London Stansted Noise Complaints Analysis Report 2014

Transcription

1 London Stansted Noise Complaints Analysis Report 214 Introduction The purpose of this report is to provide statistics relating to noise complaints received by London Stansted Airport for the period January to December 214. Number of Contacts and Complaints During 214 the Flight Evaluation Unit handled 136 contacts, 9.7% more than the number received in 213, (which was 944). From this figure, 122 were complaints and 14 were enquiries relating to provision of information, particularly requesting information on property that may be affected by operations at Stansted. Contact Methods Stansted Airport can be contacted by Phone, , WebClient and Letter. Stansted Airport responds to all complaints and other enquiries. The overwhelming majority of complaints were received via , 54%, down 16% on the previous year s 7%. The second most popular contact method was via telephone, 36%, up 8% from the previous year. WebClient, direct from our dedicated noise website was just under 1%. There was 1 letter of complaint received in 214. A summary of the contact methods used for 214 is detailed below Contact Method No of Complaints Letter Phone 369 Web 98

2 Percentage of Complaints by Complaint Method 1% % 36% 54% Phone Webclient Letter Of the 122 complaints received during 214, the majority were during the airports much busier summer period. The graph below compares the number of complaints by month to the number of complainants by month Total Complaints Total Complainants 5

3 The highest numbers of complaints received in any calendar month during 214 were the 232 received in July from 134 complainants. This same month in 213, 212, 211 and 21 also recorded the highest number of complaints in any month during those years. The next highest complaint totals received were in June (113) and September (196) from 82 and 78 complainants respectively. The complaints received in June, July and September coincided with the increased percentage of Runway 4 (North Easterly) usage, June 49%, July 49% and September 67%. We would normally expect the summer average runway 4 (North Easterly) movements to be approximately 3%. During 214, a total of 122 complaints were received from 427 people. Within these complaint totals, 29 complaints (2%) were received from 7 people, including 2 complainants from the same address who registered 87 complaints between them, totalling 8.5% of all complaints received. The locations of the top 7 complainants, 6 separate households, in 214 are shown on the map below. 3 of the7 highest complainants are affected by departing aircraft to runway 22, with all 3 located under the 22CLN and 22DET departure routes. One is affected by 4 departures located near the end of the 4 CLN noise preferential route. One is affected by arrivals to both runways and there are one each effected by arrivals to runway 4 and 22 respectively.

4 Complaints by Time Period The following charts show the numbers of complaints received relating to aircraft operations during specified time periods namely Day, Core Night and the 2 shoulder periods. Time period No of Complaints Morning Shoulder 6: - 7: 112 Day 7: - 23: 78 Evening Shoulder 23: - 23:3 28 Core Night 23:3-6: 174 Complaints by Time Period Morning Shoulder 6: - 7: Day 7: - 23: 78 Evening Shoulder 23: - 23:3 Core Night 23:3-6: The night time periods show a small reduction in complaint percentages compared to previous years balanced against a small rise in daytime complaints as % of total complaints Morning Shoulder 6: - 7: 9% 6.5% 12.7% 1.9% Day 7: - 23: 65% 7% 68.7% 69.3% Evening Shoulder 23: - 23:3 5% 4% 3.4% 3% Core Night 23:3-6: 21% 19.5% 15.2% 16.8%

5 Location of complaints for the Morning Shoulder period (6:-7:) Location of complaints for the Daytime period (7:-23:)

6 Location of Complaints for the Evening Shoulder period (23:-23:3) Location of Complaints relating to the Core Night period (23:3-6:)

7 Runway Usage The following chart shows the modal split for 214 and clearly shows the high usage of runway 4 in June, July and especially September. This chart combines the arrivals and departures for 214 as measured in our ANOMS noise and track keeping system. The most significant change from 213 is the greater usage of runway 4 during the summer as well as an increase in overall aircraft movements. Runway Utilisation Movements Runway 22 Movements Runway 4 4 2

8 Runway Utilisation Runway 22 Runway 4 2 Nature of Complaints Of the 122 complaints received during 214 there were 58 complaints which referenced aircraft being too loud, an increase of 192 from 213, and 33 references of low flying aircraft an increase of 16 from 213. Helicopter complaints rose from 4 in 213 to 41 in 214, mainly during July from the Birchanger area. (9 of the 41 complaints received about Helicopters were found not to be Stansted related operations) It should be noted that complaints received may relate to more than one type of disturbance (i.e. noisy, low and off track) and therefore the totals given in the table below will not correspond to the number of complaints received during the year.) Subject Enquiries per Percentage of Subject Enquiries / Subject Too Loud % Low Flying % Track Keeping % General Noise % Increased flights % Helicopters 41 4% Night Early Morning % Night General % Late Night Flights %

9 General Noise Enquiry 7 <1% Arrivals General 5 <1% Taking Off General 4 <1% Odour 4 <1% Other Ground Noise 4 <1% Start of roll noise 2 <1% Engine Runs 2 <1% Runway works 2 <1% Revers Thrust 2 <1% Fuel Jettisoning 1 <1% Health/Pollution Levels 1 <1% When investigating the complaints received during 214, 466 were correlated to departing aircraft, with 372 correlated to arriving aircraft. There were 3 complaints specifically correlated to ground noise and 131 to other general complaints. There were 42 complaints that could not be attributed to London Stansted Operations when a specific time and date was given, although they have been included in these statistics STAL Investigated enquiries relating to aircraft departures Number of references STAL Investigated enquiries relating to aircraft arrivals STAL Investigated enquiries relating to Ground Noise STAL Investigated enquiries relating to Other Complaint Types

10 Of the complaints received where we were able to correlate the complaint to a specific operation, either a departing or an arriving aircraft, rather than a generic complaint relating to arrival or departures in general, we can show what routes, by runway, generate these complaints. Runway Arrivals Departures by Route Buzad Clacton Detling Runway 22 arrivals generate fewer complaints than runway 4 arrivals; this may well have been due to the modal split last summer, where there was a much greater use of runway 4 than is usually seen. This could also be attributed to the inability to perform a continuous descent approach on runway 4 due to airspace constraints. Irrespective of the runway in use, the Clacton departure routes generated fewer complaints than the Detling routes. The high number of runway 22 Buzad complaints was in part due to 2 operations that overflew Bishops Stortford, these generating 39 of the complaints. Origin of Complaints When handling and registering complaints we require a full name and postal address, as per our published noise complaints handling policy. This enables us to accurately locate the geographic location where the disturbance was registered and then accurately correlate the complaint to an aircraft operation(s) radar track. We can only do this for Stansted operations and will advise any complainant if the disturbance was not caused by Stansted operations. A full breakdown of complainant localities for 214 is detailed below. Locality Callers Enquiries Abbess Roding 2 1 Albury 1 1 Bambers Green 1 1 Barnston 1 1 Benfleet 1 1 Berden 5 1 Birchanger Bishops Stortford Bracknell 1 1 Braintree 4 4 Brentwood 1 1 Broxbourne 4 6

11 Broxted 2 2 Buntingford 4 11 Bures 1 1 Clavering 2 2 Colchester 1 1 Debden 2 11 Debden Green 3 6 Dunmow Duton Hill 3 9 East Bergholt 1 1 Elsenham 3 1 Epping Green 1 13 Farnham 3 3 Felsted 1 1 Gestingthorpe 1 1 Gilston 1 3 Gosfield 1 1 Great Canfield 3 4 Great Cornard 1 4 Great Dunmow 5 8 Great Easton 8 13 Great Hallingbury 8 9 Great Leighs 2 4 Great Maplestead 1 7 Great Notley 6 13 Great Sampford 5 7 Hadleigh 1 1 Harlow Hatfield Broad Oak 4 1 Hatfield Heath Hempstead 1 1 Henham 8 14 High Easter 2 3 High Roding 1 1 Hunsdon 1 1 Ingatestone 1 1 Leaden Roding 1 2 Little Canfield 2 2 Little Easton 5 5 Little Hadham 5 15 Little Hallingbury 1 25 Manuden 4 5 Much Hadham 6 14 Nazeing 1 1 Newport 3 1 Old Harlow 2 2 Plegdon Green 1 1 Pleshey 2 2 Pondfield 1 1 Puckeridge 1 2 Quendon 1 2 Radwinter 1 1

12 Roydon 3 29 Saffron Walden 9 5 Sawbridgeworth Sheering 2 2 Spellbrook 1 1 Standon 4 4 Stanstead Abbots 1 1 Stansted Stebbing 3 13 Steeple Bumpstead 1 1 Stocking Pelham 1 2 Stoke By Nayland 1 1 Sudbury 3 4 Takeley 11 3 Thaxted 7 2 Thundridge 2 12 Tilty 2 8 Ugley 1 1 Waltham Cross 1 1 Ware Wellpond Green 1 1 Welwyn Garden City 1 1 White Roding 1 4 Wicken Bonhunt 2 2 Widdington 2 2 Widford 1 1 Willingale 3 7 Wimbish 3 1 Noise Infringements During 214 there were 3 departures that exceeded the Government s departure noise limits at any of our 8 fixed noise monitors, a decrease of 5 from 213. These operators were surcharged in line with the Airports noise infringement penalty scheme. All monies raised are passed to the Stansted Airport Community Trust Fund annually. A breakdown of the aircraft types that generated these noise infringements is detailed below.

13 5 No of Noise Infringements by Aircraft Type No of Noise Infringements 1 Antonov 124 MD11 The next graph shows the distribution of these 3 noise infringements across the year. 4 Total Noise Infringements by Month Of the 3 noise infringements in 214, we received 6 separate complaints relating to these operations, as shown below.

14 5 No of Complaints related to Noise Infringements No of Complaints related to Noise Infringements 1 Antonov 124 MD11 Summary From the graph below it is noticeable that there has been a large reduction in the volumes of complaints received by the airport since 25. However, during 213 and 214 there has been a slight increase in complaints received by the airport. There are a number of reasons which could account for this increase. London Stansted has now returned to significant growth in terms of movement and passenger numbers and we expect this trend to continue. During 214 NATS launched a public consultation during the summer months in relation to the London Airspace Management Plan (LAMP). This 3 month consultation ended in September 214 and outlined plans by NATS to redistribute departures from one of the existing flight paths to another more efficient route. This proposal is subject to approval by the CAA, who may refer any decision to Government. This, combined with an increase in north easterly operations during the summer months, generated more complaints from the Gt Notley and Gt Leighs areas. There was an increase in complaints from the Birchanger area in relation to Helicopter Noise, to which the airport visited the parish council and sought to address these community concerns with the base Helicopter operators. London Stansted also consulted in 214 on its Sustainable Development Plan, undertaking a series of community road shows during the summer and autumn months.

15 No of Complaints No of Complainants