Updated, 03.10.26

On 3 October 2026, The Soundproof Windows / The Soundproof Ltd submitted a technical response to the Doncaster Sheffield Airport Airspace Consultation.

The consultation concerns an Airspace Change Proposal to reinstate controlled airspace and introduce arrival and departure routes needed for the airport to reopen safely and bring passenger and cargo flights back to the region.

The sponsor identifies this as Stage 3 of the CAP1616 airspace change process. Our response focused on how aircraft noise is understood and communicated at residential properties, rather than the design of individual routes.

Our overall position was “I neither support nor oppose”. The technical comments were submitted under Question 46, the final-thoughts section.

View the official Doncaster Sheffield Airport Airspace Consultation

External aircraft-noise modelling, contours and population-exposure estimates are important assessment tools. They describe exposure across an area, but they do not by themselves establish the noise level in a particular bedroom or living room.

Internal conditions also depend on the receiving building: its construction, openings, airtightness and ventilation arrangements. Two homes exposed to similar external aircraft noise may therefore have different internal acoustic conditions.

Our response asked future residential information to distinguish clearly between external modelled exposure and noise experienced inside a dwelling.

Aircraft noise can enter a home through several paths. Depending on the property, relevant factors may include:

• the complete window, including the glass, frame and seals
• installation quality and perimeter airtightness
• trickle vents and other ventilation openings
• walls, roofs, eaves and chimneys
• flanking transmission through surrounding construction.

Assessing a glazing unit in isolation can overlook other paths that influence the internal result. Our submission encouraged residential mitigation to consider the combined performance of the building façade.

Reducing aircraft noise at source and mitigating remaining noise at a property are different interventions. Our response asked that resident-facing information distinguish between them.

Window or façade improvements may help reduce sound entering a room, but they do not change the external aircraft-noise exposure or the number of overflights. They should be explained in that context, rather than presented as an equivalent substitute for changes to the noise source.

Longer-term averages and individual aircraft events answer different questions. LAeq describes the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound level over a stated period. LAFmax describes the maximum A-weighted sound level measured with Fast time weighting during the measurement.

These definitions are explanatory context for this page; our submission requested a clear distinction between average exposure and individual events without prescribing a particular measurement programme.

Where future monitoring or post-implementation assessment takes place, we asked that information explain what was measured or modelled, whether the values describe external or internal conditions, and how averages relate to individual aircraft events.

Our response also distinguished daytime exposure from periods when bedrooms and sleep may be particularly sensitive.

The timing and recurrence of aircraft events can matter to residents alongside the overall level. Useful public information should make clear which period an indicator covers, rather than leaving readers to assume that a daytime average describes night-time conditions.

Our submission did not provide local measurements, quantify sleep effects or make a finding about the proposed airport’s operating hours.

“Better glazing” should not be presented as a universal solution to aircraft noise. High-performance replacement windows or secondary glazing can form part of a mitigation strategy where windows are a dominant transmission path.

The appropriate approach depends on the property, noise character, ventilation requirements, architectural constraints and other elements of the façade.

A laboratory Rw rating is not a guaranteed reduction inside an occupied room. Glazed-unit performance, complete-window performance and the performance of an installed façade are different measures.

Our submission encouraged residential mitigation guidance to consider ventilation and overheating alongside acoustic performance.

Advice that depends on residents keeping their windows permanently closed can create practical difficulties if background ventilation and summertime conditions have not also been considered.

A useful strategy should explain how air supply and cooling will be maintained when windows are closed, and how any ventilation openings affect the acoustic result. A closed-window rating alone does not describe all conditions in which a home is occupied.

Older and traditional homes may have conservation considerations, existing window constructions, shallow reveals or other constraints that limit available mitigation options.

Our response highlighted these differences because a standardised glazing recommendation may not suit every building. The suitability of replacement windows, secondary glazing or other measures should be assessed against the property’s actual transmission paths and architectural constraints.

The submission did not prescribe one product, glazing specification or noise-reduction target for homes near Doncaster Sheffield Airport.

Our recommendations were that future residential information and mitigation guidance should:

• distinguish external modelled aircraft noise from internal room conditions
• explain average exposure and individual aircraft events separately
• identify periods when bedrooms and sleep may be particularly sensitive
• distinguish glazing performance from complete installed façade performance
• separate source-side noise reduction from receiver-side mitigation
• consider ventilation, overheating, airtightness and other transmission paths
• recognise constraints in older and traditional housing
• explain the scope and limitations of future monitoring.

These are recommendations made in our submission, rather than findings that the airport has accepted them or that its consultation documents omit every issue listed.

For transparency, the complete technical comment submitted under Question 46 – Final thoughts is reproduced below. Section headings have been added for readability; the response wording is unchanged. Administrative questionnaire fields are not reproduced.

Updated, 22.09.26

In September 2026, The Soundproof Windows submitted a technical response to the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames consultation on its revised Statement of Licensing Policy.

Under the Licensing Act 2003, the policy helps guide the Council when considering premises licences for activities including the sale of alcohol, regulated entertainment and late-night refreshment. One of the four statutory licensing objectives is the prevention of public nuisance.

The draft policy already gives detailed consideration to noise, vibration, entertainment, plant, deliveries and other activities capable of affecting neighbouring residents. Our response therefore did not simply ask the Council to “consider noise”. Instead, it focused on practical acoustic issues that can become important when licensed premises operate close to residential buildings.

View Richmond Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy Consultation

Entertainment noise is not always adequately described by a single overall sound level.

Music containing strong bass can include substantial low-frequency energy. Low-frequency sound can behave differently from higher-frequency sound, particularly where it passes through lightweight construction, openings or structural elements. In some buildings, residents may experience a combination of airborne music noise and structure-borne vibration.

Our consultation response suggested that, where relevant and proportionate, acoustic assessment should consider:

• the character of the sound
• frequency content
• low-frequency music or bass
• structure-borne vibration
• sensitive evening and night-time periods

rather than relying only on an overall A-weighted noise level.

Noise does not necessarily reach neighbouring homes through one building element. Depending on the premises, transmission may involve:

• loudspeaker location and isolation
• building structure
• floors and party walls
• doors and windows
• ventilation openings
• acoustic lobbies
• plant
• junctions between building elements

For this reason, acoustic mitigation should consider the complete transmission path rather than assuming that one component alone is responsible for the problem.

This principle is particularly important in older and mixed-use buildings, where construction may have changed over time and several transmission routes can operate simultaneously.

A central point in our submission was that noise should normally be addressed at its source before reliance is placed on modifications to neighbouring homes.

For entertainment premises this may include measures such as controlling source level, loudspeaker positioning and isolation, acoustic lobbies, management of doors and windows, plant control and operational management.

Receiver-side façade improvements can sometimes form part of a wider solution, but they should not automatically become the primary method of controlling noise generated elsewhere.

For background on residential protection from neighbourhood and entertainment noise, see our anti-social noise resource.

Richmond’s draft policy includes provisions relating to Noise Management Policies.

Our response suggested that these could usefully identify not only the potential noise source, but also:

• the nearest or most exposed noise-sensitive premises
• sensitive periods of operation
• the likely transmission mechanism
• the control measures relied upon
• how those measures will be checked in practice

This is particularly relevant where a strategy depends upon measures such as noise limiters, closed doors, acoustic lobbies, restricted use of outdoor areas or plant controls.

A mitigation strategy is more useful when it explains not only what should happen, but also how it will be verified.

The draft policy introduces provisions concerning the environmental impact of generators.

Generators can produce both airborne mechanical noise and vibration, including low-frequency components that may become particularly noticeable during quieter evening and night-time periods.

Where generators are necessary, our response suggested that acoustic considerations may include:

• location relative to residential properties
• operating hours
• acoustic screening or enclosure
• vibration isolation
• avoiding unnecessary night-time operation

The appropriate approach will depend on the individual site and circumstances.

Delivery-related noise is not limited to vehicle engines. In practice, neighbouring residents may also experience noise from:

• loading and unloading
• vehicle doors
• shutters
• handling of containers
• reversing alarms
• staff activity
• vehicles waiting outside premises

These sources can become particularly noticeable during early-morning, evening and night-time periods when background noise levels may be lower.

Our response therefore encouraged delivery arrangements to be considered as part of the wider noise-management strategy for premises located near homes.

One of the broader principles raised in our response was the need to consider how neighbouring homes are actually occupied.

Noise mitigation at a licensed premises should not automatically assume that nearby residents will keep their own windows permanently closed to avoid disturbance. This becomes particularly relevant during warmer periods, when occupants may depend on open windows for ventilation or cooling.

Older residential properties can also vary considerably in façade construction, window condition, ventilation, airtightness and acoustic weak points. The practical residential impact of a noise source therefore depends on more than the nominal specification of a window or glazing unit.

Where closed-window acoustic performance forms part of a wider strategy, ventilation should also be considered. See our acoustic ventilation resource.

During the Richmond consultation, the Home Office published revised Section 182 Guidance under the Licensing Act 2003 on 15 September 2026.

The guidance takes effect from publication and licensing authorities must have regard to it when carrying out their licensing functions. Our response therefore suggested that Richmond review the final policy against the September 2026 version before adoption.

View the September 2026 Section 182 Guidance

Our submission focused on several relatively narrow technical points:

• explicit recognition of low-frequency music, bass and structure-borne vibration where relevant
• assessment of the complete noise transmission path rather than isolated components
• source control before reliance on modifications to neighbouring homes
• clearer identification of sensitive receptors and transmission routes within Noise Management Policies
• practical verification of noise-control measures
• acoustic consideration of generators and servicing activity
• realistic assumptions about neighbouring residents opening windows
• review of the final policy against the latest Section 182 statutory guidance

These observations were intended to strengthen the practical application of the existing public-nuisance provisions rather than prescribe one technical solution for every licensed premises.

For transparency, the full technical response submitted by The Soundproof Windows is reproduced below.