Noise & the Environment

Press articles

The basis of the Government's 2008 consultation was to determine whether a third runway can meet air and noise pollution standards.

In March 2008, the Sunday Times reported an "environmental miracle"; the claim by the Government and BAA that a new airport the size of Gatwick could be bolted on to Heathrow without any adverse effect.

They are not alone in their incredulity.

Heathrow airport noise pollution study 'illogical', says top aviation scientist PDF Print E-mail
Sunday, 02 August 2009 10:46

The air industry regulator's former chief scientist has called on the Government to commission a new study into the effects of aircraft noise on residents around Heathrow Airport. Anti-expansion campaigners and local councils, including Wandsworth, said the call - which has also been supported by the Mayor of London Boris Johnson - could be used in a legal challenge against the Government's planned expansion.

Professor Peter Brooker - who worked as chief scientist at the Civil Aviation Authority from 1991 to 1998 - said the Government's position on the aircraft noise was "illogical". A new study was necessary because previous reports were either inconclusive or outdated, he said, and vital for the Government to regain the public's trust for a controversial policy that will affect generations.

Read the full story in
The Richmond & Twickenham Times.


The government's position on aircraft noise is not just illogical - it's wrong. It directly contradicts the findings of the World Health Organisation and uses data from 1985 to spin its case when more recent reports are available.

Who do you believe? Professor Brooker and the World Health Organisation, or Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson?

 
RocketTheme Joomla Templates