Aviation regulator, the CAA, losing patience with Heathrow expansion – approve only £1.6bn before DCO granted

The CAA has rejected Heathrow’s desire to spend nearly £3bn on its new runway despite the plans not having received final approval, in a sign that it is losing confidence in Heathrow’s ability to fund the project on budget.  The CAA has a new consultation on this. The CAA approved just under half Heathrow’s request; £1.6bn (at 2018 prices) before the DCO is granted, saying that “passengers cannot be expected to bear the risk” of Heathrow “spending too much in the early phase of development, should planning permission not be granted”. This is yet another hurdle for Heathrow.  Heathrow now says that instead of opening its new runway in 2026, that has now been put back to 2028/ 2029. That delay makes a large difference to the supposed economic benefit to the UK, which was at best marginal even with a 2026 opening date.  Both Heathrow and the Government claim that the project will be privately financed yet there are concerns about Heathrow’s ability to afford expansion as costs continue to rise and the markets begin to question the viability of the investment. Standard and Poor said there is significant concern about the design, funding and construction costs of a 3rd runway which would make it unviable.

.

 

AVIATION REGULATOR LOSING CONFIDENCE IN HEATHROW EXPANSION

19 December 2019

From the No 3rd Runway Coalition

The Civil Aviation Authority has rejected Heathrow Airport’s desire to spend nearly £3bn on its new runway despite the plans not having received final approval, in a sign that it is losing confidence in Heathrow’s ability to fund the project on budget (1).

The aviation regulator cited the risk that the costs would be passed on to passengers were the runway not to go ahead. The CAA approved just under half Heathrow’s request; £1.6bn (1), saying that “passengers cannot be expected to bear the risk of Heathrow Airport Limited spending too much in the early phase of development, should planning permission not be granted”, in a clear sign of the many hurdles Heathrow has to clear before receiving final permission to expand (2).

2028/29, the new target date Heathrow has now set for it to open the new runway, is also reducing what potential small economic benefits it would bring to the UK by 2030 – a key criteria the government previously assessed when choosing Heathrow’s expansion scheme, compared to Gatwick’s or the extended runway proposed by Heathrow Hub Ltd (3).

Both Heathrow and the Government claim that the project will be privately financed yet there are concerns about Heathrow’s ability to afford expansion as costs continue to rise and the markets begin to question the viability of the investment.

In its latest analysis of Heathrow’s business case, Standard and Poor revealed that there is significant concern about the design, funding and construction costs of a third runway (4). The report raises specific concerns about the availability of relevant information which could result in a downgrading of Heathrow’s investment grade credit rating which would make the 3rd runway unviable.

Analysis of the consolidated accounts of Heathrow Airport Limited and its holding group FGP Topco shows the airport to be losing money. Despite claiming some £22bn in reserves, once you consider dividends, interest payments on debt, and financial instruments the airport is not making a profit (5).

The political issue with approval of this level of spending in advance of planning consent is the ‘poison pill’ agreement between Heathrow and the Government which could result in taxpayers picking up the bill for Heathrow’s costs should the Government cancel the 3rd runway (6).

Paul McGuinness, Chair of the No 3rd Runway Coalition, said: 

“Even the regulator is losing confidence in Heathrow’s ability to finance this runway. Heathrow previously declared their 3rd runway would cost £14bn. But now, just 18 months later, they tell us that they’ll have to spend one and a half billion of this before they even apply for planning permission!

“As financial experts have advised us, Heathrow seems to be flying by the seat of their pants on this expansion – unable to determine how much they’ll need to invest, let alone the source of that investment capital.

 “Government should immediately halt this project, before taxpayers inevitably find themselves underwriting the irresponsible and vain aspirations of this foreign owned private company.”

 ENDS.

[Heathrow had proposed increasing early so-called Category C spending, relating to acquiring and relocating buildings and compensating local communities, from £650m to £2.4bn, based on 2014 prices. The CAA said that in 2018 prices proposed early Category C expenditure was subsequently increased to £2.8bn.]

NOTES

1).  https://www.ft.com/content/13c97730-226d-11ea-92da-f0c92e957a96

2). Court of Appeal Verdict on Heathrow expansion expected from 13 January 2020

3) Airports National Policy Statement, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/714106/airports-nps-new-runway-capacity-and-infrastructure-at-airports-in-the-south-east-of-england-web-version.pdf

4) S&P Global Ratings: Heathrow Funding Limited, 9 August 2019 https://www.heathrow.com/content/dam/heathrow/web/common/documents/company/investor/credit-ratings/sp/2019-Heathrow-Funding-Ltd.pdf

5) Heathrow Consolidated Accounts, John Busby, 27 September 2019, Figure 4. http://www.after-oil.co.uk/HeathrowConsolidatedAccounts.htm

6) Heathrow Airport Limited Statement of Principles, 2016, Page 4. para. 2.1.6. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/562175/heathrow-airport-limited-statement-of-principles.pdf

No 3rd Runway Coalition representatives available for further comment,

contact Rob Barnstone on 07806 947050

or rob@no3rdrunwaycoalition.co.uk


.

See also

Heathrow’s third runway plans face further delay

UK aviation regulator concerned about level of spending ahead of final approval

By Tanya Powley and Peggy Hollinger in London  (Financial Times)

19.12.2019

Heathrow’s timetable for its third runway faces further delay after the UK aviation regulator said it was minded to approve only just over half the amount London’s busiest airport wants to spend on its project ahead of final approval.

The UK’s Civil Aviation Authority on Thursday rejected Heathrow airport’s proposal to more than quadruple certain early construction-related spending to £2.8bn because of the risk the costs would be passed on to passengers if the project is eventually cancelled.

In a consultation document released on Thursday, the regulator instead said its preference was for spending to increase to £1.6bn. It added that the move would mean a delay of about a year to the 2026 scheduled opening of Heathrow’s third runway, based on Heathrow’s estimates.

However, Heathrow said the CAA’s proposal would delay the completion of the runway by up to three years.

The CAA’s move comes after management at the airport proposed in the summer to speed up certain spending on the £14bn project to meet its 2026 completion target date for the runway.

Paul Smith, group director of consumers and markets at the CAA, said: “We believe that more runway capacity at Heathrow will benefit air passengers and cargo owners . . . However, we have also been clear that timeliness is not the only factor that is important to consumers.

“Passengers cannot be expected to bear the risk of Heathrow Airport Limited spending too much in the early phases of development, should planning permission not be granted.”

Heathrow had proposed increasing early so-called Category C spending, relating to acquiring and relocating buildings and compensating local communities, from £650m to £2.4bn, based on 2014 prices. The CAA said that in 2018 prices proposed early Category C expenditure was subsequently increased to £2.8bn.

The CAA has approved Heathrow’s plan to raise early Category B expenditure, associated with seeking planning permission, such as the public consultation and master plan development, from £265m to more than £500m.

Heathrow said Thursday’s announcement was an “important milestone” in expanding the airport.

“We will now review the detail to ensure it will unlock the initial £1.5bn to £2bn of private investment over the next two years at no cost to the taxpayer,” a spokesperson said. “Whilst this is a step forward, the CAA has delayed the project timetable by at least 12 months.

“We now expect to complete the third runway between early 2028 and late 2029.”

However, there is still uncertainty over whether the expansion will go ahead, following opposition from politicians, local residents and environmentalists. A judgment on five judicial reviews by campaigners against the expansion is expected early next year.

Heathrow is likely to submit its application for a development consent order (DCO), the permit required by all nationally significant infrastructure projects, next year. The airport hopes the transport secretary will approve it in 2021.

While the CAA has rejected the highest early spending plan, approval to spend more money ahead of getting a DCO is still likely to attract criticism, such as from IAG, British Airways’ parent company and Heathrow’s biggest customer.

Willie Walsh, IAG chief executive, has long criticised plans to spend significantly on early construction costs before planning permission is granted or the scheme’s final costs are known. On Wednesday, he called on the government to commission an independent assessment of Heathrow’s expansion costs.

In its master plan, revealed in June, Heathrow said it would stagger expansion to manage costs and appease residents’ concerns about noise and pollution. Dividing the project into four phases is part of the airport’s efforts to keep the passenger service charge close to 2016 levels. Heathrow’s fee of £22 per person is already one of the most expensive in the world.

Construction of the new runway is in the first phase of the project, which was scheduled for completion in 2026. The fourth phase, which includes car parks, road systems and hangars, is set to be finished in 2050.

However, an independent report commissioned by the CAA suggested that Heathrow’s target date of 2026 for the runway opening was “optimistic” even under the airport’s preferred approach to early spending. It noted that a more likely opening date would be between early 2027 and late 2028 under Heathrow’s previous proposal.

The CAA’s consultation will be open for responses until February 28, with a final decision expected in the spring.   Its title is:  “Economic regulation of Heathrow Airport Limited: policy update and consultation on the early costs of capacity expansion”

https://consultations.caa.co.uk/cmg/early-costs-of-capacity-expansion/

FT article at

https://www.ft.com/content/13c97730-226d-11ea-92da-f0c92e957a96

.


The CAA consultation:

“Economic regulation of Heathrow Airport Limited: policy update and consultation on the early costs of capacity expansion”

Closes 28 Feb 2020

Opened 19 Dec 2019

Overview

This consultation document provides further information on costs Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL) expects to incur in advance of obtaining a Development Consent Order under the Planning Act 2008 for the expansion of Heathrow airport.

It outlines the approach to spending on these early costs that we consider is in the best interest of consumers and the regulatory arrangements that should apply to this spending.

It follows on from our July 2019 consultation on early costs and our previous policy documents on these matters.

Views invited

We welcome views on all the issues raised in this document including the issues set out in the executive summary and highlighted in chapters 1 to 3.

Please e-mail responses to economicregulation@caa.co.uk by 28 February 2020. 

We expect to publish the responses we receive on our website as soon as practicable after the period for representations expires. Any material that is regarded as confidential should be clearly marked as such and included in a separate annex. Please note that we have powers and duties with respect to information under section 59 of the Civil Aviation Act 2012 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

If you would like to discuss any aspect of this document, please contact
Robert.Toal@caa.co.uk.

https://consultations.caa.co.uk/cmg/early-costs-of-capacity-expansion/

.

The consultation document is at https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1871%20Early%20expansion%20costs%20condoc%20v1.6.pdf

 

This says;

 

At the time of publishing our April 2018 consultation, HAL’s initial estimate was that it would spend approximately £650 million (2014 prices) on early Category C costs. HAL then provided further information in autumn 2018 as part of its business plan information for the iH7 price control period (2020-2021) which suggested total spending might reach £1.6 billion. See www.caa.co.uk/CAP1819, chapter 2.

 

and

 

Following the analysis in chapter 1, this draft condition refers to a runway opening date of 2029 and construction spending of not more than £1.6 billion before the grant of a DCO. The condition does not attempt to define the activities that the licensee should concentrate on and the scenario on which it is based is not a detailed project plan. The underlying activities are not sufficiently certain to form part of the licence condition and are more appropriately dealt with through appropriate governance processes.73

 

and

 

Taking this approach allows the condition to set out a fairly simple obligation that in the circumstances where the licensee is carrying out expansion, it should do so in a manner consistent with a runway opening date not later than 2029 and not incurring more than £1.6 billion of construction costs prior to the determination of its DCO application.

 

[The aim of the CAA is not to increase the costs of flying for passengers, so they can continue to fly, in huge numbers, cheaply ….  AW comment ]


See earlier:

 

Heathrow ordered by CAA to rein in 3rd runway costs – to ensure it is built economically and efficiently

The CAA has inserted a significant new clause into Heathrow’s licence, starting in January 2020, amid concerns that costs on the vast 3rd runway project will spiral out of control. Heathrow will be penalised if it fails to build its £14bn expansion scheme efficiently — the first time such a condition has been imposed on the airport. Airlines, especially British Airways, are nervous that Heathrow will try to get them to pay up-front for construction costs, which would put up the price of air tickets, deterring passengers. The CAA polices the fees the airport charges passengers. It said the new licence clause was needed to “set clear expectations for Heathrow to conduct its business economically and efficiently”. Heathrow says this is disproportionate and could put off investors. IAG boss Willie Walsh has repeatedly complained that Heathrow’s runway scheme is a “gold-plated”, and that there is little incentive for Heathrow to keep costs down. Under a complex incentive system, the more Heathrow spends, the more its owners can earn. Heathrow has already spent £3.3 billion on its plans, which have not even yet passed through legal challenges, let alone the DCO process.

Click here to view full story…

 

Who will pay for Heathrow’s 3rd runway? There is no simple answer. Can Heathrow afford it?

Both the airport and Government claim that the project will be privately financed yet there are concerns about Heathrow’s ability to afford expansion as costs continue to rise and the markets begin to question the viability of the investment. Heathrow is already spending over £3 billion on enabling work, before even starting to build. The total cost could be £31 billion, not the alleged £14 billion.  In its latest analysis of Heathrow’s business case, Standard and Poor revealed that there is significant concern about construction costs of a 3rd runway. This raises specific concerns – which could result in a downgrading of Heathrow’s investment grade credit rating which would make the 3rd runway unviable. The airport and its holding company, FGP Topco, are losing money.  A huge sum is needed for the planned development, especially if more passengers are to travel to/from the airport on public transport.  The Conservative Election Manifesto said “no new public money” will be available to support the third runway and that the onus is on Heathrow to demonstrate that the business case is viable. The CAA has decided that Heathrow will be penalised if costs spiral out of control, amid concerns that the project will not be built on budget.

Click here to view full story…

.

 

Read more »

New research shows no safe limit for PM2.5 which would hugely increase with expansion of airports, like Stansted

New research published in the British Medical Journal on 30 November has shown that airborne emissions of fine carbon particles – known as PM2.5 – can have serious health impacts even when the level of concentration is below the World Health Organisation’s guideline limits for air pollution. PM2.5 emanates especially from fuel combustion and transport sources and is one of the major issues associated with airport expansion, not only because of the additional air pollution caused by the increased number of flights but also from the additional road traffic generated by the increase in passenger numbers travelling to and from the airport.  There are links between PM2.5 and respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, as well as Parkinson’s and diabetes, and there are now others. The expansion of Stansted Airport is expected to hugely increase air pollution. Its own figures indicate the expansion to 43 mppa would lead to perhaps an extra 25% – 13.6 tonnes – of PM2.5 into the air that local residents, have to breathe.  That is wholly unacceptable, knowing the severe health impacts upon the local population.
.

 

NEW RESEARCH SHOWS NO SAFE LIMIT FOR AIR POLLUTION

16.12.2019   (Stop Stansted Expansion)

New research published in the British Medical Journal on 30 November has shown that airborne emissions of fine carbon particles – known as PM2.5 – can have serious health impacts even when the level of concentration is below the World Health Organisation’s guideline limits for air pollution. [Note 1]

PM2.5 emanates especially from fuel combustion and transport sources and is one of the major issues associated with airport expansion, not only because of the additional air pollution caused by the increased number of flights but also from the additional road traffic generated by the increase in passenger numbers travelling to and from the airport.

The results of the research confirm previously established associations between PM2.5 and respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, as well as Parkinson’s and diabetes. [Note 2]  In addition, the study found evidence of health impacts not previously associated with PM2.5 including septicaemia, fluid and electrolyte disorders, skin infections and infections of the urinary tract.

Stansted Airport is already a major source of PM2.5 air pollution and, in connection with its current planning application to increase its permitted throughput from 35 to 43 million passengers per annum (mppa), the airport was required to provide a report on the projected PM2.5 pollution levels.  In summary this report showed as follows: [Note 3]

 

Emissions of PM2.5  (tonnes)

Actual 2016

Projected for 2028

If limited to current cap of 35mppa

If expansion to 43mppa approved

Aircraft

5.5

6.2

6.7

Other airport sources

1.6

2.3

2.5

Airport related road  traffic

3.8

3.7

4.4

Total

10.9

12.2

13.6

 

SSE health adviser, Professor Jangu Banatvala, commented: “Stansted Airport’s own figures show that if its current planning application were to be approved, the airport would be responsible for putting an annual total of 13.6 tonnes of PM2.5 into the air that we all, as local residents, have to breathe.  That’s 25% more than today, which is wholly unacceptable when this new research removes all doubt as to the connection between airborne pollution from fine carbon particles and severe health impacts upon the local population.”   

Professor Jangu Banatvala concluded:  “The paramount duty of Uttlesford District Council is to do all that it can to safeguard the health of its local residents.  In view of this new research it is inconceivable that our local council could permit any further airport expansion until such time as this can be achieved without increasing the risks to the health of the local population.”

ENDS

 

NOTES

Note 1‘The cost of air pollution to Health’, Wei Y, Wang Y, Di Q et al – BMJ, 30 November 2019.  Professor Banatvala adds: “Exposure to noise and air pollution are among environmental factors inducing a broader spectrum of disease than has hitherto been recognised.  Recent research is now unravelling the molecular mechanisms by which tissue damage is induced by such environmental factors”. The WHO guideline limits for PM2.5 are a concentration level of no more than 10 micrograms per cubic metre (annual mean) and 25 micrograms per cubic metre (24-hour mean).

Note 2: A 2016 report from the Royal College of Physicians [‘Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution’] highlighted the links between air pollution and cancer, asthma, stroke, heart disease and diabetes.  The report estimated that around 40,000 deaths a year in the UK are attributable to exposure to outdoor air pollution, describing it as one of the major health challenges of our day.

Note 3: Stansted Airport Environmental Statement, February 2018, Volume 1, Chapter 10, Table 10.10.

FURTHER INFORMATION AND COMMENT

 


.

Experts raise new fears about killer air pollution in UK

Tougher limits on pollutants could cut dangers of heart disease, cancers and poor brain development in children

The UK’s failure to meet World Health Organisation standards limiting the amount of ultra-fine particles in the air represents a major danger to health that is only now being recognised, experts claim.

Studies published this year link the particles to cancers, lung and heart disease, adverse effects on foetal development, and poor lung and brain development in children. They are considered a key threat to health because they go deep into the lungs and then reach other organs, including the brain. But European standards allow the levels of particles in the air to be 2.5 times higher than those stipulated by the WHO.

Professor Annette Peters, director of the Institute of Epidemiology at the Helmholtz Zentrum, Munich, said Europe – and the UK – urgently needs to introduce tougher standards. She said: “Particles are a major and invisible danger to our health, especially in London and our big cities.

The US has a standard of 12 micrograms of ultra-fine particles per cubic metre, while the WHO standard is 10 micrograms.

“We [the UK and EU’s limits] are currently at 25 micrograms per cubic metre – double the US standards,” said Peters, who warned that scientific evidence confirming the threat they pose to human health “has really strengthened this year”.

“We initially had evidence of the effect on the lungs and heart, but now we also have evidence that it alters the metabolism as well as impacting the brain.”

“Colleagues of mine have been able to show that ultra-fine particles are able to reactivate the herpes virus which lies dormant among carriers.” She said urgent studies were needed to look at the impact of fine particles on cognitive development, especially in children. Studies have documented that adverse health effects are observed even at concentrations well below the recommended WHO levels.

According to a paper, written by Peters and published in the Lancet, ambient air pollution now ranks among the top 10 major risk factors for attributable death worldwide and leads to an average loss of life expectancy of approximately one year in Europe.

Peters said ultra-fine particles could carry several thousand kilometres. “In most times you don’t see or smell it, the pollution, so it’s clear, if you look to India or the far east, the pollution is very visible. Here, we have blue skies but that doesn’t mean we have truly clean air.”

Studies in London confirm wide geographical variations in the amount of fine particles in the air. While Oxford Street suffers major concentrations, nearby Hyde Park is considered far cleaner.

Professor Jon Bennett, consultant respiratory physician and chair of the British Thoracic Society’s Board, described the particles as “a real and present health danger to society”.

“It is really concerning that babies and children are particularly susceptible as air pollution can impair immune-system development in the womb and adversely affect children’s cognitive development,” he said.

A WHO report estimated that in 2016 air pollution contributed to more than half a million deaths from respiratory tract infections in children under five years of age.

“Everyone should have the right to breathe clean air,” Bennett said. “We must have a harder-hitting and better-funded national strategy that really tackles this issue across the board – including fast-tracking the delivery of more clean air zones in our most polluted cities and areas.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/14/uk-must-limit-killer-ultra-fine-air-pollutants?

.

.

.

 

 

Read more »

Effective anti Bristol Airport Expansion Jamboree held in Weston-super-Mare, by Extinction Rebellion and other groups

On 7th December, a protest Jamboree was organised by a number of groups oppose to the expansion of Bristol Airport – including several local Extinction Rebellion groups. The protest took place in the busiest part of the High Street shopping area of Weston-super-Mare, where thousands of local people pass through. There were a number of gazebos decorated with banners, flags and other XR branding. There were three large boards containing factual information about the airport’s plans, a table of flyers, pre-addressed postcards for objections and posters galore. There was also a questionnaire. Ninety-six postcards of objection were completed on the spot with many more taken away to be completed later. Approximately 3,000  leaflets giving ‘Reasons to say No to airport expansion’ were given out. The town had been chosen because it is the largest town council in North Somerset and has 11 councillors on the planning committee, considering whether the airport should expand or not. It is therefore a place of considerable influence in this vitally important decision. Talking to people, it emerged that too few were aware of the problems, and the likely local impacts of the planned airport expansion, showing how local engagement on the issue had been inadequate.
.

Weston-super-Mare and the Airport Expansion Jamboree

7th Dec 2019
Below is a report from activists in the groups (including XR) that organised the Jamboree
image2.png
The Evergreen Affinity Group based in Bristol XR & co-ordinated the Action in Weston-super-Mare (WSM).
Members of Extinction Rebellion came from XR Bristol, XR WSM, XR Chew, XR Nailsea, XR Taunton, XR Bath & other local groups.  They are all volunteers.
They chose Weston-super-Mare as it is the largest town council in North Somerset and has 11 councillors on the planning committee considering whether the airport should expand or not, and is therefore a place of considerable influence in this vitally important decision.
The anti-airport groups felt they needed to go and talk to the locals about this and to do this in a typically “Extinction Rebellion” way –  by bringing peaceful, non-violent creative spectacle of colour, sound and art.
Part of the rationale for the protest was to do outreach into an area with a different demographic. Central Weston is in the lowest 5% of neighbourhoods for deprivation in England.
The Jamboree action took place in the busiest part of the High Street shopping area where thousands of local people passed through.
The Jamboree had a hub consisting of a number of gazebos decorated with banners, flags and other XR branding. There were three large boards containing factual information about the airport’s plans, a table of flyers, pre-addressed postcards for objections and posters galore. A small team staffed this table.
Ninety-six postcards of objection were completed on the spot & many more were taken away to be completed later. Approximately three thousand leaflets giving  ‘Reasons to say No to airport expansion’ * were given out.
Beside the hub was a group offering block-printing on tee-shirts and other types of clothing.
image1.png
Banners were put on the walls. Musicians from Bayou Tapestry played short sets throughout the four hours the Jamboree was there.
image1.png
A group of campaigners called The Landing Crew took part in the protest, as the silent witnesses of the Jamboree, drawing people in by their colourful clothing & their coordinated slow movements….
The Samba Band, by contrast, led the protest in a noisy & colourful march around the central area of Weston and along the seafront. The procession was supported throughout by the XR stewards who were mindful to WSM residents and passers-by.
Throughout the action a small team of people who had co-designed a questionnaire with the assistance of a doctor in sociology & methodology, spoke to people as they passed-by to ascertain what they knew of the expansion plans & to listen to their opinions.
People seemed surprised to be approached, but in the main many people were willing to engage and give their opinions.
image1.png
Some of the highlights from the questionnaire are below:
33% did not know the airport was expanding & only 36% knew North Somerset council were the decision makers.
Shockingly this indicates that nearly two thirds of the WSM residents don’t know that it is their own local councillors (11 out of the 27) who are going to be making that decision.
They in other words have not realised that they have the power to support or object to the expansion if they so wish to.
An important part of the role of the protest was to make them aware of this. They spoke of their powerlessness over political matters that directly impact on their lives. It seemed like they had long given up trusting.
Campaigners believe this lies at the heart of the failure of our political system as it is organised today.  Here is a really important issue which is going to have repercussions on not just our immediate future but on generations to come.
Despite this, the political system has not reached out and engaged full-heartedly with people in WSM because I believe it doesn’t have the infrastructure or the will to do so.  More and better engagement is needed; one of the best ways we can do this is through Citizen’s Assemblies.
The rest of the survey results indicate strongly that the people of WSM who answered this survey would object to an extra two million passengers using the airport and the thousands of extra planes if they knew they had a voice:
90% of responders were exasperated by road congestion & agreed with the statement ‘there will be an extra 10,000 car journeys to and from the airport clogging up the roads even more’.
People on the whole felt exasperated with the airport’s claims of being a ‘carbon neutral airport’. One person said ‘they must think we are fools’.
As indicated by only 2.5% of people agreeing with the statement that ‘The Airport has no responsibility for climate warming and greenhouse gases released by the planes’.
Whilst 87.5% agreed with the statement: ‘The planes are absolutely the airport’s responsibility. Greenhouse gas emissions mean that ice is melting, sea levels are rising and we are worried about Weston super Mare flooding’.
When it came to health matters & aviation:
77.5% agreed with this statement ‘We believe the local doctors who have said in a recent letter that aviation emissions cause premature deaths and increased risk of heart and lung disease’.
People were also extremely annoyed about noise caused by the planes with 80% agreeing with the statement: ‘We say an extra 23,000 flights a year and more flights between 11.00pm and 6.00 am in the summer months will cause sleep disturbance and increase heart disease to local people’.
Respondents had lived in Weston-super-mare on average for 24 years.
Campaigners were heartened that this piece of outreach could produce results about the material planning considerations that reflect the many objections received by North Somerset Council.
It seems people wherever they live in North Somerset are concerned about road congestion, noise levels and the health of their families.
When communities speak they amplify the callousness of these planning applications.
Bristol Airport is part of a huge multi billion pound investment fund, the Ontario Teacher’s Pension Fund (OTPP) which attempts to manipulate  every aspect of our political system in order to increase their profit.
Desmog* revealed recently British political parties and individual politicians have received more than £9 million worth of donations from the aviation industry. With the former International Trade Secretary Liam Fox receiving the most. This of course is highly worrying as he is an MP in North Somerset where the airport expansion is being considered.
What environmental groups want, and what society needs, if for our towns and cities to have many local people who are involved & engaged with all decision making processes which places them, the natural world and social justice at the heart of all that we do.
The local XR groups believed the day in Weston-super-Mare was a useful piece of outreach which could be replicated outside the traditional XR heartlands. We now need Citizen Assemblies set up in every town & city council throughout the land.

Read more »

Large Greenpeace protest, Protestival, in Schiphol airport, about its rising CO2 emissions

Over the weekend, 14 and 15th December, there was a huge protest at Schiphol Amsterdam Airport, called Protestival organised by Greenpeace.  Hundreds of activists gathered at the airport to demand a climate action plan for Schiphol. Protesters waved banners saying “Tax the plane, take the train” and chanted slogans of “climate justice”, while Greenpeace activists told the crowd: “Schiphol is one the biggest airports in Europe and yet they still want to expand it. That’s not normal!”  In its call for people to attend the protest, Greenpeace said on its website: “We’re in the middle of a climate crisis, but the big polluter Schiphol is being allowed to keep growing and polluting even more.” The group had been allowed to protest outside the building only, but they broke that restriction, arguing that citizens’ rights to peaceful protest should not be restricted. Dozens of police from the force that guards Dutch borders began removing the protesters one at a time, dragging or carrying those who resisted, after they refused to leave the airport building.  No flights were disrupted by the demonstration. Schiphol has no real plan to cut the CO2 emissions of planes using the airport. 
.

 

 

Military police remove climate protesters from Schiphol airport

Hundreds of demonstrators call for international hub in Amsterdam to curb emissions

Dutch military police have begun forcibly removing a group of climate protesters at Schiphol airport, in Amsterdam, after they refused to leave during a demonstration organised by Greenpeace.

Hundreds of protesters attended the demonstration on Saturday calling on the international air hub to adopt a plan to curb greenhouse emissions. The group had been allowed to protest outside the building only, but they broke that restriction, arguing that citizens’ rights to peaceful protest should not be restricted.

Protesters waved banners saying “Tax the plane, take the train” and chanted slogans of “climate justice”, while Greenpeace activists told the crowd: “Schiphol is one the biggest airports in Europe and yet they still want to expand it. That’s not normal!”

Greenpeace @Greenpeace

In a peaceful protest, hundreds of activists came to the airport to demand a climate action plan for Schiphol. https://twitter.com/GreenpeaceNL/status/1205817095012978688 

Greenpeace NL@GreenpeaceNL

Vreedzame actievoerders worden nu naar buiten gebracht door de Marechaussee. Terwijl onze actie is aangekondigd en betoging een belangrijk recht is. De manifestatie buiten op het plein om 13.00 uur gaat volgens plan door. Kom ook naar @Schiphol! #Protestival

View image on Twitter

One protester reportedly chained himself to a pillar during the demonstration, which took place in the hall that leads to the arrivals and departures section of the airport.

Dozens of police from the Marechausse, the force that guards Dutch borders, began removing the protesters one at a time, dragging or carrying those who resisted.

“After multiple warnings to leave Schiphol Plaza peacefully, the Marechausse has now begun arresting Greenpeace protesters,” the force said in a statement.

A Schiphol spokesman, Hans van Kastel, said no flights had been disrupted by the demonstration.

In its call for people to attend the protest, Greenpeace said on its website: “We’re in the middle of a climate crisis, but the big polluter Schiphol is being allowed to keep growing and polluting even more.”

Schiphol, which is owned by the Dutch state, says it does have a climate plan, which includes cutting emissions on the ground by using electric vehicles.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/14/military-police-remove-climate-protesters-from-schiphol-airport

.

 


Climate activists take the stage in the heart of Schiphol Airport

14th December 2019  (From Greenpeace Netherlands)

Greenpeace regrets removal of peacefully protesting activists who demand a climate plan from Schiphol Airport

Amsterdam, December 14 –

This weekend, Saturday 14 and Sunday 15 December, Schiphol Amsterdam Airport is the stage for climate action: Greenpeace organises Protestival.

Hundreds of activists come to the airport to demand a climate action plan for Schiphol. In the heart of the major polluter Schiphol Plaza, activists have hung up banners with the text: “Welcome to Protestival” and “Schiphol is flying ahead of all climate limits.”

The activists sit on the floor in a circle and sing. After more than an hour, the authorities started removing people from Schiphol Plaza, but the peaceful activists continue.


A peacefully protesting activist is being escorted by the authorities away from Schiphol Plaza. PHOTO: Marten van Dijl / Greenpeace.

“We very much regret the removal of activists by authorities. Our campaigners wanted to organize a peaceful protest at Schiphol Plaza to call this big polluter to account. We announced this demonstration well in advance at Schiphol and the mayor. The right to demonstrate is a major asset, also at an airport”, said Greenpeace campaign leader Dewi Zloch.

Demonstrations take place at several locations at the airport. A 24-hour mass-action is planned inside and outside Schiphol Airport and will continue day and night. There will be a mainstage outside in front of Schiphol Plaza with performances by Brownie Dutch, Magic Tom & Yuri, Annabel Laura and Antillectuel, among others. The event can be followed via the Greenpeace live-stream.

Greenpeace also had a surprise in store. In the morning a large banner was hung on the large advertising column next to the control tower with the text: Schiphol flies past all climate limits. Earlier thousands of people sent a text message to Schiphol to demand a climate plan. The purpose of the promotion is not to hinder travelers, but to demand a climate plan from the airport.

The municipality of Haarlemmermeer is opposed to it

The municipality of Haarlemmermeer does not want the demonstration inside in the public space of Schiphol Plaza. Greenpeace will continue with the action nonetheless. “We use our right to protest peacefully. Moreover, it is not our goal to hinder travelers.

“Schiphol Plaza is the heart of big polluter Schiphol, therefore we want to ask them at that specific location to come up with a climate plan,” Dewi Zloch, campaigner at Greenpeace. Only trained activists participate in the 24-hour mass action.

They plan to stay until Sunday. The supporting manifestation outside is accessible to everyone and is facilitated by the municipality. The manifestation starts at 1 p.m. on Saturday and around noon on Sunday.

Climate plan
The activists ask Schiphol to come up with a  climate plan. This plan means fewer flights, no Lelystad Airport, replacing short-distance flights by train, and supporting a fair price for flying. Schiphol Airport is the largest tax-free gas station in The Netherlands, and there is no tax on flight tickets either.


For more information: 

Press officer Greenpeace: 06-21296895. A whatsapp group for live-updates is available for press (in Dutch). Please contact the press officer.

Photos
Photos and videos of Protestival can be downloaded here. Use of the photos is free with reference to the photographer. Follow the Protestest live stream.

 

 

Read more »

Stansted likely to publish revised expansion plans in first half of 2020

Stansted has announced plans to submit a revised expansion proposal during the first half of 2020.  MAG’s new design proposals will replace plans launched in 2016.  The revised proposal is understood to contain plans for a new arrivals building. Under the original proposal, expansion was estimated to have been completed by next year.  A statement by the airport cited “fluctuating travel, social and economic trends” as a reason for the change in plans, and the “political landscape at a national and local level.”   The airport confirmed enabling works are still underway. The arrivals building is one of a number of developments planned at Stansted, including a 3,000 space carpark and baggage system update. Stansted plans to increase its passenger number from 35 million per year, to 43 million. But this is on hold at present, due to a legal challenge by Stop Stansted Expansion. They have evidence that the airport was planning to expand to 50 mppa and intended to do so in two stages: first, by seeking an 8 mppa uplift in the cap, to 43 mppa; and then later seeking a 7 mppa increase to 50 mppa.  A  court judgement is expected early in the new year. 
.

 

 

Stansted Airport to publish revised expansion plans

10 DEC, 2019

 BY JOSHUA STEIN  (New Civil Engineer)

The operator of London Stansted Airport has announced plans to submit a revised expansion proposal during the first half of next year.

The new design proposals by airport operator Manchester Airports Group (MAG), will replace plans launched in 2016.

The revised proposal is understood to contain plans for a new arrivals building and will be published in full during the first half of 2020.

Under the original proposal, expansion was estimated to have been completed by next year.

A statement by the airport cited “fluctuating travel, social and economic trends” as a reason for the change in plans.

“There is a large number of variables which will influence this work, not least the global and UK economic picture but also political landscape at a national and local level,” the statement read.

Construction work on the airport arrivals building is yet to start, but the airport confirmed enabling works are still underway at the site. The previous plan suggested the arrivals building would cost £130M in total.

The document stressed the new plans would ensure Stansted is “future-proof” when it is complete.

The arrivals building is one of a number of developments planned at Stansted, including a 3,000 space carpark and baggage system update. The airport told New Civil Engineer it had spent £150M developing the transport hub in 2019.

The airport expansion was set to increase the hub’s capacity from 35M to 43M customers a year, but faced a delay after Uttlesford District Council reviewed the project’s planning permission earlier this year.

The council said the airport plans, which were accepted initially, did not consider plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Stansted Airport bosses claim the airport extension will provide an additional 5,000 jobs when completed.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/stansted-airport-to-publish-revised-expansion-plans-next-year-10-12-2019/

.


See earlier:

Stansted Airport denies plans to expand to 50 million passengers a year

Stansted Airport has denied that it is planning to expand the airport to a throughput of 50 million passengers a year (mppa), well beyond the 43mppa limit applied for in its 2018 planning application, which continues to be under consideration. Local campaign, Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE), says this denial came from Thomas Hill QC, representing Stansted, on 13th November in the High Court in connection with SSE’s legal challenge over the handling of the current 43 mppa application.  However, earlier SSE’s barrister, Paul Stinchcombe QC, had provided the Judge with multiple sources of evidence demonstrating that the airport was planning to expand to 50 mppa and intended to do so in two stages: first, by seeking an 8 mppa uplift in the cap, to 43 mppa; and then later seeking a 7 mppa increase to 50 mppa.  The DfT was aware of all this and knew also that the existing runway was capable of handling 50 mppa. Any airport expansion project, or combination of projects, for an increase of over 10 mppa must, by law, be dealt with at national level by the Secretary of State rather than by the Local Planning Authority – i.e. Uttlesford District Council. The verdict of the court is awaited.

Click here to view full story…

Groups write to Government asking for a moratorium on airport expansion planning applications

Representatives of groups at some of the largest UK airports have written to both the Secretaries of State for Transport, and Housing, Communities and Local Government, to request a halt to airport expansion.  The letter asks them to suspend the determination by all planning authorities of applications to increase the physical capacity of UK airports, or their approved operating caps, until there is a settled UK policy position against which such applications can be judged.  Many UK airports are seeking – or have announced their intention to seek – planning approval to increase their capacity and/or their operating caps. In aggregate it has been estimated that proposals announced by UK airports would increase the country’s airport capacity by over 70% compared to 2017.  There is no settled UK policy on aircraft noise, or  policy on aviation carbon and how the sector will, as the CCC advises,  “limit growth in demand to at most 25% above current levels by 2050”. The letter says: “Until a settled policy with set limits is established for greenhouse gas emissions and noise there should be a moratorium on all airport expansion planning applications.”

Click here to view full story…

SSE will be in the High Court from 12-14 November for a Judicial Review challenge of the decision of the Secretary of State for Transport (SST)

Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) will be in the High Court from 12-14 November for a Judicial Review challenge of the decision of the Secretary of State for Transport (SST) to allow Uttlesford District Council (UDC) to determine the 2018 Stansted Airport planning application for 43 mppa.  The essence of the SSE challenge is that the application should be treated as a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) under the Planning Act 2008 – because it is nearly 10 million extra annual passengers – and therefore determined by the Secretary of State for Transport, rather than UDC.  Part of the challenge relates to the CO2 emissions impact of the proposed development. It is not satisfactory for the DfT to say the limiting of aviation carbon emissions is not an issue for Local Planning Authorities (LPAAs). The SST cannot just sit back and allow LPAs to sanction major airport expansion projects all over the UK, and at the same time tell them to disregard aviation CO2 emissions of these airport expansion projects.  Many airports plan expansion, and the combined carbon emissions way exceed even lax future cap targets.  SSE will be trying to pin down the SST on this key issue.

Click here to view full story…

Lower Stansted passenger numbers recently shows there is no urgency for agreement to allow expansion

After 63 consecutive months of year-on-year growth, Stansted Airport has posted a reduction in passenger numbers in each of the past three months (July, August, September).  Passenger numbers were down 0.5% in July, down 3.7% in August and down 2.7% in September, compared to a year earlier.  The overall reduction over the 3 month period was some 200,000 passengers, equivalent to a year on year decline of 2.3%.  Luton posted a 7.3% increase for three months to 31 August with 5.3 million passengers.  (Luton and other airport numbers from the CAA for September are not yet available).  One reason for the fall in numbers at Stansted is the late arrival of Boeing 737 Max planes to Ryanair. Stansted’s passenger numbers are also expected to be down in October, partly due to the collapse of Thomas Cook at the end of September.  Stansted’s cargo tonnage was down with a loss of 28,000 tonnes (11%) on a year-on-year basis, with the number of cargo aircraft using Stansted is down 6% compared to 2018. All that shows there is NO urgency to allow Stansted higher annual passenger numbers. SSE said: “At the very least, Uttlesford District Council should do nothing until we all know the outcome of SSE’s legal challenge in the High Court, which takes place from 12th-14th November.”

Click here to view full story…

Independent legal advice says the 2018 decision on Stansted Airport expansion should be reconsidered by Uttlesford Council

Stop Stansted Expansion say the 2018 Stansted Airport Planning Application should be considered entirely afresh.  That’s the verdict of leading planning barrister Paul Stinchcombe QC in an independent legal opinion prepared for Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE).  In the interests of transparency the full (25-page) legal advice is now published today and will be available online at http://stopstanstedexpansion.com/ The QC’s opinion sets out the key precedents in planning law and confirms that Uttlesford District Council (UDC) is lawfully entitled to reconsider the entire Planning Application even if there have been no material changes in circumstances or any relevant new considerations.  However, a number of new material factors which have arisen since the Application was provisionally approved last year mean there is not only an entitlement to reconsider, but an obligation to do so.  The QC’s advice explains that, provided there are good planning reasons, the new Planning Committee could quite lawfully and reasonably reach a different planning judgment from the former Committee who, by the slenderest of margins provisionally approved the Application last November.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

 

Read more »

Who will pay for Heathrow’s 3rd runway? There is no simple answer. Can Heathrow afford it?

Both the airport and Government claim that the project will be privately financed yet there are concerns about Heathrow’s ability to afford expansion as costs continue to rise and the markets begin to question the viability of the investment. Heathrow is already spending over £3 billion on enabling work, before even starting to build. The total cost could be £31 billion, not the alleged £14 billion.  In its latest analysis of Heathrow’s business case, Standard and Poor revealed that there is significant concern about construction costs of a 3rd runway. This raises specific concerns – which could result in a downgrading of Heathrow’s investment grade credit rating which would make the 3rd runway unviable. The airport and its holding company, FGP Topco, are losing money.  A huge sum is needed for the planned development, especially if more passengers are to travel to/from the airport on public transport.  The Conservative Election Manifesto said “no new public money” will be available to support the third runway and that the onus is on Heathrow to demonstrate that the business case is viable. The CAA has decided that Heathrow will be penalised if costs spiral out of control, amid concerns that the project will not be built on budget.

.

Who will pay for Heathrow’s 3rd runway?

 12 December 2019
From the No 3rd Runway Coalition
 
The question of who will pay for Heathrow’s third runway does not have a simple answer. Both the airport and Government claim that the project will be privately financed yet there are concerns about Heathrow’s ability to afford expansion as costs continue to rise and the markets begin to question the viability of the investment.
In its latest analysis of Heathrow’s business case, Standard and Poor revealed that there is significant concern about the design, funding and construction costs of a third runway (1). The report raises specific concerns about the availability of relevant information which could result in a downgrading of Heathrow’s investment grade credit rating which would make the 3rd runway unviable.
Analysis of the consolidated accounts of Heathrow Airport Limited and its holding group FGP Topco shows the airport to be losing money. Despite claiming some £22bn in reserves, once you consider dividends, interest payments on debt, and financial instruments the airport is not making a profit (2).
Significant investment is also required in road and rail improvements to support expansion, particularly as the airport has to increase the percentage of passengers arriving at Heathrow by public transport. Indeed, the Airports National Policy Statement has placed a requirement on Heathrow to demonstrate how they can deliver this in their planning application (3) .
However, the lack of progress on both Western and Southern rail access improvements into Heathrow is a huge cause for concern. The Government recently published its strategic objectives for the Southern Rail Scheme which reveals that they do not expect the scheme to be operational before 2030, four years after the planned opening date of the third runway. Even this date is optimistic as the Government has still not confirmed what type of rail scheme it actually wants delivered (4/5).
Further, the Conservative General Election Manifesto appears to row back on previous Government commitments to contributing to the financial costs of such public transport improvements. It states that “no new public money” will be available to support the third runway and that the onus is on Heathrow to demonstrate that the business case is viable (6).
The CAA board met in November to discuss whether to approve Heathrow’s plans to spend £3.3bn on planning and enabling costs. It is the first time such a clause has been used. This ‘investment’ would be achieved through borrowing which under the RAB model enables the airport to make profits by passing the cost of repayments onto airlines and passengers (7). Effectively, the airport is seeking permission to increase their revenues by raising the landing charges to help cover the costs of the third runway. The board inserted a new clause into its licence to build a third runway – penalising Heathrow if costs spiral out of control, amid concerns that the project will be built on budget (8).
The political issue with approval of this level of spending in advance of planning consent is the ‘poison pill’ agreement between Heathrow and the Government which could result in taxpayers picking up the bill for Heathrow’s costs should the Government cancel the 3rd runway (9).
Paul McGuinness, Chair of the No 3rd Runway Coalition, said:
 
“Heathrow previously declared their 3rd runway would cost £14bn. But now, just 18 months later, they tell us that they’ll have to spend almost a quarter of this before they even apply for planning permission, and that total costs have already more than doubled to £31bn!
 
“As financial experts have long advised us, Heathrow seems to be flying by the seat of their pants on this expansion – unable to determine how much they’ll need to invest, let alone the source of that investment capital. Government should immediately halt this project, before taxpayers inevitably find themselves underwriting the irresponsible and vain aspirations of this foreign owned private company.”
NOTES
1) S&P Global Ratings: Heathrow Funding Limited, 9 August 2019 https://www.heathrow.com/content/dam/heathrow/web/common/documents/company/investor/credit-ratings/sp/2019-Heathrow-Funding-Ltd.pdf
2) Heathrow Consolidated Accounts, John Busby, 27 September 2019, Figure 4. http://www.after-oil.co.uk/HeathrowConsolidatedAccounts.htm
3) Airports National Policy Statement, Para 3.51 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/714106/airports-nps-new-runway-capacity-and-infrastructure-at-airports-in-the-south-east-of-england-web-version.pdf
4) DfT’s Strategic Objectives for SAtH https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/southern-access-to-heathrow-strategic-objectives/southern-access-to-heathrow-strategic-objectives
5) HSR Ltd, Press Release, 6 November 2019, https://heathrowrail.com/guidance-released-by-government-means-new-southern-rail-link-to-heathrow-faces-not-being-completed-prior-to-2030/
6) Conservative Party Manifesto 2019, p.28 https://assets-global.website-files.com/5da42e2cae7ebd3f8bde353c/5dda924905da587992a064ba_Conservative%202019%20Manifesto.pdf
7) “Heathrow Airport: Decision day for airport’s third runway”, The Times, Monday 18 November 2019,https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-expansion-decision-day-for-airports-third-runway-0xbbhnbtw
8) Heathrow ordered by CAA to rein in third runway costs, 1 Dec 2019 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-ordered-by-caa-to-rein-in-third-runway-costs-fprgvf32m
9) Heathrow Airport Limited Statement of Principles, 2016, Page 4. para. 2.1.6. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/562175/heathrow-airport-limited-statement-of-principles.pdf
For more information contact:
Paul Beckford on 07775 593928 or paul@no3rdrunwaycoalition.co.uk
Rob Barnstone on 07806 947050 or rob@no3rdrunwaycoalition.co.uk.

.


See earlier:

 

Heathrow ordered by CAA to rein in 3rd runway costs – to ensure it is built economically and efficiently

The CAA has inserted a significant new clause into Heathrow’s licence, starting in January 2020, amid concerns that costs on the vast 3rd runway project will spiral out of control. Heathrow will be penalised if it fails to build its £14bn expansion scheme efficiently — the first time such a condition has been imposed on the airport. Airlines, especially British Airways, are nervous that Heathrow will try to get them to pay up-front for construction costs, which would put up the price of air tickets, deterring passengers. The CAA polices the fees the airport charges passengers. It said the new licence clause was needed to “set clear expectations for Heathrow to conduct its business economically and efficiently”. Heathrow says this is disproportionate and could put off investors. IAG boss Willie Walsh has repeatedly complained that Heathrow’s runway scheme is a “gold-plated”, and that there is little incentive for Heathrow to keep costs down. Under a complex incentive system, the more Heathrow spends, the more its owners can earn. Heathrow has already spent £3.3 billion on its plans, which have not even yet passed through legal challenges, let alone the DCO process.

Click here to view full story…

Rival scheme, Heathrow Hub, estimate true costs of Heathrow runway could be £61 billion, by 2050 (not £14 bn)

The rival scheme, to try to build a 3rd Heathrow runway – Heathrow Hub – have put together figures indicating the final cost of Heathrow’s 3rd Runway Plan could be £61 billion by 2050.  That is in contrast to the £14 billion claimed by Heathrow itself and even the £32 billion assed by IAG.  Heathrow Hub say the cost of the initial phase, included in Heathrow’s current consultation, could be as much as £37.7 billion, when it is supposedly completed in 2026.  The figure of £14 billion is based on 2014 prices, 5 year out of date, and assumes a pared down scheme with no new terminal capacity. Heathrow’s current consultation shows a completely different scheme, which would cost far more.  There is no clarity on how Heathrow would bridge the M25 (12 lanes wide at that point) and what it would cost.  Over 5 years, there are now higher costs from inflation and higher land acquisition and relocation costs.  Heathrow Hub say Boris Johnson and Grant Shapps should announce a review of the project.  They want the CAA to make Heathrow provide proper figures on costs.  The CAA disclosed pre-planning application spending by the Airport has tripled to £2.9bn. The Hub’s scheme would, of course, also cost more than they estimate now …

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.


Read more »

Environmentalists protest outside Luton Airport expansion consultation event in Stevenage

Environmental campaigners gathered to protest against the proposed expansion of Luton Airport outside a consultation event. Protesters from Extinction Rebellion, Friends of the Earth, LADACAN and SLAE joined forces for the peaceful demonstration. The airport plans to build a new terminal and increase passenger numbers from the current 18 million per year to 32 million a year. Former Herts county councillor Amanda King is now an active member of Extinction Rebellion which she set up locally in Stevenage; the airport expansion demo was its first action.  She said: “Flying has the highest carbon footprint of all forms of transport. Taking one return flight generates more carbon than people in some countries produce in an entire year. …[aviation] is expected to account for 25% of CO2 emission by 2050.”  As well as CO2, the protesters emphasised the airport expansion will also increase noise, traffic congestion and air pollution. The airport knows there will be hugely increased carbon impact from the expansion, as well as the other negative consequences, but falls back on the old chestnut of there being more jobs and more local prosperity.  In reality, most passengers using Luton are British people taking leisure trips abroad (spending their money there).
.

 

 

Environmentalists protest outside Luton Airport expansion consultation event in Stevenage

11 December 2019

By Louise McEvoy (The Comet)

Environmentalists gathered to protest against the proposed expansion of Luton Airport outside a consultation event at Stevenage Arts and Leisure Centre on Thursday.

Protesters from Extinction Rebellion, Friends of the Earth, LADACAN – Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise – and Stop Luton Airport Expansion joined forces for the peaceful demonstration.

London Luton Airport Limited plans to build a new terminal and increase passenger numbers from the current 18 million per year to 32 million a year – nearly doubling its capacity.

Former Herts county councillor Amanda King, who lives in Stevenage, is now an active member of environmental movement Extinction Rebellion – and most notably arrested during the group’s London protests last month for laying down in a road with other campaigners.

Amanda has now set up an Extinction Rebellion group in Stevenage, and the airport expansion demo was its first action.

She said: “Flying has the highest carbon footprint of all forms of transport. Taking one return flight generates more carbon than people in some countries produce in an entire year.

“Aviation is the fastest growing source of carbon emissions, expected to account for 25 per cent of all emission by 2050.”

As well as carbon emissions, the protesters emphasised the airport expansion will also increase noise, traffic congestion and air pollution.

Two Extinction Rebellion Stevenage members dressed in black and wearing black face masks disrupted the consultation and were ejected from the event.

Anthony Aldridge – programme director of Luton Airport Limited – has said “the proposed development would deliver huge economic benefits to Hertfordshire and beyond”, including the creation of 5,600 jobs and a £2 billion boon to the economy, but said it is their job “to balance this out with the valid environmental concerns”.

He said: “We accept greenhouse gas emissions will be impacted by the expansion, but Luton Airport has shown in the past we are willing to listen to feedback and act accordingly.”

If you are interested in joining Extinction Rebellion’s Stevenage group, email ExtinctionRebellionStevenage@outlook.com

https://www.thecomet.net/news/extinction-rebellion-stevenage-protest-over-luton-airport-expansion-1-6417693

.


Luton opposition groups:

LADACAN  Luton and District Association for the Control of Airport Noise )
SLAE  (Stop Luton Airport Expansion)

HALE  (Hertfordshire Against Luton Expansion alliance group)

STAQS  –  St Albans Quieter Skies on Facebook

Harpenden Sky   Harpenden Sky

.


See recently:

Hertfordshire County Council objects to Luton Airport expansion, due to negative environmental impacts

Proposals to expand Luton Airport have been described as “madness” by a Hertfordshire county councillor.  The council unanimously voted to oppose further expansion of Luton airport at a meeting on 26th November, as they realised the expansion plans to increase to 32 million passengers a year by 2039 (from almost 17m now) would harm the environment. The airport’s proposals – to be decided by Luton Borough Council – include a second terminal north of the runway, an extensive new airfield infrastructure and a third station. There is a huge conflict of interest, as Luton Council both owns the airport, and decides on its planning applications.  At a time of growing realisation of the climate crises the planet faces, and with no realistic ways to reduce the carbon emissions from aviation, the industry should NOT be given permission to expand. The growth plans of airports across the country add up to a massive expansion in the number of flights and passengers, way above what could be compatible even with aiming for net-zero carbon by 2050 (and that is at least 20 years too late). The motion also called for Luton’s plans to be deferred until the new government has set out the Aviation Strategy, for the UK aviation sector, taking into account the advice of the CCC.

Click here to view full story…

Groups write to Government asking for a moratorium on airport expansion planning applications

Representatives of groups at some of the largest UK airports have written to both the Secretaries of State for Transport, and Housing, Communities and Local Government, to request a halt to airport expansion.  The letter asks them to suspend the determination by all planning authorities of applications to increase the physical capacity of UK airports, or their approved operating caps, until there is a settled UK policy position against which such applications can be judged.  Many UK airports are seeking – or have announced their intention to seek – planning approval to increase their capacity and/or their operating caps. In aggregate it has been estimated that proposals announced by UK airports would increase the country’s airport capacity by over 70% compared to 2017.  There is no settled UK policy on aircraft noise, or  policy on aviation carbon and how the sector will, as the CCC advises,  “limit growth in demand to at most 25% above current levels by 2050”. The letter says: “Until a settled policy with set limits is established for greenhouse gas emissions and noise there should be a moratorium on all airport expansion planning applications.”

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Boris Johnson casts doubt over Heathrow expansion and HS2 – would “find a way to honour” the bulldozer promise…

In an interview with Nick Ferrari on LBC, Boris Johnson said he would still consider lying down in front of bulldozers, if work started on a Heathrow 3rd runway.  Boris said:Heathrow is a private sector project which is yet to satisfy its strict legal obligations on air quality and noise pollution.”  NF Question:  If the bulldozers were to appear, would you lie down in front of them?  Boris reply:  “I would have to find some way of honouring that promise.  It might be technically difficult to achieve.”   NF Question:  You will find a technical way to lie down in front of the bulldozers, if the work starts on the 3rd runway?  Boris reply: “Let’s wait and see when the bulldozer arrives. The issue with Heathrow, as you know, is that there is still substantial doubt about the ability of the promoters to meet their obligations on air quality and noise pollution.  But as you know, Parliament has voted very substantially in favour of that project, so that is where we are on Heathrow.”
.

 

 

Boris Johnson casts doubt over Heathrow expansion and HS2

9 December 2019, (LBC)

Boris Johnson has cast doubt over whether a third runway will be built at Heathrow Airport – and questioned whether the money spent on HS2 could be used better.

The plan for expansion has been approved by parliament but there are a number of ongoing legal challenges.

The Prime Minister has previously promised to lie down in front of the bulldozers at Heathrow. And speaking exclusively to Nick Ferrari, he said he would find a way to “technically” back that promise.

He said: “Heathrow is a private sector project which is yet to satisfy its strict legal obligations on air quality and noise pollution.”

In the past, the Prime Minister promised to lie down in front of the bulldozers to stop a third runway, so Nick asked if that was still his position.

Nick said: “If you’re a man who says he can deliver on promises, were the bulldozers to appear, would you lie down in front of them?”

The PM insisted: “I would have to find some way of honouring that promise. It might be technically difficult to do.”

Asked about whether he wants to continue with HS2, he added: “We’ve got a review going on to look at whether the money could be better spent.

“That’s not to say I am temperamentally hostile to big infrastructure projects. But the issue is we’re a new administration. If you come in and there’s a project of north of £100billion probably, you have to ask yourself, it’s only responsible to the taxpayer to ask whether it’s being sensibly spent and that funding is being prioritised right.”

The government currently have the budget for HS2 at £88billion, so Nick questioned how he managed to add an extra £13billion to the total.

Mr Johnson responded: “Looking at how these things go, it probably will come in at over £100billion, that’s my guess. But at the moment, you’re right, it’s £88billion. That is still an awful lot of money.”

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/boris-johnson-heathrow-expansion-hs2d/

.
.
Boris Johnson’s throat gesture caught on camera

Read more »

Extinction Rebellion protestors say mass ‘lie-in’ at Heathrow is ‘warning shot’ and vow to get arrested at future protests if 3rd runway goes ahead

Extinction Rebellion have blocked a road outside Heathrow Airport by lying in front of a bulldozer.  Protesters descended on the airport en masse, cycling in convoy down the M4 from Hyde Park Corner, with cyclists joining along the route, halting several lanes of traffic. Dozens of environmental activists lay down on the tarmac outside the roundabout where the Emirates plane model is located.  Part of Bath Road, above Tunnel Road roundabout, was closed as the protesters got a full-size pink tractor with a “bulldozer” shovel at the front, adorned with newspaper headlines on air pollution. They lay in front of it, as a reminder to Boris Johnson, that he had said he “would lie down in front of the bulldozers” to block the building of a 3rd Heathrow runway (and has since gone very quiet on the matter…) The protest was part of Extinction Rebellion’s Christmas “12 Days of Crisis” campaign pressuring party leaders to take effective action on climate, in the run up to the election on 12th December. The Metropolitan Police said a Section 14 order was imposed allowing the protest until 3.30pm, after which time activists “run the risk of being arrested and prosecuted.” 
.

Extinction Rebellion Heathrow protest: Activists stage ‘lie in’ in front of pink ‘bulldozer’

By EWAN SOMERVILLE    (Evening Standard)

8th November 2019

Extinction Rebellion have blocked a road outside Heathrow Airport by lying in front of a bulldozer.

Dozens of environmental activists lay down on the tarmac outside the transport hub on Sunday afternoon amid high police presence, blocking two lanes.

Part of Bath Road, above Tunnel Road roundabout, was closed as they assembled a full-size pink tractor with a “bulldozer” shovel at the front, strewn with newspaper headlines on air pollution.

Protesters descended on the airport earlier en masse, cycling in convoy down the M4 with a makeshift “bulldozer” tricycle, halting several lanes of traffic.

The activists staged a ‘lie in’ on a busy dual carriageway next to Heathrow Airport (Extinction Rebellion London)

They are protesting plans to build a third runway at Heathrow next year, forming part of XR’s 12 Days of Crisis campaign pressuring party leaders before the country goes to the polls.

Posting a video of the activists cycling down the arterial road, Extinction Rebellion London tweeted: “We made an actual cycle superhighway on M4 to bring @BorisJohnson a message: Keep your word – scrap Heathrow expansion. For the people of Uxbridge, for life.”

Earlier they set off from Hyde Park corner at 10.30am, planning to block the Cromwell Road junction in Earls Court at 11am, Hammersmith at 11.30am, Gunnersbury roundabout under the M4 flyover at 12 noon.

A Section 14 order was imposed allowing the protest until 3.30pm on Sunday, after which time activists “run the risk of being arrested and prosecuted,” the Metropolitan Police said.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell and other politicians were invited to the “lie in”, which XR said was designed to “act out the future destruction” of a third Heathrow runway.

The controversial runway, given the green light last year, has faced repeated criticism by environmental campaigners and MPs, amid concern over financial and environmental issues.

The ‘bulldozer’ shovel was emblazoned with newspaper headlines on air pollution (Extinction Rebellion London)

The Extinction Rebellion “12 days of crisis” campaign is piling pressure on politicians of all parties to make “climate and ecological emergency the defining issue of this general election”.

Members have been instructed to launch an “election rebellion”, including staging “mock emergencies”. Earlier this week a demonstrator “glued” himself to the Lib Dems’ campaign battle bus.

They are urging politicians to sign a “Three Demands Bill”, demanding that those in power “tell the truth”, “act now” and take the fight “beyond politics”. Action will continue until the election eve.

A Heathrow spokesperson said: “We respect the right to peaceful protest and agree with the need to act on climate change, but we do not agree with any activity which impacts the operation of the airport.

“We are working closely with the authorities to ensure no impact is experienced.”

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/heathrow-extinction-rebellion-protest-latest-bulldozer-third-runway-a4308041.html

.

 


A local resident, who faces the possible destruction of their village and compulsory purchase of their home, if the runway was built, was overjoyed to see the arrival of the protest:

“Hundreds turned up in our village today!  Wow!  It was an absolutely fantastic protest on the bridge at Heathrow! I can’t believe how many people cycled here from London! All law abiding, peaceful, good natured, fun – caterers fed everyone, there was music, press, banners, handouts, a Bulldozer was escorted there by the police, they had their lie-in photos, speeches, dancing … and then they left.  What a credit to Extinction Rebellion!”


Extinction Rebellion protestors say mass ‘lie-in’ at Heathrow is ‘warning shot’ and vow to get arrested at next protest if third runway goes ahead

  • Protestors descended on Heathrow today to protest controversial Third Runway
  • Boris Johnson pledged to lie in front of the bulldozers when elected MP in 2015
  • The climate activists asked him to join their protest but he did not take them up
  • Referencing his comments, the demonstrators lay down in front of a bulldozer

By JACK NEWMAN (Mail online)

8th December 2019

 

Extinction Rebellion protestors have performed a mass lie-in in front of a bulldozer at Heathrow after cycling there to protest the controversial Third Runway.

The climate activists are both demonstrating the future damage which will be caused by the project and making reference to Boris Johnson who said upon his election in 2015 that he would lie down in front of a bulldozer with John McDonnell to protest the expansion.

A spokesperson said it was a ‘gentle warning shot’ against the Third Runway, saying their actions will be more extreme if it goes ahead.

Earlier, footage taken by one of the participants of the demonstration of the cycle ride towards the airport showed the large group passing through red lights.

Police cyclists can be seen escorting the protestors and one warns the jogger to get off the road, saying: ‘You’re gonna have to be careful mate, you’re going to get hit.’

Protestors from Extinction Rebellion performed a 'Bulldozer lie-in' on Bath Road, above the Tunnel Road roundabout

Protestors from Extinction Rebellion performed a ‘Bulldozer lie-in’ on Bath Road, above the Tunnel Road roundabout

They acted out the 'future destruction' that bulldozers will cause

They are protesting the controversial Third Runway

They acted out the ‘future destruction’ that bulldozers will cause, when they begin building the controversial Third Runway

One of the bikes was even designed to look like a bulldozer for today’s protest.

When the cyclists arrived at the airport, they performed a ‘bulldozer lie-in’ and acted out the future destruction bulldozers will cause when they begin building the controversial Third Runway.

Johnson and McDonnell were invited to attend today’s protest by the eco activists.

Many of the protestors had the signature Extinction Rebellion symbols on flags and their clothing.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson was invited to today's protest after previously making a promise he would lie in front of a bulldozer to stop the Heathrow expansion

Prime Minister Boris Johnson was invited to today’s protest after previously making a promise he would lie in front of a bulldozer to stop the Heathrow expansion

An impromptu dance took place after the lie-in so the participants of the protest could warm up

 

An impromptu dance took place after the lie-in so the participants of the protest could warm up.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7769053/Extinction-Rebellion-protestors-ride-red-light-block-road-mass-cycle-Heathrow.html?ito=amp_twitter_share-top

.

.

.

 

 

Read more »

Leeds Citizens’ Jury on climate change recommends NOT expanding Leeds Bradford airport

Leeds recently held a “Climate Change Citizens’ Jury” on climate change, with 21 “jurors”. It was put together by the Leeds Climate Commission, with jurors selected through a process to make it representative of a “mini-public” of Leeds, with varying different views. The Jury was tasked with examining the Leeds’ response to the emergency of climate change and with producing recommendations that will be used to guide the future work of the Commission and a range of organisations across Leeds. The jury started in September, and ran for a total of 30 hours over 9 sessions, ending in early November.  The findings, in the form of recommendations written by the jurors, have been presented at a launch event on 25 November 2019 and will be presented formally to Leeds City Council’s Climate Emergency Advisory Committee in January 2019, which can make formal recommendations to Leeds City Council’s executive board. One of the recommendations was that Leeds Bradford Airport should not be expanded, with a vote for that by 86% of the jury. They said residents should be informed about the impact of expansion on carbon emissions, and flying should be discouraged, for example by higher taxation through the Frequent Flyer tax.
.

The relevant recommendation:

https://www.leedsclimate.org.uk/sites/default/files/CJ%20recommendations%20FINAL%20_0.pdf
.

‘We must lead revolution on the environment,’ says Leeds citizens’ jury

By Geraldine Scott   (Yorkshire Post)

Tuesday 26 November 2019

Leeds has to be at the front of the environmental revolution, a citizens’ jury has demanded, as they said drastic measures must be taken to avert a climate crisis.

Taking buses back into public ownership, retrofitting houses to bring them up to eco-standards, and scrapping the controversial expansion of Leeds Bradford Airport are just three of the suggestions from a panel made up from a cross-section of Leeds, tasked to map the way forward in the city’s effort to tackle climate change.

image.png

Professor Andy Gouldson. Photo: Leeds Climate Commission

The jury concluded: “Leeds led the world in the industrial revolution – we believe the city can now lead an environmental revolution.”

image.png 

The Leeds citizens’ jury. Photo: Leeds Climate Commission

 

The 21-strong jury, put together by the Leeds Climate Commission, was selected through a process to make it representative of a “mini-public” of Leeds, with varying different views.

Commission Chairman Professor Andy Gouldson said there were six among the number who initially said they were not concerned about climate change at all, however a majority had since changed their views.

He said: “There are more and more people more concerned [about climate change], so we wanted to hear from normal people. It’s fair to say there were some skeptics and that’s exactly what we wanted to see.”

The jurors’ top priority – agreed unanimously – was transport, with the demand that bus provision be brought under public control. They wanted to take “extensive positive action […] to make the use of private cars a last resort for transportation”.

Plus 86% of the jury decided it was wrong to expand Leeds Bradford Airport.

Jurors said: “Residents should block expansion and be educated about the impact on the carbon footprint.”

And they urged Leeds City Council to block any new road-building or selling of land to develop.

The airport plans to double passenger numbers to eight million by 2030, and works will include a £100m access road to the airport.

Education in schools, exploring funding options, and more devolved powers to help the region take on the climate emergency were also recommended.

Prof Gouldson added: “Although the jury is a small sample of the public of Leeds, it is a representative sample, and the results can be relied upon to give crucial insights into the way that people in Leeds think about climate change and what we should do about it.

What will Boris Johnson do for these homes in Yarborough Terrace, Doncaster, that were flooded earlier this month?

“As an independent voice in the city, the Leeds Climate Commission has agreed that its activities will be guided by these recommendations in the years to come, and Leeds City Council has agreed to formally respond to the recommendations.

“Some of the recommendations are undoubtedly challenging – but responding to climate change is a massive challenge, and our response has to be actively guided by the people of the city.”

Prof Gouldson said at the beginning six people had said they were very concerned about the environment, six had said they were not concerned about climate change.

But by the end, after 30 hours of deliberation, one juror said: “From the start – I hadn’t realised how serious the problem was.”

Another said: “My opinion grew and grew on the seriousness of the situation more and more until now I am very annoyed.”

A statement from the jury said: “Climate change is not someone else’s problem. It won’t go away or get better if we ignore it. We are facing a climate change emergency – immediate and urgent action is required.

“Everyone – from Leeds City Council, individuals, politicians, businesses, community groups, and other organisations – has their part to play.

“Every action counts.

“We are a diverse group, unified in our passion to resolve this issue. We have had the opportunity to challenge our own and each other’s preconceptions. We have concluded that we are at a crisis point.

“We believe our recommendations can make Leeds a better place to live as well as addressing climate change.

“We don’t have all the answers but we hope that our recommendations will go some way towards tackling the problem.

“Leeds led the world in the industrial revolution – we believe the city can now lead an environmental revolution.”

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/latest-news/we-must-lead-revolution-on-the-environment-says-leeds-citizens-jury-1-10121879

.

TRANSPORT

I: We recommend stopping Leeds Bradford airport expansion – it is not compatible with zero carbon targets.

To make this recommendation happen:

• Leeds City Council should not approve new road building or selling land to develop.

• Residents should block expansion and be educated about the impact on the carbon footprint.

18 out of the 21 citizens Jury members (86%) believe that it is the wrong decision to expand Leeds Bradford airport (two abstained).

We also believe flying must be discouraged by for example:

• a frequent-flyer tax (based on income and number of flights and location i.e. domestic.)

• Advertising holidays in the UK rather than abroad.

https://www.leedsclimate.org.uk/sites/default/files/CJ%20recommendations%20FINAL%20_0.pdf


 

The Leeds Climate Commission website at  
https://www.leedsclimate.org.uk/leeds-climate-change-citizens-jury

says:

LEEDS CLIMATE CHANGE CITIZENS’ JURY

The Leeds Climate Change Citizens’ Jury was put together by Leeds Climate Commission working with Shared Future CIC. It was tasked with examining the Leeds’ response to the emergency of climate change and with producing recommendations that will be used to guide the future work of the Commission and a range of organisations across the city.

The findings, in the form of recommendations written by the jurors, were presented at a launch event on Monday 25 November 2019 at The Tetley, Leeds. The jurors’ recommendations  will be presented formally  to Leeds City Council’s Climate Emergency Advisory Committee in January 2019, which can make formal recommendations to Leeds City Council’s executive board.

The citizens’ jury commenced on 12 September 2019 and ran for a total of 30 hours over nine sessions, ending on 3 November.

An oversight panel was set up to ensure the process is unbiased and fair. It includes representatives from Extinction Rebellion, Friends of the Earth, Leeds Chamber of Commerce, Leeds City Council, The Madina Town Movement, Our Future Leeds, Project Rome, Racial Justice Network, University of Leeds, Yorkshire Water and Youth Strike for Climate.

The panel made decisions about the recruitment process and the jury profile; it also selected expert commentators- 22 in total – who gave presentations to the jury and answered questions from them.

Professional facilitators Peter Bryant and Jenny Willis from Shared Future, which has run previous Citizens’ Juries across the UK, supported the jurors throughout the process.

Jurors are being asked to consider the question: “What should Leeds do about the emergency of climate change?” They produced a list of 12 recommendations, covering transport, housing, communications, finance, green spaces, aviation, a proposal for a Leeds Green New Deal, plastics, recycling and political co-operation (see page below).

Leeds City Council declared a climate emergency on 27 March 2019, along with a commitment to work to make Leeds carbon neutral by 2030. The Citizens’ Jury was part of the response to this and was   financed by Leeds Climate Commission, an independent advisory group with members from key organisations and businesses in Leeds that are working together to help Leeds take action on climate change.

Find out more about the recruitment process, the sessions and check out our Frequently Asked Questions in the pages below.

The final report on the process, describing how it was run and containing the jurors’ recommendations, their guiding statement and requirements for progress reports, is available to download below, along with a summary of their recommendations.

Leeds Climate Change Citizens’ Jury – summary of recommendations
Leeds Climate Change Citizens’ Jury – Final Report and Recommendations
.
.
.

Read more »

WordPress › Error

There has been a critical error on this website.

Learn more about troubleshooting WordPress.