Tonight:
4°c
Heathrow: Third runway and sixth terminal by 2020
Jason Beattie, Chief Political Correspondent23 Nov 2007
The full scale of the blight caused by Heathrow expansion has been revealed.
Hundreds of people will see their homes bulldozed and thousands more will face worsening noise pollution under the plans for a new runway and sixth terminal.
A long-awaited consultation document reveals the Government's plans for the airport are far more extensive than originally set out.
Ministers are to rip up long-standing agreements which allow residents near Heathrow and those under flight paths a guaranteed respite from the noise.
The proposed third runway will also be longer than planned, potentially allowing for heavier, noisier aircraft.
In addition, a sixth terminal will be built, causing the demolition of 700 properties - including the whole village of Sipson - and 102 listed buildings.
Hundreds of thousands of people will also suffer greater noise pollution with Hounslow, Egham, Putney and Barnes among the areas brought into the belt where noise levels are 57 decibels or above. And at least 10 schools will also be dragged into the contour where noise levels are 63 decibels or higher.
But the Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly infuriated MPs by refusing to face questions in Parliament about the proposals. Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers accused her of "running scared".
"This is not democracy," she said. "This is one of the most important decisions we face as a nation and it is scandalous that Ruth Kelly won't answer in Parliament to the MPs who represent people whose lives are directly impacted by the future Heathrow."
The consultation, which closes in February, claims there is a "strong case" for expanding the airport from 470,000 flights a year to more than 700,000. This would see as many as 120 million passengers using Heathrow by 2030.
Expansion is conditional on there being no rise in local air and noise pollution. But to the amazement of campaigners, the document also states expansion can take place without any overall increases. The document claims that, because of cleaner aircraft and the greater use of twin engine planes, that Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels will actually fall over the next two decades.
"Our modelling shows that even with a third runway, the combined effects of these technological improvements will see NO2 emissions in the Heathrow area fall by some 49 per cent between 2002 and 2030," it says. It also claims there will be no overall increase in the size of the area where noise levels will be 57 decibels or above, despite the massive increase in flights. It also claims road traffic pollution in the area will not increase.
Opponents of expansion claimed the document was a "fix" as the Government was rejecting its own recent ANASE report showing that noise levels would rise. Critics also pointed out that ministers had chosen 2002 as the benchmark - the final year when Concorde was in use and when the weather conditions were the most benign for measuring air pollution.
"This is a complete and utter fix," said Conservative MP Justine Greening.
The plans provoked a mixed reaction with environmental groups opposed, but unions and business leaders supportive. Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said: "New Labour is cultivating a binge-flying culture instead of tackling the problem headon."
The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "I am firmly opposed to this expansion of Heathrow Airport as it runs contrary to all the growing evidence we now have on the impact of aviation on climate change."
But Richard Lambert, director general of the CBI, said: "Good air links are vital to UK businesses operating in a global economy, and Heathrow, as our national hub, has been constrained for too long."
Reader views (7)
Heathrow is already the laughing stock of the airline world,from pilots to passengers,from long gate holds to lost luggage.! Its been the only building site with its own airport for years now, another 10 years won't make any difference...by then lets hope we are not even further behind the rest of europe than we are now..it could already be to late to catch up.......
- Ruin Ted, london, 15/01/2009 16:08
Report abuse
This is probably the best of what is a total failure of all prior governments to understand the crucial nature of such a major international airport to the country. Logically the proposal for a complete new airport should have been considered years ago and planned accordingly. We would not then be faced with all the issues that are now going to plague us for the years to come before this becomes a final reality.
- Mike Hotham, Crawley, West Sussex, UK, 15/01/2009 13:22
Report abuse
I think these plans are good for the area as a whole.
Locally it will be seen as unpopular because of noise and disruption.It will improve the job market locally and also further afield. The people affected by the plans should be properly compensated by Ferrovial (the owners of Heathrow).
- Iain Farrell, Maidenhead, England, 23/11/2007 08:03
Report abuse
About time... London needs to get its airport up to world standard. A small handful of people (in the context of the entire nation) have held the economic future of this country hostage for far too long. We need an airport to be proud of. Push through these plans asap. Add a high speed rail link to central London at the same time. If we don't do this...watch our business bleed off to France, Germany etc...
- Andrew, London, 23/11/2007 03:47
Report abuse
Instead of endlessly adding on and adding on to the hotch-potch of Heathrow, which will never work properly and always be congested, why not build an entirely new airport in the Thames Estuary, to the east of London? This has been discussed, but always dropped, for decades. Paris has a better airport, that works well, at Charles De Gaulle, because it was properly planned. Why can't London have a new, properly planned airport? And also, let's stop short-haul flights from Heathrow right now, where the journeys could be made by train.
- Christopher Fowler, London, UK, 22/11/2007 18:01
Report abuse
That is fine but the taxpayer should not be paying! It should be the lousy BAA corporation. They do not provide much service and they should not be financially helped at all. They have benefited from bad UK governement who have let BAA get away with long lines and unreliable airports service in London.
- Pete, London, 22/11/2007 16:44
Report abuse
Do something radical: close Heathrow, flatten it and build new homes there. With the income, build a new airport somewhere more central (Birmingham or Manchester) and provide high-speed road and rail links from the North and South. Now that's a plan I would vote for.
- Nobby Clark, Perth, Scotland, 22/11/2007 15:38
Report abuse
