Afternoon:
10°c
Airport plan 'will shatter peace of Thames palaces'
Elizabeth Hopkirk, Evening Standard6 Mar 2008
Some of Britain's most important parks, palaces and open spaces are threatened by the planned expansion of Heathrow, a conservation group has warned.
It argues that near-constant plane noise would disturb visitors to "national treasures" such as Kew Gardens and Hampton Court Palace if the number of flights increased by more than 50 per cent.
Richmond Park, Barnes Wetland Centre and Syon House are also at risk as they are directly under existing or proposed flight paths and face planes flying overhead every 90 seconds.
The report was published by Thames Landscape Strategy, whose patron is Sir David Attenborough andwhich aims to conserve the historic parks and gardens clustered along the Thames between Kew and Hampton.
Director Jason Debney said: "The proposed expansion of Heathrow would have a devastating impact on how we enjoy these riverside open spaces, including some of the UK's most visited tourist attractions.
"Short of issuing everyone with ear muffs as they near the Thames, how can we mitigate against constant and deafening plane noise?"
Ham House - the best-preserved 17thcentury house in Britain - Marble Hill House, Bushy Park, Strawberry Hill House, Hampton Court Palace and towpaths and smaller parks enjoyed by millions of visitors each year are also at risk.
Consultation on plans to expand Heathrow ended last week and an unprecedented 18,000 people lodged objections.
Sue Runyard ofKew Gardens, a World Heritage Site, said: "We have learned to live with the current noise levels but we have great concerns, not just about the expansion but about the possibility of no runway alternation."
At present, alternating the use of the runways means half the gardens are overflown for half the day and the other half for the rest of the day.
"That's a very valuable situation and we want to preserve it," said Ms Runyard. "Using both flightpaths would mean planes flying over both the north and south of the gardens at the same time."
But a Heathrow spokeswoman claimed the expansion would actually reduce aircraft noise at the Thames attractions.
She said: "The Government has said that Heathrow's expansion will only go ahead if there is no more noise overall than in 2002. Aircraft are getting quieter and it is likely that Kew Gardens, Hampton Court and Richmond Park would all have less aircraft noise than today if a third runway went ahead."
Reader views (5)
You should point out that Heathrow spokespeople are keen to use 2002 figures because they include the noise of Concorde in the average noise levels. Obviously, although infrequent, Concorde was incredibly loud and inclusion of these figures in the average noise levels will distort them. This is how they can claim noise levels will fall. Ask the Heathrow spokesperson if noise levels will be less than any year since Concorde was phased out please. They are deliberately misleading the public - lies and more lies.
- Caroline, twickenhan, 06/03/2008 21:30
Report abuse
Don't forget Fulham Palace, that will get a constant stream of arrivals too (although not quite directly under the flight path).
- Bob, Fulham, 06/03/2008 19:07
Report abuse
Ok notice the word 'likely' used by the BAA spin masters - we know that the actual new Dreamliner planes (Kelly's quieter planes) will have a 3% reduction in noise on today for those under flight paths -incidentally the noise that BAA are talking about is an average - we all know that actual plane movements are much much louder than that so no alternation means more planes overhead and therefore more disturbance even if the trend is down the presence of planes overhead is up - so no peace and quiet - we want less planes overhead full stop for health, security and noise reasons - its simply nor credible to say averages will fall - you can't sit outside with planes buzzing you every 90 seconds and relax and that is exactly what Ruth Kelly, BA and BAA is proposing all day every day - its absolute barbarism and a third world disgrace to even consider this - the health implication for 2 million people must take priority over BA and BAA profits surely? This is just like the tobacco lobby dragging its feet on its responsibilities until the evidence leaked out and the court writs started to fly - as went smoking so will go aviation over population centres but only after feet dragging by the highly compromised Government and its revolving door of jobs and perks with the aviation industry. Fact: aviation driven by wealthiest 20% in our society not the poorest - poor do not travel any more times on planes than before (Avg salary at Stanstead £40k plus)- and that's Easy, Ryanair routes!
- Christian, London UK, 06/03/2008 14:39
Report abuse
Expansion could ruin these sites? Try going there. At Kew you can read the numbers on the planes as they swoop down every minute. I went to a beautiful open-air concert at Hampton Court last summer and every five minutes the music was drowned out by a plane going over. If this was constant I agree that visitor numbers would seriously suffer.
- Mark, London, 06/03/2008 14:20
Report abuse
Yes, of course, more planes = less noise. Half a day of peace is exactly the same as a whole day of noise and 1 Concorde flying over for 2 minutes is exactly the same as 120 jets flying over for 4 hours. You can have more planes and more noise, or even noise for the first time, but as long as somewhere else the noise levels have gone down so the average noise level is the same, you can't hear the difference. Huh?
Not that Heathrow are trying to mislead people or anything, perish the thought.
- Mj, London, 06/03/2008 13:36
Report abuse
