West London Friends of the Earth (FOE) has responded to the British Aairports Authority consultation on noise and blight, even though BAA did not include FOE among the consultees.

BAA's offers of help on noise only cover buildings that are in the very noisiest areas. Nic Ferriday, spokesperson for West London Friends of the Earth, commented "While the offers may be welcome for the small number of people who live adjacent to the airport, it does nothing for the hundreds of thousands of others who are affected by aircraft noise.

"Help should be offered to everyone exposed to 55dB or more. This is the level recognised by the World Health Organisation, the EU and the British government as the onset of significant noise nuisance."

Although the schemes may cost a considerable amount, FOE considers that in the context of the scale of noise nuisance they are not generous. Mr Ferriday commented: "Calculations indicate that if noise nuisance is converted into monetary terms, the cost of noise around Heathrow is over £200 million every year.

"Set against this, and the huge profits that BAA earns, the money that BAA is prepared to spend on noise and blight looks far from generous."

Two consultation documents were issued by BAA in September to selected parties: 'Protecting against airport noise - proposals for schemes to address current airport noise for communities close to the airport' and 'Protecting against blight - proposals to protect the value of properties in communities close to the airport against blight resulting from a possible new runway'.

The offers are:

• Noise insulation for schools and hospitals exposed to 63dB or more
• Help to retain property values in areas that would be exposed to 66dB of more in case of a third runway
• Help with 'home relocation' in areas exposed to 69dB or more.

West London Friend of the Earth's comments express disappointment that BAA did not send either of the consultation documents to the group, many of whose members are affected by Heathrow. "We do not feel that trying excluding relevant groups from this and other processes is helpful either to local people or to BAA's reputation," stated FOE. "We would emphasise at the outset that the primary aim of BAA should be to minimise noise around Heathrow.

FoE comments on 'Protecting against airport noise'
Schemes such as these can only be a poor substitute for that aim and in no way do they legitimise the noise or make it more acceptable. It should remain the aim that noise should be reduced to those levels at which very few people are affected.

BAA offers nothing in areas affected mainly by night flights. While mitigation, in the form of insulation or alternative works, is welcome, it will by no means overcomes all noise problems. Most obviously, it does nothing about disturbance when people are outdoors. There ought to be an additional package of compensation which reflects the residual noise impact, that is the noise that remains after any mitigation works.

Payment of compensation is consistent with the 'Polluter Pays Principle' and the paying for 'external costs'. It should be noted that it is government policy that the polluter pays.

All public buildings ought to be included . We see no reason why council offices, health centres, libraries or other buildings should not be eligible. All residential buildings should be eligible too. They are patently 'noise-sensitive'. There is also a strong for business and commercial premises being eligible, although recognising that the need may not be so great for most of these.

Provision of mitigation/compensation is consistent with the 'Polluter Pays Principle' and the latter requires one to consider all the costs imposed, not just cost on parties selected by BAA.

We would hope that BAA's proposals are also issued for comment."

FoE comments on 'Protecting against blight'
It should be made clear that as far as noise is concerned, the primary desire of residents is to avoid undue noise from airports and aircraft. Mitigation and compensation, while they may welcome, in no way avoid the need to reduce the noise impacts. They do not 'legitimise' the noise. It should remain the aim that noise should be reduced to those levels at which very few people are affected.

People living just outside the noise boundary are in a far worse position than those inside. The latter at least have the assurance of being able to sell their property at a reasonable price if the runway is built. But occupiers just outside, who would be seriously impacted by noise, pollution and loss of amenity would get nothing and may well not be able to sell their house at a sensible price because of the degraded environment.

The scheme proposed by BAA only covers dwellings falling within the 66dB noise contour area. Significant impacts go far beyond this noise contour; so dwellings within a larger area should be covered. We propose

Any dwelling where the noise is greater than 55dB Leq for a significant number of days (55dB is the World Health Organisation standard)

• Any dwelling where night noise exceeds 45dB or 60dB LAmax (WHO standards)
• Any dwelling where air pollution would exceed guidelines or standards set to protect human health (in practice this could apply only to nitrogen dioxide and small particulates)
• Any dwelling where there is serious loss of access, eg road or footpaths

Noise levels should be based on measured noise levels, not on 'certificated' noise which can seriously under-state the real noise levels.

A key point is that the BAA proposals do not address the very real problem of blight between now and when and when BAA announces it intends to apply for planning permission. Thus blight, arising now from the White Paper, is not addressed. No help is offered if owners want to sell any time between now and an announcement by BAA on the runway.

For a summary of the schemes see the West London Friends of the Earth website

See also the sustainability section on the BAA web site.

Tuesday, December 21, 2004

If you wish to comment on this or other stories in the Journal please go to our Letters Pages

The Journal is produced as a service to the Community by Online Communities Ltd
an independent, non-profit, community group making the community websites for Richmond upon Thames.


www.oncom.org.uk

© 2004 Online Communities Ltd