|
Campaigns/Aviation | Become a Golden Supporter |
West Midlands Friends of the Earth Briefing Aug 2002
Spaghetti Junction in the Sky
Mickey Mouse Economics and Corporate Welfare is the real debate on Aviation
West Midlands Friends of the Earth has slammed the proposals for new aviation infrastructure in the region. Instead we should be having a debate about this heavily subsidised industry and the real economic facts behind one of the most heavily polluting sectors on the planet. Why is there no tax on aviation fuel? Why is there no VAT on ticket sales or the sale of aircraft? Why are airfields classed as farms and as such are able to use red diesel for air side ground support vehicles?
This briefing aims to set out why West Midlands Friends of the Earth does not believe we need any aviation expansion in the region at this time. We need to create the correct economic, social, health and environmental criteria into which an aviation industry fits and then see if we need to add to the existing capacity in the region.
The Midlands aviation sector
at the moment
The main airport in the region
is Birmingham International Airport (BIA) situated to the east of the City adjacent
to the West Coast Mainline served by Birmingham International station and in
close proximity to the already heavily congested M42, M40 and M6 motorways.
Currently it takes around 8 million passengers per annum (mppa) and has the
capacity to grow significantly over the next few years. It is, however, geographically
constrained to the west and north by housing, to the south by Green Belt and
the A45 trunk road and to the east by the M42. While carrying the name Birmingham
it is actually located within Solihull Borough, which is therefore the local
planning authority for BIA.
The second major facility is located at Castle Donnington and known as East Midlands Airport (EMA). It has no direct rail connection, at present, and is accessed from the A453 and A42 via the overheating Junction 24 of the M1. Currently it takes » 2.5 mppa but is increasingly being marketed as a "no frills" airport which could lead to an increase in numbers. The airport is currently discussing increasing its terminal capacity within its existing land area. The planning authority is North West Leicestershire District council.
The third facility within the region is Coventry situated to the south of the City with no rail access but on the heavily congested A45 / A46 tollbar end roundabout. There is currently very little passenger traffic but a planning application for a terminal to handle 1 mppa is with Warwick District Council, the planning authority. Its major business is light freight and parcels and currently Parcelforce are centralising a number of their operations on this site.
The fourth facility of note is Halfpenny Green near Bobbington in South Staffordshire, this district council being the planning authority. Recently this has become Wolverhampton Business Airport and has aspirations for daily flights to London City Airport. There are applications with the district council for terminal facilities which although approved may have to go to a public inquiry due to the proposals being counter to the local plan. The airfield is home to general aviation and also long distance balloon storage facilities.
There are also General Aviation facilities at Wellsbourne, near, Stratford upon Avon Warwickshire and Gamston, near, Retford Nottinghamshire and other smaller airfields across the region. In addition to these there are numerous military airfields within the Midlands. RAF Cosford in Shropshire is probably the most prominent but there are a number of closed sites across the region, some noted as car test tracks.
The consultation proposals
The consultation proposals can be
seen at the Department for Transport web site www.aviation.dft.gov.uk/consult/airconsult/index.htm
or by calling 0845 100 5554
The consultation is divided into 7 regional reports, the one specific to the West Midlands is the Midlands report BUT the report for the South East has impacts upon the West Midlands as does to a much lesser extent the one for the North.
The two counties most affected in the Midlands region will be Warwickshire and Leicestershire. The following districts are directly affected, Rugby, Warwick, Nuneaton and Bedworth, Hinckley and Bosworth, Blaby, Harborough and North West Leicestershire. The metropolitan boroughs of Birmingham Coventry and Solihull are directly affected as will be residents in certain districts of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. For contact details for these and or any other council offices please contact the Government Office inquiry lines below or go the links pages on those web sites.
Government Office for the East Midlands
Switchboard: 0115 971 9971
Contact for Aviation Consultation is Dale Oscroft. DOSCROFT.GOEM@go-regions.gsi.gov.uk
or Tel: 0115 971 2638 www.go-em.gov.uk/index.htm#top
Government Office for the West Midlands
Enquiry Line: 0121 212 5050
Freephone No: 0800 038 5000
Contact for Aviation consultation is Yvette Keenahan YKEENAHAN.GOWM@go-regions.gsi.gov.uk
or Tel: 0121 212 5000 www.go-wm.gov.uk/
The West Midlands in the
national context
It has long been acknowledged
that the South East takes more than its fair share of the pain associated with
aviation. This has in part been driven by the industry wanting to have Heathrow
as one of the busiest airports in the world or in aviation parlance an International
Hub. The proximity of London has also worked against the regional airports as
it is argued that everyone wants to go to London!!
Now it is argued that each of the regions should take its share of the pain.
The consultation document is essentially setting region against region and community against community. This has to be resisted and turned around in such a way that we expose the lies behind the aviation industry. We have to debate the economic benefits/drawbacks that arise out of aviation and also expose the hidden and not so hidden public subsidies that are fueling this unprecedented growth in the sector. Then we can have a debate on demand management and reining in an out of control industrial service sector.
The proposals for a new huge airport in Warwickshire are based on the assumptions that there is no expansion of facilities in the South East and that both BIA and Coventry Airport close. They are based on predict and provide policies which in turn are looking backwards to look forwards as opposed to examining how the aviation sector can play its role in a modern economy and face up to its external responsibilities.
The proposals affecting the
West Midlands
In short, the proposals are for new runways at Birmingham and East Midlands
Airport, Castle Donnington.
If Birmingham airport was to remain a single runway airport and therefore reach its capacity sometime in the latter half of the forecasting period, Coventry airport could help to serve some of the demand (both passenger and freight). Other smaller sites within the region might also be able to play a similar role, notably Wolverhampton Business Airport and RAF Cosford.
A detailed appraisal of options for expanding Coventry airport has not been carried out. However, it is likely that the airport could serve the ‘no frills’ and charter markets. Any significant expansion of passenger services from the airport, if a new runway was not built at Birmingham or East Midlands, would require the construction of new passenger facilities. Coventry would also benefit from the overspill of freight traffic from the South East. Coventry airport would reach a maximum throughput of 0.25 million tonnes by 2030 under the SEC scenario. Again this would require the development of new warehousing and associated freight facilities. The expansion of passenger or freight facilities would involve the airport spreading into surrounding land.
A new airport for the Midlands
However, there are also proposals
for a completely new airport serving the Midlands. This would be located in
Warwickshire bounded by the A45 to the South, B4455 Fosse Way to the West and
M6 to the North. The West Coast Mainline runs straight though the site and there
would also be a rail link to the Trent Valley line to the North. The plans are
for a 3 runway airport at Church Lawford, Warwickshire. This airport with a
potential capacity of 63.9 million passengers per annum proves just how out
of control the aviation industry is.
The proposal would effectively destroy two villages; Church Lawford and Kings Newnham as well as several outlying properties and would have adverse ecological impact with the loss of the River Avon Site of Special Scientific Interest for Nature Conservation. The documents say that impacts upon people and the natural and built environment would be substantial. The analysis indicates that a new site would only be economically viable if no, or at most one, new runway was provided at airports in the South East and if Birmingham airport was to close at the point when the new site opened. Therefore appraisal has only been undertaken for the South East Constrained scenario. The idea is that this facility would open in 2011 at the same time Birmingham Airport would close and there would be no additional facilities in the South East. In other words Warwickshire is essentially taking the growth from the South East and West Midlands passengers have to travel to the South East of their region to access an aviation facility.
Reining in the aviation sector
West Midlands Friends of the
Earth think this is pitting community against community and region against region.
This is also creating blight for a significant number of people within the region
not only those whose homes and livelihoods would be flattened but also those
living in proximity to the new facilities. It also creates the done deal of
expansion at Birmingham at all costs to stop Birmingham losing its "world"
status. There is a great danger that while the focus is on Church Lawford eyes
are taken off the plans for Birmingham which also have huge social, health and
environmental implications. Impacts on people and on the natural and built environment
would be very significant.
In the maximum use of the existing runway scenario impacts on people and on the natural and built environment, including ecology, heritage and local air quality, would not be significantly greater than at present. However, exposure to aircraft noise would be significant, with around 80,000 people forecast to live within the 57 dBA* contour (the government and aviation sector accepted noise level at which aircraft noise can cause annoyance to the community). Also, green belt land would be taken for a new terminal facility.
The new close space runway would require the loss of around 450 hectares of green belt land. Around 110 properties would be lost, including the Bickenhill conservation area. This scheme would also cause the loss of both Bickenhill sites of special scientific interest. Around 100 000 people are forecast to live within the 57 dBA* noise contour under this option, around 20,000 more than in the Maximum Use option.
The new wide spaced runway would result in the loss of around 600 hectares of green belt land. Around 150 properties would be lost, including the Bickenhill conservation area. This proposal would take the airport much closer to the settlements of both Catherine de Barnes and Damson Parkway. As with the Close Spaced option, this scheme would also require the loss of both Bickenhill sites of special scientific interest. Noise impacts would be severe, with around 180,000 people forecast to live within the 57 dBA* contour under this option, around 100,000 more than Maximum Use, as there are effectively two separate runway ‘noise footprints’ under this option.
So whatever scenario we are given there are significant impacts for the West Midlands. It is essential that we move the goal posts during this consultation period from accommodating predict and provide growth of the aviation sector to one of demand management and an industry paying its full costs for its damage to society and the wider global environment.
* West Midlands Friends of the Earth agree with the World Health Organisation that a lower level should be used. The WHO use 50dBA and it should be remembered that noise is measured on a logarithmic scale.
Some of the Myths of Aviation
1. "It is good for the economy" or Claimed Economic Benefits
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:
Subsidies 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.
External costs 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).
Tourism deficit There is an £8.6 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. In 2002 this deficit was £15 billion.
2. "It creates jobs"
The studies will 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. In the wider economy however 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. "There is no problem with aircraft noise"
The studies give misleading data on aircraft noise. The effect will be to show far fewer people affected by new airports / 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. "Air pollution is not significant"
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 and particulates (PM). The studies ignore ground level ozone, a key health-threatening airport pollutant. Also, the studies use already relaxed air quality standards.
5. "There is no risk to public safety"
The studies will have misleading conclusions about the risk of more flights overhead.
The studies have not carried out proper assessment of the risks to the public on the ground (third parties) of 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 over-flown. 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. Loss of wildlife and greenfield sites
The studies will downplay losses of key wildlife species and habitats. They will 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!
Conclusions
West Midlands Friends of the
Earth believe that these studies are flawed and that the debate should be about
the economics that prop up one of the most polluting sectors on the planet.
We have to shift the debate from site battles to one of fundamental economics
and how the aviation sector is going to have to grow up and play its role in
a modern economy. We have four months to respond to this consultation. If enough
people challenge the old notion of predict and provide and argue that the aviation
sector should move from being heavily subsidized to a model for sustainable
development; whereby it covers its social, environmental, health and economic
costs then not only will we save hundreds of communities from misery we will
have reigned in a dirty polluting sector of our global and national economy.
What you
can do
West Midlands Friends of the Earth is urging as many people as possible to engage
with this consultation process. This can be done via the web or ringing 0845
100 5554 and ordering a copy of The Future Development of Air Transport in the
United Kingdom: A National Consultation.
Responses should be sent to Department for Transport, Zone 1/28c Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, FREEPOST LON 17806, London SW1P 4YS. Consulation closes at the end of November 2002.
However, we are urging people to engage with this on their own terms and in the short term hold fire on returning the NOP questionnaires. This is because there is a great danger of legitimising some of the growth scenarios as set out in the documents. So we are asking people to respond by letter setting out their concerns on the proposals and the analysis upon which lie behind those proposals.
Chris Crean
West
Midlands Friends of the Earth
The Warehouse,
54-57 Allison Street,
Digbeth,
Birmingham B5 5TH
Tel: 012 1643 9117
Fax: 012 1643 8117
Email: chrisc@foe.co.uk
Website: www.foe.co.uk