GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

GV2RTS - Research Training for Geographers and Environmental Science.

Department of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Reading 2018.

‘Investigating the Spatial Variation of Noise Pollution on Chobham Common’

Source: Chobham Common Evening Wander, n.d.

Executive Summary

Over time noise pollution has become a growing concern among individuals. Urbanisation has
contributed to an increasingly noisier environment. The growth of the automotive industry has seen
noise levels exacerbated further. In the last 20 years traffic on UK motorways has increased by 35.4%
with 2017 seeing a record of 253.7 billion vehicle miles recorded. Chobham Common, the largest in-
land National Nature Reserve in South East England, has been subject to high levels of noise
pollution as a result of construction of the M3. 130,000 cars travel between junctions 2 - 4a of the
M3 every day, crossing directly through Chobham Common.

This investigation builds on research from 2016/17, aiming to discover whether noise levels on
Chobham Common have changed after recent upgrades transforming part of the M3 into a smart
motorway. Clear patterns have emerged between distance from the M3 and noise experienced. As
distance towards the M3 increases so do noise levels (approximately 30dB along largest gradient).
Noise levels have increased from those recorded in previous studies by as much as 10dB. Variations
within the site have been observed. The northern-side experiences noise levels approximately 10dB
higher than the southern-side. Results are presented using Geographic Information Systems (GIS).

A questionnaire was completed to assess whether local communities have noticed changes to noise
pollution since the creation of the smart motorway. Visitors highlight either no change or higher
noise levels since upgrades, leading to questions over whether it is worth the continual investment
into motorway infrastructure. Funds could be more effectively invested into green technology and
electric vehicles which produce less noise.

1
GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

Contents

Background and Context………………………………………………………………………………….…………..Page 3

Heathland History Page 3

Noise Pollution Page 4

The M3 Motorway Page 5

Noise and People Page 7

Past Research Page 7

Project Aims and Objectives………………………………………………………………………………………….Page 8

Methods……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Page 9

Sampling Strategy Page 10

Data Collection Page 13

Results and Interpretation………………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 15

Description of Results Page 15

Interpretation of Results Page 21

Summary of Key Findings………………………………………………………………………………………………Page 22

Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….Page 23

Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..Page 24

Team Contribution..………………………………………………………………………………………………..……Page 24

References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Page 25

Appendix …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Page 27

2
 GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

Background and Context

Chobham Common is a rare example of low-land heath in the UK, located in North West Surrey
(Surrey Wildlife Trust, 2017). The largest in-land natural nature reserve (NNR) in South East England
(Figure 1), extending over 5.85 km². Chobham Common has been designated as a ‘Site of Special
Scientific Interest’ (SSI) and a ‘Special Protection Area’ (SPA) for its importance in the protection of
ground nesting birds (Surrey Wildlife Trust, 2017). The site is owned by Surrey County Council and
managed by Surrey Wildlife Trust. It is an important spot for ramblers, dog walkers, horse riders,
naturalists, schools and public engagement.

Figure 1: Maps showing the location of Chobham Common (Google Maps, 2018).

Heathland History

Chobham Common is a mix of heathland, pine and broadleaf woodland, deep valley bogs, grassland
and ponds with examples of isolated legacy trees (several hundred years old). Chobham is an
excellent site for wildlife and home to over 100 bird (including Dartford Warbler, Nightjar and
Woodlark), 300 plant, 25 mammal, 29 butterfly and 22 dragonfly species (Surrey Wildlife Trust,
2017).

Source: Stephen Duffy n.d.

3
GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

After the last Ice-Age Britain formed a forested landscape in response to a warming climate, causing
declining heathland abundance. Around 6,000 years BP humans opened-up woodlands allowing for
grazing and cultivation. Over time soil degradation occurred causing human occupation to move to
alternative sites. Specialist species colonised sites to form heathland. Improved farming techniques
developed during the 18th century caused heathland to decline along with specialist species which
colonised sites. It is estimated that Surrey alone lost 80% of heathland due to this change (Surrey
Wildlife Trust, 2017).

If managed correctly heathland should not deplete further; achieved by removing tree species that
grow rapidly, turf stripping to create bare land for certain species of animals and plants and
controlled burning which removes dead vegetation (Surrey Wildlife Trust, 2017).

The UK’s 224 NNRs amount to 0.6% of land surface but are important sites for protection of unique
wildlife and geology. Originally created to provide outdoor locations for research, they have become
important wildlife corridors in an urbanised landscape, crucial for the protection of species and
improving bio-diversity (Surrey Wildlife Trust, 2017). Chobham Common is becoming increasing
altered by human interference.

Noise Pollution

Noise is either ‘Hazardous’, associated with the workplace, or ‘Disturbance’, covering environmental
noise which people are subjected to outside of work. Road noise produces highest levels of
disturbance exacerbated by increasing vehicle numbers and traffic density (Dix, 1981). Since 1967
numbers of licensed vehicles on UK roads have risen (Figure 2). In 2017, 37.5 million licensed
vehicles used UK roads (Department for Transport, a, 2017), compared to 14 million in 1967 (Dix,
1981).

Figure 2: Vehicles registered between 1980 - 2017 in the UK (Department for Transport, a, 2017).

4
GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

Vehicle noise is produced from gear-box and exhaust systems, but is accentuated by heavy vehicles
with rattles and vibrations. More engine noise is produced at faster speeds, estimated to increase by
16dB with each doubling of speed. Wet roads can also increase noise by up to 10dB (Dix, 1981).

Car noise emissions are regulated by the ‘Motor Cars Excessive Noise Regulation 1929’. New cars are
required to meet European wide noise limits. In 1978, limits were 82dB but in 1996 was reduced to
the current level of 74dB. These levels refer to maximum noise emitted from new cars. In July 2016
the EU passed a new regulation (No 540/2014) which aims to place tighter controls on noise
emissions from cars over the next 10 years. By 2026 new car emissions will be restricted to 68dB
(Vehicle Certification Agency, 2018).

The M3 Motorway

The M3 completed in 1995, runs from Sunbury-on-Thames (South West of London) to Southampton,
approximately 95km in length. It is an important transport route out of London to Aldershot,
Basingstoke, Winchester and Southampton cutting directly through Chobham Common and is one of
the busiest transport routes in England (Highways England, d, n.d.).

In 2015 work began on a £174 million upgrade between junctions 2 and 4a, completed in 2017. To
accommodate for the 130,000 vehicles that use this stretch of motorway daily a fourth lane was
added, replacing the hard shoulder over a 21.5km stretch (Highways England, a, n.d). Concerns
raised about increased noise pollution due to the fourth lane meant hot rolled asphalt (HRA)
composed of coated chipping embedded in asphalt was added to the road surface. This thin surface
system reduces noise (Highways England, c, 2014). The plans transformed this section of the M3 into
a ‘smart motorway’. Figures 3 and 4 detail the upgraded section.

Smart motorways often implement traffic management strategies which aim to increase capacity
and reduce congestion. Initially developed to minimise environmental impact, smart motorways
avoid the construction of additional lanes (Royal Automotive Club, 2017). There are three forms of
smart motorway: all lane running, dynamic hard shoulders and controlled motorways. The M3
upgrade is an example of an all lane running motorway. The hard shoulder is used permanently as an
extra lane and traffic is controlled by variable speed limits, altered depending on traffic conditions
(Royal Automotive Club, 2017).

During upgrades the highways agency worked alongside Chobham Common, relocating slow worms
whose habitats were disturbed during works. A grass seed mix has been added onto parts of the
common which extend onto motorway verges. Balfour Beatty (contractor) completed water
monitoring and surveyed bird nesting sites before and during construction to determine impacts on
birds. No negative impacts on water quality or bird nesting sites were found (Highways England, a,
n.d). Research failed to investigate whether the motorway itself impacts the common negatively,
instead it focused on whether the upgrade had negative implications.

5
 GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

Figure 3: Section of M3 upgraded into a ‘Smart Motorway’ in relation to other major transport routes. (Highways England, c, 2014).

M3 and the ‘Smart Motorway’

Figure 4: Map created using GIS, showing the section of M3 upgraded into a smart motorway.

6
GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

Noise and People

Noise pollution is a threat to health and well-being. Noise levels have grown alongside urbanisation,
most notably from increased road, rail and air traffic. As population grows incidences of noise
pollution increases, impacting on sleep, concentration and communication (Goines and Hagler,
2007).

The way in which people judge noise is subjective, noise tolerated by one individual maybe
perceived as nuisance by another. Every person perceives noise differently based on their ears
sensitivity to frequency, sound intensities and pressures (Dix, 1981).

Noise from roads causes the most disturbance. The construction of motorways allows faster travel
but generates higher speeds and greater noise volume. Noise from one HGV experienced by a
motorway observer equals that emitted from ten cars. Noise generated varies with time of day and
traffic density, peaking during rush hours (Dix, 1981).

Past Research

Previous research taken place on Chobham Common investigated noise levels associated with the
M3. In 2016 a researcher from Reading University completed an investigation into noise pollution on
Chobham Common, looking at its relationship with soil and vegetation (Mcaree, 2016). Followed in
2017 by Reading University students conducting a similar study. They aimed to investigate the
spatial variation of noise pollution and find reasons for the distribution, comparing the site with
Thursley Common (Surrey). They focused on how noise impacts Nightjar habitats (Abrey et al, 2017).
It is hoped that a database of noise level changes can be compiled, detailing changes over a
prolonged period of time.

This research project aims to assess whether noise levels have changed in light of M3 upgrades.
Unlike previous research which focused on habitats, this investigation aims to assess impacts of
noise on visitors to the common.

7
GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

Project Aims and Objectives

Recommendations from previous research was to add a low-noise road surface to the M3. This has
now taken place, so this research aims to compare noise readings with that from previous studies.
Mapping primary noise data allows comparisons between 2017 and 2018. Previous studies
investigated noise and its impact on wildlife and vegetation. In comparison this investigation
analyses community impact.

Aim

‘To assess the impacts of the M3 upgrade on levels of noise pollution on Chobham Common’.

Objectives

1. To collect noise readings from transects across Chobham Common.

2. To compare results with previous studies, focusing on findings before the upgrade.
3. To assess the impacts of noise pollution upon users of Chobham Common.

8
GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

Methods

Figure 5 shows the study site of Chobham Common. Data collection aims to reconstruct noise level
variability across the site, with particular focus on the M3. The spatial variation in noise with
increased distance from the M3 aims to be measured, with comparison being made between the
northern and southern-sides of the common.

Figure 5: Map of study location (Chobham Common) created 9

using GIS.
 GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

Sampling Strategy

Previous research on Chobham Common noise levels provides insights into methods used for the
investigation. In 2016 the site was divided into sample points situated at 500m intervals, readings
taken at each point (Mcaree, 2016). A similar strategy was used in 2017 (Figure 6) but intervals were
narrowed to 250m, allowing more detailed analysis. Research was followed with a second site
Thursley Common, where one transect of sample points was taken. The results from both sites
would be compared (Abrey et al, 2017). A different sampling technique was used for this research to
allow spatial changes to be measured more effectively. An issue with previous methods was access,
vegetation density and distance from footpaths meant sample point locations changed upon data
collection.

Figure 6: Transect points from 2017 investigation. (Abrey et al, 2017).

Transect sampling was selected as the best method for investigating variations in noise levels across
Chobham Common. Transects allow noise to be assessed spatially across the site’s varying
topography and vegetation type (Hedley and Buckland, 2004). Noise volume varies across space
(Hedley and Buckland, 2004) therefore transects allow gradients in noise levels to be viewed in
relation to distance from the motorway, relief, wind speed and vegetation cover; factors that

10
GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

enhance or dampen noise levels. Figure 7 shows two chosen transects on a map and Tables 1 and 2
the coordinates for each sample point. Distance between sample points was decreased to 100m to
improve accuracy.

The chosen sample points follow major footpaths, preventing the need to alter sample points once
onsite. These are the same routes as those used by the public, meaning data can be generalised to
the community and measured noise levels equal to what will actually be ‘experienced’ by those
using the common.

Tables 1 and 2: The coordinates of the chosen sample points along Transects One and Two.
Transect One Transect Two
Point ID Point X Point Y Point ID Point X Point Y
0 496126.3 166466.9 0 497893.8 165016.2
1 496223.4 166444 1 497837 164936.6
2 496291.5 166388.5 2 497805.9 164841.5
3 496321.9 166293.2 3 497774.7 164746.5
4 496352.3 166198 4 497743.5 164651.5
5 496382.8 166102.8 5 497712.4 164556.5
6 496427.3 166013.2 6 497681.2 164461.4
7 496471.7 165923.6 7 497645.5 164368
8 496516.2 165834 8 497609.3 164274.8
9 496561.1 165744.7 9 497577.7 164180.1
10 496607.8 165656.2 10 497545.1 164085.9
11 496654.4 165567.7 11 497504.4 163994.6
12 496699.7 165478.6 12 497478.1 163900.5
13 496745 165389.4 13 497455.8 163806.8
14 496790.3 165300.3 14 497442.7 163707.7
15 496835.6 165211.1 15 497403.5 163616.3
16 496880.9 165122 16 497382.7 163520.7
17 496923.9 165031.7 17 497374 163422
18 496965.7 164940.9 18 497329.8 163332.3
19 496986.7 164847.5 19 497283.5 163243.7
20 496992.7 164761.3 20 497921.9 165110.5
21 497079.1 164732.4
22 497173.9 164700.8
23 497254.8 164645.9
24 497326.4 164579.8
25 497416.2 164535.8
26 497505.8 164491.9
27 497599.2 164456.2
28 497662.2 164385.4
29 497750.6 164338.7
30 497839.1 164292.1
31 497927.5 164245.4
32 498008.3 164187.3
33 498085 164123.1
34 498159.3 164056.2
35 498233.5 163989.2
36 498307.7 163922.2
37 498382 163855.2
38 498456.3 163788.3
39 498530.7 163721.4
40 495926.8 166473
41 496026.5 166472.4 11
 GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

12
Figure 7: Chobham Common Transect Points. Transect One travelling from north to south of the common. Transect Two from south west to east of
the common. Map created using GIS.
 GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

Data Collection

On January 31st 2018 data collection took place, aiming to complete both transects and a noise
pollution survey with common users.

Equipment used included:

 Digital sound level metre ATP (MT901-A). Range of 30-130dB. Resolution of 0.1 dB.
 Skywatch Eole Handheld Wind Speed Anemometer.
 Handheld GPS.
 Copies of questionnaire.

The team was divided into two pairs. Pair one completed readings for Transect One, pair two
completed measurements for Transect Two (shorter transect) and aimed to complete the
questionnaire.

Three steps were completed at each sample point. Firstly, GPS recorded co-ordinates to compare
proximity to selected transect points. It was used to measure elevation, with the expectation of
noise varying alongside relief. The sound level metre was used to measure noise levels, raising it for
30 seconds allowed for stabilisation, then readings were taken. Wind speed and direction were
recorded to maintain accuracy when accounting for its influence on noise. At each point notes about
site vegetation density and other noise sources (railway/housing) were recorded.

To investigate whether visitors have noticed changes in noise levels it was decided to carry out a
questionnaire. Record sheets were taken with the aim of asking visitors whilst completing data
collection. Figure 8 shows the questionnaire.

13
Figure 8: Questionnaire used to ask visitors to Chobham Common if they have noticed any changes to noise levels.
 GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

On the day of data collection the sky was overcast with heavy rainfall in the morning meaning few
visitors were present on the common. Visitors who were asked to complete the questionnaire
declined. The lack of response meant an objective had not been completed. Instead social media
was used.

Figure 9: Screenshot of the Google survey shared on social media to reach out to users of Chobham Common.

A Google survey was composed (Figure 9) and submitted to two Facebook Groups, ‘The Chobham
Society’ and ‘The Windlesham Society’ (Figure 10). It was hoped that social media would allow our
questionnaire to reach the local community who use the common and would illustrate whether
individuals notice how the M3 has impacted noise levels.

Figure 10: Screenshots of posts sent out to local Facebook groups along with the shared Twitter Post.

14
 GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

Results and Interpretation

Description of Results

Tables 3 and 4 show data collected from Chobham Common. The following graphs (Figures 11-15)
aim to illustrate noise level change across transects. Figure 13 a noise distribution map, provides a
visual representation of noise levels on the common.

Table 3 and 4: Shows the raw data collected for each sample point along Transects One and Two.
Transect One
Sample Point Coordinate (SU/BNG) Noise (dB) Wind (mph) Wind Direction Elevation (ft) Other Comments
1 95931 66497 60 1.8 East 182 Near Minor Road (B383)
2 96082 66489 53 2 East 164
3 96221 66440 52 0.4 East 164 Plane Overhead
4 96280 66314 49 0 - 153 Sheltered inbetween trees
5 96366 66144 52 0.1 - 169 Sheltered inbetween trees
6 96442 66003 52 0.2 - 166
7 96511 65867 54 0.3 East 154 Road to the West (B383), Partially Sheltered by Trees
8 96583 65727 56 1 East 169
9 96655 65584 50 0 - 189 Sheltered inbetween trees
10 96726 65429 48 0.1 - 150 Sheltered inbetween trees
11 96807 65269 53 0 - 158
12 96878 65128 52 0.3 - 160 Nearer Road
13 96952 64991 63 0.1 - 172 Inbetween B386 and M3
14 96980 64833 69 0.1 - 186 Northside M3
15 96957 64799 80 4.8 East 193 Extra-point directly beside M3
16 97009 64748 72 0.1 - 199 Southside M3
17 97128 64682 67 0.8 NorthEast 217
18 97227 64707 64 0.1 NorthEast 222 Between Staple Hill and M3
19 97355 64562 50 0.1 - 153
20 97562 64482 51 1.5 NorthEast 137
21 97655 64406 51 0.9 NorthEast 137 Open Path
22 97823 64310 60 4.4 NorthWest 130
23 9796 64227 51 2.7 NorthWest 139
24 98098 04118 60 0 - 126
25 98221 64011 47 1.4 NorthEast 133
26 98363 63863 45 0.9 NorthEast 119
27 98523 63741 42 0 - 114
28 98563 63680 52 0 - 117 Parked Van

Transect Two
Sample Points Coordinate (SU/BNG) Noise (dB) Wind (mph) Wind Direction
1 97220/63170 49.0 1.4 East
2 97258/63221 50.4 0.6 East
3 97308/63319 48.6 0.7 South-East
4 97369/63402 47.3 1.1 South-East
5 97390/63513 46.5 2.1 South-East
6 97422/63626 50.6 2.6 South-East
7 97451/63737 49.9 1.7 South-East
8 97467/63843 51.4 0.6 South-East
9 97491/63947 50.5 1.3 East
10 97478/64049 53.1 1.2 East
11 97533/64116 57.4 3.1 East
12 97587/64216 53.5 2.7 East
13 97623/64312 52.5 3.1 East
14 97659/64406 53.3 2.8 East
15 97697/64504 53.2 3.0 East
16 97734/64599 54.9 2.7 East
17 97762/64698 55.6 3.0 East
18 97796/64797 51.4 2.6 East
19 97831/64907 56.0 1.6 South-East
20 97871/65000 61.8 2.7 South-East
21 97908/65082 67.6 0.6 South-East
22 97599/65024 70.1 0.5 South-East
15
GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

Figure 11: Graph shows changes in noise levels across Transect One. Travelling from the northern-side of Chobham
Common to the southern-side crossing below the M3 at point 15. With increasing proximity to the M3 noise levels increase
(point 15 recorded 80dB compared to 60dB at point 1). Once crossed levels decline again (52dB at the edge of southern-
side). Lowest noise levels were recorded in central locations within each side of the common. Increased vegetation density
and distance from roads saw a decline in noise (on the northern-side where sample points were sheltered within trees,
levels recorded between 48-52dB). On the southern-side noise levels declined with distance from the M3 (lowest levels of
42dB at point 27) with emergence onto a minor road at the southern exit of the common noise levels increased to 52dB.

Figure 12: Graph shows changes in noise levels across Transect Two. Travelling from the south-western edge to the
eastern side of the common. Proximity to the motorway increased with distance along the transect (M3 is north of
transect at all times), noise levels increasing along the transect. At point one 49dB were recorded, increasing to 70.1 dB at
site 22 (closest to the M3).

16
 GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

Figure 13: A noise distribution map created using ArcGIS used to present variations in noise across Chobham Common. Noise levels increase with
increasing proximity to the M3. Levels towards the M3 are in excess of 67dB. At central locations within each side of the common, recovery to lower noise
17 of Chobham Common experiences higher levels of noise compared to the
levels occurs, approximately 50-63dB for both sides. Overall the northern-side
southern-side (approximately 10dB more), possibly due to the train line and smaller roads that run alongside the common on the northern-side.
 GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

Variations in Wind Speed across Sample Points

5.5

4.5

4
Wind Speed (mph)

3.5

2.5 Transect Two

TransectTwo
Transect One
2

1.5

0.5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Sample Points

Figure 14: Wind may have an impact on noise experienced. The graph details wind levels recorded at all sample points
along each transect. Wind effects distribution of noise across space. At many sites on Transect One noise levels were less
than 1mph, but reached nearer to 5mph at sites 15 and 22. Along Transect Two noise levels were generally higher but
remained less than 3mph at all sample sites, declining to below 1mph at sites 2, 8, 21 and 22 (the latter two characterised
by higher noise levels). Wind which blows from the noise source towards the affected location will increase the noise
experienced (NoiseNet, 2008), however wind levels were generally pretty low, at no point did wind speed increase above a
light breeze (NoiseNet, 2008). In conclusion wind has little impact on noise levels due to its low levels throughout the day.

Variations in Elevation across Transect One

250
225
200
175
Elevation (ft)

150
125
100
75
50
25
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Sample Points

Figure 15: Graph shows variation in relief across Chobham Common for Transect One. An overall decline in relief occurs, from
182ft at point 1 to 117ft at point 28. Declining relief across Transect One could be an explanation for the lower noise levels
experienced on the southern-side of the common.

18
 GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

After posting the questionnaire on Facebook, 34 responses were received. The following graphs
(Figures 16-21) outline the responses.

Figure 16: Graph to show how often

How often do you visit Chobham Common? respondents visit the common. Results from
the Chobham Common questionnaire found
53% of respondents visit regularly, 44%
occasionally and 3% rarely. Respondents are
likely to be aware of long term noise trends
on the common when visiting more
44% regularly.
53%

3%

Regularly Rarely Occasionally

Figure 17: Graph to show how long

respondents have been visiting the For how long have you been visiting the common?
common. Majority of respondents have 25
been visiting for a prolonged period of
time. 11+ years (23), between 2 - 10 20
Number of respondents

years (9). Only two respondents had

11+ years
been visiting less than one year. Overall
15
it is likely that respondents will be 6-10 years
aware of long term trends in noise 23 2-5 years
levels. 10
Less than 1 year
5
8
1 2
0
11+ YEARS 6-10 YEARS 2-5 YEARS LESS THAN 1
Time (years) YEAR

Figure 18: Graph to show whether

Do you think there is a problem with noise on the respondents believe there is a noise
common? problem on the common. When asked
whether respondents thought there
was an issue with noise 68% believed
there was, demonstrating that noise
on the common is apparent to visitors.
32%
Included are comments made by
respondents which demonstrate how
68% the community views noise (Figure
22).

Yes No

19
 GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

Figure 19: Graph to show other

noise contributors. The main aim (If yes) What do you think are the main contributing factors of
of this investigation was to noise on Chobham Common?
analyse noise pollution produced 25
by the M3. The survey has

Number of respondents
identified other noise sources, in 20 22
particular the effects of air traffic
(seven respondents) flying over 15
the common.
10

5
6
1 1 1 1
0
Sources of Noise
Traffic/Road Noise Visitors Airplanes Gunfire Model Airplanes Third Heathrow Runway

In your time visiting Chobham Common, have you Figure 20: Graph to show whether changes
noticed/experienced changes in the levels of noise? in noise have been experienced. Just under
half of respondents reported no change in
noise levels (44%), while the remainder
0% complained of higher levels of noise (56%).
Long-time users of the common have not
identified decreases in noise levels.
44%
56%

More Noise No Change Less Noise

Figure 21: Graph to show if changes in

noise have been noted since the M3 Have you noticed any changes to noise in light of
upgrade. Possibly the most important recent upgrades to the M3 completed during August
question it highlights the unsuccessful 2017?
upgrades to the M3. 75% of respondents
noted that no change in noise levels had
0%
occurred and 25% complained of more.
Nobody expressed an improvement. 25%

75%

More Noise No Change Less Noise

Quotes from questionnaire:

“Was it supposed to make it quieter? If so then hasn't worked. Traffic noise blights many a walk on the common”.

“It is hard to describe the changes to the noise of the M3 since it’s ‘upgrade’. I have lived in the same property for the last
four years and been affected by the development throughout the whole process. During its construction, I was awoken
numerous times, through the night, by sounds of banging, machinery and warning signals. Now, upon its completion, I
am awoken in the night by the sound of cars engines, sirens and, what was once a hum, has become a constant, draining
drone of constant traffic. I live over a mile away from the motorway yet it sounds like it is in my back garden. If I open any
doors or windows, the noise is often unbearable”.

“The common retains its beauty and interest even with the proximity of the motorway”.
20
Figure 22: Three quotes submitted alongside responses to the questionnaire.
GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

Interpretation of Results

Data collected from Chobham Common shows that noise pollution is a major issue. With increasing
proximity to the M3 noise levels increased by approximately 20dB. The difference grows to 30dB
when comparing sites situated in central locations to sites on the edge of the common (sample
points 10 and 21 Transect One and 1 - 5 Transect Two). Data provides evidence for the M3 being a
major source of noise. The development of motorways has increased the ability for high-speed travel
across the UK (Dix, 1981). At Chobham this has caused major increases in the levels of noise which
wildlife and visitors are exposed to.

Noise levels have increased considerably since 2017’s research which found a similar pattern to
results from 2016. Last year the southern-side was experiencing noise in the region of 40-45dB. This
has now increased to approximately 50-55dB. The lowest recorded noise level in the south in 2017
was 35-40dB, it has now increased to 42-46dB. Levels in the north were between 50-63dB, similar to
2017 results (approximately 50-65dB). Noise levels collected directly adjacent to the M3 have risen
from 70-75dB in 2017 to 75-80dB in 2018. This was not the expected pattern. Renovations to the M3
in August 2017 included the addition of a noise reducing surface which should have reduced noise
levels. Increased noise could either be caused by an ineffective upgrade, or is possibly explained by
increased traffic density. In the last 20 years traffic on UK motorways has increased by 35.4%. 2017
saw a record of 253.7billion vehicle miles being recorded a growth of 1% from the previous year
(Department for Transport, b, 2017). Noise reduction gains made by the new surface are insignificant
due increasing numbers of vehicles using the M3. The ineffectiveness of M3 upgrades have been
identified by visitors, 75% of respondents reported no change in noise and 25% reported more noise
(Figure 21).

Noise pollution on the common may not just be caused by the M3. The questionnaire highlighted
the blight noise causes to visitors. Traffic has been noted as the major noise source alongside that
produced by aircraft travelling over the common (seven respondents, Figure 19). Over time noise
produced by aircraft has increased possibly caused by a move from piston-engine to jet-engine
aircraft, plus increased numbers of civil aircraft coming into service. Unlike road, aircraft noise is
intermittent but can cause considerable disturbance for those under flight paths (Dix, 1981).
Chobham Common is located
north-west of Fairoaks Airport,
a private airfield used for light
aircraft and training (Woking
Government, 2009). The major
source of noise is from planes
arriving and departing
Heathrow. Chobham Common
is located within Heathrow’s
flight paths (Figure 23). The
investigation has
demonstrated that sources of
noise on Chobham Common
are far more extensive than
first thought.
Figure 23: Arrivals (red) and departures (green) from Heathrow airport. Chobham Common
shown by the is directly below a number of these flight paths (Heathrow, 2018).

21
GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

Summary of Key Findings

 Highest measurements recorded closest to the M3 at 80dB (Transect One) and 70.1dB
(Transect Two). Levels increased with proximity to the motorway. On the northern-side
levels rose by 20dB from the edge of common to the motorway, compared to declines of
28dB from the M3 to the southern-side exit. Transect Two noise levels increased by 21.1dB
as distance from the motorway decreased.
 Since previous research in 2017, noise has increased on the southern-side by approximately
10dB. On the north levels remain relatively similar. Noise recorded adjacent to the M3 has
increased by 5dB.
 The questionnaire identified air traffic as another noise source. Respondents also noted
ineffectiveness of upgrades. 75% identified no change in noise levels since the upgrade, 25%
noticed noise increases.

Chobham Common should be a quiet tranquil location but since 1995 has been subject to the
continual drone of motorway traffic, noise increasing with each passing year as traffic density
increases. In an increasingly urbanised world wildlife corridors need to be protected. Chobham is an
example of urbanisation having a significant impact on the physical landscape. A question that needs
to be asked is whether it is economically and environmentally sustainable to continually invest in
motorway upgrades. Road expansion only sees an increase in traffic density, resulting in increasing
noise pollution on Chobham Common.

22
GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

Recommendations

Investigation has highlighted the effectiveness of transects in demonstrating spatial variation in

noise levels. Future research should utilise this method, completing transects across different
sections of Chobham Common. Noise should be sampled along the whole M3 route crossing the
common, achieved by using two transects running alongside the north and south of the motorway.
In-depth investigation should be completed into noise variations between both sides of the
common.

The survey highlighted other sources of noise pollution. Research into these other sources should be
completed, in particular air traffic which was identified as the second major contributor to noise.

The M3 upgrade was unsuccessful in reducing noise levels. To decide whether excess noise is
resulting from ineffective upgrades or increasing traffic density, data collection should take place at
another site where upgrades have not taken place and which experiences same traffic levels. If noise
levels recorded are louder than those from the M3 at Chobham, it proves the upgrades would be
effective if traffic density had not increased. If upgrades are ineffective it needs to be identified to
prevent money being wasted. Junctions 3-12 of the M4 are being upgraded into a ‘smart motorway’,
work beginning summer 2018, for completion in 2022 (Highways England, b, n.d).

This project has formed links with local communities through social media. Group Administrators
have requested that updates about survey findings and data on levels of noise on Chobham
Common are shared with them. These social media links should be maintained through future
research, going alongside links already made with Surrey Wildlife Trust and Natural England.

To avoid road noise a tunnel for the M3 could be constructed under Chobham Common. Across the
globe more roads are being enclosed underground in the form of ‘fly-unders’. Tunnels increase
space and remove noise and pollution produced by major transport routes to locations above
ground (The Independent, 2015). However a more economical way to reduce noise emissions would
be to promote the use of electric cars, which although best suited to low-speed city driving, at higher
speeds electric vehicles emit lower levels of noise (Holtsmark and Skonhoft, 2014).

23
GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

Acknowledgments

 Nick Branch supervisor for the investigation.

 Mike Simmonds for assistance with GIS mapping.
 Surrey Wildlife Trust and Natural England for giving permission for investigation to take
place and access to the site.
 Facebook groups ‘The Chobham Society’ and ‘The Windlesham Society’ for their assistance
with promoting the questionnaire.
 Members of the public who took the time to complete the questionnaire.
 Langshot Equestrian Centre for access to their facilities.
 Horseman coaches for providing transport.
 Fellow group members.

Team Contribution

I was a highly organised, hard-working team player and played a significant role in the execution of
this investigation and its ultimate success.

 Liaised with Nick Branch to set up meetings, shared relevant files/information and general
appointment organisation.
 Collected data from Transect One.
 Contributed by using GIS to create site location maps.
 After zero success with the questionnaire on the day of data collection, it was my idea to use
social media. I contacted relevant Facebook organisations and was solely responsible for the
34 responses from the online survey.

In summary, it was often difficult to motivate certain team members so I found myself taking on
significant responsibility in order to complete the project. This has provided invaluable experience
which I will take forward to future projects.

24
GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

References

Abrey, J. Brazier, L. Linney, S. Nudds, B. Ryall, H. Taylor, J. 2017. Mapping the Spatial Variation in
Noise Pollution on Chobham Common. Department of Gepgraphy and Environmental Science,
University of Reading.

[Chobham Common Evening Wander] n.d. [image online] Access via:

<http://www.surreywildlifetrust.org/events/2018/02/20/chobham-common-evening-wander>
[Accessed: 08/03/2018]

Dix, H.M. 1981. Environmental Pollution. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Department for Transport, 2017 (a). Vehicle Licensing Statistics: Quarter 1 (Jan-Mar) 2017. [Online].
Access via:
<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/620223/vehicle-
licensing-january-to-march-2017.pdf> Last Accessed: 26/02/2018

Department for Transport, 2017 (b). Provisional Road Traffic Estimates, Great Britain: October 2016-
September 2017. [Online] Access via:
<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/663531/prov-
road-traffic-estimates-oct-2016-to-sep-2017.pdf> Last Accessed: 07/03/2018

Goines, L. Hagler, L, 2007. Noise Pollution: A modern Plague. Southern Medical Journal, Vol.100 (3)
pp.287-294 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Google Maps, 2018. Chobham Common. [Online] Access via:

<https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Chobham+Common/@51.366052,-
0.6091215,18z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x4876785b18baefcb:0x1757d2c2c83f852a!8m2!3d51.3666264!
4d-0.6063856> Last Accessed: 08/03/2018

Heathrow, 2018. My Neighbourhood Flight Paths Overview. [Online] Access via:

<http://myneighbourhood.bksv.com/lhr/> Last Accessed: 07/03/2018

Hedley. S.L. Buckland, S.T, 2004. Spatial Models for Line Transect Sampling. Journal of Agricultural,
Biological, and Environmental Statistics, vol.9(2), pp.181-199

Highways England (a), n.d. Improvements and major road projects: M3 junctions 2-4a: smart
motorway. [Online] Access via: <http://roads.highways.gov.uk/projects/m3-junctions-2-4a-smart-
motorway/> Last Accessed: 20/01/2018

Highways England (b), n.d. Improvements and major road projects: M4 junctions 3-12: Smart
motorway. [Online] Access via: <http://roads.highways.gov.uk/projects/m4-junctions-3-12-smart-
motorway/> Last Accessed: 08/03/2018

Highways England (c), 2014. M3 smart motorways. [Online] Access via:

<http://assets.highways.gov.uk/roads/road-projects/m3-junctions-2-4a-managed-
motorway/S140372_M3_J2-4a_PIE_rollups_%28final_15102014_board10%29.pdf> Last Accessed:
08/03/2018

Highways England (d), n.d. M3. [Online] Access via: <http://www.highways.gov.uk/out-road-

network/our-network/key-roads/m3> Last Accessed: 08/03/2018

25
GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

Holtsmark, B. Skonhoft, A, 2014. The Norwegian support and subsidy policy of electric cars. Should it
be adopted by other countries? Environmental Science and Policy, vol. 42, pp.160-168.

Mcaree, A, 2016. Study of the soil and vegetation relationships on Chobham Common, Surrey.
Unpublished Report, University of Reading.

NoiseNet, 2008. Noise - Environmental - Weather - Wind Strength. [Online] Access via:
<http://www.noisenet.org/Noise_Enviro_Weather_WindSpeed.htm> Last Accessed: 07/03/2018

Royal Automotive Club, 2017. Smart motorways - what are they and how do you use them? [Online]
Access via: <https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/driving-advice/all-you-need-to-know-about-smart-
motorways/> Last Accessed: 03/03/2018

Stephen Duffy, n.d. [image online] Access via:

<http://www.surreywildlifetrust.org/reserves/chobham-common> [Accessed: 08/03/2018]

Surrey Wildlife Trust, 2017. Chobham Common. [Online] Access via:

<http://www.surreywildlifetrust.org/reserves/chobham-common> Last Accessed: 08/03/2018

The Independent, 2015. Tunnel renasissance: Why cities are hiding roads down in the ground.
[Online] Access via: <https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/architecture/tunnel-
renaissance-why-cities-are-hiding-roads-down-in-the-ground-10068049.html> Last Accessed:
08/03/2018

Vehicle Certification Agency, 2018. Noise. [Online] Access via: <http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/fcb/cars-

and-noise.asp> Last Accessed: 03/03/2018

Woking Government, 2009. Out and About: Winter 09. [Online] Access via:
<https://www.woking.gov.uk/woking/living/magazine/routewinter09.pdf> Last Accessed:
07/03/2018

26
 GV2RTS 25009281 Words: 3083

Appendix

Ethics form to be given to participants completing survey

27