Forum Topic

Heathrow Expansion

There is a Department of Transport consultation on Heathrow expansion which I presume has plopped through everyone's doorsteps but is also available online atwww.dft.gov.uk/heathrowconsultationDeadline is 27th February. If we are to have any hope of stopping it, we all need to fill in the boxes please.

Kath Richardson ● 6448d16 Comments

I was encouraged to see Hounslow's Lead Member for Environment, Cllr Barbara Reed, join Cross-Borough with the Lib Dems and  Greens and accuse Gordon Brown of 'greenwash'  last week after he backed the expansion of Heathrow. She quite rightly stated that  "it is obvious to anyone that doubling the capacity of Heathrow will mean more planes, more noise and more pollution. To claim that it is possible to nearly double the capacity of Heathrow in a sustainable way is environmentally irresponsible" I hope that the Lead Member will come out equally as vociferously against Thames Water's plans to nearly double the  capacity of  that other blight on our doorstep  - Mogden.  To claim that it is possible to nearly double the capacity of Mogden in a sustainable way until the current £42 million odour improvement plan, forced upon Thames Water by residents, is complete and the results analysed, is equally as environmentally irresponsible.  It is obvious to anyone that doubling the capacity of Mogden will mean more stench, more noise, more mosquitoes and more pollution. Hounslow's last administration  proved in the Courts that the odour escaping Mogden is unlawful and Thames Water was given until August 2008 to sort its  mess out. Residents are currently in the middle of a  £multi million group litigation for damages and compensation for odour nuisance and mosquitoes. There is no guarantee that by August 2008 the problems will be resolved so it is inconceivable that Thames Water should be planning to expand the failed works even more.

Steve Taylor ● 6443d

Hi RuthI don't need to take cheap shots as I am not in politics but many thanks for the clarification and update. I am sure all concerned about Heathrow expansion are well aware of your, and the local Labour Party's,  involvement in opposing expansion since T5 etc. However, since Gordon Brown and Ruth Kelly have recently antagonised the local community, Vince Cable, Susan Kramer, Ken Livingstone, Mary Macleod and Barbara Reid, to name a few, have all come out forcefully and expressed their views on why expansion should not be permitted. When the local all party campaigners opposed expansion we didn't have a situation where the PM and Transport Secretary were publicly giving the proposals their backing. I am just wondering why, with all the information already gathered over the  last five years, Ann and Alan Keen require yet more information when other MPs are able to evaluate the situation and make such powerful statements of opposition to the proposals?  Kind regardsSteve

Steve Taylor ● 6445d

Good points Ruth. I feel these are the sort of details that should be openly discussed, instead of an agressive push by the airline lobby. I think, now is the time to move towards a suitable balanced transport system to fit a world with depleting resources.

Duncan Walker ● 6445d

I would add -1) the impact on other growth sectors in West London, in having to compete with Heathrow, for labour of all skill levels, development land, commercial floor-space, and road space.2) (not just a heathrow issue, but an important link) - the impact on rural areas and historic towns especially on the margins of the UK, from the tourism deficit caused by the growth of cheap flights (mainly taken by the well-off middle classes incidently) - AEF estimates the figures as c £11 billion if I remember right but the details will be on their web-site.

Ruth Cadbury ● 6445d

I'm glad to hear Hacan has commissioned CE Delft, 'the respected Dutch transport and environmental consultants', to probe the economic claims made to support Heathrow expansion. See the article, from The Sunday Times December 2, 2007"Report attacks Heathrow expansion -The accepted view that a third runway is essential for a strong economy is being challenged. Dominic O’Connell": http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article2982701.ece If done properly, they should identify the investments made, by whom; the return made for whom; the benefits gained and the disbenefits/costs experienced by whom. I would like see in this assessment of economic case, such things as:- which parties gain and at what cost - BAA; BA; other airlines; UK economy - specific; business travellers; non-business travellers; local residents; workers at the airport and supporting services; businesses which supply services.- the use of realistic variables for the price of aviation fuel ($100 a barrel and rising); - a variant where a tax is made on the fuel;- any grants or contributions to the investment by Government and airlines- the quantifiable cost of the impact of increased traffic to and from the airport on maintenance of roads and rail.- the quantifiable cost of the impact of noise and air quality to residents- the quantifiable cost of the impact to climate change - a comparison with other alternatives (such as spreading flights to other airports, linked iwth fast rail network; raising the price of 'flying')We currently use an economic model of unconstrained growth, but we are moving to a position where we will need to shift this type of economic model to one not based primarily upon growth. This is because of natural resources peaking, unsustainable population growth and the onset of climate change. Essentially the importance of a sustainable quality of life. This should have some bearing on a Business investment case for such this one with such impact.

Duncan Walker ● 6445d

Thanks for that and also the alert that CAA has an Environmental function.I recently heard that CAA had issued its proposals for landing charges at Heathrow and Gatwick and they were out for consultation. I had a quick skim to see if there was any move therein for aviation to bear its proper environmental costs and found no mention nor much clue that CAA has any remit to look at environmental consequences.Having now found the CAA Sustainable Development and Aviation Environmental Policy http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/697/Aviation%20Environmental%20Policy.pdfI'll have to have another look at the charging proposals and see if it is being applied.

Tim Henderson ● 6446d

Steve - cheap shot but even a quick search on the forum archive would have told you that Hounslow's Labour group have opposed expansion of Heathrow since T5 was proposed (if not before) and continue to do so.  I led the borough's all-party campaign against expansion from 2002 to 2006, and was happy to co-second the Cllr Barbara Reid's at the October Council to agree to continue the campaign.  I will be doing what I can as Labour lead on Hounslow Council, and as a committee member of HACAN, to help the campaign against both mixed-mode and the third runway.  Five years ago I instigated the decision to bring in to the council professional public affairs support, which enabled us to take the problems that Hounslow residents face, and the reasons why further expansion and more night flights are unacceptable, to the heart of government - and my Labour connections continue to help in that regard.  The decision last autumn by the government to reverse their position in the Civil Aviation Bill and agree to retain the cap on night flights, would not have happened if I had not lobbied on behalf of the Council and our residents, in the earier stages of the Bill. I also was invited to speak at the Transport Select Committee, which I believe was instrumental in them recommending that the CAA should create a robust Environmental function within the organisation (subsequently acheived).There are now few people in and around Parliament who are not aware that Hounslow is the borough that will be most affected by more expansion at Heathrow.And for those concerned about jobs - I do not believe jobs will be lost if expansion does not go ahead.  You'll see from today's Sunday Times that HACAN have commissioned an independent academic study on the economic case for expansion.Finally - Ann and Alan Keen's position - released this week:"Over the years we have campaigned consistently for the reduction of night flights at Heathrow and to safeguard the Cranford Agreement.  We will do everything in our power to ensure that the Cranford Agreement is upheld".  [Mixed mode could not go ahead if the agreement is upheld]."We will be carrying out an extensive consultation on the Heathrow expansion proposals with our constituents over the coming months . . . and pass our findings to the Department of Transport for inclusion in the Heathrow Consultation process.We are opposed in principle to the third runway.  However we require more economic information from the Airline Industry and from the Department of Transport "Hoping that clarifiesCllr Ruth CadburyLB Hounslow - Deputy Leader

Ruth Cadbury ● 6446d

A powerful Letter to  Editor in this week's BCI Times from Mary Macleod, Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for Brentford and Isleworth on exactly why she is against the expansion of Heathrow.You can also add your name to the stop Expansion Petition  on    www.stopheathrowexpansion.com

Steve Taylor ● 6446d

The previous Labour Council was indeed critical of plans to expand Heathrow some years ago but that was then and now is now.  This week  the other parties have come out with strong statements against expansion but Labour has remained deafeningly silent. They have had plenty of time to consider the proposals and it is clear  that  "expanding the airport is unnecessary, would further disrupt the people of West London and cause considerable environmental damage"  As Ms Smith says, it is unlikely that many living under the flight path would think the plans are palatable so what this community needs is for those  Labour Cllrs and MPs, who are still in office, to get off the fence, come out with a strong statement of condemnation and stand up for the community they represent.  Brown and Kelly need to be informed by local Labour leaders that expansion is not an option for Londoners and especially not for this community.

Steve Taylor ● 6447d

I haven't heard my MP express an opinion on the new consultation document and wondered whether her views were still as they were three years ago. Vince Cable, Susan Kramer and Ken Livingston have all stated their case recently. I'm not sure that it is obvious that Ann's position hasn't changed in the light of the new data. It may be that Ann wishes to find more details about the proposals (the DfT have still to deliver more of the consultation documents to me). It may be that her government position prevents her opposing/commenting on the proposal. It may be that she herself wishes to consult with more of her constituents before coming down for or against the proposal.

Tim Henderson ● 6447d

I think that you will find that the previous Labour Council was highly critical of plan for Heathrow's expansion and were an instrumental part of the consortium of local authorities fighting against it. That as far as I know hasn't changed one tiny bit, why do you think it necessary to keep repeating the obvious? What do you want? Should they keep piping up - me too, me too, after every utterance? I can'think that many of us living under the flightpath would think these plans were palatable, certainly I went on a march with many local Labour party members and 3 Labour M.Ps, Ann & Alan Keen and John McDonnell, to protest about the 3rd runway a few years ago. It was also the Labour Council that fought against T5 with all party support.

Vanessa Smith ● 6447d

A blast from the past (2003) - Ann Keen on Heathrow Expansion :I wonder if she  supports the development now that it meets the noise and air pollution conditions ?Can you hear us BAA?by Andrew RaineTHE DAMAGING EFFECT on Hounslow schoolchildren of a third runway at Heathrow was highlighted by Brentford & Isleworth's MP Ann Keen this week, who also revealed she will be joining a march against the proposed extension this weekend.The MP visited Lampton school on Lampton Avenue on Wednesday (June 4th) to meet pupils, staff and governors from other local schools to discuss the problems they suffer from aircraft noise.Concerns were raised that children's lessons were being drowned out by low flying aircraft making their approach to Heathrow, and standards could fall for those trying to revise and sit their GCSEs and A levels through the noise.Ann Keen commented: ''I am all too aware of the difficulties that many of our local schools face from aircraft noise. At this time of year when so many children are doing exams and revising the impact of such noise pollution is intensified. The education of our children is too important it should not be allowed to be damaged by flight path noise.''My fear is that a third runway would make this problem even worse and spread the problem to other parts of the borough. This is another vitally important reason against a third runway at Heathrow.''The MP is currently compiling her submission to the Department of Transport as part of the consultation process. Send your comments to Ann Keen MP, House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA, and mark the envelope 'RW3'.June 2003http://www2.newsquest.co.uk/local_london/hounslow/news/NEWS28.html

Tim Henderson ● 6447d

I see from one of the documents that there are currently (or maybe in 2002) fourteen schools within the "specially noisy zone" (or Leq = something area...) and under a new scenario this rises to 20.Has anyone managed to find out which the affected schools are ? Are they in Hounslow ?

Tim Henderson ● 6447d

Mayor Ken has this week spoken out forcefully of his TOTAL OPPOSITION to the expansion of Heathrow.He has joined the Greens, Lib Dems and Tories of West London by stating that "expanding the airport is unnecessary, would further disrupt the people of West London and cause considerable environmental damage"  "So on every test; Environment, economic and quality of life, the argument for expanding Heathrow has not been made."The fact that no LOCAL  Labour Councillor or activist has made a stand by condemning Gordon Brown and Ruth Kelly is indicative of just how frightened they are of upsetting  their Westminster bosses. Their silence on this matter will be to the detriment of the local people they purport to serve. Brown and Kelly should try to give a speech in the grounds of The Green School or Gumley House and see what its like to be interrupted every 30 seconds by aircraft preparing to land just down the road.

Steve Taylor ● 6448d

HACAN Clearskies advice is:Some of you will have received a consultation response to fill in. In addition to asking your views, it is seeking a lot of personal details about yourself. Our strong advice is to leave blank all the sections except Q1:your name, email address and postcode; and the last question E1 where our advice would be simply to write: I oppose any further expansion at Heathrow.http://www.hacan.org.uk/

Kath Richardson ● 6448d

You wont stop it so save your energy for something else like saving a teacher from going to prison for calling a teddy bear Mohammad, we should all get a teddy and put it in the windows with a sign on it saying "my name is Mohammad". And this tinpot backward mudhut country is alright taking our money in aid, makes me sick to see my taxes being wasted on these people.

Mick OBrien ● 6448d