Heathrow Noise Damage Across London - HACAN · problems caused by noise associated with operations at Heathrow. I use commercial jets extensively on business, and until March of 1997

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 3 1. 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.


2. 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 contour and a further 22% more than 1km outside the contour1. 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 free-phone 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 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.


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.

BAA attempts to speed up long-running Heathrow inquiry, The Times, May 12th, 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.


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".


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. 2.44.5 These two surveys show that somewhere between 11% (13 out of 1222) 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


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 − am very tired as a result but how

do you prove this?" Camberwell

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


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.


4 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.


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. 4.21.2 This ten-day series shows an average daytime Leq (16 Hour) of 56.8 Leq3, an amount not distinguishable from 57 Leq by the human ear4. The one day of easterly operations is recognisable by the visibly lower noise levels. This was during Friday, March 21st.

3 This figure excludes the period 2300 to 0700 each night 4 Source: Bruel & Kjaer reference Measuring Sound, p7


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, March 20th and Friday March 21st, 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 Friday 21st, 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 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 in Chelsea, SW3 on Friday, February 28th, 1997. We show the period from 0325 through to 2309 later the same evening5. 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. 4.23.4 Friday, February 28th, 1997 was not a very noisy day in Christchurch Street. We have recorded noise levels on 23 days in the area, and the noisiest (in Leq terms) was Wednesday, March 12th, 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 Sunday, March 9th, 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 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 Friday July 26th, 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. 4.24.3 Given that a 10 dBA increase in noise represents a perceived doubling of noise6, 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 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 monitored between 0553 and 0702 on Tuesday, July 9th, 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 VOR's7 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 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.



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 September 5th, 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 each fine summer night8 between 2200 and 2300, it must be noted that on September 5th, 1996 there were 8 overflights in the same period which reached a highest measured noise level (Leq(1 second)) of 75-80 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



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 or thirty five B747-400s9. 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 re-inserted 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 Anglo-French 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 NATS letter to CT Rolls, ref 8RD/013/003/03/02, 21st April and 26th, March 1997


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:

With T5, 2016 cf. 1994 85 dBA SEL noise footprint area (sq. km)

Aircraft Movements/day Landing Take-off UL Twin 55 13.7 26.4 B747-400 85 16.1 35.5 MD12 17 16.7 44.4 NGLA 91 22.1 60.9 248

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.

5.12 Data we have received from the CAA10 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 16-hour 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 NATS letter to CT Rolls, ref 8RD/013/003/03/02, 21st April and 26th, March 1997


6. 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 37 7. 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 take-off 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 40 8. 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.


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.


9. 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.


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. All responses

received by HACAN were analysed and included in the aggregate results. In almost all cases HACAN has the name and address of the respondent although HACAN has promised anonymity to all unless their permission is obtained to release their 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.


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 pre-addressed.

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.


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

Documents

Heathrow Noise Damage Across London - HACAN · problems caused by noise associated with operations at Heathrow. I use commercial jets extensively on business, and until March of 1997