Welsh Assembly members say Cardiff airport lacks a long-term enough plan for expansion

The Welsh Public Accounts Committee has said Cardiff Airport is missing its passenger targets and lacks a long-term plan to expand.  The airport was bought by the Welsh Government for £52 million in 2013. The decision to buy and the price paid caused controversy, but the Public Accounts Committee said ministers had had “a clear rationale” for going ahead with the deal. The transport minister said swift action saved the airport from closure. After the airport was taken into public ownership, passenger numbers rose from 995,000 to 1.079m in 2013-14, but in 2014-15 the numbers declined to 1.005m. The airport now expects numbers to rise to 1.4m by 2017-18, although the business plan produced at the time it was bought projected passenger figures of around 2 million by that date. Some consider the airport was only worth £20 – £30 million and the Welsh government paid too much. Flybe announced it would operate flights between Cardiff and London City Airport during the six week closure of the Severn rail tunnel from 12 September to 21 October. “Aviation Wales” hopes Air Passenger Duty will be devolved, so they can cut it. Bristol airport is very anxious about this, and launched a “A Fair Flight for the South West” campaign, fearing a loss of passengers to Cardiff. 

.

Cardiff Airport lacks long-term expansion plan, say AMs

23 March 2016 (BBC)

Cardiff Airport is missing its passenger targets and lacks a long-term plan to expand, a committee of AMs has said.

The airport was bought by the Welsh Government for £52m in 2013.

The decision to buy and the price paid caused controversy, but the Public Accounts Committee said ministers had had “a clear rationale” for going ahead with the deal.

The transport minister said swift action saved the airport from closure.

Edwina Hart added that customer satisfaction was at an “all-time high”.

After Cardiff Airport was taken into public ownership, passenger numbers rose from 995,000 to 1.079m in 2013-14, but in 2014-15 the numbers declined to 1.005m.

The airport now expects numbers to rise to 1.4m by 2017-18, although the business plan produced at the time it was purchased projected passenger figures of around 2m by that date.

On the cost of the purchase, the committee refers to the range of independent valuations offered to ministers, including one by KPMG that suggested the site was worth £20m-£30m.

The report said: “We remained unconvinced that the Welsh Government had a clear negotiation strategy, and we question the decision to make an initial offer of £55m, with a view to negotiating the purchase price down afterwards.”

Committee chair and Conservative AM Darren Millar said it was clear the airport had been “in decline” before 2013, and “prospects for turning it around under its previous ownership were bleak”.

“We also recognise the importance to Wales of having its own international airport and the wider benefits for Wales arising from this,” he said.

“However, although the airport has the potential to grow significantly, we note its progress against the acquisition business plan in terms of passenger growth are behind target.”

The report said Glasgow Prestwick Airport produced business plans looking up to eight years ahead, while Cardiff Airport had only two-year plans.

Responding, Mrs Hart said: “If we had not acted swiftly the airport would have undoubtedly closed.

“Instead, customer satisfaction is now at an all-time high with 1.2m passengers using the airport over the past 12 months – the highest level since 2011.”

Airport managing director Debra Barber said: “We would like to make it very clear that while we report to our holding company with a rolling two-year business plan, we operate with much longer term projections.

“The PAC [Public Accounts Committee] is looking backwards. We are continuously forward-looking with a real vision for the future of the airport.”

Meanwhile, airline Flybe announced it would operate flights between Cardiff and London City Airport during the six week closure of the Severn rail tunnel from 12 September to 21 October.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-35870576

.


 

South West economy risks losing £843m and 1,569 Jobs as tax on flying set for devolution to Wales

12th Feb 2016 (Bristol Airport press release)

The South West economy is set to lose £843 million and 1,569 jobs if the power to set Air Passenger Duty (APD) is devolved to the Welsh Government, according to figures released today.

Launching its campaign for “A Fair Flight For The South West”, Bristol Airport has published a report highlighting the risks to the South West economy of APD devolution to Wales – something that the Chancellor is likely to announce at this year’s Budget on 16th March.

The risks of APD devolution to Wales include:

  • The loss of £843 million in gross value added (GVA) from the West of England economy over the next decade.
  • The loss of 1,569 jobs in the West of England over the next decade.
  • The likely loss of almost a third of Bristol Airport’s existing air routes, and long-haul routes expected to be launched soon, reducing choice for passengers from the region, air access for overseas visitors, and trade links for the local economy.
  • A 25% drop in passengers travelling from Bristol Airport by 2020 – seriously damaging a regional business which generates almost £400m in GVA and supports 11,000 jobs for the regional economy.

…… and it continues at length ….. for full article see

http://www.bristolairport.co.uk/about-us/news-and-media/news-and-media-centre/2016/02/apd
.

Meanwhile an organisation called “Aviation Wales” naturally is very keen on Wales doing away with Air Passenger Duty. They say:

One of the most hotly debated topics concerning Wales and in particular, Cardiff Airport is the devolution of Air Passenger Duty (APD) ………

The Silk Commission report on devolved powers to Wales recommended that Air Passenger Duty be devolved and the current UK government is bound by election promise to review it.

Air Passenger Duty currently stands at £26 (£13 lower rate for cheapest class) for trips under 2000 miles and £142 (£73 lower rate for cheapest class) for long haul flights.

A devolved power over APD would allow the Welsh Government to lower that rate offering Wales as an attractive point of entry and exit from the UK in particular to long haul passengers and long haul operators providing a massive boost to the Welsh Economy. [In reality, it is likely that it would just make it cheaper for Welsh people, and nearby English people, to fly off on leisure journeys abroad, taking their money out of the area and out of the UK, boosting the tourism deficit.  There is more movement of tourist OUT than tourists IN.  AW comment].

The thought of Cardiff Airport being a more affordable destination for UK visitors has caused Bristol Airport to instigate Project Fear (or “A Fair Flight for the South West” as they call it) which will show the people of the South West that their region will become a desolate wasteland and they will all be speaking Welsh if APD is devolved.

….. and it continues at length …. at  “Air Passenger Duty: Its Our Right” (sic)

http://www.aviationwales.com/air-passenger-duty-its-our-right/

 


Some other recent news stories about Cardiff airport:

Conservatives demand more routes for Cardiff Airport after £3.5m government loan

Tory party members have called for the value of Cardiff Airport to be made public – two years after it was sold to the Welsh Government for £52 million. Conservative politicians have criticised the airport’s failure to attract new flights, but the Labour Welsh Government said securing routes was a long term process and that a route development loan had yet to come into play. In November 2014 ministers announced that Cardiff Airport was to get a £3.5m loan to help develop new routes, as part of the Welsh Government budget for 2015/16. That happened after Lufthansa-owned Germanwings said it would close its service to Dusseldorf in 2015. The Tories want the airport improved and then sold back to the private sector, and so far there is evidence that the money from hard-pressed taxpayers has achieved much. A LibDem councilor commented: “The big question remains… where is the plan?” Labour said: “The Conservatives need to show some patience, especially when demanding to see the results of a £3m loan that will not be available until the next financial year.”

Click here to view full story…

Cardiff Airport drop in passenger numbers prompts Tories’ private ownership call

The Welsh Conservatives have called for Cardiff Airport to be returned to private ownership after September saw a year-on-year drop in passenger numbers of 7%. The fall was described as “expected” by the Welsh Government. An air industry insider said: “This is more bad news for Cardiff Airport – and the figures don’t include the imminent closure of the CityJet route to Glasgow. The downward trend is noticeable – in August the passenger numbers were down 8.2% at 135,900.” Shadow Transport Minister Byron Davies said: “These reports of a near double digit decline in passenger numbers at Cardiff Airport in the past two months compared to 2013 are deeply concerning. Welsh Conservatives disagreed with Labour’s decision to spend £52m buying Cardiff Airport, but now it is state-owned, Labour ministers must work hard to help it achieve its potential.” There will soon be one Ryanair flight per week from Cardiff to Tenerife. All just holiday traffic. Bucket ‘n spade.

Click here to view full story…

Former boss of Cardiff airport says its expansion plans are massively unrealistic, without public subsidy

Keith Brooks, the former chief executive of airports group TBI, said Cardiff Airport’s passenger forecast is “massively unrealistic” and that it needs to be more realistic in its expectations. Last week, in an unexpected move, it was announced that the airport’s chief executive Jon Horne will stand down next week after only 18 months in the role. The airport’s director of operations will be interim managing director. While Cardiff airport has not published any specific short to long-term passenger growth targets, since being taken over by the Welsh Government for £52m last year it has arrested year-on-year decline. Annual passenger numbers now stand marginally up at just over one million. Keith Brooks said: “They have had massively unrealistic expectations of what they can do in this period [since acquisition]…..Aviation is a very slow moving industry and negotiations with airlines take a long time.” Getting a significant low-cost carrier, like Ryanair, to expand routes from very low levels would require “significant subsidy” inducements. That means government subsidy, and tax payers’ money. The Welsh government “will not just be able to turn things around in a short period of time.”

Click here to view full story..

Welsh Economy Minister says Cardiff Airport likely to return to profit only in ‘long-term’

March 21, 2014 The Welsh Economy Minister, Edwina Hart, has said that Cardiff Airport – now in public ownership – is likely to return to profit eventually, but not in the short term. She said its downward spiral is no longer continuing. The airport finally becoming profitable is a “long-term” strategy. She was giving evidence to the National Assembly’s Enterprise and Business Committee on the airport, which was bought by the Welsh Government for £52m at the end of 2012. Ms Hart suggested there wouldn’t be a quick sale of the airport back into the private sector, which the Scottish Government is seeking for the newly-nationalised Prestwick Airport in Ayrshire. Pressed by the Plaid Cymru economy spokesman on when the government expected the taxpayer to recoup its investment. She said the Budget announcement for support for regional airports to set up new routes would apply to Wales and that they would “wait for the detail of it”, but confirmed the Welsh Government is likely to bid in for funding. Chancellor George Osborne announced a £20m annual fund will be used to encourage new routes from regional hubs like Cardiff.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

 

 

Read more »

Public referendum on Notre-Dame-des-Landes airport likely to be in June, and only for Loire-Atlantique département

Manuel Valls, Prime Minister of France, confirmed this week that the referendum on whether the new Nantes airport should go ahead, will only for the voters in the département of Loire-Atlantique. It would also be  before the summer, in June. Two key issues about the referendum have been key: the date and the area covered. Keeping it only to Loire-Atlantique suits the government, backing the new airport plan, as it is believed there is more support for the airport there. One poll showed 51% support for the plan, 39% against and 10% undecided. Another poll showed 58% opposition across France as a whole. Opponents of the plan, and others involved, believe areas other than just Loire-Atlantique should be consulted, as they would be affected by environmental, economic and social impacts of the possible airport. The leaders of neighbouring departments such as Mayenne, Morbihan and the Maine-et-Loire have recently criticised the prospect of the consultation’s scope being limited to only the Loire-Atlantique.  The Minister of Ecology, Ségolène Royal, defended the idea of the area being extended to the whole of the region Pays de la Loire. The government wants the poll early, so building work and evictions from the ZAD can be started by October. Work needs to start by then as there is a “declaration of public utility” lasting till October. It is likely that the referendum will be either on Sunday 19th or Sunday 26th June.
.

 

 

NDDL: The text of the order for the consultation is ready

20.3.2016

Arnaud Gosse, environmental law specialist, is very critical of the text which should help to organize the consultation abpit Notre-Dame-des-Landes.

Manuel Valls wants to consult, in June, the inhabitants of Loire-Atlantique, in order to “legitimize” the disputed airport project at Notre-Dame-des-Landes. No text for such a consultation, an order, is yet being prepared. On Thursday, March 24 it will be submitted, for opinion, to the National Council of the ecological transition.

The text received by board members (1) was analyzed by Arnaud Gosse, lawyer specializing in environmental law. This doctor of law, lecturer at the University of Paris I published its findings on the Mediapart website.

“No guarantee on information”

According to counsel, the text “disregards” an article in the Macron law of August 2015 that authorized the state to organize a local consultation for future projects, not for projects that are already past. It reduces the territorial area (here the Loire-Atlantique) “without taking account of the area to consider for the project’s effects on the environment” . The Macron law predicted the defined this scope according to the environmental impact.

Here we treat as the public inquiry area. The project, the lawyer notes again, says nothing about the consequences of the consultation, particularly in the case of negative response from the voters. “In this case, what will become of the permits issued and signed contracts?”

And then, the point that is sure to be controversial, the project “carries no guarantee regarding the information to be sent to voters”. Contrary to what provided the text of the Macron law, it will not make an appeal to the National Commission for public debate to act as a guarantor. The information panel will report to a commission set up by the state. “The draft order provides no guidance on the appointment of its members, on their working conditions, on declarations of conflicts of interest, on their means, on the type of information to be circulated, on the processing of claims, etc. ”

“A weapon against future projects”

Expanding the debate, the lawyer sounds the alarm. The new procedure will be organized for other projects, following the issue of an administrative authorization. Companies, project developers and authorities would do well to worry, noted the lawyer, pointing out a paradox. “Designed to get a project passed, this new procedure could become a weapon against future projects.” It compromises, says the lawyer, the legal security of industrial and infrastructure projects.

According to Arnaud Gosse, “whether one is for or against the airport project, no one can be satisfied with the creation of a procedure so contrary to the principles and rules of environmental law.”

Beyond the legal analysis, “one can question the political value of such proceedings”, said the lawyer. “Whatever the outcome, it will obviously not be shared from the moment it has been obtained, in such conditions”.

(1) Consisting of fifty members, community representatives are found, employers’ unions and employees, parliament, consumer organizations and representatives of eight NGOs in the environment sector.

http://www.ouest-france.fr/environnement/amenagement-du-territoire/notre-dame-des-landes/nddl-le-texte-de-lordonnance-de-la-consultation-est-sorti-4108831

Original in French below:


 

NDDL. Le texte de l’ordonnance de la consultation est prêt

20.3.2016 (Ouest France)

Arnaud Gossement, spécialiste du droit de l’environnement est très critique par rapport au texte qui devrait permettre d’organiser la consultation Notre-Dame-des-Landes.

Manuel Valls veut consulter, en juin, les habitants de Loire-Atlantique, afin de « légitimer » le projet contesté d’aéroport à Notre-Dame-des-Landes. Aucun texte ne permettant aujourd’hui une telle consultation, une ordonnance est en préparation. Jeudi 24 mars elle sera soumise, pour avis, aux membres du Conseil national de la transition écologique.

Le texte reçu par les membres du conseil (1) a été analysé par Arnaud Gossement, avocat spécialisé en droit de l’environnement. Ce docteur en droit, enseignant à l’université de Paris I a publié ses conclusions sur le site Mediapart.

« Pas de garantie relative à l’information »

Selon l’avocat, le texte « méconnaît » un article de la loi Macron d’août 2015 qui autorisait l’État à organiser une consultation locale pour les projets à venir, et non pour les projets déjà passés. Il réduit l’aire territoriale (ici la Loire-Atlantique) « sans tenir compte de l’aire à prendre en compte pour les effets du projet sur l’environnement ». La loi Macron prévoyait de définir ce périmètre en fonction de l’incidence environnementale. Ici on se cale sur l’aire de l’enquête publique. Le projet, note encore le juriste, ne dit rien sur les suites de la consultation, en particulier en cas de réponse négative des électeurs. « Dans ce cas, qu’adviendra-t-il des autorisations délivrées et des contrats signés ? »

Et puis, point qui ne manquera pas de faire polémique, le projet « ne comporte pas de garantie relative à l’information qui sera adressée aux électeurs ». Contrairement à ce que prévoyait le texte de la loi Macron, il ne sera pas fait appel à la commission nationale du débat public pour jouer un rôle de garant. Le volet information relèvera d’une commission mise en place par l’État. « Le projet d’ordonnance ne donne aucune indication sur la désignation de ses membres, sur leurs conditions de travail, sur les déclarations de conflits d’intérêt, sur leurs moyens, sur le type d’information qui devra être diffusé, sur le traitement des réclamations, etc. »

« Une arme contre les projets à venir »

Élargissant le débat, l’avocat tire le signal d’alarme. La nouvelle procédure pourra être organisée pour d’autres projets, postérieurement à la délivrance d’une autorisation administrative. Les entreprises, porteurs de projets et d’autorisations feraient bien de s’inquiéter, fait remarquer le juriste, soulignant un paradoxe. “Conçue pour faire passer un projet, cette nouvelle procédure pourrait devenir une arme contre les autres projets à venir”. Elle compromet, affirme l’avocat, la sécurité juridique des projets industriels ou d’infrastructures.

Selon Arnaud Gossement, « que l’on soit pour ou contre ce projet d’aéroport, nul ne peut se satisfaire de la création d’une procédure à ce point contraire aux principes et règles du droit de l’environnement. »

Au-delà de l’analyse juridique, « on peut s’interroger sur l’intérêt politique d’une telle procédure », estime l’avocat. « Quel que soit son résultat, celui-ci ne sera à l’évidence pas partagé dès l’instant où il aura été obtenu dans de telles conditions ».

(1) Constitué de cinquante membres, on y trouve les représentants des collectivités, des syndicats patronaux et de salariés, du parlement, des organisations de consommateurs et huit représentants des ONG du secteur de l’environnement.

 

http://www.ouest-france.fr/environnement/amenagement-du-territoire/notre-dame-des-landes/nddl-le-texte-de-lordonnance-de-la-consultation-est-sorti-4108831

.


The referendum on Notre-Dame-des-Landes will be held in June

15.3.2016 (Le Figaro)

[Imperfect translation into English below….]

VIDEO – Manuel Valls confirmed it on Tuesday to micro RMC. The consultation will involve only voters in Loire-Atlantique, said the Prime Minister.

Two key issues seem critical: the date and place. Manuel Valls confirmed on Tuesday morning, speaking to RMC, that the referendum on the proposed airport at Notre-Dame-des-Landes, announced by François Hollande in February, will take place “before the summer, in June”.

The Prime Minister also said that this consultation will involve “all the voters of the department of Loire-Atlantique”.

Following the announcement of a referendum, Matignon services had suggested that the scope of the referendum would be “locally defined” and “could match the department of Loire-Atlantique”. A delimitation confirmed by Manuel Valls. “This is the department that is most concerned by the impact, including the environmental impact, in part also economic, of this project,” explains the Prime Minister.

The territory was also chosen because “the public inquiry took place in the department of Loire-Atlantique, because it must be simple,” and because “the department of Loire-Atlantique is most likely to decide on the transfer to Notre-Dame-des-Landes “of the current Nantes airport Nantes Atlantique.

Since the start, this perspective does not have unanimous support. The airport must certainly take root in Loire-Atlantique, but the project is partly funded by other jurisdictions, including the Brittany. The presidents of neighboring departments such as Mayenne, Morbihan and the Maine-et-Loire have recently criticised the prospect of the consultation’s scope being limited to only the Loire-Atlantique.

Nationally, the foreign minister and former mayor of Nantes, Jean-Marc Ayrault, supporting the project, said it is favorable. However the Minister of Ecology, Ségolène Royal, defended the idea of referendum extended to the whole of the region Pays de la Loire.

The confirmation of a consultation “before the summer”

This limitation of voting in the Loire-Atlantique could assist the government, defender of the project. In early March, an Ifop poll established that 58% of the inhabitants of the department were in favor to the implementation of the airport. Opinion on the project is very divided, but nevertheless prepared to accept it going ahead: if a referendum was held next Sunday, 51% of respondents indicated they would vote in favor of the project, 39% that they would oppose and 10% that they were not decided. Nationally, however, 58% of French are opposed to the project according to a survey Odoxa.

Concerning the date, the Prime Minister had indicated in a previous interview with the daily Ouest-France, that he wanted the referendum to take place “before the summer” to consolidate the project and relaunch it in October. “Not beyond then, because the DUP (declaration of public utility) will fall,” argued Manuel Valls, who intended to support the expulsion of the ZAD site on the result of this consultation. “It will be necessary to carry out the expulsion in October, with a very important commitment of law enforcement, so that work can begin,” he explained.

On Sunday, France Inter reported that two dates were proposed for the consultation: on Sunday 19th or Sunday 26th June.

The announcement by Manuel Valls comes a little over a week before the end of the delay period granted to the historical inhabitants of the ZAD, about which deportation procedures were confirmed by the court in January. A demonstration against the project and to support those deported had brought together between 15,000 and 50,000 people on 27 February.

The pro-airport supporters vigilant, opponents unhappy

For the pro-airport association “Wings to the West”, these announcements are logical. The collective advances the same reasons as the Prime Minister. “The perimeter [for the consultation area] suits us, since it corresponds to the declaration of public utility and it concerns people who are most impacted by this project,” says the Figaro Guillaume Dalmard, spokesman for the association. “As for the date, it corresponds to our expectations,” he added.

And if the result of the consultation was positive, as predicted by the association, it would leave a “window of opportunity” for work before the end of the DUP in October. The supporters are “not satisfied, but serene, while remaining vigilant.” “We are waiting for details of the arrangements,” the spokesman said.

Conversely, several elected officials and project opponents lambasted those announcements. “Manuel Valls transforms a healing process into the new object of confrontation” as the territory selected matches “nothing” about the project’s relevance, said Senator ecologist Loire-Atlantique René Dantec, criticising the announcement. A criticism by MEP Yannick Jadot EELV, referred to a “masquerade”.

The original in French:

Le référendum sur Notre-Dame-des-Landes aura lieu au mois de juin

15.3.2016 (Le Figaro)

http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2016/03/15/01016-20160315ARTFIG00128-le-referendum-sur-notre-dame-des-landes-aura-lieu-au-mois-de-juin.php

.

.


 


 

Earlier:

With referendum awaited, 10 – 15,000 attend another massive protest against new Nantes airport

On the 9th January, there were estimated to have been 20,000 people at huge protests against the planned new airport for Nantes in countryside at Notre-Dame-des-Landes. Then on 26th January, the local court confirmed that 11 families would be evicted from their homes on the ZAD (zone à défendre) within about two months. On 13th February, President Hollande declared there would be a referendum on whether the airport should be built. This has caused local concerns. But neither the date nor the exact questions, nor the scope of the consultation’s geographical area, have been settled. In response to the referendum proposal, the local campaign organised another massive demonstration (manifestation), to show the authorities the strength of feeling against the airport. Around 10,000 to 15,000 people came, from all across France. There are over 100 support committees across the country. They filled all 4 lanes of two local dual-carriageways, for many hours – in a peaceful protest, with a festival atmosphere. Two of the Heathrow 13 (spared prison on 24th February, with suspended 6 week sentences for their Heathrow runway occupation) attended the protest, showing solidarity from the London campaign. Campaigners in Turkey, against the new Istanbul airport, also sent messages of support.

Click here to view full story…


 

François Hollande announces there will be a local referendum on the contentious new airport at Notre-Dame-des-Landes

In late January, the court in Nantes ruled that the remaining people living in the “ZAD”, where the planned airport would be at Notre-Dame-des-Landes, should start to be removed after 25th March. However, now President Hollande – realising that this has become an issue of huge national significance and hours after three Green lawmakers joined his cabinet as part of a government reshuffle – has said there will be a local referendum to decide if the new airport should happen. Hollande hopes to put an end to the matter, which has dragged on for years, with elections in France in 2017. The referendum may not be popular with proponents of the airport, though some consider there is a majority in support locally. It is also a concern for opponents, who ask: who will be polled – from how far around Nantes? People from Rennes and Brittany? What will the questions be? Will the alternatives be given? However, François Hollande has said the schedule is settled: “Work must begin in October. If the answer is yes in the referendum, everyone will have to accept the airport. If its “No” we all know that it is a project that has been spearheaded by the government, the government will have to assume the consequences.” The evictions cannot proceed, now there is to be a referendum. The 11 families, including 4 farms, are given a breathing space.

Click here to view full story…

.

 

Read more »

Heathrow produces some unconvincing attempts to persuade that its air pollution from freight will be reduced

Heathrow knows it has real problems worsening local air quality, with vehicles associated with the airport adding a great deal of pollution. The Airports Commission report was particularly weak on NO2 air pollution, and ignored the emissions from Heathrow’s air cargo. Heathrow has now put out a short document attempting to convince that it is making serious improvements to local air quality. On air freight, it says it will be getting shippers to share lorry journeys. Heathrow says in 2016 it will: “• Keep pushing for greater consolidation of vehicle loads at Heathrow and aim to provide an online venue for freight operators to buy and sell empty space on their trucks by July.  • Establish a sustainable freight partnership with operators by September with the objective of reducing emissions [No clue what that actually means ?]  • Develop and publish our plans for building a call-forward cargo facility to reduce congestion, idling, and emissions of vehicles coming to Heathrow by the end of the year.”  So that does not look like much. But Heathrow is trying to persuade the government soon. The reality is that Heathrow hopes to double its volume of air freight, with a new runway – and that freight is carried in diesel vehicles, and lorries are not producing less air pollution.
.

 

Heathrow’s new tool to reduce freight emissions

16.3.2016 (Heathrow airport press release)

Heathrow has today revealed new plans for a WebPortal aimed at consolidating freight loads, and decreasing the amount of trucks and emissions on roads around the airport. Encouraging freight company partners to operate sustainably is one of ten priorities Heathrow has outlined for this year in its new Blueprint to Reduce Emissions, also launched today.

[Heathrow’s little report is “Heathrow’s blueprint for reducing emissions Our top ten actions to reduce Heathrow’s emissions in 2016 ” ]

Heathrow’s plans for a freight WebPortal have been announced during the IATA World Cargo Symposium, where Heathrow has been named a finalist in the Air Cargo Excellence Awards in recognition of its customer performance, facilities, and value of cargo offering.

Incorporating sustainability into freight is a priority for Heathrow given the impact these operations have on the airport’s local environment. Heathrow is the largest freight port by value in the UK, handling over 1.5 million tonnes of cargo a year. This activity also generates a substantive amount of vehicle movements a day in the Heathrow area for servicing, deliveries and cargo operations, along with their related emissions.

Heathrow’s proposed WebPortal would be the UK’s first geographically specific system of its kind. Subscribed members would exchange and share information about any spare capacity on their vehicles. Once a match has been found, operators could then negotiate a price for this space amongst themselves.

This Portal, along with measures like providing an off-airport distribution centre, increased monitoring of the use of local roads by freight vehicles, and tighter rules on vehicle licensing will ensure the number of freight vehicles will be maintained at similar levels to today’s in the future and that the lowest emission freight vehicles are encouraged to operate around Heathrow.

Nick Platts, Head of Cargo at Heathrow said:

“Operating a cleaner, leaner and more efficient freight operation is an essential part of delivering on our ambition to be the best airport in Europe for cargo gateway in the world. This WebPortal can deliver for all. Our cargo partners can reduce their costs, our local communities will experience less congestion and improved air quality, and Heathrow will build on its strength as an airport of choice for cargo.”

By collaborating with stakeholders across London, emissions of NOx from the airport have reduced by 16% over 5 years. Heathrow’s Blueprint for Emissions Reduction outlines the top ten actions the airport will be focussing on this year to continue building on this record and reduce emissions further. Besides Heathrow’s work with freight operators, other actions listed in the Blueprint include a new £16.2 million investment in equipment at gates to ensure aircraft don’t run their engines, as well as instituting “eco-driving” training for airside drivers to reduce emissions.

.
NOTES TO EDITORS:

Heathrow’s cargo strategy outlines the airport’s vision for cargo. Today, it will maintain being the UK & Ireland’s cargo gateway, 2020 be the preferred transatlantic gateway for Europe, 2025 one of the best in Europe, and by 2030 the best in Europe for providing a timely and predictable cargo service.

http://mediacentre.heathrow.com/pressrelease/details/81/Corporate-operational-24/6071 

Heathrow cargo


Airports Commission did not properly look at air pollution related to air freight

Transport for London said Heathrow expansion “will lead to an increase in freight movements to and from the airport, and this was not properly included in the surface access assessment undertaken by the Airports Commission.”

TfL October 2015
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-response-to-airports-commissions-final-recommendation.pdf


 

Heathrow’s (rather thin and unconvincing) leaflet entitled Heathrow’s blueprint for reducing emissions Our top ten actions to reduce Heathrow’s emissions in 2016” says, on the subject of reducing NO2 from lorries etc carrying cargo:

Drive sustainable freight operations

“Heathrow is a major freight hub and is the largest freight port by value in the UK. As a result, there is an established network of logistics companies around the airport. Each year, Heathrow handles more than 1.5m tonnes of cargo. This cargo also adds to the volume of
traffic on the road network and to local emissions.

Key partners: freight companies

In 2016, we will:
• Keep pushing for greater consolidation of vehicle loads at Heathrow and aim to provide an online venue for freight operators to buy and sell empty space on their trucks by July
• Establish a sustainable freight partnership with operators by September with the objective
of reducing emissions
• Develop and publish our plans for building a call-forward cargo facility to reduce congestion,
idling, and emissions of vehicles coming to Heathrow by the end of the year.”

,


 

Earlier:

Heathrow’s bid for a 3rd runway includes doubling air freight – with associated increase in lorries

In Heathrow’s proposal for a 3rd runway, it plans to double its cargo capacity. It hopes this will help its bid, due to the financial value of air freight. In the past, some of the air freight industry have said Heathrow ignored their needs. Heathrow is now saying that its key logistics role as a single primary air freight hub for the UK is important for the economy, for export competitiveness, and essential for British importers and exporters to enable them to access key global markets.  Some 65% of the UK’s £400bn air freight exports already travel via Heathrow, almost all as belly hold in passenger planes. The airport plans to have its freight area improved with a new cargo railhead, and better road links.  Speaking at the Runways UK conference on 2nd June, Simon Earle said local residents consulted by Heathrow were unhappy about the number of HGV lorries. Air pollution is already often in breach of air quality levels. An article by T&E bemoans the resistance to changes and to cuts in polluting emissions by the lorry manufacturers. That does not bode well for Heathrow air quality, with much higher numbers of HGV movements in future.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2014/06/heathrows-bid-for-a-3rd-runway-includes-doubling-air-freight-with-associated-increase-in-lorries/

.


 


And at about the same time as Heathrow’s air pollution proposals:

ClientEarth takes government back to court over the inadequate air quality improvement plan it produced in December

Environmental lawyers, ClientEarth, have launched a new legal challenge against the UK government due to its repeated failure to tackle illegal air pollution. In this latest round of legal action, ClientEarth has lodged papers at the High Court in London seeking judicial review and will serve papers on government lawyers shortly. As well as the UK Environment Secretary who is named as the defendant, Scottish and Welsh ministers, the Mayor of London and the DfT will also be served with papers as interested parties in the case. ClientEarth believes the government is in breach of a Supreme Court order to clean up air quality. The Supreme Court ordered DEFRA to produce new air quality plans to bring air pollution down to legal levels in the “shortest possible time”. But the the plans the government came up with, released on 17 December 2015, wouldn’t bring the UK within legal air pollution limits until 2025. The original, legally binding deadline passed in 2010. The papers lodged with the High Court ask judges to strike down those plans, order new ones and intervene to make sure the government acts. ClientEarth said: “As the government can’t be trusted to deal with toxic air pollution, we are asking the court to supervise it and make sure it is taking action.” ClientEarth are launching a fundraising campaign to help fund this work. #NO2DIRTYAIR

Click here to view full story…

DEFRA produces plan to improve air quality – Client Earth regards it as inadequate

A ruling by the Supreme Court in April 2015 required the government to produce a comprehensive plan to meet air pollution limits by December. The government has now produced this. The intention is that it has to include low emission zones, congestion charging and other economic incentives. It is thought that due to the failure to meet European limits of harmful NOx gases, which are mostly caused by diesel traffic, there are up to 9,500 premature deaths each year in London alone. Under the government’s plan, “Clean Air Zones” will be introduced – by 2020 – in areas of Birmingham, Leeds, Nottingham, Derby and Southampton where pollution is most serious. However, though vehicles like old buses, taxis, coaches and lorries have to pay a charge to enter these zones – private passenger cars will not be charged. Also newer vehicles that meet the latest emission standards will not need to pay. Client Earth, the lawyers who brought the legal case against the UK government, for breaching the EU’s Air Quality Directive, said the plan falls far short of the action necessary to comply with the Supreme Court ruling, and they will make a legal challenge to force the government to take faster action to achieve legal pollution limits. “As soon as possible,” or by 2020, is not soon enough. 

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/12/defra-produces-plan-to-improve-air-quality-client-earth-regards-it-as-inadequate/


London parents see toxic air as ‘the biggest health threat to their children’

By Nicholas Cecil (Evening Standard)
21.3.2016

Mothers revealed their fear over toxic air in London today with seven out of 10 admitting they worry about its impact on their children.

A YouGov poll found that parents in the capital now see air pollution as the biggest health threat.

The stark findings are published as the Standard launches Clean London — a series of hard-hitting reports on dirty air and ways to tackle it.

Experts now blame air pollution for a death toll of more than 9,000 a year in the capital.

The survey, commissioned by environmental lawyers ClientEarth, shows 68 per cent of London parents are worried about their children breathing in dirty air.

…… whole article at

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-parents-see-toxic-air-as-the-biggest-health-threat-to-their-children-a3208221.html?platform=hootsuite

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Heathrow expansion would exacerbate London’s housing challenge, with up to 70,000 more homes needed by 2030

A 3rd Heathrow runway would exacerbate London’s housing challenge. The Airports Commission considered between about 30,000 and 70,000 extra homes needed in the area, for the extra employees attracted to the area, by 2030.  In the recent report by the Mayor of London, he considers that there might demand for around 80,000 extra new homes by 2050, due to Heathrow with new direct, indirect and induced jobs  Most will need to be accommodated in the region. The Airports Commission said: “…an average of some 500 homes per year in each of 14 local authorities – may be challenging to deliver, …” The Mayor says: “By 2030 the number of people living in the city will grow by 1.4 million to 10 million. By 2050 this number is forecast to be about 11.3 million … .West London and the areas surrounding the airport are, however, already struggling to keep up with background growth, in the face of overheated property markets and increasingly limited land supply. …The Airports Commission believes that expansion can be accommodated without placing additional pressure on housing. Primarily, it claims this by drawing on local unemployment to fill the new jobs; however, this is not borne out by experience of similar schemes; expansion will require a variety of skills levels and will attract employees from across the London area.”
.

 

 

Heathrow expansion would exacerbate London’s housing challenge, mayor’s report says

22 March 2016

by Winnie Agbonlahor (Planning Resource)

Expanding Heathrow Airport would exacerbate London’s housing challenge, while the health risks caused by a third runway would cost the government up to £25 billion over 60 years, a new report by the mayor of London claims.

With London’s population predicted to grow to 11.3 million by 2050, London’s housing challenge would be exacerbated by a Heathrow expansion, the report says.

It said: “The Airports Commission expects an expanded Heathrow to generate an additional 80,000 new direct, indirect and induced jobs by 2050 … A significant proportion of these new employees will need to be accommodated in the region.  ( Airports Commission Nov 2014  The Commission adds: “The additional housing at the upper end of this range – which equates to an average of some 500 homes per year in each of 14 local authorities – may be challenging to deliver, especially give that many local authorities struggle to meet current housing targets.” AW comment )

“West London and the areas surrounding the airport are, however, already struggling to keep up with background growth, in the face of overheated property markets and increasingly limited land supply.”

Johnson argued that the only solution to Britain’s aviation dilemma was to pursue plans for a new hub airport to the east of the capital, away from populated areas.

He added that Heathrow’s “cramped urban location simply cannot accommodate the kind of airport this country requires to compete on the global stage and the cost to the taxpayer of necessary road and rail connections would be huge”.

…… there is more on noise, health etc ….. full article at

http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1388411/heathrow-expansion-exacerbate-londons-housing-challenge-mayors-report-says

.

.


 

The Mayor’s report, “Landing The Right Airport”  states:

“Housing and regeneration

London’s population challenge

London is growing. By 2030 the number of people living in the city will grow by 1.4 million
to 10 million. By 2050 this number is forecast to be about 11.3 million. 

This represents a huge housing challenge for the boroughs and districts of London and the
South East in accommodating this exponential growth in population.
Exacerbated by Heathrow

The Airports Commission expects an expanded Heathrow to generate an additional 80,000 new direct, indirect and induced jobs by 2050 (notwithstanding the issues with staffing
numbers raised earlier). A significant proportion of these new employees will need to be
accommodated in the region. West London and the areas surrounding the airport are, however, already struggling to keep up with background growth, in the face of overheated property markets and increasingly limited land supply.

The Airports Commission believes that expansion can be accommodated without placing additional pressure on housing. Primarily, it claims this by drawing on local unemployment to fill the new jobs; however, this is not borne out by experience of similar schemes; expansion will require a variety of skills levels and will attract employees from across the London area.”

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/landing-the-right-airport.pdf

.


Earlier:

Windsor councillor says there would be homes ‘turmoil’ if Heathrow is expanded

A Windsor councillor has said that creating up to 70,800 homes if Heathrow expansion plans go ahead would cause “absolute turmoil.”   He said a 3rd runway north-west of the airport could create the need to use greenbelt land for housing.  However, almost unbelievably, a Heathrow spokesman said: “There will be little or no need for additional house-building over and above current local authority plans.”  The Airports Commission, said Heathrow expansion would create between 47,400 and 112,400 jobs by 2030, which in turn would require an extra 29,800 to 70,800 homes to be created in the surrounding area, including Windsor, Slough and London boroughs.  There will be a public meeting in  Windsor to discuss the Heathrow plans, before the consultation ends on 3rd February. Windsor already has an enormous housing problem in the area, and are having go consider building on green belt land (which is locally very unpopular), even with no new runway.   And there is increasing urbanisation …”The impact will be felt across the Thames Valley – it’s commercial greed gone mad.”

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/01/windsor-councillor-says-there-would-be-homes-turmoil-if-heathrow-is-expanded/

.


 

Airports Commission estimates new homes needed for new runway – 18,400 at Gatwick; 70,800 at Heathrow (maybe more)

The Airports Commission estimates that a 3rd Heathrow runway could require up to 70,800 homes to be built locally to support the additional jobs created by the development.  The Commission estimates a Gatwick 2nd  runway could require up to 18,400 homes to be delivered across 14 local authorities, and it said this could be done up to 2030, with “land availability unlikely to be affected by green belt issues”.  (Estimate of 30,000 – 45,000 homes by W Sussex County Council + Gatwick Diamond). More houses would be needed for Heathrow expansion than Gatwick expansion, due to more additional business activity following a runway at Heathrow than at Gatwick, and more from the airport’s north-west runway plan (up to 70,800), than the Heathrow Hub idea of extending the northern runway (up to 60,600).  The Commission acknowledges that these upper limits may present challenges for local authorities, outlining that “many… already struggle to meet housing targets”. The only relief would be that the homes could be delivered over a number of years, and the pain would be shared between many authorities. However, Green Belt would be seriously threatened – not to mention urban cramming and loss of village character.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2014/11/airports-commission-estimates-new-homes-needed-for-new-runway-18400-at-gatwick-70800-at-heathrow-maybe-more/

 


 

Heathrow runway would mean loss of at least 431 hectares of Green Belt – and more in future

The CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) believes the Airports Commission’s terms of reference were flawed, and therefore so is its recommendation of a Heathrow runway. Looking at the Heathrow north west runway option, CPRE say it would  destroy up to 694 hectares of Green Belt (one  AC report says 694, another says 431 hectares).  It would destroy 60 hectares of woodland. The runway would also wreck tranquillity in parks and gardens with impacts likely to spread into the Chilterns AONB. It would mean destroying 783 homes, and require up to 70,800 new homes to be built by 2030.  In addition, the Commission said in November 2014: “The land take associated with the additional housing demand may require some de-designation of areas of the Green Belt, although the London Plan’s encouragement of high density housing and brownfield redevelopment may reduce this.”  More houses may need to be built after 2030, and this would be in an area that already has acute housing pressure. CPRE considered that the formation of the Airports Commission, and its terms of reference, prevented a more ambitious regional rebalancing strategy. Instead the UK needs to boost the northern regions, avoid further over-heating the South East and make the most of the ample spare capacity in other airports.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/10/heathrow-runway-would-mean-loss-of-at-least-431-hectares-of-green-belt-and-more-in-future/

.

.

 

 

Read more »

At London City Airport Inquiry, HACAN East calls for noise insulation to match the best in Europe

HACAN East, the resident-led group opposing expansion of London City Airport called for insulation offered by City Airport to match the best in Europe. The call came during the opening week of the Public Inquiry into the airport’s expansion plans. John Stewart, Chair of HACAN East, said: “If expansion goes ahead the number of people overflown by City Airport planes will be higher than that of any airport in the UK, other than Heathrow and Manchester. Airports like Frankfurt or Charles de Gaulle in Paris are twice as generous with the insulation schemes offered to residents as London City.”  City Airport wants to enlarge its infrastructure to allow use by larger aircraft. Newham Council gave permission for the airport to expand in February 2015, but this was overturned by Boris Johnson on noise grounds the following month. The airport appealed against his decision. The result is this public inquiry. Lawyers for the Mayor argued in the opening week of the Inquiry that City Airport should compensate more people than it is prepared to do, if its expansion is allowed.  HACAN East said they are concerned about the residents and communities outside the 57LAeq 16hr contour. Many of these people experience significant aircraft noise, but there is nothing in the airport’s application to deal with those impacts.
.

City Airport Public Inquiry: HACAN East calls for insulation to match the best in Europe

March 22, 2016 (HACAN East press release)

 

HACAN East, the resident-led group opposing expansion of London City Airport called for insulation offered by City Airport to match the best in Europe. The call came during the opening week of the Public Inquiry into the airport’s expansion plans.

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN East, said: “We are calling for London City Airport to offer compensation for residents that matches the levels offered by the best airports in Europe. If expansion goes ahead the number of people overflown by City Airport planes will be higher than that of any airport in the UK, other than Heathrow and Manchester. Airports like Frankfurt or Charles de Gaulle in Paris are twice as generous with the insulation schemes offered to residents as London City.”

City Airport wants to enlarge the airport to allow larger aircraft to use it. Newham Council, the planning authority, gave permission for the airport to expand in February 2015, but this was overturned by Boris Johnson, London’s mayor, on noise grounds the following month. The airport appealed against the Mayor’s decision. The result is this public inquiry.

Lawyers for the Mayor argued in the opening week of the Inquiry that City Airport should compensate more people than it is prepared to do in the event of expansion happening.

HACAN East remains firmly opposed to the expansion.

The Inquiry is expected to last until April 7.

http://hacaneast.org.uk/news/

.


More information about the Inquiry can be found at

http://lcy-appeal.persona-pi.com/index


Below are HACAN East’s submissions of evidence to the Inquiry.

1. HACAN East’s opening statement

2. Evidence of John Stewart

3. Evidence of Alan Haughton 

.


In the Summary of HACAN East’s evidence, John Stewart says on noise:

Noise

1.1 We support the Mayor’s case that the single mode assessment should be used to delineate the noise contours for London City Airport’s Sound Insulation Scheme (SIS). We don’t want to duplicate evidence so we will leave the Mayor’s team to argue that case in detail.

1.2 The focus of our case will be on the people and communities outside the 57LAeq 16hr contour many of whom experience significant aircraft noise.

1.3 LCY has completed work on assessing the numbers outside that contour and the impact of the noise on those people. They have been generous in sharing that information with us and it is not part of our case that the work has not been undertaken.

1.4 Our case is that, having completed the work and recognized the impacts, there is nothing in their application to deal with those impacts. We will argue that this is contrary to the Government’s Aviation Policy Framework, the Airport Commission’s Final Report and the London Plan.

1.5 First though, it is worth noting that we are not talking about an insignificant numbers of people. LCY has indicated that, if expansion is given the go-ahead, in 2020 76,150 people will be within the 57LAeq contour. (There would 69,500 without the development, compared to 25,000 in 2014). We recognize that much of this growth is to do with new housing in the area but the stark fact is these numbers mean that by 2020 London City Airport could impact more people than any other airport in the UK except at Heathrow and Manchester.

1.6 The numbers impacted outside the 57 decibel contour will of course be even higher. And – our central point – these people are being neglected.

……. (and it continues) ….

HACAN East also says:

 

1.16 I now turn to the critical London Plan. I will spend a bit more time on this as you have indicated that this will be central to your thinking.

1.17 The London Plan is clear about the importance of noise when aviation decisions are made.

1.18 Section 6.6C: “the aviation industry should…..take full account of environmental impacts when making decisions on patterns of aircraft operation”.

1.19 Section 6.6D: “Development proposals affecting airport operations or patterns of air traffic (particularly those involving increases in the number of aircraft movements) should: give a high priority to sustainability and take full account of environmental impacts (particularly noise and air quality).”

1.20 Section 7.15B: “Development proposals should seek to manage noise by: a) avoiding significant adverse noise impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; b) mitigating and minimising the existing and potential adverse impacts of noise on, from, within, as a result of, or in the vicinity of new development without placing unreasonable restrictions on development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens on existing businesses; f) having particular regard to the impact of aviation noise on noise sensitive development;

1.21 It concludes in 7.52 of the supporting text: “The management of noise is about encouraging the right acoustic environment in the right place at the right time – to promote good health and a good quality of life within the wider context of achieving sustainable development. It is important that noise management is considered as early as possible in the planning process, and as an integral part of development proposals. In certain circumstances it can also mean preventing unacceptable adverse effects from occurring.”

1.22 We argue LCY’s proposals are contrary to the London Plan because they did not “take full account of environmental impacts” (6.6C); nor did they “take full account of environmental impacts (particularly noise and air quality) (6.6D); nor did they seek to mitigate and minimise “the existing and potential adverse impacts of noise on, from, within, as a result of, or in the vicinity of new development.” (7.15B). A key reason for these failures is the failure of their plans to produce measures to deal with the impact on communities outside the 57 LAeq contour. We conclude, therefore that LCY’s plans are contrary to the London Plan.

from Evidence of John Stewart

.

.


 

See also:

London City Airport appeal on expansion starts 15th March – blog by Alan on why Hacan East are fighting for the local communities

Newham Council granted planning approval in February for London City Airport’s plans for expansion, allowing an increase in the number of flights from 70,000 per year to 111,000 and almost double the number of passengers, up to 6 million a year by 2023. In March 2015 Boris Johnson refused the plans, on noise grounds. The airport appealed, and the hearing starts on 15th March. Alan Haughton, from the local campaign group Hacan East will be speaking at the appeal, against the airport’s plans, representing the interests of the local community. Alan has worked for many years, to oppose the high handed manner in which the airport (owned till very recently by GIP, as a means to make quick, huge, profit) rides roughshod over the interests of local people. In a blog, Alan explains why he and Hacan East have worked so hard, unpaid, to give their community a voice. Alan says: “What we see happening at London City Airport is happening across London. Developers and businesses, working closely with Local Councils, are forcing their will on Communities for profit. … We attend the Planning Enquiry with no QC, no legal representation, no ‘experts’. We can’t afford those. … For me though, it’s about justice, about community, about local residents and community groups standing together to defend our local environment.”

Click here to view full story…

 

 

 

Read more »

Report by Mayor of London on runway issue: Boris pushes strongly for 4-runway hub in Thames estuary (or Stansted)

Boris Johnson, due to leave office as Mayor of London in early May, has delivered a blistering attack on a 3rd Heathrow runway – and put forward, again, his vision of a huge 4-runway hub airport in the inner Thames Estuary (“Boris Island”). The Airports Commission’s imperfect report came down definitively backing a Heathrow runway, and ruled out the estuary option for a range of geographical, cost and environmental reasons. Boris says, in a report entitled “Landing The Right Airport“, that a four-runway airport east of London is the only way to secure enough capacity. His other option is Stansted. He believes these sites  “away from populated areas” were the “only credible solution”. Daniel Moylan, Boris’s aviation adviser, said the inner Thames estuary airport would cost £20bn to £25bn – with an extra £25bn required to building road and rail connections. He said the 3rd Heathrow runway is estimated to cost  £18.6bn, not taking into account the cost of surface access and measures to stop congestion, which the new report claims could be as high as £20bn. The report concludes:  “As part of its next phase of work, it is incumbent on Government to revisit the entire Airports Commission process and consider a full range of credible options – including alternative hub locations. A failure to do so will undermine any attempt to bring forward a National Policy Statement and leave a decision vulnerable to legal challenge.
.

 

 

Boris Johnson refloats Thames Estuary airport plan

20.3.2016 (BBC)


Boris Johnson wants an airport hub built in the Thames Estuary or Stansted to be expanded

Boris Johnson has refloated the idea of an island airport as an alternative to a third runway at Heathrow.

Plans to create a hub airport in the Thames Estuary were rejected by the Airports Commission (AC) in 2014.

In a report entitled Landing The Right Airport, the mayor says a four-runway airport east of London is the only way to secure enough capacity.

Opponents previously described “Boris Island” as “financially, geographically and environmentally wrong”.

‘Only credible solution’

“If we are to secure the connectivity we need to support our future growth and prosperity and do so without dire impacts on public health – then we must do better than Heathrow,” Mr Johnson said.

Building an airport at one of two locations in the Thames Estuary or expanding Stansted in Essex “away from populated areas” was the “only credible solution”, according to the Mayor of London.

In his forward to the 78-page document, he added: “Each could accommodate the four-runway hub that London and the UK needs.

“Our analysis predicts that they would offer around double the number of long haul and domestic destinations served by Heathrow today, while exposing 95% fewer people to significant aircraft noise.

“A four-runway hub to the east of London, rather than jarring with the growth of London will support it, catalysing regeneration and housing to the east.”

In July, the AC recommended building a new runway at Heathrow rather than providing a second runway at Gatwick.

But it did not completely rule out another runway at Gatwick or doubling an existing runway at Heathrow.

The government has delayed its decision on airport expansion in the South East until the summer at the earliest, saying more work needed to be done on the potential environmental impact.

In September 2014, Sir Howard Davies, chairman of the commission, said the cost, economic disruption and environmental issues made the Thames Estuary airport plan unviable.

Daniel Moylan, aviation adviser to Mr Johnson, said a hub airport to the east of London would cost £20bn to £25bn – with an extra £25bn required to building road and rail connections.

Constructing a third runway at Heathrow is estimated to cost £18.6bn, but Mr Moylan said that did not take into account the amount of money needed on surface access and measures to stop congestion, which the new report claims could be as high as £20bn.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35855676

.


 

The report’s conclusion says:

Conclusion and next steps

“It is clear from the Airports Commission evidence presented that Heathrow expansion is wrong for the economy and wrong for the environment. It neither provides the connectivity the UK needs, nor is it able to avoid dire impacts on public health, whether the hundreds of thousands exposed to significant aircraft noise, or the risk to legal limits for NO2. It places considerable pressure on already congested surface access networks, which would require significant interventions if they are to function effectively.

Gatwick expansion is at best a stop gap. Its environmental impacts are lower, but not serving as a hub, its connectivity is more limited and it will not offer the wide range of long haul routes that a hub can offer. It also requires more surface access capacity if extra demand is to be accommodated on already crowded routes.

If we are to secure the connectivity that meets the UK’s long-term economic need, then the only option is a four-runway hub. The Inner Thames Estuary and Stansted, located to the east of London, away from densely populated areas, are each able to deliver that connectivity whilst absolutely minimising the local noise and air quality pollution impacts. A mixture of new, planned and existing surface access infrastructure would ensure fast, reliable access and help unlock key development and regeneration sites along the corridor.

In December 2015, the Government rightly recognised that it did not have robust evidence to be in a position to take forward expansion of Heathrow. This is no surprise: Heathrow expansion remains environmentally and politically undeliverable. As part of its next phase of work, it is incumbent on Government to revisit the entire Airports Commission process and consider a full range of credible options – including alternative hub locations. A failure to do so will undermine any attempt to bring forward a National Policy Statement and leave a decision vulnerable to legal challenge.

The Government has a critical responsibility: in making a decision, it will set the parameters for the UK’s ability to export goods and services and attract investment and tourism for decades to come. No longer should we be detained by a solution which does not even answer the basic question, the need for a step-change in connectivity, not to mention its disastrous consequences for public health. We need a hub airport that can fully connect the UK to the world, support UK growth and prosperity and deliver benefits for generations to come.”

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/landing-the-right-airport.pdf


 

The Mayor of London’s website says:

The Mayor proposed three potential sites for locating a new four-runway hub, each to the east of London, away from heavily populated areas:

  • Inner Thames Estuary (Isle of Grain)
  • Outer Thames Estuary
  • Stansted

Find out more about the relative merits of these five expansion options in the ‘Landing the right airport’ report on the Aviation page in Publications & reports.

On that page you can also read the full range of Mayoral submissions as well as a number of accompanying detailed technical reports.

And  Take our survey to have your say on the airport proposals.

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/the-case-for-a-new-hub-airport?intcmp=22957

.


Mayor reveals the astonishing cost to public health of Heathrow

20 March 2016 (Mayor of London press release)

A new report published by the Mayor of London has revealed the astonishing cost to the health of Londoners of a third runway at Heathrow. Despite the owners’ bold claims about the potential of improved technology and quieter engines, building a new runway would fail to curtail the effect of the din of jet engines on local people. In fact it would unnecessarily expose 124 more schools and 43,000 school children to a level of aircraft noise proven to affect their level of reading and memory, than if the airport were to remain with two runways.

The report also reveals that the long term health effects of exposure to the extra noise caused by a third runway would be valued at a staggering £20 to 25bn over 60 years.

Today (20 March) the Mayor said that there was no silver bullet for Heathrow’s noise nightmare and that the only credible solution to Britain’s aviation dilemma was to pursue plans for a new hub airport to the east of the capital, away from populated areas.

In his new report: ‘Landing the right airport’, the Mayor’s team set out the overwhelming case against the expansion of Heathrow – and the logic behind building a four-runway hub to the east of London. Key points made included:

· All sides agree, at least half a million people will be exposed to a significant level of noise from a third runway – more than the five main rival European airports combined. And if flight routing is not optimised then that figure reaches nearer one million people.

· An analysis of evidence provided by the Airports Commission reveals that on a like-for-like basis a third runway would expose 124 more schools and 43,200 more schoolchildren to an unacceptable level of noise compared to no expansion.

· Guidance published by the Department for Transport in December has allowed the Mayor’s team to calculate the health impact of an expanded Heathrow as costing £20 to £25bn over 60 years. That reflects the increased risk of heart attack, stroke, dementia and other disorders shown to be linked to prolonged exposure to aircraft noise.

· A third runway will mean more than double the number of surface access journeys to and from the airport – and in order to keep the numbers on the road manageable, the Commission’s own consultants propose that an airport access charge of £20 to £40 for every car/taxi could be needed. That would in turn mean the number of public transport journeys to and from the airport would jump from around 80,000 a day now to over 300,000 a day. That scale of demand could not be accommodated without major unbudgeted investment in rail infrastructure.

· An expansion at Heathrow would require the airport to triple its debt and equity levels. That would be an unprecedented level of debt for a private airport and the Government would almost certainly need to step in to secure their funding.

· The Airports Commission’s own data reveals a three-runway Heathrow would be full in 2030 and subject to the same problems of congestion and delays that the airport faces today – and with little improvement in connectivity that UK business so clearly needs.

· Only a four-runway hub airport in one of several potential locations to the east of London has any chance of being built and delivering the increase in connectivity the UK requires. A hub to the east of London would spur regeneration and new housing, contribute £92bn to the UK economy by 2050 and support 336,000 jobs around the country.

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said: “There is no silver bullet for the noise nightmare of a third runway at Heathrow and any approval of expansion would clearly result in decades of legal challenges. Its cramped urban location simply cannot accommodate the kind of airport this country requires to compete on the global stage and the cost to the taxpayer of necessary road and rail connections would be huge, however well disguised. That means the Government has a bold decision to make – but not a difficult one. They must surely finally recognise that the only long term vision that sustains our economy and safeguards our health is to build a four runway hub airport at the Thames Estuary or Stansted.”

Today’s report also made it clear that a second runway at Gatwick would not be the answer to the UK’s aviation problems. It has already benefited from the constraints at Heathrow and offers useful links to overseas hubs and holiday destinations. But even the Airports Commission belatedly recognised that the delivery of a hub airport must be the aim. A second runway at Gatwick would not give us that hub.

In December 2015 the Government rightly recognised that it did not have the evidence to be able to justify an expansion of Heathrow. The Mayor is now calling on them to consider the full range of credible alternatives. They will need to face down the vested interests who are set on an expansion of Heathrow that is not in the national interest. But he is clear that in order to secure the connectivity needed to support future growth and prosperity, and without a dire impact on public health, we must do better than Heathrow.

Notes to editors

· The ‘Landing the right airport’ report is available at: www.tfl.gov.uk/aviation

· Heathrow Airport is owned by Alinda Capital Partners (United States), Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (via Britannia Airport Partners) (Canada), CIC International (via Stable Investment Corporation) (China), Ferrovial Group (Spain), GIC Special Investments (via Baker Street Investment) (Singapore), Qatar Holdings (Qatar) and the Universities Superannuation Scheme (UK).

· A two runway Heathrow in 2050, with potential future technology improvements and flight routing optimisation would expose 272 schools to an excess level of noise [TfL’s “Alternative Future Baseline]. A three runway Heathrow in 2050, with potential future technology improvements and flight routing optimisation would expose 396 schools to an excess level of noise [Commission’s “Minimise Total”). Background on the level of aircraft noise proven to affect pupils level of reading and memory available from: Clark C, Stansfeld SA, Head J, 2010, The long-term effects of aircraft noise exposure on children’s cognition: Findings from the UK RANCH follow-up study.

· The DfT ‘WebTAG’ valuation of noise, which was used to calculate a cost of £20 to 25bn over 60 years, is intended to capture the cost imposed on society by the public health impacts of noise pollution resulting from a transport scheme. It includes the loss of amenity (due to sleep disturbance and annoyance) and worsening health (heart attacks, stroke and dementia) – based on perceived willingness to pay for increased longevity and quality of life.

https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/astonishing-cost-to-public-health-of-heathrow

Read more »

Mayor reveals cost to public health from noise due to Heathrow 3rd runway would be £20 – 25 bn over 60 years

A new report “Landing The Right Airport” published by the Mayor of London and TfL has revealed that the long term health effects of exposure to the extra noise – due to a 3rd Heathrow runway – would be valued at a staggering £20 to 25 billion over 60 years. The figure is derived using methodology from the WHO, which values each lost year of healthy life at £60,000. That reflects the increased risk of heart attack, stroke, dementia and other disorders shown to be linked to prolonged exposure to aircraft noise. TfL calculate that while there are now about 766,000 people affected by an “annoying” level of noise from Heathrow, if the speculative improvements in noise exposure proposed by the Airports Commission do not actually happen, there could be as many as 986,600 affected. There could also be between 98,900 and 277,100 people newly affected by plane noise for the first time. The runway would also expose 124 more schools and 43,000 school children to a level of aircraft noise proven to be damaging to learning. TfL also says the number of daily journeys to Heathrow by passengers and staff is expected to rise from 200,000 to 430,000 by 2050. “At some locations, non-airport passengers will be unable to join rail services because of crowding exacerbated by passengers travelling with luggage towards central London.” 
.

 

 

Mayor reveals the astonishing cost to public health of Heathrow

20 March 2016 (Mayor of London press release)

A new report “Landing The Right Airport” published by the Mayor of London has revealed the astonishing cost to the health of Londoners of a third runway at Heathrow. Despite the owners’ bold claims about the potential of improved technology and quieter engines, building a new runway would fail to curtail the effect of the din of jet engines on local people. In fact it would unnecessarily expose 124 more schools and 43,000 school children to a level of aircraft noise proven to affect their level of reading and memory, than if the airport were to remain with two runways.

The report also reveals that the long term health effects of exposure to the extra noise caused by a third runway would be valued at a staggering £20 to 25bn over 60 years.

Today (20 March) the Mayor said that there was no silver bullet for Heathrow’s noise nightmare and that the only credible solution to Britain’s aviation dilemma was to pursue plans for a new hub airport to the east of the capital, away from populated areas.

In his new report: ‘Landing the right airport’, the Mayor’s team set out the overwhelming case against the expansion of Heathrow – and the logic behind building a four-runway hub to the east of London. Key points made included:

· All sides agree, at least half a million people will be exposed to a significant level of noise from a third runway – more than the five main rival European airports combined. And if flight routing is not optimised then that figure reaches nearer one million people.

· An analysis of evidence provided by the Airports Commission reveals that on a like-for-like basis a third runway would expose 124 more schools and 43,200 more schoolchildren to an unacceptable level of noise compared to no expansion.

· Guidance published by the Department for Transport in December has allowed the Mayor’s team to calculate the health impact of an expanded Heathrow as costing £20 to £25bn over 60 years. That reflects the increased risk of heart attack, stroke, dementia and other disorders shown to be linked to prolonged exposure to aircraft noise.

· A third runway will mean more than double the number of surface access journeys to and from the airport – and in order to keep the numbers on the road manageable, the Commission’s own consultants propose that an airport access charge of £20 to £40 for every car/taxi could be needed. That would in turn mean the number of public transport journeys to and from the airport would jump from around 80,000 a day now to over 300,000 a day. That scale of demand could not be accommodated without major unbudgeted investment in rail infrastructure.

· An expansion at Heathrow would require the airport to triple its debt and equity levels. That would be an unprecedented level of debt for a private airport and the Government would almost certainly need to step in to secure their funding.

· The Airports Commission’s own data reveals a three-runway Heathrow would be full in 2030 and subject to the same problems of congestion and delays that the airport faces today – and with little improvement in connectivity that UK business so clearly needs.

· Only a four-runway hub airport in one of several potential locations to the east of London has any chance of being built and delivering the increase in connectivity the UK requires. A hub to the east of London would spur regeneration and new housing, contribute £92bn to the UK economy by 2050 and support 336,000 jobs around the country.

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said: “There is no silver bullet for the noise nightmare of a third runway at Heathrow and any approval of expansion would clearly result in decades of legal challenges. Its cramped urban location simply cannot accommodate the kind of airport this country requires to compete on the global stage and the cost to the taxpayer of necessary road and rail connections would be huge, however well disguised. That means the Government has a bold decision to make – but not a difficult one. They must surely finally recognise that the only long term vision that sustains our economy and safeguards our health is to build a four runway hub airport at the Thames Estuary or Stansted.”

Today’s report also made it clear that a second runway at Gatwick would not be the answer to the UK’s aviation problems. It has already benefited from the constraints at Heathrow and offers useful links to overseas hubs and holiday destinations. But even the Airports Commission belatedly recognised that the delivery of a hub airport must be the aim. A second runway at Gatwick would not give us that hub.

In December 2015 the Government rightly recognised that it did not have the evidence to be able to justify an expansion of Heathrow. The Mayor is now calling on them to consider the full range of credible alternatives. They will need to face down the vested interests who are set on an expansion of Heathrow that is not in the national interest. But he is clear that in order to secure the connectivity needed to support future growth and prosperity, and without a dire impact on public health, we must do better than Heathrow.

Notes to editors

· The ‘Landing the right airport’ report is available at: www.tfl.gov.uk/aviation

“Landing The Right Airport”

· Heathrow Airport is owned by Alinda Capital Partners (United States), Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (via Britannia Airport Partners) (Canada), CIC International (via Stable Investment Corporation) (China), Ferrovial Group (Spain), GIC Special Investments (via Baker Street Investment) (Singapore), Qatar Holdings (Qatar) and the Universities Superannuation Scheme (UK).

· A two runway Heathrow in 2050, with potential future technology improvements and flight routing optimisation would expose 272 schools to an excess level of noise [TfL’s “Alternative Future Baseline]. A three runway Heathrow in 2050, with potential future technology improvements and flight routing optimisation would expose 396 schools to an excess level of noise [Commission’s “Minimise Total”). Background on the level of aircraft noise proven to affect pupils level of reading and memory available from: Clark C, Stansfeld SA, Head J, 2010, The long-term effects of aircraft noise exposure on children’s cognition: Findings from the UK RANCH follow-up study.

· The DfT ‘WebTAG’ valuation of noise, which was used to calculate a cost of £20 to 25bn over 60 years, is intended to capture the cost imposed on society by the public health impacts of noise pollution resulting from a transport scheme. It includes the loss of amenity (due to sleep disturbance and annoyance) and worsening health (heart attacks, stroke and dementia) – based on perceived willingness to pay for increased longevity and quality of life.

https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/astonishing-cost-to-public-health-of-heathrow


 

Boris warns of £25bn health threat from bigger Heathrow

Mark Hookham, Transport Correspondent

 20 March 2016

THE human cost of building a third runway at Heathrow will be up to £25bn, claims Boris Johnson.

Using methodology from the World Health Organisation (WHO), which values each lost year of healthy life at £60,000, the outgoing London mayor claims the financial impact of inc­reased rates of heart attack, stroke, dementia and other disorders linked to air­craft noise will be “colossal”.

In a report released today, Johnson warns expansion at Heathrow would cause “dire public health impacts” and urges the government to “face down vested interests” that support the £18.6bn scheme.

It marks a last-ditch attempt by Johnson to derail the project before he leaves office in May after eight years at City Hall.

 

…………………..

Johnson claims the Commission, which was chaired by Sir Howard Davies, “failed to grasp” the scale of rail improvements required for an expanded Heathrow. The number of daily journeys to the airport by passengers and staff is expected to rise from 200,000 to 430,000 by 2050.

“At some locations, non-airport passengers will be unable to join rail services because of crowding exacerbated by passengers travelling with luggage towards central London,” says the report.

A Heathrow spokeswoman said the airport’s expansion plans meant “fewer people would be impacted by aircraft noise” and “more predictable respite” for residents.

Full Sunday Times article at

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Health/article1679912.ece

.

.

Read more »

Only airline backing a 2nd Gatwick runway remains Norwegian, for its own commercial reasons

Gatwick is struggling to get support for its runway. Its page listing supporters of a 2nd Gatwick runway is thin. The section of airports and airlines backing its runway is quite glaringly thin.  They have support from Birmingham airport (for which a Heathrow 3rd runway would be a intense competition); support from GIP-owned Edinburgh airport – no surprise there; and support from Norwegian, a low cost airline, which is the 3rd largest using Gatwick. The two largest airlines at Gatwick, easyJet and BA, have both said they do not support a 2nd runway, and are not prepared to pay the extra charges. easyJet backs a Heathrow runway. In December 2015 Willie Walsh said: …”there’s no business case for expanding [Gatwick]. I’m not knocking Gatwick — it’s a good airport and British Airways operates many flights there. However, very few airlines support the proposal, and no one would move there while Heathrow remains open.” In October 2014 he said:  “I’m not going to support anything that sees our charges at Gatwick or Heathrow rise.” But now Bjorn Kjos, CEO of Norwegian, has said he will bring more planes to Gatwick; 50 Boeing 787 Dreamliners and 100 short-haul aircraft, if Gatwick gets a new runway.  It is scarcely news.  No comment in favour of a 2nd runway has been made by Thomson Airways, Gatwick’s 4th largest airline.
.

 

 

Gatwick Airport’s website has a page showing organisations etc that, it says, support its 2nd runway bid.

Under airports and airlines is it a bit thin.  The only supporters are:

AIRPORTS AND AIRLINES SUPPORT

  • BIRMINGHAM AIRPORT CEO PAUL KEHOE: “Growth at Gatwick will support demand for greater connectivity, improving value for passengers flying from the South East and supporting the continued growth of our regions.” [Birmingham Airport does not want a Heathrow runway, as it would take trade away from Birmingham, as too close].
  • EDINBURGH AIRPORT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GORDON DEWAR SAID: “It is essential for the United Kingdom that airports policy puts the needs of passengers at its heart, and is designed in the best interests of the country as a whole. Edinburgh Airport believes that the plans being worked on by Gatwick represent the most realistic and deliverable proposals in terms of providing short, medium and long-term capacity for growth.”  (Edinburgh Airport is owned, as is Gatwick, by GIP. So scarcely a surprise that they are in support !  How could they not be ?]
  • BJØRN KJOS, CEO OF NORWEGIAN AIR: “To meet the demands of all passengers in the future, and ensure an excellent choice of routes and fares, a new runway must be built at Gatwick.”   [The only main airline using Gatwick that is keen on helping it get a runway, for its own financial and growth reasons]. 

 

Airline pledges 150 new planes if Gatwick gets second runway

17 March 2016 (Mid Sussex Times)

Norwegian will base 50 Boeing 787 Dreamliners and 100 short-haul aircraft at Gatwick Airport if its second runway bid goes ahead.

Norwegian CEO Bjorn Kjos made the announcement and ‘strongly’ backed Gatwick’s expansion bid at The Aviation Club today (March 17).

He said: “This isn’t just for selfish commercial reasons  [ !!! ??? ] – in my view Gatwick is the only choice that will actually deliver what the whole industry needs.

“Clearly Heathrow is a world-class airport but when we look at how the industry is changing and what it needs in the future – lower landing charges and more capacity for low-cost growth, greater competition, more point-to-point travel – it is clear that Gatwick is the best choice.” [The UK does not necessarily need to do what is most convenient for his part of the industry. AW comment].

Stewart Wingate, Gatwick CEO said: “This is by far the most significant and positive intervention by an airline in the expansion debate to date. [Maybe because it is the only one?  Both EasyJet and BA say they will not pay for a runway, and will not accept the necessary higher charges.  AW comment]

“Norwegian’s ambitious plans will continue the low cost long haul revolution for UK passengers delivering significantly cheaper long haul fares and more choice for generations to come. [And does Norwegian know about the extra charges that will be needed?  AW comment]

“Norwegian recognises that Gatwick expansion can actually happen and would deliver a step change in capacity at a price everyone can afford.

“The UK must realise the potential of expansion and unlock the full benefits of competition by choosing a second runway at Gatwick.”

Norwegian is Gatwick’s third largest airline and currently has more than 260 new aircraft on order including 30 Dreamliners.

A Gatwick spokesman said: “This new fleet would allow Norwegian to continue the low cost long haul revolution – which has already resulted in new services from Gatwick to New York, Los Angeles, Fort Lauderdale, Oakland (San Francisco), and Boston – by reaching destinations in more established and emerging markets.

“The larger fleet would also see Gatwick linking even more strongly to the nations and regions of the UK.”

http://www.midsussextimes.co.uk/news/local/airline-pledges-150-new-planes-if-gatwick-gets-second-runway-1-7283007

.


 

Norwegian pledges 50 long-haul Boeing 787 Dreamliners for Gatwick if second runway is built

18.3.2016 (Evening Standard)

Low-cost airline Norwegian has pledged to locate 50 long-haul Boeing 787 Dreamliners at Gatwick if a second runway is built at the airport.

It also announced plans to base 100 short-haul planes at the West Sussex airport following expansion, meaning the total number of new aircraft would be 150.

The Government is currently considering whether to back the building of a second runway at Gatwick or the expansion of Heathrow.

Norwegian’s chief executive, Bjorn Kjos, said his airline would significantly expand its operation at an expanded Gatwick.

“We can contribute to putting 50 Dreamliners into there easy,” he told the audience at the Aviation Club in central London.

“I’ve looked into it. It’s not something I’ve pulled out of a hat.”

Mr Kjos explained that he was supporting Gatwick over Heathrow because he predicted that holidaymakers would make up a higher proportion of fliers in the future.

“The reason why we are for Gatwick is because the growth in the industry will not be business people, it will be the leisure market,” he said.

“Gatwick has the network to fly to every corner of Europe. Not all the airports have that.

“This is the reason why I really hope it will get a second runway so we can add all these aircraft into Gatwick.

“It will create thousands and thousands of jobs in this region.” [ ???? ]

Mr Kjos said aviation capacity should be expanded in “the cheapest possible way”.  [Meaning the airport not paying any of the additional costs that a runway would necessitate, and leaving those costs to the taxpayer?  AW comment]

The Davies Commission recommended last July that a third runway should be built at Heathrow, at a cost of £18.6 billion.

But the Government said in December that it is also considering a second runway at Gatwick, which would cost £9.3 billion.

Mr Kjos also favours Gatwick because it has lower landing charges and he believes a new runway can be built there within a decade.

Gatwick chief executive Stewart Wingate described his comments as “the most significant and positive intervention by an airline in the expansion debate”.

Figures released by the airport show that Norwegian currently has eight Dreamliners operating from Gatwick.

The airline flies to a number of short and long-haul destinations from the airport, including US routes to New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Fort Lauderdale.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/norwegian-pledges-50-longhaul-boeing-787-dreamliners-for-gatwick-if-second-runway-is-built-a3206251.html

.

.


 

See earlier:

EasyJet

Gatwick Airport’s biggest airline easyJet supports new runway at Heathrow

January 30, 2015 (Crawley News)

BACKING HEATHROW: easyJet has announced it does not want Gatwick Airport to get a new runway

GATWICK AIrport’s biggest airline easyJet has announced it is in support of a new runway being built at Heathrow.

The budget airline’s chief executive has written to the Airports Commission as part of a public consultation into whether expansion should take place at Gatwick or at Heathrow.

easyJet has four bases in the UK, with its biggest at Gatwick Airport which wants to get a second runway.

In the submission Carolyn McCall, easyJet’s chief executive officer, said: “Heathrow is in the best interests of passengers as it has the greatest demand.
“It is clear that long haul airlines want to expand at Heathrow and if they can’t, they will do so not at Gatwick but at other airports such as Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt.

“Heathrow does not currently have low cost, short haul airlines but an expanded Heathrow would allow airlines like easyJet to operate there – providing more competition which will mean new routes, more services and lower fares.

“easyJet’s costs are on average 40% lower than legacy airlines and so we expect to be able to more than offset the increase in airport charges. By comparison, the Gatwick proposal requires a significant increase in airport charges. This would inevitably lead to higher fares for Gatwick’s passengers, the vast majority of whom are flying for leisure.

“Gatwick is a much improved airport under its new owners and management team and easyJet is committed to continuing to grow our operations there. However, there is no evidence that passenger demand at Gatwick, and therefore its range of airlines and their networks, will be significantly expanded with an additional runway.

“Gatwick slots have been and are still readily available now which would allow long haul airlines to move to or expand at Gatwick. History shows that there is little appetite to do so and, in fact, many have left the airport.”

easyJet started flying from Gatwick in 1999 and now has 57 aircraft based there, operating on more than 105 routes.The airline has around 1400 cabin crew and 700 pilots operating from the airport.

http://www.crawleynews.co.uk/Gatwick-Airport-s-biggest-airline-easyJet/story-25949729-detail/story.html

.


 

British Airways:

Willie Walsh said in  December 2015:    (Mail – link )

“The Commission ruled it out because there’s no business case for expanding the West Sussex airport. I’m not knocking Gatwick — it’s a good airport and British Airways operates many flights there. However, very few airlines support the proposal, and no one would move there while Heathrow remains open.”
.

and

October 31, 2014

Willie Walsh says new Gatwick runway has ‘no business case’

(Financial Times)

Willie Walsh, the chief executive of British Airways parent IAG, said on Friday there was “no business case” for building an additional runway at Gatwick but declined to back either of the proposals to expand its rival Heathrow.

The head of the UK’s dominant carrier said he would only endorse a plan if airlines would not have to pay higher landing fees to fund any capacity expansion.

Echoing comments he made to MPs on the Commons transport committee two years ago, Mr Walsh said it appeared that landing fees levied on airlines would rise significantly to fund an additional runway at Gatwick.

“I’m not going to support an additional runway at Gatwick because I don’t think there’s a business case for it,” he told journalists after announcing IAG’s latest financial results. “There is capacity available at Gatwick. I can’t see what’s going to make it attractive.”

The Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, is due to make a recommendation on airport expansion next summer, after the general election. The three options it has shortlisted are an extra runway at Gatwick, an extra runway at Heathrow and doubling the length of one of Heathrow’s existing runways. The commission is due to publish its final appraisals in the coming weeks.

Mr Walsh said his rejection of Gatwick did not mean he was endorsing an additional runway at Heathrow, where he said the charges were already too high. “I’m not going to support anything that sees our charges at Gatwick or Heathrow rise,” he said. “So if they want to get our support, they are going to have to show us that charges won’t rise, and I haven’t seen that yet.”

………. and it continues ….

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3abfd60c-6104-11e4-b935-00144feabdc0.html#axzz43IoQL3G8


 

Read more »

Gatwick MPs call on Transport Secretary: “Gatwick Airport must end misleading air quality claims”

Gatwick is misleading local residents about the environmental impact of their plans to build a 2nd runway, a group of South East MPs warned today. The MPs expressed their concerns about air quality claims and night flights in a letter to the Transport Secretary,Patrick McLoughlin. The Gatwick Coordination Group (GCG) – the MPs in areas close to and affected by Gatwick –  is asking Mr Mcloughlin to stop Gatwick from running advertising campaigns which contradict expert environmental evidence, and mislead their constituents. Gatwick has repeatedly claimed the area around the airport “has never and will never breach legal air quality limits” and that it is the “greener” option for expansion. But the MPs as well as councillors and local representatives say the airport’s claims ignore significant evidence in the Airports Commission’s report. The GCG are demanding Gatwick makes clear the real impact of a 2nd runway on the local environment to nearby residents. The GCG also object to the DfT “drawing up plans for night flights at an expanded Gatwick, which would subject over 60,000 people in the Gatwick area to over 20 hours of continuous aircraft noise.  It is incredible to think that the DfT is contemplating this when the Airports Commission made a stronger case for Heathrow which included a clear and viable recommendation for a ban on night flights”.
.

 

Gatwick MPs call on Transport Secretary: “Gatwick Airport must end misleading air quality claims”

17 March, 2016 (Crispin Blunt’s website)

Jacobs on Gatwick air pollution 2009

Larger image on Page 9 of  link

.

Gatwick is misleading local residents about the environmental impact of their plans to build a second runway, a group of South East MPs warned today. The MPs expressed their concerns about air quality claims and night flights in a letter to the Transport Secretary.

The Gatwick Coordination Group (GCG) is calling on the Transport Secretary to stop the airport from running advertising campaigns which contradict expert environmental evidence, and mislead their constituents.

Gatwick has repeatedly claimed the area around the airport “has never and will never breach legal air quality limits” and that it is the “greener” option for expansion.

But these claims ignore significant evidence in Sir Howard Davies’ independent Airports Commission report, the group of MPs, councillors and local representatives warn.

The GCG are demanding Gatwick makes clear the real impact of a second runway on the local environment to nearby residents.

  • Gatwick Airport claims: “Gatwick has never breached EU or UK annual air quality limits and the airport has committed to maintaining this record if a second runway is built.” (Link to source)
  • Airports Commission saysAir quality in the Gatwick area has previously breached the National Air Quality Objective. (Page 39, Final Report, Airports Commission)
  • Gatwick Airport claims: “Expansion at Gatwick would give the country the economic benefit it needs at a dramatically lower environmental cost.” (Link to source)
  • Airports Commission says: Air pollution at health based receptors will be worse at an expanded Gatwick than the Heathrow Airport Limited proposal.(Table 9.2, Page 191, Final Report, Airports Commission)

 

Chair of the GCG and Reigate MP Crispin Blunt said:

“Gatwick’s environmental claims ignore the evidence and are misleading local residents. Gatwick repeatedly claims that it has never breached air quality limits and is the greener option for expansion. But independent evidence from the Airports Commission shows this to be untrue.

“That is why we are calling on the Transport Secretary to intervene immediately to stop Gatwick from making misleading environmental claims.

“We have also objected to the Department for Transport drawing up plans for night flights at an expanded Gatwick, which would subject over 60,000 people in the Gatwick area to over 20 hours of continuous aircraft noise.

“It is incredible to think that the Department for Transport is contemplating this when the Airports Commission made a stronger case for Heathrow which included a clear and viable recommendation for a ban on night flights”.

About the Gatwick Coordination Group

The Gatwick Coordination Group was formed in June 2014 to represent serious local concerns over plans for a second runway at Gatwick Airport, as shortlisted by the Airports Commission.

Parliamentary membership of the group is as follows:

  • Crispin Blunt MP – Member of Parliament for Reigate (Chairman)
  • Sir Paul Beresford MP – Member of Parliament for Mole Valley
  • Nusrat Ghani MP – Member of Parliament for Wealden
  • Rt Hon Nick Herbert MP – Member of Parliament for Arundel and South Downs
  • Jeremy Quin MP – Member of Parliament for Horsham
  • Tom Tugendhat MBE MP – Member of Parliament for Tonbridge and Malling
  • Henry Smith MP – Member of Parliament for Crawley
  • Rt Hon Sir Nicholas Soames MP – Member of Parliament for Mid Sussex

The group also includes representatives of local authorities, parish councils and civil society.  We share the common objective of ensuring a critical examination of the case for a second runway at Gatwick Airport, and that its consequences are understood.


 

Text of letter:

Dear Patrick,

Gatwick Airport Limited, Gatwick Airport Expansion, Air Quality & Night Flight Limits

I write to ask that you intervene to prevent Gatwick Airport Limited (GAL) from continuing to mislead local residents as to the environmental impacts of their expansion plans.

Air Quality

The Airports Commission evidence in the attached appendix exposes GAL’s environmental claims in their advertising misrepresent the reality of the impact expansion would have on neighbouring communities.

As you will be aware, GAL has undertaken an extensive advertising campaign across London print media. In those advertisements, GAL has repeatedly claimed that “the area around Gatwick Airport has never and will never breach legal air quality limits”. Moreover, their press releases and media interviews have consistently pointed to the fact that expansion at Gatwick would be the “greener” option for expansion:

“We have always maintained that this decision is about balancing the economy and the environment. Expansion at Gatwick would give the country the economic benefit it needs at a dramatically lower environmental cost.”

Press release: the clear choice now facing Britain, 10th December 2015

http://www.mediacentre.gatwickairport.com/press-releases/2015/15-12-10-the-clear-choice-now-facing-britain-growth-with-gatwick-or-inertia-at-heathrow.aspx

It is absolutely vital that local residents and the public, not to mention the Cabinet, have accurate facts available to them and that they are not misled by a well-funded PR campaign by a promoter.

The assertions made by GAL are not supported by the evidence of the Airports Commission. Indeed, the evidence demonstrates that in many instances, expansion at Gatwick is far from having a “dramatically lower environmental cost” compared to the Heathrow Airport Limited proposal.

  1. Air pollution at health based receptors will be worse at an expanded Gatwick than the Heathrow Airport Limited proposal. (Table 9.2, Final Report, Airports Commission)
  2. More households will be placed “at risk” as a result of Gatwick expansion compared to the Heathrow Airport Limited proposal. (Table 9.3, Final Report, Airports Commission)
  3. GAL have delayed the full diversion of the A23 – a measure they describe will “improve air quality” – to alleviate risk to their investors. (Multiple sources, see appendix)

Moreover, GAL’s assertion that it has never and will never breach air quality limits is also disproved by both Airports Commission evidence and developments since the publication of the final report:

  1. Air Quality in the Gatwick area has previously breached the National Air Quality Objective. (Page 39, Air Quality Local Assessment Detailed Emissions Inventory and Dispersion Modelling, Jacob’s for the Airports Commission)
  2. Since the Airports Commission published its final report on 1 July 2015, an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) has been designated within 1 mile of the proposed boundary of an expanded Gatwick. (http://www.crawley.gov.uk/pw/web/PUB266050)

In the interests of reassuring communities close to the airport, I ask that you respond to this letter to confirm that the Department for Transport will be investigating the impact that expansion at Gatwick will have on local air quality and the impact on the Hazelwick roundabout AQMA in particular.

In the interests of ensuring high quality public discourse, can I also ask that you consider writing to the Chief Executive of GAL to ask that he ensures the comments he makes do not cause local residents to believe there will be no impact on the local environment at all.

In the interests of establishing trust with the local community, I also ask that you consider challenging GAL to improve local understanding of airport-related air quality impacts in the local community by funding air quality monitors and publishing real time information on their readings. This should include a live monitor in the Hazelwick roundabout area where the new AQMA has been designated and where the majority of the properties placed “at risk”- including a secondary school – by Gatwick expansion are located.

Night flights

We understand your department is trying to create a set of mitigation measures for a second runway at Gatwick, equivalent to those suggested by the Airports Commission for Heathrow. We understand that the conditions being developed do not involve a reduction or freezing in the current number of night flights nor guaranteed respite for residents. This means that, should Gatwick get the go-ahead, 60,000+ people in the Gatwick area will have at least 20+ hours of continuous aircraft noise. Fewer than 10% will be entitled to Gatwick’s Council Tax compensation scheme. In our opinion, the fact that you are engaged in work to try and ameliorate the effects of a second runway at Gatwick around night flights to a standard well short of those already proposed for Heathrow, further demonstrates the relative weakness of the case for Gatwick. We would be grateful for your authoritative briefing on what your officials are trying to achieve.

As I am sure you appreciate, it is vital that runway promoters communicate honestly with their local residents as to the impacts of their local schemes. I trust that you are as interested as I am that GAL do not continue to mislead communities neighbouring the airport regarding the impact of expansion, and that GAL take the necessary measures to re-establish trust.

Yours Ever,

Crispin

Crispin Blunt on behalf of the Gatwick Coordination Group

http://www.blunt4reigate.com/news/gatwick-mps-call-transport-secretary-%E2%80%9Cgatwick-airport-must-end-misleading-air-quality-claims%E2%80%9D

.

.


 

Earlier:

Data on air pollution challenged by group of MPs representing areas around Gatwick

 

Questions about the robustness and impact of Gatwick’s proposals have been raised by the Gatwick Coordination Group (GCG) of MPs, which now includes all local long-standing and newly elected MPs around Gatwick.  Particular concerns are raised about air quality, and Gatwick’s own emissions modelling, which the GCG described as “inadequate” for failing to capture the impact on the new transport and housing provision in the local area, if a 2nd runway got the go ahead. The report by Jacobs for the Commission, suggests that the impact of an expanded Gatwick would be considerably worse than assessments by Gatwick airport. NOx and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), are estimated to be 50% higher than the initial estimates of emissions suggested by Gatwick. Jacobs’ assessment confirms that Gatwick expansion would cause significant deterioration of air quality for over 51,000 people; officially put “at risk” the health of at least 151 people; and have the highest % increase in NOx emissions (28% up) out of the 3 runway options. Chair of the GCG, Crispin Blunt MP, said: “…Gatwick’s plan would ruin thousands of lives and push local services and infrastructure beyond their limits. There is no economic or practical case for Gatwick to become the same size as Heathrow.”  

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/05/data-on-air-pollution-challenged-by-group-of-mps-representing-areas-around-gatwick/

 

.

 

Read more »

London City Airport 4-week appeal under way, against Mayor’s refusal of expansion plans

A planning appeal by London City Airport, against refusal by the Mayor of London for its expansion plans is taking place at City Hall. It is due to last 3 – 4 weeks.  Newham Council approved plans for the £200 million redevelopment in February 2015, but when they were referred to the Mayor for approval, he overruled the permission on grounds of too much aircraft noise.  It appears the GLA (Greater London Authority) has little complaint about much of the application, and is supportive of the airport’s growth in principle. However, noise is the key issue and there is a fundamental difference in the way the noise contours are being used, by the two sides. The contours using averaged noise for the airport’s operations give a smaller 57dB area than if single noise measurements are used. Opponents of the airport’s expansion, HACAN East, fear that the expansion plans would mean many thousand residents experiencing much higher amounts of noise. They say their supporter base believes that current noise levels are unacceptable. John Stewart, speaking for HACAN East said: “Our supporters have felt over the years that their voices have not been heard, not by the airport, not by Newham. Many residents close to the airport have felt abandoned. They have felt overwhelmed by this planning application which has lasted over two and a half years.”
.

 


These are the documents associated with the appeal:

http://lcy-appeal.persona-pi.com/inquiry-documents


 

These are the proofs of evidence from HACAN East

http://lcy-appeal.persona-pi.com/d-hacan-east-proofs


 

These are the proofs of evidence from the GLA

http://lcy-appeal.persona-pi.com/c-proofs-gla


 

Dispute over the future of London City Airport comes down to rival algorithms

17 MAR 2016
BY GILES BROADBENT (The Wharf)

Planning appeal over £200m expansion hears that Mayor Boris Johnson agrees with LCY on most things – except the calculation used to assess noise nuisance

The future of London City Airport’s £200million expansion plans rests on a quarrel over the method for calculating noise nuisance.

While campaigners at a planning inquiry at City Hall are hoping to raise a range of deep-rooted objections – including air quality and the “festering anger” among residents – the crux of the issue is likely to be a technicality – which formula best describes who is affected by the airport’s growth.

The number of households in dispute is relatively small – about 8,800 homes on the fringes – but the impact on LCY’s costs could be significant – up to £29.5million to fit insulation measures.

The planning appeal, set to last four weeks, is unlikely to challenge the growth of aviation in the capital, which appeared to be the motive of the Mayor of London Boris Johnson when he blocked the scheme a year ago after it had been passed by Newham Council.

At that time, the decision was billed as a broadside by Boris Johnson in pursuit of his cherished dream of an island airport in the Thames estuary. LCY’s aspirations to build new terminal buildings and accommodate larger aeroplanes appeared to be collateral damage in the debate over Heathrow’s third runway.

The mayor’s decision was greeted with frustration as Newham Council itself had agreed the plans, which would see the creation of 2,000 jobs and an economic boost of £750million to the capital. [Or that is what the airport says – treat the figures with caution. AW comment].

Common ground

But much of the heat has gone out the battle since then and the lawyers gathered in City Hall surrounded by mountains of documents on Tuesday found themselves sharing common ground on many key points.

They agree the issue is not the air quality, the impact on the “Blue Ribbon” waterway network, the extra traffic or the safety zones.

The mayor’s team said he welcomed the economic benefits the upgrade would bring and Mr Johnson was not vexed by the overall marginal increase in noise levels that will arise from a possible 111,000 plane movements a year, up from a “fallback” figure of 95,000.

His objection, once distilled through the prism of planning policy, comes down to the method of measuring which houses sit on the threshold of a noise nuisance as determined by two contradictory methodologies.

Both sides consider their opponents’ formula flawed.

The method adopted by Newham, and London City Airport takes an average figure for the whole affected area and say this is in line with Government policy. The mayor’s experts say this has no relevance to City Airport.

Contour map

The difference between those affected at the level of 57dB according ‘average’ noise (green) calculations and ‘single mode’ measurements (pink) – 2023

Overlaid on a map, the two contours are broadly similar but there are areas when the “single mode” bulges further than the “average” contour – mostly in the Thamesmead area in the east and towards Poplar in the west – and it is these disputed zones which are the frontline in this appeal.

Douglas Edwards, QC for the Greater London Authority said: “London City Airport has one runway which operates in one of two modes – westerly, 70% of the time the airport is operational, or easterly, 30% of the time. There is no third mode for London City Airport called ‘average’.

“If the appeal is allowed, a substantial number of residents will be exposed to a level of noise, which is agreed represents the onset of community annoyance for 70% of the time; a different group of residents will similarly be exposed for 30% of the time.

“On London City Airport’s approach, these residents would be denied any mitigation through the offer of noise insulation.”

Counsel for the airport Michael Humphries says this algorithm “lacks technical justification” and, if allowed, would signal a significant change in national policy.

Campaigners’ plea

Campaign group Hacan East is represented at the inquiry. John Stewart told planning inspector Martin Whitehead: “While we try to engage with the modelling and the stats and the technical details – sometimes more successfully than others – our position is informed by something quite simple; our supporter base believes that current noise levels are unacceptable.

“Our supporters have felt over the years that their voices have not been heard, not by the airport, not by Newham. Many residents close to the airport have felt abandoned.

“They have felt overwhelmed by this planning application which has lasted over two and a half years.

“Consultation after consultation have blindsided and jaded local people who do not know what is going on, and have given up trying to understand it.”

http://www.wharf.co.uk/news/local-news/dispute-over-future-london-city-11050075

.


 

This is the programme for the Appeal, over 4 weeks.

Programme


 

And publicity puff by the airport:

End delays to London City Airport expansion and the whole UK will see the benefits

Tuesday 15 March 2016

By Declan Collier (who is chief executive of London City Airport)

UK airports had their busiest ever summer last year, collectively handling 78m passengers, and the indicators are that 2015 as a whole was the busiest year on record. London City Airport certainly had a record-breaking year, with 18 per cent growth in passengers to 4.3m.

More people than ever are taking to the skies and generating wealth for the UK economy in doing so – passengers travelling through London City did £11bn worth of trade last year. People want to travel. Business people need to travel: Civil Aviation Authority statistics show that growth was driven by scheduled traffic, rising by 4.8 per cent at London airports in the third quarter of 2015.

Airports generate income, support jobs, enable trade and nurture tourism, and yet future growth is being stifled.

Three years after first submitting an application for planning permission, and some £13m in costs later, a public inquiry into expansion at London City Airport opens today at City Hall.

A decision by the mayor of London, taken against the recommendations of his advisers, blocked plans to expand London City Airport through developing infrastructure to reach an already permitted number of flights. In 2015, there were 79,000 flights at the airport and our forecasts show this will grow to 111,000 by 2025. That’s an additional 32,000 flight movements a year in and out of London; capacity that can free up slots at Heathrow for long-haul by moving selected short-haul services to London City, and which can offer more choice to travellers over when and where they travel.

At the inquiry, expected to run for three weeks, we will present our case for expansion. As the airport with by far the largest proportion of business travellers in the UK (52 per cent), we know growth at London City supports growth in and around East London, and in the key business and financial centres of the capital.

The Airports Commission recommended that the UK should make best use of existing capacity in the short term, before any new runway can be built. While a decision on that new runway continues to be delayed, it is crucial that we are allowed to deliver on this recommendation.

Expansion at London City does not require a new runway or an extension to the existing one. It simply enables us to make the most of what we’ve got.

Business travellers want to travel during peak hours and, as a result, we are full in the early morning and evening. We want to build a parallel taxi-lane to get aircraft on and off the runway quicker, to maximise runway use at peak times, and to accommodate around seven additional flights in the busiest hours.

We also need to be able to manage more “next generation” aircraft on the ground at one time, so we will build seven new aircraft parking stands. The stands will be bigger, enabling these larger next generation aircraft to operate out of London City. SWISS Airlines will soon be adding the Bombardier C-Series to its London City fleet, which is quieter and more fuel-efficient so can fly further, able to reach as far as the Middle East, Russia and the US. Our development has the potential to allow direct flights to these destinations from Zone 3, just 15 minutes on public transport from Canary Wharf and 22 minutes from Bank.

The final piece of the jigsaw is expanding the terminal building itself. London City was built in 1987 to cater for up to 1.2m passengers. Last year 4.3m people passed through the doors and the building is struggling to keep pace. By extending the terminal, the airport can continue to offer the speed of transit it is well-known for – 20 minutes door to plane on departure and 15 minutes plane to train on arrival – while maintaining the levels of customer service and experience that have made London City a multi award-winning airport.

A positive decision following the appeal will enable the creation of more than 2,000 new jobs – 1,600 airport jobs and a further 500 during construction. And it will enable the airport’s contribution to the UK economy to rise to £1.3bn per year.

A decision on the location of a new runway in the South East has yet to be made by the government. However, whatever it does ultimately decide, the runway is unlikely to be delivered before 2028 at the earliest. Better use of existing airport capacity must be made in the interim. London City already has permission to increase flight movements. We simply require permission to expand existing infrastructure to inject much-needed capacity into the London system, and it could be operational within two years.

Airports bring immense benefits to the communities in which they operate – through employment, education, training and community relations – and to the wider economy, as well as facilitating trade and providing businesses with the opportunity to develop and invest. Expansion at London City will benefit the people of East London, inward investment in the area, and the business heart of the capital. Our development plans have the support of the local community and London businesses – 80 per cent of business decision-makers say greater air connectivity to other business destinations from London City is important to them and their company.

London City is the most punctual airport in London, and yet is being subjected to entirely avoidable delays. Let’s get growth off the ground now.

http://www.cityam.com/236699/end-delays-to-london-city-airport-expansion-and-the-whole-uk-will-see-the-benefits

The draft programme

http://bailey.persona-pi.com/Public-Inquiries/LCY-Appeal/Programme/5%20-%20Draft%20Programme%2015%2003%2016.pdf

.

.


 

Earlier: 

Boris Johnson gets £525,000 to fight City Airport’s appeal over expansion

9 August 2015 (Standard)

Boris Johnson has secured more than £525,000 to fight an appeal by London City Airport after he blocked its expansion plans.

The airport’s bosses will take on the Mayor at a public inquiry next year after he intervened and directed local councillors to turn down the development because it was too noisy.

The scheme includes extra parking for larger planes, a bigger passenger terminal and a “taxi lane” for more planes to use the runway.

The plans mean the annual number of take-offs and landings would increase from 70,000 to 111,000. Passenger numbers would nearly double to six million by 2023.

According to City Hall documents, £525,000 of public money — plus VAT charges — has been signed off to “enable the Mayor to robustly defend his decision” to direct Newham council to refuse the planning application.

Mr Johnson has personally signed off the fighting fund from the Greater London Authority’s planning reserves. About £250,000 is estimated to be paid to expert witnesses and consultants, while £275,000 is for lawyers.

Newham approved plans for the £200 million redevelopment in February. They were referred to the Mayor for approval, but he overruled the councillors the following month.

Mr Johnson said the expansion would cause an “unacceptable increase in noise for east Londoners” and it “would not be for the greater benefit of the city”.

Sir Robin Wales, elected mayor of Labour-run Newham, accused Mr Johnson of “blatant electioneering” as the decision was taken in the run-up to the general election.

Mr Johnson supports a new hub airport in the Thames estuary, which was ruled out by the independent airports commission.

London City Airport bosses claim expansion would create around 2,000 jobs in east London, and a spokesman said the Mayor’s decision ignored “the significant social and economic benefits.” The airport also said it had proposed a package of measures to mitigate noise.

But Caroline Pidgeon, leader of the London Assembly Lib-Dem group, said the aviation industry “sadly never accepts no as an answer.”

A spokesman for Mr Johnson said: “The Mayor has a responsibility to ensure that London’s strategic planning interests are taken into account and he directed Newham council to refuse London City Airport’s planning application due to concerns about the noise impact of their plans.”

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/mayor-boris-johnson-525000-fight-city-airport-appeal-expansion-a2916696.html

.

.

 

Read more »