1pix.gif (43 bytes) 1pix.gif (43 bytes) 1pix.gif (43 bytes) 1pix.gif (43 bytes) 1pix.gif (43 bytes) 1pix.gif (43 bytes) 1pix.gif (43 bytes)
Action for Airfields - Supporters network helping to support airfields now and for the future Action for Airfields - Supporters network helping to support airfields now and for the future

Search the A4A web

You might be forgiven for thinking that someone has it in for GA. The recent summary of responses to the DTLR consultation on control of noise from civil aircraft is just the latest in a series of attempts to address aircraft noise. It's not as if the same attention is being paid to other noise sources. You don't hear of attempts to restrict the type of trains that could run on a particular piece of track, or set a limit on the number of vehicles that could use a stretch of motorway in any one day, or ban the use of lawnmowers on Sunday and Bank Holiday afternoons (and if these sound familiar they and other similarly draconian restrictions were being sought, fortunately unsuccessfully, by S.Cambs District Council in its small airfields policy).

The planning inspector presiding over the appeal lodged by the decidedly rural Clutton Hill Strip conceded that maximum noise from 2 tractors, 1 van and 3 cars exceeded that of an aircraft taking off yet small, low-traffic-volume strips up and down the country often have to fight tooth and nail at considerable cost in order to get applications (and a disproportionately high number of subsequent appeals) approved. Hanley William, in an almost identical situation as Clutton Hill, lost its appeal on noise grounds.

An often voiced grievance amongst pilots is the pressure brought to bear on aerodromes as a result of local residents who live in comparatively recently built homes next to established airfields. It does beggar belief that people would move next to an active airfield and then complain about the noise. Nevertheless the proliferation of noise abatement schemes (in the case of Elstree, four different schemes!) is testament to many aerodromes willingness to accommodate local sensibilities where possible.

It's not as if it's being made easy for GA to address the issue itself by controlling noise at source. The technical ability to fix silencer kits to existing aircraft is undermined to a large extent by the costs of such an exercise, particularly in an industry vulnerable to the economic cycle. The situation is not helped by what many argue is a costly and overbearing certification requirement mandated by the CAA.

Finally a review of existing guidance on the options local planning authorities might exercise to ameliorate aircraft noise indicates what we might expect to see in the future. Such guidance is contained in PPG24 Annex 4 under the section titled "Conditions restricting use of an aerodrome or part of an aerodrome". As you might expect from such an introduction the measures offered are without exception proscriptive, taking the form of restrictions in numbers, types, and times of movements. In this, as in the recent consultation paper, there is not one single attempt to encourage or reward any efforts to control the noise at source. The departure of a silencer kitted or modern quieter engined aircraft counts the same as the noisiest of 40's engined aircraft in those 40 movements allowed per day.

Where's the justice in that?

vertline100.gif (88 bytes)
vertline100.gif (88 bytes)
vertline100.gif (88 bytes)
vertline100.gif (88 bytes)
vertline100fade.gif (387 bytes)

Planning

 

Noise
"No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property...so long as the provisions of any Air Navigation Order...have been duly complied with..."
Section 76
Civil Aviation Act 1982
The Law
The Civil Aviation Act of 1982, of which the above is an abbreviated extract, lends a good deal of protection to aerodromes against complaints of trespass and noise. The only point at which an anti-aviation lobby can exert an influence over the operations of an airfield, either by restricting movements or enforcing closure, is at the planning stage (hence the importance of local government planning to GA).
Noise Protesters
Anti noise protesters can make life difficult for airfield operators and users, can obstruct future development of airfield facilities, and can provide a source of support for anti-aviation lobbies and hostile authorities. The onus is very much on the aviation community to present itself in a favourable light to the local community.
Section 35
Aerodromes designated under section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 are required to provide facilities for consultation with users, local authority, and the local community. Others may provide such facilities voluntarily as a way of fostering understanding of and support for the aerodrome amongst the local community.
The Future
Published in the summer of 1998, the government white paper "A New Deal for Transport - Better for Everyone" has set the framework within which detailed policies would be taken forward. One section deals with noise, and makes the statement "We propose to take powers to enable airports to enforce mitigation measures, for example by taking action against non-compliant airlines, and to enable local authorities to enforce noise mitigation agreements". This has now been formulated into the consultation paper "Control of Noise from Aircraft". This paper sets out the ways in which the government proposes to revise the current legislation relating to aircraft noise. They do indeed suggest greater powers for local authorities to both agree and enforce noise amelioration schemes at aerodromes. A summary of responses was published in MArch 2002. See the Flyer magazine page on noise for further information.
1pix.gif (807 bytes)
vertline100.gif (88 bytes)
vertline100.gif (88 bytes)
vertline100.gif (88 bytes)
vertline100.gif (88 bytes)
vertline100.gif (88 bytes)
vertline100.gif (88 bytes)
vertline100.gif (88 bytes)
vertline100.gif (88 bytes)
vertline100.gif (88 bytes)
vertline100.gif (88 bytes)
vertline100.gif (88 bytes)
vertline100.gif (88 bytes)
vertline100.gif (88 bytes)
vertline100.gif (88 bytes)
vertline100fade.gif (387 bytes)
Resources
Some resources which may help in further understanding of the issue
Noise and Planning
The GAAC has produced an analysis of noise issues in relation to planning an aerodrome, drawing some experience from hearings relating to existing aerodromes, available in summary and detailed forms.
More Considerate Flying
The GAAC has also produced an article titled "More Considerate Flying" to encourage the aviation community to be more aware of the impact its activities are having on the local community.
Govt Debate July 2001
In July 2001 the MP for Maidenhead raise the issue of noise at White Waltham aerodrome. Her question to the Transport Minister gives an insight into the issues local residents have with aircraft noise and the Government's current and future positions on this problem.
Community Relations
A4A also supports this initiative, and one corner stone of our campaign is to promote the idea of promoting airfields as a community asset.
1pix.gif (807 bytes)
1pix.gif (43 bytes)
lowline.gif (538 bytes)
[ Top of Page ]