No running away from this problem

• May. 6 by Kirsty Booth (0)

Birmingham Friends of the Earth and Birmingham Airport anti-Noise Group (BANG) have put their heads together in a bid to fight against plans for the extension of Birmingham International Airport (BIA).

Birmingham International Airport announced plans to expand the airport in November 2008. Their plans included the extension of runways by up to 400 meters, costing £120 million. If put in place, the new runway could be up and running by 2012, according to Solihull Council.

The two organisations have worked together to form the website, www.flyagra.co.uk, criticising and opposing the proposal to extend the airport’s runway.

The main messages that the website aims to communicate to its users is that if the plans are go ahead, it will significantly increase noise pollution and damage to the environment. The Flyagra campaign will concentrate on lobbying Solihull Council to refuse planning permission for the airport’s expansion.

Chris Williams, a campaigner for Birmingham Friends of the Earth said:

“Last November’s Airport Master Plan confirmed what many suspected: BIA has no credible climate change policy…we know that climate-changing emissions from BIA’s operations are forecast to grow three-fold in the next twenty-five years if the airport expands as planned.”

To ensure a high quantity of users for the website, an e-mail is circulating that advertises ‘Flyagra’ as the revolutionary treatment that really keeps you up!’ The website mocks the runway extension plans, comparing them to a ‘male organ’ enlargement advertisement. Is it all just another way of being ‘bigger and better’ than the rest?

New lower forecasts of future growth in demand for flights at BIA mean that the controversial second runway is unlikely to needed before 2030.

Secretary of BANG, James Botham said:

“Extending Birmingham International Airport’s current runway and increasing airport capacity will make the Second Runway more, not less, likely to go ahead in future. Local politicians hoping to position themselves as both ‘pro-environment’ and ‘pro-airport’ by on the one hand opposing a second runway while on the other hand backing the runway extension are unwittingly paving the way for the very thing they say they are against.”