Heathrow expansion: cabinet report recommends total opposition

The proposed expansion of Heathrow Airport is 'wholly unsustainable' and will have a major adverse effect on the lives of people living in the Royal Borough.

That's the message spelled out in a report to be discussed at next Thursday's cabinet meeting (21 February).  Councillors will be asked to back the report from Cllr Colin Rayner, lead member for highways, transport and environment, expressing total opposition to the government's 20-year plan that includes a third runway, a sixth terminal and up to 700,000 passengers a year by 2030.

Cllr Rayner said:  "Since the consultation document was published before Christmas there has been growing concern across the borough about the detrimental impact these proposals will have on residents' quality of life, particularly relating to noise, air quality and pressure on housing, roads and other local services.

"The council has been active in the community to get people's views so that they can be reflected in our formal response to the Department for Transport (DfT).  Our public meetings have shown that residents are disgusted and incensed by the totally biased consultation process and a huge majority have left us in no doubt about their opposition to the expansion. 

"Those already suffering from the adverse effects of living under Heathrow flight paths have genuine and well-founded fears that if these plans go ahead their lives will be made even more difficult.  Others, for example residents in Maidenhead, are yet to see that new flight paths and increased aircraft movements will affect them significantly for the first time.

"We have a responsibility to our children, and our children's children, to protect the local environment and the council is encouraging people to get involved and make their voices heard – it's up to us, right now."

Cllr David Burbage, council leader, said that one of the major concerns is the lack of objective hard evidence to prove the government's claims that the expansion is sustainable and will meet all the necessary environmental standards.

He said:  "Given that the government has rejected its own study into the effects of aircraft noise on local communities*, we are sceptical that the expansion is achievable without serious adverse effects on our community.

"The consultation documents are bewildering in their wealth of technical data – yet for all this great mass of detail, so much of the vital information on environmental impact and economic benefits is missing.

"The expansion also goes against everything that came out of the Terminal 5 inquiry when the inspector made it clear that a third runway would have such severe and widespread impacts on the environment as to be totally unacceptable.  If the DfT is prepared to ignore such learned advice, after one of the most severe public scrutinies in history, what guarantees do we have that there will not be a fourth runway and a Terminal 7 in the future?"

If agreed by cabinet, the council's response to the DfT will include:

• a robust challenge to government statements that play down the severity of the adverse environmental impacts on a large number of borough residents
• the unproven, uncalibrated and flawed assertions in the consultation and lack of objective evidence
• the 'broken promises' – eg the basis and conditions of the Terminal 5 planning permission
•  the government's dismissal of the ANASE study* on noise criteria
• contradictions of the government's own policies and statements relating to climate change, sustainability and noise
• the lack of information on how air quality limits will be met.

The response also covers the council's opposition to:

• the introduction of 'mixed mode' use of Heathrow runways, which would increase flight numbers from the current 'capped' 480,000 to 540,000 by 2015, rising to 605,000 by 2020, and
• any increase in night flights (the council's policy is total opposition to night flights).

Council agreement is proposed for two areas of the consultation: the retention of westerly preference and the ending of the Cranford Agreement – the latter, however, is an 'on balance' support, given that some residents currently affected by aircraft noise would have an improved quality of life, while others would experience it for the first time. The council's agreement would also be subject to a legal agreement on: no third runway, strict capping limits on aircraft movements during the day with no movements at night and the introduction of easterly alternation to give local residents some respite from the noise.

The full report to be discussed by cabinet on Thursday February 21 can be found on the council's website http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/meetings_080221_agenda_cabinet.htm under Highways, Transport and Environment.

Notes:
1.  The DfT document – Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport – includes proposals for:

• the development of a third 2,200 metre runway (wiping out 700 properties, including the entire Sipson community in the London Borough of Hillingdon
•  the construction of Terminal 6
• optimising the current capacity at Heathrow by introducing 'mixed mode' use of runways (raising the number of aircraft movements from the current 'capped' 480,000 to 540,000 by 2015)
• continuing to increase the number of flights to more than 700,000 by 2030 (after the construction of runway three and Terminal 6)
• ending the Cranford Agreement and runway alternation (although retaining westerly preference).

2.  *The ANASE Study (Attitudes to Noise from Aviation Sources in England) was commissioned by the government in 2001 to look at the calibration of the effects of aircraft noise on local communities. The intention was to use the findings to underpin the government's policy relating to aircraft noise. The results were released three weeks prior to the Heathrow expansion consultation, only after considerable pressure by the 2M Group of local authorities.  The report suggested that noise around the airport is understated – ie that people get annoyed about noise at 50 decibels and not the 57 decibels used by the government for airport planning and analysis.  Also that increasing the number of aircraft movements was a significant factor in causing annoyance. The findings have since been dismissed by the government as 'inconclusive'.