Afternoon:
10°c
Councils' legal challenge to third runway at Heathrow
Katharine Barney, Evening Standard6 Apr 2009
COUNCIL leaders backed by Boris Johnson will this week launch a legal challenge against a third runway at Heathrow.
The 2M Group of 23 councils says the development will be "disastrous" for those living near the airport and under the flight path. Backed by Transport for London, seven west London boroughs will call for a judicial review of the Government's decision to allow the runway to go ahead.
The seven councils, Wandsworth; Hounslow; Hammersmith and Fulham; Hillingdon; Kensington and Chelsea; Richmond and Windsor and Maidenhead are expected to make an announcement on Wednesday.
If the third runway goes ahead the number of flights could be increased from 480,000 to 700,000 and the nearby village of Sipson would be demolished.
Kulveer Ranger, Mr Johnson's head of transport policy, said the business case did not outweigh "environmental concerns in terms of noise and air quality".
Mr Ranger said the Mayor was a "moral supporter" and added that TfL would provide "expert evidence" at the review.
Reader views (9)
Why are they sending planes over Blackheath to Heathrow? This is crazy. Whats wrong with Gatwick, they can fly over the countryside. Having moved to london from the country, i just dont know how people put up with the constant noise. Flying over all of london is insane. Flying is a luxury which these days takes precedence over the quality of lives of residents.
- James, Blackheath, UK, 14/10/2009 18:37
Report abuse
Wow, this really is pathetic. After years of debating, the decision to go ahead with a third runway appears to mean absolutely nothing. If Britain can't finally figure out that they need a third runway at Heathrow as soon as possible, they don't deserve to be the financial capital of the world. Frankfurt just approved a plan for a fourth runway, yet Heathrow is stuck with two. I can't believe people are that worked up about noise and climate change when aircraft emissions constitute such a minor portion of greenhouse gas emissions. Even one of the world's leading climate change experts admitted that a third runway at Heathrow should be the least of people's concerns. Coal is one of the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions. People need to realize their biggest airport needs a new runway as soon as possible. I do feel sorry for the residents of Sipson, but I am pretty sure that the majority of the country feels that Heathrow could use a third runway. Now there is a stupid legal challenge that will put off the decision even longer. It really is pathetic. I'm sure the airport could reduce emissions by adding a third runway. That would mean shorter take-off queues and fewer planes circling the airport in holding patterns. But no, people are not prepared to see through their anger. It isn't surprising that Lufthansa and Air France-KLM have overtaken British Airways when the chances of a third runway at Heathrow are next to nothing. A third runway would also create more jobs!
- Sean Symon, CP USA, 14/10/2009 17:37
Report abuse
I personally can't see why they just can't stick it in the Midlands and link it up to Kings Cross by high speed rail?
- Rich, London, 14/10/2009 17:37
Report abuse
Wether or not you support Aviation is not for me the issue. The location of the airport is itself fundamentally flawed. The flightpaths ensure untold misery to people in London from areas as far as Blackheath and Westminster (just listen to the aircraft noise when interviews are being broadcast from outside Parliament!). The fact that the operation of this airport today causes 'increased morbidity' - thats premature death people, and huge impacts on asthma rates in the most densley populated place in Europe.
What disgusts me is that all these health and safety issues have been concealed by Government and never mentioned by Willie - so by all means if you and your businesses are comfortable using a facility that is a danger to your fellow man go agead. I am not against aviation but Heathrow is fundamentally flawed and is wide open to legal actions - it is the tobacco lobby of the 21st century and human rights not die must take precedence over the right to fly.
- Christian Ball, London, UK, 14/10/2009 17:37
Report abuse
Believe me, I do think you have fair points. Maybe Heathrow isn't the best place. But that's not why I am disgusted with the situation. London is taking way too long to resolve this problem and this legal challenge will merely put off the decision longer. If Heathrow is a bad option either expand Gatwick (although I am aware they wouldn't be allowed to build another runway until 2019) or consider an airport in the Thames. But I have heard that reports deem it impossible for an airport in the Thames due to incorrect wind patterns, proximity of birds, and the fact that it would take years to build the infrastructure connecting the airport to London. There are ideas out there. I would just like to see the British government make a good effort to improve the London airport system; otherwise, I think the country would lose out.
- Sean Symon, USA CP, 14/10/2009 17:37
Report abuse
Sean Symon,do you know the geography of Heathrow.It is 16 miles out of Central London in a built up area.Frankfurt is in the middle of the countryside.You want us to demolish a load of small towns for the sake of a new runway?There are other places to put the runway,if needed
- H.J.Jones, London UK, 14/10/2009 17:37
Report abuse
Wow Sean the calculation of the aviation fuel and carbon emmissions saved - tell you what lets calculate how much distance could be travelled if a third runway was built and allow that many more trips - i mean are we really seriously supposed to believe reduction of taxi time and stacking for on average 10 minutes would mean a 50% increase of flights would be a neutral option? Its utter noinsense and of course your right to fly is more important than my childs right not to have an increased chance of asthma or my elderly relations rights to live for a few years longer - DISGUSTING
- Christian Ball, London, UK, 14/10/2009 17:37
Report abuse
All I am saying that there is a space for Heathrow expansion between two reservoirs with no need to demolish anything but a road and a small piece of farmland near T5.If the Marinair(Thames Estuary Airport)idea is a no-go,then this is the best place to put it.
(My site is on the south-west side of Heathrow and south of Heathrow.Nearest town is Stanwell but this is still a while away from my site.A new terminal is not needed.)
- H.J.Jones, London UK, 14/10/2009 17:37
Report abuse
On 28th November 2003 Alastair Darling as Secretary of State for Transport wrote a paper for the Prime Minister which included :
"Conclusions on Heathrow
The economic case for Heathrow is strong. There is a large and growing suppressed demand to use it. It is the choice of virtually all the "traditional" airlines and businesss. If it were not for the very serious environmental drawbacks it would be the obvious candidate for a new runway. Noise impacts might be reduced to tolerable levels in time with sustained effort by the industry. Road user charging around the airport might improve conditions on the surrounding mororways, but we cannot commit ourselves to road user charging. The analysis of local air quality impacts means that the Governmnent could not be confident about compliance with EU legal limits, as the consultation document said we would need to be. And that might be the case for 20 years. On that basis, a decision in favour of Heathrow in this White Paper would almost certainly not survive a legal challenge - and such a challenge would soon come."
I'm not at all convinced that the fudged air modelling study for the more recent consultation gives any confidence that the situation has changed (and the Environment Agency who should know about things have serious doubts about it.)
The might be good fun in the courts.......
- Tim, London UK, 14/10/2009 17:37
Report abuse
