|Posted on Sunday, 16 November, 2003 - 08:09 am: |
Many of us in Forest Hill have experienced more and more disruption from air traffic of late-particularly early morning arrivals into Heathrow starting at 4.30am. What you may not know is that huge swathes of south east London have been recently targetted as a new flight approach to the world's busiest airport,without any formal consultation or approval. This means that more aircraft will fly over your house 24/7, as the ban on night flights has also been lifted.
So its goodbye to a good nights sleep and your property equity unless something is done.
Check out the HACAN Clear Skies website for further information and ways of taking action, and watch this space.
|Posted on Sunday, 16 November, 2003 - 08:55 am: |
I too have noticed this - I was awoken at 5 am this morning- thought the plane was about to land on our roof -it sounded so close. I work from home and have noticed this also during the day when I have had to close the windows.
|Posted on Wednesday, 19 November, 2003 - 02:06 pm: |
I have friends in Richmond who are really suffering with the noise over there, set to get worse with the third runway and lifting the ban on night flights, although this is subject to further legal review, I think. I hope the same isn't going to happen here- I have just moved to Forest Hill from north London, and have to say I too am finding the air traffic a problem, especially since having windows open all the time during the hot summer. I have looked at the HACAN website - its very informative, but chilling to realise that the redirection over south east London has happened without anyone noticing- but we notice the effects!
|Posted on Friday, 28 November, 2003 - 01:06 pm: |
The noisiest plane that flew over Forest Hill was concorde, which passed over at 6pm most days. It would often make it hard to hold a conversation outside, but I loved seeing it fly over and will miss it.
Look up in the sky, you can probably see six flying over Forest Hill right now, but you probably can't hear them.
I don't get woken up by planes at night, but I do get woken up by dustbins, motorbikes, crying babies, heavy rain, fireworks, snoring, and sun shine in the summer. Let's ban these as well as planes at night.
|Posted on Friday, 28 November, 2003 - 08:35 pm: |
Michael is right, most aircraft fly high and noiselessly over Forest Hill. The only exception is the glide path for London City Airport which occasionally strays over the Hill. These aircraft are turbo prop 32 seaters, and sound a bit like old fashioned craft.
I'm flying up to Dundee in one on 13 December and back again on 15th. I'll try not to make too much noise.
|Posted on Thursday, 04 December, 2003 - 10:00 pm: |
Ho ho ho.
If you don't notice the noise, lucky you. Some of us do. This will change when you are woken up by the night flights which are due to commence soon on a Government trial.
|Posted on Friday, 05 December, 2003 - 08:38 pm: |
Ive emailed the CAA to ask them what the minimum safe altitude is for flights over Forest Hill. the reply should make interesting reading.
|Posted on Tuesday, 03 February, 2004 - 11:08 pm: |
In response to Johnnyb7 - For a standard instrument approach to City Airport, the official 'Minimum Safe Altitude for flights in the area of Forest Hill approaching London City is 2300' descending to 2000' as the plane arrives over the airport. If you register, you can check out the official approach procedure at http://18.104.22.168/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aerodromes/32LC0801.PDF These are 'altitudes' (ie heights above sea level - the height over the top of the hill will be about 300' less than this) I suspect that in fact aircraft are 'radar vectored' into the airport on a direct approach to the runway significantly lower than this - once they are north of Crystal Palace they are in airspace which is controlled down to ground level. Legislation exempts aircraft making an approach to land from the normal low flying restrictions and with radar control, it is not unusual for aircraft to fly down to 600' above obstructions before having to be able to see the ground.
I agree that the major problem is the early arrivals into Heathrow - higher, but generally more noisy than the City traffic, and starting earlier. Having said which - Concorde has gone and modern jets are a hell of a lot quieter than the 707's, Trident's and 1-11s that used to fill the skies. What's more, there aren't too many more of them - it's just that they are a lot bigger and spend more time flying.
|Posted on Friday, 20 February, 2004 - 10:02 pm: |
I'm tone deaf and envy you all for hearing those wonderful sounds.
|Posted on Sunday, 21 March, 2004 - 11:24 am: |
Clearly not everyone seems to be bothered about the noise- unfortunately I am - am I supersensitive or unique? Some people never hear anything, apparently. Hence I don't understand the statement expressed earlier' most aircraft fly noiselessly over Forest Hill....'.
I was awoken this morning - Sunday-at around 5 am by aircraft, and this has gone on all morning since, one after the other. Do we not deserve some free time from that horrendous drone of aircraft engines?
|Posted on Tuesday, 30 March, 2004 - 10:57 am: |
You're not alone bill. Since I first started looking to buy in Forest Hill (about November 2002) air traffic has definitely increased. This was particularly noticable after I moved to FH in Feb 2003. After a couple of months I began to notice an increase in the number of planes flying directly over my garden. I've had double glazing fitted which helps deaden the noise (except for the one someone else mentioned that seems to be about to land on your roof at about 5am-6am on some mornings!) but don't see much chance of sleeping past 5 or 6am in the summer with the windows open.
It is a shame that it has happened but I still love living in Forest Hill.
|Posted on Sunday, 04 April, 2004 - 07:47 am: |
Ad-you mentioned not beong able to sleep beyond 5-6 am in the summer- unfortunately you might soon find that you can't sleep at all, as there is soon to be a trial for night flights,with the ideal that we eventually suffer this noise all night and every night.Even the most hardened cynics on this website might find themselves worse off!
If we don't do something soon, then we will find this situation worsening.It may seem a huge task to tackle the issue but HACAN and some of our Euro MP's are well on the case. Any legislation re noise was apparently repealed in 1920's but I understand that there are moves within Europe to deal with this. More can be found on the HACAN website.We need to support this action before it is too late. With the continuing terrorist threat, it is likely that planes will be increasingly directed away from Central London and more over the suburbs. where with the generally lower ambient noise, this stands out more.Being consistently right under the flight path of course also increases our risk of becoming direct casualties of a terrorist threat.Perhaps we ought to chew on that one as well.
|Posted on Wednesday, 14 April, 2004 - 06:29 am: |
I'm really suffering too! Like most mornings,I have been awake today since 4.45am due to aircraft which has been continuous and noisy since then - I also have made some enquiries of BAA and it appears that whilst Forest Hill and south east London has had a stack/path for some time,in the last year or so they have been descending a lot earlier as they join the flight path itself. Hence the increased noise . I got this information from someone at BAA who lives in Forest Hill!. It has taken some time to do so as I have been completely stonewalled at each turn and made to think that this excessive noise is either my over active imagination, a result of my unhappy life, insanity, etc...
I believe that this is a measure taken to make the lives of air traffic controllers easier. If reverted to the pre 2002 level we would have no problem. However getting actual data about flight altitudes and paths is extremely difficult- I would like to determine the pattern of both in the last few years as part of preparation for making a case to my Euro MP. If anyone knows how to get this information, please let me know.
|Posted on Thursday, 15 April, 2004 - 12:38 pm: |
I feel very sorry for those who are woken up by this noise. Fortunately I have not been bothered by any noise but I normally get up at 5am anyway
|Posted on Wednesday, 21 April, 2004 - 06:55 pm: |
Thanks to Brian for his supportive comments.
Carol is right- this is called the CDA - Continuous Descent Approach- it was never consulted upon or even formally admitted by BAA that it was happening. It essentially means that aircraft are flying over at half the height they were 2 years ago- now 4000 feet. Planes use to descend to this height only when they reached Barnes.They now come down to this level 20 miles away, over Forest Hill/Sydenham/Brockely. HACAN Clear Skies have raised this issue with the relevant authorities who don;t seem capable of turning out a consistent story.
Some people will always be oblivious to this but everyones sensitivity to noise varies.
I have just joined HACAN as I am also one of these people who find the noise registering in my subconscious as I am waking up, etc. It spoils our quality of life. It will get worse. Lets fight it. Together.
|Posted on Friday, 23 April, 2004 - 04:29 pm: |
Hasn't got to me this year yet - but wait til I start having to open the windows. Was coming back on a flight myself a few weeks ago and what was interesting was that the TVs displayed the route, altitiuyde and airspeed of the plane. Lo and behold - there we were doing a U-ey over Bromley at about 3000 feet.
|Posted on Saturday, 03 July, 2004 - 07:24 pm: |
There is now almost 24 hour air traffic over the south London area at lower altitudes than before.This breaks the legally agreed plan of 16 planes from 11pm to 6pm- there are in practice many more than this. The SE23 and SE4/14/21 areas are particularly and unnecessarily affected by traffic for both Heathrow and London City. For anyone who is interested in improving the situation, there is a south east London action group being set up, with campaigns planned, and a dedicated website. There are already strong groups in Deptford Greenwich and Clapham, and we hope to link forces with them. There are also a few influential people who have expressed support.
Doing something about this issue is not as colossal a task as people might think - And by the way, we are not a bunch of Luddites trying to ban all planes in favour of the horse and cart! I'll post the link on this website in due course, but for now please keep your contributions coming on this one!
|Posted on Saturday, 10 July, 2004 - 09:03 am: |
I agree and am glad someone is doing something about it. Things seem to have got a lot worse in the last few years- the constant drone of one plane after the other since 5am this morning- usually only notice it at weekends when I am home, however it is enough to make me want to move. Most parts of London have planes flying over, but here it seems to be an unstoppable stream. Not on.
|Posted on Saturday, 17 July, 2004 - 08:55 am: |
We moved to the SE23 18 months ago and remarked during Summer 2003 how peaceful the skies were compared to places further west. Suddenly I remarked to my wife earlier this year that the skies seemed to be getting an awful lot noisier - or the planes were anyway. She referred me to this site. Clarly I'm not alone. Right at this moment it sounds as if a plane is falling out of the sky directly above our house.
|Posted on Monday, 19 July, 2004 - 11:12 am: |
Who's up for chipping in for a barrage balloon?
|Posted on Wednesday, 21 July, 2004 - 04:43 pm: |
no idea what a barrage balloon is, but sounds useful. Anyway, jumbomaclooney, you are not alone! There is a meeting scheduled for 4th August at the Town Hall with a concerned few who are intent in at least trying to do something about this issue, and we are confident that we can in fact do so. Please indicate if you want to join this meeting and group. A website will be set up shortly- SELATAG- to bring together people in south east London who want to express their views, exchange information, and lobby for change.
The address will be posted here in due course.
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 July, 2004 - 10:04 am: |
Good Lord! Is it just me or this really getting worse by the day! I wish I could be at the meeting, but will be away on business. Please everyone go and have your say. Forest Hill used to be lovely and quiet in the morning, but now there's no chance of a proper sleep in the morning at all. This is a particular nightmare if you work at night which I often do. I hope we can do something about this. If there is a petition to sign, I'll be first on the page!!!
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 July, 2004 - 10:51 am: |
A barrage balloon is a large airship-type thing trailing steel cables, as was sometimes used to deter bombers in WWII. The steel cables were supposed to pose a hazard to the aircraft and prevent them flying at that level. Seeing as BAA seem to please themselves, perhaps we should too with a balloon on the Horniman and another on One Tree Hill...!
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 July, 2004 - 03:47 pm: |
Crystal Palace used to have fairly heavy-duty anti-aircraft gun emplacements. I suppose the CAA would take a dim view of that though...
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 July, 2004 - 04:55 pm: |
If they are as low as some of you say....throw stones!
|Posted on Friday, 13 August, 2004 - 09:44 am: |
Can anyone tell me what happened at the meeting on August 4th? What's the latest on this flight path problem?
|Posted on Sunday, 15 August, 2004 - 10:48 am: |
Dale, the meeting was positive- we have identified some clear objectives as to what we want to who have taken some action in the past so we need to touch base with them as there is no point in duplicating work which has already been done. I will post further on this very shortly. Your support is very appreciated.
|Posted on Sunday, 19 September, 2004 - 10:19 pm: |
I'm new to www.SE23.com, but have lived in SE23 for years.
I've read the posts going back. Councillors - what's the latest on this? Let's not forget that this is still a problem.
It's still noisy and unacceptable, what's going on?
Why are you being so slack about telling people about this issue?
It's annoying and ruining my wife's sleep and my own, what's happening?
|Posted on Friday, 21 January, 2005 - 01:12 pm: |
Despite the lack of communication, this is still a very live issue. Watch this space for a bit longer. In the meantime, if people continue to make their views known on this thread it can only help. Me- woken at 4.30am most days this week and hav TV interference twice late at night. Christmas morning peace was ruined by a low flying jumbo - even experienced take offs from Heathrow after midnight- WHICH IS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN.
|Posted on Saturday, 22 January, 2005 - 12:39 am: |
whats happening! it's really loud at really early hours of the day - everyday. something should be done to sort this asap!!!!!!!!!!!!
|Posted on Sunday, 21 August, 2005 - 09:24 am: |
This is still a problem and apparently set to get worse, as the Government apparently has given the go ahead to increase the number of night flight/early morning arrivals. I got up this morning at 7 to read a book in my garden. This is the one time in the week that there is little traffic noise.
It was impossible with the sound of noisy aircraft engines every 7-8 minutes.
Surely they need not send these over the same area all the time? Could they not vary or alternate the route to avoid the continual noise. No-one minds the occasional plane, just one straight after the other. We should be entitled to some breathing space.
There was some action group discussed but it hasn't yet taken off( no pun intended).
Anyone any ideas, interested in doing something? Apparently there are things that can be done to vary the routes, so we don't endure the constant flow of traffic.
|Posted on Sunday, 21 August, 2005 - 01:48 pm: |
I agree the all governments should tax air fares so they pay their proper costs in relation to their damage to the enviroment.Some of the cheap fares are obsene.
How can it be cheaper to fly to Brussels or Manchester.
While it is cheaper to holiday in Costa Plonker than Bognor Regis we have a problem .
|Posted on Sunday, 21 August, 2005 - 09:39 pm: |
I understand that there is no tax on aviation fuel. Strange as an aircraft will burn much more fuel than my car.
|Posted on Monday, 22 August, 2005 - 07:15 am: |
I am afraid all politicians are too afraid to upset the people who enjoy these cheap fares at the detriment of everyone else.
Instead they encourage them by allowing new airports.
We do not need any more airport space in UK already have too much.
We would not lose tourist revenue as UK people spend far more overseas than the other way arround.
|Posted on Monday, 22 August, 2005 - 03:52 pm: |
Sherwood - I am not condoning early morning flights, late night flights or more flights but planes are not necessarily less fuel efficient than cars...
|Posted on Sunday, 09 April, 2006 - 06:42 am: |
This thread hasnt been active for some time, but usually my own interest is renewed around this time every year when I sleep with a window open. No longer in an hermetically sealed double glazed room, I have been woken this morning - early as you can see- by roaring jet engines coming into land- one after the other. Ites been continuous in the last half hour and as I write. Yesterday I was amazed to see a plane fly over the garden so low that we could see the wheels actually being lowered- no telescope necessary.
This aviation industry continues to break the law, this Government as previous governments continue to back them, and residents continue to suffer, and more so since they changed the flight path. This is now a serious issue for south east London and is set to get worse with the increase in night flights, no control over frequency, etc.
All this needs is some attempt to regulate the airways so as to avoid significant continuity of noise over one specific area ie to vary the routes and eliminate the need for frequent turning which creates the noise.
We may in Lewisham have a case for BAA installing double glazing and loft insulation to reduce the effects of the noise- this applies to residents in areas closer to Heathrow, but this may be something that may now apply to us.
Many local councils are now taking action against this problem and highlighting the need for residents to have a good nights sleep and a peaceful enjoyment of their home. Lewisham Council needs to do the same. This is perhaps an issue that Mayoral candidates can address or at least be seen to be addressing so that this very critical issue does not fall by the wayside. Steve Bullock has been approached in the past and has been sympathetic but this needs to translate into action.
Heathrow traffic by the way has little to do with low cost getways, as it is not a low cost airport!
Check out http://www.hacan.org.uk.
I believe the Sydenham Society are members of this.
|Posted on Monday, 10 April, 2006 - 08:26 am: |
Yes, Roz, Sydenham Society has supported HACAN's campaign against aircraft noise for over 5 years. I, too, think the problem is getting worse
|Posted on Monday, 10 April, 2006 - 01:07 pm: |
Too be honest does not seem to wake me up but usually up by 5am anyway.
But I agree aircraft are an enviromental disaster in every way.No party has the guts to tell people if they want a weekend cottage abroad they should expect to get there and back for 50 quid.
Air fares world wide need to rise at minimum 400% probably more. People accept overseas holidays 2 or 3 times a year as a norm. This is patently unrealistic in todays more green environment.
What is wrong with Bognor Regis.
|Posted on Monday, 10 April, 2006 - 03:32 pm: |
To be honest, I really don't think it's that bad. During the summer months, the disturbance from noisy vehicle exhaust/stereos, police helicopters (all too frequently seen over on my side of the tracks) and smaller air traffic presumably going into City are much more of a nuisance.
|Posted on Tuesday, 11 April, 2006 - 12:38 pm: |
Have to agree with Simon - I don't think I have ever been woken by aircraft early in the morning. Neighbours playing car stereos at ridiculous volumes at 2 in the morning, however, are a genuine source of annoyance in the summer months - tends to happen pretty much every night and if it's a hot summer, it tends to happen just as I've finally managed to fall asleep!
|Posted on Tuesday, 11 April, 2006 - 12:47 pm: |
I agree 100% they are a menace.Noise pollution is a very serious matter but the hoy polloy seem to live by their own agenda.
They could re introduce stocks outside The Capitol
|Posted on Tuesday, 11 April, 2006 - 01:53 pm: |
This is quite a topical discussion because the government having been trying to remove the cap on night time flights from Heathrow. The Government was defeated in the Lords in March, I am not sure whether it has gone back to the Commons yet. I know several Lib Dem MPs across London have been involved in the campaign to keep the cap. Lynne Featherstone who represents Hornsey & Wood Green has been involved because planes stack over Muswell Hill. Susan Krammer and Vince Cable, who are from Richmond and Twickenham, have both been heavily involved in on-going battles against the 5th terminal and increased night flights. We need to be arguing for greater emphasis on regional airports to remove the huge pressure on the South East.
As I understand it is quite possible operationally for there to be no more night flights. It is only the greed of the airlines that requires them to continue The relentless drive by airlines, airports and Government for bigger airports and more flights rolls on - and the current proposals are for more night flights. The Government are refusing to implement a plan – promoted by several London Boroughs - to fine airlines for night flights which fall outside the set limits.
I believe it is not possible to get the beacon (which the planes are stacking around) moved, as it is tied closely into the Air traffic control system. So we must lobby to reduce the flights and for the Airport to close between 11pm and 7 am.
About 15 local councils are involved in the HACAN Clear skies campaign – I don’t think Lewisham has ever got involved, despite the stacking overhead. It seems to me more worthwhile for the Council to be involved in this sort of campaign rather paying subscriptions
to various ‘New Labour’ Think Tanks. This is an issue that now affects North, South and East London as well as the Councils immediately around Heathrow. It is the sort of issue Mayor Livingstone and the GLA need to be far more vocal about.
|Posted on Wednesday, 12 April, 2006 - 09:14 am: |
Nit picking I know, but there are four stacks for Heathrow, and none of them are over Forest Hill, the aircraft are on final approach to Heathrow and City.
With the current levels of demand, I think your proposal to close Heathrow at night is pie in the sky. ABERDEEN has just relented in this restriction! Quieter planes and flight paths is all be can reasonably expect in my opinion.
|Posted on Wednesday, 12 April, 2006 - 09:14 am: |
See this page for details: http://www.ivaogbpages.com/aops/Heathrow.htm
|Posted on Wednesday, 12 April, 2006 - 09:52 am: |
The lunacy comes from maintaining (well, even worse - expanding) Heathrow as the main airport in a location where it is necessary to overfly the city.
The government needs to be less spineless and weigh up fairly the convenience of the few aboard the planes 2400-0600 against the many whose sleep is disturbed. Sleep is a pretty fundamental right - Maslow's hierarchy anyone - so it is pretty understandable that people should get upset.
|Posted on Wednesday, 12 April, 2006 - 04:03 pm: |
If anyone is interested in the relationship between local government, Airports and Labour funding you may find this interesting.
Conservative Candidate for Mayor of Lewisham
Promoted by Brian Chipps on behalf of James Cleverly both at 244 Brownhill Road, London, SE6 1AU
|Posted on Wednesday, 12 April, 2006 - 07:17 pm: |
You win the prize of sadder than Baggy Dave for dragging up old out of date threads.
Perhaps the Daily Mail would be interested in your findings?
|Posted on Wednesday, 12 April, 2006 - 10:15 pm: |
Although there is no stack over Forest Hill, there is one at Biggin Hill, which in aviation terms is mere seconds away from us. Planes are flying lower and more often over this area and are being guided one after the other for the convenience of air traffic control at the expense of Londoners. Only yesterday there was another story in the paper about blocks of ice found near someones home having fallen off a passing aircraft from a considerable height. Enough to kill someone. Do we want to walk around wearing crash helmets?
There was another recent story about a larger block going through someones roof.
The right to peace and quiet and a good nights sleep is a liberty that is fast being eroded by Government pandering to big business. There is no reason why quieter aircraft cannot be developed in the longer term- they were for City Airport due to the density of residential accommodation in that area , so that there was minimal disruption during takeoff and landing. I work on occasion quite close to Royal Docks and see and hear them taking off, and I have to say it is surprisingly quiet.
This is becoming a bit of an issue for London and we need to act now.
It would be good to have some support for this issue and to have it raised during the forthcoming elections, as the Councils are the best forum of representation for local people in this. Lets see Lewisham sign up!
Over to you, Steve!
|Posted on Friday, 14 April, 2006 - 05:21 pm: |
Roz - get off your soapbox for heavens sake:
a. 'the convenience of ATC and expense of Londoners' - are you suggesting Londoners never use Heathrow?
b. 'gov pandering to big business' - you probably have a point about lack of control of the aviation business, but the demand is real at current price levels. It's the low cost of flying which is the issue.
c. The ice block stuff is just ridiculous - risk-wise you would be better off wearing a lightning conductor, which you could fund from your lottery winnings.
I agree that restrictions on over-flying London are needed, together with development of quiet planes and moving runways. I often think that the Hong Kong option (build island in the sea/estuary and build new airport on that) is the only long term option BUT let keep it real!
|Posted on Sunday, 16 April, 2006 - 08:38 am: |
Its a pity you can't present an effective argument without being offensive.Presumably your bullying tactics are a smoke screen to cover the fact that you either don't have a clear argument or that you lack the ability to express one.
In addition ,seemimgly you don't think others have a right to a different point of view.
If you don't think this conversation thread is worthwhile,( there are plenty of others who do) then simply don't participate.
|Posted on Sunday, 16 April, 2006 - 02:42 pm: |
How about answering any of my points? Didn't think I was particularly offensive. I just didn't agree with your tendancy to hyperbole.
Happy easter, Les.
|Posted on Monday, 17 April, 2006 - 12:57 pm: |
I have used 1 return plane journey since 1994 and
Why are you are fiddling while Rome burns. The problem is air flights are FAR too cheap.
Cannot someone grasp the nettle.
|Posted on Tuesday, 18 April, 2006 - 10:38 pm: |
Brian - agreed. I sometimes work in Aberdeen and find the alternatives are:
1. Flying (1hr 15mins, plus local travel time, costing around £75 in advance).
2. Rail (Overnight, I have never qualified for a cheaper fare than £215, although they exist).
3. Road (Too horrible to consider).
If flying was FAR more expensive than rail, then I would probably abandon travelling altogether and invest in good enough IT to have proper teleconferences. This would be a good thing. Rail needs to be cheaper and better quality to be a contender.
Which mechanism is the best to sort this:
- tax on aviation fuel (easy to evade for airlines)
- a 'carbon tax' on UK departures used to support carbon reductions and renewables would be a good idea in my mind.
- any other ideas?
|Posted on Wednesday, 19 April, 2006 - 02:06 pm: |
Wonder if we aren't barking up the wrong tree here to some extent. The flights of which we complain are not the budget airline ones, as they fly out of Luton and Stansted (which is not to say they aren't a nuisance to those living there), but the flights out of Heathrow, in particular those at anti-social times. These flights are often long haul and timetabled to suit business travellers, so the problem is not really due to low cost.
Rather, the problems are:
1. Government pandering to BA and airlines by allowing too many flights at inappropriate times
2. Stupid siting of Heathrow and a lack of will to recognise this and come up with a long term solution.
I think you are micturating in the wind in hoping to reverse the trend towards more frequent travel. The genie is long since out the lamp there.
|Posted on Wednesday, 19 April, 2006 - 06:32 pm: |
You are probably correct. Maybe the fuel crisis will bring things to a head.
|Posted on Thursday, 20 April, 2006 - 10:26 am: |
Maybe, but of course the effect on airlines is mitigated by the favourable tax treatment AVTUR enjoys compared to diesel and petrol and the business travellers arriving on the redeyes would be unlikely to lose any more sleep over the extra few quid.
Looking on it pessimistically, the fuel crisis couold actually makes things worse if it encourages the development of even more silly trips like London to Manchester or Bristol by plane because it is cheaper than driving - let's hope not.
None of this helps us here though. Think it's time to relaunch my appeal to fund a barrage balloon in Horniman Gardens...
|Posted on Thursday, 20 April, 2006 - 12:24 pm: |
I'm confused. Planes fly overhead, close enough that you can see the colours but not close enough that they are particularly loud. They don't wake me in the morning. So we get a few more. So what's the problem. Having visited Craven Cottage a few times I see loads of jumbos flying overhead, these are much louder than in our areaa. And Fulham is a far posher place to live than SE23. The only plane I used to hear was Concorde, now sadly missed.
Interesting debate though. Having flown to Edinburgh fairly cheaply a couple of days ago I was sitting next to a student on my return journey. I recalled going up to Scotland in the early 80's and going overnight by coach (Stagecoach, dreadful!) to save money at a time when to fly probably would have cost the equivalent of £400 in today's money
|Posted on Thursday, 20 April, 2006 - 01:37 pm: |
Perhaps you're getting a bit mutton in middle age Dave. I find the steadily waves of noise every few minutes reasonably irritating at times (eg on summer mornings when you wake up early); must be consistently hellish out west I concede but that's not to say it doesn't have the ability to niggle here, especially when we are so far away from the blinking airport.
|Posted on Thursday, 20 April, 2006 - 01:48 pm: |
See p5 - points out how much annoyance is caused (cites Camberwell) even in areas miles from the airport. If I remember correctly there is also some issue with approaching over this area rather lower than is strictly necessary.
|Posted on Friday, 21 April, 2006 - 08:13 am: |
I'll be posting this as a separate conversation thread, but given that this is a borough wide issue, and one which can transcend party political boundaries, I would like to hear from each Mayoral candidate as to what they would do to address this increasing problem, and increase it certainly will.
I have as yet unsuccessfully been asking our current Mayor to establish some benchmarks by assessing what is really going on at the minute in Lewisham, ie flight patterns, frequencies, height, rate of descent, noise levels at different parts of the borough, and to assess these against approved and reaspnable limits.
I have not yet had a response which has been disappointing.
The optimum solution would be to do whatever is possible to reduce the impact on residents at any one time- an even spread of flights over areas, keeping to agreed limits, stop bombarding people with one plane after the other, exploring what can be done to reduce the effect on people, ie minimisation of turning which causes noise, a straight flight path up the Thames Corridor where the major impact of noise is restricted to over the Channel, etc. Having looked into this a few years ago with someone who has considerable experience of aviation, it seemed that a number of things were indeed possible.
Please can each candidate post their responses.
|Posted on Friday, 21 April, 2006 - 11:04 am: |
Most of the information you have listed is already public domain. Have you looked at the T5 enquiry and Hacan sites?
This is a London-wide issue - in fact Lewisham is one of the least affected boroughs! Even Hacan's data puts us right on the edge of the Heathrow noise maps. See:
|Posted on Friday, 21 April, 2006 - 11:17 am: |
Comprehensive noise maps for London are contained in:
|Posted on Friday, 21 April, 2006 - 12:07 pm: |
Quite agree with Les. We get off lightly when compared to other areas of London and (it has to be said) some bits of the Home Counties.
I prefer for our local offcials to devote their energies to getting our local amenities back open(!) and making sure the area gets the investment it needs.
|Posted on Friday, 21 April, 2006 - 12:24 pm: |
That HACAN report only shows a couple of examples. It doesn't map Lewisham's problem relative to others. It is also entirely irrelevant whether or not things are worse in Hounslow. If you read the reports more thoroughly, you will see that the way the noise is calculated means that we could indeed have a problem here.
|Posted on Friday, 21 April, 2006 - 01:24 pm: |
Sorry but it's entirely relevant how 'bad' the problem is here compared to other places. If you take a London-wide perspective, surely you want find solutions for the areas most affected first?
If you look at it from a more local perepective, it's clear (from this thread at least) that it's not a particularily widely held view that there is a problem in the first place. Why have the council waste time and effort when they are more pressing matters. No comfort to people whose sleep is disturbed I know but as with everything it's a matter of priorities.
|Posted on Friday, 21 April, 2006 - 01:52 pm: |
Disagree, as the HACAN analysis suggests that the noise level could prove a problem well outside the areas mapped by DEFRA. Consensus is not required and could never be achieved - if a good proportion of people have their sleep disturbed there is a problem.
What I think it goes to show is that the problem is London-wide (or at least affects quite a wide area) and that Heathrow is in a stupid place if it requires such extensive overflying of the city. Things will probably improve with quieter planes but that's no real susbtitute for sociable operating hours and a rethink on the long term location of the city's main airport.
There are of course more pressing local matters, and I agree Lewisham would be ill-advised to devote too much energy to the matter, when they have shown themselves quite incapable of carrying out simple tasks like maintaining the roof of their buildings so they do not become at risk of collapse and therefore end up having to be removed from community use. See also:
-enforcing planning regulations
-keeping drains clear
-collecting rubbish - progress here in recent years I concede
They had best learn to tie their shoelaces before attempting anything more ambitious.
|Posted on Friday, 21 April, 2006 - 02:25 pm: |
I remember when I was between 7 and 10 (20-25 years ago now) when I lived at the top of Taymount Rise being woken up at night by loud planes flying over Forest Hill. At the time I usually thought that a nuclear war was about to start based on the excessive noise and the numbers of planes (I have always been a bit of a worrier). I mention this purely to demonstrate that this is not a new problem and one that we should be used to living in London.
Since then I always sleep with the window closed except on the hottest nights, when I get woken by police sirens, people flushing toilets or playing music next door, the dawn chorus, trains half-a-mile away, and planes. Cutting out all planes would have little overall effect on my sleep since other issues are more likely to wake me.
I do have a solution which I recommend to anybody suffering disturbed sleep due to noise - a pair of ear plugs cuts out all noise from the air and ground. Using ear plugs seems much easier than moving Heathrow airport to another site. Perhaps airlines could provide them free to all London residents (I always bring them home from transatlantic flights - recommend Virgin Atlantic Ear plugs as the best around).
Having said all this, I do believe there is a minor problem with flights coming in too low, too soon over London and the extra noise generated by circling London and stacking. If they have to stack they should do this over the sea before coming in to land rather than so close to the airport and urban areas.
|Posted on Friday, 21 April, 2006 - 02:26 pm: |
I agree this is sometimes an issue and has definitely gotten worse over the last 4 or 5 years but we live in a large capital city. With its multicultural make up local airports with international links are essential.
I for one enjoy being able to make regular flights from a local base instead of spending half the day getting to the airport.
You can't have great transport facilities and not have some downside - or not been proved yet.
|Posted on Friday, 21 April, 2006 - 03:46 pm: |
Doesn't have to involve flying between 0000 and 0600 though!
...and Gatwick is our "local" airport - which, funnily enough, doesn't trouble us!
|Posted on Friday, 21 April, 2006 - 04:54 pm: |
For Simon- seemingly some of us imagine low flying aircraft whilst others seek out imaginary potholes! Some things will inevitably bother some more than others - depends on lifestyle and sensitivity, I guess, however there seems to be more people on this site of the opinion that it is a problem than not. I have lived in Forest Hill for over 20 years, and only in the last 4 have I felt this to be a problem.
Michaels point about stacking over the sea is something which I believe is a realistic solution and will improve things for a great number of people.
There may indeed be more pressing local matters but most other councils seem to manage a formal response of some sort so why not Lewisham. It would only take a few letters to the right people to register dissatisfaction.
I do feel sorry for people around Hounslow and West London and it is just as bad) but unlike them I did not choose to live near a major airport so do not expect to have to tolerate these problems.
|Posted on Friday, 21 April, 2006 - 09:11 pm: |
Time to recite my poem:
Whines, beeps and drones from Lordship Lane
The smashing of glass, vandals again
The sirens down Peckham of the old Bill
These are the nightime sounds of Forest Hill
No mention of the drones of planes (although the beeps on the South Circular have gone). Seeing how I live so close to the South Circ I can hardly hear the traffic. But obviously others are disturbed by aircraft I'll stop posting further apart from saying watch out for NIMBYism and you think this is bad? You should have been in Nam. Ohh the throbbing of the helicopter blades still haunts me on a hot humid night....