But hopes the din could be silenced have been dashed after the airport’s owners said they would foot the bill for sound insulation - but for two homes only.
BAA has set a limit of 66 decibels as the trigger for residents, who have complained about noisy aircraft, to claim financial help to install double glazing.
As it stands only two properties - virtually within view of the runway - can qualify.
Similar proposals for Edinburgh are expected to be published in the next few days.
The company conceded very few people would be given help under the plans but said it was increasing its “Flightpath fund”, which will nearly double to £150,000 next year, to give general help to communities affected by noise pollution.
But BAA has been accused of issuing a “meaningless” consultation and politicians who have registered thousands of complaints from those living under the flightpath have challenged it to go further.
Residents closest to Glasgow’s runway have reacted furiously. Tommy Brady, who lives in Clydebank, said: “On this basis there’ll be two farmhouses getting compensation while we live under the flight path, which is enough to cause serious hearing damage.”
The number of aircraft flying in and out of Glasgow has increased steadily as passenger numbers more than trebled over the last two decades, although it has been hit by a slump in the last year.
Residents in the Whitecrook area of Clydebank, north of the airport, have submitted the highest number of complaints although communities from Paisley to Bearsden have also suffered.
The largely post-war housing in Clydebank, with generally poor sound insulation, is thought to have exacerbated the problem. BAA said the decibel limit had been set after a “benchmarking” exercise that looked at measures taken by other airports, and said it was in line with the cut-off for compensation used at Stansted and Gatwick.
But its consultation, which is set to conclude at the end of January, rejected calls by politicians to curtail night-time flights or impose a levy on airlines that could be used to help pay for further insulation measures.
A spokesman for BAA said: “It simply isn’t affordable to provide sound insulation for everyone who lives under the flightpath. In this current climate, no-one is going to turn to airlines and say they have to pay an extra levy. It would simply drive business away. You would very quickly see airlines pull out of Glasgow.”
Des McNulty, the Labour MSP for Clydebank and Milngavie, said he would press BAA to review the cut-off level. “Planes flying over every three or four minutes can be quite deafening, especially some of the bigger flights that come in and out,” he said. “What people are experiencing is noise at around 60 to 61 decibels so not many qualify with the 66 decibel cut-off. It shouldn’t just be BAA that funds this, it should be airlines.”
Mr McNulty also called for restrictions on flights between 11pm and 6.30am “so people can get a full night’s sleep”.
Gil Paterson, the SNP list MSP for the West of Scotland, said BAA’s consultation was “meaningless”. He said: “BAA’s proposals appear to contain no real benefit for people who are suffering.”
Councils adjacent to the airport welcomed the consultation’s launch but there were doubts about whether it went far enough. One local authority source said: “This is a paltry amount and not nearly enough. We’re hoping that we can lever more money from them.”
A West Dunbartonshire spokeswoman said: “We welcome any improvement but are looking to see if this matter can go further.”
Iain Nicolson, convener of Renfrewshire Council’s planning and economic development policy board, said: “This scheme is a further positive step in addressing the environmental impact of the airport’s operations.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article