9842 Noise Plan A4 BW

Home , Ann Winterton, Bredbury, Dukinfield, Golborne, Hale Barns, Royton

Noise action plan 2013-2018

1 Foreword 2 2 Noise Action Plan 4 3 Public Consultation 6 4 Manchester Airport 8 5 Noise Mapping 12 6 Noise Mapping Results 14 7 Relevant Laws and Policies 22 8 Noise Controls 26 9 Departing Aircraft 28 10 Arriving Aircraft 32 11 Night Noise 36 12 Mitigation Schemes 42 13 Monitoring and Reporting on our Progress 44 14 Effective Communication 48 15 Noise Complaints 50 16 Consultation Responses 52 Sheet No.1 Departing aircraft 54 Sheet No.2 Arriving aircraft 56 Sheet No.3 Runway use 58 Sheet No.4 Night noise 60 Sheet No.5 Mitigation schemes 62 Sheet No.6 Monitoring and reporting our progress 64 Sheet No.7 Effective communication 66 Sheet No.8 New sites for noise monitors 68 Sheet No.9 2013 Review consultations 70 17 Conclusion 72 Appendices 1 List of organisations 78 2 List of libraries 80 3 Questionnaire 82 4 List of recipients 84 5 List of parish councils 88 6 List of respondents 89 7 Questions and answers 90 1. Foreword We need to review our Noise Action Plan because of the Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC), under which member states of the European Union must produce ‘noise maps’ for the main sources of environmental noise – major roads, major railways, major airports and towns and cities with a population greater than 100,000 people and more than 500 people for every square kilometre (km 2). Member states must also produce action plans based on the results of the noise mapping.

2 Our noise action plan was first published in 2011. We need to revise the plan so shortly after its publication because of the Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC) The law on managing noise, together with the framework and guidelines, are set at national and international level. However, many measures to control noise at Manchester Airport have been introduced locally. For example, many legally binding targets, obligations and limits are set by the planning conditions associated with our second runway, and also by a voluntary but legally binding agreement under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In preparing this action plan, we have worked with our Consultative Committee, environmental health officers from the surrounding local authorities, airlines and NATS (our air traffic control service provider). We have also listened to those who responded to our consultation. In fact, many of our commitments and targets have changed as a result of their input. We are proud of how we manage noise and believe that we have an effective strategy for controlling it. This strategy pulls together over 50 policies ranging from restricting the use of the noisiest aircraft at night through to offering a sound insulation grant. Many of our policies are the strictest of any airport in the country. In this plan we show how we have performed in relation to all our commitments to managing noise.

The noise action plan will continue to evolve, and our targets, polices and procedures will most likely change as we carry out reviews over the life of the plan. Any change will be aimed at limiting and reducing, where possible, the number of people affected by noise as a result of the airport’s activities.

We recognise that, for some people who live near the airport, noise is, and always will be, an important issue. We will continue to listen to and work with our neighbours, and aim to make sure that we continue to keep the number of people affected by noise to a minimum.

Andrew Cowan Chief Operating Officer, Manchester Airports Group

3 2. Noise action plan In its 1996 Green Paper on Future Noise Policy, the European Commission identified environmental noise caused by traffic, industrial and recreational activities as one of the main local environmental problems in Europe.

4 The report commented that although the So far noise maps for the following have established environmental noise policy – largely been produced. made up of laws fixing maximum sound levels for n Built-up areas (known as agglomerations). vehicles, aircraft and machines – had reduced The first group of agglomerations were noise from individual sources, exposure to identified as areas which have a population of environmental noise, especially from road traffic, more than 250,000, have more than 500 was not showing the same levels of people for every square kilometre (km 2) and are improvement. considered to be towns or cities. This second Information about noise exposure is very limited, round review also now includes especially when compared to that collected to agglomerations with a population of more than measure other environmental problems. That 100,000 and with more than 500 people for information is also often difficult to compare every square kilometre (km 2) because of the variety of measurement and n Major roads assessment methods used. n Major railways For this reason, it was proposed that a European n environmental noise framework should be Major airports – those with more than 50,000 created. To produce the framework, all countries take-offs or landings each year across the European Community would need to There is more information on noise mapping on co-operate, and action would need to be taken at the website at www.defra.gov.uk/noisemapping. a local, national and international level. That work In the case of this Noise Action Plan and its’ would be built around three main elements: associated noise maps, Manchester Airport is the n standardising information (noise mapping); competent authority. We must develop and maintain a noise action plan that is designed to n setting targets; and manage noise issues and also to protect any n monitoring progress. quiet areas, which may have been identified as a This proposal resulted in Directive 2002/49/EC, result of the noise mapping process (see page which relates to the assessment and management 12). of environmental noise. That directive was published in June 2002. Widely referred to as This document sets out our noise action plan for the Environmental Noise Directive or END, the Manchester Airport. Broadly, our aims are to: directive has since been adopted in this country n summarise the effect of noise from aircraft as the Environmental Noise (England) landing and departing from the airport; Regulations 2006, as amended, (the regulations). n set out measures already in place to manage Under the regulations ‘competent authorities’ noise and any measures we intend to introduce must produce ‘noise maps’ and an associated over the next five years; and action plan every five years. n show how we intend to measure and report our progress against the targets we have set ourselves. We must review and, if necessary, revise our noise action plan at least every five years and whenever there is a major development at the airport which would affect the existing noise levels.

We recognise that for some people who live around the airport, noise is, and always will be, an important issue. We will continue to listen to, and work with, our neighbours.

5 3. Public consultation We prepared the noise action plan with help from our Consultative Committee, NATS (our air traffic control service provider), airlines and environmental health officers from surrounding boroughs.

We ran a public consultation programme Throughout the consultation period the consultation process from 1 July until 21 October 2009. featured on the home page of our website, and the draft We sent printed copies of the draft noise action plan could be downloaded from the website. action plan to over 400 people and Also, the plan featured in the local press. Articles and letters organisations (see appendix 1) and had were published in the following newspapers. copies in 194 libraries (see appendix 2). n Manchester Evening News (16 July 2009) We explained that our long-term n Knutsford Guardian (22 July 2009) objective is to limit and reduce, where n Biddulph Chronicle (23 July 2009) possible, the number of people affected n Congleton Chronicle (23 July 2009) by noise as a result of the airport’s n Sandbach Chronicle (23 July 2009) activities. We asked people to tell us n Stockport Times East (23 July 2009) whether they think the measures we currently take to manage noise are n Stockport Times West (24 July 2009) appropriate, and to tell us whether they n Stockport Express (9 September 2009) think that: n Stockport Times East (10 September 2009) n we should be taking further action n Stockport Express (30 September 2009) to control the effect of noise in areas We also sent 740 posters and 8500 leaflets to private affected by high levels of noise companies, as well as to voluntary, community and (69 decibels or more); faith organisations, to promote the consultation process n we should be taking further action to (see appendix 4). control noise from aircraft taking off We also advertised the consultation in our e-News and our or landing at the airport; and Wythenshawe e-News publications. n the noise action plan provides When we were preparing the draft plan we were aware that a suitable framework for managing discussions about measuring and managing noise can aircraft noise. involve technical issues and we tried to avoid using technical We also asked people to tell us why terms and jargon. During the consultation process we were they think further action is needed asked to consider also producing a version that could gain and what further action they would Plain English Campaign’s Crystal Mark to recognise that the like us to consider, and to give us any document was as clear as possible given the technical other comments or suggestions they nature of the document. The content of both versions had on the draft noise action plan was the same but the language used was different. (see appendix 3). The plain English version was published on our website. Throughout the consultation period, printed copies and copies on CD were available to anyone who asked for them.

6 We knew that some people would prefer to discuss the In total, 268 people visited the events. document with us in person, and we originally organised We also held events to brief the parish six events where members of the Environment and councils from Cheshire, Warrington Community Relations teams could answer any questions and Trafford (see appendix 5), and we that people had about the draft plan. The events were held held a meeting with local councilors at the following venues. from Wythenshawe. As well as this, Thursday 16th July 2009 Thursday 10th September 2009 we offered to brief councillors on the Bredbury Heald Green draft plan. St. Barnabas Parish Church Heald Green Methodist Church Our Environment and Community 12pm – 7pm 12pm – 7pm Relations teams were available throughout the consultation period and Thursday 23rd July 2009 Tuesday 15th September 2009 could be contacted either by email, Bowdon Mere phone (directly or on a freephone Bowdon Parish Centre Mere Parish Club number) or by letter. People could 12pm – 7pm 12pm – 7pm respond to the consultation document Tuesday 11th August 2009 Thursday 17th September 2009 by all of these methods or through Knutsford Wythenshawe a form on our website. Knutsford Library Forum Library As requested by Defra, this review of the 11am – 6pm 12pm – 7pm noise action plan has been carried out with our Airport Consultative Committee We also received suggestions that an event should be held in and our Environmental Health Officers Edgeley. As a result we held the following event at: Consultative Group

Monday 5 October 2009 Edgeley Edgeley Library 2pm – 7pm

7 4. Manchester Airport Manchester Airport is the third busiest airport in the UK and the largest outside the South East.

8 STOCKPORT

GATLEY CHEADLE ALTRINCHAM WYTHENSHAWE LYMM CHEADLE HULME BOWDON HALE HEALD GREEN HALE BARNS

BRAMHALL

STYAL

MERE

WILMSLOW

MOBBERLEY

KNUTSFORD ALDERLEY EDGE

PRESTBURY

The airport has three passenger million passengers travelling on around terminals, a cargo centre and aircraft 169,000 flights. maintenance area. It is one of only two The airport is developing as a significant airports in the country to have two part of the UK’s transport network. It is full-length runways. an important destination on the national Flights run to and from Manchester rail network, as well as being a major Airport 24 hours a day. destination for a range of bus and The airport is approximately 10 miles long-distance coach services. south-west of Manchester city centre A transport interchange known as and covers an area of 625 hectares. ‘The Station’ opened in 2003. Based It is surrounded by suburban housing to around the former rail station, it is where the east. The districts of Wythenshawe, bus, coach and rail services come Heald Green, Cheadle, Cheadle Hulme together in a high-quality facility located and Gatley are the closest. between the three passenger terminals. To the west of the airport there is mainly The Station is currently being expanded lightly-populated countryside, to include a forth platform and will be characterised by farming, with small linked to Manchester's Metrolink light populations. The villages rail network in 2016. of Mobberley and Ashley, and the The airport has always benefited from town of Knutsford, have the largest quick and convenient access by road, populations in the area. due to its central location and the direct To the south lies the village of Styal and link to the M56 and the rest of the the Quarry Bank Mill and Styal Estate national motorway network. (owned by the National Trust). The site In the 2003 White Paper, The Future of is a popular recreational and educational Air Transport, the Government recognised resource, receiving over a million the potential for the growth of the airport visitors each year. to generate ‘significant benefits for the The M56 motorway skirts the airport economy of the North of England’. boundary, with Hale and Hale Barns to However, the White Paper went on to the north. To the south are the towns of say that ‘stringent limits on the area Wilmslow and Alderley Edge. affected by aircraft noise’ would need to apply to the growth of the airport. In 2012, the airport handled almost 20

9 The Department for Transport made detailed forecasts of We will continue to measure our performance against other the future growth in air traffic at Manchester. In principle, airports and to contribute to the sustainable development of the Government supports the growth of the airport to make the air transport industry at a national, regional and local level. maximum use of the two runways. This is estimated to be We will also support and contribute to the noise-related 50 million passengers a year, and depends on us meeting commitments contained within the UK Sustainable environmental concerns. Aviation Strategy. It is widely recognised that the growth of the airport brings You can see more about our Master Plan and Environment huge benefits to the North West. But these benefits need to be and Community Plans on the Manchester Airport website at delivered in a way that reflects our commitment to sustainable manchesterairport.co.uk. development. We recognise that it is essential that we focus The Manchester agglomeration on environmental issues to avoid restricting the social and economic benefits that the growth of the airport brings. The Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006, as amended, use the term ‘agglomeration’ to refer to built-up In our Master Plan to 2030 we committed to a policy of areas that have a large population and are considered to be encouraging the use of the quietest types of aircraft and towns and cities. placing restrictions on using the noisier types. The supporting Environment and Community Plans set out our approach The Manchester agglomeration stretches from Rochdale in to managing aircraft noise and tackling its effect on the the north east to Altrincham and Alderley Edge in the south. local community. Manchester Airport sits close to the south-west tip of the agglomeration. Our aim is to ‘…limit and reduce where possible, the number of people affected by noise as a result of the airport’s operation and development’. We are committed to reducing the number of people affected by aircraft noise by routinely reviewing our noise-related targets and policies. We will also continue to support local communities affected by our work by further developing our community-relations programme and improvements to our mitigation schemes (see part 12 on page 42).

Our aim is to ‘…limit and reduce where possible, the number of people affected by noise as a result of the airport’s operation and development’. We are committed to keeping the number of people affected by aircraft noise to a minimum by routinely reviewing our noise-related targets and policies.

10 Manchester - first round Agglomeration The map below shows the area identified as the agglomeration.

11 5. Noise mapping What are noise maps? In the same way as geographical maps use contours to distinguish between high ground and low ground, noise maps use contours to identify those areas that are relatively louder or quieter.

Although noise maps can be used to Are the noise maps different from the Under the Environmental Noise provide information on noise levels and noise contour mapping seen previously? (England) Regulations 2006, as the number of people affected, their If you compare the noise maps with the amended, noise mapping is carried out main purpose is to help authorities noise contour maps previously produced every five years for an average day produce noise action plans designed for us or other UK airports, you may (January to December) for each of the to manage noise and reduce noise notice some significant differences. following periods. levels where appropriate. The noise maps in this document have n Lday – the level in the day, 7am to 7pm

How were the maps made? been prepared specifically to help us n Levening – the level in the evening, 7pm produce our noise action plan. Our noise maps have been produced to 11pm

by the Civil Aviation Authority, who Noise contour maps are produced n Lnight – the level at night, 11pm to 7am maintains the UK’s civil aircraft noise using aircraft movements for an n Lden – the level over 24 hours model known as ANCON. ANCON takes average summer’s day (mid-June to account of things such as the number mid-September), and it has been The L den figures are produced by and types of aircraft departing and custom to produce separate maps for combining those for L day , L evening and landing, where the aircraft are flying, only the 16-hour day (7am to 11pm) and Lnight . To take account of the fact that and the time of day or night, to estimate eight-hour night ( 11pm to 7am). The noise is considered to be more the noise on the ground around an contours are presented in terms of the disturbing at certain times of the day, airport. ‘A-weighted equivalent continuous before the L day , L evening and L night values noise level’ (L Aeq ). The A-weighting are combined to produce the L den level, is designed to represent the human a weighting of 5dB is added to the ear’s response to sound. evening values and 10dB is added to the night values.

12 As a result of these differences, Quiet areas the two sets of contours are not One of the priorities for authorities directly comparable. drawing up noise action plans is to We recognise that people respond protect identified ‘quiet areas’ within differently to noise, and this makes it agglomerations against an increase difficult to quantify the relationship in noise. between noise and annoyance. We expected the Secretary of State for However, for the purposes of this Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to noise action plan, aircraft noise is identify quiet areas before we produced considered to be affecting the first our action plan. However, Defra has round agglomeration if the noise decided on a new approach where mapping has indicated an L den value authorities identify quiet areas themselves of 55dB or more or an L night value when they are developing noise action of 50dB or more. plans for particular agglomerations. As a first priority, we should consider This more flexible approach will help any further measures which we could us to make sure that we put appropriate take in areas which noise maps show local policies into place to protect the have homes exposed to more than identified quiet areas against an

69dB L Aeq from 7am to 11pm. increase in noise.

13 6. Noise mapping – results Areas falling within the 2011 noise maps, which the Civil Aviation Authority produced to help us prepare this noise action plan, are summarised here. Lden contours 24 hours

The outermost L den value identified is the 55 L den Estimated area of contours, total number of homes contour. The 55 L den contour extends over and total number of people above various noise levels –Lden . 15 kilometres to the north east of the airport, beyond Stockport, as far as the Hyde and Denton area. To the Area of Number Number Noise level (dB) contour (km 2) of homes of people south west, the contour extends approximately six kilometres from the airport and includes north and 55 or more 57.5 33800 73400 central Knutsford and the village of Mobberley. To the south, the northerly edge of Styal village is included. 60 or more 21.3 8050 18900

The 60 L den contour extends as far as central 65 or more 8.2 900 2100 Stockport to the north east, and takes in parts of Cheadle, Cheadle Hulme, Heald Green and south 70 or more 3.2 Fewer than 50 Fewer than 100 Wythenshawe. To the south and west of the airport, 75 or more 1.5 00 the contour takes in the Shaw Heath area in Knutsford and parts of west Mobberley. Daytime (7am to 7pm) The 65 L den contour extends into areas of south Cheadle, Cheadle Hulme and Heald Green at its north Estimated area of contours, total number of homes eastern tip. To the south west, the contour includes and total number of people above various noise levels –Lday . mainly rural areas to the north of Mobberley village and south of Mobberley railway station. Area of Number Number Noise level (dB) contour (km 2) of homes of people Other than to the north east of the airport, where it 54 or more 50.7 24000 52500 extends as far as the more northerly parts of Heald Green, the 70 L den contour largely follows the 57 or more 28.6 11600 26500 boundary of the operational areas of the airport. 60 or more 15.7 2950 7100 The innermost 75 L den contour remains entirely within the perimeter of the airfield. 63 or more 8.9 950 2300

Lnight contours 66 or more 5.2 200 500

Of the L night contours, the outermost 50dB contour extends as far as the Shaw Heath area of Knutsford 69 or more 3.0 Fewer than 50 Fewer than 100 to the west. To the east, the contour extends as far as central Stockport.

The 55 L night contour reaches as far as Cheadle Hulme Evening (7pm to 11pm) to the east and to the west, it takes in the mainly rural areas north of Mobberley village. Estimated area of contours, total number of homes and total number of people above various noise levels –Levening . Much of the length of the 60 L night contour follows the boundary of the operational area of the airport, but stretches out as far as Heald Green, Cheadle Hulme Area of Number Number Noise level (dB) contour (km 2) of homes of people border to the east.

The 65 L night and 70 L night contours remain almost 54 or more 33.7 17000 37700 entirely within the airport boundary, just crossing into the Moss Nook area. 57 or more 18.8 6500 15400

We have sent our noise maps to Defra, who have 60 or more 10.5 1600 3800 estimated the population and number of homes exposed to noise above the various levels. 63 or more 6.0 500 1200 Defra have rounded the number of homes to the 66 or more 3.4 50 100 nearest 50, except when there are fewer than 50, in which case the total has been shown as ‘Fewer than 50’. 69 or more 2.0 Fewer than 50 Fewer than 100 Defra have rounded the number of people to the nearest 100, except when the population is less than 100, in which case the total number of people has been shown as ‘Fewer than 100’. Defra worked out the number of homes and the associated population using Ordnance Survey MasterMap Address Layer and information from the 201 1 Census, taking account of buildings that contain more than one home, such as apartment blocks.

15 )

1 6 .

B 6 3 0

8 e d f 1 l ( 2 0 0 )

a s 2 2 r i h 2

0 C e t

u 0 o b h

C 0 o s g n t i 1 N r o

G y ) n

r n b l d e e

E o . d o e s ( a b a n i d c r

a f e C t t t u e o m b

e r i d l v u d a t a n r D o t o

n l e r f e

a a n e n p N P o v r s e u d r e

i e c e e e r d d m

g n A L n s

m L t m e n r a c

i Noise h e o

t Noise level contours reproduced e l a L g o W E t R h s

i i r

g r contour (dB) from strategic noise maps. s y g

i l i ) s o l e g r e v y v A a d r h A N p ( 1 u c n o n

1 S S n

C a E 0 First round e a l 0 123km ©Crown Copyright n c 2

6 r h n r n C d a T

E r ( e ©

390000 380000 5 ! 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 3 3 0 ! 6 5 ! 6 0 ! 7 5 ! 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 8

3 3

390000 380000

16 )

1 6 .

B 6 3 0

e 8 d f 1 l ( 2 0 0 s )

a 2 i 2 r h 2

0 C e t

u 0 o b h

C 0 o s g n t i 1 N r o

G y )

r n b l d e e

E o . d o e s ( a b a n i d c r

a f e t C t t u e o m b

e r i d l v u d a t n a r D o t o

n l e r f e

a a e n y p P o v r s N e u d r a

i e c e e e r d d m

g n A L n s

m L t m n e r a c

i h e o Noise t e l a Noise level contours reproduced L o g t R W E h s

i i r r

g s y g from strategic noise maps. contour (dB) i i l ) s o l e g r e v y v A a d r h A N p ( 1 u n c o n 1

S S n

C a E 0

e a

l First round

n ©Crown Copyright

2 0 123km c

Daytime (7am to 7pm )–Lday contours a 6 h r n r n C d a T

E r ( e ©

390000 380000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 3 3 4 ! 5 7 ! 5 0 ! 6 3 ! 6 6 ! 6 9 ! 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 8

3 3

390000 380000

17 )

1 6 .

B 6 3 0

8 e d f 1 l ( 2 0 0 )

a s 2 2 r i h 2

0 C e t

u 0 o b h

C 0 o s g n t i 1 N r o

G y ) n

r n b l d e e

E o . d o e s ( a b a n i d c r

a f e C t t t u e o m b

e r i d l v u d g a t a n r D o t o

n l e r f n e

a N i n e p P o v r s e u d r n

i e c e e e e r d m

g n A v L n s

m t e m e n r a

Noise c

i h Noise level contours reproduced e o t e l a L W E L g o t R h s

i from strategic noise maps.

i contour (dB) r

g r s y g

i l i ) s o l e g r e v y v A a d r h A N p ( 1 u c n o n S 1 S n

C a E 0 First round ©Crown Copyright e a l

0 123km n c 2

agglomeration w n M 0

Evening (7pm to 11pm) –Levening contours o a

6 r h n r n C d a T

E r ( e ©

390000 380000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 3 3 9 ! 6 0 0 0 0 6 ! 0 0 6 0 0 8 8 3 3 3 ! 6 0 ! 6 7 ! 5 4

390000 380000

18 Night-time ( 11pm to 7am) Estimated area of contours, total number of homes

and total number of people above various noise levels – L night .

Area of Number Number Our policy continues to 2 be to encourage the use of Noise level (dB) contour (km ) of homes of people the quieter types of aircraft 48 or more 39.5 22100 48500 and limit the number of 51 or more 20.9 9250 21300 noisier aircraft. 54 or more 11.7 1950 4800

57 or more 6.8 650 1500

60 or more 4.0 50 100

63 or more 2.3 Fewer than 50 Fewer than 100

66 or more 1.5 00

16-hou rLAeq (7am to 11pm) Estimated area of contours, total number of homes

and total number of people above various noise levels – L Aeq , 16-hour .

Area of Number Number Noise level (dB) contour (km 2) of homes of people

54 or more 46.6 22250 48900

57 or more 26.3 10700 24600

60 or more 14.4 2600 6200

63 or more 8.2 850 2000

66 or more 4.8 150 400

69 or more 2.8 Fewer than 50 Fewer than 100

The Environmental Noise Directive also emphasises Estimated total number of non-residential noise-sensitive the need to protect non-residential buildings that buildings above various noise levels –LAeq , 16-hour . could be affected by noise (noise-sensitive buildings), such as schools and hospitals. We have identified Number Noise level (dB) of buildings the number of other noise-sensitive premises that lie within the various contours, including hospitals 55 or more 23 and schools. 60 or more 7

65 or more 2

70 or more 0

19 )

1 6 .

B 6 3 0

8 e d f 1 l ( 2 0 0 )

a s 2 2 r i h 2

0 C e t

u 0 o b h

C 0 o s g n t i 1 N r o

G y ) n

r n b l d e e

E o . d o e s ( a b a n i d c r

a f e C t t t u e o m b

e r i d l v u d a t a n r D o t o

t n l e r f e

a a n e p h P o v r s e u

d N r g

i e c e i e e r d m

g n n A L n s

m t m e n r a c L

i h e o t

e Noise l a L g o Noise level contours reproduced t R h s

i W E i r

g r s y g from strategic noise maps. i l i ) contour (dB) s o l e g r e v y v A a d r h A N p ( 1 u c n o n 1 S n

C S a E 0

e a l First round n c 2 0 123km ©Crown Copyright

Night-time ( 11pm to 7am) –Lnight contours 6 r h n r n C d a T

E r ( e ©

390000 380000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 3 3 6 ! 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 3 3 3 ! 6 0 ! 6 7 ! 5 4 ! 5 1 ! 5 8

390000 380000

20 )

1 6 .

B 6 3 0

8 e d f 1 l ( 2 0 0 )

a s 2 2 r i h 2

0 C e t

u 0 o b h

C 0 o s g n t i 1 N r o

G y ) n

r n b l d e e

E o . d o e s ( a b a n i d c r

a f e C t t t u e o m b

e r i d l v h u d a t a n r D o t o

6 n l e r f e

a a 1 n e p P o v r s N e u d r ,

i e c e e e r q d m

g n A e L n s

m t m e n r a A c

i h e o Noise t e l a Noise level contours reproduced L g o L t R W E h s

i i r

g r s y g from strategic noise maps. contour (dB) i l i ) s o l e g r e v y v A a d r h A N p ( 1 u c n o n 1

S S n

C a E 0

e a l

First round

n 0 123km ©Crown Copyright c 2

e g w n M 0

E r ( e ©

390000 380000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 3 3 9 ! 6 6 ! 6 3 ! 6 0 ! 6 7 ! 5 4

390000 380000

21 7. Relevant laws and policies The laws and policies that relate to controlling aircraft noise comes from international agreements, the European Union, national laws and local agreement.

22 n n n n I D I T U i b a T T i R T D t C r f M P o A w a T T t n n n C o a e h i i h h h h r h h a t r e n e o

o Difference in noise levels compared to chapter 3 standard (decibels) r i r d c k e s t r - - - - - r

-10

t o A O O L R p p e l i e o e e 5 4 3 2 6 2 3 e p p 1 o

s v i w n h o e t a s u a t n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 1 a O r

o o s r t e r e r u e p p n

9 n r s s I m I c i e n r e n e e i a c n r n C e p 6 r l r d s d g

u i e e t c h o o w s 0 c a t w t r d a v i t d t

r a o

r u A h

s r s e r r e i m a p e e l y c t e t t N c o u e l a a i -

a r

c i

. g i i

n O p n a r a i t n o a w u n t a r o n r s b

t t a n a r h n i T h u a

e t i i i t l n t n d n

s t g s

n r e e n o i l g

t i e e a t

p e n e e f h l s c t t g i e

d i s

a l a t t g n h o

r n o t e t h D d

d r

u e r . w t q

)

a d t e l r e a e

a i

n p a

n o r a C m t o t

m o r e m u ( t

l h e I i e t

s l f e ’ p R 9 o l n n g e n

C w

f b s n r h t a i l e e e p s -10 r

e e s o y i . p m i a

r t u a

a e d e m n s A a

n i

a n

b o r t t

r g l l r o n i l m i f

e o r n

a e i e e r e t d O

n o

o ‘ i r C r i i n f e t c s U t

n b c c n r i c a

n s

u g p e h a d n

’ t

i e

e r i a s

e t t d a r

m K a t o v h a w

e a t r g t y s a i d a d s i i

d o

l i h i i

l a n r f

f r

a a s l r n l c o e

s l c n n t t

y e n u c e i a t n t c t A o n t h

n a d r w

r o

o h 1 e g i e s r r

w o

r k w i n a 9 c u a v n c n

e s a 5 e i e

u o 7 P

s f B r f

e i r t d l

i s o f 0 0

a a d

t c e u t l a c

e b r i - t a r ‘ d a

n o p h e i 7 k t s . , a b

a o d d

s e e s i

0 i t t c 2

v d v p r i o t T c

a c a o i o u e e n

7 l e s e 0 e p e r u l i n c h - p e l i c

r n

g a

r a e C g l 2 r 0 r a t c s y b e o

t i d e p s e e h 0 w l h s s O n i o r

y e s f p a 0

e t u f a s d r e t

i c

t r i d r r a c t s o r i

p s n s m e

r h s

i u a o t o g e a e

t a k f

e a e i t g s

e t e a o m c

f f d a r n e s a t e s o a c r d

i i n l e

c t t n t

n c d c - ) n l l 2

h e

h a k h h o l

d a

o a o

i n t t h R

o a w ’ s c n p e e e w a

s i

t . f n , r i I i i m a i e f i

o e

C s r i p o t o s n A t i

r w a c y t g n v n a e w c r r o a

i A o n r

e r o o o k e u g o k o

M a r o r n a n i

n O r 1 a a

s n i d r t l . r o i i D 9 n u o a a a f r

s s

u l i f c

t 8 a

p l d f e - g n t d i t g (

e a w

n 0 i

8 m h I (

i s n s o r w a

d o C f m r e

n 0 o a

’ o o

m a o o r t i s ‘

n d

d i B i c r A t y a w n r r d a c s m i

s c s e s

i l c p t O i e n h c n d t e e 747

r r e o

e a o o a e e 2 a

p e u a g x

w ) r

s s c u n

s e a a 0 f

p f o s - ( d i t u a i t i a

n d N B 3 s t d m r v a

0 o t r i 0 r r s a o c t -

s e t i n o e e i 3 f t o

7 0 l s s p k

t o

u c

r h 5 y d i m a . t a u . o ’ e s l f o 7 n h e e . e i

a v r - e c r

i e d u e e 2 a t , a c i r i

s a 0 n r r d a r r n r

a . s t a t c s t s i i s g g . e o B f i i z t v h d e - n 1 ) e i 747 . 9 C l t 9 h 0 a - 4 p 0 t e 0 r n n n S a m c r s e M c p b A t E T F o e M

y o 3 t n o q h x h r l e i n

e r a p e a e r a n

p d t i w A M C a n i u c e v r c s n n t c c a n m o e d e e s o p s o

i i d a t o i t e p n a s r E y s

t d

l ) i s b t e m o a o r h e s m p p o

n u

y d , k u m n e u B c r c e e

n e n n , p t f

n e r r a d y

m c e r v - a f h c a e h d o n e e v e r d m

7 t t e

h i

4 i

i a n o o s a h

r i 7 s

t v n b t n k y n n s

v c r a t a o e i 7 r e p

u t p e u

o , c n

o t t e t i g s t a - c t d

p t e n r a , a n r t n s 2 t w m t t n o u o r h

t i

i t e e e

w e t o m i n e 0 t i

l t t a

t n i n m l

w n e

e o a e a r h o 0 a

2 a a f i r r n g

v n t n

i o 0 p e

e d r

f n r s y e l n t 4 r n n h n e e u v 3

e g o l i d n s

u g N 1 e

e 0

i h n s o m

o h

a s r p

h a : e t a u s

n 4

m e

a t o i o t e t f a t w v a r a c s e l r

a t i c u h

g a

a n d

n i r i v l i c r r n m

l n a o s

l d c h e e s e n i c y ‘ n d m

. m i N o n o d m l c f e n f

, r

e e s d o t a s o

n e

n a o i h e e e

f r o n e a r

d s , a p m D a u r e a o a s f e t

o v

; i i n o n m e t r o s b r a a p r s

l d .

n i i e A

m w

o a g t s r d b i

n e c

e f v e a i s 3 u l a d T s a e t

t n n l

e i

o a e 8 u . a f l s h i o o e n t l c t m c D h

i e f g d

n s a n i i v i p e r e e f r n f a n i l o s t e r

i r n a i

e n g o e i d e p r c

t s l

o e 2 e o n

v l f c e a b g o r d c t

b y n t

l o C n

i , 0 m e

n y w o f h c s p s l

h o a v i o h e l e t e d r i

c 1 l o , l e n a t n p ( i e l

o a a e r n o

v r r

i y n 2 o e m 7 i d . p i p v

t g o 2

r p s s r

n w e

t o v d 0 m t m t o e 0

e k i , t h n

e t e a e t w n l c 10 i

t e 0

e i s r n a

s e r r t m e o , t n a j r p h l

o o r 2 o

v h u , c v c 4 u r m

c g c w

a l s e r n e a /

s i r 3 e i d t h a s r e b a a h . 4

s i

i n i i l m

e s

i n i p r t o a s n n i r p e

n 9 a t t c h n o n t

c n e o r a p u g e

i / a g u w r

e o h r a m

u r

s E

l a t l n i r c c l

b a a t n r r h v a p o e n

r a f C s t y r h e a e c f e l v t g i v e e a o

p n i a . d t

c a r a m n o ) e o o , e c

d l i n e f l e c s

m . d p i t i s t p e f

o n e d

o a e ,

o i , y n t r a

n l o u d n o i i

l y

e e w a t m n

o p w n o i t i m

s n a C r ’ f r s 2

t d g s w h a i

i m m t h a h n o o e e e s 3

e 0

, o r i a e i e r

c c i d

e , f t ’ m u f e p s b 1 e a p o f r i . x u e 2 h

e t c e e t n c 3 e i a m r r 0 e p s r l ,

c u e

2 r i t h e f i

c . . i e t a o

n o t 0 h t a t v l 1 y n r a e a

i f n g s 4 f i e e p a v f s v t r

r e d u e b n

p l

e ( 2 y t g c r

a t e i e a 0 n i o t n n i s n n 0 g o d g

2 d g 6 , d 3 . . National The Environmental Noise (England) The Aviation Policy Framework National Planning Policy Framework Regulations 2006, as amended As part of its long-term plan for the The National Planning Policy Framework In October 2006, the Environmental future of the aviation industry, the UK sets out the Government’s planning Noise Directive was put into practice in Government’s overall policy on noise is policies for England and how it expects England through The Environmental to limit and where possible reduce the those policies to be applied by local Noise (England) Regulations 2006, as number of people in the UK significantly authorities amended. affected by aircraft noise. The framework says that when The regulations state that for the Some of the measures are as follows. considering planning applications for purpose of producing noise maps at n Promoting research into and developments that could be affected by ‘non-designated airports’ (including development of new low-noise noise and those which could generate Manchester), the airport operator is technologies. noise, authorities should aim to do the considered to be the competent following: n Recognising the ‘balanced approach’ authority. n (the regulatory framework for Prevent noise arising as a result of Noise maps for Manchester Airport controlling noise, as agreed by ICAO new developments from having a have been produced and the Secretary in 2001). major negative effect on people’s of State for Environment, Food and health and quality of; n Confirming that, apart from the Rural Affairs adopted these in 2007. n designated airports (Heathrow, Keep other negative effects which They can be found on the website at noise from new developments has on www.defra.gov.uk/noisemapping. Gatwick and Stansted), appropriate noise controls should be agreed people’s health and quality of life to a Under the regulations, we must locally. minimum; produce a noise action plan. n n Airports should consider using Recognise that developments will The Environmental Noise (England) differential landing charges to often create some noise and a Regulations 2006, as amended, say incentivise quieter aircraft. business, in order to grow, should not that the action plan must: have unreasonable restrictions placed Future Airspace Strategy for the United n upon it because of changes in land be drawn up for places near the Kingdom 2011 to 2030 (FAS) airport that fall within the 55 dB(A) use that have arisen since their In 2011, the Civil Aviation Authority business was established; Lden contour or the 50 dB(A) L night published its view of how UK airspace contour on noise maps; n Identify and protect tranquil areas should be modernised to further n which have remained relatively be designed to manage noise levels improve safety and efficiency. and effects, including reducing noise undisturbed by noise and are prized for if necessary; and The FAS vision is to establish: their recreational and amenity value for “Safe, efficient airspace, that has the this reason. n aim to protect quiet areas in agglomerations against an increase in capacity to meet reasonable demand, The Noise Policy Statement for England noise. balances the needs of all users and (NPSE) mitigates the impact of aviation on the The Civil Aviation Act 2006 The NPSE sets out the long-term vision environment.” of the Government’s noise policy. Under this act, each airport authority Their strategy has three main drivers: Noise policy’s vision promote good can establish a ‘noise control scheme’ safety, capacity and environment. which may limit the numbers or types of health and a good quality of life through aircraft that can be used in any given the effective management of noise period. It also gives airport authorities within the context of Government policy the power to introduce charges and on sustainable development. penalties designed to encourage the Noise policy’s aims use of quieter or less-polluting aircraft. n Through the effective management The Aerodromes (Noise Restrictions) and control of environmental, (Rules and Procedures) Regulations 2003 neighbour and neighbourhood noise These regulations were taken from EC within the context of Government Directive 2002/30/EC. The regulations policy on sustainable development: introduced the ‘balanced approach’ to n Avoid significant adverse impacts on managing aircraft noise. health and quality of life; n Mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life; n Where possible, contribute to the improvement of health and quality of life

24 Sustainable Aviation instance, it is often the complexity of airspace use that reduces Launched in 2005, Sustainable Aviation is a long-term strategy the ability to fly continuous descents and continuous climbs. for the UK aviation industry. It brings together airlines, airports, Planning policy manufacturers and air-traffic service providers. Its main aim is We work closely with local planning authorities when they are to make sure the industry can perform well over the long term. preparing their local development plans. This supports the It sets out a number of targets to reduce the environmental balanced approach and helps to make sure that local planning effects of UK aviation and makes a commitment to report policies in line with national guidance set out in the National progress. Planning Policy Framework. Such policies are included in the We have signed up to the strategy and will continue to play our Manchester Core Strategy 2012, the Stockport Core Strategy part in achieving its commitments, particularly those about 2011, and the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan 2013. controlling aircraft noise. The local authorities are currently preparing local development In 2013, Sustainable Aviation launched its’ Noise Road-Map. frameworks and we will work with them to make sure similar The Road-Map has been conceived around the four elements planning policies are included in those frameworks so that the of the ICAO’s ‘balanced approach’, adding communication and requirements in Planning Policy Guidance 24 (PPG24) continue community engagement to the key priniciples of: to be met. n Reducing noise at source Planning conditions n Planning and managing land use As a result of us getting planning permission for a second runway, a number of planning conditions were set. These n Operational procedures for reducing noise included strengthening some of the existing noise controls as n Operating restrictions well as introducing independent auditing and annual reporting. The Road-Map looks at how the aviation industry can manage We have also entered into a legal agreement (under S106 of aircraft noise between now and 2050. It also acts as a toolkit the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) that includes extra for airports to introduce measures to reduce the effect of noise noise controls and reporting obligations. Each year we prepare impact from aircraft operations. a report, for Manchester City Council and Cheshire East Council, on our performance in meeting the planning conditions. We also prepare an annual S106 report for Cheshire East Council. Local Planning applications Airport Master Plan The noise contours prepared each year are given to local After publishing its national policy for aviation in The 2003 planning authorities to help them consider planning applications Air Transport White Paper, the Government required airport for developments. operators to produce master plans which set out their approach to developing the airport. We monitor applications for developments in areas close to the airport and give the relevant local authority information on Planning authorities will take master plans into account noise issues and sound insulation where appropriate. when preparing regional and local policies and making planning decisions. Airport Consultative Committee Our 2007 master plan is supported by four detailed action The Manchester Airport Consultative plans covering community, ground transport, land use and Committee is made up of 33 members environment. representing local authorities, community In our 2007 Environment Plan, we set out a clear framework groups and user groups. It meets every three designed to guide our environmental policy and management months to consider progress reports on current up to 2030. In it we identify the main environmental issues community issues, including results of likely to influence the development of the airport and set environmental monitoring, analysis of short-, medium- and long-term targets and actions that community complaints, development form a part of our environmental programme. proposals, environmental management initiatives and traffic statistics. The 2013 Aviation Policy Framework repeats the requirement for master plans, their scope and how they are applied. We are The Committee has two sub-groups. currently reviewing our master plan in preparation for a n The Airport Users Advisory Group is consultation in early 2014. responsible for providing advice on matters Northern Terminal Control Area NTCA) involving running the terminal, passenger comfort and the facilities and services A product of the Future Airspace Strategy, the NTCA project offered to passengers. will modernise and simplify airspace across the north of England providing significant environmental, safety and service n The Technical Advisory Group concentrates on improvements. looking at ground transport, environmental controls and policy, airline performance By simplifying structures and procedures that have evolved and work on the airfield. over many years, this process has the potential to greatly improve the noise performance of aircraft operations. For

25 8. Noise controls When setting out its aim to ‘limit and where possible reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise’, the Government stated that a number of measures would be needed to achieve what was recognised as a ‘challenging objective ’.

“The partnership between Manchester Airport, the Airlines and National Air Traffic Services to improve aircraft environmental performance is now a European model. Manchester Airport’s long-standing relationship with the local community in developing its environmental mitigation efforts is also widely emulated now. I like to think of this inclusive and holistic approach as the ‘Manchester way’.” Alan Melrose Eurocontrol

26 The measures the Government identified included: The Government recognises that a fair balance has to n promoting research into and developing new low-noise be struck between local disturbance, the limits of social technologies; acceptability and the economic benefit. n introducing the ICAO regulatory framework or ‘balanced Our current noise controls include over 50 measures approach’; designed to reduce the effect that aircraft noise has on surrounding communities. n putting the Environmental Noise Directive into force; Many of our noise-control measures are judged against n keeping the current regulations on noise at the three limits which are fixed by either the planning conditions set London airports, and considering applying these to for the second runway or in the S106 Agreement of the other airports where local controls are not being Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or are compared effective; and against performance in 20 01. n supporting the increased use of financial incentives We will continue to compare performance against a rolling and penalties at airports where there is still a significant average of the previous five years’ results. So, as noise issue. improvements are made, the resulting target At Manchester Airport we have a track record of for the following year will become more challenging. developing policies and taking action to reduce our effect Using a five-year rolling average allows any unusual results on the environment. in a particular year to be evened out. We will produce an Our long-term aim relating to noise is to ‘limit and reduce annual performance report and publish it on our website. where possible the number of people affected by noise as We believe that our noise controls are working to meet the a result of the airport’s operation and development’. Government’s aim to limit and where possible reduce the We believe that we need to continue to work closely with number of people in the UK significantly affected by our airlines and our air traffic service provider (NATS) so aircraft noise. Our performance against individual targets that we can effectively influence behaviour and provide is set out in the following pages. But another way of real and lasting benefit. deciding whether we are meeting the Government’s aim is For example, Eurocontrol's draft specification for CEM to look at the number of people who live within the noise implementation has highlighted the work of our contour areas. For example, in 2005 there were 32,550 Collaborative Environmental group, which has been people living within the 57 L Aeq noise contour (average running for almost 4 years, as a good model. summer 24-hour period). By 2012 this number had fallen to 22,700 because the area of the 57 L Aeq noise contour In developing our environmental objectives we have made had reduced. sure we have adopted a balanced approach, as required by the ICAO regulatory framework. In future we will also report our performance against the new L den measurements. We last consulted on our Environmental Objectives in 2009, when we were preparing our noise action plan. Number of people who live within the 57 L Aeq We have taken into consideration the Government’s noise contour (average summer 24-hour period) position as stated in the Air Transport White Paper that growth in capacity at Manchester must be accompanied 35 by ‘every effort…to secure the maximum possible

) 30 s reduction in noise levels and to minimise the number of d n a people potentially affected…’ and that the airport ‘… s 25 u o h should be subject to stringent limits on the area affected t ( 20 e l

by aircraft noise, with the objective of incentivising airlines p o e 15 to introduce the quietest suitable aircraft as quickly as p

f o

is reasonably practicable’. r

e 10 b m u

N 5

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Our environmental objectives are to: n make sure that aircraft noise does not go above the levels recorded during 2001/2002 (the year the second runway opened); n encourage the use of quieter aircraft; and n meet any noise-reduction objectives that are introduced from time to time.

27 9. Departing aircraft Although improved engine design has dramatically reduced the level of noise generated by aircraft immediately after take-off, noise on departure can still be a major source of disturbance to our neighbouring communities.

28 L a s n R p c l r p p p T P p i r a T a y f o f KE o n l l o o e y i e i o n i i o h h f o o o e e N e g r r k d w

u u Y: s a w c d

n i d o e r r l p s f e h s R t i i t t o f t l e r c c r s c

r p e e i u o e

e t s n n o a u a s ‘ s m a y i s e p c l l s r m o b

u e f e u a ,

f t g r t w m

n t t h , f

a f f o l o l m

t T r o

i h p

e f y o t a n c a n r a e

e o n

a u r r u C

t . o t l i

b g

s n d o r

a w l f y

u n r r t c re L Target t h r o e T

s c o

e a

e d o t i

w r c b o s o c o a a p w e s P h r e s c n r

e e n e u a r v r a h i a t

o i ’ s N k s b i o d k e s h

n c e f t r i w a r i

o ’ u ( r t r l

i n r a f R e e l t P ) g o

e n r l

t e o

e l

n . i a i a d s e f

p r t n p n s

m g N f a n l l

n y P , r l i d t i a a c

e d e e g

e r t

t R u e w w N u o e r

i f r s r i r e h a

r U r r v t e m

f s s f

c u , p e i o R h p i a o t t l k e t

n a , ) y K s o e r a

o h

m e b . r a

n s

d s g

i v o

m C s r

i n P

r n r f e . Knut o r G e e

o t v

f g

a e m o r N t I a s w u d r t o s u e n l o

h imit

i r y v l m , n o r r i

o R r o r r M a o n

v e g

t e e c L

2 c t sford f i v h w u f e r a m a

s ymm

m e o

n r

r f e a 0 e n d e w e

re a s i

e i c t r (

n s i

u n 1 n p c r e

. f t a t h l d e . d n

t u t h m m o g 2 p o n c W ‘ g i

e e

u s p a m a o n

t r a o e a e n b e o j

m o t l t e r u p t i r s n o i a b .

e s n s e u n r t i s e

t b o n n u s e f e t a r r s r t e r

, g l e t r l o r

t n a o y e 3 r

l d o t r t f t

% Mobberley h e e h o f i d

e f s a

‘On track’ departures 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 B i d t o P s c W c C E C N W t w p t a % % % % % % % % d h h h i o o g t e e n N y A o o g e e e a e e h e m n a p r

v n n n

n P R y 2

e c w i s i p h w a 2004 s s i r t

n m r

0 1 e ' f c u o i 5 a r r i

u u s i f i s l : n c 1 r t e l a l y n l % v u

l l l e u t t

‘

a t t t t v 5

n c i e

m o n n o a a a s r t n t n i 2005 Altrincham

h e

h o i o f t t t o w g

g d a t e t f s r i i

e n e i u t v v

- f e p

n i e e n e e n

c f t

t t

e e s m

p -

l r s h a r t i

e o o t i a n o

w t 2006 a a v . i o e v f C G

r i o a f n u i c e l i s c a

i t

v f k o n l n o p r H

e e e r e k l c r e o c .

e s f u m u a d

n ’

c Alderle e k T f

t h 2007 b u W

y a - g b d t o a u a c a

m a p e t i d e l a e r l e r

n u e r l

i n c n . t r e l a e c a i l

p y

r h y t

p g o e m w s T r p r

c 2008 b t

t s e c e Wilmslow e e f

m o y Ed O k a h e i a i i r . n l t h e s r t u t

l r r n n s f p f

d t u

a o f o a t o c a e

l d u i T a 0920 2009

e y r t n c ge u l f f r o n f e o s r

p o m i e g g t n e o e t u d o s

h r a r s e l h s o n

l o a m

s e t d

r Chea s t c .

h o n c t h t

o a I u b h e h f w b 1 c a n e

l 0 n r e o e e

P l r e

e i t f s i t

n dle r

n u - A T s h u 20 e o i i e R d a g t Chea o i s

v 1 u f r Hul e l N 1 i e u s p e t r r s

t e A r o o t T 20 me , o V r dle f 1 t 2 A T t D D W w p A n a o W f t t t A h I t t T N f o o o h o h o r

v a e h l c n u u A e t s w u r e o e

e o r i v t e k b t t

s r r o P

f s

h s p f h

r e e o i i i o

e f h

e 2 e l n ,

n n t s e a u i e 2 r e t

l r g

t 0 e a h d n P n d O g g u F m

m i

t t : a

e r P p p h v o

s s o M u e e r 0 o o f r

u ‘ l b n e S f t t i e o p e a

t c i e

r s - 6 t

p f h h n n o i a s d a l tock e t a h e n

n n n

e h n e f r

a R h a e e e l d

r n f

a ,

w l t t c a Bram i

Macclesf W w a

a t t r

r o

S r e

c u t o

o s t c o w e i s v d n t t r l ( t o a w n r k r r d h u d t port

h g h

e r e y a i o n w a i i s f e a

t i g m e e e

a s o e s r e n e e

c e f f y t

t e

hall i r

s l s h

e p t t

o r w g N s

i l o t t p k

e E d g

P e l m p

- . h

t p t u

a ’

r N

i h

a s h

c m e o e c N

l a o £ - m b e a s l f ield y a t r h r

t h r i v 5

t £ l r R e d

u u

s r e v t a p i a i o A e s a P s l 0 o

7 t p

r o i r s e k a t a r e

i f n r h c i 0 n

3 5 t s h g g

n . r e

g t t s m h f e t e h

p h t h 0 8 a r i

e a W o o p e

e n e i s a d a f s o t

e t )

t n

o p w

a d n . a , p

r . e a w e a r

p t

r g C l e n t e t n o t o e

a W v n

a l t o o i f e r

c y y u a

n i y h y o a r w y b

w e

i f

i r

t d e l a f s o i f p i a a e p a r

i l

l a i l s

t u a a l o s m

l i b i e

p A h

s l i l n : p r o t i r t d l u n n l n e u r e s e v e e

m e o e o w r u a t

a i

r , n . e r a t k n p c

c l c u o l h o t w t t t e a l h e i e l n d i i i e e

y c e d o l e k a e d i t u a

s t h s

n i e f r d y a e c s . a

g e i s t e e 2 s i n e l p 9 d . Sometimes, for instance as a result of In consultation with the airport’s The level of noise generated by each bad weather, air traffic control may Environmental Health Officers aircraft as it departs is measured at a cancel the need for an aircraft to follow Consultative Group, we will continue number of fixed points around the airport. a PNR. Such a departure is described to routinely review our runway usage Beneath each PNR, noise monitors are as being ‘non-standard’. We understand to identify possible opportunities for positioned at a standard distance after that because non-standard departures using just one runway. take-off. The levels recorded at these can result in aircraft flying over more Following the most recent review, points are used to set our noise densely populated areas, they can be runway 2 will be closed between 10.30am performance indicators and policies. particularly disturbing. For this reason and 4pm, and from 8pm to 6.30am, To encourage departing aircraft to be we keep the number of this type of Monday to Friday. At weekends, as well flown in the quietest possible way, for departure to a minimum. as closing runway 2 at night, we will flights that generate noise levels above NAP3: non-standard departures also close it between 10.30am on published limits we issue the airline with We have an annual limit of no more than Saturday and 4pm on Sunday. a financial penalty known as a noise 5% non-standard departures. The Airport will do its best to keep the surcharge. The level of the noise surcharge depends on the level of the noise. The number of non-standard departures use of both runways at the same time to will also be compared against the a minimum. The maximum level of noise a departing average of the totals for the previous NAP5: using only one runway aircraft is allowed to make depends five years. Each year we will review opportunities on the time of day – the night-time limits to use just runway 1, within operational are lower because we recognise that and safety requirements. noise can bother people more at night. 5% Limit We will donate any surcharges to the Manchester Airport Community Trust

s 4%

e Fund (see NAP38). r u t r a

p We will review our noise surcharge

e 3% d

d every year, in consultation with The r a d Technical Advisory Group and the n 2% a t s

- Environmental Health Officers n T o T T

N T Consultative Group 1% T T NAP6: departure noise surcharge 0 The penalty for going over the daytime 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 maximum noise level of 90dB(A) is currently £750 plus £ 150 for each Departing aircraft normally take off into decibel above that level. the wind. However, if there are clear benefits to departing in a particular direction, a limited amount of wind from 80 behind may be acceptable. By specifying our preferred runway direction 70 ) y s 60 a as westerly (that is, aircraft approaching e g d

r – a to land from the east and taking off to

h 50 e c g r r u

the west) we can further reduce the a s h 40 f c r o

number of departing aircraft flying over u r s e 30 b more densely populated areas to the e s i m u o N north and east of the airport. N 20 (

NAP4: preferred runway direction 10

Where conditions allow, we prefer aircraft 0

to take off in a westerly direction. 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

100% Departure noise levels, recorded over a 90% full summer or winter season, are n 80% o i t ranked in descending order. An average c 70% e r i of the 10% noisiest or 100 noisiest are d 60% y a used as an extra performance indicator, w 50% n u to support the more customary noise r 40% d e contours. We are committed to making r r

e 30% f sure that these levels stay lower than e r P 20% those recorded in 20 01. 10%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

KEY: T Target Limit 30 NAP7: 24-hour noisiest 10% In 2007, there were 1855 flights using marginally compliant The average level of noise of the chapter 3 aircraft. This compares with 3052 in 2006. 10% noisiest departures will remain lower than that in 200 1, By 2012 the total number of flights by marginally compliant and will also be compared against the average level over the chapter 3 aircraft was 20 previous five years. NAP9: marginally compliant chapter 3 and chapter 4

87 We will make sure that the number of flights by marginally Limit compliant chapter 3 aircraft remains no greater than that 86 ) ) A

( in 2007. B

d 85

( T Starting in 2014, we will report the number of flights by chapter % 0

1 84 T

t 4 aircraft. s e i T s i 83 In the Aviation Policy Framework, the Government has o T n r encouraged the use of landing charges, as one of a range of u T o 82 T h options for reducing noise and has asked the CAA to 4 2 81 investigate the use of these charges.

80 We already have a system of runway charges, which offer

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 airlines incentives to use the quietest types of aircraft at certain times of day. NAP8: daytime noisiest 100 However, the mix of aircraft operating at any airport is The average level of noise for the constantly changing. For this reason we must continue to 100 noisiest departures between develop our charging systems so they respond to that change 7am and 11pm will remain lower than that in 200 1, and will also and continue to encourage the use of the quieter types of be compared against the average level over the previous five aircraft rather than older, noisier aircraft. years.

93 Limit t 35 r n e a i l m 92 p m 30 m u T o s

) c

– T 91 s

y ) 0 l ) l T 0 25 A a 1 ( ( n

90 i B t f g d r ( a

T r a 20 0 c

m Limit 0

89 r

1 T

y a t

b s

T 3 15

e s

88 r i t e s h i t g o p i l n a

f 10 87

h f e c o m

i r t e

y 86 5 b a m D 85 u N 0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

93 Limit r

e NAP 10: noise-related runway charge t 92 n i

w T Guided by the CAA's report, we will consider introducing

–

91 ) ) T noise-related charges A (

B 90 T d ( T In looking to the future, the potentially conflicting requirements 0 0

1 89 T relating to noise, local air quality and climate change make the t

s T e i 88 approach adopted by the Sustainable Aviation initiative all the s i o

n more relevant. We will continue to play an active part in that

e 87 m

i group’s work, t

y 86 a

D Locally, through the Collaborative Environmental Management 85 process, we will continue to work to identify and introduce 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 more efficient departure procedures including the possibility of using ‘precision departure procedures’ (P-RNAV) and The use of relatively small numbers of noisier types of aircraft ‘continuous climb departures’ (CCD). can have a significant effect on our performance indicators for noise. Often, it is these aircraft which also cause the most NAP 11: departures code of practice disturbance for our local communities. We will look at the best practice guidance contained in the In our 2007 Environment Plan we made an ongoing Sustainable Aviation Departures Code of Practice and commitment to keep the number of flights of noisier aircraft examine how this might be rolled-out at Manchester. We will (known as ‘marginally compliant chapter 3 aircraft’) lower than report our performance in achieving this. in 2006.

KEY: T Target Limit 31 10. Arriving aircraft Historically, noise from aircraft landing has not been as big a problem to local communities as the noise from aircraft taking off. However, the improved technologies that have significantly reduced noise levels on departure have delivered relatively small benefits to the level of noise when an aircraft approaches touchdown, making it an area of growing concern.

Unlike take-off, where the bulk of the By 2015 we will undertake formal trials noise is produced by the engines, when to identify the potential benefits of P- an aircraft is on approach, engine noise RNAV arrivals procedures and the and ‘airframe’ contribute equally to the performance benefits they can deliver. noise level. Airframe noise comes mainly NAP 12: low-power/low-drag from the aircraft’s undercarriage and Aircraft approaching the airport are wings and is proportionate to the aircraft’s expected to keep noise disturbance to a speed as it passes through the air. minimum by using a low-power/low- Low-power/low-drag is a technique drag procedure. designed to keep airframe noise on approach to a minimum by making sure that the landing flaps are extended and the aircraft’s undercarriage is lowered as Noise sources late as possible. This reduces drag and means that less engine power is needed to compensate for that drag. As a result, noise is considerably Trailing edge flaps reduced, both in terms of level and time.

All aircraft approaching Manchester Leading edge slats Airport are expected to use low- and flaps power/low-drag procedures. Nacelles and Through the Collaborative intake air spillage Environmental Management process, we will try to identify opportunities for reducing noise by specifying the best point at which the aircraft's landing flaps should be used and the undercarriage lowered. We will also consider having improved navigational performance (P-RNAV) used on

arrivals, with the intention of introducing Undercarriage, the procedure if it would lead to doors and wheelbays noise benefits.

32 Concept description of continuous descent approach Lower power settings from higher altitude. No level-off segment.

Continuous descent approach

Conventional approach

Continuous descent approach (CDA) is a technique designed to further reduce noise levels from landing aircraft. Typically, aircraft land by reducing their altitude in a series of steps towards an airport. For each of these steps there needs to be a noisy burst of engine thrust to level out the aircraft after it has moved to a lower level. With CDA, air traffic controllers give pilots accurate information on the distance to touchdown so they can work out the best possible continuous rate of descent. This means that the aircraft stays as high as possible for longer and reduces the need for periods of engine thrust to keep the aircraft level. NAP 13: continuous descent approach All aircraft approaching the airport between 10pm and 6am are expected to use continuous descent procedures. In line with commitments made in the Sustainable Aviation Noise Road Map, we will work with our service partners to improve CDA at Manchester.

Unlike take-off, where the bulk of the noise is produced by the engines, when an aircraft is on approach, engine noise and ‘airframe’ contribute equally.

33 As at most major airports, aircraft making their final approach into Manchester are guided by an instrument landing system (ILS). The ILS gives precise information about the position of the aircraft in relation to the runway. Using ILS means that aircraft follow a very narrow approach path at an angle of 3 °. We will continue to work with our Sustainable Aviation partners to evaluate the possible introduction of steeper approaches at UK airports including Manchester. To reduce noise disturbance from aircraft using the ILS, aircraft must not descend below 2000 feet before joining the glide path. NAP 14 – ILS approach Aircraft using the instrument landing system must not descend below 2000 feet before joining the glide path.

The instrument landing system ILS localiser aerial

Glide path

Vertical radio beacons ILS glide path aerial

Extended runway centre line (ground level)

34 If a pilot chooses to approach the Aircraft engines can produce huge amounts of thrust. airfield without help from ILS or radar Thrust is used to fly the aircraft in the air and to taxi the (that is, to make a ‘visual approach’), aircraft when it is on the ground. the aircraft must follow a descent path With all of an aircraft’s engines running, even at very low which will not result in it being lower power settings, the thrust produced is often more than than the approach path it would have enough to move the aircraft along the ground. followed using the ILS glide path. Because of this ‘surplus’ of power, in the right conditions NAP 15: visual approaches an engine can be turned off while the aircraft is taxiing to When aircraft are approaching to land and from the runway. Some airlines already do this at from the east, jet aircraft must not join Manchester, and this has benefits both to local noise and the final approach at a height of less air quality. than 1500 feet. Through our work with our Sustainable Aviation partners Similarly, propeller aircraft whose and through our own Collaborative Environmental maximum take-off weight is more than Management group, we will try to develop best practice 5700 kg must not join the final approach for reduced-engine taxiing (that is, turning an engine at a distance of less than three nautical off when taxiing). miles from the landing point or at a height of less than 1000 feet. NAP 17: reduced-engine taxiing By 2 014 we will develop a framework for more consistent One of the ways to slow an aircraft use of reduced-engine taxiing. down immediately after landing is by using ‘reverse thrust’. This is where the For a period of time immediately before take-off and shortly thrust from the engines is directed after landing, an aircraft may still need electrical power to forwards to produce a braking action. maintain onboard systems and provide ventilation to the Although the brakes of modern aircraft cabin. To maintain that power while the main engines are are far more efficient than they once turned off, most modern jet aircraft are fitted with an were, reverse thrust may still be needed auxiliary power unit (APU). and can cause a noise disturbance to The APU is a small engine. Like all engines, an APU can communities close to the airfield. To try be noisy, affect air quality and contribute to climate change. to keep the disturbance to a minimum, An alternative to using APUs is to use fixed electrical ground we discourage the use of reverse thrust, power points (FEGPs). FEGPs provide mains electricity to particularly at night. power an aircraft’s systems and are available on most of NAP 16: reverse thrust braking our aircraft stands. To keep noise disturbance to a We are gradually upgrading our FEGPs to make sure they minimum in areas next to the airport, are compatible with the latest types of aircraft. Where we pilots should avoid using reverse thrust have completed this work, we intend to restrict the use after landing. of auxiliary power units. NAP 18: APU use By 20 15 we will introduce restrictions on the non-essential use of auxiliary power units.

Aircraft using the instrument landing system must not descend below 2000 feet before joining the glide path.

35 11. Night noise Night-time noise is often the most disturbing. So it is important that our controls for night noise clearly demonstrate a balance between the economic and social benefits that the airport brings and a person’s right to get a good night’s sleep.

Our 2012 night noise policy states that aircraft noise at night will not go above the levels we recorded in 2001.

2386 We will review our night noise policy every five years to make sure it continues to be relevant.

We last consulted you on night noise in 2011, when we cut the size of NAP2 1: night period noisiest 100 our QC point noise budget and tightened our night noise surcharges. The average level of noise of the noisiest 100 departures between 11 pm and 7am will be compared against an average NAP 19: night noise policy of the previous five years’ results. We will review our night noise policy every five years to make sure it continues to be relevant. The next review will take place in 2016. At this time we will examine the length of the night period, limits on seasonal

movements, QC points budgets (see page 38) and working r 86 e

restrictions. m m

u 85 s

Limit –

Our 2012 night noise policy states that aircraft noise at night will not go ) ) 84

A T (

above the levels we recorded in 200 1. B d

( 83

0 T

NAP20: night-time noise contour area 0 1

82 T t

s T e

The area of the night-time 60 L Aeq i s i 81 T o

noise contour will be compared n

d 80 o

against an average of the previous i r e p

five years’ results. 79 t h g i

N 78

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 8 Limit ) 2 m k T (

r 86 Limit

7 T e a t e n r T i a 85

w r – u

) o ) t 6 T 84 A n

T ( o B c

( T e T 83 s T 0 i

5 0 o 1 n

t 82

e T s e m i i s t T i - T t 4 o 81

h T n g i d o N

i 80 r e

3 p

t 79 h g

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 i

N 78

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

LAeq represents the average sound level over a given period of time, NAP22: night-time noisiest 100 in this case the eight hours between 11pm and 7am. The average level of noise of the noisiest 100 departures Often it can be a relatively small number between 11.30pm and 6am will be compared against an of noisy aircraft which cause the most disturbance. So, we will also average of the previous five years’ results. make sure that the average sound level of the 100 noisiest night-time departures remains below the level in 200 1. Limit 86

) 85 ) A (

B 84 d ( T 0 0

1 83 T t

s T T e i

s 82 i T o n

e 81 T m i t -

t 80 h g i

N 79

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 KEY: T Target Limit 37 We will also make sure that the An essential part of our night-period noise controls is a system of classifying aircraft surcharge we apply on aircraft going according to their ‘quota count’. above our maximum night-time noise The system gives each aircraft a ‘quota count’ depending on the noise they generate levels continues to be set at a lower on take-off and when landing (based on the noise levels measured at the time that noise level than that during the day. We aircraft was first introduced). will donate all money from these surcharges to the Manchester Airport There are seven categories of quota count and these double with each increase of Community Trust Fund (see NAP38). three decibels. Aircraft are given a quota count (QC) as follows. NAP23: night noise surcharge The limit we set on the total number of QC points for all aircraft taking off or landing The noise level at which we apply a between 11.30pm and 6am depends on the season. In principle, for any season the surcharge will continue to be lower total number of QC points allowed (the noise budget) could be used for a small number during the night period ( 11pm to 7am). of noisy aircraft or a larger number of quieter aircraft. As part of the most recent review of our Our night noise policy has fixed the QC limit until the end of the 2017 summer season. night noise policy we introduced the NAP24: Seasonal QC point noise budget concept of ‘core’ night period (11.30pm to Summer 7000 points 6am) and ‘shoulder’ night period (11pm to Winter 3000 points 11.30pm and 6am to 7am).

The penalty for going over the core night 10 10 period's noise level of 81dB(A) is £750 plus r 9 9 r e

Limit e t m

£150 for each decibel above that level. n i

m 8 8 w u

s –

– ) 7 7 s The penalty for going over the shoulder ) s 0 0 0 0 night-period's noise level of 82dB(A) is 6 0 6 1 0 ( 1

(

d d £750 plus £150 for each decibel above 5 e 5 s e s u

u s that level.

4 t 4 s Limit t n i n i o o 3 p 3

C C Q 2 Q 2

35 1 1 t 2011 2012 h 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

g 30 i n

) – s

e e 25 g g r r We have also placed restrictions on the use of aircraft with higher quota counts. a a h h c c r

r 20 Aircraft with quota counts of QC 8 or QC 16 are not allowed to land or take off u u s s

e between 11pm and 7am. Also, aircraft that have a quota count of QC 4 when taking o s

i 15 r o e

n off may not be scheduled to depart between 11.30pm and 6am. b e m r

u 10 u t N ( r However, there are a number of exceptions where QC 8 and a p e 5 QC 16 aircraft can be used, and where departures of aircraft with a quota count of D

0 QC 4 can be scheduled.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 These exceptions are as follows.

n Non-scheduled movements during emergency situations

n Non-scheduled movements as a result of major disruption to air traffic Certified noise level Quota (decibels) count n Non-scheduled movements where significant distress may be caused to humans and animals More than 101.9 QC16 n Relief flights where there is an urgent need 99 to 101.9 QC8 n Military and support aircraft at a time of war

96 to 98.9 QC4 n Aircraft of royal families and aircraft carrying heads of state

93 to 95.9 QC 2 We report any departure or arrival that takes place as a result of these exceptions to the Airport Consultative Committee. However, to date none 90 to 92.9 QC1 of these exceptions have applied. 87 to 89.9 QC0.5 NAP25: ban on QC 16 and QC8 Aircraft with a quota count of QC 8 or QC 16 must not 84 to 86.9 QC0.25 take off or land between 11pm and 7am. Less than 84 None NAP26: ban on scheduling the take-off of aircraft with a quota count of QC4 Aircraft with a quota count of QC 4 cannot be scheduled to take off between 11.30pm and 6am.

38 Boeing 747-200 QC8 on take-off, Q C4 when landing. Passengers 458

Airbus A380 QC2 on take-off, Q C0.5 when landing. Passengers 489

Boeing 757-200 QC0.5 on take-off, Q C0.25 when landing. Passengers 235

BAe 146-200 QC0.25 on take-off, Q C0.25 when landing. Passengers 84

39 Quota counts give us a framework that encourages the increased use of quieter types of aircraft. However, we realise that there is an equally important need to limit the number of night flights in general. To work with the QC points budgets, we have set seasonal and overall limits for the number of night flights allowed up to the end of the 2017 summer season. NAP27: Seasonal limit on night flights summer 10150 flights winter 3895 flights

10 Limit 10 r r e

9 e 9 t m n i m u 8 w 8

s )

) s s 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 1 ( 1

(

6 s 6 t s t n n e e

5 m 5 m e e v v o o 4 4 m Limit

m l

l a a n

n 3 3 o o s s a a e

e 2 2 S S 1 1

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

As part of the Second Runway Section 106 agreement, we have to make sure that the number of flights which take place at night, remains proportionate to the number of flights throughout the day. NAP28: Night-flight limit No more than 7% of total flights can be scheduled to take off or land between 11.30pm and 6am.

40 Engine testing cannot be carried out outside the engine-test bay between 10pm and 6am on weekdays and between 10pm and 7.30am on Saturdays and Sundays.

At night-time, when people are most Aircraft maintenance is an important part of the work that goes on at the airport. sensitive to aircraft noise, we understand After maintenance work has been carried out, engines are often tested before the that aircraft that seem to be used aircraft is used. To limit the effect the engine testing has on local residents, outside the normal pattern can be a we have built a specially-designed engine-test bay. In 2012, a total off 411 engine cause of concern. To help to reduce tests took place. One of these was at night. that, we have a ban on non-standard Engine testing on the open airfield only takes place as an exception, when the departures between 11pm and 7am, direction of the wind prevents the use of the engine-test bay. Testing outside the bay and do not allow visual approaches to is not allowed at night, and testing within the bay is strictly controlled during the the airfield between 11pm and 6am. night-time. All aircraft arriving between 10pm and 6am are expected to use continuous NAP32: Engine testing at night descent procedures. Engine testing is not allowed outside the engine test bay between 10pm and 6am NAP29: Night-time non-standard on weekdays, and between 10pm and 7.30am on Saturdays and Sundays. departures The number of engine tests carried out at night will be limited to 20 in any year. Non-standard departures are not 20 normally allowed during the night. ) Limit s t s 18 e t

NAP30: Visual approaches f o

16 r Visual approaches are not allowed e b 14 m between 11pm and 6am. u n

( 12

t h

g 10 NAP31: Night-time continuous descent i n

t approach a 8

g n

i 6 Between 10pm and 6am, all landing t s e t aircraft should follow continuous 4 e n i 2 descent procedures. g n E 0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

41 12. Mitigation schemes The Aviation Policy Framework comments that "The acceptability of any growth in aviation depends to a large extent on the industry tackling its noise impact".

The Government expects the mitigation schemes We have offered a sound insulation grant scheme adopted by UK airports to continue to be strengthened since 1972. by including a number of extra measures. We continue to offer those living close to the airport a

Accordingly, for properties within the 69 L Aeq16-hour contribution towards the cost of insulating their home (daytime) noise contour, we offer a ‘property relocation against aircraft noise. assistance scheme’ that pays a significant proportion of In 2012 we reviewed our sound insulation grant scheme the cost of moving house. It is designed to help residents to make sure that it continued to meet government in the noisiest areas to move to a quieter area. requirements. In April 2012 we published a new scheme. Introduced in 2005, the scheme is available The new scheme is based on the existing scheme’s to approximately 200 properties, mainly in the ‘inner zone’, but extended where necessary to reflect Heald Green and Wythenshawe areas. the area of the 2010 63 LAeq 16 hrs noise contour. The entitlements of the scheme have stayed the same. NAP33: home relocation assistance scheme We will continue to help homeowners in the noisiest Some other buildings affected by noise (noise-sensitive areas to move to a quieter area. buildings), such as schools and hospitals, may be able to get grants towards sound insulation. Several grants In line with government recommendations, we will have already been made, including those to St Ann’s continue to review properties suffering from high levels Hospice, Knutsford Methodist Church (community rooms), of noise (69 dB L Aeq ), and if there has been a large Knutsford Sure Start Centre, and Prospect Vale School. increase in noise (3 dB L Aeq ), consider offering to buy these properties. NAP35: sound insulation grant scheme We will continue to run a scheme that helps people with NAP34: property purchase the cost of insulating their homes against the effects of We will continue to consider offering to buy aircraft noise. properties suffering from the highest noise levels and a large increase in noise. We will review the scheme every 5 years, to make sure that it is still appropriate and relevant. The next review will take place in 2017.

NAP36: noise-sensitive buildings We will consider offering sound insulation to

noise-sensitive buildings within the 63 L Aeq noise contour. If you would like more information or would like to discuss any of the schemes in more detail, phone the Community Relations Team on 08000 967 967, email [email protected] or visit our website at manchesterairport.co.uk

When an aircraft travels through the We will continue to donate all the money air it causes air turbulence behind it. we raise as a result of our environmental This turbulence can lead to circulating penalties to the Manchester Airport currents of air known as vortexes. Community Trust Fund. The fund is a registered charity. It awards grants to Most vortexes are broken up before local groups to support community, they reach the ground, but sometimes – social or environmental projects. The particularly in the final stages of landing trust concentrates on the areas most – they can reach roof level, causing affected by aircraft. Each year we tiles to lift or slip. We have identified donate £100,000 to the fund. The areas where roofs are most likely to donations we have made so far be damaged as a result of vortexes. amount to about £2.8 million. When it is confirmed that vortexes have damaged a roof, we will NAP38: Community Trust Fund immediately repair the roof and give We will continue to donate all the it a vortex-resistant roof covering. money we raise as a result of our In some areas properties may be eligible environmental penalties to the for re-roofing. Manchester Airport Community NAP37: vortex-damage repair scheme Trust Fund. We will continue to provide a vortex-damage repair scheme to repair roofs that have been damaged by vortexes caused by aircraft.

43 13. Monitoring and reporting on our progress At Manchester Airport we have been monitoring and reporting noise levels in the surrounding area for over 40 years.

We will continue to develop our ability to monitor and report on aircraft noise and we are committed to improving the ways in which we share that information with others. 44 Noise monitor locations

Over that time our monitoring systems and the ways in We will continue to develop our ability to monitor and which we use them have developed tremendously. As we report on aircraft noise and we are committed to improving review and develop our noise control policies, we also the ways in which we share that information with others. need to monitor and report on how effective our NAP40: develop our monitoring system procedures are. We will make sure that our monitoring systems are A system of ours called MANTIS monitors and reports on suitable, relevant and effective. noise from aircraft, and checks and records the path of We will upgrade MANTIS, our monitoring system, to allow every aircraft within 30 kilometres of the airport, up to a us to be more effective in sharing noise-related height of 12,000 feet. It will, for instance, automatically tell information by 2 014. us when aircraft have gone above noise limits, strayed from our preferred noise routes or not followed a MANTIS also plays an important role in helping to guide continuous descent approach. our discussions with the local community. MANTIS currently supports a network of 14 noise monitors. The results of our monitoring are independently checked However, those noise monitors are mainly in the areas and then reported to the Manchester Airport Consultative immediately around the airport. This means that we have Committee (MACC). This helps the committee to monitor not had enough information to give us a clear picture of the effectiveness of our policies. Members of the the noise people living further away from the airport are Environmental Health Officers Consultative Group also exposed to, and it less effectively reflects their concerns. have access to noise information for monitoring purposes. For this reason we will review the number and location NAP39: guaranteed access of our monitors. We will give the Manchester Airport Consultative Committee and Environmental Health Officers NAP41: locations of noise monitors Consultative Group access to our monitoring systems . Along with the Consultative Committee and the Environmental Health Officers Consultative Group, We have found that effectively sharing information on our we will review and, where necessary, expand our network performance is vital to the success of many of our initiatives of noise monitors. Three new monitoring stations will be in to manage noise. To help us share information we have place by 20 15. developed a web-based resource where we make performance information available to airlines and pilots.

45 Our main performance indicators, which we will continue to report on each year throughout the period covered by this action plan will be: n The area and population within the 57 L Aeq and 60 L Aeq daytime noise contours (average summer day) n The area and population contained within the 48 L Aeq and 60 L Aeq night-time noise contours (average summer day) n The number of the noisier ‘marginally compliant’ chapter 3 aircraft that have been used during the year.

Each year we will report on the area and population contained Many of our noise-control measures are judged against limits

within our daytime 57 L Aeq and 60 L Aeq noise contours and our which are fixed by either the planning conditions set for the

night-time 48 L Aeq and 60 L Aeq noise contours. second runway or in the S106 Agreement of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or are compared against NAP42: daytime noise contour performance in 20 01. Each year we will report on the area and population contained

within our daytime 60 L Aeq aircraft noise contour. We propose that in future, we will compare performance against a rolling average of the previous five years’ results. The area of the daytime 60 L Aeq noise contour will remain So, as improvements are made, the resulting target for the smaller than that in 20 01. The area of the contour following year will become more challenging. Using a five-year will also be compared against an average of the previous rolling average allows any unusual results in a particular year five years’ results. to be evened out. We will produce an annual performance

Limit report and publish it on our website. 25 NAP43: night-time noise contour ) 24 2

m T k

( 23 T Each year we will report on the area and population contained

e T

r 22 within our night-time 60 L Aeq contour. a

u 21

o The area of the night-time 60 L Aeq noise contour will remain t n T o 20 smaller than that in 20 01. The area of the contour c

s 19 T i will also be compared against an average of the previous o n 18 five years’ results.

e T m i

t 17 y a

D 16 8 Limit ) 15 2 m

k T ( 7 T 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 a e

r T a

r u o

t 6 T

n T o c

e T s i 5 o n

e m i t -

t 4 h g i N

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

KEY: T Target Limit 46 It is increasingly accepted that using We will continue to publish details of the location, number

LAeq or L den noise contours are not easily and nature of the noise-related complaints that we receive understood by non-experts. To help and we’ll report them through the Airport Consultative people understand the noise climate Committee and the Environmental Health Officers around our airport, from 2 014 we will Consultative Group. We will use this information to help us start to publish ‘Number Above’ contour develop our policies on managing noise and maps showing the number of times communicating with local people. aircraft noise was louder than a Each month we will report levels of noise on take-off and given level. the number of flights straying from our preferred noise We will also publish our first flight-path routes through the Consultative Committee. We will work maps. These will show the number of with the Consultative Committee and the Environmental flights into and out of the airport and Health Officers Consultative Group to make sure those where they flew. They allow people to reports remain appropriate and relevant. see which areas are flown over and how NAP45: noise complaints frequently this could be expected to We will continue to regularly report on the complaints we happen. receive and how effectively we respond to them. NAP44: extra metrics NAP46: average noise levels By 20 14 we will start to publish extra noise indicators including ‘number Each month we will report the average noise levels on above’ contours and ‘flight-path’ maps. take-off, giving figures for 24 hours, daytime only and night-time only.

NAP47: performance in following preferred noise routes We will continue to routinely report on the level of take- offs keeping to our preferred noise routes.

47 14. Effective communication We try to be a good neighbour and we recognise our responsibilities to the local community.

We are committed to staying in touch We talk to our neighbours to share with our community through ‘outreach’ information and help us develop our centres that visit the towns and villages polices. We regularly meet councilors around us. By giving people the chance from city, borough, town and parish to meet us we can greatly improve our councils. The councillors can pass on understanding of any issues that they the concerns of residents and may have and gather accurate recommend ways for us to help the information. people they represent. NAP48: Community Relations Team NAP50: community representatives We will keep in touch with local people We will report details of our progress so that we can act on their comments against the targets we have set ourselves. and continue to respond to community We will do this through regular meetings concerns. with local community representatives.

NAP49: outreach centres We will continue to run our community outreach centres in communities around the airport.

Alongside the regular outreach centre held at Knutsford library, we aim to provide at least 10 other outreach events each year. Every January we will publish our programme of outreach events for the coming year on our website.

In 2011 we responded to all complaints about aircraft noise within the timescale we set ourselves.

48 We believe that we can respond to many of the noise In 2011 we responded to all complaints complaints that we receive by giving people a better about aircraft noise within the timescale insight into the way we work – what we do and we set ourselves. why we do it. NAP52: responding to complaints We are particularly proud of our record in making We respond to 95% of noise complaints information about how we operate available to our local within five working days. community and customers. We have added to our online video resources with a new clip showing how we Complaints about aircraft noise provide investigate complaints. We became the first UK airport to valuable information that helps us to launch an iBook; called "A Flying Visit to Manchester work with airlines, air traffic control and Airport". The iBook describes the Airports' history and pilots to keep disturbance to a minimum operations with a combination of film and text. There are and encourage the highest standards some great 360 images from "behind the scenes" and of work. Each month we give our other wizardry that helps explain our operations and how Airport Consultative Committee and the airport is run. We plan to improve the iBook with more Environmental Health Officers content for 2014. Consultative Group reports on the types of noise complaints we have received The ‘Community’ area on our website provides useful and where from. background information on many of the more common issues. It also lets people make a complaint online. NAP53: Environmental Health Officers NAP51: complaints and enquiries Consultative Group We will continue to offer a range of ways for people to We will continue to routinely work make enquiries or complaints about aircraft noise. with local authorities, through the Environmental Health Officers Contact details for our Community Relations Team are Consultative Group, to develop as follows. and report on policies. Community Relations Department Olympic House Manchester Airport M90 1QX Freephone: 0800 0 967 967 Email: [email protected] Website: manchesterairport.co.uk/communitylinks

49 15. Noise complaints Knowing people’s concerns about the airport is important to us. By studying the complaints we receive, and gathering information from our surrounding communities, we believe that we have a good understanding of the noise issues that affect our neighbours.

During the Second Runway Public Inquiry in 1994 /1995, and procedure for handling persistent complainants. The after the runway opened in 200 1, there was a sharp rise in the procedure has been approved by our Consultative Committee number of complaints we received. By 2003 the number of and is available online at msanchesterairport.co.uk. complaints we received had returned to the level we had seen In 2006 most of our complainants lived to the west of the before the Second Runway Public Inquiry. airport in Knutsford, Mobberley and Mere (which lie within the During 2012 our Community Relations Team handled fewer 55Lden contour). By 2011, although 34% of compaints still than 1000 complaints. came from Knutsford, Mobberley and Mere, only 26% of In 2011 (the year that the information used to produce the complainants lived in these areas. 18% of compaints came noise maps was collected) a total of 838 complaints were from people living to the east of the airport (Heald Green, made by 329 people. The number of complaints received Cheadle, Cheadle Hulme and Stockport), but 21% of the from each person ranged from 1 to 98. complainants lived in these areas. Complaints can easily be influences by a small number of Knutsford is mainly affected by landing aircraft when the people. In 2013 one person made 727 complaints in just 45 runway is being used in an eastern direction (that is, when the days. There had been no change to our operations to account aircraft approaches from the west). Departing aircraft follow for these complaints and the complainant had lived beneath the preferred noise routes, which are designed to avoid flying our flight path for many years. For this reason, we have a over Knutsford. However, depending on the route taken, departing aircraft may fly over Mere or Mobberley.

Total number of complaints

) 11 s 0

0 10 0 1 (

9 s t n

i 8 a l

p 7 m

o 6 c

f o

5 r e

b 4 m

u 3 n

a 2 t o

T 1 0

199 2 199 3 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 199 9 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

50 In total we have seven noise monitors The residents of Heald Green, Cheadle, 4% of complainants live in covering departures and landings to and Gatley and Cheadle Hulme are affected Wythenshawe. We are looking to put a from the west. These allow us to provide by aircraft taking off in an easterly new monitor in place in the relevant information on noise to the direction and aircraft approaching to Wythenshawe area and would like residents of Knutsford, Mobberley and land from the east. Those residents suggestions for where one could be Mere. The residents of Knutsford and accounted for 17% of complainants placed, particularly in Woodhouse Park. Mobberley may be able to claim in 2006. Noise monitors give good Residents from parts of Woodhouse a sound insulation grant. coverage to provide relevant noise Park may be able to claim a sound 7% of complainants live in Bowdon, information for Cheadle, Cheadle Hulme insulation grant. and Gatley . We will place a new monitor Hale and Hale Barns. These areas are We received other complaints from as in Heald Green. mainly affected by departing aircraft far away as Oldham to the north, the leaving the preferred noise route when Because we prefer aircraft to land from Wirral to the west, Buxton to the east they reach the height at which they are the east, most of the noise affecting and Sandbach to the south. allowed to do so (the release height). these communities is from aircraft on We believe that increasing the release the final stage of landing. Residents in height on this preferred noise route to these communities may be able to 5000 feet, so departing aircraft would claim a sound insulation grant. be at least 1000 feet higher than they Aircraft taking off in an easterly direction currently are before they fly over any following the southerly preferred noise built-up area, could benefit the residents route flying over Bramhall and parts of living in this area. We have received Wilmslow. In 2011, 2% of complainants some support for this proposal, so lived in Bramhall. They accounted for during the Northern Terminal Control 2% of the complaints we received. Area review we will explore the potential Likewise, parts of Wilmslow (for example, of making this change. Handforth) are affected by departing We are also conscious that our network aircraft following the preferred noise of noise monitors does not serve route and 7% of complainants lived in Bowdon and we welcome suggestions the Wilmslow area. on where we could place a noise monitor.

51 16. Consultation responses The Environmental Health Officers Consultative Group have reviewed all of the responses we received. They have also agreed the actions we have taken to change the commitments in our noise action plan in light of the responses we received.

2582 question varied depending on whether a person had already been in contact with our Community Relations Team (only 25% of this group thought that the action plan was a suitable framework) or whether they were contacting the First round consultation airport for the first time (nearly 55% We received responses from 71 people of this group thought that the action and organisations (see appendix 6). plan was as suitable framework). A total of 53 people and organisations Of the organisations that responded, responded using the questionnaire. 60% thought that the action plan was This allowed us to evaluate the a suitable framework to manage responses to three specific questions. aircraft noise. We asked people to tell us their views About 70% of the responses came on whether they think the measure that from people or organisations outside we currently take to manage noise are the 50 L night or 55 L den contours. appropriate and to tell us whether they And 44% of responses came from think that: communities or organisations in n we should be taking further communities to the east of the airport. action to control the effect of noise Those who responded thought that in areas with high levels of noise we should be taking further action to (69 decibels or more); control noise from aircraft taking off n we should be taking further action to and landing at the airport. Sheets control noise from aircraft taking off 1 to 8 show the comments and or landing at the airport; and suggestions we received and where they were sent from. n the noise action plan provides a suitable framework for managing The Environmental Health Officers aircraft noise. Consultative Group have reviewed all of the responses we received. They An analysis of the responses to these have also agreed the actions we have questions is given in appendix 7. taken to change the commitments The responses to the specific questions in our noise action plan in light of the varied depending on whether the person responses we received. had already been in contact with our Community Relations team, was Second round review contacting us for the first time, or was As recommended by the Government, responding on behalf of an organisation. we presented our revised Noise Action Plan to our Airport Consultative We did not receive any responses from Committee. We also discussed our people living in areas affected by high proposed changes with the levels of noise (69 decibels or more). Environmental Health Offices' Overall, nearly half of those who Consultative Group. responded to the consultation Sheet 9 sets out the comments and thought that the noise action plan was suggestions we received, our responses a suitable framework for managing and the actions we will take. aircraft noise. The response to this

53 Sheet No. 1 Departing aircraft Responses

Our response and the actions we will take We have already committed to reviewing the release heights A number of people have also suggested (heights at which aircraft can leave our PNRs) to see if that our daytime noise limit should be changes could bring significant benefits to local communities. set at the same level as our night-time But we have also received comments suggesting that our limit. Our daytime limit will be 90dB(A) review should also consider: from summer 2 010, which will make sure n the width of the PNRs; that we keep one of the strictest noise limits of any airport in the country. n other restrictions that are currently placed on the use of PNRs; and We also received suggestions that the surcharge for going over the noise limits n the benefits of using improved navigational or flying off track should be increased. performance (PRNAV). To put the surcharges into perspective, In light of these comments, we will widen our review to an Airbus A320 going over the noise consider all of these factors to see if changes could bring limit by two decibels would result significant noise benefits to local communities. in a charge of £ 1050, which is equal Currently, 98% of aircraft taking off from Manchester follow the to a 270% surcharge on the landing fee. preferred noise routes. However, a number of people consider A number of people have suggested that departing aircraft fly off track for no good reason. We have that only the quietest aircraft should changed the noise action plan to show what would be be allowed. We already have a system classified as flying off track. Also, as part of the upgrade of the of runway charges, which offer noise monitoring system we will introduce a tool to allow flight airlines incentives to use the quietest paths to be looked at over the internet. types of aircraft and a commitment that the number of flights by marginally complaint chapter 3 aircraft remains 54 no greater than the number of 200 7. Altrincham – no comments low height creates the majority of the noise; ‘Reduce your threshold for fines and Ashton-Under-Lyne – no comments arriving aircraft do not create the noise in encourage pilots to throttle back when Bollington – no comments this area The proposed noise action plan safely airborne and safety allows.’ Bowdon – two comments fails to give sufficient consideration to Middleton – no comments disturbance experienced by people living ‘Increase the release height to 5000 feet Middlewich – no comments on DE S1R/Y preferred noise route to under LI S1S preferred noise route.’ prevent aircraft flying over Bowdon. ‘Re-establishing the HON4S preferred Mobberley – no comments Increase the release height further for noise route configuration is both Nether Alderley – two comments noiser aircraft. Increase the release height technically feasible and would deliver the ‘Nether Alderley Parish Council supports from 4000 feet to 5000 feet on DE S1R/Y environmental benefits required to make the drive to ensure that aircraft keep to preferred noise route.’ a compelling case.’ preferred noise routes.’ ‘Publish a list of airlines that do not comply Congleton – no comments ‘Make it complusory to adhere to the with track keeping targets.’ Denton – no comments preferred noise routes.’ Bramhall – one comment ‘Higher release heights on preferred noise Edgeley – no comments ‘The use of not just quieter aircraft but routes might take noise away from the quietest aircraft should be actively Goostrey – one comment neighbouring areas.’ encouraged and the most stringent penalties ‘Greater penalties imposed on planes ‘To hasten the operation and introduction should be implemented to drive this change arbitrarily flying off track.’ of much quieter aircraft and ban the noisier with improving ratchets downwards as Hale – no comments ones as soon as possible.’ improving technology permits.’ Northwich – one comment Bredbury – one comment Hale Barns – no comments ‘The surcharges identified in the plan are Hazel Grove – no comments ‘Reduction in the number of so-called preferred noise routes.’ exceedingly small sums when compared Heald Green – five comments with the operating costs of aircraft. ‘Significant reduction in the number ‘The width of the preferred noise routes Surcharges should be set at a level of aircraft movements.’ should be reduced.’ sufficient to deter further infractions and Oldham – one comment the money used to reduce the national ‘Define what is meant by persistent in terms of off track surcharges.’ ‘Support for the review of the preferred debt. For noisy or repeatedly errant aircraft noise routes.’ this could include additional suspended ‘Frequency of flight paths over Heald Green Peover – no comments levies on future flights by a given aircraft to be evened out with Knutsford, Mere or operator. Routing of all flights over less and Altrincham.’ Plumley – no comments populated areas east and west of the ‘Stop planes not just warning them about Poynton – no comments airport should be considered.’ leaving the flight path.’ Prestbury – no comments Chadderton – no comments ‘Increase fines to aircraft that leave the Sale – no comments Cheadle – two comments flight path even for first time offenders.’ ‘Aircraft flying off track and too low; ‘No flight path appears to be followed.’ Salford – no comments higher fines for off track aircraft.’ ‘Aircraft come and go, as they appear Sandbach – no comments ‘Why not alter the flight paths now and to choose.’ Stockport – two comments again so that aircraft noise can be shared?’ ‘The minimum height and distance from the ‘In 2007 only 2% of aircraft flew off track, Cheadle Heath – one comment airport should be increased before turning yet the target is for 95% of aircraft to keep ‘Landing fees to include a noise element.’ is allowed.’ within the preferred noise route. It appears Cheadle Hulme – eight comments High Legh – one comment that the target therefore could be more ‘Encouraged that you are looking to ‘Increasing the release height of the stringent and this could be reviewed.’ review your noise related runway charge DE S1R/Y to 5000 feet would help to prevent ‘A greater use of the three different to introduce an enhanced version in 2 010.’ the over flying of High Legh’s centre.’ departure patterns to share the burden.’ ‘Consider making your penalties for Holmes Chapel – no comments Styal – no comments operators who fail to keep within some of your requirements e.g. preferred noise Hyde – one comment Wilmslow – no comments routes, slightly higher to encourage ‘Require all aircraft to follow the correct Wythenshawe – one comment complete compliance.’ path at the correct height.’ ‘Level of noise over Wythenshawe ‘Excessive noise on take-off over Knutsford – two comments and Heald Green is still too high. Change Cheadle Hulme.’ ‘Narrow the flight path corridor to avoid the of route or use of low noise aircraft ‘Noise levels are severe at times and planes whole of the built up area of Knutsford.’ made compulsory.’ taking off towards the west do not always ‘Only quieter types of aircraft to be allowed ‘There are persistent off track offenders fly directly out of the airport in the direction at Manchester.’ who need to be punished more heavily.’ of Stockport, many planes turn south and ‘Major penalties for off track aircraft.’ Other – four comments a very large number appear to fly at low ‘Noise charges should be cost related and level (sometimes very low indeed) directly ‘You could impose significant fees adhere to ICAO policies; only cover the over my house. The problem has been on the less quiet aircraft through cost of noise alleviation or prevention aggravated since the construction landing/taking off fees.’ measure; not prevent efficient use of the new runway, both because of the Lymm – no comments of existing aircraft capacity; only be levied increase in traffic and planes are now Macclesfield – no comments at airport experiencing significant noise closer to my property.’ Manchester – no comments problems; be accompanied by land use ‘If planes were to fly directly out to the Marple – no comments planning measures to restrict residential west the residents in this area would see and other noise sensitive developments Mere – two comments a considerable improvement.’ around airports.’ ‘The daytime noise limit should be reduced ‘Westerly departure noise should be spread ‘Concerned about flight paths over the to 83 decibels.’ more evenly across area affected.’ Peak District and urge you to restrict flights ‘Reduce daytime noise particularly take off.’ ‘Even distribution using the Listo and Honiley over the Peak District when planning ‘Maintain the southward flight path so that routes would balance the noise more evenly.’ preferred noise routes for the future.’ aircraft are not allowed to turn as quickly ‘Listo should be opened up for larger ‘Consider the use of P-RNAV procedures as they sometimes do. This is especially aircraft from the quieter end of Chapter 3.’ for departures.’ noisy when heavily laden freight aircraft ‘Chapter 3 aircraft which are noisy should ‘Include more details in the action plan are departing.’ be banned.’ on the 2 010 review of the design of ‘Do not allow aircraft to deviate ‘We do not agree with increasing the the preferred noise routes and their on departure.’ release altitude to 5000 feet on the routes associated release heights.’ ‘Departing aircraft appear to make more mentioned. Current levels give some ‘Clarify what is meant by persistent noise affecting Cheadle Hulme when there flexibility to spread noise across areas in terms of off track surcharges.’ are north winds. The aircraft turning at a affected.’ 55 Sheet No. 2 Arriving aircraft Responses

Our response and the actions we will take A number of people have suggested investigating opportunities for reducing noise by stating the best point for an aircraft’s landing flaps to be used and the undercarriage to be lowered. We will work with airlines to investigate this and identify possible noise benefits. Having steeper approaches has also been suggested as a way of reducing noise. Sustainable Aviation is currently looking into this. If the results of the investigation show that noise benefits can be gained, we will work through our Collaborative Environmental Management Group to identify the suitability and benefits of steeper approaches at Manchester. We will also investigate the effect using improved navigational performance (P-RNAV) will have on noise from aircraft landing at Manchester. We will introduce the procedure if the benefits can be shown.

56 Altrincham – no comments Macclesfield – no comments Ashton-Under-Lyne – no comments Manchester – no comments Bollington – no comments Marple – no comments Bowdon – no comments Mere – no comments Bramhall – no comments Middleton – no comments Bredbury – no comments Middlewich – no comments Chadderton – no comments Mobberley – no comments Cheadle – no comments Nether Alderley – no comments Cheadle Heath – no comments Northwich – no comments Cheadle Hulme – one comment Oldham – no comments ‘Unacceptable noise from aircraft arriving Peover – no comments over Cheadle Hulme.’ Plumley – no comments Congleton – no comments Poynton – no comments Denton – one comment ‘Could wheels be lowered later?’ Prestbury – no comments ‘Some aircraft are lower than others Sale – no comments on approach.’ Salford – no comments Edgeley – two comments Sandbach – no comments ‘Adjust the landing path from the east so that all flights go north of Edgeley and Stockport – two comments they are flying over non residential land.’ ‘Penalties for CDA non compliance.’ ‘Could arriving aircraft follow the motorway ‘The stepped flight path needs to be to reduce the noise for residents?’ enforced to ensure that aircraft are higher when over Stockport Town centre.’ Goostrey – no comments Styal – no comments Hale – no comments Wilmslow – no comments Hale Barns – no comments Wythenshawe – no comments Hazel Grove – no comments Other – three comments Heald Green – no comments ‘The noise action plan should provide High Legh – no comments a clearer explanation of CDA. Nowhere Holmes Chapel – no comments is it mentioned that CDA is typically achieved using a glide path of 3 degrees, Hyde – one comment nor does the action plan state what glide ‘Consider speed restrictions on approach path Manchester International Airport for noisy aircraft.’ considers as having achieved CDA.’ ‘Consider adjusting the flight path to take ‘Consider the use of steeper approaches it over Haughton Vale.’ (for suitable aircraft types).’ ‘Explore the possibility of a steeper CDA ‘Consider the use of P-RNAV procedures glide path. Surely in these days of high for arrivals.’ technology 3 degrees is now outdated.’ ‘Investigate the variability of the point at which aircraft deploy undercarriage Knutsford – no comments and landing flaps with a view to the Lymm – no comments standardisation and optimising noise benefits.’

57 Sheet No. 3 Runway use Responses

Our response and the actions we will take By specifying our preferred runway direction as westerly (that is, aircraft approaching to land from the east and taking off to the west) we can further reduce the number of departing aircraft flying over more densely-populated areas to the north and east of the airport. This procedure is supported by the Manchester Airport Consultative Committee. Two of those responding to the consultation (both to the east of the airport) have suggested increasing the number of aircraft taking off towards the east and landing from the west. This would significantly increase the noise suffered by densely-populated areas both to the east and west of the airport. For aircraft flying below 7000 feet, our priority is to keep the disturbance caused by noise to a minimum. This means working to keep the population we fly over to a minimum. It also means using the smallest number of routes, avoiding town centres where possible and concentrating flights along flight paths rather than spreading them out. And where possible, we should avoid aircraft flying over areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks.

58 Altrincham – no comments Peover – no comments Ashton-Under-Lyne – no comments Plumley – one comment Bollington – no comments ‘Greater use of Runway 1 (70%).’ Bowdon – no comments Poynton – no comments Bramhall – no comments Prestbury – no comments Bredbury – no comments Sale – no comments Chadderton – no comments Salford – no comments Cheadle – no comments Sandbach – no comments Cheadle Heath – no comments Stockport – one comment ‘The flight paths need to be changed Cheadle Hulme – no comments to avoid Stockport Town centre.’ Congleton – no comments Styal – no comments Denton – no comments Wilmslow – no comments Edgeley – one comment Wythenshawe – no comments ‘Increase the number of aircraft taking off from the west towards Edgeley.’ Other – three comments ‘Increase the climb gradient of aircraft ‘We urge Manchester Airport to pursue departing to the east.’ the recommendation of the Transport select Committee that the noise levels Goostrey – no comments and number of flights permitted over National Parks and other sensitive areas Hale – no comments should be restricted.’ Hale Barns – no comments ‘Support the continued use of the system Hazel Grove – no comments of preferred westerly runway usage and incorporate an agreed tailwind component. Heald Green – two comments ‘Preferred runway direction definition include the 5 knot tailwind component.’ ‘Sharing arrival and departure volume with southwest areas that are more rural and have more flight path options.’ High Legh – no comments Holmes Chapel – no comments Hyde – no comments Knutsford – no comments Lymm – no comments Macclesfield – no comments Manchester – no comments Marple – no comments Mere – no comments Middleton – no comments Middlewich – no comments Mobberley – no comments Nether Alderley – no comments Northwich – no comments Oldham – no comments

59 Sheet No. 4 Night noise Responses

Our response and the actions we will take Many of those who responded thought that we should be introducing more measures to control the effect of noise at night. Comments received ranged from suggesting that the airport should close at night through to extending the period during which night-time restrictions apply. We last reviewed our night-noise policy in 2007, and it is currently one of the strictest of any airport in the country. We will review the policy again during 2 011. The review will consider the following. n The night period. This currently runs fro m11pm to 7am and we have received a number of comments suggesting that this should start earlier in the evening. n Operating restrictions. We currently restrict the use of QC8 and Q C16 aircraft at night and do not allow QC4 aircraft to be scheduled to depart during the night period. n Night movement limits and noise budget. We have summer and winter limits and noise budgets at night. These are set within the S106 agreement and include exclusions for flights such as movements during emergency situations. n Night noise surcharge. This is currently 83dB(A) the strictest of any airport in the UK.

60 Altrincham – no comments Heald Green – one comment Oldham – no comments Ashton-Under-Lyne – no comments ‘There does not appear to be provision Peover – no comments to restrict the night-time usage when Bollington – no comments runway 2 is in use particularly with regard Plumley – one comment to aircraft types.’ Bowdon – no comments ‘All night flights to stop at midnight.’ High Legh – no comments Bramhall – two comments Poynton – no comments ‘Reduce noise on all night-time flights.’ Holmes Chapel – no comments Prestbury – no comments ‘Stop the very noisy engined aircraft Hyde – no comments Sale – no comments from taking off at night.’ Knutsford – one comment Salford – no comments ‘The seasonal unused QC quota ‘Night over flights are more noticeable and causes concern.’ Sandbach – no comments cause more inconvenience. Keep night Bredbury – one comment flights to a minimum over communities.’ Stockport – three comments ‘Seasonal QC point budgets are Lymm – no comments ‘There is a surcharge for daytime and underutilised because they are set evening but there is no information provided too high.’ Macclesfield – no comments on surcharges for flights operating after ‘Fail to see why there are exclusions Manchester – one comment 11pm. It is therefore suggested that a identified to the QC budget.’ surcharge be applied to night-time flights.’ ‘It would be beneficial to consider an ‘Consider closing between 11.30pm Chadderton – no comments investigation into the potential disturbance/ sleep disruption from certain aircraft and 6am.’ Cheadle – three comments that are relevant to night operations ‘Less night traffic.’ ‘Cut down night flights.’ e.g. QC4 and/or testing of noise receptor levels in buildings within the first Styal – no comments ‘Ban noisier aircraft from operating priority noise contour to put these issues at night.’ Wilmslow – no comments into context.’ ‘Too many night flights; reduce the number Wythenshawe – no comments ‘The illustrations of aircraft and their of flights between 5pm and 7am.’ accompanying Quota Counts is felt to be Other – two comments ‘Limit flight times around summer evenings.’ very useful. The addition of the numbers ‘We are happy to see that the Quota Count of passengers would also be helpful in Cheadle Heath – one comment night matches up with the recognised providing an idea of the size of the aircraft.’ 8-hour Environmental Noise Directive night ‘If a noisy aircraft wishes to operate at night ‘It would be helpful to rationalise the night running from 11pm to 7am, and this is then a premium should be paid.’ period and core night period. A commitment welcomed, as this is contrary to most of the Cheadle Hulme – four comments to consider this issue as part of the other Quota Count schemes in operation next review of the night noise policy would at British airports.’ ‘Consider extending your night-time rules be helpful.’ so that they begin slightly earlier.’ ‘Suggest a reduction in the number ‘The commitment to review the QC point of permitted night-time QC points, ‘Noise reductions start too late budget is supported. The current limit movements and engine tests.’ (approximately midnight) and finish level is so much higher than the operating too early (approximately 6am).’ requirements that it is not acting as ‘Extend the night-time restrictions an effective limit and therefore needs to commence at 10pm until 8.30am.’ to be reviewed in light of current ‘Extend night-time restrictions.’ operating conditions.’ ‘Run the airport in a similar way to ‘Inclusion of an additional graph to shown London Heathrow where there is no the number of daytime engine tests would departing or arriving aircraft allowed be useful to provide a context for the between the hours of 8pm and 6am. overall number of engine tests.’ This may be the way forward to eliminating Marple – no comments night-time noise for residents.’ Mere – two comments Congleton – no comments ‘We would like you to consider Denton – no comments night closure.’ Edgeley – no comments ‘Night closure could save the airport money.’ Goostrey – one comment Middleton – no comments ‘Reduction in the number of night flights.’ Middlewich – no comments ‘Lower noise levels to be insisted upon from night flights.’ Mobberley – no comments Hale – no comments Nether Alderley – no comments Hale Barns – no comments Northwich – one comment Hazel Grove – no comments ‘Significant reduction in the hours of operation.’

61 Sheet No. 5 Mitigation schemes Responses

Our response and the actions we will take Many of those who responded to the consultation felt that we could improve the schemes we currently have in place to reduce the effects of aircraft noise. Our sound insulation grant scheme has been in place since 1972. Although we believe it is the most generous in place at any UK airport, we review the scheme every two years to make sure it remains relevant and continues to offer the best technical solutions available. A number of people told us that they thought that the area the sound insulation grant scheme covered should be extended to include communities which fall outside the current boundary. Others thought that the products the scheme offers do not always represent the best or most practical options available. Overall it was clear that there was a general lack of awareness of the scheme. During 2 010, we will carry out a detailed review of the sound insulation grant scheme, with a view to introducing a revised scheme in April 2 011 when our current obligations under the S106 agreement end. We will carry out the review with the Manchester Airport Consultative Committee and the Environmental Health Officers Consultative Group. As well as considering the technical content of the scheme, the review will also consider the boundary of the scheme.

62 Altrincham – no comments Goostrey – no comments Wilmslow – no comments Ashton-Under-Lyne – no comments Hale – no comments Wythenshawe – two comments Bollington – no comments Hale Barns – no comments ‘Include Peel Hall and Cross Acres areas of Sharston within the Sound insulation grant Bowdon – no comments Hazel Grove – no comments scheme boundary.’ Bramhall – one comment Heald Green – two comments ‘Consider opportunities for joint working with Willow Park Housing trust to ‘Implement meaningful schemes – ‘The wording of the vortex-damage undertake insulation and other mitigation present are inadequate.’ repair scheme should include the works.’ re-roofing scheme.’ Bredbury – one comment ‘Consider carbon reduction works ‘Extend the area of compensation.’ ‘Mitigation measures such as double e.g. boilers renewals to complement glazing are only effective during the winter High Legh – no comments insulation upgrades.’ months when windows are closed.’ Holmes Chapel – no comments Other – two comments ‘Under the circumstances where previous ‘Community buildings, such as libraries and failure in the local planning system has Hyde – no comments places of worship, should be considered allowed the over expansion, a property Knutsford – no comments for inclusion within the ‘noise-sensitive’ relocation scheme in the Heald Green and building category.’ Wythenshawe areas seems reasonable, Lymm – no comments but this should not become either an ‘Insulation packages should be made excuse or a mechanism for not dealing Macclesfield – no comments available to homes that have not received with noise levels that are too high.’ Manchester – two comments insulation grants within the last 20 years.’ Chadderton – no comments ‘Would it be possible to grant some of the ‘Should also consider on case-by-case fines to small businesses in the area to basis whether the use of standard acoustic Cheadle – one comment improve their noise insulation?’ secondary glazing packages will be sufficient and should consider providing ‘Fines should be used to help people ‘There is no mention of the impact of noise affected by aircraft for noise insulation.’ help in insulating walls and ceilings where on businesses - existing and future this is necessary e.g. ‘temporary’ Cheadle Heath – one comment development plans. Like residents classrooms (which may remain for years).’ businesses would not establish themselves ‘Suggest that the sound insulation grant in an area blighted by noise. What about ‘Provisions should be made to include scheme be reviewed and extended to noise sensitive businesses e.g. tourism, ventilation (air conditioning or other) include those properties where aircraft hotels, leisure? Is there any monitoring to go in alongside the insulation to take noise intrusion can be an issue when or mitigation for these impacts?’ account of the affect of insulation on the normal airport operations are modified room temperature.’ e.g. ILS events.’ ‘The inclusion of best practice or good practice within the commitment to the ‘With regard to environmental noise from Cheadle Hulme – five comments sound insulation grant scheme would aircraft operations at schools the action strengthen the commitment.’ plan provides an opportunity to commit to ‘Congratulate you on your work with the introducing programs addressing the local community to control the impact Marple – no comments outdoor curriculum, an issue that is of noise in their homes through the Sound recognised in the 2003 Air Transport White Mere – no comments insulation grant scheme and home Paper but so far has not been acted upon.’ relocation assistance scheme.’ Middleton – no comments ‘Include details of re-roofing scheme as ‘Encourage you to offer acoustic insulation part of vortex-damage repair scheme.’ to other noise senitive buildings such as Middlewich – no comments schools and hospitals.’ Mobberley – no comments ‘Request a revision of the sound insulation grant area.’ Nether Alderley – no comments ‘Mitigation schemes need changing Northwich – no comments as inadequate.’ Oldham – no comments ‘Consider a community scheme to match fund projects that improve the community.’ Peover – no comments ‘This area was not included in the funding Plumley – one comment for double glazing, compensation, ‘Settle outstanding claims due to high or redress is needed if the frequency noise levels from new runway.’ of departures is to continue to increase.’ Poynton – no comments Congleton – no comments Prestbury – no comments Denton – no comments Sale – no comments Edgeley – one comment Salford – no comments ‘Update the sound insulation grant scheme. Secondary glazing is an out Sandbach – no comments of date solution.’ Stockport – no comments ‘Sound insulation grant scheme should be open to tenants to apply for grants.’ Styal – no comments ‘Create incentives for landlords to update their houses.’ ‘Upgrade existing secondary glazing fitted as part of sound insulation grant scheme for free.’

63 Sheet No. 6 Monitoring and reporting our progress Responses

Our response and the actions we will take Many of our noise control measures are judged against limits which are set by the planning conditions for the second runway or the S106 agreement of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or are compared against performance in 20 01. A common theme to many is that our targets should be more ambitious and challenging. We propose that in future we will also compare performance against an average over the previous five years. So as improvements are made the resulting target for the following year will become more challenging. Using a five-year average allows any unusual result in a particular year to be evened out. We will produce an annual noise action plan performance report and publish it on our website. Our noise monitoring system is made up of monitors which are mainly in areas immediately around the airport. A number of people have suggested that noise monitoring should be carried out in areas much further from the airport. We will work with environmental health officers in areas further away from the airport to identify suitable locations for portable noise monitoring equipment. We will then report the results to the Environmental Health Officers Consultative Group.

64 Altrincham – no comments Manchester – two comments part of the discussions to continue the Ashton-Under-Lyne – no comments ‘The airport should continually challenge scope of the agreement beyond 2 011 itself to improve standards and routinely set could be included.’ Bollington – no comments more ambitious targets. Whilst the draft ‘The maps should also be accompanied by Bowdon – no comments noise action plan provides a sound footing a statement of whether the 2006 data used it does not appear to push the airport or is representative of usual conditions.’ Bramhall – no comments airlines for continual annual improvement.’ ‘The maps have not been used to Bredbury – one comment ‘The broad aims could be strengthened by subjectively assess the noise impacts ‘While many features of the Noise Action the inclusion of a commitment to the on the public and identify any specific Plan are commendable, there are aspects ongoing implementation of the noise action problems. Actions in the plan should of the plan, which represent a licence plan throughout its 5 year life cycle.’ specifically relate to these findings and to carry on business as usual. Noise limits ‘The commitment to benchmarking against target any identified issues.’ are too high, restrictions too weak and other airports is supported.’ ‘The action plan does not seem to provide penalties for exceeding them are not Marple – no comments for the evaluation of specific measures. severe enough.’ It is believed that this would better enable ‘The environmental objective of ensuring Mere – two comments the assessment of individual action’s that aircraft noise does not exceed ‘Statistics are hard to understand effectiveness. Benefits could be expressed the levels recorded during 20 01/2 is by the general public. A more user friendly in terms of the reductions in population particularly weak.’ measuring device should be used to help numbers affected.’ ‘The average noise levels for all of the understand levels.’ ‘Financial information has not been targets should not be referenced to 2001 ‘Reduce your noise level target from included.’ but be based on the average of the three 69dB L Aeq contour to 63dB L Aeq contour.’ ‘The plan should make consideration previous years.’ Middleton – no comments of quiet areas in general and not only Chadderton – no comments those in agglomerations.’ Middlewich – no comments Cheadle – one comment Stockport – one comment Mobberley – no comments ‘No monitoring equipment in sensitive areas.’ ‘Review targets to include levels Nether Alderley – no comments and protection of those within the Cheadle Heath – one comment 69 dB L Aeq contour.’ ‘Reduce number of flights and associated Northwich – one comment ‘The average level of the 10% noisiest noise. Day noise should be closer to ‘Too much focus on the areas shown to be departures and the average level of the present night noise levels.’ affected by high levels of noise.’ 100 noisest day time departures will remain ‘The impact on rural areas with relatively Cheadle Hulme – two comments lower than 20 01. This appears to be low population density is not given sufficient a restrospective target and it is suggested ‘I do have concerns about the number of consideration in the plan. Aircraft noise has that this is updated to include a more people, some 31,000 (L den ) living in the area a major detrimental impact on areas of recent date because in 2007 this was over 60dB, as the World Health Organisation outstanding natural beauty including some clearly achieved by approximately 4 dB(A).’ states at this level of noise it is not merely of the most beautiful and remote areas of an annoyance but a serious annoyance.’ the Peak District National Park.’ ‘More stringent targets, all targets are ‘You could perhaps be bolder with your retrospective.’ Oldham – one comment targets. Your goal should not be to stand ‘Marginally compliant chapter 3 movements still but to make year on year improvements ‘Support for the general long term objective will remain lower than 2006. It is suggested in reducing aircraft noise impact.’ which is to limit and reduce the number of that this is reviewed in 2 010 to include ‘The noise level would appear to be much people affected by noise as a result of the a more recent target date.’ airport’s operations.’ higher than given in the plan.’ Styal – one comment ‘Empathise with the airport that like other Congleton – no comments operators has not had the benefit of advice ‘Of particular concern, in addition to the Denton – no comments from Government as expected on defining general increase in aircraft related noise, quiet area.’ have been the impacts upon users Edgeley – one comment of Styal Woods and upon the residents, ‘Support for the use of MANTIS and that ‘Review the position of the noise monitor school children and teachers, and church this or similar high quality systems should in Edgeley.’ goers of Styal village. It is not apparent continue to be used in the future.’ ‘Commission an independant noise study that issues in respect of all of these users to perform additional noise tests in Peover – one comment have been identified in the draft noise Freemantle Street, Bloom Street and ‘It would be helpful in understanding action plan and they need to be addressed Kilburn Road, Edgeley.’ these charts if a paragraph was included in the final document.’ ‘Change the targets in the noise action plan to explain that it is generally accepted that ‘The overall objective of limiting and to year on year improvements. Record and roughly an increase of 10dBA represents reducing the number of people affected review daily flight telemetry for aircraft.’ a doubling of noise.’ by noise as a result of the operation ‘Include an explanation why the night-time of the airport is supported.’ Goostrey – no comments limit cannot be achieved during the day.’ ‘It would be sensible for the description of Hale – no comments ‘It is suggested that the benchmarks be the environs of the airport to acknowledge Hale Barns – no comments lowered to reflect the improvements already the close relationship with Quarry Bank Mill achieved and that this be applied to all and Styal Woods and their importance Hazel Grove – no comments graphs in the action plan.’ as a recreational and educational resource Heald Green – two comments ‘Include a map of the existing noise for both the local communities and those ‘The targets should be reduced to provide monitoring stations in the plan.’ farther a field.’ at least a semblance of a challenge.’ ‘Quiet areas – it is suggested that the note ‘The draft plan is unclear about its ‘Averaging in general to produce contours on page 13 should include the criteria for approach to Quiet Areas and whether or is totally anomalous to showing real impact. quiet areas whether this is determined not it should seek to define such locations.’ You should be measuring peak time impact centrally or locally.’ ‘It is clear that the historic industrial workers’ on all the preferred routes.’ Plumley – no comments village at Styal is subject to significant noise High Legh – no comments levels associated with the airport.’ Poynton – no comments ‘One cumulative measure attributable Holmes Chapel – no comments Prestbury – no comments to day movements should be included.’ Hyde – one comment Sale – no comments Wilmslow – no comments ‘Monitor noise from arriving aircraft at least 10 miles from the airport. Check on aircraft Salford – no comments Wythenshawe – no comments approaching over Denton, Hyde and Sandbach – one comment Other – one comment possibly beyond.’ ‘Some of the Section 106 Agreement ‘Contour maps do not accurately reflect Knutsford – no comments related actions cite targets that have been the intrusion of noise on communities comfortably met in recent years and or on the countryside.’ Lymm – no comments should be set at more challenging levels. Macclesfield – no comments An action to review these targets as 65 Sheet No. 7 Effective communication Responses

Our response and the actions we will take Many of those who responded to the consultation felt that we could A number of people were not satisfied improve the ways in which we share information and discuss noise with the consultation process itself. issues with the local community. The process that we followed is set out Our events in the community (outreach events) are seen as valuable in section 3 and associated appendices. in achieving this aim, but people wanted us to visit more locations and In future we will make sure that we to improve publicity before each event. We will hold 10 outreach events work closely with local authorities and every year. We will review the way we advertise the details of our do everything reasonably possible outreach events, and every January we will publish our programme of to advertise any future consultations outreach events for the coming year on our website. in newsletters. We have already committed to publishing new noise indicators that Producing a plain English version we hope will be more easily understood than noise contours. of the draft noise action plan was We will try to identify and promote new or improved ways of making seen as a good example of how information about airport noise understandable and available to the complex technical matters can local community. This will certainly involve extending the distribution be communicated effectively. of e-News, which is currently sent to 14,000 addresses. Two people have suggested that there should be an independent body to handle complaints. In fact we currently have two independent controls on our complaint handling – Manchester Airport Consultative Committee and the environmental health officers from the surrounding local authorities.

66 Altrincham – no comments Edgeley – one comment Marple – no comments Ashton-Under-Lyne – no comments ‘Increase the number of outreach events.’ Mere – two comments ‘Improve dialogue with the Edgeley ‘Plan is difficult to understand…not user Bollington – no comments community by: Commissioning an friendly…nor would it pass the Crystal test. Bowdon – no comments independent study to determine the This is deliberate to confuse all and sundry.’ awareness of airport schemes such as the ‘A more user friendly measuring device Bramhall – one comment sound insulation grant scheme; making the is needed.’ ‘Communication is not relevant; report complaints procedure well known to the to regular resident groups with positive Edgeley community; providing regular Middleton – no comments reports of the noise levels of aircraft flying improvement identified; involve all people by Middlewich – no comments proper dialogue – not provided at present; above Edgeley; be flexible and proactive need to reference peoples complaints in on going concerns and don’t wait for Mobberley – no comments with actions and agreed remedies; proper noise action plans for consultations and distribution of a simpler and regular set alterations to procedures.’ Nether Alderley – no comments of documents and questionnaires are ‘Manchester Airport has displayed a lack of Northwich – one comment needed to all households.’ knowledge in effective communication/ ‘It is more likely that the number of marketing, asking for advice on this matter Bredbury – one comment complaints is not larger because those from the general public when advice should affected by noise find it useless to ‘Notifications of consultations at not need to be given.’ Manchester Airport should be sent to all complain. Simply recording the complaint those organisations that have responded Goostrey – no comments and providing a written response is not effective substantive action.’ to previous consultations and to local Hale – no comments organisations such as Stockport Friends Oldham – one comment of the Earth.’ Hale Barns – no comments ‘The Plain English version of the Draft Noise Chadderton – no comments Hazel Grove – no comments Action Plan… I view as particularly helpful Cheadle – two comments Heald Green – three comments Effective communication should always be seen as a priority when dealing with ‘No communication with the people ‘Much more publicity for outreach events.’ environmental noise impacts as aiding affected by noise. Involve more local people ‘I fill in your online complaints form and get improved community understanding of not just councillors, MPs, and public an email back that you will speak to the necessarily complex technical matters has servants. Inform people of how to attend airline but that seems to be it.’ proved to be effective in all partnership and put forward their views at the working relating to noise control.’ consultative committee.’ ‘You should be knocking on the doors of at least one house on every road asking these Peover – no comments ‘More information required about grants questions. Most people in Heald Green do available for sound proofing.’ not even know how to complain.’ Plumley – no comments ‘There has been no communication to us ‘Proactive response to public concerns Poynton – no comments as residents with regard to airport noise especially those affected by flight paths by the airport.’ is the way forward. Listening to public Prestbury – no comments concerns and issues shows respect from Cheadle Heath – no comments Sale – no comments a very high impact industry on the Cheadle Hulme – three comments environment on all levels.’ Salford – no comments ‘More proper consultation; system to allow High Legh – no comments Sandbach – no comments proper public feedback with proper response required; inadequate meaningful Holmes Chapel – no comments Stockport – two comments communication.’ Hyde – no comments ‘Independent body handling complaints.’ ‘Your report does not take account of ‘Manchester Airport has very little residents’ feelings; you do not Knutsford – three comments communication about noise levels communicate satisfactorily.’ ‘Improve communication.’ with anybody.’ ‘Plan contains irrelevant data and not user ‘Monthly column in Knutsford Guardian Styal – no comments friendly to residents with grievances – for Community to ask questions.’ no allowance/input other than your own. Wilmslow – no comments Consultation not publicized correctly. ‘Details of the consultation were not Inadequate feedback copies left at libraries well publicised especially to schools Wythenshawe – no comments (1 only) and late or inadequate notice and public buildings.’ of any consultations.’ ‘Short reports on why targets cannot Other – two comments ‘The airport should be proactive in reducing be reached might aid relations and ‘We the Conservatives have proposed noise and increase corporate social stop grumbles.’ a commercial flights officer, who would act as ombudsman, investigating formal responsibility activity to ensure that local Lymm – no comments people feel that the airport is being complaints about noise, via MPs, with proactive in contributing positively to the Macclesfield – no comments powers to compel the National Air Traffic community as a whole.’ services, airports, or any other body Manchester – two comments concerned with the movement of aircraft Congleton – no comments ‘Complaints do not accurately reflect to co-operate with investigations.’ Denton – no comments peoples views, they only show who has the ‘At a local level, public attitude surveys time, ability and knowledge to complain.’ would also serve to foster better ‘Regular meetings with businesses as community engagement.’ well as residents to understand their views and concens.’ ‘It would be helpful to continue to explore how technical noise information can be interpreted and presented in a way that is understandable to local residents.’

67 Sheet No. 8 New sites for noise monitors Responses

Altrincham – no comments Denton – no comments Hyde – no comments Ashton-Under-Lyne – no comments Edgeley – no comments Knutsford – no comments Bollington – no comments Goostrey – no comments Lymm – no comments Bowdon – no comments Hale – no comments Macclesfield – no comments Bramhall – no comments Hale Barns – no comments Manchester – one comment Bredbury – no comments Hazel Grove – no comments ‘The installation of an additional noise monitor in Wythenshawe is welcomed.’ Chadderton – no comments Heald Green – two comments Marple – no comments Cheadle – no comments ‘Suggested location of noise monitor – Rose Vale Park.’ Mere – no comments Cheadle Heath – no comments ‘Gleneagles Road as a potential location.’ Middleton – no comments Cheadle Hulme – no comments High Legh – no comments Middlewich – one comment Congleton – no comments Holmes Chapel – no comments ‘Monitor noise over Middlewich.’

68 Proposed noise monitor locations

Mobberley – no comments Stockport – no comments Nether Alderley – no comments Styal – one comment Northwich – no comments ‘Noise monitoring in relation to Styal Village and Styal Woods would be appropriate.’ Oldham – no comments Wilmslow – no comments Peover – no comments Wythenshawe – no comments Plumley – no comments Other – one comment Poynton – no comments ‘Brown Lane Methodist Church or Prospect Prestbury – no comments Vale School possible locations for noise monitor in Heald Green.’ Sale – no comments Salford – no comments Sandbach – no comments

69 Sheet No. 9 2013 review consultation

For airports which already have a noise action n NAP5: Using only one runway - It was n NAP 17: Reduced engine taxiing - it was plan, government guidance suggests that any suggested that the summer trial of the accepted that the target date for the action revised plan should be presented to the extended hours of use for runway 2 could should be changed to 2014. Airport’s Consultative Committee for their potentially be made permanent, and that n NAP 18: APU use - it was accepted that comments, and to any other appropriate the words ‘the airport will do its best to the target date for the action should be bodies, depending on the nature and extent of keep the use of both runways to a changed to 2015. the revisions. minimum’ should be added. Night noise As so little time has passed since we n NAP6: Departure noise surcharge - It was published our first Noise Action Plan, the 2013 suggested that penalties should increase n NAP 19: Night noise policy - the groups review has resulted in only minor revisions and automatically each year in line with inflation suggested the following update. we have not introduced any new and that the annual consultation should “We will review our night noise policy every commitments. The changes we proposed also include the Technical Advisory Group. focussed on including laws, regulations, five years to make sure it continues to be policies and so on that have been published or n NAP 9: The groups thought that we should relevant. At this time we will examine the introduced since we produced the existing consider continuing to report the small length of the night period, limits on plan, and reporting on our performance number of marginally compliant chapter 3 seasonal movements, QC points and against the targets we set ourselves. flights, as well as the number of flights by working restrictions. Our policy was last chapter 4 aircraft. reviewed in 2012.” In November 2013, we discussed our proposed changes with a special meeting of: n NAP10: Noise related runway charge - it n NAP 23: Night noise surcharge - the was noted that we have not completed the groups felt that the action needed to be n The Technical Advisory sub-group of our action set out in the plan. updated in line with the revised Night Noise Policy, and the following suggested Airport Consultative Committee; and The groups supported the following new wording was supported. n Our Environmental Health Officers preamble and action. “The noise level at which we apply a “Government has encouraged the use of Consultative group. surcharge will continue to be lower during differential landing charges, as one of a the night period (11pm to 7am). The Both these groups supported the progress we range of options for reducing noise, and penalty for going over the core night-period have made so far in meeting our has asked the CAA to investigate use of (11.30pm to 6am) noise level of 81 dB(A) is commitments. However, the following specific these charges. We already have a system £750, plus £150 for each decibel above issues were raised. of runway charges, which offer airlines that level. The penalty for going over the incentives to use the quietest types of shoulder night-period (11pm to 11.30pm aircraft at certain times of the day.” Issues raise and 6am to 7am) noise level of 82 dB(A) is “However, the mix of aircraft operating at £750, plus £150 for each decibel above General any airport is constantly changing. For this that level.” n The importance of the Section 106 reason we must continue to develop our n NAP 24: Seasonal QC point noise budget agreement was recognised. It was charging systems so that they respond to the groups felt that the action needed to be considered essential to remain consistent that change and continue to encourage the updated in line with the revised Night Noise between the Noise Action Plan, the Night use of quieter types of aircraft rather than Policy so that the QC limit is fixed until Noise Policy and the Section 106 older, noisier aircraft.” 2017, and the budgets are reduced to agreement. It was suggested that the n NAP10: Noise-related runway charge: We 7000 points in the summer and 3000 Section 106 agreement’s relevance and will consider the introduction of noise- points in the winter. Members felt that the importance to noise issues at the airport related charges, guided by the CAA’s limits should be reduced further as the could be reflected more clearly in the report. number of points actually used was much revised plan. lower than the limit. n NAP11: Departure procedures - the groups n It was suggested that the various maps supported the following replacement n NAP27: Seasonal limit on night flights - the included in the plan were difficult to read, action. groups felt that the action needed to be and that the new plan should include updated in line with the revised Night Noise larger-scale, better-quality versions, “Departures Code of Practice - we will look Policy. They suggested the following together with a link to the DEFRA website at the best practice guidance contained in wording. where the maps are held. It was also felt the Sustainable Aviation Departures Code that the plan would be easier to read if of Practice and examine how this might be “To work with the QC points budgets, we there were more distinction between the rolled-out at Manchester. We will report our have set seasonal and overall limits for the descriptive text and the action points. performance in achieving this.” number of night flights allowed up to summer 2017.” Departing aircraft Arriving aircraft Mitigation schemes n NAP1: ‘Off-track’ departures - It was n NAP 13: Continuous descent approach - it suggested that the annual limit of no more was considered appropriate that the n NAP35: Sound insulation grant scheme than 5% of departures being off-track was current action should be changed to the groups felt that the text needed to be too generous and should be reduced. include the following. updated to reflect the current scheme. The group recognised that the relevant However, as this limit reflects the provisions “In line with commitments made in the commitment under the Section 106 of the Section 106 agreement, it was Sustainable Aviation Noise Road Map, we agreement had now come to an end and accepted that the limit should stay as it is. will work with our service partners to asked for the revised plan to include the n NAP2: ‘Off-track’ surcharge - It was improve CDA at Manchester. By 2015 we commitment to review the scheme every suggested that the word ‘persistently’ will undertake formal trials to identify the five years. should be more tightly defined, and that potential benefits of P-RNAV arrivals the day and night surcharges should be procedures and the performance benefits increased. they can deliver.”

70 n NAP37: Vortex damage repair scheme Our response and the actions we will take the group asked for further text to be General added to make the re-roofing scheme available to all homes in the at risk area, We have improved the format and clarity of the noise maps included in our plan. and not just to cases where damage had Details of where to find more information on noise mapping on the internet are been reported. also included. We are also investigating ways in which we can improve the distinction between the descriptive text and our targets. The plan has gained Monitoring and reporting on our progress Plain English Campaign’s Crystal Mark to show that the text is as clear as n NAP40: Develop our monitoring system possible. the groups commented on the upgrade of Departing aircraft the noise and track monitoring system being delayed and suggested that we We have looked at the wording of NAP2: off-track surcharge and are happy that extend the target date to 2014. the level of detail is appropriate. A more detailed description of what is intended by the word ‘persistently’, and when we impose the surcharge, is clearly n NAP41: Locations of noise monitors - the described in our Schedule of Charges and our Terms & Conditions. These are groups suggested that we extend the both available on our website at www.manchesterairport.co.uk. target date to 2015. We understand that certainty about the use of our runways is important to our n NAP44: Extra metrics - the groups local community, so we have added a commitment to do our best to keep the commented on the target being missed use of both runways to a minimum. and suggested that we extend the target date to 2014. We will continue to review our departure noise surcharge each year and have adopted the suggestion that the Airport Consultative Committee and Technical Effective communication Advisory Group should be involved in that process. n NAP53: Environmental Health Officers As suggested, we will continue to report the number of flights by marginally Consultative Group - the groups compliant chapter 3 aircraft, as well as those flights by chapter 4 aircraft. commented on the Environmental Health Officers’ Consultative group now meeting Night noise three times a year rather than every three We have updated the night noise section to reflect our latest Night Noise Policy. months, but that extra meetings could be We will continue to review the policy, and the limits contained within it, every five arranged if necessary. years. Noise complaints Migration schemes n The groups supported us in referring to the Recognising that the Section 106 agreement’s commitment to review our Sound procedure for handling persistent Insulation Grant scheme has now ended, we have introduced a new complainants. commitment in our revised Noise Action Plan. That commitment is to review the details of the scheme every five years. We are confident that our vortex-damage repair scheme has already re-roofed the vast majority of properties genuinely at risk of vortex damage from aircraft, and the number of applications we receive is very small. We have therefore concluded that the scheme should not be changed at the moment.

71 17. Conclusion As a ‘major’ airport, as defined by the Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006, as amended, Manchester Airport is legally required to publish a noise action plan every five years.

72 Noise action plans are designed with the aim Our night noise policy continues to place tight controls on of ‘preventing and reducing environmental aircraft noise at night. It limits the total number of flights noise where necessary’ and Defra has during the night period and restricts the use of noisier types issued guidance to help airport operators of aircraft. The noisiest types of aircraft cannot be used. prepare their plans. We review our night noise policy every five years. Under the regulations we must assess Where aircraft noise has been reduced as far as is possible, how effectively we are controlling the effect ‘mitigation schemes’ play an important role in limiting the of noise arising from aircraft landing and disturbance caused by aircraft noise. We have run our Sound taking off. Insulation Grant Scheme for over 40 years. We have presented the effect of our work In line with government expectations, we have extended the in the form of noise maps, together with the grant scheme to cover some non-residential buildings that numbers of people and homes exposed to a could be affected by high levels of noise, such as schools and range of noise levels. hospitals. We regularly review the scheme to make sure it Since the 1970s we have had a noise control remains relevant and appropriate for the local residents worst programme to try to keep the effect noise affected by noise. has on local residents as low as possible. Where properties may be suffering from both a very high level Today, the programme includes measures of noise and a large increase in noise, we consider offering to ranging from restricting the use of the noisier buy those properties. We also offer a Property Relocation types of aircraft, surcharges to encourage Scheme, which covers the costs of moving house to help the use of quieter aircraft, and regular residents in the noisiest areas to move to a quieter area. communication with local communities. We are committed to developing the ways we share Our noise controls were significantly information relating to aircraft noise with others. We continue strengthened, and given legal force, as to make information from our monitoring system available to part of the second runway development. our Airport Consultative Committee and Environmental Health A number of legally binding objectives and Officers Consultative Group. We will be upgrading the system targets were built into the planning conditions and expanding the area our network of noise monitors and an agreement under Section 106 of the covers. We will continue to regularly publish our performance Town and Country Planning Act 1990. against a set of performance indicators and will report on the noise complaints we receive and how we handled them. Our policy continues to encourage the use of quieter aircraft and to restrict noisier aircraft. As the airport grows, and the We have developed our noise policies frequency and number of flights increase, in partnership with airlines, our air traffic we know that we must make sure that our policies on controlling noise continue service provider and local communities. to evolve so they remain appropriate We have done this over many years. and effective. Departing aircraft must follow set routes We report our performance on our website, through the designed, where possible, to avoid aircraft Manchester Airport Consultative Committee, and by talking flying over densely populated areas. We with airlines, pilots and local authorities. We continue to monitor the noise levels generated by each consult the local community face-to-face, through our aircraft as it arrives at and takes off from the website and by phone. We believe that this is essential for us airport. If any aircraft goes over strict noise to better understand their concerns, provide information on limits on departure, the airline must pay a noise issues, discuss possible changes in policy and respond surcharge. We donate money raised from to complaints. these surcharges to the Manchester Airport We have developed our noise policies in partnership with Community Trust Fund. airlines, our air traffic service provider and local communities. Although the average level of noise from We have done this over many years. As we look to the future, departing aircraft is falling, we will continue we realise that we must maintain and develop those to work closely with airlines and air traffic relationships so we can continue to strike the necessary control, through the Collaborative balance between the benefits of developing a successful Environmental Management process, airport and the environmental effects of our work. to improve performance even more. With over 50 commitments to controlling noise, we believe Until recently, noise from aircraft landing had that our noise strategy is effective for the long term. However, not received the same attention as that from we understand that aircraft noise continues to be an important aircraft taking off. By working with airlines issue for some people. So we will carry on listening to and we have introduced landing procedures working with our neighbours, and try to make sure that we such as the ‘continuous descent approach’ continue to reduce the effect aircraft noise has on their to control noise as much as possible. We are quality of life. also looking into ways to reduce engine noise once the aircraft has landed.

73 Departing aircraft Arriving aircraft Night noise

Controlling where aircraft fly – page 28 Reducing noise levels on approach – Night noise controls – page 36 page 32 All departing aircraft must stay ‘on track’, Our night noise policy, which we review on defined paths known as ‘preferred Aircraft approaching to land must follow every five years, sets out our night-time noise routes’. Those routes have been techniques designed to reduce noise noise controls. levels heard on the ground. An example designed to route aircraft away from more The policy restricts the number of aircraft of the techniques that must be followed densely-populated areas. that can fly out of or into the airport at is the ‘continuous descent approach’, a If aircraft persistently stray off the night. It also restricts the use and procedure which makes sure that preferred noise routes, we have a system scheduling of the noisier types of aircraft incoming aircraft stay as high as possible of financial penalties. at night-time. for longer. The number of departures where aircraft NAP 19, NAP24, NAP25, NAP26, In line with commitments made in the do not need to follow our preferred noise NAP27, NAP28 Sustainable Aviation Noise Road Map, routes is strictly controlled. we will work with our service partners to Limiting noise levels at night – page 37 We further reduce the number of improve CDA at Manchester. departing aircraft flying over more densely In our night noise policy we have To reduce noise disturbance even further, populated areas by preferring to use the guaranteed that the area of the 60 L Aeq incoming aircraft must approach the runway in a westerly direction (with noise contour will remain smaller than runway following a standard path and we aircraft departing to the west). that for 200 1. The area of the night-time discourage the use of reverse thrust 60 L Aeq noise contour will also be As specified in our planning conditions, braking, where the thrust from the engine compared against an average of the we routinely review opportunities to use is directed forwards, particularly at night. previous five years’ results. only one runway (runway 1). NAP 12, NAP 13, NAP 14, NAP 15, NAP 16 We have stated that the average noise NAP1, NAP2, NAP3, NAP4, NAP5 level of the 100 noisiest departures at Reducing noise on the airfield – page 35 Limiting noise levels – page 30 night will remain lower than that of 20 01. We will develop and introduce new The average noise level of the noisiest We encourage departing aircraft to be initiatives to reduce noise from aircraft 100 departures at night will also be flown in the quietest possible way. If a while they are on the ground, such as compared against an average of the flight goes over our maximum noise requiring an engine to be switched off previous five years’ results. levels, the airline must pay a surcharge. when the aircraft is taxiing and We know that aircraft noise during the The amount of that surcharge is based restrictions on the use of auxiliary power night can be particularly disturbing and on the number of decibels over the limit. units while the aircraft is on stand. We make sure that the average noise so we make sure that the maximum noise NAP 17, NAP 18 level of the 10% noisiest departures, level between 11pm and 7am remains and the 100 noisiest departures during lower than that during the day. the day, remain lower than that recorded At night-time we do not allow in 2001. non-standard departures (that is, We will also compare the average level ones which do not need to follow the of noise of the 10% noisiest departures, preferred noise routes) and landing and the 100 noisiest departures during aircraft must use the continuous the day, against the average level over descent approach if possible. the previous five years. Pilots cannot make visual approaches The number of arrivals and departures by at night. the older, noisier ‘marginally compliant’ On the ground, the number of engine chapter 3 aircraft will be kept below that tests taking place at night will be limited in 200 7. to 20 in any year. Guided by the CAA's 2013 report, we will NAP20, NAP2 1, NAP22, NAP23, NAP29, consider introducing noise related NAP30, NAP3 1, NAP32 charges. We will continue to work towards developing more efficient departure procedures, designed to reduce noise levels and the amount of fuel used. NAP6, NAP7, NAP8, NAP9, NAP 10, NAP 11

74 Mitigation schemes Monitoring and reporting Effective communication

Relocation – page 42 Monitoring systems – page 44 Community relations – page 48 In line with government recommendations, We will give the Manchester Airport We know how important it is to in the areas of highest noise we help Consultative Committee and communicate with local communities and residents with the cost of moving to a Environmental Health Officers other interested parties. We know that quieter area. In areas where there are Consultative Group access to this is necessary for us to respond high noise levels and there has been a information from our monitoring system, effectively to their comments and large increase in noise, we will consider MANTIS, which monitors both noise concerns. offering to buy properties. levels and flight paths. We will continue to meet the highest NAP33, NAP34 We are committed to improving our standards in responding to noise monitoring system and we will make sure complaints and enquiries and will report Sound insulation and roof repair – that it remains effective and appropriate. how effective we have been. page 42 By 2 014 we will upgrade the system. NAP48, NAP52 We offer people living close to the airport NAP39, NAP40, NAP41 a contribution towards the cost of Working with our neighbours – page 48 insulating their home against aircraft Reporting performance – page 46 We will continue to run our mobile noise. We regularly review this scheme We report details of the aircraft noise outreach centres in communities around with the Manchester Airport Consultative complaints we have received, and our the airport and to regularly meet with Committee and the Environmental Health performance in controlling noise, through local parish councils. We will also Officers Consultative Group. We will also our Airport Consultative Committee and continue to offer people a range of ways consider making sound insulation Environmental Health Officers to ask about, comment on or complain available to some non-residential Consultative Group. We will continue to about aircraft noise. buildings that are affected by noise (for report the area and population contained example, schools and hospitals) and are We will continue to work with local within our daytime and night-time 60 dB authorities through our Environmental within the 63 L Aeq noise contour. LAeq contours, and we guarantee that the Health Officers Consultative Group. We will continue to provide a scheme to areas will not be larger than 20 01. The NAP49, NAP50, NAP5 1, NAP53 repair residents’ roofs that have been area of the contours will also be damaged by vortexes (circulating compared against an average of the currents of air) caused by aircraft. In previous five years’ results. some areas properties may be eligible for By 2 014, alongside the more familiar re-roofing. LAeq contours, we will publish extra NAP35, NAP36, NAP37 indicators to help people understand noise levels around the airport. Community Trust Fund – page 43 NAP42, NAP43, NAP44, NAP45, NAP46, We will donate all of the money we raise NAP47, NAP53 from surcharges to the Manchester Airport Community Trust Fund. NAP38

75 Appendix 1 List of organisations and individuals that were sent a copy of the draft noise action plan.

76 Ministers and shadow ministers Members of Parliament Council leaders and chief executives Rt Hon Lord Adonis, Janet Anderson MP Chief Executive, Secretary of State for Transport Rt Hon Hazel Blears MP Bolton MBC Paul Clark MP, David Borrow MP Leader of the Council, Aviation Minister Bolton MBC Graham Brady MP The Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, Chief Executive, Secretary of State for Environment, Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP Bury MBC Food and Rural Affairs Ben Chapman MP Leader of the Council, Jim Fitzpatrick MP, David Chaytor MP Bury MBC Environment Minister Ann Coffey MP Chief Executive, Theresa Villiers MP, David Crausby MP Cheshire East Council Shadow Secretary of State for Transport Jim Dobbin MP Chief Executive, Julian Brazier TD MP, Cheshire West and Chester Council Nigel Evans MP Shadow Aviation Minister Chief Executive, Rt Hon Paul Goggins MP Norman Baker MP, City of Salford Andrew Gwynne MP Shadow Transport Secretary Leader of the Council, Lord Bradshaw, Mike Hall MP City of Salford Shadow Transport Minister David Heyes MP Chief Executive, Lord Hanningfield DL, Rt Hon Beverley Hughes MP Manchester City Council Shadow Transport Minister Mark Hunter MP Leader of the Council, Manchester City Council Dr Brian Iddon MP Executive Member for Environment, Rt Hon Sir Gerald Kaufman MP Manchester City Council Barbara Keeley MP Chief Executive, Rt Hon Ruth Kelly MP Oldham MBC John Leech MP Leader of the Council, Ivan Lewis MP Oldham MBC Tony Lloyd MP Chief Executive, Rochdale MBC Rt Hon Ian McCartney MP Leader of the Council, Rt Hon Michael Meacher MP Rochdale MBC George Osborne MP Chief Executive, Rt Hon James Purnell MP Stockport MBC Paul Rowen MP Leader of the Council, Ian Stewart MP Stockport MBC Graham Stringer MP Chief Executive, Tameside MBC Andrew Stunell MP Executive Leader, Edward Timpson MP Tameside MBC Neil Turner MP Chief Executive, Lady Ann Winterton MP Trafford MBC Sir Nicholas Winterton MP Leader of the Council, Phil Woolas MP Trafford MBC Chief Executive, Warrington Borough Council Chief Executive, Wigan Council Leader of the Council, Wigan Council

77 Local authority officers Other government bodies Parish councils Director of Environmental Services, Association of Greater Manchester Alderley Edge Parish Council Bolton MBC Authorities Allostock Parish Council Director of Environment and AGMA Environment Commission Antrobus Parish Council Development Services, Civil Aviation Authority, Appleton Parish Council Bury MBC Director, Planning, Transport Service Manager Strategic Development, and Housing, Ashley Parish Council Cheshire East Council 4NW Chelford Parish Council Head of Planning, Regional Director, Chorley Parish Council Cheshire East Council CBI North West Comberbach Parish Council Head of Environmental Services, Defra Cranage Parish Council Cheshire East Council Airports Policy Division, Dunham Massey Parish Council Senior Environmental Health Officer, Department for Transport Goostrey Parish Council Cheshire East Council Head of Metropolitan Local Planning Great Budworth Parish Council Director Environment, and Transport, Cheshire West and Chester Council Government Office North West Great Warford Parish Council Deputy Director Environmental Services, Regional Director, Henbury Parish Council City of Salford Government Office North West High Legh Parish Council Head of Planning, Director, Planning Implementation, Knutsford Town Council Manchester City Council Transport and Europe, Lach Dennis Parish Council Group Manager Government Office North West Little Warford Parish Council (Environmental Protection), Chief Executive, Manchester City Council Greater Manchester Chamber Lostock Gralam Parish Council Green City Team, of Commerce Lower Peover Parish Council Manchester City Council Chief Executive, MIDAS Lymm Parish Council Wythenshawe Regeneration Team, Director of Strategy, Marston Parish Council Manchester City Council North West Development Agency Marton Parish Council Executive Director Chief Executive, Mere Parish Council Environmental Services, North West Development Agency Oldham MBC Millington Parish Council Environmental Services Directorate, Mobberley Parish Council Oldham MBC Mottram St Andrew Parish Council Strategic partnerships Head of Environmental Nether Alderley Parish Council Management Services, Centre for Local Economic Ollerton with Marthall Parish Council Rochdale MBC Strategies (CLES) Over Alderley Parish Council Environmental Health and Cheshire and Warrington Trading Standards, Economic Alliance Peover Inferior Parish Council Stockport MBC Stockport Economic Alliance Peover Superior Parish Council Corporate Director, The Commission for the New Economy Pickmere Parish Council Stockport MBC The Manchester Partnership Plumley with Toft and Bexton Parish Head of Environmental Services, The Northern Way Council Tameside MBC The Stockport Partnership Prestbury Parish Council Environmental Health Officer, Trafford Partnership Rostherne Parish Council Tameside MBC Siddington Parish Council Director, Environment, Trafford MBC Snelson Parish Council Public Protection Manager, Stretton Parish Council Trafford MBC Styal Village Association Director of Environment Swettenham Parish Council and Regeneration, Tabley Parish Council Warrington Borough Council Twemlow Parish Council Environmental Protection Manager, Warrington Borough Council Warburton Parish Council Executive Director Wincham Parish Council Environmental Services, Wigan Council

78 Airlines and airline organisations Ocean Sky (UK) Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit Adria Airways Olympic Airlines (GMAU) Aer Arann Onur Air Greater Manchester Ecology Unit Aer Lingus Pegasus Airlines Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive Air Berlin Qatar Airways Greater Manchester Transportation Unit Air China Cargo Radisson SAS (GMTU) Air Contractors (Ireland) Ryanair Hale Civic Society Air France SAGA Airlines Heald Green and Long Lane Air Malta SAS Scandinavian Airlines Ratepayers Association Air Southwest SATA International Highways Agency Air Transat Saudi Arabian Airlines Hilton Hotel, Manchester Airport Airblue Singapore Airlines Holiday Inn, Manchester Airport American Airlines SkyEurope Airlines Knutsford and Mobberley Joint Aurigny Air Services Swiss International Air Lines Action Group BH Air Thomas Cook Airlines (UK) Manchester Airport Environment Network BMI Thomson Airways Manchester Friends of the Earth bmi regional Titan Airways Manchester Knowledge Capital BMIbaby TUIfly.com Marketing Manchester Board of Airline Representatives Turkish Airlines in the UK Ltd Marriott Hotel, Manchester Airport US Airways British Air Transport Association Mersey Basin Campaign Viking Airlines British Airways National Air Traffic Services Ltd Virgin Atlantic Brussels Airlines Natural England VLM Airlines Cathay Pacific Nether Alderley Rural Protection Association China Airlines Consultative committee Network Rail City Airline and airport operators committee North West Business Leadership Team Continental Airlines Manchester Airport Consultative North West Tourist Board CSA Czech Airlines Committee (MACC) Northern Rail Cyprus Airways Manchester Airport Operators Committee (AOC) Omega Delta Air Lines Passengerfocus Eastern Airways Other bodies Premier Inn, easyJet Airline Aviation Environment Federation Manchester Airport Emirates Bewleys Hotel, Manchester Airport Radisson BLU Hotel, Etihad Airways Manchester Airport Bollin Valley Partnership Eurocypria Airlines Ramblers Association Bowdon Conservation Group Eurowings SASIG Business in the Community Finnair Styal Action Association Cheshire Wildlife Trust Flybe Styal Village Association Combined Association of flyglobespan.com Wythenshawe Tenants Sustainable Development Commission Icelandair Council for the Protection of The Aviation Society International Air Transport Association Rural England The National Trust (IATA) Countryside Agency The Wilmslow Trust jet2.com Crowne Plaza Hotel, Manchester Airport Timperley Civic Society KLM - Royal Dutch Airlines English Heritage Trans Pennine Express KTHY Kibris Türk Hava Yollari Environment Agency Travelodge, Libyan Airways Etrop Grange Hotel Manchester Airport Lufthansa Federation of Tour Operators Lufthansa CityLine Freight Transport Association Monarch Airlines

79 Appendix 2 List of libraries that were sent copies of the draft noise action plan.

Abram Community Library Castle Hill Library Golborne Library Ainsworth Library Castle Leisure Library Gorton Library Alderley Edge Library Castleton Library Grappenhall Library Alkrington Library Central Library Great Moor Library Alsager Library Chadderton Library Great Sankey Library Altrincham Library Charlestown and Lower Kersal Library Greatstone Library Ashton Library Cheadle Hulme Library Greenfield Library Aspull Library Cheadle Library Hale Library Astley Bridge Library Chorlton Library Handforth Library Atherton Library Clayton Library Harwood Library Balderstone Library Clifton Library Hattersley Library Barlow Moor Library Congleton Library Haughton Green Library Barnton Library Coppice Library Hazel Grove Library Beech Hill Library Crewe Library Heald Green Library Belfield Library Crompton Library Heaton Library Birchwood Library Crumpsall Library Heatons Library Blackrod Library Culcheth Library Height Library Bollington Library Davyhulme Library Heywood Library Bolton Central Library Denton Library High Lane Library Boothstown Library Dialstone Library High Street Library Bowfell Library Didsbury Library Higher Blackley Library Bramhall Library Disley Library Highfield Library Brandlesholme Library Droylsden Library Hindley Library Bredbury Library Dukinfield Library Holmes Chapel Library Breightment Library East City Library Home Library Service Brinnington Library Eccles Library Hope Community Library Bromley Cross Library Edgeley Library Hope Library Broughton Library Failsworth Library Horwich Library Burnage Library Fallowfield Library Hulme Library Burtonwood Library Farnworth Library Hurdsfield Library Bury Central Library Fitton Hill Library Hurst Library Cadishead Library Forum Library Hyde Library

80 Ince Library Northenden Library Stockport Central Library Irlam Library Northmoor Library Stretford Library Junction Community Library Northwich Library Stockton Heath Library Knutsford Library Old Trafford Library Swinton Library Langley Library Oldham Library and Lifelong Learning Tameside Central Library Lees Library Community Hub Centre Tarporley Library Leigh Library Ordsall Library Tarvin Library Levenshulme Library Orford Library The Mobile Library Little Hulton Library Orrell Library Timperley Library Little Lever Library Padgate Library Topping Fold Library Littleborough Library Partington Library Tottington Library Longsight Library Pendleton Library Tyldesley Library Lostock Library Penketh Library Unsworth Library Lymm Library Platt Bridge Community Library Uppermill Library Macclesfield Library Poynton Library Urmston Library Marple Library Prestbury Library Walkden Library Marsh Green Library Prestwich Library Wardle Library Middleton Library Rack House Library Warrington Library Middlewich Library Radcliffe Library Weaverham Library Miles Platting Library Ramsbottom Library West End Library Milnrow Library Reddish Library Westbrook Library Mobile Library Royton Library Westhoughton Library Moorside Library Ryecroft Hall Wharton Library Mossley Library Sale Library Wheatsheaf Library Mottram Library Sandbach Library Whitefield Library Nantwich Library Sandiway Library Wigan Library New Kershaw Library Shevington Library Wilmslow Library New Moston Library Smallbridge Library Winsford Library Newton Heath Library Smithybridge Library Winton Library Newton Library Spotland Library Withington Library Norden Library St. Chads Centre Woodsend Library North City Library Stalybridge Library Woolston Library Standish Library Worsley Village Library 81 This is a copy of the questionnaire we sent out to people.

Appendix 3 Draft Noise Action Plan Consultation 2009 - Questionnaire We would appreciate it if you could take a few minutes to complete this questionnaire, giving us your views on our Draft Noise Action Plan.

Name

Organisation (if applicable):

Address:

Postcode: Email:

Telephone:

1. Are there any further actions that we should be taking to control the noise impact in areas shown to be affected by high levels of noise?

High noise levels are those within the 69 dB L Aeq contour. In which area(s) do we need to take any further actio n? a. Departing aircraft Yes No Unsure b. Arriving aircraft Yes No Unsure c. Night Noise Yes No Unsure d. Mitigation schemes Yes No Unsure e. Monitoring and reporting Yes No Unsure f. Communication Yes No Unsure

FOR ALL AREAS WHERE YOU THINK FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED

Why do you think further action is required in this particular area?

What further action would you like us to consider?

82 2. Generally, are there any further actions that we should be taking to control the noise impact from departing or arriving aircraft? In which area(s) do we need to take any further action ? a. Departing aircraft Yes No Unsure b. Arriving aircraft Yes No Unsure c. Night Noise Yes No Unsure d. Mitigation schemes Yes No Unsure e. Monitoring and reporting Yes No Unsure f. Communication Yes No Unsure

FOR ALL AREAS WHERE YOU THINK FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED

Why do you think further action is required in this particular area?

What further action would you like us to consider?

3. To what extent do you agree that this Draft Noise Action Plan provides a suitable framework for the ongoing management of aircraft noise?

Agree strongly Agree Neither agree nor disagree Do not agree at all

Why is that?

4. Do you have any other comments or suggestions on this Draft Noise Action Plan?

Please give details

Please tick this box, if you do not wish to be identified in our schedule of responses. Please tick this box, if you would like us to acknowledge receipt of your response.

Thank you for taking part in the Manchester Airport Draft Noise Action Plan consultation 83 Appendix 4 List of private companies and voluntary, community and faith organisations that were sent posters and leaflets advertising the consultation events.

84 409th Manchester (William Temple) Brookfield Gardens Residents' Group, Corporate Services Manchester City Scout Group, Wythenshawe Wythenshawe Council, Manchester AJ Worrall Dentist, Heaton Moor Brooklands Estate Tenants & Residents Councillor Lane Post Office, Cheadle A4E Ltd, Wythenshawe Association Crossacres & Sharston Tenants Adult and Children’s Social Care Brooklands Medical Practice Association, Sharston Contact Service, Gorton Brookway High & Sports College, Crossacres Primary School, Advice & Information, Wythenshawe Wythenshawe Wythenshawe Age Concern, Wythenshawe Brownley Green Baptist Church, Donneybrook House, Hyde Wythenshawe Alexandra Park Junior School, Edgeley Dreamcatchers, Wythenshawe Brownley Green Methodist Church, All Hallows & St Phillips Church, Cheadle Drs JW Billingham, TJ Mallon and Benchill JL Davies, Mobberley All Hallows Church, Cheadle Bucklow Garage, Mere Drs M Clark, D Burke and J Patterson, All Saints Church, Cheadle Hulme Builders Arms, Knutsford Hyde Altrincham Leisure Centre Business Advice Direct, Wythenshawe Drs Mallon, Davies and Allen, Knutsford Altrincham Library Business in the Community, Manchester Eagle Tenants Association, Newall Green Arden Park Day Nursery, Bredbury Café Unity, Cheadle Eastholme Surgery, Heaton Moor Arden Primary School, Bredbury Cale Green Surgery, Stockport Edgeley Library Arley Post Office, Northwich Castle Street Dental Practice, Stockport Edgeley Methodist Church Asda Hyde CATS Community Amateur Theatrical Edgeley Post Office Asda Stockport Society, Wythenshawe Egerton Youth Club, Knutsford Ashgate Specialist Support Central Methodist Church, Hyde Emmanuel Church, Cheadle Hulme Primary School, Wythenshawe Chairman Mere Parish Council Etchells Primary School, Heald Green Baguley Clinic ChangeUp Consortium in Family Action Benchill, Wythenshawe Baguley Community Centre Greater Manchester Flowery Field Church, Hyde Baguley Hall Methodist Church Cheadle Hulme Health Centre Forum Futures, Wythenshawe Baguley Park Beehive Cheadle Hulme Library Forum Health Dental Practice, Baguley Park Play Centre Cheadle Parish Church Wythenshawe Baguley Sure Start Centre Cheadle Post Office Forum Health, Wythenshawe Baguley Tenants & Residents Chelwood Baptist Church, Cheadle Forum Nursery Wythenshawe Forum Association Cheshire East Council, Knutsford Friends of Baguley Park Baguley Wasp Cheshire East Council, Mobberley Friends of Hollyhedge Park, Benchill Childrens Centre Cheshire East Council, Pickmere Wythenshawe Benchill Community Centre Cheshire East Council, Sandbach Fryer's Rose Nursery & Garden Centre, Benchill Medical Practice Cheshire Midland Hotel, Altrincham Mere Benchill Primary School Cheshireways Service Station, Mere FSL Opticians Ltd, Benchill Benchill Senior Citizens Club Christ Church (Roman Catholic), Gatley Post Office Benchill Sure Start Centre Heald Green Glen Maye Dental Practice, Northenden Benchill Tenants & Residents Church of Jesus Christ of Golden Lattern, Knutsford Association Latter Day Saints, Knutsford Greater Manchester Centre for BEST, Old Trafford Church of the Nazarene – Brooklands Voluntary Organisations (GMCVO) Bethany Community Church, Cheadle Church Road Post Office, Greenbrow Medical Practice, Cheadle Hulme Newall Green Bideford Estate Tenants & Residents Association, Baguley Churches Working Together Grove Lane Baptist Church, in Wythenshawe Cheadle Hulme Bollin Primary School, Bowdon Citizens Advice, Stockport Hale Library Bowdon C of E Primary School City College Manchester, West Didsbury Hale Methodist Church Bowdon Parish Church Clarendon Medical Centre, Hyde Hale United Reformed Church Bowland Medical Practice, Baguley Combined Association of Hall Lane Playgroup, Baguley Bradshaw Brook Methodist Church, Wythenshawe Tenants (CAWT) Knutsford Happy Days Nursery, Northern Moor Community Foundation for Bramhall Library Hattersley Group Practice, Hyde Greater Manchester, Manchester Bredbury Library Hattersley Library, Hyde Connexions, Wythenshawe Bridge Hall Primary School, Stockport Haveley Hey Primary School, Consumer Advice, Manchester Wythenshawe Brookdale Clinic, Knutsford Copperdale Trust, Wythenshawe Heald Green Library Brooke Surgery, Hyde Cornishway Group Practice, Wythenshawe

85 Heald Green Methodist Church Manchester Road Medical Centre, Parkway Green Housing Trust, Baguley Heald Green Post Office Knutsford Parkway Green Housing Trust, Heald Green United Reformed Church Maple Road Dental Practice, Northenden Wythenshawe Heald Green Village Hall Parkway Green Housing, Baguley Medical Practice, Wythenshawe Heaton Mersey Medical Practice Parkway Green Housing, Northenden Menorah Synagogue, Wythenshawe Heaton Mersey Orthodontic Centre Peel Hall Forum, Wythenshawe Mere Golf & Country Club Heaton Moor Medical Centre Peel Hall Medical Practice, Mere Parish Council Wythenshawe Heaton Moor Post Office Mere Post Office & Village Store Peel Hall Primary School, Wythenshawe Hollingworth St Mary C of E Mere Residents Association Piper Hill School, Wythenshawe Holly House Veterinary Surgery, Knutsford Mobberley Parish Council Plumley Post Office Homestart, Wythenshawe Mobberley Post Office Plumley Village Hall Hyde Library Mobberley Victory Hall Post Office, Bredbury Hyde Unitarian Fellowship Morrisons supermarket, Bredbury Post Office, Hale Jennings Opticians, Wythenshawe Morrisons supermarket, Cheadle Heath Poundswick Dentists, Wythenshawe Jobcentre Plus, Wythenshawe Morrisons supermarket, Stockport Poundswick Lane Children's Centre, Wythenshawe Kids Allowed Ltd, Knutsford Mottram Evangelical Church Mottram Library Prospect Vale Primary School, Kid's Fun Club, Baguley Heald Green Kidz Come 1st Benchill National Probation Service, Wythenshawe Quakers Religious Society of Friends, Community Centre Cheadle Kilton Inn, Mere New Dawn Community Association, Northern Moor Quakers Religious Society of Friends, King George, Hale Stockport New Hope Community Church, Knutsford Children's Centre Cheadle Hulme RK Medical Practice, Wythenshawe Knutsford Citizens Advice New Horizons, Woodhouse Park Rackhouse & Northern Moor Tenants and Residents Association Knutsford Football Club New Start Trust, Wythenshawe Rainbow Day Nursery, Mere Knutsford Golf Club House Newall Green Baptist Church Raindrops Boutique, Mere Knutsford Library Newall Green High School Richard Jones & Associates, Knutsford Methodist Church & Newall Green Tenants & Residents Wythenshawe Community Centre Association Ringway Primary School, Wythenshawe Knutsford Private Bowling Club Newton Library, Hyde Royal Oak Community Action Group, Knutsford Sports Club Next Step, Cheetham Hill Baguley Knutsford Town Council NHS Health Centre, Heald Green Royal Oak Community Centre, Large Garden Scout Drive Norbrook Youth & Community Group, Wythenshawe Children’s Centre, Wythenshawe Wythenshawe Royle Green Childrens Centre, Lark Hill Primary School, Edgeley Norris Bank Primary School, Northenden Lawton Moor Methodist Church, Heaton Mersey Royle Green Tenants Association, Northern Moor Northenden Civic Society Northenden Learn Direct, Wythenshawe Northenden Community Projects Rupert’s Private Day Nursery, Brooklands Long Lane Post Office, Heald Green Northenden Group Practice S Mcmurrough BDS, Edgeley Lowfield Surgery, Stockport Northenden Health Centre Sacred Heart and St Peter’s Catholic Manchester Adult Education Service, Northenden Methodist Church Wythenshawe Church, Baguley Northenden Police Station Manchester Advice Sainsburys, Hazel Grove Northern Moor Community Church Manchester Children's Information Sainsburys, Romiley Northern Moor Dental Practice Service, Moss Side Sainsburys, Stockport Northern Moor Medical Practice Manchester City Council Sale Road Sure Start Centre, Manchester College, Wythenshawe Oasis Dental Care, Stockport Northern Moor Manchester Community Transport, Onward Christian Centre, Hyde Sale Road Sure Start Children’s Centre, Wythenshawe Open University, Wythenshawe Northern Moor Manchester Debt Advice Service, Orchard Service Station, Mere Sandilands Primary School, Wythenshawe Chorlton Our Lady & The Apostles, Stockport Sandilands Sure Start Centre, Manchester Event Volunteers Our Lady’s Catholic Primary School, Wythenshawe Manchester Methodist Housing Stockport Sandilands Sure Start Children’s Centre, Association, Wythenshawe Outwood Primary School, Heald Green Wythenshawe Manchester Nextstep, Parklands High School, Wythenshawe Cheetham Hill

86 Scarman Trust, Wythenshawe St. Ann’s RC Church, Cheadle Hulme The Welcome Café, Knutsford Scout Drive Childrens Centre, St Anthony’s RC Church, Wythenshawe The William Temple Parish Church, Wythenshawe St Augustine C of E Church, Stockport Wythenshawe Shaw Heath Post Office, Knutsford St Barnabas, Hyde The Willows Primary School, Wythenshawe Shaw Heath Social Club, Knutsford St Catherine’s Parish Church Vicarage, Shaw Villa Medical Centre, Stockport Heald Green Tithe Barn Primary School, Heaton Mersey Shentons Tenants Association, St Cross C of E Church, Knutsford Toft Road Surgery, Knutsford Wythenshawe St Cuthbert C of E Church, Cheadle Tree of Life Centre, Wythenshawe Signpost, Wythenshawe St George C of E Church, Hyde Trinity Church, Cheadle Sisters of St Joseph of the Apparition, St James C of E Church, Gatley Wythenshawe Victim Support & Witness Service City St James RC Parish, Hyde South Manchester Local Quaker of Manchester Meeting, Northenden St John’s Church Office, Knutsford Vision Service Opticians, Northenden South Manchester Synagogue, Bowdon St Luke the Physician, Wythenshawe Ward Coordination Support Officer, South Manchester University Hospital St Mark’s C of E, Stockport Wythenshawe NHS Trust, Baguley St Mark’s United Reformed Church, William Temple Church, Wythenshawe Specsavers, Wythenshawe Wythenshawe Willow Park House, Wythenshawe St Aidan’s RC Church, Northern Moor St Martin, Baguley Willow Park Housing Trust, St Andrew’s House, Wythenshawe St Mary’s C of E Church, Hyde Wythenshawe St Andrew's Methodist Church, St Matthew’s C of E Church, Stockport Woodhouse Park Active Lifestyle Centre Wythenshawe St Matthew’s C of E Primary School, Woodhouse Park Lifestyle Centre St Anthony’s Catholic Primary School, Stockport Woodhouse Park Sure Start Wythenshawe St Michael & All Angels Mottram, Woodhouse Park Sure Start St Anthony's RC Church, Wythenshawe Mottram Children’s Centre St Barnabus Parish Church, Bredbury St Paul’s RC Church, Hyde Woodlands Medical Practice St Barnabus Parish Church, Bredbury St Peter’s C of E Church, Altrincham Work Solutions, Wythenshawe St Bonaventures Charity Trust, St Vincent’s Church, Knutsford Wythenshawe Black Community Group Northenden Stamford Park Infant & Junior School, Wythenshawe Community Church Hale St Elizabeth’s Toddler Group, Wythenshawe Community Farm Wythenshawe Standguide, Wythenshawe Wythenshawe Community Initiative St Elizabeth's RC Church, Wythenshawe Stockport Central Library Wythenshawe Credit Union, St Francis of Assisi, Wythenshawe Stockport Medical Group Wythenshawe St Francis’s Church, Wythenshawe Sure Start Benchill, Wythenshawe Credit Union, St Hilda’s RC Church, Northenden Tesco Express, Stockport Wythenshawe St John Fisher & Thomas More Catholic Tesco Express, Cheadle Wythenshawe FM Primary School, Wythenshawe Tesco Extra, Stockport Wythenshawe Forum Trust St John Fisher & Thomas More, Thameside Fellowship of Churches Wythenshawe Forum Walk-in Centre Wythenshawe (Baptist-URC), Hyde Wythenshawe Hospital St Luke’s Church, Wythenshawe The Addy Young People’s Centre, Wythenshawe Law Centre St Mark’s United Reformed Church, Sharston Wythenshawe Wythenshawe Library The Country Store and Post Offices, St Mark’s CE Primary School, Bredbury Knutsford Wythenshawe Oasis St Mark’s CE Primary School, Bredbury The Griffin, Bowdon Wythenshawe police station St Mark’s Manse Rest Home, The Heaton Norris Health Centre Wythenshawe Regeneration Team Wythenshawe The Maples Medical Centre, Wythenshawe Rotary Club St Martin’s Church, Baguley Newall Green Wythenshawe Women's Aid St Michael & All Angels Church (C of E), The Parish Church of St Wilfrid, Wythenshawe World Northern Moor Mobberley Wythit, Wythenshawe St Paul’s Roman Catholic High School, The Park Medical Centre, Baguley Yeshurun Hebrew Congregation, Wythenshawe The Railway Hale Gatley St Richard’s Church (C of E), The Rajar Building, Mobberley Wythenshawe The Scarman Trust, Manchester St Wilfrid’s Church, Northenden The Smithy Surgery, Hyde St Winifred’s School, Heaton Mersey The Stamford Arms, Bowdon St Andrew’s Methodist Church, Wythenshawe The Victim and Witness Community Team, Northern Moor St. Andrew’s Church, Cheadle Hulme

87 Appendix 5 A list of parish councils invited to attend briefing sessions on the draft noise action plan.

Alderley Edge Parish Council Great Budworth Parish Council Nether Alderley Parish Council Allostock Parish Council Great Warford Parish Council Ollerton with Marthall Parish Council Antrobus Parish Council Henbury Parish Council Over Alderley Parish Council Appleton Parish Council High Legh Parish Council Peover Inferior Parish Council Ashley Parish Council Knutsford Town Council Peover Superior Parish Council Chelford Parish Council Lach Dennis Parish Council Pickmere Parish Council Chorley Parish Council Little Warford Parish Council Plumley with Toft and Comberbach Parish Council Lostock Gralam Parish Council Bexton Parish Council Cranage Parish Council Lower Peover Parish Council Prestbury Parish Council Dunham Massey Parish Council Marston Parish Council Rostherne Parish Council Goostrey Parish Council Marton Parish Council Siddington Parish Council Mere Parish Council Snelson Parish Council Millington Parish Council Stretton Parish Council Mobberley Parish Council Styal Village Association Mottram St Andrew Parish Council Swettenham Parish Council Tabley Parish Council Twemlow Parish Council Warburton Parish Council Wincham Parish Council

88 Appendix 6 List of people and organisations that responded to the draft noise action plan consultation.

Bowdon Conservation Group Heald Green and Long Lane Mere Parish Council Julian Brazier TD MP Ratepayers’ Association Claire Monteith Muhammad Naseem and Heald Green Conservatives Michael Morton Seema Chaudry John Hernon Michael Mottershead Cheshire East Council Carl Herrick Clive Narrainen James Cooper High Legh Parish Council Nether Alderley Parish Council Clare Crowther Mark Hunter MP Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council Peter Dickinson International Air Transport Association M Parkes (IATA) Environmental Protection UK Veronica Payne Wallace Johnson Roger Firth Peover Superior Parish Council B Kelly Friends of the Peak District Bruce Ramsey Desmond Kelly Greater Manchester Chamber Phil Rowbotham of Commerce Alan Langley Paul Rowe Stuart Guest Iain Lydon Kurus Shayan Geoffrey Hamilton Manchester Airport Consultative Kathleen Smith Scott Harding Committee (MACC) Phoebe Spence Bob Harris Manchester City Council Mrs McAllister Stockport Friends of the Earth Janet McCappin Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council Margaret McGrory The National Trust David G Thompson Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. Wendy Warburton Willow Park Housing Trust Wythenshawe Regeneration Team

Fifteen people asked not to be identified in this list.

89 Appendix 7 We asked people to tell us their views on whether they think the measures we currently take to manage noise are appropriate. These are the responses that we received. In total, 53 people and organisations responded using the questionnaire (appendix 3). We received responses from 39 people, and 18 of those had already been in touch with our Community Relations Team before the start of the consultation. We have analysed the responses in the following way. a. Overall response b. Response from people who had already been in touch with our Community Relations Team c. Response from people we had never been in touch with d. Response from organisations

90 Question 1 Do you think that we should be taking further action to control the effect of noise in areas affected by high levels of noise (69 decibels or more) and if so in which areas do we need to take further action? a. Overall response The responses to this question are shown in graph 1.

Graph 1

80 Yes 70

) Yes Yes t

n Yes e 60 c

r Yes e p

( 50

e Yes s 40 n o

p Not sure

s 30 e R 20 No Not sure Not sure No Not sure No No Not sure No No Not sure 10

Departing aircraft Arriving aircraft Night noise Mitigation schemes Monitoring and Communication reporting

Despite the fact that none of the people responding live in the areas affected by high levels of noise (69 decibels or more), more than 50% of the people thought that there are further actions that we should be taking to control noise in areas affected by high levels of noise (69 decibels or more). Also, more than 50% of those who responded thought that there are further measures that we should be taking to monitor and report on noise, and to communicate with people in areas affected by high levels of noise (69 decibels or more). Less than 40% thought that more mitigation schemes were needed in this area. Some people (around 10% of those who responded) did not think that any extra measures were needed.

b. Response from people who had already been in touch with our Community Relations Team Responses from people who had been in touch with our Community Relations Team (graph 2) showed a different pattern from the overall response.

Graph 2

Yes 90

80 Yes Yes 70 ) t Yes n

e 60 c r e p

( 50

e Yes Not sure Yes s 40 n Not sure o p

s 30 e R 20 Not sure No Not sure Not sure No 10 No Not sure No No No 0

Departing aircraft Arriving aircraft Night noise Mitigation schemes Monitoring and Communication reporting

Nearly 90% of this group of people thought that further action was needed in areas affected by high levels of noise (69 decibels or more) to control the effect of noise at night. Over 70% of this group of people also thought further measures were needed to control the effect of noise from aircraft landing at and taking off from the airport. Over 60% of people thought that we should be taking further action to monitor and report noise in these areas, but less than 40% of people thought that further mitigation measures or extra communication was needed.

91 c. Response from people we had never been in touch with The responses we received from people we had never been in touch with (see graph 3) is different from those we received from people who had already been in touch with our Community Relations Team.

Graph 3

90 Yes 80 Yes Yes 70 )

t Yes n

e 60 Yes c r Yes e p

( 50

s e

s 40 n o p

s 30

e No No Not sure

R No 20 Not sure Not sure Not sure No No No 10 Not sure Not sure

Departing aircraft Arriving aircraft Night noise Mitigation schemes Monitoring and Communication reporting

In general a far higher percentage of this group of people think that more action is needed to control noise in areas affected by high levels of noise (69 decibels or more). Over 75% of this group of people thought that we should be taking further measures to monitor and report noise, and that we should be taking further measures to communicate with people affected by high levels of noise. Less than 60% of this group of people thought that further measures are needed to control night noise in these areas.

d. Response from organisations Organisations responded to this question differently (graph 4) to the responses received from individual people.

Graph 4

80 Yes 70 ) t n

e 60 Yes c r e p

( 50

s Yes e

s 40 n o

p Yes Yes

s 30 e Not sure No No R Not sure No Not sure 20 No No No Not sure Yes Not sure 10 Not sure

Departing aircraft Arriving aircraft Night noise Mitigation schemes Monitoring and Communication reporting

The priority for this group was action to control noise from aircraft taking off and landing. Less than 15% of organisations responding to this question thought that further mitigation measures were needed in areas affected by high levels of noise. And less than 30% believed that extra monitoring, reporting and communication measures are needed.

92 Question 2 Do you think that we should be taking further action to control noise from aircraft taking off or landing at the airport and, if so, in which areas do we need to take further action? a. Overall response In general the overall responses we received to this question (Graph 5) was very similar to the response that we received to question 1.

Graph 5

80 Yes 70 Yes ) t n

e 60 c

r Yes Yes e p

( 50

Yes s e

s 40 Yes n

o Not sure p

s 30 e

R Not sure 20 No No Not sure No Not sure No No No 10 Not sure Not sure

Departing aircraft Arriving aircraft Night noise Mitigation schemes Monitoring and Communication reporting

Although fewer respondents thought that additional actions were required to: control noise from arriving aircraft, monitor and report noise and improve communication.

b. Response from people who had already been in touch with our Community Relations Team Responses to this question from people who had already been in touch with our Community Relations Team are shown in graph 6.

Graph 6

90 Yes Yes 80

70 Yes ) t n

e 60

c Yes r e p

( 50

e Yes s 40 Not sure n Yes Not sure o p

s 30 e R 20 Not sure No Not sure No 10 No Not sure Not sure No No No 0

Departing aircraft Arriving aircraft Night noise Mitigation schemes Monitoring and Communication reporting

Compared with the responses to question 1, there was more emphasis placed on extra measures being needed to control noise from aircraft taking off (over 80% of respondents thought further action was needed) and less emphasis on further action being needed to control noise from arriving aircraft and activities carried out at night. More people thought that further action was needed to monitor and report noise, while fewer people thought extra communication measures were needed.

93 9 c G C a t B t G d C f m G u h o 4 c . . u o o r r r o r e

t a a a c t t m m i r Responses (percent) r Responses (percent) h R R

o p p p o e e i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 n e p p n e e h h h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n

m n

r a a

s s

t g

i 7 8 7 e r a s r r p p i e o e e t

c o o s i n n D D l d d g d

t h N N n n e a e e e i

a s o o o o p p w w s s r n e t

a a n a e w e t i d d i i r r o o t t l

t t

, e

t s f f h h i i n

m n n o Y Y r r b a d

e e g g o o

t t t

s s s s e

h c h h m m a a t c

n e o i i o e e w f r r N N h

c c u

i n

p o o o t r r r c r r e i t t r o t e a a t

e r e s s t o m r h r f f g u u r s h s e t t o o r r n

e e a p p q e e n s p l t

n o r p s o o u n r l

o e i , n o e n m i o s

l m s s s w n

i a e s e t e t e s t h

e o e i a i o s o

e e o

f n s

h r f r n

f n r u t i

o n r a A A N N t c

o o s o r 1 o o o m o r r d o m e

r r m , r q i i i

m s v v

i n n m

t u i i

e a n n h e p t m g e Y Y g g

o i o i v e e r f e

s s s s a a r c u

a r e o

m t o i i e r g n r r n i r c c p o a m

N N

r d o i p r r b o o c n l f o a a e t t n t

e e

f f a

r a u s s

t t

1 i t e u u o e t w t c p a r r e o , e e p p n t

r f i o o

l n v e i i e

n n a h f r i o w

t t g

i n a p i i i t n e n s e o

d d e

o s e g r t u

f h

o f c c i p e n i

s e s r f a h N N p o l s r g v e o o

o o g i u N N w e r a

s t m i i i r r e r n e e g g o i o t

t s h h

d i

h u n Y Y s o t t a . q e e

a p n n o s s r n o u e o o

t i

d u p e s i i i t n s s o N N h t

r s e e e

o o l

o n a i i t t t a , n n

i s s

s v n o t a u u

k i

r r t d d n t n e e n

o h t i

i i d n h u n g 1 o

g a c g h , t u

o t

t m g a

b h c t w u o

o u o t t r M M r i

h t r t t e m t h e i i h N N

h e t t

f o o i i

e p . e g g m a

i a n a a r w e t

t t u i f

m o i i r w o o o e n p Y Y p n n r r e e e e i o

s s c l s s a p e

r c c a s t s a

e h h N N t t h ; u e e t o o o h e

o i i t t m m r o n

p i s s e n w u e e u u n t l r r s s s k e r l e e i d

o t

(

a h t g t

d h b h r

r u t e a e o a h c

p u n e t

i f a n g h e

u p k g

h e r 8 u i t t d N N n M M )

h b o o . t e g o o e h l r r d n n i r e e a c i i t t p p t . o o Y Y o o r r e e r r i i s s n n t t i i g g n n

g g N N a a o o n n t t

d d s s u u r r e e N N C C o o o o m m m m u u Y Y e e n n s s i i c c a a N N t t o o i i o o t t

n n s s u u r r e e Question 3 Do you agree that the draft noise action plan provides a suitable framework for managing aircraft noise?

a. Overall response c. Response from people we had never been Overall, 46% of those who returned the questionnaire agreed in touch with us or strongly agreed that the draft noise action plan provides a The people we had never been in touch with before had suitable framework for managing aircraft noise (graph 9). different views, with 55% agreeing or agreeing strongly that the action plan provided a suitable framework for managing Graph 9 aircraft noise, 35% not agreeing, and 10% not being sure (graph 11). 60 Graph 11 50 ) t

n 60

e 40 c r e p (

s 30 e ) s t n n o e 40 p c s 20 r e e p R (

s 30 10 e s n o p

s 20

0 e R

Agree Agree Not sure Do not 10 strongly agree

35% did not agree that the action plan provided a suitable 0 framework, and 20% were not sure. Agree Agree Not sure Do not strongly Agree

b. Response from people who had already been in touch d. Response from organisations with our Community Relations Team Of those organisations that responded, nearly 60% agreed or The response from people who had already been in touch strongly agreed that the draft action plan provided a suitable with our Community Relations Team shows a different framework for managing noise. Only 8% thought that it was pattern (graph 10). not suitable, and a third of organisations were still not sure whether the action plan was suitable (graph 12). Graph 10 Graph 12 60

60 50 )

t 50 n

e 40 ) c t r n e e

p 40 c (

r s 30 e e p ( s

n s 30 o e p s s

20 n e o R p

s 20 e

10 R

10 0

Agree Agree Not sure Do not 0 strongly Agree Agree Agree Not sure Do not strongly Agree Only 25% of this group agreed or strongly agreed that the action provided a suitable framework, and 56% do not agree that it provides a suitable framework.

95 Appendix 8 Financial information The Government recognises that a balance needs to be struck between local disturbance, the limits of social acceptability and economic benefit and has therefore provided guidance as to financial information that we should include in our noise action plan. Any new noise control measure considered for inclusion in the plan must '...take account of the cost of implementation and the likely benefit expected to be accrued.'

No new noise control measures have been included within this revision of the plan.

96 manchesterairpo rt.co.u k Manchester Airport, Manchester M 90 1QX Telephone + 44 (0)8712 710 711