Policy LS3 - Noise Statement

Object

Representation ID: 4515

Received: 16/02/2009

Respondent: Ms Sheila Jones

It will be too late to change once expansion has happened. I already get woken up from 07.00hrs by aircraft noise. When planes follow the path of Manchester Drive the house shakes. It is bad enough as it is, we should not allow this to go ahead the area is far to built up for a larger airport.

Object

Representation ID: 4538

Received: 17/02/2009

Respondent: Thomas Dowler

I do not live that close to the airport but we are already disturbed by the noise of aircraft especially at night. The operational hours of scheduled flights should be reduced to take account of the local people 6:30 is at least an hour too early and 23:00 is at least an hour too late. At least respect the normal lives of residents when proceeding with these plans.

Support

Representation ID: 4542

Received: 17/02/2009

Respondent: MR J GRANGER

Its right that sensible noise evaluation statement is published against a sensible baseline position

Object

Representation ID: 4555

Received: 18/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Ken Budgen

I find it difficult to believe noise will not be an issue.If a longer runway allows quieter aircraft why has this not been achieved at Heathrow where noise continues to be a major problem.In any event more activity than at present represents more noise/pollution - this much cannot be disputed.I feel the proposals will be pushed through regardless of affected residents' opinions.What financial compensation will be offerred to offset noise to, for example, upgrade double glazing.

Object

Representation ID: 4556

Received: 18/02/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Rogers

I totally object to night flights as we already have quite late ones and they are very noisy. It will ruin a lovely area of essex

Object

Representation ID: 4565

Received: 18/02/2009

Respondent: Mr. Michael Turbin

The extension of the runway will leave the field clear for the use of larger aircraft which, from personal experience at Gatwick and Heathrow,generate far more noise than the aircraft at present using the airport

Object

Representation ID: 4579

Received: 19/02/2009

Respondent: Mr P Claydon

I worry about the noise levels at all times of the day. Especially in the surrounding villages. What happens to homes outside of Rochford planning area. Eg Maldon Council.

I'm not against an airport in Essex but Southend is the wrong location. The idea of an airport in the Thames river/North sea will cause far less noise pollution subject to flight paths.

Object

Representation ID: 4587

Received: 19/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Clifford Haddy

Has anyone tested noise levels at current capacity? Who decides what noise levels are appropriate ffor us to bear?

Object

Representation ID: 4599

Received: 20/02/2009

Respondent: Mr David Gamman

I live in Sandhurst Close and at present I am situated in the flight path of aircraft that are taking off and also landing. Can you tell what plans are there for noise surveys in my area, at present when some of the larger planes fly over my property the noise levels are well over 120 decibels. With the increased flight plans it would become unbearable for me and my wife. Does it also mean that there will be an increase of night flights which will be an infringement of my basic human rights of getting a decent nights sleep.

Comment

Representation ID: 4602

Received: 20/02/2009

Respondent: Miss Samantha Neville

No night flights at all and none to be planned at any point in the future.

Support

Representation ID: 4616

Received: 20/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Trevor Webber

I am not too concerned regarding noise as aircraft are quieter now than they were in the 1960s which I do remember. Other airports work with noise monitoring so in my opinion it is not a problem.

Support

Representation ID: 4640

Received: 23/02/2009

Respondent: Mrs Christine Williams

Surely a little more noise would be counteracted by the fact their will be more employment within the area. It's about time Southend and Rochford moved on with the times.

Object

Representation ID: 4672

Received: 23/02/2009

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Crosby

Why should cargo be treated differently to passenger flights? Why should we be subjected to constant noise day and night? Are the quieter engines really quieter? (Ask City Airport local residents!) Will you pay for new double glazing for all residents? Will my children suffer from increased pollution? (We moved away from East London for this very reason.) Will Eddie Stobart and other big wigs be living under the flight path? Are those likely to be affected aware of the impact this expansion could have on their lives?

Object

Representation ID: 4682

Received: 24/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Antony Daniels

The residents should be advised of the agreed baseline position before both Southend and Rochford Council makes recommendations to support the principles of expansion.

Detailed information should be provided to the residents of both Southend and Rochford to establish anticipated noise contours for both proposed night flying and day flying.

Without this information residents cannot provide an objective view on the disruption and nuisance that may be caused by the proposed expansion.

what consultation is due to be carried out for residents. Will residents be offered support on diminshed property values within the noise contour areas.

Object

Representation ID: 4707

Received: 25/02/2009

Respondent: Mrs Charlotte Williams

Living under the flight path, the thought of a stream of aircraft flying in is horrendus. The planes currently fly in very low over the area of Leigh and sometimes feel like they are going to come through the roof. The noise is extremely loud already.

Object

Representation ID: 4712

Received: 25/02/2009

Respondent: Mrs Karen Bailey

The baseline position should be published so that people have something to comment against. The current lack of detail makes it impossible to make genuine comment. Given that in the Terminal Facilities section it is proposed that the airport be open from 6-30am to 11pm Monday to Saturday and 7am to 11pm on Sundays, noise is a significant issue that has the potential to seriously compromise the quality of life of all the airports neighbours.

Object

Representation ID: 4721

Received: 26/02/2009

Respondent: mr richard smithyes

Who decides what the 'baseline' of acceptable noise level is? How about 'none at all' for the residents who live under the flightpath.

Object

Representation ID: 4724

Received: 26/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Keith Thomas

Development will substantially increase noise and lead to deterioration of quality of life for a huge number of residents

Object

Representation ID: 4745

Received: 26/02/2009

Respondent: Mr John Lintott

People ask "why fly at night". The answer is that it is the only way to make it work financially.
I am delighted that the operator will publish an annual Noise Evaluation Statement - we can all use it as earplugs. How can anyone accept night flights in a residential area (or do none of the councillors live in the flight path?). Why the hell should flying start at 6.30am? If I started playing loud music at this time I would get complaints and possible police action. Likewise if I did it at 11.00 at night.

Object

Representation ID: 4746

Received: 26/02/2009

Respondent: Mr John Lintott

Will someone please please please listen to the people who are affected by the noise and prevent this stupidity from continuing.
Why is it that we are determined to ruin the pleasant atmosphere of our local area. All those in favour of the airport should move to Hounslow, Stanstead or any of the other areas currently blighted by airports.

Object

Representation ID: 4749

Received: 26/02/2009

Respondent: wesley prodrick

what are the levels now

Comment

Representation ID: 4783

Received: 01/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Stuart Grant

This seems to be a requirement without consequent sanctions.

Furthermore, it isn't clear how the baseline will be set.

Object

Representation ID: 4824

Received: 03/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Ian Towler

This form of self regulation has clearly failed to work elsewhere and has no relevance to the decision to increase air traffic in the first place. Any monitoring after the event should be independant of the airport operator and with statutory powers to curtail activity if measured levels are exceeded.

Object

Representation ID: 4826

Received: 03/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Meryl Price

We already have to put up with considerable noise from light aircraft who fly all day round and round right over our house,which is not even on the flight path,but bordering the south airport boundary,also the smell of the engine running on the runway for ages before they take off sometimes as much as an hour,which is lovely when you are sitting in the garden on a nice day.

Object

Representation ID: 4831

Received: 03/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Meryl Price

What are the guide lines of acceptable noise levels,sometimes you can't hear yourself think the noise is so bad,and the house vibrates,this obviously because of the extra maintenance on the south boundary which is where our house is,in Wells Ave.

Support

Representation ID: 4839

Received: 03/03/2009

Respondent: M Crouch

Measuring noise is an important tool to inform those controlling the growth of the airport. Measurement should be conducted by an independent organisation approved by the local authorities.

Object

Representation ID: 4850

Received: 04/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Saunders

As a Leigh resident living under the flight path the noise level is already intolerable and with the proposed increase in flights every 10 minutes 18 hours a day would be horrendus.When I moved here this is not what I envisaged.

Object

Representation ID: 4855

Received: 04/03/2009

Respondent: Mr. Martin Round.

Myself living at the highest point in Leigh-on- sea and directly in the flight path, the aircraft will be at one of it's lowest points when over head. Are the Councils going to install Double Glazing and a new Roof for me to combat the Noise and Down Drafts?

Object

Representation ID: 4864

Received: 04/03/2009

Respondent: Mr E A Clarke

What is the point of a noise statement!Charging/fining operators for noisy aircrft, banning/severely restricting night flights I can understand.This latest consultation on a high growth preferred option is a sham. The majority of responses to the first phase did not select high growth.Check the analysis by Rochford Planning for yourselves on the Rochford website

Object

Representation ID: 4889

Received: 05/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Alan Davies

This should have Been set already and operator told what to meet.
"noise level statement" is this aspiration or whoops sorry must try harder ? Is this " careful consideration " see issue 3