News

| View Comments (17)


advertisement

Airport inquiry hears new round of noise arguments

By Jack Sommers
June 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.

| View Comments (17)
advertisement

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Most recent user comments 15 of 17

1 | 2 | Next Page Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

   Just remembered, when I studied at Farnborough Tech. The noise was dreadful! The lecturers had to stop talking and if it was a film (not video, not invented then!) it had to be re-wound and shown again. It was also dreadful when exams were taking place, I can only guess it must be at least twenty times worse! Any youngsters out there that can contribute here?

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…
Kip, Southwood, Farnborough
03/07/2010 at 12:08 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   Sorry Kip, I meant that bit to be toung in cheek. What noise? I've almost had my fillings rattled by one flight just 20 minutes ago.
pjt
02/07/2010 at 17:15 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   Oi! Pjt You commented "Resorting to insults and snide comments is for small minded people who have run out of arguments"

How small is your mind??
Kip, Southwood, Farnborough
01/07/2010 at 19:26 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   Thanks PJT You wrote "I'm told that hearing aids are much better these days." Thanks for the advice, I can see much better now!
Kip, Southwood, Farnborough
01/07/2010 at 19:05 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   I am sorry you feel that the farnborough airshow is only for a few hours and dosen't upset your day to day living - but my family have problems getting to and from their home when it is on.

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.
Aldershot Born
01/07/2010 at 14:46 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   Aldershot Born wrote: As for the noise! I don't see anyone complaining about the airshow when thats on - do we?

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!

pjt
01/07/2010 at 13:04 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   I have family living under the flight path they have no complaints!

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?
Aldershot Born
30/06/2010 at 18:27 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   Kip wrote: Werff44 I love Farnborough and the airport, WHAT noise?

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.

pjt
29/06/2010 at 10:31 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   I'm better then that Kip, but who listens to us anyway? it will all end up the way 'they' want it to end!! I know lots of people new to the area that hate the airport and regularly rattle on about how annoying it is but unfortunately I have to work alongside these moaners and it really grates me that they go on about a so called problem that they themselves have moved into the vicinity of!
werf44
24/06/2010 at 14:54 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   werf44 - discussion and ddebate is healthy and we have to accept that opinions differ. Resorting to insults and snide comments is for small minded people who have run out of arguments (which sums up the whole debatate really). I'm sure you are better than that!
pjt
23/06/2010 at 17:53 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   It'sDouglas. Still working on the basket, do you think Werf44 would like one? (I am told if I am good that they will let me out tomorrow got some new socks just in case ) Wibble!
Kip, Southwood, Farnborough
23/06/2010 at 14:36 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   Well, It’s Douglas; Cynical? Me? How can you say such a thing? Don’t you believe that the final decision will be fair and just and evenly balanced after every consideration? Shame on you!!!

Werff44 I love Farnborough and the airport, WHAT noise?
Kip, Southwood, Farnborough
23/06/2010 at 14:28 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   I bet you can't hear the noise of the air-traffic above the noise of all the 'recently moved to the area's noise'.. I am Farnborough born and bred and all I can hear is whinging from tw+ts that have just moved in and complain about nothing as far as I am concerned..Farnborough = aircraft, end of..
werf44
22/06/2010 at 22:38 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   The decision has more than likely already been made. More noise and pollution from a form of transport that is only available to the very wealthy and is certainly not environmentally friendly if there is just a couple of people onboard each flight.

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.
Dan B, North Camp
22/06/2010 at 14:02 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   Unfortunately, we all know that the inquiry is a scam, which we taxpayers pay for. If Cameron/Clegg want to save money just kill the planning appeal - leave it to local councils.
Its Douglas
22/06/2010 at 00:47 Offensive or Inappropriate?
1 | 2 | Next Page Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

 
Homes / Jobs Search
 
Jobs Homes

Brought to you by

Fish4jobs
Newsletter Sign Up
 
Sign up to the
weekly news
update


Submit
Loading poll, please wait...