Redbridge Councillors have agreed to oppose (43 : 10) London City Airport’s expansion plans and express serious concern about the “detrimental effect” of noise and air pollution on the health and wellbeing of Redbridge residents. Proposing the motion, Councillor Sheila Bain and Councillor John Howard spoke about the “profound noise and environmental impact” the proposals will have on residents, particularly those living directly under the flight paths. The motion also asked councillors to note a lack of evidence to support the claims that noise pollution, air quality and emissions will not be affected and the lack of adequate consultation by London City Airport with residents affected by the proposals, most of whom are unaware of the consultation taking place. Councillor Paul Donovan said: “City Airport needs to think again, listen to what people are saying and realise that whilst they may need to make more money, that the environment, health and welfare of those of us living below these flight paths is more important.” . Tweet
Redbridge councillors agree to oppose ‘detrimental’ London City Airport expansion plans
20 September 2019
By Imogen Braddick (Ilford Recorder)
Councillors have agreed to oppose London City Airport’s expansion plans and express serious concern about the “detrimental effect” of noise and air pollution on the health and wellbeing of Redbridge residents.
Proposing the motion, Councillor Sheila Bain and Councillor John Howard spoke about the “profound noise and environmental impact” the proposals will have on residents, particularly those living directly under the flight paths.
Cllr Bain said: “City Airport have had no regard in this masterplan to the severe noise and environmental impact of their expansion plans on the quality of life of our residents or the damaging effects on climate change.
“They have not engaged with residents on their proposals through a proper consultation. These proposals are all about profit before people.”
The motion also asked councillors to note a lack of evidence to support the claims that noise pollution, air quality and emissions will not be affected and the lack of adequate consultation by London City Airport with residents affected by the proposals, most of whom are unaware of the consultation taking place.
Councillor Paul Donovan said: “City Airport needs to think again, listen to what people are saying and realise that whilst they may need to make more money, that the environment, health and welfare of those of us living below these flight paths is more important.”
The motion to oppose the plans was agreed by 43 councillors, with 10 abstentions.
A public meeting to discuss the airport’s proposals is set for October 3 at Wanstead Library from 7-9pm.
Labour could end all airport expansion in the UK under radical plans drawn up by party activists to cut carbon emissions to net zero by 2030. With Corbyn saying climate change is one of his top priorities, his supporters hope to push their proposals to a vote at the Labour conference next week, to make them official policy. There are at least 7 motions to the conference, submitted by local branches, asking for an end to more construction and growth of airports. Environmentally aware Labour members “specifically want to see radical policy on the climate and if you’re talking about net zero by 2030…one of the less radical things, to help decarbonise the economy, will be not building any more airports.” Separately, Labour for a Green New Deal, a prominent grassroots campaign group, has claimed that “opposition to airport expansion should be as natural to the Labour Party…as support for new green jobs.” Labour party members are being asked to boycott the many events at the conference sponsored by Heathrow and Gatwick airports (they always sponsor conference stuff, hoping to gain favour…). The problem for Labour is the unions, Unite in particular, which have members working in the aviation sector..
Jeremy Corbyn urged to block all airport expansion under radical plan to slash carbon emissions by 2030
Labour could end all airport expansion in the UK under radical plans drawn up by party activists to cut carbon emissions to net zero by 2030.
The pro-Corbyn campaign group Momentum has teamed up with grassroots campaigners to try and pressure Jeremy Corbyn into adopting more drastic measures to slash pollution by the end of the next decade.
With the Labour leader declaring climate change one of his top priorities, his supporters hope to push their proposals to a vote at the party’s conference next week in order to make them official policy.
Scores of local Labour branches have submitted motions on climate change to the conference, with at least seven calling for an end to the future construction and growth of airports.
Whilst Momentum has not yet publicly called for blocks on airport expansion, a senior insider told The Daily Telegraph that it was likely to throw its weight behind the proposals in the coming days.
They added: “We specifically want to see radical policy on the climate and if you’re talking about net zero by 2030…one of the less radical things will be not building anymore airports. It’s actually quite pedestrian.”
Separately, Labour for a Green New Deal, a prominent grassroots campaign group, has claimed that “opposition to airport expansion should be as natural to the Labour Party…as support for new green jobs.”
The organisation has put forward its own motion calling on Labour to commit to the “decarbonisation” of the economy, and is urging party members to boycott events at the conference sponsored by Heathrow and Gatwick airports.
It comes as Labour today unveils plans to install more than 150,000 solar panels on hundreds of hospitals nationwide, amid plans to turn the NHS into the “greenest health service on earth”.
Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, will on Sunday reveal a raft of new proposals for a “net zero health service”, including a new fleet of low emission ambulances.
Other proposals include planting one million trees – one for every staff member – on NHS land, as well as replacing outdated heating and energy systems in hospitals.
Labour believes the plans will cut millions of tonnes of carbon emissions annually, whilst the rollout of solar panels and new heating systems is expected to shave millions of pounds off energy bills.
However, the calls among Labour pressure groups for more radical climate action are likely to pose a significant headache for Mr Corbyn, who is attempting to balance his environmental credentials against resistance from trade union leaders.
They include Unite’s Len McCluskey, whose union represents tens of thousands of airport workers, and who last year rowed with Labour over its opposition to a third runway at Heathrow.
He is likely to be joined by the Trades Union Congress, which has signalled it will only support environmental policies which do not risk job losses in industry.
On Thursday a senior Labour source warned of a looming “showdown” at the party conference, with climate activists and union representatives expected to clash over the final policy proposal due to be put to a vote of members.
The Telegraph also understands that Mr Corbyn is concerned that the timetable for cutting Britain’s carbon emissions to net zero is unrealistic and could try to push the deadline back by up to 10 years.
But those in favour have indicated to The Telegraph that they will resist efforts to water down the proposals, with a Momentum source warning that the move would anger members.
“When you’ve got 130 CLPs [local party branches] calling for 2030…there will be quite a lot of pressure to have something that doesn’t look like a fudge,” they added.
“[Labour] don’t want to be seen voting down radical action on climate on the conference floor.”
In its response to the Heathrow consultation, Ealing Council has said it will do everything it can to oppose the expansion of Heathrow Airport – unless it is given £190 million for mitigation measures, investment and new transport links. Ealing Council said the current plans would create unacceptable levels of noise and pollution for its residents. “The council is demanding a £190 million package [it was £150 million in October 2016] of mitigation and investment for the borough, should expansion go ahead. This includes getting better insulation for home owners to combat noise and increasing the catchment area covered by the scheme. The council also wants new investment to improve public transport, so more airport passengers and employees can travel to the airport by greener means, reducing air pollution locally.” Other demands included greater investment in skills and employment – and also a commitment to a total night time flight ban, except in emergencies. The Council Leader said there has to be a balance between economic benefits and the very real noise and environmental impacts on local people, and “Despite some positive engagement, we haven’t really seen much movement on some of the concessions we’ve been seeking. . Tweet
Ealing Council demands Heathrow pay up £190 million to offset the impact of the third runway
Leader Julian Bell says there needs to be compensation for noise and environmental impacts
By Ged Cann, Local Democracy Reporter – My London
18 SEP 2019
Ealing Council has said it will do everything it can to oppose the expansion of Heathrow Airport – unless it is given £190 million for mitigation measures, investment and new transport links.
In a formal response to the second round of consultations on the third runway, Ealing voiced concerns the current plans would create unacceptable levels of noise and pollution for residents.
The move comes as a final date of October 17 is set for an impending legal challenge against Heathrow by the No 3rd Runway Coalition group.
In a statement Ealing Council said: “The council is demanding a £190 million package of mitigation and investment for the borough, should expansion go ahead.
“This includes getting better insulation for home owners to combat noise and increasing the catchment area covered by the scheme.
“The council also wants new investment to improve public transport, so more airport passengers and employees can travel to the airport by greener means, reducing air pollution locally.”
Other demands included greater investment in skills and employment.
The council also insisted on a commitment to a total night time flight ban, except in emergencies.
Council leader Julian Bell said: “We understand the importance of Heathrow both locally, nationally and globally and we want it to thrive.
“But, this can’t be at any cost, there has to be a balance between the economic benefits and the very real noise and environmental impacts of expansion on local people.
“As well as increased noise and pollution from flights we remain concerned about the impact of increased traffic in the area.
Mr Bell said he saw Ealing Council taking up the role “of critical friend rather than foe”.
He said: “Despite some positive engagement, we haven’t really seen much movement on some of the concessions we’ve been seeking.
Ealing Council leader Julian Bell says there has to be a balance between the economic benefits of Heathrow and its impact on the environment (Image: Matt Grayson) “We want to see far more ambition and detailed proposals on health and wellbeing, transport, economy, employment and skills, noise and emissions, and planning and housing; and how these goals will be achieved.
“I’m particularly disappointed that ideas to get people out of their cars which seem like a no-brainer to me, haven’t been progressed.”
“For example, we’ve asked for a segregated cycle link between Southall and the airport which would really help to deliver a significant change in behaviour and give airport workers a greener way to travel.”
Responding to the statements, a Heathrow spokesperson said: “We welcome Ealing Council’s response to our consultation and the constructive nature of their engagement to date.
“We will continue to work with the council as we finalise our masterplan, which will unlock the benefits of expansion for Ealing residents including jobs, enhanced green space and a 6.5 hour scheduled night flight ban.”
The airport said they were offering a noise insulation scheme worth over £700 million for those living closest to the airport.
“Heathrow is also working closely with TfL and other providers to strengthen public transport and active travel routes ahead of expansion.
“Our future plans include a new 20km green loop of dedicated walking and cycling space around the airport and we are in discussions with Ealing Council to ensure that these changes benefit their residents.”
In July, local residents and environmental groups were given another chance to stop the Heathrow expansion after the Court of Appeal granted permission for a fresh legal challenge.
The court date has been set for October 17, and the case is now scheduled to last six days.
Paul Beckford, policy director of the No 3rd Runway Coalition, said the previous High Court judgement in favour of Heathrow had been a judicial review looking at whether the Government had followed the appropriate procedures in allowing the extension, and the rules of climate emissions had since changed.
Ealing Council Leader voices strong opposition to night flights: “One arrival before 6am is one too many”
February 21, 2014
Ealing Council have added their voice to the complaints about the recommendation buried in an appendix to the Airports Commission interim report that there could be double the number of Heathrow night flights as at present. Ealing Council is part of the 2M group, which is an all-party alliance of more than 20 local authorities concerned at the environmental impact of Heathrow expansion on their communities. Leader of Ealing Council and 2M spokesman, Cllr Julian Bell, said: “We shouldn’t have to dig deep into a technical document to find out increases in night flights are proposed.” Ealing and the 2M group have fought for years for a ban on night flights, and do not find an increase acceptable. The proposal is one of the short or medium-term recommendations to make maximum use of the existing runways at Heathrow. Under a proposal called ‘early morning smoothing’, Heathrow would be allowed to land additional planes between 5am and 6am, which is classified as the night quota period. The aim is to minimise delays and could allow the airport to manage with one runway for arrivals between 6am and 7am.
Ealing Council, that has avoided opposing Heathrow runway, wants £150 million to compensate residents
October 28, 2016
Last time round when there was nearly a 3rd Heathrow runway, in 2008- 2009, Ealing Council was part of the 2M group of councils opposing it. In the intervening years, there are only 4 councils really taking forward the opposition. Ealing has increasingly been seen as changing its stance, to luke-warm support for the runway. In July 2015, rather than restate its anti-runway stance the Labour group passed a motion “demanding answers” from the Conservative government on what it intended to do at Heathrow, if expansion is permitted. Its MP, Virendra Sharma, who had been against the runway, announced in August that he now supported it. Now the council leader (Labour) Julian Bell says he wants demanding £150 million, so Ealing can cope with the environmental impact of the runway at Heathrow. ”While we welcome the jobs and economic benefits of Heathrow, a 3rd runway will inevitably cause more noise, pollution and traffic that will damage the quality of life of local people. …Straight talking and tough negotiating is what is needed if this goes ahead and I will continue to demand Heathrow Airport provides the best compensation deal for the people of Ealing.” Slough Council got a deal with Heathrow early on in 2015, to try to get financial benefits from the airport, in exchange for not opposing it.
Under the banner Gatwick’s Big Enough community groups around Gatwick have joined forces with GACC (Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign) to call Gatwick to account over their Master Plan growth proposals. The airport plans to grow to be the size of Heathrow today, with an increase in flights in the next 10 years to 390,000 pa (1,050 or more per day), and passenger numbers to 70 million passengers per year (190,000 or more per day). By contrast the current numbers are around 283,000 flights in 2018, and 46 million passengers. That growth will bring increased misery to thousands through noise, pollution and impacts on local infrastructure. They also mean a massive increase in CO2 emissions caused by the additional flights estimated at an increase of almost 1 million tonnes CO2 (circa 37% increase) per annum by 2050. The new campaign group is already challenging Gatwick’s attempts to bypass full scrutiny on its main runway growth plans through use of the Planning Permitted Development processes. It has made a submission to the Planning Inspectorate for Gatwick’s use of its emergency runway to be fully used. It is also planning challenges to plans for a 3rd runway. . Tweet
Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign(GACC) announce a major campaign to challenge Gatwick’s Master Plan.
12th September 2019
Under the banner Gatwick’s Big Enough community groups around Gatwick have joined forces with GACC to call Gatwick to account over their Master Plan proposals.
The Master Plan proposes to create an airport that is as big as Heathrow is today. An increase in aircraft movements in the next ten years to 390,000 pa (1050 or more per day), passenger numbers to 70.0 mill pa (190,000 or more per day) all of which will bring increased misery to thousands through noise, pollution and impacts on local infrastructure.
These plans also bring a massive increase in carbon emissions caused by the additional flights estimated at an increase of almost 1MtCO2(circa 37% increase) per annum by 2050.
The campaign has got off to an early start with challenges to Gatwick’s attempts to bypass full scrutiny on its main runway growth plans through use of the Planning Permitted Development processes.
The initial submission to the Planning Inspectorate for Gatwick’s Stage Two, the expansion and active use of the emergency/northern runway, has been made and our teams are now in the process of preparing challenges to these proposals.
Chairman, Peter Barclay, commented “ Whilst this growth plan may be within the airport’s own boundaries the negative impact on communities extends many miles from Gatwick’s borders. In a society where there is increasing awareness of the downside of aviation activities our members want us to ensure these developments are properly contained.”
Gatwick’s Big Enough – Campaigning for a better environment for the whole area around Gatwick
GACC, founded in 1968, has as paid-up members over 50 councils and over 40 community groups. We have built a reputation for sound judgement and reliable information and thus have the support of all local Members of Parliament.
Campaigners join forces to challenge Gatwick Airport’s Master Plan
Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign has announced it is launching a major campaign to challenge Gatwick’s Master Plan. Under the banner ‘Gatwick’s Big Enough,’ community groups around Gatwick have joined forces with GACC to challenge Gatwick Airport over its master plan proposals.The group says the master plan proposes to create an airport that is as big as Heathrow is today.It says there would be an increase in aircraft movements in the next 10 years to 390,000 pa (1050 or more per day) and passenger numbers to 70.0 mill pa (190,000 or more per day). The groups says all of which will bring ‘increased misery to thousands through noise, pollution and impacts on local infrastructure.’The group says the plan would also bring a massive increase in carbon emissions caused by the additional flights estimated at an increase of almost 1MtCO2(circa 37% increase) per annum by 2050.
It says it campaign has got off to an early start with challenges to Gatwick’s use of the Planning Permitted Development processes. The initial submission to the Planning Inspectorate for Gatwick’s Stage Two, the expansion and active use of the emergency/ northern runway, has been made and group is now in the process of preparing challenges to these proposals.
Chairman, Peter Barclay, said: “Whilst this growth plan may be within the airport’s own boundaries, the negative impact on communities extends many miles from Gatwick’s
borders. In a society where there is increasing awareness of the downside of aviation activities, our members want us to ensure these developments are properly contained.”
A spokesman for Gatwick Airport said: “Gatwick recognises that future growth should be both economically and environmentally sustainable and is committed to delivering any future growth plans in this way. We will carry out a number of detailed studies to assess the impacts and benefits of our standby runway plan on our local region and will be consulting on the plans next year.
“The airport also recognises the importance of faster global and local action from all sectors to tackle climate change, and any future growth will be delivered in line with government policy.”
Letter by Gatwick area MPs opposing Gatwick 2nd runway expansion plans – that will cause 50% more passengers, and 36% more flights
July 19, 2019
MP’s from the Gatwick Co-ordination Group have expressed concerns about the rapid growth plans for Gatwick, in their “master plan”. The MPs say more people are negatively impacted by Gatwick’s noise operations than 10 years ago, both close to the airport and many miles away under flightpaths, creating health issues and congestion locally through inadequate infrastructure. They say: “Over the past few years Gatwick Airport has continually under invested in the local amenities and social infrastructure that would be required to support a project of this size and scale. We cannot support expansion of the airport without a comprehensive investment in the local area which would ease pressure on the over-stretched road and rail systems serving the airport. At a time of increasing concern about the environmental impact of global aviation growth, the proposed expansion plans would see a marked increase in carbon emissions, with clearer environmental consequences for us all. … The safeguarding of land for a new full runway is a clear indication that Gatwick has future plans to build a 3rd runway, as well as converting the current standby runway into a second runway.”
Gatwick plans to use emergency runway as 2nd runway, to increase passengers by 50% by 2030
July 18, 2019
Gatwick has published its Final Master Plan which confirms its plans to use its emergency runway as a second runway, by widening and re-aligning it. Gatwick says it is not considering building another runway to the south of the existing main runway, but wants to keep that land “safeguarded” for up to 25 years, in case it wants another (3rd) runway in due course. It hopes to have the emergency runway brought into use for departures by the mid-2020s. They will start to prepare a planning application for this, which will have to go through the Development Consent Order (DCO) process. Local group GACC commented that Gatwick’s new owners, the Vinci Group, have shown immediate disregard for their local community neighbours. The plans will damage and blight the lives of thousands of residents surrounding the airport, due to the noise and severe effects on a local infrastructure that is already overburdened. The extra flights, including those at night, will have serious impacts on those further away living under flight paths. The proposals to grow the airport’s capacity by between 20% and 50% over the next 10 – 12 years involve not only the 2nd runway, but also use of new technology on the main runway. This will hugely increase the airport’s carbon emissions.
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 …
Heathrow urged to ‘come clean’ on third runway costs
Heathrow Hub, promoter of a cheaper rival extended-runway scheme, says its analysis of Heathrow’s published costs could be as high as £61 billion by 2050.
The cost of the initial phase, included in Heathrow’s current consultation, could be as much as £37.7 billion when it is due to be completed in 2026.
Heathrow and the Department for Transport both use the figure of £14 billion in describing the cost of the third runway plan.
But Heathrow Hub asserts that this uses 2014 prices and assumes a pared down scheme with no new terminal capacity.
The “ballooning” costs include the expense and complexity of building the new runway on a raised viaduct over a diverted M25 motorway by a junction with the M4 as well as inflation and increased land acquisition and relocation costs.
The analysis by Heathrow Hub has been submitted to the Civil Aviation Authority, demanding Heathrow “comes clean” about its costs.
A first phase of the Heathrow Hub extended runway scheme could be operational before the third runway for a cost of £4.7 billion, its backers believe.
A spokesman said: “The idea the third runway will cost only £14 billion is hopelessly out of date and inaccurate. On a like-for-like basis we estimate it is nearly £38 billion.
“Heathrow airport should come clean on the true costs of its complicated, environmentally damaging scheme and not be allowed to hide them any longer.
“The CAA should force it to produce an up-to-date detailed estimate and instead of giving conflicting signals about the third runway while fighting for it in the courts, the prime minister Boris Johnson and secretary of state for transport Grant Shapps should announce a proper review.
“Heathrow airport seems to have joined the list of infrastructure providers who win approval by producing ludicrously low cost estimates which get revised up later. Given Heathrow’s high levels of debt, questions need answering on how the third runway is going to be paid for.”
British Airways owner IAG has already expressed concern over Heathrow’s costs after the CAA disclosed pre-planning application spending by the Airport has tripled to £2.9 billion.
IAG has said the third runway could cause passenger charges, which are already the highest in the world, to double to more than £40 each.
A Heathrow spokesperson said: “Heathrow Hub’s cost calculations do not represent our project and would never be accepted by our airlines or the CAA.
“The total cost for developing Heathrow out to 2050 is exactly the same as what we submitted to the Airports Commission.
“The CAA will review our initial business plan at the end of the year as part of the regulatory process, providing further confidence that Heathrow expansion will be delivered within the affordability envelop set by government.”
Heathrow Airport’s Consultation on its 3rd runway is deluded and reveals an immature scheme which keeps changing
Sep 17, 2019
By Heathrow Hub (the rival attempting to build a 3rd runway, by extending the current northern runway)
Heathrow Airport Ltd (HAL) reveals that its North West Runway (NWR) scheme will extend far beyond the boundary designated by the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), increasing costs, impacts on people, property and delivery risk
Boundary expansion will result in what could be the greatest ever single loss of green belt land
Continued absence of an airport safety case, even at this late stage
Worse respite as new communities are brought into the noise footprint
Boris Johnson and Grant Shapps should announce a review
Heathrow Airport Ltd’s (HAL) consultation on its plans for a 3rd runway reveals an immature and deeply flawed scheme that raises more questions than answers, according to Heathrow Hub, the independent promoters of the cheaper rival extended-runway scheme.
Heathrow Hub’s response to HAL’s statutory consultation found that plans for the North West Runway (NWR) extend far beyond the agreed red line boundary in the designated ANPS. HAL’s assumption it can land grab beyond the boundary does not consider the fact it will need separate Development Consent Orders (DCOSs) as well as planning applications and other consents for the extra land, nor does it comply with the ANPS, approved by Parliament, which relied on the initial red line boundary as accurately representing the extent of HAL’s scheme.
Heathrow Hub has repeatedly warned of the threat of major construction beyond the red line boundary, citing the inability of HAL to accommodate displaced commercial property and infrastructure within the boundary. Increased land grab and construction costs will only add to the spiralling costs of the NWR project as well as increased risk to the delivery of the scheme.
Of grave concern for local businesses, residents and the wider community should be the fact that the increased scope of the construction plans leaves those homes and commercial premises outside of the red line boundary at risk of being unable to claim compensation for blight as well as the additional concern over noise and pollution levels. Furthermore, HAL’s consultation discloses what could be the greatest ever single loss of green belt land.
Heathrow Hub continues to note the lack of a safety case for the NWR. It is our assertion that once a safety case is completed it will show reduced capacity of the NWR scheme and will likely have a significant impact on noise and respite, given the questionable deliverability of HAL’s proposed runway alternation. The NWR will bring more communities into the noise footprint, while for existing communities the limited distance between the proposed NWR and the existing northern runway will result in noise contours overlapping to a significant degree, effectively resulting in no respite.
Finally, the cost of the NWR continues to spiral out of control partly as a result of the increased scope of the project including additional infrastructure and land acquisition and the difficulty of moving the M25 to accommodate the new runway. In the absence of any up-to-date cost estimate from HAL, Heathrow Hub estimates the total cost of the project will be £61bn with the first phase costing as much as £37.7bn.
A spokesman for Heathrow Hub commented: “The immaturity of the NWR scheme design, over seven years since work started on this incredibly important national infrastructure project, is incomprehensible.
“Not only does the latest consultation show a plan that is materially different from the ANPS, approved by Parliament, it reveals untenable noise and pollution levels for local communities, an assault on the green belt and spiralling costs that will have to be passed on to consumers.
“We call yet again on the Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, to announce a proper review of expansion at Heathrow and to consider our cheaper, greener, quieter and simpler scheme.”
Heathrow Hub is currently in the process of appealing a decision by the High Court to refuse to quash the Airports National Policy Statement and the Court of Appeal hearing is scheduled for October.
Press release from Heathrow Hub, Extended Runway scheme
5th September 2019
From Boscobel & Partners – an independent, strategic communications firm based in London.
The final cost of Heathrow Airport’s 3rd Runway Plan could be £61 billion and Boris Johnson and Grant Shapps should announce a review
Heathrow Airport’s cost estimate for its 3rd runway is five years out of date and misleading, relating to an old pared down scheme
TheCAA must make Heathrow Airport Ltd come clean on the true costs
Boris Johnson and Grant Shapps should announce a review of the scheme, instead of giving conflicting signals and fighting for it in the courts
Higher costs will ultimately result in much higher passenger fees
5th September 2019 – The published costs of Heathrow Airport Ltd’s new North West Runway (“the 3rd Runway”) are five years out of date, are misleading and the real number could be as high as £61 billion by 2050, according to a detailed analysis by Heathrow Hub Ltd, the independent promoters of the cheaper rival extended-runway scheme.
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.
Heathrow Airport and the Department for Transport both use the number £14 billion in describing the cost of the 3rd Runway plan, but this uses 2014 prices and assumes a pared down scheme with no new terminal capacity. Heathrow’s current consultation shows a completely different scheme.
As well as these changes, the reasons for the ballooning costs in the Heathrow Airport 3rd Runway scheme include the expense and complexity of building it on a raised viaduct over a diverted M25 right by the M4 junction – Heathrow Airport admitting in 2018, after six years of work, that its original idea of a tunnel was undeliverable – as well as inflation and increased land acquisition and relocation costs.
An analysis by Heathrow Hub has been submitted to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), demanding Heathrow Airport comes clean about its costs, which will be passed on to airlines and passengers via higher passenger charges.
A spokesman for the rival Heathrow Hub extended runway scheme, a first phase of which could be operational before the 3rd Runway for a cost of £4.7bn, said: “The idea the 3rd Runway will cost only £14 billion is hopelessly out of date and inaccurate. On a like-for-like basis we estimate it is nearly £38 billion.
“Heathrow Airport should come clean on the true costs of its complicated, environmentally damaging scheme and not be allowed to hide them any longer.
“The CAA should force it to produce an up-to-date detailed estimate and instead of giving conflicting signals about the 3rd Runway while fighting for it in the courts, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps should announce a proper review”.”
“Heathrow Airport seems to have joined the list of infrastructure providers who win approval by producing ludicrously low cost estimates which get revised up later. Given Heathrow’s high levels of debt, questions need answering on how the 3rd Runway is going to be paid for.”
British Airways owner IAG has already expressed concern over Heathrow’s costs after the CAA disclosed pre-planning application spending by the Airport has tripled to £2.9bn. IAG has said the 3rd Runway could cause passenger charges, which are already the highest in the world, to double to more than £40 each.
A summary of our detailed cost analysis for Heathrow Airport Ltd’s (HAL) scheme is below.
Total
Pared down estimate in 2014 prices given by HAL to the Government in 2016
£14.0bn
Cost of adding back satellite terminal, stands and passenger transit/baggage links as shown in HAL’s current Consultation Masterplan
£3.6bn
£17.6bn
Cost of surface access works needed to enable NWR scheme (assuming Airport’s Commission estimate at 2014 prices)
£5.0bn
£22.6bn
Cost of additional items, e.g. earthworks and site remediation for new runway, land acquisition and compensation, relocation of property and infrastructure, car parks etc.
£8.8bn
£31.4bn
Allowance for inflation from 2014 to 2026
£6.3bn
Total cost NWR Phase 1
£37.7bn
Cost to expand to full 142mppa (million passenger pa) capacity as assumed in Airports National Policy Statement – Phases 2-4 from 2026 to 2050 (assuming HAL estimate £18.5bn at 2014 prices)
£18.5bn
Allowance for inflation from 2014 to 2050
£5.0bn
Total cost NWR scheme
£61.2bn
The CAA, which regulates Heathrow and enables it to pass costs onto airlines and passengers via higher passenger charges, is at last becoming concerned about the ballooning costs and has published a new consultation which would give it the power to restrict Heathrow’s dividends to shareholders unless it passes a new “financial resilience” test. A separate consultation proposes incorporating a new condition to “promote efficiency”. However, there is no explanation as to how such a condition could be retrospectively applied to the inherently inefficient NWR scheme, and the CAA has still not compelled Heathrow to publish an up to date cost estimate.
Heathrow Hub is currently in the process of appealing a decision by the High Court to refuse to quash the Airports National Policy Statement and the Court of Appeal hearing is scheduled for October.
Contacts
Boscobel & Partners
Boscobel & Partners is an independent, strategic communications firm based in London.
George Trefgarne
Charlotte Walsh 0203 642 1310
Heathrow Hub
Jock Lowe 07831 599 925
Notes to editors
Heathrow Hub is an independent proposal for additional capacity at Heathrow, by extending the existing northern runway westwards away from London, negating the need to build a third runway. Planes would land at one end and take off at the other. The scheme is cheaper, quicker and simpler. It also destroys fewer houses and was deemed viable by the Airports Commission. For more information and images, please visit: www.heathrowhub.com
Heathrow Hub’s proposal to extend the Northern Runway has been independently costed at £4.7 billion for its first phase.
Willie Walsh (IAG) warns again of excessive, out-of-control, unknown Heathrow 3rd runway costs
August 3, 2019
Willie Walsh, CEO of IAG, has always been against the very high costs of expanding Heathrow. He has again said he does not trust Heathrow to keep costs reasonable, and he is opposed to expansion – for which costs would escalate. He said Heathrow has “understated” the costs of expanding and the project is “out of control”, and there was “absolutely no way” Heathrow could build everything planned on budget. He thinks that while Heathrow continues to quote a figure of £14 billion for the investment required, the “true costs” would be over £32 billion. He believes building the 3rd runway and associated works alone will require £14 billion. And then a further £14.5 billion would be required to add terminal capacity and other infrastructure on the existing site. Walsh thinks just extending Terminal 5 could cost a further £3.5 billion. Heathrow now claim their costs even before building anything, are £3.3 billion for planning and preparation.Far higher than earlier estimates. It is a risk that the runway would be under-utilised, as costs would have to be too high – to pay for the excessive spending – to tempt airlines to use it. That would also make any net economic benefit to the UK very negative.
The new local group, opposed to expansion of Bristol Airport, partly on grounds of carbon emissions but also due to noise and other local impacts, has held a protest cycle ride. The group of about 70 cyclists met up close to the airport and then cycled in convoy along the busy A38. They temporarily brought roads around the airport to a halt in a protest against expansion plans, by riding in convoy to the airport and then repeatedly cycled around a roundabout close to the entrance. The lunchtime protest caused queues of between two and three miles in both directions. Unbelievably, the airport tries to claim its expansion to 12 million annual passengers by the mid 2020 will cut CO2 – as slightly fewer people would drive to London airports, if they fly from Bristol. They would in fact just fly more. The group support taking the “flight free pledge” not to fly in 2020, as a way to get people to think more carefully about travel and their lifestyle choices. The airport has submitted plans for the expansion and North Somerset Council is expected to decide on the expansion later this year.
The Canadian owners of Bristol Airport want to increase passenger numbers by 50%, from 8 million to 12 million passengers per annum. Further growth to 20 million passengers is in the pipeline.
Airport expansion will lead to:
Increased greenhouse gas emissions that exceed other carbon savings
Gridlock on congested approach roads
Noise pollution day and night affecting health and well-being
Green belt destruction and other environmental harm
Parking sprawl as on-site and illegal field parking spreads
Airport expansion does not provide significant benefits to the region. Only the overseas owners will profit.
Crowdfunding appeal: Bristol Airport is Big Enough – Help Stop Further Expansion
July 2, 2019
Bristol Airport plans to significantly increase its passenger numbers, to grow eventually to 20 million passengers per year from a current level of 8.6 million. A group of environmental campaigners and local residents are raising money – through crowdfunding – to fund an important legal challenge to the airport’s planning application, that is being dealt with by North Somerset Council. The group hopes to employ a well respected barrister, Estelle Dehon, who is expert in environment and planning law (with particular expertise in climate change matters). She would be able to legally analyse the 400 plus planning documents on the application, on the Council’s planning website, and offer campaigners and the committee expert evidence for refusal. Estelle has previously worked on the Plan B fight against Heathrow’s third runway. The coming decade is absolutely critical in averting the climate crisis that is upon us. Yet, that same decade is to be used by Bristol Airport to increase the carbon emissions of flights using the airport, by over 500,000 tonnes per year. In addition to the carbon issue, many people in Bristol would be exposed to a range of air pollution substances, including NO2 and black carbon – as well as increased noise nuisance.
Wokingham Council is poised to change its stance over a 3rd Heathrow runway – it had previously been in favour of it, but now the council leader realises the damage it would bring. It is utterly in conflict with the council having declared a climate emergency recently. “Wokingham Borough Council has declared a climate emergency. We only have 10 years to take drastic action. If we’re really serious about climate change, we must object.”Separately Wokingham’s Labour group leader has launched a petition calling on the council to ditch its support for Heathrow expansion as “it is bad for the environment and bad for the Thames Valley and we do not want it.” …“We are in a Climate Emergency – encouraging more flights will make it harder to win the fight against climate change….The expansion of Heathrow will concentrate even more economic growth in the Thames Valley and increase the demand for housing here.” The council’s position has changed, because “things have moved on since five years ago.”… “Few, if any, of our communities will escape noise and many will be affected seven days a week.” . Tweet
Heathrow third runway: Wokingham council poised to change stance as Wokingham Labour launches petition against
THE Council is poised to change its stance over a third runway for Heathrow airport.
It has been asked to submit a response to a consultation over the plan and historically it has been in favour but now council leader, Cllr John Halsall has told The Wokingham Paper that this stance is being looked at.
And in a separate move, Wokingham Labour group leader, Cllr Andy Croy, has launched a petition calling on the council to ditch its support. It notes: “I have set up this petition so you can quickly and easily send a message to the Council – the third runway is bad for our environment and bad for the Thames Valley and we do not want it.
“We are in a Climate Emergency – encouraging more flights will make it harder to win the fight against climate change.
“The expansion of Heathrow will concentrate even more economic growth in the Thames Valley and increase the demand for housing here.”
Writing in support, Cllr Shirley Boyt said: “The third runway at Heathrow is completely at odds with the Council’s acknowledgement of a climate emergency and its alleged commitment to allowing fewer houses to be built in the borough.”
Cllr Halsall said: “Our position has changed. We recognise the economic benefits but there are climate change, quality of life and environmental health issues.
“We have to report to the consultation. We are preparing it [a response] and will go through it in detail.”
Cllr Halsall said: “There’s a huge seam of documents we have to respond to.”
He added that if the third runway went ahead, it would need to include local benefits.
“There is a need for improvements to Twyford Station,” he said, as an example.
Explaining why the council was planning to change its previously agreed stance he said: “It’s a shift in emphasis, but things have moved on since five years ago.”
Cllr Paul Fishwick, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Highways and Transport, said: “There’s a big YES to us being against a third runway.
“Heathrow is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases in the UK. Add in another runway with more flights and it will make matters worse.
“A third runway could see the number of flights go up from 480,000 per year to 740,000. This would have an impact on local areas.
“Wokingham Borough Council has declared a climate emergency. We only have 10 years to take drastic action. If we’re really serious about climate change, we must object.”
In April, the neighbouring borough of Windsor and Maidenhead was among five that lost a High Court bid to have the third runway dismissed.
Earlier this year, Duncan Sharkey, managing director of the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead, said: “The underlying obstacles to this runway haven’t changed.
“The Government didn’t inform communities across south and west London about how they would be affected by noise and to what extent.
“The five local authorities which brought the challenge are all committed to defending the quality of life of local people. Few, if any, of our communities will escape noise and many will be affected seven days a week.”
Heathrow’s avarice and self-interest appear to know no bounds. Aside from the immense cost to public health from the increased noise and air pollution of its plans for a 3rd runway (equivalent to bolting another large UK airport onto the Heathrow site….) the huge cost to the taxpayer for the necessary improvements to surface access infrastructure, if it expands, and so many other costs – like destroying villages, Heathrow wants yet more. The Treasury has repeatedly said that the aviation industry in the UK pays Air Passenger Duty (APD) BECAUSE that makes up, to a small extent, for the income lost to the Treasury each year, because the aviation sector pays NO fuel duty and NO VAT. The money is NOT there to give the aviation industry a boost. But Heathrow wants the approximately £4 billion raised each year from APD to be given back to the industry, so it can try to find a way to produce jet fuels that are allegedly “sustainable” and “lower carbon” that convention jet fuel. The problem for the aviation industry is that, other than worthy-sounding pronouncements about “the ambition of a net-zero carbon aviation industry by 2050” etc, they have no actual plans of any means by which to do that. APD funds should NOT be given back to aviation. . Tweet
Heathrow urges £4bn APD revenue to boost ‘green’ aviation fuels
by Phil Davies (Travel Weekly)
August 21st 2019
Heathrow is once again urging the government to invest £4 billion annual intake from Air Passenger Duty to raise production of ‘green’ aviation fuels.
The revenue generated from the air tax could help to accelerate the production of biofuels and support the ambition of a net-zero carbon aviation industry by 2050.
The airport first made the demand for a reform of APD last month.
Heathrow sustainability director Matt Gorman said: “Having won an overwhelming majority in Parliament supporting expansion at Heathrow we are getting on with delivering a project that will connect the whole country to economic growth in a way that is sustainable and responsible.
“We understand the responsibility our sector has to help tackle climate change and ensure we protect a world worth travelling, which is why we’re calling on government to invest the revenue generated from Air Passenger Duty in sustainable fuels.
“This move will help to drive a much needed change in our sector and make travel more sustainable.”
More: Industry should stop bleating about carbon tax
APD should be reformed to support sustainable aviation fuels
The call came as the London hub revealed that SAS took the top spot in its ‘Fly Quiet and Green’ airline sustainability league table in the second quarter of the year.
The result came as the Scandinavian flag carrier reduced early and late flights.
The airline also scored well for its operational performance by improving its ‘track keeping’ – following preferential noise route flight paths precisely and using a quieter landing method known as continuous descent approach.
The league table compiles the results of the airport’s top 50 busiest airlines from April to June, rating how each airline scores for operational factors such as punctuality, track keeping, continuous decent approach, and monitors the fleet upgrades that help to reduce emissions.
Both 787 Dreamliners and Airbus A350s are among the top environmental performers, helping airlines to rise in the rankings.
Qantas jumped 28 spots to sixth place, earning the title of most improved airline, after achieving 100% compliance for track keeping and running its schedule without late or early flights.
The announcement coincided with Heathrow’s 12-week expansion consultation, which details measures the airport will be putting in place to reduce emissions and provide respite for local communities as part of its plans for a third runway. The consultation runs until September 13.
£125 million more UK public money going to fund aviation research to (possibly, eventually) minimally cut CO2 emissions
August 27, 2019
The aviation industry repeatedly gets money from the UK government, to help it try to find new technologies, or new fuels, that might slightly cut the carbon emissions of flights. Instead of the industry funding this research itself, it always wants public money to help – money from taxpayers that could be better used. If the aviation sector really wanted to cut its carbon emissions significantly, it would stop attempting to grow as fast as possible. If the government was serious about cutting aviation CO2, it would introduce measures to make flying more expensive and less attractive, in order to cut demand. But instead, money is spent on technologies that just – basically – involve continuing with “business as usual” and carrying on flying as much as possible. Hopes of magical future technologies, or fuels, just postpone the day when they have to “bite the bullet” and reduce aviation growth. Now the UK government is spending another “£125 million in the Future of Flight Challenge, supported by an industry co-investment of £175 million, to fund development of technologies including cargo drones, urban air taxis and larger electric passenger aircraft.” Fiddling while Rome burns….
A group within Southampton Friends of the Earth has set up a campaign to oppose Southampton Airport expansion. Despite the Government’s recent commitment to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, there are many airport expansion applications across the UK. This expansion cannot enable the aviation sector to meet even its current, easy, carbon target – let alone the much more stringent one required for a zero-carbon Britain by 2050. The airport will probably submit its planning application to extend the runway by 170 metres to Eastleigh Borough Council in the next few weeks. The scoping report and Master Plan have received approval in principle from Southampton City Council. Twyford Parish Council has objected, due to a proposed increase of flights over the village. Eastleigh Greens are likely to be objecting as well. Friends of the Earth Southampton are currently putting together a petition to Southampton City Council to ask them to re-think their support for airport expansion, given that the Government is asking for net zero carbon by 2050. Campaigners started a group here to oppose the proposed expansion but it has not got a name yet. People interested can get in touch via the local FoE group foesoton@gmail.com . Tweet
There was a consultation last year, which closed in October.
The airport wants to extend the runway and increase the number of flights, allowing it to more than double passenger numbers from two million to five million a year by 2037. A final version of the plans was then drawn up with a planning application due to be submitted soon.
People interested are invited to join the FoE mailing list. There will only be occasional emails about airport stuff – so best way to keep in touch – email foesoton@gmail.com
Friends of the Earth Southampton are currently putting together a petition to Southampton City Council to ask them to re-think their support for airport expansion, given that the Government is asking for net zero carbon by 2050.
FoE is hoping for the November full Council meeting. However, they say if Eastleigh Borough Council puts the airport’s application for expansion into its September Planning Committee we will have to abandon the petition and go for an all out campaign asking people to contact their councillors to object, and putting in objections to the planning application.
We have heard that Hampshire Climate Action Network is putting together a Hampshire-wide group against airport expansion too.
There are issues about trees being felled. The airport are trying to argue that they can fell the trees in a copse under a “tree management” banner, rather than it being prior to and facilitating expansion. The trees are within the City Council boundary and are all protected. However, the City Council (although it objected to this work in 1983 and 2003) is giving the work the nod.
There is quite a bit of obfuscation going on about who is for approving the tree felling – whether it is the Forestry Commission for the large trees or Southampton City Council for the Tree Protection Zone? The Forestry Commission has said “not us – its SCC” but it remains unclear.
The expansion issue compounded by the consultation and proposals for air space changes. Parts of Southampton could be badly affected by increased noise from more jets taking off daily.
Campaigners started a group here to oppose the proposed expansion of Southampton Airport. We haven’t got a name yet, but we can be contacted via the local FoE group.
It’s likely that the airport will submit it’s application to extend the runway by 170 metres to Eastleigh Borough Council in the next few weeks. The scoping report and Master Plan have received approval in principle from Southampton City Council. Twyford Parish Council has objected, due to a proposed increase of flights over the village. Eastleigh Greens are likely to be objecting as well.
.
See earlier:
Southampton Airport expansion moving forward as bosses prepare to submit plans
7th May 2019
Southampton Airport is pushing ahead with major expansion plans which could double the number of passengers travelling through the airport.
Bosses will submit a formal planning application to the local authority, following a public consultation.
But campaigners say it would increase noise pollution and damage the environment.
The airport has released impressions of how the expanded airport could look Under the plans announced last year, the runway would be made longer, allowing more flights to travel to more destinations.
The terminal would also be expanded, with 4,000 extra parking spaces being built.
Airport executives predict that flight numbers would increase from just over 39,000 a year now, to more than 50,000 in ten years – reaching 58,000 by 2037.
The airport says: “Our ambitions to grow the airport to provide more choice, more connectivity for passengers, are really taking shape now.”
Hundreds of people took part in a major consultation on the plans and the airport say it has taken into account concerns raised.
But not everyone agrees with the plans, with some worried about the affect it could have on their neighbourhood and the environment.
GARETH NARBED, CAMPAIGNER said: “I’m appalled actually by the potential effects on the whole of Southampton…the expansion plan is really going to have a major effect on a lot of people.”
The airport says it’s due to submit plans to the council later in the summer.
Campaigners have welcomed a demand by the mayor of Newham, Rokhsana Fiaz, to halt London City Airport’s consultation on expansion with more daily flights – until it shows how it will tackling noise and CO2 emissions. City Airport’s Consultation Master Plan suggests almost doubling the number of daily flights, with more early morning and late evening. The airport insists its consultation will continue till 20th September. The mayor called the consultation “fundamentally flawed because of lack of clarity and information” in a letter to the airport’s chief executive. She calls on the airport to halt the public consultation immediately until it publishes the “omitted technical details”. “The significance of the mayor’s move cannot be overstated. Newham is the planning authority for the airport,” said Hacan East chairman John Stewart. Newham Council which declared a “climate emergency” earlier this year, and is seeking more evidence about the airport’s plans to tackle CO2 emissions and air pollution. A huge number of people are already badly affected by aircraft noise. Newham already has a large number of deaths, occurring prematurely, due to air pollution. London City airport growth – pollution from aircraft – would only add to that, as well as the noise assault. . Tweet
Mayor of Newham’s challenge to London City Airport’s expansion is greeted by campaigners
16 August 2019
By Mike Brooke (Newham Recorder)
Campaigners have welcomed a demand by the mayor of Newham to halt London City Airport’s consultation on expansion with more daily flights until it shows how it will tackling noise and climate emissions.
City AirportConsultation Master Plan suggests more daily flights, early morning and late evening.
But the airport remains firm and insists that the consultation – on plans to almost double the number of landings and take-offs – continues until September 20.
The mayor called the consultation “fundamentally flawed” in a letter to the airport’s chief executive.
The letter “throws down the gauntlet to the airport”, say campaigners from Hacan East which represents households in the flight paths across east London.
“The significance of the mayor’s move cannot be overstated,” its chairman John Stewart said. “Newham is the planning authority for the airport.”
Newham Council which declared a “climate emergency” earlier this year is seeking more evidence about the airport’s plans to tackle pollution.
Mayor Rokhsana Fiaz says in her letter to airport chief executive Robert Sinclair: “The council would struggle to support London City Airport’s justification to increase the number of flights. Residents are gravely concerned about the high level forecasts.”
Newham has the most deaths in London attributed to pollution with 96 people a year dying prematurely from respiratory diseases, the mayor points out.
The local authority has set up an air quality and climate emergency task force to achieve “carbon neutral” by 2030 and “carbon zero” by 2050.
“The consultation is fundamentally flawed because of lack of clarity and information,” the mayor’s letter to the airport boss states.
“We expected to see ’emissions from airborne aircraft’ detailed in your aims to achieve the level 3-plus neutrality that you claim to seek by 2020.”
She calls on the airport to halt the public consultation immediately until it publishes the “omitted technical details”.
The airport says it is giving proper consideration to the mayor’s views, but the consultation remains open for people who want to have their say.
A spokesman said: “The draft master plan is an opportunity to share views on how the airport can respond to the significant demand for air travel in London and in particular east London.
“We recognise the challenge of climate change in our draft master plan. Our record to date on air quality, noise and carbon reduction demonstrates our commitment to a change in sustainable aviation.”
The 12-week consultation proposes to scrap the 24-weekend break, which would add more early morning and late evening flights.
Assembly calls for changes to City Airport airspace to prioritise Londoners over profit
14 August 2019
By Luke Acton (Newham Recorder)
City Hall’s environment committee has called on airspace decision-makers to prioritise the health and wellbeing of Londoners over the commercial interests of City Airport.
The call comes as a national effort gets under way to modernise the UK’s airspace to improve things like efficiency. The Civil Aviation Authority is the body in charge of that process.
With airports responsible for designing airspace routes under 7,000 feet, City has released a draft document outlining what it wants the new design to do.
Among the “musts” is the maintenance or enhancement of safety and airspace that provides “sufficient capacity to support future demand”.
Among lower priorities, things the new design “should” achieve, is minimisation of CO2 and noise, as well as lower air pollution.
Different groups and organisations are now responding to the plan. Assembly Member Caroline Russell is a Green Party politician and chairwoman of the environment committee.
She said: “According to the Civil Aviation Authority, there are already 331,000 people overflown by flights arriving at City Airport, and 416,300 overflown by departures, all under the altitude of 4,000 feet.
“The damaging effect of aircraft noise on Londoners’ lives can no longer be ignored.
“The London Assembly is recommending that any changes to airspace and flight paths at London City Airport prioritise the health and wellbeing of overflown Londoners, over and above the commercial interests of the airport.”
A spokesman for London City thanked the committee for its response, adding that air capacity is vital for jobs, to support business and to encourage trade and tourism.
“As London’s most central airport, we know we have a responsibility to be a good neighbour, which is exactly why we are participating in this airspace modernisation programme, which is anticipated to result in quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys.
“We have also previously highlighted evidence to the environment committee of the extensive work we are doing with airlines, manufacturers, air traffic control services, and other stakeholders, to actively limit noise and mitigate its effects.”
The airspace document comes as City is also consulting on its draft master plan, which calls for more flexibility for early and late flights, and during the 24-hour weekend break.
HACAN East new major campaign against London City’s expansion plans, asking people to fill in postcard responses to the consultation.
July 30, 2019
HACAN East has launched a major campaign against London City’s expansion plans. It is encouraging people to fill in postcards opposing the expansion plans, and send them in to Freepost LCY MASTER PLAN CONSULTATION. People can also download and display posters. The postcards call on residents to back the existing 24 hour weekend ban on aircraft using London City. HACAN East wants the airport drop its proposals to end the 24 hour break as well as its plans to almost double flight numbers from today’s levels and to increase flights in the early morning and late evening. The postcards say: I SUPPORT the 24 hour London City Airport weekend flight ban. I DO NOT want up to 40,00 more flights. I DO NOT want more early morning or late evening flights. I DO NOT want more climate damaging airport expansion. Overall, I DO NOT support the plans in the draft master plan.
Caroline Russell: Action is needed on aircraft noise
July 27, 2019
Caroline writes in a blog that in parts of London, people are now living with severe levels of noise disruption. This is not acceptable, and urgent, decisive action is needed across the board to alleviate it. For some, the onslaught from Heathrow planes is made worse by the addition of London City planes using narrow, concentrated routes. The noise has significant health impacts for many. A report by the London Assembly’s Environment Committee, which Caroline chairs, concluded that the Government and CAA should regulate noise disturbance more stringently. They should use lower thresholds for noise disturbance (taking into account WHO guidelines and the need for residents to keep windows open) and mapping the combined effect of all London’s airports, especially Heathrow and City. The WHO guidance is that 45dB is the threshold for health impacts, but the UK government persists with 54dB as the ‘disturbance’ threshold. Also that flight paths should be rotated, to give relief to those under concentrated flight paths – and flight paths should be designed to minimise noise impacts, including avoiding overlapping flight paths. Increasing exposure to aircraft noise is unacceptable, and must be challenged
What is driving London City Airport’s expansion plans? John Stewart comment
July 26, 2019
John Stewart, from Hacan East, has looked at why London City Airport is planning huge expansion. The airport Master Plan wants to lift the current cap of 111,000 flights allowed each year to 137,000 by 2030 and to 151,000 by 2035. He says the airport is aiming to promote itself as a major player on the aviation scene, and a key driver of the regional economy, not just a niche business airport. It now often holds receptions at the party conferences, and is raising its profile to get backing for its growth plans. The current owners bought the airport for £2 billion in 2016, and want to make a good return. Business passengers used to be about 60% of the total, but now 50% – with the plans suggesting 36% by 2035. Most business passengers fly in the morning and evening, so leisure flights use the hours in the middle of the day. It can’t offer budget flights because Ryanair and EasyJet planes are too big to use the airport. London City has set out to change to portray itself as a key driver, maybe even the key driver, of the economic development of East, NE and SE London. It is pushing this to MPs and also local authorities in its regions in order to convince them it is in their interest to back expansion.
RESIDENTS DISMAYED BY LONDON CITY AIRPORT EXPANSION PLANS TO DOUBLE FLIGHT NUMBERS
June 29, 2019
London City’s Master Plan has been released, for consultation, and it is very bad news for local residents who suffer from the noise of its planes. It is proposing to double the number of flights by 2035; to end the break when currently there are no flights between 12:30pm on Saturday and 12.30pm on Sunday; and to bring in more planes in the early morning and late evening. Residents are dismayed by the London City expansion revealed in its Master Plan published today. The airport wants to lift the current cap of 111,000 flights allowed each year to 137,000 by 2030 and to 151,000 by 2035. Last year there were just over 75,000 flights. John Stewart, chair of HACAN East, which gives a voice to residents under the airport’s flight paths, said, “For all its green talk, this plan would be disastrous for residents. Flight numbers could double from today’s levels.” Increasingly the airport caters for leisure passengers, not business. The consultation ends on 20th September. The airport would need to go to a Planning Inquiry to get permission for any proposals it intends to take forward, after applying to Newham Council for its plans. Newham borough has pledged to make the borough “carbon neutral by 2030 and carbon zero by 2050”. The airport will not be helping with that.