Review of existing Section 106 Agreement - Thanet District Council
Review of existing Section 106 Agreement - Thanet District Council Review of existing Section 106 Agreement - Thanet District Council
6.3 General noise limitationsThe 1996 63dBA LAeq contour referred to in Para 2.1.1 was based onprevious aircraft movements by RAF jets. As no other noise contours wereavailable following transfer of the airport to civilian use, this was used as a‘worst case scenario’ in terms of limiting noise level exposure.As an alternative to the retrospective production of Noise Contours every twoyears, a future forecast contour for projected activity for some years ahead,2010 say, could be produced to assess in advance the likely scale of noisecontour and disturbance than could be expected.It is assumed the percentage increases in contour size referred to in Para 2.2on penalties are by measured area.6.4 Dwelling insulation schemeAs with the points made above in Section 2, the basis of the noise contourused is the concern. In the proposal the contour used will always beretrospective, whereas the creation of a set of future forecasts contours settingout the progression of the Insulation Scheme boundary over time wouldenable works to be implemented by the time the noise impact reached theaffected properties, rather than some time after.There is reference to an intention to “indicate….what level of noise retardationis to be achieved”. Noise insulation schemes have been carried at the majorLondon and regional airports for some 35 years. Any scheme of worksproposed for the KIA Noise Insulation Scheme should be comparable in scopeof works, scheme eligibility criteria and noise attenuation performance to thestandards set by these established schemes6.5 Preferred departure runwayThe use of a preferential takeoff direction away from major urban areas is tobe encouraged.It is noted that the airport has a target that runway 28 should be used for atleast 70% of all departures and for all night time passenger arrival flights,subject to aviation and safety reasons. These targets are, of course,dependent on the prevailing meteorological conditions (eg a maximum of a 5mph tail wind on the runway), although KIA’s long runway length does providean additional safety margin.There is no indication of any penalty that might be incurred if the proposedtarget is not achieved, taking into account circumstances outside the airport’scontrol. As a general point, it is felt that if a performance target is set there isa need for a matching penalty for non-compliance, otherwise the incentive ofthe target is lost. Should there be sound reasons why the current target forpreferential runway use cannot be achieved, then perhaps the target shouldbe revised to a more meaningful figure, but with penalties.EU00142:FINAL REPORT PAGE 27
There also needs to a clear and “auditable” process to assess the validity ofthe occasions when the use of a preferred runway is not possible because ofoperational limits, to remove any suspicion that the preferred use target is notbeing pursued.6.6 Noise abatement routesIt is assumed the National Air Traffic Service has approved the proceduresoutlined in Para 5.1.a/b/c.It is unclear why other elements of the planned noise abatement procedures,not set out in Para 5, cannot be provided “until two months of the date of theagreement” rather than be identified and incorporated within the Agreement.There is no indication of what penalties may be applied to airport or to theaircraft operators if these procedures are breached, to encourage futurecompliance.6.7 Noise monitoring terminalsThe provision of a more substantial Noise Monitoring System is fundamentalto the monitoring and regulation of the airport’s operation. On this basis, thereare some questions of the adequacy of an additional two Noise MonitoringTerminals (NMTs), as set out in Para 6.1.1, in achieving the necessarystandard of surveillance.In terms of the minimum provision for a first stage monitoring system, it issuggested that at each end of the runway three microphone NMTs beconsidered. These would all be located at the internationally recogniseddistance of 3.5 nautical miles/6.5 kilometres from the point at the oppositerunway end where takeoff is begun, to reflect the measurement locations usedin the standard ICAO/FAA Noise Certification process.One NMT should be placed along the extended centreline of the runway, withthe other two positioned some 1 to 1.5km either side of the centreline NMT atthe same 6.5 km distance from start of roll. This three NMT layout should berepeated for the other end of the runway for takeoffs or landings in the otherdirection. By providing the trio of NMT sensors the resulting noise readingsfrom these can be interpreted to establish a noise level due to the aircraftmovement, and also whether the aircraft has turned relative to the central andouter NMT locations. All readings are fed back to a central computer, andrecorded and stored for future reference for complaint or operationalpurposes.The present Kent International Airport system of a single fixed NMT on theextended centreline at each end of the runway, combined with a portabledevice, cannot be expected to obtain consistent and comprehensiveinformation on the Airport’s activities on a robust basis.A further stage of refinement to the basic two groups of three NMTs layoutdescribed would be to add to the basic system the SSR radar information, toprovide greater detail on each movement and a visual record of the flight path.EU00142:FINAL REPORT PAGE 28
- Page 7 and 8: In respect of noise mitigation meas
- Page 9 and 10: Directive 2002/49/EC does not intro
- Page 11 and 12: appellate Court in deciding what is
- Page 13: Each aircraft type and subtype has
- Page 16 and 17: the Air Traffic Controllers both be
- Page 18 and 19: 4 Review of UK Airport Noise Polici
- Page 20 and 21: 4.6 Exeter International AirportExe
- Page 22 and 23: London Stansted is four miles to th
- Page 24 and 25: Norwich Airport is presently review
- Page 26 and 27: 5 KIA - Future Development and Airp
- Page 28 and 29: 6 KIA - Existing Section 106 Agreem
- Page 32 and 33: Such additional investment would ne
- Page 34 and 35: 6.14 Third partiesIt is important t
- Page 36 and 37: time noise contours” will be calc
- Page 38 and 39: previous financial year. An annual
- Page 40 and 41: The Noise Control measures include
- Page 42 and 43: SECOND SCHEDULEThis schedule sets o
- Page 44 and 45: 2.1.1 ensure that the number of Fli
- Page 46 and 47: 5.2 submit to the Council and to MA
- Page 48 and 49: 8.2 on and after 1st April 2002 pay
- Page 50 and 51: 11.2 Prior to and in sufficient tim
- Page 52 and 53: PWB/wAgreement/h.CAS/HW/VJN - 11 -
- Page 54 and 55: KENT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - MANSTO
- Page 56 and 57: 6.2 Any night time passenger arriva
- Page 59: Appendix B2KIA 54-72 dBA Leq 16 hou
- Page 63: Appendix B4KIA 54-72 dBA Leq 16 hou
- Page 67: Delta House175-177 Borough High Str
There also needs to a clear and “auditable” process to assess the validity <strong>of</strong>the occasions when the use <strong>of</strong> a preferred runway is not possible because <strong>of</strong>operational limits, to remove any suspicion that the preferred use target is notbeing pursued.6.6 Noise abatement routesIt is assumed the National Air Traffic Service has approved the proceduresoutlined in Para 5.1.a/b/c.It is unclear why other elements <strong>of</strong> the planned noise abatement procedures,not set out in Para 5, cannot be provided “until two months <strong>of</strong> the date <strong>of</strong> theagreement” rather than be identified and incorporated within the <strong>Agreement</strong>.There is no indication <strong>of</strong> what penalties may be applied to airport or to theaircraft operators if these procedures are breached, to encourage futurecompliance.6.7 Noise monitoring terminalsThe provision <strong>of</strong> a more substantial Noise Monitoring System is fundamentalto the monitoring and regulation <strong>of</strong> the airport’s operation. On this basis, thereare some questions <strong>of</strong> the adequacy <strong>of</strong> an additional two Noise MonitoringTerminals (NMTs), as set out in Para 6.1.1, in achieving the necessarystandard <strong>of</strong> surveillance.In terms <strong>of</strong> the minimum provision for a first stage monitoring system, it issuggested that at each end <strong>of</strong> the runway three microphone NMTs beconsidered. These would all be located at the internationally recogniseddistance <strong>of</strong> 3.5 nautical miles/6.5 kilometres from the point at the oppositerunway end where take<strong>of</strong>f is begun, to reflect the measurement locations usedin the standard ICAO/FAA Noise Certification process.One NMT should be placed along the extended centreline <strong>of</strong> the runway, withthe other two positioned some 1 to 1.5km either side <strong>of</strong> the centreline NMT atthe same 6.5 km distance from start <strong>of</strong> roll. This three NMT layout should berepeated for the other end <strong>of</strong> the runway for take<strong>of</strong>fs or landings in the otherdirection. By providing the trio <strong>of</strong> NMT sensors the resulting noise readingsfrom these can be interpreted to establish a noise level due to the aircraftmovement, and also whether the aircraft has turned relative to the central andouter NMT locations. All readings are fed back to a central computer, andrecorded and stored for future reference for complaint or operationalpurposes.The present Kent International Airport system <strong>of</strong> a single fixed NMT on theextended centreline at each end <strong>of</strong> the runway, combined with a portabledevice, cannot be expected to obtain consistent and comprehensiveinformation on the Airport’s activities on a robust basis.A further stage <strong>of</strong> refinement to the basic two groups <strong>of</strong> three NMTs layoutdescribed would be to add to the basic system the SSR radar information, toprovide greater detail on each movement and a visual record <strong>of</strong> the flight path.EU00142:FINAL REPORT PAGE 28
Change language