a very large part of the capital's residential areas.
2
No record was kept of the addresses where the first 100 questionnaires were delivered.
Nevertheless we checked that the follow up survey polled 22 households which had not responded to
the first questionnaire
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
13
3.1 Quotes from the social surveys
3.1.1 The nature of the problems mentioned in the surveys fell into well-defined categories. The
majority of people who experienced severe annoyance or said it was unbearable mentioned an impact
on Quality of Life (ability to use the garden, have the windows open, listen to music/TV, have dinner
parties) or Impairment of some Function (doctor's inability to think during surgery, sleep deprivation,
increased family stress).
3.1.2 Some typical quotes on the impact on Quality of life:
"It affects my ability to listen to music." Paultons Square
"We have to keep our windows closed, we have spent extra money on noise insulation, and we can't use
the garden" Paultons Square
"Hard to concentrate on reading" Paultons Square
"Deters us from sitting in the garden. The noise is too frequent" Christchurch Street
"Severely affects TV reception" Camberwell
"The intrusive effect on an otherwise peaceful environment" Camberwell
3.1.3 Some typical quotes on the Impairment of Function:
"Intrusion on thoughts/conversation/examining patients" MD Paultons Square
"Early morning it wakes me and any visitors" Paultons Square
"Loss of sleep is extremely debilitating" Paultons Square
"It disrupts the children's sleeping patterns and causes stress to all the family" Christchurch Street
"Level of noise in the early morning. Often shakes the windows and invariably wakes the children"
Christchurch Street
"When we are trying to relax it causes angst" Christchurch Street
"My sleep pattern has been greatly and increasingly disturbed by it" Camberwell
"You cannot get away from noise, it is very invasive and stressful to live with noise you can do nothing
about" Camberwell
"Often woken around 4.30 - 5am then very difficult to sleep again
do you prove this?" Camberwell
am very tired as a result but how
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
14
3.1 Quotes from the social surveys. Continued
3.1.4 What is it about the noise that is most annoying?
"There is an increase to a peak then a lull, but with the certainty of the next cycle being repeated"
Paultons Square
"It is the frequency (number). I find the actual noise per aircraft OK" Paultons Square
"Danger of so many planes flying over central London. Memories of Lockerbie" Paultons Square
"No other capital city has been so foolish as to land itself with this level of aircraft noise pollution"
Paultons Square
"It is an obvious attempt by BA/BAA to expand their on the ground sales. Money would be better used
expanding facilities elsewhere” Paultons Square
"Hearing one plane and just waiting for the next" Christchurch Street
"We end up shouting at each other in the garden" Christchurch Street
"I shall have no gain from Terminal 5.
Even if I did I would be against it - aircraft noise is intrusive
noise" Christchurch Street
"Engine noise screaming of the engines" Christchurch Street
"The noise in Camberwell is continuous due to the height of the aircraft" Camberwell
"That an area like Camberwell, miles from the airport but seriously affected by the noise does not
feature in any consultation process" Camberwell
"You cannot get away from the noise" "I love my home and neighbourhood but the aircraft noise is
literally the only thing which is making me consider moving home" Camberwell
"Couldn't the flight paths be broader, so spreading the noise?" Camberwell
"BAA say we are outside the area seriously affected - this is quite wrong" Camberwell
"Poor exploitation of Gatwick and Stansted, and lack of infrastructure puts pressure on people to prefer
Heathrow" Camberwell
"Overflying of residential areas - unwelcome, unsafe?" Camberwell
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
15
3.1 Quotes from the social surveys. Continued
3.1.5 What has changed?
"More noise particularly early am" Paultons Square
"More planes, worse in the early morning" Christchurch Street
"A distinct deterioration particularly in the early morning over the last five years" Christchurch Street
"We have lived here for 11 years and it has got so much worse" Camberwell
"On a bad morning we get continuous and unacceptable noise" Camberwell
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
16
3.2 Key findings of the surveys
3.2.1 Of those who responded to the questionnaire 41% in Christchurch Street, 50% in Paultons
Square and 41% in Camberwell stated they perceived that the problem of aircraft noise has got worse
over the last five years.
3.2.2 Of those who said they experienced problems and excluding don't knows, 82% in Paultons
Square, and 93% in Christchurch Street said that it was the larger aircraft which caused the main noise
problem.
3.2.3 Far from an improving environment, the great majority of the residents of the areas which we
surveyed under the landing flight path perceive they are suffering a worse noise burden, mainly caused
by the larger aircraft. With Terminal 5, the mix towards larger aircraft would increase and so would the
noise problem, far beyond the extent predicted by the 57 Leq contour for 2016.
3.2.4 A total of 34 households (out of 98 which responded) made an unprompted response that one or
more members of their household loses sleep as a result of aircraft noise, especially in the early
morning. The period 0400-0700 was the most often mentioned time of severe annoyance and the
daytime period less of a problem. Many also said that the problems were particularly acute during
summer when they wanted to have windows open.
3.2.5 However, in the door-to-door follow up the reason for less daytime disturbance was revealed to
be largely because most respondents did not spend the weekdays at home. It became clear that at
weekends the problem extended throughout the part of the day when residents could consider using
their outside amenities such as gardens and the environs.
3.2.6 Although we have no doubt that those who responded that they had “no problem” with aircraft
noise were quite genuine, longer conversations with people both during the follow-up process, and
outside of the survey process also suggest that there is an inherent reluctance for residents affected by
an environmental problem to admit the problem to outsiders. There is a rational belief that to
acknowledge an environmental problem affecting the place you live will either diminish the value of
your greatest asset, or in some way reveal a foolishness on the part of the resident for living under such
conditions.
3.2.7 We believe that this affects many who suffer aircraft noise anonymously, and perhaps particularly
those affected under easterly conditions. These people fear that if they complain they may bring about a
change which could affect them adversely. We are aware of several householders in Wimbledon, for
example, who deeply resent aircraft noise but will not complain for fear that their own relatively low
burden could be increased by a change in policy, specifically through the abandonment of westerly
preference, or a move to spread the noise problem more evenly.
3.2.8 Finally, outside of the survey process, there is much anecdotal evidence that for some people,
acknowledging a problem with aircraft noise leads them into a downward mental spiral and reduces
their ability to function effectively. These are the people who are annoyed, upset and become tired and
anxious, who then get further upset by the feeling of being powerless to stop the problem. Now,
conscious of the debilitating nature of the problem, they are even more sensitive to the next day’s
flights. An internal compromise is often attained by trying to ignore the problem, by never discussing
or admitting it, and existing with the subconscious knowledge that this is the only way to survive.
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
4
17
Reasons For Annoyance
4.0.1 Our own research suggests that it is a combination of factors which cause this situation of
community disturbance outside the predicted 57 Leq contour:
• The 57 Leq(16 hour) is not a good measure to predict the so called "onset of community
disturbance", perhaps especially at greater distances from an airport.
• Noise during long periods of the day when planes are flying over (most days over central London) is
intolerable.
• Particularly sensitive periods during the early morning "shoulder" period have no impact on the 16
hour Leq, which only starts at 0700. This is a period of great noise intensity and a significant cause
of annoyance and stress.
• The night period from 0400 to 0600 is an even more sensitive period and the peak noise compared
to the quiet background noise levels are particularly disturbing.
• Some areas, e.g. Maidenhead, Hampstead and Wimbledon, are badly affected by easterly
operations. Because of predominantly westerly operations, they are well outside the predicted
92 day average 57 Leq(16 hour) but still have days of severe disturbance. We will present noise
measurements from Wimbledon on the impact of large, heavy aircraft after take-off on the late
evening and night period under easterly conditions.
4.1 57 Leq is almost certainly not the relevant measure to predict the onset of community
disturbance - especially at larger distances from an airport
4.1.1 In HACAN document HAC 62 we discussed several factors which cast doubt on the value of the
57 Leq measure as a useful predictor of the onset of community disturbance. There are additional
reasons why the 57 Leq measure is probably even less relevant to people living in central London's
residential areas. Of the six survey sites around Heathrow used by the DoT in its original research in
1992-4 to define the Onset of Community Disturbance, four were within 3 miles from touchdown. The
furthest away were at Chiswick and North Sheen.
4.1.2 We surveyed people living between 10 to 15 miles distant from the airport. The people living in
Camberwell and Chelsea are conscious that they are not close to Heathrow. They are amongst central
London's main residential and amenity areas. We believe that this is likely to create a very different
psychological response to aircraft noise from that found at locations much closer to the airport. This is
backed up by some of the quotes from the questionnaires.
4.1.3 Apart from the psychological intolerance to noise this engenders, there are significant differences
in the noise patterns which are experienced at this distance from an airport. Whereas at an aircraft's
certification landing noise point (2km from touchdown) an average fly past is expected to last 10
seconds (Noise & Noise Law, Adams & McManus 1994), the time for a fly past at 15 miles, i.e. over
Camberwell, typically takes some 40 seconds before the aircraft noise merges with the background
noise. Consider then that aircraft land at 90 second intervals, and it can be seen that the resident of
Camberwell is hardly ever free from aircraft noise.
4.1.4 One single measure of noise (Leq) cannot enable the interpreter to distinguish between very
different noise patterns, if they all contain the same energy. Therefore Leq cannot distinguish between
one very noisy event followed by silence, incessant rises and falls, or a more constant average sound if
they all contain the same noise energy. We believe it is self evident that such a measure must therefore
have significant limitations as a predictor of human response to all these differences in sound. Should
the Inquiry assume that the responses of people living between 2 and 7 miles of an airport in 1982 are
relevant to today’s residents of London's central residential and amenity areas whose noise experiences
are so very different? We think not.
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
18
4.2 Most days are intolerable in residential central London under westerly landing operations
4.2.1 Using calibrated Bruel & Kjaer 2236 sound equipment at locations on rooftops in Chelsea SW3
(Christchurch Street) and Stockwell SW9 (Stockwell Park Crescent) we have carried out several weeks
of noise monitoring. In both locations it was the case that on many days when westerlies were in
operation the 16 hour 57 Leq (0700-2300) was exceeded. Full details of how the measurements were
taken are in Appendix C.
4.21 Ten-Day Sequence
4.21.1 A typical series of measurements appears in Figure 3.21. The graph shows the noise energy
plotted in 10-second averages measured on a residential roof in Stockwell Park Crescent, SW9 between
Friday, March 14, 1997 and Sunday, March 23, 1997.
3
4.21.2 This ten-day series shows an average daytime Leq (16 Hour) of 56.8 Leq , an amount not
4
distinguishable from 57 Leq by the human ear . The one day of easterly operations is recognisable by
st
the visibly lower noise levels. This was during Friday, March 21 .
3
4
This figure excludes the period 2300 to 0700 each night
Source: Bruel & Kjaer reference Measuring Sound, p7
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
19
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
20
4.22 Easterly Versus Westerly Conditions
4.22.1 Easterly versus westerly operations provide important "control" information to distinguish
between noise levels in an area “with planes” compared to “without planes”. The differences can be
seen in the graph below (Figure 4.22). The two-day sequence is taken from the same noise
measurements at Stockwell Park Crescent as the previous graph. The two days shown are Thursday,
th
st
March 20 and Friday March 21 , 1997.
4.22.2 Starting at the left of the graph we can observe typical noise patterns under westerly conditions.
First we see the background noise levels at around 40 dBA. Next come the early morning jets during
the “night” period. These typically begin at 0400. The vertical black cursor line marks the beginning
of the official day period at 0700. From 0700 until about 2130 there is continuous aircraft noise. By
2300, the end of the official day period the aircraft intensity is back down to a few late arrivals.
4.22.3 As we move to the middle of the graph, the lowest noise levels typically occur around 0200. It
appears there were four aircraft which landed in a westerly direction during the night period of the
st
Friday 21 , at between 0346 and 0416. This often occurs as the result of westerly preference rules and
the generally lighter wind conditions at night. The effect is to further reduce the number of nights on
which Londoners are free from aircraft noise, even under anti-cyclonic easterly conditions.
4.22.4 We believe that the rest of the day was operated under easterly conditions. In Stockwell,
typically there may be 15 to 30 noise spikes during a day of easterly operations, usually caused by
helicopters and possibly traffic for London City Airport. This compares with upwards of 400 noise
spikes from aircraft during a typical westerly day.
4.22.5 We are not suggesting that the noise patterns shown on these two days can be repeated exactly
on other days. We have found surprising variations in noise levels between several days of westerlies
and several days of easterlies. Nevertheless, this is a typical pattern, with Leq values about 5 to 10 dBA
lower during easterlies than westerlies. This may not sound a big difference, but it is a huge difference
to those who live under these conditions.
4.22.6 A final thing to notice about the left side of the graph during westerly conditions is the lack of a
break in the noise levels at around 3pm when alternation changes the runways. Stockwell Park
Crescent lies between the extended centre-lines of both runways, and at a distance of 14 miles from the
airport. Because of the height of the planes overhead and its location, alternation between morning
period and afternoon/evening is not noticeable. For them it is noise all day under westerlies.
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
21
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
22
4.23 Typical day in SW3
4.23.1 Another typical display of noise is shown below (Fig. 4.23), this time from Christchurch Street
th
in Chelsea, SW3 on Friday, February 28 , 1997. We show the period from 0325 through to 2309 later
5
the same evening . Throughout the whole day Heathrow was operating in a westerly direction, i.e.
landing aircraft flying over London.
4.23.2 Perhaps quite surprising for those not familiar with typical noise patterns is the very early start to
the noise at 0400. From 0400 to 0600 there are several of the noisiest events of the whole period. From
about 0620 the noise appears to drop off significantly. This is because Heathrow switched from the
northern runway 27R to the southern, 27L. This takes the noise about 1 km further away from Chelsea,
where these measurements were taken. Just before 1500 the pattern reverses again as the planes are
switched back for the afternoon alternation to 27R.
4.23.3 Although the impact of alternation is less noticeable the further away from the airport one goes,
it is clear that 10 to 15 dBA variations in noise levels are experienced in Chelsea.
th
4.23.4 Friday, February 28 , 1997 was not a very noisy day in Christchurch Street. We have recorded
th
noise levels on 23 days in the area, and the noisiest (in Leq terms) was Wednesday, March 12 , 1997
when the Leq for the 16 hour day period was 59.3 dBA. The quietest day was when easterly operations
were proceeding, when we measured 47.4 dBA for the same period. This occurred three days earlier on
th
Sunday, March 9 , 1997.
5
The start date shown on the graph indicates the beginning of a longer measurement period, of
which we are showing only one day
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
23
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
24
4.24 Detailed View of the Aircraft Noise Spikes
4.24.1 The graph below (Figure 4.24) show the results of similar noise measurements carried out
between 0656 and 0728 at the start of the 16-hour day period, also in Christchurch Street, Chelsea, on
th
Friday July 26 , 1996. In this case we recorded the average noise levels every second. Because the
scale is expanded so greatly we can look at individual noise events. In this case the noise measurement
was attended and aircraft identified where possible by sight and by monitoring airband radio
frequencies.
4.24.2 We can see the classic pattern of an aircraft noise event. The aircraft noise measurements show
a saw toothed pattern, rising and falling without break and clearly never getting down to the
background noise level before the next plane's noise takes over.
6
4.24.3 Given that a 10 dBA increase in noise represents a perceived doubling of noise , then each
aircraft passing nearby has a maximum noise level (1 second Leq's) of between 4 and 8 times louder
than the background noise. It should not be surprising if people in central London's residential areas are
not prepared to tolerate this noise when it happens, on average, every 2 minutes, for 8 hours per day,
and on an average of four out of every five days.
6
Adams & McManus: Noise & Noise Law (Wiley Chancery Law) p.35
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
25
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
26
4.3 The "Shoulder" period 0600 to 0700
4.3.1 Our noise monitoring showed that the noisiest time of the day (in Leq terms) under a landing
flight path 8 miles from touchdown is typically between 0555 and 0655. It is a period when most people
are still also hoping for an hour of sleep. The graph below (Fig. 4.3) shows the noise patterns
th
monitored between 0553 and 0702 on Tuesday, July 9 , 1996 in Lower Common South, Putney,
SW15. The recordings were attended and individual aircraft noted as best as possible by sight and from
listening to airband radio frequencies.
4.3.2 These early morning movements are predominantly due to large, heavy aircraft. If they do not
have a permitted landing slot before 0600, but arrive early, they are stacked up over one of the four
7
VOR's around London, waiting to be called off for first touch-down at exactly 0600. One can listen to
Heathrow Director on an airband radio and watch the unrelenting progress of these large aircraft as
they are called in from the four corners of London at about 0550.
4.3.3 They are established on the extended centre-line of the landing runway at up to 20 miles from the
airport. The controller will then give them speeds so as bunch them as closely as is safely possible, so as
to maximise runway utilisation from 0600 onwards. Although an instructive lesson in runway
optimisation, it is also a revelation as to how Londoners are being subjected to the impact of a
commercial airport operator squeezing the limits from some very unsatisfactory rules. These rules
mean that because the period 0600 to 0700 is neither governed by night quota limits nor monitored as
part of the 16-hour day period, there is a massive commercial incentive to squeeze as many of the
large, heavy, noisy aircraft into this 1-hour period as is safely possible.
4.3.4 This is not to criticise the airlines or BAA for trying to optimise their businesses within the
current regulatory framework. It is, however, a major reason to reject Heathrow as a location for any
further expansion, especially involving larger numbers of larger aircraft or indeed any increase in flight
numbers at Heathrow. Both of these factors are essential to the commercial success of Terminal 5.
4.3.5 One of the many casualties of Terminal 5 would be a further massive deterioration of the noise
environment between the hours of 0550 to 0700. Currently after the first flush of large long haul flights
fly across Central London from the stacks after 0550, there is typically a mix of smaller, quieter aircraft
from European destinations and even, on occasions, a few gaps between aircraft towards the end of the
period.
4.3.6 With the additional airport stand capacity offered by Terminal 5, it can be expected that
additional larger aircraft will be brought in during that time, displacing the smaller, quieter aircraft.
4.3.7 The aircraft mix on that Tuesday morning in July included one business executive jet, a B757,
several B737-3,4's of Lufthansa, a BAe 146 and another 737. Unless the period is monitored (and the
noise restricted) it seems likely to be filled to the limit with even more larger and noisier aircraft. With
Terminal 5 the mix changes are likely to make this a solid procession of Jumbo-sized aircraft.
7
Ground-based radio beacons used by aircraft in their holding patterns
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
27
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
28
4.4 Night Flights
4.4.1 The social surveys revealed the period between 0400 and 0600 to be another particularly
sensitive time for residents of central London outside of the 57 Leq contour.
4.4.2 There is good reason for this. The next graph shows the noise energy plotted in 10-second
averages measured on a residential roof in Christchurch Street, Chelsea SW3. (Figure 4.4)
4.4.3 The background noise level is represented by the line when it is fairly stable at the lower range
(about 40-44 dBA). The noise spikes reaching up to levels of 77 dBA are almost certainly jet aircraft.
Despite these measurements not having been monitored, it is highly probable that all the noise spikes
were caused by jet aircraft movements to Heathrow. The major confusion in the area can come from
helicopter movements, but these are very rare before 0630 in the morning.
4.4.4. On February 28th, 1997, a typical winter Friday morning as far as we know, we monitored the
noise. The contrast between the very noisy aircraft events and the relatively quiet background of
residential London at times between 0400 and 0631 is very dramatic. Our noise monitoring shows that
even four miles outside of the 57 Leq contour, individual aircraft appear to cause noise levels almost 16
times louder than the background noise at 5am. This is not acceptable because, as we have seen from
the responses to the surveys, it wakes many people from sleep.
4.4.5 Our social survey in the area revealed that 14 out of 34 respondents said that they were often
woken in the early hours of the morning by aircraft. All these responses were unprompted, i.e. no
mention of sleep was written in the questionnaires or mentioned during the door-to-door follow-up
surveys.
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
29
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
30
4.5 Areas Affected by Easterly Operations
4.5.1 Measurements taken in areas affected by take-off noise and well outside of the published 57
Leq(16 hour) showed that some of the worst periods of noise are in the late evening between 2200 and
2300. (Figure 4.5)
4.5.2 The highest dBA values displayed in Figure 4.5 from under a noise preferential take-off path in
Wimbledon reached 80 dBA. The Leq(2212-2312) measured over this hour in Wimbledon on that night of
th
September 5 , 1996, when Heathrow was on easterly operations, was 63.0 dBA. This is a very high
level of noise energy and equivalent to noise values under the landing paths near Hounslow. Quotes we
have had from Wimbledon included one from a 21 year old. In 1993 when he was studying for exams
he remembered three very noisy take-offs every night when the weather was fine, just after 10pm
(2200), which used to cause him loss of sleep - and associated stress before his exams.
4.5.3 If he was recalling those days with clarity and there really were only three very loud noise events
8
th
each fine summer night between 2200 and 2300, it must be noted that on September 5 , 1996 there
were 8 overflights in the same period which reached a highest measured noise level (Leq(1 second)) of 7580 dBA in that period, and 2 more between 2300 and 2312.
4.5.4 The Atkinson Morley Hospital in Wimbledon, where these measurement were taken, is more
than double the distance from Heathrow from where the 57 Leq contour cuts across at Twickenham.
The reason the 57 Leq contour stays so close to Heathrow has much to do with the assumed modal split,
which diminishes the average impact of these excessively high noise levels. Only 1 day in 5 is assumed
to be easterly operations. It is clear, however, that under easterly operations there are good reasons
why people in Wimbledon and other distant areas around London experience severe problems at certain
stages of the day and night.
8
Fine days and nights in summer are often associated with high pressure, anti-cyclonic weather
conditions. This often means easterly winds and therefore easterly operations at Heathrow
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
31
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
32
5. Changing Mix to Larger Aircraft
5.1 In response to the Daily Telegraph report of November 21, 1996 on the Chelsea Society and the
Kensington Society press release of November 15, 1996 (printed in full in section 2.31), a spokesman
for BAA responded that "many of the fears were misplaced. Airlines were likely to use larger and
quieter aircraft in the future".
5.2 It is true that some older, noisier jets are still to be replaced by quieter types. However, the whole
thrust of the Terminal 5 argument is to increase the use of larger aircraft, including a possible NGLA.
On a like-for-like basis, i.e. using similar modern engine and airframe technology, aircraft noise can be
assumed to increase in direct proportion to aircraft mass (Dr Ollerhead: letter to Dr J. Cavalla 5/1/95).
5.3 And thus to reflect more accurately the majority of the changes to aircraft mix due to occur
between now and 2016 with Terminal 5 the BAA statement should read "Airlines were likely to use
larger and noisier aircraft in the future."
5.4 Regrettably this extremely misleading statement by BAA about larger, quieter aircraft is reported
time and again in the press as BAA's official response to noise concerns about Terminal 5. It is not a
mis-quotation by the newspapers, as it even features prominently on BAA's Internet site.
5.5 In principle, massive expansion of passenger numbers associated with Terminal 5 can only be
accommodated by either a large increase in flight numbers if average aircraft sizes remain similar to
today’s or by the introduction of new large aircraft. HACAN’s view is that the most likely outcome
would be a significantly larger number of flights, and consequently greater noise disturbance, than
BAA is forecasting. However, we examine BAA’s case on its own terms, which involves the
introduction of NGLA’s.
5.6 The impact of these larger, noisier aircraft is going to be particularly badly felt all around the
airport, including areas well outside of the 57 Leq contour. This is evident when we consider that even
with the unclassifiably noisy Concorde movements gone from the mix by 2016, the contour will still
deteriorate towards central London. BAA's statement of case is the source for the confirmation that the
noise environment under the landing flight-paths to the east of the airport is set to deteriorate With
Terminal 5 (BAA Statement of Case Figure 18.(i)).
5.7 Now consider that a single Concorde arrival passing directly overhead Putney 14.5km from the
Heathrow runway 27R/L threshold, contains the same noise energy as one hundred and twenty B757's
9
or thirty five B747-400s . Concorde is assumed to be gone from the fleet mix in 2016, but the noise
environment is expected to deteriorate. In other words, despite the removal of three Concorde landings
per day by 2016, the worsening environment under the landing routes over central London means that
the equivalent noise energy of more than one hundred and five 747-400 landings will have been reinserted into the skies to take their place.
5.8 Perhaps this illustrates better than any other statistic what a damning prospect it will be for most
people trying to live in central London with Terminal 5. Replacing the few ear blistering Concorde
movements will be hundreds more aircraft noise events as loud or even louder than B747-400's. These
hundreds of additional noisy aircraft events will not be romantically linked with an exceptional AngloFrench aircraft (most people we polled in SW3 and SE5 did not mind the three Concorde landings per
day, many still admiring its beauty above all else). These additional large, noisy aircraft will simply
bring a regular reminder of the devastatingly inappropriate runway directions and location of Heathrow.
9
st
th
NATS letter to CT Rolls, ref 8RD/013/003/03/02, 21 April and 26 , March 1997
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
33
5.9 The data to prove the case are contained within BAA's own documents (BAA 703). With Terminal
5 there are forecast to be the following additional larger aircraft movements in the daily mix compared
to 1994. We have added in the columns alongside comparisons of the landing and take-off 85 dBA
SEL noise footprints, of these large, noisy aircraft:
Aircraft
UL Twin
B747-400
MD12
NGLA
With T5, 2016 cf. 1994
85 dBA SEL noise footprint area (sq. km)
Movements/day
55
85
17
91
248
Landing
13.7
16.1
16.7
22.1
Take-off
26.4
35.5
44.4
60.9
5.10 Aside from Concorde, which we have mentioned, the main positive improvements of any impact
on Leq between 1994 and 2016 will be the removal of about 70 older aircraft movements per day, this
number being made up of an average of 56 older B747-1,2 movements per day, and some 16
movements of assorted old 4 and 3 engine aircraft. Removal of some old 737-200’s will also reduce
take-off noise, but cause no significant change to landing noise.
5.11 So in the larger, noisier jet category, 70 older type movements will be replaced by 250 newer
large movements. Dr JB Ollerhead (letter to John Cavalla, Jan 5, 1995)responded to the question "Will
NGLA be noisier than the 747?" by saying "We have extrapolated the current experience simply on the
basis of aircraft weight, i.e. the larger the aircraft the noisier it will be at all points.
10
5.12 Data we have received from the CAA also show that the NGLA will be noisier at all points than
the 747-400, about the same as older 747’s on landing but quieter on take-off.
5.13 In terms of Leq, the difference is apparently only to be a 1-mile extension of the 57 Leq contour
towards the centre of London as a result of all these additional large, heavy and noisy aircraft. In fact
here is a practical example of how the removal of a few exceptionally noisy aircraft (Concordes) from
the mix will allow hundreds more very noisy planes to take their place, with hardly a wrinkle to the 16hour Leq contour.
5.14 Life in Central London's residential and amenity areas will be noticeably worsened by the addition
of this number of daytime flights by these noisy types if Terminal 5 goes ahead, let alone what will
happen during the uncontrolled period between 0600 and 0700 and during the night.
10
st
th
NATS letter to CT Rolls, ref 8RD/013/003/03/02, 21 April and 26 , March 1997
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
6.
34
A figure of around 500,000 people is often mentioned as the number of people affected by
Heathrow aircraft noise. This is already a huge number but the true number is much
higher.
6.1 Once it is accepted that the 57 Leq contour is not the correct predictor of community disturbance,
then there is a need to find something better. This is particularly important because the contours have
assumed so much importance already as a means of attempting to show that shrinking contours mean a
shrinking noise problem.
6.2 Using the evidence from section 2 above we have re-drawn a contour which our data suggest more
accurately reflects the onset of community disturbance (Fig 6). The contour shown in pink represents
the official 57 Leq contour. The thick black line to the east represents our estimate of the true location
of the threshold of aircraft noise annoyance. This line extends 50% further eastwards than the 57 Leq
contour (to take account of the evidence that significant numbers of the community as far east as
Camberwell are well above any reasonable threshold of annoyance), and 1 km wider north and south of
the extended centre-lines of the landing corridors (to take account of the data showing 25-27% of
HACAN members and opposers registered with the Inquiry live up to 1km outside the contour).
6.3 We have also extended the arms of the contour to take in the large numbers of people who have
complained about take-off noise under easterly conditions. These have been wrapped around Ealing to
the north east and Teddington to the south east. The postcode areas in yellow have recorded significant
numbers of complaints to the Inquiry about aircraft noise.
6.4 We have not made any changes to the contour to the west of Heathrow since we have less data
about that side of the airport. Although it would probably be realistic to produce an approximate
mirror image, in order to make a conservative estimate we have ignored the likely increases in the
number of people potentially annoyed to the west.
6.5 However, just taking into account the change in the contour to the east of the airport, the number of
people contained within this new contour is approximately 870,000 people, in a swathe which takes in
the most densely populated residential areas of south and west London. The population count was
estimated by CACI Limited, a commercial demographic analysis company, on behalf of HACAN. The
details are given in an attachment below. The validity of these data is supported by the fact that the
CACI estimate of the population within the 57 Leq contour on the HACAN map was 374,000, which is
close to the official figure.
6.6 The HACAN contour for noise disturbance to the east of Heathrow is our best estimate of the
extent of the current problem based on a wide range of evidence of distress among real people. We
believe that a professional social survey of the noise problem around Heathrow would produce a very
similar result. As emphasised in HAC 62, the correlation between given Leq contours and subjective
annoyance needs to be recalibrated following any significant change in numbers of movements or
average noise levels per movement. Over the past fifteen years the noise mix at Heathrow , particularly
in terms of numbers of movements, has changed dramatically. In our view, the failure of the
Department of Transport to carry out any social survey since 1982 completely invalidates their
estimates of the extent of noise annoyance.
6.7 Although we have been unable to carry out a similar analysis of the true extent of annoyance to the
west of Heathrow, the same processes of increases in flight numbers generating high levels of
annoyance are likely to have occurred. Therefore, our estimate of the true numbers of people suffering
disturbance from aircraft noise is in excess of 1 million, that is more than three times the figure of
320,000 stated by the Department of Transport for 1994. Rather than the noise climate improving in
recent years, it has been worsening.
6.8 These large numbers of people affected also represent a significant potential cost to the UK
economy. Leaving aside all issues about house prices and house sale liquidity, the major issue to be
considered is the damage potentially caused through loss of sleep and stress-related illnesses caused by
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
35
aircraft noise during both day and night.
6.9 If an average of 20% of the population contained within the new contour lose sleep on 10% of
nights, and these are conservative figures, a small but non-negligible fraction of the UK's GDP is
potentially at risk from poor decision making, stress and inefficiency caused to the whole population
affected.
6.10 Any responsible and rational government or commercial manager of a high profile business like
BAA or BA would surely not take a decision which would adversely affect so many people and be
likely to bring bad press and ill will through a noticeable worsening of the noise environment in these
areas.
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
36
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
7.
37
And Where in London Can One Go to Escape the Noise?
7.1 The map below (Fig. 7) is an amalgamation of four maps issued by BAA on November 1, 1996
which show typical aircraft arrival and departure tracks on westerly and easterly days. We have
combined the four modes to show over any extended period of time those areas which are overflown.
There is not much of London which is not covered by the flight paths. Although aircraft on some of the
tracks shown are at fairly high altitude, the evidence on complaints both to the Inquiry and to the BAA
noiseline shows thatresidents under most of the tracks shown do experience disturbance.
7.2 And if one is in an area affected by jet noise where can one go to escape the noise? To escape the
jet noise completely is virtually impossible. As the tracks show, there are simply so many flights that
apart from the few clear areas in the map in parts of Chiswick, Notting Hill, Holland Park, and north
Kensington to the north, and parts of south Clapham, and parts of Wandsworth to the south there is
little light to see. Of course some areas are worse than others. We have clearly shown that living on the
extended centre-line of the landing runways is totally unsatisfactory even 15 miles from the airport in
the south east of London.
7.3 Similarly taking a chance on north west or south east London may be sensible for as long as
westerly preference is maintained. But the answer to the question is almost impossible to tell since
neither the DoT, nor any other body could say what the policies of the future will be with regard to
technological and political options. The technology will probably soon exist to spread landing or takeoff noise across a wider area whilst still using the runways efficiently. However, to date the policy has
been to concentrate noise as narrowly as possible.
7.4 Westerly preference might be abandoned, which would benefit areas currently affected by westerly
operation but would extend the easterly take-off and landing noise contours much further and bring in
areas now considered relatively unscathed. This would apply to Kingston, Surbiton, Esher and
Wimbledon in the south east and Wembley and West Hampstead in the north east. Maidenhead and
other areas to the west would also suffer worse from more landing aircraft.
7.5 Another potential impact of Terminal 5 which has relevance to areas outside of the 57 Leq contour
is the location of Terminal 5 with respect to both runways. Terminal 5 would straddle both runways
and end the commercial and ground noise logic of favouring the southern runway for night and early
morning flights. These flights currently include many BA flights bound for T4. The logical conclusion
of Terminal 5 would be a more balanced night time use of both runways, i.e. an increase on the
northern runway, which in turn would mean that more night and early morning noise would move up
towards the centre of London.
7.5 Terminal 5 would also add pressure to do away with runway alternation. This would become
especially necessary with any introduction of larger aircraft types, which would require larger wake
turbulence separation, thereby reducing runway capacity. Even though awareness of runway
alternation is not yet fully appreciated by residents further from the airport, we have seen the 15 dBA
difference from our noise monitoring in Chelsea, and the actual impact of any removal of alternation
would probably be severely felt.
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
38
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
39
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
8.
40
Résumé
8.1 We have proved that a situation exists where aircraft noise pollution from Heathrow has reached
unsustainable levels right across London. Not only are the areas nearer to Heathrow severely affected,
including the most beautiful and historic parts of west London and Berkshire such as Hampton,
Richmond, Kew, Barnes and Windsor - but also most of London’s central residential areas right across
the south of London. These are the areas where Londoners live and in which foreign business people
and tourists like to stay during their visits to London.
8.2 We have proved this by our social survey data in Camberwell and Chelsea which suggest that some
40% of the community are severely annoyed by aircraft noise in areas of Chelsea, and 20% in areas of
Camberwell. Camberwell is 50% further from Heathrow than the point beyond which the Inquiry is
asked to believe is the limit of community disturbance. This limit is said to occur near Putney Bridge
SW15, whereas Camberwell is in the south east of London.
8.3 We have supported those findings by reference to the following information:
• The location of HACAN members, of whom 46% live outside the 57 Leq contour, including 22%
who live over 1km outside the contour
• The similar postcode pattern from letters to the Inquiry opposing Terminal 5 and from noise
complainants
• Press cuttings
• Residents’ Associations which have affiliated to HACAN
8.4 We went on to propose some reasons why the communities surveyed responded that they were so
clearly above any reasonable interpretation of a "threshold of annoyance".
8.5 To do this we used our own amateur noise measurement data to show graphical and statistical
evidence which strongly suggests that the patterns of noise generated by aircraft landing at and taking
off from Heathrow could not be expected to be tolerated in the areas we measured. For example our
results over a ten-day period in Stockwell suggested that should official noise surveys be carried out in
parts of Wandsworth or Battersea under the extended centre-lines of the westerly runways, the contour
of significant noise disturbance would be shown to extend far further east than officially recognised.
8.6 We showed noise patterns of early morning flights from 0700 to 0723 over Chelsea, four miles
outside the contour. The individual aircraft were monitored on that occasion and caused noise levels
up to eight times the background noise. We also showed data from the earlier period on another day
from 0400 to 0700. Three massive noise spikes started the morning just after 0400. After a short break,
a further ten aircraft came over from 0430 to 0600. Just before 0600 the aircraft noise spikes became
continuous to 0630 when they moved across to a different runway. Hardly surprising then that 20% of
the random sample of 43 residents experiencing such noise patterns on most mornings of their lives
complained of being woken in the early morning.
8.7 We also showed how Londoners were being abused by the astonishingly inappropriate rules
governing flights to Heathrow and the incentive for the operators to work around the rules to contract
the official 16 hour noise contours. For example we showed that the noisiest period of the whole 24
hours is between 0555 and 0700 This is caused by a near constant stream of heavy, large and noisy jets
lining up to land after 0600 (when the night noise quota period ends) but before 0700, when the official
16-hour day noise measurements begin.
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
41
8.8 Regrettably BAA have been promoting the idea that the problem is illusory, with change towards
"larger and quieter" jets making the situation better at Heathrow by 2016. We have shown this to be
highly misleading by reference to their own data on mix changes at Heathrow combined with CAA
noise data by aircraft type, also contained within BAA's official documents to the Inquiry. The data
shows that it is much more accurate to say that the main mix changes will be towards larger and
noisier jets.
8.9 BAA do admit that the noise contour under the landing flight paths will get worse during the day
period. Remember also that this takes account of the removal of an average three Concorde landings by
2016. The noise energy of one Concorde is equivalent to about 35 B747-400's. So when they admit
that the landing noise will get worse than in 1994, the sky will have had to fill up with more than the
total noise energy of an additional 105 B747-400 movements to replace the 3 lost Concorde
movements.
8.10 Then we showed that there is effectively nowhere for the majority of London's population to go to
avoid aircraft noise now. Even taking a chance on areas only affected under easterly conditions would
be very risky since the ending of westerly preference is under consideration. Similarly no official
permission has ever been given to concentrate the traffic noise in narrow corridors. A challenge to this
policy could break open the noise impact over a wider area, making many more areas of London and
the South East less attractive areas to live and work.
8.11 Finally remember some of the quotes from the social surveys which are so far outside the areas
supposed to be affected by aircraft noise: the inability of a GP to concentrate during surgery, the endless
stream of comments about sleep loss, and other serious concerns and frustrations. What on earth are we
to do about this?
8.12 At the time of writing the author is aware of two human bodies, one segment of a wing flap and
frozen human waste which has fallen from planes over the South East within the last two years. Planes
do collide, run out of fuel, have engine or other mechanical failure, and the more pressure there is to
optimise runway capacity at Heathrow, and the more flights there are over London, the greater the risk.
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
9.
42
Conclusion
9.1 Heathrow is 50 years old, still with its principal runways pointing straight at the heart of London.
Despite numerous planning rejections for expansion, and caps set on limits of movements, we now
have 423,000 patms a year and this is growing. Terminal 5 is supposed to accommodate a further 60%
more passengers. But what is that when compared with forecasts from Airbus that air passenger traffic
is to triple over the next 20 years? (Financial Times article March 7, 1997)
9.2 In fact the major constraint upon the growth in air travel is not likely to be demand at all, which
seems set to explode over the next twenty years. It is more likely to be lack of airport capacity which
will limit air travel. In the last 10 years the Soviet Union has collapsed and freed hundreds of millions
from repressive communism. The People's Republic of China is a hotbed of capitalism and, with or
without “Chinese characteristics”, over 1.2 billion people have new aspirations from life which will
include travel. The economies of south east Asia are booming and their populations have money to
travel. The western economies are still growing and more people will continue to want to travel for
business and pleasure. The UK is currently one of the leading western economies and all of us should
want it to stay in front of the other European economies.
9.3 So why are we being asked to contemplate further expansion at Heathrow at all? Surely in
planning terms Heathrow is a non-starter when we consider even the medium term requirements for
London and the South East over the next twenty years. If we carry on down this road, Terminal 5 will
amount to little more than an environmentally disastrous "finger in a dike" when compared to the need
for a real long-term plan for the UK's air transport needs.
9.4 In fact these policies are the result of an unholy Trinity:
• A weak Conservative government (let us hope for better things now)
• Management of BAA, BA and other businesses, who have a duty to provide the best short-term
returns for their shareholders
• The lack of a well-organised and well-funded body to oppose the plans of the above two, with a
longer-term vision of how to balance all the needs of London and the South East.
9.5 We currently have a frightening balancing act in progress. Huge resources have been thrown
behind the fight of BAA and BA to overcome the poorly funded, but very strongly felt, opposition to
any further expansion at Heathrow. The positions of the two camps are head to head and if nothing
changes, the end result will approximate to a zero sum game whereby one side takes virtually all the
spoils and the other loses.
9.6 Does this need to be so? Let us suppose that the new strong government promises BAA that it can
keep a windfall tax, to be spent only on the development of a new airport for London and the South
East, and to be situated in the North Sea/Thames Estuary where it will have minimal environmental
impact. Let us assume that the new government will also regulate tax rates, landing charges etc. which
incentivise BAA to plan longer term. In round terms let us say this is worth £700m to BAA over the
next 5 years.
9.7 At the same time the government works with BA to find a formula which would make it attractive
for them to back the plans for a new UK airport suitable for the next 50 years, linked by
privately/publicly funded high speed rail links to the centre of the capital and existing hubs. The
capacity of the new airport could be in excess of the existing airports of Heathrow with Terminal 5,
Gatwick and Stansted.
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
43
9.8 If the new government could be attracted to this plan, BAA and BA could be expected to become
its greatest proponents. At the moment Sir John Egan and Robert Ayling are probably only making the
best short-term decisions they can for their shareholders given the current rules.
9.9 There is so much precedent to say that it must be done. At Kobe, the Japanese have created an
island for their new airport despite earthquake zones. In Hong Kong we, the outgoing British landlords,
have pushed through the new airport on Lantau. Apparently Charles de Gaulle near Paris is also being
excluded from further expansion in favour of a green fields site.
9.10 If the new London airport were to be well sited in the extended Thames Estuary, it would also be
in a perfect location for BAA to ensure that a high speed train link crosses the channel to attract
business from Paris, Amsterdam and Brussels. That is how the UK really could win the competitive
battle to attract travellers to pass through the UK economy. All that is missing, is for this Inquiry to
firmly shut the door on further expansion at Heathrow, and the new government to demonstrate the
necessary vision and courage to change the ground rules.
9.11 In this way, Londoners would benefit alongside BAA, BA and all British business. The forward
momentum of all sides working together would be irresistible. This is the only economically and
environmentally rational solution in the face of such a massive problem to major areas across our
capital city, and the need for vastly increased airport capacity in the South East.
9.12 This Inquiry must take the first step in this process by firmly and unequivocally rejecting Terminal
5, making further recommendations to restrict Heathrow aircraft traffic at antisocial hours, and to make
clear that a longer term solution must be found to satisfy the future demand for air travel.
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
44
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRES OF RESIDENT ASSOCIATION MEMBERS
March 3, 1997
A1
Introduction
A1.1
HACAN has carried out three separate surveys of locations affected by landing jet air
traffic to Heathrow in the central London area. Postal surveys were first carried out in
1996, with some follow up in 1997 by door knocking. The results are not presented as a
professional social survey but as an amateur survey, the results of which are considered to
be an accurate indication of residents’ experiences of aircraft noise from Heathrow
operations, as measured at the locations mentioned.
A2
Methodology
A2.1
Questionnaires were delivered to households contained within the resident association
boundaries. All three residents’ associations had become members of HACAN prior to
the surveying. HACAN approached the Chairman of each association to request the
opportunity to carry out a survey of a representative sample, or in one case, all of the
households in the association area. The objective of the surveys was to discover the
current impact of aircraft noise on the residents.
A2.2
In each case a two-page questionnaire was posted through the letter box of the house,
without covering letter in the case of Paultons Square, with the attached covering letter in
the case of Christchurch Street and with a brief sticker in the case of Camberwell. The
Camberwell sticker read as follows: “the Camberwell Society is a member of HACAN
and this questionnaire is being delivered to 100 members of the Society”. Copies of the
questionnaires and covering letters are attached.
A2.3
A return address for HACAN was printed at the top of each questionnaire.
received by HACAN were analysed and included in the aggregate results.
cases HACAN has the name and address of the respondent although
promised anonymity to all unless their permission is obtained to
names/addresses.
A2.4
Full results of the initial surveys are presented in the evidence to the Inquiry.
A2.5
The response rates were considered quite good given the effort and cost required to
respond. Nevertheless in order to present more complete data to the Inquiry, it was
decided to try to survey the remaining households which had not responded by means of a
door-to-door follow-up survey.
A2.6
In the follow-up questionnaire the length had been reduced to one page since some of the
questions in the first questionnaires had been found to be repetitious.
A2.7
In the follow-up, names and addresses were noted for each respondent and no guarantee
of anonymity was given.
A2.8
The two sets of data were then married together to produce an aggregate response for each
area surveyed and these data are also presented to the Inquiry.
All responses
In almost all
HACAN has
release their
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
45
A3
Locations
A3.1
The three associations were the Paultons Square Residents’ Association Chelsea SW3, the
Christchurch Street Residents’ Association, SW3, and the Camberwell Society, SE5.
A4
Dates of surveys
A4.1
HACAN commenced the postal surveys in early 1996. The first follow-up survey was
carried out on March 16, 1997.
A5
Quality Control
A5.1
One member at HACAN has been responsible for all the questionnaire production, data
collation and presentation. The data have been checked by a second HACAN member for
accuracy. All questionnaire responses are available for inspection.
A5.2
Responsibility for the distribution of the postal questionnaires was left with the Chairman
of each association. Each had been asked to ensure that the distribution was entirely
random. It was also up to the associations as to the covering letters which were to be sent
with the questionnaires.
A5.3
Follow-up surveys were all conducted by the same HACAN member responsible for all
the rest of the questionnaires.
A5.4
Quotations have been taken directly from the text of the postal questionnaires to ensure
that only the language and expressions of the respondents have been used.
A5.5
All responses have been included, whether favourable to HACAN’s cause or against. In
all cases the responses were not prompted, i.e. if a respondent mentioned that aircraft
noise woke them up it was noted. It was never asked.
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
46
A6. Further Details:
A6.1 Paultons Square SW3
A6.1.1 Paultons Square, Chelsea consists of some 50 houses and is a residential location in SW3
just off the Kings Road.
A6.1.2 Despite considerable road noise at one end of the square a committee decision was taken
by the Association in March 1994 to join HACAN because noise from landing jet aircraft at
Heathrow had already become a problem to a significant proportion of residents. Amongst the
questions, residents were asked to say whether or not jet aircraft noise was a problem at various
times during the day and night. The possible responses were "No Problem", "Some Problem",
"Severe Problem", and "Unbearable".
A6.1.3 Copies of all questionnaire responses are available without names since anonymity was
guaranteed unless permission is first sought. These questionnaires were not postage-paid or preaddressed.
A6.2 Christchurch Street SW3
A6.2.1 Christchurch Street Residents’ Association encompasses the streets of Christchurch Street
and Caversham Street, SW3.
A6.2.2 Questionnaires and covering letters sent to a random 60 households of the Christchurch
Street Residents’ Association in February/March 1996 produced 13 postal responses.
A6.2.3 A door-to-door follow up survey was carried out on March 16, 1997 of those houses and
flats which had not responded by post. This brought the total responses to 34 households and the
two sets of data were re-analysed together.
A6.2.4 Copies of the covering letter and questionnaires are attached
A6.3 Camberwell Society, SE5
A6.3.1 The Camberwell Society represents a group of some 900 members whose objectives are to
promote the amenity interests of the area. The committee endorsed a decision to join HACAN
because of the noise disturbance from landing jets at Heathrow.
A6.3.2 An initial postal survey in March 1996 was carried out, with questionnaires being dropped
into 100 households chosen at random from the membership. The questionnaires were
accompanied by a small sticker from the Society informing the reader that “the Camberwell
Society is a member of HACAN and this questionnaire is being delivered to 100 members of the
Society”.
A6.3.3 This method of survey produced 24 responses posted back to HACAN.
A6.3.4 A door-to-door follow-up survey was carried out on March 23, 1997 of three residential
streets in Camberwell. These included Grove Park, Camberwell Grove and Love Walk SE5. This
added a further 22 responses and brought the total responses to 46 households. The two sets of
data were re-analysed together.
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
47
APPENDIX B
HACAN Questionnaire
For residents of the Christchurch Street Association, SW3
March 1997
HACAN is helping your residents association to assess whether jet aircraft noise is already
considered a problem or not to local residents. This short questionnaire will be used in
aggregate with all other responses in the area in the public Inquiry into Terminal 5 at
Heathrow.
Please may we have your name and address, so that we can contact you again if necessary. Your
name or address will not be used in the proof of evidence without your approval.
House #:
Mr or Mrs:
Profession:
1.
Can you distinguish between helicopter noise, from overflying jets?
2.
Please assign a number from 1=no problem, 2=some problem, 3=severe problem,
4=unbearable, to the following aspects of overflying jet aircraft noise, as they relate to
you
Number
Night noise from 23.00 to 04.00
Early morning noise 04.00 to 06.00
Period from 06.00 to 07.00
Daytime noise from 07.00 to 15.00
Afternoon noise from 15.00 to 18.00
Evening noise from 18.00 to 23.00
3.
Have you noticed an improvement or deterioration in the aircraft noise environment in
your area over the last five years?
4.
Have you noticed whether it tends to be the larger or smaller aircraft which cause you
most disturbance?
5.
How does it affect you?
6.
How would you describe jet aircraft noise compared to all noise in this area?
The most annoying noise nuisance
One of many sources of noise nuisance
A minor noise nuisance
No noise nuisance
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
48
APPENDIX C
HACAN
NOISE MONITORING
March 31, 1997
C1
Introduction
C1.1
HACAN has carried out several noise monitoring sessions at various locations
across London. The equipment, techniques and typical results are described
below:
C2
Equipment
C2.1
Using members’ funds, HACAN has purchased the following Bruel & Kjaer noise
monitoring equipment:
2236 Sound Level Meter
7694 Reporter software
Full details of equipment purchased are available.
C3
Set-up
C3.1
The microphone has been calibrated before and after each session to 93.9 dBA.
The equipment has been set to read and monitor the following:
- Leq in dBA
- Slow setting for aircraft noise
- Max Peak and Max Level
- L10, L90 and distribution curves
The equipment has been used at both one-second logging and 10-second logging.
In the case of the 10-second logging, most of the readings were not monitored full
time. In the case of some of the 1-second loggings, an attendant was present.
C3.2
When set to 10 seconds, the equipment would monitor and store data for 10 days
of continuous recording. When set to one second, only 24 hours was stored at a
time.
C3.3
The data was downloaded onto the B&K 7694 reporter software for Windows.
The software allows HACAN to browse through the records and to select data on
required periods, and to generate graphs.
C3.4
The data are held on a PC hard disc and backed up with floppy disc.
C4
Locations
C4.1
Several locations around London have been monitored for sound. The main
locations which we shall discuss at the Inquiry are in Putney SW15, Chelsea SW3
and Stockwell SW9.
C4.2
In the majority of cases we have selected a rooftop site. The microphone has been
positioned near the vertical and always set up at least 1.5m above and away from
the nearest reflective surface.
Heathrow Noise Damage Across London
49
C5
Dates of monitoring
C5.1
HACAN commenced noise monitoring in mid 1996 and is continuing to monitor
noise as of March 17 1997.
C6
Quality Control
C6.1
During every recording, some event monitoring has been carried out to ensure that
the equipment is picking up sound in logical sequence to a known event. For
example Concorde movements with known approach times have been checked
against the data.
C6.2
Given that the longer periods have not been continuously monitored, the control
data have been important. These have been supplemented by evaluation of periods
of easterly operations in which jet aircraft landing at Heathrow do not fly over
central London.
C6.3
The main source of confusion is due to helicopter noise and general aviation
(GA)aircraft. We have evaluated the number, and noise pattern of helicopter
movements and GA in each area by careful study of easterly operations, some of
which have been monitored. We were then able to eliminate a similar number of
matching events from our westerly data so as to arrive at corrected westerly
operational noise due to aircraft operating at Heathrow.
C6.4
Other noise is primarily from street noise. Depending upon what we are trying to
show, we have either relied upon easterly operations again to provide the control,
or used the background noise as a part of our evidence. Whenever there has been
extreme noise in an area which is clearly not due to planes, we have ignored the
data. Such situations have occurred due to severe weather and road works.
C6.5
Weather information has been obtained from the Met office at Gatwick, or from
London Volmet Main on 135.375MHz.
C6.6
Given the limited objectives of our noise data and graphical submissions, we are
satisfied that we are able to present our case with sufficient accuracy to merit
consideration by the Inquiry