I think that a point that's being skimmed over here is the real difficulty that pilots can have complying with published noise abatement proceedures. Many of the noise abatement maps published in flight guides, and on airfields' web sites, lack a distance scale - a stupendous omission!
For instance, a lovely, accomodating, friendly and noise sensitive airfield near the A303 still publishes a noise abatement chart on it's website that not only lacks a scale, but is so compressed as an image that when printed the text is unreadable!
Another case used to be a very welcoming airport in the Welsh borders, where the published unscaled chart involved turning downwind 'avoiding a white house' which was tricky for a stranger who on arrival saw that the entire neighborhood was made up of white houses! This particular airfield now has very detailed 1/2 mil overlays and aerial photos on it's web site, although flight guides probably still have the 'white house' chart.
The problem with a purely visual system is that you avoid one village, school, etc., only to find another straight ahead, and so on, because you missed the intended turning point. And it's not just a UK problem - I was at Big Bear (California) the other day concientously avoiding the schools etc. that dot the local chart when blow me! There's another one looming up, avoided OK, but closer than intended because there are no scales on their chart either.
Given that the charts published in flight guides have to be simplified, I suggest that what's needed on these local charts is a series of range rings. Most pilots will have a GPS to hand and knowing the distance to a complaining village would make it far easier to turn inside or outside of it without having to guess which of many similar looking villages they are referring to. Simple to do and might make a real contribution, rather than just slagging off people who get it wrong. How about it, chaps?