MPs deliver letter to David Cameron to remind him to keep his “no ifs, no buts, there will be no 3rd runway” promise

On Tuesday 3rd February MPs and campaigners against Heathrow expansion staged a protest at Downing Street reminding the Prime Minister of his statement before the 2010 election, when he said “no ifs; no buts; there will be no third runway.”  Conservative MPs Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park & North Kingston) and Angie Bray MP (Ealing Central and Acton) will join the protest, with Kate Hoey MP (Vauxhall); Caroline Lucas MP (Green MP for Brighton Pavilion); Mary Macleod MP (Brentford and Isleworth); John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington); John Randall MP (Uxbridge and South Ruislip); Andy Slaughter MP (Hammersmith); Adam Afriye (Windsor) and Baroness Jenny Tonge.  John Stewart, chairman of  HACAN, said: “We are deliberately targeting Downing Street because the decision about a new runway will be a political one. The politicians can override whatever recommendations the Airports Commission will come up with in the summer. This event once again demonstrates the cross-party nature of the opposition to a 3rd runway. It also shows the geographical spread of the current problems caused by Heathrow which can only get worse if a new runway is built. Representatives of groups from as far apart as Brockley and Teddington will be going into Downing Street.”
.

 


No ifs No buts

Actual text from Conservative election leaflet for the May 2010 election.   Full leaflet

 


MPs hand in letter to  10 Downing Street on No Ifs No Buts 3.2.2015


Below is the text of the letter.

Letter from politicians and MPs calling on PM to keep his promise not to build a 3rd runway

To:

The Prime Minister

10 Downing Street

London SW1

3rd February 2015

 

Dear Prime Minister,

We call on you to remember the promise that you made before the last General Election: “No ifs; no buts; there will be no Third Runway” and to reject any plans that might come forward for a third runway at Heathrow.

Yours sincerely,

Angie Bray MP  (Ealing Central and Acton)

Zac Goldsmith MP (Richmond Park and North Kingston)

Kate Hoey MP (Vauxhall)

Caroline Lucas MP (Green MP for Brigton Pavilion)

Mary Macleod MP (Brentford and Isleworth)

John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington)

John Randall MP (Uxbridge and South Ruislip)

Andy Slaughter MP (Hammersmith)

Adam Afriye MP (Windsor)

Baroness Jenny Tonge

John Stewart, Chair HACAN

Neil Keveren, Chair Stop Heathrow Expansion

Natasha Fletcher, Teddington Action Group

Elise Parkin; Brockley Aircraft Noise;

Peter Willan, Chair Richmond Heathrow Campaign


 


 Protest outside Downing Street, in Whitehall, with MPs and politicians – before they handed in the letter to 10 Downing StreetProtest outside Downing Street 3.2.2015

MPs and campaigners against Heathrow expansion staged a protest outside Downing Street on Tuesday 3rd February– the last day of the Airports Commission consultation  – reminding the prime minister of his statement before the 2010 election, when he said “no ifs; no buts; there will be no third runway”.

Conservative MPs Zac Goldsmith and Angie Bray joined the protest.

John Stewart, chairman of the anti-Heathrow expansion group HACAN, said: “We are deliberately targeting Downing Street because the decision about a new runway will be a political one. The politicians can override whatever recommendations the Airports Commission will come up with in the summer.

“This event once again demonstrates the cross-party nature of the opposition to a third runway. It also shows the geographical spread of the current problems caused by Heathrow which can only get worse if a new runway is built. Representatives of groups from as far apart as Brockley and Teddington will be going into Downing Street.”

http://hacan.org.uk/letter-from-politicians-and-mps-calling-on-pm-to-keep-his-promise-not-to-build-a-3rd-runway/

 

 


Just two years and 4 months after David Cameron’s election promise of “no ifs, no buts; there will be no 3rd runway” the Airports Commission was set up.

On 7th September 2012 the Secretary of State for Transport, Patrick McLoughlin, announced the formation of the Independent Airports Commission

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/increasing-international-competitiveness-of-uk-airlines-and-airports

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Some of the many responses that have been sent in to the Airports Commission consultation

The Airports Commission consultation on its 3 short-listed runway options closed on 3rd February 2015. Responses have been sent in from a huge number of organisations, not to mention thousands of individuals. Heathrow and Gatwick have felt it necessary to blitz the south east (and further afield) with advertising, to get people to tell the Commission they want their runway.  What the Commission actually wanted in responses – other than the airports’ mass mailings – was considered comments on the 58 or so documents put out by the Commission, and comments on how they have carried out their appraisals, including things they have left out.  They also ask how the runway schemes could be improved, or their negative impacts mitigated.   The Commission will publish “all substantive, technical responses it has received” at the same time as it makes it recommendation  on the runway some time in summer 2015. On this page, AirportWatch intends to put links to as many responses as possible – those which have been made public. 
.

 


The Airports Commission main Consultation Document

Consultation ended 3rd February 2015.  People could just email the Commission to say in their own words what they think:

Email: airports.consultation@systra.com



Some of the consultation responses – in no particular order

AEF – Aviation Environment Federation

AEF-response-to-Airports Commission final-consultation


 

Committee on Climate Change (CCC)

Committee on Climate Change response – letter from Lord Deben


 

GACC – Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign.

GACC response to Airports Commission


 

HACAN – at Heathrow

Response-to-the-Airports-Commission-from-HACAN

and some advice on how to understand the consultation (and its vast number of documents, constituting may thousands of pages  Consultation Special – guidance on how to respond to the Airports Commission consultation


London Borough of Hillingdon Borough Council

Equity Focused Review Report of the Airports Commission’s Community Health Relevant Assessments

and

Hillingdon full response to the Commission 


CAA – Civil Aviation Authority

CAA response to Airports Commission


 

West London Friends of the Earth

 West London Friends of the Earth response to the Commission


 

West Sussex County Council

West  Sussex County Council submission to Airports Commission 


Surrey County Council

Surrey County Council Airports commission response


 

EasyJet

EasyJet’s response to the Airports Commission 


 

Wealden Council

Wealden Council response to the Airports Commission 


 

CAGNE  (Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions)

CAGNE response to the Airports Commission


 

GON – Gatwick Obviously NOT

GON suggested basis for Airport_Commission_Response


(HWCAAG) – HIGH WEALD COUNCILS AVIATION ACTION GROUP 

HWCAAG response to Airports Commission 


 

National Trust

National Trust response to Airports Commission


 

Leigh Parish Council (Kent)

Leigh Parish Council response to Airports Commission 


 

Local Authorities Aircraft Noise Council (LAANC)

LAANC response to Airports Commission 


 

Wandsworth Borough Council

Outline of their response – (not response itself)


 

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council

Reigate & Banstead response to Airports Commission


 

Slough Borough Council

(Draft) Slough response to Airports Commission


Justine Greening (MP for Putney, Roehampton and Southfields)

Airports Commission Submission – Justine Greening MP


 

Stop Flight Trials Over Englefield Green

Stop Flight Trial response to the Airports Commission 


 

Gatwick Co-ordination Group (local MPs)

Press release about their response


CPRE Surrey Aviation Group (Campaign to Protect Rural England)

CPRE Surrey Aviation response to Airports Commission


 

CPRE Sussex (Campaign to Protect Rural England)

CPRESussex_Airports Commission Response


 

Penshurst Parish Council

Penshurst Parish Council response to Airports Commission 


“Back Heathrow” – (lobby group funded by Heathrow airport to promote runway plan)

Back Heathrow runway document (not actually a “response” as it does not attempt to reply to any of the questions, or address the content of the Commission’s consultation – it just sets out positive comments from Heathrow supporters)


 

London First

London First’s comments (not so much a response as lobbying)


Resident-led Hammersmith & Fulham Commission

HFCAE_response_to_the_Airports_Commission_consultation 


 

Richmond Heathrow Campaign 

Richmond Heathrow Campaign Response to Airports Commission 


 

Mayor of London – Transport for London

Links to the full list of response documents by the Mayor of London

 

 

 


 

All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG)

APPG Passenger Report

All Party Parliamentary Group Wider Economy Report

All Party Parliamentary Group Surface Access 2.2.2015

Heathrow-APPG-Noise-Report-18-Dec 2014


 

London Borough of Hounslow 

All the Hounslow response documents – with links to separate sections

Hounslow_response_to_Airports_Commissions_consultation

.


 

Heathrow Airport

Heathrow’s response to the Airports Commission consultation 


Gatwick Airport

Gatwick Airport’s response to the Airports Commission consultation (Executive Summary)

 


Flybe 

Press article about the Flybe response


 ABTA  – Association of British Travel Agents

ABTA response to Commission consultation (press article)  wanting 2 runways


 

 

 

The Commission consultation document says: 

How your response will be treated

4.22 The Commission is committed to ensuring that its process is fair and transparent,
and has a presumption to publish all information relevant to its decision making.

4.23 The findings of the Commission’s consultation will be published in a consultation
report. This report will include details of the number of responses received and the
key topics, points and themes that the consultation generated. The report will also
contain details of the framework used to analyse the responses.

4.24 In addition, as with all its previous calls for evidence, the Commission will publish all
substantive, technical responses it has received.

4.25 Both of these publications will occur alongside the publication of the Commission’s
final report, due in the summer of 2015.


 

These are the questions asked in the consultation:

Questions inviting views and conclusions in respect of the three short-listed options:

Q1: What conclusions, if any, do you draw in respect of the three short-listed options? In answering this question please take into account the Commission’s consultation documents and any other information you consider relevant. The options are described in section three.

Q2: Do you have any suggestions for how the short-listed options could be improved, i.e. their benefits enhanced or negative impacts mitigated? The options and their impacts are summarised in section three.

Questions on the Commission’s appraisal and overall approach:

Q3: Do you have any comments on how the Commission has carried out its appraisal? The appraisal process is summarised in section two.

Q4: In your view, are there any relevant factors that have not been fully addressed by the Commission to date?

Questions inviting comments on specific areas of the Commission’s appraisal:

Q5: Do you have any comments on how the Commission has carried out its appraisal of specific topics (as defined by the Commission’s 16 appraisal modules), including methodology and results?

Q6: Do you have any comments on the Commission’s sustainability assessments, including methodology and results?
Q7: Do you have any comments on the Commission’s business cases, including methodology and results?

Other comments
Q8: Do you have any other comments?

 


 

 

Read more »

Qatar Airways buys 10% stake in British Airways owner IAG

State owned Qatar Airways has bought a 9.99% stake in British Airways’ owner International Airlines Group, as part of its plan to become an ever larger part of global air travel. ‘The fast-growing and well-financed Gulf airlines are a threat to US and European airlines.  The Emirate now has a major role as a UK investor; it announced this week a deal to buy Canary Wharf. Qatar is also the largest shareholder in Barclays Bank and J Sainsbury, and the 2nd-largest investor in the London Stock Exchange.  Doha-based Qatar Airways and IAG — which also owns Iberia — are now expected to forge closer working arrangements. BA and Qatar Airways already have a code-share agreement that enables their respective passengers to fly on some of the other airline’s flights, and these arrangements could be expanded.  Qatar Airways (CEO is Akbar Al Baker – who says people in the UK should not be so touchy about aircraft noise ...)  said it may increase its shareholding in IAG in future, although non-EU airlines are banned from owning majority stakes in EU carriers. The price of the recent Qatar purchase in IAG was not published, but is thought to be around  £1.15bn.  The Qatar Investment Authority has a 20% stake in Heathrow (HAL) creating possible conflicts of interest on landing charges.
.

 

Qatar buys 10% stake in British Airways owner

30.1.2015 (BBC)

Qatar Airways has emerged as the owner of a 10% stake in International Airlines Group (IAG), the owner of British Airways (BA) and Iberia.

The Gulf airline is already a member of the Oneworld alliance.

Willie Walsh, IAG’s chief executive, said he was delighted Qatar had become a “long-term supportive shareholder”.

The stake, worth about £1.15bn, gives Qatar closer links with a group that has two major European hubs and strong transatlantic networks.

Mr Walsh said his company would explore what “opportunities exist to work more closely together and further IAG’s ambitions as the leading global airline group”.

Akbar Al Baker, chief executive of Qatar, said: “IAG represents an excellent opportunity to further develop our westwards strategy.”

Earlier this month he criticised European airlines, saying they they “cannot keep up” with the competition posed by Gulf rivals.

Bigger stake

The two groups’ route networks are largely complementary, with Qatar strong in southeast Asia, India and the Middle East, while Iberia flies to many destinations in South America.

Qatar said it could increase its holding, but would be limited by the 49% cap on non-EU ownership of European airlines.

Neither group said whether IAG had been aware of Qatar’s stake-building and did not say who the shares had been bought from, or when.

Qatar has more than 130 aircraft and a further 340 on order. It is competing with other Gulf airlines including Emirates, based in Dubai, and Abu Dhabi’s Etihad.

The Doha-based carrier had 22m passengers in the 2013-14 financial year, compared with 44.5m for its larger rival Emirates. IAG carried just over 77m passengers in 2014.

Other moves

Qatar’s move comes as IAG attempts to complete a takeover of Aer Lingus for about £1.3bn.

The company has said it planned to run the Irish airline as a separate business with its own brand, management and operations.

IAG was formed when BA and Iberia merged in 2011. It has about 430 aircraft and 60,000 employees.

Shares in IAG closed down 3.5% at 544.5p on Friday, making it the biggest faller on the FTSE 100.

The stock has risen by more than a third in the past 12 months and the company is valued at £11.4bn.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31063157

.


 

.

See also FT

Qatar Airways buys 10% stake in BA-owner IAG

at

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8915be34-a84e-11e4-ad01-00144feab7de.html#axzz3QJXS8bP2

The FT says:

“Mr Al Baker sits on Heathrow’s board as a representative of the sovereign wealth fund, and therefore has a say over whether the airport should raise or cut its landing charges for airlines — an increase would benefit the hub, while a reduction would help BA and other carriers including Qatar Airways.

“IAG and Qatar Airways declined to comment when asked if there was a conflict of interest for Qatar and Mr Al Baker.”   Link 

But Heathrow said it “has strict governance processes in place, which ensure that any shareholder with a conflict of interest registers all potential conflicts and is excluded from any decision making where a conflict exists”.

 


 

.

Wikipedia lists the shareholders of IAG:

Major shareholders

Shareholder Holding[48]
Qatar Airways[49] 9.99%
Europacific Growth Fund 5.261%
Capital Research and Management Company 5.049%
Templeton Global Advisors Limited 5.011%
BlackRock 4.934%
Legal and General Group plc 3.226%
Sociedad Estatal de Participationes Industriales 2,460%
Lansdowne Developed Markets Master Fund Ltd 1.269%

 

Europacific Growth Fund  is  part of Capital Research and Management Company (based in the USA). Both these together own over 10%, slightly above Qatar Airways.

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

 


.

Qatar Airways buys 9.99% stake in British Airways owner IAG

Qatar Airways has taken a 9.99 per cent stake in British Airways owner IAG.

The gulf carrier said the deal will “enhance” and “strengthen” existing commercial ties initiated through codeshare agreements as well as its membership of the Oneworld alliance.

Qatar said it may consider increasing its stake over time, but it was not currently intending to exceed the agreed 9.99 per cent.

“IAG represents an excellent opportunity to further develop our Westwards strategy,” said Qatar Airways CEO Akbar Al Baker.

Non-European shareholders of IAG including Qatar Airways are subject to an overall cap on ownership, as a result of the requirement for EU airlines to be majority owned by EU shareholders.

IAG’s CEO Willie Walsh, said: “We’re delighted to have Qatar Airways, one of the world’s premier airlines, as a long term supportive shareholder.

“We will talk to them about what opportunities exist to work more closely together and further IAG’s ambitions as the leading global airline group.”

Qatar Airways formally joined Oneworld in October 2013.

 

.


 

Earlier:

Heathrow Airport Board member, Akbar Al Baker, says Heathrow should have 24 hour flights

One of the Board members of Heathrow Airport is Akbar Al Baker, who is the CEO of Qatar Airways and led the development of the new Doha airport. He is on the Board because Qatar Holdings bought a 20% stake in Heathrow in 2012. He has caused a storm of protest after claiming, with stunning insensitivity and demonstating a woeful lack of understanding of British democracy, that Heathrow should have 24 hour flights – ignoring the well-being of those overflown. The benefit would be that his companies would be more profitable. Akbar Al Baker said Britons make an “excessive” fuss about noise levels from aircraft flying over their homes” and home owners living under flight paths “wouldn’t even hear the aircraft” after a while.” He appears  not to understand that in Europe, unpopular and damaging major developments cannot just be steamrollered through, as they perhaps can be in the Gulf States. Mr Al Baker thinks European airports should open 24 hours a day if they want to compete with the emerging Gulf hubs in Dubai and Doha.  Though rapidly denied by Heathrow, which distanced itself from  Mr Al Baker’s comments, it is indicative of a way of thought  which people may fear is prevalent on the Heathrow board.

 http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2014/05/heathrow-airport-board-member-akbar-al-baker-says-heathrow-should-have-24-hour-flights/

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Gatwick’s biggest airline, easyJet, backs new runway at Heathrow – not at Gatwick – in response to Airports Commission

In its submission to the Airports Commission consultation (closes 3rd February) easyJet, which is the major airline using Gatwick, has backed a new runway at Heathrow – rather than at Gatwick.  EasyJet says a Heathrow runway would be in the best interests of passengers, as fares would be lower. Landing charges would have to rise substantially for a Gatwick runway, which does not suit easyJet or its low cost passengers. It makes on average £8 profit per passenger. Gatwick tetchily responded that easyJet’s response was just based on its own “narrow commercial interests” and that easyJet feared the extra competition a 2nd Gatwick runway would bring. (One might have thought they could dream up a slightly better retort).  easyJet said: “Heathrow is in the best interests of passengers as it has the greatest demand. It is clear that long-haul airlines want to expand at Heathrow and if they can’t, they will do so not at Gatwick but at other airports such as Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt.”  Easyjet also said: “We will respect the judgement of the Commission on [environmental] issues and our support for a runway at Heathrow is conditional on it meeting the relevant environmental conditions.”  EasyJet said it wanted to launch operations from Heathrow — although it would continue to use Gatwick – and a 3rd Heathrow runway would enable easyJet to base 30 aircraft there.
.


 

For the actual text, see EasyJet’s response to the Airports Commission consultation.

Gatwick’s main airline is EasyJet with around 37% of passengers, and British Airways 2nd largest at around 14%.   BA also do not support a 2nd Gatwick runway. See below.


 

Budget airline Easyjet backs Heathrow expansion

30.1.2015 (BBC)

easyJet plane
Easyjet said Heathrow expansion was in the “best interests” of passengers

Budget airline Easyjet has said it is in favour of expanding Heathrow airport.

In a submission to the Airports Commission, the airline said expanding Heathrow would provide greater passenger and economic benefits.

Easyjet has 11 bases in the UK with the biggest at Gatwick, which is bidding to build a second runway rather than expand Heathrow.

The company said Heathrow expansion was in the “best interests” of passengers.

‘Increased airport charges’

In the submission, Easyjet argued expanding Gatwick would lead to a “significant increase” in airport charges and that would mean higher fares for passengers.

Chief executive Carolyn McCall said: “Heathrow is in the best interests of passengers as it has the greatest demand.

“By comparison, the Gatwick proposal requires a significant increase in airport charges.

“This would inevitably lead to higher fares for Gatwick’s passengers, the vast majority of whom are flying for leisure.”

A Heathrow spokesman said: “It is great news for Heathrow passengers and we look forward to working with Easyjet to deliver new routes and services.”

A spokesman for Gatwick Airport said Easyjet’s position was based on its own “narrow commercial interests”.

“The government however, will have to make a decision for the country balancing what is best for both the economy and the environment.

“Gatwick can deliver its second runway without the massive environmental damage which has stopped Heathrow expansion time and time again.”

Last year, the Airports Commission published its shortlisted options into airport expansion.

A public consultation on the options ends on 3 February and the commission’s final report is due later this year.

line

Analysis: Richard Westcott, Transport Correspondent

Why would Easyjet, Gatwick’s biggest customer, want a new runway at Heathrow?

Well, money.

Easyjet says the bare fact is that most passengers want to fly out of Heathrow.

Adding a new runway, it argues, would allow a big low cost carrier, like Easyjet for example, to get a foothold in the country’s biggest airport. The extra competition, it claims, would force the likes of British Airways to cut their fares.

Another runway at Gatwick, it says, wouldn’t attract as many passengers or airlines, and that lack of competition would mean fares going up.

All this is hotly disputed by Gatwick as you can imagine. They reckon that expanding their airport will lead to more competition, not less, which would be good for customers.

So it’s a significant day. A big player in the runway row has shown their hand.

By setting up the Airports Commission, the coalition buried its splits over where to build a new runway. But the uneasy truce can only last so long.

The commission makes its recommendation straight after the general election. Whichever scheme it picks is bound to open up more divisions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31060825


 

Comment from someone threatened with eviction from their home in the Heathrow Villages:

We are being told by the likes of Nigel Milton that Heathrow must expand for businessmen to fly more easily to China,India etc.  Now Easyjet come along to say that a third runway would increase the number of short-haul leisure trips.  As 70% of Heathrow’s passengers are already on leisure flights I suspect Easyjet are correct;  thousands of people will lose their homes and hundreds of thousands will suffer from more aircraft noise,night flights, increased air pollution and more traffic congestion – not to benefit British trade with Asia but for more people to have cheap flights to the Med.


Gatwick’s biggest airline, easyJet, calls for new runway at Heathrow

By SIMON CALDER TRAVEL CORRESPONDENT (Independent)

… EasyJet …. has told the Airports Commission that the next new London runway should be built at Heathrow.

……

Like most other low-cost carriers, easyJet has never flown from Heathrow. The airport is Europe’s busiest, and with only two runways, congestion is a constant issue. No-frills airlines rely on fast turnarounds, with as little as 25 minutes before arrival and departure, which is difficult to achieve at Heathrow.

But in its submission to the Davies Commission, easyJet says that new capacity would create an opportunity for it to base 30 aircraft at Heathrow.

The airline has plans for operating as many as 200 flights a day to and from nearly 70 destinations, including seven UK cities. Four of these – Aberdeen, Belfast, Edinburgh and Glasgow – are already served by British Airways. Three airports on easyJet’s agenda – Inverness, the Isle of Man and Jersey – have lost links from Heathrow over the years, with slots deployed on more profitable services.

Carolyn McCall, easyJet’s chief executive, was scathing about Gatwick’s claims for the next runway. In the submission, she says: “There is no evidence that passenger demand at Gatwick, and therefore its range of airlines and their networks, will be significantly expanded with an additional runway. Gatwick slots have been and are still readily available now which would allow long-haul airlines to move to or expand at Gatwick. History shows that there is little appetite to do so and, in fact, many have left the airport.

“Heathrow is in the best interests of passengers as it has the greatest demand. It is clear that long-haul airlines want to expand at Heathrow and if they can’t, they will do so not at Gatwick but at other airports such as Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt.

“Fundamentally airlines, and indeed airports, respond to passenger demand; they can not force passengers to use airports they do not want to use.”

A spokesman for Gatwick said easyJet’s position was “based on its own narrow commercial interests”. [sic.  …. he means Gatwick’s are not ???] 

“Heathrow is already the most expensive airport in Europe and expansion there can only drive up costs for airlines and passengers even further. This will deter low-cost carriers from operating at Heathrow in the future, just as it has for the past 25 years since the low-cost revolution got underway.”

Three low-cost airlines operate from Heathrow at present: Aer Lingus, which is subject to a bid by BA’s parent, IAG; Vueling, which is part of IAG; and the Lufthansa subsidiary Germanwings.

A Heathrow spokesperson said: “We look forward to working with easyJet to deliver new routes and services.”

British Airways declined to comment.

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/gatwicks-biggest-airline-easyjet-calls-for-new-runway-at-heathrow-10013848.html

.


This presumably comes as no great surprise to Gatwick, which has been conducting an ever more frenetic (desperate?) campaign for its runway. The airport has been in talks with easyJet for several years about the issue. From the sound of the tone of the Gatwick response, the talks have not been particularly good natured ….

Earlier:

Gatwick’s main airline, easyJet, questions Gatwick case for 2nd runway and does not want to pay higher landing charges

Carolyn McCall, CEO of  EasyJet, the largest airline at Gatwick, has said passengers want expansion at Heathrow, not at Gatwick.  Ms McCall said easyJet is “quite concerned” at the prospect that Gatwick’s  landing charges would rise to pay for a 2nd runway.  They are having confidential talks with the airports on future charges.  EasyJet makes on average £8 profit per seat.  If Gatwick’s charges doubled from the current £9  to an average of £15 to £18 (or even up to £23) as predicted by the Airports Commission, this would hit EasyJet’s economics.  Ms McCAll said: “This whole issue of capacity should be about where the demand is. Airlines have to want to go into that airport, and the congestion we have is predominantly around the Heathrow hub. Passengers need to really value what this infrastructure brings, and if they don’t see any benefit it’s going to struggle.” A new runway risked emulating unpopular toll roads. “It will be years and years before [passengers] see any positive effect.”  As one of the UK’s largest and fastest growing airlines, EasyJet’s opinion will need to be given careful consideration by the Commission.

 http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2014/11/gatwicks-main-airline-easyjet-questions-gatwick-case-for-2nd-runway-and-do-not-want-to-pay-higher-landing-charges/


 

Willie Walsh says there is no business case for a 2nd Gatwick runway – BA has Gatwick’s 2nd largest number of passengers

Willie Walsh, the head of IAG, will not support a 2nd Gatwick runway, even if it is chosen by the Airports Commission or backed by the next government. He does not believe there is a business case to support its expansion, and there is insufficient demand from airlines for extra capacity at Gatwick. Mr Walsh campaigned heavily for a 3rd Heathrow runway before 2010, but has made frequent comments indicating he does not believe UK politicians will have the “courage” to build that. Willie Walsh says British Airways would resist higher landing charges, which would be necessary to fund a runway – either at Heathrow or Gatwick. (EasyJet has also said in the past they don’t want a new runway, if it means substantially higher charges – their model is low cost). BA would want lower costs, not higher costs, from a new runway. IAG’s shares have now risen as it has now made a profit at last, and will be paying its first dividend (and maybe some UK tax). Gatwick’s main airline is EasyJet with around 37% of passengers, and British Airways 2nd largest at around 14%. 

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2014/11/willie-walsh-says-there-is-no-business-case-for-a-2nd-gatwick-runway-ba-has-gatwicks-2nd-largest-number-of-passengers/

.

 


 

Willie Walsh tells Transport Committee there is no business case for a Gatwick 2nd runway

At the Transport Committee evidence session, Stewart Wingate, Gatwick chief executive, said he would oppose a 3rd runway at Heathrow and wanted to see Gatwick develop as a competing hub airport.  But BA’s Willie Walsh said airlines will only pay for expansion at one UK airport and that is Heathrow, implying he would oppose a 2nd Gatwick runway.  Willie Walsh also told the committee there was no business case to expand Gatwick, and he was not aware of any discussion with airlines about the extra amount they would have to pay for a new Gatwick runway.  Willie Walsh said “the only business case you could stand over is one to invest in a 3rd runway at Heathrow, but I’m not going to waste my time because it’s not going to happen.” Divide and rule ?

.

.

Read more »

KPMG analysis of global runway building, hoping to show UK being left behind, leaves out a runway…..

As a last minute bit of hype, to mark the close of the Airports Commission consultation, the pro-runway lobby “Let Britain Fly” commissioned a study by KPMG to look at plans in a range of countries to build runways.  They produced an super-dooper graphic to persuade us all we are LOSING THE GLOBAL RACE (a term Heathrow especially likes to pepper its utterances with).  Let Britain Fly is keen, as is Heathrow, to lead us to believe that the UK is to be “left behind” and that – using some highly distorted logic – unless the UK has a new runway (or two) all the UK’s history, economic power etc will be cast aside, and we will become a backwater ….. Unfortunately the KPMG graphic is wrong in showing London having 6 runways. It actually has 7, including Southend (which has been celebrated by the industry as a London airport, and is officially recognised as such by the CAA).  With 7 runways, the case being made by KPMG and “Let Britain Fly” falls apart.  It shows London continuing to have more runways – even by 2036 –  than any other city they compare, other than Beijing.  Unfortunate that the KPMG analysis felt the need to distort the facts, in order to make its case – and in doing so, showed their assessment to be incorrect.

.

 

#LETBRITAINFLY : THE PANTS ON FIRE EDITION

28.1.2015 (Stop London City Airport  Masterplan  – SCAM)

As business and the aviation industry reach rabid dog style foaming at the mouth for a new runway, its well funded lobbying group Let Britain Fly put out an all singing, all dancing press release demanding to, well, Let Britain Fly.

In conjunction with KPMG, they have used their stellar accounting skills, *cough*, to persuade us why we desperately need a new runway.

They produced an super-dooper graphic to persuade us all we are LOSING THE GLOBAL RACE.

image

                                  Colours! Words! Numbers! Nonsense!

The only problem is they seemed to have misplaced a runway.

The graphic above tells us that London has 6 runways. London has in fact got 7 runways, Heathrow x 2, Stansted, Gatwick, Luton, London City Airport and Southend.

So why ditch a runway? A 7 Runway London does not suit the expansion narrative.

Lets take the Let Britain Fly graphic back to basics with the actual 7 London runways.

image

(Yes I know a 10 year old could put together a better chart – says SCAM) – graphic by Stop London City Airport Masterplan

So what does the basic 7 runway graphic tell us?

*London NOW has the most runways.

*By 2036, 3 airports will grow to have the equivalent number of runways that London has now.

*Only one airport, Beijing (population 21m and growing, third largest City in the World, utterly toxic air pollution) could surpass London for number of runways.

It is increasingly becoming apparent that the aviation industry are not going to let actual facts get in the way of increasing shareholder value at their airports. If the lies, manipulation, bullying and dodgy graphics are not proof of that, nothing is.

*We did ask @letbritainfly for comment but they did not respond.

http://stopcityairportmasterplan.tumblr.com/post/109387412915/letbritainfly-the-pants-on-fire-edition

.


.

World Airports Plan For One Billion More Journeys A Year

January 27, 2015 (Transport & Logistics)
Emerging economies lead drive for airport expansion with the UK at risk of being left behind, shows analysis.
Emerging economies dominate the list of countries with plans for airport expansion, reflecting a shift in the global economy that risks leaving the UK behind, according to a new analysis of the sector.The analysis produced by KPMG on behalf of the Let Britain Fly campaign reveals the world’s major cities plan to have built over 50 new runways by 2036, with Asian economies chief amongst those that will provide the capacity for an extra one billion passenger journeys per year.

It compares projected runway and passenger numbers for airports around the world and illustrates the huge scale of infrastructure projects which will be undertaken over the next 20 years.

Nations leading the charge for global connectivity include:

–       China, which will have built 17 new runways to serve its major cities by 2036, with the capacity for 400 million passenger journeys;

–       Dubai, where the World Central Airport project will provide more passenger capacity than all of London’s airports combined;

–       A new six-runway airport in Istanbul which will have almost twice the passenger capacity of Heathrow;

–       Others leading the drive for extra air capacity include Manila, Singapore, Bangkok, Mexico City and Mumbai.

The analysis contrasts this with the UK, which has not built a new full-length runway in the South East since the Second World War,  [the reason for that is Britain built a very large number of runways during the War, so the country is very well supplied with runways.  AirportWatch note] and currently has no confirmed plans to increase its capacity.  All of London’s main airports are predicted to be full by 2030.

The analysis also found that without expansion London could lose daily connections with up to twenty international cities that it would otherwise have had. These missed connections could result in less trade, tourism [the majority is tourism, and the majority of that is outbound UK tourists, taking their spending money out of the UK economy.  AW note] and investment with and from some of the fastest growing regions in the world, impacting on UK jobs and economic growth.

Gavin Hayes, Director of the Let Britain Fly campaign, which commissioned the independent analysis said: “This work reaffirms the need for additional runway capacity in the South East if Britain is to remain a serious contender on the world stage. [This is a complete non-sequitur. There is very little justification for this claim. Britain is a major nation, with the world’s best air links.  AW note]

With all of London’s airports predicted to be at capacity by the end of the next decade, it is more important than ever that political action is taken to ensure we do not fall behind our international rivals.  The rest of the world isn’t going to wait patiently for us to catch up.”  [Building runways is not part of some macho competition, that the UK has to be the winner of.  Much of the pro-runway spin -especially by Heathrow –  likens the building of a new runway to winning a “global race” etc.  It is unhelpful terminology.  Eg  Here  and here and here  and “losing our crown” here.  AW note]. 

James Stamp, Global Head of Aviation at KPMG, said: “The report shows that the debate about new runways in the UK is not just about where to lay 3000 metres of concrete, it is a debate that is fundamentally rooted in how we secure our future economic prosperity.  The emerging markets matter because within about a decade over half the growth in the world will come from these economies.  The report highlights that we need to make sure we are connected to that future growth, however, as things stand, Paris, for example, has 50% more flights to China than London.  Further delays means that London becomes less connected, and less competitive.”

Let Britain Fly is calling on politicians to publicly agree to be guided by the recommendations of the Airports Commission to ensure that London remains a global aviation hub and continues to provide connections to both new and established markets.

http://www.tandlonline.com/world-airports-plan-billion-journeys-year/#

 

.

.

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Detailed critique by Hillingdon Council of the Airports Commission’s failure to cover health issues adequately

In its response to the Airports Commission consultation, Hillingdon Borough Council has been highly critical of the Commission’s failure to deal properly with health impacts of a new runway. They say a specific Health Impact Assessment (HIA) would have been the best way of addressing weaknesses on health matters. There is no proper baseline for the health and wellbeing status of local communities. They say it is inequitable that existing airport-related impacts are not considered as a key part of the overall assessment of the three schemes. “There seems to be an implicit weighting for economic development and against health evidence.” Hillingdon say “it is unclear how local stakeholder feedback would be incorporated” on health issues. And “The Department of Health and Public Health England do not seem to have been consulted” during the Commission’s work. “Aggregating positive and negative impacts is flawed and inequitable. The negative impact of noise cannot be ‘bundled’ together with the positive impact of employment, because most often the negative and positive impacts are experienced by different groups of people.” “Impacts on children are not considered as part of this assessment either qualitatively or quantitatively. This is a significant omission.”  And so on.  A long catalogue of failures and omissions. 
.

 

Airports Commission’s Assessments

November 2014 Consultation

Equity Focused Review Report of the Airports Commission’s Community Health Relevant Assessments

FINAL REPORT January 2015
Commissioned by the London Borough of Hillingdon

 


This is a long document (52 pages) but copied below are a few sections:

Executive Summary

Introduction

ES.1 This Review Report has been commissioned by the London Borough of Hillingdon (LBH).

ES.2 The aim of the Review was to review the Airports Commission’s Appraisal Framework, published in April 2014, and the completed community health-relevant Assessments, published in November 2014, from a health equity perspective i.e. using a “health equity lens”.

Appraisal framework

ES.3 A specific Health Impact Assessment (HIA) within the Appraisal Framework would be (would have been) the best way of addressing the following weaknesses of the Framework.

ES.4 Firstly that the existing baseline health and wellbeing status of local communities and existing airport-related impacts are not considered as a key part of the overall assessment of the three schemes. This is inequitable because the existing burden of adverse health impacts of the existing airports and their activities is very different between Gatwick and Heathrow, i.e. many more residents around Heathrow currently experience the adverse health and wellbeing impacts of airport operations. It is also less likely to give a complete picture of the health and wellbeing impacts (the Quality of Life, Community, Air Quality and Noise assessment modules of the Airports Commission’s Appraisal Framework).

ES.5 Secondly, there seems to be an implicit weighting for economic development and against health evidence by the ranking and range of wellbeing indicators being used in the Quality of Life Assessment.

ES.6 Thirdly, it is unclear how local stakeholder feedback would be incorporated into the Assessments described in the Framework. Stakeholder feedback is important in helping to assess and provide additional evidence on the likely type and scale of impacts. (triangulation)

ES.7 Fourthly, the Department of Health and Public Health England do not seem to have been consulted during the development of the Framework.

Quality of life assessment

ES.8 Aggregating positive and negative impacts is flawed and inequitable. The negative impact of noise cannot be ‘bundled’ together with the positive impact of employment, because most often the negative and positive impacts are experienced by different groups of people.

ES.9 There is no in-depth discussion of inequality, fairness or equity in the Quality of Life Assessment. This is a significant omission.

ES.10 Impacts on children are not considered as part of this assessment either qualitatively or quantitatively. This is a significant omission.

ES.11 The Quality of Life Assessment makes use of data obtained from a smartphone software application (Mappiness) to estimate wellbeing effects of proximity to airports. This data is unlikely to be representative of the population living in proximity to the schemes considered.

ES.12 The Quality of Life Assessment assumes an equivalence between subjective or personal wellbeing and broader concepts and measures such as the ONS national wellbeing (quality of life) scale i.e. that subjective or personal wellbeing can capture all the dimensions of quality of life and wider wellbeing. This is problematic as it can miss out important aspects of quality of life and health and wellbeing. For example, a person with a chronic health condition may have wellbeing levels similar to a person with no chronic health conditions. Using only a wellbeing measure would not necessarily be sensitive enough to pick up the fact that the person with the chronic health condition, alongside high levels of wellbeing, also has limitations to their dayto-day activities and are not able to do all the things that they may wish to do. Most measures of wellbeing or quality of life are multi-dimensional so that they can pick up such nuances and subtleties, this is not the case in the Commission’s approach. There is an over-emphasis on quantitative indicators of quality of life, placing less value on a qualitative assessment approach. This has the danger both of discounting good quality qualitative assessments and setting a precedent for future airport assessments that only quantitative impact assessment methods have value. This is contrary to international good practice.

Community assessment

ES.13 A fuller discussion of the implications of the loss of housing and community facilities and associated social capital and community cohesion effects on existing communities and new communities should be undertaken.

ES.14 The Index of Multiple Deprivation and national wellbeing datasets are not explicitly mentioned and do not seem to have been used to inform the Community Assessment contrary to what the appraisal framework states.

Place assessment

ES.15 A fuller assessment of the public and community health impacts of the loss of agricultural land; green, open and play space; and heritage should be undertaken. The permanent loss of good quality agricultural land has implications for food security and sustainability and the loss of the overall amount of greenspace also has potential adverse inter-generational and adverse health and wellbeing impacts.

ES.16 The only community health and wellbeing related analysis and discussion is on the potential loss of health centres and in relation to the health hazards associated with the management of waste.

ES.17The waste assessment identifies potential additional noise, air quality impacts and traffic impacts from the construction and operation of airport waste collection and treatment facilities. It is currently unclear whether these potential impacts have been considered in the Noise and Air Quality Assessments.

Local economy impact assessment

ES.18 More detailed information on the likely mix of part-time and full-time, low vs. high skill and low vs. high paid jobs generated by the three schemes is needed to assess the quality of the employment likely to be generated, and the likely uptake of jobs by young, unemployed and deprived residents living around the schemes should be provided.

ES.19 The potential localised road impacts should be assessed quantitatively and qualitatively as these could be potential economic costs e.g. the potential for an increase in road traffic incidents, accidents and congestion on roads that are likely to get busier. Noise assessment

ES.20 Effects on children are not considered specifically and the distribution of impacts on other sensitive/vulnerable groups have been assessed only to the extent of considering three types of sensitive buildings: schools, hospitals and places of worship and their exposure to noise

ES.21 A mapping of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (i.e. overall and health deprivation and disability domains) to population density, noise contours and flight paths should be undertaken to get a better sense of how existing deprived communities are likely to be affected by the changes in noise levels, both increases and decreases.

ES.22  A more detailed description of the monetisation methodology including a worked example would be useful for assessing the validity of the methodology used as well as its applicability in future airport assessments.

Air quality assessment

ES.23  The Airports Commission’s Air Quality Assessment report is the first of a two-stage assessment. This stage only assesses national air quality impacts in detail. Local impacts on air quality and associated effects are not yet available. The Commission has stated this will be captured as part of a future detailed assessment. This is a significant omission in regard to this consultation.

ES.24 An impact pathway assessment approach as part of the second stage assessment should be used as this approach can provide a more comprehensive quantification of health endpoints.

Water and flood risk assessment

ES.25 An estimate of the number and characteristics of people currently residing in areas of flood risk is not provided, nor how these numbers may change in the future as a result of the different schemes. This estimate would provide a good indication of the magnitude of potential human health effects due to flooding for the different schemes.

Conclusion

ES.26 Overall, the Airports Commission’s Assessments would have benefited from a further detailed assessment of health and health equity impacts of each potential new scheme through a separate Health Impact Assessment (HIA) that sits alongside and synthesises the findings of the suite of health-relevant assessments (including the Quality of Life Assessment) undertaken by the Airports Commission.

ES.27 The recommendations identified in this Review Report, if undertaken, are likely to improve the quality of the analysis, in regard to the health and wellbeing impacts, of the existing suite of Assessments undertaken by the Airports Commission.

.


.

The full report is at

Equity Focused Review Report of the Airports Commission’s Community Health Relevant Assessments


 

11.  Conclusion

11.1.1  This conclusion considers the ten equity-focused criteria used to review the Airports
Commission’s Appraisal Framework in the light of the completed community health
relevant Assessments.

11.1.2  Overall, the Airports Commission’s Assessments would have benfited from a further
detailed assessment of health and health equity impacts of each potential new scheme
through a separate Health Impacts Appraisal Module and subsequent Assessment that
sits alongside and synthesises the findings of the suite of health-relevant assessments
undertaken by the Airports Commission.

11.1.3 The recommendations identified in this Review Report if undertaken are likely to improve the quality of the analysis of the existing suite of Assessments undertaken by the Airports Commission.

11.1.4 The Appraisal Framework and the methodologies used within the completed
Assessments reviewed in this report would have benefited from the advice and expertise
of Department of Health and Public Health England.

11.1.5 Though key environmental and social determinants of health have been considered, the approach to assessing quality of life is narrow and weak and has not fully synthesised the implications of the other community health-relevant assessments. The inter-related, interconnected nature of the health and wellbeing impacts identified in the suite of
Assessments has not therefore been fully considered and therefore the Assessments do
not consider the in-combination effects from, for example, changes to air pollution,
noise, water and flood risk, community, place and local economy.

11.1.6 A key health relevant scenario that was not considered in the Appraisal Framework and Assessments was the further lowering of current thresholds for air quality and noise
standards.

11.1.7 A key weakness of the Appraisal Framework and the Assessments was that they did not consider or take account of the existing health burdens on communities from the existing airport operations. There was also no development of a detailed community health and wellbeing baseline based on available public health data to support the analysis of
potential health and wellbeing impacts.

11.1.8 Distributional impacts and health equity/inequality issues are poorly considered in the Assessments. While part of this is related to lack of data there are existing routine
statistics/datasets that could have been used to provide useful information on likely
distributional and health equity impacts e.g. taking account of existing health burdens
and mapping indices of deprivation. For example, the Appraisal Framework states that
the Community Assessment will use the Index of Deprivation and national wellbeing
datasets however these information sources have not been used to inform the
Community Assessment.

11.1.9 Scientific, policy and practice evidence has informed the Assessments. However,
scientific evidence on the social determinants of health has not been considered in any
systematic way.

11.1.10 Information on how local stakeholders have informed the findings of the Assessments is lacking.

11.1.11 There is a strong explicit and implicit weighting of quantitative assessment findings and little detailed qualitative discussion of the full range of environmental and social
determinant of health and wellbeing.

11.1.12 Uncertainties and assumptions in relation to health and wellbeing impacts are only
partially considered, taken into account or made explicit.

11.1.13 Physical health, mental health and wellbeing impacts are not given an appropriate
weighting across the suite of health-relevant assessments.

.


 

.

The full report is at

Equity Focused Review Report of the Airports Commission’s Community Health Relevant Assessments

 


.

Hillingdon Borough Council has also sent this response to the Commission:

http://modgov.hillingdon.gov.uk/documents/s24915/Appendix%201%20-%20Hillingdons%20response%20to%20the%20Airports%20Commission%20Consultation.pdf

 


.


 

AirportWatch note below (not Hillingdon):

What the Airports Commission says on Health Impact Assessment

The words “health impacts” do get a couple of minor mentions by the Airports Commission in this document
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223764/airports-commission-noise.pdf 
Discussion Paper 05: Aviation Noise   July 2013.
All they say (Page 37):
 
Monetising health impacts
4.32   As discussed in Chapter 2, several pieces of research have found links between noise exposure and health effects. These health effects are typically
accounted for in appraisal by estimating the size of the population exposed, and then linking this to scientific research on the level of noise and the risk of
cardiovascular disease associated with it.
4.33   However, more recent research by Berry and Flindell (2009)70 and Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) (2011)71, is being reflected by the IGCB in its
forthcoming guidance. For instance, HSL (2011) considers a wide range of heath effects from noise-related hypertension, including acute myocardial
infarction, strokes and dementia. The approach proposed by the IGCB  [the  Government’s Interdepartmental Group on Costs and Benefits (IGCB), a Defra-led group of government analysts ]    uses dose-response functions to estimate the prevalence of these health impacts in the population, which is then monetised in relation to the value of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY).72   Once the additional number of noise related disease cases is calculated, a monetary value can be estimated.
4.34 Based on this approach the HSL (2011) estimate the noise impacts from road traffic and rail could equate to around £1bn and £43m of health effects per
annum, respectively.73 Aircraft noise impacts were not estimated in this report. For further information on the health monetisation methodology please
see the WHO report and HSL (2011).
70
Berry and Flindell (2009), ‘Estimating dose-response
relationships between noise exposure and human health
impacts in the UK’.
71
Commissioned by Defra and is available at: http://randd.
ocation=None&ProjectID=17601&FromSearch=Y&Publish
er=1&SearchText=hypertension&SortString=ProjectCode
&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description
72 ‘QALYS are calculated by estimating the years of life
remaining for a patient following a particular treatment or
intervention and weighting each year with a quality of life
score (on a scale of zero to one, where zero is equivalent
to death and one is equivalent to full health). It is often
measured in terms of the person’s ability to perform the
activities of daily life, free from pain and mental disturbance’
(National Institute for Health and Care Excellence definition).
The Department for Health guidance suggests a central
value for a QALY of £60,000. For more detailed information
on the approach please see HSL (2011).
73 Note these cover 23 agglomerations in the UK,
accounting for roughly 40% of the population.
==========================
.
In the Airports Commission’s “Appraisal Framework”   April 2014 at
 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/300223/airports-commission-appraisal-framework.pdf
there is not one mention of the term “Health Impact Assessment” but it does talk in general terms of health impacts (about 10 mentions)  from air pollution and from noise, and it considers how these can be monetised, as part of a sustainability assessment.  [The Commission only really seem interested in health in terms of its cost.]
==========================
.
 In the Airports Commission’s “Interim Report”  December 2013 at
 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/271231/airports-commission-interim-report.pdf
   (Page 66)
there is no mention of health, other than a few short mentions of the fact that there are effects from noise.  One says:  “A number of respondents testified that living under a flight path can cause annoyance, adverse health and, at times, deep unhappiness.” [sic]
============================
.
The Airports Commission’s “Community: Impact Assessment”  Jan 2014 document 
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/372611/AC11_tagged.pdf 
said:
HAL’s equalities screening
 
4.20 HAL has not carried out an explicit equalities screening exercise, although it is
experienced in such matters, having produced a joint Health Impact Assessment
and Equalities Impact Assessment as part of their recent planning application to
remove the Cranford agreement. That exercise concluded that a full equalities
assessment was necessary, based on answers to five health-related questions, with
regard to the designated protected characteristics. It was identified that the key
issues for that exercise were likely to be the effects on the population associated
with noise and air quality.
4.21 An equalities screening for this exercise might also consider other impacts on
protected groups from construction and operation – such as land acquisition and
demolition of property (residential and community), land clearance and construction
activity, noise impacts from surface transport, and income and employment
(displaced and created). The exercise would need to gather data on protected
groups, some of which are not currently available.
(But nothing specifically on health).
.

.

More on Health Impact Assessments

On this website, the  NHS Healthy Urban Development Unit
 http://www.healthyurbandevelopment.nhs.uk/our-services/delivering-healthy-urban-development/health-impact-assessment/

says:

Health Impact Assessment

The recently published online National Planning Practice Guidance refers to health impact assessment (HIA) as a useful tool to assess and address the impacts of plans and development proposals. The London Plan and many borough Local Plans also refer to the use of HIA.

“The impacts of major development proposals on the health and wellbeing of communities should be considered through the use of Health Impact Assessments (HIA).” 
(Policy 3.2C London Plan, July 2011)

A health impact assessment (HIA) helps ensure that health and wellbeing are being properly considered in planning policies and proposals. HIAs can be done at any stage in the development process, but are best done at the earliest stage possible. [AirportWatch highlighting.]  HIAs can be done as stand-alone assessments or as part of a wider Sustainability Appraisal, Environmental Impact Assessment, or Integrated Impact Assessment.

HUDU is able to provide bespoke advice and support on assessing the health and wellbeing impacts of development, and has undertaken a number of HIAs on behalf of primary care organisations.

The process looks at the positive and negative impacts of a development as well as assessing the indirect implications for the wider community. The aim is to identify the main impacts and prompt discussion about the best ways of dealing with them to maximise the benefits and avoid any potential adverse impacts.

HIAs are commonly categorised as ‘full’, ‘rapid’ or ‘desktop’. A full HIA involves in depth evidence-based analysis of all potential health and wellbeing impacts on different population groups, using research and community engagement.

HUDU Rapid Health Impact Assessment (HIA) Tool
HUDU has developed a rapid HIA tool which is less resource intensive using existing evidence to quickly assess the impacts of a development plan or proposal and recommend measures to address negative impacts and maximise benefits.

The tool does not identify all issues related to health and wellbeing, but focuses on the built environment and issues directly or indirectly influenced by planning decisions. Health impacts may be short-term or temporary, related to construction or longer-term, related to the operation and maintenance of a development. The tool has been used on strategic planning applications in London’s ‘Opportunity Areas’ and on infrastructure projects, such the Northern Line Extension.

The rapid HIA tool can be downloaded here and a fillable form version can be downloaded here.

Healthy Urban Planning Checklist
HUDU, along with the six east London Growth Boroughs and Groundwork London has also published a healthy urban planning checklist which is a desktop assessment aiming to ‘mainstream’ health into the planning process. The checklist poses a series of questions based on London Plan policy requirements and standards which if met can positively influence health and wellbeing.

It is intended that the checklist should be applied to major, but not strategic development proposals and could use to help prepare a Local Plan or neighbourhood plan or to screen possible health impacts for a rapid or full HIA. Whilst developed for the east London Growth Boroughs, other London boroughs are encouraged to use the checklist and customise it for local use.

The Healthy Urban Planning Checklist can be downloaded here.

In addition, Public Health England’s ‘HIA Gateway’ includes a wide range of HIA examples and resourceshttp://www.apho.org.uk/default.aspx?QN=P_HIA

It also says:

For large scale development proposals a Health Impact  Assessment (HIA) may be required, with a full assessment providing information on health needs and priorities, including

community engagement, and setting out a detailed assessment of health impacts and proposed mitigation and enhancement measures. For large scale development proposals such as strategic planning applications referred to the Mayor of London, it is recommended that other assessment tools, such as the HUDU Rapid HIA Tool is used.

====

There is lots more.  ………… It is largely aimed at smaller developments, but it realises there are huge developments too, and these should be covered.

Their contact details are:

Address is:
NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit (HUDU)
1 Lower Marsh
London
SE1 7NT

Email: hudu@hudu.org.uk

Vernon Herbert  (Director) and Malcolm Souch (Project Director).

http://www.healthyurbandevelopment.nhs.uk/contact-us/

.


 

.

There is more from a Hillingdon Borough Council document in May 2013

called
“Health and Equalities Impact Assessment. Enabling works to allow implementation of full runway alternation during easterly operations at Heathrow Airport”

.

.


There was this interchange in Parliament
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-04-02b.197030.h

Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 2 April 2008, c1015W)

2.4.2008

Nick Hurd (Whip, Whips; Ruislip – Northwood, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans she has to make a health impact assessment of the proposed expansion of Heathrow Airport.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Poplar and Canning Town, Labour)

While our principal focus has been on meeting the key noise and local air quality limits, we plan to update the initial impact assessment incorporated in our recent Heathrow consultation in the light of responses and relevant evidence received. We have made it clear that any proposals for future development would need to be the subject of a full health impact assessment by the airport operator at the planning stage.

 

 

 

Read more »

Three new briefings ask “Can the UK build a new runway, and stay within the aviation carbon cap?”

The Airports Commission gives the impression that the issue of carbon emissions has been fully considered, and that a new runway can be accommodated within UK carbon targets. However, that is far from the truth.  It is by no means clear that the UK aviation could stay within the 37.5 MtCO2 cap that is needed, in order for the UK as a whole to meet its legal climate obligations. Indeed, the Airports Commission itself is aware of this problem, and its own figures show the carbon emissions from UK aviation far exceeding the cap, over many years. For the clearest view of this, see the Commission’s interim report, Technical Appendix, December 2013, Pages 71 & 72. Though there will be carbon efficiencies in coming decades, in CO2 per passenger kilometre, the scale of those improvements is unknown and many are just hypothetical. The widely accepted assumption has been that the matter is just which airport gets a runway – rather than whether a runway could be built at all. The carbon situation makes it clear that the debate is still very much “IF” a runway should be built, and not merely “WHERE?”  Three new briefings help set out the facts, and show that building a new runway would mean UK aviation exceeds its carbon cap.
.

 

1.  AEF (Aviation Environment Federation) 

“The carbon gap in the Airports Commission’s new runway analysis”

 
AEF has 3 major concerns about the Commission’s approach to analysing the climate change implications of airport expansion. These are set out, with their  recommendations on what the Airports Commission needs to do before publishing its final report.
AEF is urging everybody responding to the Airports Commission’s consultation, to include these 3 recommendations in their response.


2. Short briefing from AirportWatch

“Airports Commission’s Recommendations Inconsistent with Climate Target”

The briefing shows how the Airports Commission’s recommendations would not be consistent with the CO2 target for UK aviation, unless there is major change in aviation policy. The Commission will do further work on theoretical increases in the price of carbon, to attempt to keep aviation emissions at 37.5 MtCO2. However, if this is done, the net economic benefit of a runway would become negative, fatally undermining the Commission’s runway recommendation


3. Longer briefing from AirportWatch

“Aviation carbon emissions, a new runway and the Airports Commission”

The briefing looks at the actual carbon figures, of current and forecast carbon emissions by the UK aviation industry, and anticipated carbon efficiencies in future decades. It assesses whether these can be kept below the 37.5 MtCO2 cap, without a new runway – and with one. The briefing takes the form of questions and answers, so dividing the issue into sections, for clarity.  The data shows that building new runway in the South East is very likely to be incompatible with the UK’s carbon targets, and sets out why.


Can the UK build a new runway, and stay within the aviation carbon cap?

28.1.2015 (AirportWatch)

The Airports Commission gives the impression that the issue of carbon emissions has been fully considered, and that a new runway can be accommodated within UK carbon targets.

However, that is not the case. It is by no means clear that the UK aviation could stay within the 37.5 MtCO2 that is needed, in order for the UK as a whole to meet its legal climate obligations.

Indeed, the Airports Commission itself is aware of this problem, and its own figures show the carbon emissions from UK aviation far exceeding the cap, over many years. For the clearest view of this, see the Commission’s interim report, Technical Appendix, December 2013, Pages 71  and 72

Of course, there will be improvements in efficiency, and reductions in carbon emissions per passenger kilometre. The scale of those improvements is unknown. Carbon efficiencies are postulated from future generations of aircraft that are not yet on the drawing board, let alone nearing production. Biofuels that are, frankly, unlikely to be commercially viable are anticipated. Carbon trading systems of which there is no prospect at present are presumed.

The widely accepted assumption has been that the matter is merely of which airport gets a runway – rather than whether a runway could be built at all. The carbon situation makes it clear that the debate is still very much “IF” a runway should be built, and not merely “WHERE?”

The Airports Commission has not yet set out with meaningful detail what future policies would be needed, in order to limit emissions to the aviation cap – while adding new runway capacity.

If UK aviation cannot keep within its carbon cap, it is likely that the growth of regional airports would need to be constrained – or alternatively the new runway could only be partly used. Neither would be popular, or easy to achieve.

If UK aviation exceeds its carbon cap, it would be necessary for other sectors of the economy to make even steeper cuts in emissions (they are already having to make reductions in carbon emissions of 85% on their 1990 level, by 2050, in order to allow the aviation sector to effectively double its emissions over the same period).

In a nutshell, the carbon emissions from UK aviation are likely to exceed the 37.5 MtCO2 cap by 2050, even without a new runway.

With a new runway, the emissions from UK aviation will exceed it by even more.

The simplest and cheapest (as well as most effective) way to prevent UK aviation from exceeding its carbon limit is not to build another runway.


 

As one AirportWatch member put it:

The thinking seems to have gone like this:

1) our political masters want airport expansion
2) the same people are committed to capping and cutting carbon emissions
3) we know that we cannot expand airports without breaking the carbon commitments
therefore we are going to ignore the carbon emissions and carry on with the process of deciding where to expand airports because we realise there is more money/political power in that than in actually delivering on the empty promises of politicians on climate change, and the problems we push down the line are someone else’s.
.

Responding to the Airports Commission consultation:

People may find some of this information useful, in writing responses to the Airports Commission consultation (ends 3rd February).   The  Commission has asked for information on what they have got wrong, and what they have missed out.  The carbon issues fit into both those categories.

Responses can be made by email to  airports.consultation@systra.com  and full details on how to send in a response are at the end of the Consultation document. 

.

.

.

 

 

Read more »

Report by Oxera for Birmingham Airport criticises Commission’s analysis on impacts of Heathrow runway on regional airports

Birmingham Airport has commissioned a study by economic analysts, Oxera, to look at the Airports Commission’s analysis of impacts of Heathrow expansion on regional airports – Birmingham in particular. Oxera believes a 3rd Heathrow runway would exacerbate, rather than reduce, regional imbalances and by sucking more business into the south-east, Heathrow expansion would just widen the north/south divide. Oxera say the methodology used by PwC, on behalf of the Airports Commission, could hide winners and losers in UK regions, and underplays the negative effect that Heathrow expansion could have on some UK regions.  They believe there should be better analysis of where the national losses and gains would be, and how they would be distributed. CEO of Birmingham, Paul Kehoe, seems to be more in favour of a Gatwick runway, which presumably threatens Birmingham less. Kehoe said: “Whilst Heathrow is essential and must remain a world class airport for the UK and for the Midlands to grow, Heathrow must become complementary to Birmingham Airport. More capacity at Heathrow would limit our region’s ambitions.” The Midlands claims to be responsible for 16% of all UK exports.
.

 

Airports Commission’s Research on Effect of Runway Expansion on UK Regions Could be Flawed, According to New Analysis

26 January 2015 (Birmingham Airport)

New analysis has questioned whether the Airports Commission has properly investigated the potential economic effect on the country’s regions of the shortlisted runway options.

Whilst the Airports Commission is mandated with taking a “UK-wide perspective”, new analysis has questioned whether it has properly investigated the potential economic effect on the country’s regions of the shortlisted runway options.

A study by economic analysts Oxera, commissioned by Birmingham Airport, says the methodology used by PwC on behalf of the Airports Commission could hide winners and losers in UK regions, and underplays the negative effect that Heathrow expansion could have on some UK regions.

Oxera explains that this is because, rather than modelling what could happen to the Midlands and other UK regions under the Heathrow and Gatwick scenarios, PwC split the UK into three large blocks: London & the South East, the Rest of England, and the Rest of the UK.

The Oxera analysis says that: “A more relevant question for analysis which could have been asked by the Airports Commission and PwC is where the national losses and gains are accrued and how they are distributed.” Oxera conclude that that the most intuitive deduction about economic impacts, taking the Airports Commission’s traffic forecast as given, is that Heathrow expansion would be more likely to exacerbate rather than mitigate regional imbalances, by drawing more business into the London area.

These questions have been raised a week before The Airports Commission runway expansion consultation closes, and on the day that Birmingham Airport Chief Executive Paul Kehoe and Gatwick Airport Chief Executive Stewart Wingate are addressing businesses in the Midlands on the choice facing the country.

Paul Kehoe said: “Birmingham Airport had its busiest year ever in 2014 which shows that passengers and businesses want to fly direct. With our region attracting over a quarter of the UK’s foreign direct investment, we are clear that the answer is a network of national long-haul airports, plugging all regions into global growth opportunities, not an even larger hub at Heathrow which would draw more business into an already overheated South East.”

“Oxera’s analysis raises concerns that the positive relationships between airports outside the South East and their regional business communities have not been properly valued by the Airports Commission.”
 
“Whilst Heathrow is essential and must remain a world class airport for the UK and our region, for the Midlands to grow, Heathrow must become complementary to Birmingham Airport. More capacity at Heathrow would limit our region’s ambitions. We expect Dubai to overtake Dublin as our busiest route this year, which shows that business travellers are voting with their feet and don’t want to put all our eggs in one basket.”

Jerry Blackett, Chief Executive of the Greater Birmingham Chambers of Commerce said: “Our region has a larger trade surplus with North America than any other in the UK, and is the only region to have a positive balance of trade with China. This is down to the strength of our financial services, manufacturing and engineering sectors and more, all of which are supported by our long-haul connectivity to markets around the world. The right decision for our region is the one that allows more businesses to fly direct, not one that could draw more business to Heathrow and the South East.”

Stewart Wingate, London Gatwick CEO said: “Competition between the UK’s airports is essential for delivering choice for passengers, businesses and investors across the country. By expanding Gatwick we can harness the strength of the country’s network of great airports, delivering new South East capacity and supporting the growth of connectivity across the UK.”

The Midlands contributes more than £178 billion to the economy, including 16 percent of all UK exports, and Birmingham has recently been names as the UK’s most investible city. A letter from nine regional MPs, Birmingham City Council leader Sir Albert Bore and Midlands business leaders and published in December raised concerns that Heathrow growth could negatively impact the region, and asserted that: “The UK needs new competition and a network of airports to boost growth, drive down costs and improve value, not expansion of Heathrow.”

Birmingham Airport handled 9,707,449 passengers in 2014; an increase of 6.5% compared to 2013, including a 7.2% in long-haul. It commissioned the research as it is concerned that growth at Heathrow could negatively impact the space Birmingham has to grow its own long-haul and business flight offering, which it says is crucial for the economy of the Midlands.


 

Airports Commission and PwC runways expansion thinking flawed

By Information Daily Staff Writer
January 27, 2015

Heathrow expansion will exacerbate rather than mitigate regional imbalances, By drawing more business into the south-east Heathrow expansion will simply widen the north/south divide

A study by economic analysts Oxera, commissioned by Birmingham Airport, says the methodology used by PwC on behalf of the Airports Commission could hide winners and losers in UK regions, and underplays the negative effect that Heathrow expansion could have on some UK regions.

Oxera explains that this is because, rather than modelling what could happen to the Midlands and other UK regions under the Heathrow and Gatwick scenarios, PwC split the UK into three large blocks: London & the South East, the Rest of England, and the Rest of the UK.

The Oxera analysis says that: “A more relevant question for analysis which could have been asked by the Airports Commission and PwC is where the national losses and gains are accrued and how they are distributed.” Oxera conclude that the most intuitive deduction about economic impacts, taking the Airports Commission’s traffic forecast as given, is that Heathrow expansion would be more likely to exacerbate rather than mitigate regional imbalances, by drawing more business into the London area.

These questions have been raised a week before The Airports Commission runway expansion consultation closes, and on the day that Birmingham Airport Chief Executive Paul Kehoe and Gatwick Airport Chief Executive Stewart Wingate are addressing businesses in the Midlands on the choices facing the country.

Paul Kehoe said: With our region attracting over a quarter of the UK’s foreign direct investment, we are clear that the answer is a network of national long-haul airports, plugging all regions into global growth opportunities, not a larger hub at Heathrow which would draw more business into an already overheated South East.”

“Oxera’s analysis raises concerns that the positive relationships between airports outside the South East and their regional business communities have not been properly valued by the Airports Commission.”

“Whilst Heathrow is essential and must remain a world class airport for the UK and for the Midlands to grow, Heathrow must become complementary to Birmingham Airport. More capacity at Heathrow would limit our region’s ambitions. We expect Dubai to overtake Dublin as our busiest route this year, which shows that business travellers are voting with their feet.”

The Midlands in fact has a larger trade surplus with North America than any other region in the UK, and is the only region to have a positive balance of trade with China. This is due mainly to the strength of financial services, manufacturing and engineering sectors. It seems clear that the right decision for airport development is the one that allows more businesses to fly direct, not one that could draw more business to Heathrow and the South East.”

The Midlands contributes more than £178 billion to the economy, including 16 percent of all UK exports, and Birmingham has recently been named the UK’s most investible city. A letter from nine regional MPs, Birmingham City Council leader Sir Albert Bore and Midlands business leaders, published in December, raised concerns that Heathrow growth could negatively impact the region, and asserted that: “The UK needs new competition and a network of airports to boost growth, drive down costs and improve value, not expansion of Heathrow.”

http://www.theinformationdaily.com/2015/01/27/airports-commission-and-pwc-runways-expansion-thinking-flawed

 

Read more »

Woodland Trust highlights inadequate recognition of woodland and biodiversity in Airports Commission documents

The Woodland Trust is urging people who intend to send in responses to the Airports Commission consultation to mention the omission of some vital environmental information. The Trust says trees and woodland habitats have had little mention, and the issue has not been given proper consideration. Either a Gatwick or a Heathrow runway would  have serious consequences for woodland and trees, and other aspects of the natural world.  The Woodland Trust believes woods and trees should not just be considered as amenity. Irreplaceable habitats like ancient woodland are just that – not replaceable. The Commission talks of ancient woodland as having ‘low replacability’ – but ancient woodland cannot be replaced. The Commission also makes little reference to the loss of ecosystem services, or the impacts of land take on biodiversity at a local or landscape scale. The need that everyone has for good quality, accessible green spaces is barely recognised. With threatened loss of 14 hectares of ancient woodland at Gatwick, with over 70 hectares woodland loss overall – and valuable ancient trees at risk around Heathrow, loss and permanent fragmentation of these precious habitats like these could have far wider implications.
.


The Airports Commission paper on “Biodiversity: Assessment” by Jacobs is at  https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/372447/7-biodiversity–assessment.pdf

and contains its assessment of woodland and ancient woodland, and the need to replace the areas lost, at a multiple of 3:1 (Gatwick airport) or up to 10:1 in Defra’s Biodiversity offsetting guidance.

.

The Airports Commission paper on “Biodiversity: Ecosystem Services” by Jacobs is at  https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/372448/7-biodiversity–ecosystem-services.pdf

which says for Gatwick “The total net present value of lost ecosystem services is estimated to be between £6.0 million and £9.2 million over the course of the 60 year assessment period.  Aside from ecosystem services supporting agriculture, the highest valued loss of an
ecosystem service is that of opportunities for recreation. ”  and there are similar statements for the two Heathrow runway options.

 


Give woodland a voice in new aviation plans

The Woodland Trust says:

A big decision will be made later this year about aviation in the UK. It will be based on the recommendations made by the Airports Commission; a body set up by the Government to advise on airport capacity.

A public consultation on the commission’s assessment of the options – a second runway at Gatwick or a third runway at Heathrow – is now live.

Unfortunately, trees and woodland habitats are off the radar!

In the consultation “the environment” seems to be limited to buildings and issues of noise and air pollution. But expansion at any major airport will have serious consequences for woodland and trees in the south east.

We need your help.

There’s still time to put woods and trees and ancient woodland at the centre of the debate, which is where they should be. The commission’s final report is due to be delivered to government this summer.

The Commission’s consultation closes on Tuesday 3 February.

Whoever leads the next government will use its recommendations to decide on the next steps for airport expansion. Please use our simple form to be the voice they need.

Ready for take-off?

The commission asks 8 specific questions. These questions appear most relevant to our concerns:

  • Q1: What conclusions, if any, do you draw in respect of the three short-listed options?
  • Q2: Do you have any suggestions for how the short-listed options could be improved, i.e. their benefits enhanced or negative impacts mitigated?
  • Q4: In your view, are there any relevant factors that have not been fully addressed by the Commission to date?
  • Q8: Do you have any other comments?

To help you, our analysis of the consultation reveals:

  • When referring to ‘the environment’ the focus is on air quality and noise, with woods and trees considered mainly as amenity.
  • There is scant regard for irreplaceable habitats like ancient woodland.
  • Ancient woodland is described as having ‘low replacability’ – but ancient woodland can never be replaced!
  • There’s also little reference to the loss of ecosystem services, or the impacts of land take on biodiversity at a local or landscape scale.
  • The need we all have for quality, accessible green spaces is barely recognised.

The consultation states that the loss of woodland is the ‘main biodiversity impact’ of proposals at Gatwick. Here, fourteen hectares of irreplaceable ancient woodland could be lost forever, with over 70 hectares of woodland loss overall. Valuable ancient trees are also at risk around Heathrow. Further loss and permanent fragmentation of precious habitats like these could have far wider implications on the natural world.

The commission must take this seriously in its recommendations.

When you are ready, send your email straight to the commission’s chair, Sir Howard Davies. Feel free to include your own views about woods and trees, and ancient woodland and ancient trees, to add to your response.

 

You can send a reply to the Commission via the Woodland Trust website at  http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/campaigning/campaigns/airports-commission/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=6439_aviation

.


.

See also

Woodland Trust highlights loss of 3 areas of ancient woodland for Gatwick runway

Though much of the area that would be flattened and covered in concrete and tarmac for a 2nd Gatwick runway – and associated building – would be fields and grassland, there are also three areas of ancient woodland.  The Woodland Trust has assessed the woods that are threatened and found that they  are significant and have important local biodiversity value. The current Gatwick consultation on its runway options (there is only one of the options that the airport wants, and the consultation has no proper way for respondents to say they oppose any new runway) barely recognises the impact a new runway will have on this irreplaceable habitat. The fact it will also wipe out the last remaining ecological network for wildlife around the whole of the south side of the airport is ignored.  The Woodland Trust is urging people to respond to the consultation, either by just saying NO to any of the options, or giving more detail in the response boxes to reflect the proposed destruction of these valuable bits of high quality woodland.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2014/05/woodland-trust-highlights-loss-of-3-areas-of-ancient-woodland-for-gatwick-runway/

Gatwick ancient woodland

Map of the area just south of Gatwick airport showing Rowley Wood, Huntsgreen Wood and woodland at Bonnets Lane. All would be flattened by a new wide-spaced runway.

.

.

.

 

 

.

 

Read more »

The stubborn 30% who remain opposed to a 3rd runway could be politically more important than those who support it

Heathrow airport frequently gets opinion polls done by Populus. These are phone polls, done by phoning randomly chosen numbers, in chosen boroughs. The script of the interviewer is not published, but earlier someone who received one of these calls wrote down as best she could at the time, the questions. There appeared to be some bias in the phrasing. Populus has not chosen exactly the same list of boroughs for their surveys, making comparison impossible. Heathrow says, in its survey conducted in 10 boroughs, between mid November and mid December 2014 that there was 50% net support for a 3rd runway, against 33% net opposition – from the boroughs of Spelthorne, Richmond Park, Brentford and Isleworth, Feltham & Heston, Windsor, Ealing Central & Acton, Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Slough, Hayes & Harlington, and Twickenham. A survey carried out in 7 boroughs from late February to late March 2014 showed 48% net support, and 34% net oppose.  A Populus survey of 6 boroughs in February to May 2013 showed 46% net support and 43% net opposition. A Populus survey in September 2007 (asking about a short 3rd runway) had 50% net support and 30% net oppose. So there really has not been a lot of change, though there are slight variations in the composition of the figures.
.

 

Detailed survey results below.

 

The stubborn 30% who remain opposed to a 3rd runway could be politically more important than those who support it

January 26, 2015 (By John Stewart, Chair of Hacan)

So, how much support is there for a third runway?

Heathrow – understandably from their perspective – made a big deal of this week’s Populus Poll which saw support edge up to just over 50% – http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.com/Press-releases/New-Poll-Growing-local-support-for-Heathrow-expansion-ab2.aspx

They have now crafted huge adverts around the findings.

Heathrow neighbours ad Jan 2015

The text reads: “More local people support than oppose Heathrow expansion. In a recent poll, 50% of those living around the airport were in favour of expansion and 33% opposed.

The reliability of the Populus polls has been questioned because of the way in which they have been conducted – http://hacan.org.uk/blog/?p=316  – but the key stat may be found in a 2007 Populus Poll.  The findings then were very similar to the results of this week’s poll.  It showed 50% in favour and 30% against – http://hacan.org.uk/blog/?p=281

Nothing much has changed since 2007 and critically around a third of people questioned remain opposed to Heathrow expansion.  Across London and the South East that adds up to over one million people.  And that’s a number to worry any Government.  It is a stubborn block of opposition that refuses to be swayed by Heathrow’s advertising blitz or Back Heathrow’s expensive leaflet drops.

I think, though, what Heathrow has achieved is bringing into sharper focus the support there is for a third runway.  That support – some of it active; a lot of it passive – has always been there.  It was simply not part of the narrative 10 years ago.

However, I suspect, when the next Government comes to consider the findings of the Airports Commission, it will be more interested in assessing the level of opposition when coming to a view about the political deliverability of a third runway that how much support it has.  It is the way of politics.

It is likely that a third of residents will continue to oppose expansion, some of them vehemently. As will the array of environmental groups. They were an important part of the coalition which saw off the proposals for a third runway last time round. And Heathrow has not sought to engage with them, nor Back Heathrow to influence them.

Most of the green groups have gone quiet since the third runway was dropped in 2010. Climate Change is their issue. They are not really interested in noise or flight paths. My soundings suggest they will be back if a new runway is given an amber light after the Election.

Heathrow understands there is little they can offer the environmental groups, so have not spent resources trying to influence them. Heathrow has concentrated its energies in try to offer residents and local authorities a better deal in terms of noise mitigation measures, jobs and compensation. But, so far, it has not shifted the million plus people inLondonand the South East who remain firmly opposed to expansion.

http://hacan.org.uk/blog/?p=368

.

 


Earlier:

Text of phone script of Heathrow commissioned Populus poll shows degree of bias

In July to September 2014 Heathrow commissioned yet another telephone poll by Populus, on attitudes to its 3rd runway plans.  The poll showed 49% net in favour, 32% net opposed and 19% neither support nor oppose. The figures are broadly similar to polls in March 2014 (48% support, 34% against, 18% unsure), November 2013 or May 2013 and there was 50% support from a Populus poll in 2007.  Though Populus publish details of the numbers, they do not publish the script used for the phone interview.  An enterprising resident, irritated by the polls, noted the wording when telephoned – which indicates how much bias there is in the way the poll was conducted.  There was no mention that the poll was paid for by Heathrow.  The most dubious question is number 11 which asks: “Are you more or less inclined to support expansion of HRW (or maybe it was a 3rd runway?) knowing that it will mean:  11.1) An additional 41,000 jobs by 2030 (options more, less, or no difference); 11.2) Doubling youth training schemes from 5,000 to 10,000 places (options more, less, or no difference);  11.3) Reduction in number of people impacted by daytime aircraft noise (options more, less, or no difference);  11.4) Reduction in night time disturbance [not specific] (options more, less, or no difference).   Unbiased?

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2014/12/text-of-phone-script-of-heathrow-commissioned-populus-poll-shows-degree-of-bias/

.


 

Populus surveys done for Heathrow show only 48% back its expansion (26% back it strongly, 23% oppose it strongly)

April 30, 2014

To quote Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli; “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” And so it is when opinion polls are done, and the organisation that commissions the poll wants a particular result out of it. Heathrow often gets Populus to ask people in boroughs near Heathrow what they think. They usually ask similar questions each time. One asks “Taking everything you know into account, do you currently support or oppose expanding Heathrow?” Over all boroughs surveyed, 26% strongly supported this; 22% somewhat supported; 11% somewhat opposed; 23% strongly opposed. See link So 48% support, and 34% oppose, with 18% neither supporting nor opposing. The figures were broadly the same a year earlier (with 46% supporting, but 43% opposing, and 10% neither supporting nor opposing). Heathrow says this is large, and growing, support. It is difficult to interpret the figures, as Populus only publishes a small bit of its results, with no methodology, such as the script of the interviewer, tone of the questions etc. Questions need to be asked about what information is given to people by Populus before they are asked their views.

Click here to view full story…   with more poll data …..


 

 

Download detailed results   Nov-Dec 2014 poll

 

Populus poll Heathrow Nov - Dec 2014 1

 


 Download detailed results  July – September 2014 poll

Populus poll Heathrow July to Sept 2014 1


 

Download detailed results   Feb – May 2013 poll

Heathrow Populus Feb - May 2013


 Detailed Populus poll results for September 2007 survey

http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/download_pdf-170907-BAA-Heathrow-Future-Heathrow-Poll.pdf


 

Noise question in the Nov-Dec 2014 poll:

The Populus survey includes the question:

“Q.3 For each of the following please say whether it makes you more likely to support Heathrow expansion, less likely, or it makes no difference?
A reduction in the number of people impacted by day-time aircraft noise”

In order to make any sense of the responses to this question, it really would be imperative to get the full script of the interview. The question does not make clear whether the implication is that a 3rd runway would make the number of people affected by noise larger or smaller.  Without context, or being given a clearly worded question, the data is meaningless.


 

The jobs question

in the Nov-Dec 2014 poll:

The Populus survey includes the question:

Q.3 For each of the following please say whether it makes you more likely to support Heathrow expansion, less likely, or it makes no difference?

An additional 41,000 jobs supported directly and indirectly in the local area by 2030

Was there anything in the script to give credibility to the 41,000 jobs?  Was it implied these jobs would definitely happen?  Without context, or being given a clearly worded question, the data is meaningless.


 

Read more »