The way in which Flemish Minister for the Environment Zuhal Demir (N-VA) tries to save money with the environmental permit for an indefinite period, which she granted to Brussels Airport Company on March 29 for the operation of the airport, has almost only critical led to negative reactions.
Legally, it is not the end of the story, as some bodies representing local residents have already announced that they will appeal. This also happened in 2004 when the current permit was granted. These appeal procedures yielded no results.
Economy versus welfare
The elements that have been causing tension in the airport area for decades are well known. First there is the great economic importance. A recent study by the universities of Antwerp and Louvain-la-Neuve, commissioned by Brussels Airport, shows that the airport is good for 5.41 billion euros in added value annually and more than 64,000 jobs, if companies are also included. that are not located there but provide services there. On the other hand, there is the well-being of the people. The number of people who experience serious annoyance from aircraft noise pollution was estimated at 207,741 in 2019; the number whose sleep is seriously disturbed stands at 98,723. The federal ombudsman of Brussels Airport received 28,893 complaints in the course of 2023 and identified more than 1,500 suspected breaches of regulations.
In the run-up to March 29, the deadline for a decision on the permit that expires in July, everything was tightened up once again. When presenting the aforementioned study, Arnaud Feist, CEO of Brussels Airport, stated ‘that the airport is a job and growth engine and an indispensable part of the Belgian economy’. Prime Minister De Croo called on the Flemish government ‘to find a solution that makes the further development of Brussels Airport possible’.
In response to the plea from the regional environmental permit committee (GOVC) to limit the number of flight movements and introduce quiet weekend nights, the unions warned of a social bloodbath. Bond Beter Leefmilieu (BBL) also gave the GOVC advice a ‘highly inadequate’ rating for other reasons. Referring to a study by Transport&Mobility Leuven, BBL stated that the employment effect of the ban on night flights is minimal in the long term and could even create jobs. Brussels Airport took a sting out of the file last year with the announcement that it is shelving its expansion plans, including the hotly contested extension of a runway.
Power lines
What are the main thrust of the new environmental permit? The number of flights per year will be capped at 240,000 from 2032, which allows a growth of 13% compared to 2023. The airport operator must also take the necessary measures to reduce the number of sleep disruptors by 30% by 2032. From the summer of 2025, the noisiest aircraft will no longer be allowed to land or take off between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. From the summer of 2026, only landings of aircraft with a sufficiently low noise level will be permitted from Saturday to Monday between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. These quiet weekend nights will be systematically extended by several hours in 2028 and 2030. From 2028, quiet weekend nights will also be introduced before takeoff. Additional noise barriers and sound-absorbing objects must also be installed within four years.
No ban on night flights
However, Minister Demir does not follow the advice of the Healthcare Department to introduce a ban on night flights – a maximum level for peak noise of 60dB – because, according to her, this would seriously harm the economic interests of the airport as a job engine and lead to a loss of 1,600 jobs. She lashed out at the federal government, more specifically at Minister of Mobility Georges Gilkinet (Ecolo), who had advocated such a ban. She also rejected the BBL’s plea to limit the number of flights to 220,000 from 2025. The GOVC advocates a limitation to 234,000 from 2030. Minister Demir bases this on the maximum of 240,000 proposed in the environmental impact report. ‘The operator did not ask for a ceiling and wanted a further growth scenario after 2032, but did not investigate this scenario in its environmental impact report. If a different ceiling is desired in the future, an application can be submitted via an adjustment procedure,” the minister said.
The reactions
The reactions of local residents to the granted permit were unanimously negative. The Airport Region Platform, through chairman Walter Vansteenkiste, mayor of Wemmel, noted ‘that the quality of life and health of local residents is on the losing side. The night’s sleep of local residents will continue to be disturbed. Study after study shows that this has a major impact on people’s quality of life. The fact that only aircraft with a lower noise level are allowed to land during weekend nights is only a cover-up.’ The fact that the number of flight movements is allowed to grow by 13% is a thorn in the side for the Platform, which advocates a standstill.
The same story at the Civic Forum Airport Region, which organized a demonstration in Zaventem in November last year with 600 people against night flights and in favor of limiting the number of flights. ‘The permit is tailor-made for the airport operator and does not take into account studies that map the health effects on local residents.’
Environmental movement BBL regrets the lack of a ban on night flights and points out that too few concrete measures are linked to objectives in the permit, such as the gradual introduction of weekend nights.
But that is not everything. Minister Demir is also receiving support from his own majority. Tom Ongena, chairman of Open Vld, which, together with N-VA, is part of the Flemish government, finds ‘it incomprehensible that Demir is endangering Zaventem, which after the port of Antwerp is the largest economic arm of our country. There is no chance of growth with this permit, but there is fear of a decline in activities,” says Ongena.
The environmental permit for Zaventem airport is too strict for some, too lenient for others. It’s like mixing water with fire.
The political opposition is downright sharp. “Minister Demir simply ignores the health costs of 400 million euros per year,” said Bruno Tobback (Vooruit). Mieke Schauvliege (Green) criticizes the lack of ‘a concrete policy to improve the quality of life’. Mayor Benoît Cerexhe of Woluwe-Saint-Pierre states that he will use all legal remedies against the new permit ‘because it takes no account of the environment, local residents or Brussels residents’. The Brussels government, which had asked to limit the number of movements to 220,000 per year, to respect Brussels noise standards, to cancel night flights and to use less noisy aircraft, is disappointed. Philippe Touwaide, federal ombudsman for the airport, believes it is unacceptable ‘that the minister does not pay more attention to the health and pollution aspects of the airport activity in the permit’.
The economy
There was also a lot of criticism of the granted permit from an economic perspective. Brussels Airport (BAC) itself points to the ‘strict additional operating conditions that make further development of the airport after 2032 uncertain’. The fact that the number of flight movements may increase to 240,000 until 2032 does provide a growth margin, ‘but an adjustment will be necessary to be able to grow further after that’.
Moreover, according to BAC, the strict noise reduction targets may only be introduced if they are in accordance with the balanced approach imposed by the EU in a regulation. ‘The outcome of this procedure will have to show whether that is the case.’
The ceiling of 240,000 flights is OK for freight carrier Air Cargo Belgium in the short term, but could have negative consequences for the economy in the long and medium term. ‘Specifically with regard to freight, we fear that the slots in the long term will mainly be occupied by passengers’. DHL, on the other hand, speaks of ‘a strict but workable straitjacket’.
Voka fears that the cap on the number of flight movements will create uncertainty about the future growth of the airport. The employers’ organization hopes that the ceiling can be broken through technological developments and innovation in the aviation industry with increasingly quieter and more economical aircraft. The Christian and socialist trade unions also warn that the ceiling of 240,000 flights ‘will have consequences for employment and economic growth’.
