Archived press release

Regions threatened by massive airport growth

19 July 2002

GOVERNMENT PLANS FOR AVIATION GROWTH

The Government is soon to publish its regional air studies, probably on either Monday 22nd or Tuesday 23rd July. The results of these studies may also be referred to by Chancellor Gordon Brown in his Comprehensive Spending Review announcement on Monday, and (more likely) by Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott when he makes his imminent announcement on planning policy.

The seven regional air studies, covering the whole of the UK, were undertaken by the former Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR). The studies are likely to include options for major expansion of existing airports, new airport developments and the conversion of redundant military air bases as new civil airports.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE STUDIES?

FOE believes that the regional air studies are flawed and will mislead the public. In particular the studies will downplay the serious environmental consequences of new and expanded airports across the UK.

1. Aircraft Noise
   
   The studies will give misleading data on aircraft noise. The effect will be to show far fewer people affected by new airports / runways than will really be the case.
   

   The studies use 57 decibels (dB) as the starting point for measuring disturbance from aircraft noise. Yet people experience the onset of noise nuisance at lower levels; for this reason 50dB is the level set by the World Health Organisation. By using 57 dB many of those affected by aircraft noise caused by expanded airport capacity will be overlooked.
   

2. Air Pollution
   
   The studies have not looked at all of the key pollutants from airports. The studies will also claim that fewer people will suffer poor air quality from aircraft and airport operations than will in fact be the case.
   

   The only significant pollutants covered by the studies are Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Particulates (PM). The studies ignore ground level ozone (O3), a key health-threatening airport pollutant. Also, the studies use already relaxed air quality standards.

3. Public Safety
   
   The studies will have misleading conclusions about the risk of more flights overhead.
   

   The studies have not carried out proper assessment of the risks to the public on the ground (third parties) of more aircraft overhead. The Government claims “public safety is best secured by preventing accidents to aircraft”. But this does not necessarily reduce risk. Risks increase with the numbers of flights and the number of people over-flown. More runways and airports = more flights = higher public risk. The studies ignore this obvious equation and so underestimate heightened risks to public safety.

4. Loss of Wildlife and Greenfield Sites
   
   The studies will downplay losses of key wildlife species and habitats. They will downplay the likely loss of greenbelt, green field sites and other land caused by new airport capacity.
   

   The studies regard the possible loss of large amounts of wildlife habitat and significant reductions in populations of many wildlife species as “low impact”. The studies also claim loss of green belt and green field land to new airports and runways will have a “neutral” or even a “positive” impact!
   

5. Claimed Economic Benefits
   

   The studies will claim large economic benefits from building and expanding airports. But the studies’ economic and employment assumptions are flawed because they do not take proper account of the large public subsidies and tax breaks for civil aviation and the industry’s failure to pay for the pollution and other costs it imposes on society. These factors distort the demand to fly by lowering prices which in turn artificially inflate the rate of air traffic growth and therefore the ‘need’ for new airport capacity.
   

   The studies presume that nothing will be done to start making the industry pay its way for example by removing subsidies and tax breaks. These include

   • no tax on aviation fuel;
   • no VAT on air travel;
   • income from duty free sales;
   • a level of Air Passenger Duty that does not properly cover ‘external costs’ and,
   • artificially low airport charges.

   It is stated government policy to remove one of the above subsidies, by introducing a tax on aircraft fuel. Accurate studies would have taken this into account. Instead the studies presume that this will not happen in the next 30 years. It is also Government policy to ensure that aviation meets its ‘external costs’. Yet this is not reflected in the studies’ ‘central’ forecasts. Indeed the studies assume the price of flying continues not to reflect external costs (including the cost of the growing impacts of aviation impacts: air and noise pollution; rising road traffic; and, climate change).
   

   There is an £8.6 billion annual deficit in aviation tourism caused by people deserting UK holiday destinations to take ‘low cost’ flights abroad. The studies take no account of this loss to the UK economy which is keenly felt in traditional UK resorts.
   

6. Jobs
   
   The studies will overstate the number of jobs created by new airports and runways. This standard government and aviation industry practice is based on an aviation industry sponsored economic study - Oxford Economic Forecasting (OEF) which has been found to be flawed by Berkeley Hanover Consulting.
   

   It may seem obvious that building or expanding airports and runways will increase employment in a locality. In the wider economy however there will be no net increase. This is because jobs in aviation are substitutable - if there were no aviation industry, an equal number of jobs would arise elsewhere in the economy (this is accepted both by OEF and by Berkeley Hanover). If the large public subsidies currently handed to the aviation sector were spent elsewhere in the economy they would create as many if not more jobs and employment and with less pollution and environmental damage.

Paul de Zylva, aviation campaigner at Friends of the Earth said:
“People should not be fooled by these studies, the legacy of Stephen Byers. They will be passed off as impartial studies into the likely impact of new airports and runways. But we were involved in the studies for two years and found ministers and civil servants favouring anything presented by the aviation industry and ignoring any facts showing the immense impact of airport growth.

The studies will exaggerate the claimed economic and employment benefits and underplay the impact of new airports and runways on people’s health, safety and their environment. This in-built bias turns what should have been impartial public information into yet more pro-aviation industry spin.”

If you're a journalist looking for press information please contact the Friends of the Earth media team on 020 7566 1649.

Published by Friends of the Earth Trust