Heathrow expansion halted
In February 2010, the Council took a leading part in the High Court challenge against a third runway at Heathrow. The case was brought by a coalition of local councils, environmental organisations and residents groups. The councils were all members of the 2M Group.
The consortium won its case with the High Court judge ruling that the Government's stance on Heathrow's third runway was 'untenable in law and common sense'.
The winning team was the fruit of an unusual consortium including the councils of Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow, Hillingdon, Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and Windsor and Maidenhead. The residents groups were NOTRAG and HACAN and the environmental groups World Wildlife Fund UK, Campaign to Protect Rural England, and Greenpeace. The challenge was also supported by Royal Society for Protection of Birds, Kensington and Chelsea Council, Transport for London and the Mayor of London. Each of these groups pooled together their expertise and won the day.
The case was successful in halting the (previous) Government’s policy for Heathrow expansion. The win was then further secured in May 2010, when BAA also announced that, in response to the new Government's 'Coalition Agreement', Heathrow Airport would stop work on the planning application for a third runway.
Had the proposal gone ahead, the Government planned to allow expansion with a third runway and a sixth terminal. The development would have then permitted an increase in the number of movements in and out of the airport from the present limit of 480,000 to around 702,000 by 2030. This would have been equivalent to adding a new airport the size of Gatwick.
Although the expansion has been halted for now, there is still concern that flights, both day and night, might yet be increased. The Council will be vigilant on these issues and will oppose any intensified use of Heathrow.
Background to the Heathrow expansion consultation.
(posted prior to the Government's decision of 15th January 2009, in support of the further expansion of Heathrow)
Following permission to build T5 (to be the last expansion), the process to expand Heathrow further started again with a consultation for the 'South East and East' ( known as SERAS). This was then developed into the Governments' 'Future of Air Transport White Paper', published in December 2003, with a progress report published at the end of 2006. The White Paper proposed an additional (third) runway at Heathrow, subject to there being an improvement in the poor air quality.
The White Paper has now resulted in the recent consultation on the expansion of Heathrow. The proposals were wide-ranging, and interlinked. They had one common theme – to increase the number of aircraft flying overhead.
The proposals included:-
- A new third runway
- A new sixth Terminal
- Landings and takeoffs on all runways at the same time (mixed mode)
- Abandoning runway alternation
- Abandoning the Cranford Agreement
- Reviewing westerly preference
- New take off routes over Richmond, Mortlake, Sheen and Barnes.
Each of these proposals would result in losers, and as the aircraft numbers increase, so will the location, spread and number of losers.
Ever since the creation of Heathrow as a civil airport in 1946, its growth has been inexorable, with the ‘limits’ mysteriously disappearing as the limit was approached. The assurance that there would be no T5 finally disappeared when T5 opened on 27 March 2008.
The assurance that there would be no third runway disappeared when the Government proposed one in its airports policy White Paper. Although they did not mention a sixth Terminal in the White Paper, it was always clear that a third runway would need its own terminal, and T6 is now proposed.
The ‘Cranford Agreement’ protects the people of Cranford from easterly takeoffs. If the agreement goes, it will unlock the door to more aircraft movements because it would allow ‘mixed mode’ on easterlies, ie takeoffs toward the Borough from both runways. We are already getting an increase in landings to both runways over Kew and Richmond on westerlies, but without the coordinated twin takeoffs over Windsor.
Both ‘mixed mode’ and a third runway will result in new take off routes over Richmond, Mortlake, Sheen and Barnes. This will bring take off noise to these areas for the first time, in addition to the existing arrivals noise.
Poor air quality at Heathrow is an issue that has to be resolved before a third runway can be approved. According to the Government, expansion of Heathrow is quite possible while still keeping within noise and air quality limits. One worry over this is that the modelling assumptions are based on aircraft and vehicles that do not exist yet. Another worry is that the Government will seek permission from Europe to delay meeting the limits, so that Heathrow can expand. The 2M group and others will be resisting such a derogation for Heathrow. It is not right that extra pollution should be permitted before it is then reduced. People should be able to enjoy good air quality now, and be able to continue doing so, without waiting for emissions at Heathrow to improve.
If flights are to increase in the daytime, there is a concern that there will be pressure to increase night flights too (although this was not highlighted in the consultation document). A Judicial Review on night flights was heard in the High Court on 20 – 22 May 2008. Among the issues heard was one concerning aircraft which were monitored as being noisier than their official noise certificate and therefore, by the Government’s own rules, should not be allowed to fly at night.
Even though the Consultation has ended, and we are now waiting for the decision, the Council is still concerned to be doing what it can to raise the profile on issues of concern. One issue that needs further work is the Government’s noise annoyance survey (ANASE), which was published in November 2007. The study shows that people are more sensitive to noise than they were previously - particularly at night - and that this is directly related to increases in aircraft movements. Following the approval of Terminal 5 in 2001, ministers had said that the new noise study would 'underpin' future policy on aircraft noise. However, the study drew some criticism as it was flawed. We are supportive of the study, yet challenge the Government to update it and fix the errors so that it can in fact 'underpin' future policy on aircraft noise.
A range of other action and other issues fronted by 2M are featured on the 2M web site.