Birmingham Airport anti-Noise Group

Issues: Blight Contact us

March 2006

Submission to Birmingham International Airport 'Generalised Blight Schemes Working Group':
BANG's response to the 'Property Valuation Support Scheme', 2005

• Summary of Recommendations
• Background
• 1. Scheme Boundary
• 2. Scheme Commencement and Duration
• 3. Scheme Operation
• 4. Complaints Procedure
• References

Summary of Recommendations

01. BANG welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Airport Company's non-statutory Property Valuation Support Scheme, issued for public consultation along with the draft Master Plan, 'Towards 2030: Planning a sustainable future for air transport in the Midlands', in October 2005. While we acknowledge and welcome the improvements over the previous proposals, BANG maintains that the only way to properly address the Generalised Blight arising from the proposals for a new Second Runway is to 'remove the proposed runway as a factor', by dropping the plans for a new Second Runway from the 'Towards 2030' Master Plan altogether.

02. In the likely event, however, that the adopted Master Plan retains the current proposals for a new Second Runway, we have identified four areas where the Property Valuation Support Scheme could be improved: Scheme Boundary, Scheme Commencement and Duration, Scheme Operation, and Complaints Procedure.

Table 1: Summary of BANG's recommendations

Background

Back to top

03. The Government White Paper, 'The Future of Air Transport' (2003), requires airport operators to address the impact airport expansion proposals may have on local property values in the period before statutory protection is available [2] where new runways are supported by the White Paper, or where land is safeguarded for future development. In the absence of any statutory entitlement to compensation for this impact, known as Generalised Blight, the Government 'accept[s] that people should have access to some form of redress, for example to help them relocate before the development takes place, if they need to do so' [3]. Therefore, to complement the proposals for noise mitigation discussed in Chapter 3 of the White Paper, airport operators are expected to bring forward voluntary (non-statutory) schemes to compensate local property-owners for Generalised Blight. Whilst 'Generalised Blight' has no legal definition, a property will generally be treated as blighted if the landowner has tried to sell it and found that they cannot, except at a price lower than its previous market value [4].

04. Birmingham International Airport Ltd. (BIA) issued 'Master Plan Review: Voluntary Compensation Schemes' for public consultation in the autumn of 2004. Following the conclusion of the Master Plan review consultation process, the Airport Company published 'Toward 2030: Property Valuation Support Scheme' on 31st October 2005, along with the draft Master Plan, 'Towards 2030: Planning a sustainable future for air transport in the Midlands'. The Scheme makes available to homeowners Option Agreements, 'fully transferable to anybody subsequently purchasing the property', and exercisable as from the date, following the granting of Planning Permission for a new Second Runway, that BIA confirms its intention to proceed with construction.

05. Under the Scheme, each eligible property will be assessed by an independent valuer, appointed by BIA, to determine the 'Base Price', defined as property valuation as at June 2002 [5]. Subsequently, the 'Option Price' will be calculated by index-linking the Base Price to Land Registry-published data of house price movements in the Birmingham or Solihull Council areas (depending which Council area the property is located in) for the three months preceding the exercise of the Option Agreement. The Option Agreement will allow eligible homeowners to require BIA to buy their property at the agreed Option Price. In this way, the Scheme aims to 'support the sale of property within the defined boundary, as if the proposed new Second Runway had been removed as factor' [6].

06. The Property Valuation Support Scheme comprises the following elements:

1. Home Value Guarantee (HVG) Scheme, which aims to support residential property owners within the potential new Airport Boundary associated with the proposed new Second Runway;
   
2. Property Value Protection (PVP) Scheme, which aims to support the sale of residential and small commercial properties located within the Scheme Boundary ('the area where properties could be exposed by the new runway to industry recognised levels of noise from the use of the new runway' [7]), as if the proposed new Second Runway had been removed as a factor;
   

07. The PVP Scheme comprises:

• The 69LAeq 'Option' element, open to residential and small commercial properties within the forecast 69dBLAeq noise contour for the new Second Runway;
  
• The 66LAeq 'Option' element, open to residential and small commercial properties within the forecast 66dBLAeq noise contour for the new Second Runway;
• Assisted Relocation Scheme, for PVP Scheme Option Agreement-holders with properties within the 69dBLAeq contour who 'would wish to sell their property, but can only do so at a price that is 15% or more below the Base Price index-linked' [8]. BIA will purchase the property at its Option Price on the condition that the Option Agreement is surrendered;
• Early Mover Scheme, for PVP Scheme Option Agreement-holders with properties within the 69dBLAeq contour who 'do not qualify for Assisted Relocation because they can sell their property for a price that is within 15% of the Base Price index-linked'. BIA will pay a contribution of 1 per cent of the selling price and pay Stamp Duty Land Tax up to a maximum of 5 per cent of the selling price [9];
  
• Properties built and occupied post January 2003, for 'those with an Owner's Interest of residential properties completed and first occupied since 1st January 2003' [10].

1. Scheme Boundary

Back to top

08. In the case of the Home Value Guarantee Scheme, eligibility is determined unambiguously by the location of a property within the potential new Airport Boundary associated with the proposed new Second Runway. The Property Value Protection Scheme Boundary, defined by the forecast 66dBLAeq (decibel 'A'-weighted equivalent continuous sound level) contour for the proposed new runway in the year after it opens, is more problematic, mainly because it ignores the evidence for the existence of Generalised Blight in the areas beyond the 66dBLAeq contour. In an e-mail exchange with the Department for Transport (DfT) Airports Policy Division in 2005, the Director of British Airports Authority (BAA) Stansted's 'Generation 2 Project' commented that 'there appears to be some evidence at present of generalised blight over an area wider than the 66leq [sic] contour (especially for the more expensive properties)' [11]. Local press coverage during the Master Plan Review and Draft Master Plan public consultations has brought to light anecdotal evidence of similar cases in Birmingham [12].

09. The Sustainable Development Commission has pointed to clear evidence of welfare loss among communities within the 57dBLAeq noise contour [13], areas exposed to levels of daytime noise which, as acknowledged by the Government, approximate to the 'onset of significant community annoyance' [14]. Similarly, the DfT's 'The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: Midlands' states that the population 63dBLAeq contour should also be considered 'since this level of exposure is often used as the measure of exposure which merits mitigation measures, such as compensation or installation of sound insulation' [15]. The White Paper requires airport operators to extend 'noise mitigation', in the form of 'funds for insulation of other noise-sensitive premises' and 'noise insulation works to homes', to properties within the 63dBALeq contour [16]. In light of these statements, we can see little justification (other than financial expediency) for not adopting the 63dBLAeq contour, or even the 57dBLAeq contour, as the PVP Scheme Boundary.

10. The PVS Scheme document states that 'The 66 LAeq contour has been selected as the outer boundary for the Scheme - based on benchmarking with the discretionary purchase schemes promoted by the Highways Agency and Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Union Railways), and BAA Stansted's Home Owner Support Scheme' [17]. BAA Stansted and BAA Edinburgh both cite the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Scheme in the same context [18], and the White Paper suggests airport operators base their non-statutory blight schemes on 'those used in connection with the construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link' [19]. However, it is inappropriate to equate aircraft noise with road and/or rail noise, for two principle reasons. First, a considerable body of well-documented evidence suggests that people find aircraft noise more annoying than the same level of road or rail noise. For instance, the 2002 European Communities' paper 'Position Paper on Dose Response Relationships Between Transportation Noise and Annoyance', which summarises the findings of multiple research projects, concludes that the percentages of people who report being 'annoyed' and 'highly annoyed' at 65dBALden [20]are both greater for aircraft noise than in the case of either road or rail traffic noise: 48 per cent of people were annoyed and 26 per cent highly annoyed by aircraft noise compared to 23 per cent annoyed and 9 per cent highly annoyed at the same level of rail noise.

11. Secondly, because the Leq model assumes a straight approach by all aircraft, it does not account for the split mode of operation characteristic of airport runway activity [22]. The direction of incoming and departing aircraft movements is dependent on the prevailing wind direction, but a single contour combining Leq figures for both north-westerly and south-easterly operations will fail to reflect the actual disturbance suffered by a particular area on the days when that area is being over-flown. No such modal split operates in the case of the road or rail traffic and hence the level of noise experienced in a particular area is relatively constant from day to day.

12. The fact that decibel 'A'-weighted equivalent continuous sound level (despite being the universally recognised metric of noise dosage for near-continuous sound over a given time period) fails to take account of a number of other characteristics of airport operations, such as the discrete, non-continuous nature of aircraft noise events and their large low-frequency (200Hz-20Hz) component [23], means that airport operators should not rely on non-statutory blight schemes designed for road and rail developments to guide the design of comparable schemes for airport development. Moreover, noise is by no means the only potential environmental impact associated with airport expansion that may have a bearing on the local property market. Potential buyers may also take account of other potential impacts, such as deterioration in air quality or increased surface traffic volumes.

13. BANG recognises that, in the absence of a tried and tested alternative, the adopted PVP Scheme will most likely retain a Scheme Boundary based on forecast Leq contours. However, the adopted Scheme must be flexible enough to allow for the fact that, as BAA Stansted has admitted, forecast Leq contours 'can be no more than a proxy for where generalised blight might exist' [24]. We welcome BIA's recognition of the fact that 'some areas around [the Airport] are very densely populated, and that any prescribed boundary line might cut through properties'; the adjustment of the Boundary 'to follow a clear physical feature - such as the centreline of a road or alleyway' [25] and include properties or parts of properties bisected by the noise contour is also welcome. Nevertheless, as BIA's 2004-5 Master Plan Review and 2005-6 Draft Master Plan consultations have revealed, the issue of the Scheme Boundary is one of the most contentious issues for local people, and is likely to remain so, particularly for those 'properties that fall outside the boundary when near neighbours are within it' [26].

14. With these concerns in mind, BANG recommends that the PVP Scheme include an additional element designed to deal with so-called 'Special Cases', homeowners with blighted properties outside the designated 66dBLAeq contour. As a precedent, BIA could look to the 'Special Cases Scheme' launched by BAA Stansted in November 2004. BAA's Special Cases Scheme is 'targeted at those living close to the proposed expanded boundary of the airport, but who are outside the defined boundary' of BAA's Home Owner Support Scheme. To qualify, 'applicants must demonstrate that a severe medical condition, such as a chronic or degenerative disease, makes it necessary for them to move at the earliest opportunity, and they find it difficult to sell their home in the time required'. The Scheme has no defined boundary, as 'as each case will be considered on its own merits', but applicants are required to provide medical evidence as well as 'evidence that the owner has not been able to sell their property at an unaffected value' [27].

15. The Special Cases Scheme should not be exclusively restricted to homeowners with a severe medical condition but should be open to any homeowner with a property within the 57 or 63dBALeq contours [28] who can provide evidence that they have not been able to sell their property at an unaffected value (for instance, after actively marketing the property through a recognised local estate agent for a period of 3-6 months). Homeowners with properties situated very close to the 66dBALeq contour should be able to 'graduate' to the other PVP Scheme elements, such as the Assisted Relocation and Early Mover Schemes, where the Airport Company or independent Commissioner (see below) decides they have a strong enough claim.

16. The addition of a Special Cases Scheme would further complicate the PVP Scheme but this problem could be addressed by adopting a clear, 'three-zone' system, based on the 'Birmingham International Airport Year 2017 Average Summer Day Forecast 16 Hr Leq Contours' map [29]. This map shows the forecast 57, 63, 66 and 69dBLAeq contours (produced by the Environmental Research Consultancy Division of the Civil Aviation Authority), for both the extended Main Runway and the new Second Runway in its first year of operation, superimposed on an Ordnance Survey map of south-east Birmingham and north Solihull. The overall 'noise footprint' could be divided into: Zone 1, corresponding to the area within the potential new Airport Boundary associated with the proposed new Second Runway; Zone 2, corresponding to the area covered by the 2017 66dBALeq and 69dBLAeq contours; and Zone 3, corresponding to the area between the 2017 57dBALeq and 66dBALeq contours. The structure of a potential PVS Scheme based on the 'three-zone' approach is summarised in Table 2 (p6).

17. By adopting the forecast Leq contours for both the new Second Runway and the extension to the existing Main Runway, the PVP Scheme covers the White Paper's proposals for BIA's expansion in their entirety. This would be more in line with Government policy than a Scheme which only considered the impact of the new Second Runway. The White Paper (Summary) states that airport operators' schemes to deal with Generalised Blight 'will apply in all cases involving a new runway or safeguarding of land for airport development proposed in the White Paper' [30]. The regulatory impact assessment for the White Paper states, 'The Government has concluded that measures are needed to deal with the problem of generalised blight arising from developments favoured in the White Paper' [31], which includes the proposed extension to BIA's Main Runway. The recently published BIA draft Master Plan is 'based around an extension to the main runway and the preferred option for a new second runway, as set out in the White Paper' [32].

18. We accept that the Airport Company may reject this line of argument on the grounds that the proposal for an extension of the Main Runway has been sufficiently well defined for the expected land requirements to be identified on a plan and safeguarded from development, and as such that the proposal is no longer a source of Generalised Blight. If this remains the position of the Airport Company, we ask that our recommendations be considered for the new Second Runway only, i.e. the three-zone system adopting the 2017 57dBALeq contour for the new Second Runway as the outer boundary of Zone 3.

Table 2: Summary of the 'three-zone' system

2. Scheme Commencement and Duration

Back to top

19. In the White Paper, the Government acknowledged that airport-related blight materialised as soon as any major expansion proposals became public knowledge, i.e. from July 2002, immediately following the publication of the DfT's 'Consultation on the Future of Air Transport in the United Kingdom'. For BIA's PVS Scheme to effectively address Generalised Blight, therefore, the Scheme must cover the entire period from July 2002 to when ever statutory protection becomes available.

Scheme Commencement
20. Under the PVP Scheme homeowners will be 'able to apply for an Option Agreement from the date on which BIA's adopted Master Plan is formally incorporated by Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council into its Local Development Framework Plan' [33], which the Airport Company anticipates will be in 2009. This would effectively leave the period 2006-9 or later uncovered by the Scheme. It can hardly help to reduce uncertainty in the local community and property market if homeowners are required to wait up to three years before they can apply for Option Agreements. Presumably, if applications will not be checked by the Airport Company before this date, homeowners may have to wait three years for confirmation that they even qualify under the Scheme. Therefore, we ask that BIA accept homeowners' applications as soon as the adopted version of the PVS Scheme is published, 'at the same time as the BIA adopted Master Plan is published' [34], later this year, as is already proposed for the Home Value Guarantee Scheme, under which homeowners 'will be able to apply at any time from the date on which BIA publishes its adopted Master Plan that includes proposals for a new Second Runway' [35].

Scheme Commencement for Claims
21. In its current form, the Scheme states that Option Agreements will not be exercisable until, following the granting of Planning Permission for the new Second Runway, 'BIA formally confirms that it intends to proceed with its construction' [36], expected in 2017. However, the forecasts for air traffic growth in the White Paper were revised during last year's Master Plan Review process, and on the basis of the forecasts in the draft Master Plan the new Second Runway would not be needed until 2020 [37], potentially delaying the Scheme commencement for claims and prolonging uncertainty in the community. We therefore propose that the Option Agreements be made exercisable from the date that the adopted version of the PVS Scheme is published, i.e. from the date of publication of the adopted Master Plan.

Scheme Duration and Closure
22. In the case of the Home Value Guarantee Scheme, it is reasonable to propose to allow applications 'until BIA is granted Planning Permission' [38] for the new Second Runway, as the statutory provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) will apply if or when Planning Permission is received. The PVP Scheme on the other hand is intended to 'close at 0100 hours on the day that the new runway is first open for use', from which date 'no further Option Agreements would be exercisable' [39]. While it is true that 'under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, those affected by future airport development can claim compensation for loss in the value of their property directly attributable to the operation of the development', this does not apply until twelve months after the development is brought into operation 'as there is a need to assess objectively the impacts of the development, both negative and positive' [40]. We propose therefore that the Scheme should remain open for at least twelve months after the date of opening of the new Second Runway.

Commencement of Statutory Provision
23. BIA must be careful not to give homeowners the impression that the 1973 Land Compensation Act offers the same provisions as the Airport Company's voluntary Scheme. Where the Land Compensation Act is referred to, such as Section 2.2.2, Evaluation of Applications, which mentions that homeowners whose applications are turned down by BIA may still be entitled to make a claim under the Act, or subsequent legislation, should the proposed new Second Runway open, the Scheme document should make clear that the Land Compensation Act (a) only applies twelve months after the runway opens, (b) only covers the noise from aircraft 'using' the runway, i.e. not from aircraft in flight, and (c) does not apply at all in the event that BIA decided not to proceed with construction of a second runway.

3. Scheme Operation

Back to top

'Qualifying Interest'
24. We welcome the replacement of the June 2002 'Base Date for Qualification' with the requirement that homeowners within the Scheme Boundary, in order to have a 'Qualifying Interest' in the property, 'should have held the Owner's Interest at 1st January 2003' [41]. It is assumed that from this date estate agents' searches will have picked up the prospect of a major airport expansion. Ideally, however, the requirement should be that homeowners have held the Owner's Interest prior to the granting of Planning Permission for the new Second Runway. Alternatively, the requirement should be adjusted to reflect the fact that the Government's White Paper was not published until December 2003, i.e. the requirement should be that the homeowner should have held the Owner's Interest at 1st January 2004.

Early Mover Scheme and Assisted Relocation Scheme
25. BANG previously recommended that BIA include an Scheme element equivalent to BAA Stansted's 'Early Moving Contribution', to help those homeowners who are able to sell their properties within 15 per cent of the index-linked option price [42]. We therefore welcome the new 'Assisted Relocation Scheme' and 'Early Mover Scheme', although we would like to see these elements made available to all PVP Scheme Option Agreement-holders, not just those within the 69dBLAeq contour.

26. We note also that the Assisted Relocation and Early Mover Schemes require Option Agreement-holders demonstrate a 'Pressing Reason to Move' (retained from the previous proposals [43]). Although we welcome the addition of a caveat to the effect that the list of 'pressing reasons' to move (including 'employment reasons', 'external financial pressures', 'a medical condition' or the need 'to accommodate a growing family') is not intended to be comprehensive and that BIA will consider all applications from homeowners meeting the other criteria for eligibility, we still regard this condition as unacceptable. The decision to move house is not usually taken lightly, and BIA should not discriminate between what the Company regards as a 'pressing need' to move and any other reasons the applicant may have, which may be just as 'pressing' for that individual. Therefore, we recommend that this condition be either dropped from the Scheme or qualified to the effect that applications will not be rejected on the sole grounds that the applicant's definition of a pressing reason to move differs from that of the Airport Company.

Relocation expenses
27. The PVP Scheme should cover reasonable [44] relocation expenses, in line with the list of qualifying payments defined in the Land Compensation Act. We welcome the Airport Company's commitment under the Early Mover Scheme 'to pay a contribution towards selling costs of 1% of the selling price, plus the equivalent of the Stamp Duty Land Tax payable on the house being sold, up to an overall maximum of 5% of the sale price' [45]. This is certainly an improvement over the previous version of the Scheme, which stated, 'No cost associated with removal, including legal fees, stamp duty, estate agents fees or any other costs would be paid' [46].

28. In the case of the Home Value Guarantee Scheme, BIA should consider adopting some of BAA Edinburgh's proposals to offer, in addition to the unblighted price for the property (payable to the homeowner when they redeem their Bond), 'reasonable disturbance costs linked to the move', including, for example, 'removals, utilities connections, and redirecting your post for three months', plus 'once BAA Edinburgh is granted planning permission' for its second runway, an extra 'voluntary home loss payment' of 10 per cent of the value of the property [47]. A similar payment to cover 'disturbance costs' should be considered as one of the relocation expenses offered under the PVP Scheme also.

Rented and investor-owned properties, beneficiaries under wills, and 'stayers'
29. BANG previously recommended that BIA include provision for both rented and investor-owned properties. The combination of owner-occupants and investors is a major factor in keeping any market buoyant and thus property values competitive. We therefore welcome the extension of the Scheme to cover 'investor-owners', who rent out the property on a short lease or tenancy, 'provided the property is within the Scheme Boundary and the four requirements for a Qualifying Interest are met (and only one Qualifying Interest exists)' [48]. The extension of the Scheme to cover beneficiaries under wills is also welcome. However, we note that there is still no provision for 'stayers', residents outside the potential revised Airport Boundary who may wish to remain in their present abodes.

4. Complaints Procedure

Back to top

30. BANG previously suggested that it would boost public confidence in the Scheme if an independent body were to be given responsibility for administering the Scheme, or if there was at least scope for appeal to an independent body. We therefore welcome the proposal to appoint an independent Commissioner, defined as 'a figure of standing in the community' [49] to review complaints made by homeowners.

31. However, the Commissioner will only be responsible for determining: (a) 'whether the Scheme rules have been applied in a fair and consistent manner', (b) 'whether BIA has responded to queries and complaints in a timely manner', and (c) 'whether BIA has given sufficient attention to individual cases, enquiries and complaints'. The Commissioner will not be responsible for 'resolving any issues regarding eligibility for the Scheme'; thus what has already proved to be one of the most contentious issues locally 'will be the responsibility of BIA'. This is unacceptable. There must be independent scrutiny of this crucial area of the complaints procedure. Residents who may have grounds for qualifying as 'Special Cases' should have recourse to independent evaluation of their claims.

James Botham
Secretary
Birmingham Airport anti-Noise Group (BANG), March 2006

References

Back to top

1. We have endeavoured, as requested by the Airport Company, to prioritise our recommendations in a way that reflects the major concerns of the bulk of BANG's supporters. For example, we regard the Scheme Boundary as the area most in need of revision and the inclusion of a Special Cases Scheme as the most important amendment in this area.
2. HM Department for Transport White Paper, 'The Future of Air Transport', 16th December 2003, para.12.16.
3. Ibid., para.11.41.
4. Winkworth & Sherwood Solicitors and Parliamentary Agents, 'Briefing: compulsory purchase and compensation', October 2003, p5.
5. BIA Ltd., 'Towards 2030: Property Valuation Support Scheme', October 2005, Appendix E: Glossary, p27.
6. Ibid., section 2.1.1, p4.
7. Ibid., section 2.1.2, p4.
8. Ibid., section 3.1, p10.
9. Ibid., section 4.1, p12.
10. Ibid., section 5.1, p14.
11. HM Department for Transport, 'E-mail correspondence between BAA and DfT regarding Stansted Home Owners Support Scheme', published 11th May 2005. See www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_foi/documents/page/dft_foi_037721.pdf.
12. Examples include: Caroline Spelman MP, 'Time for Master Plan responses', Solihull News, 17th March 2006; 'Environmental fears over new runway', Birmingham Post, 21st January 2006; 'Money going down the pan', Solihull Times, 30th November 2005; 'Families snub air noise payouts', Birmingham Evening Mail, 20th October, 2004; 'Residents reject airport compensation', Birmingham Post, 20th October 2004; and 'Families could miss out on airport payouts', Birmingham Post, 2nd August 2004.
13. Sustainable Development Commission, 'Aviation and the Environment, using economic instruments', July 2003, p16.
14. HM Department for Transport White Paper, 'The Future of Air Transport', 16th December 2003, p34.
15. HM Department for Transport, 'The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: Midlands (full report)', July 2002, para.7.6.11. See www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/page/dft_aviation_507676.hcsp.
16. HM Department for Transport, 'Regulatory Impact Assessment, The Future of Air Transport - White Paper', 1st October 2004, para.78. See www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/page/dft_aviation_031559.pdf.
17. BIA Ltd., 'Towards 2030: Property Valuation Protection Scheme', October 2005, Appendix B: A Definition of LAeq, p23.
18. BAA Stansted's September 2004 'Home Owner Support Scheme' document states (p11),: 'we have decided to retain the 66 Leq noise contour to define the boundary of the scheme . . . This is comparable to the boundary of other voluntary schemes such as CTRL's and we have no better basis for judging the possible area over which generalised blight might apply in the medium to longer term'. BAA Edinburgh's July 2005 'Home Owner Support Scheme' document states (p4): '66 decibels [sic] is the threshold which other developers have used in recent years for their voluntary blight schemes (such as for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link). We believe that this is a reasonable threshold and we do not therefore intend to lower it'. See www.edinburghairport.com/assets/B2CPortal/Static%20Files/EDI_Home_Owner_Support_Scheme.pdf.
19. HM Department for Transport White Paper, 'The Future of Air Transport', 16th December 2003, para.12.17.
20. Lden is sufficiently equivalent to Leq for the purposes of this comparison.
21. European Communities, 'Position Paper on Dose Response Relationships between Transportation Noise and Annoyance' February 2002, Table 1, p4. See http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/noise/noise_expert_network.pdf.
22. Richard Hendin, 'The Quiet Con: 'A' weighted Leqs as the index of aircraft noise annoyance', HACAN Clearskies, October 2003, p6.
23. Ibid., pp11-14.
24. BAA Stansted, 'Home Owner Support Scheme', September 2004, p10.
25. BIA Ltd., 'Towards 2030: Property Valuation Support Scheme', October 2005, section 2.1.2, p5.
26. Ibid.; BIA Ltd., 'Master Plan Review: Voluntary Compensation Schemes', August 2004, p4.
27. BAA Stansted, 'BAA Considers Special Cases', press release, 2nd November 2004. See also BAA Stansted, 'Special Cases Scheme Guidelines', October 2004, www.stanstedairport.com/assets/B2CPortal/Static%20Files/special_cases_final_scheme.pdf.
28. Ideally, the Airport Company should commit to assessing any application it receives, even from homeowners outside the 57dBLAeq. As Leq contours can be no more than a proxy for Generalised Blight, applications should not be rejected on the sole grounds that the property in question lies outside the Scheme Boundary, not if the homeowner fulfils all the other requirements for eligibilty (chief of which should the evidence that they have not been able to sell their property at an unaffected value).
29. BIA Ltd., 'Birmingham International Airport Year 2017 Average Summer Day Forecast 16 Hr Leq Contours 2km Wide Spaced Second Runway Option - Sensitivity Test (CH3 - 14dB & Type Re-assignment) Modal Split 55% NW / 45% SE'.
30. HM Department for Transport, 'The Future of Air Transport - Summary', 16th December 2003, italics added. See www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/page/dft_aviation_031518.hcsp.
31. HM Department for Transport, 'Regulatory Impact Assessment, The Future of Air Transport - White Paper', 1st October 2004, para.77, italics added. See www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/page/dft_aviation_031559.pdf.
32. BIA Ltd. draft Master Plan, 'Towards 2030: Planning a sustainable future for air transport in the Midlands', October 2005, para.4.9, italics added.
33. BIA Ltd., 'Towards 2030: Property Valuation Protection Scheme', October 2005, section 2.1.6, p7.
34. Ibid., section 2.2.1, p8.
35. Ibid., section 6.6, p17.
36. Ibid., section 2.1.6, p7 and section 2.2.6, p9.
37. BIA Ltd. draft Master Plan, 'Towards 2030: Planning a sustainable future for air transport in the Midlands', October 2005, para.7.2.27.
38. BIA Ltd., 'Towards 2030: Property Valuation Protection Scheme', October 2005, section 6.6, p17.
39. Ibid., section 2.1.6, p7.
40. HM Department for Transport, 'BAA Home Owner Support Scheme (HOSS)' (letter from DfT to BAA Stansted), 4th May 2005, para.1.1. See www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_foi/documents/page/dft_foi_037711.pdf.
41. BIA Ltd., 'Towards 2030: Property Valuation Protection Scheme', October 2005, section 2.1.4, p7.
42. BAA Stansted, 'Home Owner Support Scheme', September 2004, p21.
43. Birmingham International Airport Ltd., 'Master Plan Review: Voluntary Compensation Schemes', August 2004, pp7-8.
44. Given the non-statutory nature of the PVS Scheme, BIA will have to determine what constitutes 'reasonable' in this context and 'hope that common sense will prevail on both sides, to ensure those homeowners who do move are properly reimbursed for the normal expenses associated with that move' (BAA Edinburgh, 'Property Market Support Bond', July 2005, p11. See www.edinburghairport.com/assets/B2CPortal/Static%20Files/EDI_Property_Market_Support_Bond.pdf.
45. BIA Ltd., 'Towards 2030: Property Valuation Protection Scheme', October 2005, section 4.1, p12.
46. BIA Ltd., 'Master Plan Review: Voluntary Compensation Schemes', August 2004, p10.
47. BAA Edinburgh, 'Property Market Support Bond', July 2005, p9.
48. BIA Ltd., 'Towards 2030: Property Valuation Protection Scheme', October 2005, section 2.1.5, p7.
49. Ibid., section 8.1, p21.