Action Briefing Oct 2004 - Nov 2004
	The Newsletter of Birmingham Friends of the Earth

West Midlands News

BIA feeling the heat

Birmingham Airport have stirred up a right old hornets' nest of controversy over the vexed issue of who will be offered compensation and in what form when, or more likely if, the proposed second runway goes ahead.

BIA's management have put two draft voluntary (non-statutory) compensation packages on the table for those residents whose properties they think would suffer the most noise from the second runway. The proposals were drawn up in response to last year's Air Transport White Paper, in which the Government acknowledged the 'generalised blight' its recommendations for airport expansion would inflict on residential and business properties and called upon the airports to get moving on voluntary schemes to address the problem.

Launched
BIA's consultation process was launched in June and the deadline extended to the end of November in response to public pressure for more time to consider the options.

Once you've gotten your head around how the Airport has been able to determine 66dB(A)Leq and 69dB(A)Leq noise contours for a non-existent runway of as-yet undetermined length, width and location, the next thing that strikes you is just how few properties eligible - only 615 in total under both schemes. On the map the 66dB(A)Leq and 69dB(A)Leq comprise two elongated, roughly elliptical, concentric bands running southeast to northwest, the 69dB(A) being the smaller of the two. The choice of these figures and the unit - decibel 'A'-weighted equivalent continuous sound level or dB(A)Leq - is significant. In its deliberations with the industry, the Department for Transport decided that airport operators should start compensating at 66dB(A)Leq, rather than at 57dB(A)Leq, the noise level acknowledged by Government as representing the 'onset of community annoyance'. What's more, the choice of the 'A' weighting to measure aircraft noise has been heavily criticised by Heathrow campaigners HACAN Clearskies for not taking account of the lower frequency noise characteristic of aircraft in flight. And because it is a measure of sound energy over a designated period (usually 16 hours), not a measure of the loudness of discrete noise events, it fails to reflect how aircraft noise is experienced by people on the ground.

Divisive
The divisive nature of the exercise soon became clear. Consultation documents began landing on some folks' 'welcome' mats but not on others', and invisible noise contours cut residential streets in Sheldon and Elmdon in half. Some homes found themselves on the 'right' side of the line but felt confused and bewildered by the choice before them, while near-neigbours, sometimes in the same road, were left out in the cold altogether.

Worse was to come as local estate agents and solicitors tried haplessly to get up to speed on what was going on so as to be able to help and advise local residents. West Midlands FOE along with local campaigners Birmingham Airport anti-Noise Group (BANG), Solihull Opposing Additional Runways (SOAR) and Save Elmdon Action Group (SEAG) wasted no time in getting our message across.

A public meeting at the Ivy Leaf Social Club in Sheldon on 19th October and organised by BANG, SOAR and SEAG attracted up to 500 attendees, not one of whom supported the airport's proposals. The barely accountable Airport Consultative Committee (ACC) was then subject to a lobby by 50-60 angry residents outside BIA's plush office block, Diamond House, on 27th October. The ACC is supposed to be the local residents' way into the Airport decision-making process but they had not even discussed the compensation options. The press descended on the story and that week the residents' plight featured on local radio, BBC and Central TV as well as in the Birmingham and Solihull papers.

BIA are feeling the heat on this issue; Solihull MBC, who happen to be the local planning authority, have said that compensation should extend to those properties within the 57dB(A)Leq) contour. This is a strong signal from one of the BIA's most loyal supporters, one which they would be foolish to ignore.

Critical
The Solihull and Meriden Conservative MPs John Taylor and Caroline Spelman have been highly critical of BIA but are insisting that the Government, not the Airport, should undertake to compensate local people - great, yet another indirect subsidy for aviation. West Midlands FOE think BIA and the aviation industry receive more than enough Government hand-outs as it is; they, and not the State, should compensate local people. After all, they are the ones who stand to profit from a new runway. But there's the rub; BIA are behaving as if the second runway was a done deal and forgetting about the people around their existing runway and under the flight path, people who are suffering today, let alone in twenty-odd years.

Compensation is an important issue. BANG, SOAR and local residents associations are taking full advantage of the opportunity offered by BIA's recently formed 'compensation working group' to negotiate a fairer deal. This group, independently chaired by transport advisor Peter Rayner, has met twice to date and is making good progress. It will meet once more before 30th November, when the residents' groups will present their conclusions to BIA's Finance Director Joe Kelly and Head of Corporate Affairs John Morris.

Chris Crean and James Botham