Metrics matter

Twenty years ago I wouldn’t have been reading a blog on metrics; far less writing one.  I’m not sure I’d really have had much idea of what “metrics” were.

But having chaired HACAN for nearly 20 years I now know metrics matters a lot.  The way noise is measured and the assumptions behind when it becomes annoying are critical factors in the determining Government policy on noise.

The importance of getting metrics right was recognized by the Transport Select Committee in its recent report on the National Policy Statement.  In effect, it suggested the Department for Transport recalculate the number of people which could be impacted by a three runway Heathrow using the most up-to-date metrics.  If this was done it believed ‘an extra 539,327 people would be captured in the annoyance footprint; taking the total number of people in the noise annoyance footprint to over 1.15 million’.  This is considerably higher than either the DfT or Heathrow have acknowledged.

The importance metrics right is the also one of the key messages of the report HACAN published this week (in association with Plane Hell Action) which found that aircraft noise can be a problem over 20 miles from Heathrow – areas where the traditional metrics simply ignored:  http://hacan.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Corridors-of-Concentration-Report.pdf  

It needs to be acknowledged the real progress there has been in recent years in devising more realistic metrics.  Credit goes to campaigners who gave banged on about outdated metrics for nearly 20 years, the Airports Commission who came to the issue with fresh eyes, Heathrow who came to understand the need for change and to the Department for Transport which moved things forward significantly in its new airspace policy announced in autumn 2016.

Things are not yet perfect – which I’ll come to later in the blog – but we are in a different world from the dark days of two decades ago.  Then the 57 decibel contour was king.  If you were inside the contour, it was accepted you had a noise problem.  Outside of it, you didn’t really count.

So what was so magical about the 57 decibel contour?  It was constructed like this.  Over a 16 hour day, the number of aircraft passing over an area and the noise of each plane were noted.  The noise was then averaged out.  This was then turned into an annual average.  If the annual average was over 57 decibel, the area was within the 57 decibel contour.  

Why 57 decibels?  Because, at the time, this was the level at which the Government argued ‘the onset of community annoyance’ began.  Acousticians were careful to say that it was more subtle than that and that some people became annoyed at lower levels but, to all intents and purposes, the 57 decibel contour became the official cut-off point, used at public inquiries and in industry and government documents to illustrate the numbers impacted by individual airports.  Latterly, it made no sense.  Around Heathrow for example places like Putney and Fulham – both clearly heavily impacted by aircraft noise – were outside the contour.  

Things began to look up when, over a decade ago, the EU required member states to use a different metric known as 55Lden.  It argued that the ‘onset of community annoyance’ started at a lower level.  The difference in numbers impacted at Heathrow was huge:  over 725,000 using 55Lden compared with around 245,000 using 57LAeq. 

The Airports Commission under Sir Howard Davies, although criticized in other areas, moved the metrics debate forward significantly.  It suggested a range of metrics should be used included the ‘N’ metric.  Local communities often feel these are more meaningful to them than the average noise.  So, for example, N60 would indicate the number of flights over 60 decibels that went over an area in any given period.  Heathrow also began to move towards using a suite of metrics.

The culmination of this improved process was the Government’s Airspace Policy announced in autumn 2016.  It effectively ditched the 57LAeq contour and replaced it with the 54LAeq as point where ‘the onset of community annoyance’ starts.  But it went further.  On the basis of a report it had commissioned from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the Department for Transport recognized that around 7% of people could be disturbed when the noise averages out at 51 decibels.  These are more meaningful metrics.  And not far from what the World Health Organisation recommends.

In geographical terms, it takes the annoyance boundary from about Barnes (57 contour) to Clapham (54 contour) to about the Southwark/Lewisham border (51 contour).  As the crow flies, Barnes in 9 miles from Heathrow, Clapham 14 miles and Nunhead (fairly close to the Southwark/Lewisham border), 19 miles.  Similar calculations can be done west of the airport.  

Accurate metrics matter because only when there is a clear idea of the numbers impacted by noise from an airport can realistic policies be put in place to deal with that noise.  Metrics can determine levels of compensation, whether efforts should be made to provide communities with relief and respite from the noise and, indeed, to assess the impact of any new runway.

Campaigners will be pressing for real action based on these more meaningful metrics.  We will also continue to press for still further improvements.  For example, the existing metrics do not reflect the actual noise impact in areas like Ealing or Teddington which only get planes (on easterly departures) about 30% of the year but, when they do, the impact is significant.  A metric that measures only the days areas are overflown would be more meaningful and needs to be added to the suite of metrics used.  This would also capture the problems experienced in places like Reading and Caverham which are currently a little outside the 51 decibel contour when measured over a year.  A metric also needs to be used which reflects the cumulative impact on areas which experience noise from two airports, such as Heathrow and London City.

The dark days when one outdated metric was relied upon do seem to be over.  But the light is not yet shining as brightly as it could be.  

by John Stewart

HACAN launches major new flight paths study

Today HACAN launched a major new study which reveals the extent of the aircraft noise problem in South East London.  Corridors of Concentration, published in conjunction with Plane Hell Action, revealed a dramatic increase in flight numbers over parts of South East London in recent years.  It also found that flight paths have become more concentrated.

Over a dozen areas from Clapham Common in the west to Greenwich in the east were surveyed.  The number of aircraft audible from each location was recorded.  Key counts were verified by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

The overall number of flights is much the same as when we last surveyed the area 10 years ago but this masks significant changes in certain places.  Particularly dramatic was the increase in the number of flights in the far east of the region has increased dramatically: daily flights in the Brockley corridor grew by 135 between 2011 and 2017; Greenwich saw an increase of 165 a day.

The study concluded many more planes are joining their final approach corridors further east than before and are more concentrated within those corridors.   

Read the study:  http://hacan.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Corridors-of-Concentration-Report-1.pdf

New Study: Dramatic increase in flight numbers over parts of South East London

A new study (1) reveals a dramatic increase in the number of flights over many areas of South East London in recent years.  Corridors of Concentration, published today by HACAN and Plane Hell Action, also found that flight paths have become more concentrated. The study was carried out to highlight the current impact of aircraft noise on south east London and to influence the policy debate by feeding into Heathrow’s recent consultation on future flight path design.

Over a dozen areas from Clapham Common in the west to Greenwich in the east were surveyed.  The number of aircraft audible from each location was recorded.  Key counts were verified by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

The study found that:

  • The area is heavily overflown, with typically 38 planes an hour audible to many communities.  This could rise to over 40 during busy periods.
  • Increased concentration of flights has taken place in recent years. More than ever, flights are being guided through ‘concentrated corridors’ which means particular communities are especially badly hit.
  • The overall number of flights is much the same as when we last surveyed the area 10 years ago but this masks significant changes in certain places:

– the number of flights in the east of the region has increased dramatically: daily flights in the Brockley corridor grew by 135 between 2011 and 2017; Greenwich saw an increase of 165 a day.

– flight numbers in the ‘southern corridor’ – which is focused on the southern runway – have risen significantly.

– increased concentration has meant more flights for particular communities.  Although the study focused on daytime flights, it found evidence to suggest night flights have also become more concentrated.

The study concluded many more planes are joining their final approach corridors further east than before and are more concentrated within those corridors.   Increased concentration and the join point shifting have meant that people living south of the river are experiencing an increased density of turning aircraft over their homes.

The study made three key recommendations:

  • In the short-term, flight paths need to be varied as much as possible to reduce the concentration identified.
  • The practice of concentrating night flights over particular communities should be avoided.
  • In the longer-term, when Heathrow redesigns its airspace, it needs to ensure that the new technology is used to distribute arrivals fairly over multiple approach routes.

 Dan Scorer, of Plane Hell Action, said: “This study confirms everything that people have been telling us across south east London.  The increased concentration of flights is driving many people to despair, with no escape from the constant noise over our heads.  We can’t wait 7 years for Heathrow to change flight paths – action is needed now.”

HACAN chair John Stewart said, “This study makes a powerful case that the problems caused by flights to Heathrow are not confined to West London and areas close to the airport.  For many communities in South East London the situation has got worse rather than better over the last decade.”

ENDS

 Notes for editors:

(1). Link to the study:  http://hacan.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Corridors-of-Concentration-Report-1.pdf

For further information:

John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650

Dan Scorer on 07949 653 704

Community Engagement Board

Rachel Cerfontyne has been appointed as the first chair of the new Community Engagement Board.  She spent her early years in Feltham, started life as a social worker and has over twenty years’ experience in leading public sector and charitable organizations.  Her most recent role was as Deputy Chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, where she oversaw their two largest investigations: the Hillsborough Disaster and the Rotherham Child Sexual Abuse scandal.

Commenting on her appointment, Rachel Cerfontyne said:

“My highest priority is getting out and about, meeting people in the local communities and hearing their views. I am keen to listen and learn and to ensure that the membership and activities of the HCEB are shaped by the key stakeholders, especially Heathrow’s closest neighbours. I’ve already started meeting with local community representatives and over the coming weeks and months look forward to engaging formally and informally from all who have a view on and a relationship with the airport.”

The Community Engagement Board replaces the Consultative Committee.  It has taken over the function of the Consultative Committee of holding Heathrow to account on day to day matters but will have the additional function of holding the airport to account as it consults on its detailed plans for a third runway.

Transport Select Committee backs 3rd Runway but with challenging conditions

The Transport Select Committee Report into the National Policy Statement (NPS) on Airports (essentially, the 3rd runway at Heathrow) has been published today (23rd March).  The report backs a third runway at Heathrow but has come up with some challenging conditions including tougher air pollution targets and a 7 hour night flight ban.  The Government will respond to the Committee in a few weeks time.  It doesn’t need to accept the conditions but the Committee warns that unless it does it could leave the NPS open to a legal challenge.  A Parliamentary vote is still expected in the summer.  If Parliament backs a 3rd runway, it becomes official Government policy.  Heathrow then has the task of drawing up and consulting on the detailed plans before presenting them to a planning inquiry.

Read the Report:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmtrans/548/54803.htm   summary

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmtrans/548/54804.htm  conclusions and recommendations

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmtrans/548/54802.htm  the full report

And a summary of key points HACAN has put together: http://hacan.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Transport-Select-Committee-NPS-Report-Key-Points-1.pdf

 HACAN WELCOMES TOUGHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ESPECIALLY RECOMMENDED 7 HOUR NIGHT FLIGHT BAN

PRESS RELEASE

 Embargoed until 00.01 23/3/18

HACAN, the campaign group which gives a voice to residents under the Heathrow flight paths, has welcomed the fact that the Transport Select Committee in its report on the National Policy Statement on Airports has recommended tougher conditions on noise and air quality should a third runway be given the go-ahead.  These include a night flight ban of seven hours, longer than the six and a half hour break that was recommended by the Government.

In its report the Committee has endorsed the Government’s view that a third runway at Heathrow is the best option for expansion.  But it has recommended that the Government take on-board a raft of new conditions.  These include stricter conditions on noise and air quality and more clarity on new rail access to the airport.

HACAN Chair John Stewart said: “Although disappointed the Committee didn’t reject the third runway, we welcome the tougher environmental conditions which it has recommended.  In particular we welcome its recommended seven hour night flight ban.”

Currently there is a ban on scheduled night flights from 11.30pm until 4.30am.

The Government will now be expected to respond to the Committee.  A vote on the NPS is expected to take place in Parliament in the summer.  If it is backed by Parliament, a third runway becomes Government policy and Heathrow would start to consult on the detailed plans for the runway.

ENDS

 For more information:  John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650

Respite Report Published

Heathrow published its long-awaited respite report commissioned from Anderson Acoustics on 16th February.  It is the first of its kind to be done.  HACAN was part of the steering group.  And later work carried out by Heathrow showed 54% people backed respite even it it increased the number of people overflown. Only 22% would back concentrating all the flight paths over particular areas. 

Summary video: https://youtu.be/7Z5mt7rKJgA .

Where to find the reports: https://www.heathrow.com/noise/making-heathrow-quieter/respite-research

Heathrow’s consultation on the principles it should use in designing its new flight paths, released later in the year, showed most people backed respite   54% wanted the priority to be respite even if that increased the total number overflown; 25% wanted the priority to be to prevent new areas being overflown (that included most respondents not currently overflown); any only 22% backed minimising the total number overflown by concentrating all the flights over certain areas.  (Some backed more than one option which is why the don’t add up to 100%).

You can reading about further findings here:   https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/95fcb6e4-d297-4678-9a08-3a819f0529d9

End of Cranford Agreement Postponed

The Government abolished the Cranford Agreement in 2009. But it will not come into effect until a final decision is taken on a third runway.  This was the 50 year old understanding that planes did not take off from the northern runway over Cranford, at the Hounslow end of the runway.  It meant that, when an east wind blows, all planes must land over Windsor on the northern runway so that they can take off from the southern runway.  This has denied Windsor the half day’s break from the noise which West London enjoys.

Heathrow needed to do work on its taxiways to allow planes to take off from the northern runway.  It got permission to this at a public inquiry but now wants to do further work on the taxiways so they fit in with any third runway.  It is therefore planning to roll this further work into its more general detailed work on a third runway.  If things go according to plan, it will not get planning permission for this until 2020/2021 after which the Cranford Agreement could become operational.

Shaping the Future

Shaping 2018

The essence of successful campaigning is to shape the future.  There will be a number of opportunities for aviation campaigners to do that in 2018.  It will be the year when crucial decisions will be made and pivotal policy positions set in train.

The most headline-making decision will be on a third runway at Heathrow.  Already it is the Government’s preferred option.  If Parliament backs it in a vote expected by the summer, it will become official Government policy.  The next step will be for Heathrow to begin the 2 – 3 year process of drawing up and consulting on the detailed plans before presenting them to a local planning inquiry for approval.

HACAN has long campaigned against a third runway and will continue to do so.  Our principle objection is this:  we feel that an extra 700 planes a day will only worsen the noise climate (despite any welcome improvements in aircraft technology and better operational procedures that may be on the way).  It will be particularly hard on areas – such as parts of Hammersmith, Chiswick, Brentford and Ealing – which have never had planes before.  Lives will be turned upside down and, for some people, it will never go back to the pre-plane days.  Already, according to the European Commission, 28% of people impacted by aircraft noise across Europe live under the Heathrow flight paths.  We feel that, whatever economic benefits a third runway may bring, the noise disbenefits are simply too great.  

While the long-awaited decision on the third runway will capture the headlines, it important that, as campaigners, we don’t let it overshadow our chance to shape other key decisions that will be made in 2018.

On January 17th, Heathrow will launch two public consultations to run in parallel over a 10 week period.  One will concern the very local impacts of a third runway; the other will be about the reorganisation of its flight paths.

While HACAN continues to oppose a third runway, if it does happen, we want the best possible deal for our members who will the people who will be living with the impact of the new runway.  We are determined to try to shape that deal.  We would of course prefer not to be in a position of trying to shape a deal before a final decision has been taken but that it the reality of where things are and it would be a dereliction of our duty to our members if we didn’t use every opportunity to get the best deal possible.

So, during the consultation, we will be putting forward and campaigning for tough conditions to be embedded in any recommendation the Government may put before Parliament for a third runway.

The six key HACAN conditions would want to see:

  • A tougher night flight regime than the 6½ hour night currently on offer 
  • Guaranteed respite for all communities within 25 miles of Heathrow
  • A noise envelope that sets firm limits on noise and flight numbers 
  • World class compensation
  • A Community Engagement Board
  • A fourth runway to be ruled out

The conditions should be become part of primary legislation agreed by Parliament in order to provide the firmest guarantee possible that there will be no going back on them. 

We will also seek to shape Heathrow’s flight paths consultation.  HACAN’s well-known position is that PBN could work for communities if the precision technology is used to introduce a number of routes which are then rotated to provide predicable periods of respite.  It could be a positive benefit for communities from Lewisham to Reading who at present are being tormented by all-day flying.  Whatever system is finally introduced, it needs to be rooted in the principles of fairness and equity.

The other piece of emerging legislation which will be developed in 2018 will be the new Aviation White Paper being put together by the Department for Transport.  It is likely to enshrine in legislation some of the positives which were outlined in the Government’s Airspace Policy, published towards the end of 2017: more realistic metrics for measuring noise annoyance; the recognition of the importance of respite; the establishment of an Independent Noise Authority (expected to happen this April).  These are measures HACAN campaigned hard for over many years.  We will be joining other organisations like the Airports Community Forum to press for tough measures to cut noise and for airport communities to have a stronger voice in decision-making to be included in the White Paper.

But the consultation last year on the vision behind the White Paper was based on a huge predicted growth in passenger numbers over the coming decades.  As indicated above, aviation growth can bring benefits.  But future growth, unless regulated in some way, could overwhelm us.  When the 90% or so of the world’s population who have never flown start to do so, some controls will probably become inevitable.  A fair fiscal system would be the most effective form of control.  It needs to be a graduated system where those who fly most frequently – and those who travel the greatest distance – pay the most.  Air Passenger Duty, which raises £3.2 billion a year for the Exchequer, includes a distance element.  The much-discussed Frequent Flyers Levy – http://afreeride.org/ – bases the tax paid on the number of trips made in a year.

Finally – and as important as anything else for people living with the noise right now – in 2018 we will press for immediate improvements to the current noise climate around Heathrow.  Early in the New Year we will publish a report which will suggest that, while most flight paths have not changed in recent years, there has been more concentration of aircraft both of landing and take-off.  This needn’t wait until new flight paths are in place to get sorted.  We will suggest it is something with air traffic control could deal with in the short-term.

We will continue to defend the runway alternation enjoyed by many people in West London.  And back the trials of slightly steeper approaches being carried out by Heathrow.  And back the research being carried out into the impact of steeper departures.  We will continue to play an active role in bodies such as Heathrow’s Community Noise Forum and the Community Engagement Board (which will incorporate the Heathrow Consultative Committee). 

Strategy