Residents give cautious welcome to Ryanair move  

LATEST: Damage to houses in East Belfast 

Sir Reg Empey calls for action after two separate incidents in less

than a week in East Belfast (See article below for details)

Act now! Sign this petition to stop further expansion at Belfast City Airport: http://www.gopetition.co.uk/petitions/belfast-city-airports-passenger-limit.html

If you’re suffering from aircraft noise, complain direct to George Best Belfast City Airport by clicking on this link:

http://www.belfastcityairport.com/Corporate-Social-Responsibility/Environment/Noise-Management.aspx

URGENT MESSAGE

The Environment Minister, Edwin Poots, has announced that he is likely to lift the official limit on passenger numbers at George Best Belfast City Airport.  

If this move goes ahead, it will almost certainly lead to a significant expansion by stealth of the airport and the noise problem suffered by local residents.  

Up until now, this limit  - known as the ‘seats for sale’ limit – has meant that a mixture of small and large aircraft use the airport.  

If the restriction is removed, there will be nothing to stop every plane being one of the larger and noisier types which currently fly from the airport – and that would be an absolute nightmare for residents.  

The Minister isn’t even holding a proper public consultation on his proposal – but we believe he will listen if enough people write to him and to their local politicians to complain about this proposal.  

If you share our concerns about this plan, please write to or e-mail the Environment Minister to express your views. Let him know that you object to his proposal to lift the ‘seats for sale’ restriction in the airport’s Planning Agreement. Tell him how aircraft noise currently affects you – whether it’s affecting your sleep, your ability to hear conversations, or your enjoyment of outdoor spaces. If you have children, let him know if they’re affected.  

You can E-mail the Minister at: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it   or write to him at the following address: Edwin Poots MLA, Minister for the Environment, Department for the Environment,Clarence Court, 10-18 Adelaide Street, BELFAST, BT2 8GB 

Please also write to your local MLAs and councilors to express your concern. You can find contact details for your local politicians at the following links. MLAs (at the Northern Ireland Assembly): http://bit.ly/9ObCNa 

Belfast City Council councilors: http://bit.ly/aeOl0O 

North Down Borough Council councillors: http://bit.ly/9z4g7F  

If you do act - many thanks for supporting this campaign – don’t forget to sign up as a BCAW supporter, using the form in our recruitment leaflet, if you have one, or by E-mailing us on This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it   We really need your support! And do check out our website for lots more information: www.belfastcityairportwatch.co.uk  

Time for action on flight path fears

Ulster Unionist East Belfast MLA Sir Reg Empey has expressed “serious concerns” after a local resident was reportedly injured by damage to roof tiles that they say is linked to low flying aircraft using Belfast City Airport.

“I have been contacted by a representative of Belfast City Airport Watch (BCAW) who has been made aware of an incident at 10pm on Tuesday night in which one person was injured and two homes were damaged.

“After the incidents in Parkgate Crescent in September, in Oval Court at the weekend, and now this latest report, this is something that needs immediate attention.

“Having already written to the Chief Executive of George Best Belfast City Airport highlighting the concerns of local communities, and seeking information as to what steps the Airport is taking to verify the case and deal with the consequences, it is clear that more urgent steps need to be taken.

“I would call on Regional Development Minister Conor Murphy to launch his own inquiry into these events before somebody is seriously hurt. It is time that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) stepped in to ensure that this sort of incident does not become a ‘norm’ or indeed a tragedy.

“I am gravely concerned for the safety of local residents and it is clear that now is the time for action on this matter.”

Residents’ fury at Minister’s nod on lifting airport passengers’ cap

Local residents say they’re furious that the Environment Minister, Edwin Poots, has said he’s likely to lift the official limit on passenger numbers at George Best Belfast City Airport. 

 Belfast City Airport Watch (BCAW), which represents residents in east and south Belfast, and in north Down, says that any such move would have grave implications for the tens of thousands of local people affected by aircraft noise. 

“We’re horrified at the potential implication of allowing the airport to handle as many passengers as it wishes,” said BCAW’s Steering Group Chair, Dr Liz Fawcett. 

“This decision will almost certainly lead to a significant expansion by stealth of the airport and the noise problem suffered by residents. “

Until now, the passenger restriction meant a mixture of small and large aircraft used the airport. 

“If this move goes ahead, there would be nothing to stop every plane being one of the larger and noisier types which currently fly from the airport – that would be an absolute nightmare for residents. 

“We’re especially concerned that the Minister isn’t holding a full public consultation on this matter – by taking this decision ‘by the back door’, he’s letting down the ordinary people whose interests he should have been putting first.” 

The official limit on passenger numbers is contained in the airport’s Planning Agreement with the Planning Service which is supposed to regulate the airport’s activities and protect residents.  

That annual cap, which was set at two million seats offered for sale on scheduled flights from the airport, imposes a de facto restriction on the number of larger aircraft which could fly from the airport. 

“The annual ‘seats for sale’ limit is crucial in ensuring that many of the aircraft using the airport are small and medium-size planes,” explained Dr Fawcett.  

“While there’s still an official annual limit of 48,000 on the number of flights from the airport, if the passenger cap is removed, there will be nothing to prevent all 48,000 of those planes being of the larger and noisier type currently using the airport. “The removal of this important safeguard would simply permit many more of the existing large planes to wreak further misery on residents.” 

The residents’ group says it’s very surprised that the Minister, in announcing this move, expressed satisfaction with the airport’s system for noise monitoring. Just three months ago, it emerged that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the UK’s official aviation regulator, had submitted a damning report about the airport to the Planning Service.

The detailed document raised major concerns about the way the airport measures noise levels.

Under the airport’s Planning Agreement, the airport is itself responsible for monitoring the levels of noise from aircraft taking off and landing at the airport.

The CAA’s report concluded that the methodology used by the airport to calculate the likely additional noise impact resulting from a runway extension was misleading and had seriously underestimated the potential scale of the problem. 

“We cannot understand how the Minster can pronounce himself satisfied with the airport’s noise monitoring arrangements when such a reputable body as the CAA raises such serious concerns about the airport’s own noise statistics.” said Dr Fawcett.  

Last year, BCAW carried out a survey of more than 400 individuals in areas in east and south Belfast, and in north Down, affected by aircraft noise from the City Airport.  

The shock findings from this survey demonstrated the extent to which aircraft noise is already a very real problem for many residents:  

·     More than three-quarters (78%) of the 412 individuals surveyed said that aircraft noise affected their sleep

·     Three-quarters (75%) of respondents said they often had to stop talking when a plane flew over because they couldn’t be heard

·     Of the 157 respondents with children, nearly half (46%) said their children weren’t getting enough sleep because of aircraft noise.

·     More than a third (34%) of those with children said their children found aircraft noise frightening.     

Editor’s notes:     1.       Belfast City AirportWatch comprises seventeen residents’ groups

                                        across affected areas within east and south Belfast,

                                        and north Down.

                                2.       The Airport’s Planning Agreement is an agreement between the

                                         Department of the Environment and the Airport. The

                                         current Agreement came into force on 14th October 2008.

                                                3.      The annual 2,000,000 ‘seats for sale’ restriction on outgoing

                                        passenger numbers was inserted on the recommendation of a

                                        panel  which was appointed by the Planning Service to conduct

                                        an official inquiry – termed an Examination in Public  -

                                        with regard to the airport’s Planning Agreement. Its report

                                        was published in 2006.             

Residents welcome airport public inquiry

Local residents have welcomed the decision by Environment Minister, Edwin Poots, to hold a public inquiry into the runway extension proposal submitted by George Best Belfast City Airport.
 
Belfast City Airport Watch (BCAW), which represents residents in east and south Belfast, and in north Down, says the group is delighted that the controversial proposal will now be subject to rigorous scrutiny.
 
"An extended runway would mean an international airport right on Belfast's doorstep," said Liz Fawcett, a spokesperson for BCAW.
 
"While we had hoped that Mr Poots might have rejected this ludicrous proposal outright, we're very glad that it will now be subjected to robust scrutiny."
 
Just days ago, it emerged that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the UK's official aviation regulator, had submitted a damning report on the runway extension proposal to the Planning Service.
 
The CAA's detailed report was heavily critical of vital information submitted by the airport in support of its plan. In its report, the CAA:
 

• highlighted the fact that, if the runway extension went ahead, there would be little to prevent huge aeroplanes, such as A310 Airbuses and Boeing 757s, from using the airport

• concluded that the methodology used to calculate the likely additional noise impact resulting from a runway extension is misleading and has seriously underestimated the potential scale of the problem

• criticised the airport for assuming it will be flouting the current official cap on its passenger numbers by nearly one million more passengers than is actually permitted under the airport's existing planning agreement with the Planning Service

• took the airport to task for failing to provide sufficient detail on its future air traffic forecasts in stark contrast to other UK airports making similar planning applications

• More than three-quarters (78%) of the 412 individuals surveyed said that aircraft noise affected their sleep

• Three-quarters (75%) of respondents said they often had to stop talking when a plane flew over because they couldn't be heard

• Of the 157 respondents with children, nearly half (46%) said their children weren't getting enough sleep because of aircraft noise

• More than a third (34%) of those with children said their children found aircraft noise frightening.

Residents call on Poots to act on damning City Airport report

Runway extension plan must be rejected, says BCAW

Campaigners have called on the Environment Minister, Edwin Poots, to reject the controversial runway extension plan submitted by George Best Belfast City Airport in the light of a scathing official report on the proposal.

Belfast City Airport Watch (BCAW), which represents residents in east and south Belfast, and in north Down, says the Minister must act following the emergence of the damning report which was written by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and commissioned by the Planning Service.

The residents’ group is also urging the Minister to publish the contents of the report which was produced last November but was not made public at the time.

The detailed report is heavily critical of vital information submitted by the airport in support of its plan. In its report, the CAA, which is the UK’s official aviation regulator:

• highlights the fact that, if the runway extension went ahead, there would be little to prevent huge aeroplanes, such as A310 Airbuses and Boeing 757s, from using the airport
• concludes that the methodology used to calculate the likely additional noise impact resulting from a runway extension is misleading and has seriously underestimated the potential scale of the problem
• criticises the airport for assuming it will be flouting the current official cap on its passenger numbers by nearly one million more passengers than is actually permitted under the airport’s existing planning agreement with the airport
• takes the airport to task for failing to provide sufficient detail on its future air traffic forecasts in stark contrast to other UK airports making similar planning applications

“This report makes it abundantly clear that the airport is not prepared to come clean on its true intentions and is happy to flout any planning restrictions imposed if it thinks it can get away with it,” said Liz Fawcett, a spokesperson for Belfast City Airport Watch. “It vindicates many of the points we have been making.

“The document was submitted by the CAA to the Planning Service last November and we have to wonder why it is only now that it has come into the public domain.

“We’re calling on the Environment Minister to say ‘enough is enough’ and to reject this misguided proposal out of hand.”

Belfast City Airport Watch opposes the runway extension proposal because an extended runway would enable planes to carry larger loads of passengers and fuel, leading to heavier aircraft and greater levels of noise.

The proposal would also enable the airport to greatly expand its operations.

Both these points are supported by the CAA report which states that, in terms of the proposed runway length alone, it would be possible to operate larger aircraft from the extended runway, possibly with some adaptations to ground infrastructure.

To access the full Civil Aviation Report click on here

See also Belfast Telegraph article 'Damning report sparks call to shelve runway extension'

Residents furious as City Airport flouts passenger cap

Residents say they are furious at the news that George Best Belfast City Airport has flouted a two million cap on passengers agreed last year.

The airport’s own figures show that 2,335,501 passengers have already flown from the City Airport this year.

“This just makes a nonsense of the Department of the Environment’s attempts to regulate the airport,” said Fiona McKinley, spokesperson for Belfast City Airport Watch, the umbrella group campaigning against further expansion at the airport.

“Why isn’t the Environment Minister, Edwin Poots, taking any action on this blatant breach?

“We’re especially concerned because the airport recently wrote to the Minister asking for the passenger cap to be removed altogether.

“Far from granting the airport this ludicrous request, Mr Poots should be standing up to the airport and insisting it obeys the restrictions under which it is meant to operate.”

The passenger cap or ‘seats for sale’ limit forms part of a new Planning Agreement between the airport and the Department of the Environment which came into force late last year.

It limits the number of outgoing passengers at the airport to 2 million and helps restrict the number of large, noisier jet aircraft using the airport.

Residents are still waiting to hear the outcome of the airport’s planning application for a runway extension which would enable even heavier and louder planes to use the airport.

See Belfast Telegraph:  'Belfast airports lock horns over City’s breach of passengers cap deal'

Note: The Airport's new Planning Agreement is an agreement between the Department of the Environment and the Airport. The new Agreement came into force on 14th October 2008.  

FAQ: Why is the Seats for Sale/Passenger limit so important?

1. This Seats for Sale limit is written into the Planning Agreement because it is designed to limit environmental impact and restrict the numbers and size of larger jet aircraft using what is an EU Designated 'City Airport', located in a major connurbation, where nearly half of all flights use the heavily populated areas of east and south of the city to take off or come in to land over.

2. The Seats for Sale limit is vitally important because there is nothing  in the Planning Agreement which restricts any size of aircraft using this 'City Airport'. A noise limit called 'Chapter 3 certification'  is written in, but is effectively meaningless, since it has been superseded by Chapter 4 some years ago. 

3. The Airport is only monitoring noise - so far there is no evidence that the exponential rise in noise experienced as a result of the increased use of large jets, is being controlled or reduced. There is evidence to show that the noise limit as written in the Planning Agreement has been exceeded, and continues to be exceeded, which may explain why residents and community groups have little faith in the Airport's new noise monitoring system, and any noise forecasting or scrutiny it may allude to.

4. If the application to extend the runway were granted approval, and the Seats for Sale limit were removed, this City Airport's expansion and the impact of its operations would, to all intents and purposes, be uncontrolled.

5. The EIP Report, following an Examination in Public in 2006, shared our concerns and stated that (Point 5.6.27, p.58): 

"Our overall conclusion is that as long as the noise control system at BCA is not fully effective, the seats for sale limit should be retained. We feel that the seats for sale measure does fulfil a useful control function in concert with an ATM limit, provided that there is an effective forecasting and scrutiny system. We therefore consider that the seats for sale limit should be retained in the short term at least, for the following reasons -

 

a. the noise control system operating at BCA is not yet fully effective and trusted;

 

b. if the seats for sale limit were removed entirely before an improved noise management system is in place, we would be concerned that an excessive pace of growth could theoretically occur in the short to medium term. This is on the basis of the stated interest of both the airport operator and BMI in further developing the charter market, in part to achieve greater utilisation of BMI's aircraft particularly at weekends;

c. in concert with the ATM limit, retaining the seats for sale restriction will help to provide a break on the uncontrolled use of larger aircraft;

d. it provides an appropriate balance between the economic benefits of continued growth at BCA and the need to control its environmental impacts; and

e. without this limit passenger numbers could grow to the capacity of the terminal which could be increased without planning permission. It is possible for the airport operator to continue increasing the capacity of the terminal building, by using permitted development powers and by relocating functions, without applying for planning permission. Hence the normal planning process cannot be relied upon in the short term at least to provide an adequate check on the growth of the airport."

 

 Extract from the Examination in Public Panel Report (August 2006) into Belfast City Airport Planning Agreement 

 

27 November 2009

easyjet move ‘a disaster’

Residents opposed to the expansion of City Airport have labelled the decision by easyjet to move its London-Luton service to the airport “a complete disaster” for people who live under the flightpaths.

Campaigners say the switch from Belfast International Airport could wreck the Planning Agreement Seats for Sale safeguard which currently stands at 2 million per year, and increase noise levels which have already broken the limit stipulated in the Planning Agreement.

In a statement, campaigner Fiona McKinley, said: “This is a disaster for people in all three areas directly and adversely affected by this City Airport.

“Following the incident where a plane coming in to land at the Airport lifted 30 slates from a roof on the 13th September, this decision will lead to more large jets coming in only metres above homes – large jets which incidentally are banned at both of the other EU Designated City Airports – all adding to the increased risk for residents and their families who’ve already suffered enough.

“It is appalling. It is irresponsible. It is reckless.

“Today, of all days, why can’t our Ministers in the Executive make a stand for real people and say to the City Airport, and to easyjet, that they cannot show such disregard for the lives of thousands of people who are now trapped below the nightmare that is Belfast City Airport’s flightpaths.

“easyjet will add tens of thousands of passengers a-year to the total currently using the City Airport, which is highly likely to exceed the Seats for Sale limit as it is written into the Planning Agreement which the City Airport signed last October with the Department of the Environment. The limit was broken by 80,000 by December of last year – with no penalty incurred, even though a recommendation by the Examination in Public in 2006 was that for every seat sold over the limit, the limit the following year was to be reduced by double that amount.

“Let the Minister in charge of enforcement now do something about this. We’re calling on the Minister Conor Murphy at the Department of Regional Development to step in as a matter of urgency to halt this unwanted and dangerous expansion.

“And let’s not forget: this is happening without, yes without, an extension of the runway to accommodate international services with heavier load factors to European holiday destinations.

“Just what will it be like for us with thousands more 70+ ton jets skimming over our homes at 120mph – fully loaded with jet fuel for international destinations – if this City Airport gets its runway extension?

“Again, we say to the Planning Minister, Edwin Poots, reject the application, say ‘no’ to this dangerous proposal and, instead, make a stand to protect people, not the interests of the City Airport’s owners, the multinational bank ABN Amro”.

15 October 2009

Airport campaigners alarmed at easyJet move

Local residents have expressed concern at the announcement by low-cost airline, easyJet, that it is to begin flying from George Best Belfast City Airport.
 
easyJet has announced it is to move its London-Luton service from Belfast International Airport to Belfast City. In a statement, the company said that, if the move was successful, it would consider moving other routes to the City Airport.
 
Responding to the announcement, Belfast City Airport Watch spokesperson, Fiona McKinley, said:
 
“We’re very concerned that this move by easyJet is a further step towards the day when Belfast will have a huge international airport right on its doorstep, creating an intolerable problem for the tens of thousands of local residents who already suffer from aircraft noise.
 
“easyJet is a highly competitive, low-cost carrier which, like Ryanair, relies on attracting large volumes of passengers.
 
“This move only adds to the case for the Minister to reject outright City Airport’s runway extension proposals or, at the very least, to hold a public inquiry.
 
“We would also question whether, if easyJet does go ahead with further services, the airport can adhere to the ‘seats for sale’ limit on passenger numbers stipulated by its Planning Agreement with the Department of the Environment.”
 
The ‘seats for sale’ restriction was included in the year-old Planning Agreement as an environmental impact control, to help restrict the number of large, noisier jet aircraft using the airport.

Note: Under the Planning Agreement drawn up between the City Airport and the Department of the Environment, the Airport is required to limit the numbers of seats for sale on aircraft departing from the Airport to 2 million in any given year. Last year, the Airport exceeded this limit by 80,000 seats. The current agreement came into force on 14th October 2008.

Pressure mounts for rejection of runway plan

Pressure is mounting for a rejection of the plan to extend the runway at Belfast City Airport.

The ‘Belfast Telegraph’, in a front page lead story at the weekend, had a headline that screamed: “Fresh doubts over City Airport runway extension”.

If that wasn’t bad enough, under a photograph of a jet at the airport, the newspaper than added a second headline: “Serious health and safety concerns emerge”.

The ‘paper’s Environment correspondent, Linda Stewart, reported that new fears had surfaced with the revelation that a public health authority had registered serious safety concerns.

The Eastern Health and Social Services Board, which has since become part of the Public Health Agency, said quality of life could be degraded for local residents and a longer runway might hamper rescue services in the event of an emergency landing.

The Board also criticized being omitted from the Planning Service’s original consultation.

The attack on the runway plan came nine months before ‘Slategate’ on the 13th September when 30 slates were sucked off a roof by an aircraft making its final approach.

Senior politicians from all the major local parties have demanded a Public Inquiry into the runway application.

Some politicians have gone so far as to make safety one of the key issues in the debate.  

In a letter dated 27th January, Dr Paul Darragh, consultant in public health medicine, expressed concerns about air approaches to the runway over dense domestic housing, its proximity to several top tier COMAH (Control of Major Accident Hazards) sites and the risk of bird strikes.

Campaigners say this latest intervention is a strong basis for the Minister rejecting the proposal.

Belfast City Airport Watch commented: “People narrowly missed being seriously injured or killed with what happened on Sunday, 13th September.

“Safety is uppermost, and that means the safety of residents who live under the flightpath and not safety issues within the airport perimeter fence.

“Dr Darragh has said what we have known all along – that there are serious health and safety issues involved in this terrible plan.

“If the Planning Minister cared about the wellbeing and safety of thousands who endure this bad neighbour he’d reject this runway extension without another thought.

“A runway extension will lead to an expansion of air services and that will lead to greater risk for all of us.

“Claims that a runway extension will lead to an influx of tourists with millions of Pounds to spend is laughable.

“The destinations that Ryanair is talking about won’t deliver the economic bonanza. None of us believes that people who live in sunshine holiday destinations on the Continent will be queuing up to spend their holidays here.

“Claims that a runway extension will lead to 100 more jobs is also laughable – indeed it could be called a cruel hoax. The runway extension is to facilitate Ryanair’s expansion at City Airport, but this is the airline which is doing away will all the jobs, like check-in staff and baggage handlers. Ryanair were reported as far back as 2006 to be the lowest employer per million passengers of any airline, what’s it like now?

Ryanair and the City Airport need to get a grip”.

Related links

Belfast Telegraph: Fresh Doubts Over City Airport Runway Extension