Noise. Proof of Evidence by. S.W.Turner, MA, MSc, FIOA. Bureau Veritas. Uttlesford District Council

Transcription

1 UDC/3B Summary Appeal reference Public Inquiry into the appeal by BAA plc and Stansted Airport Limited Against the decision by Uttlesford District Council to refuse an application for: Development permitted under UTT/1000/01/OP without complying with condition MPPA1 and varying condition ATM1 in relation to London Stansted Airport Noise Proof of Evidence by S.W.Turner, MA, MSc, FIOA Bureau Veritas Uttlesford District Council Swt110/st/07/43B/UDC/3B 30 Great Guildford Street, London SE1 0ES 1

2 CONTENTS Page 1 Qualifications and Experience 3 2 Summary 5 3 Conclusions 21 Swt110/st/07/43B/UDC/3B 30 Great Guildford Street, London SE1 0ES 2

3 1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 1.1 I am Stephen William Turner and I am the Director of Acoustics at Bureau Veritas. I hold a Masters degree in engineering from King s College, Cambridge and an MSc in applied acoustics from Chelsea College, London University. I have worked in the field of environmental noise for nearly 30 years, assessing the effects of noise from a wide variety of sources including aircraft. I am a Vice-President and Fellow of the Institute of Acoustics responsible for its various Groups and Branches. I currently chair the joint Institute of Acoustics and Institute of Environmental Assessment Working Party which is developing a guideline document regarding the noise issues of an environmental assessment. I am a contributing author to the textbook Noise Control in the Built Environment 1.2 I have been providing technical advice to the Noise and Nuisance team at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) for nearly 8 years. This work has included assisting with the implementation of Directive 2002/49/EC on the assessment and management of environmental noise and The Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006 which include a requirement for airports to produce noise maps and action plans. 1.3 I have been involved in evaluating the effects of noise from aircraft since about 1980 and have been involved in previous public inquiries into airport related development including giving evidence to the London Heathrow Terminal 5 Inquiry about 10 years ago. I am also currently appointed (since May 2006) by the Department for transport to be a member of the non- Stated Preference peer review group for the study into Attitudes to Noise from Aircraft Sources in England (ANASE). 1.4 I have been engaged by Uttlesford District Council (UDC) to consider the development proposals for Stansted Airport and to present this evidence on Swt110/st/07/43B/UDC/3B 30 Great Guildford Street, London SE1 0ES 3

4 their behalf. I have been working with the Council on this issue since about April This is a summary of my evidence. Quotations from UDC/3A are shown in italics prefixed by the relevant paragraph number. Swt110/st/07/43B/UDC/3B 30 Great Guildford Street, London SE1 0ES 4

5 2.0 Summary 2.1 The Inspector will be well aware that the noise impact of the operation of Stansted Airport is uppermost in many of the objectors minds. As set out in the reason for refusal, the Council has identified noise as an issue that has not been adequately addressed in the proposals. Consequently it believes that the current proposals will cause detriment to the amenity of occupiers of buildings in the vicinity of the airport and will adversely affect their quality of life. The Council has also received many representations from much further afield expressing concern about the detrimental impact that the proposals would have on the environment of locations much valued for their beauty and tranquillity. Review of the Environmental Statement 2.2 In my evidence I described the review I undertook of the environmental statement, in particular the Volume on Air Noise (CD/2), and the subsequent information provided in the Regulation 19 response CD/22 and the Health Impact Assessment in CD/ In my evidence I discuss the various air noise scenarios examined and compare information regarding passenger throughput, Passenger Air transport Movements (PATM) and passenger loading for the various scenarios in Table 2 of UDC/3A with the current situation for I note that: 3.4 The current planning consent constrains the airport to an ATM limit of 241,000 and a passenger throughput limit of 25 mppa. It can be seen that in 2006, the number of movements was operating at about 86% capacity and the passenger throughput was operating at about 95% capacity. Swt110/st/07/43B/UDC/3B 30 Great Guildford Street, London SE1 0ES 5

6 3.5 It can also be seen from Table 2 above that the revised 25 mppa scenario assumes a slightly greater passenger loading (139) compared with Thus this scenario is able to assume meeting the 25 mppa with 202,000 ATMs instead of 218, Table 2 also shows that the assumptions for the 35mppa scenario assume a passenger loading of 144 passengers / movement. If, in the future, the passenger loading remained at 134 passengers/movement, the corresponding PATM figure would be around 261,000 and an ATM figure of around 284,000 (assuming the same ratio between ATM and PATM as in the G1 case). This would represent an increase in ATMs for G1 of about 7.6% over that which is shown in the ES. 3.7 Consequently, were the appeal to be allowed, there is a clear case for constraining the number of movements to avoid the risk of such an increase occurring. 3.8 Conversely, the current permission allows 25 mppa with around 232,500 ATMs (Table 1). However, the revised 25 mppa scenario indicates that that throughput can be achieved with 202,000 ATMs, a PATM figure of 180,000 and a passenger loading of 139 passengers / movement. If the 35 mppa passenger loading (144) was achieved under the revised 25mppa scenario, this would equate to about PATMs and 195,000 ATMs. Thus allowing the appeal could result in an increase of 70,000 to 90,000 ATMs over what might otherwise be the case depending on the eventual passenger loadings. In percentage terms this could mean an increase in the number of movements of 34 46% depending on the assumptions made. Swt110/st/07/43B/UDC/3B 30 Great Guildford Street, London SE1 0ES 6

7 3.9 If the appeal were dismissed (and the airport was constrained to 25mppa) and the passenger loading did increase to 144, that would mean that there could be a reduction in the number of movements compared to the current situation Thus simply in terms of numbers of ATMs, allowing the appeal would give rise to an increase of about 28% compared with 2006 (264,000 compared with around 207,000) and an increase of 31% - 46% over what might be the case were the airport kept at 25mppa. 2.4 I discuss the likely change in daily number of aircraft movements and note the following with respect to Table 4 in UDC/3A: 3.14 It can be seen that the expected change between 2004 and the 25mppa scenario would cause an increase in the number of movements on each departure route to increase by between 6% and 16% depending on the route. For arrivals a 13% increase over the 2004 situation is expected With G1, the corresponding increases over 2004 are 38% - 46% on departures and 40% on arrivals Compared with the expected outcome were the appeal dismissed (revised 25 mppa), there would be an increase of around 24% in the number of arrivals and between 20% and 30% in the number of departures, depending on the route. 2.5 I also examine in Table 5 the likely change in the number of movements during particular hours of the day and note that when comparing G1 with the revised 25 mppa situation, the number of movement in some hours are expected to increase by around 50%. What is also noteworthy, is that some Swt110/st/07/43B/UDC/3B 30 Great Guildford Street, London SE1 0ES 7

8 of these increases could occur at the more sensitive times of the day, i.e. in the evening. 2.6 I consider the noise contours and showed the recent trend in the size of the area enclosed by the 57 db(a), L Aeq,16h contour at Figure Apart from a slight excursion in 2003, there has been a steady fall in the area enclosed by the 57 db(a) contour since It is expected that G1 would lead to an increase in the total area enclosed by the 57dB contour area over that which is currently occurring (c 33.9 km 2 compared with 27.4 km 2 ) returning to the impact that occurred in (Note: The expected population within the 57 db(a) contour is greater for the G1 situation than that which occurred in 2003 for roughly the same contour area. (G1 population 3,550 compared with 2003, 2,300) This is due to the differences in the modal split for the two scenarios (74/26 for G1 against 67/33 for 2003) and that, in terms of the 57 db(a) contour, more people are affected by westerly operations (See Para 3.37 below) With the current application, the expected impact of an airport with 25 mppa throughput has been reduced to around 27.5 km 2 (CD/5, Table 6) a reduction on that permitted by the current planning permission. The G1 proposals would cause an increase over the current situation to 33.9 km Within the Environmental Statement, a sensitivity test was presented which adjusted the fleet mix to achieve a passenger throughput of 37.5 mppa with the same number of movements (i.e. 264,000 ATMs). This scenario produced a contour area of 37.7 km 2 in 2014 again an increase over the current situation (CD/5, Table 15). Swt110/st/07/43B/UDC/3B 30 Great Guildford Street, London SE1 0ES 8

9 2.7 With regard to the noise impact in terms of the contour area I conclude that: 3.29 This analysis shows that allowing the appeal will reverse the recent reductions in the area enclosed by the 57 db(a), L Aeq,16h. In fact, were the appeal dismissed, the area enclosed would not be expected to increase over that which occurred in Allowing the appeal will cause an increase of around 23% in contour area. 2.8 In my evidence I used the data provided together with information in CD/21 and CD/177 to examine the likely change in the number of people highly annoyed by aircraft noise. I show the results in Table 11 and make the following observations: 3.35 It can be seen that the estimated number of people likely to be highly annoyed would rise from just over 550 in the revised 25 mppa case, to just under 800 with G1 an increase of around 44% Concern has been expressed about the currency of this relationship. The original survey work upon which it is based is 25 years old and there is some indication that the proportion of people highly annoyed is increasing at lower levels of exposure. There is a current study being carried out by DfT, entitled Attitudes to Noise from Aircraft Sources in England(ANASE) which may shed some light on this issue, but this is not expected to be published until later on this year. Nevertheless, the recent reaction to the noise impact from those affected by activities at Stansted Airport seems to support the view that the tolerance to aircraft noise is reducing at lower noise exposures. Furthermore, from the responses received by UDC as part of the consultation process for the G1 planning application, it is clear that residents living some distance from the current 57dB(A) contour report being annoyed by aircraft noise. Swt110/st/07/43B/UDC/3B 30 Great Guildford Street, London SE1 0ES 9

10 2.9 I examine the information provided about single mode contours and note that westerly operations at Stansted affect more people than easterly operations I consider the impact of the proposals on the noise during the 8 hour night period of and use various data to examine the change in the number of people likely to be highly sleep disturbed due to aircraft noise. The results are shown in Table 14 and I make the following comments: 3.47 Based on this analysis it can be seen that in the G1 case potentially just under 100 more people may regard themselves as highly sleep disturbed compared with 2003, and increase of 19%. Even compared with the revised 25mppa situation there is potentially an increase of around 50 people Noise at night is often quoted as one of the worst noise impacts arising from airport activity. The Government recognised this point in CD/87 (Para 3.12). Even though the increase in night noise impact from 25 mppa scenario to G1 is just under 9%, the fact that it does represent a worsening is likely to add to the potential disturbance and the general concern being expressed about the noise impact from the proposals As indicated in Para 3.40, within the current controls, there is scope for yet further increases in night noise due to greater activity in the shoulder periods. Thus there is a case for applying some constraint on the 8 hour period in order to provide some certainty of the likely extent of the night noise impact in the future were the appeal to be allowed. (See Section 6) Change in Impact at Specific Locations Swt110/st/07/43B/UDC/3B 30 Great Guildford Street, London SE1 0ES 10

11 2.11 In Section 4 of UDC/3A I examine the likely change in impact at specific locations in the vicinity of the airport. I describe some guidelines that assist in understanding the nature and extent of the noise impact and note that: 4.13 These guidelines can be used to gain an indication of the type of disturbance that can occur from aircraft movements at locations further from the airport. They suggest that people enjoying a conversation in the countryside with no identifiable noise source in the vicinity are likely to experience a little interference from the noise of an aircraft flyover once the maximum level starts to exceed 45 db(a). The extent of the intrusion would increase with increasing level such that for L Amax levels of 65 db(a) or more, the people would have to change their behaviour (i.e. raise their voice) in order to continue communicating It is recognised that the duration of any such interference from aircraft flyovers is likely to be short (depending on location) but nonetheless there is an impact from such intrusion and an impact that would increase (because it would happen more often) with increasing numbers of movements I examine information provided for 6 sites, locations of which are shown in Figure 1 of UDC/3A and summarised the data in Tables 15 and 16. I note that: 4.20 It can be seen from Table 15 that the average L Amax level is not expected to change at any of these sites between the 25 mppa scenario and G1. Yet Table 16 shows that the number of movements between those two scenarios will rise. Swt110/st/07/43B/UDC/3B 30 Great Guildford Street, London SE1 0ES 11

12 4.21 Consequently, what is likely to be noticed at these locations is the increase in the number of movements Furthermore, it can be seen from Table 15 that the average (mode) L Amax at these locations lies in the range of db(a) in 2004 and is expected to range from db(a) in the future with G1. Thus, referring to the guidelines described above, there is a risk of sleep disturbance for those living in these areas (assuming bedroom windows are partly open). Furthermore, when an aircraft event occurs, there is the potential for some form of intrusion in terms of disrupting conversation when outdoors In my appendices (UDC/3C) I provide further detailed data regarding these sites and describe in Paras the likely change in impact were the appeal allowed. I show in Table 17 the results of some monitoring undertaken at Thaxted and that they corresponded well with the data in Appendix C of UDC/3C I conclude that: 4.40 This analysis has highlighted several points: Assessing the impact solely in terms in the change in the average mode contour level does not necessarily describe fully the change in impact; At all the locations the busy periods seem to be in the more sensitive times of day ( ; ) and with G1 are set to continue to be so; Swt110/st/07/43B/UDC/3B 30 Great Guildford Street, London SE1 0ES 12

13 For those affected by arrivals, G1 would give rise to at least one hour when there will be an arrival on average more frequently than every 2 minutes; and The limited measurements have corresponded with the relevant data being used This detailed analysis shows, I believe, why there is the level of concern about the impact of the airport operations and how that impact would worsen were the appeal allowed. Impact at locations beyond the 57 db(a) contour 2.15 In Appendices G-J of UDC/3C I reproduce maps published by BAA showing the departure and arrival routes of aircraft using Stansted Airport and the corresponding altitudes. I show in Tables 18 and 19 the results of calculations using a standard aircraft noise modelling software of the likely maximum noise level arsing from three different aircraft types at different altitudes I go on to note: 5.6 In the evidence given by Mr Mitchell (UDC/2A), it can be seen just how widespread have been the representations to the Council regarding the planning application and the concern expressed about the effect allowing the appeal would have on the areas surrounding Stansted.Some of the areas affected are designated as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 5.7 One of the features of these areas is that, away from road traffic sources, the environment can be very quiet, with noise levels around db(a). It can be seen that departing aircraft from Stansted Swt110/st/07/43B/UDC/3B 30 Great Guildford Street, London SE1 0ES 13

14 could give rise to maximum noise levels of 55 db(a) 64 db(a) when the aircraft are at 9000 feet. Thus an aircraft flyover would temporarily raise the noise level by db(a), a very noticeable effect. 5.8 Furthermore, at those levels, as indicated in Para 4.12, there could be a momentary interruption to a conversation being held between two people who may be enjoying the countryside. 5.9 It can be seen from Appendix I (UDC/3C) (westerly arrivals) that aircraft approaching Stansted are around 6,000 feet in altitude in the Sudbury area. Table shows that maximum noise levels could be in the range of db(a) depending on the type of aircraft. Depending on the background level, the overflying arriving aircraft is likely to be loud enough to be noticed and for the noisier types may cause some disruption to a conversation or interrupt the otherwise peaceful enjoyment of a garden or countryside At Ware, easterly arrivals are around 2,000 3,000 feet in altitude, giving rise to maximum noise levels (from Table 19) of 53 db(a) to 74 db(a) depending on aircraft type. Again, it can be seen how these levels are high enough to be noticeable and to cause some intrusion or disruption Thus, it can be seen that aircraft departing and arriving at Stansted do have an impact in these more distant places, and impact that would worsen if the appeal were allowed because the number of movements would increase I make reference to various documents that provide guidance on this issue and note that: Swt110/st/07/43B/UDC/3B 30 Great Guildford Street, London SE1 0ES 14

15 5.16 Thus it is recognised that aircraft overflights can adversely affect tranquil areas and that policies should be put in place to minimise and avoid that effect. With the current flight path arrangements, allowing the appeal will further erode the tranquillity of the countryside. And 5.18 CAP725 1 recognises that the effect of aircraft noise on the countryside is an issue but is silent on detailed advice on addressing the point For the purposes of this appeal, it can be seen that the effect of G1 on the countryside must not be ignored and that, with the increase in movements, there will be a worsening of the impact that already occurs. Air Noise Impact Conclusions and Mitigation 2.18 I note the following: 6.4 My analysis of the available data has also shown the following: In terms of the proportion of the population likely to be highly annoyed, the number is expected to increase by around 44% with G1 over the situation that would otherwise occur with the revised 25 mppa case; With regard to the diurnal pattern, there are some hours of the day when there could be a doubling in the number of movements at some locations. Such an increase is likely to be noticeable to those affected; 1 CD/177 Swt110/st/07/43B/UDC/3B 30 Great Guildford Street, London SE1 0ES 15

16 There is likely to be around a 24% increase in daily movements with G1 compared with the 25 mppa case but the average maximum noise level generated by the aircraft is not expected to reduce (See Table 15 above); There could be an increase of around 9% in the number of people reporting themselves to be highly sleep disturbed with G1 compared with the 25 mppa case; and What is likely to be noticed with G1 is the increase in the number of aircraft movements. 6.5 Part of the reasons for refusal of the application is: Inadequate measures are proposed to address the effects of noise on the local community, to the detriment of occupiers of buildings in the vicinity of the airport. 6.6 CD/87, states at Para 3.10: The increases in airport capacity envisaged by this White Paper need to be matched by stringent measures to control noise mostly delivered locally, but within an overall national and international framework I am not convinced that the necessary stringent measures have been put in place to match the impacts identified My evidence goes on: 6.8 However, it is felt that in order to address the impacts identified with the G1 proposals, the following mitigation measures should be applied should the appeal be allowed and the proposals approved. Swt110/st/07/43B/UDC/3B 30 Great Guildford Street, London SE1 0ES 16

17 The main thrust of these measures is to provide certainty over the nature and extent of the noise impact. Whilst in most cases, these proposals will not reduce the noise impact per se they will mean that the maximum extent of the noise impact will be known. Capacity Constraint Passenger throughput 6.9 It is recognised that BAA have offered to accept a condition constraining the passenger throughput to 35 mppa and this is welcomed. Capacity Constraint Daytime Contour Limit 6.10 It is proposed that there should be a condition in terms of the area affected by the 57 db(a), L Aeq,16h average summer s day contour, limiting it to no more than 34 km 2. Capacity Constraint Movement Limit 6.11 I have demonstrated that it is the increase in the number of movements that is likely to be the impact that is most noticed by those affected. There is, however, inevitably some uncertainty over the likely outcome of this type of proposal with several variables existing that make forecasting difficult. I showed in Para 3.8 above the increase in the number of ATMs between what might be the case with 25 mppa and what might be the case with 35 mppa could be around 46% I examine some historical data relating movements, passenger throughput and loading and present my results in Table 20. I say: 6.13 It can be seen that there has been a steady increase in loading since Extrapolating these data to 2014 would suggest that the Swt110/st/07/43B/UDC/3B 30 Great Guildford Street, London SE1 0ES 17

18 loading could reach as high as 166 passengers per movement. It is recognised that it is unlikely that such a loading could be achieved by 2014, but this loading is much higher than the 144 currently predicted by BAA (Table 2). If a loading of 150 could be achieved, then the total number of movements required to reach the 35mppa throughput could come down to around 250,000, a reduction of about 5% over that anticipated There is a case for securing some reduction in the expected number of movements as the means of addressing the specific air noise impact identified. It is proposed that a condition restricting the total annual number of aircraft movements to 250,000 be applied if the appeal is allowed On night noise Capacity Constraint Night Noise 6.15 I indicated in Para 3.49 that there is a case for applying some control covering the 8 hour night period. It is proposed that this be in the form of a contour limit and that a condition should require a limit on the size of the area enclosed by the 48 db(a), L Aeq,8h contour for an average summer night. For the reasons explained in Para 3.41, I am not in a position to define the value as it has only recently been realised that the relevant information is not available. Swt110/st/07/43B/UDC/3B 30 Great Guildford Street, London SE1 0ES 18

19 2.22 On sound insulation I seek a condition: that requires all residential properties exposed to an average summer s day L Aeq,16h of 63 db(a) or more be offered sound insulation treatment (plus associated alternative ventilation). Based on the 2003 Sound Insulation consultation document 2 it appears that this requirement is already in place and that there would be no newly eligible households with G1. (Para 6.19) 2.23 On operating procedures: 6.21 At present there are limitations on the extent to which CDA can be operated on easterly arrivals. It is understood that airspace changes would be required to facilitate greater use of this technique that reduces the noise impact over locations such as Ware. It is important to note that unless and until the airspace issues have been resolved, there is a greater noise impact in the Ware area than might otherwise be the case and, of course, the increased number of movements that would occur if the appeal is allowed would only increase the potential noise disturbance On schools I make reference to the Statement of Common Ground In the statement of common ground, there is confirmation that agreement has been reached which will mean that: BAA will undertake noise monitoring at the schools (using a methodology to be agreed with the local authorities); The results will be compared with the relevant parts of BB93; 2 Stansted Noise Insulation Programmes Consultation on Proposals (BAA, 2003) Swt110/st/07/43B/UDC/3B 30 Great Guildford Street, London SE1 0ES 19

20 Account will be taken of the likely impact were this appeal allowed; Any shortfall in the current design compared with the BB93 standards would be identified and measures be devised, agreed with the local authorities and implemented to address the shortfall It is my belief that following this process will deal with the concerns previously expressed about the impact on schools. Swt110/st/07/43B/UDC/3B 30 Great Guildford Street, London SE1 0ES 20

21 3 Conclusions 3.1 My conclusions are shown in Section 7 of UDC/3A: 7.1 I have shown that if the appeal is allowed and Stansted operates at 35 mppa, there will be a noise impact that will affect those living in the vicinity of the airport and further afield. 7.2 I have shown that the scale of the impact is larger than that identified by BAA in their environmental statement and have concluded that there will be a measurable and meaningful increment compared with the revised 25 mppa case which will be noticed by those exposed to aircraft noise. 7.3 In these circumstances I consider that it is necessary for BAA to provide further mitigation and control measures and set out in Section 6 above. 7.4 I am satisfied that if the proposed measures set out in Section 6 above are adopted, when combined with the mitigation already in place, the noise impact of a 35 mppa Stansted Airport will be mitigated as far as reasonably practical and that there is little more that can be reasonably undertaken at this time to reduce the impact further. 7.5 However allowing the appeal will still mean that, compared with the revised 25 mppa case, there will be an extra 162 movements per day; 6.4 km 2 in the size of the area enclosed by the 57 db(a), L Aeq,16h average summer day noise contour; Swt110/st/07/43B/UDC/3B 30 Great Guildford Street, London SE1 0ES 21

22 1,250 people living within the 57 db(a), L Aeq,16h average summer day noise contour; 247 people likely to be highly annoyed by aircraft noise; and 48 people highly sleep disturbed; which is a worsening of the noise environment over that which would other wise be the case. The acceptability or otherwise of these impacts will have to be judged as part of the balance of considerations which will inform the Secretary of States decision on this appeal. Swt110/st/07/43B/UDC/3B 30 Great Guildford Street, London SE1 0ES 22