Forum Topic

Heathrow consultation

Thursday evening I went to the consultation in Hammersmith Town Hall with a friend who lives in Hammersmith. It was more convenient than going to Roehampton University next week - Ravi Govindia is correct in his comment- and my friend noted that the timings are not helpful for people who, like her, work full time.I sat in one of the sound booths mentioned in the item on the website front page. I found it cramped and uncomfortable.  You have to wear two headsets, one to enable you to see to choose a location, height and type of plane, and the other for you to hear the noise it makes. I selected the A320, but soon abandoned the exercise. I hear the damn thing every day, so why bother.There seems to be some confusion with the exercise. We were repeatedly told by Heathrow staff that it is nothing to do with the third runway and expansion, but the questionnaire form indicates that it is. (freepost envelope provided.)They claim to be asking for views on future flight paths, but have nothing definite to reveal, so you can't really answer the question which probably concerns most people: will more planes be flying over me, and when? A lot of talk about "envelopes".There was mention of the westerly preference, perhaps abandoning this so that Putney could get take-offs as well as arrivals. I don't know if these would be instead of some landings or in addition, and I do not know how loud departing aircraft would be over us. It is all  vague.The lack the courage to spell out the extent of the reduction in respite, but we know it will be substantial as this was hidden on page 183 of the Davies report.I'm always wary of Heathrow questionnaires. Each question has the options: agree, disagree, don't know.  It's hard to "know" when the information is so imprecise. What I do know is that I'm utterly opposed to more planes, more noise, and that as long as May is in Downing St and Failing Graying at the DfT, we're stuffed. We're already in for another 25,000 aircraft movements a year, which amounts to about 68 a day, I guess, reducing our respite by nearly two hours.

Elizabeth Balsom ● 2847d6 Comments

Lucky those who live in Putney.  Think of us in Richmond where the planes are much lower and much noisier!

Robert Davenport ● 2847d

Elizabeth, as with most consultations I think you're right to be wary.  There are a lot of twisty things going on in the background, I am quite sure of this, and we need to be vigilant.I used to work in Richmond for many years and, yes I totally agree, in Richmond you actually can't have a conversation when a plane is flying overhead.

Bunny Payne ● 2847d

I did the Central London consultation roadshow on Tuesday.I didn't do the SoundLab there, but had a go at the previous consultation last January. The experience in the headphones did not match my experience back home under the flightpath in Isleworth - through the headphones I could hear birdsong while the A380 went over. That doesn't happen in my garden. The staff were unable to answer questions about how heavily laden the planes were that were providing the sound experience. Or what climb gradients they were flying.I think the proposals could be a lot clearer. The concept of respite from alternation of airspace was demonstrated with a very over-simplified sketch with nice quiet green areas. It appeared to show planes from the north landing on the northern runway and planes from the south landing on the southern runway. When I asked whether this would mean a plane from the north would have a long taxi around the airport to get to Terminal 4, they went away and came back and said the proposal was to operate with "Terminal Arrivals". The runway a plane lands on will be influenced by the terminal it is trying to get to and so avoid complicated taxi routes. Hence the respite area diagram might be a bit more complex.......Putney may well get take-offs on easterly operations (see the design envelope for "Departures-2 for the middle runway") but this is more related to departing planes having to travel further straight-out on take-off rather than turn left or right (over Ealing and Teddington)to avoid interaction with planes on the runways on either side.I think the question of westerly preference and whether it should be managed to assist a better alternation scheme is unrelated. Heathrow are keen to get opinions on how the runways should be alternated. Should we have solid noise from a day or two of continuous use and then have a long period of respite ? Or should we cycle through the four modes of operation each day with a swap every four or five hours ?And how would you like the "night flights ban" to work ? Would you like planes to arrive on one runway at 0515 ? Or would you prefer them to arrive on two runways from 0530 ?(Seriously !!!)And there is the question on the "Noise Objective".Do you agree that the objective to limit the effects of noise on health should only be done if the measures put in place are "proportionate and cost effective" ?In the shorter term there is the question of Independent Parallel Approaches which Heathrow is proposing to use for the period between gaining its Development Consent Order and the opening of the third runway. I suspect this could benefit Putney IF it does away with the TEAM ("Tactically Enhanced Arrival Measures"!) process of landing flights on both runways when delays to the holding stacksbuild up (usually at least every day between 0600 and 0700). It wasn't clear to me whether this IPA is instead of or as well as TEAM. We should be told.

Tim Henderson ● 2846d

RobertI sympathise abstolutely. I remember one evening when a friend and I were waiting on the Green to get into the theatre, and we couldn't hear each other speak.Friends who live in north London related how they were in Kew Gardens (they're up to speed with the noise issue because of me) and how foreigners ambling around were gawping skywards, unable to grasp why a constant stream of planes was flying so low overhead.I have just looked at the leaflet which came through my door and how I learnt of the "consultation" exhibitions and I couldn't see Richmond listed. Maybe I was looking too hard and misssed it. Perhaps they think East Sheen and Barnes residents could go to Roehampton, but they are demanding a lot of effort from affected residents, particularly after work.

Elizabeth Balsom ● 2846d

Heathrow consultations never seem to take any notice of my responses it can get worrisome to continue doing them.  I am intrigued with people saying Richmond experiences more noise than Putney.  I havnt been able to have an outside conversation for many years where I live by the rowing clubs on the embankment.  As for 4.45am and after up till 6.30am the screaming roar of jet engines is impossible to sleep through.I did once complain to Heathrow about the parallel flights going directly over my house and they changed it a bit which made a huge difference.  So even a small variation can make big difference

Jenny Featherstone ● 2842d

jenny, it's the same where I am, just south of URR and 5 minutes from the Leisure Centre. When I'm chatting to neighbours we just have to stop as the planes go over, and as that's every 90 seconds, conversation is somewhat truncated.It's the lies which I hate as much as the planes. When my friend and I were at the Hammersmith exhibition, I said to one Heathrow man that I had read the Davies report line by line and there are errors on every page (true). He said 80,000 people had responded to the Commission supporting expansion. 80,000? I said, you're kidding me.  Unless, of course the all work for Heathrow.I've taken to email T.May "Aircraft Noise". Won't do any good, of course, but her betrayal might get through to her secretary, at least. And I add, DON'T send this to the DfT. I think it's tmay@parliament.uk but I'd have to check on the Parliament website.Have you heard about Justine's meeting in the Community church, I think it's on the 20th.

Elizabeth Balsom ● 2841d