Author: John Stewart

This blog is being written on Boxing Day.  It may be because I’m a sad obsessive.  But it is also because HACAN, like Heathrow, never closes.  We get complaints about aircraft noise Every.Single.Day.Of.The.Year.

I stress this because recently stories have appeared which suggest that house prices are what really motivates people to complain about Heathrow.  A typical example of this was Anthony Hilton’s piece in the Standard on 19^th December.  I quote it in full:

Heathrow objectors on wrong path

The first flat I bought in London was under the Heathrow flight path. It was suitably cheap, and the trade-off between price and noise seemed a compromise worth making.

That presumably also holds true for everyone else who has bought a house in West London in the past 60-plus years. The airport has been there since 1945. They knew it was there when they bought.

Things have improved to some extent over the years because aircraft are a lot quieter than they used to be. Heathrow may be full but the noise made by individual planes going overhead is nothing like it was in the Sixties and Seventies when the skies were full of Boeing 707s, or in the following decade with Concorde. As planes have got bigger, they have also become quieter with a smaller noise footprint.

No doubt those under the flight path nevertheless feel justified in resisting further expansion of the airport, and it would be only human for them to wonder at the leap in value of their homes should the airport ever be closed. But I am not sure that is sufficient reason for the rest of us to agree with them.

There are so many inaccuracies in this short piece.  Indeed, the basic premise is wrong.  There is no evidence to suggest that, with the possible exception of properties very close to the airport, the price of houses under the flight paths is lower than elsewhere in London.  Work carried out by Heathrow Airport shows they are not.  Indeed many argue that houses prices in West London would fall if Heathrow shut because its relatively easy access to the world’s busiest international airport adds value to the property.  Many homes in Kew and Richmond sell for a million pounds or more.  And people paid a fortune for the apartments in the new developments around Battersea Power Station, right under the flight path.  It all reflects the buoyancy of the London housing market.

It appears that the only time property prices may be affected is when houses, previously unaffected by aircraft noise, find themselves under a flight path for the first time.  A leading estate agent told the Standard on 13^th December that house prices could suffer a five per cent price hit if they were suddenly under a new flight path from a bigger Heathrow.  Another, Dominic Agace, chief executive of estate agents Winkworth, doubted new noise would have a significant impact on prices but said there could be a shift over time to quieter areas. 

Anthony Hilton’s piece also fails to understand what has happened to the noise climate in recent years.  He correctly states that individual aircraft are quieter than they were 30 or 40 years ago but then makes the common mistake of assuming that means the overall noise climate has improved, despite more than double the number of planes using the airport. 

He is not alone in this claim.  Heathrow Airport makes the same argument.  And, sadly, much of it has found its way into in the Airports Commission Interim Report, published shortly before Christmas:

The claim that the noise climate is improving is not reflected in residents’ experiences.  When HACAN started 45 years ago, it had a different name KACAN – Kew Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise.  (I know we specialize in dreadful acronyms!).  It represented just the West London suburbs of Kew and Richmond.  Even when fighting the Terminal 5 Inquiry, HACAN just covered West London and parts of Berkshire.  It was only in the mid-1990s that HACAN started to become the regional body it is today.  And that was down entirely to the number of planes using Heathrow.  This summer the greatest number of complaints HACAN received was from SE London: http://www.hacan.org.uk/resources/reports/living.under.the.heathrow.flight.path.today.pdf

The problem is that the way aircraft noise annoyance is measured doesn’t fully capture the impact increased numbers of aircraft using an airport.  The metric gives too much weight to the noise of individual aircraft and not enough to the effect of increased numbers.  It utterly distorts things.  For example it would find that four hours worth of non-stop noise from Boeing 757s at a rate of one every two minutes causes the same annoyance as one extremely loud Concorde followed by 3 hours 58 minutes of relief: http://www.hacan.org.uk/resources/reports/hacan.the_quiet_con.pdf  Clearly not a reflection of reality!  

It is noise not house prices which motivates people to email HACAN on Christmas Day.  As they top up their sherry glasses after finishing their plum pudding, it’s not concern about the price of their home which persuades them to email HACAN; it’s the fact that the Queen’s message has been drowned out by the latest passing plane.

Howard Davies has surprised us all.  We expected his Interim Report, to be published on Tuesday 17^th December, to earmark Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick and probably an Estuary option for further consideration.  Nobody thought it would be focused almost entirely on Heathrow.

Yet we now have it on good authority that the draft Davies presented to the Chancellor George Osborne for his comments was all about Heathrow.  Davies is suggesting a third runway at Heathrow, followed, if the demand is there, by a fourth or a second runway at Gatwick.  Both the Stansted and Estuary options had been dropped.

Sources say that Osborne was taken aback at the exclusive focus on Heathrow and suggested to Davies he may need to formally include other options in his report to give it the semblance of balance.  We will see what appears on Tuesday.

But it is clear that it is Heathrow and Heathrow alone which interests Davies.  This has huge implications.

In the short-term it will delight Heathrow Airport and its business backers.   But I suspect that Heathrow, if not all its backers, know that their real struggle has just begun.  They will be fully aware that Davies’s naked support for Heathrow is likely to be the trigger for the start of a huge campaign against the expansion of Heathrow.  Gone will be the consensus Davies has tried to create.  If he has nailed his colours to the Heathrow mask, he will be regarded as firmly in the Heathrow camp as London First, Ksawi Kwarteng or Back Heathrow.  There will be nothing more to say to him…except ‘no’.

Heathrow Airport is only too aware that they are taking on a campaign with a successful track record.  Just a few years ago a diverse coalition of local residents, politicians, local authorities, environmental groups and direct action activists were instrumental in stopping a third runway:  http://www.hacan.org.uk/resources/reports/how.the.heathrow.campaign.was.won.pdf

That coalition is merely in abeyance and is confident that it can see off expansion a second time round.  Some of the businesses backing a third runway put that victory down to luck but Heathrow Airport know that it is a force to be reckoned with because of the support, tacit or active, that it has amongst residents in the most overflown city in the world.  It is a key why reason Heathrow Airport has put so much time and end effort into noise mitigation measures.

Davies is backing the most politically undeliverable of all the options.  He must be aware that opposition ranges from the Mayor of London to Plane Stupid; from Greenpeace to the London Assembly; from cabinet ministers to local councillors; from residents to trade unionist and environmentalists.  He’s paved the way for what one journalist called ‘the biggest environmental battle in Europe’

But, by coming out so clearly for Heathrow, Davies has also almost certainly forced politicians and political parties to reveal their hand before the 2015 General Election (even though his final report is not due to be published until two months after the election).  He has made Heathrow an election issue.

My hunch is that Davies’s early support for Heathrow expansion has effectively killed it.  He has put the issue firmly into the political arena where the supporters of expansion face a struggle they can probably never win. 

Flight paths can be moved around London to give people respite from the noise.  The skies between Walthamstow and Leytonstone used to be criss-crossed by aircraft heading for Heathrow.  They are now virtually empty.  Only the irritating roar of planes taking off from City Airport spoils the silence.  It is not an official trial.  I don’t know why it has happened.  But it could provide a model for the rest of London.

It’s an area I know well.  Several years ago I moved there from South London to escape aircraft noise.  I thought I had found an oasis of peace and quiet until…..only minutes after acquiring the keys to my new flat I heard the familiar roar overhead.  Not as loud as South London, and night flights not a problem, but nevertheless a pretty constant unwanted companion.  In fact, a survey by HACAN in 2009 showed that the borough – Waltham Forest – was the third most overflown in the capital, after Hounslow and Richmond: http://www.hacan.org.uk/news/press_releases.php?id=248 

I am now back living south of the river but during this last long hot summer returned to see an old friend in Leytonstone.   The planes were pouring over the park we visited.  The day after, 15^th July, I tweeted:  “Spent yesterday outside under Heathrow & London City flight paths…in Leytonstone! London already under a sky of sound. 3rd runway anyone?”  Now the Heathrow planes have virtually gone.

Check out webtrak:  http://webtrak.bksv.com/lhr .  You’ll see there are very few planes going over the area.  I noticed it by chance last week when I was up there for the first time in several months.

Why is this potentially so significant and important?  Because periods of respite from the constant noise could make life so much better for so many people in London and the surrounding areas.

At present people in West London enjoy a half day’s break from the noise when planes landing at Heathrow switch runways at 3pm.  It is a life-saver.  But there is no guaranteed break for anybody else.  Check out this HACAN video of life in Vauxhall, 18 miles from Heathrow, with as many as 40 planes an hour flying overhead: http://youtu.be/rXf8o_khz8s (note: the opinions expressed represent those of the residents; not necessarily HACAN).

It was because people in places like Vauxhall were so desperate for a break from the noise that HACAN joined with Heathrow Airport, British Airways and National Air Traffic Control (NATS) last year in a trial to give people respite from noise at night.  The trial was not altogether successful in that it resulted in some areas experiencing more noise than they should have done but it did give relief to over 100,000 residents:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23692965   

Respite has to be the way forward.  Heathrow is with us for the foreseeable future; and probably for good, unless Boris gets his island or Stansted becomes a 3 or 4 runway airport.  And, barring the unlikely event of the people of London and the South East taking direct action in protest at the noise, the number of flights using the airport is not likely to fall below its current cap any time soon.

Official respite periods might not, though, be right for every area.  It almost certainly would work for somewhere like Vauxhall, with 40 planes an hour.  But in some places still further from the airport where the planes are higher and the numbers are less, periods of respite followed by periods of more intensive use may not be the best way forward.  This needs to be tested through trials.

NATS, in conjunction with Heathrow Airport and the airlines, will be conducting further trials over the coming two years to test out respite periods.  This will be done in the lead-up to a fundamental re-jigging of flight paths around 2015/6.  As part of a European scheme known as SESAR, airspace in London and the South East will be re-organised to allow it to be used more effectively.  It should enable aircraft to be operated in a more streamlined and fuel-efficient way.

It is also a potential opportunity to assist residents under the flight paths.  New technology is coming in which allows aircraft to be guided much more precisely.  The lazy way for this to work would be to concentrate the aircraft into one or two narrow bands, creating what would become, in effect, noise ghettos.

The alternative is respite periods, where the noise is shared around.  The good news is that this is the direction things are going at Heathrow.  NATS needs to be ambitious if it is to take full advantage of the opportunities opening up.  What’s happened in North East London shows that flight paths can be moved around; that real respite can become a reality even at a busy airport like Heathrow.  The old Leytonstone flat…it’s tempting again.  What do you been the rent has doubled………….  

Yesterday was the 20^th anniversary of the introduction of Air Passenger Duty (APD).  It has proved hugely controversial.  Environmentalists and most residents groups’ believe it is not high enough.  Aviation interests argue it is crippling the industry.

Even today the Sunday Telegraph is reporting that some 250 chief executives have written to the Chancellor, in advance of his Autumn Statement this week, claiming APD is harming the economy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10485312/Scrap-air-passenger-tax-rises-urges-CEOs.html

In a sense, both sides are right.  Air Passenger Duty has the potential to transform demand for air travel.  And both sides know it.  If it is removed, more people will fly.  If it is increased, demand over time is likely to fall.  Higher rates of APD would hit leisure travel hardest as it is much more price-sensitive than business travel.  Less demand for air travel would, in turn, reduce the demand for new runways.

Howard Davies, the chairman of the Airports Commission, has argued that it is not his job to advise on taxation rates; that he has to work within the current regime.  In my view, he is correct.  It is the job of governments to decide the extent they want to use fiscal measures to manage demand.

When Kenneth Clarke, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced APD 20 years ago in his budget of November 1993 it wasn’t to manage demand but to ensure aviation paid its fair share of taxation: “First, air travel is under-taxed compared to other sectors of the economy. It benefits not only from a zero rate of VAT; in addition, the fuel used in international air travel, and nearly all domestic flights, is entirely free of tax. A number of countries have already addressed this anomaly”.

By 2007 the Government was framing APD as a response to rising aircraft emissions.  But, in recent years, government has seen it as a substitute for tax on fuel and VAT.  Ministers regard it as easier to impose APD than enter into prolonged international negotiations to get agreement for aviation fuel to be taxed or for a VAT-type tax to be imposed on international flights.

At present there is a huge discrepancy between what motorists are taxed and the tax paid by the aviation industry.  Revenue from car travel (tax on fuel and VAT) bring the Treasury about £12 billion a year.  APD raises around £2.8 billion.  It would need to be quadrupled match the income from car travel.

Of course, the aviation industry argues that, unlike roads, it doesn’t depend (certainly in the UK) on state money to build and maintain its infrastructure.  It also points out there are tax-breaks given to rail and bus travel.  However true those arguments are, I’m not sure they fully answer Kenneth Clarke’s original point that aviation fails to contribute its fair share of general taxation.

The industry also argues that APD does not exist in other countries.  That is true.  However, there are a variety of ticket-type taxes or other charges in many European countries.  For example in Austria, the ticket fee depends on the distance, 7€ is for the short distances, 15€ for middle and 35€ for long distance.  None of them – yet – bring in as much money as APD.

But politicians across Europe are beginning to understand APD-type taxes have two potential benefits:  they rake in money during these recessionary times; and they can act as an effective tool to regulate demand if they want to do so.  That’s why they fill environmentalists and residents with hope and strike fear into the heart of the aviation industry.

I suspect the battle will go on for at least another 20 years.

I don’t know Louise Ellman personally.  The only time we have spoken is when I gave evidence to the Transport Select Committee last year.  But it surprises and disturbs me that, as chair of the committee, she can write – or at least put her name to – an article of such stunningly poor quality as appeared in Politics Home on Friday.
http://centrallobby.politicshome.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/louise-ellman-mp-airport-decision-long-overdue-and-desperately-needed/

Let’s look at its low-lights.

Ellman starts: “For half a century, Britain has been paying an increasingly high economic and social price for the failure of successive governments to take decisions about how to expand London’s airports”.  

Come on, Louise!  For 50 years?  Since1963?  The year you turned 18; when I was a boy in short trousers; and Harold Wilson was still 12 months away from becoming Prime Minister for the first time.

More significantly, in 1963 Southampton was more probably important than Heathrow; ocean liners, not aircraft, were the mode of transport for inter-continental journeys.  Just four years earlier my dad, who had been teaching in Zimbabwe, retuned to the UK by ship.  He never considered the plane as an option.  Indeed, I don’t think he flew in his entire life. 

Let’s glance at the state of aviation in 1963.  Heathrow ruled the European roost even then.  This from Wikipedia: “In 1961 Frankfurt already had 2.2 million passengers and 81,000 take-offs and landings, making it the second busiest airport in Europe behind London Heathrow (my emphasis).” 

Charles de Gaulle was but a glimmer in the planners’ eyes.  It didn’t open until 1974.  But perhaps it’s Schiphol Louise had in mind.  1963 was the year the construction of the current airport began, to be opened in 1967 by HM Queen Juliana

Ellman’s gushing prose continues:  “Heathrow has been full for a decade.  This means that the UK has started to lose out to rival hubs in e.g. Paris, Frankfurt and Schipol.”

Her first sentence is simply wrong.  Heathrow’s runways are operating at about 99% capacity but it has the terminal capacity to cater for another 20 million passengers a year.  More passengers using larger planes remains an option for Heathrow Airport.

Ellman does acknowledge that our existing links with well-established markets are excellent.  She fails, though, to point out that this makes London the top city in Europe in which to do business.  Global property consultants Cushman & Wakefield’s 2011 The European Cities Monitor found London topped the league for the 22nd year out of 22. Cushman & Wakefield commented: “London is still ranked – by some distance from its closest competitors – as the leading city in which to do business. Paris and Frankfurt remain in second and third place respectively.”   London retained it position in 2012.

Ellman gushes on…..about Let Britain Fly: “The Campaign, which was launched last week, is the biggest and most influential business-led campaign ever created to address the issue of airport expansion. I was delighted to take part in the Launch and offer my strong support”.

It may be or may not be the biggest but to argue it is the “most influential” just weeks after it has been formed is, frankly, nonsensical.  Both Louise and I are both of an age to remember the early days of the Beatles (1961 I think it was – the era when Heathrow was allegedly already falling behind other European airports).  To have argued the they were the “most influential” band when they started out in the Cavern Club in Liverpool, a city Ellman has served conscientiously over the years, would have been meaningless.  They became influential.  Let Britain Fly might become influential.  Or it might crash land like it predecessor bodies:  Flying Matters and Freedom to Fly.  Her breathless prose doesn’t allow for that eventuality. 

The gush reaches its apex:  “Last week saw what I believe will prove to be a defining moment in the campaign to restore the UK’s pivotal status in the global aviation industry”.

Wow!  Breathless stuff Louise!  Pity is it would be better coming from a Mills and Boon writer of romantic fiction than the chair of Parliament’s Transport Select Committee. 

There is a debate to be had about future capacity needs.  There are serious discussions taking place in different fora a around the country.  It is a debate that HACAN seeks to take part in constructively.

But let’s debate on reasoned arguments rather than breathless prose; on factual statements; not bland assertions.  Mills and Boon has no place in this debate.

This blog is a bit different.  Last week I spent a day with Michael Mo, the young man who heads up the campaign against a 3^rd runway at Hong Kong Airport.  He had a fascinating story to tell.   My knowledge of Hong Kong Airport was limited.  I knew that the old, city-centre airport had been shut down for safety and noise reasons and been replaced by a new two-runway off-shore airport.  But that was about it.

Michael explained what was happening.  A third runway is being proposed.  200,000 people would be under its flight path, experiencing noise for the first time.  The aim is to create a bigger hub: to increase interchange passengers from 30% of the total to 49%.  The Hong Kong authorities want the new runway up and running by 2023 but they face growing opposition.

As we shared lunch in the Five Bells in Harmondsworth – one of the pubs under threat if a Heathrow 3^rd runway ever went ahead – Michael told me about campaigning in Hong Kong.  His biggest supporters are Hong Kong Friends of the Earth, who will publish a cost-benefit analysis of the expansion proposals by the end of the year.  But he also has support within the local aviation industry and from…..the Dolphin Conservation Society.  Michael noticed my bemused look.  He explained.  The famous Hong Kong White Dolphin is an endangered species.  There are only 65 left, down from 200 in 1998.  And a new runway might eliminate them altogether.  Hong Kong Greenpeace has yet to back the campaign.  Michael is threatening to join Greenpeace UK given the huge contribution it made to preventing a 3^rd runway at Heathrow!

Bringing local residents on board presents particular challenges in Hong Kong.  Many believe they can sell up if a new runway is built.  But also a lot of the residents’groups in the areas affected are controlled by ‘pro-Bejing forces’ which don’t encourage rebellion.

The campaign is taking place within a wider policy debate.  What Michael called ‘the China camp’ tends to favour airport expansion, both in Hong Kong and on mainland China.  There is also a ‘high-speed rail camp’ which argues that a number of the regional airports built in China in recent years to boost GDP now stand virtually empty because of a lack of demand.

The campaigners also criticise the authorities for looking at the expansion of Hong Kong Airport in isolation from Macau and Shenzhen airports, both just 30 miles away.  And they are critical of the emphasis on the hub.

As we compared notes, it became clear that many of the issues we faced were similar.  And our campaigning methods are similar.  What was clear, though, is that a decade ago we would not have been sharing lunch.  Campaigners were not linking up across oceans in this way.  

As we said goodbye, it was clear to me that Michael is a man on a mission, believing he can succeed.  He’s buoyed up by the success of the Heathrow campaigners in winning against all the odds.  He senses success is quite possible.  I’ll drink to that.

Let Britain Fly had a difficult birth today.  Its proud parent, London First, surrounded by a glittering array of big names from the business world, overdid the hyperbole.  Baroness Jo Valentine, chief executive of London First, said that it was not acceptable for politicians “to dither” over new runways “and let our economy wither.”   She even went on to ask somewhat over-dramatically, “Do we really want to become an also-ran in the global race?”

Baroness Valentine must know this is exaggeration, even scaremongering.  Whatever the pros and cons of expansion in the longer term, the facts are clear: there is no rush for a decision to be taken.  The Department for Transport has said that there is enough spare runway capacity in London and the South East until nearly 2030.  And survey after survey shows that London remains the top city for business in Europe because of its unparalleled air connections to the rest of the world. 

The annual, and influential, survey, carried out by global property consultants Cushman & Wakefield, The European Cities Monitor rates London the top city in which to do business in Europe.  In 2011, it found London topped the league for the 22nd year out of 22. Cushman & Wakefield commented: “London is still ranked – by some distance from its closest competitors – as the leading city in which to do business. Paris and Frankfurt remain in second and third place respectively.”  The survey found London owes its position to its excellent links to the rest of the world. It has the best external transport, best internal transport and top telecommunications.  The 2012 survey produced the same result.

Despite the alleged “dithering” more passengers fly in and out of London than any other city in the world.  Paris, its nearest European competitor, is in 5^th place.

There is a genuine debate to be had about future airport capacity but Let Britain Fly – and his parent body London First – will lose credibility if it continues to exaggerate the urgency of the need for expansion.

London First and its backers also face another challenge. It is easy for London to make general calls for airport expansion without exploring its impacts on local communities.  We hear the obligatory words that the needs of local residents must not be overlooked.   But it has never publically faced up to the question: is there any occasion when the environmental and social impacts of expansion at any particular airport are so unacceptable that expansion should be ruled out, whatever the economic benefits?  It needs to do so if it is to engage fully in the debate.

Let Britain Fly will have a gilded childhood.  £500,000 is going to be spent over the next two years.  But its parent body and supporters need to get over the excitement of its birth, calm down and stop giving the impression that London’s economy is in crisis because of a lack of runways.  It is simply not true.   

They won’t know whether to laugh or cry this weekend, the residents of Sabine Road in Battersea.  Their street has been named one of the quietest in London.  “Sorry you did say ‘quietest’ didn’t you?”  They’ll be asking each other over breakfast as the next plane roars overhead.

Sabine Road, not far from Clapham Junction, is in an area where there have been countless complaints about aircraft noise the years.  It’s on the flight path to Heathrow.  

So what is going on?  

The researchers, from the noise consultancy firm 24 Acoustics have fallen into the classic trap of using the official UK method of measuring aircraft noise.  

“To determine the quietest streets, researchers used existing data to locate which ones were outside of the 57 decibel noise contours for airports, and had a night road traffic noise level of lower than 35 decibels”

This reliance on the 57 decibel noise contour has made a mockery of their results.  It has meant that aircraft noise can be heard in just about all their top quietest streets.  Streets in places like Fulham and Putney make it into the top 10.

The blame lies not with the researchers.  I imagine that in good faith they accepted the official measurement of noise annoyance from aircraft.  It was a mistake waiting to happen.  For years HACAN, along with many other bodies, has argued the measurement is utterly misleading.

We wrote in our response to the Airport Commission’s consultation on noise:

“The current 57 db Leq contour – the official area which defines where community annoyance sets in – excludes places like Putney and Fulham in West London!  Not the real world!”

The European Commission agrees with us.  It requires member states to use a different metric – called 55Len – when drawing up their noise maps.  That is more realistic.  It extends the noise boundaries to places like Vauxhall and Clapham.  But even it does not cover all the places where people are annoyed.  The ANASE Study, commissioned by the last Government but quietly buried when it found the findings were not to its taste, found that there is significance noise annoyance well beyond the 55Lden contour.

Of course the current 57 decibel cut-off point suits the aviation industry down to the ground because it minimises and underestimates the numbers affected by noise. 

However, here are distinct signs the tide is turning.  Sir Howard Davies, who heads up the Airports Commission, is known to be looking seriously at a more realistic metric.  

In their responses to the Commission’s noise paper, MPs queued up to criticise the current cut-off point:

Mary Macleod MP: 

“There is widespread evidence that the existing measure of the threshold of annoyance is inaccurate and misleading.”

Zac Goldsmith MP:

“The measurement of noise – and of noise annoyance/disturbance – needs revising. Currently it is misleading.  Any noise measurement that does not reflect reality lacks credibility”.

Former Transport Secretary Justine Greening MP: 

“I believe this strongly shows that taking a traditional 57dB approach to assessing the level of noise annoyance from any new aviation strategy will exclude a large number of people who will be annoyed and affected but live outside of the 57dB noise contours.”

John Randall MP: 

“Clearly, a 57dB threshold is unhelpful if it excludes population areas that are experiencing significant annoyance from aviation noise”. 

Murad Qureshi for the London Assembly Labour Group:

“The committee has previously recommended the adoption of an Lden measure and the use of lower thresholds for identifying the areas most affected by aircraft noise”.

Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London:   

“The development of a new noise metric is strongly supported. It must fully represent sensitivity to and the impacts of aviation noise and how individual aircraft events are experienced during different times of day and night”. 

Even the Government in its Aviation Policy Framework, published in March, recognised the current measurement was flawed:

“Average noise exposure contours are a well-established measure of annoyance and are important to show historic trends in total noise around airports. However, the Government recognises that people do not experience noise in an averaged manner and that the value of the LAeq indicator does not necessarily reflect all aspects of the perception of aircraft noise. For this reason we recommend that average noise contours should not be the only measure used when airports seek to explain how locations under flight paths are affected by aircraft noise.” 

 The Airports Commission has been charged with reassessing the way aircraft noise is measured.  A change to a more realistic noise metric could be the most lasting    decision it will make.  It will ensure that future aviation policy decisions are based on sound measurements.  

And it will save future researchers falling into the same trap that ensnared the benighted people from 24 Acoustics.  

There are rumours – just rumours – that Sir Howard Davies may be leaning towards a third runway at Heathrow, but only if he is satisfied that the noise problems can be mitigated.

If that is the case, the response to his Airports Commission’s noise paper will have given him considerable food for thought. 

A summary of the responses can be found at : https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/252998/Non-technical_responses_to_Noise_Discussion_paper.pdf

And the full report at

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/stakeholder-responses-to-airports-commission-discussion-papers

The Commission revealed at the end of last week that the noise paper had generated more responses than any of its other papers.  And that, significantly, over 90% of those responses concerned Heathrow.  75%of respondents expressed opposition to further expansion of the airport.

Moreover, respondents doubted that the noise climate could be sorted.  Here’s what the Mayor of London wrote in his response:  “More runways would mean many more people exposed to noise – contrary to Heathrow’s recent pronouncement.It is misleading for Heathrow to suggest that a three runway airport would be quieter than the airport is today – a claim made in Heathrow’s long-term options submission to the Airports Commission. Thisclaim relies on the third runway being less than half utilised in 2030 and veryoptimistic assumptions on the rate of technological improvements”.

Already Heathrow is in a noise league table all of its own.  According to the European Commission over 725,000 people living under the Heathrow flight paths, that is, 28 per cent of all the people impacted by airport noise across Europe, more than Frankfurt, Madrid, Paris and Amsterdam airports combined.  Of the other London airports London City affects 12,200 people; Gatwick 11,900; Stansted 9,400; and Luton 8,600.

Howard Davies, a thoughtful and thorough man, has expressed the view that at least one more runway is needed to meet future demand in London and the South East.

The response to the Commission’s paper suggests that Heathrow should be ruled out on noise grounds.

Views came in from residents, politicians and campaign groups alike.

In a spirited response, the former Transport Secretary, Putney MP Justine Greening, said, “The issue of noise has always been dominant in decisions regarding Heathrow expansion” adding “If Heathrow expansion is allowed I believe it will be one of the biggest planning and transport strategy mistakes of this century, irreversibly blighting Londoners quality of life forever”. 

Richmond and North Kingston MP Zac Goldsmith re-enforced that view: “A third runway at Heathrow would be a noise disaster and would lead to a serious further reduction in the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of London residents”. 

Fellow Conservative MP John Randall made a similar point: “a thirdrunway at Heathrow poses a real risk of endangering the quality of life, and possibly the life, of affected residents.”

Brentford and Isleworth MP Mary Macleod said, “The noise impact of Heathrow airport is already significantly affecting the quality of lives of local residents and any future plans involving an increase in aviation noise should not be tolerated.”

The London Mayor, Boris Johnson, put it cogently and concisely: “London is exposed to more aviation noise than any other city in Europe.”

Murad Qureshi, writing on behalf of the Environment Committee of the London Assembly: “Noise, as well as other environmental factors clearly swings the debate about airport capacityagainst any expansion of Heathrow”.

Noise has long been regarded as a Cinderella pollutant.  But in the case of Heathrow it could be what stops a third runway coming to the ball.