Noise and why it matters

Noise tolerance is different for everybody, even different dependant on the situation (fire alarm Vs Alarm Clock) however much of it is tolerated as necessary. When it comes to aviation noise things are different.
It is different because it is far more difficult to mitigate noise from planes as you cannot build structures to deflect it as you can with motorways as the plane flies above your head. Noise from the same height sound different in an open park than it does when in a town surrounded by buildings.

It is also different as aircraft noise has many ways to measure the noise as there is no single method leaving people to wonder just why you cannot find one single way to measure the noise nuisance.

Current thinking from the Government is to use a standard that doesn't measure the impact of one single event but a measurement that averages the impact dependant on the mix of aircraft using the airport and frequency of the air transport movements then averaged over a 16 hour day (LAeq, 16hr). (in plain language that means how many 747's and how many Lear jets and then averaging the noise and then averaging again over a 16 hour day)

For most airports working out the contours is relatively easy because they have annual data to use in their modelling. Why this is important is that Manston is closed (and has been for 5 years) and the modelling RSP used was based on the Fleet mix within the discredited Azimuth Report which is turn was based on Dr Sally Dixon's unviable forecasts.

RSP's current proposal is to pay compensation at the 63Db contour which is based on an untested fleet mix and understates the individual impact of each event by about half.

This is the actual Data from Infratil (the last owners of an operational airport) showing the 85, 90, 95 db contour of a Boeing 747 landing over Ramsgate

This clearly shows that a 747 will impact a large area of Ramsgate now look at the new averaged Fleet mix and then averaged over a 16 hour day at 57, 60 and 63Db LAeq, 16hr

These contours were calculated by CAA's Environmental Research and Consultancy Department, (ERCD) on behalf of a local business and not by RSP who used an untried and untested company (stated at the local hearing on noise when Woods confirmed their expertise was in road transport and not aircraft)  to produce their contours which at 63Db looked like this

Using this 63Db contour RSP decided that only 232 houses might be eligible for soundproofing (which would have costed RSP £3.85M.
Compare this with the number of properties that occur within the 85Db contour for a single 747 landing over Ramsgate.
This is important because Noise Blight compensation must be secured BEFORE the DCO is granted and evidence of funds must be verified and to date that has still to be done.

Current Government thinking is that developers should move to the 60Db contour which is clearly marked on the locally funded contour map but not so easy to find within the application however today the examining authority sent the following map

This still differs markedly from the ERCD contours but does show many more people should be entitled to compensation.
This is what the ExA is proposing as new wording in the Statutory Instrument:

New R9b

“Residential properties with habitable rooms within the 60dB LAeq (16 hour) day time contour will be eligible for noise insulation and ventilation detailed in Noise Mitigation Plan.”

Reasoning

The ExA is proposing this revised daytime threshold in order to align the daytime noise threshold with current and emerging policy including the Government’s proposed changes currently the subject of consultation. The Aviation Policy Framework (2013) paragraph 3.17 states that: “We will continue to treat the 57dB LAeq 16 hour contour as the average level of daytime aircraft noise marking the approximate onset of significant community annoyance.” The Civil Aviation Authority’s (CAA) recent findings on Aircraft Noise and Annoyance (February 2018) refers to UK policy in relation to an ‘annoyance threshold’ and highlights 57dB LAeq (16 hour) as marking the approximate onset of significant community annoyance. The third 3 paragraph page 6 states that: “The government published their Response to their Airspace Consultation in 2017 and acknowledged the evidence from the SoNA study, which showed that sensitivity to aircraft noise has increased, with the same percentage of people reporting to be highly annoyed at a level of 54 dB LAeq, 16hr as occurred at 57 dB LAeq, 16hr in the past.” Paragraph 3.122 of Aviation 2050

The future of UK aviation (December 2018) Cm 9714 states that: “The government therefore proposes the following noise insulation measures: to extend the noise insulation policy threshold beyond the current 63dB LAeq 16hr contour to 60dB LAeq 16hr.”

Clearly the level of annoyance to locals with an operational airport will be many times bigger than has ever been seen before at Manston

The highest number of air transport movements (Cargo) was 2003 at 1081 movements or 540 planes or 3 movements a day. The last 10 years before closure saw an average of 439 movements per year or 220 planes or just 4 planes a week.
Riveroak are planning for 17170 movements a year or 8585 planes or 23 planes  per day.
This bears no comparison with the past history of Manston and the noise this will generate will never have been felt by any current or past resident of the town.

Postscript:
Heathrow today announce their new compensation offering which will use the 57Db contour. Read their plan here. link to Heathrow plan