Last November the government put its proposals to expand Heathrow out to public consultation and in essence what it wants is:
- More planes on existing runways by abolishing runway alternation (the practice where planes landing over London switch at 3pm in order to give the residents in the boroughs closest to Heathrow a half day’s break from the noise). The number of flights using the airport would rise from 475,000 last year to at least 540,000.
- A third runway and a sixth terminal. Flight numbers would rise to over 700,000 a year. At least 700 homes would be destroyed including the entire village of Sipson. At least 150,000 residents would find themselves under the new flight path.
The consultation period ended on 27 February and it is understood that about 70,000 people responded. Although Ruth Kelly has stated that the government does not know what proportion of that number are against the proposals, it's a safe bet that a substantial proportion will have been against the idea. The government intend to make their decision by the end of this year. If they give the go-ahead, then it will be up to the airport operator (BAA) to come up with detailed proposals.
A reminder here: BAA is no longer a British company but is wholly owned by a Spanish company Grupo Ferrovial SA, which bought BAA in 2006 for 23.6 billion euros (about £16 billion).
Quite a number of action groups have sprung up in opposition to this expansion plan, including HACAN (Heathrow Association for Control of Aircraft Noise), and local authorities, including Maidenhead, have formed a cross-party lobbying group called 2M. The London Assembly, the vast majority of MPs in the area, the Liberal Democrats, The Green Party, Greenpeace, etc. all oppose the plan, and new groups are springing up everywhere. David Cameron and Theresa Villiers spoke against the proposal as did Boris Johnson and, to be fair, so did Ken Livingstone. Interestingly a key objector is the Terminal 5 Public Inquiry Inspector Roy Vandermeer. This inspector stated that the fifth terminal should only go ahead on the condition that the number of flights were capped at 480,000 a year, whereas the government now want 700,000. Even the former British Airways boss, Bob Ayling, is highly dubious.
Supporting the expansion is a group called ‘Future Heathrow’ which was founded by trades unions, business groups, airlines, etc. who are interested in modernising Heathrow as a gateway to the global economy and creating jobs throughout the UK with 72,000 jobs at the the airport alone. Their view is, quite simply, that 'failure to expand Heathrow is not an option'. There is some justice in their view since we are faced with increasing competition from EU-based airlines and if Heathrow cannot accommodate the expected levels of traffic over the next decade or so then the business will go to Germany or France - ever eager to take advantage of us.
The government have been accused of collusion with BAA over this proposal, an accusation based on some documents released under the Freedom Of Information Act. The theme of the accusation is that BAA and the government together massaged the data to give a favourable bias to the proposal. Michael Meacher, former Environment Minister, has written to the EU Commissioner for the Environment, Stavos Dimas, asking him to investigate the government's handling of the consultation process.
Wheels within wheels, I quote: 'An investigation by the
Sunday Times has found the airport operator BAA has used an elaborate network of lobbying and PR groups, headed by senior Labour figures with access to the government, to promote its controversial plans for a third Heathrow runway. Among the Labour insiders recruited to front pro-aviation lobby groups are Brian Wilson, a former industry and energy minister, and Lord Soley, a former chairman of the parliamentary Labour party. Jo Irvin, now a member of Brown’s inner circle in Downing Street, not only headed BAA’s public affairs department but also fronted one of the prime lobby groups backing Heathrow expansion.'
Ken Livingstone said: 'On every test - environment, economic and quality of life - the argument for expanding Heathrow has not been made and I don’t believe it ever can. We have a duty to protect our environment not just for us, but the generations who will come after us.'
Quite apart from the future plans for Heathrow, have any of you noticed what seems to me to be a considerable increase in aircraft overflying Taplow?
Fred Russell*
