LondonLutonAirportTown & Village Communities Committee

LLATVCC News-Sheet

Newsletter 29: February 2012

LutonAirport “Optimisation”

As promised, some observations on the information made available at the public exhibitions and on the WEB site. We’ve headlined the key issues in bold, with some supplementary details which explain some at least of what lies behind the headline. The public events don’t tell us much more than appears on the WEB site, though some of the information is a bit easier to read on the display panels than on a computer monitor – at least the equivalent documents produced by the airport operator in support of the failed Project 2030 proposals were available as Adobe .pdf files and legends on diagrams would enlarge legibly along with the diagrams of which they were a part.

Feel free to use or adapt any or all of the points if you intend to produce individual responses, especially if you intend to respond to the formal planning application when/if it is made. It’s not clear what if any real effect any reactions to the present round of what are largely PR exercises will have, whether in written form or by discussion at those events with whoever may be there at the time from the “optimisation” side – we’ve found them amiable enough but not in much of a position to do anything but absorb what (sample of three events) proved to be substantial and well-founded community unease.

Jobs

The claims of "more jobs" - 440 new jobs per million passengers, plus (from somewhere in the memory of their consultants' calculator) 1750"indirect" jobs, are councillor-attention-grabbing assertions with few facts to back them up.

Luton Borough has a very poor record in counting jobs at its airport.Since 1997 its Annual Monitoring Reportsclaim to have added 1162 jobs, and increased throughput by 5.5 million: that suggests about 210 additional jobs per million passengers, not 440.Those numbers are themselves a bit flattering:, since 20% of the total number are part-time so we ought to be shown full-time-equivalent job numbers as well.

Since 1997 it re-based its job count on three separate occasions (2001, 2004, 2010) in attempts to make the figures look better. Though demonstrably fallible (analysing 10-year gaps: 1997-2007, 1998-2008 etc.show added “jobs” per million passengers fluctuating between 262 to -572 which is balderdash, and in 2002 no return whatsoever was made) it was at least possiblefor us to carry out some examination of the background evidence. In 2010 Luton decided to synthesise thejob totals completely, using the Inter-Departmental Business Register, which appears toproduceemployment numbersbased simply on postcode. So now there’s no possibility for any independent verification of the data on which the assertions are founded.

The aviation industry has a consistently bad record on the “new jobs” front, with little or no attempt to carry out any form of post-audit. A couple of examples:

  • When proposals were made for a second runway at Manchester the headline-grabbing “new jobs” figure was 50,000; the reality turned out to be between 6000 and 8000.
  • In 2009 the Press Complaints Commission intervened twice in connection with Ryanair's local/regional job claims cited in the Midlands press - initially in the Nottingham Evening Post (EastMidlandsAirport) and subsequentlyin the Birmingham Post (BirminghamAirport.

Noise

Its effects are illustrated by entirely hypothetical"noise contours" which purport to show the noise effects, based on the discredited "16 hour A-weighted equivalent noise level". They are simply bits of publicity, aimed at reassuring or, at worse, intended to mislead.

With no indication of the set of assumptions about aircraft and engine types both now and in the future, load factors, destinations etc., all of which are vital inputs to the noise modelling software used, the diagrams have absolutely no credibility. Crucially, there is no reference to night noise, which is the most sensitive issue of all: each movement at night is four times more likely to generate noise complaints thana movement during the day.

Those contours don't meet the current EU advice on environmental noise management and contour presentation, in which day, evening and night contours must be shown separately. and since Luton can operate 24/7 with no effective limit on number of movements the night effect is crucial. Worse still, those “equivalent noise levels” conceal the real-life perception of aircraft noise events. Averaging 30 seconds of incredibly noisy aircraft with 10 minutes of near-silence grossly misrepresents what real human beings perceive.
It’s people who suffer from aircraft noise, not blades of grass, which is what area-based data shows. We are told nothing about the numbers of folk living within these “contours”, which have always grossly understated the extent of noise disturbance. Though noise complaints numbers can be, and have been, manipulated, their long-term trend is one indicator of community disturbance – and, for Luton, more than 70% of complaints about noise, confirmed as being caused by Luton aircraft, arise from well outside those contour areas: from as far as 20 miles from the airport.
And, as an interesting ”by the way”, the head of the Civil Aviation Authority’s research department has pointed out thatrespectably and independently-researched work shows that for every 1dB rise in the noise climate there is a corresponding 1% fall in property values.
Worse still, to present the result in terms of numbers which, because they’re logarithmically-based, cannot easily be understood by ordinary folk. This compounds the problem: who would, for example, imagine that a change from 48dBA to 51dBA represents a doubling in noise level? We need to be told about the numbers of aircraft movements and their maximum noise levels so that we can all understand them – number of events has been shown to be at least as significant in creating community annoyance.
As we said in our 30-second news-bite on Go East, Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted all have strict night noise control regimes with Government setting limits on noise and movements numbers, while LondonCity has a night and weekend curfew. Luton can currently operate 24/7, with the only “safeguard” being a very weak “night noise contour area” limit, set in 1998 in the context of a planning application to grow the airport to 5 million passengers per year, and when far noisier aircraft were flying. That “limit” would only be reached, with today’s fleet, if almost as many aircraft as currently fly during the 16-hour “day” period were to be flown during the 8-hour “night” as well.
Economy
The economic effects of the airport are incompletely stated, concentrating on the positive and ignoring negative effects altogether.
The airport’s business is dominated by low-cost, short-haul operations carrying “leisure” passengers: most of them, we Brits flying away (with our wallets) and flying back again (with wallets somewhat slimmer). The Office of National Statistics (ONS) provides a great deal of detailed analysis of tourist numbers and spending, which shows that the annual balance to UK plc of aviation-based tourism spending is around £15billion in deficit. We spend far more overseas than do overseas visitors who come here. That’s a trend which has existed since the advent of low-cost aviation and (until the recent economic downturn) was steadily increasing.
It’s not altogether straightforward to convert that grim UK plc picture into “jobs lost in the UK”, though Friends of the Earth, with the help of the ONS, tried to do so on a UK Regional basis in 2004 and showed that the then Eastern Region in which we were located had a net deficit of almost £2 billion: the only UK Region to show a net gain was London.
Our own best estimate of the effect on the economy of UK plc, based on evidence given to the Transport Select Committee in 2007 that a 10% reduction in overseas flights by British tourists by 2020 would create 31,250 jobs and inject £1 billion into struggling tourism locations outside of London, is that, for every 3 fully-loaded B737-800 or Airbus A319s leaving Luton, one full-time UK job flies away as well. And, since the airport expansion claims include “indirect added jobs”, the picture should be balanced with these “indirect lost jobs”.
Surface Access
Virtually nothing is disclosed about surface access issues.
Unlike noise and economic effects, this is an area very much determined by passenger throughput, especially in Luton’s case. This is because the airport is perched on the top of a hill, at the end of a cul-de-sac, right on the edge of Luton, with no prospect of a direct rail connection. Around 70% of passengers arrive by car or taxi, causing bad congestion on all approaches to the airport. A significant proportion use off-site car-parks which, while reducing some of the pressure on local roads, causes areas of land in the surrounding communities to be concreted-over and used for car-parking rather than housing. Folk ought to be reminded of the effective subsidies paid by all of we taxpayers, frequent flyers or not, through the substantial taxpayer-funded expansion of the M1 in the area and the 95% EU-funded (indirectly, yet more UK taxpayer funded) work on the East Luton Corridor – with more to come in the shape of remodelling of Junction 10A.
And, according to the Report and Accounts for the operating company, a loss is made on operating the airport itself: the revenue-generators are car-parking charges and the concessions for the retail businesses. Thus it’s not in the interest of the airport to actively discourage arrivals by car.

What we’re not told about increasing the taxiway length

As mentioned earlier, the airport is perched on the top of a hill. The reason why the existing taxiway isn’t the same length as the runway is because, immediately at each of its end, the land falls away very steeply. Rough calculations suggest that levelling the hillside so that the taxiway would be at the same level as the runway would require between 150,000 and 200,000 cubic metres of landfill, all of which would have to be brought in over the existing road network. At the eastern end where more than 50% of the fill would be needed, that network consists of narrow lanes serving small villages.

We’re also not told anything about the surface water run-off problems which would be increased substantially with all the additional areas of impervious concrete. Some communities on the eastern side of the airport have an unhappy history of flooding which may well be worsened.

A point for the planners

The suggestion that planning consent should be sought on the basis of passenger throughput is a nonsense: and Luton Borough Council know it (but might not wish to be reminded of it).

Such limits are unworkable, as the airport’s own Development Brief, adopted by LBC as supplementary planning guidance, says: “The capacity will almost certainly not be defined in terms of passenger throughput, simply because it is a measure that cannot easily be controlled”. Now, you might think that LLAL are hoping to have planning permission granted by LBC on the basis of a measure that cannot easily be controlled: we couldn’t possibly comment. The controls should be set largely on the basis of aircraft movements and with limits which decrease over time on the noise created by individual movements whether taking off or landing.

That was then: what’s so different now?

Luton Borough Council together with South Bedfordshire District Council and Bedfordshire County Council initiated studies during 1992 into the planning implications of expanding London Luton Airport to levels above 5Mppa, concentrating on 10Mppa, 20Mppa and 30Mppa. The studies concluded that expansion to around 10Mppa could be accommodated within acceptable environmental limits, but that expansion beyond 10Mppa up to 20Mppa may result in adverse environmental impact and have major land use planning policy implications, particularly regarding car parking, land take for airport development and additional dwelling requirements.

Those studies, recorded in the airport’s Annual Monitoring Report for 2002, also stressed the need for realising this potential in a way “which benefits all sections of the community and does not harm the local environment."

We are told that the expansion is in part justified by the need to maximise the return from Luton’s biggest single asset, and we are told about how much benefit the airport income is to Luton's ratepayers (and onlyLuton's ratepayers). This seems not to be a good fit with achieving benefit to “all sections of the community” – unless, of course, that community is restricted to Luton residents.

Overall

The only truly honest words to be seen, on the WEB site or at the public events, are the following:

We anticipate however that the areas that need to be assessed will need to include:

  • Noise (air noise, ground noise and surface access noise)
  • Air quality
  • Land quality and ground conditions
  • Cultural heritage
  • Ecology and biodiversity
  • Water resources (including flooding and surface water drainage and water quality)
  • Socio-economic effects, including jobs

With so many "little details" and their implications (and there are more than those listed above)still to be assessed and made public, what we've seen so far is a poor pretence at a consultation.

And, of course, we will shortly have the pleasure of another consultation and another plan, this time from the airport operator.....

CHAIRMANVICE CHAIRMAN SECRETARYTREASURER

B. P. WebbG.P. Blackburn M D NiddP A. Enright

14 The Orchards36 Maple Way The Old Bakery,9 Dovehouse Lane,

Eaton BrayKensworth 152 Piccotts EndKensworth

BedsBeds. Hemel Hempstead, HertsBeds

LU6 2DDLU6 3RT HP1 3AULU6 2PQ

01525 22286701582 872670 01442 25272401582 873204

Your comments and contributions are always welcome – you can contact the EDITOR at The Old Bakery etc

02/11/1814:35 Published by LLATVCC The views expressed are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Committee