Report on Application to Vary Penzance Heliport Planning Conditions

28 Aug

Tim Veater’s take on the current application to relax noise conditions and the objections it has engendered.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An application (Ref. PA25/04955) has been made to Cornwall Council (CC) Planning Department by CARNEY SWEENEY on behalf of TRESCO ISLAND LTD to change the planning conditions as they relate to the Penzance Heliport.

The changes are subtle but will have the effect of increasing the noise burden on the local population and further damage the environment.

Permission is being sought to utilize less sophisticated (Category 2) helicopters, increasing existing noise levels by 5 dBA, extending the operating day by an hour and relaxing the Sunday restrictions to allow more flights.

The Category 2 Ordinary Aerodrome Licence for Penzance is not included in the application, so I have not been able to view it, but if it follows the standard format of others, it will not refer to noise levels. Therefore if relevant planning conditions are dropped in favour of it, there will literally be no controls at all other than those set for the aircraft by the certifying authorities.

The business plan of the helicopter operator, STARSPEED LTD, is to increase traffic by “60 – 70 %”. The noise consequences have not been factored in or considered.

The application has predictably resulted in over one hundred written objections including the two local councils most directly affected.

The 'Noise Impact Statement' by CLARKE SAUNDERS ACOUSTICS, though technically accurate, should not be considered unbiased, as it is acting on behalf of the applicant.

Its conclusion that the changes to the planning rules will result in “No observed adverse effect”, should be given limited credibility in the decision-making process.

Only an independent noise survey, on publicly agreed parameters, on behalf of the CC, should be regarded as authorative.

1, Historical Background

In 2018 the Cornwall Council granted planning permission for a new Heliport in Penzance. (PA16/09346 dated 03.08.2018)

This was despite overwhelming opposition from local residents, around one hundred of whom, submitted written objections. It also ran contrary to established national and local policies obligating planning authorities to prevent or mitigate developments with adverse environmental impact. What support there was for the heliport tended to come from the Scilly Isles, for which rather spurious arguments - such as medical need etc - were advanced..

Flights began in March 2020. The claimed economic and social benefits were considered to outweigh the impact from noise and pollution to the immediate area and under the flight path over land. There is debate as to whether there have been any economic benefits to Penzance itself.

Although the objectors were not successful in preventing the development, it did ensure much public discussion. As a result many conditions were attached to ameliorate or mitigate the adverse effects relating to land use, traffic and pollution.

It is seven of these conditions, primarily relating to noise (see below), that the applicant (Tresco Island Ltd) now wishes to amend or remove.

This has caused another storm of protest with over a hundred written comments, (114 at time of writing) including objections from parish and town councils. (See: https://planning.cornwall.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=SYPPMXFGHNM00)

Tresco Island Ltd (easily confused with confused with Tresco Ltd) is a Private Limited Company, incorporated in December 2021, with a Registered Office in Truro.

The nature of the business is stated to be 'Holiday centres and villages'. The helicopter operation is therefore part of a private commercial business, not a public transportation. Three of the five Directors are Dorrien-Smiths. It is therefore a family run business by the Dorrien-Smiths, historic lease-holders from the Duke of Cornwall Estate. It is not clear who the actual share-holders are other than presumably the stated five directors.

Flights are not cheap currently costing around £180.00 a one way trip. Car parking is an extra £9.50 per day. It may therefore be fairly regarded as an exclusive luxury service for the relatively wealthy. (See: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13783962 )

The helicopter is operated by Starspeed Ltd., another Private Limited Company incorporated in 1978. It has been the operator of Penzance Helicopters since November 2022.(See: https://www.starspeed.co.uk/ ) I am informed, hopefully reliably, the previous operator did not find it financially viable and declined to carry on.

In its strategic report at the end of 2024 filed at Companies House (See: ) 'Starspeed' states,

“for the Penzance helicopter service, even with the fare increase, there is still capacity to increase the number of passengers flown by 60-70 %. Starspeed is making plans to increase the number of aircraft available to meet the demand.”

Any increase in traffic obviously has a direct and proportional relationship with noise and pollution. There is also the question of what additional or alternative aircraft are proposed, as these may have a different or worse noise profile. The relaxation in maximum noise allowed, suggests this is in fact the case.

It should be clearly stated that none of the proposed changes offer any benefit to the residents and occupants of the local areas affected.

The only arguable benefit is to two private limited companies ('Tresco Island Ltd' and 'Starspeed Ltd') and its customers – what may be referred to as a 'fringe' interests, whose financial dealings are opaque. Owing to cost and principal destination (Tresco holiday island) it offers little benefit to the general public or the rest of Scilly.

Conversely, all the proposed changes are deleterious and clearly contrary to both national and local planning guidelines.

2. Helicopter Noise – Legal Framework

In the UK, airports are generally exempt from noise nuisance regulations. The Civil Aviation Act 1982, allows civil aircraft to operate without being subject to to general noise nuisance controls. This exemption applies regardless of whether the airport is a major or minor facility, as long as the Rules of the Air Regulations 2015 are adhered to. (See: https://www.caa.co.uk/passengers-and-public/environment/noise/reducing-noise/ )

Were it not for this fact, it is highly likely the helicopter operation would be regarded as a Public and Statutory Nuisance. Noise nuisance is assesed in accordance with British Standard 4142, about which more below.

“Standards set out by the Convention on International Civil Aviation must be met and a noise certificate issued to aircraft meeting certain conditions. Not every aircraft on the UK Register is obliged to have a noise certificate: older aircraft and Permit to Fly aircraft do not require one.”

Starspeed and Tresco Island Ltd seek permission to use other aircraft than the Augusta Westland AW 139 that are likely to have a higher noise profile. This is an important issue that has not been explained in detail. What alternative aircraft and how do their noise profiles differ?

3. The law of public and private nuisance

Noise can be a Public Nuisance which in law is a crime.

It is defined as “an action or omission that unlawfully interferes with a right common to the public, causing harm, inconvenience, or danger to the public or a section of it. It can involve actions that endanger public health, safety, or morals, or obstruct the public in the exercise of common rights. Essentially, it's conduct that affects a significant number of people and is considered harmful or disruptive to the community.“

Noise can also be considered a statutory noise nuisance as defined by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. To be so it has to “materially interfere with the average persons use of or enjoyment of a premises or be prejudicial to health”.

In both cases statutory bodies or private individuals can institute legal proceedings torts and/or crimes, for remediation, punishment or compensation as the circumstances demand.

A decision on whether a noise falls within these definitions is both objective (by applyling BS 4142) and subjective as to human experience and reaction. Were it not for the exemption already referred to under the CAA Act, 1982 the noise impact of the helicopter would qualify as a public and/or statutory nuisance.

It would therefore suggest it would be perverse of the Cornwall Council, responsible in law for enforcing the provisions of the Control of Pollution Act as it realtes to noise nuisance, to do anything facilitate or worsen the situation as it relates to the Heliport.

As stated above, this Nuisance action is not open to affected residents of the Heliport. It therefore means the Planning conditions and their enforcement, is their only legal protection from excessive noise nuisance and why the existing conditions should not be relaxed in any way. Nor is operational convenience or commercial profit adequate justification for doing so.

Note: If there were sound reasons for imposing the conditions in 2018 (and subsequent public reaction proves it) there no reason for relaxing them now and making a bad situation worse.

The multiple and diverse impacts of noise from aircraft is summarised here: Aviation noise and health | UK Civil Aviation Authority A simplified explanation of BS 4142 is provided here: What’s a BS 4142 Assessment When It’s At Home – A Layman’s Guide - ES Acoustics Affordable Acoustic Consultancy

4 The regulatory planning frame-work

As part of the planning process, and in response to public concern, many conditions were attached - including those related to noise and pollution - to control and mitigate the impact - some of which the applicant is now seeking to relax.

Generally speaking, the approval of the Heliport in 2018 was made not only in the face of widespread public opposition but also national and local planning guidelines to protect the environment. It comes as no surprise then, that the proposal to weaken the existing planning conditions has roused renewed opposition.

The relevant planning provisions to prevent or mitigate the adverse consequences of environmentally damaging developments are extensive. A summary is given below. The current application is a test of how effective they really are.

It should be noted that the Heliport and helicopter operation, has adverse impacts beyond just noise; visually, loss of green field, traffic, hazard risks and exhaust pollution. It is the very opposite of 'sustainable development' to which the CC is notionally committed.

4.1 NATIONALLY planning guidelines are contained in the 'National Planning Practice Guidance' (NPPG). (See: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/noise--2 ) The following are extracts:

“The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) aims to prevent noise from new development causing "significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life". Planning policies and decisions should strive to mitigate and minimise noise impacts and protect tranquil areas, while promoting an improved acoustic environment.”

“Plan-making and decision making need to take account of the acoustic environment and in doing so consider:

whether or not a significant adverse effect is occurring or likely to occur;

whether or not an adverse effect is occurring or likely to occur; and

whether or not a good standard of amenity can be achieved.”

Quote: “Can noise override other planning concerns? It can, where justified, although it is important to look at noise in the context of the wider characteristics of a development proposal, its likely users and its surroundings, as these can have an important effect on whether noise is likely to pose a concern.”

Quote: “Local communities also have a statutory right to contribute their views at each step in the planning process, including where development of an airport or airfield is proposed within an emerging plan or a planning application is submitted to a local authority.”

The proposal is contrary to the aims and intentions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Noise Statement for England (DoE 2010) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7956e0ed915d0422067947/pb13750-noise-policy.pdf

Quote: 'The first aim of the Noise Policy Statement for England is to avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life from environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development.'

Quote: 'The second aim of the Noise Policy Statement for England is to mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life from environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development.'

We might ask the question, "Are these just words or do they mean something in practice and decision-taking?

4.2 CORNWALL COUNCIL'S LOCAL PLAN

Cornwall Council’s local plan was adopted in 2016 and sets out the main planning approach and policies for Cornwall. The Plan is intended to help deliver the vision and objectives of ‘Future Cornwall’, a sustainable community strategy.

As regards helicopter travel from Penzance, a less sustainable mode of travel could not be imagined and the current application makes matters worse. (See: https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/adopted-plans/ )

Quote: Future growth in Cornwall will be guided by a ‘plan, monitor and manage approach’ ensuring that the right policies are in place to reflect changing circumstances. The following policies detail how noise shall be considered in relation to new development.

Policy 12: Design - Proposed development should protect individuals and property from ‘unreasonable noise and disturbance’.

Policy 13: Development Standards - Proposed development should avoid adverse impacts, either individually or cumulatively, resulting from noise, dust, odour, vibration, vermin, waste, pollution and visual effects. Such adverse impacts should be avoided or mitigated during the construction, operation or restoration stage of development.

Policy 14: Renewable and low carbon energy – Noise from wind and solar farms are required to be adequately mitigated.

Policy 16: Health and Wellbeing - Protect, and alleviate risk to, people and the environment from unsafe, unhealthy and polluted environments by avoiding or mitigating against harmful impacts and health risks such as air and noise pollution and water and land contamination.

It should be noted that nothing in the current application accords with these stated ambitions. In fact they are quite contrary to them. An existing polluting enterprise is seeking permission to be more so.

Cornwall Council Interim Policy Position Statement

Transport Decarbonisation Strategy and Cornwall Transport Plan to 2030

Quote: “Our vision: Transport in Cornwall will be excellent and carbon neutral. Our transport system will connect people, communities, businesses and services in a way that enhances quality of life, is reliable, efficient, safe, healthy and inclusive. People will choose to travel in ways that will have a low impact upon the environment and other people.”

How can the Heliport operation, or a relaxation of the noise rules, be made to reconcile with that 'vision'?

Quote: The Council is currently assembling an evidence base to inform the future decarbonisation of transport. This will draw on key sources of evidence, best practice, industry carbon quantification tools and stakeholder engagement.

Building on the Local Area Energy Plan it will explore a range of scenarios which will help inform politicians and stakeholders on the likely scale and nature of future transport interventions needed to establish a pathway to transport decarbonisation.

It is anticipated that government guidance will follow in 2025 and the Council will draw on this and the evidence base to develop a Transport Decarbonisation Plan which in turn will inform our Local Plan, future Local Transport Plans, and other key Council strategies. See: Policy 27 of the Local Plan and Policies T1, T2 and T3 of the Climate Emergency DPD

In order to consider the potential effects of the Interim Policy Position Statement, maximising positive outcomes and minimising negative outcomes, it has been subject to assessment using the Cornwall Development and Decision Wheel (CDDW). The CDDW is a Cornwall Council tool based on the Kate Raworth ‘Doughnut Economics’ model. CDDW allows us to take a holistic view of how planning policy can positively influence Cornwall by considering plans and decisions against 37 issues which fall under the categories of environment, social, equality and inclusion.

It should be noted that helicopters are acknowledged as one of the very worst sources of noise and pollution and the least environmentally sustainable mode of transport. How does making matters worse accord with the de-carbonisation objective?

Note as regards policy, the Planning Authority is under a general obligation to maximise positive outcomes and minimise negative outcomes, precisely the opposite of what this application seeks to do. Helicopters are a detrimental assault on the highly prized natural environment, that this application only worsens.

4.3 LOCALLY

Cornwall Local Plan

https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/media/ozhj5k0z/adopted-local-plan-strategic-policies-2016.pdf

Quote: “Objective 8: Promote development that contributes to a healthy and safe population by providing for opportunities for walking and cycling and ensuring the appropriate levels of open space and the protection and improvement of air quality.”

Quote: “Planning decisions, individually or cumulatively, should not lead to unacceptably poor air quality. In AQMAs, proposals must demonstrate, by appropriate assessment methods set out in respective Action Plans, that they will not materially affect or degrade AQMAs or present an unacceptable risk to human health either in terms of the signifcance of the number of people at risk or the changes on the concentrations of pollutants.

Development should not normally be allowed where acceptable mitigation cannot be identifed.

Protect, and alleviate risk to, people and the environment from unsafe, unhealthy and polluted environments by avoiding or mitigating against harmful impacts and health risks such as air and noise pollution and water and land contamination and potential hazards aforded from future climate change impacts.

Penzance Neighbourhood Plan 2024

(See: https://www.pznp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/PZNP-Referendum-version-CLEAN-19-12-24.pdf )

(Strictly speaking the Heliport lies just outside the Penzance town boundary in the parish of Ludgvan, but its immediate proximity must make this document relevant and applicable)

Quote: “It seeks to prevent the exacerbation of pollution and make improvements in environmental quality at Eastern Green. Concern for the natural environment was one of the key issues to emerge from our public consultation, especially among younger residents and school students, reflecting a high level of engagement on environmental issues within the Parish. This environmental awareness partly reflects the quality of our exceptional “blue/green” natural environment in the arc of Mount’s Bay, one of the UK’s most spectacular maritime locations. Preserving this environment is essential to our quality of life and well-being, and to the attractiveness of the Parish as a visitor destination.”

The Neighbourhood Plan for Penzance includes sustainability as a 'golden thread? Also in 2019 Penzance Council declared a climate emergency and in 2022 adopted the Future Generations Pledge.

Worse helicopter intrusion would be contrary to the stated aims and intentions of both and other policy documents.

(See: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-11-09/debates/1C4B976D-2316-43BC-8177-7EEB0131C1B8/NatureAndClimateDeclaration )

Climate Emergency Development Plan

Also contrary to 23 and 27 of the Cornwall Local Plan and Policy C1 (1.), (3.) and (8.) of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document.

I take the view, as I argued at the time of the first application and subsequently (See: https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/search?q=Heliport ), had these national and local policies been implimented and if public representations had carried any weight, the initial heliport planning application would not have been approved in its present location.

The question now is, will these planning policies be effective in preventing a worse environmental impact implicit in the current application? It is an acid test on the efficacy and influence of written policies in practice. Can we rely on them or not?

5. Detailed examination of proposed changes.

The proposed changes to the existing seven set of conditions are as follows:

5.1 Condition Number 26

Existing Wording:

'The heliport shall be used for the purposes of commercial helicopter operations to and from the Isles of Scilly, including associated engineering maintenance and training flights. Other flights including helicopters performing an emergency or public service function and private helicopters may take place subject to compliance with the terms of this planning permission.'

Proposed Wording:

'The heliport shall be used principally for commercial passenger helicopter operations to and from the Isles of Scilly, including associated engineering maintenance and training flights. Other flights including public service and private helicopters are permitted subject to the terms of the Category 2 Ordinary Aerodrome Licence.'

Discussion:

The thrust of this first proposed change is to remove CC planning conditions, replacing them with a Category 2 Ordinary Licence. In support of it the applicants say:

Quote: “Separately to the planning conditions imposed under this permission, the Heliport is regulated by its Category 2 Ordinary Aerodrome Licence. This allows the heliport use of Category 1 and 2 helicopters, many of which fall outside of the 3dB range allowed by the permission currently. In the event of technical issues, alternative aircraft to the AW 139 have to be deployed therefore requiring an increased range of up to 5Db to allow greater flexibility to ensure the ongoing operation of the heliport in line with its licence. Due to the difficulty in sourcing aircraft within this decibel range, it is crucial that the operation is enabled to utilise the full range of helicopters covered by its licence to ensure the ongoing viability of the business.”

I have checked many CAA Category 2 Licences (See: https://www.caa.co.uk/media/eruaychy/20171201ordinarylicencesandmapsptot.pdf )

The purpose of this change is to remove the relevant Planning condition for flights and replacing it with the Category 2 Ordinary Aerodrome licence. The problem seems to be that none of them address noise per se. The change of condition therefore would effectively delete noise as a contition of the planning permission.

In other words the operators want to be freed of the restrictive requirement to use Category 1 helicopters and effectively use any that are available. This loosening of the condition would presumably apply to anyone using the Heliport? Here (https://penzanceheliport.co.uk/information-for-pilots/ ) the Heliport invites visitors and states eight parking places are available. This appears to be an expansion not originally envisaged, each visiting aircraft bringing its own additional noise impact. Is this within the terms of the existing planning permission?

5.2 Condition 27

Existing Wording

'Helicopters providing the commercial service between the site and the Isles of Scilly and visiting private helicopters shall be AW 139 helicopters, or helicopters with a take-off, approach and overflight noise profile that is no more than 3 dB EPNL above the EPNL of the AW 139 helicopter, as defined by the respective European Aviation Safety Agency Type Certificate Data Sheet for Noise.'

Proposed Wording

'Helicopters providing the commercial passenger service between the site and the Isles of Scilly and visiting private helicopters shall be Category 1 or 2 helicopters with a take-off, approach and overflight noise profile that is no more than 5 dB EPNL above the EPNL of the AW 139 helicopter, as defined by the respective European Aviation Safety Agency Type Certificate Data Sheet for Noise. Records of all commercial aircraft using the heliport are to be retained for a period of 6 months and be submitted to the Council within 30 days of any written request.'

In support of the change the applicant states:

Condition 27 currently restricts the noise profile of helicopters associated with the passenger service flights to the Isles of Scilly to no more than 3Db above the EPNL of the AW 139 helicopter. Whilst at the time of the granting of planning permission, this closely reflected the expected operation of the heliport, the business now operates a greater range of helicopters in order to give greater reliability for example when helicopters are grounded for maintenance. This has resulted in the need to amend this condition. Separately to the planning conditions imposed under this permission, the Heliport is regulated by its Category 2 Ordinary Aerodrome Licence. This allows the heliport use of Category 1 and 2 helicopters, many of which fall outside of the 3dB range allowed by the permission currently. In the event of technical issues, alternative aircraft to the AW 139 have to be deployed therefore requiring an increased range of up to 5Db to allow greater flexibility to ensure the ongoing operation of the heliport in line with its licence. Due to the difficulty in sourcing aircraft within this decibel range, it is crucial that the operation is enabled to utilise the full range of helicopters covered by its licence to ensure the ongoing viability of the business.

Discussion:

The effect of this change would be to allow helicopters other than the Category 1 AW 139 or those with a similar noise profile, and extend it to any Category 1 or 2, with a presumption that this will increase the noise level by 5dBA! The precise change is only 2dBA as the existing condition allows a margin of 3dBA, but this is deceptive as including Category 2 aircraft means that the 5dBA increase would probably be the norm with some. This is clearly a deterioration that is unacceptible given the existing impact being objected to.

Apparently Category 1 and 2 typically refers to their performance and landing capabilities following an engine failure, not a physical size category.

Quote: “Category A: provides superior performance and safety, especially in demanding environments, as it guarantees continued flight or a safe rejection. Category B: assumes a forced landing is possible if the engine fails during the critical takeoff/landing phase.”

It therefore appears that allowing Category 2 helicopters, in addition to the likely increased noise issue, there may also be an increased safety risk factor for both passengers and local inhabitants. This may be particularly applicable to private flights if this is expanded.

"Not every aircraft on the UK Register is obliged to have a noise certificate: older aircraft and Permit to Fly aircraft do not require one." CAA.

I would stongly suggest the existing condition should not be diluted by either allowing Category 2 helicopters to use the site, even if the CAA Licence does not prohibit it (the two are not synonimous and have different legal status and function) Nor should the dBA limit be raised, given its intention to allow aircraft noisier by 5dBA which would be noticable and significant. (Technical note: Being a logrithmic scale, sound level doubles with every 3dBA. 6dBA is therefore four times as loud, 9dBA eight times)

Further it would appear the applicant's only justification for this significant deterioration in noise standards are commercial and economic ones. The business case was well researched at the beginning within the confines of the planning conditions. It is unacceptible that local people may be potentially required to suffer the consequences - effectively bear the cost - of getting the calculations and undertakings wrong.

Note: The approved noise profile of the AW 139 according to the two tables below can vary widely from 90 - 98 dBA and this is regarded as one of the best.

5.3 Condition 28

Existing Wording

'There shall be no helicopter movements to or from the site or engine testing before 08.00 hrs and after 18:45 hrs on any Monday to Saturday save in the following circumstances: Movements performed by emergency or public services helicopters For reasons of public safety or Where adverse weather conditions on the previous days necessitated the cancellation of movements, in accordance with the maximum flight numbers set out in Condition 29.'

Proposed Wording

'There shall be no commercial passenger movements to or from the site before 08.00 hrs and after 18.45 hrs on any Monday to Saturday save in the following circumstances: Movements performed by emergency or public services helicopters For reasons of public safety Where adverse weather conditions on the previous or same day necessitated the cancellation of passenger service flights in accordance with the maximum flight numbers set out in Condition 29 or Where technical issues on the previous or same day result in the cancellation of passenger service flights Engine testing shall be permitted between the hours of 07.30 and 19.15 on Monday to Saturday.'

In support of the proposal the applicant states: "Amendment to this condition is sought in relation to the restriction to engine testing to allow testing to begin before and after flight departures and arrivals, allowing 8:00am flights to depart on time."

Discussion: The effect of this change is to loosen and relax the strict 8 am start deadline, meaning that significant noise would be permitted at the quietest time of day, when people may still be sleeping and when the noise would be most noticable. Similar observation applies to extending the time limit to 19.15 (7.15 pm and should be rejected. Anecdotal observations suggest the existing time limits hare not infrequently been ignored.

5.4 Condition 29

Existing Wording

'There shall be a maximum of 204 helicopter movements between any Monday to Saturday at the site save in the following circumstances: Movements performed by emergency or public services helicopters For reasons of public safety.'

Proposed Wording

'There shall be a maximum of 204 Category 2 commercial passenger helicopter movements serving the Isles of Scilly between any Monday to Saturday at the site save in the following circumstances: Movements performed by emergency or public services helicopters For reasons of public safety Where a smaller aircraft with reduced passenger capacity in accordance with the Category 2 licence is temporarily operating.'

Discussion: This is a rather strange request as the AW 139 is already a relatively small capacity aircraft (10 - 15 passengers depending on configuration). I can find no supporting explanation or rationale for this in the supporting letter.

5.5 Condition 30

Existing Wording

'There shall be no helicopter movements to or from the site or engine testing before 13.00 hrs and after 16.00 hrs on any Sunday save in the following circumstances: Movements performed by emergency or public services helicopters For reasons of public safety or Where adverse weather conditions on the previous day necessitated the cancellation of movements, in accordance with the maximum flight numbers set out in Condition 31.'

Proposed Wording

'There shall be no commercial passenger helicopter movements to or from the site or engine testing before 10.00 hrs and after 14.00 hrs on any Sunday save in the following circumstances: Movements performed by emergency or public services helicopters For reasons of public safety or Where adverse weather conditions on the previous or same day necessitated the cancellation of passenger service flights Where technical issues on the previous or same day result in the cancellation of passenger service flights Where a smaller aircraft with reduced passenger capacity in accordance with the Category 2 licence is temporarily operating. Records of all Sunday movements shall be maintained for a period of 6 months and be submitted to the Council within 30 days of any written request.'

Discussion: I can see no supporting arguments for this change in the applicants letter. The effect of it is to extend the operating time by an hour (3 - 4 hrs) and bring it forward by three hours (from 1300 (1 pm) - 10.00 (10 am) It also adds additional 'let-out clauses' for 'smaller aircraft' and 'Category 2' aircraft. Keeping available records of all flights seems have been added obscurely.

The original afternoon time limits were primarily set to treat Sunday as special and give it additional protection from invasive noise. It may also have been intended not to conflict with religious observance. An increase of a third in operating time is also being sought. Allowing less sophisticated aircraft on a Sunday also involves a potential increase in noise. Given that no arguments have been advanced in support of these changes, they should be rejected.

5.6 Condition 31

Existing Conditions

'There shall be a maximum of 8 helicopter movements on any Sunday at the site save in the following circumstances: Movements performed by emergency or public services helicopters For reasons of public safety or Where adverse weather conditions on the previous day necessitated the cancellation of movements, with the number of additional permitted movements on a Sunday being no more than the number of cancelled movements.'

Proposed Wording

'There shall be a maximum of 8 commercial passenger helicopter movements on any Sunday at the site save in the following circumstances: Movements performed by emergency or public services helicopters For reasons of public safety or Where adverse weather conditions on the previous or same day necessitated the cancellation of passenger service flights with the number of additional permitted movements on a Sunday being no more than the number of cancelled passenger service flights Where technical issues on the previous or same day result in the cancellation of passenger service flights.'

Discussion: This is another relaxation in the planning rules that could potentially lead to more flights and disturbance on Sundays. It is not supported by any pressing need in the applicant's letter and should be rejected. If the operator kept Sundays normally free of flights, the exigencies of the services could be adequately covered by the existing eight flight allowed. It is for the operator to run his business within the reasonable planning parameters, not seek to change them out of convenience.

5.7 Condition 38

Existing Wording

'The operator shall employ a suitably competent and qualified person to measure, assess and report to the Local Planning Authority on, by a method and timescale to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the use of the site as the heliport commences, noise levels at its own expense. All self monitoring records shall be retained by the operator for a period not less than three years and made available to the Planning Authority upon reques. The monitoring results shall be set out in a report to be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local Planning Authority which enables a comparison with the specified noise levels set out in the WYG's Noise and vibration assessment and associated documentation. If the report demonstrates the specified sound levels are being exceeded, the report shall also provide a written explanation of the reasons for this and where appropriate identify reasonable steps that seek to ensure that the noise emissions are reduced to, or below the specified sound levels as well as a time scale for implementing the steps. The operator shall provide written confirmation to the LPA that the identified steps have been implemented in accordance with agreed time scales.'

Proposed Wording

'Removal'

In support of this change the applicant writes: This condition requires the ongoing monitoring of noise levels to be reported. Requiring ongoing noise monitoring for a heliport can present several practical and technical challenges. Unlike fixed sources of noise, helicopter operations are infrequent, variable, and highly dependent on external factors such as weather and climatic conditions, making it difficult to capture representative data on a continuous basis. Background noise levels are also highly variable and can change according to factors such as the level of traffic and wet surface on the A30 and if a train is travelling by on the mainline. Furthermore, helicopter noise is typically transient and mobile, with sound levels affected by flight paths, altitude, wind conditions, and aircraft type, all of which can vary from day to day. This variability means that short-term or periodic noise monitoring will not provide a reliable assessment of overall noise exposure experienced by local receptors. On the basis that noise levels are controlled by condition 27, and due to the technical challenges which limit the benefit of ongoing noise monitoring, this condition is proposed to be removed.

Discussion: This requested change to the conditions would mean all obligations on the operator to monitor noise were removed. This is not in the interesets of the community as there would no longer be any way of checking if the remaining conditions were being. However it is a moot point whether this condition has ever been met. If it had the full facts on flight operation and noise would have already been available to the Planning Authority and to the acoustic experts for their report. Is it possible the applicant is asking for it to be removed because he knows it has never been implimented or enforced. Perhaps this issue should be clarified. In any event some obligation to keep records of flights and their noise implications should be retained. Also they should be accessible by the public for scrutiny, in addition to CC.

6. Critique of the Clarke Saunders 'Noise Impact Statement'

The measurement of unwanted sound and the interpretation of results, is a highly skilled and technical business. Clarke Saunders have submitted a professionally competent and technically accurate report.

However, as with the first, submitted with the original application, accuracy may not accord with public experience and reaction.

The first report assured everyone all would be well. Clearly that is not the view of the many, who after five years of having lived with the impact of the heliport on their lives, now object to the latest application fearing things must get worse not better.

My reservations as to the methodology and results of the first survey have been borne out by subsequent events. I have similar reservations about this one. (See: https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/search?q=penzance+heliport https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/search?q=penzance+heliport+noise+report)

Helicopters are particularly noisy. Some are noisier than others. That is why as a sop to objectors, the AW139 was specified as one of the quieter models. See diagram below.

This is not to say it is quiet by any means. It's noise profile whilst on the ground suggests a noise level of 90 dBA on the ground, increasing as it takes off. Permanent exposure to noise at this level causes deafness. Even at some distance it disturbs social intercourse particularly if the background noise level is low.

Any difference of five dBA is likely to be noticeable. Any difference at 10 dBA or above is likely to cause disturbance and complaint. With a noise at source of over 90 dBA flying several hundred feet overhead, even with attenuation of distance, the impact is likely to be annoying, interfering with the quiet enjoyment of properties and activities. The quieter the location the more noticeable the subjective experience. That the duration of the noise is temporary, mimicking a Gausian Curve, is little consolation if it is regular and frequent.

Noise from helicopters comes essentially from two sources, one,the engine and mechanical parts and two the the rotor blades cutting through the air. The noise emitted is proportional to the power output of the engine and the speed and setting of the rotor blades. The heavier the payload/passengers the greater the sound at take-off and travel. Of course a range of physical, climatic and personal factors can influence the nuisance impact of the percieved sound.

In contrast to a stationary noise source on the ground, a helicopter moves both horizontally and vertically. As it rises its 'footprint' gets wider, whilst the recorded sound level on the ground gets less in accordance with the physics of the 'inverse square rule', i.e. halving with a doubling of distance. The footprint travels with the machine over the land beneath. It appears loudest when directly overhead or where vertical separation is reduced in take-off and landing. Hovering creates more noise and is potentially more annoying as it maintains a stationary position for longer. Take-off usually involves hover as the aircraft maneuvres on the pad to take off into the prevailing wind.

Although planning permission allows set routes for both inward and outward flights, people report these are not always adhered to, meaning that in practice more domestic properties can be affected. Clearly the more the heliport is used, the greater the noise impact will be. Occupancy levels and loads are likely to be higher. The frequency of flights more. Using Category 2 aircraft of an older, larger or noisier type or of encouraging private aircraft or of promoting 'scenic flights' all have a direct and proportional noise output and nuisance.

Weather, air pressure, speed, height and topography all have an influence without mentioning all the factors on the ground and of the person that affect the percieved noise level or sensitivity to it. Hospitals, schools, libraries, care homes, working environments all pose special problems, but strangely none of these have been monitored.

None of these relevant issues are adequately discussed in the Noise Impact Statement.

7. Other reservations of the Noise Impact Statement

7.1 The Investigation was not Independent and could be biased in favour of the applicant.

“Clarke Saunders Acoustics has been commissioned by Penzance Heliport Ltd”

Perhaps the first and most important reservation is that Clarke Saunders were commissioned and paid by the applicant. The report must therefore be viewed within the parameters of a client/contractor relationship. This can only have effect of subtly influencing the methodology, outcome and recommendation. This was true of the first noise report and nothing has changed.

CC has failed in its basic responsibility to initiate a truly independent noise investigation on its behalf. CC has its own noise experts and monitoring equipment. Why were these not employed? Why was in-house expertise only used dor liason purposes, meekly endorsing the application with only minor reservations.

Alternatively it could have employed outside consultants but operating to the Council's own brief, not the applicants, the results of which would have been more credible and reliable.

This I believe was a major fail on the part of the Council and planning authority but could be corrected prior to a decision. It's not too late. Will it fulfill the lofty words of its policy documents or are they empty rhetoric that fail at their first test?

7.2 The location is misleadingly described.

The report states, “Penzance Heliport is located in an urban industrial area approximately 1km to the northeast of the centre of Penzance.”

In fact the Heliport was approved on a greenfield site, beyond the then existing development boundary, on the opposite side of the by-pass that had previously acted as a clear demarcation between commercial (not 'industrial') and agricultural and domestic use to its north. Directly opposite are supermarket, retail food and retail outlets, hardly “industrial”.

The choice of wording is obviously intended to give a false impression as to the impact of a noisy and polluting enterprise.

7.3 It is too limited in scope to be representative.

The report accurately states, “The heliport operations differ significantly during the off-peak season and peak season with typically up to five round trips to the Isles of Scilly per day during the off-peak season and up to eleven round trips per day during the peak season.”

However the noise assessment carried out, only measured eight such flights on one/two days. Impact and nuisance is obviously not only related to the helicopter employed and other factors but also importantly the number of times it idles on the pad, takes off, lands and flies over.

The measurements and assumptions on the back of them, carried out in March 2025, presumably with the full knowledge of the operator, on only a third (8:22) of projected flights in the peak period (Summer) greatly underestimate the adverse impact and cannot be taken seriously.

7.4 Monitoring sites chosen distort the actual impact.

Four monitoring sites are employed. Only one (LT3) is located in a relatively noise-free location. The report correctly states, “the nearest noise sensitive receptors is dominated by road traffic noise from local roads." To which we should add railway movements, the Gulval Church clock that strikes the hour and on occasion bells, and natural sounds of birds, sea and wind. In addition occasional over-flights by aircraft of all kinds unrelated to the air port will impinge and influence back ground noise. It should be noted that the measured background noise (L90) incorporates the noise from the helicopter itself and thus raising it, making the difference between source and background less. It is this difference that is important in assessing nuisance value.

I agree the dominant, and most intrusive of these is road traffic on two routes either side of LT2, to the north of LT1 and to the south of LT4. (See image below) LT3, though not unaffected by the unclassified road through Gulval, which acts as a busy short-cut from the B3117, is less affected resulting from lower speeds and distance. The positioning of such sites is crucial to the results they produce.

It is worth noting that road traffic generated noise is affected by many factors chiefly the number and profile of the vehicles using them. But there will be other enhancing or mitigating features as well. Type of vehicle, speed, road surface, weather, barriers, reflective surfaces and of course distance all have an effect. High speed motor bikes on the dual carriageway are particularly loud and intrusive, as are the sirens of emergency vehicles. Stopping and accelerating away from traffic lights and roundabouts (of which there are eight in the immediate vicinity) increases the noise as does the rippled concrete surface of the by-pass itself.

Why does all this matter to the heliport noise conclusions? First because for purposes of nuisance value, reliance is placed on the difference between the measured noise and the background noise. The higher the background noise, it is assumed the less will be the impact. Subjectively, noise appears to double and be regarded as impactful every ten dBA, although the actual sound pressure has increased more than eight times! If the background noise can be shown to be high, the helicopter noise can be regarded as less intrusive. An alternative view is probably more valid: If background levels are already high there should be greater insistence on not making them worse, as in fact this application does.

Another consequence of using high background noise monitoring sites is that that those with quieter ones are not taken into consideration. Thus the recordings north of LT4 would likely reveal a different profile to LT1, with lower noise levels from the plane itself, but greater nuisane impact overall. In the original survey Tolver was chosen as a monitoring site but rejected in this one, presumably because the low background noise would be contra indicative.

So in summary the location and number of sampling points is crucial in drawing conclusion from them. I believe they have been specifically chosen, as were the ones in the original application, to give the most favourable helicopter impact assessment.

7.5 Imprecision in the results displayed

I reproduce below the visual print-out for LT3. It represents a number of recording indecies, besides dBA, designed to replicate the real-life experience of the noise environment. Simply put, the lower lines in blue and green represent the averaged background sound pressure level, whilst the red peaks represent brief loud noises recorded by the instrument.

As stated above, if the difference between these two is 10 dBA or above, the noise can be considered intrusive. As can be seen, not only is this commonly the case, but in certain instances the difference is much greater, sometimes over 30dBA more, equivilant to over a thousand times the air pressure! This puts the helicopter noise in a quite different light, I think you will agree?

The 'U' shape of the curve, demonstrates the fluctuating noise level over a 24 hour period, as expected much quieter at night. However we have a problem insofar the peaks shown are not identified as to source. It is not clear what peaks relate to the helicopter as distinct from other sources e.g. high revving motor bike. This is a significant defect as we need to be sure in attributing the cause.

We are told only eight flights were monitored in a very tight time frame of 1500 (3 pm) on 5th March to 1200 (12 md) on the 6th March, 2025. However I can count six peaks in the 70-80 dBA range between 1500 amd 1900 on the 5th and eleven in this range between 0700 and 1200 a total of seventeen, clearly nearly twice as many as the flights recorded.

If all those peaks relate to the helicoper (we cannot be sure unless they are notated) it means that helicopter noises other than the most obvious ones of take-off are causing the peaks. Now figure in the fact that this is only in respect of eight (8) flights as distinct from the potentially twenty-two (22) in peak season (beside scenic and visiting aircraft) and the full extent of the impact can more properly assessed.

For reasons of space I have chosen only one of the four graphic print-outs, but similar observations could be applied to the others.

7.6 Absence of base-line profile of AW 139 or other aircraft

Fundamental to noise recording is the source noise, in this case of the operating helicipter or any intended replacements. Part of the present application is to allow other helicopters not meeting the AW 139 noise profile standards.

We all know that theory and practice seldom tally. In theory the AW 139 should not create more than 90 dBA at source. It will be influenced by a number of factors, principally the load but pilot preferences, atmospheric conditions and rate of climb might affect as well.

AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATE ICAO

CHAPTER TAKE-OFF LEVEL (EPNL) 90.3

OVERFLIGHT LEVEL (EPNL) 90.7

APPROACH LEVEL (EPNL) 94.1

Leonardo AW139 (7,000 kg)

EASA Record No D493. 8 90.3 90.7 94.1 Table 5.1: AW139 EPNL Data

From this it can be observed that the noise from the machine can exceed the lower adopted figures by a considerable degree. Further the noisiest element of the sequence is the approach in the lower table is over 3 dBA. There is no noise data to compare the Penzance Heliport with this certificated profile. However the table above suggests that these figures can be exceeded - up to 98.5 dBA particularly when landing.

Any noise survey worth its salt would have measured the noise profile throughout a whole cycle on the pad under controlled conditions and directly compare them to nearby houses. Further this should also be done with the alternative machines proposed. Without these figures reliable predictions on the impact of the sought changes cannot be made.

Presumably the operator was fully aware of the monitoring taking place. It was there quite possible that everything was done to limit the noise – for example reduced idling time, running light loads. The absence of any information regarding these issues reduces the credibility of the results and opinions given.

7.7 Tolver missing

In the initial application in 2018, Tolver (approximately half a mile due north) was employed as a noise sampling location. This time it is excluded. Is this because as a relatively quiet spot it would reflect badly on the noise impact? If so this would amount to subtle manipulation in the applicants favour.

7.8 Tabulated noise survey results

The two tables provided, though accurate, are likely to give a false and lower impression of the actual noise impact eminating from the helicopter. The first table represents flight operations, the second the effect stationary noise from the pad. The reason for this is technical relating to the way noise is measured and units of measurement.

Dealing with the first table as shown, two units are chosen, Leq and L90, The first is a time weighted average and the second simply stated the 'backgound noise'. Based on these figures one might conclude that at sampling points LT1 & LT2 the helicopter noise makes no impact on the general noise level and at LT3 and LT4 minimal impact.

This is clearly non sensical! It is misinterprets the effect of averaging sound pressure over an half-hour time frame. Nor is it clear how many traffic movements, of what duration, under what flight conditions, there were in it!

It makes no allowance at all for peaks in sound out put which is obviously critical or the relatively short period the helicopter engine is running, taking off or landing or flying immediately overhead.

To give an accurate indication of the true impact of the helicopter noise, Leq, L10 and L90 – that is a time weighted average, the peak noise for 10% of the time and the background noise for 90% of the time – for the helicopter cycle period only. That is for roughly the fifteen minutes or so the helicopter arrives, disembarks, loads and takes off again. This should then be compared with the figures obtained at the sampling points either side of it time wise. Only then can a true comparison of the source to background noise be realistically be made. Clearly a whole cycle is required not just a take off under unspecified conditions.

Despite all these limitations, all four sites show variance of Leq over L90 of 3 – 9 dBA!

As to the table relating to the testing the aircraft on the pad, similar reservations apply. Although at every test site the Leq is appreciably above the L90 background, at sites LT1 and LT2 there appears to be no appreciable increase in noise level whilst the helicopter is running.

This likely results first to the ambient noise from traffic and two the acoustic barrier effect of the large hanger (the helicopter is on the other side of it) and intermediate buildings. For these two sites, significant impact comes from the flight path overhead and whilst the aircraft is off the ground either landing or taking off. This profile is not represented in the measurements.

As to recording sites LT3 and LT4, not shielded by the hanger the impact is significant, even where in the case of LT4 the background noise from the by-pass is particularly high. LT3 increases 9dBA over background (47dBA to 56 dBA) LT4 by the same amount (56dBA to 65dBA. Clearly for however long the helicopter runs on the pad it has a noticeable, intrusive impact on all the properties not shielded by the hanger itself to west and east.

7.9 Helicopter noise nuisance weighting

A significant oversight and weakness of the report is the failure to refer to the commonly accepted principle that because of the distinctive and impulsive nature of of helicopter noise, it is far more intrusive than basic sound measurement indeces would indicate. To compensate for this it is suggested a 15dBA weighting should be added to any measured figures. This of course would have a fundamental and significant impact on any conclusions drawn on the impact of the helicopter in this case. It also goes some way to explain the disparity between the relatively complacent conclusions of the noise impact statement discussed above and the fierce public opposition to any relaxation of the planning rules that would exacerbate the noise nuisance.

(Ref: University of Salford Report (NANR 235, 2008) entitled Research into the Improvement of Management of Helicopter Noise. This states clearly that much of the nuisance from helicopters is caused by their low frequency and impulsive noise, that flight events fewer than 1 per hour can be highly annoying and that helicopters should be regarded as 15dBA more annoying than fixed wing aircraft. )

7.10 No observation on removing the obligation to monitor.

One of the requested changes in the current application is to remove the obligation to monitor and retain for three years noise measurments. It was an obligation placed on the operator yet no reference is made to it in the noise report despite its potential usefulness. They were to be made available to the Council on request. Have they ever been requested? Have they ever been seen? In fact were they ever kept. If not, it would explain their absence and the reason for the request that the obligation no longer applies. Of course without some form of regular monitoring there is no way the Council, on behalf pf the public, are in any position whether set conditions, even in a watered down form, were being met. Presumably that is the purpose of the derrogation.

8. CONCLUSION SUMMARY

By focusing exclusively on a notional 2 - 5 dBA increase in sound output, and using selective criteria, the the noise experts, 'CLARKE SAUNDERS ACOUSTICS' come to the misleading conclusion that there would be "no observed adverse effect' from the sought changes.

Nowhere do they admit that the noise from the existing operation would be regarded as a 'nuisance', were it not exempted by the Civil Aviation Act 1982, and importantly the changes can only make matters worse.

The changes are being sought for commercial purposes, not for environmental or community ones, because they cannot be justified on those grounds. In fact they run directly counter to a whole plethera of national, County Council and local planning guidelines as described.

The acoustic expert's finding should be dealt with considerable caution in view of the methodology employed and the commercial relationship with the applicant. Only a truly independent report, to agreed criteria, should be influencial in the decision-making process.

Jonathan How

Report on Application to Vary Penzance Heliport Planning Conditions

Scenic flights….

Get in touch