NOISE AND VIBRATION CHAPTER · 19/06/2019 · 17.9 Noise control measures 17.98 Approach to noise...
Transcript of NOISE AND VIBRATION CHAPTER · 19/06/2019 · 17.9 Noise control measures 17.98 Approach to noise...
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT
© Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Volume 1, Chapter 17
Noise and vibration
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
© Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
CONTENTS
17. Noise and vibration 17.1
17.1 Introduction 17.1
17.2 Relevant legislation, policy and other important and relevant matters 17.2 Introduction 17.2 Relevant legislation, policy, and other important and relevant matters 17.3 Regional and local planning policy 17.15 Other important and relevant matters 17.15
17.3 Scoping and engagement 17.19 Overview 17.19 Scoping opinion 17.19 Technical engagement 17.28
17.4 Scope of the assessment 17.33 Overview 17.33 DCO Project noise sources 17.33 Study areas 17.34 Temporal scope 17.45 Receptors 17.47 Likely significant effects 17.49
17.5 Assumptions and limitations of this PEIR 17.50 Overview 17.50 Overarching data assumptions 17.50 Construction noise assumptions 17.51 Aircraft noise assumptions 17.54 Aircraft ground noise assumptions 17.66 Road noise assumptions 17.66
17.6 Methodology for baseline data gathering 17.67 Assessment methodology evolution 17.67 Survey work 17.70
17.7 Assessment methodology for the PEIR 17.71 Construction assessment methodology 17.72 Operation assessment methodology 17.72 Methodology for identifying significant effects 17.73 Assessment of residential receptors 17.76 Assessment of non-residential receptors 17.90 Vibration – residential 17.90 Vibration – non-residential 17.91
17.8 Overall baseline 17.92 Current baseline 17.92 Future baseline 17.97
17.9 Noise control measures 17.98 Approach to noise control (including vibration) 17.99 Control Measures for Construction Noise 17.102 Control Measures for Aircraft Noise 17.104 The proposed relationship with the framework for Environmentally Managed Growth 17.119 Control Measures for Airport Ground Noise 17.120 Control Measures for Road Noise (new and altered roads) 17.122
17.10 Preliminary assessment of significance | overview assessment 17.124 Introduction 17.124
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
© Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Overview preliminary assessment for all phases | whole study area | using a single indicative airspace design test case 17.127
17.11 Preliminary assessment of significance | geographical reporting 17.146 Introduction 17.146
17.12 Assessment of cumulative effects 17.170 Overview 17.170 Effects from road traffic 17.171 Other noise effects 17.172 Phase 1: c. 2022-2026 17.174 Phase 2: c. 2026-2033 & Phase 3: c. 2034-2050 17.174
17.13 Next steps 17.178
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 17.1: Legislation relevant to noise and vibration 17.3 Table 17.2: National planning policy relevant to noise and vibration 17.6 Table 17.3: Other policy of particular relevance to noise and vibration 17.10 Table 17.4: Other important and relevant matters to noise and vibration 17.16 Table 17.5: PINS scoping opinion consultation 17.20 Table 17.6: Construction and operational activities occurring in each phase 17.46 Table 17.7: Summary of worst case years for each noise source and how they have been used to inform the impact assessment for each development phase 17.47 Table 17.8: Receptors requiring assessment for noise and vibration 17.48 Table 17.9: Potential effects on noise and vibration receptors scoped in for further assessment17.49 Table 17.10: Working hours assumptions 17.54 Table 17.11: Data sources used for Round 1 baseline collection 17.68 Table 17.12: Assessment methodology for the PEIR and ES 17.71 Table 17.13: Illustration of LOAEL and SOAEL in the context of identifying likely significant effects on residential receptors applicable for all noise sources (the interaction between government noise policy and the EIA requirements based on noise hierarchy table presented in the PPG-Noise 17.77 Table 17.14: LOAEL SOAEL and UAEL levels to be used in the assessment for residential receptors 17.81 Table 17.15: Noise change categories 17.87 Table 17.16: Noise exposure categories 17.87 Table 17.17: Population categories 17.88 Table 17.18: Population exposure to aircraft noise 2017 17.93 Table 17.19: Population exposure to aircraft noise in 2013 17.93 Table 17.20: Round one desk based baseline characterisation 17.95 Table 17.21: Summary of the embedded and compensation measures and how these influence the noise assessment | Construction Noise 17.102 Table 17.22: Summary of the embedded and compensation measures and how these influence the noise assessment | Aircraft Noise 17.104 Table 17.23: Summary of the embedded and compensation measures and how these influence the noise assessment | Airport Ground Noise 17.120 Table 17.24: Summary of the embedded and compensation measures and how these influence the noise assessment | Road Noise 17.122 Table 17.25 Noise exposure results 17.131 Table 17.26: Summary of daytime effects on residential receptors in terms of health and quality of life (annoyance) due to DCO Project compared to 2013 policy baseline. Presented as a range across all test cases. 17.134 Table 17.27: Summary of night-time effects on residential receptors in terms of health and quality of life (sleep) due to DCO Project compared to 2013 policy baseline. Presented as a range across all test cases. 17.135
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
© Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.28: Summary of daytime effects on residential receptors in terms of health and quality of life (annoyance) due to DCO Project compared to future do-minimum baseline (Evaluation 1 and Evaluation 2). Presented as a range across all test cases 17.137 Table 17.29: Summary of night-time effects on residential receptors in terms of health and quality of life (self-reported sleep disturbance) due to DCO Project compared to future do-minimum baseline (Evaluation 1 and Evaluation 2). Presented as a range across the all test cases. 17.138 Table 17.30. Comparison of the effect of aircraft noise during operation on AMI, stroke and vascular dementia with and without the DCO Project (2035) (calculated using WebTAG) (population in WebTAG study area 7,086,000). Presented as a range across all test cases 17.139 Table 17.31 List of inner area communities reported in this section 17.147 Table 17.32 Preliminary assessment of significance for residential receptors,, | Harlington 17.149 Table 17.33 Preliminary assessment of significance for noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Harlington 17.149 Table 17.34 Preliminary assessment of significance, | Harmondsworth 17.150 Table 17.35 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Harmondsworth 17.150 Table 17.36 Preliminary assessment of significance,, | West Drayton 17.151 Table 17.37 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | West Drayton 17.151 Table 17.38 Preliminary assessment of significance,, | Sipson 17.152 Table 17.39 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Sipson 17.152 Table 17.40 Preliminary assessment of significance,, | Hayes 17.153 Table 17.41 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Hayes 17.153 Table 17.42 Preliminary assessment of significance,, | Cranford Cross 17.154 Table 17.43 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Cranford Cross 17.154 Table 17.44 Preliminary assessment of significance,, | Cranford 17.155 Table 17.45 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Cranford 17.155 Table 17.46 Preliminary assessment of significance,, | Heston 17.156 Table 17.47 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Heston 17.156 Table 17.48 Preliminary assessment of significance,, | Hounslow (West and Heath) 17.157 Table 17.49 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Hounslow (West/ Heath) 17.157 Table 17.50 Preliminary assessment of significance,, | Hounslow (Central and South) 17.158 Table 17.51 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors |Hounslow (Central/South)17.158 Table 17.52 Preliminary assessment of significance,, | Feltham North 17.159 Table 17.53 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Feltham North 17.159 Table 17.54 Preliminary assessment of significance,, | Bedfont 17.160 Table 17.55 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Bedfont 17.160 Table 17.56 Preliminary assessment of significance,, | Stanwell 17.161 Table 17.57 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Stanwell 17.161 Table 17.58 Preliminary assessment of significance,, | Stanwell Moor 17.162 Table 17.59 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Stanwell Moor 17.162 Table 17.60 Preliminary assessment of significance,, | Poyle 17.163 Table 17.61 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Poyle 17.163 Table 17.62 Preliminary assessment of significance,, | Colnbrook 17.164 Table 17.63 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Colnbrook 17.164 Table 17.64 Preliminary assessment of significance,, | Brands Hill 17.165 Table 17.65 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Brands Hill 17.165 Table 17.66 Preliminary assessment of significance,, | Iver and Richings Park 17.166 Table 17.67 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Iver and Richings Park 17.166 Table 17.68 Preliminary assessment of significance,, | East Langley 17.167 Table 17.69 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | East Langley 17.167 Table 17.70 Preliminary assessment of significance,, | Datchet 17.168 Table 17.71 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Datchet 17.168 Table 17.72 Preliminary assessment of significance,, | Horton 17.169 Table 17.73 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Horton 17.169 Table 17.74: Noise CEA screening criteria 17.172 Table 17.75: Phase 1 CEA of DCO Project effects, together with ‘other developments’ unrelated to the DCO Project 17.175
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
© Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.76: Phases 2 and 3 CEA of DCO Project effects, together with ‘other developments’ unrelated to the DCO Project 17.176
TABLE OF GRAPHICS
Graphic 17.1 Study area for construction noise assessment 17.36 Graphic 17.2: Development of the study area for aircraft noise assessment 17.39 Graphic 17.3: Study area for the assessment of operational aircraft noise 17.40 Graphic 17.4: Study area for ground noise assessment 17.42 Graphic 17.5: Study area for road noise assessment 17.44 Graphic 17.6 Interaction between Airspace Change Process (ACP) and Development Consent Order (DCO) process 17.56 Graphic 17.7 mode rotation cycle assumed for PEIR (also indicating relief zones provided in mode). 17.60 Graphic 17.8 Aircraft noise emissions (QC) and movement profile 17.65 Graphic 17.9 Significance evaluation criteria for residential receptors for all noise sources 17.79 Graphic 17.10 Evaluation 1 framework 17.83 Graphic 17.11 Evaluation 2 framework 17.89 Graphic 17.12 Inner area for reporting noise effects 17.125 Graphic 17.13 Outer area for reporting noise effects 17.126 Graphic 17.14: Significant effect code key 17.147
APPENDICES
Appendix 17.1 Technical supporting annexes Annex A – Noise envelope Annex B – Aircraft noise and indicative airspace assumptions Annex C – Detailed methodology: assessment methods for each source Annex D – Detailed methodology: Additional Factors Annex E – Detailed methodology: evidence base Annex F – Detailed methodology: basis for LOAEL, SOAEL and UAEL Annex G – Aircraft future baseline Annex H – Preliminary assessment of significance for aircraft noise
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.1 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17. NOISE AND VIBRATION
17.1 Introduction
17.1.1 This chapter of the Preliminary Environment Information Report (PEIR) presents
the preliminary assessment of significant effects on health and quality of life due to
noise exposure and the likely significant effects due to noise change (adverse and
beneficial) that arise from the DCO Project. This chapter should be read in
conjunction with the project description provided in Chapter 6: DCO Project description and the relevant parts of the following chapters:
1. Chapter 8: Biodiversity – for likely significant effects of noise on protected
species
2. Chapter 11: Community - for the combination of noise and other
environmental likely significant effects on each community that includes, based
on the information in this chapter, an assessment of effects on recreation and
amenity
3. Chapter 12: Health - for the assessment of health effects including the
preliminary in-combination health effects, which considers noise effects
identified in this chapter
4. Chapter 13: Historic environment – for the effect of noise on the setting of
historic buildings and scheduled ancient monuments
5. Chapter 15: Landscape and visual amenity - for the contribution of noise to
any change in the wider consideration of landscape and visual amenity
(including as relevant tranquillity and effects at Area of AONB and National
Parks)
6. Chapter 18: Socio-economics and employment – for economic and
employment consequence of any significant effects of noise or vibration on
businesses.
7. Chapter 23: Bibliography
8. Glossary of terms and list of abbreviations
17.1.2 This chapter describes:
1. The legislation, planning policy and other documentation that has informed the
assessment (Section 17.2: Relevant legislation, policy and other important and relevant matters)
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.2 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
2. The outcome of consultation and external engagement that has been
undertaken, including how comments on noise and vibration within the Scoping
Opinion and scoping consultee responses received in July 2018 have been
addressed (Section 17.3: Scoping and engagement)
3. The scope of the assessment for noise and vibration (Section 17.4: Scope of the assessment)
4. The assumptions and limitations for the PEIR assessment (Section 17.5: Assumptions and limitations of this PEIR and Appendix 17.1: Technical supporting annexes, Annex B provide supporting detailed information for
aircraft noise)
5. The methods used for the baseline data gathering (Section 17.6: Methodology for baseline data gathering)
6. The assessment methods used for the PEIR (Section 17.7: Assessment methodology for the PEIR and Appendix 17.1, Annex C to E provide
supporting detailed information)
7. The overall baseline (Section 17.8: Overall baseline)
8. Noise control measures relevant to noise and vibration (Section 17.9: Noise control measures)
9. The preliminary assessment of noise and vibration significant effects (Section 17.10 and Section 17.11: Preliminary assessment of significance)
10. The assessment of cumulative effects (Section 17.12: Assessment of cumulative effects)
11. An outline of further work to be undertaken for the Environmental Statement
(ES) (Section 17.13: Next steps)
12. In-combination effects are addressed in Chapter 22: In-combination effects.
17.2 Relevant legislation, policy and other important and relevant matters
Introduction
17.2.1 This section identifies the legislation, policy and other documentation that has
informed the assessment of effects. Further information on policies relevant to the
EIA and their status is provided in Chapter 2: Legislative and policy overview of
this PEIR.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.3 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Relevant legislation, policy, and other important and relevant matters
17.2.2 Table 17.1 lists the key legislation relevant to the assessment of the effects on
noise and vibration receptors.
Table 17.1: Legislation relevant to noise and vibration
Legislation description Relevance to assessment
Planning Act 2008
In respect of noise nuisance, the Act confers statutory authority unless there is a provision in a granted DCO to the contrary.
Provides powers to modify legislation.
A comprehensive suite of measures has been developed to control and mitigate the effects of noise from the DCO Project. These will be appropriately secured in due course including, as necessary or appropriate, via the powers included in the Planning Act.
Heathrow is consulting on proposals for the DCO to seek powers to provide compulsory noise insulation to prevent, where necessary, unacceptable adverse effects on health and quality of life due to noise indoors. Powers would be sought to respond to a situation where an owner / occupier refuses offers reasonably made by Heathrow to install the noise insulation1 or acquire the property2.
Powers to modify legislation would be called on to implement the proposed changes in the approval of consents to control construction noise under s.61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, as proposed in the draft Code of Construction Practice.
Land Compensation Act 1973 (LCA)
This Act provides for depreciation of an interest in land value caused by noise as a physical factor from public works (highway or aerodrome) to be compensated by the responsible authority. Compensation is payable where the noise either arises from activity on land taken (injurious affection) (Part II of the Act) or is physically unconnected to the land interest (Part 1 claims).
Provides powers to sound-proof (noise insulate) buildings from noise arising from highways and aerodromes.
Provides powers to pay expenses of persons moving temporarily during construction works (due to noise).
Informs the compensatory measures (refer to Section 17.9).
1 In line with Heathrow’s Noise Insulation Policy 2 In line with Heathrow’s Property Policy Information Paper
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.4 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Legislation description Relevance to assessment
Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 and Noise Insulation (Amendment) Regulations 1988 Regulations under the LCA 1973
These regulations set out the duty and provisions to carry out noise insulation work or to make grants in relation to noise from new or altered roads.
Also provides discretionary powers to provide noise insulation or temporary rehousing with regard to the construction of new or altered roads.
Used to inform the noise assessment criteria (Section 17.7) and the Heathrow Expansion Noise Insulation Policy (refer to Section 17.9).
Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996 Regulation under the LCA 1973
These regulations set out the duty and provisions to carry out noise insulation work or to make grants in relation to noise from new or altered railways and other guided transport systems.
Also provides discretionary powers to provide noise insulation or temporary rehousing with regard to the construction of new or altered railways and other guided transport systems.
Used to inform the noise assessment criteria (Section 17.7) and the Heathrow Expansion Noise Insulation Policy (refer to Section 17.9).
Control of Pollution Act 1974
This Act provides the definition of Best Practicable Means (BPM) to minimise noise (including vibration), the basis for defence against noise abatement action taken by a local authority (section 60). The Act also provides for i) persons responsible to seek prior consent for works on construction sites including BPM steps to minimise noise and ii) the basis for defining codes of practice (applies to BS 5228: 2009+A1:2014 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites, Part 1: Noise and
Part 2: Vibration).
Used to inform the draft Code of Construction Practice and embedded noise control measures for construction (Section 17.9).
Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990
This Act sets out the duty for local authorities to investigate and, where identified, take abatement action against noise nuisance. The Act provides the definition of Best Practicable Means (BPM) to minimise noise (including vibration), the basis for defence against noise abatement action taken by a local authority (section 80).
The Act also provides for individuals to seek for abatement action to be taken by a magistrate’s court against noise nuisance (section 82).
Used to inform the draft Code of Construction Practice and embedded noise control measures for construction (Section 17.9).
Civil Aviation Act 1982
Regarding noise, the Act: makes provision about the regulation of operators of airports; confers the functions on the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) which in relation to noise include enforcement, and consideration of regulatory burdens.
Noise control measures for aircraft noise have been proposed consistent with the Act (Sections 17.9).
The Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006
The regulations implement the EU Environmental Noise Directive (END) 2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and
The regulations and the associated guidance have been used to inform the noise
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.5 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Legislation description Relevance to assessment
management of environmental noise.
The regulations set out the requirement, on a five-year cycle, to undertake strategic noise mapping and implement Noise Action Plans for agglomerations and major roads, railways and airports (including Heathrow).
There are several Important Areas 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.
Heathrow produce a Noise Action Plan every five years to comply with the requirements of the END 2002/49/EC (END) and associated UK government regulations. The most recent Noise Action Plan was adopted and approved by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in February 20193.
assessment methodology (Section 17.7) and the noise control measure proposals (Sections 17.9).
Regulation (EU) No 598/2014 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Union airports within a Balanced Approach (EU 598).
The aim of EU 598 is to ensure that the International Civil
Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Balanced Approach is
adopted in respect of aircraft noise management at airports where a noise problem has been identified.
EU 598 requires a range of noise mitigation measures to be
considered in accordance with the Balanced Approach, with
a view to determining the most effective measure or
combination of measures. As part of that, EU 598 seeks to
ensure that 'noise related operating restrictions' are only
imposed:
1. when other measures within the Balanced
Approach have first been considered 2. where those other measures are not in themselves
sufficient to attain the specific noise abatement
objectives for the airport.
Following this, if a noise based operating restriction is considered necessary, it can only be imposed after the 'cost effectiveness' of the restriction has been considered and if the measures together are no more than is necessary to achieve the environmental noise abatement objectives set for the airport.
EU 598 reflects the fundamental requirement of the ICAO Balanced Approach is that when determining the most appropriate combination of noise mitigation measures for a given airport, operating restrictions should only be introduced after consideration of the other three elements of the Balanced Approach.
In line with the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), this Regulation has formed the basis of the approach for noise control measures (Section 17.9).
3 Noise Action Plan 2019-2023. First edition. 2019. Heathrow Airport Limited.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.6 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.2.3 Table 17.2 lists the national planning policy relevant to the assessment of the
effects on noise and vibration receptors.
Table 17.2: National planning policy relevant to noise and vibration
Policy description Relevance to assessment
Airports National Policy Statement (Department for Transport, 2018) (the ANPS)
Chapter 2: Legislation and policy overview provides an explanation of the relevance of the ANPS to the DCO Project in general terms. The ANPS is the primary basis for decision making on the DCO Project. The ANPS must be used as the primary policy on noise as set out below.
ANPS defines the basis for decision making and the noise policy aims for the DCO Project.
Paragraph 5.67 states that ‘The proposed development must be undertaken in accordance with statutory obligations for noise.4 Due regard must have been given to national policy on aviation noise, and the relevant sections of the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE), the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Government’s associated planning guidance on noise5. However, the Airports NPS must be used as the primary policy on noise when considering the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme, and has primacy over other wider noise policy sources.’
The requirements of statutory obligations are summarised in Table 17.1 and the requirements of the other policies cited are presented in this table.
Paragraph 5.68 states 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.’
The assessment demonstrates how these decision-making aims are met (see Sections 17.9 and 17.10).
Paragraph 5.5.2 states ‘Pursuant to the terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations,
The applicant should undertake a noise assessment for any period of change in air traffic movements prior to opening, for the time of opening, and at the time the airport is forecast to reach full capacity, and (if applicable, being different to either of the other assessment periods) at a point when the airport’s noise impact is forecast to be
highest. This should form part of the environmental
Assessment years for the noise are set out in Section 17.4. A description of the noise sources included in the assessment are set out in Section 17.4 and Section 17.7. The assessment of significant effects are described in Section 17.10.
The characteristics of the existing noise
environment are provided in Section 17.8. A
4 EU Regulation 598/2014; The Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006 5 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/noise--2
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.7 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Policy description Relevance to assessment
statement. The noise assessment
should include the following:
• A description of the noise sources;
• An assessment of the likely significant effect of
predicted changes in the noise environment on any
noise sensitive premises (including schools and
hospitals) and noise sensitive areas (including
National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural
Beauty);
• The characteristics of the existing noise
environment, including noise from aircraft, using
noise exposure maps, and from surface transport
and ground operations associated with the DCO
project, the latter during both the construction and
operational phases of the DCO project;
• A prediction on how the noise environment will
change with the proposed DCO project; and
• Measures to be employed in mitigating the effects
of noise.
These should take into account construction and operational noise (including from surface access arrangements) and aircraft noise. The applicant’s assessment of aircraft noise should be undertaken in accordance with the developing indicative airspace design. This may involve the use of appropriate design parameters and scenarios based on indicative flightpaths.’
prediction on how the noise environment will
change with the DCO Project is provided in
Section 17.10. Mitigation and wider noise
control measures are described in Section 17.9. Information on the indicative airspace
design parameters used in the assessment
are provided in Section 17.5 and Appendix 17.1, Annex B.
Paragraph 5.53 first states ‘Operational noise, with respect to human receptors, should be assessed using the principles of the relevant British Standards and other guidance. For the prediction, assessment and management of construction noise, reference should be made to any British Standards and other guidance which give examples of mitigation strategies.’
The noise requirements of the relevant
British Standards and guidance are
summarised in Table 17.3. The assessment
methodology (Section 17.7) is developed in
line with these requirements.
Paragraph 5.53 goes on to state ‘In assessing the likely significant impacts of aircraft noise, the applicant should have regard to the noise assessment principles, including noise metrics, set out in the national policy on airspace.’
The noise assessment presented in this Chapter is in accordance with these assessment requirements. The noise requirements of national policy on airspace are set out later in this table. The assessment methodology (Section 17.7) is developed in line with these requirements.
Para 5.52 states ‘The applicant’s assessment of aircraft noise should be undertaken in accordance with the developing indicative airspace design. This may involve the use of appropriate design parameters and scenarios based on indicative flightpaths’. The ANPS further notes that ‘Precise flight path designs can only be defined at a later stage after detailed airspace design work has taken place. Once the design work has been completed, the airspace proposal will be subject to extensive consultation as part of the separate airspace decision making process established by the Civil Aviation Authority.’ (para 5.50).
Information on the indicative airspace design parameters used in the assessment are provided in Section 17.5 and Appendix 17.1, Annex B. The approach to assessing noise from indicative airspace design to provide a reasonable and foreseeable worst-case assessment of noise effects is set out in Section 17.5. This section also sets out how the noise envelope will bridge between the DCO process and the parallel development of the Airspace Change Process. The noise envelope is described in
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.8 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Policy description Relevance to assessment
Section 17.9 and Appendix 17.1, Annex A.
The ANPS also states that ‘The noise mitigation measures should ensure the impact of aircraft noise is limited and, where possible, reduced compared to the 2013 baseline assessed by the Airports Commission.’ (para 5.58) (with
reference to the 2013 baseline for the 54dB LAeq,16h noise
contour assessed by the Airports Commission. LAeq,16h
indicates the annual average noise levels for the 16-hour period between 0700 – 2300) (see para 5.58).
Section 17.10 records how the requirements of ANPS paragraph 5.58 have been met.
Paragraphs 5.54-5.66) sets out requirements relating to the noise mitigation
Section 17.9 sets out the embedded and additional noise control measures included in the DCO Project in response to these ANPS requirements.
Paragraph 5.245 references Heathrow’s publicly committed community compensation package (that includes noise insulation for homes, and schools and community buildings).
Paragraph 5.249 requires the applicant to make arrangements for the community compensation schemes which Heathrow Airport has publicly stated would be provided.
Paragraph 5.251 states that ‘The Secretary of State will consider whether and to what extent the applicant has sought to minimise impacts on local people, has consulted on the details of its works, and has put mitigations in place, at least to the level committed to in Heathrow Airport’s public commitments. This includes whether the applicant has set out appropriate eligibility criteria, how delivery will be ensured, and whether the applicant has made reasonable efforts to put the works in place quickly.’
Section 17.9 sets out the compensation (noise insulation) that has been taken into account as part of the assessment.
National Policy Statement for National Networks (NN NPS), (Department for Transport, 2014)
Chapter 2: Legislative and policy overview provides an
explanation of the relevance of the NN NPS to the DCO
Project in general terms.
The following paragraphs of the NN NPS are of relevance
to the assessment presented in the chapter:
1. Paragraph 5.195
2. Paragraph 5.189
Section 17.10 presents how the decision-making aims of the NN NPS have been met.
The assessment methodology (Section 17.7) has been developed in line with these requirements.
In accordance with paragraph 4.7 of the ANPS, the NN
NPS is also relevant to surface access elements of the
project. Of particular relevance to the assessment of road
traffic noise is paragraph 5.189, which states:
‘Where a development is subject to EIA and significant
noise impacts are likely to arise from the proposed
development, the applicant should include the following in
the noise assessment, which should form part of
Road traffic noise control measures (Section 17.9) have been developed in line with these requirements.
Sections 17.5 and 17.7 set out the
description of the noise sources as required.
Section 17.4 describes the scope for the
assessment of noise sensitive premises and
noise sensitive areas included in the
assessment with further details of the
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.9 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Policy description Relevance to assessment
the environment statement:
- a description of the noise sources including likely usage in
terms of number of movements, fleet mix and diurnal
pattern. For any associated fixed structures, such as
ventilation fans for tunnels, information about the noise
sources including the identification of any distinctive tonal,
impulsive or low frequency characteristics of the noise.
- identification of noise sensitive premises and noise
sensitive areas that may be affected.
- the characteristics of the existing noise environment.
- a prediction on how the noise environment will change
with the proposed development:
--In the shorter term such as during the construction period;
--in the longer term during the operating life of the
infrastructure;
--at particular times of the day, evening and night as
appropriate.
- an assessment of the effect of predicted changes in the
noise environment on any noise sensitive premises and
noise sensitive areas.
- measures to be employed in mitigating the effects of
noise.
-Applicants should consider using best available techniques
to reduce noise impacts.
-the nature and extent of the noise assessment should be
proportionate to the likely noise impact.’
assessment included in Section 17.7, and
the assessment of the effects in Section 17.10. Section 17.8 sets out the
characteristics of the existing noise
environment. Section 17.10 sets out how
the noise environment is predicted to change
with the Proposal for the noise sources and
time-periods required. Section 17.9 sets out
further mitigation and noise control
measures.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), February 2019
The NPPF states that ‘Planning policies and decisions
should also ensure that new development is appropriate for
its location taking into account the likely effects (including
cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions
and the natural environment, as well as the potential
sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could
arise from the development. In doing so they should:
a) mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse
impacts resulting from noise from new development – and
avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on
health and the quality of life;
b) identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained
relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their
recreational and amenity value for this reason.’ (Paragraph
This assessment (Section 17.13)
demonstrates how the DCO Project will
mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential
adverse impact resulting from noise from
new development – and avoid noise giving
rise to significant adverse impacts on health
and the quality of life.
Effects on ‘quiet areas’ or other resources
that are valued for their acoustic related
characteristics, such as tranquil areas, have
been assessed on a receptor by receptor
basis, see Section 17.10.
Provides the policy basis for preventing
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.10 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Policy description Relevance to assessment
180).
The NPPF also states ‘Planning policies and decisions
should contribute to and enhance the natural and
local environment by: .. e) preventing new and existing
development from contributing to, being put at
unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by,
unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution’
(Paragraph 170).
unacceptable adverse effects from noise.
Table 17.3: Other policy of particular relevance to noise and vibration
Policy description Relevance to assessment
Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), March 2010
This document sets out the long-term vision of Government
noise policy 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.’
(para 1.6)
‘This long term vision is supported by the following aims:
Through the effective management and control of
environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within
the context of Government policy on sustainable
development:
1. Avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality
of life
2. Mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and
quality of life
3. Where possible, contribute to the improvement of health
and quality of life.’ (para 1.7)
Para 2.20 states ‘There are two established concepts from
toxicology that are currently being applied to noise impacts,
for example, by the World Health Organization. They are:
NOEL – No Observed Effect Level: This is the level below
which no effect can be detected. In simple terms, below this
level, there is no detectable effect on health and quality of
life due to the noise
LOAEL – Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level: This is the
level above which adverse effects on health and quality of
life can be detected.’
Para 2.21 states ‘Extending these concepts for the purpose
NPSE provides additional guidance on the
interpretations of the ANPS and the NN NPS
aims which has been used to inform the
noise assessment criteria in this Chapter
(Section 17.7).
Section 17.9 sets out mitigation to avoid and
mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on
health and quality of life for the Project.
Section 17.10 assesses improvements to
health and quality of life for the DCO Project.
Section 17.10 reports on significant adverse
impacts on health and quality of life and
identifies where adverse impacts on health
and quality of life have been mitigated and
minimised.
Section 17.7 describes how NOEL, LOAEL
and SOAEL levels are used in the
assessment. Appendix 17.1, Annex F
describes how the LOAEL, SOAEL and
UAEL values were defined for the
assessment. Table 17.14 sets out the LOAEL
and SOAEL values for each noise source for
the assessment.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.11 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Policy description Relevance to assessment
of this NPSE leads to the concept of a significant observed
negative effect level.
SOAEL – Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level. This is
the level above which significant adverse effects on health
and quality of life occur.’
Para 2.24 states ‘The second aim of the NPSE refers to the
situation where the impact lies somewhere between LOAEL
and SOAEL. It requires that all reasonable steps should be
taken to mitigate and minimise negative effects on health
and quality of life while also taking into account the guiding
principles of sustainable development (paragraph 1.8). This
does not mean that such negative effects cannot occur.’
Para 2.22 states ‘it is not possible to have a single objective
noise-based measure that defines SOAEL that is applicable
to all sources of noise in all situations. Consequently, the
SOAEL is likely to be different for different noise sources, for
different receptors and at different times. It is acknowledged
that further research is required to increase our
understanding of what may constitute a significant negative
impact on health and quality of life from noise. However, not
having specific SOAEL values in the NPSE provides the
necessary policy flexibility until further evidence and suitable
guidance is available.’
Aviation Policy Framework (APF), Department for Transport (DfT), March 2013
The APF sets the framework for noise management at UK
Airports that applies, as amended by the Consultation
Response on UK Airspace Policy, DfT, October 2017, until
Government publishes its Aviation Strategy (at this time
understood to be in late 2019 – see below). ‘The Airports
NPS does not affect Government policy on wider aviation
issues, for which the 2013 Aviation Policy Framework and
any subsequent statements still apply’ (ANPS Paragraph
1.38).
The framework includes the following for noise management:
1. The general principle that the Government expects
that future growth in aviation should ensure that
benefits are shared between the aviation industry
and local communities.
2. That Government fully recognises the International
Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO) Assembly ‘balanced
approach’ principle to aircraft noise management.
3. The role of Government; to set the overall national
policy framework for aviation noise and to use its
powers under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to set noise
The APF, as modified by the Consultation
Response on UK Airspace Policy (see
below), defines the general framework for
aviation noise management which is relevant
to proposed airspace changes.
The APF (as modified) has formed a basis for
the assessment methodology (Section 17.7)
and the control measures (Sections 17.9) in
this Chapter.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.12 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Policy description Relevance to assessment
controls at specific airports which it designates for
noise management purposes (which includes
Heathrow).
The APF states ‘Our overall objective on noise is to limit and
where possible reduce the number of people in the UK
significantly affected by aircraft noise. The document makes
clear that the acceptability of growth in aviation depends to a
large extent on the industry continuing to tackle its noise
impact and confirms that the Government expects the
industry at all levels to continue to address noise.’ (para 17).
Para 3.3 sets out ‘We want to strike a fair balance between
the negative impacts of noise (on health, amenity (quality of
life) and productivity) and the positive economic impacts of
flights. As a general principle, the Government therefore
expects that future growth in aviation should ensure that
benefits are shared
between the aviation industry and local communities. This
means that the industry must continue to reduce and
mitigate noise as airport capacity grows. As noise levels fall
with technology improvements the aviation industry should
be expected to share the benefits from these
improvements.’
Draft UK Airspace Policy, DfT, February 2017 and Consultation Response, DfT, October 2017
The Consultation Response sets out that:
‘The Government’s current aviation policy is set out in
the Aviation Policy Framework (APF). The policies set
out within this document provide an update to some of
the policies on aviation noise contained within the
APF and should be viewed as the current government
policy.’ (para 9 Oct 2017)
‘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.’ (para 2.69
Oct 2017)
‘We will set a LOAEL at 51dB LAeq,16h for daytime and
based on feedback and further discussion with CAA
we are making one minor change to the LOAEL night
metric to be 45dB LAeq,8h rather than Lnight to be
consistent with the daytime metric.’ (para 2.72 Oct
2017).
The Consultation Response also states that the Government:
The response on the UK Airspace Policy has
modified the APF and has defined airspace
policy.
Importantly this policy defines daytime and
night-time LOAEL values for aircraft noise
(see Section 17.7). Government
expectations of compensation and noise
insulation schemes are also relevant to this
assessment and have informed the setting of
the SOAEL for aircraft noise (see Section 17.7).
Airspace design is covered by Airspace
Policy and the CAA’s CAP1616 that requires
an Airspace Change Proposal, which is
separate from the DCO process. The
airspace design must be developed in
conformance with Airspace Policy and the
ANG provides additional guidance on matters
relating to these policies. The noise
assessment methodology has been
developed to reflect the fact that the airspace
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.13 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Policy description Relevance to assessment
1. expects airport operators to offer acoustic insulation to
noise sensitive buildings, such as schools and
hospitals, exposed to levels of noise of 63dB LAeq,16h
or more
2. expects airport operators to offer financial assistance
towards acoustic insulation to residential properties
exposed to levels of noise of 63dB LAeq,16h or more.
The consultation response is reflected in the Air Navigation
Guidance 2017 (ANG17). This provides guidance to the CAA
on the implementation of the changes to airspace policy.
design is covered by a separate consenting
process and the final airspace designs will
not be finalised until after the DCO process.
Therefore, a number of assumptions have
been made to reflect the range of airspace
options still possible as part of the Airspace
Change Process (ACP) (Section 17.5
describes the assumptions made for the
assessment).
Aviation Strategy - Aviation 2050: The future of UK aviation. A consultation
The draft strategy describes in ‘towards a stronger noise
policy framework’, proposed new measures:
1. ‘setting a new objective to limit, and where possible,
reduce total adverse effects on health and quality of
life from aviation noise. This brings national aviation
policy in line with airspace policy updated in 2017
2. Developing a new national indicator to track the
long-term performance of the sector in reducing
noise. This could be defined either as a noise quota
or a total contour area based on the largest airports
3. routinely setting noise caps as part of planning
approvals (for increase in passengers or flights)6.
The aim is to balance noise and growth and to
provide future certainty over noise levels to
communities. It is important that caps are subject to
periodic review to ensure they remain relevant and
continue to strike a fair balance by taking account of
actual growth and the introduction of new aircraft
technology. It is equally important that there are
appropriate compliance mechanisms in case such
caps are breached, and the government wants to
explore mechanisms by which airports could ‘pay for’
additional growth by means of local compensation as
an alternative to the current sanctions available
4. requiring all major airports to set out a plan which
commits to future noise reduction, and to review this
periodically. This would only apply to airports which
This assessment (Section 17.10)
demonstrates how the DCO Project will
mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential
adverse impact resulting from noise from new
development – and avoid noise giving rise to
significant adverse impacts on health and the
quality of life.
Section 17.9 sets out the compensation
(noise insulation) that has been taken into
account as part of the assessment. The draft
Noise Insulation Policy for Heathrow
Expansion is published for consultation as
part of the AEC alongside the PEIR.
Section 17.9 sets out the development work
of the Noise Envelope Design Group and
Heathrow’s proposals for a Noise Envelope
(see also Appendix 17.1, Annex A for
further information about the noise envelope).
The assessment presented in this chapter
has had due regard to the new WHO
guidelines. In line with the Government’s
statement in the draft strategy, this
assessment is underpinned by Government
airspace policy (see separate entry), robust
evidence on effects and UK specific evidence
as set out in Section 17.7 and in Appendix
6 ‘A noise cap (also known as a noise envelope) is any measure which restricts noise, in its crudest form this could be a simple movement cap but the government proposes advocating caps which are based on setting maximum noise exposure levels (such as contour area or noise quote). Noise caps should also consider the effect of night flights, given the health costs associated with sleep disturbance. These costs need to balance the benefits of night flights and any restrictions should be proportionate to local circumstances.’ (footnote 77, page 78).
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.14 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Policy description Relevance to assessment
do not have a noise cap approved through the
planning system and would provide similar certainty
to communities on future noise levels. The
government wants to see better noise monitoring
and a mechanism to enforce these targets as for
noise caps. The noise action planning process could
potentially be developed to provide the basis for
such reviews, backed up by additional powers as
necessary for either central or local government or
the CAA’ (3.115).
The draft strategy sets out that ‘The government is also:
proposing new measures to improve noise insulation
schemes for existing properties, particularly where noise
exposure may increase in the short term or to mitigate
against sleep disturbance.’ (3.121).
It also states ‘Such schemes, while imposing costs on the
industry, are an important element in giving impacted
communities a fair deal. The government therefore proposes
the following noise insulation measures:
• to extend the noise insulation policy threshold beyond
the current 63dB LAeq,16h contour to 60dB LAeq,16h
• to require all airports to review the effectiveness of
existing schemes. This should include how effective
the insulation is and whether other factors (such as
ventilation) need to be considered, and also whether
levels of contributions are affecting take-up
• the government of Independent Commission on Civil
Aviation Nouse (ICCAN) to issue new guidance to
airports on best practice for noise insulation schemes,
to improve consistency
• for airspace changes which lead to significantly
increased overflight, to set a new minimum threshold
of an increase of 3dB LAeq, which leaves a household
in the 54dB LAeq,16h contour or above as a new
eligibility criterion for assistance with noise insulation’
(3.122).
The draft strategy (3.106) states ‘The government is
considering the recent new environmental noise guidelines
for the European region published by the World Health
Organization (WHO). It agrees with the ambition to reduce
noise and to minimise adverse health effects, but it wants
policy to be underpinned by the most robust evidence on
these effects, including the total cost of action and recent UK
17.1, Annex E.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.15 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Policy description Relevance to assessment
specific evidence which the WHO report did not assess.’
Regional and local planning policy
17.2.4 Appendix 2.1: Regional and local planning policy and other important and relevant matters, Volume 3 presents the full list of the regional and local planning
policies relevant to the assessment of effects on noise and vibration receptors.
17.2.5 The local planning policies of the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the
following local planning authorities have been considered given their proximity to
the Airport and potential for changes in noise and vibration exposure within their
administrative areas:
1. Greater London Authority
2. London Borough of Hillingdon
3. London Borough of Hounslow
4. The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
5. Slough Borough Council
6. South Bucks District Council
7. Spelthorne Borough Council
8. Buckinghamshire County Council
9. Surrey County Council
Other important and relevant matters
17.2.6 A summary of other relevant documentation relevant to the assessment
undertaken in noise and vibration is provided below in Table 17.4 and within
Appendix 2.1.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.16 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.4: Other important and relevant matters to noise and vibration
Guidance document Relevance to assessment
CAP1616 Airspace Design: Guidance on the
regulatory process for changing airspace design
including community engagement requirements
(CAP1616), CAA, December 2017
The CAA published CAP1616 in response to the
Government’s revised Air Navigation Directions (AND)
and ANG on airspace policy as published in October
2017 in the Consultation Response to the UK Airspace
Policy.
The guidance on noise assessment in CAP1616
has informed the assessment of aircraft air noise.
See Section 17.7 for details of the assessment
methodology.
International Civil Aviation Organization, Guidance on
the Balanced Approach to Aircraft Noise Management,
ICAO 9829 AMD 1, 2008
The Balanced Approach recommends identifying the
noise problem at an airport and then analysing the
various measures available to reduce noise through
the exploration of four principal elements, namely:
1. Reduction at source (quieter aircraft)
2. Land-use planning and management
3. Noise abatement operational procedures (optimising
how aircraft are flown and the routes they follow to limit
the noise impacts)
4. Operating restrictions (preventing certain noisier
types of aircraft from flying at certain times or at any
time).
The balanced approach has provided the
framework for the development of noise control
measures for the DCO Project. Please refer to
Section 17.5.
IEMA The Guidelines for Environmental Noise Impact Assessment (2014) The IEMA Guidelines provide key principles and methodological guidance on environmental noise impact assessment and how to effectively integrate noise impacts into the consenting process.
The guidelines have been used to inform the
factors that are considered as part of the
assessment (Section 17.10).
WHO Community Noise Guidelines, 1999 These guidelines are partly superseded by the WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region, 2018. However, the guideline values or internal noise and maximum noise levels from regular noise events remain relevant WHO guidelines.
The assessment presented in this chapter is
underpinned by Government airspace policy (see
separate entry), robust evidence on effects and UK
specific evidence as set out in Section 17.7
WHO Night Noise Guidelines, 2009 These guidelines recommend a lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) for night-time noise and an Interim Target.
The assessment presented in this chapter is
underpinned by Government airspace policy (see
separate entry), robust evidence on effects and UK
specific evidence as set out in Section 17.7.
The night-time Significant Observed Adverse Effect
Level (SOAEL) values used in this assessment for
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.17 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Guidance document Relevance to assessment
operational noise are defined with reference to the
Interim Target set in these WHO Guidelines (refer
to Section 17.7).
WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the
European Region, 2018
The 2018 Guidelines provide recommendations for
protecting human health from exposure to
environmental noise originating from various sources
including road traffic, railway and aircraft noise.
The 2018 Guidelines partially superseded the WHO
Community Noise Guidelines 1999 (see earlier entry in
this table) but do not supersede Night Noise
Guidelines, 2009 (see earlier entry in this table)
The recommendations include guideline values for
aircraft noise, road traffic noise and railway noise using
Lden and Lnight metrics in terms of the onset of health
effects
The systematic reviews on the evidence on the
effects of noise, which are the basis for the WHO
2018 Guidelines, have been used to inform the
assessment methodology (refer to Section 17.7).
The guideline metrics and noise levels differ from
those used in this assessment because:
1. The Government has stated as part of its
draft Aviation Strategy: ‘The government is
considering the recent new environmental
noise guidelines for the European region
published by the World Health Organisation
(WHO). It agrees with the ambition to
reduce noise and to minimise adverse
health effects, but it wants policy to be
underpinned by the most robust evidence
on these effects, including the total cost of
action and recent UK specific evidence
which the WHO report did not assess’.
2. The WHO guidelines themselves state that
‘data and exposure–response curves
derived in a local context should be applied
whenever possible to assess the specific
relationship between noise and annoyance
in a given situation’. The 51dB LAeq,16h
LOAEL for day-time is derived from
exposure-response curves derived from a
UK study7.
3. For this assessment, the LOAEL values for
aircraft noise exposure are set by Aviation
Policy at 51dB LAeq,16h for day-time and
45dB LAeq,8h for night-time. These policy
thresholds take precedence over the WHO
recommendations because they are
formally incorporated in UK Policy.
It is important to note that the new guidelines do not
set threshold for significant health effects and do
not set limits or caps.
BS5228‐1:2009+A1: 2014 Code of practice for noise
and vibration control on construction and open sites:
Part 1 – Noise (BS5228-1)
This British Standard is a certified code of practice
under the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
7 Civil Aviation Authority, CAP 1506: Survey of Noise Attitudes 2014: Aircraft, February 2017 (CAA, 2017)
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.18 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Guidance document Relevance to assessment
The standard is relied upon in this chapter with
regard to the assessment methodology for
construction noise (Section 17.7) and control
measures (Section 17.9).
BS5228-2 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration
Control on Open Construction Sites – Part 2: Vibration
BS6472-1 Guide to evaluation of human exposure to
vibration in buildings: 1-Vibration sources other than
blasting 2-Blast-induced vibration
BS7385-2 Evaluation and measurement for vibration in
buildings – Part 2: Guide to damage levels from
ground-borne vibration
These standards and guidance are relevant to the
assessment methodology for vibration generated
by construction activities (Section 17.7).
BS6472 is also used in the assessment
methodology for vibration from operational sources
(Section 17.7).
BS 4142: 2014 Methods for rating and assessing
industrial and commercial sound
The potential impact of noise from static sources is
assessed in accordance with BS 4142 (Section 17.7). The term static refers to fixed sources of
noise associated with, for example, the operation of
terminal buildings (for example a ventilation plant)
and other airport operations (for example pumping
equipment at the aviation fuel farm).
BS 8233: 2014. Guidance on sound insulation and
noise reduction for buildings
BS 8233 has been used to inform screening criteria
for non-residential buildings (Section 17.7).
BS 7445-1:2003. Description and measurement of
environmental noise. Guide to quantities and
procedures
BS 7445 has been used to inform the methodology
for the field measurement stage of baseline data
gathering (Section 17.8).
Planning Practice Guidance Noise – PPG(N) 2014
States that ‘Noise needs to be considered when new
developments may create additional noise and when
new developments would be sensitive to the prevailing
acoustic environment.’ (Paragraph 001).
PPG(N) aligns with the NPSE and is based on the
observed effect levels approach. PPG(N) introduces
Unacceptable Adverse Effect Levels (UAELs) ‘At the
highest extreme, noise exposure would cause
extensive and sustained changes in behaviour without
an ability to mitigate the effect of noise. The impacts
on health and quality of life are such that regardless of
the benefits of the activity causing the noise, this
situation should be prevented from occurring.’
Paragraph 005).
Paragraph 005 provides the noise exposure hierarchy
Provides additional guidance which has been used
to inform the noise assessment methodology
(Section 17.7).
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.19 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Guidance document Relevance to assessment
table based on the likely average response which
underlies the assessment for this Scheme (see
Paragraph 005).
PPG(N) sets out factors that influence whether noise
may be a concern. ‘The subjective nature of noise
means that there is not a simple relationship between
noise levels and the impact on those affected. This will
depend on how various factors combine in any
situation’ (Paragraph 006).
17.3 Scoping and engagement
Overview
17.3.1 This section describes the outcome of, and response to, the Scoping Opinion in
relation to the noise and vibration and also provides details of the ongoing
technical engagement that has been undertaken with stakeholders and individuals.
An overview of engagement undertaken can be found in Section 1.5 of Chapter 1: Introduction.
17.3.2 Technical engagement has taken the form of meetings and is summarised in the
following sections.
Scoping opinion
17.3.3 A Scoping Report requesting a Scoping Opinion was submitted to the Secretary of
State, administered by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) on behalf of the Secretary
of State, on 21 May 2018. The Scoping Report set out the proposed assessment
methodologies, outlined the baseline data collected to date and proposed for the
ES, and set out the scope of the assessment.
17.3.4 A Scoping Opinion was received from PINS on 2 July 2018. Table 17.5 sets out
the comments received in Section 4 of the Scoping Opinion (‘Aspect based
scoping tables’) for noise and vibration. The information provided in the PEIR is
preliminary and therefore not all the Scoping Opinion comments have been able to
be addressed at this stage. Scoping Opinion comments that have not been
addressed in the PEIR will be addressed within the ES. Table 17.5 therefore
describes, where possible, how the Scoping Opinion responses have been
addressed in this PEIR.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.20 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.5: PINS scoping opinion consultation
PINS ID number Scoping Opinion comment How is this addressed?
134
The Inspectorate considers that an assessment
of vibration effects arising from construction
vehicles on the existing road network should be
provided as part of the ES, in line with the
methodological approach set out in the Design
Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB).
Vibration effects from construction vehicles on
the existing road network have been assessed
in line with the DMRB (see Section 17.10).
135
The Inspectorate has had regard to information
presented in paragraph 16.9.2 of the Scoping
Report and considers that effects on hearing
loss may be scoped out of the assessment as
significant effects are unlikely to occur.
No further action required.
136
It is unclear from Table 4.6 whether the
assessment includes consideration of road
traffic noise within the site or on the new road
network. For the avoidance of doubt, the impact
of noise from traffic within the operational
boundary of the Proposed Development should
be assessed, where it has potential to give rise
to LSE on noise sensitive receptors in isolation
or in combination with other noise sources.
Noise from road traffic is assessed where there
is the potential to give rise to likely significant
effects, whether in isolation or in combination
with other noise sources, this includes traffic
within the operational boundary of the
development and on the wider road network
(see Sections 17.7, 17.10 and 17.11).
137
The Scoping Report states that baseline noise
monitoring will be undertaken but provides no
detail regarding the proposed survey approach.
Baseline noise monitoring should be
undertaken to a recognised standard e.g.
BS7445-1:2003 or equivalent. Baseline data
should be up to date and representative of
current conditions.
The survey approach for measurements that
inform baseline noise conditions are in line with
BS 7445-1:2003 (see further details in Section 17.6).
138
The Scoping Report proposes to make
assumptions regarding future aircraft fleet mix.
The assumptions regarding the potential fleet
mix should be set out in the ES as well as the
basis for any the sensitivity testing, allowing for
a conservative, worst case assessment.
Section 17.5 details the assumptions made in
the assessment regarding ‘future fleet mix’
(also see further detailed information in
Appendix 17.1, Annex B).
The methodology allows for a reasonable
worst-case assessment based on available
information (see Section 17.7). Sensitivity
testing is set out in Appendix 17.1, Annex B
for aircraft noise). Further sensitivity testing will
be undertaken between PEIR and ES to ensure
that the ES presents a worst-case assessment.
139
Reference should be to an assessment of LSE
in respect of the Infrastructure Planning (EIA)
Regulations 2017.
Noted.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.21 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
PINS ID number Scoping Opinion comment How is this addressed?
140
The LAmax/number of events and a risk
assessment of objective sleep disturbance are
currently not specified for aviation (although it is
for rail). The ES should set a specific threshold
based on relevant guidance (e.g. World Health
Organization or similar).
A specific supplementary SOAEL threshold has
been set as requested based on relevant
guidance (see Section 17.7).
141
Whilst considering noise exposure above
LOAEL to be unlikely above 4,000ft, the Air
Navigation Guidance goes on to state that ‘but
where such exposure does occur the CAA
should ensure that the focus remains on
minimising these impacts’. The Applicant should
consider the potential for exposure above
LOAEL, likely to result in LSE between 4,000
and 7,000ft, where relevant.
The methodology in the PEIR has responded to
this comment, please see the study area
section in Section 17.4.
142
The ABC method is example method 1 in
Annex E of the British Standard BS5228-
1+A1:2014. Reference to Method 2 creates
confusion as to whether the assessment
proposes to apply ABC criteria (method 1) or a
5dB magnitude of change (method 2) criterion
to inform the assessment of significance. The
ES should provide a consistent description of
the ABC method and the applied criteria.
Section 17.7 describes the assessment
methodology for construction noise effects that
uses ‘method 1’ described in Annex E of BS
5228-1+A1:2014 (the ‘ABC method’).
143
The statement that modelling may be taken
either with Aviation Environmental Design Tool
(AEDT) or Aircraft Noise Control Model
(ANCON) contradicts subsequent paragraphs
suggesting that both models will be used to
assess noise emissions. It is also unclear why
two modelling approaches are required. The ES
should justify the scope of modelling work
undertaken with reference to relevant guidance
and standards for aviation.
Section 17.7 and Appendix 17.1, Annex B set
out the application of AEDT and how ANCON
has been used to verify the AEDT modelling.
144
The ES should set out the parameters and
assumptions applied to the calculations of
sound propagation.
Section 17.7 summarises all the parameters
and assumptions regarding sound propagation.
Further information is provided in Appendix 17.1, Annex B for aircraft noise.
145
The Inspectorate considers that source noise
levels for aircraft should include baseline
measurements of current operations.
Sections 17.8 describe the baseline
measurements of current ground noise and
aircraft noise operations (2017) and explains
how they have been used as to inform the
impact assessment of airport ground noise.
Section 17.7 and Appendix 17.1, Annex B
also sets out the verification of the AEDT model
for aircraft noise against the CAA ANCON
model, which is in turn verified against
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.22 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
PINS ID number Scoping Opinion comment How is this addressed?
measurements of current operations at
Heathrow.
146
The description of development provided at
scoping stage recognises that further evolution
of the design will occur. The ES should ensure
that any model outputs that are predicated on a
current design of the Proposed Development
have sufficient certainty of delivery to merit their
inclusion as part of the worst-case assessment.
See Chapter 6: DCO Project Description.
Where there is any design uncertainty this is
reported in Section 17.5 and associated
assumptions have been defined to provide a
reasonable worst-case assessment based on
the information available at this stage. Further
sensitivity tests will be undertaken between
PEIR and ES to confirm that the ES provides a
worst-case assessment.
147
The ES should include an assessment of
ground borne noise from rail and any other
relevant sources.
An assessment of ground borne noise from rail
and any other relevant sources is provided in
Sections 17.10 and 17.11.
148
The ES should justify the use of a qualitative
rather than a quantitative approach to the
consideration of combined effects arising from
more than one source on a single receptor or
area.
Section 17.7 sets out that there is no reliable
established method of quantitatively assessing
the overall noise effect resulting from different
noise source, so this is done qualitatively. The
initial assessment of combined effects arising
from more than one source is reported in
Section 17.11. Further assessment of
combined effects supported by sensitivity tests
will be provided in the ES.
149
Reference is made to a receptor by receptor or
area by area assessment at a number of points
within the text. Later sections describe a staged
process of considering effects by area then by
individual receptor where thresholds have been
exceeded. It is assumed that the either/or
approach is intended to reflect the staged
process, which the Inspectorate considers to be
appropriate rather than suggesting that either
areas or receptors will be assessed.
Section 17.7 sets out the assessment
methodology which provides a staged
approach. Both receptor-by-receptor (for non-
residential receptors) and area-by-area (for
residential amenity) approaches are used. With
both approaches every receptor in the study
area is considered in the assessment.
150
Reference is made to the Unacceptable
Adverse Effect Level (UAEL) in Table 16.6 but
no other reference to assessment of UAEL is
included in the text or in the process outlined in
Graphic 16.3. The ES should define and assess
UAEL for the Proposed Development.
UAEL values have been defined in Section 17.7 of this chapter. Appendix 17.1, Annex F
sets out how the UAEL values are
defined/evidenced for each noise source in the
assessment.
151
The magnitude of effect criteria are noted to be
consistent with other NSIP assessments for
receptors currently experiencing noise levels
between LOAEL and SOAEL. The Scoping
Report states that ‘Greater weight will be given
to change, even slight change,
The assessment methodology set out in
Section 17.7 and describes how additional
criteria have been used to assess change
where receptors are already exposed to noise
levels above the SOAEL. In the assessment,
greater weight is afforded to any change in
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.23 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
PINS ID number Scoping Opinion comment How is this addressed?
where the existing exposure already exceeds
the relevant SOAEL’. The Inspectorate
considers that additional criteria should be
included to reflect the greater weight afforded to
exposure already exceeding SOAEL. The ES
should justify why more stringent criteria has
not been adopted for the purposes of this
assessment.
exposure where exposure already exceeds
SOAEL at baseline.
152
Where updated guideline values become
available the ES should describe how the
updated criteria have been taken into account.
Where updated guidelines become available
the ES will describe how the updated criteria
have been taken into account.
At this stage it is should be noted that:
1) the WHO’s Environmental Noise Guidelines
for the European Region were published in
October 2018. However, at present these
guidelines are not policy in the UK. The
Aviation Strategy - Aviation 2050 sets out that
‘The government is considering the recent new
environmental noise guidelines for the
European region published by the World Health
Organization (WHO). It agrees with the
ambition to reduce noise and to minimise
adverse health effects, but it wants policy to be
underpinned by the most robust evidence on
these effects, including the total cost of action
and recent UK specific evidence which the
WHO report did not assess.’ (paragraph 3.106)
2) The National Planning Policy Framework was updated in early 2019. The assessment presented in the PEIR is in line with the updated NPPF.
153
The description of additional factor three is
missing text, making the intent of the statement
unclear.
Additional Factor #3 is the ‘additional noise
metrics’. The proposed methodology is
described in Section 17.7 and Appendix 17.1, Annex D.
154
The threshold elevation angle used in
consideration of overflights should be justified in
the ES, with reference to relevant CAA
guidance.
Appendix 17.1, Annex D clarifies the threshold
elevation to be used in ES in consideration of
overflights, in line with the CAA guidance.
155
The terms small or large population are
combined with the magnitude of effect criteria.
The ES should provide a clear definition of what
will constitute a small or large population.
See Section 17.7 and Table 17.17 for
definitions of population sizes used in the
assessment for noise and vibration
156
The inclusion of methodological approaches
that are in development limits the ability of the
Inspectorate to comment on the scope of the
The methodology has been further discussed
and developed with stakeholders, reviewed by
the Noise Expert Review Group and is set out
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.24 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
PINS ID number Scoping Opinion comment How is this addressed?
assessment. The ES should set out the
approach adopted for the assessment and
efforts should be made to agree these with
consultation bodies, where relevant.
in Section 17.7 and Appendix 17.1, Annex C and D. Section 17.3 details stakeholder
engagement with consultation bodies about the
methodological approaches including Public
Health England, Highways England, Transport
for London, and the Civil Aviation Authority.
157
The Inspectorate considers that the scope of
assessment identifies the factors relevant to
determine significance of noise effects, however
the weight given to each of these factors in
making a final determination of significance is
unclear. In order to allow a transparent
understanding of the assessment conclusions,
as far as it is possible, the ES should provide a
simple description of how each factor has
influenced the assessment of the significant
effects identified.
Where any significant effect is identified in
Section 17.10 the primary factors which
resulted in the determination of significance are
set out.
Appendix 17.1, Annex D sets out the
additional factors that will be used at ES stage
to further inform the identification of significant
effects and also provides examples.
The ES will provide a simple description of how each factor has influenced the assessment of the significant effects identified.
158
This statement creates uncertainty in the
proposed approach to assessment of
significance. The ES should be specific
regarding the factors that have been used to
determine significance.
This statement is referring to the additional
metrics identified in Air Navigation Guidance,
CAP1616 and for example, the Airports
Commission’s noise ‘score card’
Section 17.7 and Appendix 17.1, Annex D
clarify how the additional factor related to
additional metrics will inform significance at ES.
159
The Inspectorate acknowledges that flight path
design cannot be fixed by the DCO and that
detailed flight path evaluation will be considered
as part of the ACP. The ES should provide an
indication of the level of certainty attached to
the aircraft noise, recognising that flight paths
are relatively fixed close to landing and take-off
but are subject to increasing uncertainty with
distance from the relevant runway.
Section 17.5 and Appendix 17.1, Annex B set
out the approach to indicative airspace design,
the test cases developed for the assessment
presented in the Chapter and how the process
will be repeated for the ES. The test cases
have been used in the assessment to provide a
reasonable worst-case assessment for the
PEIR in terms of overall effects (Section 17.10) and geographically (Section 17.11 and
Appendix 17.1, Annex H). This approach to
assessment takes account that flight paths are
relatively fixed close to landing and take-off but
are subject to increasing uncertainty with
distance from the relevant runway. Further
information and sensitivity tests will be provided
in the ES.
160
The Inspectorate considers that the further
justification is required for the use of a 50dB
LAeq,16h outdoor criterion rather than the indoor
30dB LAeq,16h criterion set out in the WHO
Community Noise Guidelines. Efforts should be
made to agree the criteria with the relevant local
authority Environmental Health Officers. It is
Table 16.10 of the Scoping Report referred to
screening criteria for non-residential buildings.
The screening criteria can only be practically
set using external noise levels rather than
indoor noise criteria. Receptor-by-receptor
assessments in line with the Scoping Report
will take account of internal noise levels (now
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.25 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
PINS ID number Scoping Opinion comment How is this addressed?
also unclear why cross reference 30 is used to
justify the use of this criterion, since it relates to
the construction vibration standard BS5228-2.
(comment made in reference to 50dB LAeq,16h
daytime criteria for hospitals).
and with the DCO Project) in line with the
relevant standards, guidelines and best
practice using estimates of external to internal
change in noise.
Footnotes 30, 31 and 34 in the Scoping Report
were typographical errors. Footnotes a-e,
presented below the table were the correct
footnotes which related to table 16.10 of the
Scoping Report.
161
The Inspectorate considers that further
justification should be provided for use of the
16-hour reference time interval for schools
rather than the school day, consistent with the
WHO Community Noise Guidelines.
The evidence base for an association between
aircraft noise and children’s learning comes
from the RANCH study which looked at the
relationship between LAeq,16h metrics at school
and a standardised reading test score for
children attending schools around Heathrow,
Amsterdam and Madrid airport (Clark et al,
2006). The exposure-response relationship that
will be used in the assessment for children’s
learning is therefore based on LAeq,16h. In
agreement, with Heathrow Strategic Planning
Group (HSPG) the ES will report sensitivity
analyses using school day metrics that cover
the school hours only, in addition to a 16h
metric. The school day metric will be used to
sensitivity test the screening of schools into the
assessment, at 50dB LAeq, and the identification
of LSEs for schools.
162
The WHO Community Noise Guidelines state
that 55dB LAeq,16h is the threshold of serious
annoyance for outdoor living areas. Further
justification should be provided in the ES to
explain why the more conservative 50dB LAeq,
16h moderate annoyance threshold has not been
identified as a screening threshold for inclusion
of receptors within the assessment.
Table 16.10 of the Scoping Report states screening criteria for external amenity spaces for non-residential buildings, not criteria for outdoor living areas for residential receptors.
The assessment of residential receptors uses a
LOAEL value of 51dB LAeq,16h as set by policy
for aircraft noise and 50dB LAeq,16h for road
noise and railway noise. The LOAEL values for
residential receptors for road and railway align
with the more conservative 50dB LAeq,16h value
suggested by PINS, whilst the LOAEL value for
aircraft noise is set by policy at 51dB LAeq,16h .
Appendix 17.1, Annex F sets out the
identification of these values in more detail.
The assessment of effects on external amenity space based on the relevant LOAEL and SOAEL values is in line with PPG-Noise.
163 The ES should define the term ‘temporary’ in
light of the potential long duration of predicted
Appendix 17.1, Annex D explains how the
duration of the impacts are considered in
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.26 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
PINS ID number Scoping Opinion comment How is this addressed?
construction sites and activities. determining significance. All construction is
‘temporary’ by definition in terms of assessing
construction noise. The assessment evaluates
any construction which is of 1-month duration
or longer. This approach is consistent with the
relevant British Standard and major
infrastructure project EIAs and decision making
for projects like Thames Tideway, HS2 Phase
One, and Crossrail that all include major long
term (e.g. 5 years) fixed site construction sites
surround by urban development (e.g.
construction of stations and ventilation shafts).
164
This paragraph cross references to Table 16.8,
which uses the terms slight, minor, moderate
and major to describe magnitude of change
criteria. The ES should apply consistent
terminology for the magnitude of change
descriptors.
The noise change semantic scale in the
Scoping Report was provided as an example of
the types of scales that are typically used in
assessments. The noise change criteria and
semantic scales to be used in this assessment
at PEIR for aircraft noise, ground noise and
road traffic noise are shown in Section 17.7 Table 17.12. The same semantic terminology
is used across the different noise sources (e.g.
low, high etc), with the dB level of change for
each set by DMRB and CAP1616A,
respectively. There is no policy requirement to
use the same terminology across different
aspects within the ES. The noise change
semantic criteria adopted for the PEIR have
been reviewed and endorsed by NERG (see
comment 169 in this table).
165
The ES should set out the relevant design
feature criteria used to inform ‘additional factor
#2’.
Section 17.7 and Appendix 17.1 Annex D
clarify the factors that have been used to
determine significance for the PEIR
assessment. Annex D further describes how
the Additional Factors will inform significance at
ES.
166
The relevant cross reference is missing, making
the intent of the statement unclear.
The formatting of paragraph 16.10.155 in the
Scoping Report relating to effects on ‘quiet
areas’ had become corrupted, making the text
about ‘additional metrics’ for non-residential
receptors ambiguous in the Scoping Report. It
should have read ‘Additional metrics: for
example, to: i) evaluate how likely significant
adverse effects are reduced by predictable and
valued respite through runway alternation; and
ii) take account of any particular or unusual
character in the DCO Project noise or existing
receiving environment. For aircraft noise,
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.27 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
PINS ID number Scoping Opinion comment How is this addressed?
additional metrics will be in line with Air
Navigation Guidance 2017, CAP1616 and
Airports Commission 'score card'.’
Section 17.7 and Appendix 17.1 Annex D
clarify the factors that have been used to determine significance for the PEIR
assessment. Annex D further describes how
the additional factors will inform significance at ES.
167
The criteria are stated to be derived from
BS7385-2, however the criteria for transient
vibration set out in the standard identify that the
risk of cosmetic damage to residential buildings
starts at a Peak particle velocity (PPV) of 15
millimetres per second (mm/s) at 4 hertz (Hz).
The standard also notes that below 12.5 mm/s
PPV, the risk of damage tends to zero. The ES
should provide further justification for the
proposed criteria, including reference to
frequency dependent effects, where relevant.
The lower criteria for building damage set out in
Table 16.11 of the Scoping Report are for
‘continuous vibration’ rather than ‘transient
vibration’. This is consistent with the guidance
in BS 7385-2.
168
The proposed noise insulation offer should be
described within the ES. Details should be
provided of the terms and conditions of uptake
to demonstrate the deliverability of such a
scheme and therefore the certainty to be placed
on such mitigation.
The draft Noise Insulation Policy for Heathrow
Expansion is published for consultation as part
of the AEC alongside the PEIR. The draft
Policy sets out the terms and conditions to
demonstrate the deliverability of such a
scheme and therefore the certainty to be
placed on noise insulation.
169
The status of outputs produced by the Noise
Expert Review Group (NERG) is unclear. The
Inspectorate recommends that any
recommendations regarding the scope and
methodological approach made by the NERG
are documented within the Applicant’s ES.
Heathrow have established a Noise Expert
Review Group (NERG). Its members have
extensive experience in different aspects of
acoustics, noise and health and have worked
with communities, local planning authorities,
universities, consultancies and Government.
The aim of the NERG is to provide independent
assurance of the scientific and policy
robustness of the assessment and mitigation of
sound, noise and vibration, including effects on
health and quality of life, associated with
Heathrow expansion. NERG will also advise on
current best practice throughout our
consultation and application processes. The
records of the NERG meetings and a summary
of how these meetings have informed the
assessment will be presented in the ES.
See Appendix 17.1, Technical Supporting
annexes for NERG’s Overarching Statement
Regarding the Noise and Health Annexes).
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.28 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Technical engagement
17.3.5 Technical engagement has been ongoing with a number of prescribed and non-
prescribed consultation bodies and local planning authorities in relation to Noise
and Vibration. A summary of engagement undertaken up to finalisation of this
PEIR is outlined in this section.
Public Health England (PHE)
17.3.6 A meeting was held with Public Health England in September 2018 to discuss
PHE’s response to the Scoping Report and the noise assessment in more detail.
Topics discussed included an overview of the DCO Project and airspace
modernisation; ongoing and planned stakeholder engagement; the evidence base;
noise metrics to be used in the assessment; modelling methods; and methods for
determining significance.
17.3.7 PHE had suggested in response to the Scoping Report that the assessment could
make use of intermittency ratio metrics8. The assessment set out in the Scoping
Report had not mentioned intermittency ratio metrics. However, it was agreed
during this meeting that intermittency ratio metrics would not be used in the
assessment as there is no evidence yet specifically for aviation linking these
metrics to health outcomes or any evidence that these metrics offer a significant
advantage over other metrics to quantify health outcomes.
17.3.8 It was also agreed at this meeting that there is little or no scientific evidence on the
health impacts of construction noise, to date, or on the effectiveness of
interventions for construction noise in relation to health. PHE suggested, in view of
the lack of evidence, that the applicant propose a scheme for monitoring the
potential health effects of construction noise.
17.3.9 A further meeting was held with PHE in May 2019 to discuss further details of the
assessment methodology for the PEIR and the upcoming consultation programme
and process.
17.3.10 Further meetings will be held with PHE before the publication of the ES.
Highways England (HE)
17.3.11 A meeting was held with Highways England in December 2018 to discuss their
response to the Scoping Report and the noise assessment in more detail. Topics
discussed included the study area for the road noise assessment; the role of
8 The intermittency ratio (IR) which ‘expresses the proportion of the acoustical energy contribution in the total energetic dose that is created by individual noise events above a certain threshold.’ (Wunderli et al, 2015). A higher IR means that the average is made up of distinct or a high number of distinct pass-by events. A low IR means that the average is made up of constantly flowing events (Brink et al, 2019).
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.29 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
NERG (Noise Expert Review Group); baseline noise data and monitoring; noise
modelling; fleet mix assumptions; SOAEL and UAEL values; future flight paths; the
assessment methodology (including the magnitude of impacts/effects and
semantic descriptors, assigning significance, defining population size); and road
noise control measure options.
17.3.12 HE noted that the assessment should use the screening criteria carefully to avoid
reporting significant effects where there is a very small change in noise levels, for
example in locations where baseline is already above the SOAEL (e.g. <1dB
change).
17.3.13 It was noted that DMRB is in the process of being updated and is expected to be
published in March 2020.
17.3.14 The road traffic noise study area is based on advice set out in DMRB. However,
HE advised that this could be extended.
17.3.15 There will be ongoing dialogue between Heathrow and HE in relation to the use of
‘population’ as a primary factor in the assessment.
17.3.16 HE confirmed that the assessment LOAEL and SOAEL values for road and rail
aligned with their approach.
17.3.17 HE confirmed that the approach of assuming benefit of noise control measures in
the assessment (for road and rail), where properties qualify and where it would be
offered, aligns with the A14 and High Speed Two (HS2) approach.
17.3.18 HE stated that the baseline should assume low noise surfacing (LNS) by 2021,
unless it is confirmed that the relevant section of the M25 between J14 and J15 is
concrete slab. All new highways should also be assumed to be low noise
surfacing, in accordance with policy.
17.3.19 Further discussions are to be held regarding whether to use LAmax in the road
traffic noise assessment, with further meetings to be held with HE before and after
publication of the PEIR and before the publication of the ES.
Transport for London (TfL)
17.3.20 A meeting was held with Transport for London in January 2019 to discuss TfL’s
response to the Scoping Report and the noise assessment in more detail. Topics
discussed included an overview of the DCO Project and airspace modernisation
and the timing of both processes; sound demonstrations; the Airspace and Future
Operations Consultation (AFOC) events and material; ongoing stakeholder
engagement; the role of NERG; assessment areas; baseline and assessment
years; noise metrics to be used in the assessment; fleet mix assumptions;
assumptions about future change at the airport (new technology/operational
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.30 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
changes); assigning significance; semantic labels; and mitigating external noise
exposure, building insulation, and monitoring.
17.3.21 TfL noted the importance of engaging with local planning authorities who are not
members of the HSPG in relation to noise.
17.3.22 In terms of the assessment methodology, TfL requested clarification of how the
WHO ENG 2018 will inform the assessment at the next meeting. It was also
agreed that Heathrow would provide full details of the proposed assessment years
and scenarios at the next meeting. TfL requested further discussion on the
semantic labels to be used in the assessment to describe the impacts and effects,
as well as further information on construction timelines.
17.3.23 TfL agreed to review the material provided at the meeting and identify further
topics for specific discussion at further meetings to be held before and after
publication of the PEIR and before the publication of the ES.
Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)
17.3.24 A meeting was held with the Civil Aviation Authority in March 2019 to discuss their
response to the Scoping Report and the approach to the PEIR noise assessment
in more detail. It was discussed that the population data based on the CAA’s
overflight metric9 would be considered within the ES and not the PEIR. There were
no further questions or challenges regarding the CAA response to DCO Scoping
Report Consultation. The CAA were supportive of Heathrow’s proposed approach
for PEIR and final ES based on test case indicative prototype types taken from
Snapshots at appropriate points in the airspace design process. CAA would
welcome further engagement on the DCO noise envelope framework and the
Airspace Change Process. CAA were supportive of the proposed approach to
using WebTAG to inform the noise assessment, in relation to 1) using WebTAG to
help ‘calibrate’ the combinations of assessment primary factors (level of exposure,
level of change and size of population affected) that are being used to identify
likely significant effects (adverse and beneficial); and 2) using WebTAG to
monetise the noise benefit as part of the cost benefit analysis of noise control
options. This forms part of Heathrow’s proposed approach to evaluating noise
control options in terms of both EU598 and the second aim of Government noise
policy (para 5.68 of the ANPS). CAA were supportive of this integrated approach
to evaluation.
9 CAA. CAP1498. Definition of Overflight. 2017
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.31 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise (ICCAN)
17.3.25 The Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise began work in January 2019
and since this time has started engaging with communities, the aviation industry,
government and other bodies in the aviation sector to understand the current
debates and issues around aviation noise. ICCAN has yet to publish formal
‘independent guidance’.
17.3.26 The ANPS requires Heathrow to demonstrate how it has taken account of
guidance from ICCAN on certain issues including the noise envelope (paragraph
5.60) and runway alternation (paragraph 5.61). Heathrow Airport held an
introductory meeting with ICCAN (Commissioner and Secretary) in March 2019,
with further engagement with ICCAN planned between PEIR and ES. The meeting
in March 2019 covered a range of material in relation to noise including an
introduction and overview of Heathrow including current operations and existing
constraints; expansion (the DCO Project) and airspace modernisation (the
airspace change process). Other topics addressed included Heathrow’s approach
to noise management, community engagement, research; as well as the role of
NERG in the DCO Project.
Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG)
17.3.27 Engagement with the HSPG on the topic of noise and vibration has been ongoing
since November 2017, with six face-to-face meetings held to date (November
2017; December 2017; February 2018; June 2018, October 2018, March 2019).
17.3.28 The following topics have been discussed with HSPG, to date: DCO process and
programme; airspace change process and programme; noise policy; baseline data
and monitoring; noise modelling; assessment methodology; noise control
measures; the evidence-base for noise effects on health, quality and wellbeing;
and the assessment of noise effects on schools. These discussions have helped
to inform the development of the assessment methodology.
17.3.29 At the October 2018 meeting, the HSPG response to the Scoping Report was
discussed. HSPG discussed the approach set out to extend the initial study areas
if the forecast exposure exceeds the relevant LOAEL value. It was agreed to
undertake sensitivity analyses in the assessment for children’s learning, using
average noise metrics for the school day period. This will be presented in the ES.
Further discussion covered fleet mix assumptions, the setting of UAEL values
(particularly Lmax values for construction noise and aircraft noise at night), the use
of quantitative approaches for the cumulative assessment (to cover aircraft, road
and rail), and the noise control measures framework. The approach for defining a
series of test cases for the assessment and the use of sensitivity analysis in the
analysis was also discussed.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.32 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.3.30 At the March 2019 the scope of the methodology, embedded environmental
measures, assumptions and limitations for the assessment, and the proposed
methodology for the assessment were discussed. It was agreed to continue
discussions of Lmax values for construction noise and aircraft noise at night. It was
also agreed that information will be brought to the next meeting about how other
chapters are considering noise impacts in relation to their topic-specific
designations, as well as further information about the assumptions being made
about airspace for the assessment. HSPG noted the importance of the report that
has informed the fleet mix assumptions for the assessment being available at
PEIR. It was also agreed that a session would be run dedicated to construction
noise to provide further information about where the construction sites will be and
the construction assessment methodology.
Other local planning authorities
17.3.31 Engagement with other local planning authorities on the topic of noise and
vibration has been ongoing since May 2018, with one face-to-face meeting held to
date (May 2018).
17.3.32 This engagement has targeted the Local Planning Authorities that at least partially
lie within the aircraft noise study area (see Section 17.4), but do not form part of
the HSPG.
17.3.33 The following topics have been discussed at a local planning authority workshop:
DCO process and programme; Airspace Change Process and programme and a
general overview of aviation noise and technical terminology.
Schools
17.3.34 Engagement with schools in the vicinity of the DCO Project on the topic of noise
and vibration has been ongoing since March 2018, with meetings held to date with
Colnbrook Primary School; Pippins School; Harmondsworth School; Heathrow
Primary School; and the William Byrd School.
17.3.35 To inform these meetings, acoustic surveys of these schools have been
undertaken between May and September 2018 at Pippins School; Heathrow
Primary School; and the William Byrd School, to understand the current acoustic
conditions including existing levels of sound insulation within these schools. These
surveys will be made available along with all noise and vibration baseline
information as part of the ES.
17.3.36 A further meeting was held with Colnbrook Primary School in January 2019, with
an acoustic survey of this school planned to be undertaken by the end of the
summer term 2019.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.33 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.3.37 A programme of further engagement for schools will commence in June 2019 to
coincide with the publication of the PEIR. This will include visiting schools in the
Inner Area that have been identified in the assessment as having an adverse likely
significant effect due to the DCO Project (see Section 17.10 and Section 17.11). This will involve further explanation of the assessment undertaken for the school in
the PEIR, as well undertaking surveys of current acoustic conditions to inform
further consideration and discussions with the schools regarding mitigation and the
next steps.
Noise Expert Review Group (NERG)
17.3.38 Heathrow have established a Noise Expert Review Group (NERG). Its members
have extensive experience in different aspects of acoustics, noise and health and
have worked with communities, local planning authorities, universities,
consultancies and government.
17.3.39 The aim of the NERG is to provide independent assurance of the scientific and
policy robustness of the assessment and mitigation of sound, noise and vibration,
including effects on health and quality of life, associated with Heathrow expansion.
NERG will also advise on current best practice throughout the consultation and
application processes. A statement from NERG about the PEIR can be read in
Appendix 17.1.
17.4 Scope of the assessment
Overview
17.4.1 This section describes the DCO Project noise sources and the spatial and
temporal scope for the assessment as it applies to noise and vibration and outlines
the receptors on which assessment has been undertaken.
17.4.2 This scope has been developed as the DCO Project has evolved and responds to
feedback received to date as detailed in Section 17.3. The information presented
in the PEIR is by its nature preliminary and should not be considered a ‘draft’ ES
(in accordance with PINS Advice Note Seven). Further scope refinement may be
required to take full account of the preferred DCO Project design and subsequent
engagement.
DCO Project noise sources
17.4.3 The following DCO Project noise sources are assessed in this PEIR.
17.4.4 Construction noise sources:
1. Construction activities including borrow pits
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.34 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
2. Traffic changes on roads or railways due to construction traffic.
17.4.5 Operational noise sources:
1. Aircraft noise: All Air Transport Movements (ATMs) associated with aircraft on
the runway and in the take-off and landing cycle (LTO) as a result of the DCO
Project
2. Ground noise: Aircraft ground movements to and from the runway at the airport
and whilst as stand, and aircraft maintenance and supporting infrastructure
3. Road noise: Traffic on new and altered roads10
4. Rail noise: Rail freight movements between the Great Western Mainline and
the Total Rail Head via the existing Colnbrook Branch Line and the proposed
Frey's loop at West Drayton
5. Other sources: such as Airfield – fixed equipment / static sources.
Study areas
17.4.6 The Scoping Report defined the study area for each noise and vibration source for
both direct effects (from new or altered works associated with the DCO Project) or
indirect effects (where the DCO Project changes traffic patterns on existing
transport networks).
17.4.7 The study areas(s) used in the PEIR assessment of direct effects for each noise
source have been developed considering both of the following factors:
1. Spatial extent: the distance from the source as provided in relevant British
Standards or other technical guidance
2. Noise exposure: the area, on a precautionary worst-case basis, within
which the noise exposure exceeds the relevant LOAEL for7 the following:
a. The forecast future baseline
b. The forecast for the DCO Project at the point when the impact is forecast to
be highest
c. The 2013 policy baseline (for operational aircraft noise only)
17.4.8 The study area is based upon the combined extent of these two factors (spatial
extent and noise exposure).
17.4.9 This approach to defining the study area is based on established practice from
recently consented infrastructure projects including the Thames Tideway Tunnel,
10 Indirect effects of changes to road patterns on the existing network will also be assessed.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.35 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme, High Speed 2 and
Crossrail.
17.4.10 The study areas for each noise source are described further below.
Construction noise and vibration
17.4.11 For construction noise, in line with the Scoping Report study areas are defined as
the combined extent of:
1. Spatial extent: up to 300m from any construction activity; and noise exposure:
where forecast worst case construction noise exceeds the relevant LOAEL
values (see Table 17.14).
17.4.12 The construction assumptions described in Chapter 6 and Section 17.5 have
been used with the assessment methodology defined in Section 17.8 and the
noise control measures described in Section 17.9 to calculate the reasonable
worst case LOAEL. This has been identified considering the worst case in any
area due to construction activities during the day, evening or night in 2024. This
will be confirmed in the ES.
17.4.13 Graphic 17.1 presents the development of the study area for construction noise
and vibration.
17.4.14 For noise from construction traffic on existing roads and railways, the study area
for identify in-direct effects of the DCO Project is defined according to where the
increase or decrease in road or rail traffic volumes or traffic types caused by the
construction of the DCO Project would be likely to cause a change in noise level
(equivalent continuous sound level, LAeq,T) exceeding 1dB during either the day
(07:00 to 23:00) or night-time periods (23:00 to 07:00). This information will be
reported in the ES.
17.4.15 An initial, qualitative assessment of construction noise and vibration impacts is
presented in Sections 17.10 and 17.11.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.36 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Graphic 17.1 Study area for construction noise assessment
Operational aircraft noise (including helicopters)
17.4.16 For operational aircraft noise, the study area has been defined with consideration
of the combined extent of:
1. Spatial extent: The area where, in normal circumstances, aircraft would be
considered to operate below 4,000ft as per the risk-based approach indicated
by ANG - ‘Below 4,000 feet, there is a strong likelihood that aircraft could
create levels of noise exposure above the LOAELs identified above, which is
reflected in the Altitude Based Priorities’. (this is noted as Area A in Graphic 17.2 and arises from the airspace design process)
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.37 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
2. Noise: on a precautionary worst-case basis, the study area has considered the
total area where noise exposure exceeds the relevant LOAEL for the
following:
a. The 2013 policy baseline (day and night) combined with the future baseline
(day and night) – the outer area of which is presented as Area B in Graphic 17.2;
b. The day and night LOAEL (day and night) associated with the forecast for the
DCO Project as prepared in accordance with the methodologies described
across all ten of the indicative airspace design test cases in Annex B and
reported in Appendix 17.1 Annex H – the outer extent of which is presented
as Area C in Graphic 17.2.
17.4.17 The operational assumptions described in Chapter 6 and Section 17.5 have been
used with the assessment methodology defined in Section 17.8 and the noise
control measures described in Section 17.9 to calculate the reasonable worst-
case LOAEL for each test case for the worst-case year.
17.4.18 The worst-case year has been identified as 2035 - when the number of aircraft
movements to and from the expanded Heathrow is forecast to reach 740,000
ATMs per annum. Identifying this as the worst-case year takes account of forecast
growth in ATMs, forecast fleet mix and conservative assumptions regarding
technological improvements that will reduce noise emissions from aircraft. Further
information is presented in Section 17.5 and Appendix 17.1, Annex B which
shows that after the worst-case year aircraft noise emissions will start to decrease
as technological improvements outweigh increases in movements. This
information will be refined and confirmed in the ES.
17.4.19 The size, extent and shape of the DCO Project daytime and night-time LOAEL
contours are also specific to an indicative airspace design test case (with the same
embedded mitigation, as set out in Section 17.9). As the airspace design evolves
and all of the associated design principles are considered (e.g. safety, operability,
airspace use by other airports, cost) the shape and extent of the LOAEL contours
may be different to those identified at this stage. The shape, size and extent of the
contours arising from any particular test case is also related to assumptions about
the allocation of flights to flightpaths and runways.
17.4.20 Consequently, there may be areas outside of the LOAEL contours assessed for
the DCO Project (which have been using the set of indicative airspace test cases
developed for PEIR as described in Section 17.5 and within Appendix 17.1, Annex B, that are later inside the LOAEL contours for the ongoing airspace
design, and vice versa. Where this occurs, the noise envelope defined through the
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.38 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
DCO – refer to Section 17.9 – will act as a constraint on the overall effects for the
ACP.
17.4.21 For the purpose of defining the study area for operational aircraft noise a
precautionary approach has been taken to defining the area where exposure could
be greater than LOAEL as follows:
1. To allow for variations to the extent of any particular part of the contour being
greater than forecast at this time, a 1dB buffer has been applied around the
area where any of the indicative airspace design test cases has resulted in
exposure to noise of at least LOAEL (day or night)
2. To allow for the variability in the shape of the contour across the indicative
airspace design test cases the outer extents of the shape defined in i) above
have been connected.
17.4.22 The outcome of this precautionary approach is presented as Area D in Graphic 17.2 which represents the area within which the LOAEL from any indicative
airspace design could occur. This includes all the test cases that have informed
the PEIR and other reasonably foreseeable potential changes to indicative
airspace designs that could come forward from the ACP process. This will be
refined in the ES.
17.4.23 Graphic 17.3 presents the final study area for operational aircraft noise following
consideration of spatial extent and noise factors described above.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.39 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Graphic 17.2: Development of the study area for aircraft noise assessment
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.40 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Graphic 17.3: Study area for the assessment of operational aircraft noise
Operational ground noise
17.4.24 This refers specifically to noise from ground-based airfield activities associated
with the operation and maintenance of aircraft. This includes activities such as
aircraft taxiing to and from the parking stand to and from the runway; activities to
service the aircraft whilst parked on stand; and engine ground-run testing. Ground
noise does not include noise from aircraft on the runway during the take-off phase
(e.g. start of roll noise) or landing phase (e.g. reverse thrust) of operation – these
are included in the calculation and assessment of aircraft noise.
17.4.25 For ground noise, the study area has been defined based on the combined extent
of:
1. Spatial extent: up to 1km from any ground operations (Area A in Graphic 17.4)
2. Noise exposure: where ground noise exposure could exceed the relevant
daytime and night-time LOAEL arising from the future baseline or the DCO
Project (Area B in Graphic 17.4).
17.4.26 The operational assumptions described in Chapter 6 and Section 17.5 have been
used with the assessment methodology defined in Section 17.7 and the noise
control measures described in Section 17.9 to calculate the reasonable worst
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.41 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
case LOAEL for ground noise. This has been identified as 2050 when the number
of aircraft movements to and from the expanded Heathrow is has reached its
forecast highest value 756,000 ATMs per annum. Identifying this as the worst-
case year takes account of forecast growth in ATMs and forecast fleet mix (with a
precautionary worst-case assumption that the technological improvements that
deliver operational aircraft noise improvements identified in Section 17.5 and
Appendix 17.1, Annex B do not reduce noise emissions from aircraft whilst
taxiing). Further information is presented in Section 17.5. This information will be
refined and confirmed in the ES.
17.4.27 The size, extent and shape of the DCO Project daytime and night-time LOAEL
ground noise contours is dependent on the operational assumptions (e.g. taxiway
and stand use) and embedded mitigation (refer to Section 17.9). As the DCO
Project develops and evolves the shape and size may change.
17.4.28 Therefore, a precautionary outer extent of the daytime and night-time LOAEL
associated with the forecast for the DCO Project has been developed and is
presented as Area C in Graphic 17.4.
17.4.29 Graphic 17.4 presents the study area for ground noise following consideration of
spatial extent and noise factors described above.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.42 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Graphic 17.4: Study area for ground noise assessment
Operational road traffic noise
17.4.30 For operational road traffic on new or altered roads that form part of the
DCO Project (direct effects), the study area has been defined based on the
combined extent of:
1. Spatial extent: up to 600m around new or altered highways based on the
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB)
2. Noise exposure: where noise exposure is forecast to exceed the relevant
LOAEL in the future baseline or arising from the new or altered highways that
form part of the DCO Project (see Table 17.14).
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.43 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.4.31 The operational assumptions described in Chapter 6 and Section 17.5 have been
used with the assessment methodology defined in Section 17.7 and the noise
control measures described in Section 17.9 to calculate the reasonable worst
case LOAEL for road traffic noise. This has been identified for the worst-case year
which at stage has been identified as 2035 allowing for growth in road traffic
following the opening of the new and altered roads. Further information is
presented in Section 17.5. This information will be refined and confirmed in the
ES.
17.4.32 For changes in traffic on existing roads caused by the DCO Project (indirect
effects) the study area will be defined using an increase or decrease in road traffic
volumes or traffic types caused by the operation of the DCO Project. This will be
presented in the ES.
17.4.33 Graphic 17.5 presents the study area used for the assessment of effects arising
from operational road traffic noise.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.44 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Graphic 17.5: Study area for road noise assessment
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.45 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Operational railway noise
17.4.34 As noted earlier, the DCO Project includes a new permanent railhead proposed on
the north-western edge of the preferred masterplan that would be served by rail
freight movements between the Great Western Mainline via the existing Colnbrook
Branch Line and the proposed Frey's loop at West Drayton.
17.4.35 The Frey’s loop is located at distance from noise sensitive receptors that are
already exposed to appreciable railway noise from existing passenger and freight
rail operations. Noise from Frey’s Loop is therefore not expected to give rise to
likely significant effects. This will be reviewed further and confirmed in the ES.
17.4.36 For changes in traffic on the existing Colnbrook Branch Line caused by the DCO
Project (indirect effects) the study area will be defined using an increase or
decrease in traffic volumes or traffic types caused by the operation of the DCO
Project. This will be presented in the ES but is not expected to identify likely
significant effects.
Operational vibration
17.4.37 For operational vibration, the study area was defined as up to a distance of
85m from any operational activity forecast to give rise to appreciable vibration.
Temporal scope
17.4.38 For aircraft noise, assessment year requirements are set out in the ANPS which
requires the noise assessment to be undertaken ‘for any period of change in air
traffic movements prior to opening, for the time of opening, and at the time the
airport is forecast to reach full capacity, and (if applicable, being different to either
of the other assessment periods) at a point when the airport’s noise impact is
forecast to be highest.’ (paragraph 5.52).
17.4.39 For other noise sources, and in response to the requirement for aircraft noise, this
preliminary assessment has also considered the likely worst-case year associated
with the DCO Project. The assumptions that underpin each preliminary
assessment are set out in Section 17.5.
17.4.40 Each worst-case assessment has then been used to inform the reporting of likely
significant effects across the three phases of the DCO Project as defined in Table 17.6, which provides a summary of the construction and operational activities
occurring within each phase. The assessment across these phases is reported in
Sections 17.10 and 17.11.
17.4.41 In this Chapter the DCO Project description and the summaries of identified
significant effects are presented in tables that show information by phase and by
noise source. This is to provide a clear overall picture of the scheme and its noise
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.46 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
effects and also assist in identifying potential in-combination effects (e.g. noise
impact at a receptor from construction and operational activities during the same
phase).
Table 17.6: Construction and operational activities occurring in each phase
Phase and description Construction activities in phase Operational activities in phase
Current baseline Business as usual two-runway operations.
1. Surveys and data and
information collection to support
the EIA and DCO.
N/A
Phase 1 c. 2022 – 2026 The DCO Project is granted consent and construction and demolition activities commence. Early growth of ATMs is also achieved, starting in 2022 and reaching its maximum level in 2024.
1. Site mobilisation and start of full
construction works
2. Modifications to roads and
junctions
3. River diversions commence
4. M25 tunnel construction and
junction works commence
5. Utilities diversions commence
6. Runway and taxiway
construction commence
7. Apron works commence
8. Landscaping and parkland works
commence
9. Terminal 4 works and Terminal
5X construction See Table 6.11 in Chapter 6 for a full list of activities.
1. Two-runway airport operations
continue with continued growth in
passenger numbers at the Airport.
2. Airspace and operational changes
that are planned to occur without the
DCO Project are implemented in
phases.
3. Early growth in ATMs commences in
2022 with full release of early ATMs
forecast in 2025. See Table 6.15 in Chapter 6 for a full list of activities.
Phase 2 c. late 2026 – 2033 Construction activities continue up to the point where the third runway is ready to be opened. Note that although the third runway is due to be opened during 2026 this PEIR considers 2027 to be its date of opening because that allows assessments to be made on an entire calendar year of operations.
1. M25 tunnel constructed
2. New local roads completed
3. M25 junctions works
4. Utilities diversions
5. Runway and taxiway
construction with runway
complete by 2026
6. Apron works continue
7. Landscaping and parkland works
commence See Table 6.12 in Chapter 6 for a full list of activities.
1. New airspace design associated with
the DCO Project comes into
operation following separate approval
of an Airspace Change Proposal.
2. ATMs increase following opening of
the new North West Runway at the
end of 2026. See Table 6.15 in Chapter 6 for a full list of activities.
Phase 3 c. 2034 – 2050 Construction activities continue, and the third
1. M25 junctions works complete
2. Utilities diversions complete
3. Taxiway construction complete
4. Apron works complete
5. T2 and T4 works commence and
1. ATMs continue to increase with three
runways in operation
2. Road traffic volumes remain
unchanged due to surface access
strategy with air quality benefits.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.47 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Phase and description Construction activities in phase Operational activities in phase
runway is fully operational with ATMs increasing to achieve 740k ATM per year by 2035.
complete
6. Landscaping and parkland works
complete
7. Development of the Northern
Parkway See Table 6.13 in Chapter 6 for a full list of activities.
See Table 6.15 in Chapter 6 for a full list of activities.
17.4.42 For the initial impact assessment presented in this PEIR, a precautionary
approach has been adopted for the assessment of the noise impact arising in each
development period from each DCO Project noise source. This initial approach is
based on identifying the overall worst year for each DCO Project noise source and
the assumption that this level of impact would occur in all relevant Phases as
shown in Table 17.7. This approach will be refined for the ES.
Table 17.7: Summary of worst case years for each noise source and how they have been used to inform the impact assessment for each development phase
DCO Project Noise Source
Development Phase
Phase 1 (c. 2022 – 2026)
Phase 2 (c. 2026 – 2033)
Phase 3 (c. 2034 – 2050)
Construction noise Based on 2024
worst case year
Not anticipated to give rise to significant effects
as mainly within airport boundary
Aircraft noise Based on 2025 worst year
following early growth
Based on 2035* worst case year
following expansion
Ground noise Based on 2025 worst year
following early growth
Based on 2050 worst case year
following expansion
Road traffic noise Based on 2035 worst case year
* As shown in Section 17.5 the impact of aircraft noise is forecast to decrease after 2035 due to ongoing
improvement in technology
Receptors
17.4.43 This section identifies noise and vibration sensitive receptors that may experience
significant effects on health and quality of life due to noise from the DCO Project or
likely significant effects due to noise and vibration changes. The list of receptors
will be reviewed and if necessary updated for the ES (e.g. to take account of
further baseline field surveys).
17.4.44 The spatial and temporal scope of the assessment enables the identification of
receptors which may experience a change as a result of the DCO Project. The
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.48 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
receptors identified that may experience likely significant effects for noise and
vibration are outlined in Table 17.8.
Table 17.8: Receptors requiring assessment for noise and vibration
Receptor group Receptors included within group
Residential receptors
People, primarily where they live (‘residential receptors’) in terms of individual
dwellings and on a wider community basis, including any shared community open
areas (e.g. parks) as well as private open space (e.g. gardens)11
Committed residential development identified following engagement with relevant
local planning authorities will be included in the ES.
Non-residential receptors and quiet areas
Non-residential community facilities such as schools, hospitals, places of worship,
and noise sensitive commercial properties, collectively described as ‘non-
residential receptors’. Designated ‘quiet areas’12.
Committed noise sensitive non-residential development identified following
engagement with relevant local planning authorities will be included in the ES.
Effects on other non-residential facilities that make use of use noise and vibration
data are reported in Chapter 8: Biodiversity; Chapter 11: Community; Chapter 13: Historic Environment; Chapter 15: Landscape and Visual Amenity; and
Chapter 18: Socio-economics and employment.
17.4.45 The assessment for noise and vibration reports on specific types of shared
community areas8 9 10. Chapter 11: Community assesses effects on other types
of publicly accessible recreational and amenity resources and the people and
groups who use these resources (see Table 11.9, Chapter 11) including PRoW,
parks and gardens, natural and semi-natural green spaces, and amenity green
spaces with and without play facilities. Chapter 11 also assesses the effect of the
DCO Project on the viability of community facilities. Chapter 15: Landscape and Visual Amenity uses information from the noise assessment to assess the
contribution of noise to change in the wider consideration of landscape and visual
amenity (including as relevant tranquillity and effects at AONB and National
Parks). Chapter 13: Historic Environment reports the effect of noise on the
setting of historic buildings and scheduled ancient monuments. The list of
receptors will be kept under review during the EIA as more detailed information is
11 Shared community open areas’ are those that the national planning practice guidance identifies may partially offset a noise effect experienced by residents at their dwellings and are either a) relatively quiet nearby external amenity spaces for sole use by a limited group of residents as part of the amenity of their dwellings or b) a relatively quiet external publicly accessible amenity space (for example park to local green space) that is nearby. 12 ‘Quiet areas’ comprise areas designated under Local Plans or Neighbourhood Development Plans as Local Green Spaces and areas identified as Quiet Areas through implementation of the Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.49 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
obtained during baseline surveys and other forms of data collection by other
aspects and will be reflected in the final ES.
Likely significant effects
17.4.46 potential effects on noise and vibration receptors that have been scoped in for
assessment are summarised in Table 17.9.
Table 17.9: Potential effects on noise and vibration receptors scoped in for further assessment
Receptor Activity Effect
Construction
Residential
receptors
Non-
residential
receptors and
quiet areas.
Site/Construction including borrow
pits*
Traffic changes on roads or
railways due to construction traffic
Direct effects could be caused by airborne noise, or
vibration from construction activities such as
tunnelling, demolition, earthworks, borrow pits,
runway, bridges, road and rail realignments, utility
works and airport buildings. These activities would be
supported from local construction and contractor
compounds close to the site and structure or tunnel
being constructed, local worksites, or larger worksites
from where activities are coordinated including supply
via a railhead.
Indirect effects could be caused by temporary
changes to road and rail on the existing networks
during construction.
Project in-combination effects, as well as cumulative
effects with other developments will be assessed.
For residential receptors health outcomes assessed
will include:
1. Annoyance
2. Sleep disturbance.
For sensitive non-residential receptors health
outcomes assessed will include:
1. Annoyance
2. Disruption of function (for example
cognitive impairment – delay in learning - in schools).
Operation
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.50 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Receptor Activity Effect
Residential
receptors
Non-
residential
receptors and
quiet areas.
New and changed Aircraft Traffic
Movements (ATMs)
Aircraft ground movements at the
airport including Aircraft/Airport
maintenance and supporting
infrastructure
Airfield – static sources
Traffic on new and altered roads
Rail freight movements between
the Great Western Mainline and
the Total Rail Head via the
existing Colnbrook Branch Line
and the proposed Frey's loop at
West Drayton.
Direct effects could be caused by the operational
airport (including: air traffic movements; ground noise
from aircraft; airfield operations; low frequency noise;
and maintenance, repair and overhaul of aircraft), its
surface access proposals and associated
developments such as airport hotels.
Indirect effects could be caused by short, medium and
long-term changes to road and rail traffic patterns on
the existing network.
Project in-combination effects, as well as cumulative
effects with other developments will be assessed.
For residential receptors health outcomes assessed
consistent with government’s WebTAG and include:
1. Annoyance
2. Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI)
3. Sleep disturbance
4. Hypertension - (stroke/vascular dementia).
For sensitive non-residential receptors health
outcomes assessed include:
1. Annoyance.
2. Disruption of function (for example
cognitive impairment – delay in learning - in schools).
*Vibration and ground borne noise will also be assessed for this source
17.5 Assumptions and limitations of this PEIR
Overview
17.5.1 This section sets out the key assumptions adopted for the assessment of each
noise source which have been used to predict outcomes based on a reasonably
foreseeable worst case.
17.5.2 Further detail and sensitivity tests are available for key assumptions in the relevant
annex of Appendix 17.1, as indicated throughout this section.
Overarching data assumptions
Demographic data
17.5.3 Residential demographic data (population) has been obtained from CACI Ltd for
2018. Non-residential demographic data (for example schools, hospitals, places of
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.51 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
worship and other noise-sensitive non-residential receptors - see Section 17.4)
have been obtained from Ordnance Survey’s Address Base products.
17.5.4 Estimated population growth forecasting and hindcasting have been obtained from
CACI Ltd for the following years: 2013, 2021, 2023, 2026, 2027, 2030, 2035, 2040,
2045 and 2050.
17.5.5 Population (either forecasted or hindcasted) for the year in consideration has been
used for the noise assessment, the exception being for comparisons with a 2013
baseline where a fixed 2013 population has been used for comparative purposes
(see Section 17.10).
Reasonable worst case-assessment
17.5.6 The PEIR assessment makes use of a reasonable worst-case throughout. The
reasonable worst-case for each noise source and scenario has been defined
following guidance from Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment’s
(IEMA) ‘Guidelines for Environmental Noise Impact Assessment’, which state that
assessments should: ‘Include an assessment of a worst-case situation (should
consent be granted), when appropriate. In identifying a potential worst-case
situation to examine, consideration should be given to an outcome that might
occur without the need for further planning consent. However, rather than
exploring an extreme worst-case that could occur, the worst-case to be tested
should be reasonably likely. Furthermore, it must be physically possible for the
worst-case situation to occur. Any such assessment should make clear the
assumptions upon which it is based.’
Construction noise assumptions
17.5.7 For the assessment of construction noise, a set of reasonably foreseeable worst-
case assumptions have been made, based on information available at this time.
Construction activity
17.5.8 All proposed plant for a construction activity has been considered to be working
simultaneously. The assessment assumed the following indicative type of plant for
each construction activity:
1. Earthworks & Airfields construction sites – articulated dump trucks (ADT),
bulldozers, excavators and single drum vibratory rollers
2. Road construction – ADTs, asphalt road pavers, backhoes, diesel generators,
excavators, mobile compressors, pneumatic tired rollers, swivel dumpers,
tipper trucks, tractor mounted excavators, twin roller compactors and vibrating
roller compactors
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.52 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
3. Railhead construction – ADTs, bulldozers, concrete batching plant, all terrain
cranes, concrete pumps, concrete placing booms, diesel generators,
excavators, aerial work platforms, mobile compressors, pre-cast concrete
factories, rebar fabrication facility, steelwork pre-assembly, swivel dumpers,
tractor & bowsers, vertical hoists and vibrating roller compactors
4. River diversions – ADTs, bulldozers, excavators and single drum vibratory
rollers
5. Construction support sites – ADTs. asphalt road pavers, backhoes. all terrain
cranes, diesel generators, excavators, mobile compressors, pneumatic tyred
payloader shovels, swivel dumpers, tipper trucks, tractor mounted excavators,
twin roller compactors, telehandlers, LGVs, HGVs, concrete batching plant and
vibrating roller compactors
6. Utilities works – ADTs, rough terrain crane, excavators, trench diggers, twin
roller compactors and Vibrating roller compactors
7. Demolition works – Backhoes, excavators with buckets, excavators with
hydraulic grabs, excavators with pneumatic breakers, mobile crushing plant,
pneumatic tired payloader shovels, road planers and tipper trucks.
17.5.9 The construction working hours have been defined in the draft Code of Construction Practice (CoCP). Activities at work sites will be varied and will
include the construction of roads, tunnels, terminals and other major infrastructure
and earthworks over extended periods of time.
Working hours
17.5.10 Working hours will vary by activity and across different construction sites
depending on land uses and receptors surrounding construction sites.
17.5.11 Shift start, and finish times will be staggered to reduce pressure on local transport
services, roads and construction site infrastructure.
17.5.12 The proposed working hours are outlined in the following sections.
24-hour day, seven days a week working
17.5.13 24-hour day, seven days a week working, including Bank Holiday working, will be
required for activities directly related to ensuring that the new runway can be
operational as soon as possible. This is in line with Heathrow’s agreement with
Government to quickly meet the established and accepted need to grow airport
capacity in South East England.
1. Activities where 24-hour day, seven days a week working, including Bank
Holiday working, may apply include: Earthworks, airfield construction,
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.53 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
establishing construction support sites, work on or close to road infrastructure
(including construction of bridges), tunnelling (e.g. M25 tunnel) and railhead
construction and any directly associated activities
2. Railhead operation, operation of manufacturing / production facilities (e.g.
concrete batching, asphalt plants), logistics support activities for subsequent
shifts, operation of worker car parks, bussing operations, welfare and office
facility operations, security, essential plant maintenance, repairs and refuelling,
abnormal load delivery, or those requiring a police escort (e.g. delivery of
prefabricated bridge beams or heavy plant)
3. Work requiring possession of, or to avoid impact to, major transport
infrastructure (road, rail, airport)
4. Certain other specific construction activities for reasons of engineering
practicability or to take advantage of daylight hours including, but not limited to,
surveys (e.g. for wildlife or engineering purposes), major concrete pours, piling/
diaphragm wall works
5. Utilising periods of low traffic flow for activities such as abnormal loads /
construction plant delivery, works within the highway or footpaths, works
affecting operational railways, utility diversions
6. Where it is beneficial to minimise disruption to the daytime operations of third
parties.
Exceptions to 24-hour day, seven days a week working
17.5.14 In preparing the application for development consent, Heathrow will be considering
its construction mitigation proposals (for example, bunds or buffer zones) to take
account of 24-hour day, seven days a week working, particularly in relation to
matters such as noise and lighting, and further to the ongoing environment
assessment of effects to sensitive receptors arising from the DCO Project.
17.5.15 As part of this exercise, Heathrow will consider locations and activities where
24-hour day, seven days a week working may cause unacceptable effects, and will
propose reduced working hours / activity restrictions in the draft CoCP submitted
with the DCO.
17.5.16 The approach set out above reflects the development of Heathrow’s proposals for
the DCO Project to date. In the draft CoCP submitted with the application for
development consent, Heathrow will set out the working hours proposals on a
locational basis, based on the principles set out above.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.54 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Short notice working
17.5.17 There may be isolated occasions where there is the potential for unforeseen /
unplanned works outside the working hours agreed pursuant to the process set
out in section 11 of the draft CoCP, which, if not completed, would be unsafe or
harmful to the works, staff, the public or the local environment, and that need to be
completed or undertaken to secure and make safe construction operations. On
these occasions, where required, the relevant local planning authority will be
informed as soon as reasonably practicable of the reasons for the works and their
likely duration. Examples of the type of work envisaged include where
unexpectedly poor ground conditions, encountered whilst excavating, require
immediate stabilisation.
17.5.18 Construction working hours assessed in this PEIR are based on the anticipated
programme and construction methods. It has been necessary to make
assumptions regarding the anticipated working hours for different construction
activities. These are considered to be precautionary and reflect the level of
information that is typically available at this stage in the development of the DCO
Project. Table 17.10 below details the description of the different working hours
and the construction activities associated shift patterns which have currently been
assessed. These construction assumptions will be developed between PEIR and
ES.
Table 17.10: Working hours assumptions
Construction activity Shift pattern PEIR Assessment periods in context of BS5228
River diversions. Road construction. Utilities.
Single shift (10
hour working day,
6 days per week)
Daytime (07.00−19.00) and Saturdays (07.00−13.00)
Weekend - Saturday (1300 to 1900)
Earthworks and airfield construction sites.
Double shift (2*10
hours +4 hours, 7
days a week)
Daytime (07.00−19.00) and Saturdays (07.00−13.00)
Evenings and weekends - 19.00–23.00 weekdays, 13.00–
23.00 Saturdays and 07.00–23.00 Sundays
Night-time (23.00−07.00)
Construction support sites. Railhead construction.
Triple shift (24
hours per day, 7
days per week)
Daytime (07.00−19.00) and Saturdays (07.00−13.00)
Evenings and weekends - 19.00–23.00 weekdays, 13.00–
23.00 Saturdays and 07.00–23.00 Sundays
Night-time (23.00−07.00)
Aircraft noise assumptions
17.5.19 The aircraft noise assumptions are detailed in Appendix 17.1 Annexes B and G.
This section provides a summary of the assumptions.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.55 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Airspace design
Developing Indicative Flight Paths for an expanded Heathrow – PEIR airspace test cases derived from a Snapshot from the ACP.
17.5.20 The design of Heathrow’s airspace is evolving and the final flight paths needed to
operate the expanded airport will not be confirmed until after the DCO has been
granted. It is for the Airspace Change Process (as set out by the CAA in
CAP1616), not the DCO, to determine the approved design of the future airspace
for an expanded Heathrow, and for any other changes that might take place before
then. The DCO and ACP processes must remain individually robust and the DCO
must not directly or indirectly constrain the Airspace Change Process. As the
ANPS notes (paragraph 5.50)
‘airspace proposal will be subject to extensive consultation as part of the separate
airspace decision making process established by the Civil Aviation Authority’.
17.5.21 The ANPS recognises (paragraph 5.50) that
‘Precise flight path designs can only be defined at a later stage after detailed airspace
design work has taken place’, and (paragraph 5.52) that the ‘assessment of aircraft noise
should be undertaken in accordance with the developing indicative airspace design. This
may involve the use of appropriate design parameters and scenarios based on indicative
flightpaths.’
17.5.22 ‘Indicative flight paths’ are required to undertake the environmental assessment for
DCO. Because the ACP continues beyond DCO it is necessary to take Snapshots
of the airspace design to feed the assessment at PEIR (Snapshot 1) and for the
ES (Snapshot 2) to develop these indicative flight paths or, as they are referred to
in this Chapter, test cases. Graphic 17.6 presents an overview of the interaction
between the DCO and ACP and demonstrates the points in time where these
Snapshots have been taken. Appendix 17.1, Annex B explains how these
indicative flight path test cases will enable an assessment of aircraft noise to be
undertaken for the PEIR and ES. Graphic 17.6 also shows how the assessment
presented in the ES informs the Noise Envelope (see Section 17.9 and Appendix 17.1 Annex A) that defines the maximum bounds within which the final stage of
the ACP has to be delivered if the DCO were granted.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.56 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Graphic 17.6 Interaction between Airspace Change Process (ACP) and Development Consent Order (DCO) process
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.57 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.5.23 For PEIR, a set of ten airspace test cases have been developed for a three-
runway Heathrow based on an airspace design Snapshot (Snapshot 1) taken in
November 2018.
17.5.24 In November 2018, Heathrow had completed the ‘macro’ design phase which
established underlying structure for future flight paths for an expanded Heathrow,
in line with Heathrow's expansion airspace design principles (as consulted in
Heathrow Expansion Consultation 1, January 201813. This structure defines the
broad characteristics of the airspace design for the DCO Project, such as the
minimum number of flight paths and the number of aircraft that would be likely to
use them.
17.5.25 The macro design also identified the areas in which new flight paths could be
positioned, but had not yet started the process of developing specific flight path
options (this more detailed work commenced in May 2019 following the Airspace
and Future Operations Consultation in January 2019).
17.5.26 The PEIR airspace test cases were developed from the Snapshot of the macro
design in November 2018 purely for the purposes of the PEIR to:
1. assess performance of the DCO Project in respect of ANPS paragraph 5.58
(comparison of the DCO Project with the 2013 assessment conducted by the
Airports Commission), and the decision-making criteria presented at paragraph
5.68
2. to enable a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the DCO
Project
3. articulate how the geographical location of likely significant effects (adverse
and beneficial) could change as a result of different indicative airspace designs
(refer to Appendix 17.1, Annex H).
17.5.27 Learning in relation to aircraft noise from the PEIR work will be fed back into the
options development for ACP (but the PEIR airspace test cases themselves are
not part of the ACP).
17.5.28 The ten test cases used as the basis of the assessment presented in Section 17.10 are a short list of all the test cases prepared and are those that meet the
ANPS requirement that ‘the impact of aircraft noise is limited and, where possible,
reduced compared to the 2013 baseline assessed by the Airports
Commission14‘.The process to develop and select the set of PEIR airspace test
cases is presented in Appendix 17.1, Annex B. The sensitivity of the PEIR
13 Airspace Principles Consultation Document January 2018. Heathrow Airport Limited. 14 With reference to the 2013 baseline for the 54 decibel LAeq,16h noise contour assessed by the Airports Commission. LAeq,16h indicates the annual average noise levels for the 16-hour period between 0700 – 2300
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.58 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
airspace test cases to the assessment is also presented in Appendix 17.1, Annex H.
17.5.29 The PEIR airspace test cases include the embedded noise control measures
described in Section 17.9, for example slightly steeper approach procedures
which are described in Appendix 17.1, Annex B.
17.5.30 As outlined above, airspace test cases used in this PEIR are indicative only and
are not the output of formal flight path design work under the ACP. As the ACP
evolves, a further Snapshot will be taken from which updated indicative airspace
test cases will be developed to inform the ES. This further Snapshot (Snapshot 2)
of Heathrow’s three-runway future airspace is planned later this year to support
the aircraft noise assessment for the Environmental Statement (ES). At this point,
Heathrow will have developed airspace design options through Stage 2 of the
ACP. These design options will have been subject to formal design work in line
with the ACP. For Snapshot 2, the designs that will be assessed within the ES will
be called from the Options Appraisal that supports the assessment of the design
options under the airspace change process.
Airspace test case for a two-runway Heathrow prior to third runway becoming operational (Phase 1 of the development, pre-2026) – with or without expansion
17.5.31 During Phase 1 of the development there are other airspace and operational
changes that are foreseeable over the period to the third runway becoming
operational. These changes include the introduction of easterly runway alternation,
new Compton routes15, slightly steeper approach descents and the introduction of
Independent Parallel Approaches (IPA)16, and would occur without the DCO
Project. Further details of these foreseeable changes and corresponding
assumptions are presented in Appendix 17.1, Annex G. This has included the
use of some indicative airspace assumptions developed to reflect the proposed
airspace changes, which are also not yet complete.
Future baseline airspace test case for a future two-runway Heathrow (Post-2026)
17.5.32 Heathrow’s airspace post-2026 without the DCO Project (i.e. without expansion)
would be different to the airspace arrangements assumed pre-2026 (and today).
This is due to the FASI-South project, which will require airports in the south of
15 Over the next few years Heathrow would like to make changes to one of their departure routes, known as ‘Compton’. This is independent of Heathrow’s expansion proposal. Further detail on proposals for the Compton route and the timing of the process is described in detail on https://www.heathrow.com/noise/future-airspace/compton-route. 16 As part of Heathrow’s current Airspace and Future Operations consultation, Heathrow are consulting on a proposed short-term change to the way that some aircraft arrive at Heathrow. This is known as Independent Parallel Approaches (or ‘IPA’) and involves some new arrival routes into Heathrow from the holding stacks. Some of these flight paths could overfly areas that are not affected by Heathrow arrivals today. Further details about the IPA proposals and the timing of the process is described on https://www.heathrow.com/noise/future-airspace/independent-parallel-approaches.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.59 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
England to integrate with and provide a modernised airspace. This will require
design changes to Heathrow’s routes without the DCO Project.
17.5.33 As a result, assumptions have been made about what this future 'without
expansion' airspace would look like. The assumptions associated with the post-
2026 two-runway Heathrow (i.e. without expansion) are presented in detail in
Appendix 17.1, Annex G.
17.5.34 These assumptions, and the airspace design test case derived from them, are
indicative and will evolve as the respective Airspace Change Processes for these
changes progress. As set out in Appendix 17.1, Annex G. for the ES it is
proposed that 2R ‘equivalents’ of three-runway test cases are prepared in order to
provide comparisons that help further articulate the effects of the Development
recognising the potential uncertainty of how the airspace may naturally evolve
without the Development. The test cases will remain indicative and any review and
revision will be for the purposes of conducting the environmental assessment for
the DCO process only.
Runway operations with the DCO Project
Runway Alternation
17.5.35 The ANPS (paragraph 5.62) requires that:
‘The applicant should put forward plans for a runway alternation scheme that provides
communities affected with predictable periods of respite (though the Government
acknowledges that the duration of periods of respite that currently apply will be reduced).
Predictability should be afforded to the extent that this is within the airport operator's
control.156 The details of any such scheme, including timings, duration and scheduling,
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.’
17.5.36 Runway alternation is therefore considered an embedded mitigation measure and
as such further information can be found in Table 17.19 and Section 17.9. Whilst
the details of the proposed runway alternation pattern are the subject of
consultation and ongoing development, assumptions around the pattern have had
to made for PEIR. Enabling effective delivery of runway alternation is a design
requirement within the ACP.
17.5.37 The noise assessment assumes that during the daytime period (07:00 to 23:00),
the pattern of runway alternation (D-Departure; L-Landing; M-Mixed (departure
and landing)) as shown in Graphic 17.7 below. The mixed mode runway is fixed
for a given day and the other two runways are alternated at 14:00 or 15:00
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.60 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
between D and L (or vice versa). The time at which the mode is alternated makes
negligible difference to the overall summer average noise exposure.
Graphic 17.7 mode rotation cycle assumed for PEIR (also indicating relief zones provided in mode).
17.5.38 This concept fixes one the outer runways in mixed mode for a day with the other
two runways being rotated in a similar manner to today’s runway alternation
pattern during the daytime. The mixed mode runway is changed each day
between the northern and the southern runways - the centre is not a mixed mode
runway.
17.5.39 There are other options available for the cycle of changes between modes. These
are unlikely to have a significant implication for the assessment of effects but will
be considered in more detail between PEIR and ES.
17.5.40 It is also assumed that the mode would come into operation with the first flight of
the morning. However only one of the runways would be used for the arrivals
before 06:00 - the runway used being rotated on a day by day basis to enhance
respite during the night. This is consistent with today’s operation.
17.5.41 In practice, this means that a mode would effectively start at 06:00 and would
carry through to 14:00 or 15:00 and the end mode would carry through from this
time to the last operation.
Day Start Mode End Mode
Day 1
MLD LDM
Day 2
Day 3
MDL DLM
Day 4
LDM MDL
relief
relief
relief
relief
MLD MDL
DLM LDM
MDL MLD
LDM DLM
relief
relief
relief
relief
relief
relief
relief
relief
relief
relief
relief
relief
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.61 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.5.42 From a noise assessment point of view, the timing of the runway alternation switch
during the day does not affect the overall 92-day summer average noise exposure.
17.5.43 The order, frequency and the timing at which modes are used is the subject of
consultation. Further analysis will be undertaken between PEIR and ES.
Operating direction split
17.5.44 The direction of operation is determined by the wind speed and direction, and an
indicated preference for a particular operating direction. This assessment has
assumed a 70% westerly and 30% easterly operational modal split for both day
and night-time periods. This is broadly consistent with average over the last 5
years as reported by CAA in ERCD Report 1801 (refer to Appendix 17.1, Annex B and Annex G). This assumption may change at ES having regard to ongoing
consultation feedback.
17.5.45 A qualitative analysis of the sensitivity of the modal split to the assessment of
effects is presented in Appendix 17.1, Annex B.
17.5.46 Between PEIR and ES, further work will be undertaken to understand the
implications for effects on health and quality of life associated with the other modal
split options consistent with ‘directional preference’ feedback arising from
consultation.
Night flights
17.5.47 The ANPS (at paragraph 5.62) states:
“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.157 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.”
17.5.48 This assessment has been undertaken incorporating a set of indicative forecast
schedules that assume a ban on scheduled flights from 23:00 to 05:30.
17.5.49 Schedule time is an ‘on stand’ time, and so for arrivals to be on stand on time they
have an on-runway time that is approximately 10-15 minutes earlier, and for
departures a period of 15-20 minutes from stand to the runway. Therefore, for an
arrival scheduled at 05:30, the on-runway time would be approximately 05:15 and
for a departure scheduled at 06:00 the on-runway time would be approximately
06:20.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.62 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.5.50 The forecast schedules, upon which this assessment has been based, assume
that aircraft operating at night are subject to the existing night flying restrictions. It
is assumed that there are no additional movements before 06:00.
17.5.51 The assessment assumes all aircraft operating to schedule, with no delays
resulting in departures after 23:00. The assessment assumed that there are no
late departures using the recovery period. A sensitivity testing of delayed aircraft
operating beyond 23:00 has been included in Appendix 17.1, Annex B.
17.5.52 The timings of night flights and the time at which the modes will change is the
subject of consultation.
Runway operations without the DCO Project - Future Baseline Assumptions
17.5.53 The following assumptions for future baseline runway operations (i.e. without the
DCO Project) are described in detail in Appendix 17.1, Annex G and are
summarised in the following sections.
Runway alternation
17.5.54 As planning approvals have been granted for works for the existing northern
runway, for runway alternation, it has been assumed that runway alternation
during both easterly and westerly operations would be in place for the 2025
assessment year, and for all future two-runway baseline scenarios beyond 2026.
Operating directional split
17.5.55 A 70% westerly and 30% easterly operational modal split for both day and night-
time periods has been assumed to ensure consistency with the assessment with
the DCO Project.
Night flights
17.5.56 Without the DCO Project, an extension of the existing night flying restrictions has
been assumed (therefore with no ban on scheduled night flights).
IPA and TEAM
17.5.57 For all future two-runway scenarios including early growth of ATMs in the core
assessment year of 2025, it is assumed that IPA routes would be used instead of
the current practice of TEAM (Tactically Enhanced Arrivals Mode)17. These are
described in more detail in Appendix 17.1, Annex G.
17 When there is a build-up of flights being held in the holding stacks, the Government has set rules permitting NATS to land aircraft out of alternation, i.e. on the departures runway. In these circumstances, both runways will be used for arrivals for a temporary period. This
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.63 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Forecast schedules, fleet mix and aircraft noise performance
17.5.58 Overall noise exposure in any year is determined by a combination of the number
of movements (related to the forecast growth), the mix of aircraft types in that year,
the rate of adoption of future aircraft generations and aircraft type noise
performance. These are considered further below.
Future forecast - movements, schedule and fleet mix
17.5.59 The number of forecast movements in any year has been derived based on future
growth forecasts (see Chapter 6 for more detail on Heathrow’s future growth
forecasts). This forecast delivers the minimum additional 260,000 movements (a
total of 740,000 movements), required by the ANPS.
17.5.60 Indicative forecast schedules have been developed by Heathrow for each year in
each of the development phases. These schedules are based on forecasting
airline demand and business models for future years with and without the DCO
Project. These schedules provide the aircraft type for each movement, from which
the fleet mix (the breakdown of aircraft types) can be derived.
17.5.61 Future forecasts of movements and the mix of aircraft types in the future have
inherent uncertainty. There are many factors that affect the future fleet operating at
Heathrow that are not noise related (such as airline procurement plans,
economics, market trends and competition).
17.5.62 For the purposes of modelling and assessment, it has been assumed that all
operations occur at their scheduled time of departure and arrival i.e. there are no
delays that move aircraft between the day, evening and night periods. A sensitivity
analysis of the implications for noise exposure from delays into the night period is
presented in Appendix 17.1, Annex B.
Future aircraft type noise performance
17.5.63 The assessment and underlying noise modelling (and other future aircraft type
noise calculations supporting this assessment), has been undertaken based on
Heathrow analysis of forecast aircraft noise performance characteristics. The
details of this study are presented in Appendix 17.1, Annex B. These
assumptions have been applied to all assessment years for both baseline and with
DCO Project scenarios.
17.5.64 Heathrow’s analysis has identified a continuing trend for future aircraft noise levels
to reduce driven by international policy, regulation and societal expectation. It
is called Tactically Enhanced Arrivals Mode (TEAM) and is allowed after 7am on westerly operations when severe inbound congestion occurs, or is anticipated to occur, involving delays to arriving flights of 20 minutes or more.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.64 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
presented three scenarios for the development of future aircraft type noise levels:
the best, the likely, and the worst noise outcomes.
17.5.65 A mechanism from which future aircraft noise could be estimated was developed
based on Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW) and Entry in to Service (EIS). This
mechanism, which has been reviewed and validated by the CAA, has been used
to generate future aircraft type certification noise levels and has provided the basis
for modelling aircraft noise performance in AEDT.
17.5.66 Using the likely scenario, noise certification values for future aircraft types have
been derived and adjustments to the noise modelling aircraft noise performance
have been made. The ‘Worst’ scenario has not been used since the Heathrow
analysis concluded that this was an outcome that was highly unlikely. It is
therefore considered that assumed future aircraft type noise performance
characteristics are a reasonable worst case for noise.
17.5.67 A qualitative analysis of the sensitivity of the assessment to uncertainty arising
from the future forecast fleet mix is presented at Appendix 17.1, Annex B.
17.5.68 The noise certification values of existing and future aircraft have been used to
develop Quota Count (QC) values for each aircraft type in the schedule.
17.5.69 This assessment reports outcomes based on applying the assumptions as set out,
at this stage. A qualitative sensitivity of the assessment with respect to future
noise performance is presented in Appendix 17.1, Annex B.
17.5.70 Whilst not generating noise outcomes based on the ‘Worst’ aircraft noise
performance, the standards for future noise performance have been taken on a
reasonable and precautionary basis.
PEIR principal assessment year for Operational Aircraft Noise
17.5.71 The ANPS requires assessment of the opening year, the year when the airports
noise impact is forecast to be highest and the year of capacity (interpreted to be
the year of maximum proposed movement throughput). For the purposes of PEIR
the assessment has been based primarily on a current understanding of when the
highest noise impact year (referred to in this PEIR as the assessment year) may
occur.
17.5.72 For the PEIR, the aircraft noise assessment year has been considered with
reference to time profile of underlying aircraft emissions as measured in terms of
total annual Quota Count (QC) value day and night. Future aircraft type noise
performance has been determined using the outcomes of Heathrow Analysis
presented in Appendix 17.1, Annex B.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.65 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.5.73 Heathrow forecasts to 2050 have been analysed and total aircraft noise emissions
calculated based upon the Quota Count (QC) rating system. The QC rating of
each aircraft for each flight in the forecast (day and night) has been determined
(based on Heathrow analysis of future aircraft type noise performance) and the
total QC has been calculated for each forecast year to generate an indicative
aircraft noise emissions profile and is illustrated in Graphic 17.8 (and repeated in
in Appendix 17.1, Annex B).
Graphic 17.8 Aircraft noise emissions (QC) and movement profile
17.5.74 This indicates a steady reduction of total QC through to the year of opening,
reflecting improved aircraft noise performance per movement. Following opening
there is an increase in the total QC that reaches a peak that, based on current
understanding, appears to happen in the period 2030-2035. Based on Heathrow’s
forecasts, 2035 is the year when the number of movements required in the ANPS
is achieved (740,000 movements per year, an increase of 260,000).
17.5.75 Beyond this peak between 2030 and 2035, aircraft noise emissions reduce as
future generations of aircraft enter service and their rate of adoption outweighs the
growth at Heathrow as movements increase through to 2050.
17.5.76 Analysis indicates that the year of highest aircraft noise emissions is a function of
a combination of a number of factors including the number of movements, the rate
of adoption of the latest generation of aircraft with improved technology in the first
10years of opening and the degree of improvement actually delivered by the future
DC
O c
on
se
nt
NW
ru
nw
ay
op
en
s
Early
growth
QC increase in early
years of
expansion
Year range of highest QC.
To be confirmed
at ES
Total
Annual QC
Total Annual ATM
Total Annual QC
Indicative Range
To
day
Year
Meas
ure
Fir
st
full
yea
r
2020 2025 2035
Growth with
expansion
QC decrease in
early growth
QC forecast to reduces beyond
the highest year
2050
740 t
ho
us
an
d m
ov
em
en
ts
(+2
60 t
ho
usa
nd
)
756
th
ou
sa
nd
mo
vem
en
ts
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.66 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
types. As a result, the peak could move as the information available about forecast
schedules develop: for example, a smaller number of movements by noisier
aircraft could result in higher total aircraft noise emissions than a larger number of
movements by quieter aircraft. Regardless of these assumptions it is considered
that the peak would still be reached some-time between 2030 and 2035.
17.5.77 It is therefore considered reasonable to undertaken the assessment presented in
this PEIR based on 2035 forecast movements schedule and fleet mix - when the
number of movements is forecast to have grown by 260,000 as required by the
ANPS.
17.5.78 Further analysis of the forecast and fleet mix will be undertaken between PEIR
and ES and will reported at ES to enable a more definitive determination of the
year the year of highest noose impact.
Aircraft ground noise assumptions
17.5.79 For the assessment of aircraft ground noise, a set of reasonably foreseeable
worst-case assumptions have been made, based on information available at the
time of PEIR, as follows.
17.5.80 Noise emission levels (source terms) for aircraft ground noise have been
developed based on measurements made at Heathrow Airport.
17.5.81 As a precautionary worst-case, no benefit in term of reduction of ground noise has
been assumed for next generation aircraft.
17.5.82 Consistent with the operational aircraft noise assumptions a 70% westerly and
30% easterly modal split has been assumed for all scenarios based on CAA
analysis presented in ERCD Report 1801.
17.5.83 Ground movements for the baseline scenario have been informed by Heathrow’s
radar and on-stand operation data.
17.5.84 Future ground movements have been modelled using Total Airspace and Airport
Modeller (TAAM).
17.5.85 The number and timing of engine ground runs for the baseline scenario have been
based on records of engine ground runs at Heathrow. The number of future engine
ground runs are assumed to be proportional to today according to the increase in
the number of aircraft movements.
Road noise assumptions
17.5.86 For the assessment of road noise, a set of reasonably foreseeable worst-case
assumptions have been made, based on information available at the time of PEIR,
as follows.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.67 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.5.87 Night-time road traffic noise levels have been evaluated using ‘Transport
Research Laboratory (TRL) Method 2’18.
17.5.88 Roads on the strategic network with and without the DCO Project are assumed to
have low noise surfacing19. It is assumed that Highways England would have
completed installation of LNS at Important Areas on the existing network by 2021,
with or without the proposed scheme.
17.5.89 Movements and node links for road traffic data has been informed by HHASAM
traffic models developed for the DCO Project. Further information is provided in
the traffic and transport chapter.
17.6 Methodology for baseline data gathering
Assessment methodology evolution
17.6.1 Baseline data has been collected over the study areas (set out in Section 17.4) and is presented in Section 17.8.
17.6.2 Baseline information is obtained in three rounds of data gathering exercises:
1. Round 1: A desk-based review of key data sources across the study area
2. Round 2: Noise modelling to inform baseline predictions
3. Round 3: Surveys (which will be undertaken to inform the Environmental
Statement)
Round 1: Desk-based review of key data sources
17.6.3 Round 1 baseline data collection comprises publicly available measurement and
prediction data such as:
1. Noise monitoring undertaken by Heathrow
2. Noise surveys undertaken for related and unrelated planning applications in the
area
3. Aircraft noise contours published by the UK Government for Heathrow
4. Noise mapping published as required by the Environmental Noise (England)
Regulations 2006 for the London agglomeration, Heathrow, major roads and
major railways.
17.6.4 The data sources used for Round 1 baseline collection are set out in Table 17.11.
18 Converting the UK traffic noise index LA10,18h to EU noise indices for noise mapping, TRL Report, 2002 19 Information about LNS delivery is based on stakeholder engagement with Highways England – see Section 17.3.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.68 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.11: Data sources used for Round 1 baseline collection
Origin Title Dates Content and metrics
Heathrow Modelling (Environmental Research and Consultancy Department (ERCD), CAA)
Noise Action Plan and
Noise Action Plan
Contours for Heathrow
From 2006,
latest 2016
ERCD Report 170120. presents
Heathrow 2016 ‘average summers
day’ 16-hour daytime and 8-hour
night-time noise contours,
expressed as LAeq,16h and LAeq,8h
respectively. These are the most
recent noise contours currently
available.
The report also presents noise
contours which have been
produced for the purposes of the
Heathrow’s Environmental Noise
Directive Round 2 Noise Action
Plan 2013-201821, including annual
Lday, Levening, Lnight, Lden and LAeq,6.5h
night contours, in addition to
supplementary metrics including
N65 day, N70 day and N60 night
contours.
Community monitoring undertaken by Heathrow 22
Heathrow Fixed and
Mobile Noise Monitoring
data
2007 onwards LAeq, LAmax, LA90, LA10
Community monitoring undertaken by Heathrow23
Heathrow WebTrak 2008 onwards
Instantaneous Sound Pressure
Level, historic data for previous 12
months
Community monitoring undertaken by Heathrow
Heathrow Community
Reports
Annually from
2014
LAeq,T, LA90,T, LAmax for aircraft
passes
3rd Runway Noise Assessment (Amec Environment & Infrastructure Ltd)24
Air and Ground Noise
Assessment June 2014
Short-term attended LAeq,T and
LA90,T measurements at specific
locations
20 CAA, 2017d. 21 Heathrow Airport Limited, Heathrow’s Environmental Noise Directive Round 2 Noise Action Plan 2013-2018, August 2014 22 Reports available from: Community Noise Reports https://www.heathrow.com/noise/reports-and-statistics/reports/community-noise-reports (accessed 15 May 2018) 23 Tracking available at: Track flights on maps https://www.heathrow.com/noise/what-you-can-do/track-flights-on-maps (accessed 15 May 2018) 24 Amec, Heathrow’s North-west Runway: Air and Ground Noise Assessment, June 2014
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.69 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Origin Title Dates Content and metrics
Questionnaire (CAA) Survey of Noise
Attitudes (SoNA 2014)25
October 2014-
February 2015 Survey responses
Strategic Noise Mapping (DEFRA)26 England Noise Map27 2018
Modelled LAeq,16h, Lnight for road and
rail sources
EIA (Crossrail/RPS) Crossrail Baseline Noise
Monitoring28
July 2003 -
October 2004
LAeq,1h, LA90,1h, LA10,1h LAmax,1hr long
and short-term monitoring at
specific points
Local Authority Planning Portals
Various noise survey
reports for planning
applications within the
study area
Various Various
Local Plans & Neighbourhood Development Plans
Various Various
17.6.5 The Round 1 data collection process has provided, as a minimum, the following
noise metrics:
1. LAeq,16h (07:00 – 23:00)
2. LAeq,8h (23:00 – 07:00).
17.6.6 Where available, additional noise metrics have been collated with the baseline
including the LAeq, T, LA10, T, LA90, T and LAmax.
17.6.7 In addition to the noise metrics above, subjective description of the acoustic
character has been incorporated into the baseline with descriptions of noise
sources and reference to survey responses from the Survey of Noise Attitudes
2014: Aircraft (SoNA 2014) and flight path data from the Annual Flight Paths
published by Heathrow Airport Ltd29.
Round 2 noise modelling to inform predictions
17.6.8 Aircraft noise has been modelled as part of Round 2 for the PEIR. Aircraft ground
noise and road noise will be modelled for the ES. The results have been reviewed
against published data to allow a future baseline to be identified and used in the
assessment. The aircraft noise baseline is described in detail in Section 17.9 Overall baseline.
25 Civil Aviation Authority, CAP 1506: Survey of Noise Attitudes 2014: Aircraft, February 2017 (CAA, 2017d) 26 This data will be updated to take into account the latest strategic noise mapping published by Defra. 27 Defra Round 3 Noise Maps and Noise Mapping Technical https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/publications/round-3-noise-maps-and-noise-mapping-technical-reports (accessed 12 March 2019) 28 Monitoring data available online at http://www.crossrail.co.uk/about-us/crossrail-bill-supporting-documents/specialist-technical-reports/noise-vibration?folder=/l0/362/asset/2170 (accessed 12 March 2019) 29 https://www.heathrow.com/noise/reports-and-statistics/operational-data/annual-flight-maps
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.70 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.6.9 In addition to the metrics described for Round 1, the following metrics have been
modelled:
Aircraft noise
1. Typical 92-day summer period LAeq,16h (07:00 – 23:00)
2. Typical 92-day summer period LAeq,8h (23:00 – 07:00) and LAeq,6.5h (23:00 –
05:30)
3. Typical annual Lden, Lday Levening Lnight and LAeq,16h
4. Annual ‘number above’ N65 (day) and N60 (night)
5. LAmax,10min (23:00 – 07:00)
Road traffic
1. LA10,18hr (06:00-00:00)
2. Lden, Lday Levening Lnight;
Rail traffic
1. LAeq,18h (06:00 – 00:00)
2. LAeq,6h (00:00 – 06:00)
3. Lden, Lday Levening Lnight.
17.6.10 For the ES, average metrics for the school day will also be modelled for these
sources. These metrics are not presented in the PEIR.
17.6.11 For ES, single mode conditions will be considered in terms of LAeq and LAmax.
Survey work
Round 3 noise surveys
17.6.12 For Round 3, noise surveys will be undertaken (with results presented in the ES)
in locations where:
1. ambient noise sources could influence the identification of likely significant
effects arising from the DCO Project and there is material uncertainty in the
baseline information available from Rounds 1 or 2
2. response to the consultation on the PEIR has identified new information that
may change the defined baseline
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.71 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
3. at noise sensitive non-residential receptors on a case by case basis based on
the screening approach for non-residential receptors set out in the Scoping
Report.
17.6.13 In addition to obtaining objective baseline sound level data, the acoustic
environment will be characterised during the noise monitoring through
measurements of noise from specific sources, observations of the relative
contribution of noise sources and a subjective commentary.
17.7 Assessment methodology for the PEIR
17.7.1 At this stage in the development of the EIA, the DCO Project is still under
development and is the subject of statutory consultation. The likely environmental
effects are presented as preliminary at this stage. Further, more detailed
assessment work will be undertaken between PEIR and preparation of the ES on
the final DCO Project.
17.7.2 The methodology for the ES may therefore develop further from that used for the
PEIR. Anticipated changes in the assessment methodology are summarised in
Table 17.12, with reasons for any likely amendments detailed.
Table 17.12: Assessment methodology for the PEIR and ES
Effect Assessment methodology used for this PEIR
Assessment methodology to be used for the ES
Significant effects on health and quality of life and likely significant effects
Assessment based on Primary
Factors alone (explained later in
this section). This is a
precautionary approach.
Assessment based on Primary Factors and Additional
Factors (explained later in this section and in
Appendix 17.1, Annex D)
The aircraft noise assessment is
based on 2035 with 740k ATMs.
Further work will be done to confirm that 2035 with
740k ATMs is point when the Airport’s noise impact is
forecast to be highest. (see Section 17.5)
Aircraft noise assessment is
based on indicative airspace
design Snapshot from November
2018
Additional Snapshot will be taken between PEIR and
ES as the airspace change process evolves
Likely significant effects for
several non-residential receptors
are identified on a precautionary
basis
Further data gathering, review and assessment will be
undertaken following publication of the PEIR to
confirm likely significant effects on non-residential
receptors
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.72 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.7.3 The generic project-wide approach to the assessment methodology is set out in
Chapter 5: Approach to the EIA. This has informed the approach used in this
noise and vibration assessment.
Construction assessment methodology
17.7.4 Appendix 17.1, Annex C sets out the methodologies used to predict levels of
noise and vibration during construction of the DCO Project.
Operation assessment methodology
17.7.5 Appendix 17.1, Annex C sets out the methodologies used to predict noise and
vibration during the operation of the DCO Project for: aircraft noise (including
helicopters), aircraft ground noise, road traffic noise, rail noise, rail vibration and
other noise sources (e.g. fixed source).
17.7.6 Since the Scoping Report was published, the following changes have been made
to the assessment methodology used at PEIR (and also proposed to be used at
ES) for the operational airport:
1. The DCO Project proposes to operate rail freight movements between the
proposed rail head and the Great Western Main Line by connecting to the
existing Colnbrook branch line at Fray’s Loop, West Drayton. The existing
Colnbrook branch line currently serves the existing rail logistics facility in
Colnbrook. Therefore, any potential noise impacts resulting from the operation
of this line will be as a result of a change of use to an existing operational
railway. In line with the methodology set out in Appendix 17.1, Annex D these
would be in-direct noise effects arising from the DCO Project. Noise will be
assessed by predicting the change in noise that would occur as a result of the
change in operational parameters
2. Additional verification work has been undertaken for the aircraft noise
modelling methodology, which is described below
3. Further development of the methodology for identifying significant effects,
which is described below and in Appendix 17.1, Annex D.
Aircraft noise modelling methodology and verification
17.7.7 For the assessment at PEIR, aircraft noise modelling has been carried out using
AEDT 2.0d with a selection of scenarios modelled within ANCON 2.4 by the CAA
ERCD for comparison and verification purposes.
17.7.8 The AEDT modelling undertaken for the PEIR has been based on a validation
exercise of aircraft operations in 2017. The validation exercise has involved:
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.73 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
1. A review of modelled aircraft flight-related performance, namely the altitude
and speed of aircraft departing and arriving at Heathrow (using Heathrow’s
ANOMS data)
2. Modification of Noise-Power-Distance (NPD) data for the majority of aircraft
types operating in 2017 to better reflect measured levels at Heathrow’s fixed
and temporary monitoring terminals. This has included the network of
additional noise monitors installed from 2016
3. Where insufficient data has been available to validate an aircraft type, a ‘best
fit’ of any data available has been used against default information held within
AEDT.
17.7.9 Further information on the validation is available in Appendix 17.1, Annex B.
17.7.10 The validation of the AEDT modelling has been undertaken using an approach
accepted by the CAA based on comparisons of LAeq,16h contours produced using
AEDT and ANCON for 2017 and 2035 with the DCO Project.
17.7.11 In modelling future scenarios, a range of assumptions have been made relating to
future aircraft and airspace and these are set out in Appendix 17.1, Annex B.
Methodology for identifying significant effects
Overview
17.7.12 This section sets out the approach to identifying the significance of noise effects,
positive and negative, that arise from the DCO Project.
17.7.13 The overarching concepts covered in this section are as follows:
1. Significant effects on health and quality of life (due to noise levels that result
from the DCO Project)
2. Environmental likely significant effects, both adverse and beneficial (due noise
change resulting from the DCO Project)
3. Combined noise effects (due to multiple DCO Project noise sources)
4. Cumulative noise effects (due to noise from the DCO Project and other
developments)
Significant effects on health and quality of life
17.7.14 The requirement of the ANPS (paragraph 5.68) and the NN NPS (paragraph
5.195), is that the
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.74 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
“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.”
17.7.15 In line with the first aim of Government noise policy30, significant effects on health
and quality of life have been identified where the forecast noise from the DCO
Project at a receptor newly exceeds the relevant SOAEL value. SOAEL values are
defined in Table 17.14. The means to avoid such significant effects includes both
noise control measures embedded into the DCO Project and compensatory
measures (usually noise insulation) provided at the receptor.
17.7.16 In line with the second and third aims of Government noise policy, the assessment
also identifies: adverse effects on health and quality of life (i.e. where exposure
from the DCO Project is forecast to exceed the relevant LOAEL but is below the
relevant SOAEL); how noise control measures have mitigated and minimised such
adverse effects; and where the DCO Project contributes to the improvement of
health and quality of life (due to noise).
Likely significant effects (adverse and beneficial)
17.7.17 The EIA Regulations require the identification of likely significant effects and
envisaged mitigation to avoid or reduce the significant effects.
17.7.18 Likely significant effects in line with the EIA Regulations are identified separately
from, and in addition to, significant effects on health and quality of life that are
identified in line with government noise policy as described earlier in this section.
17.7.19 Likely significant effects are identified by reference to Primary Factors and
Additional Factors. The Primary Factors considered (in combination) in the
identification of likely significant effects (adverse and beneficial) are:
1. the calculated change in noise level for the source being considered
2. the calculated noise exposure compared to the relevant LOAEL and SOAEL
values
3. the population (number of people) in an area exposed to the calculated noise
level and change in noise level.
30 In this context, Government noise policy refers to the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) which is the primary basis for decision making for the project. The same aims are also contained in similar terms the NPSE and the NPSNN.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.75 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.7.20 Likely significant effects (adverse and beneficial) are only identified when
considering the three Primary Factors in combination. The combinations of the
three Primary Factors that identify likely significant effects are set out later in this
section.
17.7.21 The Primary Factors are supported by a number of Additional Factors (discussed
below and in more detail in Appendix 17.1, Annex D) that take into account the
local context of the receiving environment and the features of the noise arising
from the DCO Project. Additional Factors are only ever considered after a potential
likely significant effect has been identified using the Primary Factors. The
Additional Factors therefore confirm whether a potential significant effect identified
using the Primary Factors is actually a likely significant effect (or not). Additional
Factors would not identify likely significant effects over and above those identified
by the Primary Factors. The Additional Factors are therefore only applied after the
Primary Factors.
17.7.22 Likely significant effects are identified in this Chapter for each DCO Project noise
source using only the Primary Factors. In the ES, the likely significant effects will
be reported taking into account both the Primary the Additional Factors. Appendix 17.1, Annex D sets out how the Additional Factors would be applied for the ES
and provides a number of worked examples.
Combined effects
17.7.23 The combined effects are those that arise from a receptor being exposed to noise
from different sources associated with the DCO Project.
17.7.24 As there is no reliable means of quantitatively assessing the overall noise effect
resulting from different noise source, this PEIR (and the subsequent ES) will
consider the overall effect noise from combined sources qualitatively. For the PEIR
assessment this is reported in Section 17.11.
17.7.25 In-combination effects are those that arise from interactions of different types of
effect from the DCO Project, for example, air quality, noise and vibration,
landscape and visual amenity, on a single receptor. These are reported in
Chapter 22: In-combination effects.
17.7.26 As there is no reliable means of quantitatively assessing the overall noise effect
resulting from different noise source, this PEIR (and the subsequent ES) will
consider the overall effect noise from combined sources qualitatively. This will take
account of matters such as:
1. Whether the effects from the different sources would occur at the same time
2. The duration of any combined effects
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.76 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
3. Whether the effects might be additive or whether one effect could dominate
over others
4. Whether the effects on the receptor are similar in nature (e.g. effecting the
same façade of a property) or different in nature (e.g. affecting different
facades).
Cumulative effects
17.7.27 Cumulative noise and vibration effects resulting from the combination of effects
from the DCO Project and other developments has been assessed in accordance
with the approach set out in Chapter 5: Section 8, Cumulative effects assessment.
In-combination effects
17.7.28 In-combination effects would arise by the interaction of effects from different
environmental aspects (e.g. noise, air quality, visual). These are reported in
Chapter 22: In combination effects.
Assessment of residential receptors
Overall framework
17.7.29 Table 17.13 is based on the noise exposure hierarchy presented in Planning
Practice Guidance- Noise (PPGN)31, which is consistent with the ANPS32 and the
NPPF and presents the overall framework for identifying significant effects for
residential receptors.
31 DCLG, 2014. 32 DfT, 2017a.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.77 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.13: Illustration of LOAEL and SOAEL in the context of identifying likely significant effects on residential receptors applicable for all noise sources (the interaction between government noise policy and the EIA requirements based on noise hierarchy table presented in the PPG-Noise33
PPG – Noise Noise Hierarchy
(in line with ANPS 5.67 and NPPF)
EIA Identification of LSE
Noise Mitigation
(ANPS 5.60 – 5.65)
Community Compensation (ANPS 5.244 – 5.246) (ANG 4.47 + Annex D)
Perception Effect Action Assessment Effect
Incre
asin
g e
xp
osu
re o
f n
ois
e a
nd
vib
ratio
n
.
Not noticeable No effect No specific measures
required
None Adverse effect unlikely By exception only* None Noticeable and
not intrusive No observed
adverse effect No specific measures
required
Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level – LOAEL
Noticeable and intrusive
Observed adverse effect increasingly
likely Mitigate and minimise
Noise exposure +
Change in noise exposure +
Population +
Additional factors
Refer to Graphic 17.9
Change in exposure (increase or decrease) may cause adverse or beneficial effect on acoustic
character of an area.
May be identified as an EIA LSE (adverse or beneficial) on an area basis (i.e. on a risk basis
taking account of factors such as exposure, change and population exposed)
Mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on HQL,
within the context of Government policy
on sustainable development
Co
mm
un
ity
Co
mpe
nsa
tion
Fu
nd
Voluntary Noise Insulation offer
for aircraft noise
Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level – SOAEL
Intrusive and
disruptive
Observed Significant adverse effect
Avoid
Noise exposure +
Change in noise exposure +
Additional factors
Refer to Graphic 17.9
1) Significant adverse effect on health and quality of life on each receptor where newly exposed
2) May be identified as an EIA likely significant effect (adverse or beneficial) on each receptor where exposure currently exceeds SOAEL and
the DCO Project changes exposure
Mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on Health and Quality of Life (HQL), within the
context of Government policy
on sustainable development
Noise Insulation
Co
mm
un
ity
Co
mpe
nsa
tion
Fu
nd
Assist with costs of moving34
Intrusive and
very disruptive
Unacceptable adverse effect
Prevent Mitigate to prevent if
possible
Seek powers to install noise insulation & assist
with costs of moving
33 DCLG, 2014. 34 There are several factors to take into consideration in relation to ‘assist with costs of moving’. a) In terms of temporary rehousing, BS5528: Construction Part 1 Annex E provides example thresholds for providing temporary rehousing or reasonable costs thereof, in relation to construction noise. The Noise and Insulation Regulations 1975 and Noise Insulation (Amendment) Regulations 1988 provide discretionary powers with regard to providing temporary rehousing with regard to the construction of new or altered railways or new or altered roads. b) In terms of permanent rehousing, para 2.48 of the ‘Consultation response on UK Airspace Policy’ specifies that ‘the government continues to expect airport operators to offer households exposed to 69dB LAeq,16h or more assistance with the costs of moving’ and requires an offer of full insulation to be paid for by the airport for homes within the 69dB LAeq,16h or greater contour, where home owners do not want to move. Further, Heathrow have set out a Wider Property Offer Zone (WPOZ) for eligible homeowners who live close to the boundary of the expanded airport but outside the Compulsory Purchase Zone, which provides assurance for owner-occupiers of eligible properties. If owners sign up to Heathrow’s bond they will receive the unaffected market value of their home and a 25% Home Loss Payment as well as their normal legal fees, moving costs and an equivalent stamp duty amount. * By exception cases would occur where a receptor a within or immediately adjacent to a designated Quiet Area or Green Space and the designation defines requires control of noise below LOAEL.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.78 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Significance criteria
17.7.30 Graphic 17.9 presents the Primary Factors and Additional Factors used in the
assessment of all noise sources. The graphic has been updated since the
publishing of the Scoping Report in two ways:
1. WebTAG is no longer listed as an Additional Factor. Rather WebTAG has been
integrated into the initial assessment in three ways:
2. First, in assessing wider health effects (refer to Section 17.10)
a. Second, in supporting the definition Primary Factor combinations that are
used to indicate likely significant effects (as described later in this section)
b. Thirdly, as part of the evaluation of noise mitigation measures to establish
whether they should be embedded in the DCO Project (refer to Section 17.9)
3. Noise insulation is no longer considered an Additional Factor, as it forms part
of the noise control measures relied on to avoid significant adverse effects on
health and quality in line with Government Policy (the ANPS) (refer to Section 17.9).
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.79 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Graphic 17.9 Significance evaluation criteria for residential receptors for all noise sources
Evaluation 1 Government noise policy; identification of significant adverse effects on health and quality of life due to noise arising from the DCO Project. Identified on a receptor-by-receptor and source-by-source basis:
• Primary factor: Noise exposure. A significant adverse effect on health and quality of life is identified where
noise from the DCO Project newly exceedsa the relevant SOAEL value (refer to Table 17.14) evaluated using
LAeq,16h and LAeq,8h metricsb,c and taking account of mitigation and compensation measures (see Section 17.9)
• Additional factors: (that in the ES could reduce significant effects identified based on the primary factor
alone): Additional metrics; e.g. based on Heathrow’s ongoing community research (refer to Appendix 17.1
Annex D) better evaluate how significant adverse effects on health and quality of life are reduced or avoided
by predictable and valued respite provided by the runway alternation already considered with Primary Factors.
Evaluation 2 EIA Regulations; identification of likely significant effects (adverse and beneficial) due to noise change arising from the DCO Project. Identified source-be-source having taken account of all noise control measures (refer to Section 17.9).
• Primary Factors: Likely significant effects are identified on areas (e.g. communities, or parts of communities
including their private and public external amenity space) by considering in combination (refer to Graphic
17.3):
• Noise changed: day or night and beneficial (decrease) or adverse (increase) changes evaluated using
LAeq,16h and LAeq,8h metricsb,c; and
• Noise level: day or night, evaluated using LAeq,16h and LAeq,8h metricsb,c compared to the relevant LOAEL,
SOAEL and UAEL values (refer to Table 17.14); and
• Population: The population in the area that is exposed to the calculated noise change and noise exposure.
• Additional factors: (that would reduce significant effects identified based on primary factors alone) (in no
order):
• Change in overall noise: This is the change n the overall noise in an area taking account of both
new/changed noise caused by the DCO Project and noise from other sources not altered by the DCO Project.
Overall change is considered day and night using LAeq,16h and LAeq,8h metricsb,c i
• Additional metrics: e.g. i) consider 100% mode LAeq metrics to better evaluate how adverse likely significant
effects are reduced by predictable and valued respite through runway alternation; and ii) use Nabove metrics
to confirm adverse likely significant effects taking account of the noise level from each aircraft and number
aircraft. For aircraft, additional metrics from ANG17, CAP1616 and Airports Commission.
• Other relevant qualitative information: for example, non-acoustic factors that could change people's
response to noise or the duration of the exposure for construction noise
Notes:
a - Resulting from an increase of at least 1 dB
b - Summer 92-day average for aircraft and ground noise and Annual Average Weekday for road traffic noise.
c - Change in noise level for construction noise is accounted for using the ‘ABC’ method 2 from Annex E of BS5228 Part 1 2008 + A1: 2014
using day (12hr), evening (4hr) and night-time (1hr) LAeq noise metrics.
d - Greater weight will be given to change in exposure, even slight changes on a small number of dwellings, if the area is already exposed to
existing levels of noise that exceed the relevant SOAEL values to reflect the increasing risk of health effects at these levels of exposure.
A3
P1
P2
P3
A2
A1
Evaluation 1 Government noise policy; identification of significant adverse effects on health and quality of life due to noise arising from the DCO Project. Identified on a receptor-by-receptor and source-by-source basis:
• Primary Factor: Noise exposure. A significant adverse effect on health and quality of life is identified where
noise from the DCO Project newly exceedsa the relevant SOAEL value (refer to Table 17.14) evaluated using
LAeq,16h and LAeq,8h metricsb,c and taking account of mitigation and compensation measures (see Section 17.9)
• Additional Factors: (that in the ES could reduce significant effects identified based on the primary factor
alone): Additional metrics; e.g. based on Heathrow’s ongoing community research (refer to Appendix 17.1
Annex D) better evaluate how significant adverse effects on health and quality of life are reduced or avoided
by predictable and valued respite provided by the runway alternation already considered with Primary Factors.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.80 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Thresholds of potential effects in terms of government policy
17.7.31 The assessment has made use of Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels
(LOAELs) and Significant Observed Adverse Effect Levels (SOAEL), as set out in
the Scoping Report. Since the Scoping Report was published and in response to
the Scoping Opinion (refer to Table 17.5), Unacceptable Adverse Effect Levels
(UAEL) have been added to the assessment methodology.
17.7.32 These effect level values are shown in Table 17.14 for each noise source, along
with references to the source of these values.
17.7.33 The LOAEL, SOAEL and UAEL values have been identified following a review of
policy, precedent set by previous projects, guidance, and the research evidence
base for different phases (construction, operation), types of noise source (aircraft
noise; railway noise; road traffic noise; construction noise; ground-borne noise and
vibration; airfield static noise), and type of effect.
17.7.34 The selection of LOAEL, SOAEL and UAEL values for the assessment prioritises
policy and legislative requirements, as well as standards over suggestions for
LOAEL, SOAEL and UAEL values from other sources. The assessment aligns
SOAEL values with noise insulation requirements, where available.
17.7.35 For further detail on the evidence base used to identify the LOAEL, SOAEL and
UAEL values, see Appendix 17.1, Annex F.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.81 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.14: LOAEL SOAEL and UAEL levels to be used in the assessment for residential receptors
Source Period LOAEL, SOAEL and UAEL criteria (outdoors, free-fieldn)
Period noise level Maximum noise level
Construction
Site/Construction including borrow
pits
Daytime
0700 – 1900
LOAEL 65dB LAeq,12ha
SOAEL 75dB LAeq,12ha
UAEL 85dB LAeq,12hb
Evening
1900 – 2300 /
Weekends
LOAEL 55dB LAeq,4ha
SOAEL 65dB LAeq,4ha
UAEL 75dB LAeq,4hb
Night-time
2300-0700
LOAEL 45dB LAeq,8h a
SOAEL 55dB LAeq,8h a
UAEL 65dB LAeq,8h b
c
Operation
Other noise sources (fixed noise sources)
e.g. Airfield static sources
Day/Night-time
Avoid LSE by setting noise constraints in line with BS 4142. d
Aircraft noise / Aircraft ground
noise
Daytime
LOAEL 51dB LAeq,16h e
SOAEL 63dB LAeq,16h f
UAEL 71dB LAeq,16h g
Night-time
LOAEL 45dB LAeq,8h e
SOAEL 55dB LAeq,8h h
UAEL 66dB LAeq,8h g
Supplementary SOAEL: newly
experiencing one additional
awakening due to aircraft noise
(year average)
Road
Daytime
LOAEL 50dB LAeq,16h j
SOAEL 63dB LAeq,16h k
UAEL 71dB LAeq,16h g
Night-time
LOAEL 40dB LAeq,8h h
SOAEL 55dB LAeq,8h h
UAEL 66dB LAeq,8h g
Railway
Daytime
LOAEL 50dB LAeq,16h j
SOAEL 65dB LAeq,16h l
UAEL 71dB LAeq,16h g
Night-time
LOAEL 40dB LAeq,8h j
SOAEL 55dB LAeq,8h h
UAEL 66dB LAeq,8h g
LOAEL LAmax, 60 dB (any event)m
SOAEL LAmax, 80dB (>20 pass-bys
per night) or 85dB (< 20 pass-bys
per night m
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.82 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Notes:
a. BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites - Part 1:
Noise. The LOAEL and SOAEL correspond to Category A and Category C of the ‘ABC method’ respectively.
b. BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites - Part 1:
Noise. The UAEL value aligns with the trigger value for temporary rehousing.
c. Lmax levels are not provided for construction noise. Construction noise is calculated in accordance with BS 5228-
1:2009+A1:2014 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites - Part 1: Noise., which
calculates LAeq, T values. There is no developed methodology linking construction noise Lmax levels to health/quality of
life.
d. For airfield static noise, no LOAEL, SOAEL or UAEL values are specified at this stage of the Project as airfield static
noise is managed through the application of BS4142 after the DCO process, when the design elements are specified,
and background noise can be assessed.
e. UK Airspace Policy, DfT, February 2017 and Consultation Response, DfT, October 2017
f. Department for Transport, Aviation Policy Framework, 2013
g. London Borough of Richmond Supplementary Planning Guidance/ProPG/BS8233
h. WHO, Night Noise Guidelines for Europe, 2009
i. Research on objective sleep disturbance suggests that, on average, there should be less than one additional
awakening induced by aircraft noise per night (Basner et al, 2006).
j. WHO, Guidelines for Community Noise, 1999
k. Statutory Instrument No. 1763 (1974), The Noise Insulation Regulations 1975
l. Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 428. The Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations
1996
m. HS2 Phase 2a Information Paper E9: Control of Airborne Noise
n. The noise level evaluated over relevant assessment period, outdoors at the façade of a noise sensitive receptor and
measured in the absence of façade reflections. When sound radiates from an object, it can either travel directly to the
receiver in a straight-line or be reflected from other surfaces in the environment. Free-field is a situation where no
reflections occur and only the direct sound is observed.
Evaluation 1 - Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life
17.7.36 In line with Government policy (the NPSE), where the calculated ‘end state’
exposure newly exceeds the SOAEL, and all noise control measures have been
taken into account, then there is a potential for a significant adverse effect on
health and quality of life to be identified for each receptor affected. Where
exposure newly exceeds the UAEL there is a potential for an unacceptable
adverse effect on health and quality of life to be identified for each receptor
affected.
17.7.37 The Primary Factor for Evaluation 1 is therefore end state noise exposure
compared to the relevant SOAEL and UAEL value for the time period and noise
source in question (see Table 17.14).
17.7.38 Graphic 17.10 shows how a potential for significant adverse effect on health and
quality of life is identified for each receptor newly exposed above the relevant
SOAEL.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.83 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Graphic 17.10 Evaluation 1 framework
17.7.39 For Evaluation 1 there is a single Additional Factor (that would reduce significant
effects identified based on the primary factor alone): additional metrics. These will
be used in the ES to better evaluate, for example, how the significant adverse
effects on health and quality of life identified using the Primary Factor are reduced
or avoided by predictable and valued respite provided by runway alternation. This
example would be supported by the results of community research currently being
undertaken by Heathrow. For further information on this Additional Factor and
related respite research, see Appendix 17.1, Annex D. For this PEIR, the
assessment is based on the Primary Factors, that provide a precautionary
assessment, and a qualitative description of how the Additional Factor may
change the assessment outcome in the ES.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.84 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Assessment of significant effects on health and quality of life | objective sleep disturbance
17.7.40 For the ES an assessment of objective sleep disturbance will be undertaken in
addition to the assessment of wider self-reported sleep disturbance presented in
this preliminary assessment.
17.7.41 Sleep disturbance can be quantified either by subjective means e.g. asking people
how they slept in a questionnaire or by objective means e.g. monitoring
physiological or behavioural awakenings during the night. It is important to
recognise that people are not conscious of their own bodies when asleep and
studies have reported inconsistencies between the physiological effects of noise
exposure (objective measures) and the subjects' perceived disturbance35,36.
Self-reported sleep disturbance is often considered to be a poor indicator of actual
sleep disturbance and associated health effects. Nonetheless, self-reported sleep
disturbance is an important indicator of community perception of night noise
effects (in many respects an indicator of night-time annoyance). Self-reported
sleep disturbance is reasonably related to the LAeq,8h metric (refer to Appendix 17.1, Annexes E and F).
17.7.42 Sleep disturbance can also be measured objectively electrophysiologically, using
polysomnography (PSG) i.e. the simultaneous recording of the
electroencephalogram (EEG), the electrooculogram (EOG), the electromyogram
(EMG) and other physiological variables. This is referred to as objective sleep
disturbance and can be measured by quantifying the number of ‘additional
awakenings’ induced by a noise source. It is important to note that awakenings
measured using PSG are often either too short to be remembered the next day or
relate to a change of sleep state that is no longer recuperative but is not ‘awake’37.
17.7.43 Evidence for noise effects on objective sleep disturbance (in terms of additional
awakenings) is demonstrated using LAmax levels for individual noise events.
Additional assessment metrics, such as LAmax, will therefore be employed at ES
stage to include objective sleep disturbance in the assessment.
17.7.44 For aircraft noise the Scoping Report set out:
1. night-time LOAEL and SOAEL values defined using the LAeq,8h metric, which
describe self-reported sleep disturbance, and in addition
2. ‘LAmax and number of events and a risk assessment of objective sleep
disturbance’ would also be considered.
35 U. Moehler & L. Greven (2005), Community response to railway and road traffic noise - a review on German field studies. Internoise 2005 36 M. Basner, U. Müller, E-M. Elmenhorst (2011), Single and combined effects of air, road and rail traffic noise on sleep and recuperation, SLEEP 37 Basner and McGuire, 2018. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A systematic review on environmental noise and effects on sleep. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(3), 519.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.85 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.7.45 The Scoping Opinion requested clarification on this second point (see Table 17.5)
17.7.46 For aviation, research on objective sleep disturbance suggests that, on average, to
protect health, bearing in mind that a healthy adult briefly awakens around 20
times during an 8-hour night period in environments without external stressors,
there should be less than one additional awakening induced by aircraft noise per
night38.
17.7.47 However, one additional awakening for aircraft noise might be associated with a
wide-variety of combinations of LAmax levels / number of events such as a small
number of events with high LAmax levels or by a high number of events with lower
LAmax levels39. This makes setting a SOAEL value for aviation noise based on LAmax
levels / number of events challenging and unlikely to identify all significant effects
on health and quality of life. This contrasts with other noise sources, such as
railway noise, where there are regular repeating events both in noise levels and
geography (i.e. the train has a similar noise exposure and is in the same place in
relation to the receptor), which enables LOAEL and SOAEL values to be set using
LAmax levels / number of events.
17.7.48 For aircraft noise the assessment at ES will therefore use a supplementary
SOAEL value of newly experiencing one additional awakening (per night but taken
as an average over a year). A risk assessment will therefore be undertaken using
the methodologies defined by Basner as part of Evaluation 1. This will estimate the
number of additional awakenings for aircraft noise in relation to all combinations of
LAmax levels and number of events for the night-time period (23.00 – 07.00) during
operation.
17.7.49 If the result of the assessment shows that, on average, there will be less than one
additional awakening induced by aircraft noise per night, then it will be assumed
that there is no significant effect on health for objective sleep disturbance. If the
assessment shows that a receptor will newly experience more than one additional
awakening by aircraft noise (>=one additional awakening), then this will contribute
to a significant effect on health for objective sleep disturbance (i.e. there would be
a significant adverse effect on health and quality of life due to additional
awakening, as well as self-reported sleep disturbance for each receptor newly
exposed above the SOAEL).
38 Basner et al 2006. Aircraft noise effect on sleep: application of the results of a large polysomnographic field study. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(5), 2772-2784 39 Basner et al 2006. Aircraft noise effect on sleep: application of the results of a large polysomnographic field study. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(5), 2772-2784
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.86 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Evaluation 2 - Likely Significant Effects (adverse and beneficial)
17.7.50 Where exposure lies above the relevant LOAEL value, then there is the potential
for likely significant effects (adverse or beneficial) to be identified primarily due to
noise change brought about by the DCO Project. The Primary Factors and
Additional Factors (described and further outlined in the following sections) are
used to determine whether a likely significant effect is identified, having taken into
account embedded and all other noise control measures.
Primary factors
17.7.51 The three Primary Factors identified in Graphic 17.9 Significance evaluation
criteria for residential receptors for all noise sources
17.7.52 have been considered together in the assessment and are not considered in
isolation. None of the factors on their own would indicate a likely significant effect.
17.7.53 When the exposure falls above the relevant LOAEL value a likely significant effect
(adverse or beneficial) is identified in terms of the EIA Regulations in according to
a grading structure for each area where, at extremes:
1. A large population is subject to small noise change (increase or decrease)
2. A small population is subject to a large noise change (increase or decrease)
3. Greater weight is given to a small change in exposure, where the exposure
approaches the relevant SOAEL, and less weight will be given to a large
population where the exposure is just above the relevant LOAEL.
Primary Factor P1 – noise change
1.1.1 When combining the primary factors to identify likely significant effects (adverse
and beneficial), greater weight will be given to changes in noise exposure of
greater magnitude (increases and decreases) according to the change categories
in Table 17.15.
1.1.2 The change categories for aircraft noise have been informed by guidance from the
Civil Aviation Authority (CAP1616a Para 1.31 et seq). For road traffic noise the
change categories have been informed by the noise change classification for
short-term criteria (as a worst-case) from the Design Manual for Roads and
Bridges (DMRB). There are only three change classifications above negligible in
DMRB (referred to as minor, moderate and major), so the long-term ‘major’ noise
change category has been used for the Very High road noise change category.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.87 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.15: Noise change categories
Noise change category Aircraft and ground noise Road noise
Negligible <1 dB <1 dB
Low 1 - 2 dB 1 – 2 dB
Medium 3 – 5 dB 3 – 4 dB
High 6 – 9 dB 5 – 10 dB
Very High >9 dB >10 dB
Primary Factor P2 – noise level
17.7.54 When combining the primary factors to identify likely significant effects (adverse
and beneficial), greater weight will be given to exposures at higher noise levels
according to the exposure categories in Table 17.16.
Table 17.16: Noise exposure categories
Exposure category
Aircraft and ground noise, daytime
Aircraft and ground noise, night-time
Road noise, daytime
Road noise, night-time
Very Low <51 dBLAeq,16h <45 dBLAeq,8h <50 dBLAeq,16h <40 dBLAeq,8h
LOAEL
Low 51 – 53 dBLAeq,16h 45 – 47 dBLAeq,8h 50 – 53 dBLAeq,16h 40 – 44 dBLAeq,8h
Medium 54 – 56 dBLAeq,16h 48 – 50 dBLAeq,8h 54 – 56 dBLAeq,16h 45 – 49 dBLAeq,8h
High 57 – 62 dBLAeq,16h 51 – 54 dBLAeq,8h 57 – 62 dBLAeq,16h 50 – 54 dBLAeq,8h
SOAEL
Very High >63 dBLAeq,16h >54 dBLAeq,8h >63 dBLAeq,16h >55 dBLAeq,8h
UAEL
Unacceptable >71dBLAeq,16h >66dBLAeq,8h >71dBLAeq,16h >66dBLAeq,8h
Primary Factor P3 – population
17.7.55 When combining the primary factors to identify likely significant effects (adverse
and beneficial), greater weight will be given to effects on greater population within
an assessment area according to the population categories in Table 17.17.
17.7.56 As noted earlier the specific combination of Primary Factors that lead to likely
significant effects (adverse or beneficial) are based on a grading structure. Where
possible, the grading structure has been taken from relevant standards and
guidance (for example the noise change categories set out in CAP1616a) and has
also taken into account response to the Scoping Report consultation. The grading
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.88 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
structure - particularly the grades for population - has been further informed by
professional judgement (see the IEMA Guidelines for Environmental Noise
Assessment 2014) and has been refined through application to specific
assessment areas for the DCO Project and through engagement and review with
the Noise Expert Review Group. Finally, the monetised value of the combination of
exposure, change and population have been considered using WebTAG to finalise
the grading structure and combinations.
17.7.57 The difference in the population counts used to define the grades for aircraft
compared to ground noise sources is justified because ground noise levels reduce
more quickly with distance than aircraft noise because of ground absorption bur
more importantly because of screening from natural topography, the built
environment and noise barriers.
Table 17.17: Population categories
Population category Aircraft noise Aircraft ground noise and road noise
Very Low 10 – 99 1 - 9
Low 100 – 399 10 – 39
Medium 400 – 699 40 – 69
High 700 – 1000 70 – 100
Very High >1000 >100
Framework for the combination of Primary Factors for Evaluation 2
17.7.58 Graphic 17.11 shows how the categories of Primary Factors are brought together
to identify likely significant effects (adverse and beneficial). Where combinations
that lead to likely significant effects are possible (indicated by grey shaded cells),
the text in the cell shows the range of population categories (for that change and
exposure) that would lead to the identification of a likely significant effect. For
example:
1. A likely significant effect would be identified on an area basis for a low change
(see Table 17.15) and low exposure (see Table 17.16) if the population is very
high (see Table 17.17); and by contrast
2. A likely significant effect would be identified on an area basis for a very high
change and a high exposure if the population is low, medium, high or very high.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.89 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Graphic 17.11 Evaluation 2 framework
Additional factors
17.7.59 As set out Graphic 17.9 the identification of likely significant effects will be
supported by a number of Additional Factors. Whilst the Additional Factors have
not been fully applied for the PEIR assessment they are described in more detail
in Appendix 17.1, Annex D, with worked examples to explain how they will be
used in the ES.
17.7.60 For this PEIR, the assessment is based on Primary Factors and, where relevant, a
qualitative description of how the Additional Factors may change the assessment
outcome is provided. At ES the assessment will be based on the Primary Factors
and the Additional Factors.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.90 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Assessment of non-residential receptors
17.7.61 The Scoping Report set out the assessment methodology for non-residential
receptors detailing the screening criteria for the assessment, and the Primary
Factors and Additional Factors to be used in the assessment.
17.7.62 Screening criteria for the day and night-time periods are set for the following non-
residential building categories:
1. Large and small auditoria; concert halls; sound recording and broadcast
studios; and theatres
2. Places of meeting for religious worship; courts; cinemas; lecture theatres;
museums; and small auditoria or halls
3. Hospitals and hotels
4. Schools, colleges and libraries
5. Offices (that would be sensitive to noise)
6. Designated external amenity spaces.
17.7.63 Where a non-residential receptor meets the screening criteria, in line with the EIA
Regulations, where the calculated ‘end state’ exposure lies above the relevant
policy, standards and guidelines then likely significant effects (adverse or
beneficial) on a receptor may be identified based on a number of Primary Factors
(noise exposure and magnitude of change in noise exposure) and Additional
Factors (Change in overall ambient noise; additional metrics for aircraft noise;
frequency and duration for construction noise; other relevant information).
17.7.64 There has been one update to the Additional Factors since the Scoping Report.
Noise insulation is no longer considered an Additional Factor, as it is considered in
Government Policy (the ANPS) to be community compensation. Noise insulation is
therefore considered as part of noise control measures in Section 17.9.
Vibration – residential
17.7.65 The Scoping Report sets out the assessment methodology for residential
vibration detailing the screening criteria and the factors to be used in the
assessment.
17.7.66 For residential receptors the key noise and vibration exposure levels (LOAEL and
SOAEL values) identified for the different phases, types of vibration source and
type of effect in the assessment for residential receptors are specified (See
Appendix 17.1, Annex C).
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.91 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.7.67 Significant adverse effects on health and/or quality of life will be identified at every
residential receptor (dwelling) when the relevant SOAEL value is newly exceeded
as a result of the DCO Project.
17.7.68 In line with the EIA Regulations, where the calculated ‘end state’ exposure lies
above the relevant LOAEL value then likely significant effects (adverse or
beneficial) may be identified either on an area basis or on individual dwellings (at
exposures above SOAEL) taking account of the several factors (magnitude of the
effect; change in vibration level; number and groupings of receptors affected;
frequency and duration of construction impacts; any unique features).
17.7.69 There has been one change to the assessment factors for residential vibration
since the scoping report. The factor ‘the effectiveness of mitigation through design
or other means’ is no longer considered as an additional factor for the PEIR
assessment, as it is considered separately, in Section 17.9 which considers noise
control measures.
Vibration – non-residential
17.7.70 The Scoping Report sets out the assessment methodology for vibration for non-
residential receptors detailing the screening criteria and the factors to be used in
the assessment.
17.7.71 For non-residential receptors screening criteria for ground borne noise are
identified for the following non-residential buildings:
1. Theatres / large auditoria and concert halls
2. Sound recording / broadcast studios
3. Places of meeting for religious worship / courts / cinemas lecture theatres /
museums / small auditoria or halls
4. Offices / schools / colleges / hospitals / hotels / libraries.
17.7.72 For non-residential receptors screening criteria for ground borne vibration are
identified for the following non-residential buildings:
1. Hotels; hospital wards; and education dormitories
2. Offices; Schools; and Places of Worship
3. Workshops
4. Vibration sensitive research and manufacturing (for example computer chip
manufacture); hospitals with vibration sensitive equipment / operations;
universities with vibration sensitive research equipment / operations
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.92 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.7.73 Where a non-residential receptor meets the screening criteria, in line with the EIA
Regulations, where the calculated ‘end state’ exposure lies above the relevant
policy, standards and guidelines then (adverse or beneficial) likely significant
effects on a receptor may be identified based on a number of factors (the design of
the receptor affected; the existing ambient noise and vibration levels in the
receptor affected; any unique features of the DCO Project’s sound or vibration
impacts in the area being considered; the frequency and duration over which
temporary construction impacts may occur).
17.7.74 There has been one change to the assessment factors for non-residential vibration
since the scoping report; ‘the effectiveness of mitigation through design or other
means’ is no longer considered as a factor, as it is considered separately, in
Section 17.9.
17.8 Overall baseline
Current baseline
Aircraft noise
Baseline noise exposure
17.8.1 Heathrow is a major airport for the purposes of the Environmental Noise (England)
Regulations40, as amended.
17.8.2 The most recent noise exposure data available for Heathrow is for 2017 which is
published in ERCD REPORT 1701: Heathrow Airport 2017 Summer Noise
Contours and Noise Action Plan Contours, CAA41. The PEIR noise models have
been used to calculate baseline 2017 aircraft noise exposure and the outputs have
been verified against the 2017 ECRD data. Table 17.18 presents the population
exposed to aircraft noise levels above the 92-day summer average noise contours
for various effect levels in 2017.
40 The Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006 41 CAA, ERCD REPORT 1801: Heathrow Airport 2018 Summer Noise Contours and Noise Action Plan Contours, 2018 (CAA, 2018)
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.93 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.18: Population exposure to aircraft noise 2017
Effect level 92-day summer average LAeq,16h contour
92-day summer average LAeq,8h contour
Population within contour
Area (km2) Population within contour
Area (km2)
LOAEL (51 dB LAeq,16h / 45 dB LAeq, 8h) 1,082,500 293.2 940,300 189.3
54dB LAeq,16h 555,500 167.0
SOAEL (63 dB LAeq,16h / 55 dB LAeq, 8h) 48,700 31.4 71,900 29.4
UAEL (71 dB LAeq,16h / 66 dB LAeq, 8h) < 100 4.9 1,400 3.5
2013 baseline
17.8.3 As described in Section 17.2 paragraph 5.58 of the ANPS requires that ‘noise
mitigation measures should ensure the impact of aircraft noise is limited and,
where possible, reduced compared to the 2013 baseline assessed by the Airports
Commission.’, with reference to the 2013 baseline for the 54dB LAeq,16h noise
contour.
17.8.4 To enable the DCO Project to be tested against paragraph 5.58, the 2013 baseline
has been established using the fleet mix, flight tracks and the schedules for 2013.
Figure 17.1, Volume 2 presents the 92-day summer average LAeq,16h for 2013.
17.8.5 For comparison with the noise metrics used in this preliminary assessment, Table 17.19 presents the population exposed to aircraft noise levels above the 92-day
summer average noise contours for various effect levels in 2013
Table 17.19: Population exposure to aircraft noise in 2013
Effect level 92-day summer average LAeq,16h contour
92-day summer average LAeq,8h contour
Population within contour
Area (km2) Population within contour
Area (km2)
LOAEL (51 dB LAeq,16h / 45 dB LAeq, 8h) 1,206,300 369.4 998,300 225.7
54dB LAeq,16h 616,100 204.3
SOAEL (63 dB LAeq,16h / 55 dB LAeq, 8h) 67,100 38.5 103,500 40.1
UAEL (71 dB LAeq,16h / 66 dB LAeq, 8h) 800 6.8 2,700 4.9
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.94 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Survey of noise attitudes (SoNA)
17.8.6 The responses from the SoNA 2014 survey have been reviewed to understand
attitudes to aviation noise around airports, including Heathrow. The SONA 2014
survey is the most recent evidence base for attitudes to aviation noise in the UK,
with a focus on populations around Heathrow airport including respondents from
the London Borough of Ealing, the London Borough of Hillingdon, the London
Borough of Hounslow, Slough Borough Council, Spelthorne Borough Council and
the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. This information has been used
to inform the evidence base for the assessment, see Appendix 17.1, Annex E.
Aircraft ground and airfield noise
17.8.7 For areas in the immediate vicinity of Heathrow, noise from the airfield and aircraft
operating on the ground also contributes to the baseline noise environment. These
receptors are typically located close to areas where aircraft ground movements
take place, for example near to taxiways, runway hold and exit points, engine
testing facilities and parking stands. Ground noise is noticeable at the airport
boundary and in surrounding areas of Sipson, Harmondsworth, Harlington
Cranford, Hatton, Bedfont, Stanwell, Stanwell Moor and Longford.
Road traffic noise
17.8.8 Major sources of road traffic noise are located within the vicinity of Heathrow.
Road traffic noise sources include the M4 and M25 motorways, the A4 spurs,
other major A-roads and many local roads. These road networks form the primary
routes for airport traffic. Many of the roads within the study area are regarded as a
major source of road traffic noise (known as important areas under the
Environmental Noise (England) Regulations) 2006.
Railway noise
17.8.9 Heathrow is also served by a number of over ground railways (for example,
existing rail operations on the Colnbrook railway line) and underground railways.
Railway noise maps prepared by Defra for the Round 2 Noise Action Plan in 2011
show that rail noise is likely to be noticeable in communities in the proximity of the
Piccadilly line, the Heathrow Express and Southern and Western Rail access
routes.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.95 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Noise important areas
17.8.10 Noise Important Areas42 (NIA) in the vicinity of the DCO Project resulting from
existing roads and railways have been defined from the noise mapping exercise
undertaken under the requirements of the Environmental Noise (England)
Regulations 2006 that implement the END. Any opportunities that the DCO Project
may provide to reduce noise levels will be considered in the context of any steps
that are being taken by Highways England and other highway competent
authorities as part of the Noise Action Plan: Roads43 and by Network Rail as part
of the Noise Action Plan for Railways44. The noise important areas for the ‘inner
area’ communities are shown on the road noise assessment figures.
Baseline characterisation ‘Inner area’
17.8.11 Table 17.20 provides a broad description of the existing noise environment at
residential areas surrounding Heathrow based on Round 1 Baseline data
collection. Major noise sources are identified, including current aircraft noise.
Table 17.20: Round one desk based baseline characterisation
Residential Location
Local Planning
Authority Characterisation of Area
Harlington London Borough
of Hillingdon
Harlington is located approximately 2km north east from the center
of Heathrow’s northern runway and is situated between two major
roads, the M4 and the A4. Generally, Harlington is comprised of
residential areas, with a commercial area to the south, running
along the A4.
Noise sources likely to be noticeable include road traffic noise from
the M4 and A4, and aircraft movements from Heathrow’s northern
runway for both arrivals and departures.
Sipson London Borough
of Hillingdon
Sipson is located approximately 1.3km north of the centre of
Heathrow’s northern runway and is situated between major roads,
including the M4 and A4. Generally, Sipson is comprised of
residential areas, which boarders onto agricultural land. There is a
waste disposal compound to the west of the village.
Major noise sources likely to contribute to the acoustic environment
include road traffic noise from the A4 and M4 and aircraft
movements from Heathrow’s northern runway for both arrivals and
42 Important Areas are identified with respect to noise from major roads and railways where the top 1% of the population that are affected by the highest noise levels from major roads and railway are located according to the results of the strategic noise mapping undertaken as part of the END. 43 Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Noise Action Plan: Roads (Including Major Roads), January 2014 (DfT, 2014a) 44 Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Noise Action Plan: Railways (Including Major Railways), January 2014 (DfT, 2014b)
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.96 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Residential Location
Local Planning
Authority Characterisation of Area
departures. Noise from the waste disposal compound also has the
potential to contribute to the acoustic environment depending on
location.
Poyle Slough Borough
Council
Poyle is located approximately 2km west of the western end of
Heathrow’s northern runway and is directly beneath the flight path
for westerly departures off the northern runway. The area lies
adjacent to the M25 and south of the A4 and M4. The area is
comprised mostly of industrial and commercial areas, with a
residential area in the north.
Likely noise sources would include road traffic noise from the M25,
M4 and A4, aircraft movements from Heathrow’s northern runway
for both arrivals and departures and industrial operations from the
local trading estate.
Harmondsworth London Borough
of Hillingdon
Harmondsworth is located approximately 1.8km north west of the
center of Heathrow’s northern runway and is situated between the
M25, M4 and A4. Generally, Harmondsworth is comprised of
residential areas and is surrounded by agricultural land.
Major noise sources likely to contribute to the acoustic environment
include road traffic noise from the M4, M25 and the A4, aircraft
movements from Heathrow’s northern runway for both arrivals and
departures and ground noise from inside the airport boundary.
Cranford London Borough
of Hounslow
Cranford is located approximately 1.6km east of the eastern end of
Heathrow’s northern runway. Due to this Cranford is directly
beneath the arrivals path during westerly operations, however, due
to current restrictions is not beneath a departure route from
Heathrow. The A4 passes through Cranford and the M4 is located
approximately 1.5km to the north. The area is comprised of
residential areas.
Likely noise sources would include road traffic noise from the A4
and M4, aircraft movements from Heathrow’s southern runway for
both arrivals and departures and ground noise.
Bedfont London Borough
of Hounslow
Bedfont is a predominately residential area located approximately
1.5km south of Heathrow’s southern runway. To the west of the
area are two large reservoirs, the A30 runs along the northern
perimeter and an industrial area is located to the east.
Likely noise sources would include road traffic noise from the A30,
aircraft movements from Heathrow’s southern runway for both
arrivals and departures, ground noise and HGV movements from
the adjacent industrial estate.
Stanwell Moor London Borough
of Hounslow
Stanwell Moor is located approximately 1km west of the southern
runway. The area is comprised of small pockets of residential areas
and large area of open space. The M25 runs from north to south at
the western boundary and the A3113 along the northern boundary.
Major noise sources likely to contribute to the acoustic environment
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.97 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Residential Location
Local Planning
Authority Characterisation of Area
include road traffic noise from the M25, the A3113 and A3044,
aircraft movements from Heathrow’s southern runway for both
arrivals and departures and ground noise.
Future baseline
Road traffic noise
17.8.12 Without the DCO Project, existing sound levels are likely to increase slowly over
time. This is primarily due to road traffic growth. Changes in car technology may
offset some of the expected sound level increases due to traffic growth on low
speed roads. On higher speed roads, tyre sound dominates and hence the
expected growth in traffic is likely to continue to increase ambient sound levels.
17.8.13 Roads on the strategic network with and without the DCO Project are assumed to
have low noise surfacing. It is assumed that Highways England would have
completed installation of LNS at important areas of the existing network by 2021,
with or without the proposed scheme.
Aircraft noise
Airspace
17.8.14 Irrespective of expansion, the airspace for aircraft using Heathrow will have to
change as a result of the CAA Airspace Modernisation Strategy. This would
require full consultation in accordance with the requirements of CAP1616 (as is
being applied to the development of airspace change for an expanded three-
runway Heathrow).
17.8.15 Two future airspace baselines for a two-runway Heathrow have been developed.
The first that would apply to operating before airspace modernisation would be
able to be completed (approximately 2026); and the second, to the period beyond
completion of the airspace modernisation.
1. Up to around 2026 (i.e. around the opening year for the DCO Project). It is
assumed that the two-runway airspace design would largely be an adaptation
of the current airspace. The detailed assumptions relating to the future baseline
are set out in Appendix 17.1, Annex G
2. Beyond 2026, the airspace associated with a non-expanded Heathrow is
unknown and, as noted above, would be the subject of consultation and
development in accordance with CAP1616.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.98 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.8.16 A single baseline airspace design has therefore been developed, for the period
beyond 2026, to enable the assessment of likely significant effects. This airspace
design has been derived by adapting the expanded Heathrow PEIR airspace test
cases as considered appropriate for a two-runway operation. This is described in
in Appendix 17.1, Annex G.
Airport noise
17.8.17 In the absence of the DCO Project, there is likely to be a change in baseline
conditions as a result of other development being pursued at Heathrow Airport.
The Kilobox Apron Development and Runway Access Taxiway projects, described
in Chapter 5: Approach to the EIA, would be completed prior to the
commencement of construction of the DCO Project. The Kilobox Apron
Development project and Runway Access Taxiway project would sit within the
existing Heathrow Airport footprint. Noise produced during the construction and
operation phases of these projects are not expected to materially alter the noise
generated within the airport boundary. The assessment presented in Section 17.10 assumes the presence of these developments in the baseline, against which
the effects of the DCO Project are compared.
17.8.18 Additional Heathrow Airport development may also come forward in the future
(with their construction and operation phases overlapping with the construction
and / or operation phases of the DCO Project). Such development is considered
within Section 17.11.
17.8.19 There will also be other changes in baseline conditions in the wider area as a
result of land use changes through development un-related to Heathrow Airport.
Such ‘other development’ could result in new receptors or result in other
cumulative effects with the DCO Project. Where these developments are built out
before the construction of the DCO Project commences, or where the construction
and operation phases of these developments overlap with the construction and / or
operation phases of the DCO Project, they are considered in Section 17.11.
17.9 Noise control measures
17.9.1 In line with Government noise policy and planning practice guidance, the DCO
Project includes noise control measures to:
1. Prevent unacceptable adverse effects from noise on health and quality of life
(caused by very disruptive noise levels resulting from the DCO Project)
2. Avoid any adverse significant effects on health and quality of life (caused by
disruptive noise levels resulting from the DCO Project)
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.99 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
3. Mitigate and minimise adverse effects on health and quality of life; and where
possible
4. Contribute to improvements to health and quality of life (by effective
management and control of noise).
17.9.2 While the approach to environmental measures is described generally in Chapter 5, this Section adopts general descriptions of the measures (e.g. ‘mitigation’ and
‘compensation’) in line with Government noise policy.
17.9.3 The Noise Policy Statement for England and decision making to date on DCOs
and hybrid Bills for major infrastructure makes clear that the aim of noise policy to
‘mitigate and minimise adverse effects on health and quality of life’ should be
interpreted as: ‘where noise exposure from the project exceeds the relevant
LOAEL (i.e. an adverse effect), mitigation should be included (i.e. embedded) in
the scheme to minimise noise as far as reasonably practicable’.
17.9.4 In line with noise policy all of the environmental measures for noise (noise control
measures) are therefore either ‘mitigation’ embedded into the DCO Project design,
as outlined in Chapter 6: DCO Project description, or are compensatory
measures (e.g. noise insulation).
17.9.5 The following sub-sections set out:
1. The approach to identifying and embedding noise mitigation measures into the
DCO Project
2. The embedded mitigation and compensation measures for each of the DCO
Project noise sources.
Approach to noise control (including vibration)
17.9.6 The DCO Project is being developed to manage and control noise, within the
context of Government policy on sustainable development, to meet the aims of
Government noise policy:
1. avoid significant adverse effects on health and quality of life due to noise
2. mitigate and minimise adverse effects on health and quality of life due to noise
3. where possible, contribute to improvements to health and quality of life.
17.9.7 To meet these aims, and generally minimise noise as far as reasonably
practicable, noise control measures have been embedded into the DCO Project or
defined in compensation policies in the following order:
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.100 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
1. Mitigate by design: optimise the construction, masterplan and indicative
airspace design components of the DCO Project to minimise noise ‘at source’
(e.g. the length and location of the new runway)
2. Mitigate by additional measures: i.e. add additional measures / interventions
purely to control noise (e.g. noise barriers)
3. Compensate: by the provision of improved noise insulation for the receptor
(e.g. home or school) or temporary re-housing over periods of very disruptive
construction noise
4. Mitigate by restriction (for aircraft noise only): for example, mitigation by a
ban on scheduled night-flights. This measure is considered last in the hierarchy
in line with the Government obligations under EU Regulation 598 / 2014.
17.9.8 Following evaluation, the mitigation options embedded into the DCO Project
collectively meet the government noise policy aims to; ‘mitigate and minimise
adverse effects on health and quality of life’ and where possible ‘contribute to the
improvement of health and quality of life’.
17.9.9 For construction noise control measures are identified to provide the Best
Practicable Means to minimise noise disturbance as set out in Section 11 of the
draft Code of Construction Practice.
17.9.10 For operational noise sources, meeting the second aim of government noise policy
requires the embedded mitigation to minimise adverse effects on health and
quality of life. The Noise Policy Statement for England notes that minimise is ‘as
far as reasonably practicable’. This has been achieved through initial evaluations
and for the ES will be confirmed using broadly the following criteria (in no
particular order):
1. Benefit (monetised using WebTAG) of the mitigation option compared to cost
2. Practicability / operability of the mitigation option
3. Other environmental effects (caused by the mitigation option)
4. Stakeholder / consultation feedback (on the mitigation option).
17.9.11 For aircraft noise, control measures are evaluated in line with the Government
obligations under Regulation EU 598/2014.
17.9.12 The DCO Project compensation policies (e.g. the Noise Insulation Policy) have
been developed to ensure that taken together the embedded mitigation and
compensation measures meet the first aim of government noise policy ‘to avoid
significant adverse effects on health and quality of life’.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.101 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.9.13 This is achieved by the draft Noise Insulation Policy that sets qualification criteria
that are either in line with or lower than the relevant SOAEL values (see Section 17.7). For aircraft noise this is in line with Heathrow’s committed community
compensation package (ANPS 5.245).
17.9.14 The following sub-sections set out the embedded mitigation and compensation
measures for each of the DCO Project noise sources in turn.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.102 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Control Measures for Construction Noise
Table 17.21: Summary of the embedded and compensation measures and how these influence the noise assessment | Construction Noise
Receptor Required change in noise effects
Embedded mitigation or compensation measure and influence on assessment
How is the noise control achieved?
Category from noise control hierarchy
Other information
Receptors affected by
intrusive construction noise (above the
relevant LOAEL value)
Mitigate and minimise
adverse effects from
construction noise
Code of Construction Practice: The noise section of the draft CoCP sets, for example, Heathrow will implement Best Practicable Means (BPM) to minimise noise (including vibration) and protect receptors from the effects of noise.
The draft CoCP sets out: management control measures; mitigation; compensation; community relations; secondary consent requirements; and monitoring requirements to minimise construction noise as far as practicable.
Mitigate by design Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise impact assessment taking account of these embedded measures
Noise sensitive receptors
within Harmondsworth,
Sipson, Poyle, and
Colnbrook, affected by
disruptive construction
noise (above SOAEL
value)
Reduce significant
adverse effects of
construction noise
Heathrow will provide tall, solid noise screening around the perimeter of construction sites / compounds adjacent to: Harmondsworth, Sipson, Poyle, and Colnbrook.
Screen receptors from construction noise (10dB reduction). This will contribute, along with the CoCP and compensation measures to avoiding significant adverse effects.
Mitigate by addition (adds to above mitigation)
Sections 17.10 and 17.11report the noise impact assessment taking account of these embedded measures
Receptors affected by
disruptive construction
Avoid residual
significant adverse
Heathrow will implement a phased programme of
The DCO Project Noise Insulation Policy offers
Compensate
(in addition to mitigation
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.103 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Receptor Required change in noise effects
Embedded mitigation or compensation measure and influence on assessment
How is the noise control achieved?
Category from noise control hierarchy
Other information
noise (above the relevant
SOAEL value)
effects on health and
quality of life due to
construction noise
noise insulation, as set out in the draft Noise Insulation Policy, which will include provision for the insulation of private homes forecast to be exposed to levels that exceed SOAEL. This would avoid significant
adverse effects on health
and quality of life inside
receptors at night (self-
reported sleep disturbance)
and during the day
(annoyance)
Improved glazing to reduce noise levels inside homes and provision of additional ventilation to enable improved glazing to be kept closed.
above) impact assessment taking account of these compensatory measures
Receptors affected by
very disruptive
construction noise
(above the relevant
UAEL value)
Prevent residual
unacceptable adverse
effects on health and
quality of life due to
construction noise
Heathrow will offer Temporary rehousing for the period of time the relevant trigger value is exceeded: This would prevent exposure to unacceptable noise effects.
DCO Project Noise Insulation Policy offers temporary accommodation to re-house people for the period of the very disruptive noise levels
Compensate
(in addition to mitigation
and compensation
measures above unless
insulation and temporary
rehousing triggered at
same time)
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise impact assessment taking account of these compensatory measures
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.104 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Control Measures for Aircraft Noise
Table 17.22: Summary of the embedded and compensation measures and how these influence the noise assessment | Aircraft Noise
Receptor Required change in noise effects
Embedded mitigation or compensation measure and influence on assessment
How is the noise control achieved?
Category from noise control hierarchy Category from ICAO balanced approach
Other information
Receptors affected by
intrusive aircraft noise (above the
relevant LOAEL value)
Arrivals
Mitigate and minimise
adverse effects of
new and reduce
existing Aircraft noise as far as
reasonably
practicable.
The DCO Project provides for displaced thresholds on all runways.
Allows aircraft to land
further down the
runway which means
that they are higher as
they approach the
airport at all distances
from the airport. This
reduces noise at
ground level.
Provision of displaced thresholds on existing runways is only practicable as part of Heathrow expansion.
Mitigate by design
(new runway)
Mitigate by addition
(existing runways)
ICAO Balanced Approach: Land use (in addition to mitigation above)
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise impact assessment taking account of these embedded measures
Receptors affected by
intrusive aircraft noise (above the
relevant LOAEL value)
Arrivals & Departures
Mitigate and minimise
adverse effects of
new and reduce
existing Aircraft noise as far as
reasonably
practicable.
NW Runway Position, Length and Separation c1,000m from current northern runway. The scheme allows for
the new runway to be NW
of the existing runways
with a separation of
Enables 1) independent operations and so provides for full alternation on easterly and westerly operations that will provide predictable respite to
Mitigate by design
ICAO Balanced Approach: Land use planning (in addition to mitigation above)
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise impact assessment taking account of these embedded measures
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.105 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Receptor Required change in noise effects
Embedded mitigation or compensation measure and influence on assessment
How is the noise control achieved?
Category from noise control hierarchy Category from ICAO balanced approach
Other information
c.1,000m from the
existing northern runway.
communities; 2) displaced threshold landings; 3) reduces noise impact over densely populated west London because of location NW of existing runways.
Receptors affected by
intrusive aircraft noise (above the
relevant LOAEL value)
Arrivals & Departures
Mitigate and minimise
adverse effects of
new and reduce
existing Aircraft noise as far as
reasonably
practicable.
Heathrow is consulting on a night flight management regime including a 6.5 hour ban on scheduled night flights and exploring how
this can be delivered to
maximise respite for
communities close to the
runways between 2300
and 0700.
Scheme would be a
part of the package of
measures to minimise
self-reported sleep
disturbance and would
avoid sleep
disturbance for many
people on many
nights.
Only economically viable following growth of ATMs beyond the existing cap as concluded by the Airports Commission.
Mitigate by restriction
ICAO Balanced Approach: Operating Restriction (in addition to mitigation above)
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise impact assessment taking account of these embedded measures
Receptors affected by
very disruptive
Prevent residual
unacceptable
Heathrow will seek powers in the DCO to
DCO Project Noise Insulation Policy
Compensate
ICAO Balanced
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.106 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Receptor Required change in noise effects
Embedded mitigation or compensation measure and influence on assessment
How is the noise control achieved?
Category from noise control hierarchy Category from ICAO balanced approach
Other information
aircraft noise (above
the relevant UAEL
value)
adverse effects on
health and quality of
life due to aircraft noise inside
dwellings
install full acoustic insulation if necessary. This would prevent unacceptable adverse
effects on health and
quality of life at night
(sleep disturbance) and
daytime (annoyance)
indoors in the event that
a receptor owner does
not positively respond to
Heathrow’s reasonable
offers to insulate or
purchase property.
supported by powers
in the DCO.
Improved glazing, loft
insulation, bedroom
celling over-boarding
to reduce noise levels
inside homes and
provision of additional
ventilation to enable
improved glazing to
be kept closed.
Approach: Land use planning (in addition to mitigation
above)
impact assessment taking account of these compensatory measures
Receptors affected by
disruptive aircraft noise (above the
relevant SOAEL
value)
Avoids residual
significant adverse
effects on health and
quality of life due to
aircraft noise inside
dwellings
Heathrow will implement a prioritised programme of noise insulation, as set out in the draft Noise Insulation Policy, which will include provision for the insulation of private homes forecast to be exposed to levels that exceed the relevant
DCO Project Noise Insulation Policy.
Improved glazing, loft
insulation, bedroom
celling over-boarding
to reduce noise levels
inside homes and
provision of additional
ventilation to enable
improved glazing to
be kept closed.
Compensate
ICAO Balanced Approach: Land use planning (in addition to mitigation
above)
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise impact assessment taking account of these compensatory measures
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.107 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Receptor Required change in noise effects
Embedded mitigation or compensation measure and influence on assessment
How is the noise control achieved?
Category from noise control hierarchy Category from ICAO balanced approach
Other information
SOAEL. This would avoid significant adverse
effects on health and
quality of life at night
(sleep disturbance) and
daytime (annoyance)
indoors.
Properties
experiencing aircraft noise within the noise
insulation scheme
inner zone45 but with a
noise exposure less
than the relevant
SOAEL value.
Minimises residual
adverse effects on
health and quality of
life due to aircraft noise
Heathrow will implement a phased programme of noise insulation, as set out in the draft Noise Insulation Policy, which will include provision for the insulation of private homes forecast to be exposed to levels that are less than SOAEL but are greater than 60dB LAeq,16h (single mode). This would reduce
DCO Project Noise Insulation Policy
Improved glazing, loft
insulation, bedroom
celling over-boarding
to reduce noise levels
inside homes and
provision of additional
ventilation to enable
improved glazing to
be kept closed.
Compensate
ICAO Balanced Approach: Land use planning (in addition to mitigation above)
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise impact assessment taking account of these compensatory measures
45 Inner zone as defined in ANPS Paragraph 5.245 and responded to by the draft DCO Project Noise Insulation Policy
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.108 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Receptor Required change in noise effects
Embedded mitigation or compensation measure and influence on assessment
How is the noise control achieved?
Category from noise control hierarchy Category from ICAO balanced approach
Other information
adverse effects on health
and quality of life (day
and night) and avoid
adverse likely significant
effects due to noise
increases
Properties
experiencing aircraft noise within the
committed noise
insulation scheme
outer zone46
Minimise residual
adverse effects on
health and quality of
life due to aircraft noise
Heathrow will implement a phased programme of noise insulation, as set out in the draft Noise Insulation Policy, which will include contribution
of up to £3,000 towards
noise insulation for areas
exposed to aircraft noise
further from the airport
where levels exceed
57dB LAeq,16h for single
mode easterly and
westerly or the full 55dB
Lden noise contours of an
expanded airport.
For example,
contribution toward
secondary glazing of
bedroom windows to
reduce noise levels
inside homes
Compensate
ICAO Balanced Approach: Land use planning (in addition to mitigation
above)
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise impact assessment taking account of these compensatory measures
46 Outer zone as defined in ANPS Paragraph 5.245 and responded to by the draft DCO Project Noise Insulation Policy
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.109 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Receptor Required change in noise effects
Embedded mitigation or compensation measure and influence on assessment
How is the noise control achieved?
Category from noise control hierarchy Category from ICAO balanced approach
Other information
Community buildings
experiencing aircraft noise with a noise
exposure greater than
60dB LAeq,16h (single
mode).
Avoid residual
adverse likely
significant effects and
minimises adverse
effects on health and
quality of life due to
aircraft noise
Heathrow will implement a phased programme of noise insulation, as set out in the draft Noise Insulation Policy, which will include provision for the insulation of community buildings forecast to be exposed to levels that are less than SOAEL but are greater than 60dB LAeq,16h (single mode). This would reduce adverse effects on health
and quality of life (day
and night) and avoid
adverse likely significant
effects due to noise
increases
DCO Project Noise Insulation Policy
Improved glazing and
other interventions as
necessary to control
noise levels inside
community buildings
and provision of
additional ventilation
to enable improved
glazing to be kept
closed.
Compensate
ICAO Balanced Approach: Land use planning (in addition to mitigation
above)
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise
impact assessment
taking account of these
compensatory
measures
Receptors affected by
very high aircraft noise (above 69dB
LAeq,16h)
Provides an option for
avoiding significant
adverse effects on
health and quality of
Heathrow will offer
assistance with the costs of relocation in
line with government
Covered by
Heathrow’s
Relocation Assistance
Scheme (HRAS) and
Compensate
ICAO Balanced Approach: Land use planning
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise
impact assessment
taking account of these
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.110 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Receptor Required change in noise effects
Embedded mitigation or compensation measure and influence on assessment
How is the noise control achieved?
Category from noise control hierarchy Category from ICAO balanced approach
Other information
life due to aircraft noise.
minimum requirement
(Annex D of the draft UK
Airspace Policy - Feb
2017 - as adopted by the
Govt Consultation
Response on UK
Airspace Policy: A
framework for balanced
decisions on the design
and use of airspace - Oct
2017)
likely also fall within
Wider Property Offer
Zone (WPOZ).
Assist peoples’
decision to move
themselves away
from noise exposure
(in addition to
mitigation above)
compensatory
measures
All receptors in study
area
Minimises adverse
effects of new and
reduces existing
Aircraft noise
Heathrow will ensure a Noise Envelope is defined, enforced and implemented. See NEXT part of this sub-section and following rows of this table
Ensures aircraft noise
impact can be no
worse than identified
in the ES.
Identifies local
priorities.
Ensures benefits of
technological
improvements are
shared.
Is regularly reviewed
Mitigate by restriction
ICAO Balanced Approach: Operating restriction (The noise envelope secures the noise reduction outcome of the above mitigation as assumed for the EIA but provides flexibility in achieving that outcome by the same or other means)
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise
impact assessment
taking account of this
measure
All receptors within
study area
Minimises adverse
effects of new and
Future fleet noise levels:* The scheme allows for a
Reduces aircraft noise at source and hence reduces noise at
Mitigate by design
ICAO Balanced Approach: Reduction
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise impact assessment
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.111 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Receptor Required change in noise effects
Embedded mitigation or compensation measure and influence on assessment
How is the noise control achieved?
Category from noise control hierarchy Category from ICAO balanced approach
Other information
reduces existing
Aircraft noise within
the context of
Government policy on
Sustainable
Development
‘likely’ forecast of the reduction of future aircraft type noise levels based on analysis by Heathrow (refer to Appendix 17.1, Annex B). This analysis draws on existing international research and development plans aligned with the market development of future aircraft types. Appendix 17.1, Annex B provides details of this analysis, the assumptions that have been made and the sensitivity of the assessment to different assumptions.
ground level.
of noise at source
taking account of these assumed measures.
All receptors within
study area
Minimises adverse
effects of new and
reduces existing
Aircraft noise within
the context of
Government policy on
Sustainable
Development
Landing gear procedures*: The scheme allows for initiatives such as keeping landing gear up as long as possible to minimise noise from aircraft approaching Heathrow.
Reduces aircraft noise at source (arrivals) and hence reduces noise at ground level.
Mitigate by design ICAO Balanced Approach: Operating procedures (in addition to above mitigation)
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise impact assessment taking account of these assumed measures.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.112 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Receptor Required change in noise effects
Embedded mitigation or compensation measure and influence on assessment
How is the noise control achieved?
Category from noise control hierarchy Category from ICAO balanced approach
Other information
All receptors within
study area
Minimises adverse
effects of new and
reduces existing
Aircraft noise within
the context of
Government policy on
Sustainable
Development
Approach gradient * Slightly steeper final approach and steeper outer segments. Aircraft approaching runways designated for landing only would approach initially using a 3.5 degrees descent and transition into a 3.15 degrees descent on final approach. Aircraft approaching a runway designated for mixed mode would descend using a 3.15 degrees descent.
Steeper approach
gradients mean aircraft
on approach follow a
steeper descent than
current procedures.
This means aircraft are
higher above receptors
reducing noise levels
on the ground.
Mitigate by design ICAO Balanced Approach: Operating procedures (in addition to above mitigation)
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise impact assessment taking account of these assumed measures.
All receptors within
study area
Minimises adverse
effects of new and
reduces existing
Aircraft noise within
the context of
Government policy on
Sustainable
Development
Continuous Descent Operations (CDO)*: The scheme allows for all aircraft to follow a continuous descent profile on approach to Heathrow. A continuous descent ensures that aircraft are kept as high as possible for as long as possible and generally requires less engine
CDO mean aircraft on
approach follow a
continuous descent
(with the potential
exception of a 2nm
level segment required
for safely joining the
Instrument Landing
System (ILS)). Without
CDO some pilots will
descend earlier than
Mitigate by design ICAO Balanced Approach: Operating procedures (in addition to above mitigation)
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise impact assessment taking account of these assumed measures.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.113 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Receptor Required change in noise effects
Embedded mitigation or compensation measure and influence on assessment
How is the noise control achieved?
Category from noise control hierarchy Category from ICAO balanced approach
Other information
thrust to maintain than level flight, reducing noise levels on the ground.
they need to and may
need to use their
engines which can
result in increased
noise. CDO also can
help keep aircraft
higher for longer also
contributing to lower
noise.
All receptors within
study area
Minimise adverse
effects of new and
reduces existing
Aircraft noise within
the context of
Government policy on
Sustainable
Development
Continuous climb operations (CCO)*; The scheme allows for aircraft to continuously climb following take-off from Heathrow with a minimum climb gradient of 5%.
CCO mean aircraft on
approach follow a
continuous decent as
per the UK CCO
definition47
Mitigate by design ICAO Balanced Approach: Operating procedures (in addition to above mitigation)
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise impact assessment taking account of these assumed measures.
All receptors within
study area
Minimise adverse
effects of new and
reduces existing
Aircraft noise within
High performance SIDs* Increased departure
gradient for specific high
performing aircraft or SID
SID specifically design
to reduce noise impact
Mitigate by design ICAO Balanced Approach: Operating procedures
High performance SIDs to be considered between PEIR and ES.
47 The definition of a continuous decent approach for monitoring purposes is provided in the UK AIP at AD 2 EGLL 26
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.114 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Receptor Required change in noise effects
Embedded mitigation or compensation measure and influence on assessment
How is the noise control achieved?
Category from noise control hierarchy Category from ICAO balanced approach
Other information
the context of
Government policy on
Sustainable
Development
only to be used by best
noise performing aircraft.
(in addition to above mitigation)
All receptors within
study area
Minimise adverse
effects of new and
reduces existing
Aircraft noise within
the context of
Government policy on
Sustainable
Development
Daytime Runway alternation*: The scheme allows four modes of operation (MDL, MLD, DLM, LDM) in each direction (see Chapter 6). Future runway operations assume that two modes operate each day, one mode starting at 05:30 with a switch to another mode at 14:00 until midnight. The sequence and modes change over a 4-day cycle.
The four modes can be rotated through a variety of patterns to alternate runway use and so provide a predictable pattern of respite (relief) from aircraft noise to reduce noise effects on amenity.
Mitigate by design ICAO Balanced Approach: Operating procedures (in addition to above mitigation)
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise impact assessment taking account of these assumed measures. Alternative alternation options to be considered and evaluated between EPIR and ES and reported in the ES as relevant.
All receptors within
study area
Minimises adverse
effects of new and
reduces existing
Aircraft noise within
the context of
Government policy on
Night-time runway alternation*: The scheme being consulted in allows that only one runway to be used between 23:00 and
Rotating the runways in use between 23:00 and 06:00 provides predictable pattern of respite (relief) from aircraft noise to help
Mitigate by design ICAO Balanced Approach: Operating procedures (in addition to above
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise impact assessment taking account of these assumed measures.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.115 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Receptor Required change in noise effects
Embedded mitigation or compensation measure and influence on assessment
How is the noise control achieved?
Category from noise control hierarchy Category from ICAO balanced approach
Other information
Sustainable
Development
06:00 (one runway for landings and one for departures during the recovery period after 11pm and only one runway for landings between 05:30 and 06:00. These single runway uses would be rotated according to a published pattern (and based on wind conditions) to provide respite from aircraft landing at this time.
reduce sleep disturbance. The alternation would ensure that those overflown before 23:00 (and then by any recovery) would not be overflown again when operations start at 5.30am.
mitigation)
All receptors within
study area
Adverse effects on
health and quality of
life due to aircraft noise
Night flight package of control measures*: A package of measures to sustainably manage the effects of flights between 11pm and 7am. The package being consulted on includes:
1. Incentivizing by a
QC mechanism
quieter aircraft at
night including
6am and 7am;
Package of night-time measures to reduce noise emissions and maximise respite.
Mitigate by design Mitigate by restriction ICAO Balanced Approach: Operating procedures & Operating Restrictions (in addition to above mitigation)
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise impact assessment taking account of these assumed measures.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.116 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Receptor Required change in noise effects
Embedded mitigation or compensation measure and influence on assessment
How is the noise control achieved?
Category from noise control hierarchy Category from ICAO balanced approach
Other information
2. Reduced
recovery period
after 11pm
(recovery from
delays);
3. Limiting and
alternating
runway use to
provide extended
period of respite
4. Detailed timing of
the ban on
scheduled flights
across the three
runways to
maximize respite.
All receptors within
study area
Adverse effects on
health and quality of
life due to aircraft noise
Managed Directional Preference*. Analysis indicates that the overall noise effects of Heathrow’s daytime operation are reduced as the proportion of easterly operations increases. Managed preference of the direction of operation
Better balance the share of summer average noise exposure east and west of Heathrow.
Mitigate by design ICAO Balanced Approach: Operating procedures (in addition to above mitigation)
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise impact assessment taking account of these assumed measures.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.117 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Receptor Required change in noise effects
Embedded mitigation or compensation measure and influence on assessment
How is the noise control achieved?
Category from noise control hierarchy Category from ICAO balanced approach
Other information
is therefore proposed in place of the existing westerly preference as measure to reduce overall effects.
All receptors within
study area
Adverse effects on
health and quality of
life due to aircraft noise
Quieter landing (ground) operations*.
1. Increased usage
of Brake to Vacate
(BTV).
2. Use of NADP1 and
NADP2 on
departure (Noise
Abatement
Departure
Procedure)
Allows crews to pre-select a runway exit during the approach phase. The aircraft then manages speed on the runway in the most efficient manner to make the selected exit. BTV results in less reverse thrust requirement, less re-application of power after over-braking and reduced brake temperatures which can also reduce turnaround times.
Mitigate by design ICAO Balanced Approach: Operating procedures (in addition to above mitigation)
To be considered further between PEIR and ES.
* The Noise Envelope would limit the noise impact to be no greater than that reported in the ES based on the assumption of this measure. The ACP for the expanded airport and future operation of Heathrow will have to stay within this Noise Envelope and do this by either delivering the mitigation measure assumed for the ES, or by measures that would control the impact to an equivalent or better degree.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.118 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Plans for the DCO Project Noise Envelope (for Aircraft Noise)
17.9.15 The ANPS requires Heathrow to 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.”
17.9.16 Heathrow has established a Noise Envelope Design Group (NEDG) with
representatives with technical knowledge representing the interests of local
communities, air traffic control, airlines, local planning authorities and the Airport.
17.9.17 The meetings were independently chaired and were independently facilitated by
an independent third party with expertise in stakeholder engagement.
17.9.18 The NEDG has helped shape the following proposals for the noise envelope.
17.9.19 The NEDG has agreed the following definition for the noise envelope.
Definition: Heathrow’s noise envelope is a set of legally binding and enforceable limits and controls to manage noise in the future while enabling growth.
It is a legally binding framework of limits and controls to manage noise. It will provide certainty both now and in the future. It will be reviewed after an agreed period. It will be designed to protect communities while enabling the airport to operate efficiently and allow it to grow within these limits. It will deliver real benefits that can be shared between communities, consumers, and businesses during each stage of growth.
17.9.20 The noise envelope framework would include:
1. The noise objective48; the aims of Government noise policy; and the principles
on which the Noise Envelope will be based (for example sharing the benefits,
incentivising) for achieving the objective and aims
48 Heathrow’s proposed noise objective was consulted on a part of the Airspace and Future Operations Consultation (January to March 2019). The Objective has been revised in response to consultation feedback and the revised Objective is included in the AEC consultation document. At the time of publication, the Objective has not been adopted by the DfT.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.119 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
2. Enforceable limits to provide certainty that the noise impact can be no larger
than that which is relied on in granting the DCO (overview assessment) -
Heathrow operations and airspace change proposals that relate to the DCO
Project will have to be delivered, as a minimum, within these limits otherwise
Heathrow cannot grow
3. Local priorities
4. Review of the Noise Envelope (period between reviews and process)
5. The mechanism for sharing the benefits of technological improvement between
community and other stakeholders as part of the review process
6. The method for evaluating noise control measures needed for as part of any
operations control plan or airspace change proposal to meet the limits, and
aims in line with statutory obligations.
17.9.21 The plans for the Noise Envelope are described in more detail in Appendix 17.1, Annex A.
The proposed relationship with the framework for Environmentally Managed Growth
17.9.22 Heathrow is consulting on proposals for a framework for Environmentally Managed Growth.
17.9.23 The proposed framework would control noise and a number of other
environmental aspects as Heathrow grows.
17.9.24 It is proposed that the Noise Envelope would be nested within the framework. In
doing this there would be:
1. a single source of management, monitoring and enforcement across all the
environmental aspects that relate to the operation and hence growth of the
airport
2. independent assurance that the expansion related airspace change proposal
and noise action plans for Heathrow operations are consistent with the Noise
Envelope (assurance could be provided by the Independent Scrutiny Panel that
forms part of the framework for Environmentally Managed Growth)
3. a single process for ensuring that growth enabled by the noise envelope could
not proceed until it is confirmed (e.g. by the Independent Scrutiny Panel) that it
is consistent with the requirements of the other environmental aspects included
in the framework.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.120 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Control Measures for Airport Ground Noise
Table 17.23: Summary of the embedded and compensation measures and how these influence the noise assessment | Airport Ground Noise
Receptor Required change in noise effects
Embedded mitigation or compensation measure and influence on assessment
How is the noise control achieved?
Category from noise control hierarchy
Other information
Receptors near
airport boundary
Minimises
adverse effects
of new and
reduces existing
Ground noise
as far as
reasonably
practicable
Heathrow will provide Fixed Electrical Ground Power (FEGP) for parked aircraft on new pier served and remote stands. This will
minimise the need for
aircraft to use of their
Auxiliary Power Unit
(APU) whilst on-stand. Heathrow will provide Pre-Conditioned Air (PCA) for new aircraft stands, where there is a
clear business case and
environmental benefit,
given the intended
occupancy of the stand.
Reduces ground noise at
source and therefore reduces
noise effects at receptors.
Mitigate by design /
Mitigate by addition
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise
impact assessment
taking account of
these embedded
measures
Receptors near
airport boundary Minimises
adverse effects
Heathrow will endeavor to ensure that only low
Reduces noise at source and
therefore reduces noise effects
Mitigate by design /
Mitigate by addition
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.121 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Receptor Required change in noise effects
Embedded mitigation or compensation measure and influence on assessment
How is the noise control achieved?
Category from noise control hierarchy
Other information
of new and
reduces existing
Ground noise
as far as
reasonably
practicable
noise stand-by Ground Power Units (GPUs) are available for use.
at receptors.
GPUs used if FEGP is
unavailable to reduce the noise
from aircraft on stands
(in addition to above
mitigation)
impact assessment
taking account of
these embedded
measures
Receptors
affected by
disruptive
ground noise
(above the
relevant SOAEL
value)
Avoids residual
significant
adverse effects
on health and
quality of life due
to ground noise
inside dwellings
Heathrow will implement a prioritised programme of noise insulation, as set out in the draft Noise Insulation Policy, which will include provision for the insulation of private homes forecast to be exposed to levels that exceed the relevant SOAEL. This would avoid
significant adverse
effects on health and
quality of life at night
(sleep disturbance) and
reduce significant effects
during the day (when
indoors)
DCO Project Noise Insulation Policy Improved glazing and provision
of additional ventilation (as
required to enable windows to
be kept closed for longer period
of the year) to reduce noise
levels inside homes.
Compensate
(in addition to above
mitigation)
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise
impact assessment
taking account of this
measure
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.122 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Control Measures for Road Noise (new and altered roads)
Table 17.24: Summary of the embedded and compensation measures and how these influence the noise assessment | Road Noise
Receptor Required change in noise effects
Embedded mitigation or compensation measure and influence on assessment
How is the noise control achieved?
Category from noise control hierarchy
Other information
Receptors near
roads
Minimise
adverse effects
of new / altered
road traffic noise
within the
context of
Government
policy on
Sustainable
Development
Low Noise Surfacing (LNS) will be incorporated on any new or altered roads to reduce noise
Reduces noise at source and therefore contributes to mitigating and minimising adverse noise effects at receptors
Mitigate by design
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise impact assessment taking account of these embedded measures
Receptors near
roads
Minimise
adverse effects
of new / altered
road traffic noise within the
context of
Government
policy on
Sustainable
Development
Very Low Noise Surfacing (vLNS) will be
incorporated on any new
or modified roads where
reasonably practicable.
Reduces noise at source and therefore reduces noise effects at receptors Contributes to mitigating and minimising adverse noise effects at receptors
Mitigate by addition
(alternative to above
mitigation)
To be considered between PEIR and ES and reported in ES as relevant.
Receptors near Minimise Additional noise barriers Screens receptor from the noise Mitigate by addition To be considered
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.123 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Receptor Required change in noise effects
Embedded mitigation or compensation measure and influence on assessment
How is the noise control achieved?
Category from noise control hierarchy
Other information
roads adverse effects
on health and
quality of life due
to road traffic noise
would be built by Heathrow (either landscape earthworks or fence barriers). This would reduce
adverse noise effects.
source. The level of reduction is determined by height of barrier compared to source and receiver. Contributes to mitigating and minimising adverse noise effects at receptors
(in addition to above
mitigation)
between PEIR and ES and reported in the ES.
Receptors
affected by
disruptive road traffic noise
(above the
relevant SOAEL
value)
Avoids residual
significant
adverse effects
on health and
quality of life due
to road traffic noise inside
dwellings
Heathrow will implement a prioritised programme of noise insulation, as set out in the draft Noise Insulation Policy, which will include provision for the insulation of private homes forecast to be exposed to levels that exceed the relevant SOAEL. This would avoid significant adverse effects on health and quality of life at night (sleep disturbance) and reduce significant effects during the day (when indoors)
DCO Project Noise Insulation Policy Improved glazing and provision of additional ventilation (as required to enable windows to be kept closed for longer period of the year) to reduce noise levels inside homes.
Compensate
(in addition to above
mitigation)
Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise impact assessment taking account of this measure
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.124 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.10 Preliminary assessment of significance | overview assessment
Introduction
17.10.1 This section and the next section (Section 17.11) report the preliminary
assessment of significance for noise effects (including vibration) in two different
ways, referred to as 1) the overview assessment (Section 17.10) and 2) the
geographical assessment (Section 17.11).
17.10.2 Two approaches to reporting are required because the assessment of aircraft
noise has had to be undertaken based on the developing indicative airspace
design that, as set out in the ANPS (paragraph 5.53), will not be complete until
after the DCO is granted. The reliance on indicative airspace design impacts the
geographical report of this preliminary assessment of significance and two areas
have been defined:
17.10.3 Inner Area: Closer to the airport where the forecast noise levels could have
significant effects on health and quality of life, there is little difference in effects
across the indicative airspace design test cases described in Sections 17.5 and Appendix 17.1, Annex B. This area is called the ‘Inner Area’ and the effects of
aircraft noise in this Inner Area are reported within 24 communities that have been
split into four quadrants (North, South, East and West) around the expanded
airport (refer to Graphic 17.12)49. All other noise sources are also assessed for
the Inner Area.
Outer Area: Further from the airport the forecast noise levels would not have significant effects on health and quality of life, however, the locations where the aircraft noise could occur vary substantially across the different indicative airspace design test cases. This is called the ‘Outer Area’ as shown in Graphic 17.13 Graphic 17.13 Outer area for reporting noise effects
17.10.4 that has been split into four quadrants (North, South, East and West)50. The Outer
Area is only relevant for the assessment of aircraft noise and is not used for other
noise sources.
49 The assessment for the four quadrants for the Inner Area is presented in Section 17.11. 50 The assessment for the four quadrants in the Outer Area is presented in Appendix 17.1, Annex H.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.125 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Graphic 17.12 Inner area for reporting noise effects
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.126 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Graphic 17.13 Outer area for reporting noise effects
Overview assessment
17.10.5 The preliminary overview assessment in the following subsections reports the
overall magnitude of the noise (and vibration) effects for the DCO Project,
providing the basis for evidencing compliance with the aims of government noise
policy, including paragraphs 5.58 and 5.68 of the ANPS.
Geographical assessment
17.10.6 The preliminary geographical assessment (Section 17.11) reports the
geographical location of significant noise effects in terms of all DCO Project
phases and for all DCO Project noise sources for the Inner Area, across the four
quadrants and 23 communities for the single featured test case. The geographical
assessment is carried out for all noise sources for the Inner Area.
17.10.7 Appendix 17.1, Annex H reports the geographical assessment for each local
planning authority within the Outer Area showing the range and variation of aircraft
noise effects across the ten test cases, reported by local planning authority.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.127 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.10.8 The preliminary assessments presented in both this section and the next (Section 17.11) are based on the information available at this stage.
Health outcomes
17.10.9 Appendix 17.1, Annex F presents the justification for the LOAEL and SOAEL
values used in the assessment of significant adverse effects on health and quality
of life and shows that the assessment of significant effects identified in line with
these LOAEL and SOAEL values are intrinsically linked to annoyance during the
day and self-reported sleep disturbance at night. The assessment reports the
effect of noise arising from the operation of the expanded airport on health and
quality of life in terms of daytime annoyance and night-time self-reported sleep
disturbance for the Inner Area and Outer Area. This is also true for assessments
for other noise sources (e.g. construction noise; road traffic noise) which also use
LOAEL and SOAEL values to determine significant adverse effects on health and
quality of life.
17.10.10 Appendix 17.1, Annex E sets out the evidence for associations between
environmental noise sources and health for a number of health outcomes.
WebTAG considers AMI and hypertension (stroke and vascular dementia) as well
as annoyance (amenity) and self-reported sleep disturbance. WebTAG therefore
provides a policy basis for evaluating wider health effects from noise and changes
in noise caused by the DCO Project. To further unpack the assessment of
significant adverse effects on health and quality of life, the assessment additionally
presents the wider health effects from noise and change in noise on AMI and
hypertension (stroke and vascular dementia) across the Inner Area and Outer
Area. Where identified, these are not significant effects on health and quality of life
in addition to those already identified in the assessment: they offer a further
exploration of the health effects already identified.
Overview preliminary assessment for all phases | whole study area | using a single indicative airspace design test case
17.10.11 This section reports the overview assessment for all phases using a single
indicative airspace design test case (test case 2) presenting indicative noise levels
(exposure and change) with and without the DCO Project for the construction and
operational stages for each noise source. For aircraft noise, an assessment is also
presented comparing noise levels with the DCO Project to the 2013 Policy
baseline as required by the ANPS.
Construction noise (2024)
17.10.12 The assessment methodology described in Section 17.7 has been applied to the
preferred masterplan (see Chapter 6: DCO Project description), to predict
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.128 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
indicative noise levels arising from the DCO Project. The methodology has also
taken into account the control measures described in Section 17.9 (primarily the
draft Code of Construction Practice) and the assumptions described in Section 17.5.
17.10.13 Adverse noise effects on health and quality of life due to construction noise are
identified on a preliminary basis for approximately 600 people during the daytime,
7,200 people during the evening and 5,900 people during the night-time. These
adverse effects are mitigated and minimised by the mitigation measures (e.g. draft Code of Construction Practice general measures, screens at construction site
boundary) set out in Section 17.9.
17.10.14 During construction, noise would significantly affect residents at areas closest to
the new runway including Colnbrook, Poyle, Harmondsworth, Sipson and
Harlington due to the need for extended and 24hr working to open the new runway
in line with policy expectation. General noise controls are set out in the draft Code of Construction Practice (CoCP). Temporary tall noise barriers are proposed
around the perimeter of construction sites close to residential areas. Site specific
noise controls would be agreed with the local planning authorities before
construction commences. Noise insulation would be provided for qualifying
properties close to construction activities where noise would otherwise be
disruptive. Temporary re-housing would be provided if levels were unacceptable,
in line with the draft Noise Insulation Policy. Further detail is provided on a
community-by-community basis in Section 17.11.
17.10.15 Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life due to construction noise
will be avoided by the combination of mitigation measures (e.g. Code of Construction Practice general measures, screens at construction site boundary)
and compensation measures (e.g. noise insulation) set out in Section 17.9.
Adverse effects and significant adverse effects due to construction noise will be
confirmed in the ES following further development of the mitigation and
compensation proposals, and further, more detailed, assessment.
17.10.16 The preliminary screening of construction noise has identified, on a precautionary
basis, approximately 23 potentially noise sensitive non-residential receptors
(including schools, hospitals, places of worship, broadcasting studios, cinemas,
theatres and museums) within the inner area.
17.10.17 A preliminary assessment of construction noise for noise sensitive non-residential
receptors has been carried out on the screened in receptors described above. One
school, Heathrow Primary School in Sipson, has been identified to have an
adverse likely significant effect, one place of worship, Harmondsworth Baptist
Church in Harmondsworth, has been identified to have an adverse likely significant
effect and one place of worship, Sant Nirankari Bhawan in Harlington, has been
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.129 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
identified on a precautionary basis. Refer to Section 17.11 and Figure 17.49 for
further detail regarding the non-residential receptors and their locations.
17.10.18 Between the PEIR and ES, Heathrow will identify whether a significant adverse
effect due to noise (including vibration) would occur at each receptor and if so,
Heathrow will engage with the owners and users of these receptors to identify
what further control measures are sustainable to avoid or reduce the significant
adverse effect.
Operational noise: aircraft noise
17.10.19 For operation aircraft noise the assessment methodology described in Section 17.7 has been applied to the preferred masterplan (see Chapter 6), to forecast
noise levels arising from the DCO Project taking account of the embedded
mitigation described in Section 17.9 and the assumptions described in Section 17.5.
17.10.20 All assessments and figures showing aircraft noise include noise from ‘start of roll’
for departing aircraft on each runway and reverse thrust for arriving aircraft on
each runway. All other aircraft ground noise sources are described in the next sub-
section.
17.10.21 The following subsections provide a summary of effects compared to the 2013
Policy baseline and a summary of effects compared to a future do-minimum
baseline in 2035.
Summary of effects for early growth in 2025 | Residential receptors
17.10.22 The early release of ATMs is forecast to commence in 2022, reaching its
maximum level in 2024. This ‘phased’ release of ATMs coincides with a number of
airspace changes which Heathrow is currently planning for, namely:
1. Independent Parallel Approaches (IPA)
2. A new Compton (CPT) Standard Instrument Departure (SID) Route
3. Easterly Alternation
4. 3.2 degree slightly steeper approaches (SSA)
17.10.23 These airspace changes will be addressed through a series of Airspace Change
Proposals and associated consents. These consents are separate to the consents
for early growth which will be through the Development Consent Order (DCO).
17.10.24 The assessment presented within the PEIR adopts an assessment year of 2025
for early growth. This has been selected as it considers a scenario whereby all of
these changes have occurred with the maximum level of early release in place.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.130 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
This scenario has been considered within this analysis along with a scenario which
considers a ‘base case’ in 2022 i.e. prior to the early release and immediately
before the first of Heathrow’s planned airspace changes, which is forecast to be
IPA. This has been considered in order to describe how changes to Heathrow’s
airspace and operations over the same period that early growth is released could
affect noise so that the effect of the early release can be isolated from other
changes.
17.10.25 The scenarios which have been considered are therefore:
1. a ‘base case’ in 2022 i.e. before the release of the early growth with the
airport operating at 480,000 ATMs per annum and prior to the planned
airspace and operational changes
2. a ‘do minimum’ in 2025 i.e. without the early growth (so airport still operating
at 480,000 ATMs per annum) and with the planned airspace and operational
changes
3. a ‘do-something’ in 2025 i.e. with 25,000 ATMs. For the purposes of the
assessment, a single 25K scenario has been utilised, each of the ‘do-
something’ options, early growth schedules have been provided and used as
the basis of the analysis described in this section.
17.10.26 The early release of growth will be phased and as such, this growth could occur at
different levels in different years between 2022 and 2024 and at points where
there could be airspace and operation changes. However, given that the airspace
changes are outside of the DCO Project, the ‘point when the airport’s noise impact
is forecast to be highest’ (the assessment required by the ANPS (5.52) will fall
when early growth has reached its highest level (i.e. 2025).
17.10.27 A review of the schedules for the early growth has been undertaken in order to
identify how operations at different times of the day could change. This review
currently shows a further three departures in the early morning period i.e. pre-
07:00 which an additional 69 aircraft movements split relatively evenly between
arrivals and departures over the period 07:00 to 23:00. How the early growth is
scheduled is an important consideration because any additional noise occurring
during the night i.e. 23:00 to 07:00 would be more significant with respect to health
and quality of life.
17.10.28 The results of the modelling for each of the scenarios described above are set out
in Table 17.25 below. This analysis presents populations exposed to levels above
the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) and Significant Observed
Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL) for both day and night-time periods. In addition to
the scenarios considered above, a comparison against 2013 is also presented.
This is relevant as the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) requires that
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.131 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
‘noise mitigation measures should ensure the impact of aircraft noise is limited
and, where possible, reduced compared to the 2013 baseline assessed by the
Airports Commission.’ (Paragraph 5.58). This is presented within the ANPS with
reference to the 2013 baseline for the 54 dB LAeq,16h noise contour.
Table 17.25 Noise exposure results
Daytime
2013 2022
Base Case
2025
Without Early Growth
2025
With Early Growth
> LOAEL 51 dB LAeq, 16h
1,206,300
1,051,150 1,051,100 1,091,400
> 54 dB LAeq, 16h 616,100
495,350 478,550 510,250
> SOAEL 63 dB LAeq, 16h
67,100
43,826 51,150* 54,450*
Night time 2013 2022
Base Case
2025
Without Early Growth
2025
With Early Growth
> LOAEL 45 dB LAeq, 8h
998,300
732,700 664,900 666,900
> SOAEL 55 dB LAeq, 8h
103,500
53,400 54,000* 54,300*
*Mitigation and compensation (noise insulation) measures will avoid adverse effects on health and quality of life. Noise compensation measures for the DCO Project are set out in the draft DCO Project Noise Insulation Policy. Noise compensation measures associated with airspace change (that is not related to the DCO Project) will be offered in line with Government expectation as set out in Airspace Policy (Consultation Response on UK Airspace Policy: A framework for balanced decisions on the design and use of airspace: Oct 2017)
17.10.29 Figures 17.6 and 17.7 show noise exposure in 2025 (92 day summer average),
following the changes in airspace design described above with (505K) and without
early growth (480K) of air traffic movements.
17.10.30 Figures 17.8 and 17.9 show that there are changes (mostly reductions) in noise
exposure at different locations due to the airspace changes that are being
proposed (and consulted on) regardless of the DCO Project. These are described
in Section 17.5 and in Appendix 17.1, Annex G.
17.10.31 The analysis and figures show that without early growth, the planned airspace and
operational changes will on their own result in changes to the distribution and
levels of noise exposure around Heathrow. Table 17.25 shows that in all future
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.132 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
years i.e. 2022 and 2025, noise exposure is forecast to be lower than in 2013,
inclusive of early growth.
17.10.32 The assessment of the early release concludes that there would be negligible
change (up to 0.2 dB increase) at all locations as a result of early growth in air
traffic movements. As such, no likely significant noise effects are identified due to
the early growth of air traffic movements.
17.10.33 Table 17.25 shows that with early growth (0.2 dB increase in noise),
approximately 40,000 more people would exposed to noise above the daytime
LOAEL (in the context of 1,050,000 people exposed above LOAEL without early
growth) and around 3,300 people exposed to levels above the daytime SOAEL (in
the context of 479,000 people exposed above SOAEL without early growth).
Where the new exposure above SOAEL occurs, mitigation and compensation
(noise insulation) measures will avoid significant adverse effects on health and
quality of life. Noise compensation measures for the DCO Project are set out in the
draft DCO Project Noise Insulation Policy.
17.10.34 The analysis shows that early growth will result in a negligible 0.2 dB increase in
noise exposure compared to a scenario where it does not occur. No adverse likely
significant effects are therefore forecast. Analysis shows that this early growth
would therefore result in around 3,300 people being newly exposed to levels
above the daytime SOAEL (in the context of 479,000 people exposed above
SOAEL without early growth). The resulting significant adverse effects on health
and quality of life will be avoided through mitigation and compensation (noise
insulation) measures as set out in the draft DCO Project Noise Insulation Policy.
17.10.35 These conclusions are based on the assumptions and the schedules adopted for
this assessment that will be verified for the purposes of the application for
development consent.
Summary of effects with expanded airport | consideration of indicative airspace
17.10.36 As set out in Section 17.4, to provide a robust assessment of aircraft noise taking
into account indicative airspace design, this assessment has considered ten
indicative airspace design test cases (see Appendix 17.1, Annex B).
17.10.37 None of these ten test cases is more likely than any other. Furthermore, different
indicative airspace designs give rise to a different number and location of effects
further from the airport. This can be seen in Table 17.26 to Table 17.29 in the
following subsections that show:
1. The population above the 63dBLAeq,16h daytime SOAEL across the test cases
does not vary. This reflects that there is no difference in noise impact terms
between the indicative airspace designs close to the airport as aircraft take-off
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.133 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
and land. Any single test case therefore gives a robust indication of the number
of people above the SOAEL and their location across the ten test cases
2. The population above 54dBLAeq,16h varies across the test cases by +/-4%. This
slightly larger variation reflects the greater dependency on airspace design at
this exposure level. Any single test case therefore gives an indication of the
quantum of population above 54dBLAeq,16h, but the geographic locations where
these effects would occur is partly dependent on airspace design
3. The population above the 51dBLAeq,16h daytime LOAEL varies across the test
cases by approximately +/-7%. This larger variation reflects the dependency on
airspace design at this exposure level. It is necessary therefore at this
exposure level to consider the range of test cases to identify the reasonable
worst case at DCO within which the separate airspace change process will
need to mitigate and minimise adverse effects in line with Government noise
policy that is a consistent requirement of both the ANPS and airspace policy.
Figures 17.10 to 17.12 also show that the areas affected at lower exposures
towards the LOAEL are different and dependent on the test case.
17.10.38 For these reasons, the overview assessment for aircraft noise associated with the
expanded airport is reported in the following subsections in terms of the range of
outcomes across the ten test cases.
17.10.39 It is also important to note that the worst case at SOAEL, 54dBLAeq,16h and LOAEL
is represented by different test cases. For example, a single test case may have
the greatest population above the 51dBLAeq,16h contour, but may not have the
greatest population above the 54dBLAeq,16h contour or the largest area. It is not
possible, therefore, to define a single worst test case for the assessment.
17.10.40 The assessment for each individual test case is reported in Appendix 17.1, Annex H.
Summary of effects with expanded airport compared to 2013 Policy baseline | Residential receptors
17.10.41 Figures 17.1 and 17.2 present the noise exposure day and night respectively for
Heathrow in 2013, the ‘policy baseline’ defined by the ANPS (paragraph 5.58).
17.10.42 Table 17.26 and Table 17.27 provide an overall summary of the effects on health
and quality of life due to noise arising from the expanded airport compared to 2013
(the policy baseline) for daytime (annoyance) and night-time (self-reported sleep
disturbance). These tables show that compared to 2013 the noise impact of the
DCO Project:
1. Reduces significant adverse effects on health and quality of life due to noise
(levels above the relevant SOAEL)
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.134 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
2. Reduces adverse effects on health and quality of life due to noise (levels
between the relevant LOAEL and SOAEL values)
3. Contributes to improvements to health and quality of life.
Table 17.26: Summary of daytime effects on residential receptors in terms of health and quality of life (annoyance) due to DCO Project compared to 2013 policy baseline. Presented as a range across all test cases.
2035 ALL INDICATIVE AIRSPACE TEST CASES – 740,000 ATMs | DAYTIME Total population in study area: 6,002,800
Policy baseline DCO Project Difference between
2035 and 2013
2013 2035 Change % change
<----
------
-- In
crea
sing
noi
se le
vel
People removed from exposure to adverse effect noise levels by the Project
- 321,200 to 468,100 - -
LOAEL
People exposed to adverse effect noise levels
1,139,200
889,400 to 1,013,900
-249,700 to -125,300
-22% to -11%
Of which, people exposed to noise levels above onset of significant community annoyance (54 dB LAeq,16h)
549,000 398,500 to 433,200 -150,600 to -115,800 -27% to -21%
SOAEL
People exposed to significant adverse effect noise levels
65,200 49,2001 -16,000 -25%
UAEL People exposed to unacceptable adverse effect noise levels
1,800 3002 -1,500 -83%
1 Significant adverse effect on health and quality of life avoided by mitigation measures and noise insulation
2 Unacceptable adverse effect due to the DCO Project would be prevented by DCO providing compulsory acquisition powers to install full noise insulation in the event that offer to install the insulation is not taken up
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.135 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.27: Summary of night-time effects on residential receptors in terms of health and quality of life (sleep) due to DCO Project compared to 2013 policy baseline. Presented as a range across all test cases.
2035 ALL INDICATIVE AIRSPACE TEST CASES – 740,000 ATMs | NIGHT-TIME Total population in study area: 6,002,800
Policy baseline DCO Project Difference between
2035 and 2013
2013 2035 Change % change
<----
------
-- In
crea
sing
noi
se le
vel
People removed from exposure to adverse effect noise levels by the Project
- 338,300 to
457,500 - -
LOAEL
People exposed to adverse effect noise levels
894,800 588,300 to
689,100 -306,500 to
-205,600 -34% to -23%
SOAEL People exposed to significant adverse effect noise levels
101,500 55,9001 -45,600 -45%
UAEL People exposed to unacceptable adverse effect noise levels
2,100 2002 -1,900 -90%
1 Significant adverse effect on health and quality of life avoided by mitigation measures and noise insulation
2 Unacceptable adverse effect due to the DCO Project prevented by DCO providing compulsory acquisition powers to install full noise insulation in the event that offer to install the insulation is not taken up
17.10.43 Figure 17.28 to 17.30 show, for all ten test cases, that the population within the
54dB LAeq,16h day time noise contour for the assessment year following Heathrow
Expansion (2035) is smaller than the 2013 2R ‘policy baseline’. This meets the
objective set out at paragraph 5.58 of the ANPS that
‘The noise mitigation measures should ensure the impact of aircraft noise is limited and,
where possible, reduced compared to the 2013 baseline assessed by the Airports
Commission.’ (para 5.58) (with reference to the 2013 baseline for the 54 decibel LAeq,16h
noise contour assessed by the Airports Commission. LAeq,16h indicates the annual average
noise levels for the 16-hour period between 0700 – 2300) (see para 5.58)’.
17.10.44 Figures 17.16 to 17.21 present the change in noise levels across the ten test
cases between the assessment year following Heathrow Expansion (2035) and
the 2013 2R ‘policy baseline’.
Summary of effects with expanded airport compared to future do-minimum baseline (2035) | Residential receptors
17.10.45 To inform Evaluation 1 – effects on health and quality of life defined by policy and
Evaluation 2 – of likely significant effects, the daytime noise exposure (LAeq,16h)
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.136 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
and night-time noise exposure (LAeq,8h) are presented on Figure 17.10 to Figure 17.15, across the ten test cases for 2035 with the DCO Project compared to
without the DCO Project. The noise levels are the 92-day summer average for the
assessment year (2035), assuming 740,000 ATMs per year.
17.10.46 Figures 17.35 and Figure 17.36 present noise exposure newly above the SOAEL
for day time noise exposure (LAeq,16h) and night-time noise exposure (LAeq,8h),
respectively, for the single-featured test case for 2035 with the DCO Project
compared to without the DCO Project.
17.10.47 The 51dB LAeq,16h contour (day) and 45dB LAeq,8h contour (night) represent the level
above which government policy notes that adverse noise effects may start to be
observed at residential receptors (depending on the aircraft noise level, the
change in aircraft noise due to the DCO Project and baseline noise levels from
other sources). As set out in Section 17.7 these levels of exposure are described
in policy as Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels (LOAELs). Policy sets out that
no adverse effects (likely significant effects or effects on health and quality of life
due to daytime annoyance or night-time self-reported sleep disturbance) are likely
below these levels for the average person. These levels are also the threshold
above which, on a precautionary basis, effects could occur on non-residential
noise sensitive receptors.
17.10.48 The 63dB LAeq,16h daytime contour and 55dB LAeq,8h contour shown on these
Figures represent the levels above which government policy notes that adverse
noise effects may start to be observed at residential receptors (Significant
Observed Adverse Effect Level - SOAEL). As described in Section 17.9 the
provision of noise insulation, in addition to the noise mitigation measures
embedded in the design of the DCO Project and its indicative airspace would
avoid the significant observed adverse effects on health and quality of life that
would otherwise occur.
17.10.49 Table 17.28 and Table 17.29 provide an overall summary of the effects on health
and quality of life due to noise arising from the expanded airport in 2035 compared
to the future do-minimum baseline for the assessment year for daytime
(annoyance) and night-time (self-reported sleep disturbance), summarising the
assessments carried out for Evaluation 1 and Evaluation 2. These tables show
that compared to the future do-minimum baseline the noise impact of the DCO
Project:
1. Avoids significant adverse effects on health and quality of life due to noise
(levels above the relevant SOAEL) by the combination of compensation (e.g.
noise insulation and mitigation measures set out in Section 17.9) –
Evaluation 1
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.137 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
2. Mitigates and minimises adverse effects on health and quality of life due to
noise (levels between the relevant LOAEL and SOAEL values) by mitigation
measures set out in Section 17.9 – Evaluation 2
3. Contributes to improvements to health and quality of life (significant beneficial
effects noted in the tables) – Evaluation 2.
Table 17.28: Summary of daytime effects on residential receptors in terms of health and quality of life (annoyance) due to DCO Project compared to future do-minimum baseline (Evaluation 1 and Evaluation 2). Presented as a range across all test cases
2035 All indicative airspace design test cases – 740,000 ATMs | DAYTIME
Total population in study area: 7,086,000
Effect on health and quality of life
(for average person) due to noise level
from the DCO Project
← Noise change caused by 3R DCO Project → compared to future 2R baseline
Beneficial likely significant effect (noise decrease)
No likely significant effect
Adverse likely significant effect (noise increase)
← N
oise
leve
l afte
r cha
nge
caus
ed b
y D
CO
Pro
ject
No adverse effect
5,871,400 to 6,031,300
(69,800 to 140,100 brought below LOAEL by DCO Project)
LOAEL
Adverse effect
75,600 to 91,900
278,900 to 424,100
536,600 to 779,800 (0 brought below SOAEL by DCO
Project)
(376,000 to 586,900 newly above LOAEL due to DCO Project)
SOAEL
Significant adverse effect 0 36,4001
21,2001 (21,200 newly above SOAEL due to DCO
Project)2
UAEL
Unacceptable adverse effect 0 100
200 (200 newly above
UAEL due to Project)3
1 Significant adverse effect on health and quality of life avoided by mitigation measures and noise insulation provided as
soon as reasonably practicable
2 Significant adverse effect on health and quality of life avoided by noise insulation and mitigation measures provided
(see Section 17.9) before new exposure occurs 3 Unacceptable adverse effect prevented by DCO providing compulsory acquisition powers to install full noise insulation in the event that offer to install the insulation is not taken up
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.138 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.29: Summary of night-time effects on residential receptors in terms of health and quality of life (self-reported sleep disturbance) due to DCO Project compared to future do-minimum baseline (Evaluation 1 and Evaluation 2). Presented as a range across the all test cases.
2035 All indicative airspace design test cases – 740,000 ATMs | NIGHT-TIME
Total population in study area: 7,086,000
Effect on health and quality of life
(for average person) due to noise level
from the DCO Project
← Noise change caused by 3R DCO Project → compared to future 2R baseline
Beneficial likely significant effect (noise decrease)
No likely significant effect
Adverse likely significant effect (noise increase)
← N
oise
leve
l afte
r cha
nge
caus
ed b
y D
CO
Pro
ject
No adverse effect
6,229,400 to 6,344,900
(25,700 to 45,700 brought below LOAEL by DCO Project)
LOAEL
Adverse effect
22,100 to 36,400
195,700 to 266,600
391,400 to 512,100 (13,200 to 17,000
brought below SOAEL due to DCO Project)
(266,600 to 390,400 newly above LOAEL due to DCO Project)
SOAEL
Significant adverse effect 15,8001 33,7001
16,8001 (16,800 newly above SOAEL due to DCO
Project)2
UAEL
Unacceptable adverse effect 0 0
2003 (200 newly above UAEL
due to DCO Project)
1 Significant adverse effect on health and quality of life avoided by mitigation measures and noise insulation provided as
soon as reasonably practicable
2 Significant adverse effect on health and quality of life avoided by noise insulation and mitigation measures provided
(see Section 17.9) before new exposure occurs 3 Unacceptable adverse effect prevented by DCO providing compulsory acquisition powers to install full noise insulation in the event that offer to install the insulation is not taken up
17.10.50 Figures 17.10 to 17.15 present daytime noise (LAeq,16h) and night-time noise
(LAeq,8h) exposure day and night respectively across the ten indicative test cases
for the assessment year (2035) with the DCO Project compared to without the
DCO Project. The noise levels are the 92-day summer average for the
assessment year (2035) following expansion, assuming 740,000 ATMs per year.
17.10.51 Figures 17.22 to 17.27 present the change in noise levels across the ten test
cases for the assessment year (2035) with the DCO Project compared to without
the DCO Project, assuming 740,000 ATMs per year.
17.10.52 Table 17.30 considers the wider effects on health and quality of life due to noise in
terms of other health outcomes, to further describe the significant effects on health
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.139 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
and quality of life identified in the assessment. The table reports a WebTAG
analysis that shows little change in number of cases of AMI, stroke or vascular
dementia attributable to aircraft noise with and without the DCO Project in 2035
(less than 0.01% for each health outcome across all ten test cases). The ES will
present the wider assessment of health effects arising from the other DCO Project
noise sources. The ES assessment is to show that these effects are no greater
than those reported in Table 17.30.
Table 17.30. Comparison of the effect of aircraft noise during operation on AMI, stroke and vascular dementia with and without the DCO Project (2035) (calculated using WebTAG) (population in WebTAG study area 7,086,000). Presented as a range across all test cases
Health outcome Change when comparing with and without the DCO Project in 2035
Aircraft Noise In 2035 (estimated increase)
AMI 0.000020 to 0.000023%
Stroke 0.00014 to 0.00017%
Vascular dementia 0.00021 to 0.00025%
17.10.53 At ES, to further describe the significant effects on health and quality of life
identified in the assessment, the change in number of cases for mental health and
wellbeing will be reported. Annex E sets out the evidence base that will inform the
ES.
17.10.54 An assessment of the possible effect of noise and noise change due to the DCO
Project on schools is presented in Section 17.11 for the Inner Area. At ES, the
impact of noise and noise change due to the DCO Project on children’s learning
will be presented. Appendix 17.1, Annex E sets out the evidence base that will
inform the ES assessment of noise impacts on children’s learning. Section 17.11 reports the screening assessment of schools in the Outer Area: for this PEIR
schools in the Outer Area have been screened for inclusion in the ES assessment.
Effects on children’s learning for the Outer Area will be reported in the ES. For
schools where a significant effect on cognitive development of school children is
identified at ES, Heathrow will develop appropriate measures with affected schools
to target reversing any delay in reading age development
17.10.55 Appendix 17.1, Annex E reports the evidence regarding whether there are any
population groups who might be especially vulnerable to the effects of noise
exposure on annoyance, sleep disturbance, cardiovascular health, mental health
and wellbeing, and children’s learning. Appendix 17.1, Annex E suggests that
those experiencing poorer health may be more vulnerable to the effects of noise
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.140 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
on annoyance and sleep disturbance. It has also been suggested that those of
younger age (children) and those of older age may be more vulnerable to the
effects of noise on sleep disturbance. South Asian adults have a vulnerability per
se for cardiovascular ill-health but evidence does not support a vulnerability for
noise effects on cardiovascular health. There is evidence that children who are
experiencing less social disadvantage or from a non-migrant background may be
more vulnerable to the effects of aircraft noise on children’s learning. The effect of
the noise exposure and change associated with the DCO Project for these
vulnerable groups will be reported in the ES.
Summary of effects with expanded airport compared to future do-minimum baseline (2035) | Non-Residential receptors
17.10.56 The preliminary screening of aircraft noise has identified, on a precautionary basis,
approximately 875 potentially noise sensitive non-residential receptors (including
schools, hospitals, places of worship, broadcasting studios, cinemas, theatres and
museums) within the study area which require further consideration. Furthermore,
the preliminary screening of aircraft noise has identified approximately 230
potentially noise sensitive non-residential receptors to have a beneficial likely
significant effect caused by the DCO Project.
17.10.57 A preliminary assessment of aircraft noise for noise sensitive non-residential
receptors has been carried out on the screened in receptors described above. This
preliminary assessment has been carried out in the inner area only for PEIR as
this area is at higher risk due to its proximity to the airport. 40 noise sensitive non-
residential receptors have been identified to either have an adverse likely
significant effect or have been identified on a precautionary basis where further
review will be required between PEIR and ES. Sixteen schools have been
identified on a precautionary basis and six schools have been identified to have an
adverse likely significant effect during the day. The six schools being Cranford
Community College and Old Rectory in Cranford, Heathrow Primary School and
Lady Nafisa Secondary School for Girls in Sipson, William Byrd Primary School in
Harlington and Old School House in Colnbrook. In addition, eight places of
worship have been identified in a precautionary basis and eight have been
identified to have an adverse likely significant effect during the day, these being
Harmondsworth Baptist Church and St Mary’s Church in Harmondsworth, Sipson
Arabic Church in Sipson, Harlington Baptist Church and Sant Nirankari Bhawan in
Harlington, St Dunstan’s Church in Cranford Cross and St Thomas Parish Church
and Village Hall in Colnbrook. One hospital, Lansdowne House in Harlington, has
been identified on a precautionary basis during the day and one library, Montage
House (Datchet Library) in Datchet, has been identified to have an adverse likely
significant effect during the day. Refer to the A3 summary pages in Section 17.11
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.141 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
and Figure 17.50 for more detail regarding the noise sensitive non-residential
receptors and their locations.
17.10.58 Between the PEIR and ES, Heathrow will identify whether a significant adverse
effect due to noise (including vibration) would occur at each receptor and if so,
Heathrow will engage with the owners and users of these receptors to identify
what further control measures are sustainable to avoid or reduce the significant
adverse effect.
Operational noise: aircraft ground noise (2050)
17.10.59 Aircraft ground noise has been assessed in 2050 to reflect a reasonable worst
case. This reflects when ATMs have risen above 740,000 per annum which yields
a worst-case assessment as the future technology improvements that are
expected to reduce aircraft noise levels when arriving and departing the airport,
may not reduce noise from taxiing aircraft to the same degree. Sensitivity tests,
and as necessary further assessment, will be undertaken between PEIR and ES to
confirm the point when the airport’s noise impact is forecast to be highest from this
noise source.
17.10.60 Daytime and night-time aircraft ground noise levels (92-day summer average) are
presented in Figures 17.31 and 17.32, Volume 2 in the context of the relevant
policy LOAEL and SOAEL values. The provision of noise insulation combined with
mitigation embedded in the DCO Project (Section 17.9) would avoid the
significant adverse effects on health and quality of life that would otherwise occur
inside dwellings.
17.10.61 The change in aircraft ground noise between the assessment year of Heathrow
expansion (2050 for ground noise) compared to a 2R future baseline (2050) is
presented in Figures 17.43 to 17.44, Volume 2 for daytime and night-time
respectively. This provides the basis for identifying likely significant effects on an
area basis that are reported in this section and in Section 17.11. Significant
adverse effects on health and quality of life are avoided by mitigation and
compensation measures, including noise insulation, Refer to Section 17.9 (evaluation 1). Adverse noise effects on health and quality of life due to aircraft
ground noise increases have identified on a preliminary basis for approximately
16,400 people during the daytime and 20,200 people during the night-time
(Evaluation 2). These adverse effects are reduced by mitigation (boundary
screening) and compensation measures (noise insulation provided for aircraft
noise). Additional boundary screening will be considered ahead of the ES.
Adverse effects and significant adverse effects due to aircraft ground noise will be
confirmed in the ES following further development of the mitigation and
compensation proposals, and further, more detailed, assessment.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.142 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.10.62 The preliminary screening of ground noise has identified, on a precautionary basis,
approximately 40 potentially noise sensitive non-residential receptors (including
schools, hospitals, places of worship, broadcasting studios, cinemas, theatres and
museums) within the inner area.
17.10.63 A preliminary assessment of aircraft ground noise for noise sensitive non-
residential receptors has been carried out on the screened in receptors described
above. Pippins School has been identified to have an adverse likely significant
effect, Heathrow Primary School has been identified on a precautionary basis and
two places of worship, St Mary’s Church and Harmondsworth Baptist Church,
have been identified to experience adverse likely significant effects. Refer to
Section 17.11 and Figure 17.51, Volume 2 for more detail regarding noise
sensitive non-residential receptors and their locations.
17.10.64 Only receptors within the inner area have been considered when screening and
assessing likely significant effect of ground noise due to its proximity to the airport.
17.10.65 Between the PEIR and ES, Heathrow will identify whether a significant adverse
effect due to noise (including vibration) would occur at each receptor and if so,
Heathrow will engage with the owners and users of these receptors to identify
what further control measures are sustainable to avoid or reduce the significant
adverse effect.
Operational noise: road noise (2035)
17.10.66 The assessment year, assuming a reasonable worst case for road traffic noise is
2035. This takes account of traffic growth following the opening of each new or
altered road that enables the new runway to be constructed and become
operational. Sensitivity tests and, as necessary further noise impact assessment,
will be undertaken between PEIR and ES to confirm the point when the airport’s
noise impact is forecast to be highest from this noise source.
17.10.67 Daytime and night-time road traffic noise levels (annual average weekday levels)
are presented in Figures 17.45 and 17.46, Volume 2 in the context of the relevant
LOAEL and SOAEL values. The provision of noise insulation, combined with
mitigation embedded in the DCO Project (Section 17.9), would avoid the
significant adverse effects on health and quality of life that would otherwise occur
inside dwellings.
17.10.68 The change in road traffic noise between the assessment year with the DCO
Project (2035 for road traffic noise) compared to a future baseline (2035) without
the DCO Project is presented in Figures 17.47 and 17.48, Volume 2 for daytime
and night-time respectively. This provides the basis for identifying likely significant
effects from road traffic noise on an area basis that are reported in this section and
in Section 17.11. Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life are
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.143 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
avoided by mitigation and compensation measures, including noise insulation,
Refer to Section 17.9 (Evaluation 1). Beneficial effects on health and quality of life
due to road noise decreases have been identified on a preliminary basis for
approximately 4000 people during the daytime and 6,500 people during the night-
time. Adverse noise effects on health and quality of life due to road noise
increases have identified on a preliminary basis for approximately 2,500 people
during the daytime and 5,700 people during the night (Evaluation 2). These
adverse effects are reduced by mitigation measures (e.g. low noise surfacing) and
compensation (noise insulation provided for road noise). Further mitigation (very
low noise surface and noise barriers) will be considered ahead of the ES. Adverse
effects and significant adverse effects due to road noise will be confirmed in the
ES following further development of the mitigation and compensation proposals,
and further, more detailed, assessment.
17.10.69 The preliminary screening of road noise has identified, on a precautionary basis,
approximately 150 potentially noise sensitive non-residential receptors (including
schools, hospitals, places of worship, broadcasting studios, cinemas, theatres and
museums) within the inner area.
17.10.70 A preliminary assessment of road noise for noise sensitive non-residential
receptors has been carried out on the screened in receptors described above.
Sant Nirankari Bhawan has been identified to have an adverse likely significant effect.
17.10.71 Harmondsworth Baptist Church has been identified to experience a beneficial
likely significant effect. Refer to Section 17.11 and Figure 17.52, Volume 2 for
more detail regarding noise sensitive non-residential receptors and their locations.
17.10.72 Between the PEIR and ES, Heathrow will identify whether a significant adverse
effect due to noise (including vibration) would occur at each receptor and if so,
Heathrow will engage with the owners and users of these receptors to identify
what further control measures are sustainable to avoid or reduce the significant
adverse effect.
Operational noise: other airport noise sources (e.g. static equipment)
17.10.73 Significant effects from the operation of permanent static noise sources at the
expanded Heathrow will be avoided by specification and design as described in
Section 17.9.
17.10.74 Design detail for assessing static noise sources is unlikely to be available at the
time of the DCO. This is often the case at this stage for large infrastructure
projects. Permanent static (fixed) sources will be designed at a later stage and
maintained so that they will avoid significant effects and will minimise adverse
noise effects as far as sustainable.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.144 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.10.75 A framework for noise control measures will be developed during the noise and
vibration assessment which will limit noise from static sources, the framework may
include methods for:
1. Specifying noise limits and incorporating acoustic requirements into contract
documents such that they will apply to the design of all the fixed plant that are
to be installed and operated as part of the DCO Project
2. Determining the relevant background levels for specification of noise limits
jointly with the relevant Local Planning Authorities
3. Procuring, installing and commissioning fixed plant, including sound
attenuation equipment that meets the specification requirements
4. Before formal operation of the fixed plant, a standard suite of acceptance tests
as necessary to demonstrate that the operational sound levels achieve the
design criteria.
Noise and vibration effects considered unlikely to be significant on a DCO Project wide basis
Receptors unlikely to experience significant effects
17.10.76 Taking account of the environmental measures included in the DCO Project and
the transient/irregular use of the following receptors, it is unlikely that significant
effects would result from construction and/or operation at:
1. facilities that permit short term occupation, typically up to two weeks, such as
static moorings, camp sites or caravan parks, but which do not permit
permanent residential use
2. Public Rights of Way (PRoW)
3. Allotments
4. public open spaces and outdoor sports / recreation community facilities (e.g.
football pitches, golf courses).
17.10.77 PRoW are, by their nature, transitory in their use, with users not staying in any one
location for any length of time. Levels of noise from the construction and operation
of the DCO Project would vary across the PRoW dependent on distance from the
DCO Project. During construction, noise would be controlled and managed in
accordance with the draft CoCP. During operation, noise levels on PRoW would
be reduced by landscape earthworks provided to reduce the visual effects of the
DCO Project and noise control measures provided to protect adjacent residential
and non-residential receptors.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.145 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.10.78 Operational noise from the DCO Project would be intermittent. Significant noise
effects are, therefore, considered unlikely on PRoW during either construction or
operation although increases in noise due to the DCO Project may adversely
affect the acoustic character of the area around PRoW.
17.10.79 Public open spaces and outdoor sports/recreation community facilities (e.g.
football pitches, golf courses, etc.) are, by their nature, transitory in their use.
Outdoor sport activities are unlikely to be significantly affected by noise at the
levels associated with operation of the DCO Project. Increases in noise due to
operation of the DCO Project may adversely affect the acoustic character of the
area around such open spaces and facilities. However, as users will not be
exposed to any increased noise for long periods and hence use of the open
spaces and facilities would not be disrupted, the adverse noise effects on users
are not considered significant.
17.10.80 Quantitative assessments will be undertaken for any outdoor community facility
formally identified or designated as a quiet area under Government regulations or
policy and reported in the ES.
Noise sources unlikely to be significant
Construction noise and vibration sources
17.10.81 It is anticipated that there may be some night-time working as a result of road and
railway construction, which would be required due to disruption on existing
transport links that would not be feasible during daytime periods. Any noise effects
arising from these short-term construction activities would be controlled and
reduced by the management processes set out in the draft Code of Construction Practice (CoCP). Where night-time work would be required over extended periods
it has been considered as part of the assessment reported in this Chapter.
17.10.82 During certain construction processes, there may be the need to operate fixed
construction plant such as generators and water pumps for engineering or safety
reasons on a continuous 24 hour basis 7 days per week. Noise would be
controlled and reduced by the management processes set out in the draft CoCP
and this equipment would be sited, or locally screened, to control noise at
neighbouring residential premises and noise sensitive non-residential premises to
avoid likely significant effects.
17.10.83 Likely significant effects from ground-borne noise and/or vibration generated from
temporary construction traffic (road vehicles) within the construction sites would be
avoided through the commitment given in the draft CoCP that the surface of
temporary and permanent access roads and temporary site haul routes for the
DCO Project would be maintained through the construction period.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.146 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.10.84 Taking into account the control and management processes set out in the draft
CoCP, including the provision of advanced notification, the short relative duration
of the works (often less than one month) and/or the rises and falls in level as the
works pass by a given receptor mean that the following activities are unlikely to
cause a noise or vibration significant effect during construction:
1. the use of vibratory rollers for minor works, such as road surfacing and
reinstatement, etc
2. the use of pneumatic breakers to break up existing concrete structures during
demolition
3. standard utilities work
17.10.85 Piling and vibratory compaction could result in short-term appreciable ground-
borne vibration at a small number of dwellings, situated close to these activities.
These receptors would also be exposed to appreciable noise from the construction
of the Proposed Scheme. The significance of the identified vibration effects will be
assessed in combination with the airborne noise effects also identified at these
receptors and reported in the ES.
Rail freight movements between Great Western Main Line (GWML) and the Rail Head
17.10.86 It is proposed to operate rail freight movements between the rail head and the
GWML. The new rail head will be located immediately north of the western edge of
the new runway where it crosses the M25 into the Colne Valley – close to the
existing rail logistics facilities. The rail head will be connected to the GWML via the
existing Colnbrook branch line. The Colnbrook branch line connects to the GWML
at Fray’s Loop near West Drayton Station. The line will operate approximately 17
trains in each direction per day. The Colnbrook Branch Line is located at least
100m from noise sensitive receptors except at West Drayton where the line joins
the GWML. Noise sensitive receptors here are already exposed to noise from high
speed rail services on the GWML. The Colnbrook branch line currently serves the
existing rail logistics facility hence the operation of rail freight on the line is not
considered to materially alter the use of the line. Considering the existing use of
the line is not materially changing, the proximity of the line to noise sensitive
receptors and the existing noise exposure of receptors close to the tie in between
the line and the GWML, noise effects are unlikely to be significant.
17.11 Preliminary assessment of significance | geographical reporting
Introduction
17.11.1 The geographical assessment (Section 17.11) reports the geographical location of
significant noise effects in terms of all DCO Project phases and for all DCO Project
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.147 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
noise sources for the Inner Area, across the four quadrants and 23 communities
and for all ten airspace designs. The geographical assessment is carried out for all
noise sources for the Inner Area and also reports combined effects. Appendix 17.1, Annex H reports the geographical assessment for each local planning
authority within the Outer Area showing the range and variation of aircraft noise
effects within each local planning authority.
Preliminary assessment of significance for the inner area
17.11.2 This section reports the geographical assessments for the Inner Area. In the
following sections a series of codes are presented which can be used to identify
significant adverse effects on health and quality of life and likely significant effects
(adverse and beneficial). These codes are presented in the text, tables and figures
for each reporting area to support way-finding. Graphic 17.14 shows the key used
for the significant effect codes.
Graphic 17.14: Significant effect code key
Table 17.31 List of inner area communities reported in this section
Quadrant Community Page reference for reported effects
Northern quadrant
Longford No significant effects on health and quality of life or likely significant effects are identified for Longford.
Harlington 17.149
Harmondsworth 17.150
West Drayton 17.151
Sipson 17.152
Hayes 17.153
Cranford Cross 17.154
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.148 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Quadrant Community Page reference for reported effects
Eastern quadrant
Cranford 17.155
Heston 17.156
Hounslow (West and Heath) 17.157
Hounslow (Central and South) 17.158
Feltham North 17.159
Bedford 17.160
Southern quadrant
Stanwell 17.161
Stanwell Moor 17.162
Western quadrant
Poyle 17.163
Colnbrook 17.164
Brands Hill 17.165
Iver and Richings Park 17.166
East Langley 17.167
Datchet 17.168
Horton 17.169
Wraysbury No significant effects on health and quality of life or likely significant effects are identified for Wraysbury.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.149 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.32 Preliminary assessment of significance for residential receptors51,52, | Harlington
Source53 Significant effect code (Graphic 17.14)
Key figures
Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033) Phase 3 (2034-2050)
Con
stru
ctio
n sHQL
- - sHQL (evening)
avoided by M&C measures
No sHQL No sHQL
LSE HRL.C.ALSE.DE.01
HRL.C.ALSE.N.02
- ALSE (day, evening & night)
reduced by M&C measures
No LSE No LSE
Airc
raft
sHQL
- 17.37
17.38
No sHQL sHQL (day & night) avoided by M&C measures
LSE
HRL.A.ALSE.DN.01 17.39
17.40
No LSE ALSE (day & night) reduced by M&C measures
Gro
und sHQL
- 17.41
17.42
No sHQL sHQL (night)
avoided by M&C measures
LSE HRL.G.ALSE.DN.01 17.43
17.44
No LSE ALSE (day & night)
reduced by M&C measures
Roa
d
sHQL - 17.45
17.46
No sHQL
LSE
HRL.R.ALSE.DN.01
17.47
17.48
ALSE (day & night) reduced by M&C measures
HRL.R.BLSE.DN.02 BLSE (day & night)
Com
bine
d sHQL
- - No combined sHQL Potential sHQL (to be confirmed in
ES): Aircraft & Road (day); Aircraft,
Ground & Road (night)
LSE
- - Potential ALSE (to be confirmed
in ES): Construction & Road
(day, evening & night)
Potential ALSE (to be confirmed in
ES): Aircraft, Ground & Road (day);
Aircraft, Ground & Road (night)
Key | sHQL = Significant effect on Health and Quality of Life | M&C = Mitigation & Compensation |
| LSE = Likely Significant Effect | ALSE = Adverse LSE | BLSE = Beneficial LSE |
Table 17.33 Preliminary assessment of significance for noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Harlington
Non-residential category54 Noise sensitive non-residential receptor and Likely Significant Effect
Places of meeting for religious worship; courts; cinemas; lecture theatres; museums; and small auditoria or halls
ALSE from construction noise: Sant Nirankari Bhawan*
ALSE from aircraft noise: St Peters And St Pauls Church*, Harlington Baptist Church, Sant
Nirankari Bhawan
ALSE from Road noise: Sant Nirankari Bhawan*
Hospitals ALSE from aircraft noise: Landsdown House*
Schools; colleges; and libraries ALSE from aircraft noise: William Byrd Primary School
Key * = Identified on a precautionary basis (to be confirmed in the ES). ALSE = Adverse Likely Significant Effect | BLSE = Beneficial Likely Significant Effect
51 People, primarily where they live (‘residential receptors’) in terms of dwellings and on a wider community basis including private external amenity space (e.g. gardens) and publicly accessible external amenity space (e.g. parks) within the area or within a 5 min walk. 52 Section 17.10 summarises adverse and significant adverse effects on health and quality of life, how the DCO Project changes these compared to baseline conditions and how adverse effects are mitigated and minimised and how significant adverse effects are avoided 53 Significant effects from the operation of other airport noise sources (e.g. static equipment) associated with the DCO Project will be avoided by specification and design as described in Section 17.9. 54 Please see Section 17.4 for information on noise sensitive non-residential receptors and Section 17.10 for receptor categories where noise and vibration effects are considered unlikely to be significant on a DCO Project wide basis
Construction noise (Phase 1)
Temporary significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (very high noise levels) on residential properties closest to works for new A4 / Emirates roundabout (Saturday afternoon working) avoided by mitigation and compensation measures (e.g. Code
of Construction Practice (CoCP) general measures, screens at construction site boundary and noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
Temporary adverse likely significant effects (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may be
perceived as change in the quality of life) have been identified on the majority of the community due to daytime and Saturday
afternoon working on new A4 / Emirates roundabout [HRL.C.ALSE.DE.01] and night-time piling for new runway [HRL.C.ALSE.N.02].
These effects have been mitigated and minimised (e.g. CoCP general measures, tall noise screens at construction site boundary and
noise insulation provided in advance of aircraft noise in Phase 2 & 3). Refer to section 17.9. Temporary adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase) identified for Sant Nirankani Bhawan* (place of worship). Heathrow
will engage* with the school and places of worship ahead of the ES to identify the most appropriate way to avoid or reduce the likely
significant effect. *On a precautionary basis. Heathrow to confirm before engagement.
Construction traffic has the potential to cause temporary adverse noise effects due to increased traffic movements on Sipson Road and Bath Road (effect and mitigation to be confirmed in ES).
Road noise (Phase 1, 2 & 3)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may be perceived
as change in the quality of life) has been identified both day and night across that part of the community closest to the new A4
[HRL.R.ALSE.DN.01]. This effect is reduced by mitigation measures (e.g. low noise road surfacing) and compensation measures (full
noise insulation provided for aircraft noise). Further mitigation (very low noise surface and noise barriers) will be considered in the ES.
An indirect beneficial likely significant effect (from noise decrease) has been identified on the majority of the community both day
and night [HRL.R.BLSE.DN.02] due to reduced road traffic.
Aircraft noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) at the majority of residential properties in Harlington both day and night are avoided by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise control measures and noticeable or valued
respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and compensation measures (full noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may be perceived as
change in the quality of life) has been identified over the majority of the community both day and night [HRL.A.ALSE.DN.01]. These
effects are reduced by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise control measures and noticeable or valued respite from runway
alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and compensation measures (full noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
Adverse likely significant effects (from noise increase) have been identified for William Byrd Primary School, Landsdown House* (hospice), St Peters and St Pauls Church*, Harlington Baptist Church and Sant Nirankani Bhawan (places of worship). Heathrow
will engage* with the school, hospice and places of worship ahead of the ES to identify the most appropriate way to avoid or reduce the
likely significant effect. *On a precautionary basis. Heathrow to confirm before engagement.
Aircraft ground noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) on residential properties close to the existing airport boundary in Harlington both day and night are avoided by mitigation measures (additional boundary screening will be
considered in the ES) and compensation measures (full noise insulation provided for aircraft noise). Refer to section 17.9.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may be perceived as
change in the quality of life) has been identified over much of the community of Harlington both day and night [HRL.G.ALSE.DN.01].
This effect is reduced by mitigation measures and compensation measures (full noise insulation provided for aircraft noise). Refer to
section 17.9. Additional boundary screening will be considered ahead of the ES.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.150 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.34 Preliminary assessment of significance55,56 | Harmondsworth
Source57 Significant effect code (Graphic 17.14)
Key figures
Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033)
Phase 3 (2034-2050)
Con
stru
ctio
n sHQL - -
sHQL avoided by M&C
measures No sHQL No sHQL
LSE HMD.C.ALSE.DEN. 01
-
ALSE reduced by M&C
measures No LSE No LSE
Airc
raft
sHQL - 17.37
17.38
No sHQL sHQL (day & night) avoided by M&C measures
LSE HMD.A.ALSE.DN.01 17.39
17.40
No LSE ALSE (day & night) reduced by M&C measures
Gro
und sHQL
- 17.41
17.42 No sHQL sHQL (day & night) avoided by M&C measures
LSE HMD.G.ALSE.DN.01 17.43
17.44 No LSE
ALSE (day & night) reduced by M&C
measures
Roa
d
sHQL - 17.45
17.46 No sHQL
LSE HMD.R.BLSE.DN.01 17.47
17.48 BLSE (day & night)
Com
bine
d sHQL
-
-
No combined sHQL Potential sHQL (to be confirmed in ES):
Aircraft & Ground (day & night)
LSE -
- No combined ALSE Potential ALSE (to be confirmed in ES):
Aircraft & Ground (day & night)
Key | sHQL = Significant effect on Health and Quality of Life | M&C = Mitigation & Compensation |
| LSE = Likely Significant Effect | ALSE = Adverse LSE | BLSE = Beneficial LSE |
Table 17.35 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Harmondsworth
Non-residential category58 Noise sensitive non-residential receptor and Likely Significant Effect
Places of meeting for religious worship; courts; cinemas; lecture theatres; museums; and small auditoria or halls
ALSE from aircraft noise: Harmondsworth Baptist Church, St Marys (C Of E) Church
ALSE from construction noise: Harmondsworth Baptist Church ALSE from ground noise: Harmondsworth Baptist Church, St Mary’s (C Of E) Church BLSE from road noise: Harmondsworth Baptist Church
Hospitals No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Schools; colleges; and libraries No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Key * = Identified on a precautionary basis (to be confirmed in the ES). ALSE = Adverse Likely Significant Effect | BLSE = Beneficial Likely Significant Effect
55 People, primarily where they live (‘residential receptors’) in terms of dwellings and on a wider community basis including private external amenity space (e.g. gardens) and publicly accessible external amenity space (e.g. parks) within the area or within a 5 min walk. 56 Section 17.10 summarises adverse and significant adverse effects on health and quality of life, how the DCO Project changes these compared to baseline conditions and how adverse effects are mitigated and minimised and how significant adverse effects are avoided 57 Significant effects from the operation of other airport noise sources (e.g. static equipment) associated with the DCO Project will be avoided by specification and design as described in Section 17.9. 58 Please see Section 17.4 for information on noise sensitive non-residential receptors and Section 17.10 for receptor categories where noise and vibration effects are considered unlikely to be significant on a DCO Project wide basis
Construction noise (Phase 1)
Temporary unacceptable adverse effects on health and quality of life (unacceptable noise levels) on residential properties closest to works for new runway/taxiway construction and the demolition in southern Harmondsworth (daytime, evening, Saturday afternoon and night-time working) avoided by mitigation and compensation measures (e.g. Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) general measures, screening at construction
site boundary and temporary re-housing). Refer to section 17.9.
Temporary significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (very high noise levels) on residential properties closest to works for new runway/taxiway construction and the demolition in southern Harmondsworth (daytime, evening, Saturday afternoon and night-time working) avoided by mitigation and compensation measures (e.g. CoCP general measures, screen at construction site boundary and noise insulation). Refer to
section 17.9.
Temporary adverse likely significant effects (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may be perceived as a
change in quality of life) have been identified on the majority of the community due to daytime, evening, Saturday afternoon, and night-time working
[HMD.C.ALSE.DEN.01]. These effects have been reduced by mitigation and compensation measures (e.g. CoCP general measures, tall noise screens
at construction site boundary and noise insulation provided in advance of aircraft noise in Phase 2 & 3). Refer to section 17.9.
Temporary adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase) identified for Harmondsworth Baptist Church (place of worship). Heathrow will
engage with the place of worship ahead of the ES to identify the most appropriate way to avoid or reduce the likely significant effect.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified as a result of construction traffic.
Aircraft noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) at the majority of residential properties in Harmondsworth
both day and night are avoided by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise control measures and noticeable or valued respite from runway
alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and compensation measures (full noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may be perceived as a change in
quality of life) has been identified over the majority of the community both day and night [HMD.A.ALSE.DN.01]. These effects are reduced by mitigation
measures (package of aircraft noise control measures and noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and
compensation measures (full noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
Adverse likely significant effects (from noise increase) have been identified for Harmondsworth Baptist Church and St Marys Church (places of
worship). Heathrow will engage with the places of worship ahead of the ES to identify the most appropriate way to avoid or reduce the likely significant
effect.
Road noise (Phase 1, 2 & 3)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
An indirect beneficial likely significant effect (from noise decrease) has been identified on the majority of the community both day and night
[HMD.R.BLSE.DN.01] due to reduced road traffic.
An indirect beneficial likely significant effect (from noise decrease) has been identified for Harmondsworth Baptist Church due to reduced road
traffic.
Aircraft ground noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) on residential properties close to the development airport boundary in Harmondsworth both day and night are avoided by mitigation measures (additional boundary screening will be considered in the ES) and
compensation measures (full noise insulation provided for aircraft noise). Refer to section 17.9.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may be perceived as a change in
quality of life) has been identified at residential properties closest to the development boundary in Harmondsworth both day and night
[HMD.G.ALSE.DN.01]. This effect is reduced by mitigation measures and compensation measures (full noise insulation provided for aircraft noise). Refer
to section 17.9. Additional boundary screening will be considered ahead of the ES.
Adverse likely significant effects (from noise increase) have been identified for Harmondsworth Baptist Church and St Mary’s Church (places of
worship). Heathrow will engage with the places of worship ahead of the ES to identify the most appropriate way to avoid or reduce the likely significant
effect.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.151 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.36 Preliminary assessment of significance59,60, | West Drayton
Source61 Significant effect code (Graphic 17.14)
Key figures Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033)
Phase 3 (2034-2050)
Con
stru
ctio
n sHQL
- - No sHQL No sHQL No sHQL
LSE
- -
No LSE No LSE No LSE
Airc
raft
sHQL
- 17.37
17.38 No sHQL No sHQL
LSE WDR.A.ALSE.D.01 17.39
17.40 No LSE
ALSE (day) reduced by mitigation measures
Gro
und sHQL -
17.41
17.42 No sHQL No sHQL
LSE WDR.A.ALSE.DN.01 17.43
17.44 No LSE
Adverse LSE (day and night) reduced by
mitigation measures
Roa
d
sHQL - 17.45
17.46 No sHQL
LSE WDR.R.ALSE.DN.01 17.47
17.48 Adverse LSE (day & night) reduced by mitigation measures.
Com
bine
d sHQL
-
- No combined sHQL No combined sHQL
LSE
- - No combined ALSE
Potential ALSE (to be confirmed in ES):
Aircraft, Ground & road (day); Ground &
road (night)
Key | sHQL = Significant effect on Health and Quality of Life | M&C = Mitigation & Compensation |
| LSE = Likely Significant Effect | ALSE = Adverse LSE | BLSE = Beneficial LSE |
Table 17.37 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | West Drayton
Non-residential category62 Noise sensitive non-residential receptor and Likely Significant Effect
Places of meeting for religious worship; courts; cinemas; lecture theatres; museums; and small auditoria or halls
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Hospitals No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Schools; colleges; and libraries ALSE from aircraft noise: Cherry Lane Children's Centre*, St Martins C Of E Primary School*
Key * = Identified on a precautionary basis (to be confirmed in the ES). ALSE = Adverse Likely Significant Effect | BLSE = Beneficial Likely Significant Effect
59 People, primarily where they live (‘residential receptors’) in terms of dwellings and on a wider community basis including private external amenity space (e.g. gardens) and publicly accessible external amenity space (e.g. parks) within the area or within a 5 min walk. 60 Section 17.10 summarises adverse and significant adverse effects on health and quality of life, how the DCO Project changes these compared to baseline conditions and how adverse effects are mitigated and minimised and how significant adverse effects are avoided 61 Significant effects from the operation of other airport noise sources (e.g. static equipment) associated with the DCO Project will be avoided by specification and design as described in Section 17.9. 62 Please see Section 17.4 for information on noise sensitive non-residential receptors and Section 17.10 for receptor categories where noise and vibration effects are considered unlikely to be significant on a DCO Project wide basis
Construction noise (Phase 1)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Aircraft noise (Phase 2 & 3)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as a change in quality of life) has been identified over the southern part of the community during the day
[WDR.A.ALSE.D.01]. These effects are reduced by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise control measures and
noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES). Refer to section 17.9.
Adverse likely significant effects (from noise increase) have been identified for Cherry Lane Children’s Centre* and St Martins C of E Primary School. Heathrow will engage* with the schools ahead of the ES to identify the most
appropriate way to avoid or reduce the likely significant effect. *On a precautionary basis. Heathrow to confirm before
engagement.
Aircraft ground noise (Phase 2 & 3)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as change in the quality of life) has been identified over the southern part of West Drayton both day and
night [WDR.G.ALSE.DN.01]. This effect is reduced by mitigation measures. Refer to section 17.9. Additional boundary
screening will be considered ahead of the ES.
Road noise (Phase 1, 2 & 3)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as change in the quality of life) has been identified both day and night across parts of the community close to the new M4 Junction 4 slip road [WDR.R.ALSE.DN.01]. This effect is reduced by mitigation measures (e.g. low
noise road surfacing). Further mitigation (very low noise surface and noise barriers) will be considered in the ES.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.152 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.38 Preliminary assessment of significance63,64, | Sipson
Source65 Significant effect code (Graphic 17.14)
Key figures Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033)
Phase 3 (2034-2050)
Con
stru
ctio
n
sHQL - - sHQL (day, evening & night)
avoided by M&C measures No sHQL No sHQL
LSE SPN.C.ALSE.DEN.01 SPN.C.ALSE.DEN.02
- ALSE (day, evening & night)
reduced by M&C measures No LSE No LSE
Airc
raft sHQL -
17.37
17.38 No sHQL
sHQL (day and night) avoided by M&C measures
LSE SPN.A.ALSE.DN.01 17.39
17.40 No LSE
Adverse LSE (day & night) reduced by M&C measures
Gro
und sHQL -
17.41
17.42 No sHQL No sHQL
LSE SPN.G.ALSE.DN.01 17.43
17.44 No LSE
Adverse LSE (day & night) reduced by
M&C measures
Roa
d
sHQL - 17.45
17.46 sHQL (day & night) avoided by M&C measures
LSE
SPN.R.ALSE.N.01
SPN.R.ALSE.N.02
SPN.R.BLSE.DN.03
SPN.R.BLSE.DN.04
17.47
17.48 ALSE (day & night) reduced by M&C measures
Com
bine
d sHQL
-
-
Potential sHQL (to be
confirmed in ES): Construction
& Road (day & night)
Potential sHQL (to be confirmed in
ES): Aircraft & Road (day & night)
LSE
- -
Potential ALSE (to be
confirmed in ES): Construction
& Road (day & night)
Potential ALSE (to be confirmed in
ES): Aircraft, Ground & Road (day &
night)
Key | sHQL = Significant effect on Health and Quality of Life | M&C = Mitigation & Compensation |
| LSE = Likely Significant Effect | ALSE = Adverse LSE | BLSE = Beneficial LSE |
Table 17.39 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Sipson
Non-residential category66 Noise sensitive non-residential receptor and Likely Significant Effect
Places of meeting for religious worship; courts; cinemas; lecture theatres; museums; and small auditoria or halls
ALSE from aircraft noise: Sipson Arabic Church
Hospitals No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Schools; colleges; and libraries ALSE from aircraft noise: Heathrow Primary School, Inglenook (Lady Nafisa
Secondary School for Girls)
ALSE from Construction noise: Heathrow Primary School
ALSE from Ground noise: Heathrow Primary School*
Key * = Identified on a precautionary basis (to be confirmed in the ES). ALSE = Adverse Likely Significant Effect | BLSE = Beneficial Likely
Significant Effect
63 People, primarily where they live (‘residential receptors’) in terms of dwellings and on a wider community basis including private external amenity space (e.g. gardens) and publicly accessible external amenity space (e.g. parks) within the area or within a 5 min walk. 64 Section 17.10 summarises adverse and significant adverse effects on health and quality of life, how the DCO Project changes these compared to baseline conditions and how adverse effects are mitigated and minimised and how significant adverse effects are avoided 65 Significant effects from the operation of other airport noise sources (e.g. static equipment) associated with the DCO Project will be avoided by specification and design as described in Section 17.9. 66 Please see Section 17.4 for information on noise sensitive non-residential receptors and Section 17.10 for receptor categories where noise and vibration effects are considered unlikely to be significant on a DCO Project wide basis
Construction noise (Phase 1)
Temporary unacceptable adverse effects on health and quality of life (unacceptable noise levels) on residential properties closest to works for new A4 / earthworks / runway/taxiway construction (daytime, evening, Saturday afternoon and night-time)
avoided by mitigation and compensation measures (e.g. Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) general measures, screens at
construction site boundary and temporary re-housing). Refer to section 17.9.
Temporary significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (very high noise levels) on residential properties closest to works for new A4 / earthworks / runway/taxiway construction (daytime, evening, Saturday afternoon and night-time) avoided by
mitigation and compensation measures (e.g. Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) general measures, screens at construction site
boundary and noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
Temporary adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may be
perceived as a change in quality of life) have been identified on the majority of the community due to night-time piling for new runway
and the new A4 construction. [SPN.C.ALSE.DEN.01] [SPN.C.ALSE.DEN.02]. These effects have been mitigated and minimised (e.g.
CoCP general measures, tall noise screens at construction site boundary and noise insulation provided in advance of aircraft noise in
Phase 2 & 3). Refer to section 17.9.
Temporary adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase) identified for Heathrow Primary School (school). Heathrow will
engage with the school ahead of the ES to identify the most appropriate way to avoid or reduce the likely significant effect.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified as a result of construction traffic.
Aircraft noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) at the majority of residential properties in Sipson both day and night are avoided by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise control measures and noticeable or valued
respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and compensation measures (full noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may be perceived as
a change quality of life) has been identified over the majority of the community both day and night [SPN.A.ALSE.DN.01]. These
effects are reduced by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise control measures and noticeable or valued respite from runway
alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and compensation measures (full noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
Adverse likely significant effects (from noise increase) have been identified for Heathrow Primary School, Inglenook (Lady Nafisa Secondary School for Girls) and Sipson Arabic Church (place of worship). Heathrow will engage with the place of worship ahead of
the ES to identify the most appropriate way to avoid or reduce the likely significant effect. *On a precautionary basis. Heathrow to
confirm before engagement.
Road noise (Phase 1, 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) at residential properties close to the new A4 in Sipson during the day are avoided by mitigation measures (e.g. low noise road surfacing) and compensation measures (full noise
insulation provided for aircraft noise). Refer to section 17.9. Further mitigation (very low noise surface and noise barriers) will be
considered in the ES.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may be perceived
as a change in quality of life) has been identified during the night across parts of the community closest to the new A4 and M4 spur slip road during the night [SPN.R.ALSE.N.01], [SPN.R.ALSE.N.02]. This effect is reduced by mitigation measures (e.g. low noise road
surfacing) and compensation measures (full noise insulation provided for aircraft noise). Further mitigation (very low noise surface and
noise barriers) will be considered in the ES.
An indirect beneficial likely significant effect (from noise decrease) has been identified on the majority of the community both day
and night [SPN.R.BLSE.DN.03], [SPN.R.BLSE.DN.04] due to reduced road traffic.
Aircraft ground noise (Phase 2 & 3)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may be perceived as
a change in quality of life) has been identified at residential properties closest to the existing airport boundary in Sipson both day
and night [SPN.G.ALSE.DN.01]. This effect is reduced by mitigation measures and compensation measures (full noise insulation
provided for aircraft noise). Refer to section 17.9. Additional boundary screening will be considered ahead of the ES.
Adverse likely significant effects (from noise increase) have been identified for Heathrow Primary School*. Heathrow will engage
with the place of worship ahead of the ES to identify the most appropriate way to avoid or reduce the likely significant effect. *On a
precautionary basis. Heathrow to confirm before engagement.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.153 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.40 Preliminary assessment of significance67,68, | Hayes
Source69 Significant effect code (Graphic 17.14)
Key figures Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033)
Phase 3 (2034-2050)
Con
stru
ctio
n sHQL
- - No sHQL No sHQL No sHQL
LSE
- -
No LSE No LSE No LSE
Airc
raft
sHQL
- 17.37
17.38 No sHQL No sHQL
LSE HAY.A.ALSE.D.01
HAY.A.ALSE.N.01
17.39
17.40 No LSE
Adverse LSE (day & night) reduced by M&C measures
Gro
und sHQL
- 17.41
17.42 No sHQL No sHQL
LSE - 17.43
17.44 No LSE No LSE
Roa
d
sHQL - 17.45
17.46 No sHQL
LSE - 17.47
17.48 No LSE
Com
bine
d sHQL
-
- No combined sHQL No combined sHQL
LSE -
- No combined ALSE No combined ALSE
Key | sHQL = Significant effect on Health and Quality of Life | M&C = Mitigation & Compensation |
| LSE = Likely Significant Effect | ALSE = Adverse LSE | BLSE = Beneficial LSE |
Table 17.41 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Hayes
Non-residential category70 Noise sensitive non-residential receptor and Likely Significant Effect
Places of meeting for religious worship; courts; cinemas; lecture theatres; museums; and small auditoria or halls
ALSE from aircraft noise: Life Oasis Centre*
Hospitals
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Schools; colleges; and libraries No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Key * = Identified on a precautionary basis (to be confirmed in the ES). ALSE = Adverse Likely Significant Effect | BLSE = Beneficial Likely Significant Effect
67 People, primarily where they live (‘residential receptors’) in terms of dwellings and on a wider community basis including private external amenity space (e.g. gardens) and publicly accessible external amenity space (e.g. parks) within the area or within a 5 min walk. 68 Section 17.10 summarises adverse and significant adverse effects on health and quality of life, how the DCO Project changes these compared to baseline conditions and how adverse effects are mitigated and minimised and how significant adverse effects are avoided 69 Significant effects from the operation of other airport noise sources (e.g. static equipment) associated with the DCO Project will be avoided by specification and design as described in Section 17.9. 70 Please see Section 17.4 for information on noise sensitive non-residential receptors and Section 17.10 for receptor categories where noise and vibration effects are considered unlikely to be significant on a DCO Project wide basis
Construction noise (Phase 1)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Aircraft noise (Phase 2 & 3)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
Adverse likely significant effects (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may be
perceived as change in the quality of life) have been identified over the majority of the community during the day
[HAY.A.ALSE.D.01] and the south east of the community during the night [HRL.A.ALSE.N.01]. These effects are
reduced by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise control measures and noticeable or valued respite from
runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and potentially compensation measures for parts of the community (full
noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
Adverse likely significant effects (from noise increase) have been identified the Life Oasis Centre* (place of
worship). Heathrow will engage* with the place of worship ahead of the ES to identify the most appropriate way to avoid
or reduce the likely significant effect. *On a precautionary basis. Heathrow to confirm before engagement.
Road noise (Phase 1, 2 & 3)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Aircraft ground noise (Phase 2 & 3)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.154 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.42 Preliminary assessment of significance71,72, | Cranford Cross
Source73 Significant effect code (Graphic 17.14)
Key figures
Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033)
Phase 3 (2034-2050)
Con
stru
ctio
n sHQL
- - No sHQL No sHQL No sHQL
LSE
- -
No LSE No LSE No LSE
Airc
raft
sHQL
- 17.37
17.38 No sHQL
sHQL (day and night) avoided by M&C measures
LSE
CRC.A.ALSE.DN.01 17.39
17.40 No LSE
ALSE (day & night) reduced by M&C measures
Gro
und sHQL
- 17.41
17.42 No sHQL sHQL (day and night) avoided by M&C
measures
LSE CRC.G.ALSE.DN.01 17.43
17.44 No LSE
ALSE (day & night) reduced by M&C
measures
Roa
d
sHQL - 17.45
17.46 No sHQL
LSE - 17.47
17.48 No LSE
Com
bine
d sHQL
-
- No combined sHQL Potential sHQL (to be confirmed in ES):
Aircraft & Ground (day & night)
LSE -
- No combined ALSE Potential ALSE (to be confirmed in ES):
Aircraft & Ground (day & night)
Key | sHQL = Significant effect on Health and Quality of Life | M&C = Mitigation & Compensation |
| LSE = Likely Significant Effect | ALSE = Adverse LSE | BLSE = Beneficial LSE |
Table 17.43 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Cranford Cross
Non-residential category74 Noise sensitive non-residential receptor and Likely Significant Effect
Places of meeting for religious worship; courts; cinemas; lecture theatres; museums; and small auditoria or halls
ALSE from aircraft noise: St Dunstan’s Church
Hospitals
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Schools; colleges; and libraries No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Key * = Identified on a precautionary basis (to be confirmed in the ES). ALSE = Adverse Likely Significant Effect | BLSE = Beneficial Likely Significant Effect
71 People, primarily where they live (‘residential receptors’) in terms of dwellings and on a wider community basis including private external amenity space (e.g. gardens) and publicly accessible external amenity space (e.g. parks) within the area or within a 5 min walk. 72 Section 17.10 summarises adverse and significant adverse effects on health and quality of life, how the DCO Project changes these compared to baseline conditions and how adverse effects are mitigated and minimised and how significant adverse effects are avoided 73 Significant effects from the operation of other airport noise sources (e.g. static equipment) associated with the DCO Project will be avoided by specification and design as described in Section 17.9. 74 Please see Section 17.4 for information on noise sensitive non-residential receptors and Section 17.10 for receptor categories where noise and vibration effects are considered unlikely to be significant on a DCO Project wide basis
Aircraft ground noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) on residential properties
close to the existing airport boundary in Cranford Cross both day and night are avoided by mitigation measures
(additional boundary screening will be considered in the ES) and compensation measures (full noise insulation provided
for aircraft noise). Refer to section 17.9.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as a change in quality of life) has been identified at residential properties closest to the existing airport boundary in Cranford Cross both day and night [CRC.G.ALSE.DN.01]. This effect is reduced by mitigation measures
and compensation measures (full noise insulation provided for aircraft noise). Refer to section 17.9. Additional boundary
screening will be considered ahead of the ES.
Construction noise (Phase 1)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Aircraft noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) at the majority of residential properties in Cranford Cross both day and night are avoided by mitigation measures (package of aircraft
noise control measures and noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and
compensation measures (full noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as a change in quality of life) has been identified over the majority of the community both day and night
[CRC.A.ALSE.DN.01]. These effects are reduced by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise control measures
and noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and compensation measures (full
noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
Adverse likely significant effects (from noise increase) have been identified for St Dunstan’s Church (place of
worship). Heathrow will engage* with the place of worship ahead of the ES to identify the most appropriate way to avoid
or reduce the likely significant effect. *On a precautionary basis. Heathrow to confirm before engagement.
Road noise (Phase 1, 2 & 3)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.155 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.44 Preliminary assessment of significance75,76, | Cranford
Source77 Significant effect code (Graphic 17.14)
Key figures Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033)
Phase 3 (2034-2050)
Con
stru
ctio
n sHQL
- - No sHQL No sHQL No sHQL
LSE
- -
No LSE No LSE No LSE
Airc
raft
sHQL
- 17.37
17.38 No sHQL
sHQL (day and night) avoided by M&C measures
LSE
CRF.A.ALSE.DN.01 17.39
17.40 No LSE
ALSE (day & night) reduced by M&C measures
CRF.A.BLSE.DN.01 BLSE (night)
Gro
und sHQL
- 17.41
17.42 No sHQL sHQL (day and night) avoided by M&C
measures
LSE - 17.43
17.44 No LSE No LSE
Roa
d
sHQL - 17.45
17.46 No sHQL
LSE CRF.R.ALSE.N.01 17.47
17.48 ALSE (night) reduced by mitigation and compensation.
Com
bine
d sHQL
-
- No combined sHQL Potential sHQL (to be confirmed in ES):
Aircraft & Ground (day & night)
LSE -
- No combined ALSE No combined ALSE
Key | sHQL = Significant effect on Health and Quality of Life | M&C = Mitigation & Compensation |
| LSE = Likely Significant Effect | ALSE = Adverse LSE | BLSE = Beneficial LSE |
Table 17.45 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Cranford
Non-residential category78 Noise sensitive non-residential receptor and Likely Significant Effect
Places of meeting for religious worship; courts; cinemas; lecture theatres; museums; and small auditoria or halls
ALSE from aircraft noise: Cranford Memorial Hall*
Hospitals No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Schools; colleges; and libraries ALSE from aircraft noise: Cranford Community College, Old Rectory Nursery School, Khosla House*, Cedars Primary School*
Key * = Identified on a precautionary basis (to be confirmed in the ES). ALSE = Adverse Likely Significant Effect | BLSE = Beneficial Likely Significant Effect
75 People, primarily where they live (‘residential receptors’) in terms of dwellings and on a wider community basis including private external amenity space (e.g. gardens) and publicly accessible external amenity space (e.g. parks) within the area or within a 5 min walk. 76 Section 17.10 summarises adverse and significant adverse effects on health and quality of life, how the DCO Project changes these compared to baseline conditions and how adverse effects are mitigated and minimised and how significant adverse effects are avoided 77 Significant effects from the operation of other airport noise sources (e.g. static equipment) associated with the DCO Project will be avoided by specification and design as described in Section 17.9. 78 Please see Section 17.4 for information on noise sensitive non-residential receptors and Section 17.10 for receptor categories where noise and vibration effects are considered unlikely to be significant on a DCO Project wide basis
Aircraft ground noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) on residential properties
close to the existing airport boundary in Cranford both day and night are avoided by mitigation measures (additional
boundary screening will be considered in the ES) and compensation measures (full noise insulation provided for aircraft
noise). Refer to section 17.9.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Construction noise (Phase 1)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Aircraft noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) in the north of Cranford both day and night are avoided by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise control measures and noticeable or
valued respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and compensation measures (full noise insulation).
Refer to section 17.9.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as a change in quality of life) has been identified over the north of Cranford both day and night
[CRF.A.ALSE.DN.01]. These effects are reduced by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise control measures
and noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and compensation measures (full
noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
A beneficial likely significant effect (from noise decrease that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as an improvement in quality of life) has been identified over the south of Cranford both day and night
[CRF.A.BLSE.DN.01].
Adverse likely significant effects (from noise increase) have been identified for Cranford Community College, Old Rectory Nursery School, Khosla House*, Cedars Primary School* and Cranford Memorial Hall* (place of worship).
Heathrow will engage* with the schools and place of worship ahead of the ES to identify the most appropriate way to
avoid or reduce the likely significant effect. *On a precautionary basis. Heathrow to confirm before engagement.
Road noise (Phase 1, 2 & 3)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as a change in quality of life) has been identified during the night across parts of the community closest to the amended Perimeter road [CRF.R.ALSE.N.01]. This effect is reduced by mitigation measures (e.g. low noise road
surfacing) and compensation measures (full noise insulation provided for aircraft noise). Further mitigation (very low
noise surface and noise barriers) will be considered in the ES.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.156 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.46 Preliminary assessment of significance79,80, | Heston
Source81 Significant effect code (Graphic 17.14)
Key figures Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033)
Phase 3 (2034-2050)
Con
stru
ctio
n sHQL
- - No sHQL No sHQL No sHQL
LSE
- -
No LSE No LSE No LSE
Airc
raft
sHQL
- 17.37
17.38 No sHQL
sHQL (day and night) avoided by M&C measures
LSE
HES.A.ALSE.DN.01 17.39
17.40
No LSE
Adverse LSE (day & night) reduced by M&C measures
HES.A.BLSE.N.01 Beneficial LSE (night)
Gro
und sHQL
- 17.41
17.42 No sHQL No sHQL
LSE - 17.43
17.44 No LSE No LSE
Roa
d
sHQL - 17.45
17.46 No sHQL
LSE - 17.47
17.48 No LSE
Com
bine
d sHQL
-
- No combined sHQL No combined sHQL
LSE -
- No combined ALSE No combined ALSE
Key | sHQL = Significant effect on Health and Quality of Life | M&C = Mitigation & Compensation |
| LSE = Likely Significant Effect | ALSE = Adverse LSE | BLSE = Beneficial LSE |
Table 17.47 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Heston
Non-residential category82 Noise sensitive non-residential receptor and Likely Significant Effect
Places of meeting for religious worship; courts; cinemas; lecture theatres; museums; and small auditoria or halls
ALSE from aircraft noise: Darussalam Masjid and Cultural Centre*
Hospitals No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Schools; colleges; and libraries ALSE from aircraft noise: Berkeley Primary School*, Norwood Green Junior, Infant and
Nursery School*, The Rosary Catholic Primary School*, Heston Community School*
Key * = Identified on a precautionary basis (to be confirmed in the ES). ALSE = Adverse Likely Significant Effect | BLSE = Beneficial Likely Significant Effect
79 People, primarily where they live (‘residential receptors’) in terms of dwellings and on a wider community basis including private external amenity space (e.g. gardens) and publicly accessible external amenity space (e.g. parks) within the area or within a 5 min walk. 80 Section 17.10 summarises adverse and significant adverse effects on health and quality of life, how the DCO Project changes these compared to baseline conditions and how adverse effects are mitigated and minimised and how significant adverse effects are avoided 81 Significant effects from the operation of other airport noise sources (e.g. static equipment) associated with the DCO Project will be avoided by specification and design as described in Section 17.9. 82 Please see Section 17.4 for information on noise sensitive non-residential receptors and Section 17.10 for receptor categories where noise and vibration effects are considered unlikely to be significant on a DCO Project wide basis
Aircraft ground noise (Phase 2 & 3)
No significant effects on health and quality of life have been identified. No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Construction noise (Phase 1)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Aircraft noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) in the north of Heston both
day and night are avoided by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise control measures and noticeable or valued
respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and compensation measures (full noise insulation). Refer to
section 17.9.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as a change in quality of life) has been identified over the north of Heston both day and night
[HES.A.ALSE.DN.01]. These effects are reduced by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise control measures
and noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and potentially compensation
measures for parts of the community (full noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
A beneficial likely significant effect (from noise decrease that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as an improvement in quality of life) has been identified over the south of Heston during the night
[HES.A.BLSE.N.01].
Adverse likely significant effects (from noise increase) have been identified for Berkeley Primary School*, Norwood Green Junior, Infant and Nursery School*, The Rosary Catholic Primary School*, Heston Community School* and Darussalam Masjid and Cultural Centre* (place of worship). Heathrow will engage* with the schools and place of
worship ahead of the ES to identify the most appropriate way to avoid or reduce the likely significant effect. *On a
precautionary basis. Heathrow to confirm before engagement.
Road noise (Phase 1, 2 & 3)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.157 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.48 Preliminary assessment of significance83,84, | Hounslow (West and Heath)
Source85 Significant effect code (Graphic 17.14)
Key figures
Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033)
Phase 3 (2034-2050)
Con
stru
ctio
n
sHQL - - No sHQL No sHQL No sHQL
LSE
- -
No LSE No LSE No LSE
Airc
raft
sHQL - 17.37
17.38 No sHQL sHQL (day) avoided by M&C measures
LSE
HOW.A.ALSE.D.01
HOW.A.ALSE.D.02
17.39
17.40 No LSE
ALSE (day & night) reduced by M&C measures
HOW.A.BLSE.N.01 17.39
17.40 No LSE Beneficial LSE (night)
Gro
und sHQL
- 17.41
17.42 No sHQL No sHQL
LSE - 17.43
17.44 No LSE No LSE
Roa
d
sHQL - 17.45
17.46 No sHQL
LSE - 17.47
17.48 No LSE
Com
bine
d sHQL
-
- No combined sHQL No combined sHQL
-
LSE -
- No combined ALSE No combined ALSE -
Key | sHQL = Significant effect on Health and Quality of Life | M&C = Mitigation & Compensation |
| LSE = Likely Significant Effect | ALSE = Adverse LSE | BLSE = Beneficial LSE |
Table 17.49 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Hounslow (West/ Heath)
Non-residential category86 Noise sensitive non-residential receptor and Likely Significant Effect
Places of meeting for religious worship; courts; cinemas; lecture theatres; museums; and small auditoria or halls
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Hospitals
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Schools; colleges; and libraries No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Key * = Identified on a precautionary basis (to be confirmed in the ES). ALSE = Adverse Likely Significant Effect | BLSE = Beneficial Likely Significant Effect
83 People, primarily where they live (‘residential receptors’) in terms of dwellings and on a wider community basis including private external amenity space (e.g. gardens) and publicly accessible external amenity space (e.g. parks) within the area or within a 5 min walk. 84 Section 17.10 summarises adverse and significant adverse effects on health and quality of life, how the DCO Project changes these compared to baseline conditions and how adverse effects are mitigated and minimised and how significant adverse effects are avoided 85 Significant effects from the operation of other airport noise sources (e.g. static equipment) associated with the DCO Project will be avoided by specification and design as described in Section 17.9. 86 Please see Section 17.4 for information on noise sensitive non-residential receptors and Section 17.10 for receptor categories where noise and vibration effects are considered unlikely to be significant on a DCO Project wide basis
Aircraft ground noise (Phase 2 & 3)
No significant effects on health and quality of life have been identified. No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Construction noise (Phase 1)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Aircraft noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) for a small number of
residential properties in Central Hounslow (West and Heath) during the day night are avoided by mitigation measures
(package of aircraft noise control measures and noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed
in ES) and compensation measures (full noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as a change in quality of life) has been identified for parts of the north east and south east of Hounslow (West and Heath) during the day [HOW.A.ALSE.D.01/HOW.A.ALSE.D.02]. These effects are reduced by mitigation
measures (package of aircraft noise control measures and noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to be
confirmed in ES) and compensation measures (full noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
A beneficial likely significant effect (from noise decrease that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as an improvement in quality of life) has been identified over the north west of Hounslow (West and Heath) during the night [HOW.A.BLSE.N.01].
Road noise (Phase 1, 2 & 3)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.158 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.50 Preliminary assessment of significance87,88, | Hounslow (Central and South)
Source89 Significant effect code (Graphic 17.14)
Key figures Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033)
Phase 3 (2034-2050)
Con
stru
ctio
n sHQL
- - No sHQL No sHQL No sHQL
LSE
- -
No LSE No LSE No LSE
Airc
raft
sHQL
- 17.37
17.38 No sHQL sHQL (day) avoided by M&C measures
LSE
HOC.A.ALSE.D.01
17.39
17.40
No LSE
ALSE (day) reduced by M&C measures
HOC.A.BLSE.N.01 BLSE (night)
Gro
und sHQL
- 17.41
17.42 No sHQL No sHQL
LSE - 17.43
17.44 No LSE No LSE
Roa
d
sHQL - 17.45
17.46 No sHQL
LSE - 17.47
17.48 No LSE
Com
bine
d sHQL
-
- No combined sHQL No combined sHQL
LSE -
- No combined ALSE No combined ALSE
Key | sHQL = Significant effect on Health and Quality of Life | M&C = Mitigation & Compensation |
| LSE = Likely Significant Effect | ALSE = Adverse LSE | BLSE = Beneficial LSE |
Table 17.51 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors |Hounslow (Central/South)
Non-residential category90 Noise sensitive non-residential receptor and Likely Significant Effect
Places of meeting for religious worship; courts; cinemas; lecture theatres; museums; and small auditoria or halls
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Hospitals No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Schools; colleges; and libraries ALSE from Aircraft noise: Oaklands School*, Hounslow Town Primary School*
Key * = Identified on a precautionary basis (to be confirmed in the ES). ALSE = Adverse Likely Significant Effect | BLSE = Beneficial Likely Significant Effect
87 People, primarily where they live (‘residential receptors’) in terms of dwellings and on a wider community basis including private external amenity space (e.g. gardens) and publicly accessible external amenity space (e.g. parks) within the area or within a 5 min walk. 88 Section 17.10 summarises adverse and significant adverse effects on health and quality of life, how the DCO Project changes these compared to baseline conditions and how adverse effects are mitigated and minimised and how significant adverse effects are avoided 89 Significant effects from the operation of other airport noise sources (e.g. static equipment) associated with the DCO Project will be avoided by specification and design as described in Section 17.9. 90 Please see Section 17.4 for information on noise sensitive non-residential receptors and Section 17.10 for receptor categories where noise and vibration effects are considered unlikely to be significant on a DCO Project wide basis
Aircraft ground noise (Phase 2 & 3)
No significant effects on health and quality of life have been identified. No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Construction noise (Phase 1)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Aircraft noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) for a small number of
residential properties in west Hounslow (Central and South) during the day are avoided by mitigation measures
(package of aircraft noise control measures and noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed
in ES) and compensation measures (full noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as a change in quality of life) has been identified for parts of the north west of Hounslow (Central and Heath) during the day [HOC.A.ALSE.D.01]. These effects are reduced by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise
control measures and noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and potentially
compensation measures for parts of the community (full noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
A beneficial likely significant effect (from noise decrease that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as an improvement in quality of life) has been identified over the north west of Hounslow (Central and South) during the night [HOC.A.BLSE.N.01].
Adverse likely significant effects (from noise increase) have been identified for Oaklands School* and Hounslow Town Primary School*. Heathrow will engage* with the school, hospice and places of worship ahead of the ES to
identify the most appropriate way to avoid or reduce the likely significant effect. *On a precautionary basis. Heathrow to
confirm before engagement.
Road noise (Phase 1, 2 & 3)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.159 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.52 Preliminary assessment of significance91,92, | Feltham North
Source93 Significant effect code (Graphic 17.14)
Key figures Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033)
Phase 3 (2034-2050)
Con
stru
ctio
n sHQL
- - No sHQL No sHQL No sHQL
LSE
- -
No LSE No LSE No LSE
Airc
raft
sHQL
- 17.37
17.38 No sHQL sHQL (day) avoided by M&C measures
LSE
FHN.A.ALSE.D.01 17.39
17.40 No LSE
Adverse LSE (day) reduced by M&C measures.
FHN.A.BLSE.N.01 17.39
17.40 No LSE Beneficial LSE (night)
Gro
und sHQL
- 17.41
17.42 No sHQL No sHQL
LSE - 17.43
17.44 No LSE No LSE
Roa
d
sHQL - 17.45
17.46 No sHQL
LSE - 17.47
17.48 No LSE
Com
bine
d sHQL -
- No combined sHQL No combined sHQL
LSE -
- No combined ALSE No combined ALSE
Key | sHQL = Significant effect on Health and Quality of Life | M&C = Mitigation & Compensation |
| LSE = Likely Significant Effect | ALSE = Adverse LSE | BLSE = Beneficial LSE |
Table 17.53 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Feltham North
Non-residential category94 Noise sensitive non-residential receptor and Likely Significant Effect
Places of meeting for religious worship; courts; cinemas; lecture theatres; museums; and small auditoria or halls
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Hospitals
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Schools; colleges; and libraries No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Key * = Identified on a precautionary basis (to be confirmed in the ES). ALSE = Adverse Likely Significant Effect | BLSE = Beneficial Likely
Significant Effect
91 People, primarily where they live (‘residential receptors’) in terms of dwellings and on a wider community basis including private external amenity space (e.g. gardens) and publicly accessible external amenity space (e.g. parks) within the area or within a 5 min walk. 92 Section 17.10 summarises adverse and significant adverse effects on health and quality of life, how the DCO Project changes these compared to baseline conditions and how adverse effects are mitigated and minimised and how significant adverse effects are avoided 93 Significant effects from the operation of other airport noise sources (e.g. static equipment) associated with the DCO Project will be avoided by specification and design as described in Section 17.9. 94 Please see Section 17.4 for information on noise sensitive non-residential receptors and Section 17.10 for receptor categories where noise and vibration effects are considered unlikely to be significant on a DCO Project wide basis
Aircraft ground noise (Phase 2 & 3)
No significant effects on health and quality of life have been identified. No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Construction noise (Phase 1)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Aircraft noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) for a small number of
residential properties in the north of Feltham North during the day are avoided by mitigation measures (package of
aircraft noise control measures and noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and
compensation measures (full noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as change in the quality of life) has been identified for parts of the south of Feltham North during the day
[FHN.A.ALSE.D.01]. These effects are reduced by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise control measures and
noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and potentially compensation measures for
parts of the community (full noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
A beneficial likely significant effect (from noise decrease that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as an improvement in quality of life) has been identified over the north of Feltham North during the night
[FHN.A.BLSE.N.01].
Road noise (Phase 1, 2 & 3)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.160 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.54 Preliminary assessment of significance95,96, | Bedfont
Source97 Significant effect code (Graphic 17.14)
Key figures Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033)
Phase 3 (2034-2050)
Con
stru
ctio
n sHQL
- - No sHQL No sHQL No sHQL
LSE
BDF.C.ALSE.E.01 -
ALSE (evening) reduced by M&C
measures No LSE No LSE
Airc
raft
sHQL
- 17.37
17.38 No sHQL sHQL (day) avoided by M&C measures
LSE
BDF.BLSE.N.01 17.39
17.40
No LSE Beneficial LSE (night)
Gro
und sHQL
- 17.41
17.42 No sHQL sHQL (night) avoided by noise
insulation.
LSE - 17.43
17.44 No LSE No LSE
Roa
d
sHQL - 17.45
17.46 No sHQL
LSE BDF.R.BLSE.DN.01 17.47
17.48 ALSE (day & night) reduced by mitigation.
Com
bine
d sHQL
-
- No combined sHQL No combined sHQL
LSE
- -
Potential ALSE (to be confirmed in
ES): Construction & Road
(evening) No combined ALSE
Key | sHQL = Significant effect on Health and Quality of Life | M&C = Mitigation & Compensation |
| LSE = Likely Significant Effect | ALSE = Adverse LSE | BLSE = Beneficial LSE |
Table 17.55 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Bedfont
Non-residential category98 Noise sensitive non-residential receptor and Likely Significant Effect
Places of meeting for religious worship; courts; cinemas; lecture theatres; museums; and small auditoria or halls
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Hospitals
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Schools; colleges; and libraries No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Key | sHQL = Significant effect on Health and Quality of Life | M&C = Mitigation & Compensation |
| LSE = Likely Significant Effect | ALSE = Adverse LSE | BLSE = Beneficial LSE |
95 People, primarily where they live (‘residential receptors’) in terms of dwellings and on a wider community basis including private external amenity space (e.g. gardens) and publicly accessible external amenity space (e.g. parks) within the area or within a 5 min walk. 96 Section 17.10 summarises adverse and significant adverse effects on health and quality of life, how the DCO Project changes these compared to baseline conditions and how adverse effects are mitigated and minimised and how significant adverse effects are avoided 97 Significant effects from the operation of other airport noise sources (e.g. static equipment) associated with the DCO Project will be avoided by specification and design as described in Section 17.9. 98 Please see Section 17.4 for information on noise sensitive non-residential receptors and Section 17.10 for receptor categories where noise and vibration effects are considered unlikely to be significant on a DCO Project wide basis
Aircraft ground noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) on residential properties
close to the existing airport boundary in Bedfont during the night are avoided by mitigation measures (additional
boundary screening will be considered in the ES) and compensation measures (full noise insulation provided for aircraft
noise). Refer to section 17.9.
No likely significant effects have been identified.
Construction noise (Phase 1)
Temporary adverse likely significant effects (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area
and may be perceived as a change in quality of life) on residential properties closest to the new building construction (Saturday afternoon working) [BDF.C.ALSE.E.01] avoided by mitigation and compensation measures (e.g.
Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) general measures, tall noise screens at construction site boundary and noise
insulation provided in advance of aircraft noise in Phase 2 & 3). Refer to section 17.9.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified as a result of construction traffic.
Aircraft noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) for a small number of
residential properties in the north of Bedfont during the day are avoided by mitigation measures (package of aircraft
noise control measures and noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and
compensation measures (full noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
A beneficial likely significant effect (from noise decrease that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as an improvement in quality of life) has been identified over the north east of Bedfont during the night
[BDF.A.BLSE.N.01].
Road noise (Phase 1, 2 & 3)
No significant effects on health and quality of life have been identified. An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as change in the quality of life) has been identified both day and night across parts of the community
closest to the existing A30 [BDF.R.ALSE.DN.01]. This effect is reduced by mitigation measures (e.g. low noise road
surfacing) and compensation measures (full noise insulation provided for aircraft noise). Further mitigation (very low
noise surface and noise barriers) will be considered in the ES.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.161 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.56 Preliminary assessment of significance99,100, | Stanwell
Source101 Significant effect code (Graphic 17.14)
Key figures
Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033)
Phase 3 (2034-2050)
Con
stru
ctio
n sHQL
- - sHQL avoided by M&C
measures No sHQL No sHQL
LSE
SWL.C.ALSE.DEN.01
SWL.C.ALSE.EN.02
-
ALSE (day, evening & night)
reduced by M&C measures No LSE No LSE
Airc
raft
sHQL - 17.37
17.38 No sHQL sHQL (day) avoided my M&C measures
LSE SWL.A.BLSE.N.01 17.39
17.40 No LSE Beneficial LSE (night)
Gro
und sHQL
- 17.41
17.42 No sHQL No sHQL
LSE - 17.43
17.44 No LSE No LSE
Roa
d
sHQL - 17.45
17.46 No sHQL
LSE SWL.R.BLSE.DN.01 17.47
17.48 BLSE (day & night)
Com
bine
d sHQL
-
- No combined sHQL No combined sHQL
LSE -
- No combined ALSE No combined ALSE
Key | sHQL = Significant effect on Health and Quality of Life | M&C = Mitigation & Compensation |
| LSE = Likely Significant Effect | ALSE = Adverse LSE | BLSE = Beneficial LSE |
Table 17.57 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Stanwell
Non-residential category102 Noise sensitive non-residential receptor and Likely Significant Effect
Places of meeting for religious worship; courts; cinemas; lecture theatres; museums; and small auditoria or halls
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Hospitals
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Schools; colleges; and libraries No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Key * = Identified on a precautionary basis (to be confirmed in the ES). ALSE = Adverse Likely Significant Effect | BLSE = Beneficial Likely Significant Effect
99 People, primarily where they live (‘residential receptors’) in terms of dwellings and on a wider community basis including private external amenity space (e.g. gardens) and publicly accessible external amenity space (e.g. parks) within the area or within a 5 min walk. 100 Section 17.10 summarises adverse and significant adverse effects on health and quality of life, how the DCO Project changes these compared to baseline conditions and how adverse effects are mitigated and minimised and how significant adverse effects are avoided 101 Significant effects from the operation of other airport noise sources (e.g. static equipment) associated with the DCO Project will be avoided by specification and design as described in Section 17.9. 102 Please see Section 17.4 for information on noise sensitive non-residential receptors and Section 17.10 for receptor categories where noise and vibration effects are considered unlikely to be significant on a DCO Project wide basis
Aircraft ground noise (Phase 2 & 3)
No significant effects on health and quality of life have been identified. No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Construction noise (Phase 1)
Temporary unacceptable adverse effects on health and quality of life (unacceptable noise levels) on residential properties closest to works for the utilities corridor (daytime and Saturday afternoon) avoided by mitigation and
compensation measures (e.g. Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) general measures, screens at construction site
boundary and temporary r-housing). Refer to section 17.9. Unacceptable significant adverse effects on health and
quality of life unlikely to be identified during the ES assessment following further consideration of working hours and
construction activity locations.
Temporary significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (very high noise levels) on residential properties closest to works for A3113, utilities corridor and earthworks associated with the attenuation ponds (daytime, evening, Saturday afternoon and night-time working) avoided by mitigation and compensation measures (e.g.
Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) general measures, screens at construction site boundary and noise insulation).
Refer to section 17.9.
Temporary adverse likely significant effects (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area
and may be perceived as a change in quality of life) have been identified on residential properties closest to utilities corridor, new A3113, construction support sites and earthworks associated with the attenuation ponds (daytime,
evening, Saturday afternoon and night-time working) [SWL.C.ALSE.DEN.01]. [SWLC.ALSE.EN.02]. These effects have
been mitigated and minimised (e.g. CoCP general measures, tall noise screens at construction site boundary and noise
insulation provided in advance of aircraft noise in Phase 2 & 3). Refer to section 17.9.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified as a result of construction traffic.
Aircraft noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) for a small number of
residential properties in the north of Stanwell during the day are avoided by mitigation measures (package of aircraft
noise control measures and noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and
compensation measures (full noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified A beneficial likely significant effect (from noise decrease that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as an improvement in quality of life) has been identified over the north of Stanwell during the night
[SWL.A.BLSE.N.01].
Road noise (Phase 1, 2 & 3)
No significant effects on health and quality of life have been identified. A beneficial likely significant effect (from noise decrease) has been identified on the majority of the community both
day and night [SWL.R.BLSE.DN.01] due to screening from the Southern Parkway.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.162 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.58 Preliminary assessment of significance103,104, | Stanwell Moor
Source105 Significant effect code (17.14)
Key figures
Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033)
Phase 3 (2034-2050)
Con
stru
ctio
n sHQL
- - sHQL (day, evening & night)
avoided by M&C measures No sHQL No sHQL
LSE
SWM.C.ALSE.DEN.01 -
ALSE (day, evening & night)
reduced by M&C measures No LSE No LSE
Airc
raft
sHQL
- 17.37
17.38 No sHQL sHQL (day) avoided by M&C measures
LSE
SWM.A.BLSE.N.01 17.39
17.40 No LSE Beneficial LSE (night)
Gro
und sHQL
- 17.41
17.42 No sHQL No sHQL
LSE SWM.G.ALSE.DN.01 17.43
17.44 No LSE
ALSE (day and night) reduced by M&C
measures
Roa
d
sHQL - 17.45
17.46 sHQL (day) avoided by M&C measures
LSE SWM.R.ALSE.DN.01
17.47
17.48 Adverse LSE (day & night) reduced by M&C measures
Com
bine
d
sHQL - -
Potential sHQL (to be
confirmed in ES):
Construction & Road (day)
No combined sHQL
LSE - -
Potential ALSE (to be
confirmed in ES):
Construction & Road (day &
night)
No combined ALSE
Key | sHQL = Significant effect on Health and Quality of Life | M&C = Mitigation & Compensation |
| LSE = Likely Significant Effect | ALSE = Adverse LSE | BLSE = Beneficial LSE |
Table 17.59 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Stanwell Moor
Non-residential category106 Noise sensitive non-residential receptor and Likely Significant Effect
Places of meeting for religious worship; courts; cinemas; lecture theatres; museums; and small auditoria or halls
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Hospitals
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Schools; colleges; and libraries No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Key * = Identified on a precautionary basis (to be confirmed in the ES). ALSE = Adverse Likely Significant Effect | BLSE = Beneficial Likely Significant Effect
103 People, primarily where they live (‘residential receptors’) in terms of dwellings and on a wider community basis including private external amenity space (e.g. gardens) and publicly accessible external amenity space (e.g. parks) within the area or within a 5 min walk. 104 Section 17.10 summarises adverse and significant adverse effects on health and quality of life, how the DCO Project changes these compared to baseline conditions and how adverse effects are mitigated and minimised and how significant adverse effects are avoided 105 Significant effects from the operation of other airport noise sources (e.g. static equipment) associated with the DCO Project will be avoided by specification and design as described in Section 17.9. 106 Please see Section 17.4 for information on noise sensitive non-residential receptors and Section 17.10 for receptor categories where noise and vibration effects are considered unlikely to be significant on a DCO Project wide basis
Aircraft ground noise (Phase 2 & 3)
No significant effects on health and quality of life have been identified An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as change in the quality of life) has been identified at residential properties closest to the existing airport boundary in Stanwell Moor both day and night [SWM.G.ALSE.DN.01]. This effect is reduced by mitigation
measures and compensation measures (full noise insulation provided for aircraft noise). Refer to section 17.9. Additional
boundary screening will be considered ahead of the ES.
Aircraft noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) for a small number of
residential properties in the north of Stanwell Moor during the day are avoided by mitigation measures (package of
aircraft noise control measures and noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and
compensation measures (full noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified A beneficial likely significant effect (from noise decrease that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as an improvement in quality of life) has been identified over the north of Stanwell Moor during the night
[SWL.A.BLSE.N.01].
Construction noise (Phase 1)
Temporary significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (very high noise levels) on residential properties closest to utilities diversion and construction support sites (daytime, evening, Saturday afternoon and
night-time working) avoided by mitigation and compensation measures (e.g. Code of Construction Practice (CoCP)
general measures, screens at construction site boundary and noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
Temporary adverse likely significant effects (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area
and may be perceived as change in the quality of life) have been identified on the majority of the community (daytime,
Saturday afternoon and night working) [SWM.C.ALSE.DEN.01]. These effects have been mitigated and minimised (e.g.
CoCP general measures, tall noise screens at construction site boundary and noise insulation provided in advance of
aircraft noise in Phase 2 & 3). Refer to section 17.9.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified as a result of construction traffic.
Aircraft noise (Phase 1, 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) on residential properties
close to the new Southern Perimeter road in Stanwell Moor during the day are avoided by mitigation measures (e.g.
low noise road surfacing) and compensation measures (full noise insulation provided for aircraft noise). Refer to section
17.9. Further mitigation (very low noise surface and noise barriers) will be considered in the ES.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as change in the quality of life) has been identified both day and night across parts of the community
closest to the new Southern Perimeter road [SWM.R.ALSE.DN.01]. This effect is reduced by mitigation measures
(e.g. low noise road surfacing) and compensation measures (full noise insulation provided for aircraft noise). Further
mitigation (very low noise surface and noise barriers) will be considered in the ES
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.163 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.60 Preliminary assessment of significance107,108, | Poyle
Source109 Significant effect code (Graphic 17.14)
Key figures
Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033)
Phase 3 (2034-2050)
Con
stru
ctio
n sHQL
- - No sHQL No sHQL No sHQL
LSE
POY.C.ALSE.E. 01 -
ALSE (evening) reduced by
M&C measures No LSE No LSE
Airc
raft
sHQL - 17.37
17.38 No sHQL sHQL (day) avoided by M&C measures
LSE
POY.A.ALSE.DN.01 17.39
17.40
No LSE
ALSE (day & night) reduced by M&C measures
POY.A.BLSE.N.01 Beneficial LSE (night)
Gro
und sHQL
- 17.41
17.42 No sHQL
sHQL (day & night) avoided by M&C
measures
LSE POY.G.ALSE.DN.01 17.43
17.44 No LSE
ALSE (day & night) reduced by M&C
measures
Roa
d
sHQL - 17.45
17.46 sHQL (day) avoided by M&C measures
LSE POY.R.LSE.DN.01
POY.R.LSE.DN.02
17.47
17.48 ALSE (day & night) reduced by M&C measures
Com
bine
d sHQL
-
-
Potential sHQL (to be confirmed
in ES): Construction & Road
(day)
Potential sHQL (to be confirmed in ES):
Aircraft, Ground & Road (day)
LSE
- -
Potential ALSE (to be confirmed
in ES): Construction & Road
(evening)
Potential ALSE (to be confirmed in ES):
Aircraft, Ground & Road (day & night)
Key | sHQL = Significant effect on Health and Quality of Life | M&C = Mitigation & Compensation |
| LSE = Likely Significant Effect | ALSE = Adverse LSE | BLSE = Beneficial LSE |
Table 17.61 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Poyle
Non-residential category110 Noise sensitive non-residential receptor and Likely Significant Effect
Places of meeting for religious worship; courts; cinemas; lecture theatres; museums; and small auditoria or halls
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Hospitals No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Schools; colleges; and libraries ALSE from Aircraft noise: Pippins School*
ALSE from Ground noise: Pippins School
Key * = Identified on a precautionary basis (to be confirmed in the ES). ALSE = Adverse Likely Significant Effect | BLSE = Beneficial Likely Significant
Effect
107 People, primarily where they live (‘residential receptors’) in terms of dwellings and on a wider community basis including private external amenity space (e.g. gardens) and publicly accessible external amenity space (e.g. parks) within the area or within a 5 min walk. 108 Section 17.10 summarises adverse and significant adverse effects on health and quality of life, how the DCO Project changes these compared to baseline conditions and how adverse effects are mitigated and minimised and how significant adverse effects are avoided 109 Significant effects from the operation of other airport noise sources (e.g. static equipment) associated with the DCO Project will be avoided by specification and design as described in Section 17.9. 110 Please see Section 17.4 for information on noise sensitive non-residential receptors and Section 17.10 for receptor categories where noise and vibration effects are considered unlikely to be significant on a DCO Project wide basis
Aircraft ground noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) on residential properties close to the existing airport boundary in Poyle both day and night are avoided by mitigation measures (additional boundary screening will be
considered in the ES) and compensation measures (full noise insulation provided for aircraft noise). Refer to section 17.9.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may be perceived as a
change in quality of life) has been identified at residential properties close to the existing airport boundary in Poyle both day and night
[POY.G.ALSE.DN.01]. This effect is reduced by mitigation measures and compensation measures (full noise insulation provided for aircraft
noise). Refer to section 17.9. Additional boundary screening will be considered ahead of the ES.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase) has been identified for Pippins School. Heathrow will engage* with the school
ahead of the ES to identify the most appropriate way to avoid or reduce the likely significant effect. *On a precautionary basis. Heathrow to
confirm before engagement.
Construction noise (Phase 1)
Temporary adverse likely significant effects (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may be
perceived as change in the quality of life) on residential properties closest to the construction of new A3044 Poyle Bypass and M25 diversion (Saturday afternoon working) [POY.C.ALSE.E.01] avoided by mitigation and compensation measures (e.g. Code of Construction
Practice (CoCP) general measures, tall noise screens at construction site boundary and noise insulation provided in advance of aircraft
noise in Phase 2 & 3). Refer to section 17.9.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified as a result of construction traffic.
Aircraft noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) in the north of Poyle during the day are
avoided by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise control measures and noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to
be confirmed in ES) and compensation measures (full noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may be perceived as a
change in quality of life) has been identified over the north west of Poyle both day and night [POY.A.ALSE.DN.01]. These effects are
reduced by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise control measures and noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to
be confirmed in ES) and compensation measures (full noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
A beneficial likely significant effect (from noise decrease that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may be perceived as
an improvement in quality of life) has been identified over the north east of Poyle during the night [POY.A.BLSE.N.01].
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase) has been identified for Pippins School*. Heathrow will engage* with the school
ahead of the ES to identify the most appropriate way to avoid or reduce the likely significant effect. *On a precautionary basis. Heathrow to
confirm before engagement.
Road noise (Phase 1, 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) on residential properties close to the new A3044 and M25 realignment in Poyle during the day are avoided by mitigation measures (e.g. low noise road surfacing) and
compensation measures (full noise insulation provided for aircraft noise). Refer to section 17.9. Further mitigation (very low noise surface
and noise barriers) will be considered in the ES.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may be perceived as a
change in quality of life) has been identified both day and night on residential properties close to the new A3044 and M25 realignment [POY.R.ALSE.DN.01], [POY.R.ALSE.DN.02]. This effect is reduced by mitigation measures (e.g. low noise road surfacing) and
compensation measures (full noise insulation provided for aircraft noise). Further mitigation (very low noise surface and noise barriers) will
be considered in the ES.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.164 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.62 Preliminary assessment of significance111,112, | Colnbrook
Source113 Significant effect code (Graphic 17.14)
Key figures
Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033)
Phase 3 (2034-2050)
Con
stru
ctio
n sHQL
- - No sHQL No sHQL No sHQL
LSE
CRB.C.ALSE.E. 01 -
ALSE (evening) reduced by
M&C measures No LSE No LSE
Airc
raft
sHQL - 17.37
17.38 No sHQL
sHQL (day and night) avoided by M&C measures
LSE CRB.A.ALSE.DN.01 17.39
17.40 No LSE
ALSE (day & night) reduced by M&C measures
Gro
und sHQL
- 17.41
17.42 No sHQL sHQL (day and night) avoided by M&C
measures
LSE CRB.G.ALSE.DN.01 17.43
17.44 No LSE
ALSE (day & night) reduced by M&C
measures
Roa
d
sHQL - 17.45
17.46 sHQL (day & night) avoided by M&C measures
LSE - 17.47
17.48 No LSE
Com
bine
d sHQL
-
- No combined sHQL Potential sHQL (to be confirmed in ES):
Aircraft, Ground & Road (day & night)
LSE -
- No combined ALSE Potential ALSE (to be confirmed in ES):
Aircraft &Ground (day & night)
Key | sHQL = Significant effect on Health and Quality of Life | M&C = Mitigation & Compensation |
| LSE = Likely Significant Effect | ALSE = Adverse LSE | BLSE = Beneficial LSE |
Table 17.63 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Colnbrook
Non-residential category114 Noise sensitive non-residential receptor and Likely Significant Effect
Places of meeting for religious worship; courts; cinemas; lecture theatres; museums; and small auditoria or halls
ALSE from Aircraft noise: Colnbrook Baptish Chapel*, St Thomas Parish Church, Village Hall
Hospitals No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Schools; colleges; and libraries ALSE from Aircraft noise: Colnbrook C of E Primary School*, Old School House (Vicarage Way
Children’s Centre)
Key * = Identified on a precautionary basis (to be confirmed in the ES). ALSE = Adverse Likely Significant Effect | BLSE = Beneficial Likely Significant Effect
111 People, primarily where they live (‘residential receptors’) in terms of dwellings and on a wider community basis including private external amenity space (e.g. gardens) and publicly accessible external amenity space (e.g. parks) within the area or within a 5 min walk. 112 Section 17.10 summarises adverse and significant adverse effects on health and quality of life, how the DCO Project changes these compared to baseline conditions and how adverse effects are mitigated and minimised and how significant adverse effects are avoided 113 Significant effects from the operation of other airport noise sources (e.g. static equipment) associated with the DCO Project will be avoided by specification and design as described in Section 17.9. 114 Please see Section 17.4 for information on noise sensitive non-residential receptors and Section 17.10 for receptor categories where noise and vibration effects are considered unlikely to be significant on a DCO Project wide basis
Aircraft ground noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) on residential properties
close to the existing airport boundary in Colnbrook both day and night are avoided by mitigation measures
(additional boundary screening will be considered in the ES) and compensation measures (full noise insulation provided
for aircraft noise). Refer to section 17.9.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as change in the quality of life) has been identified at residential properties close to the existing airport boundary in Colnbrook both day and night [CRB.G.ALSE.DN.01]. This effect is reduced by mitigation measures and
compensation measures (full noise insulation provided for aircraft noise). Refer to section 17.9. Additional boundary
screening will be considered ahead of the ES.
Construction noise (Phase 1)
Temporary adverse likely significant effects (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character and may be perceived as change in quality of life) on residential properties closest to the construction of the new A3044 Poyle bypass (Saturday afternoons and night working) [CRB.C.ALSE.E.01] avoided by mitigation and compensation measures (e.g. CoCP general measures, tall noise screens at construction site boundary and noise insulation provided in advance of aircraft noise in Phase 2 & 3). Refer to section 17.9.
Construction traffic has the potential to cause temporary adverse noise and vibration effects due to increased traffic movements on Colnbrook bypass (effect and mitigation to be confirmed in ES).
Aircraft noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) in the majority of Colnbrook (day and night) are avoided by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise control measures and
noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and compensation measures (full noise
insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as change in the quality of life) has been identified over the majority of Colnbrook both day and night
[CRB.A.ALSE.DN.01]. These effects are reduced by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise control measures
and noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and compensation measures (full
noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
Adverse likely significant effects (from noise increase) have been identified for Colnbrook C of E Primary School*, Old School House (Vicarage Way Children’s Centre), Colnbrook Baptist Chapel*, St Thomas Parish Church and Village Hall. Heathrow will engage* with the school and places of worship ahead of the ES to identify the most
appropriate way to avoid or reduce the likely significant effect. *On a precautionary basis. Heathrow to confirm before
engagement.
Road noise (Phase1, 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) on residential properties closest to the new A3044 in Colnbrook both day and night are avoided by mitigation measures (e.g. low noise road
surfacing) and compensation measures (full noise insulation provided for aircraft noise). Refer to section 17.9. Further
mitigation (very low noise surface and noise barriers) will be considered in the ES.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.165 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.64 Preliminary assessment of significance115,116, | Brands Hill
Source117 Significant effect code (Graphic 17.14)
Key figures Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033)
Phase 3 (2034-2050)
Con
stru
ctio
n sHQL
- - No sHQL No sHQL No sHQL
LSE
- -
No LSE No LSE No LSE
Airc
raft
sHQL
- 17.37
17.38 No sHQL sHQL avoided by M&C measures
LSE
BNH.A.ALSE.DN.01 17.39
17.40 No LSE
Adverse LSE (day & night) reduced by M&C measures
Gro
und sHQL
- 17.41
17.42 No sHQL No sHQL
LSE BNH.G.ALSE.DN.01 17.43
17.44 No LSE No LSE
Roa
d
sHQL - 17.45
17.46 No sHQL
LSE - 17.47
17.48 No LSE
Com
bine
d sHQL
-
- No combined sHQL No combined sHQL
LSE -
- No combined ALSE No combined ALSE
Key | sHQL = Significant effect on Health and Quality of Life | M&C = Mitigation & Compensation |
| LSE = Likely Significant Effect | ALSE = Adverse LSE | BLSE = Beneficial LSE |
Table 17.65 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Brands Hill
Non-residential category118 Noise sensitive non-residential receptor and Likely Significant Effect
Places of meeting for religious worship; courts; cinemas; lecture theatres; museums; and small auditoria or halls
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Hospitals
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Schools; colleges; and libraries No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Key * = Identified on a precautionary basis (to be confirmed in the ES). ALSE = Adverse Likely Significant Effect | BLSE = Beneficial Likely Significant Effect
115 People, primarily where they live (‘residential receptors’) in terms of dwellings and on a wider community basis including private external amenity space (e.g. gardens) and publicly accessible external amenity space (e.g. parks) within the area or within a 5 min walk. 116 Section 17.10 summarises adverse and significant adverse effects on health and quality of life, how the DCO Project changes these compared to baseline conditions and how adverse effects are mitigated and minimised and how significant adverse effects are avoided 117 Significant effects from the operation of other airport noise sources (e.g. static equipment) associated with the DCO Project will be avoided by specification and design as described in Section 17.9. 118 Please see Section 17.4 for information on noise sensitive non-residential receptors and Section 17.10 for receptor categories where noise and vibration effects are considered unlikely to be significant on a DCO Project wide basis
Aircraft ground noise (Phase 2 & 3)
No significant effects on health and quality of life have been identified. No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Construction noise (Phase 1)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Aircraft noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) in the majority of Brands Hill (day and night) are avoided by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise control measures and noticeable or
valued respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and compensation measures (full noise insulation).
Refer to section 17.9.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as a change in quality of life) has been identified over the majority of Brands Hill both day and night
[BNH.A.ALSE.DN.01]. These effects are reduced by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise control measures
and noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and compensation measures (full
noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
Road noise (Phase 1, 2 & 3)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.166 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.66 Preliminary assessment of significance119,120, | Iver and Richings Park
Source121 Significant effect code (Graphic 17.14)
Key figures Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033)
Phase 3 (2034-2050)
Con
stru
ctio
n sHQL
- - sHQL (day, evening & night)
avoided by M&C measures No sHQL No sHQL
LSE
IRP.C.ALSE.DEN.01 -
ALSE (day, evening & night)
reduced by M&C measures No LSE No LSE
Airc
raft
sHQL
- 17.37
17.38 No sHQL No sHQL
LSE IRP.A.ALSE.D.01
IRP.A.ALSE.DN.02
17.39
17.40 No LSE
ALSE (day & night) reduced by M&C measures
Gro
und sHQL
- 17.41
17.42 No sHQL No sHQL
LSE IRP.G.ALSE.DN.01 17.43
17.44 No LSE
ALSE (day & night) reduced by M&C
measures
Roa
d
sHQL - 17.45
17.46 No sHQL
LSE - 17.47
17.48 No LSE
Com
bine
d sHQL
-
- No combined sHQL No combined sHQL
LSE -
- No combined ALSE Potential ALSE (to be confirmed in ES):
Aircraft &Ground (day & night)
Key | sHQL = Significant effect on Health and Quality of Life | M&C = Mitigation & Compensation |
| LSE = Likely Significant Effect | ALSE = Adverse LSE | BLSE = Beneficial LSE |
Table 17.67 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Iver and Richings Park
Non-residential category122 Noise sensitive non-residential receptor and Likely Significant Effect
Places of meeting for religious worship; courts; cinemas; lecture theatres; museums; and small auditoria or halls
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Hospitals
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Schools; colleges; and libraries No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Key * = Identified on a precautionary basis (to be confirmed in the ES). ALSE = Adverse Likely Significant Effect | BLSE = Beneficial Likely Significant Effect
119 People, primarily where they live (‘residential receptors’) in terms of dwellings and on a wider community basis including private external amenity space (e.g. gardens) and publicly accessible external amenity space (e.g. parks) within the area or within a 5 min walk. 120 Section 17.10 summarises adverse and significant adverse effects on health and quality of life, how the DCO Project changes these compared to baseline conditions and how adverse effects are mitigated and minimised and how significant adverse effects are avoided 121 Significant effects from the operation of other airport noise sources (e.g. static equipment) associated with the DCO Project will be avoided by specification and design as described in Section 17.9. 122 Please see Section 17.4 for information on noise sensitive non-residential receptors and Section 17.10 for receptor categories where noise and vibration effects are considered unlikely to be significant on a DCO Project wide basis
Aircraft ground noise (Phase 2 & 3)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as change in the quality of life) has been identified in the south of Iver and Richings Park both day and
night [IRP.G.ALSE.DN.01]. This effect is reduced by mitigation measures and potentially compensation measures for
parts of the community (full insulation provided for aircraft noise - to be confirmed in ES). Refer to section 17.9.
Additional boundary screening will be considered ahead of the ES.
Construction noise (Phase 1)
Temporary unacceptable adverse effects on health and quality of life (unnaceptable noise levels) on residential properties closest to works for borrow pit excavations (evening, Saturday afternoon and night-time working)
avoided by mitigation and compensation measures (e.g. Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) general measures,
screens at construction site boundary and temporary re-housing). Refer to section 17.9.
Temporary significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (very high noise levels) on residential properties closest to works for borrow pit excavation (daytime, evening, Saturday afternoon and night-time working)
avoided by mitigation and compensation measures (e.g. Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) general measures,
screens at construction site boundary and noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
Temporary adverse likely significant effects (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area
and may be perceived as change in the quality of life) have been identified on the southern area of Richings Park due
to daytime, evening, Saturday afternoon and night-time on the borrow pit excavation [IRP.C.ALSE.DEN.01]. These
effects have been mitigated and minimised (e.g. CoCP general measures, tall noise screens at construction site
boundary and potentially noise insulation provided in advance of aircraft noise in Phase 2 & 3 for parts of the
community). Refer to section 17.9.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified as a result of construction traffic.
Aircraft noise (Phase 2 & 3)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as change in the quality of life) has been identified over parts of central Iver and Richings Park during
the day [IRP.A.ALSE.D.01] and the southeast of Iver and Richings Park during the day and night
[IRP.A.ALSE.DN.02]. These effects are reduced by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise control measures and
noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and potentially compensation measures for
parts of the community (full noise insulation - to be confirmed in ES). Refer to section 17.9.
Road noise (Phase 1, 2 & 3)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.167 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.68 Preliminary assessment of significance123,124, | East Langley
Source125 Significant effect code (Graphic 17.14)
Key figures Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033)
Phase 3 (2034-2050)
Con
stru
ctio
n sHQL
- - No sHQL No sHQL No sHQL
LSE
- -
No LSE No LSE No LSE
Airc
raft
sHQL
- 17.37
17.38 No sHQL No sHQL
LSE ELY.A.ALSE.D.01
ELY.A.ALSE.DN.01
17.39
17.40 No LSE
Adverse LSE (day & night) reduced by M&C measures.
Gro
und sHQL
- 17.41
17.42 No sHQL No sHQL
LSE - 17.43
17.44 No LSE No LSE
Roa
d
sHQL - 17.45
17.46 No sHQL
LSE - 17.47
17.48 No LSE
Com
bine
d sHQL
-
- No combined sHQL No combined sHQL
LSE -
- No combined ALSE No combined ALSE
Key | sHQL = Significant effect on Health and Quality of Life | M&C = Mitigation & Compensation |
| LSE = Likely Significant Effect | ALSE = Adverse LSE | BLSE = Beneficial LSE |
Table 17.69 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | East Langley
Non-residential category126 Noise sensitive non-residential receptor and Likely Significant Effect
Places of meeting for religious worship; courts; cinemas; lecture theatres; museums; and small auditoria or halls
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Hospitals No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Schools; colleges; and libraries ALSE from Aircraft noise: Foxborough Primary School*
Key * = Identified on a precautionary basis (to be confirmed in the ES). ALSE = Adverse Likely Significant Effect | BLSE = Beneficial Likely Significant Effect
123 People, primarily where they live (‘residential receptors’) in terms of dwellings and on a wider community basis including private external amenity space (e.g. gardens) and publicly accessible external amenity space (e.g. parks) within the area or within a 5 min walk. 124 Section 17.10 summarises adverse and significant adverse effects on health and quality of life, how the DCO Project changes these compared to baseline conditions and how adverse effects are mitigated and minimised and how significant adverse effects are avoided 125 Significant effects from the operation of other airport noise sources (e.g. static equipment) associated with the DCO Project will be avoided by specification and design as described in Section 17.9. 126 Please see Section 17.4 for information on noise sensitive non-residential receptors and Section 17.10 for receptor categories where noise and vibration effects are considered unlikely to be significant on a DCO Project wide basis
Aircraft ground noise (Phase 2 & 3)
No significant effects on health and quality of life have been identified. No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Construction noise (Phase 1)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Aircraft noise (Phase 2 & 3)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as change in the quality of life) has been identified over the majority of East Langley during the day
[ELY.A.ALSE.D.01] and the south of East Langley during the day and night [ELY.A.ALSE.DN.02]. These effects are
reduced by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise control measures and noticeable or valued respite from
runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and potentially compensation measures for parts of the community (to be
confirmed in ES). Refer to section 17.9.
Adverse likely significant effects (from noise increase) have been identified for Foxborough Primary School. Heathrow will engage* with the school ahead of the ES to identify the most appropriate way to avoid or reduce the likely
significant effect. *On a precautionary basis. Heathrow to confirm before engagement.
Road noise (Phase 1, 2 & 3)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.168 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.70 Preliminary assessment of significance127,128, | Datchet
Source129 Significant effect code (Graphic 17.14)
Key figures Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033)
Phase 3 (2034-2050)
Con
stru
ctio
n sHQL
- - No sHQL No sHQL No sHQL
LSE
- -
No LSE No LSE No LSE
Airc
raft
sHQL
- 17.37
17.38 No sHQL
sHQL (day & night) avoided by M&C measures
LSE DAT.A.ALSE.DN.01 17.39
17.40 No LSE
Adverse LSE (day & night) reduced by M&C measures
Gro
und sHQL
- 17.41
17.42 No sHQL No sHQL
LSE - 17.43
17.44 No LSE No LSE
Roa
d
sHQL - 17.45
17.46 No sHQL
LSE - 17.47
17.48 No LSE
Com
bine
d sHQL
-
- No combined sHQL No combined sHQL
LSE -
- No combined ALSE No combined ALSE
Key | sHQL = Significant effect on Health and Quality of Life | M&C = Mitigation & Compensation |
| LSE = Likely Significant Effect | ALSE = Adverse LSE | BLSE = Beneficial LSE |
Table 17.71 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Datchet
Non-residential category130 Noise sensitive non-residential receptor and Likely Significant Effect
Places of meeting for religious worship; courts; cinemas; lecture theatres; museums; and small auditoria or halls
ALSE from Aircraft noise: St Marys Church*, Datchet Baptist Church*, St Augustines*
Hospitals No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Schools; colleges; and libraries ALSE from Aircraft noise: Datchet St Marys C of E Primary School*, Churchmead
School*, Eton End School*, Montage House (Datchet Library)
Key * = Identified on a precautionary basis (to be confirmed in the ES). ALSE = Adverse Likely Significant Effect | BLSE = Beneficial Likely Significant Effect
127 People, primarily where they live (‘residential receptors’) in terms of dwellings and on a wider community basis including private external amenity space (e.g. gardens) and publicly accessible external amenity space (e.g. parks) within the area or within a 5 min walk. 128 Section 17.10 summarises adverse and significant adverse effects on health and quality of life, how the DCO Project changes these compared to baseline conditions and how adverse effects are mitigated and minimised and how significant adverse effects are avoided 129 Significant effects from the operation of other airport noise sources (e.g. static equipment) associated with the DCO Project will be avoided by specification and design as described in Section 17.9. 130 Please see Section 17.4 for information on noise sensitive non-residential receptors and Section 17.10 for receptor categories where noise and vibration effects are considered unlikely to be significant on a DCO Project wide basis
Aircraft ground noise (Phase 2 & 3)
No significant effects on health and quality of life have been identified. No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Construction noise (Phase 1)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Aircraft noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) in central and northern Datchet both day and night are avoided by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise control measures and
noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and compensation measures (full noise
insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
An adverse likely significant effect (from noise increase that would affect the acoustic character of the area and may
be perceived as a change in quality of life) has been identified over the majority of Datchet during the day and night
[DAT.A.ALSE.DN.02]. These effects are reduced by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise control measures
and noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and compensation measures (full
noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
Adverse likely significant effects (from noise increase) have been identified for Datchet St Marys C of E Primary School*, Churchmead School*, Eton End School*, Montage House (Datchet Library), St Marys Church*, Datchet Baptist Church* and St Augustine’s*. Heathrow will engage* with the school, hospice and places of worship ahead of
the ES to identify the most appropriate way to avoid or reduce the likely significant effect. *On a precautionary basis.
Heathrow to confirm before engagement.
Road noise (Phase 1, 2 & 3)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.169 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.72 Preliminary assessment of significance131,132, | Horton
Source133 Significant effect code (Graphic 17.14)
Key figures Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033)
Phase 3 (2034-2050)
Con
stru
ctio
n sHQL
- - No sHQL No sHQL No sHQL
LSE
- -
No LSE No LSE No LSE
Airc
raft
sHQL -
17.37
17.38 No sHQL sHQL (day) avoided by M&C measures
LSE - 17.39
17.40 No LSE No LSE
Gro
und sHQL
- 17.41
17.42 No sHQL No sHQL
LSE - 17.43
17.44 No LSE No LSE
Roa
d
sHQL - 17.45
17.46 No sHQL
LSE - 17.47
17.48 No LSE
Com
bine
d sHQL
-
- No combined sHQL No combined sHQL
LSE -
- No combined ALSE No combined ALSE
Key | sHQL = Significant effect on Health and Quality of Life | M&C = Mitigation & Compensation |
| LSE = Likely Significant Effect | ALSE = Adverse LSE | BLSE = Beneficial LSE |
Table 17.73 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Horton
Non-residential category134 Noise sensitive non-residential receptor and Likely Significant Effect
Places of meeting for religious worship; courts; cinemas; lecture theatres; museums; and small auditoria or halls
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Hospitals
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Schools; colleges; and libraries No adverse likely significant effects have been identified
Key * = Identified on a precautionary basis (to be confirmed in the ES). ALSE = Adverse Likely Significant Effect | BLSE = Beneficial Likely Significant Effect
131 People, primarily where they live (‘residential receptors’) in terms of dwellings and on a wider community basis including private external amenity space (e.g. gardens) and publicly accessible external amenity space (e.g. parks) within the area or within a 5 min walk. 132 Section 17.10 summarises adverse and significant adverse effects on health and quality of life, how the DCO Project changes these compared to baseline conditions and how adverse effects are mitigated and minimised and how significant adverse effects are avoided 133 Significant effects from the operation of other airport noise sources (e.g. static equipment) associated with the DCO Project will be avoided by specification and design as described in Section 17.9. 134 Please see Section 17.4 for information on noise sensitive non-residential receptors and Section 17.10 for receptor categories where noise and vibration effects are considered unlikely to be significant on a DCO Project wide basis
Aircraft ground noise (Phase 2 & 3)
No significant effects on health and quality of life have been identified. No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Construction noise (Phase 1)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Aircraft noise (Phase 2 & 3)
Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (new very high noise exposure) at a small number of
residential properties in central Horton during the day are avoided by mitigation measures (package of aircraft noise
control measures and noticeable or valued respite from runway alternation – to be confirmed in ES) and compensation
measures (full noise insulation). Refer to section 17.9.
No adverse likely significant effects are identified.
Road noise (Phase 1, 2 & 3)
No significant adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified.
No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.170 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Preliminary assessment of significance for the outer area
17.11.3 The geographical assessments for the Outer Area are presented in Appendix 17.1, Annex H.
17.12 Assessment of cumulative effects
Overview
17.12.1 The cumulative effects assessment (CEA) presented in this section reflects
Stage 3 in the CEA process set out in Section 5.8 of Chapter 5: Approach to the EIA.
17.12.2 The assessment of cumulative noise and vibration effects is based on available
evidence, taking into account the noise and vibration effects identified in this
Chapter and identifying whether effects could be different when ‘other
developments’ are considered.
17.12.3 The following sections present the assessment of the cumulative noise effects of
the DCO Project and ‘other developments’ on noise sensitive receptors. Effects
are described for each phase of the DCO Project where relevant. The ‘other
developments’ to be considered in the CEA for the PEIR are those on the
‘assessment list’ provided in Section 5.8.
17.12.4 Committed developments which introduce new noise sensitive receptors with the
potential to be affected by noise from the DCO Project will be assessed as
‘committed development’ in the primary assessment in the ES.
17.12.5 Only those developments in the assessment list that fall within the noise
cumulative effect Zone of Influence (ZOI) have the potential to result in cumulative
effects with the Project. The Noise ZOI for PEIR is shown in Chapter 5, Figure 5.1, Volume 2. For PEIR, the ZOI has been limited to the geographical area near
the expanded airport where the with DCO Project noise exposure is not dependent
on airspace design and where there is a higher risk of cumulative effects. There is
however the potential for cumulative effects to occur within the full noise study
area defined in Section 17.4. For the ES the ZOI will be expanded. Although
falling outside the Noise ZOI defined for the PEIR, High Speed 2 has also been
included the assessment due to its scale. With the exception of High Speed 2, the
following developments on the ‘assessment list’ fall outside the Noise ZOI and
have not been assessed further:
1. O601 Queen Mary Reservoir and Land West of Queen Mary Reservoir
2. O608 Cemex Datchet Quarry
3. O615 Southall Gas Works
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.171 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
4. O732 Queen Mary Reservoir and Land West of Queen Mary Reservoir
5. O745 Land at Milton Park Farm
6. O750 Land at Watersplash Farm
7. O751 Slough Heat & Power Station
Effects from road traffic
17.12.6 HHASAM on which the modelling to predict road noise changes is based, is
inherently cumulative as it uses modelled traffic data that has been adjusted to
account for growth in future traffic flows. The modelling takes account of
employment and housing projections, future infrastructure projects and
development in both Development Plans and in the planning process. No
additional cumulative assessment associated with noise from road traffic has
therefore been undertaken.
17.12.7 The Surface Access Proposals (SAP) document and HHASAM traffic data used
are based on an ‘Assessment Case’, which represents a future year where only
transport improvements that are committed (those that are funded and have all
necessary consents in place) are brought forward. This means that several
planned large infrastructure schemes that are considered likely to come forward,
such as the Western and Southern Rail Links promoted by the Department for
Transport and Network Rail, but which are not yet sufficiently certain, are not taken
into account.
17.12.8 The SAP also considers an 'Expected Case', to determine the revised level of
interventions that would be necessary if these planned large infrastructure
schemes are brought forward as currently anticipated. The preliminary modelling
presented in Part 1 of the SAP demonstrates that there is forecast to be a similar
public transport mode share in the Expected Case (55%) to the Assessment Case
(57%). While this appears potentially counter-intuitive, given that the Expected
Case includes the Western and Southern Rail links, which would be expected to
boost public transport use, it reflects the fact that the focus in preparing the SAP
has been on developing a package of interventions that achieve the ANPS targets
in the Assessment Case. The overall package of interventions for the Expected
Case is currently less developed but could be refined to achieve similar or better
outcomes to the Assessment Case.
17.12.9 As such, in scenarios that include planned infrastructure schemes, such as the
Western and Southern Rail links, the forecast levels of airport-related demand by
mode would not be expected to materially differ from those on which this
assessment is based. However, it is recognised that the introduction of these
schemes would be likely to change mode choice and the geographic distribution of
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.172 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
demand by mode in the areas served by these schemes. It is also recognised that
such schemes have potential to exert a cumulative effect as a result of
construction activities, which may run concurrently with those carried out for the
DCO Project, should they receive consent as well as the DCO Project. Such
effects will be considered in the development of the Construction
Traffic Management Plan and Construction Workforce Travel Plan and they will be
considered in the assessment carried out for the ES.
17.12.10 The Western Rail Link would provide direct rail access to the airport from areas to
the west, including Slough, Maidenhead and Reading, while the Southern Rail Link
would provide direct rail access to the airport from areas to the south, including
Staines, Chertsey and Virginia Water. As these are all areas from which many
colleagues currently drive to the airport, in the Expected Case there would likely
be fewer car trips to the airport from these areas.
17.12.11 It is considered that the inclusion of major infrastructure schemes, such as the
Western and Southern Rail Links, would reduce the use of and improve the
operation of the strategic road network around Heathrow. Consequently, the
information presented in this assessment, based on the expected use and
operation of the highway network with the DCO Project in the Assessment Case is
considered to be robust and it is considered that long-term adverse cumulative
effects are unlikely.
Other noise effects
17.12.12 Additional criteria specific to noise have been employed to further screen
developments in the assessment list. This has ensured that only developments of
a scale and nature that could result in likely significant cumulative effects related to
noise are included in the assessment. The noise screening criteria are set out in
Table 17.74.
Table 17.74: Noise CEA screening criteria
Screening Criteria Rationale
Include all types of developments whose noise impact
study area overlaps with the study area for any DCO
Project noise source.
Receptors located within study areas of two
developments have the potential to be adversely
affected by noise or vibration cumulatively.
Include rail, road, airport and major industrial
developments
Receptors could be exposed to operational noise
(or vibration) from the DCO Project and ‘other
development’ that could lead to combined effects
in some circumstances.
Exclude development, including mineral extraction
projects, which will be completed, or will cease to
Noise (or vibration) from the DCO Project and
‘other development’ would not occur at the same
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.173 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Screening Criteria Rationale
operate, prior to the commencement of construction of
the DCO Project. However include developments that
could result in future sensitive receptors.
time so no cumulative effects could occur.
New future receptors could however be subject to
the noise effects of the DCO Project.
Exclude development where it is clear that noise from
the DCO Project would dominate noise from the ‘other
development’
Where DCO Project noise dominates, noise from
the other development will by masked and would
not alter the effects reported in the primary
assessment
Exclude applications to extend the existing use of a
mineral extraction activity.
Such developments are unlikely to result in
cumulative effects as the current use is taken
account of in the baseline.
Exclude development by Heathrow (separate from DCO
Project) occurring within the airport boundary. This
includes any development that could give rise to an
increase in ATMs, where the ATM increase is either
within the current 480,000 cap or is included in the
primary assessment.
These developments are unlikely to materially
alter noise generated by the Airport at noise
sensitive receptors.
17.12.13 The following developments were screened out:
1. O109 Land at Harmondsworth, Holloway Close
2. O595 Stanwell Recycling, Stanwell Quarry
3. O596 Stanwell Recycling, Stanwell Quarry
4. O609 Land East of Horton Road
5. O810 M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway
6. O813 Southampton to London Pipeline Project.
7. A2 T5+ (T5A)
8. A3 T5+ (T5B)
9. A4 T5+ (T5C)
10. A5 Perry Oaks Fuel Farm
17.12.14 This screening stage will also be applied to the ES CEA, in order to screen the
shortlist of developments and identify those that have the potential to result in
likely significant cumulative effects and therefore require assessment in the noise
chapter.
17.12.15 Following application of the CEA screening criteria, the following core and optional
developments contained within the assessment list in Chapter 5, Section 5.8 are
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.174 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
considered to be of particular relevance to noise and have been brought forward
for assessment in the CEA:
1. O591 Rectory Lane, Cranford Lane
2. O811 High Speed 2 (London - West Midlands)
3. O812 Western Rail Link to Heathrow.
Phase 1: c. 2022-2026
17.12.16 Table 17.75 sets out the assessment of cumulative effects on relevant receptors
during Phase 1 when cumulative effects could result from noise generated by the
construction of the DCO Project or early growth of aircraft movements in
combination with noise from developments not related to the DCO Project.
Phase 2: c. 2026-2033 & Phase 3: c. 2034-2050
17.12.17 Table 17.76 sets out the assessment of cumulative effects on relevant receptors
during Phases 2 and 3 when cumulative effects could result from noise generated
by the ongoing construction and / or operation of the DCO Project in combination
with noise from developments not related to the DCO Project.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.175 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.75: Phase 1 CEA of DCO Project effects, together with ‘other developments’ unrelated to the DCO Project
Receptor / effect
DCO Project effects
Assessment of cumulative effect (DCO Project effects together with ‘other developments’)
Residential receptors / sensitive non-residential receptors
Potential
significant
adverse effects
on health and
quality of life
and likely
significant
adverse effects
on residential
receptors /
sensitive non-
residential
receptors,
depending on
the proximity of
receptors to
DCO Project
construction
sites.
O812 Western Rail Link to Heathrow is expected to become operational in the Spring of 2022 meaning that major
construction work is likely to be complete before the commencement of the construction of the DCO Project. This means
that cumulative noise effects resulting from construction noise from the Western Rail Link to Heathrow project combined
with construction noise from the DCO Project are unlikely.
Within the Noise ZOI, the Western Rail Link to Heathrow project is proposed to operate in a 5km tunnel between the Great
Western Mainline and Heathrow. Considering that the proposed route of the Western Rail Link to Heathrow project is
operating in a tunnel where it runs close to communities potentially effected by construction noise from the DCO Project
(Poyle and Colnbrook), cumulative noise effects from operation noise from the Western Rail Link to Heathrow project and
noise from the construction of the Heathrow project are unlikely.
In summary, there will be no cumulative effects as a result of the Western Rail Link to Heathrow project.
The application for development consent for the Western Rail Link to Heathrow are expected in 2019. The CEA will consider
the Western Rail Link to Heathrow project again at ES stage when more detailed environmental information is available for
the development.
All other developments taken forward for assessment do not have the potential to result in any cumulative effects, or be
affected by the DCO Project, and are therefore not discussed in this table.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.176 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Table 17.76: Phases 2 and 3 CEA of DCO Project effects, together with ‘other developments’ unrelated to the DCO Project
Receptor / effect DCO Project effects
Assessment of cumulative effect (DCO Project-wide effects together with ‘other developments’)
Residential receptors / sensitive non-residential receptors
Potential
significant
adverse
effects on
health and
quality of life
and likely
significant
adverse
effects
depending
on the
proximity of
receptors to
DCO Project
and airspace
design.
O811 High Speed 2 (London - West Midlands) falls within the noise study area. HS2 Phase 1 is expected to
be operational in 2026. The railway will operate in a tunnel between London Euston and Ruislip Portal,
Ruislip. The route will then run on the surface until it enters Chiltern Tunnel Southern Portal near Chalfont St.
Peter. Due to its location to the north of the DCO Project Site, the surface section of route between Ruislip
and Maple Cross lies approximately 7km outside the DCO Project daytime and night-time aircraft noise
LOAEL contours for all test cases. On this basis cumulative effects are unlikely as a result of noise from
the DCO Project together with HS2.
The O812 Western Rail Link to Heathrow project would be operational during Phases 2 and 3. Within the
Noise ZOI, the Western Rail Link to Heathrow project is proposed to operate in a 5km tunnel between the
Great Western Mainline and Heathrow. Considering that the proposed route of the Western Rail Link to
Heathrow project is operating in a tunnel where it runs close to communities potentially effected by
operational noise from the DCO Project (Poyle and Colnbrook), cumulative noise effects are unlikely as a
result of noise from the Western Rail Link to Heathrow project, together with the Heathrow DCO Project.
The DCO application documents for the Western Rail Link to Heathrow project are expected in 2019. The
CEA will consider the Western Rail Link to Heathrow project again at ES stage when more detailed
environmental is available for the development. Outside of the Noise ZOI, the Western Rail Link to Heathrow
project has the potential to result in cumulative noise effects at receptors within the DCO Project daytime and
night-time aircraft noise LOAEL contours. These potential impacts will be assessed in the ES.
O591 Rectory Lane, Cranford Lane would be an operational public park during Phase 3. Increases in noise
due to operation of the DCO Project may adversely affect the acoustic character around such open spaces.
However, as users will not be exposed to any increased noise for long periods and hence use of the open
space would not be disrupted, there are unlikely to be significant adverse noise effects on users.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.177 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Receptor / effect DCO Project effects
Assessment of cumulative effect (DCO Project-wide effects together with ‘other developments’)
All other developments taken forward for assessment do not have the potential to result in any cumulative
effects and are therefore not discussed in this table.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.178 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.13 Next steps
17.13.1 At this stage of the EIA, the DCO Project is still under development and is the
subject of statutory consultation. The methodology for the ES and the assessment
of noise may therefore develop further from that adopted within the PEIR.
17.13.2 The likely environmental effects are presented as preliminary at this stage.
Further, more detailed assessment work will be undertaken between PEIR and
preparation of the ES on the final DCO Project.
17.13.3 Throughout this PEIR chapter, differences between the PEIR and ES have been
presented and include, but are not limited to:
1. Further engagement (see Section 17.3)
2. Further Scheme development, proposals and assumptions and sensitivity
testing (see Section 17.5 and Appendix 17.1 Annex B)
3. Further baseline and future baseline data gathering (see Section 17.6 and Appendix 17.1 Annex G)
4. Development and refinement of assessment methodology (see Section 17.7)
5. Development of noise control measures (see Section 17.9)
6. Further, more detailed assessment of significance (see Section 17.10,
Section 17.7 and Appendix 17.1 Annex D).
Further details of these developments are described below.
Engagement
17.13.4 Engagement work will be ongoing with a range of stakeholders including HSPG,
PHE, the CAA, HE, TfL, and ICCAN.
17.13.5 Engagement will be undertaken with local non-residential receptors including
schools, places of worship and other non-residential receptors where significant
adverse effects on health and quality of life have been identified in the PEIR. A
further programme of engagement is planned for schools, which will include
undertaking surveys of current acoustic conditions to further inform consideration
and discussions with the schools regarding mitigation.
17.13.6 Heathrow will continue to work with the NEDG between the PEIR and ES to
develop the noise envelope and to refine proposals for enforceable limits. Final
proposals will be included as part of the ES and application for development
consent (see Appendix 17.1 Annex A).
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.179 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Scope of the assessment
17.13.7 The scope of the assessment could undergo further refinements between PEIR
and ES as the preferred masterplan for the DCO is developed through project
design and engagement.
17.13.8 Further assessment will be undertaken to inform whether the worst-case
assessment years identified for the PEIR remain the worst-case assessment years
as the DCO Project is developed. Between PEIR and ES further analysis,
sensitivity tests and development of the schedule will be undertaken to confirm the
assessment years.
17.13.9 The receptors for the assessment will also be kept under review as more detailed
information is received through consultation and engagement activities. Any
additional receptors identified between the PEIR and the ES will be included in the
ES assessment.
Scheme Development, Proposals and Assumptions
17.13.10 The assumptions made in the PEIR will also be developed and reviewed between
PEIR and the ES.
17.13.11 Further detail will inform the assumptions made about the construction
programme, hours of working, and construction methods.
17.13.12 As the airspace change process evolves, a further snapshot will be taken from
which updated indicative airspace test-cases will be taken and used within the ES
assessment. This is planned for later in 2019, when Heathrow will have developed
airspace design options through Stage 2 of the airspace change process. The
DCO Project will also develop subject to consultation feedback relating to runway
alternation, operating directional split, and night-flights. These assumptions may
also influence how each these factors are applied as mitigation in the ES
assessment. Further noise modelling will be undertaken on the new indicative
airspace test-cases, which will include additional metrics for aircraft noise (such as
N65, N60, overflight, and LAeq,T for each mode of operation) and school day
metrics.
17.13.13 Annex B also reports on work to further validate the noise modelling for some of
the aircraft types where assumptions currently apply (e.g. A350-800 and
A320neo), providing further assurance on the levels of noise exposure presented
within the ES. More assurance work will be undertaken to provide comparative
noise exposure outcomes from modelling undertaken with AEDT against that
prepared by the CAA using its ANCON noise model.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.180 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
17.13.14 Proposals for measures to mitigate the effects of the recovery period will also be
considered further between PEIR and ES as part of a broader package of
measures to minimise the effects of flights between 23:00 and 07:00.
Baseline
17.13.15 Further noise surveys will be undertaken to inform the ES. Surveys will be
conducted to assess ambient noise, and where there is material uncertainty in the
baseline information available from round 1 and round 2. Surveys will also be
undertaken where consultation on the PEIR identifies new information that may
change the defined baseline, and at noise sensitive non-residential receptors on a
case by case basis based on the screening approach for non-residential receptors
set out in the Scoping Report.
17.13.16 Further technical work will be undertaken to provide a greater range of future
baseline indicative airspace designs.
Assessment methodology
17.13.17 The assessment methodology used for the PEIR will be further developed for the
ES. For the ES, the assessment will be based on both Primary Factors and
Additional Factors and the assessments will be updated using new indicative
airspace designs. Appendix 17.1 Annex D illustrates how the Additional Factors
will be used in the ES assessment, which is the subject of consultation.
17.13.18 The assessment will be further informed by the outcomes of Phase 3 of our respite
research which aims to develop further understanding of the role of non-acoustic
factors, and to help quantify changes in annoyance associated with respite.
17.13.19 The evidence review that underpins the assessment of noise effects on health
(See Appendix 17.1 Annex E) will be updated for the ES.
17.13.20 For the ES an assessment of objective sleep disturbance will be undertaken in
addition to the assessment of wider self-reported sleep disturbance presented in
the PEIR. The ES will also present the wider assessment of health effects arising
from the other DCO Project noise sources.
17.13.21 Between the PEIR and ES, Heathrow will identify whether a significant adverse
effect due to noise (including vibration) would occur at each receptor and if so,
Heathrow will engage with the owners and users of these receptors to identify
what further control measures are sustainable to avoid or reduce the significant
adverse effect.
17.13.22 Further data gathering, review and assessment will be undertaken following
publication of the PEIR to confirm likely significant effects on non-residential
receptors.
Heathrow Expansion PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT: Chapter 17: Noise and vibration
17.181 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Cumulative effects
17.13.23 The noise cumulative effect Zone of Influence (ZOI) will be expanded for the ES.