Birmingham Airport anti-Noise Group

Press Release Contact us

Friday 30th July 2004

BANG! not taking Airport's buy-out 'bait'

Birmingham Airport anti Noise Group (BANG) are warning residents living in the shadow of Birmingham International Airport (BIA) to be wary of the airport's plans for voluntary compensation, details of which were released yesterday as part of BIA's Master Plan Review. [1] Local people are being invited to give their opinions on the proposals from now until 29th October 2004.

Secretary of BANG James Botham said:

"While we will of course encourage local people to engage with the consultation, they should be wary of simply taking the bait and pinning their hopes on receiving compensation. The schemes outlined here won't come into effect unless the second runway gets planning permission in 2011 and the airport decides to begin construction in 2013. Meanwhile, what about the people who are suffering right now from the airport's current operations? Where's their consultation? BIA's management cannot continue to evade this issue."

"Aircraft noise is no respecter of noise contours, as BIA admit in their document. All that this voluntary exercise will achieve is to create further worry and uncertainty for local people, especially for those who find themselves on the wrong side of BIA's arbitrary noise boundary while their near neighbours receive compensation. The process cannot be left to the airport; it should be in the hands of an independent consultative committee that properly represents the interests of the local community."

Mr Botham added:

"Birmingham Airport clearly think their second runway is in the bag and all they need to do now is pay people enough money to shut up and go away. But the issue of whether the airport can justify its expansion in the first place has never been resolved."

In particular, BANG is concerned about:

1. The presumption in the consultation document that Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council will meekly accept BIA's Master Plan for inclusion into the Borough's Unitary Development Plan even after the Conservative-led Council voted to reject the second runway in 2002. [2]

2. The document's admission that 'there will always be some properties that fall outside the boundary when near neighbours are within it', in other words that aircraft noise does not respect noise contour boundaries, makes a mockery of the whole exercise.

3. The suggestion that new modes of operation will be introduced for the second runway different to those outlined in the 'Birmingham Alternative': 'the use of operational controls to minimise the noise impact on the local community is being further examined i.e. whether the existing and new runways should be used in a 'mixed mode' method of operation where both of the runways are used for take-offs and landings or alternatively a 'segregated mode' operation in which one runway is used for landings and the other for 'take-offs'.' If the second runway is used only for landings, say, will it have to accept incoming flights between 11pm and 6am? This would be contrary to the promise in the Birmingham Alternative that the runway would not operate at night. If it is to be used only for departures will it have to be extended in future to cope with the predicted increases in passenger per annum?

4. The use of dBLAeq scale to measure aircraft noise. This scale averages out the noise throughout 16 hours, including periods where there isn't an aircraft noise event. This does not take into account the disturbance from discrete, discontinuous noise events such as over-flying aircraft. Because of this, the airports and the Department for Transport may be grossly underestimating the number of people severely affected by aircraft noise. Similarly, no account is taken of properties either directly under the existing flight path nor the proposed new flight path.

5. The unreasonable conditions attached to the Home Value Guarantee Scheme 69dBLAeq and 66dBLAeq: 'The owner would have to have marketed it for at least 3 months on the open market at a realistic asking price and not have declined offers within 15% of that price' and 'The owner would have to have a pressing reason to move e.g. A need to move to a larger or different home to accommodate a growing family, or for employment reasons; external financial pressures that necessitate the sale of the property; a medical condition requiring the owner or a member of the owner's household to move to a different house, such as the inability to negotiate stairs.'

6. The map on p14 showing noise contours for both the existing and proposed runway are 'indicative' and not based on the impact assessment data that will go into the Master Plan. The map shows the 2002 noise contour for the existing runway and a projected noise contour for the second runway in 2017 but no comparable noise contour map is given for the first runway in 2017. What has happened to the runway extension? How many properties will lie within the first runway's 69dBLAeq noise contour in 2017? Will the 'Assistance with Relocation Scheme' (p13) extended past 2010?

Editor's Notes

[1] See www.bhx.co.uk/vcs_Consultation.pdf and www.bhx.co.uk/vcs_explanation.pdf

[2] Minutes of the Council's meeting of 5th November 2002: 'The Government's consultation document does not justify the deterioration in the quality of life that the residents of Solihull would suffer if a new second runway development were to be constructed at Birmingham International Airport'.