Afternoon:
10°c
Public 'misled' on number of homes lost for Heathrow
Jason Beattie, Chief Political Correspondent13 Dec 2007
Ministers have been accused of misleading the public over the number of homes to be destroyed to make way for Heathrow expansion.
A consultation document on the plans says no more than 700 properties would need to be bulldozed to make way for the third runway and sixth terminal.
But MPs say the actual figure could be as high as 4,000, forcing as many as 10,000 people to find new places to live.
During a heated Commons debate about the Government's proposals to expand the airport, a succession of MPs lined up to condemn them and the "biased" consultation process.
Hayes and Harlington MP John McDonnell said the figures used in the consultation document were out of line with a previous study, Runway Capacity to Serve the South-East, which had concluded at least 3,300 homes would have to be obliterated if a third runway went ahead.
He said that if development since then was taken into account then as many as 4,000 homes would need to be razed.
"Whole communities will be wiped out," said the Labour MP.
"The assessment has been doctored, the consultation process has been fixed and the planning policy has been rigged."
John Randall, Tory MP for Uxbridge, said plans to bulldoze homes near the airport were akin to the Highland clearances, when thousands of tenant farmers were evicted by rich landowners.
He described expansion as "potty" and asked the Government to explain where the evicted families would live given there was no available housing in the area.
He added that BAA, the airport's operator, had reneged on its promise when seeking permission for Terminal Five that there would be no further expansion.
"It seems to me that having Heathrow next door is like having a bully there," Mr Randall told MPs.
He also took the Government to task for looking to increase the number of flights from 420,000 a year to more than 700,000 at the same time it was preaching the importance of curbing carbon emissions.
"If [the Government] is really serious about curbing all these emissions and trying to stop climate change, they should show leadership and say, 'enough is enough'," he said.
Nick Hurd, the Conservative MP for Ruislip-Northwood, questioned the Government's claim that the business community in London was wholly in favour of expansion. He pointed to a recent survey by the Institute of Directors which found only a tiny minority of its members backed a bigger Heathrow.
"The point we hear is people want a better airport, not a bigger airport," he said.
Aviation minister Jim Fitzpatrick defended the plans, saying anyone evicted from their home as a result of expansion would be fully compensated.
Reader views (8)
Sure you can ignore the fact that runways are desperately needed at either Heathrow, Gatwick or Stanstead. But after a while people will vote with feet and pretty soon England will become a backwater country where people will avoid. Why would I go to London when I can go to Paris and not have all the problems of Heathrow?
Unless somebody can find another quick way to get overseas, that 2 hour train ride to Charles de Gaulle will start to not too daunting in the future.
- Sundance, Halifax, 02/04/2008 00:04
Report abuse
What about quality of life? I for one, do not want to live under low flying planes every 30 - 60 seconds; a third runway will simply increase the number of flights as well as the number of people it will affect in London. No other world city has flights straight over its centre. More road building has not reduced traffic, simply increased the number of cars travelling on them. The same will happen to Heathrow, it will increase traffic, not efficiency.
- Themis, London UK, 17/12/2007 13:48
Report abuse
No development should take place until those disadvantaged are properly compensated for the increased environmental harm. Society already provides an excessive air transport subsidy in its failure impose aviation fuel tax. When Global society eventually wakes up and imposes the long overdue aviation fuel tax demand for a third runway is likely to disappear.
- Brian Edmonds, Farnham UK, 15/12/2007 13:04
Report abuse
Anybody living within a 30 mile radius of LHR should also be very concerned. The extra aircraft using a 3rd runway are very likely to be stacked in the airspace above your house from 4am till 11pm.
- Secker, Stanmore, U.K., 14/12/2007 11:38
Report abuse
We need more capacity at Heathrow. If you do not like living there and the noise. Move. The Government should be spending more on developing Heathrow and adding a proper rail connection like at Frankfurt.
- Bob, London, 14/12/2007 10:24
Report abuse
Maybe we should get our politicians to live and work in Hounslow West or Cranford for a year or two so that they too can have their sleep broken by needless night flights and enjoy the sweet stench of aviation fuel as they sit in their gardens. The Tories were bad enough breaking previous agreements. Unfortunately Labour have grabbed their baton and are trying to go faster and higher and they wonder why less and less people turn out at election time.
- Doug Watt, London, 13/12/2007 17:21
Report abuse
I wrote recently to BAA complaining about the noise from low flying 4 engine aircraft. I asked them how they could justify the breaking of the 57db noise limit,they wrote back and said that - and I am quoting here people - 'there is no upper noise limit for landing aircraft at Heathrow'. This is why Ruth Kelly is so happy to say they will not breach noise levels around Heathrow - there are no limits in place! People of West London be afraid your government is more than prepared to lie to you, destroy the quality of your life (recent WHO studies show cancer rates much higher near airports). Why are they doing this? A lack of vision in building a new 21st Century airport like all our European rivals have invested in, and a willingness to trade human beings happiness for BAs profits - sick I call it.
- Christian, London UK, 13/12/2007 15:29
Report abuse
This government has lied to Londoners consistently - the only way to stop Labour bullying is to fight against planned planning law changes and go to direct action to make London Heathrow uneconomic as a destination. If I were planning my holiday I would avoid London Heathrow like the plague form now on. This government is behaving like some soviet era comand economy - it has forgotten one thing the people themselves will not stand for the ongoing broken promises - T5 was agreed if no expansion above 480,000 flights was agreed that is it no more the line is drawn.
- Christian, London UK, 13/12/2007 15:22
Report abuse
