Afternoon:
14°c
Heathrow protesters let fly
Katharine Barney and Jonathan Prynn, Evening Standard03.12.07
An army of campaigners has been assembled to mobilise millions of people against the expansion of Heathrow.
The 30,000-strong coalition of environmentalists, politicians and residents is opposed to a third runway.
The proposal has received Gordon Brown's backing and a 12-week consultation period was launched by Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly last month.
The campaigners claim the plan makes a mockery of Britain's pledge to be a world leader on climate change, and will mean increases in noise for residents of west London and parts of the Home Counties. They say the consultation is a "farce".
The scale of the opposition means the Government is facing probably the biggest grassroots fight against a major infrastructure project.
The residents of Sipson - which will be wiped off the map - and neighbouring villages such as Harlington and Longford have formed the No Third Runway Action Group, funded by Hillingdon council. They are led by mother-of-three Geraldine Nicholson, who lives in West Drayton.
Mrs Nicholson, 38, has not been involved in political activism before but was galvanised into action after discovering she could be living 200 metres from planes taking off or landing every 90 seconds. She fears losing many friends who would be forced to leave the area, while the school where her son is due to start next September would be demolished.
She said: "So many people will be affected by this. People say we knew we were moving close to an airport when we came here but a lot of people were born here and now our communities are being shattered.
"The Government says we won't be affected because we don't have to move. How can they say that when I will be one of those left behind with the runway 200 metres from my door?"
Another NoTRAG member is Christine Shilling, a mother of two who lives in Harmondsworth. She said: "We have to stop the Government doing this - we can and we will. If the Government can just wipe out a whole community they can do anything, anywhere.
"This is not democracy. NoTRAG is full of ordinary people desperate not to lose their homes and their communities."
Bryan Sobey is a member of NoTRAG and chairman of Harmondsworth and Sipson Residents' Association, which has been fighting Heathrow expansion for years. The 79-year-old grandfather said: "Put simply, we don't want to move - we're getting a bit old for that. I still attend the marches and protests, even though I'm fighting cancer as well. I might as well battle both things together. We believe we have a chance. Otherwise what would be the point fighting?"
Other bodies opposed to the third runway include the 2M Group, an alliance of councils which claims to represent the two million people who would be affected; and the long-established HACAN ClearSkies, supported by MPs, MEPs, councils, residents' groups, businesses, the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority, environmental groups and other organisations, such as the National Trust.
Radical action group Plane Stupid has promised demonstrations will dwarf the anti-road movement protests of the Nineties. This summer the group set up a camp outside Heathrow, and recently it disrupted a Commons committee interrogating Stephen Nelson, the chief executive of BAA, which runs the airport.
Robbie Gillett of Plane Stupid said: "Stopping the third runway is essential if we are to have any chance of stopping catastrophic climate change. Flights from the third runway would produce as much CO2 as Kenya does in a year, according to the World Development Movement.
"The 'climate camp' last summer was just the beginning. Across the political spectrum people are realising that as long as the Government is cuddled up to British Airways and BAA, direct action will be necessary to stop this environmental lunacy. The Government is foolish to think people will take this lying down." He added: "Everyone realises the consultation is a farce. The Government has framed the debate in terms it knows it can win, which is why it has excluded climate change from the discussion."
Reader views (15)
Well, a large number of the Camp For Climate Action Organisers will want to respond as the poeple who DID organise the Heathrow-adjacent climate camp, we had stipulated that Plane Stupid attend as individuals, in August, and not as their group, which as an explanatory response should be printed.
Here's a sick question of the ilk of the sort of thing this sick situation makes one think - are we bulding 'another' detention centre near Gatwick because we are no longer going to have the detention centre at Harmondsworth?
A replacement dentention centre is being built, not 'another' one. Lots of things to think about, aren't there?
.
- David Moncoeur, Edinburgh, Scotland.
The notion that jobs at Heathrow would be threatened if the third runway does not go ahead, is utter nonsense. In any case, there is already full employment in the areas surrounding Heathrow - one of many reasons why Heathrow should not be further expanded, and a new airport built at Cliffe in Kent, closer to where the jobs are REALLY needed.
- Chris Pocock, Uxbridge, UK
We have lived in Sipson for 42 years and Heathrow has not bothered us too much, we are not under the flight path. We did oppose Terminal Five because we knew that if BAA succeeded they would go for a third runway and a sixth terminal which would destroy our village and make life hell for those people left in surrounding villages, some homes would be only 200 yards from the runway, planes taking off and landing every 30 seconds. If Sipson is demolished it is more than 700 peoples homes gone, noise and pollution for thousands of others enough is enough we must fight to stop this madness.
- Mr&Mrs P Rumble, Sipson West Drayton England
With an acute shortage of housing in London and the South East it seems ridiculous to start destroying villages and forcing people out of their homes to prop up an ailing airport.
Surely the way forward would be to demolish Heathrow and build a purpose built airport elsewhere?
- Alison Dixon, West Drayton , Middx
People can have very short memories and are very shortsighted sometimes. Heathrow is an embarrassment as a gateway to Britain and needs to be improved. It has had two runways since just after the War and planes were a lot noisier in the 50s 60s and 70s. it is not surprising that the airport is full up and full of delays. People want to come to our fascinating country and to London, why wouldn't they? But fewer will come with all the delays and stress. Other airports cope with security measures- this is not the only cause of hassle.The airport needs to expand. Local people also need jobs, and frankly Heathrow is bound to decline more if there is no investment to make it a workable international hub.
- Rosemary Jean, West London, Harmondsworth, Middlesex
Thank you to the Standard for highlighting this issue again and raising awareness. The Government's proposals are a huge threat to the health and well being of London residents. The situation is already bad for many and will only get worse. Londoners need to take action and to use the organisations listed in the article to make their voices heard. If you have never been a protestor before now is the time to start.
- Sue Cellan Jones, London
The revised demand from BAA and BA for a new full length runway at Heathrow comes as no surprise. It was suspected at the SERAS consultation a few year's ago - indeed maps of this projection would have been available at the parallel HACAN exhibition at the Renaissance Hotel - except that somebody stole them from the display table.
But the real scandal - apart from the continuous stream of lies from BAA and the Dept. of Transport - is that the consultation papers for Heathrow expansion are not available. The full document has run out, and the technical supplements have not even been printed let alone distributed. And we are at least two weeks into the consultation period.
But BAA (and BA) and the DFT are hand in glove with each other. Others would term this more crudely. As is not widely known BAA is not 'British'-owned. It was bought by the Spanish property development company Ferrovial. But as Christine Shilling opined in the latest NOTRAG press release "the day when Spanish bulldozers are brought in (with the connivance of the British Government) to demolish English communities is when democracy in this country is dead."
With the new longer runway up to 35,000 people will be forced to relocate - a clearance of people greater than the Scottish Highland Clearances of the 1700s.
- Chris Brady, Harlington, Middx, UK
This government has to be careful because they might lose EVERY vote in London. I want no noise here.
- Jacqueline, Hampstead, London
If the airport owners can spend this amount of money to up grade an ailing old disfunctional business (airport). It makes greater sense to build a purpose built modern airport with its main runways away from the population centers. Rather than restrict its potential operational ability. Build a new airport or re build one of the other 2. Gatwick or Standstead with a 24-hour rail connection to either of the 2 major local centers.
Ensuring that the influx of population is kept well away from the flight paths. This would be beneficial to the now slowing building trade, beneficial to the populace, and ensure that flights would be able to function around the clock. All these fetures would be financill beneficial to the country, and the Heathrow populace flight path contenders would be able to sleep peacefully.
- A.Winsley, London, England
The existing number of flights allowed into Heathrow should be reduced. The airport is very overcrowded and should not be allowed to continually grow and grow - where will it stop?
- Ian, London, NW4
I cannot help but wonder whether there is a connection between secret donations from Developers to the Labour Party and the easing of planning restrictions which makes developments such as the Heathrow third runway easy to push through - am I the only one?
- Esther Phillips, Leatherhead
Nootrag people talk from experience about the horrors of aircraft noise.
Ruth Kelly, only presumes “technical developments are expected to lead to significantly quieter aircraft than those flying even four years ago" in her letter to today's Standard (Dec 3rd)
It’s quite a presumption: the present fleet of “Quieter planes” being built by Boeing can’t even find a home market.. And that’s no presumption.
Even If our own fleets bought all these new quieter planes what would they do with their noisy 747s? Put them on the scrap heap? Of course not. They would sell them on to airlines whose aircraft are a lot quieter than the 747s are at the moment.
I don't see it being quieter at all.
- Mark, London, UK
They say it's a consultation, but many of the areas that will be affected aren't being consulted, nor even informed they'll be affected. And even when they are, what does it mean? The DfT website states:
" Why are we not asking whether there should be a third runway?
The Air Transport White Paper stated the Government's support for the further development of Heathrow, including a third runway and additional terminal capacity subject to stringent local environmental limits being met. It also said that scope for making greater use of the two existing runways should be explored, subject to the same environmental limits. The consultation presents the outcome of our assessment of these options and invites views".
In other words, we're going to ignore what you say anyway.
Is it surprising that activists are going to be taking to the streets?
- Mike Russell, London
I flew into Heathrow on Saturday and spent 45 minutes circling over North London spewing out extra CO2 waiting as runway capacity is so limited. We then spent another hour on the ground again spewing out pollution waiting for a gate because of the lack of capacity. An extra runway and terminal would reduce this unnecessary pollution whilst safeguarding the essential economic value of the airport and airline business. It's not an option to turn away from air travel, we would simply lose jobs and income to foreign competition. I'll be under the new runway's flightpath but support its development wholeheartedly.
- Simon, London
They should not fly so much over London. London was there before Heathrow. Locally people should not complain, they profit from being so close and got plenty of government handouts as it was.
Remember government plenty of voters in London who would become very unhappy with more noise!
- Georgie, London
