Tonight:
4°c
Heathrow expansion 'would mean 18 hours of noise a day'
Katharine Barney, Evening Standard13 Oct 2008
A CAMPAIGN has been launched against plans for the "back-door" expansion of Heathrow Airport.
Environmentalists and local councils claim ministers might back off from building a third runway but give the go-ahead to more frequent landings on existing runways instead.
They say this could mean families living beneath the path of incoming planes would endure noise for 18 hours a day rather than nine as at present.
The Government claims there would be an extra 60,000 flights a year, up from 480,000.
Protesters calculate that if each runway was used to full capacity it could mean an extra 170,000 flights.
John Stewart, of anti-expansion pressure group HacanClearskies, said: "We're very worried about this. It will have a real impact on those under the flightpath, and I imagine if the Government says this is what they will do there will be an even bigger outcry than against the third runway."
Edward Lister, leader of Wandsworth council, said: "With all the attention on the potential for a third runway there is a risk ministers will try and get away with incremental expansion on the existing runways.
"The Government hopes to add another 60,000 flights a year, but there is no guarantee that this figure is anything like the full potential capacity of a two-runway airport. At Gatwick a single runway which is used for landings and take-offs can accommodate 50 movements an hour for much of the day. If you applied this to Heathrow it could lead to an additional 170,000 movements a year."
Mr Lister said using the two runways in full would involve a non-stop stream of aircraft approaching from the east all day. "For many Londoners this 'maximum use' policy will be worse than a third runway," he said. "We fear this kind of steady expansion by stealth is just what the Government has in mind.
"I'm sure ministers will say they have no plans for extra growth at this level, but people in south and west London have had too many broken promises on Heathrow to believe any expansion will be the last." He said the 2M Group of councils opposing expansion would urge all London MPs to back their stance.
A Department of Transport spokesman said: "Our consultation last year clearly set out an option for using Heathrow's two runways for both take-offs and landings to provide extra capacity.
"The consultation made clear this could provide for up to 60,000 extra flights a year. This is an estimate of maximum throughput, based on expert advice. Suggestions this number could be as many as 170,000 are nonsense.
"The safety requirement for separation distances between parallel streams of arriving and departing aircraft on two runways at Heathrow do not allow for that. The comparison with Gatwick's single runway is false."
He said the Government aimed to decide on the future development of Heathrow by the end of the year.
Reader views (11)
The current mixed mode operation from about 6 till 9 are a living hell.
A mixed mode experiment that never ended, when did our goverment stop caring about people, and only caring about business?
- William, Chiswick, 13/11/2008 13:01
Report abuse
We totally oppose!
That is all we have to say
- Frankie And Gaby, winchester, 11/11/2008 09:22
Report abuse
What will this do to house prices in the area? they are already falling this would make many of the houses under the flightpath worthless. I remember when i moved into the area it was felt that the half day's peace was a recognition that the noise lowered the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of Londoners.
Now the planes aren't as noisy as they were but the stream is constant, just as one fades into the distance the next one can be heard approaching. Living in West London has become like a bizare form of chinese water tourture. You can't escape it, when you are at home even with high spec double glazing it constantly invades the house.
For the government to say they are going to double the length of time we have to put up with this, without hope of being able to move out of the area due to it's affect on house prices is like being sentanced to a lifetime of misery at home. I'll never vote Labour again.
- Rich, London, 15/10/2008 21:32
Report abuse
I used to live under a flight path from Heathrow and am totally opposed to expansion. Let the planes go elsewhere-or perhaps deliver things by sea again..
- Mark Taha, london,britain, 14/10/2008 12:50
Report abuse
I can't believe the buffoons at BAA, BA and Downing Street actually still believe air travel demand is going to continue to expand in the face of recession/depression and contracting oil supplies.
Is there a solar powered 747 out there that's gone unreported?
- Paul, Hounslow, Middx, 14/10/2008 11:25
Report abuse
I have said all along that MIXED MODE on the runways would be worse than a 3rd runway.
Each time that the airport break the rule and do not change at 3pm i am on the phone to report it to the noise line.They must get fed up with me but i think if i dont complain it will just be accepted as OK.I am told that all my complaints are recorded by the authorities
- Brian Spink, HARMONDSWORTH Middx., 14/10/2008 09:44
Report abuse
Last night's feature says that "Usually landings are from 6am to midnight" not true, I live in SW1 and we have aircraft noise from 4am until after midnight. I have contacted the Civil Aviation Authority and they say there is no legal limit to the time aricraft can use the airports it is up to the airport and airline. The expansion of Heathrow and the increase in flights to City airport will make the centre of London unbearable - what happened to Boris Johnson's plan for an airport away from the city? I have lived in the centre of Paris and Brussels neither have this opressive and incessant aircraft noise their airports are sited well away from the cities and flight path don't cross them. The current noise level is making Londoners ill with stress, sleeplessness and pollution now,with another runway, more flights to City airport and the increase in helicopter use it will be unbearable, but I suppose we just have to wait until there is some horrendous air accident over central London before anyone will look at the conjestion in the skies over the city.
- Mrs Johnston, London, 14/10/2008 09:19
Report abuse
As I understand it, the main issue at Heathrow at present is when there is a problem with the weather the number of movements halves & this causes chaos. I believe that mixed mode would cure this. Therefore I would not allow any extra capacity at Heathrow but allow mixed mode when delays start building up - this should make Heathrow reliable within the current capacity which should be capped - the airlines could start using large planes for short routes to increase the number of passengers if needed.
- David, Uxbridge, Middx, 14/10/2008 09:15
Report abuse
When I was young, the British air carriers were BOAC, which was known as 'Better on a camel', and BEA known as '****** everyone's arrangements[. Now its been shortened to BA, which clearly stands for Bloody Awful.
- L.Taubler, London UK, 14/10/2008 04:47
Report abuse
The very existence of runway alternation is explicit recognition of the severity of existing noise pollution in west London under the approaches to Heathrow. To dispense with it would be to deliberately disregard the degraded conditions under which this area already lives. IF capacity is needed the environmental cost must be born by other communities not now suffering as we are. There are four other airports around London, and on alternatives such as high speed rail one can not trust the statements made by BA and BAA. The Government should be making every effort to minimise the environmental cost of travel absolutely and to spread what environmental degradation there must be across the broader population that wishes to gain from travel facilities. Cities elsewhere live perfectly well with capacity spread across several locations and it is only the self interested parties such as BAA and BA who call so stridently for the chaotic behemoth that is Heathrow to be expanded. Their projections for growth are probably just as sound as the business models of the bankers whose travel has no doubt boosted growth in recent years! The claim that the City must have more travel capacity to serve it sounds a mite hollow today. Most of the Administrators are to be found within yards of the Square Mile.
- Francis Howard, Mortlake, London, 13/10/2008 17:53
Report abuse
This Government taking the easy, back door, undemocratic choice? Surely not. Everybody including their own experts have condemned the consultation. The case for expansion has gone up in smoke over the last few months as nobody will have money to spend on flights, but still they continue with their 'we know best' approach. ELECTION PLEEEEAAASE!
- Mark, London, 13/10/2008 16:32
Report abuse
