Airport expansion scuppers housing scheme
29.8.2008 (Planning Daily)
PlanningResource, 29 August 2008
Two appeals involving the development of land close to Birmingham international
airport have failed because of the potential for future occupiers to be harmed
by aircraft noise.
The schemes would have involved the construction of 16 apartments and between
55 and 57 houses.
But a masterplan for the expansion of the airport proposed a threefold increase
in passenger numbers requiring a total of 205,000 air transport movements compared
with 109,000 in 2006.
Various noise measurements and calculations were undertaken by the appellants
and the council and the former placed weight on the effectiveness of a new 12m
high bund which they claimed would attenuate noise levels.
But despite these measures an inspector ruled that in 2030 the whole of the appeal
site would be subject to a level of noise exposure where planning permission should
not normally be given unless material considerations weighed firmly in favour
of the development.
The occupants would be subject to unacceptable levels of noise during the day
and at night only the use of mechanical ventilation would ensure that the future
occupiers could secure a peaceful night’s sleep.
This, he ruled, would be unacceptable and the cases were dismissed.
link to article
Download the full appeal decision from Compass Online.
| |||
| 110-134 ELMDON LANE, MARSTON GREEN, SOLIHULL | |||
| Proposed airport expansion scuppers housing scheme Two appeals involving the development of land close to Birmingham international airport in the West Midlands failed because of the potential for future occupiers to be harmed by aircraft noise. The schemes proposed developments which were broadly the same in their scope, comprising the demolition of existing dwellings to enable the construction of 16 apartments and between 55 and 57 houses. A masterplan for the expansion of the airport supported by a planning application sought the construction of a runway extension to increase the capacity and versatility of the facility. The masterplan proposed a threefold increase in passenger numbers requiring a total of 205,000 air transport movements compared with 109,000 in 2006. It included indicative noise contours showing the impact on background levels in 2006 and 2030. Various noise measurements and calculations were undertaken by the appellants and the council and the former placed weight on the effectiveness of a new 12m high bund which they claimed would attenuate noise levels. When coupled with internal insulation of the properties closest to the airport adequate internal noise levels would be achieved, they claimed, relying in part on the advice of the council’s environmental protection officer who had concluded that these mitigation measures would be acceptable. The inspector agreed that noise associated with aircraft taxiing or when braking on landing would be attenuated by the bund. However, with the proposed runway extension it seemed likely that some aircraft on taking off would have cleared the height of the bund when passing the appeal site and this would reduce the effectiveness of the barrier. In his opinion, in 2030 the whole of the appeal site would be subject to a level of noise exposure where planning permission should not normally be given unless material considerations weighed firmly in favour of the development. With this conclusion in mind he recorded that the council anticipated meeting its housing land availability targets to 2011 and consequently there was no overriding need to release the site for development. Dismissing the appeals, he ruled, would not inevitably lead to development on less sustainable, greenfield land and the provision of affordable housing, while beneficial, was also not an overriding consideration, he opined. The occupants would be subject to unacceptable levels of noise during the day and at night only the use of mechanical ventilation would ensure that the future occupiers could secure a peaceful night’s sleep. This was an artificial means of trying to make the scheme acceptable, he opined, and in the absence of compelling reasons why the schemes should be permitted, the appeals had to be dismissed, he concluded. |