Proposed Expansion of Birmingham International Airport

Birmingham International Airport 

With a huge number of people in the constituency adversely affected by the proposed expansion of Birmingham International Airport, it is a prime issue of concern for all. Following the publication of the government's white paper on aviation in 2003, plans have been in place to construct a second runway for the airport. This has raised concerns about noise and air pollution, and the effect upon surrounding property prices. As such, the issue of ‘who will compensate’ and ‘who will be compensated’ has become a prominent feature of the proposed white paper. I have always vigorously opposed the construction of a second runway, and I am highly critical of the confusion that has been bred by lack of information. It does seem that the threat of a second runway has abated, but it still leaves many householders living with uncertainty.

Consultation on Compensation Scheme

The possibility of compensation for people whose homes have been blighted by the proposals for a second runway at Birmingham Airport has been an issue every since the White Paper was published. The Aviation White Paper referred to what is called “generalised blight”, the impact on property values that the mere prospect of airport development can have. There is no statutory requirement for compensation to be paid and the Government stated this quite clearly. What they did propose were non-statutory schemes to be brought forward by the airport operators to deal with the problem of generalised blight where runways are supported by the White Paper or where land is safeguarded for future development.

Birmingham Airport has proposed two voluntary compensation schemes aimed at helping people who have properties which may be adversely affected by a possible second runway. Whilst I appreciate the gesture that the airport company is making to residents whose properties may be affected by the proposal for a second runway, the fact that the Government has put the ball entirely in the airport’s court does mean that the zone of eligibility for compensation has been drawn up by the body which will pay. This represents a conflict of interests, with no rights of appeal. For example, many houses in the village of Catherine-de-Barnes will not be eligible. I believe the Government has responsibility for an objective assessment of the nuisance its proposals may cause.