Action Briefing Feb 2004-Mar 2004
	The Newsletter of Birmingham Friends of the Earth

West Midlands News

Aviation White Paper

The region is still digesting the Department for Transport's Aviation White Paper, which was finally published on December 17th 2003.

The high point: plans for a new airport in Warwickshire were scrapped. Not only was a very successful campaign waged by the local communities but also, people and communities who would never previously have had to think about the nightmare of unconstrained aviation expansion were forced to face the prospect of living under or next door to an airport.

The low points: the go ahead for a second runway at Birmingham International plus support for extending the existing runway and terminal developments. In addition, Coventry Airport announced an awful deal with newly-formed Thomsonfly to offer cheap flights despite not even having a terminal building or enough car parking.

The first month of 2004 saw huge protests against the Coventry proposals and associated goings on at the site. A massive campaign has started to take the airport to task, placing the operators on the back foot. The application for a terminal building has been shifted from 6th January to 10th March and the local planning authority, Warwick District, are investigating on-going work at the airport.

There have been a number of public meetings to explain to local residents just what Coventry Airport have planned. These have been vocal affairs with the airport coming out very badly in terms of stating their case and attitude to the public. They have also courted controversy in dealing with nearby woodlands where they are “lopping” the tops of a number of trees which are in the way of the flight paths. This seems to be an emerging trend among airport across the region, with trees and habitats being seen as obstacles to aircraft movements. Andrew Thompson from Warwickshire wildlife trust said recently: “We have already had experience of Birmingham Airport not only stopping the creation of wetlands but also seeking the drainage of a small area of wet grassland, more than four miles from the airport. A similar approach at Coventry would be devastating to Warwickshire’s wildlife.” Only last year the operators of Wolverhampton airfield were accused of environmental vandalism when they took out numerous mature trees from the vicinity of their operations.

The two Birmingham campaigns, BANG and SOAR, have held public meetings but a setback occurred in January when the local planning authority, Solihull MBC, decided not to proceed with a judicial review, owing to the high costs involved. The idea had been to challenge the consultation on the grounds that the second runway plans put forward by the airport and favoured by Government were not part of the original consultation.

We will be keeping our ears to the ground and tracking any possible developments at Wolverhampton Airport (Halfpenny Green). Wolverhampton is in a similar situation as Coventry in that it is down to the local planning bodies to manage, constrain or accommodate growth, not the Government.

We have also been using the White Paper as a vehicle to track the progress of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill through both Houses of Parliament. We are campaigning for greater participation in the formulation of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) and are aiming to ensure that the White Paper does not over-ride both the RSS, or indeed the local plan which, in the case of BIA, is Solihull’s Unitary Development Plan.

Chris Crean