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.”
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.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
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 email@example.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.
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.
Lawyers, BDB Pitmans, for whom airport planning is an area of work, have commented on the change by the UK to a net zero carbon target by 2050 – and its effect on the aviation sector. They say the 1990 baseline was 778 million tonnes of CO2. With the 80% cut target, until 27th June, the UK had to cut CO2 emissions to 155.6 million tonnes by 2050. It now has to be reduced to 0 tonnes. The government understands that: “Achieving net-zero GHG emissions for the UK will rely on a range of Speculative options that currently have very low levels of technology readiness, very high costs, and/or significant barriers to public acceptability.” One change that will be needed is for people to fly less. The legal challenges in March 2019 against the Airports NPS had grounds relating to carbon emissions, but these were dismissed, on the basis of developments like the Paris Agreement had not yet being translated into UK law. Now the Appeal Court will hear the legal challenges, and as the CO2 target has been changed, presumably the conclusions of the NPS are now vulnerable. The Sec of State for Transport will need to review the NPS, considering whether there has been a “significant change in any circumstances.”
831: NET ZERO COMES INTO FORCE
28.6.2019 (By Angus Walker, Partner at bdb pitmans – lawyers)
Today’s entry reports on a highly significant amendment to the Climate Change Act 2008.
It is only changing an ‘8’ into ’10’, but will have a considerable effect on the future of life in the UK, including but not nearly limited to infrastructure projects.
Parliament has approved a change to section 1(1) of the Climate Change Act 2008 (CCA), an act that was given royal assent on the same day as the Planning Act 2008.
Section 1(1) stated until yesterday:
‘It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline.’
It now states:
‘It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 100% lower than the 1990 baseline.’
[The Sec of State referred to is Greg Clark, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). AW comment]
Spot the difference? The 1990 baseline was 778 million tonnes of CO2, and so until yesterday that had to be reduced to 155.6 million tonnes by 2050. It now has to be reduced to 0 tonnes.
The change was approved by the Commons on Monday (24 June) and the Lords on Wednesday (26 June).
The Lords had a ‘regret’ motion passed (that there wasn’t enough information on how the new target would be met, amongst other things), but still approved the change. It was then signed into law by the relevant minister Chris Skidmore MP later that day.
By its terms it came into force yesterday (27 June).
Of the justifications for changing the target available in the CCA, the Government has chosen the following in the preamble to thestatutory instrumentmaking the amendment:
‘The Secretary of State considers that since the Act was passed, there have been significant developments in scientific knowledge about climate change that make it appropriate to amend the percentage specified in section 1(1) of the Act.’
The new target is commonly referred to as ‘net zero’. That phrase is also the title of theCommittee on Climate Change’s advice, which must be obtained before the threshold can be changed.
Note that the advice was published in May and was sought in October 2018, so it is unfair to say that Theresa May only thought about this since resigning as leader of the Conservative Party – the wheels were in motion much earlier. The speed with which the change has been made could, however, have been prompted by her desire to leave a legacy.
The scale of the challenge should not be underestimated. The Net Zero report says (on page 168 and elsewhere): ‘Achieving net-zero GHG emissions for the UK will rely on a range of Speculative options that currently have very low levels of technology readiness, very high costs, and/or significant barriers to public acceptability.’
The speculative options considered (on pages 156-158, which are in addition to the recommendations to achieve the previous 80% reduction) are:
behavioural changes (ie eating less meat and flying less);
changes in land use such as growing more trees (50,000 hectares a year – more than two Rutlands);
removing CO2 directly from the air (four methods are suggested) and
(inventing and) using synthetic fuels.
Note that the Airports National Policy Statement legal challenge in March this year had grounds relating to climate change. These were dismissed because although developments such as the Paris Agreement had happened, they had not yet been translated into UK law – the Climate Change Act 2008 target was the thing.
Now that that target has been changed, presumably the conclusions of the NPS are now vulnerable.
The judges said (at paragraph 648 of thejudgment):
‘In our view, given the statutory scheme in the CCA 2008 and the work that was being done on if [sic] and how to amend the domestic law to take into account the Paris Agreement, the Secretary of State did not arguably act unlawfully in not taking into account that Agreement when preferring the NWR Scheme and in designating the ANPS as he did. As we have described, if scientific circumstances change, it is open to him to review the ANPS; and, in any event, at the DCO stage this issue will be re-visited on the basis of the then up to date scientific position.’
That the judgment came out on 1 May and Net Zero came out on 2 May is no doubt a coincidence – even having received Net Zero, the Government could have taken ages to decide what to do with it rather than legislating only eight weeks later.
The Secretary of State [presumably the Sec of State for Transport, not BEIS ? AW note] must review an NPS or part of one if he or she thinks it is appropriate, which means considering:
‘(a) since the time when the statement was first published or (if later) last reviewed, there has been a significant change in any circumstances on the basis of which any of the policy set out in the statement was decided, (see link)
(b) the change was not anticipated at that time, and
(c) if the change had been anticipated at that time, any of the policy set out in the statement would have been materially different.’ [point number 108 ]
‘The Government agrees with the evidence set out by the Airports Commission that expansion at Heathrow Airport is consistent with the UK’s climate change obligations’.
Note that international aviation and shipping are currently not included in the calculation of UK emissions under the CCA. The Government appeared to say that they will be included when it comes to ‘net zero’ (see the debate in the Lords at column 1086) but was more circumspect in a written answer on the same day.
As can be seen from the above, the significance of this alteration to climate change targets is enormous and has the potential to affect life in the UK dramatically over the next 30 years.
By 2050, for any CO2 we emit, we will have to have in place equivalent carbon capture technology to cancel it out. So it doesn’t mean CO2 emissions will be impossible, but we will need technology in place that has not yet been invented on a large scale and an awful lot of trees.
Cancelling the £1 billion carbon capture and storage competition in November 2015 won’t help with that.
Plan B Earth skeleton argument for Heathrow legal Appeal in October – that Grayling’s designation of the NPS was unlawful
August 16, 2019
The legal challenge by Plan B Earth is one of the four that will be heard at the Appeal Court from the 17th October. They have published their skeleton argument, which says, in summary that on 27th June 2019, the UK carbon target was amended by statutory instrument to read “at least 100%” cut by 2050 (ie. net zero) rather than the previous target of an 80% cut. Plan B say the “Secretary of State [Grayling] proceeded on the false premise that the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the Government’s commitment to introducing a net zero carbon target in accordance with the Paris Agreement were “irrelevant” considerations for the purposes of s.5(8) of” the 2008 Climate Change Act. And the Secretary of State “chose to ignore these developments and proceeded as if there had been no material developments in government policy relating to climate change since 2008 and as if no change were in contemplation.” And “The basis of the Appellant’s claim that the designation of the ANPS was unlawful, and that it should be quashed, is that the Secretary of State approach to these matters was fundamentally flawed.”
People are signing up to the Flight Free UK website in good numbers. The campaign is asking people to commit to not fly at all in 2020. Many who have pledged not to fly have done blogs, about their experience. Now environmental scientist Alexandra Jellicoe report on her recent trip to Italy, by train. She loved the space in the train, the pull-down table for her laptop, the ability to walk down the train to the restaurant for a meal or snack. Alexandra worked out that her train trip probably cause the emission of about 480kg CO2 than if she had flown. By train, or even by road, you are reconnected with the place and the culture through which you are moving. You appreciate the huge distance travelled. You can stop off at places en route, for a few hours or a night, pleasantly and interestingly extending your holiday. Alexandra says: “I’ve completely reimagined how to explore the world. A holiday is no longer a jet to Mexico to lie by the beach for a week nor a quick weekend in Rome. I’ve rediscovered travel as something to be savoured rather than an inconvenience between home and holiday…. and a compulsion to discover new ways to live in a world so damaged by modern lifestyles. …Choosing NOT to fly has a powerful impact.”
Slow travel makes the whole experience far richer, as discovered by environmental scientist Alexandra Jellicoe on a recent trip to Italy.
It’s not often you get bumped up to first class for a tenner. I can’t believe my luck. The seats are like armchairs and pivot so you can recline into a perfect sleeping position. The pull-down table so generous I have plenty of space for my laptop, a coffee and a sandwich without having to channel my ninja skills, ready to catch a falling object at any moment. I managed to book last minute and the cabin is almost empty, the temperature perfectly controlled to ensure maximum comfort and I can stroll next door anytime I like for a hot meal. Oh, and did I mention the view? Train travel around Europe is a gem waiting for rediscovery.
I’ve been on a retreat at Villa Lugara near Baiso, Italy. I don’t envy my holiday mates on their return home, flying Ryan Air from Bologna to Bristol. Squished in like cattle, made to wait for two hours on the hot tarmac without explanation of the delay and refused free water. Modern air travel has been perversely designed to be endured rather than enjoyed. Tell me, when did you last enjoy a flight?
Slow travel is set to make a comeback. Travel that reconnects you with place and culture. If I didn’t have to whizz back to the UK to be with my young children, I would have stopped a day or two in all the places I’ve had to catch connecting trains – Paris, Turin, Milan, Bologna. Lingering to imbibe each cities’ culture, welcoming uncertainty as I navigate my way through unmapped streets and stumble over half understood conversations. Each city entices me to stay longer. This is not a holiday, this is akin to being the protagonist of a Hemmingway novel.
The booking engine LOCO2 offer a simple Europe-wide city to city search of alternative travel routes including overnight sleepers (expensive), high speed day trains (cheap) and every alternative you can think of in-between.
Trains are the lowest carbon emission form of easily accessible public transport. As a passionate traveller, mother and environmental scientist I’ve completely reimagined how to explore the world. A holiday is no longer a jet to Mexico to lie by the beach for a week nor a quick weekend in Rome. I’ve rediscovered travel as something to be savoured rather than an inconvenience between home and holiday. And this excitement has been triggered by a compulsion to discover new ways to live in a world so damaged by modern lifestyles.
Reduction in carbon emissions is critical to reduce global heating and whilst air travel may always be with us, it can no longer be the default mode of international transport. In order to prevent global heating in excess of 1.5 degrees we need Government action now, but we also need to reimagine our lifestyles. For many, modern travel lacks soul and adventure – jetting around the world in search of sun without engaging with the local people and culture deprives not only the traveller but also the destination community. The trend is economically non-specific and all are affected from the package holiday tourist to residents of vast complex five-star hotels. Slow travel immerses you in local culture and all are enriched.
I have to cross Paris from the Gare du Lyon to the Gare du Nord to catch my connecting train to London. Europe is experiencing a freak heatwave. I step down from the TGV and the 45-degree heat brings back memories of working in Sub-Saharan Africa. This oppressive weather makes it impossible to think and the city isn’t designed to withstand desert temperatures. As an environmental scientist my expertise is the provision of safe water to remote global communities. I’ve worked with indigenous tribes and small island developing states, both of which have been battling the consequences of climate change for decades. Yet little has been done to protect these vulnerable communities. Many have lost their homes and become aid dependent. As the consequences of unpredictable weather systems now threaten my own children, I feel that it is my duty to dedicate my life to protecting them – I may make little difference but I’m essentially an optimist, and hope is catching.
This summer we’re spending a month in France. We’ll take the kids by train, stop off in Paris, Lyon and Annecy. My eldest is always questioning the difference in local customs to ours and it’s this breadth of understanding and enquiry that I hope to inspire in all of my children. Travel, real travel, promotes empathy, compassion and tolerance of others, emotions that are severely under threat in modern society. If we’re lucky we may even pick up a little of the language too.
Do you feel powerless taking action as an individual? Would you feel differently if you knew many others were taking the same action?
Flight Free UK is a people-powered campaign which asks people to agree not to fly in the year of 2020 – knowing that 100,000 others have pledged to do the same. It’s about taking collective responsibility to reduce the amount we fly in order to lessen our impact on the planet.
Flying less is one of the most powerful ways we as individuals can reduce our carbon footprint, and with experts predicting that we have just a handful of years to take meaningful action on climate change, there has never been a better time to address the issue.
Many of us fly without a second thought – it is an ingrained part of our culture, and a part of our global society, as people, goods and services are transported around the globe. Flight Free UK aims to raise awareness of the impact of those flights and inspire people to take action.
It is easy to think that individual actions don’t make a difference, and not to bother trying. But if we can show that there are 100,000 people who are prepared to take an air-free year, we send a clear signal to industry and politicians – and also to each other – that there are many who are willing to change their lifestyles to protect the climate.
Sign the pledge and join the growing number of people who will be flight-free in 2020.
Make the pledge to be flight-free in 2020
*For your signature to count towards the 100,000, you must be a UK resident. If you select a different country your pledge will be held on the database as an international pledge.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Eagle-eyed members checking our diary will have spotted that Heathrow chose to splashdown with its consultation roadshow in Hammersmith Town Hall on Wednesday 24th July, the 50th anniversary of the return of the Apollo 11 astronauts.
The date helps highlight the importance of this consultation, something that would provide all of Hammersmith with an experience aggregating daily to something rather closer to launch than to tranquillity. We had the consultation about airspaceearlier in the year (results pending), proposing changes to airspace with new overflights, regardless of a third runway or any other expansion. This consultation covers the Third Runway et al, equivalent to adding a new airport the size of Gatwick.
Please attend the consultation if you can; below are half a dozen pointers to questions you might ask. Please beware that if you offer a preference for this option or that, you may well be counted as a “supporter” of some kind. If you can’t make the Hammersmith event, there are many others elsewhere.
The expansion is a great deal more than a third runway, as the visual above shows. It helps knowing the airport layout, but briefly the masterplan shows wholesale reconfiguration of the existing airport, leaving almost nothing untouched: more expansion of the recent Terminal 2 (furthest away in the visual), with 2 new satellites T2C and T2D for 12-14 aircraft each, a new extension to Terminal 5 (T5X: nearest in the visual), extensions to T5 satellites T5B and T5C, demolition of T1 and T3, reconfiguration of T4, and two new multi-story car parks.
Heathrow would be a massive building site for 10-15 years, Laing O’Rourke and its concrete suppliers should be very happy indeed.
These expansions aim to increase annual passenger capacity by 22M (T2: 30M -> 52M) plus 7M (T5: 33M -> 40M), plus more at T4. This is without considering “T5XN”, dedicated for support of the third runway. Bear in mind that Heathrow was said to be “at capacity” in 2008 with 68M passengers, yet is already handling 80M (17.5% more), explaining the increased noise already noted locally. This plan looks to add another 36% on top of that. Overall it represents a doubling in size since T5 was completed in 2008: the DfT maximum figure quoted in the consultation is 130M for 2030. Was that ever envisaged when T5 was agreed, and what has this got to do with “less flying” ?
The third runway is no ordinary runway. This is 95% of the length of the existing WW2-built ones at 3500m (vs. 3660m existing). Any thoughts that this runway will be for short-haul flights only is immediately dispelled, an A380, the largest passenger aircraft in the World, only requires 2900m. You might ask why the runway is the same size as current ones, and what this means for noise, pollution and overflights, particularity in the Northern part of the borough.
The consultation promises the return of auralisation booths. We commented at some length about the shortcomings the last time, (which was fed back to Heathrow) you should seek to hear aircraft banking at 2000-3000ft overhead, and you need to hear the common A319, A320, A330, A340’s and Boeing 747, 757, 767 and 777, not Heathrow’s selected choice of A320neo, 787 and A380. Only then you can provide proper feedback.
It may not be of direct local concern here, but the land-grab and destruction of local communities around Heathrow, notably the historic centre of Hamondsworth, Longford, the Lakeside “energy from waste” centre, and other buildings is considerable. Of more local concern is the effect of doubling passenger numbers, a large proportion of whom will be jostling for room on Crossrail, the Tube, Heathrow Express, roads and other services, which have not allowed for a doubling of airport passenger volumes.
There are a fair number of pages covering sustainability. But here, the airport is considering itself as an island, independent of the airlines, aircraft etc and while it’s true that the energy centres supplying the buildings do mostly burn biomass that is moderately locally sourced (within 50 miles), and they are to 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.
As always with these consultations, 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.
But there’s an easier way to deal with your response: we recommend that you don’t pass GO, don’t engage in any optioneering questions for this or that; it’s bad for Hammersmith in almost every respect – just say NO.
The DfT (under Grayling) has launched a call for evidence into whether more consumers could be given the option of buying carbon offsets to reduce the carbon footprint of their travel (plane, ferry, train, coach etc). The DfT also asks if transport operators should provide information on carbon emissions. And it will explore the public’s understanding of carbon emissions from the journeys they make and the options to offset them. The transport sector contributes about a third of the UK total CO2 emissions, and these are not falling. Aviation CO2 is increasing. Presumably Grayling hopes that getting some passengers offsetting will somehow cancel out the horrific increases in transport carbon from infrastructure he has pushed through. The DfT seems aware that many people are not persuaded of the effectiveness of carbon offsetting. It seems aware that offsets should be from domestic schemes, not from abroad. But the main problem is offsetting does not reduce carbon. All it does is slightly absolve someone’s conscience, while effectively cancelling out the carbon savings made by others. Offsetting is essentially a con. Offsets are damaging, as they help to continue with “business as usual” behind the greenwashing. See “Cheat Neutral”
Government launches call for evidence on carbon offsetting
Call for evidence to look into if more consumers could be offered the chance to carbon offset to reduce their carbon footprint when buying travel tickets.
Transport accounted for approximately one third of UK carbon dioxide emissions in 2018, and the government is inviting views on whether companies selling travel tickets including for flights, ferries, trains and coach travel should have to offer additional carbon offsets so that consumers can choose to compensate when they book.
This call for evidence will seek more evidence on the public awareness of carbon emissions caused by transport journeys and the various options available to offset them.
Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said:
Climate change affects every one of us and we are committed to ensuring that transport plays its part in delivering net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.An offsetting scheme could help inform travellers about how much carbon their journey produces and provide the opportunity to fund schemes, like tree planting, to compensate for those emissions.However, our focus remains to target the development, production and uptake of zero emission technology across all modes of transport.
Tim Alderslade, Chief Executive of Airlines UK said:
UK airlines are committed to decarbonising aviation and are working with government to continue progress through the introduction of new greener technologies, including more efficient aircraft and engines, sustainable aviation fuels and vital airspace modernisation. As a global sector, international carbon offsetting has a critical role to play in enabling aviation to reach our targets, and UK airlines are participating in the global carbon offsetting scheme – CORSIA – which will deliver carbon neutral global aviation growth from 2020.Carbon offsetting can enable individuals and organisations to compensate for the carbon emissions produced from their journeys, by paying for projects that reduce an equivalent amount of emissions. These emissions savings are generated through a wide variety of projects, which can range from planting trees to installing solar panels.
Among the issues the call for evidence will address are concerns that some consumers may not trust that their payments are supporting worthwhile, quality projects. It will also look at consumer awareness around the carbon emissions from different journey types, what carbon offsets are available or how they might offset the emissions from their journey.The government also aims to set up a stronger and more attractive market for domestic carbon offsetting that will encourage more businesses to support cost-effective emission reductions.
In gaining valuable insights from the public and industry, the call for evidence aims to help consumers make more informed decisions by providing more information about the environmental impact of their travel options.
This is the latest move in the government’s drive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from across the economy, including from the transport sector, following the Prime Minister’s historic commitment to make the UK the first major economy to legislate to end its contribution to global warming by 2050. With transport accounting for an increasingly large share of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions, as emissions from other sectors are reduced, government has recognised the need to increase our ambition and step up the pace of progress.
That is why we have been developing our plans to drive down carbon emissions across transport, including in last year’s Road to Zero Strategy, our recently published Aviation Green Paper and Maritime 2050 strategy and Clean Maritime Plan. Later this year, we will also publish an ambitious Aviation Strategy which will map out our approach to ensure the sector plays its part in tackling climate change.
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 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.
Gatwick plans to use emergency runway to increase passenger capacity by 50 per cent by 2030
By STEPHANIE COCKROFT (Evening Standard)
18th July 2019
Gatwick says it has abandoned plans to build an additional runway but will bring the airport’s emergency runway into “routine use” by 2020.
The airport said it is preparing a planning application to get the second airstrip ready so it can be used alongside the main runway for departures.
If the plans are approved, the airport would aim to be serving around 70million passengers by the early 2030s.
The airport currently caters for around 46m passengers, meaning the capacity would be increased by around 50 per cent.
Plans for an additional runway, which it has abandoned as part of the masterplan, would have served up to around 92m passengers.
Last year Heathrow – which is the location chosen by the government for a new full-length runway – handled 78 million passengers.
The airport, the second largest in the UK after Heathrow, said it hoped the runway would be in use by the middle of 2020.
The announcement follows public consultation, in which two-thirds of people said the airport should make the most of its existing runways.
Another public consultation will be held once the planning application for the standby runway is submitted.
Gatwick said the plan is the “most sustainable way” for the airport to expand over the next 15 years.
London Gatwick CEO Stewart Wingate said: “The plans would deliver additional capacity for Gatwick, which will provide choices for the future – including incrementally growing our airport to meet demand and continuing to provide solid operational performance for passengers and airlines.
“This would be the biggest private investment for the region in the coming years, which would result in significant local economic benefits, including new jobs for the area.
“Gatwick’s global connections are needed more than ever but as we take our plans forward, we must do so in the most sustainable and responsible way and in full partnership with our local councils, communities, passengers and partners.”
The announcement has already drawn criticism from campaign groups with Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions saying: “This is simply a second runway by stealth.”
They added: “To use the emergency runway alongside the main runway is in affect a second runway as it will have to be moved by some 12 metres to allow it to be used.
“As such it is a second runway without the full parliamentary scrutiny or any funding for our roads or railway line that will see a huge increase in passenger and workers numbers migrating into Gatwick.”
Gatwick currently consists of the main runway and the standby runway, which is used certain circumstances, including when there is maintenance on the main runway.
The airport began campaigning for a new runway when management published proposals in 2013 as a solution to the chronic shortage of aviation capacity in South East England.
Its expansion plans were dealt a blow in October 2016 when the government rejected its proposal for a new second runway, giving the go-ahead for Heathrow to build a third runway.
At the time, a Gatwick Airport spokesman said it was disappointed with the decision, which was “not the right answer for Britain”.
It disputed the Airports Commission’s findings that the economic benefits of a Heathrow expansion would be greater.
Gatwick is the second-busiest airport in the UK and the busiest single-runway in the world in terms of flight movement.
It serves more than 230 destinations in 74 countries for 46 million passengers a year as well as generating around 85,000 jobs nationally, with 24,000 of these located on the airport.
GACC comment on the news of Gatwick’s expansion plans:
18.7.2019 (GACC – Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign)
Gatwick’s new owners, the Vinci Group, have shown immediate disregard for their local community neighbours.
The purchase deal was sealed on 14th May this year and just two months later GAL (Gatwick Airport Ltd) have announced devastating expansion plans that will damage and blight the lives of thousands of residents surrounding the airport as well impacting on those further away living under flight paths.
The proposals to grow the airports capacity by between 20% and 50% over the next ten to twelve years involves use of new technology on the main runway and re-aligning and widening the existing emergency (or standby) runway to form a second runway.
Despite claiming that Gatwick is no longer pursuing an additional full runway GAL also wish to continue to blight residents living to the south of the airport with its demand to maintain the safeguarding land from any other development for anything up to 25 years.
The use of the Emergency Runway in conjunction with the Main Runway will substantially increase the noise and health impacts particularly on residents living to the north of the airport. The increase in the number of flights would have considerable noise impacts on those beneath the already concentrated flight paths surrounding the airport. This proposed growth will have severe effects on a local infrastructure already overburdened as a result of current growth.
Chairman of GACC, Peter Barclay, concluded “Despite communities already rejecting the Draft Master Plan in November last year GAL continues to push for unsustainable growth. GACC and other local community groups have met and unanimously agreed to challenge these proposals as robustly as possible. In a world that is fast recognising aviation’s negative impact on health through noise impacts and air pollution, together with its contribution to climate change, GAL and the aviation industry ignore these impacts and blindly steamroller their unsustainable demands forward. “
Letter by Gatwick area MPs opposing Gatwick 2nd runway expansion plans
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 Airport today published its Final Master Plan which confirms plans to take forward the sustainable development of the airport.
In October 2018, our Draft Master Plan consultation set out three scenarios for future growth:
Using new technology to build capacity and resilience on the main runway;
Bringing the existing standby runway into routine use for departures only alongside the main runway by the mid-2020s;
Recommending planning policy continues to safeguard land for an additional runway.
In total, we received more than 5,000 responses and were encouraged that two-thirds (66%) of people supported the principle of growing Gatwick by making best use of our existing runways, in line with Government policy.
As a result, we will progress with plans to introduce new technology to build capacity and resilience on our main runway. We are also announcing today that we will prepare a planning application to bring our standby runway into routine use.
The innovative proposals for the standby runway will deliver additional capacity at the airport that enables us to balance operational resilience and sustainable growth.
As one of the biggest private investments in the region, the scheme will deliver greater connectivity, a better passenger experience through greater competition, and an economic boost that secures jobs and opportunities for generations to come. These benefits can all be delivered while keeping the airport’s noise footprint broadly similar to today’s levels, and with minimal disruption to our neighbours and the environment. (sic).
The consultation report, also published today, provides extensive feedback on our consultation and those views will help shape our plans as we prepare a Development Consent Order – a rigorous planning process that will include further engagement and public consultation next year and culminates in a final decision by the Secretary of State.
We will now carry out a number of detailed studies to assess the impacts and benefits of our proposals before consulting the public again next year.
We are also recommending that national and local planning policy continues to safeguard the land that would be required for a new runway, should it be required in the longer-term.
However, we reiterate today that we are no longer actively pursuing plans for an additional runway.
We will of course keep you up to date at regular intervals as our plans progress. In the meantime further information on our plans is available at www.gatwickairport.com/futureplans
You can also sign up to our community newsletter at www.gatwickairport.com/communitynewsletter
Chief Executive Officer, Gatwick Airport
Green MP Caroline Lucas, who knows a thing or two about aviation carbon emissions, says the government’s aspiration for “sustainable” aviation expansion is simply unachievable. Heathrow’s plans to increase flights by about 50% (700 more per day) took “dissembling to new levels.” The airport is already the largest single source of carbon emissions in the UK. Its plans show the scale and range of negative impacts – noise, air pollution, surface access congestion, social disruption etc – it would have on hundreds of thousands of people. But just looking at carbon, Heathrow tries to make out that all the CO2 from the extra flights, enabled by the 3rd runway, will (amazingly…) be offset, and thus discounted. So when Heathrow claim their expansion “will not significantly alter the UK’s emissions”, they can only do this by excluding the CO2 from international flights. Caroline says: “That suggests they missed another memo, this time from the CCC which has said emissions from international aviation should be formally included in the UK’s climate targets.” The DfT’s policy on expanding aviation raises the question of whether the government is serious about reducing the UK’s carbon emissions, let alone reaching net zero. “The truth is that aviation growth and our expectation of cheap flights cannot continue.”
The outline plans reveal the scale of what’s proposed: building a tunnel for the M25, rerouting rivers, building enormous carparks outside the perimeter of the current airport, destroying local villages. The government itself says nearly a million households will be affected by the third runway, which will allow another 700 flights a day.
Heathrow’s owners maintain that the airport’s expansion will not significantly alter the UK’s emissions, but only reach this conclusion by excluding international aviation emissions. That suggests they missed another memo, this time from the committee on climate change which has said emissions from international aviation should be formally included in the UK’s climate targets.
The government’s own draft aviation strategy is a perfect example of its have-your-cake-and-eat-it approach. The condition attached to this strategy – “provided that growth takes place in a sustainable way, with actions to mitigate the environmental impacts” – is simply unachievable.
The IPCC has already warned us that we have only 11 years left to slash global emissions in half, if we are to achieve the Paris agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C. There is no technological magic wand which is going to transform aviation’s dependence on fossil fuels in this time.
We are unlikely to see a single electric aircraft big enough to carry passengers any further than the distances easily reached by train until after 2050. And while new aircraft engines are certainly more efficient than the old ones they replace, the environmental benefit is more than wiped out by the expansion in the number of flights.
An official strategy which not only wants to build a third runway at Heathrow but also expand regional airports is not going to rein in airline emissions – which raises the question of whether the government is serious about reducing the UK’s carbon emissions, let alone reaching net zero. And the plan to rely on international carbon offsets to balance the carbon books (as the legislation allows) is simply deceitful. Carbon offsetting will not deliver the net zero future that the science tells us we need to achieve, since all sectors in all countries will need to get as close as possible to zero emissions, and there’s a limit to how much remaining CO2 we can hope to soak up with new forests.
The truth is that aviation growth and our expectation of cheap flights cannot continue. The draft aviation strategy is an opportunity to address this, starting with a commitment to ensuring aviation makes a fair contribution to actual reductions in UK carbon emissions.
That means capping aviation emissions at current levels as a first step, cancelling plans for airport expansion, and investing in alternatives so that short- to medium-distance travel by train become attractive and affordable for all.
This is not only a carbon emissions issue. The unsustainable growth in demand for flights is being driven to a significant extent by a minority of wealthy individuals, raising the issue of inequality and fairness too.
About 70% of flights are taken by just 15% of the population, and most people don’t fly at all in any given year. It’s not families taking an occasional holiday or business travellers who are fuelling the growth in demand for flying – it’s a small minority of wealthy individuals taking multiple flights a year.
Yet the harms caused by aviation growth, from noise and air pollution to habitat destruction as airports expand, is felt disproportionately by the less well-off. That’s why policies like the frequent flyer levy must be front and centre of the new aviation strategy, so that social justice and environmental protection go hand in hand.
The EU’s transport commissioner Violeta Bulc told airline CEOs this month that the aviation industry’s licence for growth would in future be linked directly to perceptions of sustainability.
Heathrow’s owners – and the government – need to read that memo too.
• Caroline Lucas is the Green party MP for Brighton Pavilion
Official guidance on how many hours people should sleep each night is set to be introduced by government, to improve public health. They say people should regularly get 7 – 9 hours sleep per night, most nights. If people often sleep for less than 7 hours, there are numerous health impacts (eg, diabetes, dementia risk, depression, obesity, cardiovascular disease, other mental illness). Making up sleep on some nights, after not getting enough on others, is not as good as enough sleep most of the time. Ensuring people get enough sleep is important and could save the NHS money, by being “the tide that rises all other health boats.” Lack of sleep can have a “negative impact” on recovery from illness and surgery. The need for over 7 hours of sleep per night for adults (younger people need even more sleep) is particularly relevant in the context of proposals to expand airports. The UK government policies and targets on noise at night are inadequate and out of date, and new targets must be incorporated into national policies. The cost and long-term consequences of damage to the health of millions due to government inaction will be considerable. The Department of Health should take a stronger lead on this.
Public will be advised how much sleep to get
Ministers plan alcohol-style guidelines for rest
Francis Elliott, Political Editor | Tom Whipple, Science Editor
July 13 2019,
Three quarters of adults in the UK regularly sleep less than seven hours per night
Official guidance on how many hours people should sleep each night is set to be introduced by ministers.
The suggested minimum amount will vary according to age group and will come with advice on “sleep hygiene”, according to government-backed proposals to improve public health. The move will resemble recommendations on weekly alcohol consumption.
However, the guidelines are expected to state that regularly getting less than seven hours’ sleep a night could damage most people’s health.
Experts said that the plans could help people to live longer and bring significant savings for the health service.“Sleep is the tide that rises all other health boats,” one neuroscientist said. “The potential cost savings to the NHS could be many millions.”
Matt Hancock, the health secretary, is due to publish a public health green paper as part of efforts to improve disease prevention. Much of the document deals with action to curb smoking and obesity but it also calls for official action to help people to get more sleep. “There’s growing evidence on the health impacts of lack of sleep,” a leaked draft seen by The Times says.
“Failure to sleep between seven and nine hours a night is associated with physical and mental health problems, including an increased risk of obesity, strokes, heart attacks, depression and anxiety. With up to three quarters of adults in the UK regularly sleeping less than seven hours per night, there is much more left to achieve.
“As a first step the government will review the evidence on sleep and health. This is with a view to informing the case for clear national guidance on the daily recommended hours of sleep for individuals in different age brackets and to raise awareness of the key ‘sleep hygiene’ factors that can support healthy sleeping.”
Lack of sleep can also have a “negative impact” on recovery from illness and surgery, the paper says, drawing on research in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine showing that more than a third of hospital patients complain about being bothered by noise from other patients.
Ministers will order the NHS to review its practices, including introducing “protected sleep time” when staff do not disturb patients without good clinical reason.
Studies have shown that with every hour of sleep less than seven hours per night, an average person’s chance of contracting type 2 diabetes rises over time by 10 per cent. Women working during the night have a 30 per cent higher chance of getting breast cancer, and men have a 25 per cent higher chance of contracting heart disease. Mr Hancock is understood to be supportive of the proposals but will emphasise that the guidance is not meant to be prescriptive to the population at large.
The health secretary, who has declared his support for Boris Johnson, was caught out this month when the Tory leadership candidate said that he was opposed to extending a levy on sugary drinks to milk shakes, another of the recommendations in the green paper. Mr Hancock will be wary of laying himself open to another charge of encouraging state “nannying” from the man he wants to replace Theresa May.
The politician who pushed hardest for sleep to be included with smoking, alcohol and obesity in the range of policies is Steve Brine, a former public health minister who has quit the government to oppose a no-deal Brexit. He became interested after seeing a passenger reading Why We Sleep, by the neuroscientist Matthew Walker, on a train. The British academic and author, based at the University of California, Berkeley, says Shakespeare got it right when he had Macbeth describe sleep as the “chief nourisher in life’s feast”.
Mr Brine said: “We’re all familiar with the notion of being tired and grouchy as a result but there’s very little understanding of how a lack of sleep, and as importantly poor quality sleep, can impact our health in much more serious ways.
“Working with an increasing body of evidence in this area, I think it’s time we established sleep as a real public health issue. Certainly we need to if we’re serious about prevention of ill health.”
Professor Walker called the green paper a “landmark first step”. He said yesterday: “Sleep is the tide that rises all other health boats . . . Every major disease that is killing us in the United Kingdom has significant, and many of them causal, links to a lack of sleep.”
Russell Foster, professor of sleep and circadian neuroscience at Oxford University, agreed that the guidance was “fantastic”. He said that the evidence was now overwhelming that good sleep could protect against conditions including dementia, diabetes and depression. “In five years of training clinicians get one or two lectures on sleep,” he said. “Yet it is estimated that 30 per cent of the problems a GP encounters are linked to sleep.”
He added that it was important to be careful with the recommendations and that simply stating, for instance, that adults should get seven to eight hours may be a mistake. “The difficulty is there’s a lot of individual variation,” he said. “People have to understand their own sleep needs.”
A recent survey found that 20 million Britons thought that they needed to get more sleep than they did.
What health problems has sleep been linked to?
A lot. Results vary by study, but according to recent research, women who work night shifts have nearly a third higher risk of breast cancer, while men who work shifts have a quarter higher risk of heart disease. Compared with those getting 7 hours a night, for each hour less you sleep the chances of contracting type 2 diabetes rise by 10 per cent. Other conditions associated with poor sleep include dementia, and obesity.
Reduced sleep also affects concentration, memory, cognitive skills and productivity. It can lead to depression, anxiety, loss of empathy and risk-taking.
Are we getting enough sleep?
No. A recent survey found that 20 million Britons, almost half the adult population, think that they need more.
How strong is evidence for a link between sleep and health?
We don’t experiment on humans. This makes it impossible to prove that a single lifestyle factor is the cause of any illness. Just because people who sleep less are less healthy does not mean that is the reason — it could be that being unhealthy makes you sleep less.
However, as with smoking, alcohol and unhealthy food, the evidence accumulates to an extent that is impossible to ignore.
If I lose out in the week can I catch up with a weekend lie-in?
Yes and no. A study of 40,000 people found that sleeping longer at the weekend did compensate for getting less sleep in the week. However, scientists believe it is far healthier to sleep the correct amount each night.
What about Margaret Thatcher?
Legendarily, she got by on four hours a night. Scientists believe there are indeed individual differences in how much sleep people need but if you think you are getting by fine on five hours, your sleep-deprived brain is probably fooling you.
Your article (“Public will be advised how much sleep to get”, Jul 13) links lack of sleep to health risks. In the UK over half the population lives within World Health Organisation recommended daytime noise levels but three quarters live where night-time noise levels are exceeded. This is particularly relevant in the context of proposals to expand airports.
Last year the WHO published environmental noise guidelines for Europe. The key conclusions are that government policies and targets are inadequate and out of date, and new targets must be incorporated into national policies. The WHO also recommends tough new limits on aircraft noise during both day and night. Communities should be consulted about changes in noise exposure — for example, flight paths or construction of additional runways.
The adverse effects of noise on health, including cognition defects among primary schoolchildren living near airports, sleep deprivation causing lack of concentration and leading to accidents at work, are well established. However there is now emerging evidence for increased cardiovascular disease due to night- time noise among those living near airports, particularly under flight paths. Studies from Germany have shown that even while a person is asleep, aircraft noise may cause the release of stress hormones that can open a pathway to damaging the lining of small blood vessels, including the coronary arteries.
In the UK planning decisions on airport developments are mostly made by local authorities, but central government direction is vital. The cost and long-term consequences of inaction will be considerable. The department of health should take a stronger lead.
Professor Jangu Banatvala
Emeritus Professor of Virology,
King’s College London.
Sleep guidance will advise at least seven hours’ rest a night
The guidance is expected to advise that less than seven hours’ sleep every night could be damaging
13 JULY 2019
National guidance on how much sleep people should have each night is set to be published by the Government. As part of a plan to improve public health, it is expected to advise that less than seven hours’ sleep every night could be damaging.
The move resembles Government advice on safe alcohol consumption and on how much time children should spend in front of a screen.
The evidence on the relationship between sleep and health will be reviewed and recommendations made for people of different ages, according to The Times.
The newspaper quoted from a leaked draft of a public health green paper which it said is due to be published by Health Secretary Matt Hancock.
It said much of the paper is focused on obesity and smoking, but that it also makes reference to sleep.
According to The Times, extracts say: “As a first step the Government will review the evidence on sleep and health.
“This is with a view to informing the case for clear national guidance on the daily recommended hours of sleep for individuals in different age brackets and to raise awareness of the key ‘sleep hygiene’ factors that can support healthy sleeping.”
A spokeswoman for the Department of Health said they do not comment on leaks.
Earlier this year a German team of scientists said, in a study published in the Journal of Experimental Medicine, they had discovered that sleep improves the ability of immune cells to hit their targets and fight off infection.
Driving tired, with under 6 hours of sleep per night, increases vehicle accident risk
February 1, 2019
In the USA the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that “drowsy driving” is responsible for a lot of vehicle crashes, deaths and injuries. Evidence from the CDC (Centre for Disease Control) in the USA shows that getting 6 hours of sleep a night or less more than doubles your chances of falling asleep at the wheel. It seems likely that most accidents to sleepy drivers happen between midnight and 6 am, although late afternoon also has a spike in incidents. Many UK airports are allowed night flights, eg. Gatwick, Stansted, East Midlands etc. This is going to increasingly be a problem for people affected by the noise from Heathrow planes. Already planes taking off, heading away, may be heard routinely till 11pm (often later) on some routes. Each morning planes can be heard arriving from about 4.20am. That does not leave anyone who is sensitive to the noise enough time for healthy sleep. There are many known health risks, of noise disturbance during the times people are sleeping, or trying to. The risk of more vehicle accidents, to those who are woken up an hour or two before they want to wake, is another cost of aircraft noise. The loss of quality of life, and the health costs, need to be part of the calculation of the economics of a 3rd Heathrow runway.
Studies show that at least 7 hours of sleep are needed, each night, by adults
June 6, 2015
Living under a flight path, along which aircraft fly at below – say 7,000 feet – is noisy. It is all the more noisy now that the aviation industry is introducing narrow, concentrated flight paths. These are replacing the older more dispersed routes, as aircraft have new “PBN” technology (like car satnav) and can fly far more accurately than in the past. And it suits the air traffic controllers to keep flight paths narrow. But if airports allow flights at night, or if the “night” period when flights are not allowed is short, this has consequences for people living near, or under, routes. Studies carried out scientifically show adults need at least 7 hours of sleep, each night to be at their healthiest. Children and teenagers need more.There are some people who need more than 7 hours per night, and some need less. It is not good enough to get less one night, and more the next – the brain does not process the day’s memories adequately. Studies show adverse effects of not getting enough sleep, which are not only related to concentration, speed of thinking or reacting etc, but also medical effects. The concentrated flight paths, and airports allowed to have flights all night, are causing very real problems. A study into noise and sleep by the CAA in 2009 looked at the issue, and said a large and comprehensive study is needed, but it is “likely to be expensive.”
Sleep deprivation causes adverse effects on health due to disruption of gene activity
March 5, 2013
Sleep scientists at the University of Surrey have found that sleep deprivation affects hundreds of genes involved with inflammation, immunity and cells’ response to stress. This might help explain why some people who do not get enough sleep have an increased risk for obesity, heart disease and cognitive impairment. Researchers took whole-blood RNA samples from 26 participants after they had spent a week sleeping 8.5 hours a night, and the same participants after a week of sleeping for just 5.7 hours. That amount of sleep is not unusual for many people, and an estimate from the USA is that perhaps 30% of American adults sleep for under 6 hours. (The study did not look at sleep disturbance, as is the case for aircraft noise). The study found genes related to circadian rhythms, metabolism, inflammation, immune response and stress were all affected by the experiment. Some were more active, and some less, during sleep deprivation. Other studies have found lack of sleep increases the risk of obesity and type II diabetes. It can affect blood sugar levels, and hormones that control appetite. There are also effects on hypertension, elevated risk of stroke and of heart disease.