NOISE AND VIBRATION CHAPTER · 19/06/2019 · 17.9 Noise control measures 17.98 Approach to noise control (including vibration) 17.99 Control Measures for Construction Noise 17.102

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


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



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



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



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


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)



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.



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




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




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.



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




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




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




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




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


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.




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.




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




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).




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.




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.



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




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)




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).




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.



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.




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




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




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




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




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




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,




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).



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).



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



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



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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)



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



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.



Graphic 17.2: Development of the study area for aircraft noise assessment



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).



control measures described in Section 17.9 to calculate the reasonable worst



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.



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).





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.



Graphic 17.5: Study area for road noise assessment



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



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


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.



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


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



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.



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



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



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



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,



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.



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)


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)


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.



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.



Graphic 17.6 Interaction between Airspace Change Process (ACP) and Development Consent Order (DCO) process



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



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.

https://www.heathrow.com/noise/future-airspace/compton-route

https://www.heathrow.com/noise/future-airspace/independent-parallel-approaches



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



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



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.



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



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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

https://www.heathrow.com/noise/reports-and-statistics/reports/community-noise-reports

https://www.heathrow.com/noise/reports-and-statistics/reports/community-noise-reports

https://www.heathrow.com/noise/what-you-can-do/track-flights-on-maps



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

https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/publications/round-3-noise-maps-and-noise-mapping-technical-reports

https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/publications/round-3-noise-maps-and-noise-mapping-technical-reports

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/about-us/crossrail-bill-supporting-documents/specialist-technical-reports/noise-vibration?folder=/l0/362/asset/2170

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/about-us/crossrail-bill-supporting-documents/specialist-technical-reports/noise-vibration?folder=/l0/362/asset/2170



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



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



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:



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



“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.



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



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.



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.



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).



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.



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.



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


Night-time

LOAEL 40dB LAeq,8h h


UAEL 66dB LAeq,8h g

Railway

Daytime


SOAEL 65dB LAeq,16h l


Night-time



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



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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


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


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



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.



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.



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).



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



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)



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



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.



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)




Local Planning


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.


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.





Local Planning


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.



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)



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:



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’.



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.



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


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







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


very disruptive

construction noise

(above the relevant

UAEL value)

Prevent residual

unacceptable adverse



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



Control Measures for Aircraft Noise

Table 17.22: Summary of the embedded and compensation measures and how these influence the noise assessment | Aircraft Noise




Category from noise control hierarchy Category from ICAO balanced approach

Other information


intrusive aircraft noise (above the


Arrivals


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




Arrivals & Departures


adverse effects of

new and reduce


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)








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.




Arrivals & Departures


adverse effects of

new and reduce


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)



very disruptive

Prevent residual

unacceptable

Heathrow will seek powers in the DCO to

DCO Project Noise Insulation Policy

Compensate

ICAO Balanced








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


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


disruptive aircraft noise (above the

relevant SOAEL

value)

Avoids residual

significant adverse



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.


insulation, bedroom



inside homes and



improved glazing to

be kept closed.

Compensate

ICAO Balanced Approach: Land use planning (in addition to mitigation

above)








Other information

SOAEL. This would avoid significant adverse




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


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



insulation, bedroom



inside homes and



improved glazing to

be kept closed.

Compensate

ICAO Balanced Approach: Land use planning (in addition to mitigation above)


45 Inner zone as defined in ANPS Paragraph 5.245 and responded to by the draft DCO Project Noise Insulation Policy







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



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


above)


46 Outer zone as defined in ANPS Paragraph 5.245 and responded to by the draft DCO Project Noise Insulation Policy







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



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


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


above)


impact assessment

taking account of these

compensatory

measures


very high aircraft noise (above 69dB

LAeq,16h)

Provides an option for

avoiding significant

adverse effects on


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


impact assessment

taking account of these







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)


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







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.


study area

Minimises adverse

effects of new and

reduces existing


the context of


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.







Other information


study area

Minimises adverse

effects of new and

reduces existing


the context of


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.




study area

Minimises adverse

effects of new and

reduces existing


the context of


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









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.


study area

Minimise adverse

effects of new and

reduces existing


the context of


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




study area

Minimise adverse

effects of new and

reduces existing


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







Other information

the context of


Sustainable

Development

only to be used by best

noise performing aircraft.

(in addition to above mitigation)


study area

Minimise adverse

effects of new and

reduces existing


the context of


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.


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.


study area

Minimises adverse

effects of new and

reduces existing


the context of


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








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)


study area

Adverse effects on



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)








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.


study area

Adverse effects on



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.









Other information

is therefore proposed in place of the existing westerly preference as measure to reduce overall effects.


study area

Adverse effects on



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.


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.



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.



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.



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





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 /



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 /









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




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


mitigation)


impact assessment

taking account of this

measure



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





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


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


(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







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


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


mitigation)

Sections 17.10 and 17.11 report the noise impact assessment taking account of this measure



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.



Graphic 17.12 Inner area for reporting noise effects



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.



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



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



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.



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



‘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



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



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)



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



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)



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



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



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



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



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



and Figure 17.50 for more detail regarding the noise sensitive non-residential

receptors and their locations.





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.



17.10.62 The preliminary screening of ground noise has identified, on a precautionary basis,



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.





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



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,



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.





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.



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.



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.



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



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



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.



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.


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.



Table 17.34 Preliminary assessment of significance55,56 | Harmondsworth


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):




Table 17.35 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Harmondsworth



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




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.


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


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.



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.


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.



Table 17.36 Preliminary assessment of significance59,60, | West Drayton


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


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)



Table 17.37 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | West Drayton



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*








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.




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.




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.



Table 17.38 Preliminary assessment of significance63,64, | Sipson



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


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)


ES): Aircraft, Ground & Road (day &

night)



Table 17.39 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Sipson



ALSE from aircraft noise: Sipson Arabic Church


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



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.



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.


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


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.


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.




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.



Table 17.40 Preliminary assessment of significance67,68, | Hayes



Phase 3 (2034-2050)

Con

stru

ctio

n sHQL


LSE

- -


Airc

raft

sHQL

- 17.37


LSE HAY.A.ALSE.D.01

HAY.A.ALSE.N.01

17.39

17.40 No LSE


Gro

und sHQL

- 17.41


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

-


LSE -

- No combined ALSE No combined ALSE



Table 17.41 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Hayes



ALSE from aircraft noise: Life Oasis Centre*

Hospitals










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.









Table 17.42 Preliminary assessment of significance71,72, | Cranford Cross


Key figures

Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033)

Phase 3 (2034-2050)

Con

stru

ctio

n sHQL


LSE

- -


Airc

raft

sHQL

- 17.37

17.38 No sHQL


LSE

CRC.A.ALSE.DN.01 17.39

17.40 No LSE


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


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):


LSE -





Table 17.43 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Cranford Cross



ALSE from aircraft noise: St Dunstan’s Church

Hospitals






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.


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






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



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


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.






Table 17.44 Preliminary assessment of significance75,76, | Cranford



Phase 3 (2034-2050)

Con

stru

ctio

n sHQL


LSE

- -


Airc

raft

sHQL

- 17.37

17.38 No sHQL


LSE

CRF.A.ALSE.DN.01 17.39

17.40 No LSE


CRF.A.BLSE.DN.01 BLSE (night)

Gro

und sHQL

- 17.41


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

-



LSE -




Table 17.45 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Cranford



ALSE from aircraft noise: Cranford Memorial Hall*


Schools; colleges; and libraries ALSE from aircraft noise: Cranford Community College, Old Rectory Nursery School, Khosla House*, Cedars Primary School*





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.






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.


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



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.




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.



Table 17.46 Preliminary assessment of significance79,80, | Heston



Phase 3 (2034-2050)

Con

stru

ctio

n sHQL


LSE

- -


Airc

raft

sHQL

- 17.37

17.38 No sHQL


LSE

HES.A.ALSE.DN.01 17.39

17.40

No LSE


HES.A.BLSE.N.01 Beneficial LSE (night)

Gro

und sHQL

- 17.41


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

-


LSE -




Table 17.47 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Heston



ALSE from aircraft noise: Darussalam Masjid and Cultural Centre*


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*




No significant effects on health and quality of life have been identified. No adverse likely significant effects have been identified.





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.


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.


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.






Table 17.48 Preliminary assessment of significance83,84, | Hounslow (West and Heath)


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

- -


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


HOW.A.BLSE.N.01 17.39

17.40 No LSE Beneficial LSE (night)

Gro

und sHQL

- 17.41


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

-


-

LSE -

- No combined ALSE No combined ALSE -



Table 17.49 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Hounslow (West/ Heath)




Hospitals











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.


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.


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].






Table 17.50 Preliminary assessment of significance87,88, | Hounslow (Central and South)



Phase 3 (2034-2050)

Con

stru

ctio

n sHQL


LSE

- -


Airc

raft

sHQL

- 17.37


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


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

-


LSE -




Table 17.51 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors |Hounslow (Central/South)





Schools; colleges; and libraries ALSE from Aircraft noise: Oaklands School*, Hounslow Town Primary School*










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.


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.


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







Table 17.52 Preliminary assessment of significance91,92, | Feltham North



Phase 3 (2034-2050)

Con

stru

ctio

n sHQL


LSE

- -


Airc

raft

sHQL

- 17.37


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


Gro

und sHQL

- 17.41


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 -


LSE -




Table 17.53 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Feltham North




Hospitals



Key * = Identified on a precautionary basis (to be confirmed in the ES). ALSE = Adverse Likely Significant Effect | BLSE = Beneficial Likely

Significant Effect









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



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.


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].






Table 17.54 Preliminary assessment of significance95,96, | Bedfont



Phase 3 (2034-2050)

Con

stru

ctio

n sHQL


LSE

BDF.C.ALSE.E.01 -

ALSE (evening) reduced by M&C

measures No LSE No LSE

Airc

raft

sHQL

- 17.37


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

-


LSE

- -


ES): Construction & Road

(evening) No combined ALSE



Table 17.55 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Bedfont




Hospitals








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.


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.




residential properties in the north of Bedfont during the day are avoided by mitigation measures (package of aircraft




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].


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.



Table 17.56 Preliminary assessment of significance99,100, | Stanwell


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)


Airc

raft

sHQL - 17.37

17.38 No sHQL sHQL (day) avoided my M&C measures

LSE SWL.A.BLSE.N.01 17.39


Gro

und sHQL

- 17.41


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

-


LSE -




Table 17.57 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Stanwell




Hospitals








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).



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.




residential properties in the north of Stanwell during the day are avoided by mitigation measures (package of aircraft



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].


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.



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)


LSE

SWM.C.ALSE.DEN.01 -



Airc

raft

sHQL

- 17.37


LSE

SWM.A.BLSE.N.01 17.39


Gro

und sHQL

- 17.41


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



Table 17.59 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Stanwell Moor




Hospitals






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.



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


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].


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.


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.


Aircraft noise (Phase 1, 2 & 3)


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.


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



Table 17.60 Preliminary assessment of significance107,108, | Poyle


Key figures

Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033)

Phase 3 (2034-2050)

Con

stru

ctio

n sHQL


LSE

POY.C.ALSE.E. 01 -

ALSE (evening) reduced by

M&C measures No LSE No LSE

Airc

raft

sHQL - 17.37


LSE

POY.A.ALSE.DN.01 17.39

17.40

No LSE


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


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


(day)

Potential sHQL (to be confirmed in ES):

Aircraft, Ground & Road (day)

LSE

- -

Potential ALSE (to be confirmed


(evening)

Potential ALSE (to be confirmed in ES):

Aircraft, Ground & Road (day & night)



Table 17.61 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Poyle





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



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



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.



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.


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



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.


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.



Table 17.62 Preliminary assessment of significance111,112, | Colnbrook


Key figures

Phase 1 (2022–2026) Phase 2 (2026-2033)

Phase 3 (2034-2050)

Con

stru

ctio

n 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


LSE CRB.A.ALSE.DN.01 17.39

17.40 No LSE


Gro

und sHQL

- 17.41


measures

LSE CRB.G.ALSE.DN.01 17.43

17.44 No LSE


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

-


Aircraft, Ground & Road (day & night)

LSE -


Aircraft &Ground (day & night)



Table 17.63 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Colnbrook



ALSE from Aircraft noise: Colnbrook Baptish Chapel*, St Thomas Parish Church, Village Hall


Schools; colleges; and libraries ALSE from Aircraft noise: Colnbrook C of E Primary School*, Old School House (Vicarage Way

Children’s Centre)





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.


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



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).


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.


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



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.




Table 17.64 Preliminary assessment of significance115,116, | Brands Hill



Phase 3 (2034-2050)

Con

stru

ctio

n sHQL


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


Gro

und sHQL

- 17.41


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

-


LSE -




Table 17.65 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Brands Hill




Hospitals











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).



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








Table 17.66 Preliminary assessment of significance119,120, | Iver and Richings Park



Phase 3 (2034-2050)

Con

stru

ctio

n sHQL

- - sHQL (day, evening & night)


LSE

IRP.C.ALSE.DEN.01 -



Airc

raft

sHQL

- 17.37


LSE IRP.A.ALSE.D.01

IRP.A.ALSE.DN.02

17.39

17.40 No LSE


Gro

und sHQL

- 17.41


LSE IRP.G.ALSE.DN.01 17.43

17.44 No LSE


measures

Roa

d

sHQL - 17.45

17.46 No sHQL

LSE - 17.47

17.48 No LSE

Com

bine

d sHQL

-


LSE -


Aircraft &Ground (day & night)



Table 17.67 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Iver and Richings Park




Hospitals








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.


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.


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.





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.






Table 17.68 Preliminary assessment of significance123,124, | East Langley



Phase 3 (2034-2050)

Con

stru

ctio

n sHQL


LSE

- -


Airc

raft

sHQL

- 17.37


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


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

-


LSE -




Table 17.69 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | East Langley





Schools; colleges; and libraries ALSE from Aircraft noise: Foxborough Primary School*











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.






Table 17.70 Preliminary assessment of significance127,128, | Datchet



Phase 3 (2034-2050)

Con

stru

ctio

n sHQL


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


Gro

und sHQL

- 17.41


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

-


LSE -




Table 17.71 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Datchet



ALSE from Aircraft noise: St Marys Church*, Datchet Baptist Church*, St Augustines*


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)









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.


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



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.






Table 17.72 Preliminary assessment of significance131,132, | Horton



Phase 3 (2034-2050)

Con

stru

ctio

n sHQL


LSE

- -


Airc

raft

sHQL -

17.37


LSE - 17.39

17.40 No LSE No LSE

Gro

und sHQL

- 17.41


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

-


LSE -




Table 17.73 Screened in noise sensitive non-residential receptors | Horton




Hospitals











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.






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



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



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



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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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).



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.



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.





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.



Cumulative effects

17.13.23 The noise cumulative effect Zone of Influence (ZOI) will be expanded for the ES.

Documents

NOISE AND VIBRATION CHAPTER · 19/06/2019 · 17.9 Noise control measures 17.98 Approach to noise control (including vibration) 17.99 Control Measures for Construction Noise 17.102