Aircraft Noise

The legislation that this authority has a duty to uphold, does not include aircraft noise. Please look at our 'Noise - When can't we help?' page for details of who you can contact about aircraft noise.

Recognising the contribution to the local economy, the Council has always taken a stance against any development or operational issues in relation to Heathrow, or wider aviation-related issues, that could result in an adverse impact upon the local environment.

On 22 November 2007 the Government announced a further public consultation on the prospect of expansion at Heathrow Airport. Please use the external link on the right-hand side of this page to find out more about this and the download link to view our response.

We also sent the following additional comments with our response to the consultation:

The consultation was premature and did not provide sufficient time to fully consider all the implications including the need for an additional terminal, what boundary change would be needed for this and what the access would be. These should have been given full consideration at the same time as the proposal for the third runway, which is likely unstoppable in any event.
The consultation document is by its nature very technical but inadequate and would be confusing to lay persons.
Many people whom the proposed changes will affect have not been properly consulted - a document has been provided to some but without adequate interpretation in plain language to enable them to respond.
Given the existing level of congestion around the airport, the air pollution projections are not based on fact but on unsubstantiated predictions about technological improvements and future road traffic patterns.
The amount of the economic benefits are not well evidenced.
The noise claims are unsupported and based on a questionable premise about what level of noise causes annoyance.
The consultation document states that the flight paths are only indicative. This is because National Air Traffic Control (NATS) will be consulting on airspace changes in the future. This information should have been available before this consultation took place.
The noise limits, if expansion takes place, are based on the premise that not exceeding the 57dB(A) Leq contour area (as it was in 2002 with Concorde flying) is appropriate. However, the World Health Organisation (WHO) argues that people start to get moderately annoyed when noise averages of 50dB(A) (or even less) are experienced and seriously annoyed at 55dB(A) Leq. The noise contour of 127 sq kms, 57dB(A) Leq, is calculated in such a way that a large increase in movements is allowed with only a barely perceptible reduction in noise from individual aircraft. Nor do the noise contour calculations reflect the value of alternation.

Up-to-date information on this consultation and other aviation issues can be found on the Department for Transport website.