CAA consultation on whether airlines will pay £10 million (or more) per year of Heathrow’s planning costs

The issue of how much Heathrow can pass the costs of its expansion onto airlines is much disputed. Airlines such as IAG have been vociferous in refusing to pay for anything up-front. The amount Heathrow can charge airlines is laid down by the CAA, which has now put out a consultation on this subject. There are three categories of cost.  Category A is lobbying, advertising etc, to get the runway approved. The CAA says Heathrow must pay this itself. Then Category B costs are those incurred to obtain planning permission through the development consent order, for the runway etc.  It is Category B costs the CAA is consulting about. (Category C costs are those of actually building the added capacity – and may include costs like buying up thousands of properties in the villages. The treatment of these costs is not yet agreed by the CAA). The CAA consultation is proposing that of the Category B costs (ie. planning costs) Heathrow can get back £10 million per year from airlines through higher costs. For planning costs of over £10 million per year, the CAA propose these would be capitalised and rolled into HAL’s existing Regulatory Asset Base (RAB). These costs would then be be paid by a “risk-sharing mechanism” between airlines and Heathrow. If HAL succeeds in getting planning consent, they can get 105% of the costs over £10 million per year back through higher charges to airlines. If they do not get planning consent, they can only get 85% back. The consultation on this ends on 12th December. Details below. 
.

 

 

Recovery of Category B costs by Heathrow Airport

The new document CAP 1469 sets out our final proposals on the recovery of costs associated with obtaining planning permission for new runway capacity at Heathrow Airport.

We have also published CAP 1470, formal notice to allow Heathrow Airport Limited to recover £10 million of Category B costs per year for new runway expansion.

More details and information on how to submit your views to us are available at consultations.caa.co.uk. We are accepting responses to both until the 6th December 2016.  

8.11.2016 (CAA website)

http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=9a13f6185a0a697970bd3de1d&id=17ac9d144d&e=65e9ed7e7c


CAP 1469

The recovery of costs associated with obtaining planning permission for a new northwest runway at Heathrow Airport: final proposals

November 2016 (CAA)
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201469%20NOV16.pdf

Below are some extracts from the document:
Category A costs are defined as “Airports Commission-related and associated lobbying costs incurred by an airport operator or Heathrow Hub Limited. These are costs that we consider will, in general, be incurred before a Government policy decision on the location of capacity expansion is made.”  and

“most Category A costs will not be recoverable, but some costs could be re-categorised as Category B if a strong and clear case is made by HAL that the information submitted for the planning process is not materially different to that submitted to the Airports Commission.”

.

Category B costs  are costs “associated with Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL) seeking to obtain planning permission for the development of a new northwest runway at Heathrow Airport.”  These are costs “incurred by an airport operator after a Government policy decision on the location of new capacity and are directly connected with and solely for the purposes of seeking planning consent through the DCO (development consent order) process. We stressed that Category B costs must be strictly additional to any costs already included in the Q6 allowance as well as being efficiently incurred.”
[ Q6 originally expires on 31 December 2018. We consulted on extending Q6 for one year, so
that it will expire on 31 December 2019. The notice of proposed modification to HAL’s licence to that effect is available at www.caa.co.uk/CAP1459. ]

.
Category C costs are defined as costs “incurred by an airport operator, typically after planning permission is granted, in connection with implementation and construction of new capacity, up to entry-into-operation.”


Background

2.1   In our July 2016 consultation, we set out our initial proposals on the treatment of costs associated with obtaining planning permission for new runway capacity.   The broad principles were:

 planning costs are defined as those incurred by the successful
airport promoter following a government policy decision on location
and attributed to activities necessary for it to conduct the planning
process;
 costs up to £10 million per year will be recoverable by the airport
operator through an increase in airport charges;
 costs that are incurred over £10 million per year can be recovered by
the airport operator subject to them being efficiently incurred and
there being risk-sharing arrangements in place; and
 risk-sharing agreements to cover the risk that planning permission is
not granted, rescinded or withdrawn.


Summary

1.1   This consultation document sets out our final proposals on the regulatory treatment of the costs associated with Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL) seeking to obtain planning permission for the development of a new northwest runway at Heathrow Airport. These are termed Category B costs (or planning costs).

1.2   The charges that HAL can levy on airlines to recover these Category B costs are subject to economic regulation under the terms of a licence granted by the CAA under the Civil Aviation Act 2012 (the Act).

.


Summary of CAA’s final proposals

1.3  Our final proposal is that Category B costs should be defined as costs which are directly connected with, and solely for the purposes of, seeking planning consent through the Development Consent Order (DCO) process.

1.4   We propose that up to £10 million per year of efficient Category B costs can be recovered from higher airport charges either in the year they are expected to be incurred (or two years later for 2016 and 2017 through the K factor in the Price Control Condition). This proposal is subject to a separate consultation. [ Available at: www.caa.co.uk/CAP1470. ]
1.5   Category B costs incurred over £10 million per year should be capitalised and rolled into HAL’s existing Regulatory Asset Base (RAB). These costs should be clearly identified within the RAB in order to allow the CAA and stakeholders to track and scrutinise the level of costs incurred.
1.6 Category B costs over £10 million per year should be subject to the following cost recovery arrangements:

 A 105 / 85 risk-sharing mechanism, which allows a 5% addition to
costs incurred if a DCO is granted, but limits recovery to 85% of the
costs incurred if a DCO is not granted.
 Planning costs in the RAB recovered gradually over 15 years,
including a return to cover the weighted average cost of capital
(WACC)  [ie. something akin to interest . AW note]  at the level determined in the Q6 settlement and irrespective of the outcome of the planning process.
 Cost recovery to HAL via charges to airlines to commence only after
the outcome of the DCO process is known.

.
1.7   All Category B costs incurred, including costs up to and above the £10 million per year threshold, will be subject to an efficiency test. The Independent Fund Surveyor (IFS) will provide an ongoing assessment of the efficiency of all Category B costs incurred.

1.8   We reserve the right to decide that HAL will be able to recover less than 85% of the Category B costs incurred, if there is clear and compelling evidence that HAL has unilaterally withdrawn from the planning process.

1.9   HAL should make materials and reports produced for the planning process available to the CAA, the airline community and other stakeholders as soon as practicable. HAL should consult with the airline community at the outset on the rules and principles for classifying any information as confidential and how this should be shared with stakeholders.
.
1.13   Our initial proposal said that costs in the pRAB should be recovered over a 10 year depreciation period where the DCO is granted, with a shorter period suggested where the DCO is not granted. We maintain the view that our estimate of 10 years is reasonable, but given the uncertainty over the life of a quasi-intangible asset such as planning permission, we are content to extend the depreciation period from 10 to 15 years, to reflect
the responses from many of the airlines that this period is too short.

.
1.16   Our view remains that the risk-sharing principle and the specific 105/85 parameters are appropriate. We note airlines’ view that they should not bear any Category B cost risks because of their limited control over the planning process. However, we consider that our proposal that 85% of costs can be recovered is a balanced proposition, as well as being more favourable to airlines than previous regulatory treatments. For Heathrow Terminal 5 and the (aborted) second runway at Stansted, we (ex-ante) allowed 100% of efficiently incurred planning costs to be recovered from higher airport charges to airlines

.
1.19   Our initial proposal was that cost recovery should only start when the result of the planning process is known. HAL argued that cost recovery should start as soon as or shortly after they are incurred, whereas the airlines wanted cost recovery to start only when new capacity comes into operation. Our package of proposals mean that the majority of Category B costs will be recovered after the runway is open.

.
1.20   We welcome views on the final proposals set out in this document. Having already reflected carefully on responses to our initial proposals, we would especially welcome any new evidence and arguments.

1.21   Comments should be sent to economicregulation@caa.co.uk by no later than 17:00 on Monday 12 December 2016.

We cannot commit to take into account representations after this date.

1.22   We expect to issue our decision on the regulatory treatment of costs associated with obtaining planning permission for a new northwest runway at Heathrow Airport in January 2017.

1.23   If you would like to discuss the issues raised in this document before the
December deadline please contact Stephen Gifford   (stephen.gifford@caa.co.uk).

.


The principles of a risk-sharing arrangement

Initial proposals

5.1   We said that the principle behind the introduction of a risk-sharing mechanism was to ensure that both GAL/HAL and the airlines bear some risk in the event that planning permission was not granted, was rescinded or was withdrawn.

5.2   We considered that risk-sharing means that stakeholders will be incentivised to be part of the process and to help ensure that Category B  costs are minimised as much as possible. HAL will also be encouraged to engage positively with local communities and other stakeholders to maintain support for expansion and efficiency. We also said that airlines should bear some of the planning risks, as they would stand to benefit from expansion.

.
5.4   LACC/AOC  [ London (Heathrow) Airline Consultative Committee/Airport Operators
Committee ]  argued that airport operator should not be rewarded for performing its core function and that airlines should not be held accountable for risks associated with failure, as they have no control over planning and political risks.
.

5.8  VAA [Virgin Atlantic ] welcomed the risk allocation mechanism, but is concerned that the
level of risk apportioned to the airport is not enough, and argued that the airport operator is in the most appropriate position to bear the risk of planning failure. VAA made the point that our statement that ‘airlines stand to benefit’ from expansion does not apply to all airlines.

.
3.18   We continue to define Category C costs as construction costs incurred by HAL. We will consider the merits of developing a specific policy on preplanning construction costs, which would be on an accelerated timetable and before the overall approach to the economic regulation of Category C costs is devised.  Pre-planning construction costs cover preliminary works, enabling construction, property relocations, land acquisition, blight and
hardship. Stakeholder views and our response is outlined in Appendix B.

 

.

B.15   We note the significant magnitude of Category C costs could be incurred before a planning decision and the need to offer early regulatory certainty on their treatment.

B.16 Pre-planning construction costs could cover preliminary works, enabling construction, property relocations, land acquisition, blight and hardship. These costs could be treated in a similar fashion to the way the costs of capital projects are handled in Q6.

B.17 We are considering developing a policy on pre-planning construction costs as a separate Category C cost and on an accelerated timetable (i.e. before we propose the regulatory treatment of the majority of Category C costs which are incurred after planning permission is granted).


There is also

CAP 1470

Notice of proposed modification to Heathrow Airport Limited’s Economic Licence to allow for an annual recovery of £10 million of Category B costs for a new northwest runway

 

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201470%20NOV16.pdf

A couple of extracts: 

2.9     In our view, the retention of the £10 million pass-through is in the interests of users as it incentivises the airport operator to start work on securing planning permission immediately after a government announcement of its preferred location of new capacity and before a risk-sharing mechanism is put in place. We believe that additional runway capacity in south-east England will benefit current and future air passengers and cargo owners, and we consider that incentivising HAL to start the process of obtaining planning permission is an important first step in delivering new capacity.

2.10   The £10 million threshold will not reduce the incentive for the airport operator to act in an economical and efficient manner. Planning costs are expected to be significantly more than £10 million a year, and any costs above this threshold will be subject to a risk-sharing mechanism.

.

.

.

.

.

 

 

Read more »

Hounslow Council wants Heathrow runway negative impacts reduced – Chamber of Commerce wants “a slice of the action”

Hounslow Chamber of Commerce said that is was “extremely happy” about the Government support for a Heathrow 3rd runway. The Chamber has claimed it will ensure businesses in the borough get a “slice of the action” from Heathrow expansion.  CEO of Hounslow Chamber, Stephen Fry, has signed a declaration to work with Heathrow to develop plans, and says his priority will be to secure jobs and investment in the Hounslow community. He wants to ensure that a larger airport “will benefit our economy by growing existing businesses and kick starting new start-ups thereby creating new jobs around the country.”  He hopes that “while Heathrow airport already procures some £1.7 billion of products and services every year from local, regional and national businesses; we can expect this to increase substantially. Hounslow suffers intense noise from Heathrow over flights. Leader of Hounslow Council, Steve Curran, reiterated the council’s position on 26th October, saying: “Our position as a Council has not changed, we want a better, not bigger Heathrow Airport. We will however, work with Heathrow on behalf of our residents and businesses, many of whom are employed directly at Heathrow or are part of the supply chain, to ensure the best possible outcome and to reduce any adverse effects of the decision.”
.

 

 

Hounslow businesses pledge to work with Heathrow to deliver jobs and growth in the community

Business leader Stephen Fry says jobs and investment in the Hounslow community will be a priority

By SALINA PATEL  (Get West London)
7 NOV 2016

Hounslow Chamber of Commerce has claimed it will ensure businesses in the borough get a “slice of the action” following the government’s decision to back Heathrow Airport .

CEO of Hounslow Chamber Stephen Fry has signed a declaration to work with the hub airport to develop on plans to deliver on jobs and growth for all of Britain.

He says his priority will be to secure jobs and investment in the Hounslow community.

Mr Fry said: “Our job is now to ensure that the catalytic value of expansion will benefit our economy by growing existing businesses and kick starting new start-ups thereby creating new jobs around the country.

“This will mean that while Heathrow airport already procures some £1.7bn of products and services every year from local, regional and national businesses; we can expect this to increase substantially.

“My job is to ensure that Hounslow firms get a slice of the action and inject that cash directly into the veins of the community through jobs and investment.”

Hounslow Chamber of Commerce ‘extremely happy’ over decision to expand Heathrow Airport.

Other organisations to pledge their support include the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), British Chambers of Commerce, British International Freight Association (BIFA), Unite the Union, London First, British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA), and many more.

….. and it continues with Heathrow PR ……

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/west-london-news/hounslow-businesses-pledge-work-heathrow-12109738

.


and earlier

 

Hounslow Chamber of Commerce ‘extremely happy’ over decision to expand Heathrow Airport

BY DAVID RIVERS (Get West London)
26 OCT 2016

The Hounslow Chamber of Commerce has thrown its support behind the Government’s decision to approve a third runway at Heathrow Airport.

But the Hounslow Chamber of Commerce has listed its reasons as to why it is ‘extremely happy’ with the decision.

Chief executive, Stephen Fry, said: “The approval of the third runway and Heathrow expansion is the right choice for business.

“Moreover it is the right choice for the UK and will play a pivotal role in ensuring our post Brexit economy is a success.

“We look forward working with Heathrow, Hounslow Council, & Regional and Central Government to ensure that local businesses play a key role in the economic growth that expansion will bring.

“We also look forward to working with other regional Chambers of Commerce to ensure that an expanded Heathrow secures the expected benefits for the whole of the UK.

“The Government has demonstrated that it is not afraid of big infrastructure projects and is signalling to the world that a post Brexit UK is open for business.”

The Chamber said the two main reasons it believes the decision to expand is a success is because it mean businesses in Britain can plan for a post-Brexit economy, and that the decision sends out a message that says “come and trade with us.”

.

Leader of Hounslow Council, Councillor Steve Curran, added: “The announcement by the government to support expansion at Heathrow Airport with a new runway, will obviously have a huge impact on the residents and businesses of Hounslow.

“It will have significant long term implications for our borough and I can guarantee residents and businesses that we will make sure their voice is heard in the National Policy Statement [NPS] consultation on the new runway.

“Our position as a Council has not changed, we want a better, not bigger Heathrow Airport.

“We will however, work with Heathrow on behalf of our residents and businesses, many of whom are employed directly at Heathrow or are part of the supply chain, to ensure the best possible outcome and to reduce any adverse effects of the decision.

“We have already achieved some local improvements, particularly for our schools, this work must continue.”

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/west-london-news/hounslow-chamber-commerce-extremely-happy-12077847

.


Hounslow

Hounslow Borough is seriously over-flown by Heathrow, with its residents suffering from intense noise from low flights. Many of its schools are badly affected.  However, many of its residents work at the airport and so back its expansion, despite the seriously negative environmental impacts.

 

Some earlier news.

 

Hounslow spending £150 million trying to limit Heathrow plane noise for 40 local schools

Hounslow has a plane landing or taking off over it at least once per minute for most of the day. With noise loud enough to make it difficult to hold a conversation outside while a plane goes over, and loud enough to make speech and teaching difficult indoors, this is a serious problem for schools under Heathrow’s flight path. The airport is well aware of the issue, and that children have little option but to be in schools there. A teacher at a primary school some 2km from the airport’s south runway, said: “We’re in classrooms where we have to shut the blinds, we have to stop speaking, the air quality’s not very good and in the summer the temperature soars. But you can’t open the windows because of the noise, so it’s like we’re in a greenhouse melting.” Hounslow now has a £150m school rebuilding programme which aims to provide quieter classrooms in 40 schools under Heathrow’s flight path, over 5 years, partly by a heavyweight construction approach that incorporates a highly insulated concrete structural envelope. This cuts noise and gives more thermal stability.  Unless there is proper ventilation, and air cooling in summer, just triple glazing and closed windows are not enough.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2014/10/hounslow-spending-150-million-trying-to-limit-heathrow-plane-noise-from-40-local-schools/

.


.

Heathrow finally completes £4.8 million of insulation work on schools etc – after 10 years

Heathrow has finally finished installing noise insulation at the 42 schools and other community buildings (31 in Hounslow) where it promised in 2005 to carry out the work. It has taken 10 years, and it cost Heathrow £4.8 million.  Heathrow said in 2005 it would install double glazing and make other improvements to minimise the din from aircraft, at selected schools etc under its flight paths. Now, pressing for a runway, John Holland-Kaye ensured the work under the Community Building Noise Insulation scheme was completed this April.  Part of the cost is the adobe buildings for school playgrounds, in which children can be taught “outdoors” under the dome. How being inside an adobe dome counts as being “outdoors” is a mystery. The adobe buildings have cost £1.8 million, from Heathrow, and have been installed in 5 schools in Hounslow and Slough – with 5 more due to be completed in Hounslow this year. If Heathrow gets a 3rd runway, it has “promised” to spend £700 million insulating homes, schools and other buildings affected by aircraft noise – more than 20 times the £30 million currently on offer. But is it not saying if it will make any improvements, if it does not get a runway. John Stewart, chairman of HACAN, said: “What’s important is that further insulation should not be dependent on a third runway.”

As one wit asked: “If it has taken them 10 years to do £4.8 million of insulation work, how long could it take them to get round to £700 million?”   A fair question indeed …..

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/04/heathrow-finally-completes-4-8-million-of-insulation-work-on-schools-etc-after-10-years/

 .

Hounslow Council “positive and productive” and “better working relationship” with Heathrow

Labour led Hounslow council responded to the Airports Commission’s final report recommending a 3rd Heathrow runway, by saying that while the council is opposed to a bigger Heathrow, they want “a better and successful Heathrow.” They continue say they are against a 3rd runway, or any relaxation on runway alternation, or more than 480,000 flights per year. However, the extent of the council’s opposition is much reduced. It says it wants the “very best noise protection and pollution control measures for our residents – and in particular, our schools.” But it adds: …”we welcome the report’s recommendation that the new runway should come with severe restrictions to reduce the environmental and noise effects, including a noise levy, and that night flights would be banned. … we …. have recently developed a positive and productive relationship with Heathrow, which has resulted in many improvements for local people…” In June the council denied rumours it has withdrawn from the 2M group, which opposes a Heathrow third runway. Hounslow is noticeably on better terms with Heathrow, hoping to get benefits if a runway is permitted. Hounslow teamed up with Hillingdon Council to oppose a planning application which would enable more departures over Cranford.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/08/hounslow-council-positive-and-productive-and-better-working-relationship-with-heathrow/

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

 

Read more »

Even with 55% of Heathrow passengers using public transport there could be 15 million more passenger trips per year by car by 2040 than now

The government claims Heathrow can meet air quality standards in future, even with a new runway and 50% more passengers, because it will (among other changes) ensure that there are no more road vehicles than now – and by around 2031 about 55% of passengers would use public transport.  So is that likely? Looking at passengers only, not freight, and the work done by Jacobs for the Airports Commission, it seems that (2012 data) there were about 70 million passengers, about 20 million of whom were transfers (ie. they did not leave the airport). That meant slightly below 50 million passengers travelled to and from the airport, using surface transport. In 2012 about 59% of these travelled by car (ie. about 29.5 million), 41% came by public transport (28% by rail and 13% by bus or coach).  But by 2030 with a new runway, there might be around 110 million passengers, and around 33% would be international transfers. That leaves around 74 million passengers, and if 55% of them use public transport, that means about 34 million using cars. By 2040, the number using cars might be about 45 million (ie. about 15 million more per year than now).  And about 9 million using bus/coach – which is of course also on the roads. There would have to be dramatic increases in electric vehicles and improved engine technology to ensure no higher emissions in the Heathrow area.  And that is not counting freight vehicles. Or staff.  Or other increased vehicle traffic associated with the 3rd runway.
.

 

 

These figures include taxi trips, as well as other car trips.

The Jacobs report for the Airports Commission also states: 

7.1.4  .(Page 74) ……. Currently,  [? 2014] 59% of passengers at Heathrow travel to the airport by car or taxi, and of the 41% who travel by public transport, 28% use rail and 13% bus/coach.  Similarly, around 43% of employees at Heathrow currently commute to the airport by car/taxi, with the 47% public transport mode share split between 35% using bus and 12% using rail.

7.1.5  The HAL submission indicated that an air passenger public transport mode share target of 52% (36% rail, 17% bus/coach) was used to test the impact of the new North West Runway on the rail network and road network. Employee mode share was assumed to be 43% public transport and 47% private vehicle.

 

and

7.2.1 Our analysis predicted that public transport mode share of passenger surface access trips to/from Heathrow would increase from 41% in 2012 to 55% in 2031. [The government document put out on 25th October says 55% by 2040.  Link ]  The main change is predicted to be in the rail mode share, which is predicted to increase from 28% in 2012 to 43% in 2031. This represents a net impact of up to 2,400 additional rail trips to the airport in the AM peak hour in 2030 as a result of the new North West Runway, with up to 1,400 additional rail trips leaving the airport.

 

jacobs-heathrow-surface-access-2030

Table 2 on Page 23 of at link below

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/371829/4-surface-access–lhr-nwr.pdf

.

[Jacobs (Page 86) expected around 32 – 35% of interlining (ie. international transfer) passengers by 2030. That would be about 35 million interling passengers out of about 109 million. These interling passengers do not leave the airport, give no benefit to the UK economy, but do not need to travel to or from Heathrow.

The Airports Commission Final Report  (Page 251)said:   “Without expansion, the number of international transfer passengers at Heathrow is forecast to fall from 20 million a year in 2014 to 8 million or fewer by 2050; with expansion this pattern of decline could be reversed, seeing up to 30 million international transfer passengers by 2050. ”

This Airports Commission document Strategic Fit updated forecasts (pages 137 and 138) says there would be 34.4 million international to international passengers at Heathrow in 2030 (carbon traded scenario, and 23 million in 2050.

.


The government statement on 25th October merely said: 

“Heathrow has pledged that there will be no increase in airport-related road traffic with expansion and committed to a target of more than half of passengers using public transport to access the airport.”   Link

.


Some rough calculations:

Heathrow in 2012   – 70 million passengers.

Around 20 million (about 29%) were international to international transfers.

So 50 million passengers travelled to and from the airport per year, most by road or rail (excluding domestic transfers)

41% came by public transport   ie 20.5 million (of the 50 million)
28% used rail     ie  about 14 million of the 50 million
13% used bus or coach (= road)   ie. 9.1 million  ie  6.5 million of the 50 million

59% used car    ie.  29.5 million passengers out of the 50 million

————————————-

Heathrow by 2030  – about 110 million passengers

Airports Commission expects around 32 – 35% would be international to international transfers. (ie about 36 million transfer passengers).  If there was a lower proportion of these transfers, more would need to travel  to and from the airport by local road and rail.

So around 74 million passengers travelling to and from the airport each year, most by road or rail.

55% using public transport     ie. about 40 million of the 74 million
43% using rail     ie.  31.8 million of the 74 million (over twice as many as now – 17 or 18 million more than now)
12% using bus or coach (= road)   ie. about 9 million of the 74 million

45% using car    ie about 34 million passengers, of the 74 million (about 4.5 million more than now – about a 15% increase.)

——————————————————————————

Heathrow by 2040 – about 128 million passengers

AC said (Page 251) there could be 30 million international to international transfers by 2050

so about 100 million passengers travelling to and from the airport each year.
55% using public transport   ie. 55 million of the 100 million 

If  43% use rail   i.e. 43 million  (compared to 14 million now- that’s 29 million more)

If 12% use bus or coach  (= road)  ie.  12 million (compared with 6.5 million now)

45% use car    ie.  45 million passengers  (About 15 million more than now – or about 53% more than now).

But the numbers needing to use public transport, or the roads, would be much higher if Heathrow does not has as much as 32 – 35% of its passengers as international to international transfers, who do not leave the airport.  The numbers could all then be up to a third higher.

AW note

.


Staff transport to and from Heathrow

It is worth mentioning that after the main consultation and the subsidiary extra consultation on local air quality, the Airports Commission released the Jacobs report on Surface Access:Dynamic Modelling report (dated May 2015). This is at

.
This analysis, by Jacobs, took the highest case for the numbers of passengers – the Airports Commission’s “carbon traded, global growth” (CT GG) scenario. (The figures are a bit higher than the “carbon traded, assessment of need” (CT AoN) scenario).   For 2030, with a 3rd runway, the CT GG figure of annual passengers is about 125 million, while the CT AoN is about 109 million.
.
The numbers of passengers using public transport to get to and from Heathrow in 2030 are about 73 million in the  CT AoN scenario, and about 83.9 million in the CT GG scenario.
.
This document also has the number on on-airport staff as about (see Tables 2.2 and 2.3 on page 8) as about 90,000 by 2030 in the CT AoN scenario, and about 115,000 [114,999]  in the CT GG scenario.  (There are perhaps – at a guess – around 67,000 on-airport staff now, but it is difficult to get a figure. It might have been about 76,000 in 2010 – but numbers fall due to greater productivity per worker year by year.  Heathrow’s own forecasts suggested about 72,100 on-airport employees with 82.5 million annual passengers, compared to about 73 million passengers now).
.
The 2014 Jacobs report said:  “Headline employee commuting mode share was assumed to be 43% public transport and 47% private vehicles in both options, compared to 43% public transport and 47% private transport observed in 2013.”  (Page 15 )   And (Page 74) “Similarly, around 43% of employees at Heathrow currently commute to the airport by car/taxi, with the 47% public transport mode share split between 35% using bus and 12% using rail.”  (See Page 6 )
.
If there are currently around  (very approximately)  76,000 on-airport staff ( link ) and 47% of them come by car, that is around 35,700 per year.
.
If the number of on-airport staff rose to 90,000, and 43% of them came by car, that is about 38,700 per year.   Or if 47% came by car, that would be  42.3 million.
.
And if the number was as many as 100,000 (let alone 115,000 staff) the number would be 43,000 per year (or  if 47% came by car, that would be 54 million). Compared to about 36 million now.
.
[Heathrow said in  Feb 2014  that “fewer than 65% of staff commute in single-occupancy vehicles.”  !?  Link  ]
.
But Heathrow says:  “A key undertaking in this is that there will be no growth in airport-related traffic on the nearby road and motorway network, facilitated by enhanced public transport as part of the Airport Surface Access Strategy (ASAS).”  Link 
.
Heathrow says that as a condition of the Terminal 5 Inquiry: “A limit on the number of car parking spaces for both passengers and staff to 42,000”.  [ link ]
.
A Heathrow presentation dated 10.11.2015  says that by 2030 trips by both staff and passengers to the airport will be 53% by public transport.  [ Link ]  ie. still 47% by public transport.
.
The Heathrow claim of no more cars is based on assuming a big switch in employee transport from private cars to public transport/cycling and car sharing and on that basis Heathrow have told the Commission that they do not see any need for widening the M4 and many other road schemes. The dynamic modelling report above led to another report
.
which answered comments made about the need for additional road infrastructure and showed the pressures they expected the road network to come under both with general development in the area and that caused by an expanded airport.
.

On taxi movements

comments from study by Jacobs for the Airports Commission
“Appraisal Framework Module 4. Surface Access: Heathrow Airport North West Runway.  FINAL.  FOR CONSULTATION AIRPORTS COMMISSION. 5th November 2014
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/371829/4-surface-access–lhr-nwr.pdf
Currently, 59% of passengers at Heathrow travel to the airport by car or taxi, and of the 41% who travel by public transport, 28% use rail and 13% bus/coach. Similarly, around 43% of employees at Heathrow currently commute to the airport by car/taxi, with the 47% public transport mode share split between 35% using bus and 12% using rail.
.Strategic roads
In terms of road traffic, the Jacobs model forecasted a net impact of up to 1,200 additional car/taxi trips to the airport in the AM peak hour in 2030 as a result of the new North West Runway, with up to 600 additional car/taxi trips leaving the airport. This demand was added to background traffic forecasts sourced from the DfT on sections of the strategic highway network serving the airport and then compared with estimates of capacity on network links, accounting for the impact of committed and planned Highways Agency schemes included in the core and Extended Baseline with SRA packages.

and

3.1.3 The sub-car mode share (i.e. the split between taxi, kiss-and-fly, short-term parking and long-term parking demand) from the 2012 CAA Heathrow passenger survey data was used to estimate a composite GC [GC means Generalised Cost] for car between each district and the airport in the base model. The complexities involved with forecasting sub-car mode share in 2030 (which would involve assumptions related to car ownership levels, background traffic congestion, availability of short- and long-term parking at the airport, average parking tariffs and dwell times, kiss-and-fly arrangements etc.) would be significant,
and the decision was taken to apply the 2012 sub-car mode share by district in the 2030 model to calculate future composite car GCs.

and

As a result, districts with relatively improved transport connections to the airport in 2030 were allocated an increased proportion of total airport demand, reflecting the assumption that improved transport connections would induce demand between these areas and Heathrow. This change in distribution was then fed back into the logit model to forecast the modes of transport that would be used by these trips.

and

3.5.7 Table 5 presents a breakdown of mode share by main regions in the UK. The analysis shows that the proposed rail improvements will generally increase public transport share across the UK. The greatest benefits are observed for trip originating from areas in the South East, East of England, and North West where the public transport share increases by over 50% from the share in 2012.  From South East (Not London), 31% of passengers are expected to access Heathrow via rail, a figure much higher than the 5% observed in 2012. The North West has a significant decrease in access by private car, with only 10% accessing Heathrow by car compared to 53% in 2012 and the proportion of passengers arriving at Heathrow by rail increasing from 35% in 2012 to 85% in 2030. The rail improvements are
also expected to reduce the number of passengers accessing the airport by car from the Inner London area, where the car mode share is predicted to reduce from 40% to 32%.

See Table 5 with % taxi etc for each region. Page 27

and

3.6.4 Heathrow’s own analysis shows that many taxis and private vehicles dropping off at the airport have an empty return journey. This results in approximately 40,000 additional vehicle movements a day to and from Heathrow. This represents over 25% of current car trips to and from Heathrow, so plans to reduce these trips could have an impact on the volume of airport-related trips. A setup which matches passenger to drivers that have dropped off at the airport and encourages taxi sharing is likely to reduce traffic movement. Currently, Heathrow suggest that 78% of taxi trips return empty.

Analysis shows that reducing this by 10% along with an increase in car share could reduce car trip further by up to 4%

Additional vehicle movements are allowed for empty trips generated from Kiss and fly passengers and 78% of all taxis are assumed to generate an empty return.

And

4 In general terms, the analysis suggests that a new North West Runway at Heathrow does not markedly increase traffic on the strategic road network. ……..

However, a noticeable increase in traffic flow as a result of the new North West Runway occurs on some specific links in the immediate vicinity of the airport, particularly on routes where ‘kiss & fly’ and taxi remain popular car sub-mode choices due to short distances between the Airport and trip origins/destinations

and

5.7.4 Heathrow’s proposes to reduce airport-related car trips by implementing initiatives to encourage more efficient use of private cars and taxis. These initiatives which should facilitate a reduction in the no of empty car trip and improve vehicle occupancy levels include:
 Provide sufficient car parking to meet demand with the aim to reduce discourage ‘kiss and fly’ or taxi use. Heathrow’s proposal involves expanding the terminal 5 short stay car park to 6,000 spaces for west terminal and expanding the new terminal car park to 4,000 spaces for the east terminal; and
 Develop a taxi backfilling scheme to match passengers to drivers that have dropped off at the airport and encourage taxi sharing by matching passenger journeys to similar destinations.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/371829/4-surface-access–lhr-nwr.pdf

.

See also

How the government hopes air pollution will not be a block on a Heathrow 3rd runway

The Government has produced claims that adding a 3rd Heathrow runway would be compatible with air quality limits for NO2. The DfT statement on 25th October stated that the government had done more work, since the Airports Commission, and this “confirms that a new runway at Heathrow is deliverable within air quality limits, if necessary mitigation measures are put in place, in line with the ‘National air quality plan’, published in December 2015.” That air quality plan has since been judged inadequate by the High Court ruling in the case brought by ClientEarth. The DfT also said: “Heathrow’s scheme includes plans for improved public transport links and for an ultra-low emissions zone for all airport vehicles by 2025. The government will make meeting air quality legal requirements a condition of planning approval.”Lawyers Bircham Dyson Bell comment: “would you build, or invest in, a new runway if you weren’t sure it could be used?” Heathrow and the government hope that, by 2040, 55% of Heathrow passengers will be using public transport, but there is no guarantee whatsoever that legal air quality limits would in reality be met. Currently [2012 data] about 41% of Heathrow passengers use public transport (about 28% by rail and 13% bus/coach – on the road). Heathrow hopes 43% will use rail by 2030. That is estimated to mean an extra over 56 million passengers annually using public transport compared to around 29 million today, and 6 million more passengers travelling to and from the airport by car.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

 

Read more »

Zac: Too close relationship between Heathrow & Government borders on corrupt – recent examples

Former Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has accused the Government and Heathrow Airport of having a relationship that “borders on the corrupt”.   He said the closeness of the interaction between the airport and Whitehall was “rotten”. Examples recently of this are that the Chairman of Heathrow since March 2016 (succeeding Sir Nigel Rudd) is Lord Paul Deighton. Between 2013 and 2015 he held the position of Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, some of the roles of which are described as “infrastructure policy, including working with Infrastructure and Projects Authority and National Infrastructure Commission” and “working with the rest of government to promote the UK as a destination for foreign direct investment.”  Another recent revolve of the door is Vickie Sherriff, who has since September 2015 been the Head of Communications at Heathrow, having earlier worked for the Prime Minister, in 2013, with a dual role as official deputy spokesperson for the Prime Minister and head of news at Number 10. She went to the DfT and then Diageo in 2014.  Then there is Simon Baugh, who in March 2015 because the group director of communications at the DfT, having previously been the director of PR at Heathrow. And Nigel Milton. And there are many earlier cases too. Zac commented: “And that’s why you’ve always had this default position in favour of Heathrow.”  The DfT naturally rejected any suggestion of corruption. 
.

 

Relationship between Heathrow and Government borders on corrupt, says Goldsmith

3.11.2016  (|Belfast Telegraph)

Former Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has accused the Government and Heathrow Airport of having a relationship that “borders on the corrupt”.

Mr Goldsmith, who resigned last week as an MP in protest at the Government’s Heathrow expansion plans, forcing a by-election which he is fighting on a campaign of opposition to the move, said the interaction between the airport and Whitehall was “rotten”.

He told LBC: “I think the relationship between Heathrow and Government is bordering on the corrupt.

“And I’ll put it into context.

Lord Deighton

 

“A year ago I was lobbying the infrastructure minister Lord Deighton, and I was lobbying him on this issue of Heathrow expansion, and he responded very politely and took a few notes. [Lord  Deighton’s page on the government website].

“A few months later he was the chairman of Heathrow.

“And that is true all the way through.

“You’ve got the former head of comms at Number 10, now the head of comms at Heathrow. [Vickie Sherriff, details below].

“Former head of comms at Heathrow now the head of comms at the Department for Transport, [Simon Baugh, details below] and I could spend an hour giving you other examples.

“I think there is a problem. It’s not a Conservative Party problem. This was true under Gordon Brown, and the Tony Blair government before that. The relationship between the two is rotten.

“The revolving door is spinning wildly, and sometimes it is hard to know where Heathrow ends and Government begins.

“And that’s why you’ve always had this default position in favour of Heathrow.

“Why is it that we have this institutional obsession with a solution that is a non-solution and can’t be delivered? It’s very hard to explain, except through the lens of corrupted relationships.”

Asked about Mr Goldsmith’s allegation of corruption, a Downing Street spokesman said: “We reject that entirely.”

The Number 10 spokesman added: “The Airports Commission was absolutely clear that Heathrow is the best option for airport expansion in the South East.

“We took our time to look at that report, we commissioned extra work to go alongside that.

“That has been very carefully scrutinised and we are absolutely of the opinion that Heathrow is the place where airport expansion should take place.”

A spokeswoman for Heathrow Airport said: “This is absolutely untrue.

“The Government’s decision follows the most in-depth study of aviation expansion in a generation, the independent experts of the Airports Commission unanimously and unambiguously supported Heathrow’s plans for expansion.

“After two-and-a-half years, and a £20 million study, the Airports Commission confirmed that expanding Heathrow would have the biggest economic benefits for the UK and can be done while reducing noise for local communities and in accordance with EU air quality law.”

Press Association

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/news/relationship-between-heathrow-and-government-borders-on-corrupt-says-goldsmith-35186374.html

.


Lord Deighton

More about him from the Government website:

Biography

Lord Deighton took up the post of  in January 2013.

Previous roles in government

  1. Commercial Secretary to the Treasury   2013 to 2015

Announcements

  1. Government secures skills boost for major infrastructure projects

    • Press release
  2. Lord Deighton: National Infrastructure Plan 2014

    • Speech

And there is more at https://www.gov.uk/government/people/paul-deighton


Responsibilities of the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury:

The Commercial Secretary is responsible for:

  • UK productivity
  • City devolution, including Northern Powerhouse
  • infrastructure policy, including working with Infrastructure and Projects Authority and National Infrastructure Commission
  • corporate finance, including public corporations, public private partnerships, PFI, and sales of government assets
  • better regulation and competition policy
  • industrial strategy
  • working with the rest of government to promote the UK as a destination for foreign direct investment
  • housing and planning
  • The Royal Mint
  • Crown Estate and the Royal Household

Heathrow announces Lord Deighton as new Chairman

8.3.2016 (Heathrow press release)

Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd has today announced that Lord Paul Deighton will succeed Sir Nigel Rudd as Chairman of the Board when he steps down later this year.
Lord Deighton’s breadth of experience in funding and delivering major projects is unrivalled. He is widely respected in the financial, infrastructure and political communities. Under Sir Nigel Rudd’s leadership, Heathrow has been transformed into one of the great airports of the world. Lord Deighton will guide Heathrow through its next phase of development, supporting Heathrow’s vision of giving passengers the best airport service in the world and preparing for the Government’s decision on airport expansion.

Following a very successful career at Goldman Sachs, Lord Deighton delivered the 2012 London Olympic Games to international acclaim as CEO of LOCOG (London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games), enhancing the UK’s reputation for infrastructure service delivery and generating national pride. Recently, as Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord Deighton was responsible for the UK’s National Infrastructure Plan, focussing on getting major projects built, benefits captured , attracting capital into the UK from across the world and creating the right environment for continued infrastructure investment.

…. and it continues ….

http://mediacentre.heathrow.com/pressrelease/details/81/Corporate-operational-24/6031

.


Simon Baugh

  • Group Director of Communications

    Department for Transport (UK)
    – Present (1 year 9 months)

    I am responsible for communications strategy, campaigns, media relations, digital, stakeholder engagement and corporate communications at the UK Department for Transport, and accountable for communications strategy, spend and professional standards across its agencies.

  • Director of Media and Public Relations

    Heathrow
    (4 years)

    I was a communications director at the UK’s largest airport company (formerly BAA) with specific responsibility for group media relations, corporate and financial communications, consumer PR, filming and location management, communications planning and crisis management.

    I led the airport’s campaign for new runway capacity and its communications planning for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

  • Director of Internal and Passenger Communications

    Heathrow
    (2 years 8 months)

    I was communications director with specific responsibility for internal, digital and brand communications. I was also a member of Heathrow’s Operations and HR leadership teams.

  • Head of Public Affairs

    Heathrow
    (2 years 8 months)

    I helped secure planning permission for Heathrow’s new Terminal 2. I was also communications lead on the Crisis Management Team during high-profile events such as the 2006 liquid bomb plot and opening of Terminal 5.

.

See earlier:

DfT hires Heathrow PR director Simon Baugh – to start briefing ministers etc on runways after 30th September

Simon Baugh, who is currently director of PR at Heathrow Airport, is moving to the DfT to take up the role of group director of comms. He takes up the new job on 30th March.  Baugh said: “I can’t think of a more exciting time to be joining the team or to be promoting the role that transport plays in driving UK economic growth.” He has been overseeing PR at Heathrow, which included the launch in late 2013 of Back Heathrow, a ‘grassroots’ (astroturfing – deeply controversial) campaign.  On 20th February Zac Goldsmith put a written question in Parliament: “To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recruitment process was used when hiring Simon Baugh, Group Director of Communications for his Department; and what role Mr Baugh will have in his Department after the Airports Commission has made its recommendation on airport expansion in the South East.”   Reply by DfT spokesperson:  “As Mr Baugh was previously employed by Heathrow Airport Ltd, he will not be involved in advising Ministers on issues relating to the work of the Airports Commission for the 6 months following his appointment, which starts on 30 March 2015.” ie. the Commission may report at the end of June, and Simon Baugh can start briefing etc by 30th September.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/03/25475/

.


Vickie Sherriff

Revolving door revolves again: Vickie Sheriff (used to work at 10 Downing Street) to be Heathrow head of comms

There have for a long time been concerns about the “revolving door”, by which people switch between working high up in the aviation industry, and working high up in Government. The concern is that they may bring too much influence, from their earlier employer. Now it is announced that Vickie Sheriff it to become head of communications for Heathrow airport. Earlier she had worked for the Prime Minister, in 2013, with a dual role as official deputy spokesperson for the Prime Minister and head of news at Number 10. She went to the DfT and then Diageo in 2014.  Heathrow’s director of PR, Simon Baugh, left earlier this year to work at the Department for Transport to take the role of head of communications. This is the job that was previously held by Vickie Sheriff. (Simon Baugh was not actually meant to be advising ministers on the new runway issue till 1st September 2015 when he had been at the DfT for 6 months).  Heathrow also appointed a new consumer PR agency in the summer. There have been several other high profile examples of the “revolving door” in the past, including Tom Kelly in 2009, who had worked for Tony Blair and then went to BAA as head of comms.

….. and there are more older instances of the revolving door ….. with details at

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/09/revolving-door-revolves-again-vickie-sheriff-used-to-work-at-10-downing-street-to-be-heathrow-head-of-comms/


DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS, HEATHROW AIRPORT

Vickie Sheriff recently joined the Corporate Affairs team at Heathrow Airport as the new Director of Communications. It follows a stint as Communications Director for Diageo plc’s global team, before which Vickie spent many years working in numerous Whitehall departments in government communications roles. Her last post in government was Director of Group Communications for the Department for Transport and before that she ran the Downing Street press office and was the Deputy Official Spokesman for the Prime Minister. She has a background in media relations and PR campaigns, always on the client end of PR pitches and work.

.


NIGEL MILTON

Nigel leads Heathrow Airports Ltd’s Public Affairs and Community Relations teams. His responsibilities include managing Heathrow’s relations with politicians, government officials, business groups and the community around Heathrow. He represents Heathrow on a wide range of trade associations and lobbying groups.

Nigel joined Heathrow from Virgin Atlantic in March 2010 where he had spent six years in the External Affairs department. Prior to this Nigel worked for the Department for Transport (DfT) where he had been Assistant Director for International Aviation since October 2000. Prior to this post, Nigel was Private Secretary to the UK Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Transport, John Prescott, between 1998 and 2000.

Nigel has a law degree from Oxford University and a Masters degree in Transport Planning and Management from the University of Westminster.

.

 

Revolving door:

Wikipedia says:

“In politics, the “revolving door” is a movement of personnel between roles as legislators and regulators and the industries affected by the legislation and regulation.[note 1]

“In some cases the roles are performed in sequence but in certain circumstances may be performed at the same time. Political analysts claim that an unhealthy relationship can develop between the private sector and government, based on the granting of reciprocated privileges to the detriment of the nation and can lead to regulatory capture.

“The “revolving door” between the DfT and the aviation industry is well known, and the movement of staff between the two has been going on for years.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)

.

The quote below is from  Wikipedia:

“The aviation sector has close links with political decision makers which many players moving between roles through the controversial ‘revolving door‘. For example: Joe Irvin was advisor to John Prescott from 1996 and 2001 (Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions as well as Deputy Prime Minister) before working for various element of the aviation lobby and becoming head of corporate affairs at BAA in 2006 before he became ‘Special Advisor’ to Gordon Brown in 2007 when he became prime minister.[28][29] He was succeeded at BAA by Tom Kelly who took the title ‘group director of corporate and public affairs’; Kelly had previously been the official spokesman for Tony Blair when he was prime minister.[28]

Freedom to Fly was formed during the preparation phase of the “Future of Aviation white paper 2003” by BAA and others[30] It was ‘fronted’ by Joe Irvin, a former political adviser to John Prescott[31] who subsequently became Director of Public Affairs at BAA Limited[32]Their director, Dan Hodges, is the son of Glenda Jackson, Labour MP and former Aviation Minister.[33]

“In March 2009 senior MPs demanded a Commons investigation into evidence of a “revolving door” policy between Downing Street, Whitehall and BAA Limited

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_London_Heathrow_Airport

.

.


 

Maria Eagle (Labour’s then Shadow Transport Secretary) said of the DfT in 2011:

“….I am sorry that the government has not learnt from our own mistake – and I do believe it was a big mistake – to see the Department for Transport as a revolving door department. It’s bad for the sector. It’s bad for good governance.”

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2011/10/full-text-of-maria-eagles-speech-on-labours-ideas-on-future-aviation-policy/

.


Other examples of the “revolving door” between government and the aviation industry:

February 2008.  Plane Stupid wrote:

“Labour/industry revolving door: Trade minister Sir Digby Jones is the former
CBI boss who became chair of the new aviation industry lobby group, Flying Matters.
The group was recently formed to take on environmentalists over airport expansion.
Gordon Brown also appointed Joe Irvin, formerly a director of the aviation lobby
group Freedom to Fly, to become one of his inner circle of advisors too. Freedom
to Fly was the brainchild of Steve Hardwick – another of Labour’s key Millbank
apparatchiks – while the organisation was previously chaired by Labour peer Brenda
Dean and directed by Dan Hodges, the son of Glenda Jackson who was Labour’s first
aviation minister. Dan Hodge’s wife, Michelle De Leo, is the new director of Flying
Matters.

“The chancellor, Alistair Darling, the bete noir of climate campaigners, is far
from a stranger to BAA either. In fact, he was the guest of honour who officially
launched a group called Future Heathrow, who are lobbying for a third runway and
a sixth terminal at the airport. Future Heathrow, is headed up by another Labour
peer, Lord Soley, who works out of a BAA office in West London. BAA’s new communications chief is former Downing Street spin doctor Tom Kelly.”  Link

.


BAA hire Blair’s former spin doctor – Tom Kelly

25.10.2007  (UK Airport News)

BAA has hired Tony Blair’s former spokesman Tom Kelly. He who spent six years in Downing Street, most recently as the top PR man for the former prime minister. He becomes the UK airport operator’s Group Director of Corporate and Public Affairs.

Mr. Kelly, a former BBC journalist, left Downing Street with Mr Blair in June and takes up his new post on November 5. He replaces Ian Hargreaves, who left BAA more than a year ago in the first wave of resignations after BAA was taken over last year by the Spanish construction firm Ferrovial.

His first order of business will be to help shape the response to an inquiry, announced last week, from the Transport Select Committee into ‘The Future of BAA’. The inquiry will include a televised grilling of company executives, including chief executive Stephen Nelson. BAA has started providing evidence before two days of hearings set for 21 and 25 November.

Other issues for Mr. Kelly to tackle include the Civil Aviation Authority decision on profits and landing fees at Gatwick and Heathrow, which look like being set much lower than BAA had been lobbying for. The Competition Commission, meanwhile, is trying to decide whether the introduction of more competition through a break-up of BAA, which controls Gatwick and Stansted airports, would improve service for travellers.

Then there is the Stansted planning inquiry, which closed last week, and a public consultation on maximising the use of Heathrow runways (the so called ‘mixed mode’) and a third runway expected to be launched next month. In addition, he will need to turn around the criticism of BAA over the ramshackle infrastructure that greets travellers at Heathrow, the world’s busiest international airport.

Also appointed by BAA yesterday was Fiona Rodford as Human Resources Director. She joins from Alliance & Leicester, where she had been for four years, having previously worked for House of Fraser, Whitbread, Booker and Thomas Cook.

Stephen Nelson said the new recruits would ‘bring considerable strengths to the new BAA management team at one of the most important points in the company’s development.’

http://www.uk-airport-news.info/heathrow-airport-news-251007a.htm

.


The aviation sector has close links with political decision makers which many players moving between roles through the controversialrevolving door‘. For example: Joe Irvinwas advisor to John Prescott from 1996 and 2001 (Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions as well as Deputy Prime Minister) before working for various element of the aviation lobby and becoming head of corporate affairs at BAA in 2006 before he became ‘Special Advisor’ to Gordon Brown in 2007 when he became prime minister.[32][33] He was succeeded at BAA by Tom Kelly who took the title ‘group director of corporate and public affairs’; Kelly had previously been the official spokesman for Tony Blair when he was prime minister.[32]

Freedom to Fly was formed during the preparation phase of the “Future of Aviation white paper 2003” by BAA and others[34] It was ‘fronted’ by Joe Irvin, a former political adviser to John Prescott[35] who subsequently became Director of Public Affairs at BAA Limited[36]Their director, Dan Hodges, is the son ofGlenda Jackson, Labour MP and former Aviation Minister.[37] 

Wikipedia


.

Sir Roy McNulty is now non-executive director of Gatwick airport, but he has been Chairman of NATS and Chairman of the CAA in the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_McNulty

.

.


Also

David Vowles

Now Air Quality Science Policy Advisor at Defra

– Present (2 years 3 months)  London, United Kingdom

Lead on UK air quality monitoring of black carbon, particle numbers and concentrations, and air pollution emissions from transport.

Before that:

 

Air Quality and Noise Policy Manager at Heathrow

(6 years 4 months)

Wrote Air Quality Strategy for Heathrow Airport and implemented policies to reduce emissions and help improve the local environment. I managed the collection of key data to measure the effectiveness of airport policies as well as the delivery of emissions inventories and dispersion modelling.

Principal Air Quality Advisor at the Greater London Authority

(8 years 4 months)

Principal author of the London Air Quality Strategy and managed key actions to help improve London’s environment. These included a best practice guide for construction, GLA Environment Policy, providing specialist advice to the Metropolitan Police and London Fire Brigade on cleaner vehicles and supporting TfL in their goal for low emission buses.

.

.


Also at PwC, which did analysis for the Airports Commission on Heathrow

David Edwards,  Current Assistant Director – Corporate Finance – Infrastructure PwC
June 2006 – Present (10 years 6 months) London,

Previous  – Department for Transport (DfT), United Kingdom, Corporate Finance Advisor
2015 – 2015 (less than a year)

Before that  – Mott MacDonald

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/david-edwards-6a149728


Andrew Sentance,  is Senior Economic Adviser to PwC. He joined the firm in November 2011 after serving as an external member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England.

After studying at Cambridge and the LSE, Andrew started his career as a business economist at the Confederation of British Industry in the mid-1980s before moving to the London Business School in 1994. While at the CBI, he was a founder member of the Treasury’s Panel of Independent Forecasters – also known as the “seven wise men”. Immediately before joining the Bank of England, Andrew was Chief Economist at British Airways, where he also worked on business strategy and planning, airport policy, airport regulation and environmental affairs.

.

.

.

 

 

Read more »

SNP misled by Heathrow inflated claims of number of jobs for Scotland due to a 3rd runway

The SNP decided to give its backing to a Heathrow runway, rather than one at Gatwick – having been led to believe that the only choice on offer was between these two. They were led, by Heathrow PR, to believe there would be greater benefits for Scotland. The SNP hoped to get exports from Scotland (salmon and razor clams) shipped through Heathrow. The Airports Commission came up with a figure of economic benefit from a Heathrow runway of UP TO £147 billion to all the UK over 60 years. Heathrow got a consultancy called Quod to work out the number of jobs. They came up with the figure of 16,100 jobs for Scotland (over 60 years) from the runway. The DfT has now downgraded the £147 billion figure, as it included various speculative elements, and double counted benefits. The new figure (also still far higher than the reality) from the DfT is UP TO £61 billion for the UK over 60 years. That, pro rata, would mean up to about 9,300 jobs for Scotland – not 16,100. It is unfortunate that the SNP were misinformed, as were other MPs, Chambers of Commerce etc across the regions.  Heathrow also pledged benefits for Scotland such as using its steel for construction, and using Prestwick as a base. The Scottish Green party see the SNP backing of a Heathrow runway as a betrayal of those badly affected by it, and of Scotland’s climate commitments.
.

 

 

Greens: SNP ‘bailed out’ Theresa May over Heathrow

27 October 2016 (BBC)

The co-convenor of the Scottish Greens has launched a scathing attack on the Scottish government over its support for a third runway at Heathrow
Patrick Harvie said the move meant Scottish ministers had surrendered their commitment to climate justice.  He said the SNP had “bailed out” the prime minister, who faces a revolt among her own MPs over the issue.

The Scottish government insists the new runway will have major economic benefits for Scotland.  [That is what Heathrow told them ….. see below].

UK Transport Secretary Chris Grayling announced on Tuesday that the Heathrow expansion had been chosen as the government’s preferred option ahead of a rival bid by Gatwick.

The Scottish government formally backed the Heathrow bid after the airport made a list of commitments to Scotland, including creating up to 16,000 jobs and investing £200m in the country.

Heathrow also said it would help to develop new domestic routes to Scottish airports, and would investigate whether Prestwick Airport – which is owned by the Scottish government – could be used as a “logistics hub” for the new runway.

Speaking at First Minister’s Questions, Mr Harvie said Scotland’s commitment to climate justice apparently “doesn’t apply to people living under the flight paths at Heathrow”.

He said a third runway would cause a quarter of a million extra flights a year and a massive increase to emissions – which he said was the single biggest threat to the whole of the UK meeting its climate change targets.

It would leave thousands of people’s homes too noisy and too polluted to live in, and unknown tens of thousands more left suffering the damaging health effects, Mr Harvie claimed.

He added: “I can only imagine the outrage, and I would join it, from the Scottish government and from their colleagues at Westminster if the UK government was to inflict this kind of damage on so many lives in Glasgow or in Inverness or in Dundee in exchange for alleged economic self-interest.
“Yet they will now troop through the voting lobbies to bail out a Tory prime minister who stood for election saying no ifs, no buts, no third runway.
“What is the point of a principle like climate justice when it is surrendered so easily?”

 

Mr Harvie described Heathrow’s estimate of 180,000 jobs created by the plans as “pie in the sky” and “about as believable as the job projection figures for Donald Trump’s golf course”.

Referring to the presence of Heathrow representatives at the recent SNP conference in Glasgow, he said: “We’re not surely going to fall for this are we? What were the Heathrow bosses putting in the drinks at SNP conference?”

In response, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said the decision was one for UK ministers, but her government had looked at the option that would deliver the greatest benefit to Scotland’s economy and connectivity.

She said: “On the economy there’s the potential for significant construction spend in Scotland and thousands of jobs.

“In the nearer term there is potential for a supply chain hub at Prestwick, which is extremely important in terms of economic impact and jobs, a £10m route development fund, a reduction starting in January in passenger charges that will make service between Scotland and Heathrow much more viable and a new marketing campaign as well.

“These are the reasons on which our decision was based.”

The first minister also said Scotland had a “strong record” on meeting climate change targets and had shown “global leadership” by including aviation emissions in reduction targets.

She added: “These will always be difficult decisions to strike, and difficult balances to strike, but meeting our climate-change targets but also ensuring we have the infrastructure to enable our economy to grow and support jobs – these are not mutually-exclusive objectives.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37789175

.


Earlier:

Scottish Government backs third runway plan

10/10/2016   Scottish Government website

The Scottish Government has announced its support for plans to build a third runway at London Heathrow Airport, after securing key commitments for Scotland.

  • The creation of up to 16,000 new jobs across Scotland from the new capacity.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37605123

.


And then after the Heathrow announcement on 25th October, with lower economic benefit claims, no mention of those jobs:

Lord Ahmad outlines benefits of Heathrow expansion to Scotland

26.10.2016    (DfT press release)

“A new runway at Heathrow would boost jobs across the UK, lead to more flights and better connections, and link Scottish businesses to expanding global markets, Aviation Minister Lord Ahmad said at Glasgow Airport today”.

[No indication of thousands of jobs ….]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/lord-ahmad-outines-benefits-of-heathrow-expansion-to-scotland

.


Net Present Value (NPV)

The  measure used by the DfT and the Airports Commission for the future benefit to the UK of a new  runway is NPV.  (Net Present Value).  A definition of NPV can be found here.


Quod report

The flimsy little 4 page paper on which the claims of jobs etc is based is by “Quod” and is at

http://your.heathrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Regional-Disaggregation-of-ACs-Economic-Impacts-FINAL-v2.pdf
.
It has no date, no author, almost no references ….
 .
Their table from the Quod report – which is being used by the regions etc – is copied below.
quod
(The Airports Commission itself never anywhere said anything about 179,800 or even 180,000 jobs. This is extrapolation by Quod for Heathrow.  AW note)
And another table shows a total benefit for Scotland of £14 billion. But that is over 60 years, and it is derived from the assumption from the Airports Commission that Heathrow would provide a total benefit to the UK of £147 billion, over 60 years.
quod-pv-of-gdp-impacts-by-region
(This table appears to have been created by Quod, and is not from the Airports Commission – it us using Quod’s own methodology.  AW note).
The DfT has now reassessed this figure of up to £147 billion, (Quod etc of course use the £147 figure, and forget that it is “up to” …) and decided that it cannot be relied on.  It includes benefits from trade and other assumptions that cannot be justified, and risk double counting.
So the DfT has now come out with a figure of benefit to all of the UK of up to £61 billion (not £147) for all the UK over 60 years.  This is far lower than the £147 figure – in fact is it only 41.5% of it.
The job numbers in the Quod report are based on the  GDP level of £147.
Therefore, even if the assumptions in the Quod report are correct (and it is not clear in their paper how they have calculated the numbers, as there is no detail) the job figures should all be reduced by about 58%.  That would make the number of jobs, in Scotland, over 60 years, as more like 9,300 – not 16,100.

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Lakeside incinerator plant would need to move, at Heathrow’s expense, if runway is built

Grundon and Viridor’s Colnbrook incinerator at Lakeside Road would have to be demolished for a Heathrow north west runway. This, as well as local roads and the M25, are significant obstacles to the runway plan. The issue of how much Heathrow will pay for this is being negotiated. Early in 2015, Heathrow was reported to have struck a deal with Grundon and Slough Borough Council to overcome the risk to delivery of a runway, agreeing that the incinerator would be moved a short distance away, onto (Green Belt) land already owned by Grundon. It is not clear this is correct. Heathrow said it was preparing a “joint feasibility study”.  Heathrow said in 2015 that “NATS have given an initial opinion that the site is suitable for accommodating the height of flue stack required (75m).”  Three of the four lakes at Colnbrook Lakeside are now set to be lost, due to the runway.  In order that the incinerator remains open all the time, with no gap, building would need to start at least 3 years before being operational.  But the runway might never get the go ahead …  It is reported that discussions are taking place on payment of the multi-million costs of relocation. Adam Afriyie revealed in Parliament in 2015 that the government would not be paying. Robert Goodwill said it would be “a matter for the airport to take forward with the owners of the site.”
.

 

 

 

Lakeside centre forced to move after Heathrow plans approved

Discussions set to take place over forced recycling centre move

1.11.2016  (Slough Observer)

Location of Colnbrook incinerator at present

DISCUSSIONS are to take place on who will pay for the relocation of Colnbrook’s recycling centre which will be forced to move as a result of the Heathrow decision, the Observer can reveal.

Bosses from Lakeside Energy From Waste and Heathrow Airport will sit down to discuss the move in the near future after the controversial plan to build a third runway was approved last week.

The centre has only been operational since 2010 and a relocation is likely to cost millions. The recycling plant will be forced to move sites as part of the airport’s expansion, and negotiations will take place over the cost.

Lakeside is seeking a like-for-like replacement for their current site in Lakeside Road, Colnbrook, and it is understood that employees’ jobs would not be affected as part of the transition.

Adam Afriyie revealed in Parliament last year that the government would not be picking up the bill to cover the move, meaning representatives from Lakeside and Heathrow will have to discuss finances.

A spokesman for the site said: “We are hoping for a like-for-like replacement but we still need to get planning permission and building commission.  “We’ve held initial discussions with Heathrow but we need to sit down and talk to them again (now the plans are approved).

“We have written to all of our employees just to say that this is the first stage of the process.”

Danny Coulston, the Lakeside Director of Operations, revealed last year that the firm would be forced to move sites if the plans to build a third runway was approved by the Government.

Windsor MP Adam Afriyie quizzed former Secretary of State for Transport Robert Goodwill on whether the government would contribute to the move, but Mr Goodwill replied: “The costs associated with the Lakeside Energy from Waste Plant were considered in the Airports Commission’s assessment of land acquisition costs.

“If the Government was minded to support the North-West runway at Heathrow, the planning and costs of moving the Energy from Waste Plant would be a matter for the airport to take forward with the owners of the site.”

The recycling site, which takes rubbish from Slough and surrounding areas and converts it into green energy, was not the only group in Colnbrook that was opposed to Heathrow’s plans.

Councillor Scott Bryant, chairman of Colnbrook Parish Council, added: “We will be working with the community now to see where we can take this.

“We will challenge, question and find out just where we stand. That’s all we can do at the moment.”

A spokesman for Heathrow added: “Heathrow will fully fund the cost of our expansion project. No taxpayers’ money will be used to expand. We will seek to come to an agreement with the relevant parties.”

http://www.sloughobserver.co.uk/news/14836544.Discussions_set_to_take_place_over_forced_recycling_centre_move/?ref=twtrec

.


Waste plant to move after Heathrow announcement

Transport secretary Chris Grayling announced on 25 October that the Government would support the development of a third runway at the airport ahead of extending the existing northern runway or a second at Gatwick.

This follows a report published in July last year by independent body the Airport Commission, which recommended the Heathrow expansion.

The report indicated that expanding Heathrow’s airfield would require the removal and replacement of the Lakeside EfW facility, which was built at Colnbrook near Slough in 2010.

Now the Government has also backed the expansion, Lakeside Energy From Waste, the joint venture between Grundon Waste Management and Viridor which operates the plant, has said it will look for a new site.

A statement said: “Lakeside Energy from Waste will now seek to ensure the Lakeside EfW facility – and the associated waste management and recycling facilities within the Colnbrook complex – can be relocated on a like-for-like basis at a nearby suitable site, with minimal disruption, as soon as possible.

“We will work closely with Heathrow Airport and the relevant local and regulatory authorities to make sure these regionally significant facilities are delivered.”

The plant processes more than 450,000 tonnes of non-recyclable waste a year from local businesses and a number of councils including Slough, Reading, Wokingham, Bracknell and the West London Waste Authority.

It said the closure of the facility without a like-for-like replacement in the local area would be “disruptive and financially damaging” to these authorities.

The Airport Commission report said Heathrow’s expansion would generate up to 47,000 tonnes of waste annually by 2040.

Viridor also released a statement: “Viridor notes the Government’s decision regarding airport expansion in the south-east.

“Viridor will now seek to ensure that the award-winning Lakeside EfW facility, its joint venture with Grundon, can be relocated on a like-for-like basis, at a nearby suitable site, with minimal difficulties as recommended by the Airports Commission.

“Viridor will, through Lakeside Energy from Waste, work closely with Heathrow Airport and the relevant local authorities to ensure this is delivered.”

https://www.mrw.co.uk/latest/waste-plant-to-move-after-heathrow-announcement/10014110.article

.


 

See earlier: 

Heathrow, Slough and Grundon agree deal on keeping incinerator in Colnbrook

by Colnbrook Views

23 FEBRUARY, 2015

…. extracts  ….

The Colnbrook incinerator will stay open until 2023 and then move just a few yards back if Heathrow wins the competition to build a new runway.

Grundon’s incinerator will stay until 2023, while a new incinerator will begin commissioning from 2019 to prevent any disruption to revenues streams.

Heathrow has struck a deal with Grundon and Slough Borough Council to overcome a risk to delivery of a Third Runway which Sir Howard Davies had described as “high”.

…..
And key to its confidence is text in the airport’s submission to Davies which reveals it is already working closely with Grundon and Slough Borough Council. So advanced are the discussions it seems that Heathrow says it is preparing a “joint feasibility study” on moving the incinerator a few yards further back into its Green Belt site:

A site has been identified for a potential replacement facility and a joint feasibility study is being prepared.

“The land is already owned by Grundon, thereby removing a potential obstacle to its replacement. The site is directly accessed off the realigned A4 and therefore would represent no change to existing vehicle access arrangements. NATS have given an initial opinion that the site is suitable for accommodating the height of flue stack required (75m).”

Slough Borough Council, which announced its partnership with Heathrow coinciding with its own response to Davies on February 3, neglected to mention the advanced stage of its discussions. It made a strong case to Davies that it would need to be compensated for the loss of £4.5 million in business rates if the incinerator was not rebuilt in the borough.

The new plans are sufficiently progressed with Grundon for estimates to have been provided to Davies on timing. The existing incinerator would remain operational until mid 2023 while a new facility would require 3-4 years to commission – putting construction at 2019.

The airport says it intends now to work with Grundon to devise a detailed scheme for its replacement so that the necessary consent process could be started without delay should it gain government backing in the Summer.

Three of the four lakes at Colnbrook Lakeside are now set to be lost under plans to which Slough Borough Council appears to have given its backing.

The relocation of the incinerator won’t be without obstacle, however. Having already identified that Colnbrook West and the larger of the Orlitt’s lakes would be lost under the tarmac of a Third Runway, Grundon’s new facility will see the smaller Orlitt’s Lake drained as well, leaving only Old Slade Lake. The area was identified as informal nature reserve only in 2013 when the Council re-confirmed the local development plan for the borough – along with a commitment to defending the Strategic Gap and improving the Green Belt wherever possible.

Heathrow Airport Ltd agreed with the Airports Commission’s finding that both tunnelling the M25 and relocating the incinerator represented significant delivery risks to a Colnbrook runway.

The airport has now asked the Commission to “modify its assessment of the risks that the re-provision of the energy from waste plant presents to the deliverability of the Heathrow North West Runway to ‘low’”.

The refreshed master plan also shows a change to Heathrow’s proposal to replace the Colnbrook By-pass.

Gone is the dual carriageway rerouted through Albany Park – which was clearly never going to fly. As widely speculated a new by-pass is now proposed between the new runway and properties in Poyle. It will now run to the M4/M25 interchange, down to Poyle Industrial Estate and beyond – forming a new HGV route to Junction 13.

While Slough has succeeded in keeping the incinerator in Colnbrook it has failed to persuade Heathrow to tunnel the new by-pass, which will also skirt residential areas and cut through Green Belt.

The deal, revealed by Heathrow in its submission to Sir Howard Davies earlier this month, will be seen as yet more evidence of the lengths to which Slough Borough Council will go to avoid projected revenue losses of up to £10 million from a Third Runway.

http://www.colnbrook.info/colnbrook-incinerator-to-stay-open-until-2023-under-heathrow-deal-hatched-with-grundon-and-slough-borough-council/

.


 

Read more »

DfT’s own study reveals just how tiny the possible economic benefits of Heathrow or Gatwick runway would be to UK

The economics figures by Airports Commission were always dubious, and their methodology was questioned by their own advisors. The Commission did not use the Webtag method that is normally used to cost transport projects. The Commission added in a range of possible future benefits for Heathrow, and for Gatwick – most purely speculative. Benefits of trade were added, even though these were effectively double counted as already taken account of by other sectors. The AC also counted in economic benefits to non-UK residents of flights to or from the UK. The recent DfT document entitled “Further Review and Sensitivities Report – Airport Capacity in the South East” has had to look more carefully at the figures. It has removed some of the wild claims of benefits from trade, and has looked at the benefits just to UK passengers.  Its figures show little difference in the alleged future economic benefit to the UK between Heathrow and Gatwick, and that these benefits are actually tiny.  Even when measured over 60 years. The DfT document mentions a large number of the aspects they looked at as being of “low analytic assurance”, meaning very uncertain. The new DfT figures give the total benefit (NPV) of a Heathrow north west runway being just £0.2 – £6.1 billion over 60 years, and the figure for Gatwick being £3.1 – £4.5 billion. The equivalent figures by the Airports Commission were £11.8 billion and £10.8 billion for Heathrow and Gatwick respectively. So current estimates are all even lower than before.
.

 

The figures from the new DfT analysis for the NPV for all the UK of the Heathrow  north-west runway, excluding Wider Economic Impacts, are only from  minus (yes, minus) – £1.8 billion, up to plus £2.3 billion, over 60 years.

The NPV figure for a Gatwick 2nd runway would be plus £1.7 – £1.8 billion, over 60 years.

 

Government’s own study reveals Heathrow third runway would be less beneficial to UK residents than Gatwick

By JOE MURPHY (Evening Standard)

A bombshell Government study found Heathrow’s third runway would not benefit British residents as much as a second runway at Gatwick, the Evening Standard can reveal.

The cost-benefit analysis concluded that when benefits to overseas travellers and firms were excluded, British people and firms could gain up to £4 billion more in advantages if rival Gatwick was chosen for expansion.

The findings of the study – conducted by Department for Transport (DfT) officials using standard Whitehall methods – were buried in the annexe to a report published when Transport Secretary Chris Grayling announced Government backing for the third runway.

The full report went to the decision-making Cabinet committee chaired by Theresa May, said the DfT, but it was not circulated to the full Cabinet when members held its own debate on airport expansion a week earlier.

Anti-third runway campaigners said the disclosure left the economic case for Heathrow “in tatters”.

Former Cabinet minister Theresa Villiers [who wants a Gatwick runway] said: “It’s astonishing that Ministers could have signed off on this project when even the Government’s own figures say Gatwick is the better option for UK residents.”

In his Commons statement last week, Mr Grayling said Heathrow’s north- west third runway plan was chosen because it offered “the largest benefits to passengers and the wider economy, of up to £61billion over 60 years”.

However, the Further Review and Sensitivities Report makes clear that these benefits include impacts outside the UK as well as the value to overseas travellers using Heathrow as a hub to pass through.

When the UK-only benefits were calculated, they estimated that a third runway would bring benefits of between £5.8 billion and £9.9 billion. But they predicted Gatwick expansion would be worth £8.9 billion to £10.3 billion to U.K. residents.  [See Table  A 17].

Below is Table A 17   (NPV means Net Present Value and WEI means Wider Economic Impacts. All these figures are for all the UK, over 60 years).

heathrow-gatwick-uk-only-benefits

[The DfT also said: 

As shown in Table A 17, the UK-only NPVs are higher than the NPVs estimated under the central case for all of the options. This is because many of the costs of expansion – lower profits and construction costs – ultimately fall to airlines (and/or their passengers), many of whom are defined as being non-UK. 67 These NPVs should be seen as no more than indicative because of the difficulties in robustly apportioning both the costs to airlines and expansion construction costs, and as such are of low analytical assurance. On balance, the department’s view is that 66 The reasons for why this approach is appropriate in the case of aviation appraisal are discussed in the AC’s approach of including impacts to both UK and overseas residents is the most appropriate and internally consistent approach.”]

Other startling findings from the detailed report include:

Mr Grayling’s case for a third runway included an estimate for the extra costs of road and rail links to Heathrow as being just £3.4 billion or less – a much smaller sum than the Airport Commission estimate of over £5 billion and Transport for London’s claim that they could cost farepayers £10 to £15 billion.  [Or up to £18 billion]. 

An overrun in Heathrow’s costs of just 1% could be enough to negate the overall benefits of the scheme. By contrast the analysis found Gatwick, which would cost half as much, would still offer benefits if costs rose by 44%.

The UK-only figures did not form part of the DfT’s central case for a third runway because, according to officials, they should be seen as “no more than indicative” and were “of low analytical assurance”.  [Most things looked at in the DfT paper come out as of low or medium analytical assurance – which presumably means they are highly uncertain.  AW note] 

But Zac Goldsmith, who is fighting a by-election to protest at the third runway plan, said: “The case for Heathrow is falling apart before our eyes.

“Yesterday it became apparent it would fall foul of air quality requirements. Today we see the economic benefits to British people are much smaller than offered by Gatwick. The Government has been herded into a quagmire by vested interests. They need to step back.”

John Stewart, of anti-expansion group Hacan, said: “It seems the Government has put the interests of hub passengers changing planes at Heathrow before anything else.”

However a DfT spokesman insisted: “Heathrow offers the greatest benefits. The independent Airport Commission report was very clear that it is the best scheme.

“The central case of our report also shows the benefits of Heathrow are higher than for Gatwick with Heathrow expansion estimated to benefit passengers and the wider economy by £61billion and could create up to 77,000 jobs and 10,000 apprenticeships by 2030.”  [The DfT’s own report says local jobs by 2030 are more likely to be up to 37,740 – but they persist in using the earlier 77,000 figure. Chris Grayling is happy for the DfT to continue to use the wrong figure.  AW note]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/government-study-heathrow-s-third-runway-less-beneficial-than-gatwick-a3386176.html

.


Comparing tables between the DfT new paper and the Airports Commission Final Report

The table showing NPV (Net Present Value) for the 3 runway schemes, from the new DfT document.  Page 39

dft-new-heathrow-runway-economic-benefit


By contrast, the almost equivalent table from the Airports Commission Final Report   P147

Table 7.1 of financial benefits of runway

 

The DfT no longer bothers with the carbon-capped case, saying it is unrealistic for the UK to limit its aviation carbon emissions to its current cap of 37.5MtCO2.  So the new DfT document contains only carbon traded assessments.

The new DfT table shows economic benefit, (NPV) across the whole of the UK over 60 years as only £0.2 to £6.1 for the Heathrow north west runway.  (The AC figure was £11.8 billion)

The new DfT table shows economic benefit, (NPV) across the whole of the UK over 60 years as only £3.1 to £4.5  for the Gatwick 2nd runway.  (The AC figure was £10.8 billion)

.


Wider Economic Impacts are discussed on Page 30 of  https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/562160/further-review-and-sensitivities-report-airport-capacity-in-the-south-east.pdf

.

.

.

 

Read more »

ClientEarth wins air pollution case in High Court, that government action has been too slow

ClientEarth has won its High Court case against the Government over its failure to tackle illegal air pollution across the UK.  In a damning indictment of ministers’ inaction on NO2 air pollution, Mr Justice Garnham agreed with ClientEarth that the Environment Secretary had failed to take measures that would bring the UK into compliance with the law “as soon as possible” and said that ministers knew that over optimistic pollution modelling was being used.  In his ruling, the judge questioned Defra’s 5 year modelling, saying it was “inconsistent” with taking measures to improve pollution “as soon as possible.”  Defra’s planned 2020 compliance for some cities, and 2025 for London, had been chosen because that was the date when ministers thought they’d face European Commission fines, not which they considered “as soon as possible.”  The case is the second the government has lost on its failure to clean up air pollution in two years.  In the judgment he handed down Mr Justice Garnham ruled that the government’s 2015 Air Quality Plan failed to comply with the Supreme Court ruling or relevant EU Directives and said that the government had erred in law by fixing compliance dates based on over optimistic modelling of pollution levels. Future projections of compliance need to be based on  real emissions, not discredited lab tests.
.

 

 

Read the judgment here

no2dirtyair-at-high-court

ClientEarth has won its High Court case against the Government over its failure to tackle illegal air pollution across the UK.

In a damning indictment of ministers’ inaction on killer air pollution, Mr Justice Garnham agreed with ClientEarth that the Environment Secretary had failed to take measures that would bring the UK into compliance with the law “as soon as possible” and said that ministers knew that over optimistic pollution modelling was being used.

In his ruling, the judge, who listened to two days of argument at the High Court last month, questioned Defra’s five year modelling; saying it was “inconsistent” with taking measures to improve pollution ” as soon as possible.”

Defra’s planned 2020 compliance for some cities, and 2025 for London, had been chosen because that was the date when ministers thought they’d face European Commission fines, not which they considered “as soon as possible.”

The case is the second the government has lost on its failure to clean up air pollution in two years.

In April 2015, ClientEarth won a Supreme Court ruling against the government which ordered ministers to come up with a plan to bring air pollution down within legal limits as soon as possible. Those plans were so poor that ClientEarth took the government back to the High Court in a Judicial Review.

In his judgment handed down this morning, Mr Justice Garnham ruled that the government’s 2015 Air Quality Plan failed to comply with the Supreme Court ruling or relevant EU Directives and said that the government had erred in law by fixing compliance dates based on over optimistic modelling of pollution levels.

ClientEarth CEO James Thornton said: “I am pleased that the judge agrees with us that the government could and should be doing more to deal with air pollution and protecting people’s health. That’s why we went to court.

“The time for legal action is over. This is an urgent public health crisis over which the Prime Minister must take personal control. I challenge Theresa May to take immediate action now to deal with illegal levels of pollution and prevent tens of thousands of additional early deaths in the UK. The High Court has ruled that more urgent action must be taken. Britain is watching and waiting, Prime Minister.”

During evidence, the court heard that Defra’s original plans for a more extensive network of Clean Air Zones in more than a dozen UK cities had been watered down, on cost grounds, to 5 in addition to London.

ClientEarth air quality lawyer Alan Andrews added: “We hope the new Government will finally get on with preparing a credible plan to resolve this issue once and for all. We look forward to working with Defra ministers on developing a new plan which makes a genuine attempt to achieve legal limits throughout the UK as soon as possible.

“We need a national network of clean air zones to be in place by 2018 in cities across the UK, not just in a handful of cities.  The government also needs to stop these inaccurate modelling forecasts. Future projections of compliance need to be based on what is really coming out of the exhausts of diesel cars when driving on the road, not just the results of discredited laboratory tests.”

http://www.clientearth.org/major-victory-health-uk-high-court-government-inaction-air-pollution/

.

Related ClientEarth articles


See also

High court gives ministers deadline of April for draft of tougher air pollution plan and final by 31st July 2017

22.11.2016

On 2nd November, environmental lawyers ClientEarth inflicted a humiliating legal defeat on the UK government (the 2nd in 18 months) when the high court ruled that DEFRA plans to tackle illegal levels of air pollution in many parts of the UK were unlawful. The court gave the government 7 days to agree on the next steps, but it rejected the proposal from ClientEarth for an 8 month timetable for the improvements, saying it needed till September 2017. Now the high court judge, Mr Justice Garnham, has ruled that DEFRA must must publish a stronger air quality draft plan by 24th April 2017 and a final one by 31st July 2017. The judge also ordered the government to publish the data on which it will base its new plan. In his judgement on 2nd, the judge said it was “remarkable” that ministers knew they were using over-optimistic pollution modelling, based on flawed lab tests of diesel vehicles rather than actual emissions on the road, but proceeded anyway. He also ruled that ClientEarth can go back to court if it deems the government’s draft plan, due in April 2017, is once again not good enough to cut pollution rapidly. Alan Andrews, ClientEarth’s air quality lawyer, said: “We will be watching on behalf of everyone living in the UK and will return to court if the government is failing.” ClientEarth believes measure such as a diesel scrappage scheme and other measures that would cost money, that the Treasury has been unwilling to approve.   22.11.2016

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/11/high-court-gives-ministers-deadline-of-april-for-draft-of-tougher-air-pollution-plan-and-final-by-31st-july-2017/

.


See also

ClientEarth back in court against UK government over illegal air pollution

17.10.2016 (ClientEarth press release)

Update from day one of the hearing: Read material from our skeleton argument.

Environmental lawyers ClientEarth bring the UK government back to the High Court tomorrow for failing to deal with illegal levels of air pollution.

It’s ClientEarth’s second battle in as many years over the UK Environment Secretary’s failure to tackle the national air pollution crisis.

ClientEarth CEO James Thornton said: “Defra’s latest figures estimate there are 40,000 early deaths across the UK every year because of air pollution. The government is acting unlawfully by refusing to turn this situation around. It is failing morally and it is failing legally to uphold our right to breathe clean air.

“The government must come up with far bolder measures, ready to face this issue head-on.

“Air quality in this country is nothing short of a public health crisis.”

ClientEarth won its case in 2015 in the Supreme Court, which ruled that the UK government must come up with plans to combat the crisis and bring pollution down to legal levels “as soon as possible”.

But the plans adopted in December last year outlined vague proposals that wouldn’t have secured compliance until at least 2025 and even this relied on hugely overoptimistic assumptions about emissions from diesel vehicles.

The original deadline for compliance was 2010.

ClientEarth has launched a wave of clean air cases around Europe in recent weeks, including Brno and Prague in the Czech Republic, and Brussels in Belgium. It has already won cases in Poland and Germany.

The UK case will be heard on the 18 and 19 October, with the verdict to come in the weeks afterwards.  [The verdict was on 2nd November 2016]. 

Update from day one of the hearing: Read material from our skeleton argument.

http://www.clientearth.org/clientearth-uk-government-high-court-illegal-air-pollution/

.


From the Guardian’s article

2.11.2016

Diesel vehicles face charges after UK government loses air pollution case

…. an extract  ….

The government said it would not appeal against the decision and agreed in court to discuss with ClientEarth a new timetable for more realistic pollution modelling and the steps needed to bring pollution levels down to legal levels. The parties will return to court in a week but if agreement cannot be reached, the judge could impose a timetable upon the government.

At prime minister’s questions, May said: “We now recognise that Defra [the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] has to look at the judgment made by the courts and we now have to look again at the proposals we will bring forward. Nobody in this house doubts the importance of the issue of air quality.”

The government’s own estimates show air pollution causes at least £27.5bn a year and in April MPs called the issue a “public health emergency”.

ClientEarth lawyers said they looked forward to working with Defra ministers to make a genuine attempt to rapidly cut pollution to legal limits throughout the UK, including a national network of clean air zones by 2018. “The government will have to be tougher on diesel,” said James Thornton, CEO of ClientEarth. “If you put in clean air zones, it works overnight.”

“Today’s ruling lays the blame at the door of the government for its complacency in failing to tackle the problem quickly and credibly,” said the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who took part in the case. “In so doing they have let down millions of people the length and breadth of the country.” Khan aims to have pollution charging in place in central London by 2017 and across the area within the north and south circular roads by 2019.

…..

The court defeat is also a blow for the new runway at Heathrow the government has backed.  Its approval depended on the effectiveness of the government’s national air pollution plan to meet legal requirements on air quality. The Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, said: “This ruling deals a huge blow to May’s reckless Heathrow expansion plans. The government has already illegally delayed meeting EU pollution limits until 2025 – building a third runway would make the situation even worse.”

Documents revealed during the high court case showed the Treasury had blocked initial government plans to charge polluting diesel vehicles for entering towns and cities blighted by air pollution, due to concern about the political impact of angering motorists.

Both the environment and transport departments recommended changes to vehicle excise duty rates to encourage the purchase of low-pollution vehicles. But the Treasury also rejected that idea, along with a scrappage scheme for older diesels, which ClientEarth supports.

….  and it continues ……

full article at

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/02/diesel-vehicles-face-charges-after-uk-government-loses-air-pollution-case?CMP=share_btn_tw

.


See also

High Court win by ClientEarth on air pollution casts more doubt on the possibility of adding a Heathrow runway

The environmental law group, ClientEarth, has won its High Court case against the Government over its failure to tackle illegal air pollution across the UK. The judge agreed that the UK government had failed to take measures that would bring the UK into compliance with the law “as soon as possible” and ministers knew over optimistic pollution modelling was being used. AEF (the Aviation Environment Federation) says this failure by the government to get NO2 levels down discredits the air quality plan that formed the basis for the Government’s argument that a new runway at Heathrow would neither cause not exacerbate legal breaches in NO2 levels. Required to publish an updated plan for UK air quality, Defra produced one in December 2015. This brought forward the anticipated date of compliance to 2025 for London – just in time for the opening of a new runway according to the Airports Commission’s anticipated timeline. But the plans appeared to rely on new, more optimistic forecasts of emissions from diesel vehicles without presenting substantive policy proposals to actually deliver improvements. A new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick would lead to higher levels of air pollution, and the new court ruling confirms that compliance should not be based on over optimistic modelling – and government needs instead to take action to cut pollution levels.

Click here to view full story…

Read more »

High Court win by ClientEarth on air pollution casts more doubt on the possibility of adding a Heathrow runway

The environmental law group, ClientEarth, has won its High Court case against the Government over its failure to tackle illegal air pollution across the UK. The judge agreed that the UK government had failed to take measures that would bring the UK into compliance with the law “as soon as possible” and ministers knew over optimistic pollution modelling was being used.  AEF (the Aviation Environment Federation) says this failure by the government to get NO2 levels down discredits the air quality plan that formed the basis for the Government’s argument that a new runway at Heathrow would neither cause not exacerbate legal breaches in NO2 levels.  Required to publish an updated plan for UK air quality, Defra produced one in December 2015.  This brought forward the anticipated date of compliance to 2025 for London – just in time for the opening of a new runway according to the Airports Commission’s anticipated timeline. But the plans appeared to rely on new, more optimistic forecasts of emissions from diesel vehicles without presenting substantive policy proposals to actually deliver improvements. A new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick would lead to higher levels of air pollution, and the new court ruling confirms that compliance should not be based on over optimistic modelling – and government needs instead to take action to cut pollution levels.
.

 

High Court ruling on air pollution casts fresh doubt on the deliverability of Heathrow expansion

November 2nd 2016

By AEF (Aviation Environment Federation)

The Government has failed to take adequate measures to meet the legal requirement to being levels of nitrogen dioxide to within legal limits as soon as possible, the High Court ruled today, and has fixed its estimates for compliance dates based on over-optimistic modelling of pollution levels. Today’s judgement discredits the air quality plan that formed the basis for the Government’s argument that a new runway at Heathrow would neither cause not exacerbate legal breaches in NO2 levels.

This is the second time in just 18 months that the legal organisation ClientEarth has scored a court victory on this issue. In April 2015 the Supreme Court ruled that the Government’s plans for bringing the UK into compliance with air quality laws were inadequate, and ordered that the document must be redrawn. An updated plan was published by the end of 2015. This brought forward the anticipated date of compliance to 2025 for London – just in time for the opening of a new runway according to the Airports Commission’s anticipated timeline. But the plans appeared to rely on new, more optimistic forecasts of emissions from diesel vehicles without presenting substantive policy proposals to actually deliver improvements.

AEF has consistently challenged the robustness of the Government’s plans for air pollution and has argued that given the conclusion of the Airports Commission that expansion at either Heathrow or Gatwick would lead to a deterioration in air quality, a new runway at either location should not be approved until the Government could be confident that air pollution in London and the South East would be within legal limits. Our summary of 50 reasons why Britain doesn’t need a new runway sets out why air pollution, alongside climate change, noise and other impacts, presents a significant hurdle in the way of expansion.

A report published today by IPPR suggests that the Heathrow area – which suffers pollution both from road transport (including freight vehicles) and from aircraft – will contain multiple points at which legal limits will continue to breach 2025 even if radical policy measures are taken in the interim. A ‘near total phase out of diesel cars in inner London, and a move toward more sustainable alternatives across other road transport’ would bring most of the city into compliance, the report suggests, but with numerous ‘concentration points’ above the NO2 limit value persisting in the vicinity of the airport.

AEF Deputy Director Cait Hewitt said: “Today’s ruling leaves the Government’s defence on the air pollution challenge facing a third runway in tatters. Relying on optimistic modelling, rather than real policy measures and appropriate planning decisions, has been found to be not just immoral but illegal. Expansion at either Heathrow or Gatwick would increase air pollution, the Airports Commission found. The Government should drop its plans for new runways and focus instead on tackling London’s air pollution crisis.”

 

Figure 4.2 in IPPR's report Lethal and Illegal: solving London's air pollution crisis, November 2016 http://www.ippr.org/publications/lethal-and-illegal-solving-londons-air-pollution-crisis
Figure 4.2 in “Lethal and Illegal: solving London’s air pollution crisis”, IPPR, November 2016     
.
http://www.aef.org.uk/2016/11/02/high-court-ruling-on-air-pollution-casts-fresh-doubt-on-the-deliverability-of-heathrow-expansion/
.

Related articles by AEF

Heathrow air pollution research challenged by Aviation Environment Federation

What answers has the Government found to the environmental hurdles facing a third runway?

Are Heathrow’s concessions enough to address the impacts of a third runway?

.

.

DfT documents on Heathrow air pollution

The Government’s latest document on Heathrow’s 3rd runway and air pollution was produced by the DfT on 25th October 2016.

It is at

Air quality re-analysis: impact of new pollution climate mapping projections and national air quality plan


.


Read the judgment here

no2dirtyair-at-high-court

ClientEarth has won its High Court case against the Government over its failure to tackle illegal air pollution across the UK.

In a damning indictment of ministers’ inaction on killer air pollution, Mr Justice Garnham agreed with ClientEarth that the Environment Secretary had failed to take measures that would bring the UK into compliance with the law “as soon as possible” and said that ministers knew that over optimistic pollution modelling was being used.

In his ruling, the judge, who listened to two days of argument at the High Court last month, questioned Defra’s five year modelling; saying it was “inconsistent” with taking measures to improve pollution ” as soon as possible.”

Defra’s planned 2020 compliance for some cities, and 2025 for London, had been chosen because that was the date when ministers thought they’d face European Commission fines, not which they considered “as soon as possible.”

The case is the second the government has lost on its failure to clean up air pollution in two years.

In April 2015, ClientEarth won a Supreme Court ruling against the government which ordered ministers to come up with a plan to bring air pollution down within legal limits as soon as possible. Those plans were so poor that ClientEarth took the government back to the High Court in a Judicial Review.

In his judgment handed down this morning, Mr Justice Garnham ruled that the government’s 2015 Air Quality Plan failed to comply with the Supreme Court ruling or relevant EU Directives and said that the government had erred in law by fixing compliance dates based on over optimistic modelling of pollution levels.

ClientEarth CEO James Thornton said: “I am pleased that the judge agrees with us that the government could and should be doing more to deal with air pollution and protecting people’s health. That’s why we went to court.

“The time for legal action is over. This is an urgent public health crisis over which the Prime Minister must take personal control. I challenge Theresa May to take immediate action now to deal with illegal levels of pollution and prevent tens of thousands of additional early deaths in the UK. The High Court has ruled that more urgent action must be taken. Britain is watching and waiting, Prime Minister.”

During evidence, the court heard that Defra’s original plans for a more extensive network of Clean Air Zones in more than a dozen UK cities had been watered down, on cost grounds, to 5 in addition to London.

ClientEarth air quality lawyer Alan Andrews added: “We hope the new Government will finally get on with preparing a credible plan to resolve this issue once and for all. We look forward to working with Defra ministers on developing a new plan which makes a genuine attempt to achieve legal limits throughout the UK as soon as possible.

“We need a national network of clean air zones to be in place by 2018 in cities across the UK, not just in a handful of cities.The government also needs to stop these inaccurate Modelling forecasts. Future projections of compliance need to be based on what is really coming out of the exhausts of diesel cars when driving on the road, not just the results of discredited laboratory tests.”

http://www.clientearth.org/major-victory-health-uk-high-court-government-inaction-air-pollution/

.


Lethal and illegal: Solving London’s air pollution crisis

Wed 2 Nov 2016

.
London’s air pollution is a deadly and mounting public health problem – one that demands immediate as well as long-term action from the city’s new mayor, and from Westminster. Our report sets out that urgently needed strategy.

Air pollution levels in London exceed legal and World Health Organisation (WHO) limits for NO2, and WHO limits for particulate matter. In 2010, for example, these pollutants caused a range of health problems in the capital that are estimated to have shortened lives by 140,743 years – the equivalent of up to 9,400 deaths, and representing an economic cost of up to £3.7 billion. Poor air quality in London is causing a public health problem of the highest order: air pollution is the second most significant factor in determining health, after smoking. If London is to continue to flourish and prosper as a global city it must tackle this air pollution crisis.

The principal driver of air pollution in London is road transport and, within that, diesel vehicles. Nearly 40 per cent of all NOx emissions within London come from diesel vehicles, and unless this is explicitly tackled it will be impossible to cleanse London’s air. New modelling by King’s College London commissioned for this report estimates that policies bringing the level of diesel cars in inner London down to 5 per cent of the fleet, and increasing cleaner alternatives across other vehicle types, would bring 99.96 per cent of London into compliance with legal levels on NO2. The central conclusion of this report is therefore that London must progressively phase-out diesel vehicles over the next decade and beyond in order to reduce air pollution levels down to legal and ultimately healthier levels.

This transition will take time, but there is much that the mayor can do now. This report presents a strategy for this mayoral term and the next.

Within the mayor’s current term, new policies to reduce air pollution should focus on increases in regulation and road charging, and tax reforms. Investment should then be channelled into sustainable alternatives, including shared transport, and support programmes for those groups most affected during the transition. Beyond 2020, our strategy recommends increases in the extent of road pricing in order to reduce the use of petrol vehicles and road miles.

These measures are likely to have a significant positive impact on London’s economy and carbon emissions, as well as on public health. Other global cities such as Paris, Berlin and Delhi are taking radical action to clean their air – it is time for London to do the same.

KEY FINDINGS

  • London is breaking legal and WHO limits for NO2, and WHO limits for particulate matter. Under the existing policy regime the capital is not expected to reach compliance with the legal limits on NO2 until 2025 or beyond. No level of air pollution exposure is safe.
  • Most air pollution in London is caused by road transport, of which diesel vehicles are the most polluting, emitting about 40 per cent of the capital’s total NOX emissions and a similar proportion for PM10. As such, many diesel vehicles will need to be progressively phased out in order to bring air pollution to within acceptable levels. In the near term, this means legal limits; in the longer run, it will mean reducing emissions down to negligible levels.
  • Modelling undertaken by King’s College London for this report estimates that policies that would bring the levels of diesel cars down to 5 per cent in inner London, and drive a move towards cleaner alternatives across other vehicle types, would bring 99.96 per cent of London into compliance with legal levels on NO2.
  • These improvements in air quality would result in an estimated gain of up to 1.4 million life-years over a lifetime across the population of Greater London, providing an estimated annualised economic benefit of up to £800 million (see the annex).
  • Policies to achieve the reduction of air pollution to acceptable levels will impact millions of those who live, work and travel within and out of London, so significant investment is required in policies to support those groups most affected and to provide alternative and sustainable transport options. Policies must send clear messages to vehicle manufacturers, and the mayor will need to work in concert with other cities and central government.
  • Policy at the London level needs to be complemented by action at a nation and European Union scale. Air pollution and road transport manufacture, use and ownership do not respect borders, while the UK’s departure from the EU means that legislation on air pollution limits could be repealed and standards reduced.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LONDON GOVERNMENT

Phase 1 (2016–2020)

  • The mayor should extend the ultra low emissions zone (ULEZ) and accelerate its implementation, including by:
    • extending the ULEZ up to the north and south circular roads, bringing implementation forward to 2019
    • ensuring that diesel cars below the Euro 6 standard and petrol cars below the Euro 4 standard are charged a fee per day if they enter the zone
    • increasing the pollution standard on LGVs within the LEZ so they must meet Euro 5, from the current requirement of Euro 3
    • increasing the pollution standard on HGVs and coaches within the LEZ to Euro 6, from the current requirement of Euro 4
    • Transport for London should procure only hybrid or zero emissions buses from 2018 and increase the emissions standard on TfL buses to Euro 6 within the expanded ULEZ.
  • Central government should devolve vehicle excise duty to the London level.
  • The mayor should require all newly licensed private hire vehicles to be zero-emissions capable from 2018.
  • The mayor should call on central government to provide a diesel scrappage scheme.
  • Transport for London should determine any temporary exemptions and discounts for those most adversely affected by the expanded ULEZ.
  • The mayor should include a plan for the expansion of the car share market in his new transport strategy.

Phase 2 (2020–2025)
The mayor should:

  • ensure that all Euro 6 diesel cars are charged within the expanded ULEZ by 2025, announce the plan to charge all diesel cars in the expanded ULEZ as soon as possible
  • increase the pollution standard on LGVs within the LEZ so that they must meet Euro 6 by 2025
  • ensure that all buses are zero emissions within central London, and on major routes where air pollution levels are particularly acute
  • implement a ban on all diesel taxis across London in 2025
  • introduce an emissions charge on all non-zero-emissions cars across inner London by 2025
  • consider introducing a zero emission zone across central London from 2025
  • mandate TfL to investigate the potential for a smart charging system and an integrated road pricing scheme in London
  • ensure the revenues raised by road charging are reinvested into the public transport network and other alternative, sustainable transport options.

Other recommendations
Influencing EU policy

  • The mayor should work with other city mayors around Europe to argue for implementation date of the conformity factors to be brought forward, eventually introducing a conformity factor of 1 by 2021.

National policy
The government should:

  • introduce a new Clean Air Act that targets air pollution, including nitrogen oxides and particulate matter
  • introduce a diesel scrappage scheme
  • progressively reform the VED regime to disincentivise diesel cars relative to petrol.

The Department for Transport should:

  • convene all relevant departments to ensure the transport analysis guidance accurately reflects the cost of air pollution within its appraisal process.

http://www.ippr.org/publications/lethal-and-illegal-solving-londons-air-pollution-crisis

.

.


The IPPR’s “60 second summary” of “Lethal and Illegal” is at

http://www.ippr.org/files/publications/pdf/lethal-and-illegal-solving-londons-air-pollution-crisis_summary_Nov2016.pdf?noredirect=1

.

The full IPPR report (53 pages) of “Lethal and Illegal”  is at

http://www.ippr.org/files/publications/pdf/lethal-and-illegal-solving-londons-air-pollution-crisis-Nov2016.pdf?noredirect=1

.

.

.

 

.

 

 

.

.

 

Read more »

Friends of the Earth warn Chris Grayling that DfT process is pre-determining approval of Heathrow runway

Friends of the Earth (FoE) have sent a letter to Chris Grayling at the DfT, highlighting concerns over the way approval of a Heathrow runway is being done. The letter accused the government of ‘substantive procedural flaws’. It raises concerns that Heathrow had been named as the selected site for the major development without the decision undergoing the legal planning process. FoE the government decision ‘pre-empts the will of parliament’ and ‘predetermines the outcome of any planning application’.  FoE’s Head of campaigns, Andrew Pendleton, said that the PM had ‘announced the decision as if it was a done deal, but there are many MPs who recognise the devastating effect expanding Heathrow will have on our climate, who will want to vote against these proposals’.  If FoE does not receive what it deems to be sufficient assurances over how the government came to its decision, it could be the basis of a legal challenge in the future. The letter says “the decision (as quoted) risks illegality in two respects, namely: a. pre-empts the will of Parliament (by assuming that a planning application will follow parliamentary consideration of the NPS – parliament may resolve the reject the NPS) and  b. predetermines the outcome of any planning application submitted concerning the development of the third runway (since it states that “construction will follow” the determination of the application by yourself).”
.

 

Statement by Friends of the Earth:

The decision to expand Heathrow airport is not only bad for our climate and clean air but pre-empts the will of parliament says Friends of the Earth, as it sets out its legal concerns in a letter sent to the government today (28 October).

The letter describes how Theresa May’s government appears to have predetermined the outcome of the planning process and side-lined MPs by announcing Tuesday’s decision as a done-deal.

Andrew Pendleton, Friends of the Earth Head of Campaigns said:

“Prime Minister May announced the decision like it was a done deal, but there are many MPs who recognise the devastating affect expanding Heathrow will have on our climate, who will want to vote against these proposals.

“With a decision as monumental as Heathrow, MPs shouldn’t be side-lined, nor the planning process circumvented. The fight to prevent the expansion of Heathrow is far from over.”

Andrew Pendleton added:

“As the government is poised to sign the Paris Agreement, a decision to expand Heathrow makes UK climate promises seem like just hot air.”

(Statement by Friends of the Earth)

.


Some extracts from the letter from Friends of the Earth, to Chris Grayling, Secretary of State for Transport:

We refer to the full text of the decision as published on the gov.uk website on 25 October
published in your name. Under the heading “Further facts”, the decision states:
“Airport expansion will be delivered through a thorough, faster planning process, under the 2008 Planning Act and 2011 Localism Act. The government will set out the
airport scheme it wants, along with supporting evidence, in its NPS. Public and
Members of Parliament will be consulted and there will be a vote in the House of
Commons. This will be followed by a planning application by the airport to the
Planning Inspector who will take a view and advise government of his decision. Final
sign off will be by the Secretary of State for Transport and then construction will
start.”   [[This paragraph contains inaccuracies by the DfT. See below for corrections. AW note]]
6. The decision continues:
“In time a new runway will also require the redesign of the airport’s flightpaths. This
will form part of a wider programme of airspace modernisation which is already
needed across the country in the coming years. The government expects to consult in
the new year on a range of national proposals covering noise and airspace.
Expansion at Heathrow Airport Ltd will be accompanied by a comprehensive package
of mitigation measures which will be subject to consultation with the public as part of
the draft NPS consultation process. The measures will also be subject to regulatory
approval by the CAA.”

7. The decision (as quoted) risks illegality in two respects, namely:

a. pre-empts the will of Parliament (by assuming that a planning application will follow
parliamentary consideration of the NPS – parliament may resolve the reject the NPS)
and

b. predetermines the outcome of any planning application submitted concerning the
development of the third runway (since it states that “construction will follow” the
determination of the application by yourself).

.
and it goes on to say:

Whilst a NPS is not a piece of legislation, they are adopted pursuant to legislation and intended to carry significant weight in the resolution of planning applications to which they apply. They are, we argue, strongly analogous to legislation for these reasons. In any event, and partly in recognition of their status in the planning system, they are subject to approval by parliament before being made. It follows that you are not entitled to presume as to the outcome of parliamentary consideration of the NPS, since this would risk infringing on the role and will of Parliament as envisaged in planning law and contrary to case law in any event 3.

[Footnote 3.   R v Secretary of State for Health, ex parte C [2000] 1 FLR 627 – the Secretary of State is said to enjoy “the same liberties as a private individual and a private individual was entitled to act as he or she pleased, subject to the constraints imposed by the substantive law or the requirement not to infringe the rights of others” (our emphasis). ]
.

and

 

10. It is well established that a public law decision maker must approach a decision with an “open mind”4 . The test is whether the fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of predetermination5 . There is no need to prove actual predetermination – it is about the appearance of predetermination6 .

11. We believe that the statement that “construction will follow” the determination of a planning application clearly meets this threshold, since it must follow from your statement that construction “will follow” your “sign off” of the application, because you intend to grant the application come what may. No conditionality or nuance is admitted by the wording of the decision, nor is it clear that it implied. It is clear that you have a closed mind in relation to the Third Runway application; that the decision is itself undermined in law as a result; and any decision by you in relation to a planning application in relation to the Runway would be unlawful as a result.

 

.


Corrected version of the paragraph in the DfT statement of 25.10.2016 (which is still incorrect on the DfT website)

 

[Law firm Bircham Dyson Bell say the paragraph by the DfT contained inaccuracies. Below is the DfT paragraph, with the sections that are incorrect shown in light orange, and the corrections from BDB shown in red italics.]

Airport expansion will be delivered through a thorough, faster planning process, under the 2008 Planning Act and 2011 Localism Act. The government will set out the need for the airport scheme it wants, along with supporting evidence, in its National Policy Statement. The public and Members of Parliament will be consulted and there will be a vote in the House of Commons on the final draft of the NPS.  This will be followed by a planning application  development consent order by the airport to the Planning Inspectorate who will examine the application take a view and advise government of his decision its recommendation. Final sign off will be by the Secretary of State for Transport and then construction will start once any pre-commencement requirements have been discharged.

.

.

.

 

Read more »