Stop Bristol Airport Expansion (SBAE)

[Aviador]

Airport investment claims exaggerated?

CAMPAIGNERS say claims made by Ryanair about the benefits of its new routes from Bristol International Airport (BIA) are from the 'land of fantasy'.

Ryanair says its 12 new routes from BIA will create 1,600 new jobs and a €180million boost to the economy.

But members of Stop Bristol Airport Expansion (SBAE) say the figures are exaggerated and the resulting increase in traffic and noise cannot be justified.

SBAE spokesman Jeremy Birch said: "These new flights are bad news for people and the environment.

"The jobs figures come from the land of fantasy, the new planes will deliver at most 70 new Ryanair jobs and a few more in the airport as a whole.

Mr Birch said the tourist revenue figures were based on the assumption that all the passengers would be flying to Bristol.

He said: "It is ludicrous to think that people will be flooding into Bristol from Alicante, Malta, Rimini and the other predominantly tourist destinations."

Most of the new routes will operate from July and will take the number of Ryanair routes from Bristol to 33.

BIA aviation director Shaun Browne said: "This shows the strength of the market in the South West and Wales, and Ryanair's commitment to meeting demand for travel from the region's airport."

The group is also concerned that the new routes will be introduced without an increase in public transport.

Mr Birch says residents of the surrounding villages will end up having to put up with more congested roads.

The new routes are to Alicante, Barcelona Reus, Cagliari, Eindhoven, Limoges, Malta, Montpellier, Perpignan, Rimini, Seville, Toulon and Trieste.

Source

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Birch is from the local branch of Friends of the Earth, one of several organisations that have come together to form SBAE.

SBAE's views on some things are pure Stalinist. They don't want holiday flights because they believe people should be holidaying in the UK, especially in the South West, to boost the local economy. If they had their way I have no doubt they would enforce their edict.

Many of their members have moved to the surrounding rural area in recent decades turning local villages into near small towns and commuting to Bristol for their work. Indeed the only time the A38 past the airport is really busy is at morning and evening commute time. But those carbon emissions are all right because it's do as we say not as we do.

They know the Flyer Coach service is an outstanding success and plans are afoot to increase its frequency to every ten minutes for much of the day from the current fifteen minutes, and they also know that more and more people are arriving for flights by train, transferring to the Flyer for the last bit to the airport on though rail tickets.

If an airline decides to put on extra flights and destinations it is a commercial risk that airline is prepared to take. If it succeeds it shows there is a demand, whether taking local people on holiday or on business or overseas residents in the operation direction.

There is only one village that can be said to be affected by airport traffic. Drivers use that route to avoid the worst of the south Bristol suburban traffic queues, and there have been plans in the system for several years to build a bypass around that village. Guess who are at the head of the queue opposing 'yet more roads'? Yep, the fellow travellers of the SBAE mob.

 

[Aviador]

This was in your local rag today...

Heartless, impractical solution

SUGGESTING people move away is a heartless and impractical solution to the enormous loss of quality of life experienced by people living close to Bristol International Airport.

Living in Weston Mr Lawrence will be unaffected by the traffic congestion and its accompanying pollution caused by airport traffic on both the A38 and country lanes. He will also be unaffected by the degree of noise experienced by the airport's neighbours - frequent loud noise incidents from 6am to 11pm every day, set to rise to one around every three minutes once the airport has fulfilled its plans. His children's learning ability will be unaffected by frequent loud noise and, as his sleep won't be disturbed by night flights, he won't be at increased risk from serious stress-linked diseases such as heart disease.

The problem of frequent loud noise incidents from the planes won't go away - no amount of 'quieter' planes will solve it. The problem of the traffic could certainly be improved if all the authorities our campaign lobbies on a regular basis did ensure that public transport services to the airport were significantly increased. However, the airport itself has no incentive to increase bus services further as we believe it makes more money from car parking than it does from the flights themselves.

Mr Lawrence also ignores the wider issue of climate change. With no curb on the growth of flights in the UK, we have no chance of reaching the UK's target for an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The effects of climate change are already proving disastrous for many living in parts of Africa and elsewhere in the developing world - perhaps Mr Lawrence thinks they should move too.

SUSAN PEARSON

Stop Bristol Airport Expansion
Source

What utter nonsence.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The strange things is that most of the local SBAE complainers (as opposed to the 'professional' variety such as Friends of the Earth and the Protect Rural England mob) are not from traditional village families at all.

They are from the thousands of reasonably well-off to very well-off people who have moved to the villages in the area during the past forty years. The villages just keep growing although many of those who are responsible for the past growth by moving in now want further growth stopped. I wonder why that is.

Anyway these people are often from professional or blue collar backgrounds and many commute to and from Bristol to their work. In fact, the airport traffic is of nothing compared to the nose to tail commuting stream twice each weekday. But of course because these people are the cause of that pollution they keep their traps firmly shut about it.

The woman Pearson is one of the regular gobs that are put forward by SBAE for interview to the local media and she also likes to get herself across in the letters columns of the Yokel Press. The Weston Mercury is an example of an inbred local newspaper although I think it might now be owned by a chain, possibly a national chain.

For the best laugh one must read the monthly Chew Valley Gazette. It is a free 'newspaper' and its letters column regularly features the local chattering classes chucking out wildly aimed brickbats at the airport.

Better still in this journal of what the moneyed incomers like to think is some sort of upmarket, rural retreat for the nouveau riche are the detailed reports of the parish council meetings of a dozen or more parishes within ten miles of the airport. The elected representatives often come up with such fanciful and completely baseless ideas about matters affecting the airport that I sometimes wonder whether I am reading a spoof.

I think that parish councils are a useless and completely unnecessary layer of local 'government', and are also the last preserve of the nosey, interfering, local busybody and these reports confirm this view with no room for argument.

 

[Aviador]

All looks like fun to me. You must wait with anticipation for the next 'Chew Valley Gazette' to come through the door. I bet what you'll find is that it's the same names that pop up in the press each week. Try doing a little experiment and count just exactly how many people write in. You will probably count the names on one hand. This kind of reminds me of the noise complainers that East Midlands has. They had a ridiculous number of telephone complaints into there thousands and when they checked, the calls were all made by about just 4 people.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Local MPs Question Bristol Expansion

Bristol International Airport bosses are being urged to listen to concerns raised over its expansion plans.

Both Weston MP John Penrose and Dr Liam Fox, whose Woodspring constituency includes the airport, believe expansion will create additional jobs and travel opportunities.

But both fear local residents will suffer and have submitted a joint letter to the airport's chief executive Robert Sinclair highlighting their concerns.

These include the effect on transport links from an increase in passenger numbers and more disturbance for families.

The MPs claim there seemed to be no plans to address the increase in flight noise or to reduce congestion on roads to and from the airport.

Bristol Flyer coach service already operates between Bristol city centre and the airport but the MPs said there was no prospect of it being extended to cover journeys between Weston and the airport or Bath.
Mr Penrose and Dr Fox also claim the airport wants to increase car parking on green belt land.

A consultation over the airport's growth in the future has been running since January and will end tomorrow. The aim is to discover peoples' views on the plans before an application is submitted to North Somerset Council.

The letter from the MPs states: "Our biggest objection, however, is the impact that a large increase in passenger numbers will have on our already over-stretched transport infrastructure. If passengers were only coming from the centre of Bristol then an increased frequency of public transport might be an answer but the truth is that a huge amount of traffic makes its way up the A38 from the South or across from the M5 via Junctions 19, 20 and 21."

"There is nothing in the current planned infrastructure that would help alleviate this problem. The plan to convert part of the current car park by the terminal into a discrete underground multi-storey is welcome but there is no evidence to suggest that a large increase in ground level parking, on what is currently green belt land, is justified."

"It is also difficult to believe that in the current appalling economic climate, passenger numbers are likely to rise in line with previous estimates, if at all."

"We would urge you to look again at the entire economic case for expansion of the airport in the timescale envisaged as many of the assumptions of a growing economy might not be replicated in a recession.
The bottom line is that many of our constituents would be asked to pay the environmental cost of airport expansion without seeing significant benefits."

Susan Pearson, of Stop Bristol Airport Expansion (SBAE) said: "We are expecting the airport to put in a major planning application for a bigger terminal and more parking, which is what they need to bring passenger numbers to 10 million by 2016."

"That planning application will have a three-week public consultation period and from our point of view it is important the public know about this. The airport has said the expansion will create 4,000 jobs, we think this is fantasy as they have provided nothing to back up this claim. They will have to include a proper report to show how they reached those figures with their planning application."

"Our other problem is surface access as by 2016 there will still be 85 per cent of passengers arriving by car and 15 by public transport. This is a hell of a lot more cars on the roads," she said.

"New bus services from towns such as Weston are something we would welcome but this is something we want to see written in black and white. Our other concern is about noise as a wider airspace will be used with increased flights."

Airport boss, Mr Sinclair said: "First of all we are disappointed with this response by the MP's but the important thing to note is we have not submitted the planning application yet, we are still in the process of completing the consultation."

"This is a process whereby we have been out consulting with the community to understand the issues the local community has with the development proposals. Our current plans have already taken into account issues raised in the early planning process."

"There are one or two issues we need to address such as noise and transport. We are seriously looking at buses travelling to the airport from other towns and as part of the planning application we are looking to commence services such as buses from Weston-super-Mare. We are very much listening to the community."

"This is an opportunity to develop Bristol in a way which is sustainable and takes the interests into account of residents' who live close to the airport. I think it is premature for the MPs to form a final view with a development proposal before it is final."

"I think it is important to say Bristol airport is already constrained and suffers congestion in terms of car parking spaces, number of gates, aircraft stands. We believe therefore it is essential for the airport to enhance its services already provided to customers.

"We are looking at multi-level car parks, covered access, air bridges so passengers can walk directly onto aircraft; these are the sorts of things the travelling public ought to expect."

"We expect growth to continue and this is a long term development over eight-10-years. It will be a move creating more than 4,000 jobs including ground handlers, caters, car park attendants, firemen and security personnel."

"We are also very focused on enhancing the growth of inbound tourism. Fifteen per cent of passengers are inbound at the moment but we see that increasing especially with the level of the pound."

link: http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homepage ... ticle.html

It's amazing that BRS has been as successful as it has with elected representatives like this trying to put a brake on things.

One of Bristol's Liberal MPs has voiced his opposition many times but this is to be expected of that party, but Penrose and Fox are Tories, the party of business, or so we used to think.

You would think they would look to the greater good of the whole area and the prosperity the airport has brought and will continue to bring. Contrast with the views of their Welsh Conservative colleagues who recently came out in favour of expansion of Cardiff Airport, even hoping some of Bristol's passengers would be earmarked.

 

[Aviador]

Bristol cows 'as damaging as airports'
Saturday, March 28, 2009, 07:0038 readers have commented on this story.
Click here to read their views.
Plans to graze cattle in a Bristol park to provide beef for city schools have come under fire from vegans and environmental campaigners.
One opponent of the city council plan to produce its own meat supply claims it would be "like opening a new runway at an airport" – because of the greenhouse gas emissions caused when cows break wind and burp.
The council announced it wanted to acquire Stoke Park, the 200-acre parkland in front of the landmark Dower House alongside the M32 between Stapleton and Lockleaze, in February.
This would allow it to graze a herd of cows on the land, and start producing its own beef for schools and posh restaurants.
But critics say the amount of methane gas a herd would create while ruminating on grass would be harmful to the environment.
Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, the gas produced by the exhausts of cars and other vehicles using the neighbouring M32 and most commonly measured in assessing how human activity affects global warming.
Researchers claim cows produce up to 10kg of methane each per year.
The council's ruling Liberal Democrat cabinet is being recommended to approve the plan when it meets on Thursday.
The Bristol-based Soil Association has been involved in planning how the site would be managed and what kind of livestock would be used.
Phil Stocker, director of farmer and grower relations, told the Post it would be a small-scale operation of 30 breeding cows providing calves for beef production after two-and-a-half years.
There would be between 70 and 90 livestock on site at any one time, with the aim of producing six tonnes of beef after two years.
Mr Stocker said: "We are looking at a traditional breed, something like a Long Horn. They are an attractive breed that graze well and produce a distinctive and tasty beef. The beef produced would be sold or made available for the Bristol area – there is quite a lot of community interest."
Mr Stocker said management of the site was still being looked at but the council has looked at bringing in a local farmer.
Vegans eat no animal products, including milk and eggs.
Organiser of the Bristol Vegan Fayre Tim Barford, 45, of Blackboy Hill, condemned the proposals as environmentally unfriendly and unhealthy.
He said: "Livestock is responsible for 18 per cent of global emissions, that is more than transport, which is 13 per cent. Effectively what they're proposing is like opening a new runway at an airport.
"In a time when we're trying to cut back on global emissions, it's absolutely mad. I suggest they should use that land to grow crops to feed people, or grain as a gift to the developing world that is suffering from starvation."
Bristol Parks Forum and community group Lockleaze Voice have both supported the acquisition of the park, provided adequate public access is ensured and wildlife protected.
But lecturer and Green campaigner Glenn Vowles, 46, of Knowle, said: "There are serious questions as to whether a council should be doing this at all, with all the core responsibilities they already have for education, transport, housing and so on.
"Even more odd to go for beef farming because it's hardly a green option and apart from that it could be dogged by all sorts of problems, especially in the event of disease outbreak."
Bristol East MP Kerry McCarthy (Labour), who is also a vegan, raised the issue of methane-producing cows in Parliament this week.
But although she had some concerns about how it might work in practice, Ms McCarthy said the Bristol venture would be too small to have a significant effect.
She said: "I don't think you can regard a field full of cows as a threat, it's more about the collective impact.
"If we're talking about 100 cows, I wouldn't say it will be a problem."
The council's only Green Party councillor Charlie Bolton (Southville) said: "I'm very happy the green space is being preserved, but in terms of running a herd of cattle, I don't think the council is the best to do that."
Councillor Gary Hopkins (Lib Dem, Knowle), executive member for environment and community safety, said he will discuss the issues surrounding the proposal ahead of the meeting in next week's Post.

Source

 

[Aviador]

 

[TheLocalYokel]

You would think this was an early April Fool but I remember reading sometime ago that a UN report had found that animal 'emissions' were responsible for around 18% of global emissions.

My alter ego posed a question to the Protection of Rural England people (part of the StopBristolAirportExpansion group) asking if they were now going to demand the banning of cows in the countryside. Unsurprisingly, I received no response.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

City Council Not To Oppose Expansion of Bristol Airport

Bristol councillors have shunned a call from the council's sole Green Party representative to oppose any expansion of Bristol International Airport.

Charlie Bolton, who represents the Southville ward for the Greens, tabled a motion urging councillors to call for a halt to any further expansion of the airport because he believes that new development is not necessary for the economic success of the city.

The airport's £150-million plans to expand its capacity to handle up to 10-million passengers a year, which it claims will create 4,000 new jobs, were unveiled in January after years in the pipeline. But they face strong opposition from environmentalists and residents concerned over the impact of extra flights.

Last night fellow councillors voted to dilute Councillor Bolton's motion, by agreeing that the airport is "part of the essential infrastructure of Bristol as a European city and... as a generator of economic growth and high-quality employment", while calling for greenhouse gas emissions and noise pollution to be capped.
Airport chief executive Robert Sinclair welcomed the city council's recognition of "the vital role the airport plays in the city's success".

Mr Sinclair said: "Bristol International's growth has been closely linked to the economic success of Bristol and the South West region."

"As we work towards finalising future development plans, it is encouraging to know Bristol City Council recognises the important role the airport plays in providing employment, economic benefits, business connectivity and inbound tourism opportunities."

"We acknowledge the comments made by Bristol City Council on the subject of the airport's environmental impacts, and can confirm that a comprehensive range of measures to control, monitor and mitigate these impacts will be submitted to North Somerset Council as part of our planning application."

Campaigners from the Stop Bristol Airport Expansion group (SBAE) welcomed the call for the airport to avoid increasing emissions.

Spokesman Jeremy Birch said: "We're happy the council has recognised that from today any future development of the airport should not increase greenhouse gas emissions. This means the airport should not be aiming to increase flights and passengers, but instead focus on becoming environmentally sustainable."

"We also welcome the councillors' insistence that Bristol airport must significantly improve public transport to minimise traffic congestion and noise pollution suffered by local residents, and their statement in the council chamber that high speed rail links are needed to ease transport issues caused by airport traffic."

link: http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homepage ... ticle.html

It's just a pity the airport does not lie within the City Council's area. The planning process might be an easier one if it did.

 

[Aviador]

Have they ever looked at changing the boundaries to bring the airport within the City Council's area? I know that up here the councils have a dab-hand at changing the borders to suit their wants and needs.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

At the last major local government boundary review for England in 1996 many cities and unitary authorities expanded their boundaries.

Of the major cities, Bristol was almost alone in not doing so. Its municipal boundaries remain as they were in the 1960s. That's why the municipal city population of 400,000 is so low. It's actually 50,000 less than in the 1950s.

The physical city has expanded enormously since the 1960s and the true population of physical Bristol as opposed to municipal Bristol is around 700,000. That doesn't include satellite towns.

In 1996 the city council tried to have the city boundries expanded in line with the burgeoning urban sprawl but was met with opposition from the politicians in the neighbouring areas. The then Conservative government turned down the idea flat because it feared a perpetual Labour majority in an expanded Bristol. In the event this proved to be a nonsense because none of the four local authorities making up Greater Bristol has a Labour majority, thus New Labour was never anxious to revisit the proposal.

The airport is well away from the urban sprawl so there is no chance of it being taken into the Bristol boundary even if the boundary was expanded at some point in the future.

The result is the worst of all situations - a city ruled by four separate local authorities that rarely agree on anything.

 

[Aviador]

Fewer leisure flights could bring emissions down

The Conservative group misses the point in saying 'Turning back the clock on air travel isn't an option' Post, April 13. Everyone agrees a successful airport is necessary for the region and that is what we have, with connections via hubs such as Schipol and Paris.

The Conservatives are wrong to think people will jump into their cars and drive to other airports such as Heathrow and Cardiff, resulting in more pollution.

A report commissioned by the South West Development Agency shows expanding an airport encourages travel, with people flying more frequently as additional routes are offered. This is particularly true for the short break market and results in more pollution, not less.

Secondly the Conservatives have not read the recent Department for Transport paper on aviation emissions which states as Heathrow expands, it will use the most of the greenhouse gases allowance by 2030.

This Secretary of State says the entire aviation industry must emit less than 37.5 million tonnes, which is the level for 2005. The combined total of the London airports will be 31.6 million tonnes by 2030. By the Government's own calculations it leaves no room for regional expansion. Politicians should be working together to stop the adverse effects of climate change. The aviation industry is one of the fastest growing sources of carbon emissions. One of the ways to achieve this is to stop the expansion of Bristol airport and work to create a flight mix that supports the business community and the regional community. If that means fewer leisure flights, so be it.

Hilary Burn, Cleeve, Nr Bristol.

Source

 

[Aviador]

This argument seems to spin round in circles but basically, I'll say again, these swampie tree huggers need to concentrate on ensuring that the likes of Boeing and Airbus continue to invest in new technologies to further reduce Co2 emissions rather than just say stop growth and stop people from flying. If we are to go down that slippery road where do we stop? Are we going to stop people from using cars, boats and trains next?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Hilary Burn is a parish councillor, a member of the airport consultative committee and a long-standing opponent of the airport per se, although she will often say she is not, just that she doesn't want it to get any bigger.

I'm sure she holds genuine beliefs so in that respect I accept her views in the spirit of democracy whilst completely disagreeing with them.

Her comments are like a scratched gramophone record (if anyone else on here is old enough to remember the effect of such a defect).

The 'anti' lobby is especially active locally at the moment because of the reduction in passenger numbers in the past few months. They are pushing their argument that this 'proves' the airport does not need expanding.

One of my alter egos usually replies to such nonsense on the local paper web site. He's just done so again.

I use more than one nom de guerre when replying to their disinformation because I believe it is more effective with the uncommitted.

 

[Aviador]

The case against expanding Bristol Airport

Expanding Bristol Airport – will it be good for the city? Bristol's Public Health doctors faced this question in 2006 during the consultation about more flights and expanded facilities.

The health of people in Bristol depends on many things, including a thriving economy, the quality of the places we live in, education for our children, the food we eat, opportunities for safe enjoyable physical activity, a fair and peaceful society, and so on. So as Public Health specialists we needed to look carefully at all the issues.

We all knew that expansion at Bristol Airport was said to be essential because it would create jobs and because everyone supposedly wants to fly more. But the downside was becoming harder to ignore.
It will increase the amount of aircraft noise and the volume of traffic and congestion through local communities. This will damage health, wellbeing and education for a sizeable proportion of those living nearby.

We knew that the health damage from noise, heavy traffic, and climate change were well backed by evidence.

But we wanted to be certain that we were not overlooking potential positive effects on health from new jobs, and from more people on low incomes being able to holiday abroad.

We looked at evidence from a study in Luton, and discovered that it is not the people on low incomes who are mostly using cheap flights. We also looked carefully at the reports that had been written on possible economic effects if Bristol Airport were to expand. These were the Tym Report, carried out for Bristol International Airport in October 2005, and the Whitelegg Report, done for the Parish Councils and Friends of the Earth in October 2005. They looked at trends and forecasts, and made different predictions about economic growth, about jobs at the airport, in the supply chain for the airport, from inbound tourism, and from construction.

They also suggested there would be losses to the South West economy if more tourists use cheap flights to go away for weekends and holidays.

We were surprised to find that the predictions of economic benefit in the Tym report were reached by pretty much ignoring the impending energy crunch, oil price rises, future green taxes, changes in business behaviour to reduce carbon footprints, and the impacts of recession.

The University of the West of England report for Business West, published in January 2008 after our submission, also seemed to overlook these looming restraints on growth.

The fact that these matters were ignored led us to feel any possible health benefits from the economic impacts of airport expansion were actually very uncertain.

Our group concluded that on health grounds the damage from airport expansion would definitely outweigh the possible benefits. We submitted our conclusions, from the West of England Public Health Climate Change Group, to North Somerset Council, on December 18, 2006 as part of the consultation.

Two years on, and the International Energy Agency has advised governments to prepare for inevitable and irreversible decline in world oil production. The Government's Stern Report has also said long-term economic damage from 'business as usual' and runaway climate change will be massively worse than the short-term economic cost of changing to a low-carbon economy.

The business case for airport expansion is now looking very shaky. Passenger numbers are down and people are looking closer to home for their holidays.

Airport bosses argue that more facilities at Bristol will create jobs and help get us out of the recession. But others say that new jobs must be in sectors with a future – such as renewable energy, local food production and local recreation.

The Bristol International Airport company has no responsibility for impacts beyond their own short-term profits. It is their job to try to persuade us expansion will be good for Bristol.

But as Public Health specialists we take a broader view and our conclusion is that expanding the airport will do more harm than good for Bristol people.

Dr Angela E Raffle B Sc (Hons) MB ChB FFPH on behalf of the West of England Public Health Climate Change Group

Source

 

[Aviador]

The last paragraph says it all...

Dr Angela E Raffle B Sc (Hons) MB ChB FFPH on behalf of the West of England Public Health Climate Change Group

Had the report been commissioned by BISON Dr Angela E Raffle B Sc (Hons) would have come up with a whole different report in favour of expansion of the airport.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The Bristol Evening Post decided to be even-handed (for a change) and invited Alan Davies, one of the senior managers at BRS, to respond and make a case for the expansion of the airport which I append below.

The Post is no longer a local newspaper. In fact, as of today it and its stablemate, The Western Daily Press, are no longer printed in Bristol, but seventy miles away in Oxfordshire. This will be the first time in three hundred years that no newspapers have been printed in the city, according to the local BBC radio station, always keen to score points from a rival.

In recent months the Post has faithfully reported the airport's monthly decline in passenger numbers, having ignored the previous tewenty-five years when monthly and even annual passenger number drops were as rare as hens' teeth.

One or two of my alter egos felt impelled to point this out, not that I believe it will have any effect. Like most newspapers, they are only interested in bad news, apart from the occasional 'ahh' story, because they believe that is what sells papers.

Here is Alan Davies's response.

Dr Raffle has made her diagnosis without examining all of the evidence.

Bristol International's planning application will include detailed reports, produced by experts in the fields of noise, economics, transport and the environment.

We expect these to demonstrate that the proposed development of the airport is sustainable.
Without having seen these reports, Dr Raffle's verdict is premature.

The application will also include a range of mitigation measures to reduce impacts on local people – with significant contributions to road improvements, for example. Far from resulting in increased congestion, the development provides an opportunity to improve the local road network.

Similarly, Dr Raffle's claims of increased noise are wide of the mark. In fact, noise around the airport will remain at pre-2006 levels, significantly quieter than residential areas close to Bristol's busy motorways.

The Stern Review made clear that the world does not need to choose between averting climate change and promoting growth and development. Indeed, the Sustainable Aviation Strategy, to which Bristol International is a signatory, targets a return to 2000 emissions levels by 2050.

This will be achieved by improvements in operational procedures and advances in aviation technology.

Aerospace manufacturers spend £2.5 billion a year on researching and developing new technology, with Bristol-based companies such as Airbus and Rolls Royce at the forefront.

Bristol International is not just used for holiday flights (although we do believe enabling people to travel the world from their local airport is a good thing). Strong air links help local businesses to access overseas markets and encourage inward investment.

Connections with the rest of the world also enable overseas visitors to explore Bristol and the South West, and play an important role in the region's ability to attract conferences, exhibitions and major events.

Restricting the ability to fly to and from Bristol International will not reduce emissions, it will simply displace flights to airports in other regions, to the disadvantage of local travellers and tourism businesses.

The proposed development plans would deliver an airport for the South West to be proud of. Dr Raffle's argument is a prescription for failure.

Alan Davies, Planning and Environment Director at Bristol International Airport


link: Can't get the link to this story to register but it can be found on the 'This Is Bristol' site with a Bristol Airport query in the search box.

 

[Aviador]

[textarea]Row over Bristol Airport night flight plans

Campaigners Stop Bristol Airport Expansion (SBAE), who are fighting expansion plans by Bristol Airport, have suggested that complaints about night-time noise will increase if the development is approved, the Bath Chronicle reports. But the pressure group has been accused of scare mongering by the airport.

The airport has submitted a planning application for a £150 million expansion, designed to cope with a projected increase in the number of passengers using the airport annually from six million to 10 million by 2019. Flights by commercial aircraft would increase from about 60,000 in 2008 to about 86,000 a year – with five or six flights more per hour in the peak hours of 18:00 - 23:00.

SBAE says that there could be up to 21 flights a night on the busiest summer nights, when people's windows are likely to be open and sleep difficult. It says that, although the airport has to keep within a total noise quota, because modern planes are quieter, more of them can be accommodated within the overall ceiling. Over the past few years night flights have averaged out at 3,200 per year, but SBAE says the expansion proposals would allow a rise in night flights to as much as 4,500 annually.

SBAE spokesman Jeremy Birch said: ‘It is the frequency of noise events, rather than a token reduction of a few decibels, that causes the misery of sleep deprivation for residents living under flight paths.‘

But airport spokesman James Gore said no relaxation of the current system which limits night flights had been proposed. He told the newspaper: ‘In fact, an additional night movement cap has been tabled to provide additional reassurance on this issue. There is no headroom within this system for an increase in night flying, nor do we see such an increase as being necessary to the airport's development plans.'

Source[/textarea]

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Most of the night flights were charter and postal operations.

With Royal Mail cutting back their operations severly two or three years ago and now with the contraction of charter airline companies and flights, there are fewer night flights than at any time in the past twenty years.

SBAE now concedes that modern aircraft are quieter so now has to find a new method to get across its spurious arguments.