The Government has decided to undertake work to assess the environmental impact of a third runway at Heathrow. It is likely therefore that a decision will not be made until the Summer. The Association has written two detailed letters clearly outlining the reasons why Heathrow is unsuitable for a third runway.
Make your views known by writing to the four MP’s below. You can keep it short expressing your concerns over health issues, ieNOISE and AIR POLLUTION.
Patrick McLoughlin M.P. Secretary of State for Transport patrick.mcloughlin@dft.gsi.gov.uk
Our MP Adam Afriyie MP adam.afriyie.mp@parliament.uk
Zac Goldsmith MP zac@zacgoldsmith.com
Huw Irranca-Davies Chairman Environmental Audit Committee irrancadaviesh@parliament.uk
In order to help you compose a letter we have attempted to distil the various complex arguments and tease out the perceived flaws in the recently-published Davies Commission Report.
In 2010 David Cameron STATED UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT HE WAS OPPOSED TO SUCH MASSIVE EXPANSION, but it is feared he may have had a change of mind.
Many Windsor businesses appear to support the idea that a third runway should be built. However the RBWM, your WWRA representatives (long experienced in dealing with aviation issues), and your MP Adam Afriyie are united in their opposition. We accept that added runway capacity is needed in the UK but HEATHROW IS THE WRONG LOCATION.
Six months ago the Airports Commission, headed by Sir Howard Davies, published its final report to government on expanding aviation capacity in the UK. Having considered three short listed options, including a second runway at Gatwick, it recommended a new full length runway at Heathrow. This would be built at Harmondsworth and Sipson parallel to the existing northern runway with the minimum permissible lateral separation. It will extend considerably further west, thus GREATLY EXACERBATING THE NOISE IMPACT ON DATCHET, WINDSOR AND ETON.
Oddly, the Commission states that its recommendations will ensure that an expanded Heathrow can be a better neighbour for local communities than the airport is today. WE CANNOT UNDERSTAND THIS ARGUMENT.
The Davies Commission was required to give balanced consideration to environmental impacts, operational factors, and required infrastructure as well as economic benefits. In arriving at its decision to recommend a new north west runway at Heathrow, the Commission appears to have OVERSTATED the economic benefits whilst considerably UNDERSTATING the environmental concerns and SCARCELY CONSIDERED the extent of the additional need for infrastructure and services
In doing so they appear to have been UNDULY INFLUENCED BY ASSURANCES GIVEN BY HEATHROW AIRPORT. They have also attached THREE KEY CONDITIONS THAT APPEAR TO BE UNDELIVERABLE .
- A condition was that there should be no fourth runway, stating that the Government should make a firm commitment in Parliament. However, Heathrow have provided no such assurances in that regard and, if there were, they would be no more credible than the assurances than those given at the time the Fifth Terminal was considered that a third runway would not be sought.
- A second condition is a ban on scheduled night flights between 11.30 pm and 00 am. The current reason given for the need for night time arrivals in London relates to the departure times from airports around the world rather than capacity at Heathrow. This infers that such a restriction could not be delivered, and Heathrow have stated that it is the Govt’s decision to make, not their’s.
- A third condition included a legal requirement on air quality that new capacity will only be released when it is clear that compliance with EU limits will not be delayed. There is every consideration that a proper consideration of environmental concerns would demonstrate that compliance with EU limits would just not be possible with additional capacity.
Dealing with some of our most obvious concerns:
AIR POLLUTION
Transport is a major source of air pollution. EXPANSION AT HEATHROW WOULD INCREASE THE LEVEL OF AIR POLLUTION IN AN AREA WHERE THAT POLLUTION IS ALREADY EXCESSIVE. Concerns related to Carbon Dioxide are well known but Nitrogen Dioxide is another pollutant measured at excessive levels in the vicinity of Heathrow. A recent article in The Times indicated that Nitrogen Dioxide, which has been linked to 23,500 deaths in the U.K. each year, has recently been measured at 75% above EU standards in several areas around Heathrow and at times above 125% above in other areas.
The Davies Commission controversially stated that the environmental impact on expansion “ does not outweigh its very significant national benefits” when mitigation measures are taken into account.
NOISE
The noise problem with aircraft taking off and landing at Heathrow is well known. If a third runway is allowed at Heathrow we can ultimately expect a 50% increase in the number of movements. The noise study that was commissioned by the Labour Government, and then rejected, found that insufficient weight was given to the number of aircraft movements in assessing the level of disturbance.
The Davies Commission appear to have accepted that mitigation procedures would enable that disturbance to be contained at levels no worse than current levels. It has ignored the fact that those mitigation procedures can be adopted if just two runways are used at Heathrow, which would IMPROVE the current noise climate. IT HAS, THEREFORE, DETERMINED THAT ANY BENEFITS THAT MIGHT ACCRUE TO THE ECONOMY ARE MORE IMPORTANT THEN THE HEALTH OF PEOPLE LIVING IN THE VICINITY OF THE AIRPORT.
It also appears to have ignored the fact that people living to the west of the airport and to the north of the current flight paths to and from the northern runway, would be living between two flight paths with minimum separation. Also, aircraft operating to and from the new runway will be considerably lower than aircraft using the existing runways. Furthermore, it fails to address the adverse impact on respite from noise available through runway alternation if a third runway is in operation.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Depending on whether the benefits of the extra employment that might be required if a third runway is introduced is being emphasised, or reassurance is being given regarding the impact on required services and infrastructure, there is considerable variation in assessing the number of extra jobs that might be created. It appears to be somewhere between 70,000 and twice that number. HOW THE PEOPLE WILL BE FOUND TO FILL THESE VACANCIES AND WHERE THEY WILL LIVE IS ALSO QUESTIONABLE. It is therefore difficult to assess added housing needs and the requirement for more schools, hospitals etc.
What we do know is the we already have significant shortages and the that THE PLANS BEING DEVELOPED BY RBWM CURRENTLY MAKE NO PROVISION FOR ANY ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT RELATED TO EXPANDING HEATHROW.
IT IS ALSO APPARENT THAT THE DAVIES COMMISSION INADEQUATELY ADDRESSES THE IMPACT OF AN EXPANDED HEATHROW WILL HAVE ON OUR ROADS, PARKING, THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL HOTELS, ETC. There is no mention of the parlous state of the Hammersmith Flyover and the impact of constant running repairs that will be needed if its utilisation is significantly increased.
These are just some of the concerns of the impact that a significant increase in Heathrow operations may cause. If, of course the scale of operations were to be reduced to address some of these issues the business case for expanding Heathrow would be significantly undermined.