Latest Heathrow expansion may not be the last!

BAA has said that it can offer no promises that that the current Heathrow expansion proposals will be the last.

The airport owner's chief executive was speaking at the London Assembly scrutiny hearing (Tuesday January 22) into the government's plan to add another 222,000 flights by 2030.

Council leaders representing the 2M Group had recalled the 1995 statement by former BAA chief Sir John Egan that Terminal Five would not need a third runway – but current chief executive Stephen Nelson said he could make no such promises today. This would be a hostage to fortune. He went on to assure the hearing that there were no covert plans for future expansion. He was simply ruling nothing out and nothing in.

The Royal Borough had responded to an invitation to make a written submission to the hearing, highlighting the council's major concerns about the effects of the proposed expansion on the quality of life for local residents, particularly relating to noise, air quality and infrastructure.

Attending the hearing were representatives from four other local authorities – Hillingdon, Hounslow, Richmond and Wandsworth – which, like the Royal Borough, are part of the 2M Group, speaking up for the two million people in local communities around the airport.  They called for a full cost-benefit analysis of how expansion would affect London's economy, warned that air pollution could not be contained within EU limits and criticised ministers for not subjecting the expansion proposals to a health impact assessment.

Arguing the case for expansion and greater connectivity, BAA said the number of destinations served by Heathrow had declined since the 1990s – from 227 to 180. The company welcomed high speed rail links as complementary to the airport but warned that, unlike the third runway, the cost of building new lines would have to be met by the public purse.

Cllr Colin Rayner, the Royal Borough's lead member for highways, transport and environment, said: "The purpose of the hearing was to inform the London Assembly's response to the government's proposals.  It's a pity the Department for Transport was not there to respond to concerns about the way the expansion proposals have been framed.

"You would expect BAA to argue for expansion at its main airport – the real questions are why the government has not properly weighed the environmental costs and why it refuses to conduct a properly independent study of the economic impacts.

"If ministers will not go back to the drawing board and start again they should at the very least extend the consultation by two months. This issue is far too important to rush. People need time to consider the full implications of an expansion that is equivalent to creating a new airport the size of Gatwick in the most densely populated part of the country.

"If this expansion goes through, local communities can have no confidence that it will be the last. The lesson we have all learned from a succession of broken promises in the past is that what the industry demands, the government delivers.

"The council also needs to get the views of all residents so we can pass them on to the government. The time to act is not when they start building the third runway.  It will be too late then."

The scrutiny hearing can be viewed at www.london.gov.uk/assembly/webcasts

The DfT consultation runs until February 27. Details of how to respond are available at www.dft.gov.uk/heathrowconsultation

For more information about the 2M Group visit www.2MGroup.org.uk

Notes:
A copy of the Royal Borough's submission to the LGA is appended.

 
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead (RBWM)
 Statement to Greater London Assembly

1. The RBWM is grateful to the Greater London Assembly for the invitation and opportunity to submit a statement summarising its concerns in relation to the Government's proposals for the future development of Heathrow Airport.

2. RBWM's principal objectives relating to aviation issues focus on:  preserving the local environment and quality of life for its 140,000 residents and 7m visitors p.a.; securing a thriving business community, and developing and maintaining a sustainable community by striking a balance between the environmental, social and economic issues. It is extremely mindful of both the beneficial and adverse roles aviation has within the international, national and local contexts. Historically the Borough has taken a lead role in aviation matters, adopting robust community leadership on matters such as night flights, the Terminal 5 Inquiry; Government consultations, proposed legislation and other airport related matters and development proposals.

3. The RB shares the concerns of other local authorities around Heathrow and, importantly, those of local communities in relation to the proposals set out in the DfT's document entitled: 'Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport'. These concerns are amplified below.
a. The Consultation appears to represent a significant distortion and contradiction of a number of existing and emerging government policies. For example:
• Sustainability / Climate change (as recently as UN Summit 16/11/07).
• Noise policy relating to: 'Bearing down on noise'; 'Excessive noise' and 'Striking a balance'.
• Supports the much-discredited 'Predict & Provide' mentality.
• Completely disregards the basis upon which the T5 permission was granted and ignores the very intention of the attached conditions.
• The apparent dismissal of the ANASE study [LAeq50dB(A)].
• Disregards the requirements of a number of EC Directives and Guidelines (e.g. WHO Community Noise) in presenting the data, expressing the modelling, predicted values and impacts.
• The consultation makes no links with the SE Plan (RSS) – and airport policy is being looked at in isolation. There is no reference to impact on Green Belt / Strategic Gaps.
• Breaches its own policy in relation to conducting formal consultations.

b. RBWM believes the proposals will exacerbate an already 'intolerable and unacceptable' situation. The document asserts 2002 and 2004-06 are acceptable baseline years for noise and AQ emissions respectively. There was nothing 'acceptable' about these two years in terms of the adverse impacts and infringements caused.

c. RBWM is extremely sceptical about a number of misleading claims and statements within the document relating to:

• An ability to keep to 127km2 even with 702k atms, questioning the veracity of the modelling assumptions.
• Air quality standards being met despite the scale of the proposed expansion and growth, again questioning the veracity of the modelling assumptions.
• The necessary surface access infrastructure and controls being in place and able to cope with the additional demands.
• The complete destruction of the Sipson community to accommodate R3/T6.
• The document is viewed as a 'Statement of Intent' rather than a consultation document as the Government and aviation industry appear to have colluded together and already decided upon the issue.
   
  d. The Borough is supportive of the abandonment of Cranford Agreement, given the current lack of respite during intolerable easterly operations and in the interests of more equitably sharing the 'existing' burden on noise around the airport. However, the Council is also mindful of the implications of removing the Cranford Agreement leading to 'mixed mode' operations, allowing increased movements (enhanced runway capacity) and likely public reaction in those communities where the pattern of noise exposure changes. 

4. A recent exit poll at the Windsor Public Exhibition has confirmed there are overwhelming objections to these proposals from local residents. (Available on request).