Farnborough airspace Judicial Review by Lasham Gliding Society fails to overturn CAA decision

Mrs. Justice Thornton has delivered her judgement on the CAA’s grant of airspace to TAG Farnborough following the Judicial Review actioned by Lasham Gliding Society (LGS). She did not find sufficient grounds to overturn the CAA’s airspace decision and concluded that the CAA acted within its powers and the limits of its discretion. This is in spite of the arguments presented by LGS – and roundly supported by the wider general aviation community – on its adverse impact on aviation safety, the consequential inefficient use of airspace, and the potential detrimental operational and financial impacts on LGS. As things stand, it is expected that the new Farnborough airspace will come into effect by early 2020 . This will have serious impacts on general aviation activity in central southern England. It is a hard blow to gliding enthusiasts, whose available airspace will be seriously curtailed. It follows several years of intense opposition to what is widely considered to be a completely unjustified and ill-considered move by TAG Farnborough to secure a large swathe of controlled airspace, to facilitate its operations for private jets.
.

 

 

Farnborough airspace Judicial Review fails to overturn CAA decision

31 July 2019

Mrs. Justice Thornton has delivered her judgement on the CAA’s grant of airspace to TAG Farnborough following the Judicial Review actioned by Lasham Gliding Society

In summary, Mrs. Justice Thornton did not find sufficient grounds to overturn the CAA’s airspace decision in light of the arguments presented by Lasham – and roundly supported by the wider general aviation community – as to its adverse impact on aviation safety, the consequential inefficient use of airspace, and the potential detrimental operational and financial impacts on Lasham Gliding Society.

Accordingly, Mrs. Justice Thornton has concluded that the CAA acted within its powers and the limits of its discretion.

As things stand, it is expected that the new Farnborough airspace will come into effect by early 2020 and impact significantly on all aviation activity in central southern England.

Lasham, supported by its advisors, is reviewing the detail of the judgement carefully. It will decide shortly as to whether or not it intends to seek leave to appeal. This ruling is a bitter blow to both Lasham and the wider general aviation community.

It follows several years of intense opposition to what is widely considered to be a completely unjustified and ill-considered move by TAG Farnborough to secure a large swathe of controlled airspace.

The difficulties this case raises continues to draw a spotlight on questions surrounding the CAA’s policies and decision-making processes.

Aside from this particular case there is a wider and active national debate between the government and aviation stakeholders as to how the CAA’s processes currently operate.

Whatever might happen with airspace in the Farnborough area as a result of this decision, pressure must continue to be applied on the government, the DfT and the CAA to implement a proper reform of the CAA’s processes used to consider applications for airspace change.

https://www.pilotweb.aero/news/farnborough-airspace-judicial-review-fails-1-6192211

.


Lasham Gliding Society Press release

Judgement on Farnborough airspace Judicial review

Mrs. Justice Thornton has delivered her judgement on the CAA’s grant of airspace to TAG
Farnborough following the Judicial Review actioned by Lasham Gliding Society.

In summary, Mrs. Justice Thornton did not find sufficient grounds to overturn the CAA’s
airspace decision in light of the arguments presented by Lasham – and roundly supported
by the wider general aviation community – as to its adverse impact on aviation safety, the
consequential inefficient use of airspace, and the potential detrimental operational and
financial impacts on Lasham Gliding Society.

Accordingly, Mrs. Justice Thornton has concluded that the CAA acted within its powers and the limits of its discretion.

As things stand, it is expected that the new Farnborough airspace will come into effect by early 2020 and impact significantly on all aviation activity in central southern England.
Lasham, supported by its advisors, is reviewing the detail of the judgement carefully. It will
decide shortly as to whether or not it intends to seek leave to appeal.

This ruling is a bitter blow to both Lasham and the wider general aviation community. It
follows several years of intense opposition to what is widely considered to be a completely
unjustified and ill-considered move by TAG Farnborough to secure a large swathe of
controlled airspace.

The difficulties this case raises continues to draw a spotlight on questions surrounding the
CAA’s policies and decision-making processes. Aside from this particular case there is a
wider and active national debate between the government and aviation stakeholders as to
how the CAA’s processes currently operate.

Whatever might happen with airspace in the Farnborough area as a result of this decision, pressure must continue to be applied on the government, the DfT and the CAA to implement a proper reform of the CAA’s processes used to consider applications for airspace change.

Notes to publishers:
Lasham Gliding Society is based at Lasham Airfield and is the largest gliding operation in
the UK, and amongst the largest anywhere in the world. It is a recognised centre for the
basic and advanced training of glider pilots, youth development, and hosts major national
and international gliding championships. There are in excess of 260 gliders and light
aircraft based at Lasham, carrying out approximately 60 000 movements per year.

 

.


See earlier:

Lasham Gliding Society applies for Judicial Review of CAA Farnborough airspace decision

The CAA decided to grant the airspace to TAG Farnborough on 11th July. After taking legal advice, Lasham Gliding Society decided to fight this decision and instructed its lawyers to draw up a claim for leave for a Judicial Review in the High Court. Lasham Gliding Society is strongly opposed to the CAA’s decision. It considers that the decision to introduce new controlled airspace has not been justified by the CAA, because it will create a choke point, it does not represent an efficient use of the airspace, and it does not properly or reasonably balance the needs of all users. Lasham Gliding Society says: “The consequence of the implementation of this large volume of controlled airspace, at the request of a small airfield which has around 28,000 annual (non-public) movements, will be to displace many times more transiting flights and to cause significant congestion of general aviation movements outside the controlled airspace.”  The application for the JR was lodged on 10th October. The CAA has produced its reply, and the judge will decide if it can proceed. The cost will be at least £100,000 and Lasham hopes it will be of relevance to other general aviation airfields. 

https://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2018/11/lasham-gliding-society-applies-for-judicial-review-of-caa-farnborough-airspace-decision/

.

.

.
.

Read more »

HACAN East new major campaign against London City’s expansion plans, asking people to fill in postcard responses to the consultation.

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.

.

HACAN EAST LAUNCHES MAJOR CAMPAIGN AGAINST LONDON CITY AIRPORT EXPANSION

0th July 2019

Caroline Russell, GREEN CHAIR OF THE LONDON ASSEMBLY ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE, AND CAMPAIGNER ALAN HAUGHTON AT THE CAMPAIGN’S LAUNCH
CAROLINE RUSSELL, GREEN CHAIR OF THE LONDON ASSEMBLY ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE, AND CAMPAIGNER ALAN HAUGHTON AT THE CAMPAIGN’S LAUNCH

HACAN East today launched a major postcard and poster campaign against the expansion proposals contained in London City’s Master Plan currently out for consultation. Thousands of postcards will be distributed to household impacted by the airport over the next month.

People who object to the proposals are being asked to fill in a postcard and send it back to the airport via FREEPOST

You can find the postcards here: http://hacan.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/HACANeast-Cut-n-Post-BTB-A4-Print-Colour-2-3.pdf and here https://hacan.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/HACANeast-BTB-Postcard-Final-4.pdf

And black and white versions: http://hacan.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/HACANeast-Cut-n-Post-BTB-A4-Print-B_W-2.pdf

http://hacan.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/HACANeast-Postcard-BTB-A4-Print-B_W-1-3.pdf

And you can download and display posters: https://hacan.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Poster-Draft-2-1-Colour-3.pdf

Black and white posters: https://hacan.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Poster-Draft-2-1-B_W-2.pdf

We will be looking for help from people to deliver the postcards. If you can help email johnstewart2@btconnect.com

You can pick up postcards and posters from us in the Function Room of The Leyton Star on Monday 5th August from 4pm – 8pm. The address is 116 High St, London E15 2BX.

But, if you are unable to pick them up, we can post some to you. Email us: johnstewart2@btconnect.com

The postcards call on residents to back the existing 24 hour weekend ban on aircraft using London City.  It 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 postcard campaign will be backed up by posters, public meetings, adverts and eye-catching events to get across to people the scale of the airport’s plans.

The Postcard is to be sent to

Freepost LCY MASTER PLAN CONSULTATION

Image may contain: text

London City Airport want to end the ban that stops them from flying aircraft on Saturday afternoons, Saturday evenings and Sunday mornings. 24 hours of plane free, quiet time.

Your quiet time. Your family time, your playtime, your pray time, your sports time, your TV time, your duvet time, your garden time, your open the windows and let in some fresh air time.

Whatever time, it’s YOUR time.

They also want 40,000 more flights, more flights early morning and late at night, that’s more noise, more pollution and more climate destruction.

Tell your MP and Councillors to #backtheban and keep the London City Airport 24hr weekend flight ban!

Respond to the full consultation and #defendyourweekend at

hacaneast.org.uk

DATES FOR YOUR DIARIES

Public Meeting, 30th July, 7.30pm – 9pm, Buxton School, Cann Hall Rd, E11 3NN, organised by Cann Hall Area Residents Association, with several other residents associations on City’s expansion proposals. Speakers: London City Airport, John Cryer MP, John Stewart (Chair HACAN East)

 Waltham Forest Council will be holding a public meeting in Leytonstone Library on Tues 10th September 7.30- 9.30pm to discuss the London City proposals.

And London City will be holding further consultation exhibitions at:

The City Centre, 80 Basinghall St, London EC2V 5AR, 11th September, from 12 noon – 7pm

Southern Grove Community Centre, Southern Grove, Mile End, London, E3 4FX, 12th September, from 3.30pm – 7.30pm

Royal Docks Learning and Activity Centre, Albert Rd, Royal Docks, London E16 2JB, 14th September,10am – 4pm.

.


See earlier:

What is driving London City Airport’s expansion plans? John Stewart comment

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.

Click here to view full story…

RESIDENTS DISMAYED BY LONDON CITY AIRPORT EXPANSION PLANS TO DOUBLE FLIGHT NUMBERS

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.

Click here to view full story…

Read more »

Back to the drawing board for Marseille airport expansion plan, due to climate and environmental impacts

In a few months, Marseille airport must start work on its extension. However, before submitting a building permit, it must obtain an opinion from the environmental authority on the impact of the construction site on the environment. It recommends airport authorities should resume their studies from scratch. So the airport expansion plan has been blocked (for now) by the French environment agency on two grounds of wrongly estimating economic benefits and environmental harm, and on carbon emissions. The press release from the L’Autorité environnementale says the airport airport should rewrite its expansion plans given that the current project has “major methodological flaws” that make it “underestimate the environmental impacts and overestimate its socio-economic benefits.” The authority also said the airport needs to convince the government of how the expansion project is compatible with France’s plan to become climate neutral by 2050. Marseille airport wants to start expanding a terminal and “straightening” its runways in 2023.
.

 

BACK TO DRAWING BOARD FOR MARSEILLE AIRPORT EXPANSION PLAN:

France’s Environmental Authority recommended on Monday that Marseille airport rewrite its expansion plans given that the current project has “major methodological flaws” that make it “underestimate the environmental impacts and overestimate its socio-economic benefits.” The authority also said the airport needs to convince the government of how the expansion project is compatible with France’s plan to become climate neutral by 2050. Marseille airport wants to start expanding a terminal and “straightening” its runways in 2023.

 

Environmental authority puts zero on airport extension project

By Benoît Gilles

30th July 2019

In a few months, the airport Marseille Provence must launch the works of its extension. However, before submitting a building permit, it must obtain an opinion from the environmental authority on the impact of the construction site on the environment. It has just fallen and it recommends airport authorities to resume their studies from scratch.It continues ….. for subscribers only ….

https://marsactu.fr/lautorite-environnementale-met-un-zero-pointe-au-projet-dextension-de-laeroport/

.

The recommendations by the environment agency say:

L’Ae recommande en particulier au maître d’ouvrage et à l’État de démontrer la compatibilité du projet avec l’engagement de la France à atteindre la neutralité carbone à l’horizon 2050, à traduire dans la stratégie nationale bas carbone, notamment en détaillant les modalités de compensation des émissions du projet après évitement et réduction.

which means, in English:

The Ae [ L’Autorité environnementale  ] recommends in particular to the developer and the State to demonstrate the compatibility of the project with the commitment of France to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, to translate in the national low carbon strategy, including detailing compensation arrangements for project emissions after avoidance and reduction.

.

Read more »

Heathrow plans to increase 3rd runway costs – to £2.9 bn – before approval, hoping it will be too costly to scrap its plans

Heathrow plans to triple the amount it spends on its third runway proposal, to £2.9bn – well before getting final approval. This either means air passengers using Heathrow would be charged more (something the industry and the government do not want), or else the taxpayer will be charged. Even if the runway never goes ahead.  The CAA has a consultation about the costs and how Heathrow has been speeding up the process, spending ever more money. (The legal challenges are now going to appeal in October, but Heathrow is pressing ahead with its DCO consultations). Especially on carbon emissions, air pollution and noise grounds, it is entirely possible the runway will be blocked and the DCO will not be granted.  The CAA says it has asked Heathrow “to consider different options for this spending and the implications of this spending for the overall programme timetable and the interests of consumers.” [Not to mention the taxpayer, who may end up paying …] Heathrow is increasing the amount of its “Category B” costs and “early Category C” costs. They want to increase the amount spent already to be so large, that it effectively cannot be cancelled. Detailed costs still have to be outlined, but Heathrow is expected to submit its initial business plan to the CAA for review towards the end of this year.
.

 

 

In a recent letter Lilian Greenwood – Chair of the Commons Transport Select Committee -asked Grayling about the Government’s assessments of Heathrow’s costs. Unsurprisingly, she did not get an answer.
Her letter to Chris Grayling is at
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/transport/lilian-greenwood-to-chris-grayling-responses-to-committee-reports-05062019.pdf
The reply from Chris Grayling is at
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/transport/chris-grayling-to-lilian-greenwood-government-responses-to-committee-reports-30062019.pdf
This is interesting in the light of the current CAA consultation on Heathrow spending plans – they effectively want to make the project too expensive to cancel before they even have planning permission.

Lilian Greenwood’s letter asked:

3rd report of 2017-19: Airports National Policy Statement

Recommendation 11: DfT committed to “monitor the financeability and affordability of the Heathrow third runway scheme as the design develops and as the economic regulatory framework for expansion matures”. When did the DfT make its most recent assessment and what did it conclude?

Recommendation 24: DfT said that it anticipated “launching the Aviation Strategy in the first half of 2019”. Why has this been delayed and when do you plan to publish this?

This is the (pathetic, evasive )reply from Grayling and the DfT civil servants:

“Aviation connectivity is vital to productivity and ensuring our long-term capacity is critical if the UK is to attract inward investment and grow our trade with new and fast growing overseas markets. Reflecting this, the Government published the consultation on its Aviation 2050 strategy in December 2018. This considered proposals to develop a partnership for sustainable growth, improve passenger experience, and establish new connections across the world.

“The consultation period was extended to June 2019 to consider the outcome of the Airline Insolvency Review and the report by the Committee on Climate Change on our long-term emission targets, both of which were published in May. The Government is now considering the responses to the consultation and plans to publish a final strategy later this year. ”

https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/transport/chris-grayling-to-lilian-greenwood-government-responses-to-committee-reports-30062019.pdf


The CAA consultation

Economic regulation of capacity expansion at Heathrow: consultation on early costs and regulatory timetable, July 2019

11th July to 22nd August 2019

https://consultations.caa.co.uk/corporate-communications/economic-regulation-of-capacity-expansion-at-heath/?mc_cid=6f341d29db&mc_eid=a0ba8f5af2

CAA says: “This consultation document focuses on the costs of expansion incurred by Heathrow Airport Limited (“HAL”) in advance of receiving a development consent order (“DCO”) under the Planning Act 2008 for the expansion of Heathrow airport. It deals with the new information that has emerged on these costs and notes that there could be significant implications for the wider programme timetable, depending on the levels of this spending and how we propose to treat the expenditure in the regulatory framework.

“It also deals with issues relating to the regulatory timetable and updates the guidance we provided previously to HAL on the scope and content of its price control business plans.”

.

Category A costs are:

Costs which are incurred by HAL during the Airports Commission process, or before Heathrow was named as the preferred location for new runway capacity on 25 October 2016. [CAP 1513, paragraph 3.20] On an exceptional basis, some Category A costs may be recategorised as Category B costs if HAL can provide a strong and clear case that the information submitted as part of the DCO planning process is not materially different from the information submitted to the Airports Commission or the Government prior to 25 October 2016. [CAP 1513, paragraph 3.21]

Category B costs (the only ones the CAA says Heathrow should be able to recover) are:

Costs which are: • in general1 , incurred by HAL after the Government policy announcement on its preferred location for new capacity (25 October 2016); and • associated solely with seeking planning permission for the delivery of new runway capacity at Heathrow. [CAP 1513, paragraph 3.10]

Category C costs are:

Costs incurred by HAL in connection with implementation and construction of new capacity, up to entry-intooperation. The majority of these costs will typically be incurred after planning permission is granted. [CAP 1651, appendix A]

Early Category C costs are:

Those costs that HAL will incur prior to the grant of a DCO permitting capacity expansion. These costs will be incurred in addition to the Category B planning costs. They include the costs of relocating certain large commercial and other facilities, community costs (compensation costs for other commercial activities, agricultural activities and residential property) and other enabling costs for construction. [Chapter 2, paragraph 2.1]].

An important requirement for costs to be considered as early Category C expenditure is that the purpose of this expenditure must be to promote the efficient and timely delivery of the overall programme for capacity expansion at Heathrow airport.


 

Heathrow plans to increase third runway costs before approval

Regulator fears consumers will have to pay £2.9bn for project that might be scrapped

By Janina Conboye in London (Financial Times)

JULY 12, 2019

Heathrow airport is planning to triple the amount it spends on its controversial third runway to £2.9bn ahead of final approval, sparking fears that passengers will pay extra even if the project is eventually cancelled.

The industry regulator said it wanted to seek the public’s views on the airport’s proposal to accelerate spending because of the risk that the costs would be passed on to consumers through passenger service charges.

The Civil Aviation Authority said in a consultation document that management at the UK’s busiest airport was speeding up certain spending on the £14bn project to meet the 2026 completion target date for the runway.

However, it is still uncertain whether the expansion will go ahead, following opposition from politicians, local residents and environmentalists. Heathrow is expected to submit its application for a development consent order, the permit required by all nationally significant infrastructure projects, next year. The airport hopes the transport secretary will approve it in 2021.

“In light of these increases, we have asked [Heathrow] to consider different options for this spending and the implications of this spending for the overall programme timetable and the interests of consumers,” the CAA said.

“The more Heathrow’s operator spends before it gets planning approval, the greater the risk that consumers will end up paying for extra costs in the event that expansion does not go ahead.”

Heathrow wants to increase so-called Category B costs associated with seeking planning permission, such as the public consultation and master plan development, from £265m to more than £500m. And early Category C expenses, relating to acquiring and relocating buildings and compensating local communities, are set to rise from £650m to £2.4bn.

The CAA said the overall cost of delivering the runway was still broadly in line with Heathrow’s proposed budget of £14bn. It added that if planning consent was given to Heathrow’s expansion and the runway was delivered on time, the increase in pre-consent spending would “benefit consumers by promoting choice and greater competition between airlines”.

Detailed costs still have to be outlined, but the airport is expected to submit its initial business plan to the CAA for review towards the end of this year.

The regulator said that while Heathrow’s current cost estimates were reasonable, “we have asked Heathrow Airport Limited to look at all options to see how this risk can be reduced and to engage with airlines on the best approach”.

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 Heathrow’s efforts to keep the passenger service charge close to 2016 levels, said one person briefed on the airport’s plans. 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 is scheduled for completion in 2026. The fourth phase, which includes car parks, road systems and hangars, is set to be finished in 2050.

In response Heathrow said it had a record of delivering multibillion-pound airport infrastructure on-budget and was confident its plans and experience would deliver a new runway at Heathrow for £14bn. “It is great that the CAA are also increasingly confident in our cost projection,” it said. “We value their input and will continue to work alongside them to ensure this critical project for Britain is delivered.”

Heathrow’s revised spending plan attracted immediate criticism, particularly from IAG, the owner of British Airways, Heathrow’s dominant airline. “The CAA must be strong and ensure that Heathrow doesn’t get away with this,” IAG said. “The airport seems hell bent on ramping up costs despite the government only approving the third runway if customer charges don’t rise from today’s levels.”

Heathrow’s passenger charges are paid by the airlines, which decide how much to pass on to passengers in ticket prices. The CAA consultation document suggested that if charges were increased to cover the expansion costs then the airlines might have to absorb some of the costs.

Heathrow Hub, which proposed an alternative expansion plan that was rejected by the Department for Transport, said: “At last the CAA is starting to focus properly on the huge costs of Heathrow airport’s own plan.”

It added that Heathrow’s plans were outrageously expensive and disruptive. “As the CAA concedes, this will potentially have an important impact on consumers via higher air passenger fees,” it said.

John Stewart, chair of the Hacan campaign group opposed to Heathrow’s expansion, said: “The unexpected costs continue to rise. If the CAA continues to limit the amount Heathrow can raise from the airlines through landing charges, the possibility of the government needing to help out the airport must be looming into view.”

The CAA’s consultation closes on August 22.

This article has been amended to clarify IAG’s criticism of Heathrow’s revised spending plan

https://www.ft.com/content/15c12364-a426-11e9-974c-ad1c6ab5efd1

.

.


 

Read more »

Caroline Russell: Action is needed on aircraft noise

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
.

 

Action needed on aircraft noise

27.7.2019  (By Caroline Russell, Green Party London Assembly Member)

Blog for the No 3rd Runway Coalition

In concentrated pockets in 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 overflown Londoners the situation has worsened, with City Airport adopting performance based navigation (PBN) – an operation practice that concentrates arriving flights into narrower corridors.

The experience of people living with the daily nightmare of overhead noise are deeply worrying, as being unable to concentrate, relax or even sleep because of noise disruption has significant health impacts.

A recent report on aircraft noise produced by the London Assembly’s Environment Committee, which I chair, concluded that:

  • The Government and the Civil Aviation Authority should regulate noise disturbance more stringently.

  • This should include the use of lower thresholds for 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.

  • Flight paths should be rotated to give respite for those living under concentrated flight paths.

  • Flight paths should be designed to minimise noise impacts: stacking, low-level overflying, and overlapping flight paths should be minimised.

  • All airports should provide predictable periods of respite for residents living under concentrated flight paths.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has issued guidance confirming that aircraft noise above 45 decibels on average is associated with ill-health, including cardiovascular disease and increases in hypertension.

Our current Government guidance is much less stringent, using a ‘disturbance’ threshold of 54 decibels – it was really disappointing that the recent Aviation Strategy Green Paper does not remedy this.

The impact of aircraft noise is also particularly damaging to children’s education, negatively affecting reading comprehension and memory skills.

The RANCH project, an international study that examined the effects of noise exposure, looked at reading comprehension in 2,010 children aged between 9 and 10 from 89 schools around Amsterdam Schiphol, Madrid Barajas, and London Heathrow airports. They found that a 5 decibel increase in noise exposure is associated with a two-month delay in learning for primary school children in the UK.[1]

And yet Heathrow Airport still proposes to build a new runway to increase flights from around 475,000 to around 740,000 a year. This will have a devastating impacet. The House of Commons Transport Select Committee concluded that more than 323,000 people will be newly affected by noise pollution if expansion at Heathrow goes ahead.[2]

Around 460 schools neighbouring Heathrow already hear aircraft noise above 54 decibels, higher than the onset threshold of the effect on children’s memory and learning. Some have resorted to building pods in the playground for children to shelter in to minimise noise exposure – but playgrounds should be for playing, for kids to stretch their legs, not to have to dash into hiding every few minutes.

A third runway would mean a minimum of 24 more schools suffering from aircraft noise that busts the maximum levels recommended by the World Health Organisation.

The latest noise guidance (Survey of Noise Attitudes, 2014) shows our sensitivity to noise has increased, but this wasn’t reflected in the Government’s Airports National Policy Statement.

The Government refuses to set what it determines an ‘acceptable’ increase in noise level, and can therefore avoid being held to account for the damage they are and will inflict on overflown Londoners.

The drive towards filling airspace capacity must be checked. For too many people, including children, aircraft noise is a major intrusion into their everyday lives. It is not an acceptable price to pay for air travel. It isn’t right and must be challenged.

Caroline Russell

London Assembly Member

Green Party

[1] Clarke et al (2005) “Exposure-Effect Relations between Aircraft and Road Traffic Noise Exposure at School and Reading Comprehension” https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b9cc/64b991c3f981bf9e57dcfdd58e68953d41d6.pdf

[2] TSC (2018) Inquiry into the Airports NPS, Figure 43, p.133 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmtrans/548/548.pdf

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Boris may follow Heathrow legal case “with lively interest” – while business lobby insists 3rd runway must go ahead

The Sun reports that Boris hinted, in a reply to a question by Caroline Lucas, that he might change government policy on Heathrow. The Sun says Mr Johnson told MPs he will “study the outcome of the court cases” on the Heathrow 3rd runway plans, with a “lively interest.” This is especially relevant now that the Appeal Court has permitted appeals by all the legal challenges, which were rejected on 1st May.  Green Party MP Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion) asked if the Prime Minister would scrap the third runway given his opposition to the scheme as London mayor. She said: “Few will forget his pledge to lie down in front of the bulldozers to stop the construction of a third runway at Heathrow Airport. Luckily for him, luckily for us all, he is now at the steering wheel and can turn those bulldozers around.”  Boris replied: “Of course, the bulldozers are some way off but I am following with lively interest the court cases.”  Business groups will shortly be writing to Boris, to put pressure on him not to cancel the runway, pushing the line that failing to support a third runway will “prevent us all from successfully building a global Britain”.
.

 

The question by Caroline Lucas, and reply by Boris Johnson on 25th July, can be seen at https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2019-07-25a.1456.8&s=Runway#g1472.4


HEATHROW HINT Boris Johnson hints he may scrap Heathrow third runway in expansion U-turn

By Steve Hawkes (The Sun)
26 Jul 2019,

THE PM hinted yesterday he might change Government policy on a third runway at Heathrow Airport.

Mr Johnson told MPs he will “study the outcome of the court cases” in relation to the expansion of the west London airport with a “lively interest.”

Last year MPs backed a third runway at Heathrow Airport, however, several environmental groups are challenging that decision in the courts.

Green Party MP Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion) asked if the Prime Minister would scrap the third runway given his opposition to the scheme as London mayor.

She said:  “The UK’s air pollution is at illegal levels and scientists are clear that we need to do a lot more to address the growing climate crisis.

“Few will forget the Prime Minister’s pledge to lie down in front of the bulldozers to stop the construction of a third runway at Heathrow airport.

“Luckily for him—luckily for us all—he is now at the steering wheel and can turn those bulldozers around.

“Will he do it? Will he scrap the third runway?”   Link

Responding, Mr Johnson said:  “Of course, the bulldozers are some way off, but I am following the court cases with a lively interest because I share the hon. Lady’s concerns about air quality and pollution.

“However, I would point out parenthetically that NOx pollution has in fact fallen by 29% under this Conservative Government. The hon. Lady did not point that out.

“I will study the outcome of the court cases with a lively interest.

Mr Johnson also said the Northern Powerhouse Rail project – also known as HS3 – is something that should “definitely” happen.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9587615/boris-johnson-hints-he-may-scrap-heathrow-third-runway-in-expansion-u-turn/

.


Business groups challenge PM to ditch Heathrow opposition

25.7.2019 (Sky News)

A letter from major business groups to Boris Johnson will urge the new PM to support the airport’s expansion, Sky News learns.

By Mark Kleinman, City editor

Boris Johnson is facing his first substantive challenge from Britain’s business community with a demand that he ditches his long-standing opposition to the expansion of Heathrow Airport.

Sky News has learned that five major UK business groups, including the CBI and British Chambers of Commerce, have signed a letter to Mr Johnson in which he will be warned that failing to support a third runway will “prevent us all from successfully building a global Britain”.

The letter will be sent in the coming days, soon after the new prime minister stood in Downing Street and pledged to back major infrastructure projects across Britain with billions of pounds of new investment.

However, the intervention from some of the UK’s most influential business groups on Mr Johnson’s first full day as prime minister will throw the spotlight on to an issue which has been politically toxic for the former London mayor.

In 2015, he vowed as the MP for Uxbridge – a constituency which is close to the UK’s busiest aviation hub – to “lie down in front of those bulldozers and stop the construction of that third runway”.

When MPs voted on the expansion of Heathrow last year, the then foreign secretary opted to fly to Afghanistan in order to avoid voting against the government of which he was a member.

https://news.sky.com/story/business-groups-challenge-pm-to-ditch-heathrow-opposition-11770188

.

.

 

Read more »

Bristol Airport expansion plans – to grow from 8m to 12m annual passengers – ‘can’t be at any cost’

Bath and North East Somerset Council (Banes), which has declared a climate emergency, said tourism “cannot be at any cost”. 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.  This is just to allow people to take ever more leisure flights.  Bristol’s cabinet member for climate emergency, welcomed news the airport will reduce its direct emissions on the airport itself, but said “…it doesn’t alter the fact that expansion of air travel is inconsistent with having declared a climate emergency.” The main carbon emissions from airport expansion are due to the flights if facilitates, not the airport itself. The environmental impacts of tourism, including those on Bath and Bristol, cannot be allowed to continue, and growth “cannot be at any cost.”  More than 2,000 people have objected to the airport’s proposals, including Stop Bristol Airport Expansion, and Bath’s Liberal Democrat MP Wera Hobhouse. North Somerset Council will make a decision on the plans later this year.

.

 

Bristol Airport expansion plans ‘can’t be at any cost’

  • 25 July 2019  (BBC)

One of the UK’s top tourist destinations has warned against expansion of a nearby airport.

Bath and North East Somerset Council (Banes), which has declared a climate emergency, said tourism “cannot be at any cost”.

Millions of tourists and day trippers visit the Georgian city each year.

Bristol Airport wants to expand to handle up to 12 million passengers a yearand has brought forward plans to make it “carbon neutral” by 2025.

“We need to plan ahead to ensure we can continue to meet demand for air travel to and from the region we serve,” it said.

The airport says it had responded to the climate emergency declarations by bringing forward its plan to reduce emissions in response to concerns made by neighbouring authorities.

Electric vehicles

This would put Bristol at the forefront of carbon reduction in the UK airport sector, it says.

It also plans an increased use of electric vehicles, a shift to renewable energy and increasing the cost of its drop-off parking as this is the “least sustainable way” to get to the airport.

Councillor Sarah Warren, Banes cabinet member for climate emergency, welcomed news the airport will reduce its direct emissions.

“It will be interesting to hear the fine details of their plans but it doesn’t alter the fact that expansion of air travel is inconsistent with having declared a climate emergency,” she said.

“While tourism is a vital sector of the economy sector… it cannot be at any cost. The challenge is to maintain the city as an important visitor destination while managing the environmental impacts of tourism.”

More than 2,000 people have objected to the proposals, including Stop Bristol Airport Expansion, and Bath’s Liberal Democrat MP Wera Hobhouse.

North Somerset Council will make a decision on the plans later this year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-48988700

.


Local campaign Stop Bristol Expansion says:

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.

BRISTOL AIRPORT IS BIG ENOUGH !

Airport expansion will lead to:

  • Increased greenhouse gas emissions that offset 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.
North Somerset Council, which is responsible for Airport planning and regulation, NOW HAS NEW COUNCILLORS following the local elections on 2nd May. There’s much you can do to persuade them of the case against Airport expansion – see our ‘Take Action‘ page. 

PLANNING APPROVAL IS NOT YET A DONE DEAL.
THE DECISIVE MEETING OF NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL PLANNING & REGULATORY COMMITTEE HAS BEEN POSTPONED FOR THE 6TH TIME AS ACTION GROUPS PUT FORWARD YET MORE INFORMATION AND ARGUMENTS AGAINST EXPANSION.

THE LATEST DATE (as at 15 July) NOW SEEMS TO BE SOMETIME IN SEPTEMBER.

See more at

STOP BRISTOL AIRPORT EXPANSION …

.


See earlier:

Crowdfunding appeal: Bristol Airport is Big Enough – Help Stop Further Expansion

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.

Click here to view full story…

Bristol airport hope to expand from 8 to 12 million annual passengers; 73% rise in CO2 emissions

Bristol Airport is hoping to expand. There is a consultation that started on 19th December, and ends on 26th January, on their plans. Details can be found here.  The headline application issue is a 50% growth in passengers – from the current 8.2 million per year, to 12 million by the mid 2020’s. Carbon emissions from flights are estimated to rise by 73% from 746 ktCO2 in 2017 to 1,290 ktCO2 with 12 million passengers. The increase in passengers will be achieved by de-restricting night flights up to 4,000 per year, expanding car parks, changing road lay outs, and building a multi-storey car park (persuasively capped with some wind turbines). There are further plans to raise passenger numbers to 20 million by 2040. There is a lot of local opposition, focused on issues such as congested roads, ‘parking blights’ (cars parked in lanes etc), other local environmental impacts, noise pollution – through the night and day. There are some minimal hyper-localised ‘Noise Insulation Grants’ (up to £5000 for glazing). The airport plans to get more income in from cafes, shops and car parking, to boost profits. Bristol Airport is entirely owned by Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan – it is not British owned at all.

Click here to view full story…

Read more »

What is driving London City Airport’s expansion plans? John Stewart comment

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.
.

 

WHAT’S DRIVING LONDON CITY’S EXPANSION PLANS

HACAN East chair John Stewart assesses the plans set out in the Master Plan, looks at London City’s new strategy and asks whether it will succeed

8th July 2019

London City is proposing to almost double the number of flights using the airport (1). In percentage terms, that is a bigger increase than Heathrow is aiming for with its third runway. In order to drive through this scale of expansion, the East London airport has had to up its game. Its aim is to promote London City as a major player on the aviation scene.

It is no longer content to be London’s ‘other’ airport, the niche business airport, a sideshow to the headline-grabbing Heathrow.

It now wants to portray itself as a key driver of the regional economy. The Canadian-led consortium which bought the airport in 2016 has replaced nearly all the top management team.

It is now commonplace for London City to host key receptions at the party conferences. It was a sponsor of the recent Evening Standard business awards. Only last week it hosted The Future of Aviation conference.

This new approach has a clear purpose: to persuade a wide range of decision makers to back its expansion plans. So, what’s the driving force behind City’s expansion plans? And what is its strategy to achieve its expansion and will it succeed?

Those are the three questions we consider. What’s driving the expansion plans? It stems from the £2bn the current owners of the airport forked out when they bought the airport in 2016. The high figure took the markets by surprise.

The owners need a return on that investment. Historically, London City has been mainly a business airport. For many years business passengers made up over 60% of its total (the average for UK airports is less than 20%) but last year business passengers accounted for just 50% of passengers and the Master Plan predicts that will fall to 36% by 2035.

The airport expects the actual number of business passengers to increase over the coming years but these business passengers tend to be concentrated into the morning and evening rush hours. To make best use of the rest of the day the new owners want to attract more leisure passengers.

Most of the additional flights it wants would operate in the ‘off-peak’ periods and at weekends: it wants to drop the 24 hour closure at weekends – it was only given permission to open in the late 1980s on condition that there were no planes between 12.30pm Saturday and 12.30pm on Sunday because of the large numbers who live very close to the airport.

The density of the population around London City exceeds that of any other airport in the UK. London City wants to attract ‘premium’ leisure passengers.

It can’t offer budget flights because Ryanair and EasyJet planes are too big to use the airport. It plans to build on the income profile of its existing users who have the highest mean annual income of any UK airport: business passengers, £94,000; leisure passengers £92,000. [The actual CAA data including incomes, for 2017, is here]

The Consortium which bought London City also owns Bristol Airport. Robert Sinclair, the newly-installed CEO at London City, came from Bristol Airport where he had been CEO for nine years. It is assumed that Sinclair, a man with a background in business and finance, has been brought in to steer expansion.

Indeed, shortly after he was appointed, Sinclair revealed his intentions in a press interview laying out the expansion plans, only to quickly back-track saying they were just ‘options’ when he realized they might not be universally popular.

London City’s Master Plan, published just over a week ago, confirmed the ‘options’ Sinclair talked about. It wants to almost double the number of flights from current levels. This would involve seeking planning permission to lift the current annual cap of 111,000 a year.

It also wants to get rid of the weekend respite period and to fly more planes in the early morning and late evening. City has no night flights and has no plans to introduce them. London City’s new strategy I suspect most national politicians regard London City as a ‘nice to have’ airport – somewhere convenient for business people from Zurich or Luxembourg to get to City or Dockland for a meeting – but not a national economic asset like Heathrow.

London City has set out to change that image – and thus win support for expansion – by attempting to portray itself as a key driver, maybe even the key driver, of the economic development of East, NE and SE London.

How important it actually is to the economy of the region still has to be independently assessed but it is the message it is using to try and promote itself as an airport which is critical to the economy.

It is taking its message not only to national politicians but to local authorities in its region in order to convince them it is in their interest to back expansion. It is a central part of it new strategy to woo them in this way. It has set up meetings with most of the local authority leaders and chief executives.

It understands it has a lot of ground to make up because it has had an uneasy relationship with many of these local authorities. Ever since it opened in the late 1980s a number of local authorities have been fully aware of the new noise their boroughs experienced but have been less certain about its benefits to their residents.

London City is not like Heathrow which employs 76,000 people and which a lot of local people use to fly for business or on holiday. City employs only around 3,000 people and, because its fares tend to be higher than other South East airports, most local people have never flown from it.

The relationship with the boroughs was not improved by the airport’s poor record in consulting with them on key decisions. As part of its strategy to position itself as a key regional player, London City has also begun to make wider links. It is lobbying for a Crossrail station to be built in the vicinity of the airport. It has joined the coalition to improve rail links to the new developments at Ebbsfleet in Kent.

No longer is it content to be seen as a niche airport primarily serving Dockland the City. Will the new strategy work? It is worth repeating that its claims to be a key driver of the regional economy have yet to be independently assessed and tested. And until they are, we do not know whether they stand up or are just clever marketing by airport owners needing to recoup a return on the price they paid for the airport.

For the airport a lot rides on whether its claims stand the test of careful and informed scrutiny. However, what is noticeable by its absence from the strategy and from the Master Plan is any real attempt to get the local communities impacted by the airport onside.

I wrote in an earlier piece: “You could be an aviation enthusiast, a frequent flyer or a climate denier and still be critical of London City Airport’s draft Master Plan published just over a week ago.

How can an airport in this day and age propose to double flight numbers, remove weekend respite, increase early morning and late evening flights and offer the communities impacted nothing in return?” On the face of it, London City is taking a huge risk in sidelining community concerns.

It is difficult to gauge how aware the new owners and the chief executive, whom they installed, are aware of the risk. The fact that the Master Plan puts so much emphasis on the introduction of cleaner and less noisy planes suggests that they know there is the potential for community and environmental opposition but my sense is they have underestimated it.

My reading of the situation is this: London City is banking on its ability to build up a large enough coalition of local and national politicians (including many local authorities) as well as business people which buys into its strategy that it is a key driver of the regional economy for it to be able to override local and environmental opposition.

The airport, though, in its Master Plan has been careful to make an exception for the communities closest to the airport. It has guaranteed that (because of the introduction of cleaner and less noisy planes), the noise and pollution affecting these communities will not worsen with expansion.

The CEO Robert Sinclair, when I have seen him in action, does seem to have a genuine empathy with these communities but it is also an astute move. Most of these communities are in the London Brough of Newham, the planning authority that would need to approve any application for expansion. It is communities further away from the airport that will get nothing but more planes out of the expansion.

I suspect Robert Sinclair doesn’t really believe there is too much of a noise problem in these areas. My worry is that he has concluded from the low number of complaints the airport receives that those disturbed by noise are a loud but unrepresentative minority who can be sacrificed in the interest of the wider employment and economic benefits London City claims expansion will bring.

What a mistake! Airport after airport will tell you that complaint figures in themselves are not a reliable indication of the impact the planes have on local communities.

I would suggest this is particularly so in the case of London City. It overflies some of the poorest and most ethnically diverse communities in the UK.

It flies over streets of people crammed into squalid, rented accommodation, often migrants newly arrived in London. This is not the demographic that is likely to fire off an email of complaint.

I wonder, too, if any new chief executive can really appreciate the depth of latent anger there exists amongst so many in the community about the way they have been treated by the airport over the years. It is a relatively new airport, just over 30 years old. Many residents lived in the area long before the airport was built.

They were promised it would be small, operating only ‘whispering jets’. They feel cheated as promise after promise has been broken by an airport they rarely if ever use.

Many are furious about the way London City concentrated all its flight paths in 2016 without properly consulting them. And now they are being asked to accept an expansion package that not only offers them next-to-nothing in return but actually takes away some of the conditions which were imposed to make their lives more bearable.

Although, of course, everybody under the flight paths is not disturbed by the noise, it can be forgotten that London’s ‘other’ airport impacts more people than any UK airport bar Heathrow and Manchester. According to London City’s noise action plan 74,000 people live with its noise zone (as defined by the EU).

It is still early days, but the level of community and local authority mobilizing against the expansion proposals within a week of them being announced suggests that London City may have underestimate the level of opposition they have generated.

And Extinction Rebellion is hovering!

Although the Master Plan acknowledges London City has climate change responsibilities and is keen to fulfil them, it will cut little ice with the environmental activists who will simply see it as an airport which is planning to nearly double its flights, largely for the benefit of wealthy passengers, at a time of climate emergency.

London City has adopted a high-risk strategy:

 It is banking on convincing decision-makers to buy into its as yet untested view that it is a key driver of the regional economy and to accept its assessment that it will be able to attract enough ‘premium’ leisure passengers to make its expansion viable;

 It believes those arguments are strong enough for is to downgrade – even come close to dismissing – the concerns of local communities at a time there is much latent anger at the way they have been betrayed by the airport in the past and are not prepared to be messed round with again;

 And it is pressing ahead with this growth at a time when there is a growing rebellion against the climate change impacts of aviation.

Only time will tell if it will pull it off, but what’s certain: it will be in for a very bumpy ride.

 

(1). The London City Master Plan, currently out for public consultation, where all its plans are outlined: https://assets.ctfassets.net/ggj4kbqgcch2/2mPk96XvzYbi3gJiSB6kbQ/8348be50e732fb0aa1daba2fb18 b9516/p01-85_LCY_MP_Final_Reduced.pdf

 

https://hacan.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/London-City-Airport-Master-Plan-article-revised.pdf

.


See earlier:

RESIDENTS DISMAYED BY LONDON CITY AIRPORT EXPANSION PLANS TO DOUBLE FLIGHT NUMBERS

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.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Hammersmith Society gives its advice on Heathrow consultation – to respond, just say “NO”

The Hammersmith Society aims to ensure the borough is a “safer, more convenient and better place in which to live, work and enjoy ourselves.” They have been looking at Heathrow’s consultation on its expansion plans – equivalent to adding on a new airport the size of Gatwick. They warn that if people fill in the response document, giving a preference for one or other option in the questions, this may (quite illegitimately) be taken by Heathrow as “support” for their plans. So the Society’s advice is that people do not engage with the questions; the whole plan is bad for Hammersmith, so JUST SAY NO. The Society says on Heathrow plans to burn biomass and plant some trees  “that’s hardly the point considering the carbon footprint of the industry it facilitates – it’s not even a drop in the ocean – this amounts to lip-service greenwash, rather insulting to our intelligence”. On the consultation, the Society comments: “the weight of documents is tremendous, and more than a little excessive.  The reader eventually concludes this is an attempt to bamboozle and wear down those trying to interpret them, to make them give up in the belief that the project must have been well thought-through, because of the weight of documentation alone.”
.

 

Read more »

All the claimants, whose challenges against the DfT on Heathrow expansion were rejected, now given leave to appeal

The Court of Appeal has granted the claimants against the Government’s plans to expand Heathrow permission to appeal their claims in a hearing beginning on 21 October 2019. The Government had argued permission should be refused.  Lord Justice Lindblom stated: “The importance of the issues raised in these and related proceedings is obvious.”  Four Councils (Wandsworth, Richmond, Hammersmith & Fulham, Windsor & Maidenhead) with Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Plan B Earth and the Mayor London sought the appeal, after judges at the High Court ruled against the legal challenges  on 1st May.  Rob Barnstone, of the No 3rd Runway Coalition, commented: “Boris Johnson knows that Heathrow expansion cannot meet environmental targets, including on noise and air pollution. Mr Johnson has indicated he will be following the legal and planning processes very carefully. Then at the appropriate time, the project can be cancelled. We don’t expect any gimmicks but remain confident that Mr Johnson will stop this disastrous project, albeit at the correct time in the process. The decision by the Court of Appeal today may make that time a little sooner than previously thought.” Heathrow Hub has also been given permission to appeal.

.

Heathrow third runway campaigners get High Court go-ahead

22.7.2019 (BBC)

Campaigners against the expansion of Heathrow Airport have been given permission to challenge a High Court ruling over plans for a third runway.

Councils, residents, environmental charities and the mayor of London brought four separate judicial reviews of the Government’s decision to approve the plans.

The campaigners had their cases dismissed by two leading judges in May.

They were given the go-ahead to challenge that ruling on Monday.

During a two-week hearing in March they argued the plans would effectively create a “new airport” with the capacity of Gatwick and have “severe” consequences for Londoners.

Lord Justice Lindblom granted permission for a four-day hearing at the Court of Appeal in London, which will begin on 21 October.

Giving reasons for his decision, which he made based on case documents without a hearing, the judge said: “The importance of the issues raised in these and the related proceedings is obvious.”

The High Court case was brought against transport secretary Chris Grayling by local authorities and residents in London affected by the expansion, and charities including Greenpeace, Friends Of The Earth and Plan B.

The campaigners claimed the Government’s National Policy Statement setting out its support for the project failed to properly deal with the impact on air quality, climate change, noise and congestion.

Support from Labour MPs for the expansion helped push through the proposals to expand Europe’s busiest airport with a majority of 296 in a Commons vote in June last year.

Mr Grayling [Failing Grayling] said at the time the new runway would set a “clear path to our future as a global nation in the post-Brexit world”.   Construction could begin in 2021, with the third runway operational by 2026.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-49077721

.


HEATHROW COURT APPEAL GRANTED

22 July 2019

No 3rd Runway Coalition press release

The Court of Appeal has granted claimants against the Government’s plans to expand Heathrow permission to appeal their claims in a hearing beginning on 21 October 2019. The Government had argued permission should be refused. Lord Justice Lindblom stated:

“The importance of the issues raised in these and related proceedings is obvious. So too is the need for those issues to be finally resolved as swiftly as possible and with the least multiplication of costs.”

Reacting to the decision, Paul Beckford, Policy Director of the No 3rd Runway Coalition, said:

“We welcome the Court of Appeal’s recognition of the seriousness that the Heathrow expansion proposal brings. Our fight will continue to end the plans that would blight our environment and fall flat in the face of our climate emergency. We expect to win.”

Commenting ahead of the likely new prime minister taking office, Rob Barnstone, Coordinator of Stop Heathrow Expansion, said

“Boris Johnson knows that Heathrow expansion cannot meet environmental targets, including on noise and air pollution. Mr Johnson has indicated he will be following the legal and planning processes very carefully. Then at the appropriate time, the project can be cancelled. We don’t expect any gimmicks but remain confident that Mr Johnson will stop this disastrous project, albeit at the correct time in the process. The decision by the Court of Appeal today may make that time a little sooner than previously thought.”

ENDS.

The judgment can be found here: https://planb.earth/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Permission-to-Appeal-Order.pdf

For more information, contact Paul Beckford on  paul@no3rdrunwaycoalition.co.uk

.


See earlier:

Hillingdon and the other 4 Councils seek permission to appeal Heathrow ruling

Following the Divisional Court’s decision on 1 May 2019 to dismiss the legal challenge brought by Hillingdon Council and others, expert legal opinion has been sought by them in relation to whether there are any grounds to appeal this decision. There is no automatic right of appeal and permission to appeal is needed, in the first instance, from the court which heard the legal challenge. Therefore, an application for permission to appeal is being made to the Divisional Court on behalf of Hillingdon Council and the other local authorities involved in the legal challenge (Wandsworth, Richmond, Hammersmith & Fulham, Windsor & Maidenhead) – it will be supported by Greenpeace and the Mayor of London.  The appeal is on 2 specific grounds which both have their origin in European Law. 1). Relating to the Habitats Directive, and 2). the relationship of the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) to the councils’ Local Plans, and the noise assessment and metric used by the government, under the SEA Directive. If the Divisional Court refuses the application, the councils can apply for permission to appeal directly to the Court of Appeal. Plan B and Friends of the Earth are also appealing, on different grounds. The councils have always known this would be a long slog …

Click here to view full story…

Plan B to appeal against the Court’s judgment rejecting the Heathrow legal challenges

Plan B Earth is to Appeal against the decision of the Judges, on 1st May, to reject the legal challenges by the five councils etc, by Friends of the Earth,  Plan B Earth, and Mr Paul Spurrier (as well as Heathrow Hub).  Plan B Earth has published its application for permission to appeal against the judgment of Hickinbottom LJ and Holgate J . “The Appellant wishes to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision … to designate the Airports National Policy Statement (“the ANPS”) in support of the expansion of Heathrow Airport under the Planning Act 2008 (“the 2008 Act”), on the basis of his failure to give proper consideration to the climate change impacts of the proposal.  Plan B mention specific errors, including that the “Court erred in law in treating the minimum target of 80% greenhouse gas emissions reduction by 2050, established by the Climate Change Act 2008 (“CCA”) as precluding Government policy which implied emissions reduction of greater than 80%: The Court proceeded on the basis that “Government policy relating to … climate change” could not differ at all (or at least could not differ materially) from the base level of the emissions target set out in the CCA. That approach is fundamentally flawed.”

Click here to view full story…

Judges reject judicial review challenges against DfT’s Heathrow 3rd runway NPS

The judges at the High Court have handed down their judgement, which was to reject all the legal challenges against the DfT and the Secretary of State for Transport, on the government decision to approve a 3rd Heathrow runway, through the Airports NPS (National Policy Statement). The judges chose to make their ruling exclusively on the legality, and “rationality” of the DfT decision, ignoring the facts and details of the Heathrow scheme and the NPS process – or the areas where relevant information was ignored by the DfT.  In the view of the judges, the process had been conducted legally. They threw out challenges on air pollution, surface access, noise and habitats – as well as carbon emissions. The latter being on the grounds that the Paris Agreement, though ratified by the UK government, has not been incorporated into UK law, so the DfT did not have to consider it. The Paris Agreement requires countries to aim for only a global 1.5C rise in temperature, not 2 degrees (as in the current UK Climate Change Act). Read comments by Neil Spurrier, one of those making a legal challenge.  There are now likely to be appeals, perhaps even direct to the Supreme Court.

Click here to view full story…

Comment by Plan B Earth and Extinction Rebellion, on Judges’ rejection of Heathrow legal challenges

The High Court dismissed all the legal challenges to the Government’s plans to expand Heathrow, including the claims brought by Friends of the Earth and Plan B on the grounds of inconsistency with the Paris Agreement on climate change. Tim Crosland, Director of Plan B and a legal adviser to Extinction Rebellion, said: “…it is increasingly difficult to see how the Government’s reckless plans to expand Heathrow Airport can proceed. Following the recent Extinction Rebellion protests there is widespread recognition that we are in a state of climate and ecological emergency. The Court has upheld Chris Grayling’s surprising contention that the Paris Agreement is “irrelevant” to Government policy on climate change. It ignored the fact that the Government stated in May last year that it planned to decarbonise the economy by 2050. Instead it accepted Grayling’s argument that the CCC considers the current target of 80% emissions reductions by 2050 to be consistent with the Paris Agreement. Tomorrow the CCC is expected to expose the fallacy of that position by recommending that the Government implement a target of net zero by 2050,… Since that recommendation is obviously inconsistent with the expansion of Heathrow, presumably the plans will now need to be reviewed.”

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

.

Read more »

WordPress › Error

There has been a critical error on this website.

Learn more about troubleshooting WordPress.