Crawley Council object to Gatwick Master Plan – due to detrimental effect on the local environment

Recently a YouGov poll commissioned by Gatwick airport – unclear what the exact wording was, or who was polled – claimed about three quarters of residents backed the airport’s expansion. However, at a Crawley full council meeting, the majority vote was against the proposal. This is what they will put in the council response to the Gatwick Master Plan consultation that is currently going on. The opposition is unsurprising as Crawley council have made their feelings clear in previous years, objecting to the 2nd runway. A year ago Crawley approved the building of a new Boeing hangar, for aircraft maintenance, as they hoped this would bring local jobs.  In the council there is a real concern that the growth proposed would have too detrimental an effect on the environment. Gatwick claim it is making less noise now (a claim that many severely overflown residents would not believe, especially with noise at night) and “30% of its fleet will comprise quieter aircraft by 2022.”  Local group CAGNE has asked hat the airport disclose details the safety incidents that have already occurred whilst using the emergency runway when the main runway is closed for maintenance.

.

 

Crawley Council object to Gatwick Master Plan after airport says majority of residents approve it.

In a vote held at Full Council the majority voted to object to the proposed plans put forward by Gatwick.

There seems to be a rift between what the Council think is right and what the residents do.

Only a week ago a poll commissioned by the airport stated that three quarters of residents polled were in favour of the master plan.

But in a full council held last night, the majority vote was against the proposal.

Realistically the result is no surprise as the Council had made their feelings clear in previous years objecting to the second runway.

Interestingly it was only a year ago that the Council voted to allow for the building of the new Boeing hangar, a new hub that would allow maintenance of aircraft from across Europe.  Whilst the hangar would not increase air traffic in the same way, its approval was given after many councillors stated how it would bring much needed jobs and revenue into the area.

So there is a hunger for building, improving and growing resources at Gatwick but not it seems with increasing passenger numbers.

Whilst the majority of councillors who spoke did support Gatwick there was a real concern that the growth proposed would have too much of a detrimental effect on the environment.

Only this morning Gatwick published a press release where they said the airport had seen a 3% reduction in its noise footprint to the previous year.  They said that this was in part to their initiative to modify the A320, an aircraft most used at Gatwick.  They also say that 30% of its fleet will comprise quieter aircraft by 2022.

But these findings have fallen on deaf ears with the council and also objection groups including CAGNE (Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions) who this week demanded that the airport disclose the safety incidents that have already occurred whilst using the emergency runway when the main runway is closed for maintenance.

A Gatwick spokesperson said:

“It is disappointing that the Council does not recognise the economic boost our plans would deliver for future generations, including thousands of jobs, new global connections and opportunities for local businesses. The decision also appears out of touch with the views of residents surveyed across Sussex in a recent independent YouGov poll, who overwhelmingly support Gatwick growing within its existing footprint (74%), with only 16% opposed.

“Local economic prosperity cannot be taken for granted and neither can the important role Gatwick plays in Crawley. While disappointed at this decision, we will consider the views of everyone who responds to our consultation before publishing our final master plan next year.”  

https://www.crawleynews24.co.uk/crawley-council-object-to-gatwick-master-plan-after-airport-says-majority-of-residents-approve-it/

.

.


See earlier:

Crawley Borough Council votes by 25:11 to oppose 2nd runway at Gatwick

A special Full Council meeting of Crawley Borough Council has voted by 25:11 against a 2nd runway at Gatwick. The meeting was held on 26th January, to discuss the content of the Council’s response to the Airports Commission consultation, and whether the Council would take no position, pro or anti the runway – or decide one way or the other. After two hours of debate, in front of a packed public gallery, a recorded vote was taken – it was a free vote, with councillors allowed to vote how they saw fit, rather than according to party lines. The suggested Cabinet wording was that “The Full Council considers that the interests of Crawley residents and businesses are best served by the Council objecting to a second runway being developed at Gatwick.” The objection will be recorded in the council’s response to the Commission.  Five councillors – Stephen Joyce, Colin Moffatt, Chris Oxlade, Peter Smith and council leader Peter Lamb – felt the council should have agreed to take no specific view on the 2nd runway at this time. All five then voted not to object to the new runway. Most other local councils have also recently voted against the runway. Details below.   

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/01/crawley-borough-council-votes-by-2611-to-oppose-second-runway-at-gatwick/

.

.

.

.

 

Read more »

“Heathrow unveils its plan for carbon neutral growth”: except there is no credible plan … not for a 50% increase in flights

Heathrow has set out a “plan” to (magically) help it to increase the number of flights by up to 50% but do this in a “carbon neutral” way. Needless to say, there is no detail of how it can actually do this.  There is plenty about how it will be investing in “sustainable” fuels. Plenty of blather, without any actual details, about how can achieve an entirely impossible goal. Heathrow says it is looking at action on 4 key areas including: cleaner aircraft technology, [by that it means more fuel efficient, not more clean]; improvements to airspace and ground operations; sustainable aviation fuels [none probably exist, without huge unintended side effects]; and carbon offsetting methods [ie. keeping on emitting, and paying to cancel out the carbon savings made by others elsewhere, postponing the evil moment when they actually reduce aviation CO2 emissions.] There is hype like how they will: “Make Heathrow a leading hub for the development and deployment of sustainable aviation fuels by providing the necessary airport infrastructure, and support for pilot projects” and how they are calling on “ICAO to develop global goals for the uptake of sustainable alternative fuels.”  And lots of hope about those peat bogs, which they are hoping will save their bacon ….
.

 

Read the text below with full critical faculties awake  … It contains a lot of nonsense … beware

Heathrow unveils its plan for carbon neutral growth

1.12.2018 (Heathrow website)

Quote:

“Airport reveals four key action areas to reduce and offset the growth in emissions from new flights

Announcement demonstrates that growth at the airport is not a choice between economy and environment

Comprehensive plan suggests maximising incentives for airlines, investing in more UK peatland restoration and supporting sustainable fuels

Heathrow will consult with partners on the delivery of this plan ahead of the first statutory consultation on expansion in summer 2019

In a first for the UK aviation industry, today Heathrow has set out its plans to expand in a carbon neutral way. The airport has set out its stall, outlining the role it will play on four key areas to reduce and offset carbon emissions from the growth in flights, created by an additional runway.

Heathrow’s plan builds on the momentum of technological change within the aviation industry to make travel more sustainable. While international aviation demand is projected to increase over the decades ahead – Heathrow will use its leadership and market position, to capitalise on the opportunities from expansion to ensure growth is met in a responsible and sustainable way at the UK’s hub.

The plan outlines action on 4 key areas including:

cleaner aircraft technology,

improvements to airspace and ground operations,

sustainable aviation fuels,

and carbon offsetting methods.

Specifically:

On aircraft technology, Heathrow will:

Treat environmental performance of aircraft as a key consideration of slot allocations for new flights;

Offer free landing fees for a year at the airport for the first commercially viable electric flight;

Continue offering cheaper landing fees for cleaner and quieter aircraft;

Review the infrastructure requirements for charging electric aircraft through the Heathrow Centre of Excellence for Sustainability

On airspace and ground operations, Heathrow will:

Support the Government’s plans on modernising airspace – including the potential elimination of routine stacking for aircraft coming to land;

Reduce emissions from aircraft on the ground through reduced taxi times, increased access to on-stand power sources, and fewer engines used while moving around the airport;

To promote the use of sustainable alternative fuels, Heathrow will:

Make Heathrow a leading hub for the development and deployment of sustainable aviation fuels by providing the necessary airport infrastructure, and support for pilot projects

To develop and promote new ways of carbon offsetting, Heathrow will:

Continue investing in UK peatland restoration and other projects to play a key role in developing the next generation of UK carbon offsets. Peatland restoration has the potential to be amongst the highest-quality, most cost-effective carbon offsetting methods – and a pilot project is already underway in Lancashire.

Heathrow is also calling on:

ICAO – the UN body for international aviation – to develop global goals for the uptake of sustainable alternative fuels

The UK Government to engage ICAO and fellow member states to agree a 2050 goal for international aviation

Over coming months, Heathrow will seek feedback from members in the aviation industry, advocacy groups and climate change experts to set out further details in its plan. Members of the public will then have an opportunity to feed into this process– including plans to mitigate road traffic and construction -in the next statutory consultation on Heathrow expansion in the summer of 2019.

Heathrow Chief Executive, John Holland-Kaye said:

“Climate change is the biggest challenge facing our generation. But it is not aviation that’s the enemy – it is carbon. We are committed to taking the lead to deliver carbon neutral growth in aviation, and the plan we launch today sets out the roadmap to get there.” 

– ENDS –

Notes to Editors:

“Heathrow’s full carbon neutral growth map is attached as a PDF on the side of this webpage.

About Heathrow Airport and Heathrow 2.0

Heathrow is Europe’s largest airport and one of the world’s top international aviation hubs. As the UK’s global gateway, Heathrow welcomes more than 78 million passengers every year. The airport is home to more than 80 airlines and is Britain’s largest cargo port, helping to drive British trade growth by connecting the nation to more than 200 destinations around the world. Heathrow is currently ranked by passengers as the ‘Best Airport in Western Europe’ for the third year running and the ‘Best Airport for Shopping’ for eight years in a row. Terminal 2 also holds the title of the ‘World’s Best Airport Terminal’ and is the Heathrow’s most sustainable, now powered by 100% renewable gas and electricity. ”

Heathrow 2.0, the airport’s sustainability strategy can be accessed here: http://your.heathrow.com/sustainability/

http://mediacentre.heathrow.com/pressrelease/details/81/Expansion-News-23/10359

.

.

 

 

Read more »

Birmingham Airport expansion plans criticised over rising emission concerns

Plans for Birmingham Airport’s £500 million expansion have been criticised by Solihull Green councillors amid concerns over rises in greenhouse gas emissions.  They say the airport’s draft masterplan is ‘irresponsible’.  The increase in passenger numbers after the expansion could see the level of emissions rise to double that produced by the entire city of Wolverhampton every year. The masterplan – covering the next 15 years – includes proposals to increase use of the airport’s existing runway, expand the passenger terminal and baggage sorting areas. The investment aims to prepare the airport to attract 18 million passengers by 2033. This would make Birmingham Airport the region’s largest single source of greenhouse gases. Even before the airport expansion, it is projected to emit 1.7million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) a year by 2030, Department for Transport figures show.  By contrast, Wolverhampton’s carbon footprint is about one million tonnes per annum, according to latest government statistics.  Just at a time when humanity should be making every possible effort to cut CO2 emissions.

.

 

Birmingham Airport expansion plans criticised over rising emission concerns

By  Felix Nobes (Solihull Observer)
29th Nov, 2018
PLANS for Birmingham Airport’s £500million expansion have been criticised by Solihull Green councillors amid concerns over rises in greenhouse gas emissions.
Last week we published comments from Meriden MP Dame Caroline Spelman in support of the plan, after proposals to build a second runway were shelved.But Solihull Green councillor Max McLoughlin has hit out at the airport’s draft masterplan, branding it ‘irresponsible’.

He says the increase in passenger numbers after the expansion could see the level of emissions rise to double that produced by the entire city of Wolverhampton every year.

The masterplan – to be delivered over the next 15 years – includes proposals to increase use of the airport’s existing runway, expand the passenger terminal and baggage sorting areas.

It also aims to improve security, acquire more aircraft parking stands and improve surrounding roads and infrastructure.

The investment aims to prepare the airport to attract 18million passengers by 2033.

The growth ambitions would make the airport the region’s largest single source of greenhouse gas, Coun McLoughlin claims.

Even before the airport expansion, it is projected to emit 1.7million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) a year by 2030, Department for Transport figures show.

Wolverhampton’s carbon footprint is about one million tonnes per annum, according to latest government statistics.

Coun McLoughlin has called for a rethink, saying: “It’s only been a couple of weeks since the United Nations warned that the world has just 12 years to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half… or we confirm runaway climate change. It’s completely the wrong direction.

“I’m shocked that (West Midlands mayor) Andy Street was willing to put his name to this masterplan. It’s not a masterplan – this is a disaster plan.

“It’s simply irresponsible, and his claims to support a green agenda for the West Midlands are in tatters.

“We are in desperate need of leadership from the mayor to push our economy towards low carbon technology, cleaner transport.

“These airport expansion plans are a real blow to efforts to do our bit in reducing the country’s emissions.”

An airport spokesperson said: “The airport’s carbon footprint is comparatively small, however, we are committed to managing our impact and since 2010 we have reduced our carbon emissions per passenger by over half.

“The report used by the party states that the figures quoted relate to aircraft emissions and not airport operations but we do acknowledge that we are an enabler of these flights and we are committed to attract airlines operating newer, greener jets, that carry more passengers per movement.

“Our masterplan outlines how we can provide better global connectivity for the region and create thousands of more jobs for local people, whilst making full use of its single runway within the existing airport boundary.

“Whilst we estimate a 40 per cent rise in passengers by 2033, the number of annual aircraft movements are only expected to grow by 21 per cent over the next 15 years.”

The airport is presenting its masterplan to the public in a series of exhibitions across the region in the coming months.

West Midlands mayor Andy Street said: “Environmental considerations are very important in the debate about the future of Birmingham Airport, that’s why I was very clear in the Mayoral election that I completely opposed a second runway – despite others calling for it.

“The airport has set out a range of mitigations as part of its plan including reducing taxiing and better use of technology.

“By using the local airport it will also reduce the need to travel to other airports.

“And Birmingham Airport will have exceptional public transport access, including HS2.

“However, we have to reflect on the critical role the airport has in our future economic growth and providing jobs directly and as a catalyst for the regional economy.

“We need more routes to key commercial partners like India and we have to recognise that we are competing with other places for investments and jobs and having an improved airport is a key part of winning these jobs.”

Further information can be found here: www.bhxmasterplan.co.uk/public-exhibition-information/ 

https://solihullobserver.co.uk/news/birmingham-airport-expansion-plans-criticised-over-greenhouse-gas-emission-concerns/

 

.

.

.

 

Read more »

No 3rd Runway Coalition’s message loud and clear at London Climate March

At the Climate Change march in London on 1st December, to mark the start of the COP24 climate talks in Katovice, Poland, the No 3rd Runway Coalition was out in force.  Many hundred people marched – 700 or more? – with a large input from anti-fracking activists, and many from Extinction Rebelling. After rallying outside the Polish Embassy for speeches, including Neil Keveren from Stop Heathrow Expansion, the march set off down Regents Street and Piccadilly to Whitehall. The key concern was that in the UK, from fracking to a Heathrow third runway, our government is failing to face up to the climate crisis. The recent IPCC report is a landmark for our planet, setting out just what is at stake if we breach 1.5C warming. We need action now to move to a Zero Carbon Britain, with climate jobs to build the future we need. Instead of rapidly committing to effective action to cut CO2, the UK government is actively backing measures to make CO2 emissions higher or cut funding for initiatives that would cut burning of fossil fuels.  The No 3rd Runway Coalition banner took up pride of place at the start of the march.  There were many Coalition members present, many placards on show, the huge Chatr black plane clearly stating “No 3rd Runway”, and a good turnout by Stop Heathrow Expansion.
.

 

No 3rd Runway Coalition presence at the London Climate March

1.12.2018


Heatwaves, hurricanes and wildfires make it clear: it’s time to act on climate change. As crucial UN climate talks kick off in kick off in Katowice, Poland, join us to show solidarity with environmental activists there; with those in the Global South in particular in the frontline of climate change; and with all those standing up for the future of our planet over short-term profit, against the rise of the far right and climate denial.

Here in the UK, from fracking to a Heathrow third runway, our government is failing to face up to the climate crisis. The recent IPCC report is a landmark for our planet, setting out just what is at stake if we breach 1.5C warming. We need action now to move to a Zero Carbon Britain, with climate jobs to build the future we need.

The march sent a message to activists in Katowice, marching on 8 December

The march assembled from 12 noon outsider the Polish Embassy on Portland Place. There was a rally with speeches from 12.30 to 1.30pm. There were speeches by:

Clive Lewis MP, Labour Party
Sian Berry, co-leader, Green Party
Richard Roberts, fracking direct action campaigner whose recent prison sentence was overturned
Paul Allen, Zero Carbon Britain
Beatriz Ratton, Brazilian Women Against Fascism
Nita Sanghera, Vice President, UCU
Asad Rehman, War on Want
Anna Gretton, Extinction Rebellion
Neil Keveren, No 3rd Runway Coalition

The rally chanted in Polish,  “Razem dla Klimatu” – outside the Polish Embassy. It means “Together for Climate”.

The No 3rd Runway Coalition banner took up pride of place at the start of the march.  There were many Coalition members present, many placards on show, the huge Chatr black plane clearly stating “No 3rd Runway”, and a good turnout by Stop Heathrow Expansion. Sadly the huge model plane, made by the irrepressible Neil Keveren, had a bit of a mishap during the pouring rain all morning …. but will be fixed and will makes its debut appearance at another event soon …

The march then set off, down Regents Street, Piccadilly and Trafalgar Square to Whitehall. Police held up the traffic for the marchers to pass, and shoppers watched with interest (taking thousands of photos and videos) as the marchers streamed past. There were chants, while going past the BBC in Portland Place, of “BBC, BBC, tell the truth about climate change”. Also chants of  “What do we want? Climate Action.  When do we want it? Now.  What do we want? Climate Justice.  When do we want it? Now”.

And also many times:   “No ifs, no buts – No 3rd Runway”.

Some shoppers abandoned their shopping to join the march for a while. Some car drivers honked their horns in support as the march passed.

The Extinction Rebellion activists were there in force, but there was no direct action and absolutely no breaking of any laws or civil disobedience.

At the rally in Whitehall, opposite Downing Street, there were speeches by

Barry Gardiner MP, Labour Party
Liz Hutchins, Friends of the Earth
Peter Allen, Frack Free United
Claire James, Campaign against Climate Change

After the protest, the Frack Free United Declaration against fracking was handed in, to 10 Downing Street.

.

.

.

 

Read more »

UTTLESFORD COUNCIL PLANNING CHAIRMAN DIDN’T EVEN KNOW WHAT HE WAS VOTING FOR!

Following the decision of the Chairman of Uttlesford Planning Committee, Councillor Alan Mills, to use his (additional) casting vote in favour of the airport planning application, Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) health adviser, Professor Jangu Banatvala, wrote to him to ask whether he had reviewed the latest important WHO Noise Guidelines, published on 10th October, prior to voting. The disturbing reply from Councillor Mills suggests that he was not aware of the WHO Guidelines and he believed the planning application was for 174,000 flights, rather than 274,000. He did not appear to have understood that the application was for an increase in flights, by about 25,000 per year, despite claiming to have read a third of the documents. Five councillors voted in favour of the Stansted application, but SSE has found that at least some of them had either not read, or had not understood, even the most basic information about the application. SSE said this is entirely unsatisfactory. It confirms that this application should be dealt with at a higher level than a small district council, with limited resources to deal with such a significant application with such widespread implications. SSE’s lawyers are now working on the detailed legal submissions to the Secretary of State on why he must now ‘call in’ the application for national determination.

 

 

COUNCIL PLANNING CHAIRMAN DIDN’T EVEN KNOW WHAT HE WAS VOTING FOR!

26.11.2018

Stop Stansted Expansion press release

Following the decision of the Chairman of Uttlesford Planning Committee, Councillor Alan Mills, to use his (additional) casting vote in favour of the airport planning application, Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) health adviser, Professor Jangu Banatvala, wrote to him to ask whether he had reviewed the latest World Health Organisation (WHO) Noise Guidelines, published on 10th October, prior to voting.

The new WHO guidelines are of enormous significance because they show that aviation noise can be harmful to community health at far lower decibel levels than previously recommended.  These tough new WHO guideline levels reflect the strength of the latest evidence relating to environmental harms of aviation noise annoyance and sleep disturbance.

The disturbing reply from Councillor Mills, shown in full below [Note 1], suggests that he believed the planning application was for 174,000 flights, rather than 274,000.  This fundamental mistake could be just a careless typographical error, except for the fact that his reply contained two other startling admissions:

  • He claimed to have read 4,500 pages of the planning application documents (about a third of the total) and yet he believed that it meant no extra flights.  However, even a cursory look at the planning documents shows that, with an annual cap of 35 million passengers, Stansted would be limited to 248,820 flights but raising the cap to 43 million passengers results in 274,000 flights.  Approving the application therefore means an extra 25,180 flights a year – about 70 extra flights per day.
  • Councillor Mills said he was unaware of the new WHO Noise Guidelines but Professor Banatvala had – in person – presented the latest Noise Guidelines to Councillor Mills and his colleagues on the Planning Committee just a week earlier.  The new guidelines were also highlighted in SSE’s evidence to UDC, whose planning officers knew very well just how important they were.  Officers had written to MAG on 22nd December 2017 making clear that the effect of the new WHO Noise Guidelines would need to be assessed before the planning application could be decided:

“In the event that the World Health Organisation (“WHO”)’s new evidence on the impacts of aviation noise is published before a determination to grant planning permission, the  environmental statement assessment must incorporate this evidence (for example, by way of supplementary assessment).” [emphasis added]

Despite the words “must incorporate” the Council’s officers and the Planning Committee completely disregarded the new WHO Noise Guidelines.

At the special Planning Committee meeting on 14 November to consider the airport planning application five councillors voted against and five voted in favour, including the Chairman. [Note 2].  The Chairman’s casting vote (i.e. he was allowed two votes) carried the day.  Of the four other councillors who voted in favour:

  • One did not ask a single question all day;
  • Another who voted in favour asked just one question, which was to request a ‘comfort break’;
  • The remaining two councillors who voted in favour each just asked the simplest of questions about noise impacts, the answers to which would have been obvious even by skim reading the officers’ summary report.  It was clear that they had either not read, or had not understood, even the most basic information about the nature and effect of the planning application.

SSE Deputy Chairman Brian Ross commented “For almost 18 months SSE has consistently argued that this airport application had to be dealt with nationally because of its scale and complexity.  It was completely unfair to place the responsibility on local councillors and has now left some of them exposed to ridicule.”

Brian Ross continued: “It took a five-month Public Inquiry to consider the evidence in the case of the last comparable Stansted Airport planning application.  On this occasion Uttlesford Planning Committee did the entire job in one sitting.  That might appear to reflect a remarkable improvement in efficiency.  In truth, it reflects the naïve and superficial nature of the Uttlesford approval process.”

The audio recording of the Planning Committee meeting on 14 November has now been converted by SSE into a written transcript which will be sent to the Secretary of State for Housing, Local Government and Communities as supporting evidence of the superficial and uninformed nature of the Uttlesford Planning Committee process and of apparent pre-determination.

SSE has already sent a holding submission to the Secretary of State highlighting deficiencies in the UDC process and asking for the planning application to be ‘called in’ – i.e. taken out of UDC’s hands and dealt with at national level.  SSE’s barristers are now working on the detailed legal submissions to the Secretary of State underpinning the reasons why he must now ‘call in’ the application for national determination.

ENDS

NOTE 1 – E-mail from Councillor Mills to Professor Banatvala dated 21 November 2018:

“Dear Mr Banatvala

Thank you for your correspondence on this matter and for matters of clarity I feel that an important issue should be clarified that has been continually misrepresented in this debate.

MAG had an existing permission for 174,000 flights from 2008. This application was not about increased flights, only passenger numbers/throughput in the airport.

Having read over 4500 pages of documentation I have to confess the October updated WHO report did not feature in the officers’ reports and I will endeavour to ensure that I am as current as possible on trends and policy.

Regards

Cllr Alan Mills”

 

NOTE 2 – The votes cast by individual members of Uttlesford Planning Committee on 14 November to approve the Stansted Airport planning application were as follows:

Councillors opposed

Paul Fairhurst – Residents for Uttlesford, Saffron Walden Shire.
Richard Freeman – Residents for Uttlesford, Saffron Walden Castle.
Anthony Gerard – Residents for Uttlesford, Newport.
Mark Lemon – Conservative (formerly Independent), Hatfield Heath.
Janice Loughlin – Liberal Democrat, Stort Valley

Councillors in favour

Robert Chambers – Conservative, Littlebury, Chesterford and Wendon Lofts.
Eric Hicks – Conservative, Great Dunmow South and Barnston.
Alan Mills (Chairman) – Conservative, Felsted and Stebbing.
Howard Ryles – Conservative, Takeley
Lesley Wells – Conservative, Broad Oak and the Hallingburys.

NOTE 3 – The new WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines, published on 10 October 2018, can be found at:http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/383921/noise-guidelines-eng.pdf?ua=1

 

FURTHER INFORMATION AND COMMENT

 

  • Brian Ross, SSE Deputy Chairman:  01279 814961; (M) 07850 937143 brian.ross@lineone.net
  • SSE Campaign Office, T 01279 870558; info@stopstanstedexpansion.com

http://stopstanstedexpansion.com/media.html

http://stopstanstedexpansion.com/press519.html

.


See earlier:

 

Uttlesford DC approves Stansted expansion plan, only by Chairman’s casting vote – but plans may now be “called in”

Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) has expressed dismay and disappointment that the vote on 14th November)by Uttlesford District Council (UDC) Planning Committee granted approval for Stansted’s planning application to grow – to an annual throughput of 43 million passengers per annum (from the 35 million cap now).  If this approval is allowed to stand, it would mean that Stansted could increase its flights by 44% and its passenger throughput by 66% compared, to last year’s levels.  The Planning Committee, comprising ten elected Uttlesford councillors, split right down the middle with 5 in favour of the application (including the Planning Committee Chairman) and 5 against.  Where there is a split vote, the Council rulebook gives the Chairman an additional (casting) vote – so he gets 2 votes.  Both BBC and ITV regional news teams filmed the session, which was attended by many local people.  UDC cannot issue a decision notice until the Sec of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire) has considered whether the application should be called in. This should have been done already, as the planned expansion is very near the threshold necessary – of an increase by 10 million annual passengers.  SSE will now submit further representations to the Secretary of State asking him (again) to call in the application. They are currently also legally challenging the decision.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

Read more »

No 3rd Runway Coalition blog: Still no clarity on Heathrow finances for its expansion

In a blog, from the Chairman of the No 3rd Runway Coalition, Paul McGuinness, he says that serious concerns remain about how Heathrow might fund its hoped-for 3rd runway. The CAA has written to the DfT asking for clarity, as it does not have adequate or detailed information from Heathrow. As Nils Pratley highlighted in the Guardian “in most industries, a rebuke from the regulator would be met with an immediate promise to do better. Heathrow’s response, however, amounted to a shrug of the shoulders”. In Heathrow’s “Scoping Report” to the Planning Inspectorate in May they said, buried deep within the highly technical documents, that it seeks ‘early release of capacity’ that would be created by a 3rd runway. In short, Heathrow are trying to secure an additional 25,000 flights each year, (68 per day) above the current cap of 480,000, years before the 3rd runway opens. The current cap was a key condition of the T5 planning permission. Heathrow wants the income from these extra flights to help pay for the runway. Nobody knows who would be affected, or what noise, pollution, congestion etc impacts there would be. There has been no assessment. Read the full blog. 
.

 

 

Still no clarity on Heathrow finances

16th November 2018
Blog by Paul McGuinness, Chair, No Third Runway Coalition

Last week the CAA took the exceptional step of publicising a letter it had sent to the DfT regarding their concerns about Heathrow’s plans for financing the third runway. Essentially, the CCA is complaining that Heathrow has still not provided adequate or detailed information.

As Nils Pratley highlighted in the Guardian “in most industries, a rebuke from the regulator would be met with an immediate promise to do better. Heathrow’s response, however, amounted to a shrug of the shoulders. (They) didn’t even attempt to explain why it has not satisfied the CAA’s long-standing and reasonable requests.”

For those communities impacted by operations at Heathrow, such a complaint and lack of response is not a revelation: it simply confirms the ongoing, arduous reality of seeking to engage with this arrogant corporate behemoth. Indeed, Heathrow’s response has entirely ignored the issues raised – and merely offered their generic holding statement that they are proceeding with the planning process.

In May, Heathrow submitted their initial Scoping Report for expansion to the Planning Inspectorate. This sets out their initial thinking on the multitude of issues associated with their aspirations; yet it does not go into specific detail.

Buried deep within the highly technical documents is a line that seeks ‘early release of capacity’ that would be created by a third runway. In short, Heathrow are trying to secure an additional 25,000 flights each year before the third runway opens.

This means that they are effectively trying to force the lifting of the 480,000 Air Traffic Movement (ATM) and thus break a key condition of the T5 planning permission. Essentially, Heathrow is seeking these extra 25,000 flights a year in order to raise the money to pay for the third runway.

There has been no assessment undertaken on the impact on local communities of an additional 25,000 flights – 68 every day – in terms of noise, air pollution or congestion on public transport and local road networks. None whatsoever.

Was this always a part of their strategy – despite it was never being discussed in the run up to the Parliamentary vote on the Airports National Policy Statement?

Or is it a tactic to seek to deliver on the condition that a third runway does not result in significant increases in landing charges?

After all, steep rises in landing charges over the past decade has been a Heathow financing technique – deployed by Heathrow to pay for the T2 refurbishment without having to put its hand into its shareholders pockets.

But whichever game they are playing, the inescapable fact is that Heathrow’s ability to finance the 3rd Runway is yet again being called into question. And its inability to produce a transparent set of answers on the issue – even when implored repeatedly to do so, by the CAA – may speak to the truth, more than any of the platitudinous assurances that Heathrow has uttered in the public domain.

The communities that we represent are already sceptical and concerned. Sceptical about the favourable, special protections that have long been offered to Heathrow. And concerned about the manner in which taxpayers are being asked to underwrite the construction risks of Heathrow’s expansion plans.

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

.


See earlier:

Might Heathrow only be able to afford its 3rd runway scheme, by being allowed another 25,000 annual flights well before runway was ready?

The Times’ Chief Business Commentator, Alistair Osborne, has written on the deeply unclear finances of a possible Heathrow 3rd runway.  Alistair suggests, one way the airport could try and get in some extra cash, early in the building programme (when no airlines can use the new runway yet) is increasing the current numbers of flights and passengers. Heathrow loves to say it is full, but it is not. Each year the number of passengers creeps up – there is spare terminal capacity. But if instead of the current cap of 480,000 annual flights, Heathrow could get consent for an extra 25,000 (ie. to 505,000), it could add perhaps 6-7 million more passengers, up from the current 78 million or so.  That could bring in much needed income, to help fund the vast project – including what to do with the M25. But adding 25 million more annual flights means about 65 more per day. Heathrow hopes to appease the ire of badly impacted local residents, by saying they would start flying at 5.30am rather than the 4.30am start now. But there would then be plane after plane after plane then, when people are still trying to sleep. And the airlines don’t like the idea, as it upsets their lucrative long haul schedules, and causes less resilience if there are delays, at the peak periods.  

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2018/11/might-heathrow-only-be-able-to-afford-its-3rd-runway-scheme-by-being-allowed-another-25000-annual-flights-well-before-runway-was-ready/
.


Heathrow regulator, the CAA, demands answers urgently on airport’s 3rd runway plan

The CEO, Richard Moriarty, of aviation watchdog body, the CAA, have written to the Department for Transport (DfT) asking that they should “decisively and urgently” address major concerns about the funding for the 3rd runway scheme – at least £14 billion, and doubtless more with cost over-runs and things not going to plan. They say Heathrow must “provide assurance that its revised timetable is realistic” and would “ensure timely delivery” of the expansion. The CAA threatens enforcement action against Heathrow to force it to provide clear evidence about how it would finance the scheme, while avoiding pushing up costs for airlines and passengers. The CAA says the project had been hit by a further delay, with a public consultation on detailed plans for the new runway now scheduled for June rather than in the first three months of next year. Heathrow is already the most expensive airport in the world, with landing charges of over £20 per ticket, and that is likely to rise – regardless of flimsy Heathrow assurances. Mr Moriarty said there is a  “lack of high quality and comprehensive information” about how Heathrow would keep costs down, while being commercially viable, and these concerns had “not been adequately addressed, despite repeated requests”.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

Read more »

Lasham Gliding Society applies for Judicial Review of CAA Farnborough airspace decision

The CAA decided to grant the airspace to TAG Farnborough on 11th July. After taking legal advice, Lasham Gliding Society decided to fight this decision and instructed its lawyers to draw up a claim for leave for a Judicial Review in the High Court. Lasham Gliding Society is strongly opposed to the CAA’s decision. It considers that the decision to introduce new controlled airspace has not been justified by the CAA, because it will create a choke point, it does not represent an efficient use of the airspace, and it does not properly or reasonably balance the needs of all users. Lasham Gliding Society says: “The consequence of the implementation of this large volume of controlled airspace, at the request of a small airfield which has around 28,000 annual (non-public) movements, will be to displace many times more transiting flights and to cause significant congestion of general aviation movements outside the controlled airspace.”  The application for the JR was lodged on 10th October. The CAA has produced its reply, and the judge will decide if it can proceed. The cost will be at least £100,000 and Lasham hopes it will be of relevance to other general aviation airfields.
.

 

Update on the TAG Farnborough airspace situation 

25.11.2018

The CAA decided to grant the airspace to TAG Farnborough on 11th July. After taking legal advice, Lasham Gliding Society decided to fight this decision and instructed its lawyers to draw up a claim for leave for a Judicial Review in the High Court.

This was lodged on 10th October*. The CAA has produced its reply and matters are now being set up for a judge to review Lasham’s claim almost immediately. You are well aware from previous information circulated about the significant drawbacks to this decision to all parties concerned.

For its own part, Lasham believes that if the CAA’s decision is not challenged, it would result in airspace that is both unsafe and inefficient and a precedent may be set for the way that all future decisions about lower airspace are made. Local communities also need to note where aircraft noise will increase from more concentrated lower flying aircraft over areas of Hampshire and the South of England.

The Society has the capability to bring a case of this size against a government agency like the CAA. However its campaign will benefit the whole general aviation community as well as residents under some of the proposed flight-paths. Considerable sums of money are involved and Lasham Gliding Society launched an appeal to raise at least £100,000 towards the cost of fighting the case. So far £39,367 has been raised.

If you would like to contribute to fighting this, either click on  www.lashamgliding.com/pages/airspace-campaign to read more, including the terms and conditions, or send a cheque to Lasham Gliding Society made out to “Lasham Gliding Society Special Reserve Fund”. 

The campaign is grateful to the Parish Councils for their warm support and to local friends and people who have already contributed so generously.

.


* “Flyer” Magazine article on 3,000 page submission to the CAA:

 

Lasham applies for Judicial Review of CAA Farnborough decision

Lasham Gliding Society has applied for a Judicial Review of the CAA decision to approve the TAG Farnborough Airport airspace proposal.

John McCullagh, treasurer of the Lasham Gliding Society, said, “Having received the final documents for its proposed application for a Judicial Review of the CAA decision on the TAG ACP from the Airspace Team on Monday, the [Lasham] Committee of Management met Tuesday morning and approved filing our application with the Court.

“The Airspace Team and our lawyers have completed a herculean task in compiling 183 pages of statements, plus supporting documents, which have been filed with the Court.

“The CoM wishes to thank them on behalf of all our members. The CAA now have 21 days from the date of service of proceedings to acknowledge service.”

Lasham Gliding Society
The entire application for leave for judicial review consists of thirteen volumes of supporting information, totalling over 3,000 pages. Lasham is aiming to raise at least £100,000 towards the cost of fighting the case (see link below)

Lasham Gliding Society is strongly opposed to the CAA’s decision. It considers that the decision to introduce new controlled airspace has not been justified by the CAA.

Specifically:

  • It will create a choke point
  • It does not represent an efficient use of the airspace
  • It does not properly or reasonably balance the needs of all users.

“The consequence of the implementation of this large volume of controlled airspace, at the request of a small airfield which has around 28,000 annual (non-public) movements, will be to displace many times more transiting flights and to cause significant congestion of general aviation movements outside the controlled airspace,” said the Society.

“Lasham Gliding Society, the world’s biggest gliding club with around twice the number of annual movements of Farnborough Airport, will be in this bottleneck. This gives rise to obvious safety risks for gliders and other aircraft.”

Donations to the Lasham Gliding Society fund to pay for the review are welcome here.

https://www.flyer.co.uk/lasham-applies-for-judicial-review-of-caa-farnborough-decision/

.

.

.

Read more »

New structure for GACC Committee as they continue longstanding fight to protect residents from Gatwick airport

GACC, Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign, announces a new structure to better utilise the dedicated long standing GACC Committee, with the aim of being more agile and responsive in its work to counter the threat from Gatwick Airport and its expansion master plan. Brendon Sewill, having being the Chairman of GACC for over 6 decades and hugely respected, is now GACC President.  Lisa Morris, after 5 years on the GACC committee, becomes Chairman, and said “I am honoured to be entrusted with the role of Chairman at a time when GACC seeks to fight Gatwick’s master plan for a 3 runway airport. The GACC committee is poised to use its combined forces of knowledge, expertise and sheer determination, to challenge Gatwick’s master plan, which includes bringing the emergency runway into routine use and safeguarding land in the Gatwick vicinity for a 3rd runway”.  Peter Barclay, Brendon’s successor last year, steps down from his role as Chairman to take on the important role of Vice President in addition to continuing to be the GACC lead with Gatwick, nationally and regionally.  GACC will be further strengthening and enlarging the Committee, to fight on behalf of all communities negatively affected – and not only from noise – by Gatwick airport.

.

New structure for GACC Committee as they continue their longstanding fight to protect communities from Gatwick airport

23.11.2018  (GACC – Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign)

GACC, Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign, announces a new structure to better utilise the dedicated long standing GACC Committee, with the aim of being more agile and responsive in its work to counter the threat from Gatwick Airport and its master plan for a 3 runway airport.

Brendon Sewill, having being the Chairman of GACC for over 6 decades and hugely respected, accepts the prestigious position of GACC President in recognition of his commitment to, and his sacrifices for, the GACC cause and the long-suffering communities and environment surrounding Gatwick.

Peter Barclay, Brendon’s successor, steps down from his role as Chairman to take on the important role of Vice President in addition to continuing to be the GACC lead with Gatwick, both nationally and regionally.

After over 60 years, GACC appoints its 1st female Chairman, Lisa Morris who said “I am honoured to be entrusted with the role of Chairman at a time when GACC seeks to fight Gatwick’s master plan for a 3 runway airport”.

After close to 5 years as a GACC Committee Member, the new Chairman, Lisa Morris, said:

“The GACC committee is poised to use its combined forces of knowledge, expertise and sheer determination, to challenge Gatwick’s master plan, which includes bringing the emergency runway into routine use and safeguarding land in the Gatwick vicinity for a 3rd runway”.

As GACC moves forward, there will be a focus on further strengthening and developing the Committee structure and utilising the varied skillset of Committee members for maximum impact.

GACC will continue to fight on behalf of all communities and so we encourage residents to make sure their nominal membership fees are up to date to ensure and they are on the GACC mailing list.

“This is a key way to keep communities of Sussex, Surrey and Kent informed of important developments concerning Gatwick and airspace changes.  I live in Smallfield and therefore know what it is like to endure aircraft noise and the ramifications of the airport on our roads and railways,  so I would encourage you, as local people, to take advantage of opportunities to help maximise the impact of GACC, by getting involved so as to minimise the impact that Gatwick Airport has on you and your life,” said Lisa.

If you are inspired to join the GACC Committee, please get in touch for an informal conversation.  You do not need to be an aviation expert (although we welcome those too), but you will want to gift your time and skills to GACC to protect communities and the environment from the negative impact of Gatwick Airport.

Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign GACC

Campaign Office – Stan Hill  Charlwood  Surrey RH6 OEP

Website – www.gacc.org.uk Office Email – gacc@btconnect.com

Press Enquiries – 07831 632537/ Press Office gaccpress@gmail.com

.


25th November

Lisa Morris opinion: Why are we determined to fight Gatwick Airport plans?

Lisa Morris is the new chairwoman of the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign.

At the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign, we have announced a new structure to better use the strengths of our committee.

The aim is to be more agile and responsive in our work to counter the threat from Gatwick Airport and its master plan for a three-runway airport.

I am the first female chairman and honoured to be entrusted with the role at a time when GACC seeks to fight Gatwick’s master plan.

The GACC committee is poised to use its combined forces of knowledge, expertise and sheer determination to challenge Gatwick’s master plan.

We encourage residents to make sure their nominal membership fees are up to date to ensure and they are on the GACC mailing list.

This is a key way to keep communities of Sussex, Surrey and Kent informed of important developments concerning Gatwick and airspace changes.

I live in Smallfield and therefore know what it is like to endure aircraft noise and the ramifications of the airport on our roads and railways.

So I would encourage you, as local people, to take advantage of opportunities to help maximise the impact of GACC, by getting involved so as to minimise the impact that Gatwick Airport has on you and your life.

If you are inspired to join the committee, please get in touch for an informal conversation.

You can email membership@gacc.org.uk

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/17254478.lisa-morris-opinion-why-are-we-determined-to-fight-gatwick-airport-plans/

.

.

 

Read more »

Response by Government to PQ on Heathrow road traffic indicates a 29% increase with a 3rd runway

In a Parliamentary Question by Andy Slaughter (MP for Hammersmith), he asked the Secretary of State for Transport, “what assessment he has made of the number of (a) light goods vehicles, (b) heavy goods vehicles and (c) private cars that access Heathrow airport on a daily basis.” The reply by Jesse Norman, Minister of State at the DfT, said the figures for goods vehicles come from the Airports Commission [now fairly out of date] and the other figures for highway and public transport trips are from an October 2017 DfT document. Heathrow has often said there would be no more vehicles on the roads with a 3rd runway than currently. But the DfT figures indicate the trips by passengers and employees, by cars and taxis,  would be around 60 million in 2030 with no new runway, and about 77 million in 2030 with a 3rd runway. The numbers would be about 66 million by 2050, with no new runway; and about 85 million with a 3rd runway.  ie. a massive rise of around 29% above the number with no new runway, both in 2030 and in 2050. Mr Norman said, to try to overcome this difficulty,  “it will be for an applicant for development consent for the Heathrow Northwest runway scheme to submit a surface access strategy to the Planning Inspectorate alongside their application.”  He did not answer the question, about the current numbers.
.

 

 

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2018-11-09.189624.h&s=Runway#g189624.r0

Andrew Slaughter Labour, Hammersmith

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the number of (a) light goods vehicles, (b) heavy goods vehicles and (c) private cars that access Heathrow airport on a daily basis.

Photo of Jesse NormanJesse Norman Minister of State (Department for Transport)

For goods vehicles, the Department draws upon the Airports Commission’s assessment of road freight numbers as published in their Appraisal Framework Module 4 – Surface Access Freight Impacts Study.

In October 2017, the Department published within its Updated Appraisal Report: Airport Capacity in the South East, details of the estimated surface access trips for both highway and public transport trips for each of the airport expansion options as inputs to its non-flight carbon assessment.

Details of the estimates for annual highway trips for the Heathrow Airportoptions are set out in the following table:

Annual highway trips (car and taxi) by passengers and employees at Heathrow, DfT17 central forecasts (millions)

Highway vehicle trips
2026 2030 2040 2050
No Expansion 57.5 59.4 62.7 66.3
LHR Extended Northern Runway 67.7 75.2 78.2 82.1
LHR Northwest Runway 67.7 77.7 80.7 85.5

Source: Department for TransportTable A.2 Updated Appraisal Report: Airport Capacity in the South East (October 2017)

As specified in the Airports National Policy Statement, it will be for an applicant for development consent for the Heathrow Northwest runway scheme to submit a surface access strategy to the Planning Inspectorate alongside their application.

.

{Note:  this reply does not answer the question, which was about the current numbers. We do not know if the government has proper figures for these.

If there is no proper current figure for the numbers, it would not be possible to hold Heathrow to a target of not increasing this ….   AW comment]


See Heathrow’s claim there would be no more airport-related traffic on the roads with a 3rd runway than now

https://your.heathrow.com/takingbritainfurther/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Transport-Fact-Sheet_FINAL2.pdf


See earlier:

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

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

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/11/even-with-55-of-heathrow-passengers-using-public-transport-there-could-be-15-million-more-passenger-trips-per-year-by-car-by-2040-than-now/

.

.

 

 

Read more »

Replies to PQs on Heathrow – possible review of NPS after CCC climate report in spring 2019?

In recent Parliamentary Questions, Zac Goldsmith asked the Climate Minister (BEIS) Claire Perry: “what assessment she has made of the effect of the expansion of Heathrow Airport on the ability of the UK to meet the net-zero emissions target by 2050.” The response said “The Committee [on Climate Change] will also publish a report on aviation in Spring 2019. … this will include consideration of the potential to reduce aviation emissions over the period to 2050 and beyond. The Government will consider carefully the Committee’s advice …. Subject to this review, the Government will consider whether it is appropriate to review the Airports National Policy Statement, in accordance with Section 6 of the Planning Act 2008.”   Zac also asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer “what level of capital funding he plans to allocate for the delivery of improvements to rail access related to the expansion of Heathrow Airport.” The reply by Liz Truss said (avoiding replying properly) the Government “will consider the need for a public funding contribution alongside an appropriate contribution from the airport on a case by case basis.” And “The Government is supporting Heathrow Surface Access schemes subject to the development of a satisfactory business case and the agreement of acceptable terms with the Heathrow aviation industry.” (sic)
.

 

MPs’ Parliamentary Questions (PQs) and government replies

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2018-11-13.190875.h&s=Aviation#g190875.r0

Photo of Zac GoldsmithZac Goldsmith Conservative, Richmond Park

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what assessment he has made of the effect of the expansion of Heathrow Airport on the ability of the UK to meet the net-zero emissions target by 2050.

Photo of Claire PerryClaire PerryThe Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Minister of State (Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) (Energy and Clean Growth)

Following the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on 1.5 degrees, published in October, we commissioned advice from our independent advisers, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), on its long-term emissions reduction targets, including on the setting of a net zero target. This commission asks for evidence from the CCC on how reductions might be delivered in key sectors of the economy and the expected costs and benefits of different scenarios.

The Committee will also publish a report on aviation in Spring 2019. As set out in the Committee’s recent progress report, this will include consideration of the potential to reduce aviation emissions over the period to 2050 and beyond.

The Government will consider carefully the Committee’s advice on both these issues when it is received. Subject to this review, the Government will consider whether it is appropriate to review the Airports National Policy Statement, in accordance with Section 6 of the Planning Act 2008.

.

.


Photo of Zac GoldsmithZac Goldsmith Conservative, Richmond Park

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what level of capital funding he plans to allocate for the delivery of improvements to rail access related to the expansion of Heathrow Airport.

Photo of Elizabeth TrussElizabeth Truss The Chief Secretary to the Treasury

The Government’s position in relation to funding Surface Access at airports is set out in the 2013 Aviation Policy Framework and reiterated in the Airports National Policy Statement which was designated in June 2018. Where a scheme is not solely required to deliver airport capacity and has a wider range of beneficiaries, the Government, along with relevant stakeholders, will consider the need for a public funding contribution alongside an appropriate contribution from the airport on a case by case basis. The Government is supporting Heathrow Surface Access schemes subject to the development of a satisfactory business case and the agreement of acceptable terms with the Heathrow aviation industry.

Read more »