Biggest study for 25 years shows numbers affected by noise could be 10 times higher than admitted
Campaign groups urge Aviation Minister to ‘end the lies and the deceit and publish the report
Campaign groups urge Aviation Minister to ‘end the lies and the deceit and publish the report
Aviation Minister Jim Fitzpatrick is sitting on a government study which shows that many more people are affected by aircraft noise from Heathrow than previously thought (1). The Attitudes to Noise from Aviation Sources in England (ANASE), a major study commissioned by the Department for Transport as far back as 2001, reveals that the Government and BAA have consistently underestimated the number of people affected by noise from Heathrow. The numbers could be ten times higher than previously admitted. Local authorities and campaign groups are pressing for the report to be released before the forthcoming consultation into expansion at Heathrow.
The ANASE Study, the most comprehensive carried out for 25 years, reveals that over two and half million people are likely to be affected by aircraft noise from Heathrow (2). This contrasts with the figure which the Government and the aviation industry has used for many years of somewhere between 250,000 and 350,000 people. The study found that the method government and the industry uses to measure aircraft noise underestimates the numbers affected. It called the method outdated. It found that the measurements taken accurately record the noise of each aircraft but fail to register the impact of the growth in the number of aircraft using Heathrow – up from 273,000 in 1982, when the previous study into aircraft noise at Heathrow was carried out - to 473,000 last year.
The study also reveals that the noise levels at which people get annoyed by aircraft noise are much lower than previously admitted. The Department for Transport has previously argued that ‘the onset of community’ annoyance doesn’t set in until the average noise over a year is 57 decibels or more. The study found that, in reality, people start to get annoyed when noise averages out at 50 decibels. The World Health Organisation has recommended that 50 decibel level for many years.
This means that the area affected by aircraft noise is much greater than previously admitted. The 57 decibel contour just covers areas of West London and Berkshire about 6-8 miles from the airport – roughly Barnes to Windsor. A 50 decibel contour extends into South East London, and even to parts of North London. To the west it extends well beyond Maidenhead.
The new study has important implications for government proposals to expand Heathrow, which are due out for consultation shortly. The 2003 Aviation White Paper said that any expansion of Heathrow would only go ahead if the number of people living within 57 decibel contour did not increase.
The study re-enforces the findings of a report from consultants Bureau Veritas, commissioned by campaign HACAN and published earlier this year, which found there had been significant increase in levels of aircraft noise in areas some distance from Heathrow (3).
John Stewart, Chair of HACAN, said, “This new study backs up everything residents have been saying over the past 10 years. It shows the claims that the Department for Transport and the aviation industry have been making that the noise climate has been improving to be false. No wonder the Aviation Minister, Jim Fitzpatrick, is trying to sit on the report. It would be a disgrace if it was not published in advance of the forthcoming consultation. We urge the Minister to end the lies and the deceit and publish the report.”
ENDS
Notes for Editors:
(1). As reported in today’s Times
(2). The Government commissioned the ANASE Study in March 2001 just before the General Election of that year to look at aircraft noise in England. The previous study was published in 1985, with the research being conducted in the late 1970s and the early 1980s.
(3). The report is available on the HACAN website – www.hacan.org.uk
For further information contact John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650
The ANASE Study, the most comprehensive carried out for 25 years, reveals that over two and half million people are likely to be affected by aircraft noise from Heathrow (2). This contrasts with the figure which the Government and the aviation industry has used for many years of somewhere between 250,000 and 350,000 people. The study found that the method government and the industry uses to measure aircraft noise underestimates the numbers affected. It called the method outdated. It found that the measurements taken accurately record the noise of each aircraft but fail to register the impact of the growth in the number of aircraft using Heathrow – up from 273,000 in 1982, when the previous study into aircraft noise at Heathrow was carried out - to 473,000 last year.
The study also reveals that the noise levels at which people get annoyed by aircraft noise are much lower than previously admitted. The Department for Transport has previously argued that ‘the onset of community’ annoyance doesn’t set in until the average noise over a year is 57 decibels or more. The study found that, in reality, people start to get annoyed when noise averages out at 50 decibels. The World Health Organisation has recommended that 50 decibel level for many years.
This means that the area affected by aircraft noise is much greater than previously admitted. The 57 decibel contour just covers areas of West London and Berkshire about 6-8 miles from the airport – roughly Barnes to Windsor. A 50 decibel contour extends into South East London, and even to parts of North London. To the west it extends well beyond Maidenhead.
The new study has important implications for government proposals to expand Heathrow, which are due out for consultation shortly. The 2003 Aviation White Paper said that any expansion of Heathrow would only go ahead if the number of people living within 57 decibel contour did not increase.
The study re-enforces the findings of a report from consultants Bureau Veritas, commissioned by campaign HACAN and published earlier this year, which found there had been significant increase in levels of aircraft noise in areas some distance from Heathrow (3).
John Stewart, Chair of HACAN, said, “This new study backs up everything residents have been saying over the past 10 years. It shows the claims that the Department for Transport and the aviation industry have been making that the noise climate has been improving to be false. No wonder the Aviation Minister, Jim Fitzpatrick, is trying to sit on the report. It would be a disgrace if it was not published in advance of the forthcoming consultation. We urge the Minister to end the lies and the deceit and publish the report.”
ENDS
Notes for Editors:
(1). As reported in today’s Times
(2). The Government commissioned the ANASE Study in March 2001 just before the General Election of that year to look at aircraft noise in England. The previous study was published in 1985, with the research being conducted in the late 1970s and the early 1980s.
(3). The report is available on the HACAN website – www.hacan.org.uk
For further information contact John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650
Comments
Hide the following comment
and a pilot writes in The Independent today:
05.10.2007 02:14
Why aircraft fly in over London [1]
Sir: To answer Mary Dejevsky's perhaps rhetorical question: "Why the flight path to Heathrow traverses the very centre of the city – surely not safe?" (28 September), it is precisely for safety reasons that it does so.
Aircraft on approach are lined up with their landing runway at least 10 miles out, in order for them to lock on to the guidance beams and be completely stabilised and configured (wheels and flaps) before landing. If aircraft had to perform a significant turn close to the runway, this could reduce safety. Heathrow's runways are aligned east-west, so when aircraft land towards the west, they approach over London. As a pilot, I have flown into Heathrow many times, and I can tell you the UK's air traffic controllers are the best in the world. Inhabitants of London need have no safety concerns over the routing of aircraft.
Regarding noise, I trust Ms Dejevsky is not one of those who failed to consult a map before deciding where to live. One would not expect to buy a house within earshot of a railway or motorway and then be surprised about the noise. Heathrow's juxtaposition with greater London is perhaps unfortunate, but neither was built yesterday.
Having said all that, I completely agree with Ms Dejevsky that Heathrow needs sorting out and smartening up, particularly as it is a gateway to the UK.
Stuart Swift
GW