Some years ago, while doing some work for the UK Noise Association, I was asked to shortlist the noisiest roads in the UK.  I took a trip like no other.  Not for me seeking out the quiet beauty spots, the wooded glens or the babbling brooks.  I was on a mission to find the noisiest roads…and to spend as much time beside them as possible.

There are similar noise ‘hotspots’ under the Heathrow flight paths.  Go down to Cranford, for example, the last settlement in Hounslow before you reach Heathrow.  Mere words can’t convey the intensity of the noise.

Cranford, rightly, gets special insulation treatment.  Homes, including roofs, are fully insulated.  It get’s respite, a half day’s break from the noise when the planes are landing, but respite alone would not be enough.  It needs and gets ‘respite plus’.

Cranford, along with some of the other places, very close to the airport are obvious candidates for respite plus.  But are there others?  Are there less obvious hotspots which could qualify?

Heathrow is committed to the principle of respite but should it be looking at additional measures that would be required in the hotspots.  Of course, ‘hotspots’ would need to be carefully defined as funds are not limitless.

I would suggest that these are the sort of criteria which could be used in defining a hotspot:

• The noise of the aircraft

• The frequency of the aircraft

• The number of hours without a break

• Whether an area gets both arrivals and departures

• Whether an area is overflown by aircraft from one or more flight path or airport

Perhaps the defining criteria would be that somebody living in a hot spot could be endangering their mental or physical health if ‘respite plus’ was not offered.  There may be a role for the soon-to-be-established Independent Noise Authority in helping define the criteria. 

The airport – any airport – would then be required to work alongside the householders and the local authority to look at what respite plus might entail.  This would not be an easy task but the first step on the road would be to recognise there are hotspots where respite on its own may not be enough to mitigate the noise problem. 

It is in danger of being forgotten.  Yet the Airspace Policy Consultation contains a raft of proposals which will radically change the way the aviation industry does business.   

All eyes are focused on the parallel third runway consultation.  Understandably so.  Any new runway built anywhere arouses strong emotions.  And at Heathrow the fears are particularly acute.  Already the its aircraft fly over many, many more people than any other airport in Europe.  There are deep concerns about the impact of a quarter of a million more planes a year.

But can I take you back twenty years to the late 1990s to illustrate the depth of the changes being proposed in the Airspace Policy Consultation. They were dark days.  Major changes were made to the way planes flew into Heathrow…..without a word of consultation, far less compensation.  Outdated metrics were the norm.  Respite was limited.  Heathrow sought to infiltrate and undermine community groups. (I met the infiltrators years later!).  The CAA and NATS were remote and unresponsive.  And the Department for Transport sought no real engagement.

The consultation on Airspace Policy is potentially a breakthrough document.  It contains many measures that many organizations have been campaigning for; in the case of HACAN for nigh on two decades.

Perhaps the most dramatic is the proposal to sideline the 57dbLAeq metric as the indicator of the ‘onset of community annoyance’ and replace it with 54dbLAeq and 51dbLAeq metrics.  These are very similar to those recommended by the World Health Organisation.  The consultation document also recommends the use of N60 and N70 metrics.  All this is not perfect- we still need, for example, an additional metric which measures the noise only on the days when the planes are overhead rather than just relying on an annual average – but it is a bold step forward; the biggest in over 20 years.

The consultation also endorses respite as a key option open to airports.  Gone are the days when concentration was the order of the day.  I’ve written many times about the importance of respite to local communities.  Providing it will not always be easy.  In particular, it will be challenging for NATS as it will require air traffic controllers to take a more creative approach to their work but it is now embedded as a key component of Government policy.

The Independent Noise Authority is also central to the new approach Government proposes to take.  The details of the new Authority have yet to be worked out.  Some will argue it should have more teeth. Some of the airports and the airlines will be wary of it.  But it will happen.

For the first time communities will be entitled to be consulted when changes – large or small – are made to airspace and flight paths.  Campaign groups will be pressing hard for the engagement to be meaningful, recognising the devil is in the detail of a proposal that has yet to be fully developed. 

The Airports Commission has faced a lot of criticism from a number of quarters but there can be little doubt it brought a fresh pair of eyes to key aspects of noise policy.  Civil servants within the Department of Transport, with the backing of the aviation minister Lord Ahmad, have built upon that to produce a set of proposals which don’t  deserve to get lost in the publicity surrounding the consultation about a third runway at Heathrow.

The Airspace Policy consultation can be found at:  https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/588186/uk-airspace-policy-a-framework-for-balanced-decisions-on-the-design-and-use-of-airspace-web-version.pdf 

It is half as far from Heathrow as Edinburgh is from Glasgow.  So why is aircraft noise a problem in Brockley?  It is in South East London in the borough of Lewisham, over 20 miles from the airport.  And yet alight at Brockley Station and the dominant noise you will hear is from planes passing overhead.

It is part of Heathrow’s forgotten catchment area which stretches at least 25 miles from the airport.  It takes in Brockley, Leytonstone and Walthamstow to the east and places like Bracknell and Reading to the west.

Perhaps because it is forgotten, it is the area from which HACAN gets most emails.  I think there are two simple reasons for this: one, people who move into these places don’t expect to be neighbours of Heathrow; and, two, the area gets a constant stream of aircraft.  Large parts of West London enjoy a half day’s break from the noise when planes switch runways at 3pm.  This wider catchment area gets no such predicable respite.  It is interesting that a careful look at Heathrow’s complaint statistics for all areas reveal a clear correlation between complaints and lack of respite.

HACAN remains opposed to a third runway particularly because of the impact a quarter of a million extra flights would have on areas closer to Heathrow.  But get off the train at Brockley and or the underground at Leytonstone and the talk will not be of a third runway; but it may well be about aircraft noise or flight paths.

Respite (or controlled dispersal which some communities would prefer) could be introduced at a two-runway Heathrow.  The technology exists to allow precision flying which would enable it to happen.  But Heathrow is reluctant to make major changes to its flight paths until there is certainty about a new runway.  

If a third runway does get the go-ahead, HACAN is urging Heathrow to remember its forgotten catchment area and commit to introducing multiple flight paths, rotated on a regular basis, so that, for at least part of the time when you alight from the train at Brockley or the underground at Leytonstone, you don’t hear a plane in the sky, whatever direction the wind is blowing.

We are suggesting that respite is guaranteed within a 25 mile radius of Heathrow.  Beyond that, where the planes are higher, communities tell us they prefer an element of dispersal.

It would end two decades of constant noise for hundreds of thousands of people.  Heathrow doesn’t need me, a veteran opponent of a third runway, to tell them that this might be one of its key selling points.      

Most of us remember Blind Date with some affection.  Cilla Black’s match-making show attracted big audiences on a Saturday night.  Would the couple hit it off on their holiday together?  Would some of them even settle down with one another?

Heathrow and London City Airport need to go on a date.  There are some signs they are getting together.  I understand they are to meet.  What is needed, though, is a full-blown relationship in order to coordinate the key activities which impact on people living under the flight paths of both airports.

And, now more than ever, is the time to do it.  There will significant changes to flight paths over the next few years.  Some have already been made by London City when the airport concentrated its flight paths last year.  There are signs, though, it may be prepared to look again at these unpopular flight paths.  Heathrow will start consulting on new flight paths later this year..

Many of my friends in West London don’t fully realize the numbers impacted by both airports.  Vast swathes of East London from Tower Hamlets, through Newham, Waltham Forest and Redbridge and beyond are overflown by both Heathrow and London City aircraft.  A lot of South East London is similarly affected.

There are two keys ways in which the airports should work together.

One is in producing cumulative noise contours for the affected areas.  At present each airport draws up its own separate noise contours.  That cannot give a comprehensive or realistic picture of the total noise heard by residents.

The second is in coordinating their work on flight paths with the aim of ensuring that the communities overflown by both airports get meaningful breaks from the noise.

The technology now exists for aircraft to be guided more precisely.  It can be used to create multiple flight paths which, if used on a rotating basis, can give the periods of respite that would improve the quality of life for the people under flight paths.

HACAN remains opposed to a third runway at Heathrow because we fear the impact of quarter of a million extra planes a year on local communities but a firm condition of a new runway, if it is given the go-ahead, should be the requirement that Heathrow works with London City on matters of common concern.

This is not a forced marriage.  Both airports would retain their independence and identity.  But, with the help of other bodies like NATS and the CAA, liaison on noise contours and flight paths is quite possible.  The links the two airports arte beginning to make should be encouraged to develop into the sort of solid working relationship that ‘Our Cilla’ would have surely approved of.   

http://hacan.org.uk/blog/?page_id=516

15/3/17

by John Stewart

Most of us remember Blind Date with some affection.  Cilla Black’s match-making show attracted big audiences on a Saturday night.  Would the couple hit it off on their holiday together?  Would some of them even settle down with one another?

Heathrow and London City Airport need to go on a date.  There are some signs they are getting together.  I understand they are to meet.  What is needed, though, is a full-blown relationship in order to coordinate the key activities which impact on people living under the flight paths of both airports.

And, now more than ever, is the time to do it.  There will significant changes to flight paths over the next few years.  Some have already been made by London City when the airport concentrated its flight paths last year.  There are signs, though, it may be prepared to look again at these unpopular flight paths.  Heathrow will start consulting on new flight paths later this year..

Many of my friends in West London don’t fully realize the numbers impacted by both airports.  Vast swathes of East London from Tower Hamlets, through Newham, Waltham Forest and Redbridge and beyond are overflown by both Heathrow and London City aircraft.  A lot of South East London is similarly affected.

There are two keys ways in which the airports should work together.

One is in producing cumulative noise contours for the affected areas.  At present each airport draws up its own separate noise contours.  That cannot give a comprehensive or realistic picture of the total noise heard by residents.

The second is in coordinating their work on flight paths with the aim of ensuring that the communities overflown by both airports get meaningful breaks from the noise.

The technology now exists for aircraft to be guided more precisely.  It can be used to create multiple flight paths which, if used on a rotating basis, can give the periods of respite that would improve the quality of life for the people under flight paths.

HACAN remains opposed to a third runway at Heathrow because we fear the impact of quarter of a million extra planes a year on local communities but we would suggest that a firm condition of a new runway, if it is given the go-ahead, should be the requirement on Heathrow to work with London City on matters of common concern.

This is not a forced marriage.  Both airports would retain their independence and identity.  But, with the help of other bodies like NATS and the CAA, liaison on noise contours and flight paths is quite possible.  The links the two airports are beginning to make should be encouraged to develop into the sort of solid working relationship that ‘Our Cilla’ would have surely approved of.   

It is just possible that residents under the Heathrow flight paths could enjoy a whole new night-time experience: sleep! 

Currently that sleep can be badly interrupted by planes.  There’s the unscheduled late take-offs after 11.30pm – in fact the last plane is timetabled to leave Heathrow before 11pm.  There are the 16 arrivals between 4.30 and 6am.  And there are the 60 plus planes between 7 and 8am, one of the busiest hours at the airport.

It has been much the same for over a quarter of a century.  The airlines value the night flights but they drive many residents to distraction.  Government has realized how toxic an issue it is and so has kept the regime largely unchanged for the last 25 years.

But now an opportunity to change things could arise.  The third runway could be the catalyst.  HACAN continues to oppose a third runway primarily because we are concerned about the impact of a quarter of a million more planes using Heathrow each year.  But, if a third runway is to go ahead, the opportunity must not be lost to prize open the stalemate on night flights than has lasted for over quarter of a century.

The Airports Commission argued in its final report that a third runway would provide the capacity for the 16 flights which come in before 6am flights to land just after six, thus remaining attractive to the majority of passengers who use them.  The airlines will resist but, in return for getting a whole new runway, is it really too much to ask that they don’t start operating until 6am?  Sir Howard Davies certainly felt it was not.

It will be more difficult to relocate the 60 plus planes which currently use the airport between 6 and 7am but this is the time to make a creative assessment to see what can be done about them.  How essential it is that all these planes arrive and depart during this hour?  Does the extra capacity provided by the third runway allow at least some of them to be shunted post 7am?  If it would do, it would open the way to ensure people only get flights before 7am one week in three (wind permitting) as only one runway would be used for landings and one for departures during those hours.

Heathrow is also getting serious about late night departures.  They have been coming down in recent years and Heathrow’s recent sustainability plan, Heathrow 2, includes specific targets to reduce them further (genuine emergencies and late running due to really bad weather would be excluded).

So, what could an overall package look like to allow residents to sleep at night?

• For two weeks out of three, no flights from 11pm until 7am

• On the third week, no flights from 11pm until 6am

Compare the current situation:  often departures after 11pm and sometimes into the early hours; 16 planes between 4.30am and 6am (at least every other week) and over 60 planes between 6am and 7am.

If a third runway does go ahead, this change is worth fighting for.

The lack of information about where the new flights will be is emerging as a key criticism of the Department for Transport’s current consultation into the third runway at Heathrow.  Commonsense would suggest that flight paths should be an integral part of any consultation on any new runway.  After all, most people are pretty agnostic about a new runway.  They only get interested if they hear that the runway will mean flights over their homes.  Yet read the Department’s consultation document or go to one of its public exhibitions and information about flight paths is missing.

I’m not sure this is a deliberate plot to minimize the opposition to a third runway by withholding flight path information from people.  It is more the result of very bad timing.  The third runway consultation is being run in parallel to a national consultation on air space policy.  The latter is being driven by a worldwide plan to modernize and make more efficient use of airspace.  This would save the airlines money, time and fuel as well as cutting their climate change emissions.  Also, it would allow airports to operate more flexibly and effectively. The consultation is asking for views on the principles which should inform airspace policy – for example, should flight paths be concentrated or dispersed; how much importance do people attach to respite; what would meaningful respite would look like.  

And therein lies the problem for the Heathrow consultation.  Until these key principles have been decided neither the Department for Transport (DfT) nor Heathrow can know for sure where the new flight paths for a third runway will be.  Indeed, they cannot predict what will happen to flight paths even if Heathrow remains a two-runway airport.

So why, you might reasonably ask, did the DfT not consult on airspace policy well before the consultation on the third runway?  The civil servants were keen to do so.  Ministers, maybe understandably but unfortunately, have spent the last two years so focused on the toxic question of where a new runway should go that they allowed a backlog of other matters to build up.

Heathrow Airport itself is planning to start consulting in the autumn on the principles behind any flight path changes and to involve local communities in the process.  And in 2018 flight paths will form part of its detailed plans for a third runway if Parliament approves the new runway.

Through no fault of Heathrow this will be the first time that many, many people will be aware that a third runway flight path could affect them.  I suspect there will be real anger.  The fact is Ministers, by refusing to sort out flight path policy well in advance of the consultation, have caused an unholy mess.

The DfT appointed the former judge, Sir Jeremy Sullivan, to ensure the third runway consultation was fair and reasonable.  I trust he will have a few choice words for ministers on the absence of flight paths when he submits his report on the process in early summer.