Birmingham Airport anti-Noise Group
Newsletter
#7
Contact
us
August 2004
|
Birmingham Airport anti-Noise Group |
Newsletter
#7 |
August 2004 |
Left out in the cold on the compensation fault line
Birmingham International Airport is consulting on two proposed voluntary compensation schemes for homes and businesses which could be adversely affected by a second runway. But BANG fears that this compensation package will leave many residents with legitimate claims out in the cold.
The
deal
Details of the schemes were released
on 29th July as part of the airport’s Master Plan Review. There are two
main options on offer. Under the 'Home Value Guarantee Scheme', the airport
company would guarantee to buy at the open market value (based on June 2002
values) any residential or small business property lying within 'noise contours'
at a time of the owners' choosing. However, for properties in the 69dB(A) noise
contour the scheme will not become available until Solihull Metropolitan Borough
Council (MBC) adopt the Master Plan into their Unitary Development Plan (UDP),
and for properties in the 66dB(A) noise contour until the airport receives planning
permission to proceed with construction of the new runway. This means residents
may not benefit until 2007 at the earliest, 2014 at the latest. Not much use
if you want to move in the next couple of years.
Under the second option, the 'Property Protection Scheme', BIA will offer a 'fully transferable legally binding guarantee' to buy a qualifying property for the open market price. This scheme 'could be applied for' when the final revised version of the Master Plan is published, probably in 2006, but not 'exercised' until planning permission is granted and BIA decide to proceed with construction. By then the homeowner could require the airport to buy their property at an indexed valuation as if no runway had been proposed but again it's not much good if you want to leave now, not unless you're prepared to take a massive hit on your property value. And of course there could be any length of time between the granting of planning permission and the decision to begin construction.
The small print
The use of the dB(A) ('decibel A') scale to measure aircraft noise undermines
the process from the start. This scale averages out the noise over a 16 hour
period but does not take into account the disturbance from discrete, discontinuous
noise events such as over-flying aircraft. Because of this, airports and the
Department for Transport (DfT) may be grossly underestimating the number of
people severely affected by aircraft noise.
The map on pages 14-15 of the consultation document shows the projected 66dB(A) and 69dB(A) noise contours for the second runway in 2017, outlined in blue. Only the properties within these contours are eligible for compensation. That excludes Catherine-de-Barnes village completely and almost everywhere else except two small areas of Elmdon and Sheldon. We are already hearing of homeowners close to the airport who are having difficulty selling because of the expansion proposals but who lie outside the noise contours and so are deemed ineligible for assistance. Similarly, no account is taken of homes either directly under the existing flight path or the potential flight path of the second runway.
Line in the sand
The map shows noise contours for both the existing and proposed runway but these
are both 'indicative' and not based on the impact assessment data that will
go into the Master Plan. The noise contour for the existing runway in 2002 is
outlined in red but no noise contour is given for that runway in 2017. How many
properties will lie within the first runway's 69dB(A) and 66dB(A) noise contours
in 2017 and how will they be compensated? No reference is made to the runway
extension proposed in BIA's 2002 'Birmingham Alternative', the revised proposals
for expansion adopted by the DfT in last year's Air Transport White Paper.
The admission on page 4 that 'there
will always be some properties that fall outside the [noise contour] boundary
when near neighbours are within it' makes a mockery of the whole exercise. Blight
is no respecter of arbitrary noise contours. All this 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 'line in the sand'.
Conditions
The conditions attached to the Home
Value Guarantee Scheme include that 'The owner would have to have marketed it
[the property] 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.' It would seem
that wanting to get away from an area blighted by airport expansion is not deemed
a good reason to want to move.
There are worrying suggestions that
new modes of operation will be introduced for the second runway different to
those outlined in the 'Birmingham Alternative' and assumed by the DfT. The 'operational
controls' being considered are a 'mixed mode' where both runways would be used
for take-offs and landings, and a 'segregated mode' where one runway is used
for landings and the other for take-offs. But if the second runway is used,
say, only for landings 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 growth in air
travel? If it is used for either take-off or landings will it have to take the
older, noisier planes contrary to the promise in the Birmingham Alternative
that this would not happen?
In the bag?
The document presumes that
Solihull MBC will meekly accept BIA’s Master Plan for inclusion into the
UDP, even after the Conservative-led Council voted to reject the second runway
in November 2002. BIA clearly think their second runway is in the bag and all
they need to do now is pay a few people enough money to shut up and go away.
But the issue of whether the airport can justify expansion on this scale in
the first place has never been properly resolved. This debate needs to continue.
Meanwhile, any compensation process should be in the hands of an independent
consultative committee that properly represents the interests of the local community.
Blight and compensation: the statutory system
The airport's schemes are voluntary or non-statutory. Under the statutory system there are two types of blight:
1. Statutory Blight: Normally, if a development has been confirmed in published plans Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) are served on directly affected properties. As a private company, BIA does not have CPO powers. If a property is directly in the path of the runway development then the airport must either acquire it 'by agreement', obtain CPO powers from the Government (which is unlikely) or seek assistance from the Local Authority in obtaining the CPO.
2. Discretionary Blight: This is where a property is not directly affected by the proposal but for the homeowner to remain there would be intolerable for them. You can apply for Discretionary Blight if and when planning permission is granted. Whereas under Statutory Blight noise levels are immaterial, under Discretionary Blight you must be exposed to noise levels in excess of 68dB(A), which is extremely loud, in order to qualify. Various other conditions must be met, for instance, the homeowner must have a 'good reason' e.g. medical or employment, to move and it must be proven that the property has depreciated in value by 15% or more. Most people can come up with a good reason to move; the hard part will be proving that your house is worth 15% less than one on the same street but on the other side of the noise contour boundary.
Part 1 Compensation Claim: In this instance you will paid the amount in compensation by which your property has depreciated in value as a result of, for example, increased noise (there's no limit involved but it must have increased), vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, or glare from lighting (but not for loss of visual amenity). The few people who will be able to successfully pursue Part 1 claims will still have to put up with all these things, of course, but they will get a bit of compensation for the loss of their properties' values.
You won't be able to make a Part 1 compensation claim before 2017 and you cannot claim for the construction period, this being a temporary phase. Even more perversely, you can only claim for the noise from planes using the runway itself, not from planes in the air.
What should I do?
If the airport have contacted you then we recommend that you consult legal advice
to find out what your options are. A series of five booklets explaining Statutory
Blight, Discretionary Blight and compensation can be obtained free from the
DfT on 08701 226 236.
Have you had difficulty selling
your house because of the expansion proposals but been told that you are not
eligible for compensation from BIA?
If so we'd like to hear from you. Call James Botham on 0121 632 6909, email
bang@bhamantinoise.org.uk
or write to:
BANG
The Warehouse
54-57 Allison Street,
Digbeth,
B5 5TH
Take Action!
'Interested parties' are invited
to give their views on the compensation schemes until 29th October 2004.
If you want to see the consultation document and response form then call BANG
on 0121 632 6909 and we'll send you a photocopy. The document can also be viewed
on-line at www.bhx.co.uk/vcs_Consultation.pdf
We think those 'non-consultees' who haven't been approached by BIA should get
a chance to make their views known. Send your responses to:
Master Plan Review Voluntary
Compensation Schemes,
Birmingham International Airport Limited,
Birmingham
B26 3QJ
or email runway@bhx.co.uk
You can also email the Director of BIA Richard Heard at richard@bhx.co.uk and copy to John Morris, head of the corporate affairs team, at John.Morris@bhx.co.uk. The numbers for External Relations are 0121 767 8024/7374/7074.
From BIA's consultation document 'Voluntary Compensation Schemes', p5.
The results of the compensation consultation will be published in BIA's draft Master Plan, which will examine everything from airfield layout and passenger terminal facilities to airspace, flight paths, surface access, and economic and environmental impact assessments.
'Mitigation measures' are expected across the major impact areas of emissions, noise, sound insulation, surface access and traffic management, and landscape and wildlife. The Government does not consider it necessary for airport operators to produce Health Impact Assessments as part of the master plan process. For these we'll have to wait until formal planning applications are submitted.
We can expect a full public consultation but as the Government's 'Guidance on the Preparation of Airport Master Plans1 points out, 'it will be important to make clear to consultees that their views are being sought on the specific proposals in the draft master plan, not on the overall direction of development at the airport as set out in the White Paper'.[1] In other words, 'Your new runway goes here: what colour would you like the tarmac to be?'
[1] See www.dft.gov.uk/aviation/whitepaper/post/p6.htm
Ten years on, have BIA delivered?
Birmingham Airport have been forced to admit that they exaggerated the benefits of the airport's growth to the regional economy over the last ten years.
West Midlands Friends of the Earth compared the current number of jobs at BIA and its contribution to the West Midlands economy with forecasts made in July 1994. A 500m extension to the runway was proposed, with local press predicting passenger demand to grow from 4.2 million passengers per annum (mppa) in 1993 to 10.5mppa in 2005. 'Airport chiefs' promised '6,500 new jobs on-site' and 'indirectly . . . a further 4,000 new jobs', plus a £220 million injection into the local economy a year by 2005.[1] At the time BIA employed 4,500 people on site plus 2,500 people in 'dependent' jobs.
Ten years on, passenger numbers in 2003 stood at 9.2 million, an increase of 13% on the previous year.[2] So far, so good, and without, we might add, the runway extension going ahead. However, in August 2003 BIA employed 6,450 workers on site[3], an increase of 1,950 on 1994. BIA's website (August 2004) says that, 'Currently over 6,000 jobs are based at BIA and a further 1000 jobs off-site, but directly related to the Airport'[4]. The website also says that, 'BIA generates regional income of £165 million', £55 million short of the £220 million predicted in 1994.
Unless the definition of 'job' has changed substantially in the last ten years, it would appear that the airport overestimates its job creation potential. So we should be wary when we read on the website that, 'By 2011/12, we estimate that BIA will generate a total of around £490 million of income and support 14,400 full time jobs in the West Midlands region.' These figures should evaluated year-on-year and preferably scrutinised at an annual meeting open to the public. After all, nearly half of the airport’s shares are still owned by the seven local authorities of the West Midlands conurbation.
All this has obvious implications for the new Master Plan, up for consultation in 2005. We can't let the next lot of dodgy predictions sway the local planning authority when it comes to considering further growth at BIA. The government should take these economic shortfalls very seriously and introduce better regulation and independent analysis of the aviation sector's growth projections.
An 'airport spokeswoman' said: 'Forecasts included in the airport's ten-year master plan . . . took into account the industry trends and patterns at that time. Since then, the aviation industry has changed considerably with, for example, the introduction of low fares airlines and internet bookings. Predictions can never be 100 per cent accurate as circumstances like the Iraq war, Sars and 9/11 can and do make an impact on the industry. None of this detracts from the fact that aviation creates wealth across several sectors as well as many quality and long term jobs.'[5] But how do BIA reconcile this admission that the trends of the past are not an accurate guide to the trends of the future with their intention to repeat the whole exercise all over again next year and bamboozle the region into accepting a second runway?
[1] Birmingham Post, 21st
July 1994.
[2] Birmingham Post Business,
1st Sept 2004.
[3] Birmingham Post: Renaissance
West Midlands supplement, 24th June 2004, p20.
[4] See www.bhx.co.uk/company4.cfm
[5] Birmingham Post, 9th August 2004, p2.
A Europe-wide night flights ban would bring much-needed relief to the estimated ten million European citizens who suffer from aircraft noise, while also ensuring that no airport enjoyed an unfair competitive advantage over any other.
In January this year, five Green Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) sponsored Written Declaration 4/20021 calling for a ban on commercial flights from all airports between 11pm and 7am. If a majority of MEPs (more than 313) sign a Written Declaration before a three month deadline then the proposal becomes the policy of the European Parliament.
Although Birmingham Airport has
a relatively stringent night flying policy and far fewer night flights than
most other major airports in the UK there were still 4,592 aircraft movements
between 11pm and 6am in 2003, nearly a third of the total aircraft movements
at BIA for that year.2
BANG wrote to the West Midlands MEPs asking them to sign Written Declaration
4/2002. We also wrote to four East Midlands MEPs with exceptional records of
voting for environmental legislation but received a brusque and discourteous
reply from Liberal Democrat MEP Bill Newton Dunn, in which he lambasted the
Greens' proposal as 'undemocratic' and a 'bossy totalitarian idea'. How such
arrant nonsense could issue from a man who scored 'top marks for voting for
the environment' in an analysis of voting records on key environmental votes
published by Friends of the Earth is frankly beyond us.
Friends of the Earth ranked EU member countries by comparing the total number of votes cast by a country's MEPs for environmental improvements with the total against. The UK had the lowest percentage of votes for environmental improvement (49 per cent). Collectively, UK MEPs have the worst voting record in Europe, and the West Midlands Conservative MEPs scored particularly poorly.
The Conservatives took the view that night flights were the responsibility of national governments, not the European Parliament. But the treaty which established the European Community states that the Council of Ministers may indeed lay down rules that apply to international transport to or from a member state.
In total, 59 MEPs, including just ten from the UK, supported the Declaration and none of the then eight4 West Midlands MEPs backed it. Nevertheless, for a Written Declaration to receive 59 signatories isn't bad when you consider that out of the 34 such declarations submitted in Jan-Jun 2004 the average number of signatories was 71. A similar declaration on airport noise nuisance gained the backing of 54 signatories.
Above all, this campaign has forced our elected European representatives to confront the issue of night time aircraft noise: night flights are on the agenda again in Europe.
[1] 'MEPs Demand Night Flight Ban
to Protect Child Health', Green Party press release, 26th January 2004.
[2] Department for Transport, Night Flying Restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick
and Stansted, July 2004, p38.
[3] See www.EU-votewatch.org
[4] The West Midlands has seven MEPs: Malcolm Harbour (Con, Birmingham area),
Philip Bushill-Matthews (Con), Philip Bradbourn (Con), Neena Gill (Lab), Michael
Cashman (Lab), Liz Lynne (Lib Dem), and Mike Nattrass (UKIP).
[5] See www.europarl.eu.int
Our long-standing and dedicated campaigner Ron Dowdeswell has reluctantly stepped down from his role as Chair of BANG. Many thanks, Ron, and best wishes for the future.
Acting Chair and Treasurer Brett
Rehling has just become a father (congratulations, Brett!), so we are looking
for new committee members.
You would need to be able to:
If you are interested in becoming a committee member then please call James on 0121 632 6909 or email bang@bhamantinoise.org.uk