Morning:
13°c
Third runway noise will hit North London
Pippa Crerar, Political Correspondent23.11.07
Hundreds of thousands of people in north London will bear the brunt of noise pollution from the proposed third Heathrow runway, it was claimed.
Maps published by local authorities show flightpaths for the new runway will mean residents from Harrow through Camden and all the way to Enfield will suffer from aircraft noise.
North London had previously escaped the worst of the noise which blights the lives of those in the south and west.
The maps from councils' campaign group 2M show that aircraft approaching the new runway will fly over Hampstead and Islington before beginning their descent over Paddington.
Planes taking off will rise over Ealing before using flightpaths over Wembley.
The councils have criticised the Government for assuming that future changes to aircraft design would make it possible to have more flights without extra noise.
They accused Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly of ignoring the findings of her own noise report which took six years to compile and found that more flights would add to the misery of people under the flightpath.
Ms Kelly unveiled the long-awaited consultation for the third runway and a sixth terminal at Heathrow yesterday. Ministers are to tear up long-standing agreements which allow residents near Heathrow and those under flightpaths a guaranteed respite from the noise.
The proposed third runway will also be longer than planned, potentially allowing for heavier, noisier aircraft which could bring more homes to the north of the airport into the belt where noise levels are 57 decibels or above.
Wandsworth council leader Edward Lister, representing the 2M group, said: "People living under the flightpath will be outraged by this lack of basic regard for their quality of life."
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. Expansion is conditional on there being no extra air and noise pollution but analysis published by the Government said the airport could meet limits over time.
Reader views (16)
I think the head of Heathrow should be sued!
- The Dude, Esheen
Apart from the inevitable noise pollution which will blight a hugh number of residents under the new flight paths, what about congestion in reaching the airport?
At the moment the main train route is from Paddington and the underground is via the Picadilly line. There are also a number of bus routes. But anyone who has used those routes will know they are already short in capacity especially during the evening rush hour. It is also inevitable that the volumn of vehicles using the airport would increase leading to a massive increase in traffic congestion in the surrounding areas. Anyone who has used the M25 will know that already. So far as I am concerned and my expansion in Heathrow is ludicrous in the extreme. If expansion is necessary that do so at Stanstead or Gatwick. Better still, revisit the sheme to build a new airport out in the Thames estuary where the impact will be lesser!
- Jd, Northolt Middx
No one but the greedy construction industry and a vain Gordon Brown wants a third runway at Heathrow. Time for Boris to step up and campaign against a sprawling unsafe Heathrow Airport!
- Mike Abbott, London, UK
It’s complete madness to expand Heathrow! Thousands of people’s lives are already blighted by noise from the airport and climate change is threatening to spiral out of control.
We don't have to stop flying altogether. But we should start thinking about our travel more responsibly. Airport expansion is being driven by the ludicrously cheap flights on offer, which have encouraged rich people to start flying away for weekend breaks. This is ridiculously wasteful and can't go on. We can all take the odd flight but we shouldn't expect to fly more than once a year.
- Nick Davies, London
Heathrow is a disgrace. They overcharge us and want extra facilities from the public? No! It should be first of all the Spanish owners who should do the investing. Anyhow I think Stansted and Gatwick is under-utilised and needs better London connections. For Gatwick and Stansted to get into London almost takes an hour and that's ridiculous. So let's look at better alternatives before we give the Spanish company more subsidies! Heathrow should sharpen up before they get more.
- Georgie, Islington, London
Oi! Gerry of Chatham. If we are a nation in decline as you put it, its because places like Chatham exist in the first place.
- Jon, Radlett
And where does Kelly live? Nowhere near the noise I'd guess.
- Ashley, Reading
Does anybody who lives in London actually want more aircraft flying overhead? I live 20km from Heathrow and am constantly annoyed by the noise of aircraft. How many of millions of people must suffer so that Heathrow can claim to be the 'biggest' or some other corporate boast. We are at $100 oil now, how is air travel going to continue growing to fill these wild estimates of 'essential' expansion?
- Peter, Battersea
Why is Manston not considered fit to be a major international airport?
- T J Franklin, Wales
to quote your own article:
"Hampstead....Noise from aircraft overhead for the first tme"
Absolutely NOT the case. More often than not, we get very significant noise pollution from passenger aircraft flying over Hampstead. I can hear one as I write this in deepest NW3!
How very NewLab to commision a report on noise, then ignore it when it doesn't come up with the right answer.
- John Cook, Hampstead, UK
Look! We are a nation in decline.
If the Heathrow expansion is what avation needs, it must go ahead.
- Gerry, Chatham, Kent, UK
Heathrow is already over loaded. It's not only runways but baggage handling, underground access, roadways, immigration, etc. Want a fresh idea? How about expanding Gatwick and providing free high speed transportation to downtown London?
- Ray Wicks, West Palm Beach, FL
House prices will tummble in these very expensive areas.
- David Nigel Braham, Milan, Italy
'Wily' Willie Walsh's letter (20th November) is yet another example of his cunning handiwork.
Since when does a falling number of offerred destinations from Heathrow mean anything other than that 'lost' destinations have simply been transferred to another 'London' airport. Does 'Wily Willie' really expect readers to accept such a shallow argument when the critical statistic is the increase in take of and landings since 1990 and consequent increases in noise and emissions pollution since then; not just at Heathrow but also beneath the foot print of flight paths. 'Wily Willie' won't spell that out anymore than he will admit that official noise limits / pollution comparisons between 2002 and now, make little sense unless adjusted by the removal of Concorde's contribution. Transport Secretary - Ruth Kelly's utterances are equally lame. She says her only interest is whether a 3rd runway will lead to a rise in nitrogen oxide and noise levels; a matter of scientific fact but she won’t be letting the facts speak for themselves.
Kelly hides behind her usual sincerity mask whilst emitting slippery words - "Before the final judgment is taken I want to ensure that local people and interested organisations have the chance to look at this information and make their views known," She won't though let the facts get in the way of the decision she has already taken.
Jim Fitzpatrick , Aviation Minister (and Kelly puppet) made that quite plain on Newsnight yesterday.
- Graham Vickery, Guildford, UK
If we are affected, where can we lodge objections?
- Caroline, Paddington, London
I live under the Heathrow's flightpath and the noise is murderous.
- Eva, East Sheen London
