Birmingham Airport anti-Noise Group
Newsletter #3
Contact
us
September 2003
|
Birmingham Airport anti-Noise Group |
Newsletter #3 |
September 2003 |
Bye, Bye BIA?
Spaghetti
Junction in the Sky
Few
can have failed to notice that, on 23rd July, the Government published its Regional
Air Studies, setting out a policy framework for the next thirty years of aviation.
The seven studies, undertaken by the former Department of Transport, Local Government
and the Regions (DTLR), covered the entire UK and, as many had feared, were
a no-holds-barred blueprint for massive expansion at Britain’s airports.
Condemnation from environmental, community and residents groups, including B.A.N.G!,
was swift. West Midlands Friends of the Earth warned of a potential “Spaghetti
Junction in the sky”.
The proposals rest on highly speculative and disputed forecasts that passenger numbers could more than treble over the next 30 years. If expansion of airport capacity in the already overburdened South East is ruled out then the Government will be looking to the West Midlands to accommodate the projected growth in air travel.
One option is to expand Birmingham and other regional airports. Alternatively, Birmingham International could be closed and replaced with a massive new airport between Coventry and Rugby, smack in the middle of the Warwickshire countryside. On this the Government’s strategy is clear - drive a wedge between, on the one hand, Birmingham residents eager to see the back of BIA and, on the other, the communities of Church Lawford and Kings Newnham who face obliteration by a new airport development. Both communities risk being labelled NIMBYs (“Not In My Back Yard”), concerned only that they are spared the impact. It would be foolishness to take a gamble on the problem being dumped on another community. Instead we must challenge the prevailing dogma that growth in air travel is both beneficial and inevitable and that airport expansion must happen somewhere. The UK simply does not need more airport capacity ANYWHERE.
Although the thought of huge expansion and another runway at BIA appalls us, we will not be lured into accepting a new Midlands airport either. We are opposed to any new airport development on the principle - and it’s a principle we must adhere to - that the Government’s whole approach to aviation is misguided. The discredited policy of “predict and provide” that informs current thinking on air transport must be abandoned once and for all.
Managing
Demand for Air Travel
Rather
than trying to meet every overblown growth forecast, the Government should instead
be managing the demand for air travel by ending the £7 billion worth of
hidden subsidies and tax breaks that the aviation industry currently enjoys.
For example, there is no tax on aviation fuels, no VAT on plane tickets and
airport ground vehicles run on tax-reduced red diesel. According to the Green
Party, the aviation industry is so heavily subsidised that it receives the equivalent
of £180 per year from every man, woman and child in the UK. A truly forward
thinking air transport policy would ensure that air travel pays fully for its
environmental and social impacts and this means - yes, more expensive flights.
However unpalatable this realisation may be for those who value the “freedom
to fly”, it must not be forgotten that ours is a battle for a human right
(to a good night’s sleep and a community free from the blight of chronic
aircraft noise) over a mere luxury (mass, affordable air travel).
What we are witnessing is the birth of a mass movement against airport development. All across the country people are getting together to defend their homes, land, communities and health from an aviation industry that is simply out of control.
James Botham
Message From The Chairman
Welcome to this the third edition of our Newsletter. The big news of the last few weeks has been, of course, the Government’s Regional Air Studies and the spectre of massive expansion at Birmingham Airport they have cast.
BANG! was quick to unequivocally condemn the proposals in the local papers and on local TV and radio. Both national and local press were and still are almost unanimous in their condemnation of the Government’s policy on aviation which has led to a lot of important issues at last getting an airing. We are definitely winning the arguments in the media.
I am pleased to report that our membership has more than trebled since our last newsletter in May. Thanks to a great deal of hard work on the part of our leaflet distributors, we have to date over 300 official supporters. This is a phenomenal achievement and proof, if any were needed, of the strong support within the areas that we have visited to date. Many thanks to all who volunteered their time. Thanks also to everyone who has written letters and lobbied their local Councillors on the matter of the daytime noise limit at BIA. Regrettably we will no longer be able to continue to send minutes of B.A.N.G’s monthly committee meetings to everyone who requested them owing to our having slightly overreached ourselves on the administrative front!
However, there is still much work to be done to spread the message to other areas, both within the existing “noise footprint” region and those poor souls in the areas threatened by the Government’s expansion plans. Everyone can help in this, simply by telling your friends and neighbours about B.A.N.G! - why not lend them this newsletter when you have read it? Ask them if they would like to join. Our strength lies in numbers and only with numbers can we force change at local and central Government levels. Those of you who listen to BBC Radio WM may have recently heard our Press Officer Albert Yeomans call for Birmingham City Councillors to arrange public meetings in areas affected by aircraft noise. Be sure to come along to the public meeting we are holding on 9th October at the Mirfield Centre, Lea Village.
Another key date to remember is
13th November when the Government’s Appeal in the HACAN ClearSkies Heathrow
Night Flights Case will be heard in Strasbourg. The hearing will decide the
future of night flying in UK - a verdict in favour of Heathrow residents would
be a major vindication for residents everywhere who suffer the effects of aircraft
noise.
Finally, I would like to wish new group SOAR (Solihull Opposing Additional Runway)
every success in their campaign. SOAR was formed at the recent public meeting
in Catherine-de-Barnes, Solihull. Further SOAR meetings are to be held throughout
the borough in the coming weeks.
Ron Dowdeswell, Chairman
Why Expanding Birmingham Airport Won’t Help The Economy
Many people still wrongly assume that continued development of Birmingham International Airport (BIA) is essential to the regional economy.
“But won’t it attract new foreign investment?”
There
is no evidence that proximity to an airport or regional airport capacity are
decisive factors in determining where foreign companies decide to settle. The
North East of England, for example, has no direct flights to Japan but it has
attracted significant investment and jobs from Japan over the years. According
to the Airports Policy Consortium, “Interviews with top executives in foreign
owned firms in the UK reveal that only 10% of the interviewees cited air access
as the reason for their choice of location”. BIA’s own Masterplan
quotes a similar statistics in a survey by the West Midlands Development Agency
in 1993 in which only 13% of the respondents cited air transport as a major
factor in their decision to locate. If 9 out of 10 of the foreign owned companies
that have already invested in the region don’t consider the airport to
be a significant allocation factor, then it is clearly not the magnet for inward
investment that it is being made out to be. Nor will continued development at
BIA alter this fact.
“But it will lead to regional regeneration, won’t
it?”
It cannot be assumed that
airport expansion will lead to regional regeneration. According to the Standing
Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA), there is no simple link
between the provision of transport infrastructure (including aviation expansion)
and regional regeneration. Other factors in a region, such as the availability
of skilled labour, are usually a more critical factor in regeneration. In a
mature economy with an already well-developed transport system any increase
in economic growth from improved transport is likely to be modest.
Aviation is by far the most polluting mode of transport per passenger kilometre and the industry does not shoulder the economic cost of its impact on the environment. Indeed SACTRA also concludes that a full and proper assessment of the economic benefits of a new transport development must include the environmental costs or “externalities”. When the full extent of the of these costs are considered the overall economic results may not be positive.
Moreover, continued development of BIA will bring with it the added costs of improving access to the airport. Whilst the BIA will be responsible for some of the local road and public transport improvements, the effects on the transport network spread much wider than this. The costs of providing the extra transport infrastructure as well as the inevitable congestion and environmental costs all need to be considered.
“But business travellers need the airport, don’t
they?”
Most international business
is already done by instant electronic communication: telephone, video-conferencing,
e-mail and fax. Advances in communications technology should make electronic
communication easier and more effective in the future thereby reducing the need
for international business travel.
At present, only 27% of flights at BIA are for business purposes and most of the forecast growth is in the leisure market, where excessive demand is fuelled by artificially low ticket prices. If further development of BIA were constrained then we would expect seat prices to rise, but as business passengers typically pay higher fares than leisure travellers, it would be the price-sensitive leisure market that would be put off, not business travellers.
“But that would mean less tourism! Wouldn't that
be bad for the economy?”
Less leisure travel would
be good for the overall UK economy as there is an £9.1 billion annual
deficit in aviation tourism owing to the fact that British tourists spend more
money abroad than foreign tourists spend here. In 1999 British tourists spent
£21 billion abroad while foreign tourists spent only £12.6 billion
in the UK (Source: Office for National Statistics, 2000).
“But surely it will generate jobs for local people?”
Claims are always made for
the numbers of jobs that will be created by new airport developments, which
are generally accepted by those who have already presumed that the development
is essential for the economy. The fact is that jobs in the airport industry
have become highly productive and therefore are relatively expensive to create.
What’s more, “no frills” airlines like MyTravelLite will reduce
the levels of employment per passenger even further. This increased productivity
cancels out many of the new jobs predicted. At Frankfurt airport, flight movements
increased 77.8% between 1978 and 1996, yet employment only rose by 0.6% over
the same period.
Claims are also made for jobs that should not really be attributed to the airport. Jobs in the spin-off sectors such as retailing and catering should not be included since spending of that sort would take place elsewhere, if not at the airport. Furthermore, if development in BIA were constrained then the money formerly spent on air travel would be spent on other goods and services, creating as many if not more jobs in other sectors.
Brett Rehling
Where the Regional Air Studies Get It Wrong . . .
1.
On the Economy
The studies claim large
economic benefits from building and expanding airports. But the studies’
economic and employment assumptions are flawed because they do not take proper
account of the large public subsidies and tax breaks for civil aviation and
the industry’s failure to pay for the pollution and other costs it imposes
on society. These factors distort the demand to fly by lowering prices which
in turn artificially inflate the rate of air traffic growth and therefore the
‘need’ for new airport capacity.
The studies presume that nothing will be done to start making the industry pay its way, for example by removing subsidies and tax breaks. These include:
It is stated Government policy to remove one of the above subsidies by introducing a tax on aircraft fuel. Accurate studies would have taken this into account. Instead the studies presume that this will not happen in the next 30 years. It is also Government policy to ensure aviation meets its ‘external costs’. It is also required under the Amsterdam Treaty. Yet it is not reflected in the studies’ "central" forecasts. The studies assume the price of flying continues not to reflect external costs (e.g. costs of aviation’s local to global impacts: air and noise pollution; climate change).
There is an £9 billion annual
deficit in aviation tourism caused by people deserting UK destinations to take
‘low cost’ flights abroad. The studies ignore this loss to the UK,
especially felt by traditional UK resorts.
2.
On job creation
The
studies overstate the number of jobs created by new airports and runways. This
standard Government and aviation industry practice is based on an aviation industry
sponsored economic study - Oxford Economic Forecasting (OEF) which has been
found to be flawed by Berkeley Hanover Consulting.
It may seem obvious that building or expanding airports and runways will increase employment in a locality. However, in the wider economy there will be no net increase. This is because jobs in aviation are substitutable - if there were no aviation industry, an equal number of jobs would arise elsewhere in the economy (this is accepted both by OEF and by Berkeley Hanover). If the large public subsidies currently handed to the aviation sector were spent elsewhere in the economy they would create as many if not more jobs and employment and with less pollution and environmental damage.
3. On aircraft noise
The studies give misleading
data on aircraft noise. The effect will be to show far fewer people affected
by new airports and runways than will really be the case. The studies use 57
decibels (dB) as the starting point for measuring disturbance from aircraft
noise. Yet people experience the onset of noise nuisance at lower levels. For
this reason 50dB is the level set by the World Health Organisation (WHO). By
using 57 dB many of those affected by aircraft noise caused by expanded airport
capacity will be overlooked.
4. On air pollution
The studies have not looked
at all of the key pollutants from airports. The studies will also claim that
fewer people will suffer poor air quality from aircraft and airport operations
than will in fact be the case. The only significant pollutants covered by the
studies are Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM). The studies
ignore ground level ozone (O3), a key health-threatening airport pollutant.
Also, the studies use already relaxed air quality standards.
5. On public safety
The studies do not include
any proper assessment of the risks to the public on the ground (third parties)
from more aircraft overhead. The Government claims “public safety is best
secured by preventing accidents to aircraft”. But this does not necessarily
reduce risk. Risks increase with the numbers of flights and the number of people
flown over. More runways and airports = more flights = higher public risk. The
studies ignore this obvious equation and so underestimate heightened risks to
public safety. There is also poor recognition as to the role of National Air
Traffic Safety and how this important operation will be funded.
6.
On wildlife and greenfield sites
The
studies downplay losses of key wildlife species and habitats. They downplay
the likely loss of greenbelt, green field sites and other land caused by new
airport capacity. The studies regard the possible loss of large amounts of wildlife
habitat and significant reductions in populations of many wildlife species as
“low impact”. The studies also claim loss of green belt and green
field land to new airports and runways will have a “neutral” or even
a “positive” impact!
Chris Crean, West Midlands Friends of the Earth
Take Action!Birmingham City Council, The Council House, Victoria Square, Birmingham, B1 1BB
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council, PO Box 19, The Council House, Solihull, West Midlands, B91 3QT
Key Councillors to write to are:
Birmingham: J Clancy; M Nangle; A Ward (Hodge Hill); M Ward; S Anderson; P Tilsley (Sheldon)
Solihull: J Blake; L Kyles; D Holl-Allen (Knowle); R Draycott; B Kellie; G Richards (Castle Bromwich); A Martin; B Sleigh (Bickenhill).
If your ward is not listed above or you don't know who your Councillors are, contact us for more information. Alternatively, go to www.birmingham.gov.uk or www.solihull.gov.uk.
Government
Consultation on Aviation
The Government has begun a
four-month national consultation exercise on the future of the UK aviation sector,
with policy due to be announced in an aviation White Paper next year. However,
residents groups including BANG! and campaign groups such Transport 2000, Aviation
Environment Federation and Friends of the Earth are urging people to hold back
from responding right away as the wording of the questionnaire assumes that
you are in favour of the basic principle of airport expansion. Don’t be
fooled into opting for the scenario that seems least damaging - all are prescriptions
for more development in some form or another. What’s more, you can be pretty
certain that airport employees will be given every opportunity to respond in
favour of expansion, while many local residents will be unaware that any consultation
is even happening. The result will be that we will lose on numbers without having
had the chance to raise the real issues.
In the mean time, you could write expressing your objections to airport development in the Midlands to:
'Consultation on the Future Development
of Air Transport in the UK - Midlands,
Department for Transport,
Zone 1/28c Great Minster House,
76 Marsham Street,
FREEPOST LON 17806
LONDON SW1 4YS
Free copies of the document “The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: Midlands” and the consultation questionnaire are available from the Department of Transport website www.airconsult.gov.uk or call 0845 100 5554.
Options for the Midlands
Your Letters
New
Airport Is A Red Herring
Sir
- The proposal to site a new regional airport in Warwickshire is a blatant red
herring in an attempt to rally dwindling support to expand Birmingham International
Airport. Perhaps even more revolting are the false cries of anguish from the
media and others who seem more concerned about this remote possibility than
the many thousands in and around the densely populated areas of Birmingham and
Solihull currently affected by airport disturbance.
Congratulatory comments in the local media about the ever increasing traffic at Birmingham International Airport do not reflect concern about safety and disruption of lives. Fatalities at airports around the world are now reported to be almost a daily occurrence. Near misses at Birmingham International Airport are no exception.
Take-offs are edging closer and closer to densely populated areas. Aircraft are not proceeding straight ahead for 1 mile from takeoff. Climb rate is therefore reduced and noise prolonged because aircraft have been observed: (a) Banking and turning sharply at low levels immediately after takeoff. Each turn means that the aircraft have to increase power to maintain height = more noise, more danger, but more profit; (b) not taking off into the prevailing wind which again means increased thrust = more noise, more danger etc.
These hazardous practices at low level are compounded by observations that aircraft are, incredibly, often arriving and departing to and from the same direction. Surely a recipe for potential disaster in an increasingly crowded airspace over highly populated areas.
Our communication with BIA Chief, Brian Summers and his Environmental Monitoring Officers regarding these issues have resulted in less than satisfactory responses. We are informed that these manoeuvres are “advantageous to operations”. We can only interpret this to mean “advantageous to profit”. We are inevitably coming to the view that Birmingham International Airport are more committed to profit than people. Mr. Summers' assurances that aircraft are becoming safer and less noisy are not borne out by the evidence. So called whispering jets may be marginally quieter but aircraft are heavier and there are more of them. The increased day flights in recent years are bad enough.
Conversation in the streets is impossible and difficult indoors unless double glazed. More night flights would not only be intolerable but less controllable. Constant traffic to and from the airport, including massive juggernauts and trailers, is such, that all Airport access roads are hazardous to negotiate, let alone cross. Mr. Summers says that people who don’t like it shouldn’t live near the airport. He ignores the fact that many people lived there long before grand airport expansion plans were implemented and flight paths widened and extended. In addition to supplementing reduced rates, increased airport profits should be allocated to compensating or even purchasing affected properties at the market rate.
The so-called Green Belt is becoming a mockery, threatened by proposals to build a silicon valley-type set of business units, a National Stadium, Airport expansion, a motorway service area, new housing, and a 10 lane highway development to accommodate all the extra traffic, houses, roads, jobs, golf, airports, MSAs. All causing extra overpopulation, noise, light, air, water and other pollution. Under new proposals to build on green belts the LA and Central Government are likely to approve because they can increase the population to provide more taxes to support their power bases. Before plans are implemented, agreement should be reached by all, not just a decision by a favoured few on a planning committee or government department, who seem to ride rough-shod over local opinion. We have already seen the strength of feeling illustrated against some developments. Shopping centres and supermarkets, motorway service areas, airport expansion, housing developments, business centres and the like. Many of these are passed and implemented with minimum notification to the affected electorate. Some minor applications may be going through the back door with little or no notice to the electorate. Where a majority suffer an infringement of their liberty to oppose any proposal we should be able to halt the process.
Jim Vowles, BA, BSC Environmental Studies. Catherine-de-Barnes, Solihull
Aircraft Noise Still A Problem
Sir- Despite the press handouts
about the introduction of quieter aircraft, the noise created by aircraft movements
is still considerable and is certainly not diminishing. To leave the bedroom
windows open on warm summer nights will guarantee "a bad nights sleep".
From a local economy point of view it is difficult to argue against the airport.
It provides greater holiday and business opportunities. It also creates jobs
and of course, financial benefits for its shareholders, some of who are the
local Councils. If it is therefore considered a highly beneficial amenity by
the vast majority of people who live in the West Midlands conurbation, then
it seems only right that they should be prepared to compensate the minority
who are severely disadvantaged by it. Compensation at the moment seems to be
limited to a small grant towards double-glazing if you happen to live in a very
arbitrarily contrived noise footprint. Compensation should be ongoing in the
form of substantial reductions in council tax which could be subsidised by the
imposition of a noise tax on each passenger passing through the airport. This
wouldn’t alleviate the problem of course, but it might ease some of the
pain.
Jim Chambers, Marston Green