BAA Offer Of Noise Insulation and Mitigation

BAA's consultation

The government 'White Paper' on aviation said that airport operators should make proposals to protect neighbours of airports against the 'planning blight' caused by anticipated airport expansion and to offer mitigation against noise.

BAA has made two sets of proposals which it has issued for public consultation:

• protecting against planning blight
• mitigating aircraft noise

The proposals can be found on the BAA web site: blight and noise. Responses are required by 21 Dec.

This page outlines the schemes for noise mitigation and gives FOE's comments. See separate page for information on planning blight proposals.

Blight

The consultation document (CD) says BAA is seeking views from, among others, "local airport-related campaign groups". West London Friends of the Earth clearly falls into that category, but has not received a copy of the CD or been otherwise notified by BAA. We shall respond anyway!

See below for summary of the noise mitigation proposals and our views.

To mitigate and protect against noise, BAA is proposing to pay for two schemes:

• Noise insulation scheme - for properties defined as "noise-sensitive", a programme of insulation
• Home Owner Support Scheme - help with re-locating house from the nosiest areas

Noise insulation

BAA will pay for noise insulation for certain types of building. The scheme covers the area which is exposed to 63 decibels or more, averaged over 16 daytime hours. There is a map in the consultation document which shows the current 63dB area as at 2002; the area will be reviewed before the start of the scheme.

The scheme would apply to the following types of building:
  *  public and private nurseries attached to schools
  *  primary and secondary schools
  *  higher/tertiary education colleges
  *  public and private hospitals
  *  hospices

Where insulation is not possible, other ways of mitigating the noise will be explored. Alternative measures might include providing environmental grants to schools, making quiet rooms available for certain kinds of lessons or funding outdoor trips away from the airport environment.

BAA would meet 100% of the costs of secondary glazing or noise insulation in the schools and hospitals.

Installing noise insulation in schools can be a disruptive as well as lengthy process. BAA and local education authorities would therefore prioritise and phase the work. Interim mitigation measures would be needed for schools or colleges which would not get insulation immediately.

In some cases, it will not be possible or appropriate to provide the level of noise insulation required because the design or condition of the building makes it difficult to provide it. These measures might include:
  *  a package to the school or college to provide their own quiet learning areas
  *  assistance to rebuilding part of the school or college to an agreed noise design standard, up to a defined cost threshold

The consultation also mentions alternative measures such as such as providing environmental grants to schools, making quiet rooms available for certain kinds of lessons or funding outdoor trips away from the airport environment. These were mentioned in the White Paper, but it is not clear if BAA is proposes to offer them.

Acoustic insulation in hospitals and hospices would be applied to the wards, theatres, treatment rooms and, possibly certain corridors. Again, it may not always be possible to provide noise insulation. If this is the case, alternative measures would be explored.

The scheme would start as soon as practicable, priority being given to buildings in areas of the highest level of noise exposure, ie closest to the airport.

Home re-location

This scheme offers a financial package to help with the cost of relocation for people living in the area with the highest levels of noise. This level is defined as 69 decibels or more, averaged over a daytime of 16 hours. The area is based on the 2002 noise contour, which is shown in the consultation document.

The scheme applies to owner-occupiers within this area, but there are detailed criteria, intended to avoid opportunism and speculation. The scheme would commence in spring 05.

The scheme would consist of a 1.5% sum of the open market value of the house, plus a lump sum of £2,500 payment, which is linked to the Retail Price Index. There would be a cap of £10,000 on the package.

Residents who think they are eligible would apply to BAA for an 'in-principle' determination before contracts are exchanged. BAA would endeavour to provide the relocation assistance within a week of completion of sale.

FOE's Comments On The Proposals

The primary aim should always be to minimise noise around Heathrow. Schemes such as these can only be a poor substitute for that aim and in now way do they legitimise the noise or make it more acceptable.

Relatively few of FOE's members are likely to be affected by the proposals. But this is because the area covered by the scheme is deliberately small. Only the people in the very noisiest areas - over 63dB in public buildings and over 69dB Leq in dwellings - will be offered anything. Large areas and many public buildings, in which many people have a stake, and which are badly affected by the airport now or would be affected by a third runway, are offered nothing. Likewise huge numbers of residents who are badly affected by the airport and are being offered nothing. It is on largely on behalf of these people in particular that FOE is responding to the consultation.

Our other major concern is that, even for those that fall within the schemes, the schemes are far from generous. If sound insulation is provided, nothing else is offered to mitigate or compensate for the noise that remains, especially noise outside. And the relocation package is hardly generous. Given all the stress and indirect costs of moving, a sum of 1.5% of the house value is not large.

Set against the vast profit that BAA makes from Heathrow, the 'new' money, ie that which BAA would have to pay out anyway, is very small. It does not provide full compensation for the noise and it therefore fails to meet the government's aim that the aviation industry should pay for the costs it imposes on others, ie 'external costs'. (The external cost of aircraft noise in the UK is estimated by Airport Watch, based on an EU study, is £350 million pa. Most of this is accounted for by Heathrow.)

Irrespective of issues about noise insulation, there should be compensation for impacts. This should not just apply where the insulation package is not offered. It should also apply where the insulation package applies, in order to compensate for the noise that insulation cannot prevent, eg noise outdoors.

It will probably be claimed by BAA that it is doing what the government required it to do in the White paper; and therefore our demands are unreasonable. We take the view that if BAA genuinely wishes to be seen as a 'good neighbour', it has go well beyond the minimum that the government requires it to do.

Links to Related Pages

Planning blight consultation
Back to Heathrow introduction
Back to aviation introduction

Dec 04