AIRPORT NOISE RESPONSE DOCUMENT

8.43.00pm BST (GMT +0100) Sun 18th Oct 2009

A Response to the Bournemouth International Airport Draft Noise Action Plan

By

Cllr. Michael Brooke

Cllr. Graham Mason

Cllr. Daniel Martin

Broadstone Ward, Borough of Poole

18th October 2009

Introduction:

This representation by Cllrs. Michael Brooke, Graham Mason and Daniel Martin of Broadstone Ward, North Poole, reflects the views of those 400+ residents who have contacted us through Focus surveys, Area Committee meetings, surgeries and other correspondence. It is clear that a wide spectrum of views exists from support for airport expansion through to closure of the airport. Within this range the vast majority of residents have expressed concern over the potential for increased flights and the consequential impact this will have on noise disturbance, especially at night. The majority of residents expressing concerns live directly beneath the flight path.

1. Do you think the draft plan sets out a suitable regime for the ongoing management of noise from aircraft arriving at or departing from the Airport?

The simple answer to this is 'no'. There are two reasons for this. Firstly the points quota allocated to the Airport of 3,100 is set at too high a level, (compare Bristol airport at 2000, and Exeter and Southampton with no night flights). Whilst it is acknowledged that larger aircraft will continue to be used and that these are also quieter, their lower point score and the current operative level, at just below 900, creates a potential for a threefold increase in number of flights. Since the flight path currently crosses the residential areas of Creekmoor, Broadstone, Merley and Bearwood, then any increase in night flights and consequential noise disturbance is unacceptable. It is recognised that the airport's preferred route for take offs and landings is to and from the east, but with modern aircraft wind direction should not be a significant factor in determining direction of take-off or landing therefore all flights should follow the eastern route over open country.

Secondly, the use of averages for the sound readings masks the real impact of aircraft noise. Averaging over a 24 hour period means the quiet periods, and these are especially significant at night, creates an average, 55dB, that is significantly below the actual noise level, 89dB, of a single event. At night this is even more pronounced because the ambient noise level is significantly lower than during the day and hence the impact of the aircraft engines is effectively much greater. It is accepted that adjustments have been made for night conditions within the calculation, however, these reflect a minimum requirement and do not take account of the fact that many flights are over residential areas. It is therefore suggested that additional adjustments are made or flight paths be re-aligned to avoid such residential areas. It should also be noted that human hearing is not as precise as the equipment used to record noise levels therefore an adjustment of three decibels, whilst discernible by machine and regarded as significant, is unlikely to be detected by the human ear, hence the need for greater adjustments to the night flight levels than currently used.

We understand that the point quota allocation, which represents the only limit on increased flight numbers, was accepted through a Section 106 agreement with Christchurch District Council without consultation with neighbouring local authorities. This is extremely regrettable and we trust that any future review will involve both Poole and Bournemouth Councils. It is regrettable that the quota was based on outdated data and does not genuinely reflect the current noise levels of modern aircraft. Hence it allows for an exaggerated level of expansion that is unacceptable to the majority of residents who contacted us. We understand that a review does have to take place every 5 years, or when a significant change is planned. We would regard any future increase in the number of night flights as a significant change and therefore request that, in such an event, a full review with public consultation takes place before implementation of the increase.

We believe that the point quota should be reduced, certainly to 1500, but preferably to 1000.

2. Are there any further noise management features that you feel might be introduced, bearing in mind the requirements to ensure the safe operation of the Airport and aircraft and the need to limit or reduce the disturbance to populated areas?

In addition to the suggestions raised in answer to Question 1 we would make the following recommendations:

• The noise maps produced for the Draft Noise Action Plan are based upon computer models and do not take into account the variations in flight path patterns that actually occur and which can be identified through the use of Webtrack. Whilst the DNAP states that action can be taken against those companies that do not adhere to the flight paths there is no indication that this is actually monitored by the airport authorities. There is no clearly defined process of action and mitigation. To ensure flight paths and altitudes are adhered to would bring considerable benefit therefore we recommend that such a process is built into the DNAP and implemented as a priority. It would be sensible to create an independently administered community fund to help compensate for the effects of aircraft diverging from the precise flight path.

• The World Health Organisation recommends significantly lower noise levels than those being adopted by this DNAP, especially for night-time. We would therefore wish to see these guidelines adopted rather than those currently included. Sleep disturbance needs to be avoided to ensure the well being of residents affected by night-time flights in particular.

• Because the only limiting factor on number of flights throughout the day/night and the year is the noise quota limit then it would seem sensible to place specific limits on the actual number of flights permitted within a specific time period, especially the night time period. If other airports can achieve this then so can Bournemouth Airport.

• We understand that there is currently a ban on aircraft with QC counts at 4 and above. Since most modern aircraft, for example the 737/800, have counts of 1 or less we would recommend a ban on flights with QC counts greater than 1.

3. Do you have any further comments on the Draft Noise Action Plan?

The Airport's Master Plan proposes a fourfold increase in passenger numbers and because the DNAP allows for a potential 3-fold increase in number of flights it is necessary to consider some of the other impacts, especially with regard to transport routes.

Inevitably such scales of increase will create increased traffic movements, and despite proposals for improved public transport there will be a significant increase in private car and commercial vehicle journeys along the routes to the airport. This will increase both noise levels and air pollution along these routes. It is essential therefore that the airport contributes to any necessary alleviation schemes that will have to be introduced since these routes pass through residential areas.

Conclusions:

We disagree with the findings of the Draft Noise Action Plan. The proposal by Bournemouth International Airport to make no substantial changes to its current noise management operations is unacceptable. There is already a significant impact upon residents in areas considered to be unaffected. Efforts must therefore be made to reduce those impacts now and better manage the impacts of future expansion. We therefore recommend that the suggestions proffered above are implemented forthwith and that further reviews take place when changes to the night flight regime are proposed.

Cllrs. Michael Brooke, Graham Mason and Daniel Martin.

Broadstone Ward

Borough of Poole.

Contact: C/o Democratic Services

Civic Centre

Poole

BH15 2RU

e-mail: m.brooke@poole.gov.uk

g.mason@poole.gov.uk

daniel.martin@poole.gov.uk