Court Dismisses Suvarnabhumi Airport Noise Pollution Case

[webfact]

Court dismisses Suvarnabhumi Airport noise pollution case

BANGKOK, Mar 1 – Thailand's Central Administrative Court on Wednesday dismissed the request of residents living near the country's main airport seeking an injunction to temporarily ban nighttime flying to reduce noise pollution.

The court's decision came as the first plaintiff, Sanun Worasooksri, and 359 others filed a lawsuit against Airports of Thailand (AoT) for negligence of duty in the implementation of measures to minimise environmental impacts from Suvarnabhumi Airport.

The plaintiffs complained that the defendants have not adopted nighttime flying restrictions to relieve noise pollution. They seek a court injunction to enforce the ban on nighttime flying until the AoT can apply relief measures to move residents in affected areas and to renovate buildings affected by noise and vibration.

They also want construction of the third and the fourth runways to be put on hold until an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) is conducted and reported to the National Environment Commission for its consideration.

Judge Wasana Chantaraporn however said the court dismissed the case as the two new runways are not yet in use as AoT must still conduct additional studies on the environmental impacts before they can open as stated in the Cabinet resolution made on Nov 21, 2006.

Therefore, the judge said, AoT is not considered as being negligence of its duty.

Residents’ representative Areeya Mahathamkij said that despite the case dismissal by the court, it has no impact on the residents living around the airport as their move was a preliminary filing.

Ms Areeya said the Suvarnabhumi neighbourhood dwellers will continue to file suit against the AoT regarding the excessive number of passengers which exceeded the figure required in the environmental impact report. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2012-03-01

[LuckyLew]

Well, this comes as no surprise to me

If the plaintiffs moved in after the announcement of the plan to

build and airport there, they have no case what so ever

If the plaintiffs were already there, then perhaps they have a right

to complain, but asking them to stop all flights is cimply ridiculous

[GentlemanJim]

Well, this comes as no surprise to me

If the plaintiffs moved in after the announcement of the plan to

build and airport there, they have no case what so ever

If the plaintiffs were already there, then perhaps they have a right

to complain, but asking them to stop all flights is cimply ridiculous

How do you conclude after reading the OP that the residents want to 'stop all flights'?, that in itself is simply ridiculous. The residents are asking for a ban on night time flights. That is commonly no flying between midnight and 6am, a procedure normal at many airports around the world and adopted so that the locals have a chance to get some sleep. The demands are not excessive or unreasonable. The British airports authority had to install triple glazing in many houses around Heathrow, I doubt that locals at Suvarnabhumi have even been given a pair of foam earplugs by AOT.

[Bagwan]

Quote: Ms Areeya said the Suvarnabhumi neighbourhood dwellers will continue to file suit against the AoT regarding the excessive number of passengers which exceeded the figure required in the environmental impact report. (MCOT online news) Unquote

Huh? The residents prefer half empty planes rather than full ones? I can see that a full load might require full power to attain a safe airspeed on take off and say two thirds power for a lightly loaded plane but I would be interested in learning what the differing decibels levels would be.

[airconsult]

Well, this comes as no surprise to me

If the plaintiffs moved in after the announcement of the plan to

build and airport there, they have no case what so ever

If the plaintiffs were already there, then perhaps they have a right

to complain, but asking them to stop all flights is cimply ridiculous

The original planning for an airport there was from the late 60's. The land purchase was begun(finished?) in 1973.

Yes, yes - it did go on-hold for many years, but if between 1973 and now you bought a house in the proposed flight paths - sorry, your fault, it was planned already.

[garrya]

Well, this comes as no surprise to me

If the plaintiffs moved in after the announcement of the plan to

build and airport there, they have no case what so ever

If the plaintiffs were already there, then perhaps they have a right

to complain, but asking them to stop all flights is cimply ridiculous

The original planning for an airport there was from the late 60's. The land purchase was begun(finished?) in 1973.

Yes, yes - it did go on-hold for many years, but if between 1973 and now you bought a house in the proposed flight paths - sorry, your fault, it was planned already.

Why do you think they all bought their houses after that date? Some could simply inherit or buy it well before that. I suppose so.

[Reasonableman]

Quote: Ms Areeya said the Suvarnabhumi neighbourhood dwellers will continue to file suit against the AoT regarding the excessive number of passengers which exceeded the figure required in the environmental impact report. (MCOT online news) Unquote

Huh? The residents prefer half empty planes rather than full ones? I can see that a full load might require full power to attain a safe airspeed on take off and say two thirds power for a lightly loaded plane but I would be interested in learning what the differing decibels levels would be.

You could always relocate your abode to underneath the flight path if you were really interested to know.

[airconsult]

Well, this comes as no surprise to me

If the plaintiffs moved in after the announcement of the plan to

build and airport there, they have no case what so ever

If the plaintiffs were already there, then perhaps they have a right

to complain, but asking them to stop all flights is cimply ridiculous

The original planning for an airport there was from the late 60's. The land purchase was begun(finished?) in 1973.

Yes, yes - it did go on-hold for many years, but if between 1973 and now you bought a house in the proposed flight paths - sorry, your fault, it was planned already.

Why do you think they all bought their houses after that date? Some could simply inherit or buy it well before that. I suppose so.

I did say "if" purchased after 1973 - those who inherited would be entitled to compensation - but only for how the land existed then - if it was a rice paddy then, but now it's full of apartment blocks built after 1973 - you shouldn't be complaining when the plans had been made public.

I looked at the area before construction commenced (late 90's) - and during - can't find the photos right now, but you'd be amazed how many surrounding buildings have suddenly appeared. I wish I could find some photos archived of the area in 1973.....