Heathrow could make £1.2 billion a year from a congestion (vehicle access) charge levied on drivers arriving at the airport by car, according to analysis. Heathrow has committed to expanding without any extra cars on the road. The new charging, that might be introduced when (or IF) a 3rd runway opened – which the airport hopes would be in 2026 – might grow by 2040 to yield as much as £3.25 million per day. The charge, is set to cost £29 a day, based on today’s prices, then rising. As many as 65,000 vehicles would pay the charge each day. It would eventually be levied on all cars, including those with the lowest emissions, and is designed to act to encourage drivers to choose public transport to get to and from Heathrow. In reality, there would not be enough bus and train capacity to deal with all the extra passengers. The number needing to travel by public transport might be 140 million more than now – a 75% increase. There is likely to be no way for drivers in the area, not associated with the airport, to avoid being charged. Heathrow says then money it gets (why does Heathrow get to keep it?) from the charge “will help to improve sustainable transport and keep passenger charges affordable…”
“We understand the transport planning rationale for levying a charge on road vehicles to ‘push’ a switch from road to public transport, and are supportive of this principle.
The VAC [Vehicle Access Charge] and HULEZ [Heathrow Ultra Low Emission Zone] provide a useful revenue stream and we would suggest that this should be hypothecated and ring fenced for spending on improved public transport and not cross subsidise HAL’s other costs via the single till RAB. “We are supportive of HAL’s proposed HULEZ, as a measure to improve air quality around the airport.
Heathrow congestion charge is expected to raise £1.2bn a year
Graeme Paton, Transport Correspondent
Heathrow airport could make £1.2 billion a year from a congestion charge levied on drivers arriving at the airport by car, according to analysis.
A new penalty system, which will be introduced to coincide with the opening of Heathrow’s third runway in 2026, will grow to yield as much as £3.25 million a day, it was claimed.
The charge, which will eventually be levied on all cars, including the cleanest, is designed to act as an incentive for drivers to choose public transport to reach the west London hub.
However, the airport has been told that capacity on buses and trains will be woefully insufficient to meet the demands of the enlarged airport, which will cater for 142 million passengers — 75 per cent more than it does now.
A submission to Heathrow’s consultation into its expansion says that there is “no practical way” for some people to avoid paying the charge, particularly those living in Surrey, Hampshire and southwest London where direct transport links are lacking.
Heathrow Southern Railway,a private company seeking to build a new rail line to the airport, said the charge will be “seen as just another tax” on passengers. The charge is set to cost £29 a day by 2040, based on today’s prices, but could rise to £50 after inflation.
Passengers using Heathrow already pay higher landing charges than at any other airport in the world, with more than £20 being added to the price of each air ticket.
Heathrow’s consultation into proposals for a two-mile runway northwest of the airport site closed just over a week ago. It will allow an extra 756,000 flights a year.
Heathrow has committed to expanding without any extra cars on the road. Its plan told how the proportion of passengers who travel to the airport via public transport is expected to rise from about 40 per cent in 2015 to 55 per cent by 2040. They will be accommodated by the new east-west Crossrail line, an upgrade of the Tube’s Piccadilly Line and improved coach and bus access.
Plans have also been drawn up for a new rail line from the south, creating a direct link from London Waterloo, and another from the west allowing passengers to travel direct from Reading.
However, the consultation said a decision has “yet to be made” on whether either of the two lines will proceed, casting doubt on whether the public transport system will be able to cope with the surge in passenger numbers.
Heathrow Southern Railway, which is backed by the US engineering giant Aecom, is bidding to build the eight-mile line from Waterloo using private cash but has yet to win firm backing from Heathrow or the Department for Transport.
In a submission to the consultation, the company said that without the line large numbers of passengers would have little choice but to pay the congestion charge, which will be imposed at all drop-off and pick-up points and Heathrow car parks.
It calculated that 65,000 vehicles would pay the charge each day, adding: “With a 2040 price of £50 this would yield for Heathrow £3.25 million a day or almost £1.2 billion a year.”
The scale of payments risks becoming a “major reason for objection” to a third runway and reinforces the need for a new rail line, the company said.
“For many locations in Surrey, Hampshire [and] southwest London there is no viable public transport alternative to road,” it said. “This will cause resentment as there will be no practicable way for people in this area of the country to avoid the charge.”
Last night the airport insisted it supported a new southern rail line and called for the government to support the plan, adding: “Heathrow does not recognise this £1.2 billion figure and we are taking steps to encourage passengers to travel to the airport using more sustainable means. The revenue generated . . . will help to improve sustainable transport and keep passenger charges affordable as the airport expands.”
Heathrow plans to charge motorists £15 to enter ‘congestion cordon’ around airport to tackle toxic air
July 7, 2017
Heathrow knows it has an insuperable problem with air pollution if it was allowed a 3rd runway. Levels of NO2 are already often illegal, in many places. Now Heathrow is considering imposing a new “H-charge” on motorists who arrive or leave the airport by car. This is intended to reduce air pollution, and get more passengers to travel by rail (already pretty crowded). The idea is for a charge of £10 – 15 for everyone, including taxis and public hire vehicles, for each trip. Not surprisingly, avid backers of the Heathrow runway like Sir Howard Davies and Lord Adonis think the charge is a great idea. Transport Secretary Chris Grayling is understood to believe that some form of low emission zone around the airport will be needed. The government has made (rather hard to believe) assurances that a 3rd runway would only be allowed to operate if it can do so within air quality limits. (Which it cannot). Most of the NO2 and particulate pollution in the area is from road vehicles; a high proportion of those are Heathrow associated; a proportion comes from planes. The exact proportions are not known – yet. Heathrow likes to give the impression hardly any is from planes (not true). Heathrow airport says it will consult on the proposals for charging, and details of how it might work – but it is seen as a “last resort” to tackle its air pollution problems. It would be very, very unpopular with travellers and taxi/Uber drivers.
Heathrow plans a ULEZ from 2022 for passenger cars, taxis etc coming to car parks or drop-off areas
May 24, 2019
Heathrow knows it has to try to do something to cut its high levels of air pollution. So it has proposed some changes, to slightly reduce pollution from road vehicles (nothing about the pollution from the planes). The plan is to introduce charges for passenger cars and all private hire vehicles, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It would be the world’s first airport ULEZ. That might start in 2022, and then turn into a VAC (Vehicle Access Charge) on all passenger cars, taxis and private hire vehicles coming to car parks or drop-off areas, if the runway finally gets built. Heathrow says: “We want to reduce congestion by decreasing the number of cars on the road and encourage more people to use sustainable ways of getting to and from the airport…” And “The Heathrow ULEZ will introduce minimum vehicle emissions standards identical to the London Mayor’s ULEZ…” Initial proposals set the charge figure between £10-£15 per vehicle. “Revenue collected from both schemes will help fund initiatives to improve sustainable transport, contribute to community compensation and help keep airport charges affordable as the airport expands.” (sic) [ie. keep flights cheap, so there can be more flights, which will lead to more air pollution].
Campaigners have welcomed a demand by the mayor of Newham, Rokhsana Fiaz, to halt London City Airport’s consultation on expansion with more daily flights – until it shows how it will tackling noise and CO2 emissions. City Airport’s Consultation Master Plan suggests almost doubling the number of daily flights, with more early morning and late evening. The airport insists its consultation will continue till 20th September. The mayor called the consultation “fundamentally flawed because of lack of clarity and information” in a letter to the airport’s chief executive. She calls on the airport to halt the public consultation immediately until it publishes the “omitted technical details”. “The significance of the mayor’s move cannot be overstated. Newham is the planning authority for the airport,” said Hacan East chairman John Stewart. Newham Council which declared a “climate emergency” earlier this year, and is seeking more evidence about the airport’s plans to tackle CO2 emissions and air pollution. A huge number of people are already badly affected by aircraft noise. Newham already has a large number of deaths, occurring prematurely, due to air pollution. London City airport growth – pollution from aircraft – would only add to that, as well as the noise assault.
Mayor of Newham’s challenge to London City Airport’s expansion is greeted by campaigners
16 August 2019
By Mike Brooke (Newham Recorder)
Campaigners have welcomed a demand by the mayor of Newham to halt London City Airport’s consultation on expansion with more daily flights until it shows how it will tackling noise and climate emissions.
City AirportConsultation Master Plan suggests more daily flights, early morning and late evening.
But the airport remains firm and insists that the consultation – on plans to almost double the number of landings and take-offs – continues until September 20.
The mayor called the consultation “fundamentally flawed” in a letter to the airport’s chief executive.
The letter “throws down the gauntlet to the airport”, say campaigners from Hacan East which represents households in the flight paths across east London.
“The significance of the mayor’s move cannot be overstated,” its chairman John Stewart said. “Newham is the planning authority for the airport.”
Newham Council which declared a “climate emergency” earlier this year is seeking more evidence about the airport’s plans to tackle pollution.
Mayor Rokhsana Fiaz says in her letter to airport chief executive Robert Sinclair: “The council would struggle to support London City Airport’s justification to increase the number of flights. Residents are gravely concerned about the high level forecasts.”
Newham has the most deaths in London attributed to pollution with 96 people a year dying prematurely from respiratory diseases, the mayor points out.
The local authority has set up an air quality and climate emergency task force to achieve “carbon neutral” by 2030 and “carbon zero” by 2050.
“The consultation is fundamentally flawed because of lack of clarity and information,” the mayor’s letter to the airport boss states.
“We expected to see ’emissions from airborne aircraft’ detailed in your aims to achieve the level 3-plus neutrality that you claim to seek by 2020.”
She calls on the airport to halt the public consultation immediately until it publishes the “omitted technical details”.
The airport says it is giving proper consideration to the mayor’s views, but the consultation remains open for people who want to have their say.
A spokesman said: “The draft master plan is an opportunity to share views on how the airport can respond to the significant demand for air travel in London and in particular east London.
“We recognise the challenge of climate change in our draft master plan. Our record to date on air quality, noise and carbon reduction demonstrates our commitment to a change in sustainable aviation.”
The 12-week consultation proposes to scrap the 24-weekend break, which would add more early morning and late evening flights.
Assembly calls for changes to City Airport airspace to prioritise Londoners over profit
14 August 2019
By Luke Acton (Newham Recorder)
City Hall’s environment committee has called on airspace decision-makers to prioritise the health and wellbeing of Londoners over the commercial interests of City Airport.
The call comes as a national effort gets under way to modernise the UK’s airspace to improve things like efficiency. The Civil Aviation Authority is the body in charge of that process.
With airports responsible for designing airspace routes under 7,000 feet, City has released a draft document outlining what it wants the new design to do.
Among the “musts” is the maintenance or enhancement of safety and airspace that provides “sufficient capacity to support future demand”.
Among lower priorities, things the new design “should” achieve, is minimisation of CO2 and noise, as well as lower air pollution.
Different groups and organisations are now responding to the plan. Assembly Member Caroline Russell is a Green Party politician and chairwoman of the environment committee.
She said: “According to the Civil Aviation Authority, there are already 331,000 people overflown by flights arriving at City Airport, and 416,300 overflown by departures, all under the altitude of 4,000 feet.
“The damaging effect of aircraft noise on Londoners’ lives can no longer be ignored.
“The London Assembly is recommending that any changes to airspace and flight paths at London City Airport prioritise the health and wellbeing of overflown Londoners, over and above the commercial interests of the airport.”
A spokesman for London City thanked the committee for its response, adding that air capacity is vital for jobs, to support business and to encourage trade and tourism.
“As London’s most central airport, we know we have a responsibility to be a good neighbour, which is exactly why we are participating in this airspace modernisation programme, which is anticipated to result in quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys.
“We have also previously highlighted evidence to the environment committee of the extensive work we are doing with airlines, manufacturers, air traffic control services, and other stakeholders, to actively limit noise and mitigate its effects.”
The airspace document comes as City is also consulting on its draft master plan, which calls for more flexibility for early and late flights, and during the 24-hour weekend break.
HACAN East new major campaign against London City’s expansion plans, asking people to fill in postcard responses to the consultation.
July 30, 2019
HACAN East has launched a major campaign against London City’s expansion plans. It is encouraging people to fill in postcards opposing the expansion plans, and send them in to Freepost LCY MASTER PLAN CONSULTATION. People can also download and display posters. The postcards call on residents to back the existing 24 hour weekend ban on aircraft using London City. HACAN East wants the airport drop its proposals to end the 24 hour break as well as its plans to almost double flight numbers from today’s levels and to increase flights in the early morning and late evening. The postcards say: I SUPPORT the 24 hour London City Airport weekend flight ban. I DO NOT want up to 40,00 more flights. I DO NOT want more early morning or late evening flights. I DO NOT want more climate damaging airport expansion. Overall, I DO NOT support the plans in the draft master plan.
Caroline Russell: Action is needed on aircraft noise
July 27, 2019
Caroline writes in a blog that in parts of London, people are now living with severe levels of noise disruption. This is not acceptable, and urgent, decisive action is needed across the board to alleviate it. For some, the onslaught from Heathrow planes is made worse by the addition of London City planes using narrow, concentrated routes. The noise has significant health impacts for many. A report by the London Assembly’s Environment Committee, which Caroline chairs, concluded that the Government and CAA should regulate noise disturbance more stringently. They should use lower thresholds for noise disturbance (taking into account WHO guidelines and the need for residents to keep windows open) and mapping the combined effect of all London’s airports, especially Heathrow and City. The WHO guidance is that 45dB is the threshold for health impacts, but the UK government persists with 54dB as the ‘disturbance’ threshold. Also that flight paths should be rotated, to give relief to those under concentrated flight paths – and flight paths should be designed to minimise noise impacts, including avoiding overlapping flight paths. Increasing exposure to aircraft noise is unacceptable, and must be challenged
What is driving London City Airport’s expansion plans? John Stewart comment
July 26, 2019
John Stewart, from Hacan East, has looked at why London City Airport is planning huge expansion. The airport Master Plan wants to lift the current cap of 111,000 flights allowed each year to 137,000 by 2030 and to 151,000 by 2035. He says the airport is aiming to promote itself as a major player on the aviation scene, and a key driver of the regional economy, not just a niche business airport. It now often holds receptions at the party conferences, and is raising its profile to get backing for its growth plans. The current owners bought the airport for £2 billion in 2016, and want to make a good return. Business passengers used to be about 60% of the total, but now 50% – with the plans suggesting 36% by 2035. Most business passengers fly in the morning and evening, so leisure flights use the hours in the middle of the day. It can’t offer budget flights because Ryanair and EasyJet planes are too big to use the airport. London City has set out to change to portray itself as a key driver, maybe even the key driver, of the economic development of East, NE and SE London. It is pushing this to MPs and also local authorities in its regions in order to convince them it is in their interest to back expansion.
RESIDENTS DISMAYED BY LONDON CITY AIRPORT EXPANSION PLANS TO DOUBLE FLIGHT NUMBERS
June 29, 2019
London City’s Master Plan has been released, for consultation, and it is very bad news for local residents who suffer from the noise of its planes. It is proposing to double the number of flights by 2035; to end the break when currently there are no flights between 12:30pm on Saturday and 12.30pm on Sunday; and to bring in more planes in the early morning and late evening. Residents are dismayed by the London City expansion revealed in its Master Plan published today. The airport wants to lift the current cap of 111,000 flights allowed each year to 137,000 by 2030 and to 151,000 by 2035. Last year there were just over 75,000 flights. John Stewart, chair of HACAN East, which gives a voice to residents under the airport’s flight paths, said, “For all its green talk, this plan would be disastrous for residents. Flight numbers could double from today’s levels.” Increasingly the airport caters for leisure passengers, not business. The consultation ends on 20th September. The airport would need to go to a Planning Inquiry to get permission for any proposals it intends to take forward, after applying to Newham Council for its plans. Newham borough has pledged to make the borough “carbon neutral by 2030 and carbon zero by 2050”. The airport will not be helping with that.
The London Assembly is totally opposed to a 3rd Heathrow runway. They have set out clearly 5 key reasons why it should be opposed, and are asking Londoners to reject the plans. They point out that the Heathrow consultation is confusing, and very difficult indeed for anyone who is not an expert to fill in. The Assembly says: “We are gravely concerned that Heathrow is prioritising the interests of the airline industry and passengers over and above the wellbeing of Londoners, who are going to be the most affected by the expansion.” The plans would mean unacceptable levels of noise, air pollution, carbon emissions and amounts of road traffic. The extra noise is likely to harm health and well-being of thousands of people. As the consultation is too hard to respond to, using the online or paper forms, the Assembly suggests that people send a short message to the Heathrow email address firstname.lastname@example.org The text they suggest – vary it however you wish – is “Heathrow expansion fundamentally goes against the UK’s commitment to cut carbon emissions and improve air quality in the capital. It’s going to make air pollution worse, increase carbon emissions and increase noise, and we don’t support it. I stand with hundreds of others calling for it to be CANCELLED.”
Five reasons why the expansion of Heathrow is the wrong move for London
by the London Assembly
Aug 15th 2019
Heathrow Airport’s new runway proposal would enable it to grow from around 475,000 to around 740,000 flights a year.
We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: it’s bad for the environment, and it’s bad for Londoners.
5️⃣ The consultation process has been confusing for Londoners
We are gravely concerned that Heathrow is prioritising the interests of the airline industry and passengers over and above the wellbeing of Londoners, who are going to be the most affected by the expansion. Thus far, the consultation process has been highly inaccessible to those without the time or inclination to work through several hundred-page documents, and numerous webpages to find information on areas that may impact them.
Many Londoners are cynical about the consultation process; here’s what people have been saying in response to the consultation on Facebook:
Future consultation processes must be accessible to local people and communities, in all areas but especially those overflown. Further, future consultations should facilitate engagement between communities, so that advocacy efforts do not leave any one community behind.
4️⃣ Noise pollution will drastically increase
The World Health Organisation (WHO) indicates that average noise levels above 45dB are associated with adverse health effects. We asked Heathrow representatives to indicate the number of people newly affected by noise as a result of the expansion. None of the representatives could provide this figure, despite its relevance to the discussion on noise impacts.
The UK Government found that, with the expansion, an extra 539,327 people would be affected should the threshold of annoyance be extended down to their limit of 51dB, taking the total number of people in the noise annoyance footprint to over 1.15 million.
Further, NHS guidelines say that getting less than seven hours of sleep can damage mental and physical health. The proposed expansion plans suggest the ban on night flights would be between 23:00p.m. and 5:30a.m — just 6 and a half hours.
We’re recommending that Heathrow commissions an independent noise impact assessment to better understand the harms of aviation noise and determine an appropriate, evidence-based noise threshold. In addition to that research, we’re calling for specific, stringent and binding targets for noise reduction, based on lower thresholds of disturbance, as specified by the WHO.
3️⃣ There will be more air pollution
The Government has said that any increase in pollution from an expanded Heathrow would be acceptable as long as emissions remain within legal limits — i.e. do not exceed the worst pollution levels in the whole Greater London area. But if air quality is improved in one area of London, that shouldn’t mean it is acceptable for Heathrow to increase its contributions to air pollution.
It would be illegal to worsen and prolong local breaches in health-based air pollutant concentration limits.
2️⃣ There will be more pollution from cars
The proposed expansion of Heathrow will significantly increase traffic, and there’s been a real lack of planning for improving surface access (the way cars, buses and lorries will be managed going to and from Heathrow). This increase will have a serious impact on air quality in an area already experiencing high — and potentially illegal — levels of pollution.
Currently, 40% of Heathrow’s passengers are using public transportation, up only 1% in the last 10 years. The Airports National Policy Statement (NPS) required Heathrow to drive up the number of passengers using public transport to 50% by 2030 and 55% by 2040. With another 10 to 12 million passengers travelling to and from the airport with the expansion, how is it possible Heathrow will deliver on its goals?
Heathrow has said it relies on public transportation improvements like Crossrail, High Speed 2, Western and Southern Rail, and buses and coaches. But most of these plans fall outside the governance and financial jurisdiction of Heathrow — meaning taxpayers will ultimately bear the burden. We need to know what surface access is required, how much it would cost and who would be expected to pay for it.
And further, these objectives are significantly lower than the Mayor’s city-wide target of 80% of journeys being taken by walking, cycling and public transport by 2041. Heathrow’s targets should be consistent with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and the draft London Plan, so as to not undermine city-wide efforts.
1️⃣ There will be increased carbon emissions
Heathrow is the biggest single source of carbon emissions in the UK, and though the Government just announced plans to meet new, much tougher “net zero” greenhouse gas target by 2050 — aviation is not currently included in these carbon budgets.
CO2 emissions after expansion will be eight to nine million tonnes higher per year. This is equivalent to over seven million passenger vehicles driven for one year.
Proposed plans to reduce emissions rely primarily on technological improvements — but there is no credible evidence that technology will be available fast enough to support and deliver on Heathrow’s net-zero carbon objectives. For instance, Heathrow indicated landing fees would be waived for electric planes. But Cait Hewitt of the Aviation Environment Federation said in our meeting that they “foresaw no [implementation of the use of] electric aircraft this side of 2050.” Therefore, waiving of landing fees is not a fitting incentive for the near future.
So how can Heathrow expand while ensuring the Government meets its carbon objectives? That’s what we need to know before we move ahead with expansion.
The AEF (Aviation Environment Federation) has published a guide explaining the role of the UK planning system in controlling development at airports and airfields, and how planning conditions have been used to limit the impact of operations. The guide, in plain English, outlines provisions and policies in the planning system that are relevant for airport development projects. The Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) applies to smaller scale developments, whilst the Planning Act (2008) has introduced a new process applicable to larger infrastructure projects, like extending or adding runways. AEF says national policy imposes very few meaningful environmental limits on airport operations or expansion, and successive governments have been reluctant to intervene. That means it is largely up to local councils to negotiate controls or limits. An exception is that Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick airports have been “designated” for noise regulation by the Government. Some of the issues covered are those relating to smaller airports; permitted development rights; “established use” rights; conditions and planning agreements; Section 106 Agreements; the stages of the planning application process; the Airports National Policy Statement; and the Development Consent Order process for the largest developments.
AEF releases guidance on aviation planning
Aug 14 2019 (Aviation Environment Federation)
AEF has today published the next in a series of guides aimed at explaining how aviation’s environmental impacts are addressed and managed.
Understanding aviation-related planningexplains the role of the UK planning system in controlling development at airports and airfields, and how planning conditions have been used to limit the impact of operations.
The guide goes on to outline the planning system, with a particular focus on aviation-specific provisions and policies. The Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) applies to smaller scale developments, whilst the Planning Act (2008) has introduced a new process applicable to larger infrastructure projects, it explains.
Why is the planning system important for aviation?
National policy imposes very few meaningful environmental limits on airport operations or expansion, and successive governments have been reluctant to intervene. Consequently, it’s almost always at the local level, within the planning system, where the impacts of airport operations are consulted on with stakeholders, and where any controls or limits are negotiated.
There are exceptions, however. Since the 1980s, Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick airports have been “designated” for noise regulation by the Government. This means that Government restrictions run alongside those laid down by local planning authorities through the planning process. The Department for Transport (DfT) periodically consults on its approach to noise controls at the designated airports, particularly in relation to night time aviation noise, which provides opportunities for members of the public to comment.
As the information and examples below will show, the planning system has always occupied an important place within the aviation industry. However, a 2018 statement made by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) during its Airspace Modernisation Strategy consultation reinforces the strategic importance of the planning system as the process for determining the appropriate scale of the industry’s impacts. Aviation growth, and its noise and other environmental impacts, the CAA said, should be managed not through the airspace change process, which it authorises, but through the planning system.
The CAA envisages, for example, that regional and local government policy and decision-makers can limit the number of new runways at an airport, or place restrictions on their use.
But, given the limited ability of the planning system to set appropriate controls in every situation, AEF argues that there is a case for the DfT and the CAA to retain the right to impose limits way of conditions on airspace use where this is the best or only means of providing environmental protection.
What is the planning system?
The planning system was put in place in the 1940s to facilitate a coordinated approach to land use in the UK. It introduced the requirement to obtain planning permissions from local authorities for building works, and for a change of land use.
With some exceptions (outlined below), the planning system controls what happens on the ground at airfields and airports. This includes, as examples, proposals to develop new hangars and terminals, extensions to existing runways, or the construction of new ones, such as the one currently planned for Heathrow Airport.
What is the relevant aviation-related planning legislation?
The planning system has evolved considerably since the first planning act in 1947, and is subject to several Acts of Parliament, and a very wide range of policies and guidance that are out of scope for this short guide. However, keep in mind that legislation, policy and guidance that applies to proposed developments will differ depending on the scale of the proposals put forward and their impacts.
In this way, the planning system falls into two main legislative strands: (1) The Town and Country Planning Act (1990), and (2) the Planning Act (2008). In the context of aviation, The Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) applies to smaller development consents, which are dealt with locally. The 2008 Planning Act (PA) applies development proposals that are considered to be of national significance, and it is discussed separately below.
Whether the TCPA or the PA applies, you are also likely to come across references to the Localism Act (2011), which amended both.
The Climate Change Act (2008) is also very relevant, as all planning policy and considerations must take into account the legally binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions laid out in Section 1 of the Act (recently amended to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050).
For a full list of planning-related legislation, click here.
The AEF document continues with a lot of excellent, important and useful detail on the planning process, and how it affects airport plans and developments.
Some of the issues covered are:
issues relating to smaller airports;
permitted development rights;
“established use” rights;
conditions and planning agreements;
Section 106 Agreements;
the stages of the planning application process;
the Airports National Policy Statement; and
the Development Consent Order process for the largest developments.
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.
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.
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.”
Hillingdon and the other 4 Councils seek permission to appeal Heathrow ruling
May 9, 2019
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 …
Plan B to appeal against the Court’s judgment rejecting the Heathrow legal challenges
May 8, 2019
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.”
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.
Comment by Plan B Earth and Extinction Rebellion, on Judges’ rejection of Heathrow legal challenges
May 1, 2019
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.”
Holidaymakers’ responsibility for foul beaches, overcrowding, traffic, plane carbon emissions, harm done by cruises and other environmental impacts will come under parliamentary scrutiny. The Commons Environmental Audit Committee (chaired by the remarkable Mary Creagh) has an inquiry to address problems caused by tourism, including aviation emissions, pollution, habitat damage etc in UK and abroad. Deadline for comments 13th September. It will look at whether the UK government should play a greater role in offsetting the waste and damage caused by the tens of millions of Britons who go on holiday overseas each year – and of the impact on domestic tourism in the UK. The Committee says global tourism is responsible for 5% of greenhouse gas emissions. People do not often consider the environmental, and climate, impacts of their holidays. “While there are some sustainable practices, we want to look closely at the government’s actions to ensure the economic, social and environmental impacts of tourism are minimised.” Due to ever cheaper flights, and zero tax on aviation fuel, the holiday business is one of the world’s fastest-growing industries and accounts for more than 10% of global GDP. Many countries have had to take strict measure to prevent serious damage done by excessive tourism, eg in Philippines, or Venice or Thailand. Or US hiking trails.
Environmental damage of tourism comes under MPs’ spotlight
Inquiry to address problems including aviation emissions and traffic in UK and abroad
By Jonathan Watts (Guardian)
18 Jul 2019
Holidaymakers’ responsibility for foul beaches, overcrowding, traffic, aeroplane emissions and other environmental impacts will come under parliamentary scrutiny.
The inquiry into the environmental cost of tourism and transport will consider whether the UK government should play a greater role in offsetting the waste and damage caused by the tens of millions of Britons who go on holiday overseas each year.
It will also look at ways to reduce the negative consequences of the growing domestic tourism industry, including the hefty carbon footprint of aviation and cruise companies.
According to the Commons environmental audit committee, which launched the inquiry on Wednesday, global tourism is responsible for 5% of greenhouse gas emissions.
“Now that summer is here, families are looking forward to a well-earned holiday. But when we book a cruise, flights or visit a popular tourist destination, it’s easy to forget about the environmental impact our holidays are having,” the committee chair, Mary Creagh MP, said.
“While there are some sustainable practices, we want to look closely at the government’s actions to ensure the economic, social and environmental impacts of tourism are minimised.”
Thanks to ever cheaper flights and zero tax on aviation fuel, the holiday business is one of the world’s fastest-growing industries and accounts for more than 10% of global GDP.
But the growing weight of tourists is putting a crushing strain on many of the world’s most popular destinations. The Philippines government had to close the party island of Boracay for six months to clean up the sewage and other filth from unregulated and overstretched resorts.
In Thailand, authorities shut down Maya Bay on Ko Phi Phi Leh island to allow the environment to recover from a daily influx of 5,000 tourists and 200 boats since it was made famous by the Leonardo DiCaprio film The Beach.
In the US, a growing horde of backpackers in national parks has clogged up back-country trails and mountain roads, prompting complaints that the search for tranquility has been overtaken by the quest for the perfect selfie. Venice plans to offset the damage with a new tax on the 30 million people who visit the lagoon city every year.
There have been anti-tourism protests in many cities, including Barcelona, and an increasing tendency to blame accidents on the industry, most notably in the wake of the Venice cruise ship collision.
Despite such complaints, the tourist business is expected to continue expanding. In Britain, tourism is the fastest-growing industry. Authorities expect the sector to expand by 3.8% a year up until 2025 and account for more than a tenth of all jobs.
Last year, 37.9 million overseas visitors arrived in the UK – the seventh most popular destination in the world – which puts a substantial burden on the climate and calls into question the government’s target of net zero emissions by 2050.
The committee will study the industry and report next year on ways to reduce the impacts by using incentives, taxation, offsets and greater scrutiny of corporate claims to provide sustainable or eco-friendly packages.
Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton, said she hoped the inquiry would also review plans to expand airport capacity in the UK and reconsider subsidies that make air travel cheaper than train journeys.
“How we travel can make a major difference to the environmental impact of our holidays, yet far too often the greener options are less affordable. That must urgently change if the UK is serious about the climate emergency, yet the government is failing even to acknowledge the problem – instead supporting a third runway at Heathrow as well as reckless airport expansion elsewhere in the UK.
“This inquiry will allow us to focus on positive policy solutions as well as the environmental problems associated with travel and tourism.”
Tourism is one of the fastest growing economic sectors in the world, accounting for ten percent of global GDP and just under ten percent of total employment. Done well, it can help economic growth, environmental protection and poverty alleviation.
However, the growth in international and domestic travel has caused pressure in terms of carbon emissions, resource management and can have negative impacts on local communities and cultural assets if not managed properly. This can lead to the physical degradation of popular sites and higher rents, congestion and air pollution in some cities. These pressures are known as ‘overtourism’ and harm local communities and the visitor experience.
Travelling by plane or ship causes local air and water pollution, noise and greenhouse gas emissions. The tourism industry accounts for an estimated five per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The amended UK Climate Change Act includes aviation and shipping emissions in the new net zero target. The Committee will seek views on travel choices to inform the Government’s forthcoming aviation strategy to 2050.
Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, Mary Creagh MP, said:
“Now that summer is here, families are looking forward to a well-earned holiday. But when we book a cruise, flights or visit a popular tourist destination, it’s easy to forget about the environmental impact our holidays are having.
“The recent cruise ship collision in Venice, as well as protests both there and in Barcelona, are a sharp reminder of the effects of ‘overtourism’ and the damage that can be done to the environment and local quality of life.
“The industry adds five percent to global greenhouse emissions, putting our net zero by 2050 target at risk. While there are some sustainable practices, we want to look closely at the Government’s actions to ensure the economic, social and environmental impacts of tourism are minimised. We will publish a report early next year.”
Terms of reference
The Committee is inviting written evidence submissions on some or all of the following points to inform its inquiry:
What can the Government do to support a sustainable inbound tourism industry in the UK?
How should the UK tourism industry balance the need to encourage tourism whilst protecting fragile environments?
How well is the UK industry managing the impact of tourism in line with its obligations under the sustainable development goals, at home and abroad?
Should the UK Government take more responsibility for the impacts of outbound tourism, for example waste and resource management, protecting habitats and species and community and cultural impacts?
How can the Government reach its net zero emissions targets through influencing sustainable travel patterns? Is there a role for offsets in sustainable tourism?
Where should the balance lie between affordable travel and influencing sustainable travel choices? Are taxes and incentives needed?
How effective are sustainable tourism practices by large tourism companies such as cruise ship and package holiday operators
Ever increasing numbers of city-breaks and short holidays ruining cities – and the climate
June 27, 2017
With rising affluence in much of the world, and flying being unrealistically cheap (as it pays no fuel duty, and almost no other taxes) people want as many short holidays and city breaks as they can get. This is starting to have very negative impacts on some of the cities most visited, eg. Barcelona. Growth is relentless. The UN World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) even speaks about tourism as a right for all citizens, and their forecasts suggest increases from 1 billion international travellers today, to 1.8 billion by 2030. But there is a huge price to pay in carbon emissions from all these trips and holidays, most of which is the flights. Short breaks therefore, pollute more per night than longer breaks. And you can fit more into your year. “The marketing department might prefer a Japanese tourist to Barcelona because on average they will spend €40 more than a French tourist – according to unpublished data from the Barcelona Tourist Board – but the carbon footprint we collectively pay for is not taken into account.” People are being persuaded by advertising and marketing, and a change in ethos of society, to take more short holidays – not one longer one. A report in 2010 suggested that makes people the happiest. More trips = more carbon emissions.
IPBES report on global biodiversity loss. Comment on impact of tourism
May 7, 2019
The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has published a report on the serious global loss of biodiversity. IPBES says: “Long-distance transportation of goods and people, including for tourism, have grown dramatically in the past 20 years with negative consequences for nature overall. The rise in airborne and seaborne transportation of both goods and people, including a threefold increase in travel from developed and developing countries in particular, has increased pollution and significantly raised invasive alien species… Between 2009 and 2013, the carbon footprint from tourism rose 40% to 4.5 gigatons of carbon dioxide and overall 8% of the total greenhouse-gas emissions are from transport and food consumption that are related to tourism. The demand for nature-based tourism, or ecotourism, also has risen, with mixed effects on nature and local communities, including some potential for contributions to local conservation in particular when carried out at smaller scales.”
Heathrow has rejected pleas from Stanwell Moor residents to be included in a compensation package designed for those who will experience more noise. The residents now appreciate that the negative impact will be far greater than they were previously led to believe, from effects of more noise, pollution, HGV traffic, more car parking, more taxis etc. A campaign has been launched to ask for better compensation, with those involved labelling Heathrow’s current offer as “derisory compensation and precious little else”. Heathrow has not included the area in its Wider Property Offer Zone (WPOZ) which would make them eligible for compensation. On 7th July there was a protest march, and public meetings have been held. Stanwell Moor Residents’ Association (SMRA) said villagers feel they have been “kept in the dark” about the plans; in their talks with Heathrow till now, they had been led to believe they would receive a “world-class compensation package befitting the impact”. The residents “call upon the future Prime Minister (whoever that may be) and the new Secretary of State for Transport, to uphold and safeguard the interests of Stanwell Moor residents.”
Stanwell Moor residents demand better compensation from Heathrow over expansion
The Heathrow Airport masterplan is out for public consultation and some villagers say they’re shocked at the impact it would have on them
By Rebecca Curley (Local Democracy Reporter – Get Surrey)
10 JUL 2019
(Image: Andrew McLuskey)
Heathrow has rejected pleas from Stanwell Moor residents to be included in a compensation package designed for those who’ll experience more noise. Stanwell Moor is just to the south west of Heathrow’s boundary.
Residents in Stanwell Moor are demanding better compensation from Heathrow Airport if the airport is expanded, saying the impact will be far greater than they were previously led to believe.
Accusing airport bosses of “false news and broken promises” Stanwell Moor villagers say the airport’s masterplan – out for public consultation until September 13 – has revealed a greater extent of disruption than they expected.
A campaign has been launched to ask for better compensation, with those involved labelling Heathrow’s current offer as being “derisory compensation and precious little else”.
Heathrow bosses have rejected their plea to be included in the Wider Property Offer Zone (WPOZ) which would make them eligible for compensation, saying that pot of money is meant for those who experience levels of new noise due to the expansion.
A protest march was held in the village on Sunday (July 7) and public meetings have been held.
Jim McIlroy, chairman of Stanwell Moor Residents’ Association (SMRA), said villagers feel they have been “kept in the dark” about the plans.
The Heathrow masterplan details how a third runway will operate including night flights, assessments on the impacts of expansion on the environment and local communities and measures such as reducing congestion and emissions.
Cllr McIlory, now a Conservative councillor with Spelthorne Borough Council but acting in the campaign on behalf as SMRA, said in all the talks leading up to the masterplan’s release, they were led to believe they “would have a world-class compensation package befitting the impact”.
He said: “We are only a small community, but we stand in solidarity with the communities from all around Heathrow’s perimeter that will be adversely impacted by this £30 billion-plus expansion.
“We call upon the future Prime Minister (whoever that may be) and the new Secretary of State for Transport, to uphold and safeguard the interests of Stanwell Moor residents.
He claimed the value of homes in the village has dropped by about £60,000 and the reality of the expansion plans are increased aircraft noise, more taxis using the village as a taxi rank waiting to pick up customers from the terminals, more HGVs using the rural roads as a rat run, more pollution and Europe’s biggest car park just 100m from their homes.
He added: “Despite Heathrow Airport’s claim that they have engaged with local communities and that their plans align with the local aspirations, the truth is that we find ourselves at the epicentre of an airport dumping ground for a host of unsavoury pollution generating activities, allegedly critical to the airport’s expansion.”
Heathrow says on its website the changes affecting Stanwell Moor include moving the M25 and A3044, providing a lorry park to reduce the number of HGVs parking in local roads and moving some public open spaces to form the Green Loop around the airport.
A Heathrow spokesperson said: “Stanwell Moor residents were promised that we would seriously consider extending the Wider Property Offer Zone (WPOZ) to their community.
“We have done this and after careful consideration, we will not be extending of the boundary of our WPOZ. The scheme was designed for areas that will experience significant levels of new noise with expansion, an issue that is expected to improve over time in Stanwell Moor with expansion.
“We appreciate this decision is disappointing for some but we have a significant package of other measures that will ensure residents can benefit from their proximity to Heathrow.
“We will continue to work with Stanwell Moor Residents’ Association and Spelthorne council to secure appropriate mitigation, better transport links and community improvements as we move through the planning process.”
Surrey county councillor Robert Evans, who represents Stanwell and Stanwell Moor, said: “It’s unacceptable for Heathrow to say Stanwell and Stanwell Moor do not qualify for compensation from Heathrow. It just doesn’t make sense.”
The Labour group in Spelthorne is calling on Spelthorne Borough Council and Surrey County Council to oppose the expansion because of the impact it is going to have on residents.
People in Stanwell very concerned about impact on their area of car parks, offices etc from Heathrow expansion
February 16, 2018
People in Stanwell and Stanwell Moor, just to the south west of the airport, are very concerned about the expansion plans for a 3rd runway. The plans have been described as a “travesty” for the area. Former Green Party parliamentary candidate in Spelthorne, Paul Jacobs, said the proposal for multi-storey car parking, offices, hotels or the relocated Immigration Removal Centre could break the “noise barrier” between Stanwell and the airport. Speaking at the Heathrow consultation event in Stanwell on February 13th he said: “There’s a large swathe of land to the north which is amenity land; people walk their dogs there. It would be a travesty if it were taken over by hotels, warehousing and servicing units. This land creates a barrier between us and the airport and it protects us from aircraft noise, particularly from aircraft noise on the ground.” People held a small protest outside the consultation event. Opponents of the current Heathrow consultation have been highly critical of it, saying it is premature, and aims to give the impression that the runway is already agreed. It is far from that.
The group, Stop Heathrow Expansion (SHE), has launched a new campaign entitled “Heathrow’s Preferred Disasterplan”. The title of the campaign is a reference to the current Heathrow consultation on its “Preferred Masterplan” for expansion. Residents and campaigners against a third runway are strongly supported by Hillingdon Council, and John McDonnell MP. The impacts of building a 3rd runway would be horrendous for those in areas facing compulsory purchase, or living close to the airport. SHE has sent a booklet to all those living nearest to the airport. It is called “How a Third Runway Will Affect You and Your Family,” and details some of the main impacts the expansion proposals would have in West Drayton, Hayes and the Heathrow Villages, without the gloss and spin of Heathrow consultation documents. SHE has organised 3 public meetings locally, so residents can learn more about traffic congestion, noise, pollution, the plan to relocate Harmondsworth Primary school to the Stockley by-pass. SHE chair, Jackie Clark said: “The current Heathrow consultation is a Disasterplan for our area. It is left to us to provide the true scale of Heathrow’s monumental expansion proposals … without Heathrow’s usual gloss and spin. Expansion is far from certain and the key message to residents is that it is can be stopped.”
Local residents launch new “HEATHROW’S PREFERRED DISASTERPLAN” campaign
10 July 2019
From Stop Heathrow Expansion
Residents and campaigners against a third runway at Heathrow have today launched a new campaign entitled “Heathrow’s Preferred Disasterplan”. The title of the campaign is a reference to the current Heathrow consultation on its “Preferred Masterplan” for expansion, which the airport launched on 18 June and runs until 13 September.
Stop Heathrow Expansion, the group behind the new campaign, is strongly supported by Hillingdon Council, John McDonnell MP and many residents in the affected areas.
Residents who live in areas closest to Heathrow are now receiving an information booklet;How a Third Runway Will Affect You and Your Family, (produced by Stop Heathrow Expansion) which details some of the main impacts the expansion proposals would have in West Drayton, Hayes and the Heathrow Villages, without the gloss and spin of Heathrow Airport’s consultation documents. More areas will be reached in due course.
The Stop Heathrow Expansion campaign has organised three public meetings so local residents can discuss the current consultation and hear more about how to oppose Heathrow’s plans to decimate the local area with pollution, noise, traffic and facilities such as new sewage farms and flood storage areas.
WEST DRAYTON: Friday 19th July, Yiewsley & West Drayton Community Centre, 228 Harmondsworth Road, UB7 9JL
All the meetings start at 7pm and will finish around 8.30pm.
Stop Heathrow Expansion say that a key message at the meetings will be explaining to residents that the project is far from definite and why it in fact looks less, not more certain to go ahead than ever before.
Hillingdon Council leader, Ray Puddifoot MBE, will be speaking at the meeting on Monday 15th July. Hillingdon’s opposition group leader, Cllr Peter Curling will speak on Tuesday 16th July and John McDonnell, the MP for Hayes & Harlington, will be the guest speaker at the meeting on Friday 19th July (4/5).
Mr. McDonnell says that he may be able to attend the first two meetings subject to Parliamentary business.
Stop Heathrow Expansion Chair Jackie Clark believes the new Disasterplan campaign more accurately reflects what expansion at Heathrow would bring to the area. She said:
“The current Heathrow consultation is a Disasterplan for our area. It is left to us to provide the true scale of Heathrow’s monumental expansion proposals, but we will do so without Heathrow’s usual gloss and spin. Expansion is far from certain and the key message to residents is that it is can be stopped.
“We have convened these public meetings at short notice, but we hope you will come along to the one easiest for you. It is vital as a community that we stand together.”
Cllr. Ray Puddifoot MBE, Leader of Hillingdon Council, said:
“Heathrow know that their expansion plans involve unacceptable levels of pollution, damage to the environment, loss of communities and a detrimental effect on the health and well-being of tens of thousands of people which is why they are so worried that it will not stand proper scrutiny and are using the ” it’s a done deal and resistance is futile approach.”
“They have severely under estimated the resolve of Hillingdon residents and Hillingdon Council and I have every confidence that the current expansion plan will go in the bin with the 2010 plan where it belongs.”
John McDonnell, MP for Hayes & Harlington, gave his support to the campaign, saying:
“I back this campaign to expose the true impact of Heathrow expansion on our lives. It will be a disaster for our communities.”
Photo of the launch, which includes residents and John McDonnell MP, is available via the Stop Heathrow Expansion website (scroll to the bottom of the linked page here) The photo can be used freely. http://stopheathrowexpansion.co.uk/disasterplan
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.
Bristol Airport is Big Enough – Help Stop Further Expansion
We are a group of environmental campaigners and local residents who are raising money to fund an important legal challenge to the planning application by Bristol Airport to significantly increase its passenger numbers.
Bristol Airport has submitted a planning application to North Somerset Council (ref. 18/P/5118/OUT) for the first phase of a plan to grow eventually to 20 million passengers per year from a current level of 8.6 million. If our crowdfunding is successful we will able to work with Estelle Dehon a hugely well-respected barrister in environment and planning law (with particular expertise in climate change matters). She will be able to legally analyse the 400 plus planning documents on the Council’s planning website and offer campaigners and the committee irrefutable expert evidence in favour of refusal.
Estelle has previously worked on the Plan B fight against Heathrow’s third runway so is particularly well placed to spearhead our challenge. We also hope that she will be able to come to the hearing and speak on our behalf to the councillors making the final decision.
As you already know, the next 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 huge amounts of harmful emissions that contribute to the problem by over 500,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum, much of it is emitted directly into the upper atmosphere, doubling or even trebling the harmful effect.
Local residents and people in Bristol who are under the flight path will be directly exposed to additional hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides, lead and Black Carbon which can cause cardiovascular and respiratory disease including lung cancer and many other health problems (according to the World Health Organisation). This pollution will exacerbate the problem with Bristol’s toxic air quality, which already leads to 300 early deaths a year in the city.
There are many other local issues;
increased noise from 23,600 extra planes per year, with a significant increase in night flights;
light pollution from 24-hour operation of support services;
more congestion on local roads, unless millions of pounds are spent on infrastructure;
harmful impact on wildlife such as bats (several important roosts are located close to the airport);
and a massive expansion of parking on greenbelt land,
lack of public transport options. Bristol Airport makes much of its profits from car parking, so has no incentive to reduce private car traffic.
What are we NOT raising money for?
We are not trying to close down the airport, just to limit its growth to the already agreed 10 million passengers per annum (currently approximately 8.65m so there is already headroom for the airport to grow).
We are not trying to stop people going on their annual holiday but would like to reduce the number of frequent flyers in order to help tackle the climate crisis.
We are not trying to harm the economy; in fact the airport acts as a conduit for money leaving the region as it is majority owned by the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan, so the profits go overseas.
We are not trying to stop the creation of more jobs but we believe that there are many more sustainable and worthwhile jobs to be obtained by looking at the opportunities from the green, carbon reduction economy and we believe this area is very well placed to develop these. We believe that the taxpayer’s money that would be spent on infrastructure to support this massive expansion would be better spent on jobs that have a positive long term impact such as the renewable energy industry or local farming & food.
Unregulated carbon pollution from aviation is the fastest growing source of the greenhouse gas emissions driving global climate change. As David Attenborough said recently ‘It may sound frightening, but the scientific evidence is that if we have not taken dramatic action within the next decade, we could face irreversible damage to the natural world and the collapse of our societies.’
Help do something about this by stopping the expansion of Bristol Airport
NB. Money that you donate will be held by lawyers Lyons Bowe who will oversee the proper use of these funds in line with the purposes outlined above.
Bristol airport hope to expand from 8 to 12 million annual passengers; 73% rise in CO2 emissions
January 18, 2019
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.
A thorough study of 191 primary school children who live near Schiphol Airport, in the Netherlands, shows that high concentrations of ultra-fine particles from aircraft can affect health seriously. The research showed that when the wind blows in the ‘wrong’ direction children with respiratory complaints suffer more and use more medication. Complaints include shortness of breath and wheezing. These are the conclusions of new research by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), in collaboration with Utrecht University and the Academic Medical Centre (AMC). There were 3 sub-studies: a study of 191 primary school children in residential areas near Schiphol, a study of 21 healthy adults immediately adjacent to Schiphol, and a laboratory study with lung cells. Such extensive research on ultrafine particles and health has never been carried out around airports before. The findings should alarm everybody responsible for the tremendous worldwide growth of aviation. There are no indications that the health effects of air traffic are different from those of road traffic. The study is part of a long-term study of the RIVM. In 2020 and 2021 they will research the effects of long-term exposure to ultra-fine particles from air traffic.
28th June 2019
PROOF: ULTRA-FINE PARTICLES FROM AIRCRAFT AFFECT HEALTH
A thorough study among 191 primary school children who live near Schiphol Airport shows that high concentrations of ultra-fine particles from aircraft can affect health seriously. When the wind blows in the ‘wrong’ direction children with respiratory complaints suffer more and use more medication. Complaints include shortness of breath and wheezing. These are the conclusions of new research by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), in collaboration with Utrecht University and the Academic Medical Centre (AMC).
Such an extensive research on ultrafine particles and health has never been carried out around airports and should alarm everybody responsible for the tremendous worldwide growth of aviation.
The study is part of a long-term study of the RIVM. Next years they research the effects of long-term exposure to ultra-fine particles from air traffic.
UECNA, Union Européenne Contre les Nuisances Aériennes, was founded in 1968 by three citizens who suffered from aircraft noise: Maitre Guillot, a lawyer from Paris (Orly – France), André Looten, from Geneva (Switzerland) and Pasteur Kurt Oeser from Frankfurt (Germany).
UECNA is still today the sole umbrella organisation gathering the interest of people overflown by aircraft and suffering from aircraft noise and emissions with members from all over Europe.
UECNA members are national organisations, regional active groups or local residents fighting against the noise of one airport. Aircraft noise and emissions are growing environmental problems of today’s air traffic and mobility. Their major impact on human health is no longer in dispute: numerous diseases are now definitely associated with such pollution.
Ultrafine particles in the vicinity of Schiphol Airport affect health
Publication date 06/27/2019
National Institute for Public Health and the EnvironmentMinistry of Health, Welfare and Sport in the Netherlands
People who live near Schiphol are regularly exposed to higher concentrations of ultrafine particles. This can have an effect on health. On days with high exposures, children with respiratory complaints suffer more and use more medication. Complaints include shortness of breath and wheezing.
These are the conclusions of new research by RIVM National Institute for Public Health and the Environment , in collaboration with Utrecht University and the Academic Medical Centre (AMC). Never before has such extensive research been carried out into ultrafine particles from air traffic and health.
Short-term reductions in lung function were measured in children and healthy adults as a result of higher short-term exposure. In healthy adults, short-term changes in heart function were also measured. On average, these changes are small and will not necessarily result in health problems. However, these changes can be more significant for people who are more sensitive to them, for example, because they suffer from asthma or a heart condition.
The effects occur with ultrafine particles originating from air traffic, as well as from other sources, such as road traffic. There are no indications that the health effects of air traffic are different from those of road traffic.
Broad research programme
The conclusions are based on three sub-studies: a study of 191 primary school children in residential areas near Schiphol, a study of 21 healthy adults immediately adjacent to Schiphol, and a laboratory study with lung cells. The results of this research cannot yet provide insight into the possible long-term health effects of ultrafine particles.
RIVM has now started research into the effects of long-term exposure to ultrafine particles from air traffic. This research makes use of the results of the ‘measuring and calculating research‘ into the number of ultrafine particles in the vicinity of Schiphol, and the results of the research into direct effects on health. The results of this research are expected to become available in 2021.