Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the London Borough of Hounslow
High levels of noise, congestion and air pollution
are an inevitable consequence of proximity to a major international
airport such as Heathrow. Without mitigation, areas adjacent to
large airports such as the London Borough of Hounslow would not
be habitable and residents' quality of life would be seriously
compromised. Restitution for the current impact of Heathrow is
a key strand within the Hounslow Council's campaign. We would
therefore be grateful if the following short submission could
be considered as a clarification to Mr Efford's question (reproduced
Q 576 Clive Efford:
Following on from that, you have suggested that
the CAA should have powers to impose sanctions on airlines and
airports that fail to fulfil any mitigation targets. Can you describe
for us very briefly the scope of the mitigation that you are seeing?
You are suggesting that mitigation should be implemented in order
to reduce environmental impact by airports and by airlines. What
is the scope of what you are looking for, how would it be implemented,
and what sort of things are you looking for?
In terms of existing buildings Hounslow Council
sees no impediment to why people living or being educated in the
borough should not experience the same acoustic standards as others
in the UK. Our research into this matter indicates that the mitigation
schemes that have been implemented in other areas of the world
(for example Chicago) are more generous than those offered to
Hounslow residents. Funding should be adequate to address the
actual noise, not cash-limited and the schemes should not be controlled
by the airport,
Therefore it is suggested that homes are insulated
so that the following WHO internal standards are achieved.
35 dB LAeq,16 daytime level for habitable
rooms for example living rooms.
30 dB LAeq,8 night time level for
45 dB LAmax for bedrooms (to account
for any short term noise event eg one flight in the middle of
Funds should be made available for sound insulation
(windows, roofs etc), and where necessary means of maintaining
comfortable temperatures eg by the provision of mechanical ventilation
and/or blinds. Noise insulation schemes require maintenance particularly
for any associated mechanical ventilation. Glazing and window
frames have limited shelf life so it is also necessary to include
an on going maintenance and replacement programme.
Hounslow Council ensures that new homes are
insulated to up to the relevant standard by virtue of the planning
Community buildings and schools
Schools need to be insulated to the Department
for Education and Skills standards within Building Bulletin 93,
(noise) and Building Bulletin 101 (ventilation). This should include
all extensions and all non teaching areas such as offices and
staff rooms. Mobile classrooms must be replaced as these cannot
be insulated adequately.
Most importantly, eligibility must not be based
on an arbitrary contour line, but the actual noise experienced
during teaching. For example in the case of a school class room
a worst mode" contour is required to determine the eligible
schools; not the average mode 16 hour LAeq,16 that is used by
It is also necessary for funds to be made available
so that the development of new public and community buildings
are not compromised by exposure to aircraft noise. For example
funding should be made available for the extra noise mitigation
measures required to make new school premises compliant with the
Consideration must be given to delivering the
national curriculum outside of the school classroom, for example,
improvements to outdoor spaces at schools.
Preservation of Existing Mitigating Practices
In addition to the requirements outlined above
it is also vital for Hounslow residents that certain practices
are maintained including.
The Cranford Agreement, no departures
over Cranford on the northern runway, emergencies excepted.
Maintenance of segregated mode operation
and runway alternation i.e. aircraft departing and arriving on
separate runways, changing which is used at 3pm, thus giving relief
to the residents overflown.
In order to relieve the congestion and air quality
problems Hounslow Council believes that it is necessary to change
how the airport is accessed by both passengers and staff by improving
public transport links. It is also necessary to reduce certain
short journeys that are currently made by air, substituting these
by rail. Hounslow Council therefore believe the following should
Bracknell and Waterloo via Richmond
(requiring the Airtrack" link between Terminal Five and Staines);
St Albans and Watford (requiring
additional tracks between Hayes and Acton);
East London via Crossrail; Reading
via Slough (requiring the Western connection" link between
Terminal Five and Iver);
A range of InterCity services to
the Regions (requiring an open-air stationfor diesel servicesto
the west of Terminal Five);
A possible additional express underground
Construction of a light rapid transit
system from Heathrow to Hammersmith through the London Borough
Resignalling/up-rating of the capacity
of the Piccadilly line;
In addition to the above we would also expect
The level of local public transport
provision dramatically increased (particularly buses), so that
airport workers and passengers can travel to the airport by the
most sustainable means.
In response to Mr Wilshire's question regarding
safety and Heathrow, Councillor Cadbury advised the committee
that Hounslow Council would be contacting the CAA regarding concerns
following the AAIB report EW/C2004/04/04 Evergreen B747 NG81EV.
It therefore seems appropriate that we update the committee of
the current position with respect to this matter.
The CAA have advised us that following this
incident the guidance (MATS part 1) is being strengthened to reflect
conditions where the integrity of the airframe or the ability
to maintain safe controlled flights may be uncertain. Sir Roy
McNulty goes on to state that I should also made it clear that
the ultimate decision regarding the choice of a suitable diversion
airfield during an emergency situation rests with the aircraft
commander". Given that the aircraft commander in this case
did not have any of the required plans are available to allow
for navigation into Heathrow, we find this assertion to be incomprehensible.
We will therefore be asking the CAA to review this position.