Morning:
14°c
Londoners divided on third runway as activists hurl bricks
Paul Waugh, Anna Davis, Robert Mendick and Nigel Rosser16.01.09
LONDONERS are bitterly split over plans for a third runway at Heathrow, with many believing it will be good for the economy but bad for the planet, an exclusive Evening Standard poll reveals today.
The YouGov survey found 43 per cent opposed the £9billion scheme, compared with 35 per cent in favour, and 22 per cent who did not know.
The results, which reveal clear gender, age and geographical divides, came as a series of protests began by activists determined to halt the expansion plans.
Climate change activists launched a pre-dawn raid on the Department for Transport today.
Hundreds of demonstrators will protest at Terminal Five tomorrow and there are plans to bring Heathrow to a standstill for 24 hours.
This morning three women wearing red sashes hurled bricks wrapped in paper which read "No third runway, the suffra-jets are back" at glass doors in the department on Horseferry Road, Westminster.
Police were called just after 5am and were investigating claims that paving slabs were used to break the window.
A spokeswoman for the protesters said they hurled green paint to symbolise the "green wash" they heard from the Government yesterday as Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon announced he would allow the third runway.
The plan will increase the number of flights from 480,000 to 702,000 by 2030. Mr Hoon bought off some backbenchers with safeguards such as the rejection of "mixed-mode" operations that would have meant all-day take-offs and landings.
The Standard's survey showed that opinion in west London is more polarised than the capital as a whole, with 50 per cent opposed and 37 per cent in favour of the expansion. Just 39 per cent of men oppose a new runway while 45 per cent are in favour. Among women, 46 per cent are opposed and 26 per cent in favour.
The starkest division comes over economic and green impacts of the runway. Some 58 per cent agree it would bring benefits in terms of jobs, with 17 per cent disagreeing. Some 38 per cent of all Londoners feel the dangers of climate change are so severe there should be no airport expansion at all.
Tomorrow's flashmob protest at Terminal Five, planned months ago by campaigners Plane Stupid, will be the first large-scale protest since the decision was announced.
Leila Deen, Plane Stupid spokeswoman, said: "We expect this to be big. Despite all the objections, arguments and all the science, the government is determined to support the aviation industry over the future of life on earth. We say - bring it on."
At noon protesters will enter the T5 departure lounge and pelt images of Geoff Hoon with red sponges. Numbers are expected to be swelled by local residents angry at the decision to go ahead with the runway.
The protest is designed to be peaceful, but police are aware of rising anger among those who feel their attempts to stop the runway have been unfairly ignored. One resident said: "The key thing is not to allow protests to get so angry that they alienate people who are now supporting them."
Tory supporters are split down the middle on the decision, with 39 per cent both in favour and against. Labour supporters are similarly divided, but Liberal Democrats are much more opposed. Some 56 per cent of Lib Dem voters are against the runway, compared to 30 per cent in support.
Despite the youthful image of green activists, the most staunch opposition comes from older voters. Among the over-55s, 53 per cent are opposed compared with 33 per cent backing. Among 18 to 34-year-olds, there is a three-point gap between those on either side of the argument.
Reader views (48)
I back most people on this Heathrow can't expand and certainly does'nt need another runway, this would be ludicrous, only creating more noise pollution fronm big jets when the problem is bad enough at the moment.
I live in Hampton and the noise from jets passing over the house when on 'easterlies' can be pretty disturbing seeing they are fairly low. The question is not does Heathrow need expanding = NO, Does Heathrow need to seriously reduce the amount of air traffic using it, (seeing it is far too busy already) and take that air traffic away from there to another airport= YES.
I was quite annoyed by the American people saying 'YEAH GO AHEAD AND EXPAND IT' what do they know, America has much more space to expand airports than us and Andrew from Windsor also, Yes Heathrow is that bad, read what I have said, It can't be improved, they are not whingeing or moaning as you put it they are making a stance on their principles, obviously you are not affected by Heathrow expansion and aircraft noise or would have agreed with them.
- Ross, Hampton
Totally against the expansion. It’s Greed not Need. All this about Heathrow being a hub airport is madness. London is served by 5 major airports with more than enough flights from all over the world being able to be catered for. This is just BAA wanting control as they are being forced to losing some airports; again it’s GREED NOT NEED!!!
- Bg, London
We have needed a third runway for years in order to maintain our position as a hub.
- Roger Slade, Winchester, Hampshire, England
Martin Ouseley, I'm afraid you're living in a dream-world: you want "a world beating airport, idealy suited for access to the Olympics and as an international hub" in the Thames Estuary? Great idea, but the enquiries, legal challenges, protests, and hearings alone would take twenty years, and that's before the inevitable discovery on the site of the endangered Johnson's wiggle worm or whatever!
No, that would simply be just another chance for a bunch of lawyers to make a fortune at the taxpayers' expense...and STILL no airport.
(cf. Maplin, Sheerness etc.)
- Croyboy, Croydon
it is interesting that some people can think that the third runway could be good for the economy but bad for the planet. The environment isnt just some abstract thing that is nice to have. Not caring for it is morally wrong but also very very expensive to rectify - if it can be rectified that is and so very very bad for the economy ! How much extra healthcare will need providing by the NHS, for example. It cant be healthy having thousands of tons of burnt kerosene dropped on your head every year and this has direct economic costs.
The environment is an economic issue and must be dealt as such. The disbenefits of runway 3 to the economy outweigh the benefits of runway 3 to the economy. The countryside if England is worth keeping because it is beautiful but also because it produces our food oxygen and water and ecourages tourism from here and abroad.
We must fight this on clear and rational grounds based on damage to the economy caused by environmental damage as a consequence of pollution. Finally, Hoon says that the decibel threshold of flights is less now than before but that is per plane !!! you may have less peak noise but you will have the lower level all day long. Any way you look at it you cant have 350 to 500 extra flights without having more pollution unless you are flying on the hot air that is being generated by Mr Hoon !
- nick, welwyn england
Luddites: The Luddites were a social movement of British textile artisans in the early nineteenth century who protested - often by destroying mechanized looms - against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution.
It's a tragedy for us all that they didn't succeed, isn't it?
- Blaggarde, Lower Middle Class
@Antoine Desmoines: You are bang on target. Heathrow cannot be expanded indefinately. Now is the time to bite the bullet and built a new airport in the Thames Estuary. This will provide employment ina recession far exceeding that needed for H3 and leave us with a world beating airport, idealy suited for access to the Olympics and as an international hub.
Gordon, for once, make a real decision!
- Martin Ouseley, Reading
The fact is we NEED a third runway, for safety reasons if for nothing else. A Thames estuary airport? ...Fine! But how long is that going to take, and at what cost? Heathrow is what we're stuck with, so let's get on with it.
- Croyboy, Croydon
We are still at the start of this century and should be thinking 'Where is the best place to have London's primary airport for the future.' It certainly isn't Heathrow.We then build it and make Heathrow into something like City Airport West and the rest a business park. All the infrastructure is there and that would pay for a huge chunk of the new airport. We need to build things to create jobs, how about building something we need rather than White Elephants in Stratford and other assorted jobs for the boys.
- Antoine Desmoines, London, UK
We need the third runway at Heathrow, and I agree with another comment that we will ultimately need a fourth, and perhaps a fifth. Heathrow is now an international hub for the Atlantic. You built it, and we came - no turning back now. The complaints by a few locals are more or less irrelevent at this point. Better to expand in London, already overgrown, than other European cities that are less suitable locations for an all-purpose transit point for international connections. The bigger the better I say, and folks who don't like the noise need to move. Environmental issues don't apply to Heathrow - the UK accepted that when it sold the airport to the rest of the world many years ago. Bring on the expansion.
- John Derringer, Chicago, USA
I would say build it. As the way England is going you are going to need all the runway's you can get so you can all get out of there....
- Dee, Chesapeake USA ex London
And, do you honestly think this nightmare expansion of airports will end with a 3rd runway at Heathrow? You're kidding yourselves if you do. All the airports will be expanded...and expanded...Boris (if he's still around) will push through his stupid idea for an airport where the nature reserve now is in the Thames Estuary...and they'll be coming to a place near you! Until and unless people start to assess what is important to life and what is greed and self-indulgence, the concreting over of Britain will continue apace - airports, motorways, ticky tacky houses (for more people the country can't afford)and all the hiatus of building that goes with this kind of unchecked development. Isn't a historic village like Sipson, the green belt land still around it (only just)with its flora and fauna, and the nature reserve at Cliffe in Kent (which our Mayor Boris wishes to destroy with his airport proposal)worth having and saving for our own spiritual,physical and mental health and that of our children? We have already learned recently that the humble bee's survival is imperative to our own survival. Where is the humble bee to suck when England is a concrete jungle?
- Judith C, London, England
The reason why the Governement won't give up on Heathrow is that they've just spent billions on Terminal 5. We all know what a success that was, don't we? Spending more billions on a new terminal to the East, as Boris wants, won't fly even if it's by far the most sensible option. A brave Governement (and one that didn't care about carbon emissions) would start building to the East, link it to St Pancras and also roll out electrification of the railways. But this crew are, like all bullies, cowards.
We are going to lose out to the Continent anyway because Heathrow so revolting.
- Anna, London, UK
If all those opposed to to the new runway being built pledged to cease flying themselves, there would be no need of the expansion.
- Colin, Bristol
Can you imagine Heathrow airport expansion?? They could not manage 4 terminals and they DEFINITELY cannot manage 5 terminals and now they would be better with even more?! HELLO! We need a new and modern airport in the right place it is always a mess getting to Heathrow through this busy city traffic and once you are there it is all walking long marches through long empty corridors unaided. Service is abysmal and giving them more subsidies is just terribly wrong. BAA which is Spanish should be punished not rewarded!!
- Jacqueline, Hampstead, London
Robert, London
Why don't we just all give up ?
Forget business, forget jobs, forget trying to maintain the airport's as one of the most important in the world.
What an attitude !
- Jim, West London
some comments amaze me. why should Emma or anyone else who wishes to voice an opinion not be heard - do you have to live directly under the flight path to comment ? Who says extra flights are progress ? the point is we need to reduce pollution and be bit less selfish. people should know the consequences of their actions on themselves and others. yes people need to travel and yes the economy benefits but what about the countryside and environment ? Are we saying lets destroy villages and incease pollution so we can go on a nice holiday ? And remember there are large costs to environmental damage its not rose tinted nostalgia !
There is no option for very long distances but to fly and as yet no viable alternative jet fuel. All I am saying is that we should use high speed rail to replace short haul flights not that people shouldn not travel.
This allows more slots for long haul flights and no extra runway is required. all modes of transport cause pollution rail less than others.
Finally dont be fooled into thinking that just because you dont live under the runway means that you will not suffer from noise and air pollution from extra flights - you will
- Nick Sloan, welwyn england
Yet again the unmeasurable 'good for the economy' argument is wheeled out as the only reason for expansion. I'm always amazed how many gullible people swallow it. It is ridiculous to suggest that London will decline as a financial and business centre because a third runway isn't built at Heathrow. No doubt, they also believe Hoon's warped statistics on flight path noise when he compares 1975 figures including Concorde (which flew a handful of times a day and was probably 4 or 5 times noisier than other planes) with todays 'envelope' and which ignore the much increased frequency and disruption from 1500 daily flights today increasing to almost 2000 with the expansion. It's about time that someone pumped some sweet sickly jet fuel vapour into the Commons ventilation system to let them get closer to the real 'Heathrow' experience. They may just have second thoughts.
- Doug Watt, london
Robert, Hammersmith
What is the interest of the country you are talking about. CBI says business and jobs. Jobs for whom? It is CBI which pressurised ministers for hundreds of work permits which were snapped by foreigners outside the EU. It is the CBI who supported outsourcing to countries like India and shipped jobs there. If the 3rd runway creates a few thousand jobs, they will all go the foreigners. We are suckers and the whole world knows it.
There is no evidence that 3rd runway is good for business. But it is good for long haul passengers who are the above workpermit holders and they will
bring more like them I too ran a small business and worked in large companies. I do not swallow everything CBI says.. This runway is good only for the BAA ( foreign owned) and British Airways which will be taken over by Germans or Dutch in the future. I am not an eco warrior but Heathrow is in place which cannot be expanded.
- Gary, LONDON
43% & 35% of what?? ten, a hundred, a thousand, meaningless numbers, surveys depend on where & how you ask the question to make sure you get the answer you want.
do any of the opposing people fly ?? if their numbers are so large and they stop flying then we would not need more airports, but they will not stop!!
- Ed, london
Full marks to Cameron for opposing a third runway on what was a ghastly mistake of an airport in the first place. Its is Gordon Bust that is playing politics with this issue. There is no 'bravery' on his part here, or indeed any other issue. Many in Labour oppose this runway and are not afraid to speak out over the heads of the bully boys and thugs from number ten.
- Mark, London, UK
I don't know why this woman is involving herself in this issue. She does not live near any airport, she lives in Hampstead.
- G Miegl, Sunny Hampstead, NW3
I think it's a sad day when the public support the government going back on its word, purely to help out an already well-off corporation.
- Stephen Hook, London, UK
When a Government ignores the wishes of the people, what else do you expect to happen?
- ST, London
Amazing how many of the contributors are complaining about how bad an airport Heathrow is - and then saying how they oppose any attempt to improve it!
Have we just turned into a nation of moaners and whiners??
Do we really think we know what's good for us anymore - or do we just think it's safer to complain so we can't be blamed if it all goes wrong??
- Andrew, Windsor
Well done Labour for taking this tough but necessary hard decision.
They know it's a total vote loser but they have the guts to make a decision that is in the best long term interests of this country - unlike that spineless David Cameron who just jumps on every passing bandwaggon hoping to scrape up a few votes from the whingers.
- Robert, Hammersmith, West London - Yes - Right under the Flightpath.
Whats Hypocrites. Does Emma Thompson need job security?
Do the other champagne soicalists need the jobs Heathrow brings to the honest hard working Briton?
Dont let Middle Class Envoiromentalists oppose a third runway at Heathrow. Those of us that need to work will appreciate the continued competitivness and jobs a bigger heathrow will provide.
WE CANNOT ETERNALLY RELY ON A WEALTHY BRITON WE MUST WORK EVERY DAY TO ENSURE OUR WEALTH.
- Seb Tarr, london
It is interesting that there seem to be differing reasons for opposition. Boris Johnson isn't really interested in the green issue as he wants to built an equivalently huge airport in the Estuary. Emma Thompson just seems to want to continue her I'm-alright-jack transatlantical flying, she just wants to stop more of us doing the same. If the government is able to expand while enforcing new greener restrictions on planes then that seems to be the best plan for a sustainable future of flying as more people WILL want to fly. That we can't stop without simply pricing the less-well-off out of it and that hardly seems fair.
- Richard, LONDON
With the whole world watching, can we hope now the runway has been approved, that the protesters desist and act with dignity. We don't want the world watching as a few protesters give us as a nation negative publicity. And yes, I live near the airport.
- Martin H Watson, Teddington
Will they STOP with the crying about the planet. It's not about the planet, it's about the people. BAA will fiddle the noise and pollution figures, as they always have done, to make conditions appear improved while most of west London will become uninhabitable. Geoff Hoon ought to be forced to live in Hounslow -- bet he'd change his mind pretty quickly.
- lisa, London
I need clarity: is it the case that a 3rd runway at Heathrow will cause more planes to fly around the world polluting it - or just that some of the planes already polluting the planet will choose to land at Heathrow instead of, say, Munich - and therefore cause more pollution around Heathrow rather than the planet?
This differentiation is important: practically the only industry left standing in a recession is going to be Tourism - it would be good for the British economy to divert some of the world's air traffic to the UK. Does the 'no' group have the interests of the planet at heart, or just their own back garden? I was born under the Heathrow flightpath: it's been a bit hard not to notice it if buying a house in the area for at least 40 years - something I'm sure many local residents weighed up against the excellent State Schools and Healthcare when they chose to move in.
Planet vs. Economy = good question; NIMBYs vs. Economy = no brainer!
- Roz, Chamonix, France
Big mistake for the protestors to use this awful screeching woman as their mascot. I am very reliably informed she is a close friend of Red Ken Livingstone too.
- Daniel Rapp, Hampton, Middlesex
I received an email from a local busybody yesterday imploring the sizeable email distribution list to sign an online petition against the third runway. It's unfortunate that they failed to mention in the email that they have a holiday home in Spain. How do they and their the holidaymakers they rent to get there ? Walk!
This is the social duplicity that this issue is bringing to light.
- Sandy, London
Why don't we simply find a bit of open space and/or wasteland somewhere in the vicinity of Dover, Folkestone, Ashford and Canterbury the build 8 brand new state of the art terminals there together with 4 or 5 runways? This would bring a tremendous amount of prosperity to the area!
As a result, Heathrow and Gatwick could be down-graded and there would be no further need for "night flights" EVER as these could now either be scheduled for the daytime either at Heathrow/Gatwick or at the brand new state of the art purpose-built airport.
Easy-Peasy . . . Isn't it?
- Fraser, Telford Park
Weddigen, London perhaps the 37% are the people working, or have friends and relatives who work at the aiport, directly or indirectly. Perhaps it is only 37% because these people are working and don't have easy access to the web.
With respect to those who live beyond Hounslow to the east and Windsor in the West, do vehicles passing by your homes late at night or early in the morning keep you awake, get real!
- Joseph, West London
Please can you stop publishing photographs of that huge hypocrite Emma Thompson. She is a huge part of the problem and makes me quite sick.
- Paul Hopkins, London, England
A major airpot hub in the North would be more carbon efficient, as people from the North and Scotland wouldn't necessarily need to travel all the way down to London to catch flights.
Would also take some of the burden off of Heathrow.
- A Mark, Birmingham
London is rapidly becoming nimbyism personified. Shame on those who would impede progress.
- Harry Lauder, Edinburgh, Scotland
"there are plans to bring Heathrow to a standstill for 24 hours"
BA and BAA do this every summer and winter already. No-one will notice the difference.
- Nobby Clark, Perth, Scotland
I listened to the tale of why we need the new runway however as I don't live in the area it may not affect me directly however I then listened to the chap who is going to have to ensure that the airport operators and airlines comply with the "new" restriction on pollution and noise that the government are planning to put in place and he made it clear that the airport operators and the airlines will NOT be able to comply with the restrictions.
- Mike Melbourne, Bedford England
"This morning three women wearing red sashes hurled bricks wrapped in paper which read "No third runway, the suffra-jets are back" at glass doors in the department on Horseferry Road"
Resorting to violent thug stereotype so early on.
- Md, London, UK
The figures did not reveal the economic status of those responding. I suspect that the poorer off are more in favour of the enhanced job opportunities expansion will ring.
- W R Stevenson, London
If Emma Thompson was saying 'close Heathrow' then it'd be hypocritical to fly, but she's not. She, like most of the addtional 1 million additional people who'll be affected are saying no more expansion.
Which is what BAA agreed to after Terminal 5 was given the go ahead.
- Lilly, London
Why would they want to expand the dump that Heathrow is. It is truly the worst service you could get difficult to get to with all the traffic jams, once you are there long corridors to navigate, nobody to help you, security staff hopeless, dirty and badly kept, miles of shoppping centres that you have to evade. I'm always so tired and the Spanish operator obviously is not interested in making you fly. No, we need a new airport in a proper place for a modern airport!
- Georgie, Islington, London
And Emma Thompson has never caught a flight in her life?
There's nothing worse than hypocritical luvvies.
- George, London
Hypocristy is what I call it This government wants us all to change our light bulbs to save the planet.Then is prepared to pump million on tons of carbon into the atmosphere.
- Dave Smith, Croydon
"The Standard's survey showed that opinion in west London is more polarised than the capital as a whole, with 50 per cent opposed and 37 per cent in favour of the expansion."
Hardly surprising, because "West London" is directly under the landing path from the East. The noise pollution from Chelsea westwards (Fulham, Putney, Barnes and Richmond) with the 1st aircraft at 0430 HRS and the last one befor midnight is unbearable.
No other city in the western world has a regular (as opposed to regional/European wide with whisper jets)and major airport so close to a city.
Besides, Heathrow as whole could well described as the worst airport in Europe by far: A forecourt to hell.....
I would like to see the "37%", who are "in favour" of building the 3rd runway (forged and massaged government "statistics" as usual I believe....)
I try to avoid LHR whenever possible.
- Weddigen, London
The green loonies are at it already.
- David, London UK
