TRANSFORMING LONDON STANSTED AIRPORT

35+ PLANNING APPLICATION

Appendix 7.5

Complaints

Analysis

Stansted Airport 35+ Planning Application Complaints Analysis: Noise

Technical Appendix 7.5

Stansted Airport 35+ Planning Application Complaints Analysis: Noise

Technical Appendix 7.5

Assessing the incidence and causes of complaints about noise from operations at Stansted Airport

Stansted Airport Ltd.

Enterprise House Bassingbourne Road London Stansted Airport Stansted CM24 1QW

Revision Description Date Prepared Approved

- Issue 1 12 February 2018 Vernon Cole Ian Yates

This report and associated surveys have been prepared and undertaken for the private and confidential use of our client only. If any third party whatsoever comes into possession of this report, they rely on it at their own risk and Cole Jarman Limited accepts no duty or responsibility (including in negligence) to any such third party.

Cole Jarman Limited Reg. in England and Wales No. 7102436 [email protected] www.colejarman.com

Head Office +44 (0)1932 829007 Manchester Office +44 (0)161 2093644 John Cree House, 24B High Street, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 1TN Peter House, 1 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 5AN Complaints Analysis: Noise

Table of Contents

Record Keeping 3 1 Communication 3 2 Annual Reports 4

Complaints Statistics 5 3 Level of Annual Complaints 5 4 Causes of Complaints 6

Geographic Considerations 9 5 Complaints Locations 9

Commentary 16 6 Noise Level vs. Incidence of Complaints 16 7 Number of Complainants 17 8 2016 Complaints Increase 18

Conclusions 22 9 Implications for Noise Study 22

 End of Section

Page 2 Stansted Airport 35+ Planning Application Table of Contents Technical Appendix 7.5/- // 12 February 2018 Complaints Analysis: Noise

Record Keeping

1 Communication

1.1 Complaints are made direct to Stansted Airport by members of the public. The predominant method of communication is via e-mail and the actual breakdown of methods of communication in 2015 and 2016 is set out below.

2016 2015 Contact Method number % number % e-mail 1818 89.8 344 67.0 telephone 63 3.1 115 22.4 web 138 6.9 51 10.0 letter 5 0.2 3 0.6 TOTAL 2024 513

T1 Means of communicating noise complaints to Stansted Airport

1.2 It should be noted that the number of communications is not the same as the number of complaints, the latter being logged individually even if more than one is made in a single communication.

1.3 Stansted Airport have a published noise complaints handling policy, which can be downloaded at:

http://mag-umbraco-media-live.s3.amazonaws.com/1017/stansted-complaints-handling- policy.pdf

Page 3 Stansted Airport 35+ Planning Application Record Keeping Technical Appendix 7.5/- // 12 February 2018 Complaints Analysis: Noise

2 Annual Reports

2.1 At the end of each year, Stansted Airport prepares a Noise Complaints Analysis Report.

2.2 The report breaks down complaints by:

• month,

• time period (day, morning shoulder, evening shoulder and core night),

• location (subdivided into the 4 time periods),

• nature of complaints,

• origin of complaints.

2.3 The analysis identifies the number of complainants and those individuals from which the highest number of complaints are received. It goes on to assess the root cause of the complaints and also the nature of the operations being undertaken where specific complaints can be correlated with specific movements.

2.4 Where possible the report draws conclusions as to primary causes of complaints and any change in the nature of complaints compared to previous years.

2.5 The 2016 Complaints Analysis report can be downloaded at:

http://mag-umbraco-media-live.s3.amazonaws.com/5346600/noise-complaints-report- 2016.pdf

Page 4 Stansted Airport 35+ Planning Application Record Keeping Technical Appendix 7.5/- // 12 February 2018 Complaints Analysis: Noise

Complaints Statistics

3 Level of Annual Complaints

3.1 The level of complaints and number of complainants for each of the last 12 years is set out below. For reference, the annual number of aircraft movements and the area of the 57 dB

LAeq,16h contour generated by the ERCD ANCON model is also shown for each year.

No. of No. of No. of 57 dBLAeq,16h Year Complaints Complainants Movements contour area

2005 19,435 2,312 193,500 27.4 2006 13,956 2,294 206,700 29.3 2007 5,347 1,612 208,500 30.8 2008 2,305 914 193,300 29.1 2009 2,125 666 167,800 24.1 2010 1,745 545 155,150 22.5 2011 881 368 148,350 21.2 2012 742 305 143,330 21.1 2013 907 340 146,000 20.0 2014 1022 427 157,000 21.6 2015 747 245 169,000 23.5 2016 4170 670 180,500 24.3

T2 Trend in level of annual complaints

3.2 The trend exhibits significant declines in the number of both complaints and complainants between 2005 and 2007, followed by a more gradual reduction to 2011. After this year both measures settled at reasonably steady values until 2016.

Page 5 Stansted Airport 35+ Planning Application Complaints Statistics Technical Appendix 7.5/- // 12 February 2018 Complaints Analysis: Noise

3.3 Between 2005 and 2007 the very high number of complaints is believed to reflect a degree of anxiety in the community regarding the implications of a second runway application. As this was subsequently withdrawn, the complaints record from 2008 onwards can be considered to be more reflective of the community response to typical operating conditions.

3.4 The relationship between number of complaints and number of movements is not consistent. In some years an increase in movement numbers leads to an increase in complaints, whereas in other years, the reverse is true.

3.5 A similar finding holds for number of complaints compared to the area affected by noise, in

this case represented by the 57 dB LAeq,16h contour. There is no obvious causal relationship between overall noise levels and number of complaints. In this regard it is believed that two factors are at play:

• Noise level changes are gradual. The level of aircraft operations and the associated noise levels increase over the year rather than undergoing a step change at any given point in time.

• Noise Level changes are relatively small. Between 2009 and 2016 the year on year change in the 57 dB contour area is not greater than 10%, whether increasing or decreasing. Similarly, between 2005 and 2008, although there is a significant year on year decrease in the number of complaints, the corresponding change in 57 dB contour is again less than 10%, whether increasing or decreasing.

3.6 The uptick in 2016 is noteworthy and potential reasons for this explored in Section 8 of this Technical Appendix.

4 Causes of Complaints

4.1 The nature of complaints and how these have varied over the last 5 years are set out in Table T3 below.

Page 6 Stansted Airport 35+ Planning Application Complaints Statistics Technical Appendix 7.5/- // 12 February 2018 Complaints Analysis: Noise

Nature of complaint 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Aircraft noise 42% 53% 45% 20% 37% Aircraft too low 29% 19% 21% 21% 18% Aircraft off track 19% 20% 20% 35% 11% Increased flights 3% 3% 5% 5% 21% Helicopters <1% <1% 3% 9% 9% Night/early morning 4% 2% 4% 9% 4% Arrivals <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% Ground noise 1% <1% 1% <1% <1% Other (odour, works etc.) <1% <1% <1% <1% <1%

TOTAL Complaints 742 907 1,022 747 4,170

T3 Variation in the root cause of complaints registered over the last 5 years.

4.2 While categorisation of complaints in this manner is helpful, it does not mean that causes can be perfectly disaggregated one from the other. If, for example, aircraft are perceived to be flying too low or off track, it may be the higher than anticipated noise levels associated with the occurrence that trigger the observation and the complaint. However, taking the data in the table above at face value, observations are:

• Aircraft noise has historically been the major cause of complaints, although within this broad category the data set out above do not allow generalisation on whether more disturbance is caused by long term average noise levels or individual noisy events. The analysis of complaints by location, addressed in the next section, is more helpful in this regard.

• The next significant categories deal with where an aircraft is compared to where a complainant might expect it to be. Flying too low or off track are both sources of concern, and taken together can be considered to be about as important as aircraft noise in terms of complaint generation.

Page 7 Stansted Airport 35+ Planning Application Complaints Statistics Technical Appendix 7.5/- // 12 February 2018 Complaints Analysis: Noise

• In 2016, there is much greater proportion of complaints about increased flights than in previous years. Operational factors unique to that year are addressed in Section 8 of this technical appendix.

• Factors that lead to complaints amounting to less than 10% of the total can be considered to have a more restricted geographical impact than the major complaints categories: arrivals tend to affect those under the relatively narrow approach paths, while ground noise, helicopter activity and even night or early morning operations tend to affect those living closest to the airport.

Page 8 Stansted Airport 35+ Planning Application Complaints Statistics Technical Appendix 7.5/- // 12 February 2018 Complaints Analysis: Noise

Geographic Considerations

5 Complaints Locations

5.1 The breakdown of the incidence of complaints by location are set out below in Table T4. The intention behind presenting these data is to determine whether there are any trends or notable changes year on year that require further investigation.

5.2 Note:

• A cut off of 10 complaints in any year has been used to identify whether a location appears in the table;

• In years where 10 complaints or more are received, the figures are shown in black;

• In years where fewer than 10 complaints are received, the figures are shown in grey;

• Ps is the total number of complainants from the location;

• Cs is the total number of complaints from the location.

5.3 Three further tables have been produced which assist in analysing the data in Table T4, namely:

• Table T5 which assesses the ratio of number of complaints to number of complainants, colour scaled to highlight increasing values of this ratio;

• Table T6 which assesses the year on year change in the number of complaints from each location, again colour scaled to highlight increasing values. This table also compares the number of complaints received in 2016 compared to the average of the previous 4 years.

• Table T7 which gives an indication of the levels of aircraft noise experienced at the complaint locations by reference to the 2016 ERCD ANCON modelled noise metrics. Also shown is the cumulative number of complaints at each location up to 2015 and also up 2016. The data are filtered in order of highest to lowest cumulative complaints up to 2015.

Page 9 Stansted Airport 35+ Planning Application Geographic Considerations Technical Appendix 7.5/- // 12 February 2018 Complaints Analysis: Noise

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Location of complaint Ps Cs Ps Cs Ps Cs Ps Cs Ps Cs Abbess Rodding - - - - 2 10 - - - - Albury 2 2 4 10 1 1 3 4 - - Bartholomew Green ------2 49 Berden 3 5 3 5 5 10 - - 3 4 Birchanger 3 4 4 6 14 39 9 61 10 249 Bishops Stortford 69 104 61 91 97 146 57 81 94 302 Braintree 2 3 - - 4 4 2 2 20 31 Buntingford 1 1 2 2 4 11 3 4 2 4 Debden 2 10 3 22 2 11 2 9 1 14 Dunmow 7 7 11 19 26 72 5 5 29 237 Duton Hill 2 2 2 5 3 9 1 1 5 24 Elsenham 2 2 2 6 3 10 2 5 5 16 Epping Green - - 1 14 1 13 1 3 - - Felsted 1 1 2 3 1 1 - - 41 115 Furneaux Pelham 1 10 1 1 - - - - 2 8 Good Easter ------9 12 Great Canfield 1 1 3 10 3 4 - - 1 1 Great Dunmow - - 3 4 5 8 - - 6 12 Great Easton 4 8 4 4 8 13 2 3 5 6 Great Hallingbury 9 15 14 17 8 9 3 11 8 14 Great Leighs - - - - 2 40 - - 1 1 Great Notley - - - - 6 13 2 2 19 48 Great Waltham 1 1 ------4 12 Great Yeldham - - 1 1 - - 1 1 1 11 Harlow 6 7 14 17 15 17 7 9 9 163 Hatfield Broad Oak 6 10 5 11 4 10 3 17 40 287 Hatfield Heath 18 119 8 210 15 139 6 80 24 1,281 Henham 4 11 7 11 8 14 8 10 16 25 High Easter 3 11 2 2 2 3 1 1 45 563 High Roding 1 1 - - 1 1 - - 1 79 Hunsdon 2 3 2 11 1 1 2 2 2 4 Little Hadham 5 11 6 6 5 15 2 2 7 9 Little Hallingbury 15 33 9 25 10 25 4 7 8 9 Little Waltham ------1 10 - - London 3 16 1 1 - - - - 3 3 Manuden 7 16 4 7 4 5 3 5 4 7 Much Hadham 8 30 11 26 6 14 5 6 6 17 Newport 1 1 3 27 3 10 3 4 1 1 Pleshey 2 2 2 3 2 2 - - 7 26 Rayne 1 4 - - - - 1 1 10 12

Page 10 Stansted Airport 35+ Planning Application Geographic Considerations Technical Appendix 7.5/- // 12 February 2018 Complaints Analysis: Noise

Roydon 3 43 2 11 3 29 1 57 4 11 Saffron Walden 7 33 6 26 9 50 9 23 9 22 Sawbridgeworth 7 16 10 15 13 22 7 10 7 21 Standon 3 16 4 16 4 4 3 3 4 5 Stansted 6 14 9 12 12 19 5 11 11 25 Stebbing 3 3 4 5 3 13 - - 55 237 Sudbury 2 2 2 13 3 4 1 5 1 1 Takeley 7 13 11 48 11 30 5 14 6 8 Thaxted 5 8 3 3 7 20 4 144 9 35 Thundridge - - - - 2 12 - - - - Ware 6 32 6 26 13 21 6 8 12 15 Widford - - 1 1 1 1 2 10 - - Willingate - - 3 17 3 7 1 6 - - Wimbish 2 6 2 2 9 10 1 3 3 3

T4 Variation in the location from which 10 or more complaints have been registered in a 5-year period.

Location of Complaint 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Abbess Rodding - - 5.00 - - Albury 1.00 2.50 1.00 1.33 - Bartholomew Green - - - - 24.50 Berden 1.67 1.67 2.00 - 1.33 Birchanger 1.33 1.50 2.79 6.78 24.90 Bishops Stortford 1.51 1.49 1.51 1.42 3.21 Braintree 1.50 - 1.00 1.00 1.55 Buntingford 1.00 1.00 2.75 1.33 2.00 Debden 5.00 7.33 5.50 4.50 14.00 Dunmow 1.00 1.73 2.77 1.00 8.17 Duton Hill 1.00 2.50 3.00 1.00 4.80 Elsenham 1.00 3.00 3.33 2.50 3.20 Epping Green - 14.00 13.00 3.00 - Felsted 1.00 1.50 1.00 - 2.80 Furneaux Pelham 10.00 1.00 - - 4.00 Good Easter - - - - 1.33 Great Canfield 1.00 3.33 1.33 - 1.00 Great Dunmow - 1.33 1.60 - 2.00 Great Easton 2.00 1.00 1.63 1.50 1.20 Great Hallingbury 1.67 1.21 1.13 3.67 1.75 Great Leighs - - 20.00 - 1.00 Great Notley - - 2.17 1.00 2.53 Great Waltham 1.00 - - - 3.00 Great Yeldham - 1.00 - 1.00 11.00 Harlow 1.17 1.21 1.13 1.29 18.11

Page 11 Stansted Airport 35+ Planning Application Geographic Considerations Technical Appendix 7.5/- // 12 February 2018 Complaints Analysis: Noise

Hatfield Broad Oak 1.67 2.20 2.50 5.67 7.18 Hatfield Heath 6.61 26.25 9.27 13.33 53.38 Henham 2.75 1.57 1.75 1.25 1.56 High Easter 3.67 1.00 1.50 1.00 12.51 High Roding 1.00 - 1.00 - 79.00 Hunsdon 1.50 5.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 Little Hadham 2.20 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.29 Little Hallingbury 2.20 2.78 2.50 1.75 1.13 Little Waltham - - - 10.00 - London 5.33 1.00 - - 1.00 Manuden 2.29 1.75 1.25 1.67 1.75 Much Hadham 3.75 2.36 2.33 1.20 2.83 Newport 1.00 9.00 3.33 1.33 1.00 Pleshey 1.00 1.50 1.00 - 3.71 Rayne 4.00 - - 1.00 1.20 Roydon 14.33 5.50 9.67 57.00 2.75 Saffron Walden 4.71 4.33 5.56 2.56 2.44 Sawbridgeworth 2.29 1.50 1.69 1.43 3.00 Standon 5.33 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 Stansted 2.33 1.33 1.58 2.20 2.27 Stebbing 1.00 1.25 4.33 - 4.31 Sudbury 1.00 6.50 1.33 5.00 1.00 Takeley 1.86 4.36 2.73 2.80 1.33 Thaxted 1.60 1.00 2.86 36.00 3.89 Thundridge - - 6.00 - - Ware 5.33 4.33 1.62 1.33 1.25 Widford - 1.00 1.00 5.00 - Willingate - 5.67 2.33 6.00 - Wimbish 3.00 1.00 1.11 3.00 1.00

T5 Ratio of number of complaints to number of complainants at location from which 10 or more complaints have arisen in the last 5-year period.

2013 2014 2015 2016 2016 vs Average Location of Complaint P C P C P C P C P C Abbess Rodding ------Albury 100% 400% -75% -90% 200% 300% - - - - Bartholomew Green ------Berden 0% 0% 67% 100% - - - - -18% -40% Birchanger 33% 50% 250% 550% -36% 56% 11% 308% 33% 805% Bishops Stortford -12% -13% 59% 60% -41% -45% 65% 273% 32% 186% Braintree - - - - -50% -50% 900% 1450% 650% 933% Buntingford 100% 100% 100% 450% -25% -64% -33% 0% -20% -11%

Page 12 Stansted Airport 35+ Planning Application Geographic Considerations Technical Appendix 7.5/- // 12 February 2018 Complaints Analysis: Noise

Debden 50% 120% -33% -50% 0% -18% -50% 56% -56% 8% Dunmow 57% 171% 136% 279% -81% -93% 480% 4640% 137% 820% Duton Hill 0% 150% 50% 80% -67% -89% 400% 2300% 150% 465% Elsenham 0% 200% 50% 67% -33% -50% 150% 220% 122% 178% Epping Green - - 0% -7% 0% -77% - - - - Felsted 100% 200% -50% -67% - - - - 2975% >5000% Furneaux Pelham 0% -90% ------100% 45% Good Easter ------Great Canfield 200% 900% 0% -60% - - - - -57% -80% Great Dunmow - - 67% 100% - - - - 50% 100% Great Easton 0% -50% 100% 225% -75% -77% 150% 100% 11% -14% Great Hallingbury 56% 13% -43% -47% -63% 22% 167% 27% -6% 8% Great Leighs ------50% -98% Great Notley - - - - -67% -85% 850% 2300% 375% 540% Great Waltham ------300% 1100% Great Yeldham ------0% 1000% 0% 1000% Harlow 133% 143% 7% 0% -53% -47% 29% 1711% -14% 1204% Hatfield Broad Oak -17% 10% -20% -9% -25% 70% 1233% 1588% 789% 2292% Hatfield Heath -56% 76% 88% -34% -60% -42% 300% 1501% 104% 835% Henham 75% 0% 14% 27% 0% -29% 100% 150% 137% 117% High Easter -33% -82% 0% 50% -50% -67% 4400% >5000% 2150% >5000% High Roding ------0% >5000% Hunsdon 0% 267% -50% -91% 100% 100% 0% 100% 14% -6% Little Hadham 20% -45% -17% 150% -60% -87% 250% 350% 56% 6% Little Hallingbury -40% -24% 11% 0% -60% -72% 100% 29% -16% -60% Little Waltham ------London -67% -94% ------50% -65% Manuden -43% -56% 0% -29% -25% 0% 33% 40% -11% -15% Much Hadham 38% -13% -45% -46% -17% -57% 20% 183% -20% -11% Newport 200% 2600% 0% -63% 0% -60% -67% -75% -60% -90% Pleshey 0% 50% 0% -33% - - - - 250% 1014% Rayne ------900% 1100% 900% 380% Roydon -33% -74% 50% 164% -67% 97% 300% -81% 78% -69% Saffron Walden -14% -21% 50% 92% 0% -54% 0% -4% 16% -33% Sawbridgeworth 43% -6% 30% 47% -46% -55% 0% 110% -24% 33% Standon 33% 0% 0% -75% -25% -25% 33% 67% 14% -49% Stansted 50% -14% 33% 58% -58% -42% 120% 127% 38% 79% Stebbing 33% 67% -25% 160% - - - - 1550% 3286% Sudbury 0% 550% 50% -69% -67% 25% 0% -80% -50% -83% Takeley 57% 269% 0% -38% -55% -53% 20% -43% -29% -70% Thaxted -40% -63% 133% 567% -43% 620% 125% -76% 89% -20% Thundridge ------Ware 0% -19% 117% -19% -54% -62% 100% 88% 55% -31%

Page 13 Stansted Airport 35+ Planning Application Geographic Considerations Technical Appendix 7.5/- // 12 February 2018 Complaints Analysis: Noise

Widford - - 0% 0% 100% 900% - - - - Willingate - - 0% -59% -67% -14% - - - - Wimbish 0% -67% 350% 400% -89% -70% 200% 0% -14% -43%

T6 Annual increase number of complaints at locations from which 10 or more complaints have arisen in the last 5-year period.

2016 Σ Complaints Σ Complaints Location of Complaint

LAeq,16h N65 LAeq,8h N60 to 2015 to 2016 Hatfield Heath 51-54 50-100 45-48 <20 548 1829 Bishops Stortford ≤ 54 ≤ 20 ≤ 48 ≤ 20 422 724 Thaxted 51-57 100-200 48-51 20-50 175 210 Roydon <51 <20 <45 <20 140 151 Saffron Walden <51 <20 <45 <20 132 154 Birchanger ≤ 54 ≤ 20 ≤ 48 ≤ 20 110 359 Takeley <51 <20 <45 <20 105 113 Dunmow <51 <20 <45 <20 103 340 Little Hallingbury 54-57 100-200 48-51 20-50 90 99 Ware <51 <20 <45 <20 87 102 Much Hadham <51 <20 <45 <20 76 93 Sawbridgeworth <51 <20 ≤ 48 20± 63 84 Stansted <51 <20 <45 <20 56 81 Debden <51 <20 <45 <20 52 66 Great Hallingbury 60-66 200± 54-60 20-50 52 66 Harlow <51 <20 <45 <20 50 213 Hatfield Broad Oak <51 20-50 <45 <20 48 335 Henham <51 <20 <45 <20 46 71 Newport <51 <20 <45 <20 42 43 Great Leighs <51 <20 <45 <20 40 41 Standon <51 <20 <45 <20 39 44 Little Hadham <51 <20 <45 <20 34 43 Manuden <51 <20 <45 <20 33 40 Epping Green <51 <20 <45 <20 30 30 Willingale <51 <20 <45 <20 30 30 Great Easton <51 20-50 <45 <20 28 34 Sudbury <51 <20 <45 <20 24 25 Elsenham <51 <20 <45 <20 23 39 Stebbing <51 20± <45 <20 21 258 Wimbish <51 <20 <45 <20 21 24 Berden <51 <20 <45 <20 20 24 Buntingford <51 <20 <45 <20 18 22 High Easter <51 <20 <45 <20 17 580 Duton Hill <51 20-50 <45 <20 17 41

Page 14 Stansted Airport 35+ Planning Application Geographic Considerations Technical Appendix 7.5/- // 12 February 2018 Complaints Analysis: Noise

Hunsdon <51 <20 <45 <20 17 21 London <51 <20 <45 <20 17 20 Albury <51 <20 <45 <20 17 17 Great Notley <51 <20 <45 <20 15 63 Great Canfield <51 <20 <45 <20 15 16 Great Dunmow <51 <20 <45 <20 12 24 Thundridge <51 <20 <45 <20 12 12 Widford <51 <20 <45 <20 12 12 Furneaux Pelham <51 <20 <45 <20 11 19 Abbess Rodding <51 <20 <45 <20 10 10 Little Waltham <51 <20 <45 <20 10 10 Braintree <51 <20 <45 <20 9 40 Pleshey <51 <20 <45 <20 7 33 Felsted <51 <20 <45 <20 5 120 Rayne <51 <20 <45 <20 5 17 High Roding <51 <20 <45 <20 2 81 Great Yeldham <51 <20 <45 <20 2 13 Great Waltham <51 <20 <45 <20 1 13 Bartholomew Green <51 <20 <45 <20 0 49 Good Easter <51 <20 <45 <20 0 12

T7 2016 aircraft noise metrics at locations from which 10 or more complaints have arisen in the last 5-year period.

Page 15 Stansted Airport 35+ Planning Application Geographic Considerations Technical Appendix 7.5/- // 12 February 2018 Complaints Analysis: Noise

Commentary

6 Noise Level vs. Incidence of Complaints

6.1 Complaints are a poor indicator of the degree of noise exposure experienced by people.

6.2 Even allowing for different populations at the various complaints locations, it is clear from Table T7 that areas exposed to the highest noise levels do not generate the highest number of complaints. Considering the top 5 locations in terms of number of complaints:

1. Hatfield Heath, pop. ~ 2,000 generated the highest number of complaints up to and including 2015 (and also up to and including 2016). A high proportion of these complaints were generated by 1 complainant. Daytime and night time aircraft noise levels in 2016 were only in the LOAEL1 category. Daytime flyovers exceeding 65 dB(A) were moderately high due to departures on Rwy 22 CLN.

2. Bishops Stortford, pop. ~ 38,000 generated the second highest number of complaints up to and including 2015 (and also up to and including 2016). Daytime and night time aircraft noise levels in 2016 were below the LOAEL category. Daytime flyovers above 65 dB(A) and night-time flyovers above 60 dB(A) were very small in number.

3. Thaxted, pop. ~ 3,000 generated the third highest number of complaints up to and including 2015 (but not 2016). Daytime and night time aircraft noise levels in 2016 were within the LOAEL category. Daytime flyovers above 65 dB(A) were high and night-time flyovers above 60 dB(A) were moderately high in number. Affected by arrivals on Rwy04.

4. Roydon, pop. ~ 7,000 generated the fourth highest number of complaints up to and including 2015 (but not 2016). Daytime and night time aircraft noise levels in 2016 were

1 LOAEL (Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level) and SOAEL (Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level) are defined in the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) and their use explained in Technical Appendices 7.2 and 7.3

Page 16 Stansted Airport 35+ Planning Application Commentary Technical Appendix 7.5/- // 12 February 2018 Complaints Analysis: Noise

well below the LOAEL category. Daytime flyovers above 65 dB(A) and night-time flyovers above 60 dB(A) were very small in number.

5. Saffron Walden, pop. ~ 16,000 generated the fifth highest number of complaints up to and including 2015 (but not 2016). Daytime and night time aircraft noise levels in 2016 were well below the LOAEL category. Daytime flyovers above 65 dB(A) and night-time flyovers above 60 dB(A) were very small in number.

6.3 The location exposed to the highest noise levels is Great Hallingbury, pop. ~750. Daytime and night time aircraft noise levels in 2016 were within the SOAEL category. Daytime flyovers above 65 dB(A) were very high and night-time flyovers above 60 dB(A) were moderately high in number. Affected by all departures Rwy22. However, even taking account of its smaller population, it generates proportionately far fewer complaints than Hatfield Heath, even though it is exposed to aircraft noise levels that are typical 10 dB higher.

6.4 Noticeable in the table are relatively high numbers of complaints being generated in 2016 at locations remote from the airport that are subject to levels of aircraft noise that are well below the LOAEL for both daytime and night-time. These include Stebbing (pop. ~ 1,300; daytime flyovers above 65 dB(A) just into the lowest N category of 20), Felsted (pop. ~ 3,100; occurrence of flyovers with elevated noise levels is very low) and High Easter (pop. ~ 1,300; occurrence of flyovers with elevated noise levels is very low).

7 Number of Complainants

7.1 Each year, a small number of complainants register a much higher volume of complaints than average. For example, in 2016 over half of complaints received came from ten individuals. Table T5 gives some idea of how this has varied over the last 5 years.

7.2 In 2012, the location with the highest ratio of just over 14 was Roydon, which generated 43 complaints from 3 complainants. Again in 2015, the location with the highest ratio of 57 was Roydon, which generated 57 complaints from 1 complainant. As noted above, although it might be expected to experience noise from aircraft flyovers on runway 04 arrivals, Roydon is not a location in close proximity to the airport and therefore it is not subject to high aircraft noise levels. Daytime and night time levels in 2016 were well below

Page 17 Stansted Airport 35+ Planning Application Commentary Technical Appendix 7.5/- // 12 February 2018 Complaints Analysis: Noise

the LOAEL category. Daytime flyovers above 65 dB(A) and night-time flyovers above 60 dB(A) were very small in number.

7.3 In 2013, the location with the highest ratio of just over 26 was Hatfield Heath, which generated 210 complaints from 8 complainants. In 2015, this location also had a high ratio of just above 53 with 1,281 complaints being generated by 24 complainants, but even within this category the allocation of complaints between complainants is not even, with a disproportionately high number of complaints coming from a small number of complainants. As noted above, Hatfield Heath generated the highest number of complaints up to and including 2015 (and also up to and including 2016). Daytime and night time aircraft noise levels in 2016 were only in the LOAEL category. Daytime flyovers exceeding 65 dB(A) were moderately high due to departures on Rwy 22 CLN.

7.4 In 2014, the location with the highest ratio of 13 was Epping Green, all of which were generated by just 1 complainant. Epping Green is located some distance south west of the airport and is not subject to high aircraft noise levels. Daytime and night time levels in 2016 were well below the LOAEL category. Daytime flyovers above 65 dB(A) and night-time flyovers above 60 dB(A) were very small in number. Epping Green is located south of Harlow and is sufficiently distant from the airport that departures on Rwy22 are likely to have headed onto the relevant NPR before overflying this area. It is possible that arrivals on Rwy04 may be the most perceptible aircraft events in this location.

7.5 In 2016, the location with the highest ratio of 79 was High Roding, all of which were generated by just 1 complainant. High Roding is located some distance south east of the airport and is not subject to high aircraft noise levels. Daytime and night time levels in 2016 were well below the LOAEL category. Daytime flyovers above 65 dB(A) and night-time flyovers above 60 dB(A) were very small in number. The most perceptible aircraft events in this location are likely to be departures on Rwy 22 CLN, as High Roding is approximately 1 mile from the departure swathe for this NPR.

8 2016 Complaints Increase

8.1 The data in table T6 reveals that the following locations generated the highest increase in complaints compared to the preceding year 2015 or the average of the preceding years

Page 18 Stansted Airport 35+ Planning Application Commentary Technical Appendix 7.5/- // 12 February 2018 Complaints Analysis: Noise

(2013-2015). Their location relative to Stansted Airport is also given as an approximate bearing.

• Braintree E

• Dunmow E

• Duton Hill NE

• Felsted E

• Great Notley E

• Great Waltham ESE

• Great Yeldham NE

• Harlow SW

• Hatfield Broad Oak SSE

• Hatfield Heath S

• High Easter SE

• High Roding ESE

• Pleshey ESE

• Rayne E

• Stebbing E

8.2 With exception of Harlow and Great Yeldham, all these locations are located to the east of the airport in areas that have historically been overflown by departing aircraft using the Clacton and Detling NPRs. Harlow is located sufficiently far to the south-west of the airport that any aircraft noise effects would be expected to be attributable to Rwy04 arrivals.

8.3 Great Yeldham is sufficiently far to the east-north-east, that departures on CLN would not be expected to have a material influence on peoples’ perceptions. In fact, complaints during 2016 from Great Yeldham were generated by 1 complainant, predominantly over a period of 2 successive days, referencing low flying aircraft. These were subsequently correlated with arriving aircraft vectoring toward the final approach on runway 22.

8.4 The increase in complaints in 2016 can primarily be attributed to the changes in route utilisation following the implementation of phase 1A of National Air Traffic Services (NATS) ‘London Airspace Management Plan’ in February 2016. This moved daytime departures onto the existing Clacton routes rather than the Detling routes resulting in an increased number of flights using the Clacton routes compared to previous years.

Page 19 Stansted Airport 35+ Planning Application Commentary Technical Appendix 7.5/- // 12 February 2018 Complaints Analysis: Noise

8.5 This can be appreciated visually by comparing Figures F1 and F2, which are the daytime (07h00 to 23h00) complaints location maps for 2015 and 2016 respectively, with NPRs shown for reference.

8.6 It is apparent that the higher number of departures using the Clacton NPR correlates well geographically with the locations experiencing the highest increase in the number of complaints. On any given day of operations, people located beneath the Clacton NPR would have experienced an approximate doubling of the number of aircraft overflights as a result of the change; conversely, people located beneath the Detling NPR would have experienced an almost complete disappearance of such flyovers.

8.7 According to ERCD Report 17032 , during the 2016 summer period people located beneath the Clacton NPR will have experienced 25% more departure overflights for operations on runway 04 and 165% more departure overflights for operations on runway 22 compared to summer 2015. This breakdown is influenced by the 2016 modal split of 86%SW / 14% NE, which leads to a much greater proportion of departures on Rwy22 compared to 2015, which had a modal split of 75%SW / 25% NE.

8.8 Furthermore, the change will have occurred very quickly with the reapportionment of departures on existing routes taking place on 4th February 2016.

2 ERCD Report 1703: Noise Exposure Contours for Stansted Airport

Page 20 Stansted Airport 35+ Planning Application Commentary Technical Appendix 7.5/- // 12 February 2018 Complaints Analysis: Noise

Figure F1: 2015 daytime complaints map with NPRs

Figure F2: 2016 daytime complaints map with NPRs

Page 21 Stansted Airport 35+ Planning Application Commentary Technical Appendix 7.5/- // 12 February 2018 Complaints Analysis: Noise

Conclusions

9 Implications for Noise Study

9.1 Complaints are a poor indicator of the degree of noise exposure experienced by people. The majority of complaints about aircraft noise originate from locations that are some distance from the airport and which are therefore exposed to moderate or low levels of aircraft noise.

9.2 The vast majority of complaints are responses to levels of aircraft noise and whether aircraft are flying at heights or locations that accord with the complainant’s expectations. Complaints about effects that are only apparent in close proximity to the airport, or affecting limited areas, such as ground noise, arrival noise, helicopters etc. make up a minority of complaints.

9.3 People’s propensity to complain varies significantly. A small number of complainants generate a high number of complaints. Often, those generating high numbers of complaints are not exposed to the highest levels of aircraft noise.

9.4 Where noise levels change gradually over time, there is poor correlation between the number of complaints and the number of movements or levels of aircraft noise. Small increases in each of these factors will lead to small increases in the number of complaints in some years and small decreases in other years.

9.5 Noise level or movement changes that occur quickly or unexpectedly can be seen to lead to a surge in complaints.

9.6 People living in areas to the east of the airport and affected by the recent increase in activity on the Clacton NPR can be considered to be more sensitised to aircraft noise as a result of the change.

 End of Section

Page 22 Stansted Airport 35+ Planning Application Conclusions Technical Appendix 7.5/- // 12 February 2018

Cole Jarman Limited Reg. in England and Wales No. 7102436 [email protected] www.colejarman.com

Head Office +44 (0)1932 829007 Manchester Office +44 (0)161 2093644 John Cree House, 24B High Street, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 1TN Peter House, 1 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 5AN