Birmingham Airport anti-Noise Group
Newsletter
#8
Contact
us
September 2005
|
Birmingham Airport anti-Noise Group |
Newsletter
#8 |
September 2005 |
The Government wants Birmingham International Airport (BIA) to undergo a major expansion to prepare for the 32 million passengers a year the airport could be handling by 2030. To realise this flight of fancy, the airport company is preparing an updated Master Plan.
In May, representatives of interested third parties, including BANG, were invited to the airport's Elmdon building for a 'Master Plan Review Wider Reference Conference', a day-long seminar to give local stakeholders the chance to feed into the development of the Master Plan.
Summarised below are the specific expansion proposals we can expect the Master Plan to include, judging by what we heard and saw at the conference (and barring any major surprises).
The Master Plan, at a glance:
Other new facilities to include three 150 metre runway starter strips, a new air traffic control tower, fuel farm, engine ground-runing pen, parallel taxiway.
By 2030:
The publication of the draft Master Plan in the autumn will be followed by at least four months of public consultation. The final 'adopted' Master Plan is produced next year (the plans will then be reviewed every five years).
The airport company has based the Master Plan on the findings of fourteen separate studies specially commissioned from independent consultants, four of which (ecological impact, noise, surface access strategy and economic impact) were presented to the Wider Reference Conference.
Green
and pleasant landing strip
Environmental
consultancy firm Scott Wilson were commissioned to produce a 'High-level Environmental
Assessment' (not to be confused with a formal environmental impact assessment)
and suggest measures to mitigate the local environmental impacts of the development.
The area south of A45 contains two Sites of Special Scientific Interest (one of which is of national importance) two watercourses of ecological value (Low and Bickenhill Brooks), and three woodland areas of county/metropolitan importance. The area is home to several protected species, such as native freshwater crayfish, bats, badgers, water voles as well as some valuable bird communities. The airport will provide a 'buffer zone' to protect areas of ecological value and will 're-provide' any damaged sites, but the Master Plan will not go into detail about these measures.
Two listed buildings, Castle Hills and Elmdon Hall Lodge, may be "directly affected" and several other listed buildings surrounding the site, including Bickenhill Church, may be "indirectly affected". A number of footpaths used by ramblers would need to be repositioned and several sports grounds would be directly affected. In addition, 23 residential properties and various local businesses lie within the Master Plan boundary.
The second runway itself will come within 500 metres of Bickenhill Village, and the expected losses of agricultural land, woodland, hedgerows and grassland are such that the presently rural landscape will be changed into an "airport landscape". Gill Smith of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) pointed out that if Bickenhill Conservation Area loses its distinctive rural character then its conservation-area status would be seriously jeopardised. Nevertheless, the airport reps insisted that their proposals were a major improvement over the plans originally put out for consultation by the DfT in 2002, which had threatened to obliterate Bickenhill Village altogether.
No noise is good noise
The noise study commissioned
from environmental consultants Casella Stranger was insufficiently advanced
for Paul Freeborn's presentation to give us anything more than a general overview
of the issues. Consequently, there's little new to report on the subject of
noise, other than to say that airport's noise insulation grant scheme will be
extended and a 'health steering group' set up.
The second runway will be closed at night "as a general rule", except when the first runway is closed for maintenance, although how often will that will be was not mentioned. From 2006, quieter 'Chapter 4' certified aircraft will be in operation but, as Paul pointed out, a lot of aircraft in use today already meet Chapter 4 standards.
Concerns were also raised about the new taxiway, which will face onto a residential area in Solihull. Measures are already in place to mitigate ground noise "where practical", such as restrictions on engine ground running, but as no generally accepted criteria exists for assessing ground noise it is difficult to judge the effectiveness of such measures.
Air today, gone tomorrow?
Airports and the road traffic they
generate are major sources of local air pollution, in particular the gas nitrogen
dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10). We were assured that the White
Paper "found no air quality exceedences [sic] at Birmingham". Presumably
this refers to Chapter 9, paragraph 9.18 of the White Paper, which contains
the only reference to air quality around BIA and states: "With a new runway
operating, emissions modelling predicts that NO2 levels will be within the EU
40[microgrammes per metre-cubed] annul limits."
No mention was made at any point in the day of the airport's emissions of the greenhouse gases, chiefly carbon dioxide, believed to be causing global warming and subsequent climate change. Strategies for managing aviation's contribution to climate change were explored in Chapter 3 and Annex B of the White Paper but it remains to be seen how much, if any, space is devoted to this issue in the Master Plan.
Surface excess
Arup's surface access study, presented
by Stephen Hall and John Ojeil, assessed peak-time (8-9am and 5-6pm) traffic
flow around the airport in 2003 in order to make forecasts of traffic flow in
2030. The forecasts expect traffic flows, measured in vehicles per hour (vph),
to increase on the airport links (from 1,600 vph in 2003 to 4,600 vph in 2030),
on Bickenhill Lane, (from 2,050 vph to 3,800 vph), on the M42 (10,150 vph to
18,300 vph), and on the A45 (3,900 vph to 6,300 vph).
In the case of the A45, the rise will be mostly in background traffic (only 10 per cent of traffic on the A45 is related to the airport, as most passenger traffic to BIA uses the M42). But congestion is already acute at Junction 6 of the M42 and Clock Junction, and after these two 'pinch points' have reached the limit of their operation, in 2015 and 2020 respectively, a new dedicated BIA access junction will be needed.
Public transport strategy
Arup's 'Public Transport Enhancement Strategy' foresees scheduled cross-county
National Express coach services operating via BIA and Digbeth , and increased
heavy rail access on the Birmingham Multi-Modal and Coleshill Interchanges by
2011. The Midland Metro is expected to reach BIA via the A45 corridor by 2021,
and more trains on the BIA-Birmingham New Street line or an international connection
from BIA to Kingsbury could be in place by 2030. Four-tracking the entire West
Coast Main Line, at £60 billion, is a non-starter; even partial four-tracking
between Birmingham and Coventry would be "challenging". There's also
the worry that the growth in long-distance services could squeeze out local
rail services.
Strategies to encourage airport employees to use public transport are also being investigated. Arup looked at 'remote' parking facilities served by dedicated local bus services, bus priority measures, real-time information, improved infrastructure at key interchanges and bus stops, and "aggressive" marketing. Employee travel plans could offer airport workers bus, rail and/or Metro season ticket price discounts and information at the workplace to help them plan their journeys to work by public transport.
At present, around 15 per cent of journeys to and from BIA are by public transport but the Government wants the airport to achieve a 'modal share' of 25 per cent of journeys by public transport by 2030. In Arup's view, there is little chance of BIA reaching a 25 per cent public transport modal share without nation-wide traffic reduction strategies, such as road user charging on the motorway network. Even achieving a 20 per cent public transport modal share at the airport will be "hard work".
Not that it makes much difference either way. Assuming that the airport's current policy of unrestricted customer car parking is retained, parking provision will have to rise from 13,222 car parking spaces in 2004 to at least 40,148 spaces (assuming they achieve 32 million ppa with a 25 per cent public transport modal share), and possibly to as much as 47,012 spaces (assuming they reach 32 million ppa with a 15 per cent public transport modal share) by 2030. For reasons of airport security, 'remote' checking in or baggage handling is ruled out, so the extra parking will be concentrated near the current facilities, although there may be over-spill, potentially into rural areas. Ultimately, parking charges may have to rise for all users.
One-sided economics doesn't add up
Air transport consultants York Aviation had the task of coming up with a sales
pitch (sorry, 'economic impact study') for BIA's expansion in terms of job creation,
journey time savings, tourism, trade, international competitiveness and inward
investment. It would seem from Nigel Mason's presentation that our economic
future hinges on encouraging the jet-set business class to take more weekend
breaks and hold more international conferences in the city while enabling bigger
planes to use the existing runway for long-haul intercontinental flights.
However, when pressed, Nigel admitted that no attempt had been made to estimate the potential economic downsides of BIA's expansion, as this would have been "outside the brief". So, let's get this straight: the Master Plan will be informed by an economic impact study the conclusion of which is that the airport's expansion will be an unmixed blessing with no negative economic impacts at all? I know every cloud is supposed to have a silver lining but this is ridiculous.
At the very least, West Midlands taxpayers will want to know how much of the cost of BIA's expansion they will be expected to bear before giving their assent to the Master Plan. As senior airport staff confirmed at the Conference, the airport's shareholders will have to "bear significant costs" of the development; and as the seven West Midlands local authorities are all shareholders in BIA, that presumably means the taxpayer, too.
James Botham, Secretary
"To point out all one's efforts to solve a problem is not the same as finding the solution." Barbara Ward, Progress for a Small Planet, 1979.
BANG shunned by Airport Consultative Committee
BANG has been refused a place on Birmingham International Airport’s Airport Consultative Committee (ACC), an official forum for senior airport staff and representatives of community organisations and local authority, town and parish councillors, to discuss issues of concern to local people.
BANG's Secretary, James Botham, submitted a request to join the ACC to the Committee Secretariat in November 2004. However, according to the minutes of the ACC meeting of 26th January 2005 at Diamond House (published on-line at www.ukaccs.info/bham/index.html), Councillor Roger Chapman of Hampton-in-Arden Parish Council "expressed concerns over whether 'lobby groups' such as BANG could actually bring anything new to the ACC." BANG, he said, "needed to demonstrate that they represented groups which were not already represented on the Committee."
The decision was deferred to the next ACC meeting on 27th April where, once again, Cllr Chapman argued that "the inclusion of pressure groups would give a duplication of membership." The Parish Council, he said, were of the view that "the inclusion of pressure groups would have a detrimental effect on any future consultation processes"; therefore, BANG's request should be refused and "any further requests for membership should only be considered as an AGM agenda item."
'Informality'
Cllr Brian Moss of North Warwickshire Borough
Council was "concerned that some of the 'informality' of the debates at
ACC would be lost if such groups were included, and questioned as to whether
or not they were bound by any Code of Conduct." Councillor Robert Sleigh
of Bickenhill Parish Council stated that "pressure groups usually had single
items of concern and that there was a perception that they would not contribute
to the work of the ACC as a whole"; our "limited knowledge of regular
ACC issues” could, it seems, be "detrimental to the quality of debate."
However, Cllr Sleigh "did acknowledge that BANG were supported by local
people."
Balsall Parish Council, according to Cllr Michael Longfield, "would raise no objections to the inclusion of such groups." Russell Hogg said Catherine-de-Barnes Residents Association "had no real concerns with regard to allowing membership to ACC from such groups." Simon Richmond said Friends of Elmdon "would raise no objections to the inclusion of such groups within the membership of ACC and stated that their experience of BANG had been positive."
Despite these differences of opinion, the meeting resolved that the "request from BANG for membership to the ACC be refused; and that any further requests for membership should only be considered as an AGM agenda item", just as Cllr Chapman had recommended. "The Committee resolved to refuse your request", Lee Stevenson of the Secretariat wrote to James Botham on 5th May, "on the basis that BANG is perceived as a campaigning group and their inclusion would bring no real benefit to the ACC. The ACC felt that those residents who could be affected by any future airport expansion are already well represented on the committee." As there is "no appeal" against this decision, we are precluded from answering the Committee's concerns at future meetings.
'Disappointed'
BANG Press Secretary and Castle Bromwich
resident Hertta Hussein said she was "very disappointed" to hear of
the decision. "Aircraft noise has had severe impact on my well-being and
quality of life", she said. "I have explored every official avenue
over the past ten years, to no avail. Instead, I have been made to feel like
a troublemaker."
Birmingham ACC was set up to meet the airport's obligations under Section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (revised 1992) to consult "with respect to any matter concerning the management or administration of the aerodrome, which affects their interests" users of the aerodrome, local authorities and "any other organisation representing the interests of persons concerned with the locality in which the aerodrome is situated". We would argue that BANG, a residents' group with 400-plus official supporters, is just such an organisation. We will continue to pursue representation on behalf of our supporters and press for a publicly accountable ACC.
For the time being, however, Birmingham ACC remains largely hidden from public scrutiny. At the meeting of 27th April, Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council, represented by Cllr Kenneth Turner, "did not support public involvement in ACC meetings" and warned that "care needed to be taken with regard to what information was published." Bickenhill Parish Council suggested that "the Committee needed to review the way that information was recorded" and that "minutes should reflect the views of bodies and organisations and should not name individual members if they are to become more widely available, i.e. accessible on the ACC website." The Committee therefore resolved to keep the ACC's meetings closed to the press and members of the public.
BIA's air traffic growth forecasts revised
On 1st February 2005, Birmingham Airport released its 'High Level Statement of Intent',[1] a outline summary of the airport's expansion plans in advance of the more detailed Master Plan expected later in the year.
Section 3.1 of the Statement refers to the aircraft and passenger activity forecasts BIA commissioned from Aviasolutions. These predict that air traffic movements at Birmingham Airport in 2030 will be 72,000 air traffic movements (ATMs) lower than the approx. 350,000 ATMs predicted by the Government in 2003, owing to the trend for 'no-frills' airlines to cram more people into larger planes. The Statement concludes that "the variation between Aviasolutions ATM forecasts and the DfT . . . would suggest that, on operational demand terms, the target date for the proposed second runway could be slightly deferred from the original 2016 date in the White Paper".[2]
Right from the start, BANG has argued that the Government's forecasts of a near trebling in air travel over the next thirty years rested on questionable assumptions about future growth in air travel, and it's likely that we'll see more cases where airports are forced to revise downwards their growth forecasts and put back their major infrastructure projects.
In May, BAA Stansted's managing director Terry Morgan officially confirmed that they could not meet the 2011-2012 government deadline for having a second runway in use. Although the official reason for the delay was that "it is taking longer than we though to get the road and rail infrastructure right", Essex County Council planning spokesman, Councillor Peter Martin, said, "Latest passenger forecasts for Stansted show that even by 2014 the single runway will continue to provide adequate capacity." [3]
References
Aircraft noise and children's learning: the damning evidence mounts
"Schools exposed to high levels of aircraft noise are not healthy educational environments." Prof. Stephen Stansfeld [1]
New research in three separate countries has added to the growing body of evidence that children's education suffers in schools exposed to chronic aircraft noise.
The study by Prof. Stephen Stansfeld and co-workers', published in the clinical science journal The Lancet in June, examined over 2,800 9-10-year-olds attending 89 schools near three major airports in Spain (Madrid Barajas), Holland (Amsterdam Schipol), and the UK (London Heathrow). They recorded aircraft and road traffic noise levels around the schools using noise contour maps, modelling and on-site measurements. Schools were matched within countries for social and economic status. The recorded noise levels were compared with the results of tests and classroom questionnaires designed to assess the children's educational performance and their mental and physical health. Parents were also asked to complete a questionnaire about their social, economic, educational and ethnic backgrounds.
The study concluded that aircraft noise is not only more disturbing than road traffic noise, but has a measurably harmful effect on children's educational performance. Prof. Stansfeld's team found that exposure to chronic aircraft noise impairs children's reading and memory, even after differences in parental backgrounds and varying degrees of classroom noise insulation between schools had been accounted for. The researchers posit a "significant" direct causal relationship, albeit one "small in magnitude", between exposure to aircraft noise and poorer reading comprehension. Crucially, the relationship is 'linear', which means that the greater the noise disturbance, the greater the effect on children's school performance. And although "in practical terms, aircraft noise might have only a small effect on the development of reading", "the effect of long-term exposure remains unknown".[2]
These new findings are supported by over twenty years worth of previous research from the UK, Europe and the USA. In 1982, a US study found that children living near airports had lower reading scores than children living further away from airports.[3] More recently, in 2000-1, a team of researchers at the University of London undertook a series of studies in primary schools around Heathrow Airport, looking at the school performance and health of children in schools exposed to 'high' levels of aircraft noise (aircraft were flying over these schools every 90 seconds in some cases). They found that children chronically exposed to aircraft noise have lower reading ability (some have a reading age six months behind their peers), suffer more annoyance from noise and have poorer long-term memory than children in less noisy schools.[4] The team also showed that the effects recorded in the children could not be explained by other social and environmental factors, such as age, parental education and employment status, household deprivation, school quality, and main language spoken at home.
Complex tasks that involve language skills are more affected by aircraft noise than simple tasks.[5] Furthermore, the effect on children's reading and the annoyance they experience do not 'habituate' over a one-year period and show no strong evidence of 'adaptation'; in other words, the kids don't get used to it.[6]
Vulnerability
What could explain school children's vulnerability
to the effects of aircraft noise? Apart from the obvious distraction of over-flying
planes, Prof. Stansfeld’s team suggest that children 'tune out' unwanted
noise and in the process pay less attention to other sounds, such as the teacher's
voice. For children to be able to hear a teacher clearly, the background noise
in a classroom should be at least 10 decibels lower than the level of the teacher's
voice. For children with hearing loss, a condition more common among poorer
families, background noise at even this level can be a problem. Schools themselves
might be poorly designed for hearing, with noise from ventilation and air-conditioning
units adding to the interference.
The effects of noise on children's general health and well-being could also be a factor. Children attending schools near airports may return to homes located under night-time flight-paths, so disturbed sleep patterns could be a factor. Surveys reveal that populations near airports and exposed to aircraft noise report more disturbed sleep and make greater use over-the-counter sleep medication.
Although Prof. Stansfeld's and other studies do not prove that noise is a significant threat to child health, mental or physical, noise may add to the stress associated with other environmental factors, such as crowding and housing quality, which have a strong bearing on quality of life and well-being. BANG believes that research like this should be undertaken in Birmingham before any major airport expansion goes ahead.
The second runway: will your child's school
be affected?
Back in October 2002, BANG and Solihull
Opposing Additional Runways (SOAR) held a public meeting at Cockshut Hill Technical
School, where SOAR campaigner Len Goodyear illustrated how the second runway
could potentially impact on twenty-two local schools.
Using a map of the area, Len showed that 14 schools would sit either directly under or adjacent to the flight path of the second runway. They are: Valley Road Infant School, Mapledene Junior and Infant School, Stanville Road Junior and Infant School, Elms Farm Junior and Infant School, Sheldon Heath Comprehensive School, Garretts Green Technical College, Cockshut Hill Technical School, Blakenhale Road Junior and Infant School, Whittington Oval Junior and Infant School, Hodge Hill Junior and Infant School, Hodge Hill Girls School, Hodge hill School, Bromford Infants School, Bromford Junior School.
The following schools would sit between both the new flight path the present flight path; Ridpool Junior and Infant School, Hallmoor School, Heathlands Junior and Infant School, Audley Road Junior and Infant School, Tame Valley Junior and Infant School.
The following would be adjacent to the new flight path; Hatchford Brook Junior and Infant School, St. Thomas More Roman Catholic Primary School, Lyndon Green Junior and Infant School.
References
Compensation deal for homeowners goes down like a ton of bricks
Airport operators are required by the Government's 2003 Air Transport White Paper to come up with voluntary (i.e. non-statutory) schemes to deal with the 'generalised blight' suffered by local communities as a result of major airport expansion plans.
In August last year, those homeowners who were deemed eligible for compensation by virtue of their properties' close proximity to the site of Birmingham Airport's would-be second runway, received a consultation document in the post from the airport asking them to choose which of two proposed compensation schemes they preferred.
Under both schemes the airport would offer to buy at the June 2002 market rate (just before the Government's consultation on the future of air transport was published) those properties (615 in all) that fall within the second runway's forecast 'noise contours', but not until 2007 at the earliest and possibly not until 2014.
Given such a circumspect consultation, the job of explaining the proposals to the wider community fell largely to local voluntary organisations. BANG, Solihull Opposing Additional Runways (SOAR) and Save Elmdon Action Group (SEAG), organised a public meeting for the evening of 19th October 2004, at the Ivy Leaf Social Club in Sheldon.
It was clear from the meeting, which attracted several hundred residents, the press, councillors and green campaigners, that BIA had upset a lot of people. How could it be right, they wanted to know, for one resident to receive nothing by way of compensation while a near neighbour could choose to have their house purchased by the airport? How could the discrete noise contours for an as yet non-existent runway serve as a reliable guide to the extent generalised blight today?
A week later, on 27th October, over fifty local campaigners and residents held a demonstration outside the airport's Diamond House building, just as the Airport Consultative Committee (ACC) were arriving for their final meeting of the year. It would be the last chance before the close of the consultation period for us to let the ACC that we expected their support.
BIA declined BANG's invitation to send representatives to the Sheldon meeting. Instead, they set up a Community Compensation Working Group chaired by Peter Rayner, a former senior British Rail operations and safety manager and advisor to the Commons Transport Select Committee. BANG, SOAR, SEAG, Solihull and Birmingham councillors, and several residents associations and parish councils were invited to join the working group and meet with BIA's Head of Corporate affairs John Morris and Finance Director Joe Kelly at Diamond House. The group convened three times before the close on 30th November of the now extended consultation period, and once more in January to clarify and finalise members' submissions.
Some of our supporters asked, since the focus of our campaign appeared to have switched to compensation, whether this meant that the second runway was a foregone conclusion. This is most definitely not the case! BANG remains opposed to the proposed second runway and extension of the existing runway but we believe in taking full advantage of every opportunity to input into the decision-making process.
The draft Master Plan is expected to contain details of the final compensation scheme. It should be a simple, straightforward guarantee to make good any losses incurred by any homeowner who wishes to sell his/her property where the value and habitability of the property has been adversely affected by BIA's plans.
BANG's detailed report to the Compensation Working Group can be viewed on-line here, or you can call James Botham on 0121 632 6909 for a free paper copy.
Disturbed by aircraft noise? REPORT IT!
BANG is concerned that the widespread under-reporting of aircraft noise nuisance by local residents has led Birmingham Airport to underestimate the impact its operations are having on the community.
Many local residents we talk to tell us they are reluctant to register complaints and in some cases have given up contacting the airport altogether, even after they have been disturbed at night by low-flying aircraft (which does still happen despite BIA's stringent night flying policy).
We cannot stress enough that if you are disturbed by aircraft noise then you have a perfect right to complain and to have your complaint taken seriously. Suffering in silence does not help anyone.
How to make a complaint
You must ask for your complaint to be LOGGED. You should receive a full written response within seven working days.
Top Tip: Keep a note book, pen, clock and table lamp by your bedside. That way, if you are woken in the middle of the night (11.30pm-6pm) by a low-flying or off-track plane, you can note down the time and date of the incident (before you go back to sleep and forget!) This will help the airport identify the aircraft that disturbed you.
Public Meeting: "Master, I have a cunning Plan . . ."
Airport operators will soon publish new 'Master Plans' setting out their propsals for the future development of your local airport. These proposals could be extremely damaging to both your community and the environment.
Airport Master Plans are not just pie in the sky; there's a real danger that Master Plans will find their way into statutory planning policy - in other words, the proposals they contain could become LEGALLY BINDING on your local authority. Find out how you and your elected representatives can stop them - come to the public meeting on Monday 10th October.
Part of a season of public speaker evenings at the Birmingham Friends of the Earth Warehouse, Allison Street, Digbeth.
Call James Botham on 0121 632 6909 or e-mail info@birminghamfoe.org.uk for more details. Free entry. All welcome. Vegan/vegetarian refreshments available.