
advertisement
Airport inquiry hears new round of noise arguments
By Jack SommersJune 17, 2010
ARGUMENTS about how annoying the noise of 50,000 flights over homes each year might be have continued at the Farnborough Airport inquiry this week, as an end to the proceedings looms.
Airport owner TAG - fighting to be given permission for 50,000 flights a year instead of 28,000 - has been arguing with Rushmoor Borough Council about how effective a system for measuring noise is.
According to the current system, the sound from the extra 22,000 flights would have a minimal effect on people and was within the ‘noise budget’ the council said the airport could not exceed.
TAG’s noise expert Jeff Charles took to the stand two weeks ago to present his analysis supporting plans for more flights.
This week, Rushmoor Borough Council’s noise expert Dani Fiumicelli was presenting his case, claiming that the method of measuring noise was effectively irrelevant to people who actually endure it.
According to the noise system, each property under the flightpath is assigned an overall decibel number, with 57dB as the definition of ‘community annoyance’.
This is roughly equivalent to a nearby car driving slowly and slightly louder than bird song, according to evidence put before the inquiry.
When the council’s lawyer Simon Bird cross-examined Mr Charles, he questioned how effective the system was, saying it did not account for the fact that the noise of planes from the airport was intermittent, meaning it interrupted people’s days rather than a continuous, less disturbing noise.
Mr Charles replied that he was using the tools he had been given to measure noise.
Public speaking
When Mr Fiumicelli took to the stand on Tuesday, John Steel, TAG’s lawyer, began by asking him about the reputation of noise consultants Hepworth Acoustic Ltd, which TAG has employed to argue its case.
Mr Steel asked: “It’s fair to say that they are competent consultants noise consultants?”
Mr Fiumicelli replied that they were an "established consultancy".
Mr Steel then said: “Isn’t it fair to say that if there were reason to doubt their system, it’s right they should give considerable weight to the consultancy’s conclusions?
“Isn’t it fair to say that if they found something that would be a cause of concern, they would record it?”
Mr Fiumicelli replied that he could not comment.
He was followed by the council’s second witness, Peter Forbes, who was testifying about the economic impact. He will be followed by town planner Robert Sellwood.
After all three have testified, Geoff Marks, the chairman of Farnborough Aerodrome Residents’ Association, will present his evidence.
The council is expecting members of the public to be able to address the inquiry next Wednesday (January 23).
Seventeen people have so far volunteered to speak and most will be assigned a morning or afternoon slot on that day.
When the inquiry is over, planning inspector David Richards will make a recommendation to the secretaries of state for Transport and Communities and Local Government for them to make a final decision.

Browse Sections



Most recent user comments 15 of 17
All the windows were shut against the noise, and in the summer it was so hot! I guess with modern double glazed units and air con. It might not be so bad…..just a thought…
03/07/2010 at 12:08 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
02/07/2010 at 17:15 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
How small is your mind??
01/07/2010 at 19:26 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
01/07/2010 at 19:05 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
They have put up with it for years - because they knew when they moved near the airport that it was going on - just like all those who complain about the amount of planes that fly into and out of Farnborough.
These things are going to happren weather we like it or not? - Just look at the amount of tax papers money is being spent on this inquiry - do you really think is it money well spent?
I don't think so.
01/07/2010 at 14:46 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
That's a very silly comment. The airshow is a couple of weeks every two years with most of the flying concentrated into a few hours over just a handful of days. It is not EVERY day!
01/07/2010 at 13:04 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
Yes I agree the inquiry is a farse - council tax payers having to foot the bill for everything ias usual, I for one rather the money go towards some of the things that will be needed when this council and others around make cuts.
We will see how many of you will be complaining when cuts hit you and then we will remind you that all that money spent on the airport inquiry was unneccessary won't we.
As for the noise! I don't see anyone complaining about the airshow when thats on - do we?
30/06/2010 at 18:27 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
Its OK Kip, I'm told that hearing aids are much better these days. you should try one, but maybe first take a trip to your GP to get that wax out of your ears. Can I assume also that you don;'t live under the flightpath.
29/06/2010 at 10:31 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
24/06/2010 at 14:54 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
23/06/2010 at 17:53 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
23/06/2010 at 14:36 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
Werff44 I love Farnborough and the airport, WHAT noise?
23/06/2010 at 14:28 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
22/06/2010 at 22:38 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
For those saying 'you chose to live near an airport so its too bad', if you live next to a road suburban road I take it you would be happy for it to be converted into a motorway? Its the same situation - we are aware of whats on the doorstep but its the amount of extra use placed on it that is going to blight those living close by. I am not entirely convinced by the argument of 'benefiting the local economy' either; perhaps one or two hotels might gain something from this but more than likely those flying in and out will drive straight through Farnborough and Aldershot to their waiting plane.
22/06/2010 at 14:02 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
22/06/2010 at 00:47 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.