A new site for the Colnbrook Lakeside incinerator located – how much is Heathrow going to pay?

A new site has been identified for a replacement facility for the UK’s largest residual waste incinerating facility, in Slough. Lakeside “Energy from Waste”, which is operated by Grundon Waste Management and Viridor, have announced plans to develop proposals for a replacement facility west of the Iver South Treatment Works, around 600 metres north west of the current location.  The owners of the site have been working with Heathrow to identify the new site. The facilities will need to be moved, as the current site would be demolished to make way for a possible third runway.   Site studies and environmental assessments are being carried out, which will form a part of the planning application. Upon completion, more information will be presented at a public consultation in the spring. This consultation is separate from the current Heathrow Aerospace change consultation, and then the Heathrow Expansion consultation in June. The planning process will be a long one, needing new environmental permits etc.  It is difficult to get planning consent for an incinerator, as people dislike having potentially very harmful emissions (including dioxins) in their local air, from the burning of the vast range of substances in domestic etc waste. It is unknown how much Heathrow will pay for the relocation of the incinerator. 
.

New site for Slough energy-from-waste facility identified

11th February 2019
By Matt Joy  (Slough & South Bucks Observer)

Location is probably the red circle.

A new site has been identified for a replacement facility for the countries largest residual waste incinerating facility in Slough.

Lakeside Energy from Waste, which is operated by Grundon Waste Management and Viridor, have announced plans to develop proposals for a replacement facility west of the Iver South Treatment Works, around 600 metres north west of the current location.

The owners of the site have been working with Heathrow Airport to identify the new site. The facilities will need to be moved to accommodate the proposed new third runway at Heathrow.

A series of detailed site studies and environmental assessments are being carried out, which will form a part of the planning application. Upon completion, more information will be presented at a public consultation in the Spring. This consultation is separate to the current Heathrow Aerospace and the June Heathrow Expansion consultations.

Lakeside EfW Director Richard Skehens said: “This is a major step towards replacing these important facilities, which play a valuable strategic role in regional and national waste management policy.

“Although this is just the first stage in a very long replacement programme – which will include applying for new Planning Permissions and new Environmental Permits – we are confident we are now moving in the right direction.

“We’ll publish more information about our plans for our two public consultation events in the spring.”

https://www.sloughobserver.co.uk/news/17423450.new-site-for-slough-energy-from-waste-facility-identified/?ref=twtrec

.

.

.


See earlier:

Huge cost to many local authorities if Heathrow does not relocate Lakeside waste incinerator

The proposed Heathrow 3rd runway would require the demolition of the Lakeside waste incinerator. Heathrow has made no effort so far to ensure this is relocated. If there is a period without an incinerator, local authorities would have to spend many millions of £s on landfill tax (£86.10 per tonne) to dispose of waste that the Lakeside plant would have dealt with. In their submission to the Transport Committee, Grundon and Viridor say: “The revised draft NPS fails to address the planning policy vacuum that businesses like Lakeside face in trying to relocate in advance of Heathrow securing consent.This vacuum needs to be filled for the benefit of all of those businesses threatened by the new runway … the draft NPS still fails to provide any explicit support for the relocation of the Lakeside EfW or the associated complex.  Indeed, if the Lakeside EfW and the waste complex as a whole were not replaced, given the lack of acceptable alternatives, the direct consequences would be disruptive and financially harmful to the local authorities that rely upon the services provided.  … the revised NPS should state: The Government recognises the role of the Lakeside Energy from Waste plant in local waste management plans. The applicant should make all reasonable endeavours to replace the Lakeside Energy from Waste plant.”    

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2017/12/huge-cost-to-surrounding-local-authorities-if-heathrow-does-not-relocate-lakeside-waste-incinerator/

.

.

See earlier:

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

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

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/11/lakeside-incinerator-plant-would-need-to-move-at-heathrows-expense-if-runway-is-built/

 

Read more »

Chiswick, Hammersmith, Shepherds Bush, etc residents horrified & stunned by likely impact of Heathrow proposed airspace changes

Residents from Chiswick, Shepherds Bush and Hammersmith were stunned to hear that their area would experience 25,000 extra flights by 2022  – and a further 260,000 by 2026 if a 3rd Heathrow runway were ever to open. Over 300 residents turned out to a heavily over-subscribed meeting, organised by the No 3rd Runway Coalition, to learn how the plans for airspace change at Heathrow will drastically impact their area.  The meeting also heard from local MPs Ruth Cadbury and Andy Slaughter, Leader of Hammersmith & Fulham Council Stephen Cowan, as well as local campaign groups  Chiswick Against the Third Runway, Bedford Park Society and Hammersmith & Fulham No 3rd Runway.  The airport is currently consulting across west London (and wider) on how future operations at the airport would work with a 3rd runway, with a range of options put forward for consultation. By the end of the meeting there was outrage as people understood the impacts, and the extent of the noise nuisance, that is proposed for the communities of Chiswick, Stamford Brook and Ravenscourt Park. Those changes could start within a few years. It is vital that people who will be newly, and very negatively affected, respond to the consultation, stressing their strong opposition.
.

 

 

COMMUNITIES ‘STUNNED’ AT IMPACT OF HEATHROW PLANS

13.2.2019

Residents from Chiswick, Shepherds Bush and Hammersmith were stunned to hear that their area would experience 25,000 extra flights by 2022 and a further 260,000 by 2026 if a third runway were ever to open.

Over 300 residents turned out on Tuesday evening (12th February) to learn how the plans for airspace change at Heathrow will drastically impact their area (1).

Gathering at Christ Church on Turnham Green in a heavily over-subscribed event, residents heard from the No 3rd Runway Coalition who were joined by local MPs Ruth Cadbury and Andy Slaughter, Leader of Hammersmith & Fulham Council Stephen Cowan, as well as local campaign groups Chiswick Against the Third Runway, Bedford Park Society and Hammersmith & Fulham No 3rd Runway.

The airport is currently consulting across west London on how future operations at the airport would work with a third runway, with plans for a range of options put forward for consultation. By the end of the meeting there was outrage with the impacts of what is proposed for the communities of Chiswick, Stamford Brook and Ravenscourt Park.

 Paul Beckford, of the No 3rd Runway Coalition, who organised the meeting, said:

“It was vital that we organised this meeting to help the communities understand the very complex and technical proposals in this airspace consultation.

Given the significant and negative impact that expansion would have on this area, it is clear that the best way to stop these additional flights is to oppose a third runway.”

Andy Slaughter, MP for Hammersmith, said:

“My constituents are rightly outraged at the impact Heathrow will have on our community with these plans for more flights over the next few years. I urge everyone to oppose these plans in the strongest possible form.”

Deborah Cadbury from Chiswick Against the Third Runway, added: “We are shocked & stunned by Heathrow’s plans to fly 25,000 more aircraft a year right over Chiswick by 2022, in addition to plans for a vast increase in flights from a third runway”

Whilst Hammersmith & Fulham Council leader Stephen Cowan noted that: “for our children’s and grandchildren’s sake, we deserve better than a vanity project that will cost billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and contribute nothing to the UK economy.”

ENDS.

 

For more information:

https://www.no3rdrunwaycoalition.co.uk/

.

.


See also:

 

Richmond Council reaffirms opposition to more Heathrow flights, as plans show there will be no escape from aircraft noise

Richmond Council voted to reaffirm its stance against Heathrow expansion last night, in a motion criticising the airport’s proposal to add an additional 25,000 flights a year, prior to expansion.  Last week the Council condemned Heathrow’s latest consultation which considers several issues, including; 25,000 flights added prior to expansion, noise, runway alternation and night-flying relating to its 2 existing runways, as well as the proposed controversial new 3rd runway. At the full Council meeting, members from all political parties were united in agreeing that the proposals were unacceptable and would prove disastrous for Richmond upon Thames. The impact from the additional flights would be felt across the whole borough, as curving flight paths may impact on areas that haven’t been impacted by aircraft noise before. By contrast, currently most aircraft noise from approaching aircraft is concentrated over the north of the borough including Barnes, Kew and Richmond. A key councillor said this 25,000 is just the tip of the iceberg. An extra runway would mean an additional 260,000 flights a year. That is unacceptable for our health, our sleep and our environment. It will ruin the lives of thousands of people.

Click here to view full story…

Heathrow slammed for ‘by-passing Chiswick’ for one of its consultation events

Local MP Ruth Cadbury has joined Chiswick campaigners against Heathrow expansion who say they are angry at the airport’s failure to hold a local consultation on changes which will significantly affect W4, particularly north Chiswick. The airport’s current round of consultation events (Airspace And Future Operations ) features events in Hammersmith, Ealing and Hounslow Civic Centre, but none in Chiswick.  This is despite the fact that the area faces significant potential disruption by proposed changes to flight paths or changes to respite periods even without a third runway. With a 3rd runway, the area will be intensely overflown by planes arriving to the new north runway, from the east.Campaigners say the level of low flights directly over the North Chiswick area area could reach 47 per hour (almost 1 per minute). It is likely that, with a 3rd runway, an estimated 35,000 residents could be affected. They consider that Heathrow is avoiding holding events in areas where opposition is likely to be strong and forceful, to try and ensure a more positive overall response to the consultation. The Bedford Park Society (BPS) and local group CHATR are planning a public meeting in Chiswick instead.

Click here to view full story…

Wandsworth Council Leader criticises Heathrow Public Consultation event – just one for the borough, in a difficult location

Wandsworth Council Leader, Ravi Govindia, has urged residents concerned about the impact of a 3rd runway at Heathrow, to attend a Heathrow consultation event that the airport is hosting in the borough this week. They need to make their voice heard. He has criticised Heathrow for having just one such event in Wandsworth, at a location that will be difficult for many residents to access. That is even though the increased aircraft noise would affect hundreds of thousands of Wandsworth residents. The event is being held on 30 January and is open to residents from 2pm to 8pm at the University of Roehampton, SW15 5PH.  Councillor Govindia said residents know that a 3rd runway would have a serious impact on the borough. It would produce an unacceptable rise in noise and air pollution, damaging the environment and posing a risk to people’s health and well-being. The Council believes that the impact from additional flights would be felt most keenly in West Hill, Southfields, Earlsfield and Tooting. Currently most aircraft noise from is concentrated over the north of the borough including Putney, Wandsworth and Battersea. Many people will get intense plane noise for the first time.

Click here to view full story…

London Assembly report says Heathrow 3rd runway should be scrapped, due to ‘severe effects’ of aircraft noise

A report, by the London Assembly environment committee, calls for Heathrow expansion to be stopped, due to the effects of aircraft noise. The report has renewed calls for the 3rd runway to be stopped. The noise from aircraft negatively affects work, relaxation and sleep, with “severe effects” on health and wellbeing. Caroline Russell, chairman of the committee, said: “The experiences of residents living with the daily nightmare of overhead noise are deeply worrying. This drive towards filling airspace capacity must be checked. For too many people, including children, aircraft noise is a major dominant intrusion into their everyday lives.”  If Heathrow builds the new runway, the number of flights will increase from around 475,000 to 740,000 a year.  It is likely that around 200,000 more people will be badly affected by aircraft noise. Heathrow also plans to increase its flights by 25,000, to around 500,000 per year and change flight paths, including overflying new areas, even before any 3rd runway. Ms Russell added: “…aviation authorities and operators must prioritise the health and well-being of Londoners and give us a break.”

Click here to view full story…

Richmond Council condemns latest Heathrow consultation – for unacceptable increases in noise and air pollution

Heathrow has a consultation, closing on 4th March, on its future airspace, both for the existing 2 runways and with a possible 3rd runway. Heathrow claim they will take the responses and view of residents etc into account. However, Cllr Gareth Roberts, Leader of Richmond Council, has condemned the latest consultation – claiming 25,000 extra flights would be disastrous for the borough. He, said: “We have always said that Heathrow needs to be better and not bigger. But clearly size is everything to the airport. Heathrow are proposing the biggest changes to its flight path since it opened. People living in Richmond and other areas of West London will find their respite from overhead noise cut under these proposals. Not to mention the additional 25,000 more flights a year – which will no doubt be crammed into the early morning schedules, delivering more misery for our residents. Let’s not forget, these extra flights will still require Planning consent.” He said it was a bad case of the government “putting the cart before the horse” in having got a parliamentary vote in favour of the runway (many votes by MPs who very little indeed about it) before details of flight paths and other impacts were known.

Click here to view full story…

Heathrow opens new consultation on airspace – including 25,000 more annual flights, by using IPA

Heathrow has opened another consultation – this on is on “Airspace & Future Operations”. It ends on 4th March. Not only is Heathrow planning for a 3rd runway, and up to 50% more flights eventually, it is also now trying to get another 25,000 flights (about 5% more). fairly soon. And it wants these extra 25,000 flights whether it gets its 3rd runway, or not. The current flight numbers cap is 480,000 per year, set after the Terminal 5 Inquiry. It is currently using about 475,000 – with the few spaces at unpopular times of the day or week. Heathrow plans to get the extra flights, added at times already very busy, by what it calls IPA – Independent Parallel Approaches, which mean planes can come in on two runways at once, at the same time. Currently if they do this, they have to be staggered, at slightly further distances apart than with IPA. Heathrow admits this will mean different flight paths, and people not currently being overflown, by narrow concentrated flight paths.  Planes on IPA would join the final approach path about 8 nautical miles from the runway. It will be important that the areas to be newly negatively affected are made aware of what is going to hit them. The extra flights would also give Heathrow more income in the short term, to help it pay the immense cost of its 3rd runway plans.

Click here to view full story…

Advice from Teddington TAG on Heathrow consultations on future flight paths

During January to March 2019, Heathrow Airport will be conducting a consultation in 2 parts, which people need to be aware of:  1. Airspace changes for the existing two runways to allow an increase in the number of flights. Heathrow want to increase the annual throughput by 25,000 ATMs.  2. Airspace changes for a 3 runway airport.   Later in the year, there will be a second consultation on Heathrow’s “preferred masterplan for Heathrow expansion.  It is VERY IMPORTANT that people respond to the consultation. One thing that we can be pretty sure of is that there will be more, not less, noise; for some people, this may be very significant.  For both 2 runways and 3 runways, Heathrow will be introducing PBN “Performance Based Navigation”, a form of “Satnav” which enables planes to be positioned in the sky much more precisely. This will bring about the further concentration of flight paths – to the detriment of people underneath them.  TAG is very much against the concentration of flight paths as it represents an unfair and extremely unhealthy burden upon those affected.

Click here to view full story…

.

..

 

Read more »

Plan B Earth’s skeleton argument against the DfT on how the Airports NPS (Grayling …) failed on climate

Plan B Earth is making one of the 5 legal challenges against the government, due to their decision to support the building of a 3rd runway at Heathrow, through the “Airports National Planning Statement” (ANPS). They have filed their skeleton argument, which is the basis of their submissions at the trial. Plan B says: “In essence, it’s a simple argument. Chris Grayling considered the Paris Agreement “irrelevant” to his decision. He was wrong.”  Part of the skeleton argument states: “(1). At the heart of all three grounds of Plan B’s claim, lies a common concern: the Secretary of State’s failure to assess the ANPS against the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (“the Paris Agreement”) and specifically the Paris Agreement temperature limit (“Paris Temperature Limit”), which, according to the best available science, demarcates the boundary between humanity and an intolerable risk of disaster: disaster for the environment; for the economy; and for international security.  (2.) Initially the Secretary of State purported to have taken the Paris Agreement into account. His own witnesses, however, undermined that claim. Once Plan B drew that to his attention, the Secretary of State modified his position: when he said that he had considered the Paris Agreement, he meant only that he had considered it to be irrelevant.”  Read the full skeleton.
.

 

See Plan B Earth’s website

 

Claim No. CO/3149/2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

In the matter of a claim for judicial review
BETWEEN

THE QUEEN
on the application of
PLAN B. EARTH
Claimant

– and –

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
TRANSPORT
Defendant

-and-
(1) HEATHROW AIRPORT LIMITED
(2) ARORA HOLDINGS LIMITED
Interested Parties

The Skeleton Argument by “Plan B Earth” against the Department for Transport, for the hearings starting in London on 11th March.

Skeleton Argument

 

A. INTRODUCTION

1. At the heart of all three grounds of Plan B’s claim, lies a common concern: the
Secretary of State’s failure to assess the ANPS against the Paris Agreement on Climate
Change (“the Paris Agreement”) and specifically the Paris Agreement temperature
limit (“Paris Temperature Limit”), which, according to the best available science,
demarcates the boundary between humanity and an intolerable risk of disaster:
disaster for the environment; for the economy; and for international security.

2. Initially the Secretary of State purported to have taken the Paris Agreement into
account. His own witnesses, however, undermined that claim. Once Plan B drew that
to his attention, the Secretary of State modified his position: when he said that he had
considered the Paris Agreement, he meant only that he had considered it to be
irrelevant.

3. In truth, as from December 2015 the Paris Agreement, which the Government has
advanced, signed and ratified, has been the foundation of national and international
policy on climate change. The Secretary of State’s contention that the Paris Agreement
was irrelevant to his consideration is fanciful and legally flawed from every angle of
approach. Specifically, the Secretary of State has:

(a) breached the 2008 Act, ss. 5(8) and 10(3), such that his designation was ultra vires
(Ground 1)

(b) acted irrationally by treating the Paris Temperature Limit as irrelevant to his
consideration and the discredited 2˚C temperature limit as relevant to his
consideration (Ground 2).

(c) breached the Human Rights Act 1998, s. 3 (“HRA s.3”), by failing to interpret the
2008 Act, s.5(8) in accordance with the right to family life and the right to life
(Ground 3).

4. All three grounds of claim are closely interlinked, but since Ground 1 and Ground 3
both relate to the interpretation of s. 5(8) of the 2008 Act, for the remainder of this
skeleton argument, and at the hearing, Plan B proposes to address Ground 3
immediately following Ground 1 and prior to Ground 2.

5. In substance, Plan B’s and Friends of the Earth’s grounds of claim are complementary.
In terms of the legal framing, however, there is an important distinction between Plan B’s Ground 1 and Friends of the Earth’s Grounds 1 and 2. Plan B adopts Friends of the
Earth’s submissions on s. 10(3) of the 2008 Act in so far as the argument is that the
Secretary of State was required by that section to take the Paris Agreement into
account and does not propose to advance separate submissions on that point.
However, in contrast to Friends of the Earth, it is Plan B’s submission that the
Secretary of State was required to consider the Paris Agreement also pursuant to s. 5(8)
of the Act, since the Paris Agreement is in reality the foundation of “government
policy” on climate change.

6. It may be convenient (in the interests of clarity) to mention briefly one argument on
which Plan B does not rely. Plan B does not suggest that the Paris Agreement is, of
itself, legally enforceable in domestic law; nor does it ask this Court to engage in an
exercise of interpreting international law. To the contrary, Plan B’s claim is grounded
in straightforward and non-technical considerations of public law: (i) the
interpretation of the 2008 Act s. 5 (and specifically whether “government policy” on
climate change should be interpreted to include the government’s commitment to the
Paris Temperature Limit); and (ii) the rationality or otherwise of the Secretary of
State’s conclusions that the Paris Temperature Limit was irrelevant to his
consideration and that the discredited 2˚C limit was a relevant consideration.

 

Read the full Skeleton Argument here:

https://planb.earth/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Skeleton-Plan-B-Trial-FINAL.pdf

.

.

 


Plan B’s website:

 

https://planb.earth/

We’re taking the UK Government to court over its reckless plans to expand Heathrow Airport. Join us!

Case information
Following the Government’s commitment to reviewing its climate targets the courts have refused us a full hearing on this case. There will be a full trial of Heathrow expansion, starting 11 March 2019, also involving the London Mayor, Friends of the Earth and others.

View case info & documents

 

Contribute to funding the case
People all over the world are now heading to court to hold governments and corporates to account for Climate Change. As part of this global movement Plan B is challenging the UK Government’s plans to increase aviation, the most polluting form of transport.

Help fund the case

Get involved
Plan B is supporting the emergence of a networked, international movement of legal action to prevent catastrophic climate change. ​If you would like to work in co-operation with Plan B or to volunteer your skills or time in some other way please get in touch.

How to get involved

.

.


See earlier:

 

Government tries to deny its climate responsibility to aim for 1.5C temperature rise, in pushing for 3rd Heathrow runway

The pre-trial hearing for the series of legal challenges against the Government’s decision to expand Heathrow takes place at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on Tuesday 15th January.  In legal correspondence between the defendant (Government) and one of the claimants, Plan B Earth, the Government argues that “[Plan B] is wrong to assert that “Government policy is to limit warming to the more stringent standard of 1.5˚C and “well below” 2˚C’.  This means that the Government is effectively denying that its own policy is to limit warming to the level that has been agreed internationally is required to avoid climate breakdown. The legal challenge brought by Plan B Earth and Friends of the Earth assert that the Government decision to proceed with Heathrow expansion was unlawful as it failed to appropriately consider climate change. Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell described the case as “the iconic battleground against climate change”.  The Committee on Climate Change had previously expressed surprise that neither the commitments in the Climate Change Act 2008 nor the Paris Agreement (2015) were referenced in the Government’s Airports National Policy Statement (aka. the plans for a 3rd Heathrow runway).This is a huge inconsistency.

Click here to view full story…

Pre-trial hearing on 15th January of the 5 legal challenges against ‘unlawful’ Government decision to approve 3rd runway

Campaigners are taking the government to court in a bid to overturn the “unlawful” decision to approve a 3rd Heathrow runway. The pre-trial hearing for Friends of the Earth’s case will take place on Tuesday at the High Court, when the activists will lay out their opposition based on several grounds. There are 5 separate legal challenges being brought by a range of organisations, on  grounds of climate, air quality and harm to the wellbeing of local residents.  It would be virtually impossible for Britain to meet its obligations to cut emissions under the Paris climate agreement if a new Heathrow runway is built [or for that matter, one at Gatwick either]. The Government’s advisory body on climate change, the Committee on Climate Change, has warned the expansion also threatens the government’s own legally binding pledge to cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. Transport secretary Chris Grayling said, without any justification for his belief, that he was “confident” that technical innovations would cut aviation CO2 emissions enough, so expansion could happen without breaking the targets. Hopes that either biofuels or electric planes would enable aviation to become a low carbon means of transport are unrealistic.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

.

Read more »

Heathrow court case won’t be live-streamed but there will be transcripts and maybe link into another court

An application to live-stream a legal proceedings at the High Court on the expansion of Heathrow has been refused at a hearing on 5th February. Justice Hickinbottom ruled that the trial by five claimants, versus the Secretary of State for Transport – set to begin on 11 March for two weeks – could not be live-streamed as the law dating from 1925, and 1981, did not allow for proceedings within the court to be recorded. The Judge agreed that the case was of considerable public interest, and being able to watch hearings live would be a benefit to many people. However, the court will seek to provide another large and accessible additional courtroom for members of the public wishing to watch the proceedings who won’t be able to fit in Court 76. Tweeting from both courtrooms is also to be permitted. Additionally, on application, screening of the proceedings in other courts around the country will be considered, an acknowledgment that the case is of wide public interest, allowing those from other parts of the country to avoid considerable costs of attending the hearings in London – a point acknowledged by Justice Hickinbottom. Transcripts of proceedings will also be published, online, although it remains to be decided as to how costs of these scripts will be apportioned.

.

Landmark ruling on live-streaming Heathrow court case 

5th February 2019

No 3rd Runway Coalition press release

An application to live stream a trial at the High Court on the expansion of Heathrow has been refused at a hearing on Tuesday.

Justice Hickinbottom ruled that the trial by five claimants (1), versus the Secretary of State for Transport – set to begin on 11 March for two weeks – could not be live streamed as the law dating from 1925, and 1981, did not allow for proceedings within the court to be recorded.

However, the court will seek to provide another large and accessible additional courtroom for members of the public wishing to watch the proceedings who won’t be able to fit in Court 76. Tweeting from both courtrooms is also to be permitted.

Additionally, on application, screening of the proceedings in other courts around the country will be considered, an acknowledgment that case if of wide public interest, allowing those from other parts of the country to avoid considerable costs of attending the hearings in London – a point acknowledged by Justice Hickinbottom.

Transcripts of proceedings will also be published, online, although it remains to be decided as to how costs of these scripts will be apportioned.

Paul McGuinness, Chair of the No 3rd Runway Coalition, representing hundreds of thousands of residents who would be negatively impacted by Heathrow expansion, said:

“Whilst we are disappointed with today’s ruling, we welcome several outcomes such as allowing tweeting from the courtroom and potentially permitting screenings of the proceedings in other courts around the country.

“We are pleased that the judges recognised the merits of the case brought forward and the extent of concern at the government’s decision to allow Heathrow to expand.

“This is why so many people consider themselves interested parties in these proceedings, and why a fair few of them will feel let down by this decision not to let them tune in. We will continue to explore legislative opportunities to bring what is a very out-dated law into the 21st Century.”

Jackie Clark, Chair of the Stop Heathrow Expansion group, which is based in the areas that face demolition in the event that the new runway goes ahead, commented:

“Many residents who are set to lose their homes will want to follow the court proceedings closely but may not be able to physically attend the court for a whole range of reasons. So we will be urging claimants to submit an application.”

 

ENDS. 

Notes:

  1. The hearing relates to a claim by Plan B Earth – a climate change charity who are a claimant in the case against the Government’s plans to expand Heathrow – who support a more open justice system on a case of wide public interest.

There are five claimants in the case; the first is the London Borough of Hillingdon (supported by the Mayor of London, the London Boroughs of Hammersmith & Fulham, Hillingdon, Richmond and Wandsworth, the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead and Greenpeace UK), Friends of the Earth, Twickenham resident Neil Spurrier and Heathrow Hub Ltd – a rival scheme for expanding Heathrow. The rolled-up trial begins on 11 March and is expected to last for two weeks.

For more information:

 

.


See earlier:

 

Charity “Plan B” calls for High Court to live-stream Heathrow 3rd runway legal challenge

A High Court challenge to the government’s approval of a Heathrow 3rd runway could be opened up to a mass audience through live-streaming for the first time, if Lord Justice Hickinbottom and Mr Justice Holgate accept a legal argument. Although the Supreme Court has transmitted its hearings since 2009, photography and recording of court proceedings elsewhere are strictly controlled by the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which only permits cases in the court of appeal to be broadcast. Tim Crosland, a barrister who is the director of the anti-climate change charity Plan B, will tell a preliminary hearing on 5 February that live-streaming from the High Court would not involve recording or creating a permanent record and was therefore permissible under the legislation. The legal challenges by environmental groups, local authorities against the DfT is due to be heard in the Royal Courts of Justice in central London over 10 days from 11th March. Only those who attend court would normally be able to hear the arguments. Hearings in the High Court have never previously been broadcast. Crosland said he believed that the more people who listened to the detail of the arguments, the more engaged they would become in environmental concerns. The climate implications of the runway decision are of considerable public interest.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Richmond Council reaffirms opposition to more Heathrow flights, as plans show there will be no escape from aircraft noise

Richmond Council voted to reaffirm its stance against Heathrow expansion last night, in a motion criticising the airport’s proposal to add an additional 25,000 flights a year, prior to expansion.  Last week the Council condemned Heathrow’s latest consultation which considers several issues, including; 25,000 flights added prior to expansion, noise, runway alternation and night-flying relating to its 2 existing runways, as well as the proposed controversial new 3rd runway. At the full Council meeting, members from all political parties were united in agreeing that the proposals were unacceptable and would prove disastrous for Richmond upon Thames. The impact from the additional flights would be felt across the whole borough, as curving flight paths may impact on areas that haven’t been impacted by aircraft noise before. By contrast, currently most aircraft noise from approaching aircraft is concentrated over the north of the borough including Barnes, Kew and Richmond. A key councillor said this 25,000 is just the tip of the iceberg. An extra runway would mean an additional 260,000 flights a year. That is unacceptable for our health, our sleep and our environment. It will ruin the lives of thousands of people.
.

 

Richmond Council reaffirms Heathrow position as new plans show there will be no escape from aircraft noise

23 January 2019  (Richmond Council press release)

Richmond Council voted to reaffirm its stance against Heathrow expansion last night, in a motion criticising the airports proposal to add an additional 25,000 flights a year, prior to expansion.

Last week the Council condemned Heathrow’s latest consultation which considers several issues, including; 25,000 flights added prior to expansion, noise, runway alternation and night-flying relating to its two existing runways, as well as the proposed controversial new third runway.

At the full Council meeting, members from all political parties were united in agreeing that the proposals were unacceptable and would prove disastrous for Richmond upon Thames.

The consultation also includes information about future ‘design envelopes’. This is information regarding where new flight paths needed to accommodate airport expansion could go over London and beyond.

The impact from the additional flights, should the airport be expanded, would be felt across the whole borough, as curving flight paths may impact on areas that haven’t been impacted by aircraft noise before.

Currently most aircraft noise from approaching aircraft is concentrated over the north of the borough including Barnes, Kew and Richmond.

The consultation document is available online at the Heathrow consultation website. The material includes a postcode checker which enables residents to see whether their home is likely to experience noise from arrivals or departures from an expanded airport.

Cllr Martin Elengorn, Richmond Council Cabinet Member for Environment, proposed the motion at the Council meeting on Tuesday 22 January 2019. He said:

“We have been repeatedly calling for information on noise impacts for years. Indeed, MPs should have received the information well in advance of making their decision on expansion.

“But, what is clear is that this 25,000 is just the tip of the iceberg. An extra runway would mean an additional 260,000 flights a year. That is unacceptable for our health, our sleep and our environment. It will ruin the lives of thousands of people.

“I urge residents, go online and do the postcode search of your home. Then have your say.”

https://www.richmond.gov.uk/council/news/press_office/older_news/january_2019/council_reaffirms_heathrow_position_against_aircraft_noise

.


See also

 

London Assembly report says Heathrow 3rd runway should be scrapped, due to ‘severe effects’ of aircraft noise

A report, by the London Assembly environment committee, calls for Heathrow expansion to be stopped, due to the effects of aircraft noise. The report has renewed calls for the 3rd runway to be stopped. The noise from aircraft negatively affects work, relaxation and sleep, with “severe effects” on health and wellbeing. Caroline Russell, chairman of the committee, said: “The experiences of residents living with the daily nightmare of overhead noise are deeply worrying. This drive towards filling airspace capacity must be checked. For too many people, including children, aircraft noise is a major dominant intrusion into their everyday lives.”  If Heathrow builds the new runway, the number of flights will increase from around 475,000 to 740,000 a year.  It is likely that around 200,000 more people will be badly affected by aircraft noise. Heathrow also plans to increase its flights by 25,000, to around 500,000 per year and change flight paths, including overflying new areas, even before any 3rd runway. Ms Russell added: “…aviation authorities and operators must prioritise the health and well-being of Londoners and give us a break.”

Click here to view full story…

Report from London Assembly says due to noise, air traffic should NOT increase at Heathrow or London City airport

The London Assembly’s Environment Committee has produced a report on aircraft noise,particularly now that Heathrow not only wants a 3rd runway, but has also recently announced plans for 25,000 extra flights a year, bringing new areas of London under its flight paths. The noise is increasing the negative impact for those who have no choice but to live with a debilitating noise invasion. The report found that noise nuisance levels are unacceptable; it calls for a halt on all air traffic growth at Heathrow and London City airports. The report details the impact of altitude, flight paths and out-of-hours flights on the noise suffered by many Londoners. Among its recommendations are that the noise thresholds for disturbance should be lowered, to take account of people needing to open their windows. They say: “Air traffic at Heathrow and London City should not increase and Heathrow’s third runway should not go ahead.” It also says that planes should be kept higher, and the impacts of noise from both Heathrow and London City should be considered together, not separately. Night flights should be stoped, and there should be better restrictions on flights in the early morning.

Click here to view full story…

 

.

.

 

Read more »

Charity calls for High Court to live-stream Heathrow 3rd runway legal challenge

A High Court challenge to the government’s approval of a Heathrow 3rd runway could be opened up to a mass audience through live-streaming for the first time, if Lord Justice Hickinbottom and Mr Justice Holgate accept a legal argument. Although the Supreme Court has transmitted its hearings since 2009, photography and recording of court proceedings elsewhere are strictly controlled by the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which only permits cases in the court of appeal to be broadcast. Tim Crosland, a barrister who is the director of the anti-climate change charity Plan B, will tell a preliminary hearing on 5 February that live-streaming from the High Court would not involve recording or creating a permanent record and was therefore permissible under the legislation. The legal challenges by environmental groups, local authorities against the DfT is due to be heard in the Royal Courts of Justice in central London over 10 days from 11th March. Only those who attend court would normally be able to hear the arguments. Hearings in the High Court have never previously been broadcast. Crosland said he believed that the more people who listened to the detail of the arguments, the more engaged they would become in environmental concerns. The climate implications of the runway decision are of considerable public interest.

.

 

Charity calls for court to livestream Heathrow third runway challenge

Streaming case online will raise awareness of climate change, barrister argues

A high court challenge to the government’s controversial plan for a third runway at Heathrow could be opened up to a mass audience through livestreaming for the first time if judges accept a legal argument.

Although the supreme court has transmitted its hearings since 2009, photography and recording of court proceedings elsewhere are strictly controlled by the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which only permits cases in the court of appeal to be broadcast.

Tim Crosland, a barrister who is the director of the anti-climate change charity Plan B, will tell a preliminary hearing on 5 February that livestreaming from the high court would not involve recording or creating a permanent record and was therefore permissible under the legislation.

The expansion of Heathrow by adding a third runway has been in dispute for almost two decades, with the government giving the plan the go ahead in June 2018, arguing that it is needed to enable the economy to prosper.

The judicial review due to begin on 11 March rolls up a series of legal challenges. Plan B and Friends of the Earth will argue that the increased carbon emissions from the planes are incompatible with the UK’s responsibilities to tackle climate change.

Local councils are concerned about the increased noise and air pollution for residents.

If built, the runway is expected to cost its developers £14bn and could be completed by 2026. However, taxpayers may have to fund major upgrades to the roads around the airport.

Two judges, Lord Justice Hickinbottom and Mr Justice Holgate, have agreed to hear the preliminary Plan B application on Tuesday. None of the parties in the case have objected to livestreaming and the Department of Transport is said to be neutral on the issue. The hearing is unlikely to raise privacy issues.

Crosland said he believed that the more people who listened to the detail of the arguments, the more engaged they would become in environmental concerns. He cited the example of the Urgenda trial in the Netherlandswhich, he believes, made a significant difference to media and public understanding of climate change.

“There’s nothing in law about livestreaming,” Crosland said. “The act only bans photography and recording. Friends of the Earth are supporting us in this application.

“No one wants to be in a position to say the public can’t watch because this is an important case. The [high court judge] has said that this case could have major implications.”

Fewer than 50 people are likely to be able to fit into the courtroom. Crosland pointed out that for popular hearings in the past, a video screen had been set up in a neighbouring courtroom to livestream proceedings to people who could not fit into the main one.

If the high court has the legal powers to do that, he will argue, livestreaming proceedings online is only a difference in scale rather than in principle. If the high court bans web livestreaming, then it should also stop courtroom to courtroom livestreaming.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/04/high-court-challenge-to-third-heathrow-runway-could-be-broadcast-live

.

.


See earlier:

 

A Divisional Court will hear the application, (for live-streaming of the Heathrow JR hearings), at the High Court on Tues 5th February, from 9.15am.  All are welcome

The hearing will last 60-90minutes.

We have heard from Plan B Earth that their application to get the Heathrow legal hearings in March live-streamed – so they can be seen by everyone.

Plan B Earth are one of 5 Judicial Reviews against the government’s decision to allow a 3rd Heathrow runway. They start on 11th March and are due to take 10 days.

Plan B say there has been an important development in their application for live-streaming.

A Divisional Court (ie. Mr Justice Holgate and a Court of Appeal judge, Lord Justice Hickinbottom) will hear the application at the High Court on Tuesday 5 February, from 9.15am. The hearing will last 60-90minutes.

It is understood that Mr Justice Holgate sees the application as sufficiently significant that he will not make the decision alone.

People are asked to come to the court on Tues 5th February, before the hearing – and many to come inside too.

Please join us there – and spread the word.

A good turn out can help us make history.

Over 1,600 people requested that the hearings should not only be heard by those able to cram into two court rooms, but should be live-streamed sot hey can be seen by everyone. The case is of national importance, not least for the increased carbon emissions from an expanded Heathrow – and their impact on the UK’s carbon targets.

and

Pre-trial hearing on 15th January of the 5 legal challenges against ‘unlawful’ Government decision to approve 3rd runway

Campaigners are taking the government to court in a bid to overturn the “unlawful” decision to approve a 3rd Heathrow runway. The pre-trial hearing for Friends of the Earth’s case will take place on Tuesday at the High Court, when the activists will lay out their opposition based on several grounds. There are 5 separate legal challenges being brought by a range of organisations, on  grounds of climate, air quality and harm to the wellbeing of local residents.  It would be virtually impossible for Britain to meet its obligations to cut emissions under the Paris climate agreement if a new Heathrow runway is built [or for that matter, one at Gatwick either]. The Government’s advisory body on climate change, the Committee on Climate Change, has warned the expansion also threatens the government’s own legally binding pledge to cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. Transport secretary Chris Grayling said, without any justification for his belief, that he was “confident” that technical innovations would cut aviation CO2 emissions enough, so expansion could happen without breaking the targets. Hopes that either biofuels or electric planes would enable aviation to become a low carbon means of transport are unrealistic.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

 

.

Read more »

TAG: Heathrow air pollution does NOT stop 2km from the airport, or just 1,000ft altitude. DfT is wrong

Teddington Action Group (TAG) have been doing research into how likely it is that air pollution will get worse, if Heathrow is allowed a 3rd runway. Their investigations indicate that government has not assessed this properly, and has ignored relevant available information from other airports. TAG say that according to Heathrow, emissions from planes do not contribute notably to emissions once the plane is above 1,000ft. The Airports Commission and DfT and its advisors set a study area of just 2 kilometres from the expanded airport boundary. There is much evidence to indicate that is wrong. Planes emit significant amounts of NO2 and particulates, which find their way down to the ground (and by definition into humans and living creatures as well as vegetation). The DfT deny this but the empirical evidence does not support the DfT. Studies between 2014 and 2016 at Los Angeles, Atlanta and Schiphol, Amsterdam, strongly suggest otherwise. Mobile monitors set up under the inward flight paths show that particulates and NO2 are transmitted by the wind up to some 20 kilometres down wind. See full article for details.

.

FLIGHT PATH CONSULTATION, EMISSIONS AND EXPANSION OF HEATHROW

TAG (Teddington Action Group) blog

Noise will be an absolute key area of the flight path consultation and our responses. However, what about air quality and emissions? Will an extra 25,000 flights with the existing two runways bring about any deterioration in air quality?

First some facts and rules:

NO2 (Nitrogen dioxide) is harmful to humans. According to a UK Government study in 2015 “Studies of long-term exposure to NO2 report associations with all-cause, respiratory and cardiovascular mortality, children’s respiratory symptoms and lung function”.

NOx is a generic term for NO and NO2. NO is relatively unstable and will convert to NO2 if exposed to oxygen.

Particulates are harmful to humans. Particulates are tiny particles. Sometimes they are carbon, but they can be tiny particles of metal. Particles are often put into three sizes:

PM10 – these are particles up to 10 micrometres (10 millionths of a metre) in diameter. These are often called course particles. These are legally defined as particulate matter which passes through a size-selective inlet as defined in the reference method for the sampling and measurement of PM10

PM2.5 – these are particles up to 2.5 micrometres in diameter and are often called fine particles. These are legally defined as particulate matter which passes through a size-selective inlet as defined in the reference method for the sampling and measurement of PM2.5. Diesel engines emit a significant amount of PM2.5s

Ultra-Fine Particles (UFP) do not have a specific legal definition, but scientists consider these to have a diameter of up to 0.1 micrometres or 100 nanometres. They do however come within the legal definition of PM2.5s since they will pass through a PM2.5 inlet or filter. Ultra-Fine Particles are particularly harmful as when emitted there are so many of them and they have a large total area. They are known to get into the blood stream and in recent research by Queen Mary’s University Hospital have been found in the placentas of pregnant women.

Dr Miyashita of the Hospital said: “We’ve known for a while that air pollution affects foetal development and can continue to affect babies after birth and throughout their lives. We were interested to see if these effects could be due to pollution particles moving from the mother’s lungs to the placenta. Until now, there has been very little evidence that inhaled particles get into the blood from the lung.”

.

The EU passed legislation in 2008 requiring air quality to be of a certain standard. This was EU Directive 2008/50. This EU legislation was then adopted by the UK into The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010. These regulations lay down certain requirements:

  • The Government must have ensured that by 2010 with a long-stop date of 2015 that NO2 is limited to 40 micrograms per cubic metre average in a year, PM10s are limited to 40 micrograms per cubic metre average in a year and PM2.5s are limited to 25 micrograms per cubic metre average in a year. In addition:
  • The Government must “ensure that all necessary measures not entailing disproportionate costs are taken to ensure that concentrations of PM2.5…..do not exceed the target values specified”. Those target values are reduced from 25 micrograms per cubic metre under a specific duty upon the Government to reduce the national exposure to PM2.5s. That reduction is to 20 micrograms per cubic metre by 2015 and thereafter until 2020 to reach a series of levels depending on pollution concentrations to between 20 and 8.5 micrograms per cubic metre. When the target reduction gets to 8.5 micrograms, the target reduction is zero. In other words the object is to rid the country of these particulates

According to the Kings College air quality group LondonAir, the PM concentrations in all London Boroughs in 2016 failed to meet the reduction requirements. The projection is that the boroughs of Richmond, Wandsworth, Hounslow and Hillingdon will improve but all be above 13 micrograms per cubic metre of PM2.5s in 2020 rather than the target of 8.5 micrograms.

NO2 is no better. In 2013, updated in 2016, Hillingdon had substantial breaches. By 2020 Heathrow and its surrounding areas are still forecast to breach. Heathrow itself is forecast to still be in breach of the NO2 limit in 2030 – and that is with 2 runways. Heathrow has stated in the past that it does not consider that it is bound by the air quality targets within the airport boundary as it is private land.

So; will a third runway detract from the steady improvement in air quality?

According to Heathrow, emissions from planes do not contribute notably to emissions once the plane is above 1,000ft.  They have produced an illustration for their modelling to both members of the Community Noise Forum and to Parliament in evidence to the Transport Committee illustrated as follows:

The view of Heathrow is supported by the Government. Sir Howard Davies and the Airports Commission’s advisors, Jacobs, set a study area of just 2 kilometres from the expanded airport boundary. The Government Appraisal of Sustainability carried out by WSP of Exeter expressly followed the study area of Jacobs keeping it to 2 kilometres from the boundary.

Is this right though?

Empirical evidence would suggest that it is not right and that planes emit significant amounts of NO2 and particulates, which find their way down to the ground (and by definition into humans and living creatures as well as vegetation). The DfT deny this but the empirical evidence does not support the DfT.

Studies between 2014 and 2016 at Los Angeles, Atlanta and Schiphol, Amsterdam, strongly suggest otherwise. Mobile monitors set up under the inward flight paths show that particulates and NO2 are transmitted by the wind up to some 20 kilometres down wind.

Illustrations in the 2014 research paper of Los Angeles show the elevated levels taken which follow the wind direction:

Layout of Los Angeles Airport

Particulates measured by the mobile monitor having travelled downwind

Particulates shown downwind in various directions

NO2 measured well beyond 2 kilometres from the airport boundary

The text of the Los Angeles research states, amongst other things, that:

“The size of the impacted areas with high PN concentration increases was remarkable. At 16 km downwind, a 2-fold increase in PN concentration over baseline concentrations was measured across 6.5 km. Assuming a trapezoidal shaped plume with parallel edges of length 1.5 and 6.5 km, PN concentrations were at least doubled over an area of 60 km2. Eight km downwind, a 5-fold increase in PN concentrations over baseline concentrations extended across 3 km and covered a total area of 24 km2. (Concentrations in this large area exceeded 71,000 particles/cm3, the average concentration on Los Angeles freeways.14) Within 3 km of the airport boundary, concentrations were elevated nearly 10- fold, exceeding 100,000 particles/cm3, with concentrations of 150,000 particles/cm3 occurring over a several km2 area.”

We know from the recent news the terrible impact of poor air quality upon vulnerable people like asthma suffers. Should we have increases in pollution from planes – not to mention the land vehicles that will be going to and from an expanded airport?

Do the Government know of this research? The Air Quality Expert Group reporting to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2018 state that:

“More recently, Riley et al. (2016) measured downwind of two large airports in the USA: LAX and Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport (ATL – Atlanta, GA), using a mobile monitoring platform. Riley et al. (2016) found a 3–5-fold increase in UFP concentrations in transects under the landing approach path to both airports, relative to surrounding urban areas with similar ground traffic characteristics. The measurements therefore suggest that aircraft plumes mix downwards to a sufficient extent to be detected at ground-level at concentrations similar in magnitude to road vehicle sources. The implications of this work are potentially important for exposure to UFP concentrations. For example, a location such as Heathrow Airport, where aircraft tend to approach the airport from the east (flying over the London conurbation), there is potential for considerable exposure to UFP from aircraft”.

The short answer is that the Government do know of this research.

The record of the Government in bringing air quality up to standard is atrocious. Mr Justice Cranston said, when giving judgment in the third ClientEarth case on whether the Government had produced a satisfactory Air Quality Program:

“It is now eight years since compliance with the 2008 Directive should have been achieved. This is the third, unsuccessful, attempt the Government has made at devising an AQP [Air Quality Program] which complies with the Directive and the domestic Regulations. Each successful challenge has been mounted by a small charity, for which the costs of such litigation constitute a significant challenge. In the meanwhile, UK citizens have been exposed to significant health risks.”

 

References

Hudda et al. Emissions from an International Airport Increase Particle Number Concentrations 4‑fold at 10 km Downwind – study at Los Angeles 2014 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4215878/

Keuken et al. Total and size-resolved particle number and black carbon concentrations in urban areas near Schiphol airport (the Netherlands) 2016 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231015000175

Riley et al. Ultrafine particle size as a tracer for aircraft turbine emissions 2016. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223101630348X

Defra Air Quality Expert Group, Ultrafine Particles (UFP) in the UK 2018 https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/1807261113_180703_UFP_Report_FINAL_for_publication.pdf

.

Flight Path Consultation, Emissions and expansion of Heathrow

 

Read more »

Heathrow slammed for ‘by-passing Chiswick’ for one of its consultation events

Local MP Ruth Cadbury has joined Chiswick campaigners against Heathrow expansion who say they are angry at the airport’s failure to hold a local consultation on changes which will significantly affect W4, particularly north Chiswick. The airport’s current round of consultation events (Airspace And Future Operations ) features events in Hammersmith, Ealing and Hounslow Civic Centre, but none in Chiswick.  This is despite the fact that the area faces significant potential disruption by proposed changes to flight paths or changes to respite periods even without a third runway. With a 3rd runway, the area will be intensely overflown by planes arriving to the new north runway, from the east. Campaigners say the level of low flights directly over the North Chiswick area area could reach 47 per hour (almost 1 per minute). It is likely that, with a 3rd runway, an estimated 35,000 residents could be affected. They consider that Heathrow is avoiding holding events in areas where opposition is likely to be strong and forceful, to try and ensure a more positive overall response to the consultation. The Bedford Park Society (BPS) and local group CHATR are planning a public meeting in Chiswick instead.
.

Heathrow Slammed For ‘By-Passing Chiswick’

MP and groups angry at lack of local consultation on new flightpaths

26.1.2019 (Chiswick W4)

image of chatr protest with paper planes

Local MP Ruth Cadbury has joined Chiswick campaigners against Heathrow expansion who say they are angry at the airport’s failure to hold a local consultation on changes which will significantly affect W4, particularly north Chiswick.

The airport’s current round of consultations (Airspace And Future Operations ) features events in Hammersmith, Ealing (Friday 1 February) , and Hounslow Civic Centre (Tuesday, 29 January) but none in Chiswick.

The list of Heathrow consultation events can be seen at  https://afo.heathrowconsultation.com/

The document containing maps that indicate roughly where noise may be in future is at  https://afo.heathrowconsultation.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/01/3649-HRW-3R-A3-maps-booklet-AW-update-2-V1.pdf

This is despite the fact that the area faces significant potential disruption by proposed changes to flight paths or changes to respite periods even without a third runway. Campaigners say the level of low flights directly over the North Chiswick area area could reach 47 per hour (almost 1 per minute).

Even without a third runway, Heathrow are asking for another extra 25,000 extra flights, which campaigners say would breach respite periods for those under the existing approach paths. Campaigners against expansion say in Chiswick an estimated 35,000 residents could be affected and claim that Heathrow is avoiding holding events in areas where opposition is likely to be strong to try and ensure a more positive overall response to the consultation.

One Chiswick based opponent of the airport’s plans said, “They know that the areas where their expansion is going to bring about the biggest increase in noise are the same places that residents will make the most noise, therefore they are by-passing Chiswick during the consultation. It’s not the first time they have played this game.”

Heathrow Airport has defended its choice of consultation locations and said people also had the opportunity to respond online. The consultation covers a number of topics: Runway Alternation; Airspace changes; Westerly Preference; Night Flights; Extra flights in advance of a third runway. All the proposals assume a third runway will be built. The consultation runs from 8 January to 4 March.

Ruth Cadbury MP said she was disappointed with Heathrow Airport and she would work with local groups to see if a Chiswick event could be added.

A spokesperson for the Bedford Park Society (BPS) – which covers the area of North Chiswick likely to face considerable noise disruption from early morning flights, said that the BPS and CHATR (Chiswick against the Third Runway) were planning a public meeting in Chiswick.

The statement said, “The Bedford Park Society has alerted all its members to the latest Heathrow public consultation and warned them of the major disturbance to all Chiswick residents that the proposed additional flights will cause even if the Third Runway does not go ahead.

“We are currently working through the complicated, detailed information in the consultation and drafting a response from the Society. In the next week we also plan to provide some suggested points for residents to make in their response since it’s vitally important as many residents as possible submit their views.

“We were concerned to see that the nearest consultation events were in Hammersmith and Ealing but none was planned for Chiswick, which will be so significantly affected by the proposals. It is now clear that the number of low flights directly over Chiswick will be 47 per hour – almost 1 per minute – if the Third Runway is built.

“We attended the Hammersmith consultation event on 24 January and together with CHATR emphasised the strength of feeling against the proposals amongst Chiswick residents and strongly recommended that a consultation event should be arranged as soon as possible. Ruth Cadbury, MP, stressed that Heathrow owed it to the community to provide and distribute leaflets for each affected area detailing the impact of the proposed flight paths for each so that people could understand clearly the effect of the proposals.

“We hope that a consultation event may now be arranged. The Coalition Against a Third Runway and CHATR are also intending to organise a public meeting in Chiswick.”

Hacan has outlined a summary of how the changes might affect you and you can also put your postcode into the airport’s consultation document to get information on what is planned for your area.

A Heathrow spokesperson said, “We’ve spread our Consultation events over the designated consultation zone and have selected venues based on their good transport links, accessibility, availability along with a host of other factors. Our website has all the consultation documents and materials, allowing the public to submit their feedback online or via post as well.”

Ruth Cadbury said, “We already live in the noisiest environment in the UK, and both proposals are in breach of international noise standards. It’s therefore vital that you take part in the consultation, and encourage everyone you know to as well.’’

The MP is also organising public meetings with local campaign groups, such as CHATR, BASHR3, NoR3 Coalition and HACAN, in order to speak to local residents about Heathrow’s expansion.

If you want more information about the consultation, visit this summary page from HACAN.

January 25, 2019

http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=thirdrunwaychiswick011.htm

.

See also:

Local MPs Unite Against Third Runway

Third Runway Would Mean An Extra 700 Planes A Day

.


 

See also:

Wandsworth Council Leader criticises Heathrow Public Consultation event – just one for the borough, in a difficult location

Wandsworth Council Leader, Ravi Govindia, has urged residents concerned about the impact of a 3rd runway at Heathrow, to attend a Heathrow consultation event that the airport is hosting in the borough this week. They need to make their voice heard. He has criticised Heathrow for having just one such event in Wandsworth, at a location that will be difficult for many residents to access. That is even though the increased aircraft noise would affect hundreds of thousands of Wandsworth residents. The event is being held on 30 January and is open to residents from 2pm to 8pm at the University of Roehampton, SW15 5PH.  Councillor Govindia said residents know that a 3rd runway would have a serious impact on the borough. It would produce an unacceptable rise in noise and air pollution, damaging the environment and posing a risk to people’s health and well-being. The Council believes that the impact from additional flights would be felt most keenly in West Hill, Southfields, Earlsfield and Tooting. Currently most aircraft noise from is concentrated over the north of the borough including Putney, Wandsworth and Battersea. Many people will get intense plane noise for the first time.

Click here to view full story…

London Assembly report says Heathrow 3rd runway should be scrapped, due to ‘severe effects’ of aircraft noise

A report, by the London Assembly environment committee, calls for Heathrow expansion to be stopped, due to the effects of aircraft noise. The report has renewed calls for the 3rd runway to be stopped. The noise from aircraft negatively affects work, relaxation and sleep, with “severe effects” on health and wellbeing. Caroline Russell, chairman of the committee, said: “The experiences of residents living with the daily nightmare of overhead noise are deeply worrying. This drive towards filling airspace capacity must be checked. For too many people, including children, aircraft noise is a major dominant intrusion into their everyday lives.”  If Heathrow builds the new runway, the number of flights will increase from around 475,000 to 740,000 a year.  It is likely that around 200,000 more people will be badly affected by aircraft noise. Heathrow also plans to increase its flights by 25,000, to around 500,000 per year and change flight paths, including overflying new areas, even before any 3rd runway. Ms Russell added: “…aviation authorities and operators must prioritise the health and well-being of Londoners and give us a break.”

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Air travel CO2 emissions will have to be curbed; the Frequent Flier levy may be the best solution

An article in the Irish Times points to new research from the ICAO showing how CO2 emissions from aviation might increase 3 -7-fold over the next 30 years has been released.  Amusingly Richard Branson is advocating the elimination of industrial-scale meat production by “eliminating harmful subsidies and putting a price on externalities”. And that without an apparent hint of irony, in the subsidies (no VAT, no fuel duty) given to the aviation sector – which is a major beneficiary of comparable harmful subsidies ,and a producer of vast externalities of the sort he decries in the meat sector. The Irish Government is committed to spending at least €320 million on new runway at Dublin airport – another giant subsidy to the sector.  There is “No other discrete human activity is more intensely polluting than flying.”  Eating less meat, or cutting it out entirely, is indeed a positive action to help reduce humanity’s carbon emissions. But that is not a substitute for taking proper action to limit aviation carbon emissions.  The “Frequent Flyer” levy, which would progressively tax air travellers, with higher taxes the more they flew, would be a good way to penalise frequent flyers (who are currently pampered by airlines with upgrades and incentives.)
.

 

See the A Free Ride website about the frequent flyer levy:   http://afreeride.org/

on Twitter at    A Free Ride ✈️    @a_free_ride


Aviation is the red meat in the greenhouse gas sandwich

At any given time there are 10,000 passenger aircraft in the sky carrying over a million people, 24 hours a day, every day

New research from the international Civil Aviation Organisation showing how carbon emissions from aviation are due to increase seven-fold over the next three decades was released just in time to make awkward reading for our high-flying Cabinet members.

Ireland traditionally dispatches Ministers around the globe to fly the flag for St Patrick’s Day. Other than occasional grumbles about costs and suggestions of junketeering, these foreign forays have rarely attracted sustained negative criticism, and certainly never from the agricultural sector.

According to Pat McCormack of the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, if the Government is serious about climate change maybe it should not be sending representatives around the world for St Patrick’s Day given the staggering damage done by emissions from aviation.

While farm leaders are understandably keen to switch the focus of scrutiny over pollution elsewhere, and their new-found concern for aviation emissions should be seen in this light, airline entrepreneur Richard Branson has been quick to turn the table.

“Eating meat the way we do has serious consequences. The global supply chain for conventional meat is a major greenhouse gas emitter…and wreaks havoc on the world’s ecosystems,” he claims.

His solution? The elimination of industrial-scale meat production by “eliminating harmful subsidies and putting a price on externalities”, Branson argued, without an apparent hint of irony.

No other discrete human activity is more intensely polluting than flying

Aviation is, after all, a major beneficiary of the harmful subsidies and a producer of vast externalities of the sort he decries in the meat sector. The recently published Lancet EAT Commission report recommended a 90 per cent cut in red meat and dairy consumption, pointing out that our animal-based food production systems are fuelling climate change and exhausting natural resources.

However, no other discrete human activity is more intensely polluting than flying. Yet rather than being hammered, the aviation industry instead benefits from tax breaks and subsidies other sectors could only dream of. The Irish Government is committed to spending at least €320 million on new runway at Dublin airport – another giant subsidy to the sector.

Tax and duties

Jet fuel, due to an antiquated international agreement from 1944, is completely exempt from tax and duties. Taxing it at a modest rate of 33 cent per litre would generate nearly €10 billion in revenues within the EU. Airline tickets are, bizarrely, VAT-exempt. Raising this to 15 per cent would bring in another €17 billion annually.

Further, were airlines required to pay the full cost of their emissions this would, according to a 2018 study by the NGO Transport & Environment (T&E),“make a major contribution to addressing aviation’s climate impact by removing a perverse subsidy to the single most climate-intensive form of transport”.

Flying would become more expensive, but it is currently vastly under-priced. The current average price of a one-way airline ticket within the EU is €80. Fuel taxes and VAT would push that up to €106, according to the T&E analysis. However, that level of increase is unlikely to persuade many people to fly less often.

While the Lancet EAT Commission recommended a drastic 90 per cent cut in meat and dairy consumption if we are to avoid dangerous climate change, the same metric could as easily be applied to aviation. At any given moment there are almost 10,000 passenger aircraft in the sky carrying well over a million people, 24 hours a day, every day.

According to the CSO, 34.4 million passengers passed through the main Irish airports in 2017. The average Irish person takes almost seven flights a year, and 6 per cent of Aer Lingus customers fly more than 20 times annually.

Rather than being penalised for their massive carbon footprint, frequent flyers are instead pampered by airlines with upgrades and incentives.

The real point of rationing is not to raise revenue but to constrain demand, and vast amounts of the flying we now do is frivolous in the extreme

Since ratcheting up the ticket price simply serves to penalise people with lower incomes while failing to deter higher-income flyers, my suggestion for a fairer system would be to allocate an annual personal aviation mileage allowance. This would be connected to each citizen’s PPS number and be strictly non-transferable.

Flying allowance

While everyone is allocated, say, a 1,500km annual flying allowance (the equivalent of one round trip to Paris per person) at no additional cost, if you then decide to also take a weekend shopping trip to New York this 10,000km round trip, which generates the carbon-dioxide equivalent of around 1.5 tonnes per passenger, might add €500 to the ticket price. This ratchets sharply upwards from there, deterring even the wealthy. (For more details, see http://afreeride.org/  “A Free Ride” – the campaign for a fair way to fly )

 

The real point of rationing is not to raise revenue but to constrain demand, and vast amounts of the flying we now do is frivolous in the extreme. Irish people think nothing of having their wedding in Dubai, or stag parties in Berlin, confident the (relatively) low fares mean their family and friends will join them for a celebration that could as easily have been held locally.

A growing number of environmentalist and climate scientists have vowed to give up or severely curtail flying, most notably 16-year old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg. She last week berated world leaders and billionaires in Davos (most of whom travelled in private jets) for their greed and hypocrisy while doing nothing to avert a global climate catastrophe.

Nobody takes a decision to quit flying lightly. Nine in 10 humans will never set foot on an aircraft yet they are the people already bearing the brunt of the extreme impacts of our high-emissions lifestyles.

It wouldn’t kill us to eat less meat and dairy. Nor would it kill us to fly much less often. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said for failing to avert climate breakdown while this is still even possible.

John Gibbons is an environmental writer and commentator

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/aviation-is-the-red-meat-in-the-greenhouse-gas-sandwich-1.3773671

.

.


See also:

Aviation emissions set to grow sevenfold over 30 years, experts warn

EU aviation fuel tax mooted by France would penalise most heavily those who fly most

Jan 26, 2019

Kevin O’Sullivan Environment & Science Editor (Irish Times)

A return trip from Europe to Australia generates about 4.5 tonnes of carbon.

International aviation carbon emission could grow seven-fold over the next 30 years despite climate change concerns, according to International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) figures .   [ https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/aviation_en  European Commission said in Nov 2018    According to the European Commission, “by 2020, global international aviation emissions are projected to be around 70% higher than in 2005 and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) forecasts that by 2050 they could grow by a further 300-700%.   (

Aviation, particularly the role played by frequent fliers, is rarely mentioned in the climate debate, yet air travellers, particularly those flying business class, are among the world’s worst carbon polluters.

Global aviation emissions will be 70 per cent higher in 2020 than they were in 2005, according to the European Commission, while the ICAO forecasts that by 2050 emissions could have grown by between 300 per cent and 700 per cent.

Irish aviation emissions are likely to be similar to the 6 per cent share recorded in the United Kingdom, though the Environmental Protection Agency has warned that Ireland’s aviation emissions are increasing sharply.

Until recently, aviation had not been central to the climate change debate. Enjoying special status, aviation and shipping were excluded from the landmark Kyoto and Paris climate-change agreements.

Global scheme

Urged to produce its own solutions, the ICAO introduced a global scheme in 2016, after much foot-dragging. So far, however, it has had limited success.

The European Union has introduced a more robust system under its emissions trading scheme. So airlines that fly to, from or within EU countries must buy carbon credits to offset emissions.

Modern aircraft are 70 per cent more fuel-efficient than 40 years ago, while airlines with the highest load factors produce significantly less emissions per passenger than less successful ones.

Aviation consumes five million barrels of oil every day, contributing about 2.5 per cent of global emissions. Some climatologists, however, argue its real impact is much higher.

Calculating its exact impact is complex as greenhouse gases are released into the upper atmosphere, but the same gases have different effects when emitted at ground level.

However, some basic numbers are not in doubt: a return trip from Europe to Australia generates about 4.5 tonnes of carbon. A car driving for 2,000km emits less than that.

Airlines are increasingly seeking solutions. Airbus, Boeing and Embraer are working together on new affordable bio-fuels. However, the electric aircraft is years away.

Offsetting helps, but only partially. A recent study by the European Commission found that 85 per cent of offset projects it had evaluated had failed to reduce emissions.

Aviation is not subject to fuel tax or VAT-style taxes. French environment minister François de Rugy has floated an EU tax on aviation fuel that would penalise most heavily those who fly most.

Ticket taxes could be linked to emissions and flight distances. An aviation ticket tax in the EU would be lawful if it was not linked to fuel consumption and if it was applied at a common level throughout the bloc.

It proposes four possible taxes: one based on lifestyle emissions of the fuel used, one based on nitrogen oxides emissions, one judged by distance flown, and a hybrid of an aviation tax and climate impact charge.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/aviation-emissions-set-to-grow-sevenfold-over-30-years-experts-warn-1.3770923

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Wandsworth Council Leader criticises Heathrow Public Consultation event – just one for the borough, in a difficult location

Wandsworth Council Leader, Ravi Govindia, has urged residents concerned about the impact of a 3rd runway at Heathrow, to attend a Heathrow consultation event that the airport is hosting in the borough this week. They need to make their voice heard. He has criticised Heathrow for having just one such event in Wandsworth, at a location that will be difficult for many residents to access. That is even though the increased aircraft noise would affect hundreds of thousands of Wandsworth residents. The event is being held on 30 January and is open to residents from 2pm to 8pm at the University of Roehampton, SW15 5PH. Councillor Govindia said residents know that a 3rd runway would have a serious impact on the borough. It would produce an unacceptable rise in noise and air pollution, damaging the environment and posing a risk to people’s health and well-being. The Council believes that the impact from additional flights would be felt most keenly in West Hill, Southfields, Earlsfield and Tooting. Currently most aircraft noise from is concentrated over the north of the borough including Putney, Wandsworth and Battersea. Many people will get intense plane noise for the first time.
.

 

Wandsworth Council Leader criticises Heathrow Public Consultation

The only open meeting being held at far end of borough 

28.1.2019

Wandsworth Council Leader Ravi Govindia has urged residents concerned about the impact of a third runway at Heathrow, to attend a consultation event that the airport is hosting in the borough this week.

He has criticised Heathrow, which is holding the consultation, for having just one such event in the borough at a location that will be difficult for many residents to access.

The event is being held on Wednesday 30 January and is open to residents from 2pm to 8pm at Elm Grove Conference Centre Oak Rooms, The University of Roehampton, Roehampton Lane, SW15 5PH.

Councillor Govindia (above) said, “Our residents know that a third runway would have a serious impact on the borough and their lives. If this goes ahead we will see an unacceptable rise in noise and air pollution, damaging the environment and posing a risk to people’s health.

“We are only getting one event at the far end of the borough, which is hard to reach for most residents, to discuss this impact – even though this will affect hundreds of thousands of our residents. I would urge people to get involved, go along and ask questions. We need to make our voices heard.”

The Council believes that the impact from additional flights would be felt most keenly in West Hill, Southfields, Earlsfield and Tooting. Currently most aircraft noise from is concentrated over the north of the borough including Putney, Wandsworth and Battersea.

As part of an eight-week public consultation thirty events are taking place across London.

Heathrow recently announced its plans for an additional 25,000 flights a year in advance of a third runway opening.

New ‘design envelopes’ show that noise from an expanded Heathrow is likely to affect residents across all parts of the borough, with many set to experience significant annoyance from aircraft for the first time.

At this month’s consultation event Heathrow will have staff on hand to answer questions, with a sound demonstration facility to supposedly show what aircraft may look and sound like at different heights, both outside and indoors.

A spokesperson for Heathrow told this website, “We have developed Virtual Reality Sound Demonstrations for residents to experience various noise scenarios to help illustrate the concepts and information presented in the consultation materials, and ultimately to enable listeners to provide a more informed consultation response. The experience, which lasts around 10-20 minutes, allows users to choose from different heights, aircraft type, and background sounds, all within specially design acoustic pods allowing for a high level of sound purity and accuracy.”

The Heathrow consultation is asking for public feedback on issues such as noise, runway alternation and night flying relating to its two existing runways, as well as the proposed controversial new third runway.

Although the airport says it is not consulting at this stage on the specific means to achieve the extra flights it is inviting views on the general airspace change proposals.

The consultation document is available online at heathrowconsultation.com. The material includes a post-code checker which enables residents to see whether their home is likely to experience noise from arrivals or departures from an expanded airport.

Councillor Govindia added: “The extra 25,000 flights that Heathrow are trying to squeeze in now will be a taste of things to come – more early morning arrivals and more people affected across all parts of the borough. The council will continue to challenge the false prospectus on which the third runway is based.”

Wandsworth is part of a coalition of councils and others – including the London Boroughs of Hillingdon, Richmond, Windsor and Maidenhead, and Hammersmith and Fulham, as well as the Mayor of London and Greenpeace – that are seeking a judicial review of the Government’s decision to give policy support in the Airports National Policy Statement (“NPS”) for a third Heathrow runway.

January 28, 2019 

https://www.wandsworthsw18.com/#!pages/wandsworthsw18:info:govindiaheathrow019

.

.

.

 

 

Read more »