Morning:
14°c
Heathrow expansion 'not needed'
Elizabeth Hopkirk, Evening Standard16.01.08
The economic benefits of expanding Heathrow airport have been vastly exaggerated, new research will show.
The claim was made at a public meeting where hundreds of residents warned that noise levels would become intolerable in some of London's most sought-after areas.
More than 400 people crowded into a church to express their anger over government and BAA plans for a third runway.
The meeting was called by residents of Bedford Park, a suburb of Chiswick which will be directly under the new flightpath. Hampstead, Islington, Kensington and Holland Park will also be affected for the first time.
Supporters of the expansion claim the economy is dependent on a growing Heathrow. But John Stewart, chairman of Hacan ClearSkies, said his pressure group had commissioned research which proved this wrong.
He said: "The critical finding of our report, to be launched next month, is that businesses over the last 10 years have come to London in record numbers despite the state of Heathrow, and despite the fact that over the last decade other airports have expanded faster than Heathrow.
"Businesses are saying they will relocate to London for reasons other than Heathrow - reasons like low taxes, the City and Docklands being a thriving financial centre, and, ironically, the overall quality of life that BAA has done so much to try and diminish."
Barbara Reid, who leads Hounslow council's opposition to Terminal 3, warned that Bedford Park would be plagued by planes overhead every 30 seconds. In the west of the borough, schools already operate "stop-start education" as teachers pause for plane noise.
Ms Reid was due to meet aviation minister Jim Fitzpatrick today.
The public consultation closes on 27 February.
Reader views (6)
How long will it be until it dawns on people that the govt. only cares about "the environment" as a way of raising taxes on every aspect of their lives.
If they really cared about carbon footprints, greenhouse gases and every other ridiculous buzzword that has been invented then the extra runway would never have even been contemplated!
- Simon, London
Well the least we can do is make sure people hear the truth. It will just show once again what a bunch of idiotic, dicatatorial socialists are running this country. Saw a great documentary on Ceausescu's overthrow in Romania, what are the odds of arranging the same thing here for El Gordo?
- Mark, London, UK
We don't need 2.75 runways, we need 4 full size ones. It is the norm to queue to land at Heathrow, even in the middle of the day.
Given that the current site can't support 4 runways we must stop expansion at Heathrow and start again somewhere else - probably out at sea to the East on an artificial island with fast train links and connections to the main rail network.
- David Williams, Middlesex, UK
Correction: the 10 week suspension was Autumn 2006. Sorry!
- Bob Maccallum, Fulham, UK
The only economic case I can see for expanding Heathrow is to fill the pockets of British Airways and BAA executives and shareholders (with relatively minor trickle down to the rest of the economy). BA and BAA are under threat from other airlines operating from expanding hub airports on mainland Europe (Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Paris), because it's all about how many connections you can offer.
Well I'm sorry, but the financial wellbeing of one or two companies does not come above the psychological wellbeing of around 2 million Londoners affected by aircraft noise. Once, last year, when one runway at Heathrow was out of use for around 10 weeks, the constant roar of planes overhead drove me crazy after just one week. And I live outside the area the government thinks is affected (Fulham).
Getting to London for business is already easy enough, although train links from Stansted and Luton could be improved.
- Bob Maccallum, Fulham, UK
Nice try - but it's a done deal we are getting the 3rd runway I fear.
The government has taken BAA's figs. Like asking an alcoholic if alcohol duty should be reduced. Ignored their own report regarding noise.
The consultation process is a farce, as many of the new areas that will be affected don't even know they will.
If the Government is worried about us losing out why hasn't it forced BAA to break-up its monopoly. So Gatwick and Stanstead can compete with Heathrow. Rather than asking where BAA can make most profit from.
I wonder if BAA were a British company would it care more about public opinion?
- Terry, London, Wandsworth
