Morning:
13°c
An awesome and ridiculous film that leaves you thrilled beyond the point of your natural endurance
London faces a wave of bus and Tube strikes that could cause chaos for millions of passengers as unions walkout over pay and conditions
More...
Third runway to be built at Heathrow
Last updated at 10:41am on 08.12.06
The new runway is due to open in 2017
A third runway is set to be approved at Heathrow, increasing the number of daily flights by 500 a day.
This will be done by imposing a new "pollution charge" on old lorries to allow the airport to meet tough new environment guidelines.
Ministers are expected to endorse the plan next week, paving the way for more flights at Britain's busiest airport - despite earlier promises that Stansted will be expanded first.
Up to 700 homes and a number of listed buildings would have to be demolished to construct the extra runway and a sixth terminal.
A report in The Times today claims that the Government has accepted that the economic benefits of a third runway outweigh the environmental costs.
While the extra runway is not expected to open until 2017, the requirement to alternate flights on the existing two runways will be lifted to increase the number of takeoffs and landings.
This will cause additional misery for about 500,000 homes across west London - who gain a degree of respite from noise when the landing paths change at 3pm - but increases the number of flights by 60,000 a year.
Any expansion of the airport will also be fought by Mayor Ken Livingstone, who does not believe that the boost to the economy outweighs the harm to the environment caused by nitrogen dioxide emissions.
A secret document drawn up by airport operator BAA suggests the poor air quality around the airport - a major barrier to expansion - can be eased by imposing road tolls or penalties on ageing lorries using the M4 and other surrounding roads. Lorries generate up to 15 times more pollution than cars.
The move follows the Government's acceptance of a report by former BA boss Sir Rod Eddington last week that the expansion of Heathrow is crucial to the economy and to maintaining London's position as Europe's financial centre.
The Chancellor's pre-Budget report said this week: "To avoid the economic consequences of constraining aviation growth, further expansion of UK airport capacity is needed.
"Heathrow plays a unique role in the UK as a hub airport and demand for capacity already significantly exceeds supply, leading to less competition, greater congestion, reduced choice and higher prices for passengers."
The report made no mention of Stansted, which the Government promised three years ago would receive a new runway before Heathrow.
The move to expand Heathrow rather than Stansted is backed by major airlines and Ferrovial, the Spanish company that recently bought BAA.
According to the report, the Department for Transport has been monitoring air pollution around Heathrow and is confident it can be reduced to comply with European limits by the time a third runway opens in 11 years. The process will begin in 2008 with the submission of a planning application.
A BAA source said: "We are completely committed to expanding Heathrow."
John Stewart, chairman of ClearSkies, which opposes the expansion of Heathrow, said: "The Government is gearing up to allow a new runway at Heathrow before Stansted but they won't be honest about it.
"There will be the mother of all battles over Heathrow because the environmental movement sees it as a cause célèbre. It will be the Newbury bypass of the skies."
Reader views (18)
i dont think the 3rd runway should be built as it will cause loads more air pollution, the planet dosen't need any more of this. I'm a young kid and i think it's a waste of time i'm also doing a school project on this.
- Nicole, england
I think that a 3rd runway should not be built because so many homes will be demolished and people will have to leave their homes.I also think that if there are any animals nearby they will have to leave to there natural habitat.
I don't know why the government is allowing this because they said that they want to reduce carbon footprints but how will they reach that goal with all the pollution this is causing.
- Amy Philips, essex
The govt are in an awkward position. I think its appaling that a whole village of people will have to move and change there lives. However if the UK is to compete with other European countries as an international hub and world class airport it needs Heathrow to expand. I dont see why they just expand Gatwick and have 2 hubs, then theres the Thames Estuary idea. Course none of this takes into account the environment which is a whole other issue....
- Alastair Oloo, London
I think it is just another show that the government/s has complete dis-regard for people & the environment. Surely this can't happen. It is an absolute outrage, if it does. One whole village (where I used to live) decimated, a 12th Century Barn & Church will probably fall to the ground after the first planes go over it, if it happens. Where & when will it stop? After T4, apparently there was no need for another terminal at Heathrow? Well we know the answer to that. Don't they realise the increase in Asthma & breathing diffuclties in this area?
Where is there policy on Climate change & how is this helping? We are only a small country, Why do we have to have the biggest & best, when surely another country has more space??
This truly beggars belief.The government & others appear to go on about the new creation of all these jobs, but what about the health of the residents who will suffer around a much larger area, than currently, over-stretching the NHS.
Why should it be all about commercialism, because that is the real reason why T5 was built, because you have transitional passengers, who apparently spend in the terminal. What is the point of that? This whole attitude stinks. People who have probably lived around Heathrow when it was just a field are almost certainly incredibly unhappy. Shame on you Mr Brown & anybody that supports this runway being built. It is an absolute disgrace for democracy.
- James Green, Burgess Hill
Another example of the dictatorship we are living under.. The sneaky, sly, smug, unelected pratt that runs this country does it agian and gets away with it...
- Mark, Whitstable, whitstable, kent
This is predictable and shows a complete lack of imagination. Heathrow is too big now: imagine what it will be like with all those extra flights. Imagine the effect on people who live near the airport, and those who will lose their homes. Stansted could easily be developed further and what about the Mayor's great alternative, the Isle of Sheppey.
The government and vested interests have completely underestimated the depth of feeeling against this apalling plan: they are going to be surprised. And of course they will be long since gone if (God forbid) it does eventually happen despite all the opposition.
- Miltonian, High Wycombe
If new runway goes ahead my house will go. Ok I will move on BUT are people aware that flight paths will change and you will have planes over Holland Park, Kensington, Reading, Hayes, AND actually the pollution will rise with the increased flights. I thought we were trying to reduce pollution NOT increase it!
- Robert Wanders, Sipson, Nr Heathrow
This is progress. If people didn't use it ie want it, it wouldn't be happening.
- David, Hounslow, Middx
Government of big business interests, by big business interests for big business interests. This "news" is hardly surprising, given the go-ahead for Terminal 5 and using former BA chief Rod Eddington to look at making transport "greener". That doesn't make it any less disgusting and unacceptable.
- Aus, London
They've hammered London yet again. Why not a second runway at Stansted to share some of the load?
- Dhanraj, Basildon, Essex
While I applaud attempts to reduce reliance on air travel by any means, even increasing tax, giving the green light to massive expansion of Heathrow in the same week as supposed green tax increases on flights makes Brown's tax hike appear as a pure revenue generation ploy under the guise of care for the environment. He obviously doesn't intend to try to do anything serious to reduce emissions from flights and indeed fully expects a massive increase in the number of flights from Heathrow!
- Mark, London
How is it that the Cancellor can increase taxes on flighing, but at the same time allow for a third run-way and a 6th Terminal? It is absolutely disgusting that a government should be able to get away with such policies.
Do Brown or Blair care? they seem to be on a law upon themselves.
It will be interesting to see how strong our opposition party are to stop this corrupt government from proceeding with non-sensical policies.
Rod Eddington would approved. no doubt his bank accounts should be investigated - since he would have had some serious back handed money from BAA and possible British Airways.
- Raminder Bhalla, Northolt
Having lived under the flight path (and moving because of the noise) I pity the people who will suffer.
- Ian, London
So who's going to trawl the archives and find the statements from government, BAA and all involved - there would be no 3rd runway?
- Biggles, London, UK
So the new runway and sixth terminal (the fifth isn't even open yet) will allow the government to benefit from their newly increased airport taxes. So much for wanting to reduce passenger miles in the name of green issues. Total hypocricy by the government.
- Graham, Reading, England
More runways = more flights = more tax.
- Mark, London, UK
If more runways are going to be built anywhere, Heathrow's the right place for them.
- Gb, London, UK
So Golden Gordon wants to tax us more for flying, 'cos it's adding to his green credentials, but at the same time he is happy to add to the amount of CO2 in the air by allowing more planes to use Heathrow. You can't have it both ways. Well, obviously, he can, because he's doing it anyway.
- Nobby Clark, London, UK
