Morning:
20°c
Secret deal hatched by News of the World to hush up details of phone-tapping was sealed in a tiny room at the Royal Courts of Justice
More...
Heathrow expansion decision delayed
04.12.08
- Teacher quizzed over pupil 'attack'
- Phone-hacking claims to be probed
- Call for pre-watershed booze ad ban
- G8 accord on climate change target
- PM hails solidarity over Iran row
- Call to get tough over airspace
- UK swine flu death toll hits 14
- Shaquille killers jailed for life
- Further job cuts planned for Corus
- 'Jacko's drug use concerned family'
A Government decision on expanding the UK's biggest airport has been postponed.
The Government had committed itself to making an announcement on Heathrow, including a third runway at the west London airport, before the end of this year.
But Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon said that he would not make an announcement until January 2009.
The Government expressed support for expansion at Heathrow in its 2003 aviation White Paper and has since maintained its backing for a third runway.
But the Conservatives have come out against expansion and while big business and airlines favour a third runway, residents, local councils and conservationists are utterly opposed.
In a Parliamentary written statement, Mr Hoon said: The 2003 White Paper made clear that given the economic benefits to the UK, the Government supports the further development of Heathrow by adding a third runway and exploring the scope for making greater use of the existing runways, subject to meeting strict local conditions on air quality, noise and improving public transport access."
He added that the then transport secretary, Ruth Kelly, had said in July this year that following a first consultation period there would be a further consultative exercise as part of delivering a full equalities impact assessment.
Mr Hoon said Ms Kelly had said a decision was planned by the end of the year, following the close of the further consultation exercise on November 9.
Mr Hoon went on: "Since being appointed Secretary of State for Transport in October, I have had the opportunity to hear views from across the House in debate on November 5 and to begin considering the evidence, including the 70,000 responses to the consultation. I share the desire on all sides of the House, and among the wider public for this issue to be resolved. I am equally aware of the importance of reaching the right conclusion.
"I know that there are strong views across a range of interests. I will ensure that I give proper consideration to the evidence before me and will therefore take more time before making an announcement to the House, in January 2009."
Reader views (5)
Here's a sample of the latest views published.
I was at Terminal 3 this morning to meet my girlfriend's plane. The mens toilets in Arrivals had 5 urinals, and 3 of those were taped over. Each had an apology from BAA on it saying "we are working very hard to repair this". I was there for over two hours, and there was no workman in sight. This was worse than a 3rd world airport, and the cretins at BAA are looking to double the number of flights!!! Fix the blo*dy facilities you already have and improve the customer experience now please.
- Londonken, London
Delay is only beneficial if it is the RIGHT decision - NO third runway - no expansion of Heathrow by adding capacity equivalent to the size of Gatwick.
One suspects that some deft data manipulation and Parliamentary pressure will be the order of the day however. The economic case is unproven (CE Delft report) - the environmental and social consequences are quite irrefutable.
And here around Heathrow our communities want an answer.
- Christine Shilling, harmondsworth - a village which will between runways subject to intolerable noise and pollution
If you were to look at the SouthEast on Google earth, then measure how much is covered in concrete & bricks etc., how much more would be added by this 3rd runway? What we talking about 65% to 66% or 90% would it be 95%? Just how much are we talking about?
There´s obviously going to be more passengers arriving, but then the planes will be bigger and quieter too. Much quieter - if you´ve ever heard a 1970´s jet versus something out of the 1990´s.
Hopefully more public transport to and from Heathrow. High speed rail too.
More chance of an accident too perhaps, and right on top of the population. But then what if Boris island got built, a plane was approaching from the East flying at 200 knots, and something goes wrong, it doesn´t land but over shoots by 2 or 3 minutes, where does it end coming down?
Many in the NO campaign just aren´t making a case. It´s largely based on their emotions, and probably bad experiences at airports.
And now London does seem to need more jobs, and more economic activity.
- Lost In This Argument, Battersea
After listening to three scientists on Newsnight earlier in the week, each of them saying that as a 'best scenario' the average temperature may only rise 3C by 2100 and as a probable scenario that it will rise 6C (at which temperature, human life cannot long survive because of the effects on agriculture), I consider any talk of a third runway being built at Heathrow to be sheer insanity. What is being passed on to little kids being born now, and to their kids??? Nature takes a long time to show the effects of current action, and humans seem to blindly live 'for now'. Totally incompatible. Let's get some sense into the likes of Hoon/Brown, even if they can't see beyond their noses on the results of their actions. Those who care about their children's future should be marching on Parliament over Heathrow expansion. The current 'credit crunch' will be very small potatoes to what is coming if some long-term thinking isn't imposed -- and not the twaddle that governments are presently giving out as an appeasement to those concerned with the environment.
- Phil Jones, London UK
The government realise that they are in diffs on this, so they are delaying the decision, so that they can get their desired outcome, by:
- moving the goalposts
- getting/creating "evidence" that counters arguments against etc
- etc
- Anon, London
