SHE (Stop Heathrow Expansion) suggested basic response to Airports Commission consultation
The Airports Commission consultation, on the three runway options, ends on 3rd February. It is important that as many people as possible submit their views, especially things the Commission has either left out – or got wrong. The local group for the Heathrow Villages, Harmondsworth in particular, has put together a simple response form – to help people who do not have the time, or expertise, to read through the 55+ long, difficult documents. The response form can be used by people in the Heathrow Villages area, or anyone else who would like to do so. People in the Villages stand to suffer particularly badly from either Heathrow runway scheme. They are already very close to Heathrow, already suffering local blight, noise and air pollution. They face loss of their homes by compulsory purchase, uncertain financial compensation, loss of their village character, history, facilities …. In view of the intense threats they face, the Villages have joined together in their campaigns, to speak with one voice and provide a unified front against the threats.
The Davies Commission Consultation – Ways to respond
Please help your friends and neighbours in Heathrow Villages under threat of demolition by Heathrow’s foreign owners.
Print off or copy the form below and send it in a FREEPOST envelope TODAY.
You can send an individual letter from everyone in your home in separate envelopes.
You don’t have to live near the Heathrow Villages to show your disgust at the plans to perpetrate this outrage against innocent British people, by bulldozing our communities – just for an unnecessary runway.
Please add your own comments to the text below, if you wish to. The more individual and different consultation responses are, the more notice is likely to be taken of them. However, even the response below is quite adequate to express your views, if time is limited.
To: Sir Howard Davies, Airports Commission
Please note my objection to further expansion at Heathrow.
I believe there should be
NO ADDITIONAL RUNWAYS OR INCREASES IN RUNWAY CAPACITY AT HEATHROW AIRPORT, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE.
I ask that the Commission particularly examines the following concerns, as indicated. Some of these matters have not been given adequate consideration in the Commission’s analysis to date:
AIR POLLUTION – People should have the fundamental right to breathe air without the
fear that it is shortening their lives. Those living with pollution generated by Heathrow, either in the sky or at ground level by road traffic, cannot do that. Increasing flight numbers to between 740,000 and 900,000 a year condemns residents and their children to ill health and premature death. EU limits cannot and will not be met.
NOISE – People who live or work near Heathrow are already subjected to stress caused by high levels of noise. Currently 28% of all those in Europe affected by aircraft noise live around Heathrow. These residents have suffered enough. All jet aircraft are noisy and even introducing less noisy aircraft over the next 40 years will not make much difference because of the increase in flight numbers. More people will also be affected by road noise. Only a small fraction of those affected with be eligible for mitigation.
HOUSING – It would be detrimental to the country to recommend that a large area of housing development be made uninhabitable. Britain is suffering a housing crisis with demand far outstripping supply yet Heathrow expansion would destroy the homes of thousands of people. Anything from 783 to 3,750 homes would be directly affected with thousands more blighted forever. Communities built up over centuries would be wiped out.
COST – Expansion at Heathrow cannot be delivered due to the unbearable cost to airline passengers and UK taxpayers. The foreign investors who own Heathrow expect to make a profit and already avoid many UK taxes. Current infrastructure also needs massive investment in order to cope. Heathrow takes no responsibility for replacing social housing, schools, public facilities or maintaining local roads. These bills will fall to UK taxpayers.
UK ECONOMY – Any benefit to Britain is dubious. The costs for Britain will be enormous. If there is any argument for spending money on airport expansion it is likely that the country would see greater benefit if investment was made elsewhere.
HUMAN RIGHTS – The UK Government has a duty to protect the right of its citizens to live in peace and to have a family life.
FLOODING – Many areas close to Heathrow have already suffered severe flooding. It would be irresponsible to recommend laying vast amounts of concrete in this area, regardless of any reports commissioned by Heathrow. Ultimately it will be the British public that pays for damage to domestic property caused by foreign speculators.
SAFETY – Residents want to give the strongest possible warning to the Commission that it will place people’s lives at risk if it recommends further expansion at Heathrow. Recent events, including a near miss between a passenger aircraft and a drone near Heathrow, and an increase in terrorist activity, should not be ignored. In spring 2014 the Airport Operators Association magazine focussed on the Davies Commission and included an article on airport security that said, “the terrorist threat level in the UK is ‘substantial.’“ Increasing the number of aircraft flying over densely populated areas around Heathrow and our capital is taking chances based on a past safety record. The crash of a 777 just inside the Heathrow boundary in January 2008 could have killed hundreds of people. A former Transport Secretary has already told the Commission, “we cannot beat the odds forever”.
This issue of safety is being downplayed with the Airports Commission Consultation Document using the exact wording for all three options, including the one at Gatwick. It says each option is “not considered to present any significant safety or security risks and is considered adequate to deliver an increase in ATM (air traffic movements) capacity of….”. In Heathrow’s case flight capacity could increase from 480,000 to 740,000 to start with. The Commission believes a further runway in the south east will be needed by 2050 and has not ruled out Heathrow for a fourth runway.
Further information or comments may be on the reverse side of the letter
SEND BY FREEPOST TO:
Airports Commission Consultation
PO Box 1492
SHE (Stop Heathrow Expansion) says:
Your response to the current Airports Commission Consultation is important but how do you get information if you are not on the internet?
Here are ways to ensure that Sir Howard Davies gets the opinion of a wide cross section of the public and not just those who receive expensive airport-funded mail shots and online promotions from Back Heathrow.
First step – If you want to read the Consultation document online, it is available here. You might find it easier to read a hard copy of the 93-page document or you may know someone who has no access to the internet. If so ring, or ask them to ring, the Commission’s freephone number: 0800 023 8128.
Then you can:
– answer the Commission’s questions via an online form;
– download the question and response form from the website and email in your responses;
– print off the question and response form from the website and post in your responses to the freepost address – people who are not on the internet will need someone to print off the form for them so that they can complete it by hand;
– email in standalone responses;
– mail standalone responses to the freepost address – the only option easily open to everyone.
Responses online should be emailed to: firstname.lastname@example.org
The online form can be saved and returned to at any point. You may find it easier to compose answers offline, and then copy and paste them into the form.
If you have technical problems with the website you can ring the above freephone number.
The address for responses is:
Airports Commission Consultation
PO Box 1492
Don’t submit responses to any other address for the Airports Commission as there is no guarantee that they will be considered.