London City Airport defends noise study

London City Airport has defended its latest ground noise study. PA Archive/PA Images

London City Airport has defended its latest study of ground noise after criticism from a campaigner.

Share Email this article to a friend To send a link to this page you must be logged in.

Commenting after the report’s publication last month, Alan Haughton, who lives under the flight path in Blackwall, said: “The study is a joke, with long suffering residents being its punchline.”

Carried out at three year intervals, the study measured noise levels caused by operations at ground level in five areas surrounding the Royal Docks-based airport, including the University of East London’s Docklands campus.

According to the report’s authors, the noise measurements taken in 2016 are “not significantly different” to those made three years earlier.

But Alan challenged the way the measurements are taken. He added: “It beggars belief that in some locations, the airport is only required to study noise readings for just over five hours on a single day, once in a three year period.

“My immediate concern is for those working, studying and living at UEL, which has seen a 5db increase in noise to just below the government threshold.”

The study concluded no measures need to be taken to reduce noise levels at the Hartmann Road site.

But Alan cast doubt on the analysis, saying: “I would demand a proper comprehensive long term study.”

A London City Airport spokeswoman said ground noise is monitored separately to noise generated by aircraft arrivals and departures which is monitored continuously.

She added that the 2016 study was made during a busy period in July and August with the UEL site monitored for 12 hours on Friday, July 15.

She added: “The reported increase in noise at UEL from the 2013 study is due to aircraft operations being in a westerly direction on the day the measurements were taken, rather than easterly. This is dictated by wind direction.

“On this basis, ground noise at this location was actually 1dB lower than predicted.”