Author: John Stewart

People are becoming more disturbed by noise because the noise climate has become worse; not because they are less tolerant of noise

Blog by John Stewart

The official National Noise Attitude Survey (1), recently published by the Government, showed that more people were disturbed by noise than ten years ago. Those disturbed by neighbour noise was up from 9% to 11%; aircraft noise up from 1 million to 2 million people; only road noise – at 8% of the population – remained constant.  

A number of people have jumped to the conclusion that this is because we are becoming less tolerant of noise.  I’m not sure there is evidence to back that up.  

The evidence we have points the other way:  as a nation we are becoming more tolerant of noise; the fact the more people say they more disturbed is simply a reflection of how noisy the country has become.

When I was researching my book Why Noise Matters (Earthscan 2011) all the evidence I found suggested that we are able to live with levels of noise we simply would have not tolerated a generation or two ago.

Of course noise has always been with us. We only have to read accounts of the noise in ancient Rome or on the streets of medieval Europe to understand the problems it presented.  But the type of noise was different to that so common in the modern world.  It was described as ‘the organic sounds created by humans and animals at work and at play.’(The Soundscape of Modernity, Thompson 2004)

Today we are faced with ‘machine age’ noises: cars, planes, trains, stereo systems, musak, iPods etc.  I found evidence that in countries where the consumer society has become embedded ‘a growing number of people not only accept noise but see it as something positive because it is associated with the consumer goods they value.’

But many have not just embraced the constant noise of consumerism, but also learnt to love the loudness of the noise.  The noise in modern clubs, cinemas, restaurants and even our home stereo systems is of a level unimaginable 40 years ago.  Barry Blesser and Linda-Ruth Salter argue that ‘when a culture accepts loudness as being a legitimate right in recreational sound venues, that acceptance tends to legitimize all forms of noise pollution.’ 

They go on:  ‘As a culture with advancing sonic tools and amplification, there are increasing opportunities to be immersed in destructively loud sound fields.  We believe that acceptance of loudness in entertainment then carries over to a tolerance of disruptive noise from airplanes, jackhammers, powered garden equipment, and so on.  Loudness becomes the cultural norm.’  (The unexamined rewards for excessive loudness, Blesser and Salter, 2008)

I would suggest that this is borne out by people’s acceptance of loud noise in daily life: music in shops and restaurants; announcements on the Underground and at railway stations; iPods stuck to our ears.

Of course there are people for whom this cacophony of noise is well-nigh unbearable, but for much of the nation it is accepted – and perhaps even enjoyed – as part of life.  And yet more people say they are disturbed by road, aircraft and neighbour noise than ever before.  It can only mean that the noise from these sources is becoming worse.

(1). The Government aims to publish the National Noise Attitude Survey every ten years.  Previous surveys were published in 1991 and 2001.  This survey is dated December 2014 but has recently been released by DEFRA.  The research for it was carried out in 2012:  file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/John%20Stewart/My%20Documents/Downloads/12378_SummaryReportV1.0%20(1).pdf

How much support is there for a third runway at Heathrow?

So, how much support is there for a third runway?  Heathrow – understandably from their perspective – made a big deal of this week’s Populus Poll which saw support edge up to just over 50% – http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.com/Press-releases/New-Poll-Growing-local-support-for-Heathrow-expansion-ab2.aspx .  They have now crafted huge adverts around the findings.

The reliability of the Populus polls has been questioned because of the way in which they have been conducted – http://hacan.org.uk/blog/?p=316  – but the key stat may be found in a 2007 Populus Poll.  The findings then were very similar to the results of this week’s poll.  It showed 50% in favour and 30% against – http://hacan.org.uk/blog/?p=281  

Nothing much has changed since 2007 and critically around a third of people questioned remain opposed to Heathrow expansion.  Across London and the South East that adds up to over one million people.  And that’s a number to worry any Government.  It is a stubborn block of opposition that refuses to be swayed by Heathrow’s advertising blitz or Back Heathrow’s expensive leaflet drops.

I think, though, what Heathrow has achieved is bringing into sharper focus the support there is for a third runway.  That support – some of it active; a lot of it passive – has always been there.  It was simply not part of the narrative 10 years ago.

However, I suspect, when the next Government comes to consider the findings of the Airports Commission, it will be more interested in assessing the level of opposition when coming to a view about the political deliverability of a third runway that how much support it has.  It is the way of politics.

It is likely that a third of residents will continue to oppose expansion, some of them vehemently.  As will the array of environmental groups.  They were an important part of the coalition which saw off the proposals for a third runway last time round.  And Heathrow has not sought to engage with them, nor Back Heathrow to influence them.

Most Of the green groups have gone quiet since the third runway was dropped in 2010.  Climate Change is their issue.  They are not really interested in noise or flight paths.  My soundings suggest they will be back if a new runway is given an amber light after the Election.

Heathrow understands there is little they can offer the environmental groups, so have not spent resources trying to influence them.  Heathrow has concentrated its energies in try to offer residents and local authorities a better deal in terms of noise mitigation measures, jobs and compensation.  But, so far, it has not shifted the million plus people in London and the South East who remain firmly opposed to expansion.  

Dear Sir Howard,

As a seasoned campaigner, I find it all somewhat ironic.  You will have noticed from the number of pro-forma letters your Commission has been receiving that Heathrow Airport and Back Heathrow have strained every sinew of their advertising budget to try to persuade as many people as possible to email or write to the Commission that they want a third runway at Heathrow.

As you know, that is not the issue the Commission has been seeking to address in its current consultation.  It has been asking a series of fairly technical questions on whether it has accurately assessed the pros ands cons of the three options it has shortlisted for a new runway:  Gatwick; Heathrow Hub; and Heathrow Airport’s own proposal.

What it is not assessing is the level of support for each option.  Quite rightly, the Commission sees that as the role of the next Government when it considers the Commission’s recommendations after the forthcoming General Election.

The irony is that, as a rule, it is campaign groups which use – and indeed sometimes abuse – this sort of consultation as a hook to bombard the authorities with objections.  Usually the airports are content to sit back and watch, with wry amusement, their opponents running around ragged, content in the knowledge that it is the technical arguments that count.

Not this time.  The roles have been reversed.  While most of the campaign groups have stuck to making the arguments, Heathrow, together with its sidekick Back Heathrow, have engaged in an orgy of activity.  Passengers have been invited to pop letters of support into special post boxes which you may have seen dotted around the terminals.  Airport staff, resplendent in their uniforms, have been queuing up to sign the pro-forma letters (having doubtless carefully considered every word of your weighty report in their tea-break).  And Back Heathrow, slick campaigners that they are, have used their website to make it as easy as possible for their supporters to send the Commission emails and letters supporting expansion.

 I think the Commission can expect tens of thousands of standard letters and emails supporting Heathrow expansion.  I don’t know if Heathrow has set itself a target but I suspect it would be disappointed if you received less than 60,000 – the number of supporters I believe Back Heathrow now claims to have.  They may even be aiming for 70,000, the number who objected to the third runway in 2009.

You will get some responses from HACAN members and supporters but we have deliberately not set out to generate a mass of pro-forma letters and emails.  We simply think they are a side-show to the serious work your Commission is undertaking.

Thank-you for taking the time to read this letter,

John Stewart

Chair HACAN

“Well, you knew Heathrow was there, so why did you move under the flight path?”  It is one of the most common responses to residents’ complaints about noise.

And it is not always said in a sneering, aggressive way, although that can and does happen.  Often the questioner is simply drawing a very logical conclusion.  Most of us moved into our homes after Heathrow was opened in 1946; we knew we were under a flight path; haven’t we, therefore, really just got ourselves to blame.

As you might expect, I’m going to argue it is nothing like as straightforward as that. But first to acknowledge the truth in what is being said.  Over the past 20 years a lot of homes under the flight paths have changed hands.  And some, in the buoyant London market, for figures in excess of a million pounds.  Most of these buyers knew about the flight paths, though some would not have realized how disturbing the planes actually can be until after they moved in.  But HACAN gets a negligible number of complaints from people who have moved under the flight paths in the boroughs closest to Heathrow in recent years.

Now let me take you to Walthamstow.  It could be Leystonstone, Stratford, Catford, Peckham, Brixton or Vauxhall.  Ask yourself, if you were moving into one of these areas, would you ask the estate agents about aircraft noise.  And yet, over the last 20 years, it has become a real problem in these places.

A study HACAN commissioned from the independent noise consultants Bureau Veritas in 2008 found that in places 20 kilometres from Heathrow “aircraft noise dominated the local environment.”  It said there was “an almost constant background of aircraft noise” in Kennington Park, close to the Oval Cricket Ground, well over 15 kilometres from the airport.  And the study concluded:  “The relatively high levels of aircraft noise that do occur at some distance from the airport are certainly enough to be noticed by those living in those areas and in certain circumstances to cause some disturbance and intrusion.”

The big change occurred in the mid-1990s when a change in operational practices meant that aircraft joined their final approach path much further from the airport.  Instead of joining over West London, they were expected to join over SE London.  As one resident wrote, “We didn’t move to the flight path, the flight path moved to us.”  It can make people still living in those areas very angry to be told they were aware that they were under the flight path to a major international airport when they moved in.  Interestingly, the highest number of complaints HACAN continues to get are from areas some distance from the airport.

There is, though, another reason why it is too easy to say that people knew about the airport when the moved in and therefore, it is implied, should shut up about the noise.  Not everybody has a choice about where they live.  People will move to where jobs are and, particularly if you are on a low-income, will want to live as near work as possible in order to reduce travel costs.  Additionally, the many people in social housing have limited choices about location.

In conclusion, think twice before you say: “You knew Heathrow was there, so why did you move under the flight path?”  It can make a lot of people angry and frustrated because they know that, in their case, it is simply not true.  Or that they had no choice.