News

| View Comments (8)

advertisement

'Measure of airport noise is ineffective', inquiry told

By Jack Sommers
June 04, 2010

THE way Farnborough Airport measures its planes’ noise is ineffective, a lawyer has argued at the inquiry into whether the number of flights there should almost double.

Simon Bird QC presented the argument to noise consultant Jeffrey Charles at the ongoing inquiry into whether the airport should get permission for 50,000 flights a year, up from 28,000.

Mr Bird is representing Rushmoor Borough Council, which has paid him and other legal and planning experts tens of thousands of pounds to defend its councillors’ decision to turn down TAG’s application for the extra flights last year.

He was cross-examining Mr Charles, who appeared as a witness for airport owners TAG.

In his written evidence, Mr Charles said the system generally used to measure noise from aircraft is an equation based on flight movement and engine noise which produces a figure for the decibels for a specific area.

The inquiry heard that the equation did not take into account subjective things such as people with sensitive hearing, whether it was a Sunday or bank holiday or other factors.

Mr Charles’ eveidence said 50,000 flights a year would only lead to an increase of two decibels for those homes where the figure is currently 57dB or more. That figure of 57dB is defined as the level at “community annoyance” kicks in and the planning process must assess the impact of noise.

Mr Charles wrote that the 2dB increase to these homes was “less than that which is perceptible by most people even if it occurred in a short space of time”.

During cross-examination, Mr Bird said this did not account for different numbers of flights on different days or for the intermittent nature of the noise people under the flight path endured.

Mr Bird said: “If my speaking is disturbed 45 or 46 times a day and the next day it’s disturbed 182 times, the noise contour doesn’t notice the difference. It’s not credible is it?”

Mr Charles replied his system was the one used to assess noise in planning applications.

“There’s a trade off between the number of events and how noisy they are,” he said. “These are the tools I have to determining the impact of noise.”

He added he was “as sure as I’ve ever been in 40 years” about his judgement.

Mr Bird also said the contour did not take account that some people were more susceptible to noise and noise was more disturbing at different times. “People are far more concerned about noise in the evening,” he said.

Mr Charles’ evidence also said that, if there were 50,000 flights a year at the airport, 561 homes would be in 57dB bracket, as opposed to 67 at the moment. The worst affected area would be homes on the east side of Farnborough Road near the Farnborough College of Technology.

Mr Charles also estimates that Knellwood Residential Care Home in Canterbury Road would reach the 57dB threshold if there were 50,000 flights a year.

His report concluded that the noise from this number of flights would be within the ‘noise budget’ defined for the airport in 2000 as it went from military to civilian use.

| View Comments (8)
advertisement

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Most recent user comments 8 of 8

   Aldershotborn persists in his claim that Farnborough bound jets fly over Aldershot. Fact: they do not so butt out Its Douglas

You are completely wrong!!
Aldershot Born
11/06/2010 at 18:58 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   All this talk about the airfield being there for years and the houses coming later is a load of old cobblers and distracts from the key issues.

Flying from Farnborough was in decline - in the mid 80s i lived at the end of the runway and appart from the airshow the disturbance was minimal. Since then The authorities approved huge expansion of housing around the airport. History has overtaken the airfield.

So my point is simply that things gave moved on since 1905 and it may not be appropriate now for such large numbers of aircraft - I'm guessing here but probably more than it has seen since wartime - to use the airfield given the impact on the population as it stands NOW. What happened between 1905 and the 80s is irellevant.

The airfield and Pyestock will make my own area very unpleasant to live in. Some aircraft movements are 'relatively' quiet but many are not - we had friends in our garden one sunny Sunday and we had to stop our conversation every 5 minutes due to the noise of the stream of aircraft. I may be being alarmist but with 60,000 per year will we see an incident such as occurred in Farnborough (Kent0 a while back. God forbid one comming down on the school on the Galley Hill Road.

pjt
11/06/2010 at 11:45 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   The airport was opened in 2003 with flying limits that TAG agreed to. Talk of an airport being there since 1905 is spurious and of no relevance to the current issues. Flying was not to the same extent and balloons in 1905 made very little noise! Aldershotborn persists in his claim that Farnborough bound jets fly over Aldershot. Fact: they do not so butt out
Its Douglas
10/06/2010 at 22:54 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   I agree with PDLH why people complain about the airport. The houses were built after Farnborough Airport was even opened:- Farnborough Airport History Farnborough Aerodrome has an extensive and impressive aviation history. The facility now operated by TAG at Farnborough was the first operational airfield in the UK. Farnborough Airport has enjoyed a wide variety of uninterrupted use by a number of different aviation bodies since its establishment as a balloon factory for the Royal Engineers in 1905.

The airport has been opened since 1905 - how many homes were built around the airport in them days?

Most of what is built in Farnborough has been built longer after the airport opened - so why is it that people that live their complain about the airport knowing that they knew the airport was when they moved near.

Just like some one stated to me on here not long ago that planes don't fly over Aldershot?

I can honestly say that I have never flown and not caused others to put up with noise from over flying planes just to go on a holiday, but I still beleive that it would be in Farnborough's and surrounding areas to have expansion at Farnborough - because without it Farnborough would land up like Aldershot with nothing in it - when most of the army moved out.

So what do people in Farnborough want ? empty town and a busy town?
Aldershot Born
10/06/2010 at 13:40 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   I assume that ' PDLH' is either an idiot or an uniformed idiot. I suspect both - from his comments talking about housing being built after the airport was opened. His he mad or just the idiot?
Its Douglas
10/06/2010 at 00:38 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   I don't understand the hate for Farnborough Airport, it was built before nearly all the houses in the area, people who live there now moved into a houses knowing an airport was next door?

It will make going on holiday much easier when one of the cheap carriers gets a foot in the door

From a negative, it will eventually spell the end to Farnborough Airshow as commercial planes landing and taking off whilst an air display is going on just won't work

Paul
PDLH
08/06/2010 at 19:43 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   Pyestock and Fanbourough should be mutually exclusive for the sake of the community. Its too much.
pjt
08/06/2010 at 12:01 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   Blah, blah, blah. We all know that they will get their permission to increase flights. Keith Holland, whom we pay for, infamously said so. Why he hasn't been sacked I don't know. Anyway, regardless of the planning enquiry, some junior minister will decide its a good idea - just like pyestock.
Its Douglas
05/06/2010 at 05:22 Offensive or Inappropriate?
 
Homes / Jobs Search
 
Jobs Homes

Brought to you by

Fish4jobs
Newsletter Sign Up
 
Sign up to the
weekly news
update


Submit
Internal links
 
Loading poll, please wait...