---

Civil Aviation Bill

moved Amendment No. 42:"After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—" ““COMPENSATION: AIRPORT EXPANSION (1)   The Secretary of State may direct specified aerodrome authorities to introduce compensation arrangements for property owners whose properties have been adversely affected by proposals for airport expansion. (2)   The terms of the compensation arrangements will— (a)   ensure that the property owner is financially no worse off than if the property had not been adversely affected by the airport expansion proposals; (b)   include advance guarantees to purchase any properties affected. (3)   Such arrangements are to be introduced as soon as practicable following the Secretary of State’s direction.”” The noble Lord said: As Members of the Committee will recall, one of the key purposes of the 2003 White Paper, The Future of Air Transport, was to,"““give greater certainty wherever possible to those living close to airports and their flight paths””." The White Paper recognised that,"““the lack of a clear long-term strategy and the slow progress of decision-making has helped create unnecessary blight, uncertainty and distress for many people””." This amendment is designed to address this problem and to introduce provisions to make existing compensation arrangements fairer and more generous to those people whose homes are blighted by proposed airport development. I must again declare an interest as Leader of Essex County Council, since I have many people within the county whose homes are blighted because of the potential second runway at Stansted. Indeed, we expect BAA to announce further plans tomorrow about the siting of a runway at Stansted. Currently, under the Land Compensation Act 1973, those affected by future airport development can claim compensation for loss in the value of their property, directly attributable to the operation of the development. However, this does not apply until 12 months after a new runway is in operation. So, in the case of Stansted, for example, homeowners could have to wait another 10 years or more before they have any statutory entitlement to compensation. And if a second runway were never built, homeowners would never have any statutory entitlement to compensation for blight. In the mean time, blight has already taken a considerable toll. It first became apparent in July 2002, when the Department for Transport published its consultation proposals for a massive expansion of Stansted. The latest Land Registry statistics indicate that some 12,000 homes are affected, mainly across the southern half of Uttlesford—that is the district council—and that the overall impact on home values in Uttlesford has been around £600 million. In the air transport White Paper, the Government acknowledged that airport-related blight materialised as soon as any major expansion proposals became public knowledge. It also recognised the unfairness of the lack of statutory redress for homeowners until a decade or more later. The Government’s solution to this was to call for airport operators to address the problem of property blight on a voluntary basis. Specifically relating to Stansted, paragraph 11.41 of the air transport White Paper stated:"““The airport operator will need to put in place a scheme to address the problem of generalised blight resulting from the runway proposal””." This was echoed by the Transport Select Committee in its report on aviation, which also called for,"““more generous homeowner compensation . . . to provide some comfort to those who will be uprooted or disturbed as a result of any expansion in the 30 year plan””." In his official response in December 2003, the Secretary of State stated:"““Airport operators are agreed that, where relevant, they should bring forward appropriate voluntary schemes to supplement existing statutory rights and to minimise the impacts on local people. We look to airport operators to carry out early consultation on their proposals, which should include advance guarantees to purchase any properties affected””." However, this is reliant on the good intentions of the airport operators. In the case of Stansted, we think that BAA has failed in its intentions. It responded with a woefully inadequate voluntary scheme offered to just 500 homes in the immediate vicinity of the airport. Even then, it required those few who qualified to accept the first 15 per cent of any property devaluation themselves and to meet their own relocation costs. I am sure that the Committee will agree that this is an unacceptable and unfair situation. Our amendment seeks to address this. It would allow the Secretary of State to direct specific aerodrome authorities to introduce compensation arrangements for property owners whose properties have been adversely affected by proposals for airport expansion. This problem has a huge and prolonged impact on the lives of homeowners affected. At a time when the Government are fostering a huge expansion in aviation—new runway proposals will be announced tomorrow—it is time to make fair and adequate arrangements for those whose lives will be so adversely affected. I beg to move.