our approach to noise - consultation hub · 2019-05-01 · 1.1.1 we recognise that a primary...

OUR APPROACH TO NOISE

JANUARY 2018

Contents

Contents Page Contents Page

1 Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Noise envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Respite through runway alternation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Quieter airport design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Noise insulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Ban on scheduled night flights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Airspace change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 .1 Purpose and structure of this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 .2 Have your say . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 .3 Airport and airspace development and consent processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

3 Policy and regulatory framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113 .1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Legislative requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Voluntary initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 The International Civil Aviation Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113 .2 Noise, health and quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 UK Aviation noise policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Consideration of the effects of noise on health and quality of life with expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Reviewing the evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Positive health outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

4 Our current approach to noise management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144 .1 Strategic objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144 .2 Our Sustainability Leadership Plan – Heathrow 2 .0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154 .3 Our Noise Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154 .4 Our track record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Quieter planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Quieter procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Land use planning and mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Operating restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Working with local communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

5 Our approach to noise management with expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205 .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205 .2 Airports Commission findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205 .3 DCO requirements for an expanded Heathrow – the revised draft ANPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Mitigation required by the revised draft ANPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 .4 Our approach – overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Our approach will be scrutinised by experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Adding additional aircraft movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 .5 Incentivising cleaner aircraft and operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .245 .6 Airport design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Our current thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Key things to consider – Airport development and noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .285 .7 Airspace design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Airspace design principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

5 .8 Airport operating procedures - sharing, relief and respite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Respite and relief today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Our Airports Commission proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Current thinking on sharing, relief and respite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Key things to consider – Airport operational procedures to deliver sharing, relief and respite . . . . 345 .9 Managing the adverse effects of night flights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Our current thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 Key things to consider – Night flights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .375 .10 Noise insulation and compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Our current thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Key things to consider – Noise insulation schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 .11 The noise envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Our current thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Key things to consider – Noise envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445 .12 Other noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Road traffic noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Construction noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

6 Summary of key things to consider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466 .1 Airport design and development (5 .6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466 .2 Airspace principles (5 .7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466 .3 Operational procedures to deliver sharing, relief and respite (5 .8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466 .4 Minimising the effects of night flights (5 .9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466 .5 Noise insulation schemes (5 .10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .476 .6 Noise envelope (5 .11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

FiguresFigure 4- .1 Change in Heathrow noise contours over time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Figure 4 .2 Noise exposure, air traffic movements and population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15Figure 4 .3 Framework for noise management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Figure 4 .4 Recent examples of activities under each aspect of the strategic framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Figure 5 .1 Our approach with expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Figure 5 .2 Our masterplan proposal to the Airports Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Figure 5 .3 Effect on height of aircraft with displaced thresholds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26Figure 5 .4 Four operating modes and patterns of relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32Figure 5 .5 Comparison of night flights restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Figure 5 .6 Showing the wider property offer zone (blue) (based on airports commission proposals) and the CPO zone (yellow) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Figure 5 .7 A noise envelope framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41Figure 5 .8 Airport related traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

TablesTable 3 .1 Strength of evidence for health and quality of life effects from environmental noise . . . . . .13

Heathrow Expansion – Our approach to noise | Page 3 | Heathrow Expansion – Our approach to noise © Heathrow Airport Limited 2018© Heathrow Airport Limited 2018

1.1.1 We recognise that a primary concern for local communities is how expansion at Heathrow will affect their exposure to aircraft noise. We support the Government objective “to limit and, where possible, reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by adverse impacts from aircraft noise” consistent with the principles of sustainable development that balance the economic benefits that a successful Heathrow Airport brings with its effects on local communities.

1.1.2 Heathrow has long been at the forefront of international efforts to tackle air noise. We are proud of the fact that, despite the number of aircraft movements at the airport going up, our noise footprint has shrunk considerably over the past few decades. Despite these efforts we know that noise remains an issue. We are committed to addressing it and to reducing the effect of noise on local communities and we will work in partnership with our airlines to reduce noise further.

1.1.3 Our committed goal is to expand Heathrow whilst affecting fewer people with noise than today. Our submission to the Airports Commission showed how a combination of quieter planes, quieter airport design and quieter operations mean that it is possible to grow to 740,000 air traffic movements (ATMs) by 2040 while affecting fewer people by noise than were affected in 2013. The Airports Commission’s own analysis confirmed that this is possible.

1.1.4 We have previously set out how there are choices in airspace design between options that minimise the total number of people affected by noise, those that minimise the number of people newly affected and those that maximise respite. Our work has shown that it is possible to affect fewer people than today under all of those scenarios although the exact numbers affected will depend on the final configuration of airspace through the airspace change procedure. We are beginning a three-stage airspace consultation on airspace change, with this first phase focusing on the principles that should guide future airspace design.

1.1.5 Expansion provides an opportunity to continue to improve on our current approach to noise, allowing us to introduce additional new measures that can only be delivered with expansion. These measures will ensure that we design and operate the airport to manage and reduce noise exposure and support the aims of Government Noise Policy in the context of sustainable development. Key to the development of these measures will be feedback from communities affected by aircraft noise and other stakeholders including airlines, air traffic control (NATS) and local authorities.

1 For an explanation of this and other technical terms please see the Glossary

1 Executive summary

1.1.9 We are proposing to form a noise envelope design group (NEDG) which will include community and stakeholder representatives who we currently work with as part of the Community Noise Forum, along with recognised noise experts. This is consistent with the requirements of the Civil Aviation Authority guidance on noise envelopes. The NEDG will provide a forum for exploring ideas, developing plans and where possible reaching agreement amongst stakeholders for defining and implementing a noise envelope. We envisage that the group would include representation from technical, industry and community groups. We will explore how the NEDG will work alongside the Community Engagement Board.

1.1.10 There will also be extensive stakeholder engagement on the proposed noise envelope measures and performance targets. It is expected that the Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise as proposed by the revised draft Airports National Policy Statement will provide independent guidance on our noise envelope proposals.

Respite through runway alternation

1.1.11 We know that predictable periods of respite are much valued by local communities. Providing predictable respite from noise is, therefore, at the heart of our expansion scheme. With three runways we will be able to adopt an alternation pattern that provides predictable levels of respite for local communities on both easterly and westerly operations.

1.1.12 Respite through the design of flightpaths is addressed in Section 4 of our separate Airspace Principles Consultation.

Quieter airport design

1.1.13 Aircraft noise is one of the factors we are taking into account in designing the airport layout. The evaluation criteria we have used include measures to reduce noise. In particular this means delivering a runway design that allows for predictable respite and a ban on scheduled night flights, supports our aim of fewer people overall being affected by aircraft noise than today, and an airport design that minimises ground noise.

1.1.14 For more information on how these criteria fit into our design development process, please see the Scheme Development Report published as a part of this consultation.

Noise insulation

1.1.15 As part of the Airports Commission process we developed a noise insulation scheme that goes above and beyond statutory requirements and was regarded by the Government as “world class”.

1.1.16 Our insulation scheme establishes two zones for residential properties and a community buildings scheme:

• Inner Zone – following a third party assessment, to provide full acoustic insulation for residential property within 60dB LAeq, 16hr

1 expanded airport noise contour .

• Outer Zone – contribution of up to £3,000 for noise insulation for residential properties within the 57dB LAeq, 16hr or the annual average 55dB Lden noise contours of an expanded airport .

• Community Buildings – noise insulation and ventilation for community buildings within the average 60dB LAeq, 16hr noise contour .

Please tell us what you think about our proposed package of measures to manage and reduce the effects of noise.

Have your say

1.1.6 Our approach to noise is based on the International Civil Aviation Organisation Balanced Approach of reducing noise at source (quieter planes); land use planning and management (quieter airport design and noise insulation); noise abatement operating procedures (quieter operations); and operating restrictions (for example, a ban on scheduled night flights). We also consider community engagement to be a significant element of our approach. As part of our approach we will also put forward plans for a noise envelope to provide management, accountability, and control of noise, providing the right targets and incentives to achieve our goals of the area around Heathrow being a great place to live and a place that’s getting quieter.

Noise envelope

1.1.7 A noise envelope is a framework for the sustainable management and control of the effects of noise that balances growth and noise reduction and provides certainty about how noise will be addressed in the long term.

1.1.8 The noise envelope will be designed in a way that balances growth with noise reduction and gives certainty to local people.

Heathrow Expansion – Our approach to noise | Page 5Page 4 | Heathrow Expansion – Our approach to noise © Heathrow Airport Limited 2018© Heathrow Airport Limited 2018

Ban on scheduled night flights

1.1.17 We are committed to implementing a ban on scheduled night flights for a period of six and a half hours, at a time to be determined between the hours of 11pm and 7am. Our preference is for this to be from 11pm to 5.30am, based on our assessment of the economic and environmental effects of late night and early morning flights. We believe this would be fairer for all local communities as it gives a more equitable distribution of flights to those living under the departure routes as well as those living under the arrivals routes.

1.1.18 We will also continue to incentivise the use of the quietest aircraft at night through our landing charges which charge more for the older noisier variants of aircraft than their newer quieter counterparts.

1.1.19 The expanded airport, its operations and associated airspace are being designed to ensure that, whilst we grow, adverse effects of noise associated with the overall expanded airport are limited and where possible reduced, in line with our goal of fewer people being affected by noise than today.

Airspace change

1.1.20 The expansion of the airport is not just about the physical changes required on the ground. Building a new runway will also lead to changes to where and how planes fly in the future. While approval to build the physical infrastructure for an expanded airport will be granted via the Development Consent Order (DCO) changes to flight paths will be confirmed through a separate Airspace Change Process (ACP) which is determined by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). These are independent processes in planning terms, but they are mutually dependent in relation to management of effects of noise.

1.1.21 The expansion of the airport and construction of a third runway provides us with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to review how airspace is used around Heathrow so that we can reduce the number of people affected by noise while increasing the number of flights at Heathrow.

1.1.22 We are undertaking a separate and parallel consultation on the principles of the new airspace design that will be needed for an expanded Heathrow. To ensure the views of affected stakeholders are considered throughout the airspace design process there will be three stages of consultation over the next few years before the final flight paths needed to operate with three runways at Heathrow are decided. It is therefore not possible to confirm at this stage where aircraft will be in the sky.

1.1.23 The first two stages of the ACP consultation are aligned with the two stages of DCO consultation. The first stage sets out some of the key design principles that could be used as the basis for developing Heathrow’s future airspace design, and asks for your views and preferences relating to them.

1.1.24 Further information on the ACP and the airspace design principles being considered can be found in the Airspace Principles Consultation Document.

1.1.25 At this stage in the process, neither the airport design nor the airspace designs are developed sufficiently to provide certainty over future patterns of noise exposure. At this stage in both consultations we are therefore seeking views on the approach being taken and the principles being applied.

1.1.26 At the second stage of DCO consultation we will present more detailed analysis of the effects of our proposals based on indicative airspace designs developed following the first ACP consultation, but they will still not be final airspace designs.

Your feedback is important to us to help inform the development of our expansion proposals. We would particularly like to hear your views on the following points:

1 A noise envelope is a package of measures that can be used to reduce noise . Please tell us your views on the objectives of the noise envelope and the timeline for its development .

2 Is there anything further we should be considering to reduce noise?

3 Please tell us what you think about our suggested approach to the provision of respite .

4 Please tell us what you think of our proposals for noise insulation and phasing of delivery .

5 A 6 .5 hour night flight ban on scheduled flights is required by policy at some point in the period between 11pm and 7am . Our current preferred option for this to run from 11pm to 5 .30am . Please tell us when you think the 6 .5 hour night-flight ban should be scheduled during the period 11pm to 7am and why .

1.2 Have your say

1.1.27 We recognise that this uncertainty may give rise to concern from local communities wishing to understand how they may be affected by noise from the expansion of Heathrow. Feedback from community groups and representatives has indicated a desire for earlier involvement in the process. This is reflected in our approach which will allow consultation and engagement to play a role in forming our proposals. However, taking this approach and the early stage we are at in the process means there will inevitably be a lack of certainty.

1.1.28 At this stage, we are seeking views on the approach and principles to help guide development and we also seek to assure you that there will be further opportunities to provide views.


2 Introduction and purpose

2.0.1 We recognise that a primary concern for local communities is how expansion at Heathrow will affect their exposure to aircraft noise. As we look to expand we remain committed to being a good neighbour. We have consistently sought to minimise the effects of noise.

2.0.2 Our committed goal is to expand Heathrow whilst affecting fewer people with noise. Our submission to the Airports Commission showed how a combination of quieter planes, quieter airport design and quieter operations mean that it is possible to grow to 740,000 Air Traffic Movements (ATMs) by 2040 while affecting fewer people by noise than were affected in 2013. The Airports Commission’s own analysis confirmed that this is possible.

2.0.3 We have previously set out how there are choices in airspace design between options that minimise the total number of people affected by noise, those that minimise the number of people newly affected and those that maximise respite. Our work has shown that it is possible to affect fewer people than today under all of those scenarios although the exact numbers affected will depend on the final configuration of airspace through the airspace change procedure. We are beginning a three-stage airspace consultation on airspace change, with this first phase focusing on the principles that should guide future airspace design.

2.0.4 We support the Government’s overall policy on aviation noise2 which is “to limit and, where possible, reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise as part of a policy of sharing benefits of noise reduction with industry in support of sustainable development … consistent with the Noise Policy Statement for England”.

2.0.5 In October 2016, the Government announced Heathrow as their preferred option for the expansion of airport capacity in the South East. When designated by Parliament, the Airports National Policy Statement will confirm the principles of the scheme and the factors against which the application for the expansion of Heathrow will be decided. This includes aspects of management and mitigation of the effects of noise that the UK Government expects to be introduced, and the tests that will be applied. As part of our application for development consent we will need to demonstrate that our proposals meet the requirements of Government aviation noise policy.

2.0.6 We are now taking the project through the planning and consenting process for the physical changes required to the airport on the ground. Throughout the process, stakeholder and community feedback will be used to inform the design and development of our noise mitigation proposals.

2.0.7 This is the first of two stages of consultation associated with the Development Consent Order (DCO) application process.

• In this first stage of consultation, we are seeking views on our emerging proposals for how we might best mitigate and minimise the potential effects of noise, including proposals for compensation and noise insulation .

• Before submission of our application for development consent there will be a second consultation for local communities and stakeholders to feedback on our proposals as they have developed up to that point .

2.0.8 An important part of expanding Heathrow will also be the changes that must be made to airspace and flight paths to accommodate the new runway. This is subject to a separate Airspace Change Process and will require Heathrow to undertake three stages of consultation. The timing of the first two consultations for DCO and ACP are aligned.

2 Para 2 .69 of the Consultation Response on UK Airspace Policy

2.1 Purpose and structure of this document

2.1.1 This document sets out our approach to managing noise for an expanded Heathrow. It explains background context and outlines potential options and approaches that we are developing to meet the requirements of the revised draft Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) and Aviation Noise Policy, so that you can give us your views on them.

2.1.2 This document forms part of a suite of materials produced as part of our Stage 1 pre-application consultation and should be read in conjunction with the other documentation produced in support of the consultation (see inside front cover for details of the other documents).

2.1.3 The remainder of this report is structured as follows:

• Section 2 – Summarises the noise related policy and regulatory framework

• Section 3 – Describes our current approach to reducing noise impacts

• Section 4 – Introduces our approach to noise with an expanded Heathrow and identifies areas upon which we are seeking your views

• Section 5 – Summarises the key points upon which we are seeking your views through this consultation .

We would like to know your views on our proposed approach to noise for an expanded Heathrow airport.

We are seeking your views on any aspect of our proposals and there are prompts throughout the document on aspects you may wish to consider when responding to the questions we pose .

The questions we are asking are as follows:

1 A noise envelope is a package of measures that can be used to reduce noise . Please tell us your views on the objectives of the noise envelope and the timeline for its development .

2 Is there anything further we should be considering to reduce noise?

3 Please tell us what you think about our suggested approach to the provision of respite .

4 Please tell us what you think of our proposals for noise insulation and phasing of delivery .

5 A 6 .5 hour night flight ban on scheduled flights is required by policy at some point in the period between 11pm and 7am . Our current preferred option for this to run from 11pm to 5 .30am . Please tell us when you think the 6 .5 hour night-flight ban should be scheduled during the period 11pm to 7am and why .

2.2 Have your say


3.1 Background

3.1.1 Heathrow Airport operates in a context of international, European and UK policy and regulatory frameworks. These are discussed in more detail in our Noise Action Plan3.

Legislative requirements

3.1.2 There are some areas where responsibility for noise management is outside of Heathrow’s control. Under UK laws, Heathrow is a ’designated airport’. This means that the Secretary of State for Transport (the SoS) is responsible for limiting and mitigating the effects of aircraft noise, exercising the powers available under the Civil Aviation Act 2006 and associated regulations. For example, the SoS is responsible for setting limits on the number of aircraft movements allowed at night.

3.1.3 The development and preparation of a Noise Action Plan every five years is required under EC Directive 2002/49 (Environmental Noise Directive or ‘END’) and is delegated by the UK Government to Heathrow Airport as the ’competent authority’. The SoS is required to approve the Noise Action Plan. We will be consulting on our Noise Action Plan for the five-year period (beginning in 2019) during 2018.

Voluntary initiatives

3.1.4 So that we can achieve more than the minimum required by the SoS, we work closely with our communities, airlines, air traffic control and airport operations teams and have developed a number of voluntary initiatives to operate the airport in ways that have helped reduce noise impacts considerably.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation

The Balanced Approach

3.1.5 Since 2001 the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has required Member States to adopt a ‘balanced approach’4 to aircraft noise management. This consists of identifying the noise problem at an airport and then analysing the various measures available to reduce noise through the exploration of four principal elements with the goal of addressing noise problems on an individual airport basis and to identify the noise related measures that achieve maximum environmental benefit most cost effectively. The four elements are:

• Reduction at source (e .g . quieter aircraft)

• Land-use planning and management

• Noise abatement operational procedures

• Operating restrictions .

3.1.6 Guidance published by ICAO acknowledges that it is important to consider equally all of these elements, and that “…operating restrictions should only be applied after consideration of the benefits to be gained from other elements in a manner that is consistent with the Balanced Approach…”.

Noise certification standards

3.1.8 ICAO has set progressively tighter certification standards for noise emissions from civil aircraft. Aircraft operating in member states must conform to these standards, which are known as ‘Chapters.’ Each chapter sets tighter noise limits than the previous one.

3.1.9 The vast majority of civil aircraft now operating globally fall within Chapters 3 and 4. Aircraft manufactured from 2006 onwards must meet the requirements of Chapter 4. The newest noise Standard (known as Chapter 14) became effective on 31 December 2017. We have set a target within our Noise Action Plan for all aircraft movements at Heathrow to be Chapter 4 compliant by 2020.

3 Policy and regulatory framework

2.3 Airport and airspace development and consent processes

2.3.1 The expansion of the airport is not just about the physical changes required on the ground. Building a new runway will also require changes to where and how planes fly in the future. While approval to build the physical infrastructure for an expanded airport will be granted via a DCO, changes to flight paths will be confirmed through a separate airspace change process (ACP) which is determined by the CAA.

2.3.2 These are independent processes in consenting terms, but they are mutually dependent in relation to the management of the effects of noise. This document therefore provides information on our approach to noise which is relevant to both consultations.

2.3.3 To ensure the views of affected stakeholders are considered throughout the airspace design process there will be several stages of consultation before the final flight paths needed to operate three runways at Heathrow are decided.

2.3.4 The first two stages of the ACP consultation are aligned with the two stages of DCO consultation. The first stage sets out some of the key design principles that could be used as the basis for developing Heathrow’s future airspace design, and asks for your views and preferences relating to them. Further information on the ACP and the airspace design principles being considered can be found here.

2.3.5 At this stage in the process, neither the expanded airport nor the airspace are developed sufficiently to provide certainty over future patterns of noise exposure. Nevertheless we can still seek views on the approach we are taking to managing the effects of noise, and that is what we are doing as part of this consultation. At the second stage of consultation we will present a more detailed analysis of the effects of our proposals based on indicative airspace designs – but they will still only show indicative flight paths because precise flight path designs can only be defined at a later stage after detailed airspace design work has taken place.

2.3.6 We recognise that this means there will be uncertainty for communities living around Heathrow. The consultations will enable communities and stakeholders an opportunity to provide their views through the process, and will allow us the opportunity to consider how consultation responses can influence our emerging noise mitigation measures.


3.2 Noise, health and quality of life

3.2.1 Exposure to noise from environmental sources such as aircraft noise, road traffic noise and railway noise can influence health and quality of life, and this is recognised in Government policy such as the Noise Policy Statement for England published by Defra in 2010 and recognised through UK Aviation Noise Policy.

UK Aviation Noise Policy

3.2.2 The Objective of UK Government’s aviation noise policy is to “… limit and, where possible, reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise as part of a policy of sharing benefits of noise reduction with industry in support of sustainable development.”

3.2.3 This policy is underpinned by overarching Government objective as set out in the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) which promotes a policy vision to “Promote good health and a good quality of life through the effective management of noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development”. This vision is supported by three Noise Policy Aims:

• Aim 1: avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life

• Aim 2: mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life

• Aim 3: where possible, contribute to the improvement of health and quality of life .

3.2.4 The same policy and aims are applied through both the DCO and ACP procedures.

Consideration of the effects of noise on health and quality of life with expansion

The Government’s revised draft ANPS and Airspace Policy share the same aims as that of Government Noise Policy . This means that assessment of the effects of noise on health and quality of life are central to both the DCO and Airspace Change processes and are fundamental in our considerations .

3.2.5 Our assessment of noise and the likely effects on health and quality of life will be set out at our second consultation and our application for the DCO will be based on the best available evidence. Our approach to assessment will be reviewed by an independent expert review group.

Reviewing the evidence

3.2.6 To provide an evidence base to inform the noise and health assessments, we are conducting a thorough review (known as a literature review) of published, peer-reviewed scientific papers that have been written by recognised experts in noise and its effects on health and quality of life from across the world. This review evaluates the strength of the evidence for noise effects from different noise sources including aircraft, road traffic, railways, construction and cumulative/combined noise.

3.2.7 The key health and quality of life effects being considered are summarised in Table 3.1, along with the strength of evidence for that effect associated with aircraft noise.

Positive health outcomes

3.2.8 Whilst noise might negatively impact on some health outcomes and determinants, Government policy also acknowledges the potential health benefits of aviation, such as the impact of aviation on the health determinants of employment, income and education in the population.

3 Environmental Noise Directive Noise Action Plan 2013-2018 https://www .heathrow .com/file_source/HeathrowNoise/Static/Noise_Action_Plan_Oct_2016 .pdf

4 ICAO Balanced Approach - for further information please see https://www .icao .int/environmental-protection/Pages/noise .aspx)

Effect Specific outcomesCurrent strength of the evidence

Cardiovascular

Hypertension Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) Stroke

Sufficient

Self-reported sleep disturbanceInterference with falling asleep Awakening/Interference with staying asleep

Sufficient

Objective sleep disturbance Awakenings Sufficient

Cognitive developmentReading Standardised test scores

Sufficient

Annoyance Bothered, disturbed or annoyed by noise at home Sufficient

Hearing impairment Loss in hearing None at <75dB(A)

Mental health, wellbeing and quality of life

Wellbeing Quality of life Psychological symptoms Psychological illnesses e .g . depression, anxiety Medication for psychological illnesses

Inconclusive

Table 3 .1: Strength of evidence for health and quality of life effects from environmental noise


4.1 Strategic objectives

4.1.1 The Government’s overall policy on aviation noise is “to limit and, where possible, reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise as part of a policy of sharing benefits of noise reduction with industry in support of sustainable development”5. We are supportive of this policy that aims to balance the economic, social and environmental impacts of aviation.

4.1.2 For many years our noise strategy and approach have been structured around the ICAO Balanced Approach. Within this framework we have been at the forefront of efforts to tackle noise, consistently seeking to identify and implement good practice. Consequently, Heathrow’s noise footprint (the contour area of noise exposure shown on a map) has shrunk considerably over the past few decades, as illustrated in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 below.

4.1.3 Nevertheless, we recognise that noise remains an issue and over the past decade our approach to noise management has included working more closely with community stakeholders. This approach is underpinned by principles of stakeholder collaboration and transparency.

4.1.4 This section describes some of the approaches and methods we currently have in place for managing noise. Information relating to how the airport operates can be found on our website at www.heathrow.com/noise and in the Heathrow Operations Handbook.

4 Our current approach to noise management

Figure 4 .2: Noise exposure, air traffic movements and population

4.2 Our sustainability leadership plan – Heathrow 2.0

4.2.1 Our sustainability leadership plan, Heathrow 2.0, (established in 2017) sets out a clear sustainability vision and goals for Heathrow. It covers a wide range of issues and includes the following headline goals in relation to noise management.

• GOAL 1: Encourage the use of the quietest aircraft available, operated with the least noise impact practicable, within an agreed noise envelope

• GOAL 2: Influence national and international policy and engage with local planning authorities to ensure more effective land planning processes in noise affected areas, and to improve our noise mitigation

• GOAL 3: Continue to improve the relationship with our local community by working more transparently and collaboratively to develop noise action plans, by improving our communications, monitoring, measuring and research capability .

4.3 Our Noise Action Plan

4.3.1 Although Heathrow 2.0 sets out at a high level our approach to managing noise; and our Noise Action Plan provides the finer detail and context.

4.3.2 Our Noise Action Plan is summarised in Figure 4.3. It is based around the framework set out in the ICAO Balanced Approach, supplemented with our focus on improving the way in which we communicate and engage with local communities. This last element we see as pivotal in helping us understand and address key priorities for local people.

4.3.3 The Noise Action Plan provides information in relation to existing noise management activities and the regulatory context within which Heathrow operates.

Figure 4 .1: Change in Heathrow noise contours over time

5 Section 2 .69, Consultation Response on UK Airspace Policy: A framework for balanced decisions on the design and use of airspace https://www .gov .uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/653802/consultation-response-on-uk-airspace-policy-print-version .pdf


4.3.4 Under the EU Environmental Noise Directive, the Noise Action Plan is required to be updated at least every five years and can only relate to the current operation. We will be consulting on our draft new Noise Action Plan for the period 2019 – 2023 during 2018. The next iteration of our Noise Action Plan will not include actions to specifically address expansion or airspace change since neither of these have the necessary approvals.

4.3.5 Although the Noise Action Plan can only relate to the impact of the current operations or permitted developments, our strategic approach is consistent whether we are considering current or future operations.

4.3.6 Further information is available on our website6 where a wide range of reports and documents setting out the steps we have taken and the progress we have made over many years.

4.3.7 Further information on the way in which the airport operates and manages noise (including ground noise) can be found in the Heathrow Operations Handbook.

4.3.8 Our track record

4.3.9 To help illustrate how our strategic approach has been implemented, we have set out some recent examples of activities in the diagram below.

Quieter planes

Differential landing charges

4.3.10 In support of our goal to have the quietest aircraft practicable operating at Heathrow we have a long-established system of charging more for the older noisier variants of aircraft than their newer quieter counterparts. This is based on ICAO noise certification standards (known as ‘Chapters’) and the margin by which a specific aircraft exceeds that standard.

4.3.11 We annually review the differential landing charges and track the percentage of our fleet meeting or exceeding the most recent standard (Chapter 14) which was introduced in 2017. We were the first airport to introduce charges in relation to Chapter 14 compliance.

4.3.12 Based on our current landing charges, the highest charge is more that eleven times higher than the lowest. (More information can be found on our landing charges in our Conditions of Use document which be found at https://www.heathrow.com/company/partners-and-suppliers/conditions-of-use).

4.3.13 In 2017 over 55% of our take-offs and landings were by aircraft that meet or exceed the Chapter 14 standard, with less than 1% only meeting the oldest standard (Chapter 3).

Figure 4 .4: Recent examples of activities under each aspect of the strategic framework

6 https://www .heathrow .com/noise

Figure 4 .3: Framework for noise management

Approach General commitment

Quieter planes

As aircraft and technology improves and planes become quieter, we will continue to work to ensure that residents share in the benefits . We are committed to continuing to provide a strong financial incentive for airlines to use the quietest planes currently available, including in the early morning period, through the use of variable landing charges .

Quieter procedures

We are committed to take full advantage of opportunities to manage airspace differently, working with local communities to identify changes that could benefit them . This will include trialling new airspace management procedure to test the concept of providing predictable periods of respite from early morning arrivals and for some of our departure routes .

Land-use planning and mitigation

We are committed to continuing to help with noise insulation and mitigation through a range of schemes . We will also continue to press the Government to provide more detailed guidance on planning around airports, and to restrict noise sensitive development in high noise areas .

Operating restrictions

In line with principles of the ICAO Balanced Approach we do not see restrictions as a first resort and are committed to developing collaborative approaches which are often quicker to implement and more effective . For example the voluntary agreement with airlines not to schedule marginally compliant aircraft . Where restrictions are in place we are focused on ensuring that they are adhered to fully, for example in our administration of the night flying restrictions .

Working with local communities

Underpinning all of our work to tackle aircraft noise, we are committed to engaging openly and constructively with local communities to understand their concerns and to provide accessible information and an on-going dialogue .

Quieter Quieter Land-use planning Operating Working with planes procedures and mitigation restrictions local communities

FRAMEWORK FOR NOISE MANAGEMENT

Noise monitoring –what noise

Joint industry working –noise reduction & compliance

Community engagement –building trust & tolerance

1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s

◆ Cranford Agreement

◆ Night flights restrictions

◆ Voluntary Daytime Noise Insulation Scheme

◆ Working with HACAN

◆ Webtrak

◆ Revised departure noise limits

◆ Departure noise study – BA7444, first in the world

◆ Pioneered Continuous Descent Approach

◆ A380 noise development

◆ First noise related landing charges

◆ 97% Chapter 4

◆ Various NTK system upgrades

◆ Community Noise Monitoring Programme

◆ Responsibility for noise passed to Heathrow – designation under Civil Aviation Act

◆ First noise monitoring introduced

◆ British Airports Authority Privatised

◆ Heathrow takes on noise complaints from Govt.

◆ Pioneered flight track improvements

◆ Arrivals noise studies

◆ Early morning trials

◆ Revised noise fines

◆ Departures Code of Practice

◆ Fly Quiet programme launched

◆ Phase out Chapter 2

◆ Arrivals Code of Practice

◆ Voluntary Night Noise Insulation Scheme introduced

◆ Voluntary community building and home relocation scheme

◆ Noise Action Plan

◆ Supplementary metrics study

◆ Noise related landing charges refined

◆ Respite studies

◆ First noise related landing charges

◆ First Noise & Track Keeping System

◆ Local focus forums

◆ Flight Operations Performance Committee (FLOPC)


Quieter procedures

Slightly steeper approach trial

4.3.14 Operating procedures play an important role in aircraft noise management. Whether it be driving compliance with Continuous Descent Approach (CDA), where once aircraft have been directed out of a holding stack (a fixed circling pattern in which aircraft fly whilst they wait to land) CDA involves aircraft maintaining a steady angle of approach until they reach the final approach, or pursuing best practice in the deployment of landing gear Heathrow has often been at the forefront of new developments.

4.3.15 Our slightly steeper approach trial, where we made available a 3.2 degree approach, is a further example of this. International rules mean that aircraft approach every airport runway at an angle of 3 degrees except where enhanced obstacle clearance is required (such as buildings and high terrain).

Land use planning and mitigation

4.3.16 We offer a range of noise insulation and mitigation schemes for residential properties and community buildings (including schools) that meet or exceed Government requirements. Our schemes have been in place for over a decade and, in the case of our daytime residential scheme, much longer. These schemes cover over 40,000 properties.

Quieter Homes Scheme (QHS)

Following feedback on our schemes we undertook a review and, in 2013, trialled a pilot scheme which provided residents with a wider choice of supplier and products and introduced a third-party assessment process for each property .

4.3.17 After strong positive feedback, in 2014 we launched the Quieter Homes Scheme for those residents living closest to the airport within the 69dB LAeq, 16hr. We expect to complete that scheme by 2020.

Operating Restrictions

Night flight Restrictions

4.3.18 As Heathrow is a noise designated airport, the Government is responsible for setting restrictions on night-time flying7. These restrictions currently limit Heathrow to 5,800 night-time take-offs and landings a year between 11.30pm and 6am (known as the Night Quota period), with restrictions on the noise class (chapter) of aircraft than can operate – known as a Quota Count, or QC value. The government also place restrictions on the number of QC points permitted and which QC bands are permitted to be scheduled or allowed to operate.

4.3.19 Following public consultation in early 2017, the Government recently announced some changes to the night restrictions:

• From October 2017, all aircraft movements count towards the movement limit including those that are currently listed as QC0

• From October 2018 a new QC/0 .125 category will be introduced, slotting between QC/0 and QC/0 .25 and noise quota limits will be reduced to 2,415 in winter (currently 4,080) and 2,735 in summer (currently 5,100) . This is aimed at securing the benefits of newer quieter aircraft that have replaced older aircraft at night .

4.3.20 It is our responsibility to ensure compliance with the night noise restrictions in place, and report regularly to the Government and the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee, or HACC (a consultative committee made up of local government, business and interest group representatives).

4.3.21 Around 16 aircraft are scheduled to arrive each day between 4.30am-6am. Working with our airline partners, we introduced a voluntary curfew that prevents flights scheduled between 4.30am-6am from landing before 4.30am. We also do not schedule any departures or cargo operations between 11pm and 6am.

4.3.22 Further details on the night flying restrictions currently in place at Heathrow can be found here in the Heathrow Operations Handbook.

Working with Local Communities

4.3.23 Our approach is underpinned by principles of collaboration and transparency. We actively participate in a number of engagement forums with a range of stakeholders where noise issues are discussed:

• We have a statutory responsibility to have a consultative committee (the HACC)

• We have also set up a number of other groups to engage with different stakeholders, such as the Local Focus Forum (LFF) and Heathrow Strategic Noise Advisory Group (HSNAG)

• For local communities, we established the Heathrow Community Noise Forum (HCNF) to identify concern priorities for local people .

4.3.24 More information about our engagement forums and reports can be found on our website8.

4.3.25 Some key recent achievements, developed in direct response to community and stakeholder feedback include:

• Deployment of 50 new noise monitors

• Development of new community noise metrics that better reflect an individual’s experience of noise

• Community noise reports using a range of metrics that are simple and clear to explain local noise effects to those without technical knowledge

• Launch of xPlane – a new web based tool for residents to access flight data specific to their locations

• Independent verification of Noise and Track Keeping System to build confidence in Heathrow data

• Research seeking to help define the value of planned respite as a noise mitigation measure

• Implementation of a departure profile study to better understand how noise levels vary with different operating procedures and conditions .

7 Civil Aviation Act 1982 8 https://www .heathrow .com/noise


5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 It may seem counter-intuitive that with more flights there could be fewer people affected by aircraft noise. But reducing the noise impact of Heathrow is a key goal of our approach to expanding the airport. It’s something that we’ve done before with our airline partners. Since the 1970s, the number of flights at Heathrow has nearly doubled, yet the number of people within Heathrow’s noise footprint has fallen by 90%.

5.1.2 We recognise that noise from an expanded Heathrow is a primary concern for local communities. Our objectives for noise management do not change and our approach with expansion builds on our existing, industry-leading approach based on the principles of the ICAO Balanced Approach.

5.1.3 Throughout the expansion process we have consistently sought to minimise the effects of noise from the expanded airport so that overall fewer people would be affected by noise than today.

5.1.4 We acknowledge that there will be people affected by noise and so we are aiming to design the airport, operations and airspace so that these impacts are minimised, providing a property acquisition scheme and world class noise insulation to help to mitigate remaining effects. Our approach to noise has been, and will continue to be, underpinned by consultation with our local communities and stakeholders.

5.1.5 The expansion of the airport is not just about the physical changes required on the ground. Building a new runway will also lead to changes to where and how aircraft fly in the future. These are independent processes in planning terms, but they are mutually dependent in relation to management of effects of noise.

5.1.6 In the revised draft ANPS the Government explains that at the time of the DCO process the airspace designs will not be finalised and so indicative airspace designs should be developed.

5.1.7 As we are currently at a very early stage in the development process, the airport and airspace designs are not sufficiently advanced to provide certainty over noise exposure for all areas around Heathrow.

5.1.8 We recognise that this uncertainty may give rise to concern from local communities wishing to understand how they may be affected by expansion of Heathrow. Feedback from community groups and representatives has indicated a desire for earlier involvement in the process. This is reflected in our approach and the role of consultation in forming our proposals is set out by Government and the CAA. However, this early stage in the process means there will inevitably be a lack of certainty.

5.1.9 So, at this stage, we are seeking views on the approach and principles to help guide development. There will be further opportunities to feedback on our approach and patterns of exposure as they emerge through the process.

5.2 Airports Commission findings

5.2.1 In preparing our submissions to the independent Airports Commission, set up by the Government, we demonstrated that we could continue to reduce Heathrow’s overall impacts by:

• Using quieter aircraft – for example 90% of aircraft at Heathrow are expected to be ‘next generation’ aircraft like the Boeing 787 or Airbus A320-neo

• Maintaining the principle of runway alternation to provide communities with respite from aircraft noise during both easterly and westerly operations

• Enabling aircraft coming into land to be higher for longer, for example with the development of displaced landing thresholds

• The potential to alternate arrival and departure flight paths so that residents experience periods of time without direct overflight – something that isn’t done today

• Development of world-class noise insulation scheme to help mitigate for those who remain affected .

5 Our approach to noise management with expansion

5.2.2 In 2015, the Airports Commission, whilst supporting expansion at Heathrow, concluded that “expansion must be taken forward with a firm guarantee that the airport and its airlines will be held to the very highest standards of noise performance” and that “Heathrow Airport should not be allowed to expand without appropriate conditions being put in place in respect of noise impacts…”9.

5.2.3 The Airports Commission also recognised that an expanded Heathrow could be a better neighbour for local communities than it is today. Noise modelling carried out by both the Airports Commission and CAA has shown that it is possible to reduce the number of people significantly affected by aircraft noise while increasing the number of flights at Heathrow.

5.2.4 It should be noted that the Airports Commission conclusions were based on work done and understanding current at that time. The DCO process requires us to re-examine our proposals and undertake more detailed design work and assessments as part of a DCO application.

5.3 DCO requirements for an expanded Heathrow – the revised draft ANPS

5.3.1 As explained within the DCO Process Information Paper published as part of this consultation, expansion at Heathrow will require a development consent. For development consent, we must demonstrate compliance with the necessary tests as set out by Government in the ANPS.

5.3.2 The revised draft ANPS (at paragraph 5.67) in relation to effects of noise on health and quality of life makes it explicit that “Development consent should not be granted unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proposals will meet the following aims for the effective management and control of noise, within the context of Government policy on sustainable development:

• “Avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise;

• Mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise; and

• Where possible, contribute to improvements to health and quality of life.”

5.3.3 These tests align with the aims of Government noise policy as presented in the NPSE. To meet these aims we will need to evidence:

• For Aim 1: That significant adverse effects, in the context of Government policy, will be avoided through a combination of mitigation measures, and that any residual significant adverse effects are avoided through the provision of noise insulation to reduce these effects . In this policy context it is important to explain ‘avoiding’ adverse effects is an aim of policy not an absolute prerequisite, in other words there may still be residual effects

• For Aim 2: How the airport masterplan and operational aspects of the proposals can help mitigate and minimise adverse effects on health and quality of life . This may mean, for example, demonstrating how components such as runway position and displaced thresholds alleviate and minimise noise effects

• For Aim 3: Demonstrating that, where this is possible, that the proposals can result in improvement . This could, for example, be achieved by demonstrating that the combination of the proposed approach to managing the effects of night flights will improve the effects of noise at night for those exposed today .

5.3.4 In addition, supporting our principal aim for there to be fewer people overall affected by aircraft noise than today the revised draft ANPS states (at paragraph 5.57) that “noise mitigation measures should ensure that the impact of aircraft noise is limited and, where possible, reduced compared to the 2013 baseline assessed by the Airports Commission”.

9 https://www .gov .uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440316/airports-commission-final-report .pdf


5.3.5 Mitigation required by the revised draft ANPS

5.3.6 The revised draft ANPS also sets out mitigation measures that we “should specifically seek to deliver” (paragraphs 5.59 to 5.61). These requirements are:

• Plans for a noise envelope “tailored to local priorities and include clear noise performance targets. As such the design of the noise envelope should be defined in consultation with local communities and relevant stakeholders…… benefits of future technological improvements should be shared between the applicant and its local communities, hence helping to achieve a balance between growth and noise reduction”

• Plans for a runway alternation scheme that “provides communities affected with predictable period of respite… Details of such scheme including timings duration and scheduling should be defined in consultation…”

• The Government expects “a ban on scheduled night flights for a period of six and a half hours, between the hours of 11pm and 7am… The rules around its operation, including the exact timings, should be defined in consultation... In addition, the Government expects the applicant to make particular efforts to incentivise the use of the quietest aircraft at night”

• Heathrow is also expected to continue to develop other mitigation including operational procedures to reduce noise and also expects that we will continue to explore all opportunities for mitigating the impacts of aircraft noise in line with best practice

• A residential noise insulation and relocation scheme and a scheme to insulate community buildings .

5.4 Our approach – overview

5.4.1 Our approach to noise is based on the International Civil Aviation Organisation Balanced Approach of reducing noise at source (quieter planes); land use planning and management (quieter airport design and noise insulation); noise abatement operating procedures (quieter operations); and operating restrictions (for example, a ban on scheduled night flights). We also consider community engagement to be a significant element of our approach. As part of our approach we will also put forward plans for a noise envelope to provide management, accountability, and control of noise, providing the right targets and incentives to achieve our goals of the area around Heathrow being a great place to live and a place that’s getting quieter.

5.4.2 Our approach, consistent with the ICAO Balanced Approach, is summarised as follows (the details are presented with their respective categories from the ICAO Balanced Approach):

• Quieter aircraft – incentivising the use of the quietest aircraft (Section 5 .5)

• Quieter airport design – elements of the design and layout to minimise noise effects (which can be found in Section 5 .6)

• Consideration of airspace design and operation – the principles of airspace design, development and operation are presented at a high-level in this document (Section 5 .7), but are considered in more detail and consulted on within the airspace consultation

• Quieter airport operating procedures – consideration of the way in which the airport operates to provide respite and relief from aircraft noise and enable sharing of noise exposure (Section 5 .8)

• Minimising the effects of noise from night flights – including a ban on scheduled night flights for a 6 .5hr period (time to be agreed through consultation) between 11pm and 7am and how we might incentivise the use of the quietest aircraft available as appropriate for the routes flown (section 5 .5 and 5 .9)

• Land use planning and mitigation – our proposals for a noise insulation and compensation scheme (section 5 .10)

• All of the above is underpinned by our proposals for the development of a noise envelope (section 5 .11) .

5.4.3 Alignment of our proposals with the ICAO Balanced Approach is summarised in Figure 5.1.

5.4.4 Whilst complying with Government noise policy, our development proposals must also support delivery of the demand as set out in the revised draft ANPS with a safe and efficient airport operation.

5.4.5 The following sections expand on the proposals associated with the six measures outlined above for managing noise with expansion. We have structured each section in the same way, with the following sub-sections:

• Background – providing an understanding of the mitigation element and factors to be considered and what we included in our proposals to the Airports Commission;

• Our current thinking – explaining whether anything has changed since the Airports Commission proposals and if so what, why, and the options/challenges there may now be; and

• The views being sought – what we are seeking views on at this stage to help guide our proposals during the DCO process .

Our approach will be scrutinised by experts

5.4.6 We have established a Noise Expert Review Group (NERG) made up by independent experts, in different aspects of acoustics, noise and health. The panel will review and scrutinise our approach, and advise on current best practice.

5.4.7 We are also engaging on our approach and methodology with Local Authority Environmental Health experts including through the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG).

Adding additional aircraft movements

5.4.8 The approach to noise set out in this document will be applied to all permitted increases in ATMs under the DCO and ACP consenting processes, including the proposals for additional movements with two existing runways described in Section 17 (Associated Development) of Our Emerging Plans. This means that any proposals for additional ATMs, including those that may be introduced prior to a third runway, will be subject to the noise management and mitigation measures described in this section and will need to meet the tests set out in the draft NPS.

Expansion

Airport design & layout 3

Airspace design 3 3

Respite through runway alternation 3 3

Minimising the effects of noise from night flights 3 3 3 3 3

Noise Insulation Scheme 3 3

Noise envelope 3 3 3 3 3

Figure 5 .1: Our approach with expansion

Quieter Quieter Land-use planning Operating Working with planes procedures and mitigation restrictions local communities

FRAMEWORK FOR NOISE MANAGEMENT


5.5 Incentivising cleaner aircraft and operations

5.5.1 We recognise the impacts that Heathrow flight operations have on our local community and are committed to reducing these. Through our landing charges we will continue to charge the highest prices to the noisiest and highest emitting aircraft and are considering how our charges should evolve in the future.

5.5.2 As technology develops, even more stringent noise and emission standards can be expected for aircraft – and we will ensure that, in consultation with airlines, we continue to develop our incentive framework to ensure we continue to attract the world’s greenest aircraft.

5.5.3 We are also considering further means of incentivising airlines to prioritise sustainable operations at Heathrow. This may include rewarding airlines that operate aircraft using the ‘greenest’ methods (for example compliance with continuous descent approaches; early adoption of sustainable aviation fuels; lower use of Auxiliary Power Units).

5.5.4 We will also work with Government and our regulator (the CAA) to consider the legal framework that would be needed to implement these incentives.

5.6 Airport design and development

Background

5.6.1 Our proposals to the Airports Commission were developed following consultation with local communities and stakeholders. This reinforced that noise exposure should be a key priority in the masterplan design along with enabling the provision of respite for local communities. The following key elements were considered in addressing these priorities:

• Runway location – east-west alignment

• Runway separation – north-south position relative to existing northern runway

• Runway length

• Displacement of landing thresholds .

5.6.2 Further detail on how these featured in our proposal for a north west runway scheme to the Airports Commission can be found in the scheme development report that accompanied our airports commission scheme submission. An overview of the considerations is presented below.

Runway location

5.6.4 At the Airports Commission stage, the east-west alignment and north-south position of the new north west runway was considered in terms of overall population exposed to the aircraft noise.

• North-south: The north-south position and separation to the existing northern runway was considered . We found that the minimum separation to enable parallel, independent operations to ensure runway alternation could be provided was 1,035m . This also minimised land-take required to the north for the development

• The east-west alignment of a 3,500m runway was considered . We found that positioning the runway as far west as possible (within the geographical constraints presented by the western reservoirs) minimised the number of people exposed to aircraft noise .

5.6.5 While the selected east-west alignment and north-south separation achieved the objectives for minimising the overall number of people exposed to aircraft noise, there are implications for those people in villages closest to the airport. For example, runway locations further east are better for the people of Colnbrook and Poyle; whereas, further west is better for the people of Sipson and Harlington.

Runway length

5.6.7 Our north west runway scheme proposed to the Airports Commission presented a runway of 3,500m length, based on the principle of delivering three equally capable runways.

5.6.8 The runway position as presented in our submission to the Airports Commission is presented in Figure 5.2.

Displaced landing threshold

5.6.10 An aspect of airport design is the positioning of displaced thresholds (these apply to landings only). Displacing the runway threshold means moving the point that aircraft land to a point down the runway other than the physical beginning. The further the threshold is moved down the runway the higher aircraft will be over built-up areas under the approach. This increase in height can reduce the noise levels experienced on the ground. The greater the displacement, the higher the aircraft will be at any point on the final approach, and the greater the sound level reduction. The most benefit is for those closest to the airport, where the relative increase in height is greatest. Further from the airfield, the relative noise reduction is smaller.

Figure 5 .2: Our masterplan proposal to the Airports Commission


5.6.11 The effect on height is summarised in Figure 5.3.

5.6.12 In the context of sustainable development, expansion presents an opportunity to invest in the development of ground based infrastructure, for example displaced thresholds, that would not be possible with today’s airport. Displacing the threshold on the new runway enables us to minimise the effects of the new runway. On existing runways, a development enabled by expansion can reduce effects for those overflown by arrivals today.

5.6.13 At the time of our proposals to the Airports Commission, it was considered that the primary constraint on extent to which the thresholds could be displaced was the minimum required length of runway for landing aircraft. Safety critical areas and runway exits also need to be aligned with the displaced threshold.

5.6.14 Analysis suggested that an available landing distance of 2,800m would enable aircraft of all sizes to exit the runway safely. On the new runway, the positioning of exits was a relatively straightforward matter as these would be created from new. On the existing runways, redevelopment of the existing airfield would be required to accommodate the displacements to the proposed maximum. The thresholds were displaced on all runways to the maximum possible whilst still providing a landing distance of 2,800m.

5.6.15 On the new runway with 3,500m runway length this meant a displacement of 700m. For the existing runways displacements of around 1,100m were proposed for the existing northern and southern runways.

Overall

5.6.17 When combined, the measures described above can have a substantial benefit towards reducing the overall effects of noise. These components must also support an efficient and safe airport operation and enable reliable and predictable runway alternation patterns.

Ground noise

5.6.19 Our Airports Commission submission set out that potential impacts from ground operations would be avoided or minimised through the design and optimisation of the airport design and through the way in which the airport operates.

Figure 5 .3: Effect on height of aircraft with displaced thresholds

Our Current Thinking

Revised draft ANPS requirements

5.6.20 The revised draft ANPS indicates the airport is expected to continue to develop other mitigation including operational procedures to reduce noise, and to explore all opportunities for mitigating the impacts of aircraft noise in line with best practice.

Our development approach

5.6.22 We are undertaking a robust optioneering, evaluation and consultation process in order to establish the optimum airport masterplan. Noise performance is central to our evaluation criteria for our design options.

5.6.23 In particular this means delivering a runway design that in respect of noise is capable of meeting the requirements for predictable respite, a ban on scheduled night flights, minimising ground noise and supporting our aim of fewer people overall being affected by aircraft noise than today.

5.6.24 The progress that has been made so far in developing the options for the runway width, separation, height, length and location is described in section 3 of the Scheme Development Report.

5.6.25 As well as complying with Aviation Noise Policy, development proposals must support meeting the demand (as per the revised draft ANPS) and deliver an efficient and safe airport operation, whilst supporting delivery of reliable and predictable runway alternation.

Runway length and location

5.6.27 In exploring runway length and location with respect to noise we have sought to identify the options that minimise and avoid noise impacts and minimise the number of people affected by noise.

5.6.28 In general, this has meant positioning the runway as far west as possible (within the geographical constraints presented by the western reservoirs) to minimise the number of people exposed to aircraft noise. Please see section 3 of the Scheme Development Report and chapter 5 of Our Emerging Plans for details of the runway length and location evaluation and options.

Displaced landing threshold

5.6.30 As we progress through more detailed design we are exploring the practical implications and limitations on threshold displacement.

5.6.31 Our Emerging Plans chapter 5 describes the changes to displaced thresholds that have been deemed necessary as the airfield design has evolved. Initial detailed design considerations are indicating that we may not be able to achieve the same displaced thresholds assumed during the Airports Commission process.

5.6.32 Operational evaluation has indicated that the extent of the displacement possible for a given runway is dependent upon the modes of operation that the runway is used for. A runway used for a single mode of operation (e.g. departure or landing) is capable of larger displacement than a runway used for mixed mode. This is due to the interaction of wake turbulence between arriving and departing aircraft on a mixed mode runway and is an important safety issue.

5.6.33 The implications of changes to displaced thresholds will be investigated further and an assessment presented at the second stage of consultation.

Displaced Threshold for landing only

Normal Threshold

Runway


5.6.34 Ground noise

5.6.35 Potential impacts from ground operations will be avoided or minimised through the design and optimisation of the airport design and through the way in which the airport operates.

5.6.36 Design of the expanded airport will seek to maximise the distance between taxiways, aprons and stands, and those who live near to the airport boundary consistent with design considerations for an efficient airfield operation. Where necessary and appropriate acoustic barriers will be used. Further considerations include:

• Design and location of maintenance area and engine ground running facilities and procedures – including specific night-time controls

• Physical mitigation measures – noise bunds, barriers

• Ground noise management operating procedures – including limits on Auxiliary Power Unit run times

• Minimising taxiing distances to and from stands with an efficient airfield to minimise time at the hold points

• Providing facilities on stands to minimise running of power units on the ground .

5.6.37 Chapters 3-5 of the Scheme Development Report describes the evaluation of options where ground noise has been identified to be a factor, such as taxiway location.

5.7.6 Our future airspace will need to accommodate the appropriate number of arriving and departing aircraft, safely and efficiently and we will also need to demonstrate that we have met the requirements of noise policy (consistent with that required at the DCO process).

5.7.7 In our first airspace consultation, we are therefore seeking feedback on key principles we have developed in order to inform and guide us in creating these options. More information can be found in our Airspace Principles Consultation Document.

5.7.8 The set of principles we are consulting on have been developed through Heathrow’s close engagement with airspace designers (from NATS), and community and stakeholder groups at Heathrow’s regular community engagement forums.

5.7.9 We believe these principles address the issues highlighted most frequently by local communities and key stakeholders, and will enable our airspace design team to develop options that support an efficient expanded Heathrow.

5.7.10 Beyond these core requirements, we expect to have a number of options and trade-offs to choose between when designing future flight paths.

5.7.11 Managing the impact of noise is a key consideration at every stage of preparing our plan. The same noise evaluation criteria will be applied across both processes.

5.7.12 An example of a procedure that can affect noise experienced on the ground includes steeper approaches.

Steeper approaches

5.7.14 Steeper approaches mean that landing aircraft stay higher for longer, which generally means they have less noise impact. However, different aircraft have different limits on how steep their descent can be and there are a number of international standards and practical considerations that apply.

5.8 Airport operating procedures – sharing, relief and respite

Background

5.8.1 We know from complaints and comments from members of our local communities that the provision of predictable periods of respite from aircraft noise through runway alternation is valued by local communities.

5.8.2 Responses to our consultation during the Airports Commission process indicated that, overall, more than 60% of all respondents felt that providing periods of relief from aircraft was more important than minimising the number of communities overflown10.

5.8.3 We have also heard that the degree to which aircraft are shared, and the relief that arises, from changes in the operating direction are important to local communities.

5.8.4 As a result as part of our plans for expansion, we are exploring ways and seeking views on the ways in which we could potentially improve the degree to which aircraft are shared between easterly and westerly operations and the provision of relief; and ways in which we could provide respite through runway alternation.

5.8.5 Expansion of the airport enables us to develop the airfield such that runway alternation schemes can be delivered during both westerly and easterly operations. Currently this is only possible during westerly operations.

10 Taking Britain Further: Heathrow’s plans for connecting the UK to growth https://your .heathrow .com/takingbritainfurther/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/TBF-Volume-1-72dpi-jm .pdf (accessed 12 December 2017)

Noise performance is a critical aspect of our evaluation of airport design options . In the context of supporting delivery of the demand required of the revised draft ANPS and a safe and efficient operation we will seek to minimise and mitigate effects on health and quality of life from noise .

Is there anything further that we should be considering in relation to noise management in our airport development consultation proposals, or anything specific we should consider in the evaluation of options?

Key things to consider – Airport development and noise

5.7 Airspace design and development

5.7.1 The expansion of the airport is not just about the physical changes required on the ground. Building a new runway will also lead to changes to where and how planes fly in the future. Changes to flight paths will be confirmed through the airspace change process which is determined by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

5.7.2 The expansion of the airport and construction of a third runway provides us with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to review how airspace is used around Heathrow so that we can reduce the number of people affected by noise while increasing the number of flights to and from Heathrow.

5.7.3 We are undertaking a separate and parallel consultation on the principles of the new airspace design that will be needed for an expanded Heathrow.

5.7.4 Changes to airspace are the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority and are subject to a separate and parallel process. Our key airspace design principles are set out in the Airspace Principles Consultation Document.

Airspace design principles

5.7.5 Before we can begin to design our future airspace for an expanded Heathrow, we need to develop a set of principles or ‘rules’ for our airspace design team to use when designing the new flight paths.


Understanding respite

5.8.7 During the Airports Commission process it became apparent that the concept of ‘respite’ was not well understood outside of the airport, in particular there was a lack of clarity and consistency with what it actually means, how it is described and what aspects are most valued by communities.

5.8.8 Following the conclusion of the Airports Commission process we began a research programme to try to better understand the importance of respite, what the term ‘respite’ means to people, and the aspects of that are most valued by communities.

The Respite Working Group

5.8.10 In 2015 we established a Respite Working Group comprising representatives of local community and other stakeholders to develop greater understanding of the concept and identify research priorities.

5.8.11 The group established the following working definition of respite, drawing a distinction of scheduled, predictability that distinguishes respite and relief from aircraft noise:

• Relief – a break from or a reduction in aircraft noise

• Respite – a scheduled relief from aircraft noise for a period of time .

5.8.12 In summary, the Respite Working Group recommended that further research was needed “to better understand the key characteristics of an effective respite strategy for Heathrow Airport and its local communities, consistent with efficient operations”.

5.8.13 The final report of the Respite Working Group is available through our website11.

Respite research phase 1

5.8.15 In 2016, we commissioned the first of a number of further phases of research to establish what the community values as effective respite from aircraft noise. Laboratory listening tests were used to determine sound level differences that would be discernible and valued. Field work was used to understand preferences in the way in which respite could be delivered. The work was reviewed by a Peer Review Group during the process.

5.8.16 In summary, the key findings of this research included:

• Noise level differences that are considered to be valued; discernible; and worthwhile have been identified

• Respite is not considered to be provided by increasing the time between aircraft – long periods with a substantial level difference are required

• There was a strong consensus for preferring quieter periods at either end of the day (for weekends and weekdays)

• Effective respite is a function of noise relief provided through a schedule and a set of non-acoustic factors (such as trust, sharing and perceived fairness) .

Research phase 2

5.8.18 A second phase of research is underway with field studies to understand the role of non-acoustic factors in people’s evaluation of respite. As results emerge from the research they will inform the development of our plans for provision of respite and the priorities for timings and patterns for runway alternation.

Respite and relief today

Respite and sharing through runway use patterns

5.8.19 In today’s’ airport operation, respite from aircraft noise is provided through a scheme of runway alternation during westerly daytime operations; and by a scheme of runway rotation at night. (Please see the Heathrow Operations Handbook for more information.) At this time the airfield infrastructure does not enable us to operate runway alternation during easterly operations.

5.8.20 Both of these operate to a published schedule which helps people in affected areas to have a degree of predictability of when their area is likely to be overflown by arrivals. At this time the runway alternation pattern applies to westerly arrivals only.

5.8.21 Noise reduction benefits between use of runways are greater for those closest to the airport.

5.8.22 Runway alternation also results in a degree of sharing noise from arriving aircraft between those underneath each of the final approaches over London.

Relief and sharing through change of operating direction

5.8.24 For some people, relief from aircraft noise is provided when the airport changes operating direction from westerly to easterly operations. Relief provided from change of operating direction cannot be made predictable through a published schedule.

5.8.25 For safety and operational reasons aircraft take-off and land into the wind. The prevailing wind direction at Heathrow is from the west. In addition a concept known as ‘westerly preference’ is operated - aircraft will continue to operate in westerly direction with up to a 5kt tailwind. The degree to which aircraft noise is ‘shared’ between easterly and westerly operations is therefore influenced by the prevailing wind direction and the westerly preference.

5.8.26 As a result of the prevailing wind direction and the westerly preference there is a historic annual split of around 70% westerly, 30% easterly operations (please note that this varies from year to year). As a result the predominant operations are in a westerly direction (departing towards the west, arriving over west London).

5.8.27 More information about westerly and easterly operations and westerly preference can be found in the Heathrow Operations Handbook. The decision of whether to operate on easterly or westerly is taken by air traffic control based on wind conditions.

5.8.28 For those closest to the airport and most affected by aircraft noise a change in the direction of operations is likely to mean a different character of noise (for example, departures rather than arrivals) rather than a complete break from noise. For those further out there are greater changes in aircraft noise levels when switching directions.

Our Airports Commission proposals

Respite through runway use patterns

5.8.29 Our Airports Commission proposals included a ‘mode rotation’ scheme that provided an equivalent of today’s runway alternation scheme, applied to daytime (7am to 11pm). Our night-time proposals are covered in the night flights management section of this document.

5.8.30 Our proposals supported respite being provided from aircraft noise from arriving and departing aircraft in both easterly and westerly directions.

5.8.31 In order to deliver the number of arrivals and departures in a three-runway airport, a minimum of two runways need to be available at any time for landings and two runways for departures.

11 https://www .heathrow .com/file_source/HeathrowNoise/Static/Respite_Review_June_2016 .pdf


5.8.32 To achieve this and provide relief one runway is dedicated to landing aircraft (L), one to departing aircraft (D) and the third used for a mixture (M) of landing and departing aircraft (often referred to as a Mixed Mode runway).

5.8.33 By rotating landings, departures and mixed mode, different systems of runway alternation can be established and various patterns of operation emerge. Largely as a result of operational conflicts, the centre runway cannot be used as a mixed mode runway.

5.8.34 To enable respite for those communities most affected by aircraft noise (departures and landings) four operating modes emerged. These are summarised in Figure 5.4 which illustrates the proposal put forward to the Airports Commission.

5.8.35 It should be noted that this is an example of a system that could be delivered operationally, not necessarily a preferred, or final solution. It is intended to illustrate a principle, it is not to scale and is not intended to infer any effect, exposure or impact to any particular community.

Sharing and relief through operating direction

5.8.37 For our proposals to the Airports Commission, we considered that the split between easterly and westerly operations to be based on recent historic trends, with no changes to the way in which the operating direction is decided.

Current thinking on sharing, relief and respite

The revised draft ANPS requirement

5.8.38 The revised draft ANPS includes a requirement for the applicant to “put forward plans for a runway alternation scheme that provides communities affected with predictable periods of respite”12.

5.8.39 The revised draft ANPS recognises that for those affected by noise today the periods of respite may be reduced. It also indicates that the details should be defined in consultation with local communities and relevant stakeholders, and take account of any independent guidance such as from Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise (ICCAN) a body being set up by the Government..

Providing respite through a runway alternation scheme

5.8.41 By applying the learning from the most recent stage of our respite research our proposals to the Airports Commission for a runway alternation scheme could result in sound level differences that would be considered valued particularly to communities within areas most exposed to noise today.

5.8.42 In applying the outcomes of the research to the development of a runway alternation scheme, we have been able to identify a number of factors associated with the valued provision of respite. These include:

• Timing factors, for example, the time of day at which respite is provided and the length of time for which respite is delivered (and therefore by extension exposure to higher noise levels)

• Noise exposure patterns, for example providing respite through runway alternation to those most affected by noise

• Population distribution, for example providing respite for areas where there is very little population, would result in more people being overflown, but those people that are overflown would receive some respite

• Equitable distribution of respite

• Respite for people newly affected compared with that for people who are already affected .

5.8.43 We will consider results and conclusions as they emerge from the ongoing respite research work.

Sharing and relief arising from change of operating direction

5.8.45 For some people, relief from aircraft noise is provided when the airport changes operating direction from westerly to easterly operations, or vice versa. Relief provided from change of operating direction cannot be made predictable through a published schedule.

5.8.46 For those closest to the airport and most affected by aircraft noise a change in the direction of operations is likely to mean that it sounds different to now (for example where this could result in changes to the number of aircraft that fly over your area), the type of noise (for example departures sound different to arrivals) and the degree of relief. For some, there could be more flights, for others less.

5.8.47 The Airports Commission recognised that as a result of advances in aircraft performance and noise technology that there are merits in considering whether the application of a bias towards one direction of operation is still the most appropriate way to minimise the effects of noise.

Figure 5 .4: Four operating modes and patterns of relief

12 https://www .gov .uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/654123/revised-draft-airports-nps-web-version .pdf

Assumption Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4

Northern Runway M M L D

Centre Runway L D D L

Southern Runway D L M M

D = Departing L = Landing M = Mixed Mode: Departing and Landing

Mode 1 Mode 2

Mode 3 Mode 4

D LM

LL

DD

Noise relief zone

Noise relief zone

D LM

LL Noise relief zone

DD Noise relief zone

D LM



D LM




5.8.48 In developing proposals for a runway alternation scheme to provide predictable periods of respite, responses to this consultation will greatly assist in evaluating options consistent with delivering a safe and efficient airfield operation. At our second consultation we will present proposals for a runway alternation scheme explaining how these factors have been considered.

5.9 Managing the adverse effects of night flights

Background

5.9.1 We acknowledge and recognise the impact that flights during the night-time period (11pm to 7am) can have for some people.

5.9.2 Current responsibility for night-time flying restrictions rests with the UK Government. They have recognised the need to strike a balance between the benefits such flights bring to the UK economy with the impacts they can have on local communities.

5.9.3 As such, restrictions on night-time flying have been in place at Heathrow since the 1990s, the current arrangements are briefly described in Section 4.3 of this document.

5.9.4 In response to local community concerns, we have worked with our airline partners to introduce a number of voluntary agreements, such as flights scheduled between 4.30am and 6am not being allowed to land before 4.30am, no cargo flights before 6am, specific categories for night flight operations in our ‘Fly Quiet and Green’ (formerly called ‘Fly Quiet and Clean’) league tables, and the voluntary Quiet Night Charter.

5.9.5 Such operating restrictions must be considered in relation to the ICAO Balanced Approach and the EU Operating Restrictions directive (EU598).

Our Airports Commission proposals

In line with Government policy, Heathrow proposed a package of mitigation for minimising and where possible reducing the effects of aircraft operations at night . This included:

• Restrictions on night-time flying, similar system to today

• Promoting the use of quieter aircraft types to operate at night

• Airport operating procedures - our proposals included a runway rotation system for aircraft at night whereby one runway would be in use each night for arrivals – providing respite from night time aircraft for on average five nights in six

• A noise insulation scheme to mitigate residual impacts .

5.9.7 Across a range of analysis and assessments conducted by ourselves, the Airports Commission and the UK Government, these measures resulted in a significant reduction in the number of people affected by aircraft noise at night and significantly fewer overall than today.

5.9.8 The Airports Commission reported significant overall reduction of self-reported sleep disturbance arising from our approach.

Our current thinking


5.9.9 The revised draft ANPS supports, and carries forward, the Airports Commission’s recommendation that a ban on scheduled night flights, is only deliverable with expansion and states (paragraph 5.61):

5.9.10 “The Government also expects a ban on scheduled night flights for a period of six and a half hours, between the hours of 11pm and 7am, to be implemented. The rules around its operation, including the exact timings of such a ban, should be defined in consultation with local communities and relevant stakeholders, in line with EU Regulation 598/2014. In addition, outside the hours of a ban, the Government expects the applicant to make particular efforts to incentivise the use of the quietest aircraft at night.”

5.9.11 We are supportive of the Department for Transport’s (DfT) approach to establishing the period for the 6.5 hour ban on scheduled night flights, and welcome the opportunity to determine its exact nature through further detailed work and consultation with relevant stakeholders and the local community.

5.9.12 For the purpose of resilience, Heathrow will continue to seek a dispensation regime in exceptional circumstances only for departing and arriving flights during the 6.5 hour ban. This may be used in times of significant network disruption (such as Air Traffic Controller strikes) or to deal with operational issues (such as the loss of a runway), and its purpose would be to minimise the impact to passenger journeys and global airline operations.

A broader objective to minimise objective sleep disturbance between 11pm and 7am

5.9.14 We consider that the scheduled ban on night flights should form part of package of mitigation measures designed to minimise objective sleep disturbance caused by flights between 11pm and 7am, consistent with the requirements of EU598 and the ICAO Balanced Approach.

5.9.15 Our current thinking is that a package of measures to minimise sleep disturbance from night flights could include a range of measures across the ICAO Balanced Approach:

• The ban on scheduled flights between 11pm and 5 .30am (Operating Restriction)

• Runway operating patterns (Quieter Airport Operating Procedures)

• Operation of the quietest aircraft (Quieter Planes)

• A noise insulation scheme (Land use planning and mitigation)

5.9.16 We consider each of these in turn below.

Operating restriction: Ban on scheduled night flights

5.9.18 Based on our assessment of the economic and environmental effects of late night and early morning flights we have indicated a preference for the 6.5hr ban on scheduled flights to be from 11pm to 5.30am. In developing this preference, we have considered the following:

1 That restrictions on night flights need to strike a balance between protecting the local community from night noise and the benefits that night flights generate for the UK economy;

2 The requirements and context of EU Regulation 598/ 2014 and the ICAO Balanced Approach;

Please tell us what you think about the factors associated with the provision of respite. When answering this question you may like to consider:

• The importance and value of predictable periods of respite through runway alternation; and any specific factors (from the list identified) that you would consider more important and valued than others . Are there are other factors that you feel we should consider .

• If you are aware that you receive respite through the current runway alternation scheme we would like your views on what aspects of that scheme you value – are there particular aspects that should be considered essential?

• We would like your views on whether, as part of our mitigation proposals, we should investigate airport operating procedures that could share aircraft more equitably between easterly and westerly operations .

Key things to consider – Airport operational procedures to deliver sharing, relief and respite


3 Balancing the benefits of restrictions between those impacted by departures and those by arrivals

4 High passenger demand for flying within the night period, that is unlikely to change given the markets that the flights operate to and from . A high proportion of passengers on these flights connect at Heathrow onto onward flights – the timing of these connections is important for passengers, especially business travellers for whom arriving early in the morning at their destination is important to complete a full day’s business; and

5 Independent studies have shown that night flights at Heathrow make a significant contribution to the economy and contribute to the UK’s long term economic prosperity13 14 .

5.9.19 We believe this approach would be fairer for all local communities as it gives a more equitable distribution of flights to those living under the departure routes as well as those living under the arrivals routes by extending the ban into the late night as well as the early morning instead of only the early morning.

5.9.20 Currently flights scheduled to arrive between 04:30am-06:00am are allowed to land from 04:30am. An increase in aircraft movements before a new runway is built will require airspace changes that improve runway efficiency for both arriving and departing aircraft which will enable a small increase in runway capacity. New technologies for arrivals are already being developed and progressed that could deliver this efficiency which would enable us to introduce the 5.30am start time at the same time as the additional ATMs. This proposal would be dependent on approval to the necessary changes to airspace.

5.9.21 Figure 5.5 compares our proposals for the time period of a ban on scheduled night flights with the current Government restrictions and the Airports Commission recommendation.

Reducing noise at source: Incentivising the quietest aircraft to operate at night between 11pm and 7am

5.9.23 The Government has recognised the importance of incentivising the quietest aircraft at night outside the hours of a ban. This is a principle that we have operated for some time with the application of differential charges based on aircraft noise levels.

Quieter operating procedures (airport) runway operating patterns

5.9.25 We are proposing to evaluate a range of night-time runway operating patterns that support our night flights objective. This will include consideration of periods of respite from night flights as well as distribution of aircraft outside the ban period to minimise objective sleep disturbance.

Land use planning and mitigation: Noise insulation scheme

5.9.27 We will evaluate our proposals for a noise insulation scheme to ensure that they support our night flights objectives.

5.9.28 In the event of Heathrow gaining permission to increase ATMs above our current planning cap of 480,000 annual flights, we plan to bring forward the start of the noise insulation scheme to coincide with the start of the new flights, proportionate to their impact.

Evaluation

5.9.30 We will be evaluating a number of options for mitigating the effects of aircraft noise at night in line with the requirements of EU598/ 2014 and the ICAO Balanced Approach. The results of these evaluations will be reported and the package of measures consulted on through the DCO process or, in the case where they may be airspace design related, through the ACP.

5.9.31 We are proposing, in addition to the current self-reported sleep disturbance approach, to use indicators to assess ‘objective sleep disturbance’ based on the latest evidence from research.

5.9.32 We will ask the NERG to scrutinise and advise on our approach, and will consult with communities and stakeholders including local authorities through our smaller topic engagement groups.

5.9.33 At the second stage of consultation we will present proposals for and seek views on the other aspects of our approach to minimising the effects of night flights.

Figure 5 .5: Comparison of night flights restrictions

11pm12am

1am

2am

3am

4am

5am6am

7am

UK Government current night restrictions period (23:00–07:00)

UK Government current night quota period (23:30–06:00)

Airport Commission proposed (23:30–06:00)

Heathrow Airport Ltd proposed (23:00–05:30)

Night flights restrictions

13 A 2011 study by Oxford Economics showed that Heathrow flights in the Night Quota Period (11:30pm – 06:00am) contributed £158 million in ‘value added’ (GDP) in 2011, directly supported 3,200 jobs and generated £37 million in tax revenue .

14 http://www .cepa .co .uk/portfolio-night-flights-ba?txtSearch1=heathrow

Do you have any views on:

• Our preferred 6 .5 hour night flight ban on scheduled flights period of 11pm to 5 .30am

• We are also interested to hear views from stakeholders and local communities on whether there are any other measures we should consider in managing the adverse effects of night flights

Key things to consider – Night flights


5.10 Noise insulation and compensation

Background

5.10.1 Our approach to noise management has been developed to avoid, mitigate and minimise noise impacts within the context of Government policy on sustainable development. We recognise that there may still be effects after applying the mitigation measures.

5.10.2 Our aircraft noise insulation and relocation proposals have been developed following consultation with local communities. We heard that our proposals would need to go well beyond the minimum standard required by policy, particularly in terms of eligibility and contribution. We have developed a property acquisition offer and a world class noise insulation scheme15.

5.10.3 Separate policies will be proposed for properties affected by other noise sources such as construction noise or road traffic noise. There are sections on these noise sources later in this document.


5.10.4 In the area required for expansion infrastructure there will be some properties that will be subject to compulsory acquisition for reasons unrelated to noise and disruption, please see our Property Policy: Information Paper and the separate policies that it describes and summarises.

5.10.5 We have proposed three noise related schemes, that have been incorporated into the revised draft ANPS (at paragraph 5.243):

1 A noise relocation scheme

2 A noise insulation scheme

3 A community buildings scheme

5.10.6 The principles of these schemes are described below.

Noise relocation scheme – known as the Wider Property Offer

5.10.8 For the area immediately outside the Compulsory Purchase Zone, where the noise levels and disruption are expected to be highest, in what we have termed the Wider Property Offer Zone (WPOZ), we are also making an offer to buy eligible properties.

5.10.9 This WPOZ incorporates the area known as the Heathrow villages where the noise level increases are likely to be significant – covering homes in the settlements of Poyle, Colnbrook, Brands Hill, Harmondsworth, Sipson, Harlington and Cranford Cross (Figure 5.6).

5.10.10 For more information please see our Property Policies: Information Papers and property policies published as part of this consultation.

Noise insulation scheme

5.10.11 The revised draft ANPS indicates that “the applicant will be required to commit appropriate resources to mitigate the impacts of aircraft through noise insulation programmes for both private homes and public buildings such as schools.” (paragraph 5.238).

5.10.12 As a result of previous consultation feedback, we have proposed a world class noise insulation scheme that goes substantially beyond existing UK policy requirements. It includes a residential scheme comprised of two zones and a community buildings scheme.

1 Inner Zone – Following a third party assessment, to provide full acoustic insulation for residential properties within either the full easterly and westerly single mode 60dB LAeq,16hr noise contour of an expanded airport . Please note that houses inside the WPOZ boundary are also eligible for this scheme should the owners wish to stay in their homes;

2 Outer Zone – Providing a contribution of up to £3,000 for acoustic insulation for residential properties between the inner zone within either the full easterly and westerly single mode 57dB LAeq,16hr or the annual average 55dB Lden noise contours of the expanded airport, whichever is the larger; and

3 Community Buildings - To deliver a programme of noise insulation and ventilation for community buildings within the average 60dB LAeq,16hr contour of the expanded airport in 2040 .

5.10.13 The design of this scheme is based on noise exposure forecasts for 2040 based on the assumptions in our proposal to the Airports Commission. We are proposing to phase the delivery of the scheme as follows:

• Prioritising those forecast to be exposed to the highest levels of noise to begin to move through the Inner Zone following grant of a DCO – Phase 1 .

• Phase 2 would begin at the point when the expanded airport becomes operational and would then include the Outer Zone, whilst progress on the Inner Zone continues .

5.10.14 We would propose that there would be a five year review cycle on the scheme, aligning with the Noise Action Plan and noise envelope review cycles.

15 Airport Capacity Programme - Global Comparison of Airport Mitigation Measures . Ernst & Young . May 2016 . https://www .gov .uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/562064/airport-capacity-programme-global-comparison-of-airport-mitigation-measures .pdf

Figure 5 .6: Showing the Wider Property Offer Zone (blue) (based on airports commission proposals) and the CPO zone (yellow)

The revised draft ANPS has incorporated our eligibility proposals into the requirements . At this first stage of consultation we are seeking views on our proposals for phasing including views on our proposal to prioritise the noisiest areas first upon grant of DCO and commencing the Outer Zone from opening of the operational runway .

Key things to consider – Noise insulation schemes


5.11 The noise envelope

Background


5.11.1 The revised draft ANPS states the following in paragraph 5.59 with respect to a noise envelope:

“The applicant should put forward plans for a noise envelope. Such an envelope should be tailored to local priorities and include clear noise performance targets. As such, the design of the envelope should be defined in consultation with local communities and relevant stakeholders, and take account of any independent guidance such as from the Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise. The benefits of future technological improvements should be shared between the applicant and its local communities, hence helping to achieve a balance between growth and noise reduction. Suitable review periods should be set in consultation with the parties mentioned above to ensure the noise envelope’s framework remains relevant.”

5.11.2 The ‘noise envelope’ is a concept that, while having been around for a number of years, is not well understood. The key principles that are common in descriptions of a noise envelope, including the revised draft ANPS are presented below:

1 Tailored to local priorities

2 Clear noise performance targets

3 Defined in consultation, taking account of independent guidance

4 Benefits of technology shared between applicant and local communities

5 Achieve a balance between growth and noise reduction

6 Review to ensure that the envelope’s framework remains relevant .

5.11.3 Guidance on noise envelopes can also be found in the CAA guidance document CAP 1129 as well as being referenced in UK Airspace Policy and Air Navigation Guidance.


Developing our understanding of a noise envelope

5.11.4 We have reviewed the revised draft ANPS, the CAA Guidance document and other policy references. Based on this, we consider the Noise Envelope is a framework for control of the effects of noise that provides certainty to industry and communities about how noise will be sustainably minimised, balancing growth and noise reduction, for the long-term.

5.11.5 We consider that the components of this framework, that will be developed in consultation with local communities and relevant stakeholders, would need to include:

1 An overarching objective: the Government’s aviation noise objective “The government’s overall policy on aviation noise is to limit and, where possible, reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise as part of a policy of sharing benefits of noise reduction with industry in support of sustainable development. Consistent with the Noise Policy Statement for England, our objectives in implementing this policy are to …limit and, where possible, reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by the adverse impacts from aircraft noise…16

2 A clear set of aims agreed across stakeholders and local communities that would necessarily include the aims of UK Government noise policy (NPSE), as indicated previously in this document

3 A set of principles to guide development of the envelope and decision making . This could include for example:

a clear noise performance targets that are tailored to local priorities and are developed in consultation

b to provide certainty to airport operator and the local community

c to share the benefits of reductions in noise between the industry and the local communities –enabling a balance between growth and noise reduction; and

d incentivise development and adoption of technologies to reduce the effects of noise (at source, navigation and procedure)

4 A set of clear performance indicators and measures linked to targets that will be used to demonstrate performance in line with agreed noise performance targets and outcomes

5 A set of noise management measures based on the principles of the ICAO Balanced Approach, that could be called on, together with a set of criteria to evaluate what mitigation should be applied and the extent to which they are applied in the context of the principles of sustainable development

6 A methodology for assessing and reporting the effects of noise on health and quality of life

16 Paragraph 2 .69 of the Consultation Response on UK Airspace Policy https://www .gov .uk/government/policies/aviation-and-airportsFigure 5 .7: A framework for a noise envelope

Noise envelope framework

OBJECTIVEGovernment aviation noise objective

AIMSAims of Government Noise Policy (NPSE)

PRINCIPLES Consultation Providing certainty to community and operator Tailored to local priorities Balance noise reduction and sustainable growth Clear noise performance targets Incentivised technology development and adoption

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Inputs Exposure Effects

TARGETS / OUTCOMES

NOISE MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND EVALUATION CRITERIAICAO Balanced Approach . Sustainable development

METHODOLOGY TO ASSESS EFFECTS ON HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE

ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES

ONGOING MANAGEMENT & CONTROL PROCESSAligned with Noise Action Plan process


7 Roles and responsibilities providing a clear accountability structure for delivering the noise envelope and

8 Ongoing process for management and control, including periodic review and independent scrutiny . This would apply through the Airspace Change Process and beyond the opening of an expanded Heathrow to ensure noise effects are managed in accordance with Government’s noise policy .

5.11.6 The framework for this noise envelope is illustrated in Figure 5.7.

5.11.7 During the development process for both the airport expansion and the airspace change the noise envelope will play a pivotal role in ensuring certainty and consistency in the way in which effects of noise will be considered, assessed and managed to meet Government noise policy in the context of policy for sustainable development. The noise envelope will provide a critical link between the DCO and Airspace Change processes.

5.11.8 It is important to understand that the noise envelope developed and secured as part of expansion, will be developed and maintained beyond the opening of the expanded Heathrow. It will therefore go on to provide certainty for both industry and local communities of how noise will be considered long into the future.

The steps to creating the noise envelope framework

5.11.10 A key aspect of the noise envelope is that it should be tailored to local priorities and created in consultation with local communities and relevant stakeholders. We propose the following steps:

1 Formation of a Noise Envelope Design Group (NEDG) comprising representatives of relevant stakeholders (including community representatives) . This group will be responsible for the development of the envelope framework and will be consistent through DCO and Airspace Change processes

2 Community and stakeholder engagement (for example through the Community Noise Forum)

3 Review by an independent third party, such as the Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise (ICCAN) .

5.11.11 We are proposing to form a Noise Envelope Design Group (NEDG) which will include community and stakeholder representatives who we currently work with as part of the Community Noise Forum, along with recognised noise experts. This is consistent with the requirements of the Civil Aviation Authority guidance on noise envelopes. The NEDG will provide a forum for exploring ideas, developing plans and where possible reaching agreement amongst stakeholders for defining and implementing a noise envelope. We envisage that the group would include representation from technical, industry and community groups. We will explore how the NEDG will work alongside the Community Engagement Board. We expect the membership to include:

1 Heathrow Airport - the applicant tasked with bringing forward the plan for a noise envelope

2 Airline Representatives (e .g . BA)

3 Air Navigation Service Provider (NATS)

4 Local Communities

5 Local Government

5.11.12 We would anticipate that the first steps of the NEDG, between our two consultation stages, would be:

Step 1: Develop a working definition of a noise envelope

Step 2: Develop the aims and principles

Step 3: Develop performance indicators .

How does the detail of the noise envelope framework develop through the process

5.11.14 The detail of the framework for the noise envelope will emerge through the DCO process and will continue through the ACP. At the current stage we are setting out our initial thoughts only. We are proposing the following timeline for engagement:

1 At this first consultation we are setting out our understanding of the noise envelope and our proposed approach

2 We will establish the NEDG at the earliest opportunity following Consultation 1

3 The NEDG will meet frequently and regularly and, through the work of the NEDG, draft proposals will emerge for the framework

4 At the earliest opportunity, we will engage with the ICCAN once it is established and we will, in any event, seek expert advice from all other relevant sources

5 At our second consultation proposals will be presented

6 At DCO submission, the noise envelope framework will be submitted including any targets and outcomes that can be agreed at that time without compromising the integrity of the subsequent Airspace Change Process . This could, for example, include a range of (non-geographic) performance targets .

7 The Environmental Statement provided in support of the DCO submission will demonstrate the likely significant noise effects that would arise from the proposed scheme that have been minimised as far as is sustainable by the application of the proposed noise envelope . It should be noted that this will be based on the best available evidence at the time but will necessarily include application of “appropriate design parameters and scenarios based on indicative flightpaths” as set out the ANPS (paragraph 5 .51) .

8 The noise envelope will be a requirement of the DCO and as such will be enforceable at all times once the scheme is built, therefore underpinning the ACP

9 As ACP progresses, after the DCO is granted and in line with the noise envelope framework, the NEDG will refine the performance targets (for example, in terms of geographies)

10 The ACP is subject to further Environmental Appraisal

11 At the time the ACP approval is granted, a submission will be made by Heathrow to secure all other mitigation required by the noise envelope framework to meet the aims of Government noise policy in line with the approved airspace design (for example approval to any operation restrictions under EU Regulation 598)

12 The refined noise envelope framework will continue to apply and be enforceable at all times after the DCO and ACP processes are complete

Providing certainty

5.11.16 While the airspace design cannot be finalised until after the DCO process, the plans for a noise envelope secured at DCO will provide:

1 Certainty that the aims of Government noise policy will be met and that the effects of noise on health and quality of life will be sustainably minimised through ACP and beyond

2 Appropriate flexibility for the ACP and the detailed airspace design that will achieve this (noting that the detailed airspace designs will be subject to additional consultation and environmental appraisal) .


90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Mill

ions

1991 2013

Passengers 40 .3 mppa 72 .3 mppa

Employees 52,000 76,000

Annual colleague Annual passenger Total passengers car trips car trips

5.12 Other noise

Road traffic noise

5.12.1 Noise impacts may occur where existing roads are realigned and new roads are proposed. While there could be adverse impacts, some of these effects may be beneficial, where route realignment would move traffic away from dwellings, or where new routes relieve traffic volumes along existing highway corridors.

5.12.2 Road traffic noise is a significant contributor to the local ambient noise climate. Although the majority of road traffic around Heathrow is not airport-related, the airport does contribute to some of the traffic on the wider road network. Over the last 25 years, Heathrow’s passenger numbers have risen by almost 80% but airport-related road traffic has remained broadly static. The number of passengers using public transport has nearly doubled from 10 million to 19 million and car use has fallen significantly amongst airport staff as shown in Figure 5.8.

5.12.3 There are several Important Areas (IA) around Heathrow, which are areas that are the most exposed to road traffic noise as identified through the noise action planning process for roads carried out as required by the EU Environmental Noise Directive.

5.12.4 Our proposals for local roads and the M25 are being developed to minimise adverse impacts and where possible reduce exposure to existing road traffic noise as far as it is sustainable to do so. To meet these aims noise has been considered early in the design process during initial route selection and optioneering and will continue to be through to the detailed design of the preferred road proposals. For more information on how noise has been considered in the evaluation process for the surface access options please refer to Chapters 6 and 7 of the Scheme Development Report published as part of this consultation.

5.12.5 Mitigation of road traffic noise from the proposals for new or altered roads may be in the form of low noise road surfaces or noise barriers, where appropriate and sustainable. Where these types of mitigation would not be viable or sustainable, properties may become eligible for noise insulation work or a grant in accordance with the Noise Insulation Regulations. Stakeholder engagement will be used throughout the design process to understand community preferences on options including noise mitigation options.

5.12.6 Heathrow is well served by public transport and has a number of initiatives to encourage its uptake by passengers, staff and freight as discussed in our Sustainable Transport Plan.

5.12.7 Though we do not have direct control over road traffic noise, we will continue to promote the use of public transport to prevent increases in airport-related road traffic and we will be aware of traffic noise issues in assessing the construction and operational effects of the expanded airport. Further information on the overall strategy for surface access to the airport is provided in the surface access strategy

Construction noise

5.12.8 Construction works can cause noise and vibration, particularly where they take place in close proximity to dwellings or community buildings or in areas that are usually relatively quiet. Noise and vibration can arise due to the use of plant and the working methods used, and particularly because the works take place out in the open.

5.12.9 Construction noise and vibration will be controlled through prior consent agreements under section 61 (s.61) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (CoPA) and the procedures described in British Standard 5228. The implementation of these approaches and any required mitigation will be identified in a Code of Construction Practice (CoCP), with which all contractors will be obliged to conform.

5.12.10 The CoCP will describe how best practicable means of working (BPM) would be applied during construction activities to minimise noise and vibration at neighbouring residential properties.

5.12.11 Where, despite the implementation of BPM, residents are exposed to high levels of construction noise, insulation or in some cases temporary re-housing would be offered in accordance with defined eligibility criteria.

5.12.12 For detail on the construction requirements, see Section 15 of Our Emerging Plans published as part of this consultation.

Other sources

5.12.13 If there are any other sources of noise identified through the application process, e.g. industrial noise sources, such as noise breakout from fixed plant areas, or other ancillary facilities these will be assessed and mitigation proposed in accordance with the relevant standards applicable at the time.

Do you have any views on our proposed approach to developing the noise envelope? In answering this question you may wish to consider:

• Any views on our proposals to form a NEDG, specifically your thoughts on the membership of that group, the initial steps and the timeline for development of the noise envelope framework .

• We have set-out some initial thoughts on the aims and principles of the noise envelope . Please provide your views of these initial proposals, including any other principles that you feel should be included, that could then be considered by the NEDG .

Key things to consider – Noise envelope

Figure 5 .8: Airport-related traffic


6.0.1 This document has presented a summary of key aspects of minimising the effects of noise from an expanded Heathrow. As a part of the current consultation, we are seeking your views on the issues described throughout the document. This section collates the views being sought.

6.1 Airport design and development (5.6)

6.1.1 Noise performance is a critical aspect of our evaluation of airport design options. In the context of supporting delivery of the demand required of the ANPS and a safe and efficient operation we will seek to minimise and mitigate effects on health and quality of life from noise.

6.1.2 We are seeking your views on whether there is anything further we should be considering in our airport development consultation proposals, or if there is anything specific we should consider in the evaluation of options. For example, are you aware of any innovative methods that we should consider for reduction of ground noise for those communities closest to the airport.

6.2 Airspace principles (5.7)

6.2.1 We are seeking views on Airspace design principles in our separate consultation.

6.3 Operational procedures to deliver sharing, relief and respite (5.8)

6.3.1 We are seeking views on the following:

1 The importance and value of predictable periods of respite through runway alternation; and any specific factors (from the list identified) that you would consider more important and valued than others . Are there are other factors that you feel we should consider .

2 If you are aware that you receive respite through the current runway alternation scheme we would like your views on what aspects of that scheme you value - are there particular aspects that would be considered essential?

3 We would like your views on whether, as part of our mitigation proposals, we should investigate airport operating procedures that could share aircraft more equitably between easterly and westerly operations .

6.3.2 Please note that in developing proposals for a runway alternation scheme to provide predictable periods of respite, responses to the above will greatly assist in evaluating options consistent with delivering a safe and efficient airfield operation. At Consultation 2 we will present options for a runway alternation scheme explaining how these factors have been considered.

6.4 Minimising the effects of night flights (5.9)

6.4.1 At this stage, we are seeking views on:

1 Our preferred 6 .5 hour night flight ban on scheduled flights period of 11pm to 5 .30am

2 We are also interested to hear views from stakeholders and local communities on whether there are any other measures we should consider in managing the adverse effects of night flights .

6.4.2 At the second stage of consultation we will present proposals for and seek views on the other aspects of our approach to minimising the effects of night flights.

6.5 Noise insulation schemes (5.10)

6.5.1 The draft ANPS has incorporated our eligibility proposals into the requirements. We will consult again on the extent and dimensions of the scheme at Consultation 2. At this first stage of consultation we are seeking views on our proposals for phasing including views on our proposal to prioritise the noisiest areas first upon grant of DCO and commencing the Outer Zone from opening of the operational runway.

6.6 Noise envelope (5.11)

6.6.1 We are seeking views at this stage specifically around our proposed approach to developing the noise envelope. Please provide your views on our proposals to form a Noise Envelope Design Group. We would specifically like to hear views on the membership of that group.

6.6.2 We have set-out some initial thoughts on the aims and principles of the noise envelope. Please provide your views of these initial proposals, including any other principles that you feel should be included, these can then be considered by the NEDG.

6 Summary of key things to consider


Glossary

Acronym Term Description

AC BanAirports Commission proposed night flights ban

In providing their support of a Northwest runway at Heathrow, the Airport’s Commission recommended that, following construction of a third runway, there should be a ban on all scheduled night flights in the period 23:30 to 06:00

ACI Airport Council International

Airport Council International is a global trade representative of the world’s airport authorities that pursues airports interests in discussions with governments and international organisations . The most important relationship is with the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), where international standards for air transport are debated and developed . It develops standards and recommended practices in the areas of safety, security and environment initiatives

ACP Airspace Change ProcessThe Civil Aviation Authority’s airspace change process which is set out in its Civil Aviation Publication 725 (CAP 725) . The CAA is currently consulting on its new draft airspace design guidance under CAP 1520

Airspace DesignThe process by which airspace change sponsors develop their proposals for amending the UK’s airspace structure

Airspace ManagementA planning function with the primary objective of maximising the utilisation of available airspace

Airspace StructureThe detailed airspace layout and procedures as set out in the AIP . It is overseen by the CAA and any changes to it need to follow the CAA’s airspace change process

ANPS or revised draft ANPS

(Draft) Airports National Policy Statement

The Airports National Policy Statement

AONBAreas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty as defined in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949

APF Aviation Policy Framework

National Policy which sets out that aviation needs to grow delivering the benefits essential to our economic wellbeing, whilst respecting the environment and quality of life published by the UK government in March 2013

APU Auxiliary Power Unit A power unit located on the aircraft

ATC Air Traffic ControlThe service provided by controllers to prevent collisions between aircraft and to expedite and maintain an orderly flow of air traffic

ATETs Around The End TaxiwaysTaxiways constructed around the end of a runway . ATETs can have implications for aircraft ground noise

ATMs Air Transport MovementsThe landings or take offs of aircraft engaged in the transport of passengers or freight on commercial terms

A-weighting A weighting that approximates the characteristics of human hearing

Balanced Approach

The ICAO requires all of its member states to adhere to an approach to managing aircraft noise known as the ‘Balanced Approach’ . The Balanced Approach aims to address noise management in an environmentally responsive and economically responsible way, and encompasses four principal elements: 1 reduction of noise at source; 2 land-use planning and management; 3 noise abatement operational procedures; and 4 operating restrictions on aircraft

CAA Civil Aviation AuthorityThe statutory body which oversees and regulates all aspects of civil aviation in the United Kingdom


ConcentrationThis is where aircraft are instructed by controllers or follow procedures which mean that they fly the same route consistently with minimal dispersion

CDAContinuous Descent Approaches

Arrival operating procedure that aims to keep aircraft higher for longer and avoid periods of level flight as they descend from 6000ft to intercept the runway centreline and the final approach phase of flight

dB (or dBA) DecibelUnits describing absolute sound level or changes of sound level . Expressed as dBA when it relates to the A-weighted scale

DEFRADepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

The lead UK Government Department for overall environmental policy

DfT Department for TransportThe lead UK Government Department for aviation policy and the author of the Air Navigation Guidance .

Dispersion / DispersalDispersal is the consequence of either natural variation from a fight path as a result of navigational limitations, or tactical vectoring of individual aircraft by ATC

EASAEuropean Aviation Safety Agency

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is an agency of the European Union (EU) with regulatory and executive tasks in the field of civilian aviation safety

EC European CommissionThe executive body of the European Union responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the EU treaties and managing the day-to-day business of the EU

EEG ElectroencephalogramMethod of assessing brain current that is used to assess objective sleep disturbance

EGR Engine Ground Running

EIAEnvironmental Impact Assessment

The process of assessing the total environmental impact of a development project

EMG ElectromyogramMethod of assessing muscle tension that is used to assess objective sleep disturbance

END Environmental Noise DirectiveThe Environmental Noise Directive (EC Directive 2002/49) requires member states to publish noise maps and noise management action plans for major airports (more than 50,000 ATMs per year) every 5 years

EngagementA catch all term that covers a variety of activities such as consulting, seeking feedback, and informing stakeholders . It can also involve meetings, workshops, town hall meetings etc

EOG ElectrooculagramMethod of assessing eye movement that is used to assess objective sleep disturbance

ERCDThe Environmental Research and Consultancy

The team in the CAA which, as part of its activities, estimates the noise exposures around London airports (Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted) on behalf of the Department for Transport

ES Environmental Statement The information submitted to an examining authority in support of an EIA

EU European Union The union of 28 European member states

FAS Future Airspace Strategy The agreed UK plan to modernise airspace by 2030

FEGP Fixed Electrical Ground Power

HAL Heathrow Airport Limited

HACCHeathrow Airport Consultative Committee

An independent committee which includes representatives of airport users, local authorities and other bodies concerned with the locality . Heathrow Airport Limited meets a statutory obligation by consulting with the committee . The HACC is a public forum .



HCNFHeathrow Community Noise Forum

A group made up of local councillors and residents from 12 boroughs around Heathrow affected by noise from the airport . The HCNF was set up to establish a common level of understanding of Heathrow’s operations amongst community representatives and stakeholders . It seeks members’ inputs in the planning and communication of the modernisation of Heathrow’s airspace and to agree relevant studies and analysis to be carried out to establish historic changes to flight paths

HNF Heathrow Noise Forum Substituted by the Heathrow Strategic Noise Advisory Group

HSNAGHeathrow Strategic Noise Advisory Group

Former Heathrow Noise Forum . The aim is for this group to be a focal point for stakeholder involvement in the management of aircraft noise, with a common level of understanding between different stakeholders of opportunities to reduce aircraft noise and of local community priorities . The HSNAG aims to foster collaboration, identify and agree improvements to reduce aircraft noise and seek to develop new solutions .

Holding StackA fixed circling pattern in which aircraft fly whilst they wait to land . When airports are busy, there can be a build-up of aeroplanes waiting to land .

ICAOInternational Civil Aviation Organisation

The international aviation body established by the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation . The International Civil Aviation Organisation works on international standards and policies that support a safe, efficient, secure, economically sustainable and environmentally responsible civil aviation sector .

ICCANIndependent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise

The independent UK body responsible for creating, compiling and disseminating best practice to the aviation industry

ILS The Instrument Landing SystemThe standard system for navigation of aircraft upon the final approach for landing

IPAIndependent Parallel Approaches

This is a procedure that allows aircraft to land on parallel runways at the same time without adding separation time or distance as a result of arrivals on that parallel runway

Lday or LAeq,16h The equivalent continuous sound level between 07:00 and 23:00

Lden

The 24hr Leq calculated for an annual period, but with a 5 decibel weighting for evening and a 10 decibel weighting for night to reflect people’s greater sensitivity to noise within these periods

Leq or LAeqEquivalent continuous sound level

The measure used to describe the average sound level experienced over a period of time (usually 16hr for day and 8hr for night) resulting in a single decibel value . Leq is expressed as LAeq when it refers to the A-weighted scale .

LFF Local Focus Forum

The LFF is a quarterly meeting hosted by Heathrow made up of resident associations and local councillors from those villages bordering Heathrow . At the forum, Heathrow share information about pending developments and operational impacts that might affect the local area .

Lmax,S or LAmax,S Maximum noise levelThe maximum noise level identified during a measurement period . The subscript S indicates a ‘slow’ time weighting (1 second) and the subscript A indicates an A-weighted value .

LOAELLowest Observable Adverse Effect Level

The threshold level above which adverse effects on health and quality of life can be detected

LAeq,8h or Lnight The equivalent continuous sound level between 23:00 and 07:00

LPA Local Planning Authority

N60, N65Numbers above 60, Numbers above 65

Numbers above metrics quantify the number of aircraft events that exceed a particular maximum noise level (e .g . 60 or 65 dBLAmax,S)


NATSFormerly National Air Traffic Services

The UK’s en-route air navigation service provider which also provides services at many UK airports

Navigation ServicesThe facilities and services that provide aircraft with positioning and timing information

Noise ContoursThese are areas on a map showing where equal levels of noise are experienced

Noise RespiteThe principle of noise respite is to provide planned and defined periods of perceptible noise relief to people living directly under a fight path

NERG Noise Expert Review GroupAn independent external group of noise experts who will provide a review and assurance of the robustness of the noise environmental impact assessments to support the Heathrow Expansion Project DCO

NIR Noise Insulation Regulations

NPPFNational Policy Planning Framework

The NPPF sets out the Governments planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied . It provides a framework within which local plans can be developed which reflect the communities needs . The NPPF noise aims widely reflect those in the NPSE . In particular it asks that planning policies and decisions should avoid noise which could give rise to significant adverse impacts of health and quality of life as a result of a new development and mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life . It also aims to identify and protect areas of tranquility . Of note, the NPPF sets out that both new and existing development should be protected from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability . It also asks to ensure that new development is appropriate for its location . At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development

NPRs Noise Preferential RoutesNoise Preferential Routes (NPRs) set the overall framework within which the flightpaths at a number of airports, including Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, were originally designed to mitigate noise impacts .

NPSENoise Policy Statement for England

The Noise Policy Statement for England aims to provide clarity regarding current policies and practices to enable noise management decisions to be made within the wider context, at the most appropriate level, in a cost-effective manner and in a timely fashion . The three noise policy aims are to: • avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life; • mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life; and • where possible, contribute to the improvement of health and quality of

life .

OverflightA metric defined to capture whether an individual perceives that an aircraft is overflying them . Defined in CAP1498 .

Option NAn approach to airspace design which seeks to minimise new people affected by aircraft noise at an expanded Heathrow

Option RAn approach to airspace design which seeks to maximise respite from aircraft noise at an expanded Heathrow

Option TAn approach to airspace design which seeks to minimise total people affected by aircraft noise at an expanded Heathrow

Objective Awakenings

Objective awakenings are arousals during sleep that result in EEG and EMG activations of 15 seconds or more . Field studies by Basner et al . have developed an exposure response relationship for predicting additional objective awakenings as a result of internal event maximum noise levels .



PBN Performance Based Navigation

A concept developed by ICAO that moves aviation away from the traditional use of aircraft navigating by ground based beacons to a system more reliant on airborne technologies, utilising area navigation and global navigation satellite systems

PSG PolysomnographyThe simultaneous recording of the EEG, the EOG, the EMG and other physiological variables . Considered by the WHO to be the ‘gold standard’ for measuring and evaluating sleep .

QC Quota Count

The basis of the London airports Night Restrictions regime A points system to quantify the noise characteristics of specific aircraft . This varies according to aircraft type, maximum operating weight, engine fit and whether the aircraft is arriving or departing . The higher the QC the higher the noise level of the aircraft . The scale is geometric i .e . 0, 0 .25, 0 .5, 1, 2, 4, 8 and 16 .

Relief A break from or a reduction in aircraft noise

Respite A scheduled relief from aircraft noise for a period of time

Route NetworkThe network of specified routes for channelling the flow of general air traffic as necessary for the provision of ATC services

Routing The chosen itinerary to be followed by an aircraft during its operation

SEL Sound Exposure LevelThe steady noise level, which over a period of one second contains the same sound energy as the whole event . It is equivalent to the Leq of the noise event normalised to one second .

SI Supplementary InstructionThis is the means by which a proposed permanent change to ATC procedures is incorporated into the next MATS II edition .

SIDs Standard Instrument DeparturesThese are the established departure routes which are published in the AIP and which must be flown by aircraft when departing airports which have SIDs

SOAELSignificant Observable Adverse Effect Level

The threshold level above which significant adverse effects on health and quality of life occur

SOR Start-of-roll The position on a runway where aircraft commence their take- off runs

SSA Slightly Steeper Approaches

The international standard approach angle is 3 degrees and variation from this is only usually permitted to avoid obstacles and not for environmental reasons . A slightly steeper approach is one that is greater than 3 degrees up to 3 .49 degrees .

STARs Standard Terminal Arrival RoutesThese are the established arrival routes for aircraft which are published in the AIP . They end at holding stacks .

SwatheA specific area and volume of airspace in which controllers are vectoring aircraft or, as in the case of NPRs, in which track keeping of aircraft is being monitored


If you would like a large text or alternative format of this document, please contact us on 0800 307 7996 or send an email to us at: [email protected]

There are lots of ways you can contact us and find out more

online via our project website www.heathrowconsultation.com

call our freephone number: 0800 307 7996 (open Monday to Friday, 9am-6pm)

send an email to us at: [email protected]

Follow us on Twitter @LHRConsultation

our approach to noise - consultation hub · 2019-05-01 · 1.1.1 we recognise that a primary...

Documents