White-wash

Birmingham Airport anti-Noise Group

Thursday, 14th December 2006

White-wash: Government report commends airport but residents' concerns ignored, says BANG

The Government has today (Thursday 14th December) published 'The Future of Air Transport Progress Report', a thirty-five page document that reviews the progress made to date in implementing the policies and proposals set out in the Department for Transport White Paper, 'The Future of Air Transport'. [1] The White Paper, published in December 2003, recommended the construction of a runway extension and a new Second Runway at Birmingham International Airport (BIA).

The Progress Report praises BIA for the airport company's work on waste management, wildlife conservation, 'corporate social responsibility', and property blight compensation. But Birmingham Airport anti-Noise Group (BANG), a residents group which opposes the expansion of BIA, said the report had ignored the concerns of local people, in particular over the impact of the Second Runway proposals on the local property market.

The White Paper required airport operators to produce non-statutory schemes to compensate local residents for the effect of airport expansion proposals on property values in the period before statutory protection becomes available, an effect known as 'generalised' blight. The Progress Report cites the publication of Birmingham and BAA Stansted airports' draft property blight compensation schemes as a 'key achievement' of the last three years. In fact, the Report encourages other airport operators to follow Birmingham and Stansted's example when drawing up their own blight compensation proposals. [2]

However, BIA's Property Valuation Support Scheme has been panned by both Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council and the Generalised Blight Schemes Working Group set up by BIA as part of its public consultation on the proposals. The scheme was also unanimously rejected by several hundred residents at three separate public meeting in Birmingham and Solihull last year. [3]

Secretary of BANG James Botham said:

"This 'progress report' has ignored the concerns of residents whose properties are blighted by the Second Runway proposals. The Government assumes that BIA's draft compensation scheme covers all the affected properties but this is just not the case. To be eligible under the scheme, a property must be situated within a scheme boundary corresponding to the forecast 'noise contours' for the Second Runway. But forecast noise contours tell us precisely nothing about how the plans for a Second Runway are affecting the local property market in the here and now. Most of the properties in Catherine-de-Barnes, Solihull, for example, the area most severely blighted according to local estate agents, are completely excluded from BIA's scheme, their owners denied the even the offer of the compensation which should rightfully be theirs." [4]

Mr Botham added:

"What's more, by its uncritical acceptance of these flawed compensation schemes the Government has ensured that the same mistakes will be repeated in community after community up and down Britain, as other airport operators are highly unlikely to deviate from the precedent set by Stansted and Birmingham when they come to design their own blight compensation proposals, now that that precedent has received the seal of government approval."

The Report mentions that 'in response to the concern raised during the consultation exercises on both the master plan and blight proposals, Birmingham
International] airport has recently announced its intention to revise the blight scheme and implement it following publication of the final master plan in 2007'.[5] However, a letter from BIA managing director Richard Heard to members of the Generalised Blight Schemes Working Group earlier this month revealed that the (two) revisions being considered, while they would improve the Scheme for those already covered by it, will not help those residents with legitimate claims but who are not covered by the scheme in its current form.

Editor's Notes

[1] HM Department for Transport, 'The Future of Air Transport Progress Report', December 2006. See www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/pdf/dft_aviation_pdf_613840.pdf.

[2] 'The Future of Air Transport Progress Report', December 2006, p15 and p18.

[3] BIA published the second draft of its proposed property blight compensation package last October as a supporting document to the draft Master Plan, 'Towards
2030: Planning a Sustainable Future for Air Transport in the Midlands'. Under the Property Valuation Support Scheme, as it is now known, BIA will offer to purchase eligible properties, at an agreed price, from the date that, following the granting of Planning Permission, BIA confirms its intention to proceed with constructing the Second Runway. The Scheme was modelled closely on BAA Stansted's draft Home Owner Support Scheme, published September 2004 and the first such scheme of its kind.

BIA's Scheme was examined and approved by the Council of Mortgage Lenders, as well as BIA's lawyers and relationship banks (Lloyds TSB and Royal Bank of
Scotland) before being incorporated into the draft Master Plan. However, the Scheme was far from well received in the community, as was clear from the two
public meetings organised by the airport company to promote the draft Master Plan in November 2005 (a third public meeting, organised by residents themselves, was held in February), where local residents expressed their anger at, among other things, the arbitrary way in which BIA had determined who would and who would not be entitled to compensation.

At a meeting of Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council's Regeneration and Community Safety Scrutiny Board on 20th January 2006 BIA was asked to note the
'continuing inadequacy' of its compensation proposals; the 'Blight Schemes Working Group', a consultative committee set up by BIA and made up of local councillors, MPs, and representatives of local community groups, including BANG, also roundly rejected the scheme.

[4] The Progress Report states that Birmingham has 'the second largest blight scheme of all UK airports after Heathrow, with over 500 properties affected', all
of which, it later says, are covered by the scheme. However, in January 2006 BIA approached local estate agents and solicitors with an invitation to meet with the
airport management and discuss the Property Valuation Support Scheme. At the last of these meetings, held in March at BIA's Diamond House, nine estate agents
(representing six firms covering Balsall Common, Knowle, Sheldon, Yardley and Castle Bromwich) told BIA Finance Director Joe Kelly and consultant David Dudley that not only did the Scheme fail to address blight overall but that it also excluded some of the worst affected areas.

One local estate agent approached by BANG (but who requested anonymity) in May told us that he could categorise the village settlements to the south of the
airport by the degree of difficulty experienced by the property market in those areas. For example, homeowners in Eastcote and Barston can expect to lose 10-15
per cent off the sale price of a typical property as a direct result of the Second Runway proposal; in Balsall Common, Hampton-in-Arden, Knowle (airport
side) and Meriden the figure is 5-10 per cent. In Catherine-de-Barnes, the worst affected area according to our source, the asking price of a typical residential
property can be depressed by 12-18 per cent, equivalent to £48,000-£72,000, as a direct result of the Second Runway proposal, yet only three properties in
Catherine-de-Barnes fall within the scheme boundary.

BANG recommended to Joe Kelly in March that the scheme should be amended to reflect the estate agents' professional judgement of the extent and severity of
blight, but it seems unlikely that this will happen. At this stage, the most effective way to for BIA to remove the blight it has created would be to drop the
Second Runway proposal from the adopted Master Plan, due to be published next summer.

[5] 'The Future of Air Transport Progress Report', December 2006, p18.

BANG! Home