Environment Audit Cttee will be calling Ministers to give evidence on Heathrow runway environmental impacts
The Environment Audit Committee has announced (already) that, after the government’s announcement that it backs a Heathrow runway, it will be calling Ministers to scrutinise how environmental concerns are being mitigated. The EAC has scrutinised the Airports Commission in the past, on environmental problems of a Heathrow runway. The EAC wants assurances from the Government that a new runway will comply with key environmental conditions. Mary Creagh MP, Chair of the Committee, said it would be necessary to look at what the runway means for local residents, on air quality and noise standards and also on carbon emissions. She said: …”we need a clear plan to reduce emissions from aviation to meet our climate change targets. … The Government must ensure that current legal EU air pollution limits are retained after we leave, to protect the health and wellbeing of local people. We wait to hear what the airport’s plans are for covering the costs of local transport. … On noise we welcome Heathrow’s announcement that it will accept a ban on night flights. Ministers must ensure that local communities receive predictable respite from planes flying over their homes.” The EAC report, published in November 2015, called upon the Government and Heathrow to demonstrate how issues were to be dealt with. They are not persuaded by the replies.
.
Tweet
EAC seeks Government assurances on Heathrow expansion
25 October 2016
From the Environment Audit Committee website
Committee announces it will be calling Ministers to scrutinise how environmental concerns are being mitigated
- Environmental Audit Committee
- Inquiry: The Airports Commission report: Carbon emissions, air quality and noise
Reacting to the Government’s announcement of its approval for Heathrow expansion, the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee Mary Creagh MP is seeking assurances from the Government that any new airport capacity will comply with key environmental conditions.
Chair’s comments
Mary Creagh MP, Chair of the Committee, said:
“My committee recently looked at what a third runway at Heathrow would mean for local residents and we will be seeking assurances from the Government that the airport’s proposals meet strict carbon emissions, air quality and noise standards.”
“We have seen some international progress on tackling carbon emissions from aviation recently, but we need a clear plan to reduce emissions from aviation to meet our climate change targets.”
“The Government must ensure that current legal EU air pollution limits are retained after we leave, to protect the health and wellbeing of local people. We wait to hear what the airport’s plans are for covering the costs of local transport.”
“On noise we welcome Heathrow’s announcement that it will accept a ban on night flights. Ministers must ensure that local communities receive predictable respite from planes flying over their homes.”
The EAC report, published in November 2015, called upon the Government and Heathrow to demonstrate that Heathrow expansion can be reconciled with our climate change commitments and legal air pollution limits. It called for an improvement in surface transport and a ban on night flight.
Background
The Climate Change Act 2008 requires the Government to set a series of 5 year carbon budgets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. The statutory Committee on Climate Change, which advises the Government on meeting these budgets, says its ‘planning assumption’ is that 2050 aviation emissions should to be around 2005 levels (i.e. 37.5 MtCO2).
The UK’s legal air pollution limits are set out in EU Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality, which was transcribed into UK law. The Directive limits values in respect of certain key pollutants – including an annual mean limit value of 40 μg/m3 NO2. Compliance is assessed through measurements carried out by “receptors” next to roads. The deadline for compliance was 2010 but 38 out of 43 areas remain above the limit values, including Greater London.
.
.
.