Issues
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT
*** UPDATE SATURDAY 8 APRIL 2006
***
Some excellent news regarding Coventry Airport. That man we sometimes like
to hate, John Prescott, has allowed Coventry Airport to keep the terminal which
the local planning authority said be removed. The planning inquiry into a
proposed new terminal (nothing like what BIA has) is still proceeding.
I have copied below my submission to the ‘draft
master plan’ consultation. Please be aware that the consultation
period has now ended and we await the publication of THE Master Plan,
probably sometime in October/November this year. I dearly hope the plans for
a second runway have been shelved.
30 March
2006.
Response to
Draft master Plan
I have lived through the
proposals to expand Birmingham
International Airport since first being elected to
represent Elmdon ward, in May 2002. The governments’ review of air
transport was published only a few weeks after I became a councillor for
Elmdon ward.
I have undertaken wide
consultation with residents of Elmdon ward. These consultations also saw
residents from other parts of Solihull and also from the Sheldon area of Birmingham. I believe
I have consulted with more people on a personal level that any other
elected representative in Solihull or the
surrounding areas.
This proposal for a second
runway was discussed at full council on 5 November 2002. I spoke against
the proposals put forward by BIA, and I continue to do so. But let’s
be quite clear. Although I oppose major development of Birmingham International
Airport I support it as an asset
for Solihull and the greater Solihull
region. To support the expansion of BIA does not make you a bad person;
likewise to oppose does not make you a bad one either.
I fully agree with Solihull
Metropolitans Borough Councils position, as of 5 November 2006, which
states;
The council’s response
included the rewording of POLICY E4 – ‘The council will support further proposals to develop the airport
for passenger and freight services within
the airport boundary…’.
And identified a set of
balanced packages
I do have serious
environment opposition to the master plan and will deal with these later. I
wish to concentrate on highlighting how the Draft Master Plan, which was
published some 2 years after our meeting, flies in the face of Solihull
Councils position and fails to address our concerns.
Response to BP 3 (Preventing excessive urbanisation)
The proposals for a second
runway will urbanise a large part of Solihull
that is green land. The proposals for an extended single runway also take
up Greenland for operational use and car
parking. This land should not be concreted and tarmaced over unless there
is a vital reason. BIA fail to put a business plan to even consider this.
BP6 (Airport expansion for Midlands
needs only)
The whole rationale of the
RASCO was to accommodate overspill demand from the South East. However, as
a result of what BIA have stated I feel their business plan will seek to
take business out of the West Midlands
region. BIA presentations have stressed the coach links with Coleshill
Railway Station as being advantageous in getting access to the market in Derby, Nottingham and East
Midlands. Mr Heard reiterated this in his presentation to
members. This, as well as other issues serves to convince me that although
there may be some demand for extra air traffic in the West
Midlands region, BIA’s business case needs passengers
from other areas to succeed. Mr Heard reinforced this, in his presentation
to councillors, when referring to the number of people residing within one
hour, one and a half hours, and two hours travelling time from BIA. There
is obviously a need for BIA to take business from its rivals in order to
satisfy need for expansion and a second runway.
BP9 (Air quality standards)
Residents feel that ‘no exceedences of air quality standards and major
expansion do not correlate. I will deal with air pollution later.
BP11 (Impacts on natural environment)
The impact on the natural
and built environment will be catastrophic. Any second runway will destroy
parts of Elmdon
Park and completely
destroy Elmdon nature reserve.
The master plan mentions a two for one replacement. Where will they
replace Elmdon
Park, the nature
reserve or the SSSI’s? Do they intend to replace already green belt
land and call it a park and nature reserve? I’m sorry for being
flippant – but any loss of Elmdon
Park, the Nature
Reserve and SSSI’s will be lost forever.
I will now address the
environmental impact – which, as I have previously stated, will be
catastrophic to Solihull and the greater Solihull
region.
Regarding Environmental Impact and mitigation:
I state, quite clearly and
unambiguously that environmental impacts are not minimised in the draft
master plan. The arguments that newer planes will be more efficient and
less polluting are thankfully sound. But not all carriers will have new
planes. Aircraft spotters tell me that many of the low frills carriers
operate with aircraft some 20 years old. This will continue for some time
and they will continue to pollute the greater Solihull
region. Solihull hospital will have to
create an expertise for lung disease, especially for out children and those
children yet to be born. This is not a crazy statement from a biased
representative. World Health Organisation data show a correlation between
aircraft movements and air pollution. The people of the greater Solihull region should not mortgage their health for
the sake of a master plan that according to BIA CEO is ‘challenging
to bring forward’.
In addition, residents are
alarmed at the suggestion that a fuel farm and engine testing areas will
move nearer to houses in the Coventry
Road area. The suggestion that noise and
pollution will be mitigated is not proven by BIA.
Finally I turn to the issue of blight.
The councils Response number
6 ‘urges the government to minimise the extent of blight and reduce
uncertainty in the white paper as soon as possible’. The white paper
did not do this, neither have BIA.
Blight has remained in
Elmdon ward since the summer of 2002. I have many many
examples of residents who can not sell houses; with some being on the
market for months and months without anyone even knocking their door. Old
Tom, of Coventry Rd,
who now realises he will die in his house because it is unsellable, whereas
he wants to sell, and move nearer to his family on the south coast. There
are also residents who want to move to other areas of Solihull.
Some who have been offered exciting job opportunities, only to find they
can not take them or have to sell their property at a lower valuation. This is what blight is and is miserable for
many people in Elmdon ward.
Blight is also where
residents find they have no equity on the property – even if they
have purchased it some years ago – and find they can not borrow to
finance investments, purchases, university education for their children or
grandchildren or that long awaited holiday – even if they fly from Birmingham.
Blight is not just about a
few people in expensive houses moaning how they have lost £50k off
the value of their property. It is about real problems to real people today
in Solihull.
I know come to the compensation issue – or rather the
lack of compensation issue.
In 2004 Solihull Council
debated BIA’s Voluntary Compensation Consultation Scheme. Our
examination revealed some 13 negative elements. The draft master plan does
not address our concerns and BIA seems to have over ridden these. The
compensation plans do not in any way meet the expectations of the residents
of Solihull. That is an unequivocal fact.
Many people residing near to
Stanstead Airport complain they have been left
out any compensation package offered. The master plan, and BIA’s
answers at public meetings, provides no expectation that residents near to
BIA will get any different treatment.
Replies to questions at
public meetings have been to the effect ‘out compensation scheme is
identical with what Stanstead
Airport
had’. This mean, to my
residents and I that if Stanstead can get away with that then so can
BIA’. I have no expectation, unfortunately, that the final master
plan will be any different to what s before us. Residents complain they are
being mugged by BIA. I have to agree.
I finally come to the business case of BIA, which, I believe is
pivotal to the whole exercise.
BIA claims that even the
extension to the existing runway is a challenge. There are rumours that BIA
can not get the major investment it needs for any expansion even the
expansion of the single runway. If this is the case then why can’t
BIA state clearly that the second runway option will not go ahead? This
itself will free the blighting affect in my ward and release a great deal
of stress in residents. They can then get on with their lives. I doubt
though this will happen, even though I feel my sources about the lack of
major investment into BIA is correct.
I call on BIA again to
withdraw their plans for second runway. If they do this today then the
blight that has affected homes in Elmdon for over three years will be
instantaneously lifted.
The main players in this are
the West Midlands Regional Authority and other authorities of the region
who seek to gain from Solihull’s
expense.
Warwickshire Council voted
for the second runway to be built in Solihull, but seek to prevent any sort
of development at Coventry
Airport. That is
total hypocrisy and they should be ashamed of themselves. The North
Warwickshire Council used our own arguments to refuse planning permission
for a few hundred vehicles and small buildings and seek to incur the
environmental destruction on our doorstep.
Few jobs will come to Solihull. The independent economic consultant, tasked
by Solihull and Advantage West Midlands, in 2002 stated ‘about 800
jobs will come to Solihull and they will
be in the service industry’. He admitted they will be mostly serving
coffee and baggage handling.
You do not need to be an
economist to know that high tech jobs will go to the regions outside of the
West Midlands. Again, Solihull
will be paying the price – though increased environmental damage.
Ken Hawkins,
Councillor – Elmdon Ward.
30 March 2006.
*** UPDATE FRIDAY 28 OCTOBER 2005
***
It appears that BIA will be publishing its
(long awaited) ‘MASTER PLAN’ on Monday 31 October 2005. Please do
not take much notice of rumours as details are not in the public area and
councillors (as far as I am aware) have had no prior notification.
I hope to arrange drop-in sessions next
Saturday (5 November) at Hatchford Brook Youth and Community Centre, where
I can talk through the master plan with residents. Further details will
appear on this page when they are available.
Update
27 July 2005
We still await the ‘master plan’ expected in June/July
2005. To date I am not aware it has been published. Details will appear
here when it has been published.
Latest Update – 16 Feb 2005 (re BIA statement of intent at end of
text)
The government’s proposal for a second runway at Birmingham International
Airport is a major
issue for residents of Elmdon Ward. Since the original proposals were
published (June 2002) I have stated my position as being opposed to the
second runway. The reasons for my oppositions are:
·
Too close to established housing
creating unnecessary danger
·
Loss of housing and forced relocation
of established residents
·
Noise pollution
·
Air pollution
·
Blight to hundreds of houses within
Elmdon Ward
“The people of Solihull should not have to sell their health
so that Birmingham
can have a second runway at its airport”
I have spoken against the proposals at public meetings and joined the
march, from Catherine de Barnes to Solihull.
I spoke against the proposals at Council on 5 November 2002.
The Council’s position
remains very clear; it opposes the second runway.
The present compensation consultation by BIA is flawed as many
properties do not appear to fall into what BIA believes is the area where
properties are blighted. The consultation document is written in legal
language and I urge all residents to either consult their solicitors or
groups such as the Elmdon Action Group, before responding.
Update:
As many residents may have read in the Solihull News and Solihull Times,
on Friday 17 September, the council’s Regeneration and Community
Overview and Scrutiny Board told BIA to go back to the drawing board over
its compensation consultation plans as they did not meet the expectations
of residents. I told the meeting that BIA had wasted the time of many
people who were representing residents and that many residents were sick
with worry about the compensation consultation process.
Update (14.10.04)
At a meeting of SMBC Cabinet, 7 October 2004, cabinet endorsed the views of the
Regeneration and Community Safety Board (see above). They agreed not to
recommend either Option 1 or Option 2 and sought revisions to the voluntary
compensation consultation scheme in order to address the issues of
uncertainty. They also agreed that the 57 d(BA)
noise contour should be included in the compensation package as the
Council’s preferred option.
This is excellent news for residents of Elmdon ward, not only for
residents in roads near Rangoon,
Goodway and Irving Road,
but also for those in Damsonparkway (which was not included in the
consultation).
I still request the publication of the ‘Master Plan’ at the earliest
opportunity. This will, hopefully, address the issue of ‘general
blight’ – if BIA propose to go ahead with the second runway.
Update (20.10.04)
At Full Council, held on Tuesday 19 October, 2004 the recommendations from the
Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Board (of 17.9.04) and Cabinet (of
7.10.04) were agreed. The full text is copied below:
The Council resolved to:-
i. Advise
the airport that at present it is unable to recommend Option 1 or Option 2
of the proposed Voluntary compensation scheme as they are totally
inadequate and not meeting the reasonable expectations of the residents.
ii. Birmingham Airport be asked to give
consideration to measures which will address the 13 negative elements at
5.7 and the conclusion at 5.8 of the report.
The 13 negative
elements
· The
noise contour approach can be divisive – a contour could bisect a
house or a street. There are also properties in the gap between noise
contour perimeters of the existing and second runway, which would not be included
in the scheme.
· The
fact that there are two noise contours adds a further level of
confusion. This could be
avoided if all schemes related to the outer contour for their boundary.
· The
choice of the 66dB(A) noise contour is an issue in
itself. It is the same value as the Channel Tunnel Rail scheme, but the
57dB(A) contour has been much quoted as the level at which noise becomes
significant for residents, in terms of health impact. The Council believes the 57dB(A) to be the preferable option.
· Uncertainty
remains in areas outside the noise contour boundaries but this is not
addressed – e.g. part of Catherine de Barnes and all of Hampton in Arden and
Bicknell together with parts of Elmdon, Sheldon, Marston
Green, Barston and Eastcote would not be covered by the BIA proposals.
· BIA
proposes using 2 different Land Registry Indices to calculate the rise in
property prices between June 2002 and the present day. Properties “to
the North of the proposed new runway” would be valued using the Birmingham
Land Registry Index. This would
give a reduced rate of growth to the value of properties to the North,
compared to those to the South. This is inequitable and could be divisive.
· In
addition, the Council is particularly concerned that the location of this North/South
boundary is not clear, as the definition “to the North of the proposed
new runway”, can be interpreted in several ways.
· Removal
expenses are included for some options and not for others.
· It
is also suggested that offers within 15% of asking price are acceptable. In
the current market place, in many areas, vendors would expect offers to be
close to the asking price, or even above it. This clause could therefore place
the burden of a 15% loss on the vendor, rather than Birmingham International
Airport and the
Council urges the airport to reconsider this issue.
· Birmingham International Airport
options do not appear to be as flexible as the Channel Tunnel Rail link
scheme. The latter had discretion to purchase any severely affected
property.
· Delayed
trigger dates also prolong uncertainty. Some Birmingham International
Airport options may
not be triggered for many years. One of the Stanstead consultation options
is to trigger their schemes “as soon as possible”. If Birmingham International Airport
could adopt this approach, the level of uncertainty would be reduced sooner
and the Council believes that clarity on trigger dates and reduction of
uncertainty are vital.
· The
discretionary clauses which Birmingham
International Airport retains could be
problematic. Establishing “pressing need to move” in relation
to financial or medical matters could be very subjective.
· There
is no disturbance element included, unlike the +10% of house value included
in the Channel Tunnel Rail Scheme.
· Members
of the public have expressed views that the schemes are difficult to
understand because of technical jargon.
Conclusions
1. None
of the options being consulted on address all the issues of uncertainty and
so modifications are needed.
2. If
it is a restricted straight choice between options 1 and 2, Option 2 is the
better of the two, as it addresses more of the issues, but it still fails
to deal with many of the issues of uncertainty.
3. Improvements
could be made in the following areas to minimise the level of uncertainty:
· Boundaries
could be defined in a schedule as well as the plan. This would give greater
clarity.
· Boundaries
could incorporate streets entirely, rather than bisecting them
· Boundaries
could incorporate communities as a whole, even if they are outside the
noise contour.
· One
Land Registry index (rather than tow) could be used to reflect property
value gains in Solihull, between June 2002
and the present day
· A
consistent approach to removal expenses could be considered
· A
disturbance allowance could be included in all elements of the scheme
· A
more flexible option would allow ‘special cases’ to be dealt
with at the discretion
of BIA
· Trigger
dates should be specified to operate at the earliest possible time, in
order to avoid prolonging the uncertainty.
iv. Birmingham Airport should engage the Community
in consultation
by all practical methods including manned exhibitions and public
meetings.
v. Birmingham Airport
bring forward as soon as possible a revised compensation scheme, which
addresses the stability of the
property market and the needs of the residents and businesses of Solihull, who may be affected by the possible airport
development in order that they are adequately covered.
vi. Birmingham Airport reconsider the base date for
qualification for
the scheme.
UPDATE 16 FEBRUARY 2005
– RE BIA HIGH LEVEL STATEMENT OF INTENT.
The high level statement of intent, published at the
beginning of February, is not the long awaited ‘master plan’.
This is still expected to be published in July this year. What the
statement tells us is that BIA confirms its intention to develop a second runway
and that its implementation will be deferred, from 2016, to a date as yet
unknown. It also states that BIA intends to seek to extend the present
runway before developing the second runway. Copies of the document can be
obtained from local libraries and the BIA web site.
This ‘high level’ statement means that
properties in Elmdon (especially in the Rangoon Rd, Goodway Rd and Irving Rd areas) will continue to be
blighted. I know of residents who have ‘lost’ money or seen the
value of their property reduced, not only because of the proposed second
runway but because of the inordinate amount of time it is taking BIA to get
a grip as to what it exactly wants to do - and when.
Circumstances at Coventry
airport may be giving BIA cause for concern. Thomsonfly
wish to build infrastructure to allow them to fly one million passengers a
year from the airport. The local authority (Warwickshire District Council)
has refused planning application, citing environmental concerns. This is
the authority that voted for the second runway at BIA – obviously
wanting to share any economic benefits, but not any environmental harm.
There is a public inquiry into the issue later this year. For those of you
who wish to enquire more, you can visit www.warwickshiredc.gov.uk for
more information about Coventry
airport. The roads to and from the airport are mainly within Coventry City, but the airport is within
Warwickshire.
For many of us it is important that Coventry airport is allowed to develop.
If all airports in the region developed ‘a little’ then there
would be no reason for a second runway at BIA – which would bring
great environmental harm to Solihull.
Obviously BIA does not want Coventry
to succeed as it is a business rival. Please note, there appears to be no
safety issues raised (e.g. flight routes) by Warwickshire when it refused
the application at Coventry
– they state this in their refusal report.
Can I promise residents that I will continue to support
you, especially those in Damsonparkway who were not involved in
BIA’s (botched) so-called
‘voluntary compensation consultation’ last August. The
government’s consultation ‘The future of air transport’
was published shortly after I was first elected to represent Elmdon (in
June 2002). I have worked since then to support residents and will continue
to do so. But, this is not just an issue for Elmdon. I genuinely believe
that the whole of Solihull will wreak the
environmental consequences of the noise and air pollution a second runway
will create.
I will update
this site on a regular basis in an effort to stem rumours and to better
inform residents. I will continue to act on the behalf of residents of
Elmdon.
|
