Gatwick’s runway plans would mean labour shortage, considerable local house building and traffic congestion

If Heathrow or Gatwick got permission to build a new runway, both would struggle to find enough workers locally.  Both are in areas of high employment. Workers would have to either be drawn in from elsewhere, commuting in each day – or a lot of extra housing would have to be built to house them. Both areas already have substantial problems in providing sufficient housing, even at present. More jobs are needed outside the south east. Gatwick claims 122,000 new jobs would be created by a new runway, with 22,000 in the immediate vicinity of the airport.  The airport’s labour shortage was underlined this summer when delays at baggage reclaim forced Gatwick to bus in extra staff from Southampton. Crispin Blunt, MP for Reigate, said the shortage was a “deal breaker” and “Gatwick are proposing an airport busier than Heathrow….which has 43,100 more people on-site today. Therefore the on-site job forecast is probably an underestimate by a factor of two. Gatwick can’t man this airport without a massive increase in local house building.”  A study by independent consultants jointly commissioned by the West Sussex County Council and the Gatwick Diamond, in early 2013, found that 30,000 – 45,000 new houses would be needed if Gatwick got a 2nd runway.

.

 

Gatwick’s new push for expansion despite fears of labour shortage

By Matthew Beard (Evening Standard)

Gatwick airport has stepped up its challenge against Heathrow to build a new runway amid claims from opponents they will struggle to attract enough workers if they expand.

The Sussex airport, which received a boost last week after the “Boris Island” option was eliminated, claims 122,000 new jobs will be created with 22,000 in the immediate vicinity of the airport.

But the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign said the plan was unsustainable given that the area has one of the UK’s highest levels of employment and barriers to building homes.

They said the labour shortage was underlined this summer when delays at baggage reclaim forced Gatwick to bus in extra staff from Southampton.

Crispin Blunt, MP for Reigate, said the shortage was a “deal breaker”. He told the Standard: “Gatwick are proposing an airport busier than Heathrow yet Heathrow has 43,100 more people on-site today. Therefore the on-site job forecast is probably an underestimate by a factor of two. They can’t man this airport without a massive increase in local house building.”

A Gatwick spokesman said there was “every confidence” the local jobs could be filled, and that homes would be built at a rate of 400 per year, which is just five per cent of regional demand.  [See the consultants' report below, saying 3,000 to 5,000 units would be needed per year in the period 2025 to 2030.  Gap??] 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/gatwicks-new-push-for-expansion-despite-fears-of-labour-shortage-9723106.html

.

.


.

Below is the press release from GACC (Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign):

 

A new town the size of Crawley ?

2.9.2013 (GACC)

30,000 – 45,000 new houses would be needed if a new runway is built at Gatwick.  That is the conclusion of a study by independent consultants jointly commissioned by the West Sussex County Council and the Gatwick Diamond.  The total number of houses in Crawley at present is around 40,000.

The study, carried out by Berkeley Hanover Consulting, predicts that the number of jobs created by a new runway plus the number of jobs created in firms attracted to the area by doubling the size of Gatwick would be far in excess of any available labour.   It would require a substantial influx of workers from other parts of the UK or from the EU.

Much of Surrey is designated as Green Belt but this is already under threat where planning policies are under review.   In Sussex, Crawley and Horsham are already having difficulty finding sites for a few thousand houses to meet current demand.  Local councils would need to decide whether to build a whole new town or whether to add hundreds of new houses to every town and village – perhaps a thousand houses added to forty villages!

According to Brendon Sewill, chairman of GACC:  ‘This independent study, if correct, shows that a new runway would lead to widespread urbanisation, serious pressure on schools and hospitals, and the loss of much dearly-loved countryside.   The more we find out, the more we doubt if the implications of the study were taken on board by Members of the West Sussex County Council before they took their surprise decision in July to support a new runway.’  (Details below).

Sewill added:  ‘The Gatwick Diamond businessmen, who have been lobbying so hard to promote a new runway, also have some explaining to do.  They sponsored this study so they can’t now disown it.  Yet it shows that their dream of making Gatwick bigger than Heathrow could turn into a nightmare.

 

Note

The study can be found on the WSCC (West Sussex County Council) website at  Implications of changes to airport capacity – slides 2013  The housing figures are on page 17.

These state:

“2 runways at Gatwick (with catalytic) could generate demand for increased housing:-

»2015-2020: 500/1,000 units pa
»2020-2025: 2,500/3,000 units pa
»2025-2030: 3,000/5,000 units pa “

The West Sussex County Council vote on 19 July to support a new runway was suspect because:

  • The ‘headline’ results of the study were presented to Members in the form of a PowerPoint presentation in February;
  • The presentation meeting was held at short notice and not all Members were able to attend;
  • Members who were unable to attend, and all new Members elected in May, only received a (fairly unintelligible) print-out of the PowerPoint presentation;
  • No full written report of the study was produced;
  • The vote on 19 July was called at two days notice on a spurious excuse of urgency;
  • The vote took place before Gatwick announced their plans;
  • No briefing was provided by council officers;
  • In the debate only two councillors (Bill Acraman and Brenda Smith) out of seventy expressed concern about the housing impact;
  • The vote was pushed through by senior Councillors who live in the Chichester area – the part of the county least affected by Gatwick;
  • Their explanation that expressing support ‘in principle’ puts the Council in a better position to negotiate with the airport is unconvincing.

 

http://www.gacc.org.uk/resources/New%20Town%20the%20Size%20of%20Crawley.doc

.

.

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Mexico’s plans for 6-runway airport revive resistance from neighbouring farmers

Mexico’s President recently unveiled details for a new Mexico City airport that will quadruple existing capacity, from about 30 million to 120 million annual passengers, and potentially become Latin America’s biggest transit airport. But a group of farmers living near the planned site is fiercely opposed to the project – and they have already taken down one airport project before. There have been plans for this huge airport – with 6 runways – for some 15 years. There are the usual claims, that we are so used to in the UK, of huge economic benefits, thousands of jobs, and a fear that not building it will cost vast sums of money ….. familiar? In 2001 farmers around the nearby town of Atenco protested fiercely, as they were threatened with land expropriation for very small financial sums. They had armed with machetes and Molotov cocktails, blocked roads and clashed with police, and eventually the project was cancelled.The President says this time the airport will only be built on federal owned land, with no expropriations. However, there are doubts about the legality of land sales, when people thought the land would be used for an environmental project, not an airport. Intense opposition remains, and farmers say they “will defend our land with our lives.”
.

 

Mexico’s Plans For A $9.2 Billion Airport Revive Resistance From Neighboring Farmers

By Brianna Lee   (International Business Times)

@briannaclee

b.lee@ibtimes.com

6.9.2014

Mexico Airport Plan
Journalists and guests stand next to a mock-up of the new international airport after a ceremony in Mexico City, Wednesday, Sept. 3, 2014. Reuters/Tomas Bravo
Mexico’s President Enrique Peña Nieto unveiled this week details for a new Mexico City airport that will quadruple existing capacity and potentially become Latin America’s biggest transit hub. But a group of farmers living near the planned site is fiercely opposed to the project – and they have already taken down one airport project before.

The government has dreamed of overhauling the existing Benito Juarez International Airport for at least 15 years to ease oversaturation of the country’s second-busiest airport. Analysts say the existing infrastructure can handle up to 32 million passengers per year; last year, it saw 31.5 million passengers, and traffic is expected to keep growing.

The economic stakes are high: The Mexican Institute for Competitiveness, a Mexico City-based think tank, projects a new airport could contribute 1.4 percent to 2.5 percent of GDP, excluding the impact of tourism. That kind of a boost would surely be a boon to Peña Nieto’s legacy as he faces waning approval for his economic policies. Meanwhile, the think tank argues that not building the airport could reduce GDP by as much as 3 percent.

The new airport, according to the government’s plans laid out Wednesday, would cost $9.2 billion, cover 11,400 acres, include six runways and have the capacity to handle 120 million passengers. The first phase of the project, which includes the completion of three runways, would be finished by 2018. British architect Norman Foster and Fernando Romero, the son-in-law of Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, were tapped as the project’s designers.

Peña Nieto has been careful to avoid the mistakes of former President Vicente Fox, who proposed a new Mexico City airport in 2001. Fox was forced to scrap those plans after farmers from the nearby town of San Salvador Atenco – 20 miles outside Mexico City – launched a fierce campaign against the government’s plan to expropriate their land for a scant 70 cents per square meter. Armed with machetes and Molotov cocktails, the protesters blocked roads and clashed with police, and eventually Fox canceled the project.

This time, Peña Nieto says the airport will be built entirely on federally owned land adjacent to the site of the 2001 proposed airport, emphasizing that no expropriations would be necessary. But members of the People’s Front in Defense of Land – the same group that led the 2001 demonstrations – jumped back into protest mode just hours after the president’s announcement.

“We continue to battle and are ready to fight,” said Ignacio del Valle Medina, leader of the front, at a press conference Wednesday. “We will not give up, and we send a message to Vicente Fox and Enrique Peña Nieto that is the same, that we will defend our land with our lives.”

Del Valle Medina said that the July 1 assembly of core communal landowners, which approved the government’s use of the land, was not held transparently or fairly, making the sale illegal. He also said that the airport’s proximity to Atenco would disrupt the residents’ way of life.

For now, it’s not yet clear if the front will be able to mobilize residents to the same degree as the 2001 protests, but it has called for its first widespread demonstration on Monday.

http://www.ibtimes.com/mexicos-plans-92-billion-airport-revive-resistance-neighboring-farmers-1680162

 

 


 

Atenco Farmers Demand Judges Grant Injunction Against New Airport

Editorial Board, Proceso,(dorset chiapas solidarity)

8th September, 2014

Atenco2Mexico City - Campesinos from Atenco began demonstrating today in rejection of construction of the new Mexico City International Airport (AICM) in the Texcoco region. The project was announced by President Enrique Peña Nieto as a trigger for substantial social investments.

The Atenquenses. headed by Ignacio del Valle, leader of the Peoples’ Front in Defence of the Land (FPDT), arrived this afternoon at the Superior Agrarian Court (TSA) of the Federal District [Mexico City] to ask the judges to award the petition for amparo [protection, similar to injunction] filed by ejidatarios against the change of ejido structure to full [not collective] ownership.

Machetes Crossed before Photo of Emiliano Zapata: "Fatherland or Death: We Will Conquer" Photo: Miguel Dimayuga

The people’s distress, he pointed out, is because ejido lands were acquired arguing that they would be used for environmental projects and denying that they would be part of the new airport project.Ignacio del Valle and a group of representatives from eight communities in San Salvador Atenco were received by the judges. At press time, no additional information was available.

At an early hour, the group of campesinos gathered in the main square of San Salvador Atenco, where four buses were waiting to take them in convoy to the Federal District. Another committee left for the Unitary Agrarian Tribunal in Texcoco.

At exactly 9:20 AM, some villagers set out marching toward the Angel of Independence [in Mexico City] and then on to the TSA, in order to confirm their position to defend their land and oppose construction of the airport announced by Peña Nieto.

For Ignacio del Valle, who led the rebellion of San Salvador Atenco between 2001 and 2006, the new airport project will affect residents and ejidatarios in the area, because he said it is about a “future city” rather than a “green project,” as the government argued when it acquired the lands, and he emphasized: “They are projecting the airport in the same place (as in 2001); of course, it affects us.”

In an interview with Milenio [newspaper], Del Valle stated:

“Our resistance is not for greater payment; we are not saying that it wasn’t adequate. We do not want the airport project. In Atenco and other communities they have implemented the same system, the same deception. “(They said), ‘It isn’t the airport. These lands are to be used for another project, having to do with an ecological project. There won’t be projects like the future city. It’s certain: you are going to remain ejidatarios‘.”

FPDT’s leader explained that lands were purchased in two ejidos, one in Ixtapa, where the government bought the land “starting in 2001-2002 through CONAGUA (National Water Commision).” The rest, he added, were acquired when he and other Atenco leaders were prisoners, “on the pretext that they wanted the lands for an ecological project. We’re talking about 2008 and 2009, during the time we were imprisoned. They took advantage of that situation.”

Del Valle admitted that during construction of the first phase of the terminal the intent is to use federal and not ejido lands, but he fears that the reality might be something else. In the interview, he stated: “They are initially managing two runways. One apparent location has to do with land located on federal land, but I think that the reality has been hidden.

“We have to warn that the effect of dispossession is the same, because at this early stage they are not talking about the future city. They limit themselves to saying that it is the airport, and they say ‘we do not need another centimetre’, but that’s not true.”

Ignacio del Valle also accused the government of having “scared the ejido nuclei, the ejido representatives,” and of having purchased the land “in a concealed and fraudulent way.”

Translated by Jane Brundage

http://dorsetchiapassolidarity.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/more-about-the-new-airport/

.


.

Also

New Airport Will Bring More Urban Sprawl and Water Scarcity: Expert

César Arellano

La Jornada,

September 8th, 2014

Photo: Clayton Conn

 

Construction of the airport east of Mexico City, as announced by the federal government, will exacerbate problems of urban sprawl, over-development and water supply affecting the Valley of Mexico,* said Manuel Frías, civil engineer and graduate from the National Polytechnic Institute (IPN), who has been a consultant and adviser for public works and basic infrastructure projects in past federal administrations.

“The project does not take into account the environmental–both ecological and urban–impact that it will have on the region of ancient Lake Texcoco, where every winter thousands of migratory birds arrive, including endangered species.”

Frías also said that not only are the physical hydro-geology and groundwater characteristics ignored [in the proposal] but, at the same time, [the proposal] compromises the future destiny of the entire Valley of Mexico.

“The only thing that an airport in that area will promote, in addition to real estate speculation, is that the time frame for the collapse of the Valley of Mexico is shortened, because fostering uncontrollable territorial expansion and urban sprawl throughout its 2,000 square kilometres and will create difficulties regarding the availability of groundwater.

“Today 50,000 litres of water are extracted per second from the impaired [existing] aquifer; [the airport construction is] a disturbance that will give rise to foreseeable conflicts due to the reduction and scarcity of water.”

Frías added that “it isn’t just a question of architectural models, presentations and exhibits in order to support the technical and economic feasibility of a necessary and forward-looking airport, but of vision, imagination, responsibility and comprehensive knowledge of the conditions, characteristics, regional variations and hydro-geological transformations.”

10612722_716107958465999_5560720856566547028_nFor Óscar Terrazas, a specialist in urban studies at the Autonomous Metropolitan University at Atzcapotzalco, the basin of former Lake Texcoco offers a number of advantages, “but the issue of land tenure and environmental impact studies in the area must take place in a responsible manner.

“It’s an asset to any city, above all, for great metropolitan cities like Mexico City, that they can count on a space to accommodate a large infrastructure.”

“The location’s proximity to Mexico City and to the existing airport seems to me to be convenient. It has advantages in terms of accessibility, services already available in the area, such that constructing an airport there is going to be less arduous than extending it to Tizayuca [state of Hidalgo; Tizayuca is 43 kilometers [27 miles], or 53 minutes by car from Mexico City].”

Translated by Jane Brundage

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2014/09/08/index.php?section=politica&article=010n3pol

*An old problem, still unresolved, is the gradual settling of the old lake bed on which the city is built and the steady sinking of many buildings.

 

********* 

 

New Mexico City Airport Proposal Developed Under Government Secrecy

5.9.2014

airportThe initiative was introduced on September 3 by President Enrique Peña Nieto, who assured that the work will be done with transparency. The federal government launched the web page aeropuerto.gob.mx to provide information about the project. Although the web page has a section on transparency, there are no documents about the selection process.Aristegui Noticias

The project to construct the new airport in Mexico City is marked by a lack of information about the process by which the design proposal submitted by architects Norman Foster and Fernando Romero was chosen. Fernando Romero is a son-in-law of Carlos Slim, considered the world’s richest man, owner of Telmex and numerous contractors specializing in public works.

Gerardo Ruiz Esparza, Secretary of Communications and Transport, stated that selection of the design by Romero and Foster was the result of an analysis by a committee of experts, without either giving details of the process or specifying who was involved.

The decision, said the Secretary, took place last September 2, exactly two hours before President Peña Nieto delivered the message for his second year in office: “It is the product of a complete analysis conducted by a committee of experts, with specialists in this highly technical issue, at a high technical level, in order that the committee would act in favour of the proposal that met all the requirements. Yesterday at 9:50 AM, the committee voted unanimously in favour of the design submitted by architects Norman Foster and Fernando Romero.”

In an interview with CNN’s Carmen Aristegui, Manuel Ángel Núñez Soto, director of the Airport Group of Mexico City, said that the process was done under confidentiality, in order that it might be viable: “What in this case allows undertaking a market investigation by invitation and under the law of reserve to keep a project confidential.”

However, Núñez did not specify the criteria used to choose the design submitted by Foster and Rosemary, before adding: “Whoever won, won for a reason of principle … a committee was formed. We provided instruction that it was a very important project for the country. Here friendships, relationships, or situations of any nature other than the project that was in Mexico’s interest did not matter.”

Other participating firms were Gómez Pimienta Magar, Legorreta, Hernández Rogers, López Guerra, Javier Sordo Madaleno and Bringas, among others.

On its website, Norman Foster announced that it had won the “international competition,” without elaborating. Fernando Romero also noted that the proposal was selected after a nearly six-month long competition, without delving into the competition, the process or the decision.

Secretary Ruiz Esparza expressed gratitude for the participation of Mitre, an aeronautical research agency; of the organization of international civil aviation; the International Air Transport Association; as well as specialists, government agencies, the UNAM [National Autonomous University of Mexico] and the National Polytechnic Institute, but did not specify their level of responsibility.

10255221_869672333050660_7612974179916576039_nThe only information available about the selection process is a direct award made in October 2013 of 3 million pesos [$229,420 USD] to the company ADHOC Consultores Asociados. This contract, signed by the Secretariat of Communications and Transportation, was for “an external consulting expertise to support selectively and strategically new projects for the realization of the airport in the centre of the country.”

The names of the experts are not made public. Nor if they were responsible for selecting the winning proposal.

The lack of information is also reflected among those involved. In his speech, Secretary Ruiz Esparza said that the airport will need 4,600 hectares however, on his website, architect Fernando Romero reported that it will occupy 4,700 hectares while Norman Foster’s website indicates 5,555 hectares.

Furthermore, President Enrique Peña Nieto said that the first phase of the airport includes three runways, while Secretary Ruiz Esparza maintains that there will be two.

Translated by Jane Brundage

http://aristeguinoticias.com/0509/mexico/el-nuevo-aeropuerto-nace-entre-el-secretismo-del-gobierno/

.

from

http://dorsetchiapassolidarity.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/more-about-the-new-airport/

.

.

.

 

.

Read more »

Boris gives evidence to Env Audit Committee – Heathrow 3rd runway would make meeting air quality targets impossible

Boris Johnson has appeared before the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) to answer questions on air quality issues, which have resulted in the UK facing legal action from Brussels.  Boris has been accused of trying to mislead MPs over the success of his efforts to reduce air pollution, as he again urged the government to adopt his proposals for a diesel scrappage scheme to help drivers move towards cleaner vehicles. The UK has have failed to meet legal NO2 limits and now faces legal action and potential fines from the European Commission for failing to comply. Johnson argued that a scrappage scheme was only fair to the “punters” that had been “seduced” into buying a diesel car. On Heathrow, he said a 3rd runway would be a “nightmare” for meeting the EU air quality directive, and make it impossible to meet the air quality targets for London.  He said expanding Heathrow would increase vehicular pollution, despite earlier claiming building new roads elsewhere would reduce it.  There have been suggestions that Heathrow air pollution, with a new runway, could only be reduced by a local congestion charge near the airport. 
.

 

 

Mayor Boris accused of misleading MPs over London’s pollution

Johnson appears before Environmental Audit Committee, as Labour confirms plan for national network of low emissions zones

By Jessica Shankleman

11 Sept 2014

Boris Johnson appears before Environmental Audit Committee

The Mayor of London has been accused of trying to mislead MPs over the success of his efforts to reduce air pollution, as he again urged the government to adopt his proposals for a diesel scrappage scheme to help drivers move towards cleaner vehicles.

Boris Johnson yesterday appeared before the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) to answer questions on air quality issues, which have resulted in the UK facing legal action from Brussels.

Johnson submitted figures to the EAC ahead of the session yesterday afternoon, showing absolute reductions for air pollution in the capital of 20 per cent. But Baroness Jenny Jones, Green Party London Assembly Member, accused him of using predictions rather than actual roadside readings to get the results.

Readings from Kings College London revealed that some parts of London had seen Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) emissions fall by just three per cent, she said.

In a standoff with Jones at City Hall, Johnson told the Green Party member that she should be congratulating him on any reductions achieved, rather than criticising him. However, he failed to explain the reason for the apparent discrepancy in the figures.

When confronted later in the day by Green MP Caroline Lucas during the EAC hearing, Johnson argued the roadside monitoring stations did not provide a full picture of London’s air pollution.

“We are punctilious to a fault… in observing EU laws,” he said. “We stick our sensors and devices right by where the tailpipe of the most polluting vehicles would expect to be found and I’m far from convinced that is the technique adopted by every country in the EU. You have to rely on modelling and you cannot form a judgement about air quality simply by sticking your face as close as possible to the tailpipe of a double decker on Oxford Street.”

He also reiterated a call for the government to launch a £300m incentive scheme, to encourage drivers to trade in their old polluting diesel cars that have been charged with pushing levels of NO2 in London well beyond legal limits.

He suggested the government should offer drivers £1,000 to £2,000 for each vehicle that is more than 12 months old if owners agree to switch to cleaner vehicles. Diesel cars have been promoted by the government as an efficient and low carbon alternative to petrol vehicles, but a loophole in the current Euro V standard for cars means that they can emit high levels of NO2.

As a result, many parts of the UK have failed to meet legal NO2 limits and the UK now faces legal action and potential fines from the European Commission for failing to comply. Johnson argued that a scrappage scheme was only fair to the “punters” that had been “seduced” into buying a diesel car.

Johnson’s latest intervention came as the Labour Party yesterday pledged to crack down on air pollution if elected next year, accusing the current government of failing to understand the scale of the crisis. Speaking in London, Shadow Environment Secretary Maria Eagle said a Labour government would introduce a new network of low emissions zones to tackle the problem.

“Local Authorities in London and across the UK want to implement low emission zones but are being discouraged because there is no support from Number 10 or the Mayor,” she said. “Labour will devolve the power, not just the responsibility, and support local authorities that want to tackle this public health crisis.”

It looks as if both Labour and the Green Party are keen to ensure air pollution ends up as an election issue next year – and Mayor Boris might just be willing to oblige.

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2364573/mayor-boris-accused-of-misleading-mps-over-londons-pollution

.


.

Mayor of London gives evidence on tackling air pollution

10 September 2014

The Environmental Audit Committee will take evidence from Boris Johnson, Mayor of London on air quality on Wednesday 10 September at 2.15pm

Witnesses

Wednesday 10 September at 2.15pm, Thatcher Room, Portcullis House


 

Read more »

Heathrow claim 60% of MPs back 3rd runway. Survey actually reveals it was only 55 MPs out of 95 interviewed. Not 650.

Heathrow airport has commissioned a survey by highly respected polling company, Ipsos Mori. They wanted to see how many MPs back a 3rd Heathrow runway. There are 650 MPs in the House of Commons.  Heathrow is proudly claiming that “58% of MPs back a third runway at Heathrow”.  So that means the survey found that 390 MPs thought that ?  Really? Amazing!  But that is NOT the case at all. The Ipsos Mori survey only in fact interviewed 95 MPs. They say they interviewed 143, but then cut the number back to 95. These were, in theory, “interviewed to closely represent the profile of the House of Commons” – quite how is not explained.  What the survey actually found was that  just 55 MPs (58% of 95 MPs) said they backed a 3rd Heathrow runway. And when only these 55  MPs – not the whole 95 – were asked if they thought a 3rd Heathrow runway would get parliamentary approval, only 44 thought it was likely (of these only 18 thought it was very likely).  This really is taking liberties with polling. Heathrow’s rather extravagantly claim that the poll “explodes the myth that Heathrow is politically undeliverable” looks frankly threadbare … and a bit desperate?
.

 


 

Below are part of two of the Ipsos Mori tables, showing the answers to the questions on runway building. The interviews were conducted face to face, but we do not know the exact interview script.

The tables are at http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/MPs-survey-2014-airport-capacity-tables.pdf

Only 95 MPs were interviewed on this questions, not 143.

Answering the question:

“Thinking once more about hub airport capacity. Of these options, which ONE do you think is the BEST option for solving the issue of hub airport capacity in the UK?”

Ipsos Mori poll of 95 MPs

and

for the question about how many MPs think a 3rd Heathrow runway could get parliamentary approval, only the MPs who had said Yes to Heathrow (in the table above) were questioned. Just 55 MPs.

Ipsos Mori poll of 55 MPs


This is the Heathrow airport press release:

9 in 10 MPs who back a third runway at Heathrow think it would get parliamentary approval

  • 58% of MPs back a third runway at Heathrow, 13% support a second runway at Gatwick to solve the issue of hub airport capacity
  • 88% of MPs think a successful hub airport is critical to UK economic success
  • 91% of those MPs who back a third runway at Heathrow think it would get parliamentary approval

A new survey of MPs by independent polling company Ipsos MORI explodes the myth that Heathrow is politically undeliverable. The poll shows 91% of those MPs who back a third runway at Heathrow think it would get parliamentary approval.

The poll also shows that a third runway at Heathrow is the overwhelming choice of MPs from the options left on the Airports Commission’s shortlist. 58% of MPs think that a third runway at Heathrow is the best option for solving the issue of hub airport capacity, compared to 13% for a second runway at Gatwick. Just 13% think the best option would be to do nothing.

Heathrow CEO, John Holland-Kaye, said:

“More and more people are backing Heathrow as the best solution for the UK hub capacity crisis. The countries Britain needs to trade with are changing fast and only a hub airport can provide direct access to these markets.

“There is growing momentum and support for a third runway at Heathrow. This week alone, Britain’s biggest business organisation – the CBI – has come out in support of a hub airport; the Airports Commission has said that it recognises the need for a hub airport but has ruled out a new airport in the Thames Estuary; and now this poll shows MPs back a third runway at Heathrow as the best solution for the UK.”

On Monday, the CBI described the UK’s lack of hub capacity as a “ticking time bomb” and said that UK business wants action and politicians to commit to spades in the ground by the end of the next Parliament. They published research showing that while all airports have a role to play in growing the UK’s connectivity, not all airports play the same role. The track record shows that it tends to be hub airports that deliver the new connections to emerging markets that we desperately need.

Notes to editors

Detail of polling questions

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Having a successful hub airport is critical to the UK’s future economic success

Agree

88%

Disagree

7%

Base: All MPs asked (95), summer 2014

Thinking once more about hub airport capacity. Of these options, which ONE do you think is the BEST option for solving the issue of hub airport capacity in the UK?

A third runway at Heathrow

58%

A new Thames Estuary airport

8%

A second runway at Gatwick

13%

Lengthening one of the runways at Heathrow

4%

Do nothing / Use existing airports

13%

Don’t know

4%

Base: All MPs asked (95), summer 2014

And in your opinion, how likely or unlikely would each of the following options be to get parliamentary approval?

Likely

Unlikely

A third runway at Heathrow

91%

9%

Base: All MPs who think a third runway at Heathrow would be the best option for solving hub airport capacity (55), summer 2014

Methodology details:

  • Fieldwork dates: 9 June – 6 August, 2014.
  • 143 MPs were interviewed (58 Conservatives, 66 Labour, 15 Liberal Democrats and 4 from other parties).
  • An initial sample of 421 MPs were contacted to ensure that those interviewed closely represent the profile of the House of Commons.
  • Interviews were conducted face-to-face.
  • The total sample interviewed is closely representative of the House. Based on those asked each question, data have been individually weighted where necessary to reflect the true balance by party and ministerial or spokesperson position.
  • Sometimes the percentage result for “Total MPs” may be greater than the sum of the percentage results for Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, as it also includes results from other parties. Where results do not sum to 100%, this may be due to computer rounding, multiple responses, or the exclusion of “don’t know” categories.
  • All answers are in % format. Data is weighted.

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3442/MPs-attitudes-to-Heathrow-Airport-expansion.aspx

http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.com/Press-releases/9-in-10-MPs-who-back-a-third-runway-at-Heathrow-think-it-would-get-parliamentary-approval-9b8.aspx


Some papers enthusiastically reported this story, without looking very carefully at the Ipsos Mori survey itself. For example:

 

Three in five MPs back third runway at Heathrow, new poll suggests

Heathrow hails Ipsos MORI survey but protest group HACAN says the shortage of politicians responding means it counts for little

Nearly three in five MPs back a third runway at Heathrow, according to the results of a new poll.

Of the MPs responding to Ipsos MORI’s summer survey, published yesterday (Sunday, September 8), 58 per cent said they supported a new landing strip at Heathrow.

That was more than four times as many as the 13 per cent who said a second runway at Gatwick was the best option for solving the issue of hub airport capacity in the UK.

Of the remainder, eight per cent supported a Thames estuary airport, which waslast week ruled out by the Airports Commission , four per cent wanted a longer northern runway at Heathrow and 13 per cent said no action was needed. The other four per cent said they didn’t know.

Of those backing a third runway, 91 per cent said they thought it would get parliamentary approval.

Heathrow today hailed the findings of the summer survey, which sought MPs’ views on a wide range of issues, claiming it ‘exploded the myth’ a third runway was politically undeliverable.

The airport’s chief executive John Holland-Kaye, said: “There is growing momentum and support for a third runway at Heathrow. This week alone, Britain’s biggest business organisation – the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) – has come out in support of a hub airport; the Airports Commission has said it recognises the need for a hub airport but has ruled out a new airport in the Thames Estuary; and now this poll shows MPs back a third runway at Heathrow as the best solution for the UK.”

However, anti-Heathrow expansion campaign group HACAN said the poll counted for little as only 143 MPs, or just over a fifth of the 650 sitting in parliament, had responded.

HACAN chairman John Stewart said: “Very little can be read into this poll.  Only 143 out of 650 MPs were polled.  Of those that were asked just 84 supported Heathrow expansion.  That is far from a groundswell of support for a third runway.”

The group said people had been queuing up to show their support for the protest group at yesterday’s Brentford Festival , where it had a stall. A map at the stall showed the predicted flight path for a third runway passing over the centre of Brentford.

Hounslow’s two MPs, Seema Malhotra and Mary Macleod, have both said they are opposed to a third runway at Heathrow.

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/local-news/three-five-mps-back-third-7735845

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Read more »

Lib Dem Pre-Manifesto 2014 – definite opposition to any new south east runway, taking account of climate impact

The Liberal Democrats have launched their Pre-Manifesto 2014, and it contains an emphatic statement against any new runway at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted – and no estuary airport. Their policy: “Ensure our airport infrastructure meets the needs of a modern and open economy, without allowing emissions from aviation to undermine our goal of a zero-carbon Britain by 2050. We will carefully consider the conclusions of the Davies Review into runway capacity and develop a strategic airports policy for the whole of the UK in the light of those recommendations and advice from the Committee on Climate Change. We remain opposed to any expansion of Heathrow, Stansted or Gatwick and any new airport in the Thames Estuary, because of local issues of air and noise pollution. We will ensure no net increase in runways across the UK as a whole by prohibiting the opening of any new runways unless others are closed elsewhere.”  It is thought that this position will not be popular with big business, which wants expanded airport, and ever increasing aviation – with little consideration for the climate impacts.
.

 

This is the text, relating to runways, from the Lib Dem Pre-Manifesto 2014:

(Page 22  link )

“Ensure our airport infrastructure meets the needs of a modern
and open economy, without allowing emissions from aviation
to undermine our goal of a zero-carbon Britain by 2050. We will
carefully consider the conclusions of the Davies Review into runway
capacity and develop a strategic airports policy for the whole of
the UK in the light of those recommendations and advice from
the Committee on Climate Change. We remain opposed to any
expansion of Heathrow, Stansted or Gatwick and any new airport
in the Thames Estuary, because of local issues of air and noise
pollution. We will ensure no net increase in runways across the UK
as a whole by prohibiting the opening of any new runways unless
others are closed elsewhere.”


 

.

Nick Clegg rules out London air expansion plans

Kate McCann (City AM)
9th September  2014

LIBERAL Democrat leader Nick Clegg has ruled out airport expansion in London if his party is elected in 2015.

Launching the party’s draft manifesto yesterday, Clegg vowed to oppose any expansion of Heathrow, Stansted or Gatwick, as well as a new airport in the Thames Estuary because of air and noise pollution. The party is also against any net increase in the number of runways across the UK. The plans will cause concern among business leaders, who have been calling for airport expansion in London for years. On Monday, the Confederation of British Industry called the lack of capacity a “ticking time bomb”.

“We’ve learnt our lesson from tuition fees – and we’ve learnt it the hard way. There will be no repeat of that mistake,” the Lib Dem leader promised, adding that 75 per cent of his party’s previous manifesto pledges were successfully negotiated into the coalition agreement.

The manifesto includes around 300 pledges, some more controversial than others. Plans to move towards the legalisation of some drugs for personal use is a key proposal, as well as a plan to build 300,000 new homes a year and 10 new garden cities.

http://www.cityam.com/1410224208/nick-clegg-rules-out-london-air-expansion-plans


 

This manifesto commitment means, in effect, the LibDems would veto the expansion of any airport – whether Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted – during the next parliament if the Lib Dems formed part of another coalition government.

The Lib Dems have arrived at their position after a lengthy debate, on the basis of the impact of aviation on climate change and the effect of Heathrow’s expansion on voters in southwest London. The party has several seats in the area including Twickenham and Kingston & Surbiton and has previously held Richmond.

Before the 2010 election Nick Clegg warned: “A 3rd runway at Heathrow would be a disaster for the local area as well as a disaster for the whole country.”

There is thought to be some opposition to the no-runways position, within the party, from MPs who believe (rightly or wrongly) that planes will become “cleaner and quieter”.  The reality is that planes will become very slightly more fuel efficient, and very slightly less noisy, but not enough to make much difference, and these improvements will be cancelled out by growth in air traffic.

Many LibDems are stuck between a desire to be environmentally responsible, and the ever-present push for economic growth, regardless of its consequences.  One said: “I believe Lib Dem’s ambitions for a greener future must also fit with our vision for a stronger economy and a fairer society – and that means looking for opportunities for growth across the whole country. …. We don’t yet know how technology will improve air travel: carbon emissions may fall faster or slower than currently predicted, and our policy response must be flexible to accommodate the evidence as it emerges. . . There is a real chance we risk prejudicing decades of growth by nailing down excessively restrictive plans for airport growth now.”

The Lib Dems said at the time of the interim report from the Airports Commission in December 2013 that they were “not opposed in principle” to new runways in the south east.

But they are now back to opposing runways, in the so-called “pre-manifesto.”

 

 


 

Earlier:

 

Lib Dem MP Lorely Burt defies party over runway extensions

Member for Solihull says she wants to leave the door open for expansion of sites such as Birmingham Airport

Lorely Burt

 

A Midland MP has put herself on collision course with her own party by rejecting calls for a ban on new airport runways.

Lorely Burt, Liberal Democrat MP for Solihull, has defied the party by saying she wants to leave the door open for the expansion of airports such as Birmingham Airport, which published proposals for a second runway last year.

She is to take on activists who want future governments to allow “no net growth” in runways, in a debate at the party’s conference in October.

The runway ban is to be included in the party’s pre-manifesto, launched by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg.

This is an early draft of the General Election manifesto for next year’s poll.

It is due to be debated at the conference, to be held in Glasgow, where policy proposals will be put to a vote.

Ms Burt, Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, is to propose an amendment to strike out the ban and highlight the importance of airports outside London for regional jobs and growth.

However, she is likely to face opposition from activists who argue that preventing new runways will protect the environment.

Writing for the Birmingham Post, Ms Burt said the Lib Dems’ ambitions for a greener future “must also fit with our vision for a stronger economy and a fairer society”.

“It would be short-sighted of us to rule out new routes for airlines offering a chance to explore new markets and encourage investment,” she added.

“There is a real chance we risk prejudicing decades of growth by nailing down excessively restrictive plans for airport growth now.”

Birmingham Airport last year published plans to build a second runway, allowing it to expand into a truly global airport capable of dealing with 70 million passengers each year – as many as Heathrow handles now.

The proposals were submitted to the Airports Commission addressing a shortage of capacity in the UK.

The commission last year decided not to shortlist proposals for expanding Birmingham but said there was likely to be a case for considering the airport as a potential option for expansion by 2050.

Under the plans submitted to the commission, the airport would also have an additional terminal and see up to 500,000 take-offs and landings annually.

The plan has a heavyweight coalition behind it, with business leaders, local councils and MPs all firmly on board including MP Mark Garnier (Con Wyre Forest), Birmingham City Council and Birmingham Chamber of Commerce Group.

An Aviation Commission set up by the Government is considering whether to allow a new runway at Heathrow or at Gatwick Airport.

Birmingham Airport has urged the commission to give a greater role to airports in other parts of the country.

http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/news/regional-affairs/lib-dem-mp-lorely-burt-7715790

.

.

.

.

Read more »

Formula 1 boss’s fury over new Heathrow aircraft noise – at least with Formula 1 people know where the noise is

A significant Formula One car racing engineer, who lives in Sunninghill under a Heathrow flight path test route, has joined an increasing band of residents complaining about the new flight paths over Bracknell and Ascot. He describes them as “intolerable”.  The chief technical officer at Formula One team Red Bull Racing has hit out at Heathrow after its new trial flight paths started last Thursday, for 5 months. The aims of the trials are to try to reduce ‘stacking’, speeding up departure times to cut departure intervals, so increasing airport profits. He said though having lived in Sunninghill since 1997 and the noise has never been an issue before. “It is pretty intolerable because currently we have planes flying over our heads at 11pm at night …. it’s very antisocial really. ….I can’t even sit in my garden and socialise with my friends because it is just too noisy. There has been no proper consultation…” Realising he himself works in a very noisy industry, he said “… with Formula One is that there are no new race tracks being built anywhere, so people who buy houses next to race tracks know what they are getting.” There is an active petition in the Ascot area against the flight path trials, with around 2,400 signatures today. 

.

To view and sign the Ascot are petition visit :  Change.org – Ascot flight path petition

A TOP Formula One engineer has joined an increasing band of residents complaining of Heathrow Airport’s new flightpaths over Bracknell and Ascot, describing them as “intolerable”.

Photo owned by Rex Features

Adrian Newey, the chief technical officer at Formula One team Red Bull Racing, who lives in Sunninghill, has hit out at the airport’s bosses after its new trial flight paths started last Thursday.

Over the next five months, airport bosses and air traffic controllers are experimenting with flight path changes and new technology systems in a bid to reduce ‘stacking’ in the air and speed up departure times, putting more planes in the air at a faster rate.

Mr Newey, speaking exclusively to the News, said: “I have lived in Sunninghill since 1997 and it has never been an issue before.

“It is pretty intolerable because currently we have planes flying over our heads at 11pm at night, which is not ideal when I am in bed early due to an early start – it’s very antisocial really.

“It is just not pleasant. I can’t even sit in my garden and socialise with my friends because it is just too noisy. There has been no proper consultation with us either.”

Referring to the fact that he himself is involved in a noisy sport, Mr Newey said “I am involved in a noisy sport but the thing with Formula One is that there are no new race tracks being built anywhere, so people who buy houses next to race tracks know what they are getting.”

Mr Newey’s partner Amanda Smerczak has started a petition against the changes, asking the Government to stop them. It has so far attracted nearly 900 signatures.

Passenger jets have started passing over residents’ homes as low as 3,000ft.

There are six different trial routes for aircraft taking off from Heathrow, of which three affect our area. Some aircraft pass over Ascot and parts of Bracknell – including Martin’s Heron, Great Hollands, Birch Hill and Crown Wood.

Another to the north passes over North Ascot and the racecourse, while a further one to the south goes over Sunningdale and Lightwater.

The trial will last until January 26.

There will be a public consultation in 2016 and Heathrow’s ‘noise team’ has been briefed to deal with complaints.

Martin’s Heron resident Nigel Dumbrell, vice-chairman of the Harmans Water & The Parks, Martin’s Heron & The Warren Neighbourhood Action Group, said he was in his garden on Sunday and that the noise was ‘unbelievable’.

He said: “This is a new experience for us and is just not on. There must have been at least 20 planes flying low on Sunday.

“The aircraft were so low you could see their undercarriages.”

He added: “The airport did not warn us about these new flightpaths. We are happy to work closely with other NAG [Neighbourhood Action Group] and community groups in the area about this issue.”

Despite residents accusing the airport of a lack of consultation, a Heathrow spokesman said its proposals had not been kept under wraps and were accessible online.

There is a petition ready to sign aiming to stop the flight path trial immediately.

To view and sign this petition visit :  Change.org – Ascot flight path petition

.

http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/news/bracknell/articles/2014/09/08/103481-formula-1-bosss-fury-over-heathrow-aircraft-noise/

.

.


 

.

Earlier:

Heathrow flight path changes / trial inflict more noise misery on Ascot area and 3 villages area

Heathrow airport and NATS are experimenting with flight path changes and new technology systems for Heathrow flights. The aim is to reduce ‘stacking’ of aircraft waiting to land, and to speed up departure times, getting more planes in the air per hour – in order make the airport more efficient (or more profitable). There is a series of trials, over a period of years from 2012 to 2017, advertised on Heathrow’s website. They are to inform the London Airspace Management Programme (LAMP) consultation. One trial, for departures to the west, started on 28th August and will last till January 2015. It will test how sharply aircraft are able to turn on take-off and how fast they can climb. The results will be factored into Heathrow’s revision of flight paths that are required under the European ‘SESAR’ programme. The reality for people being over-flown is that there are now more aircraft passing over Ascot, Sunningdale and Sunninghill, and these planes are low (around 3,000 feet) and climbing. The gaps between planes are also shorter than before. A petition has been set up by people in the Ascot area, to get the trial ended immediately. The new noise barrage has created new fears in those areas of the impact of a 3rd runway.

Click here to view full story…

.

.


.

And

Conservative Councillors urge residents to speak up against noisy flight plan changes

10 SEPTEMBER 2014

Conservative Councillors in Ascot and the surrounding areas have urged residents to speak up against Heathrow’s trialled changes to their flight plans which have resulted in increased noise levels.

On the day the Davies Airport Commission reported interim findings that keep Heathrow expansion firmly on the table, Councillors in Ascot have urged residents to make their views about the airport’s flightpath trials affecting their area known.

Cllr Lynda Yong (Con, Sunninghill & South Ascot) said: “These changes came unannounced by Heathrow. The number of complaints I have received over the last few days as a result of the noise has been more than I have received in the entire twelve years I have been elected.

“Residents are extremely upset and my advice to them is to let Heathrow know directly about their concerns. I will be working with fellow councillors to see what the Council can also do in response to Heathrow’s actions.”

Cllr David Hilton (Con, Ascot & Cheapside) added: “Many people in the area depend on Heathrow, but Heathrow has to be reasonable. I urge those affected by the noise in this trial to write to  noise_complaints@heathrow.com. The more complaints they receive, the lower the probability that the trials will become permanent.”

The Conservative Authority has a good track record of standing up for residents who suffer the consequences of noise caused by Heathrow through innovative projects to monitor excessive aircraft noise, including the mobile phone app “WideNoise” throughout last year.

Cllr Carwyn Cox (Con, Hurley & the Walthams) Lead Member for Environmental Services commented: “Ascot residents should make their voice known to Heathrow Airport and highlight the disruption the aircraft noise creates. The Council will also collate any representations received in order to incorporate important resident concerns into its ongoing consultation with both Heathrow and the independent Airports Commission, as this is a worrying development for the residents who are being affected by the changed flightpaths.”

http://www.rbwmconservatives.com/conservative-councillors-urge-residents-to-speak-up-against-noisy-flight-plan-changes/

.

.

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Campaigners call on CAA to suspend consultation on City Airport flight paths

.

Campaigners call on CAA to suspect consultation on City Airport flight paths

Campaign group HACAN East has written to the Civil Aviation Authority to ask it to suspend the current consultation being carried out by London City Airport into flight path changes in East London (letter copied below).  

HACAN East argues that the tens of thousands of residents who are in line to get more planes if the flight path changes go ahead are not being told about them.  London City is proposing to concentrate the flights taking off from the airport in a narrow corridor. 

Areas directly under the favored flight path will be Bow, Hackney Wick, Leyton Midland Road, Leytonstone, Barkingside and Colliers Row.   City Airport is currently consulting on the proposed changes but is not leafleting the areas that will be worst affected.

The changes are part of a wider reorganization of the airspace across London and the South East which is been overseen by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).  New computer technology can now guide aircraft much more accurately when they are landing and taking off.  It gives airports the option of varying the routes the planes use in order to give all residents some respite from the noise or of concentrating all the planes on one route. 

London City has chosen to concentrate the aircraft.

HACAN East chair John Stewart said, “Quite simply, London City is creating a noise ghetto.  No wonder they are afraid to spell out to the residents what is in store for them. Nobody is telling the residents what will be in store for them.”

Stewart added, “We have written an official letter to the CAA, which oversees the consultation, calling for it to be suspended.

—-

The City Airport consultation documents can be found at  http://www.londoncityairport.com/londonairspacemanagement 

The consultation started on 4th September and runs until 27th November 2014.

Responses to the consultation should be emailed to lamp@londoncityairport.com


Letter to the CAA

Dear Sir/Madam,

 I am writing to you to express our concerns about the shortcomings in the current LAMP  [London Airspace Management Programme] consultation being carried out by London City Airport.

 We believe they are serious.  The consultation makes it clear that the future flight paths will be concentrated over particular areas yet there is no guarantee in this consultation that the residents who will be impacted will be made aware of this fact and offered the opportunity to respond.

 London City identifies the key stakeholders who are being consulted as “The London City Airport Consultative Committee (ACC) which includes representatives of Local Authorities, community representatives and other organisations that have expressed an interest in the activities of the airport; members of the National Air Traffic Management Committee (NATMAC) which includes representatives of all types of airspace users; airlines that operate from London City Airport”.

 As far as we are aware neither the consultative committee nor the local authorities have plans for a door-to-door leaflet drop to the tens of thousands of residents who will find themselves living under the concentrated flight paths.  We are not even certain it is their job to do so.  It is probably the role of the airport.  We are also not aware of any public meetings being organized in the affected areas.  For example, we believe parts of Leytonstone will be badly affected.  Who has told the residents?

 If your powers allow you to do so, we would urge you to order all stakeholders to be fully consulted during this consultation or to suspend it and require a fresh consultation to take place.

 Yours sincerely,

 John Stewart

Chair HACAN East

.

.


 .

See also:

London City Airport accused of creating a “noise ghetto” with proposed concentrated flight paths

London City Airport have started a consultation on airspace changes (4th September to 27th November) as it wishes to alter flight paths. The change will be because instead of less accurate navigation by aircraft, they now can fly using a very accurate form of satnav for planes. This is referred to as RNAV, meaning precision navigation, by which aircraft can all fly a course accurate to within a few hundred metres. The effect is concentration of flight paths, so most fly the exact same route, and anyone living under that route gets all the planes, and all the noise. Campaign group HACAN East has accused London City Airport of failing to spell out to tens of thousands of residents in East London that they are in line to get many more planes overhead if proposed flight path changes go ahead. The consultation does not make this clear. Areas directly under the favored flight path – and the concentration -will be Bow, Hackney Wick, Leyton Midland Road, Leytonstone, Barkingside and Colliers Row. The effect will be to create a noise ghetto. Air traffic controllers like concentration of flight paths. However, it is often better – less unfair – to share out the noise burden, so many people get some flights, rather than a few getting them all.

Click here to view full story…

.


.

More news about the airport at 

 London City Airport News.

.

.

.

.

Read more »

London City Airport accused of creating a “noise ghetto” with proposed concentrated flight paths

London City Airport have started a consultation on airspace changes (4th September to 27th November) as it wishes to alter flight paths. The change will be because instead of less accurate navigation by aircraft, they now can fly using a very accurate form of satnav for planes. This is referred to as RNAV, meaning precision navigation,  by which aircraft can all fly a course accurate to within a few hundred metres. The effect is concentration of flight paths, so most fly the exact same route, and anyone living under that route gets all the planes, and all the noise.  Campaign group HACAN East has accused London City Airport of failing to spell out to tens of thousands of residents in East London that they are in line to get many more planes overhead if proposed flight path changes go ahead. The consultation does not make this clear. Areas directly under the favored flight path – and the concentration -will be Bow, Hackney Wick, Leyton Midland Road, Leytonstone, Barkingside and Colliers Row.  The effect will be to create a noise ghetto. Air traffic controllers like concentration of flight paths. However, it is often better – less unfair – to share out the noise burden, so many people get some flights, rather than a few getting them all.

.

London City Airport creating a “noise ghetto” with proposed flight path changes

7.9.2014

CAMPAIGNERS ACCUSE LONDON CITY AIRPORT OF CREATING A NOISE GHETTO WITH PROPOSED FLIGHT PATH CHANGES

Campaign group HACAN East has accused London City Airport of failing to spell out to tens of thousands of residents in East London that they are in line to get many more planes overhead if proposed flight path changes go ahead. 

London City is proposing to concentrate the flights taking off from the airport in a narrow corridor.  Areas directly under the favored flight path will be Bow, Hackney Wick, Leyton Midland Road, Leytonstone, Barkingside and Colliers Row.  

City Airport is currently consulting on the proposed changes but is not leafleting the areas that will be worst affected (1).

The main consultation document is at  London City Airport RNAV Replications 

The changes are part of a wider reorganization of the airspace across London and the South East which is been overseen by the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority).  LAMP – London Airspace Management Programme. 

New computer technology can now guide aircraft much more accurately when they are landing and taking off.  [Like satnav for planes]. It gives airports the option of varying the routes the planes use in order to give all residents some respite from the noise or of concentrating all the planes on one route. 

London City has chosen to concentrate the aircraft. 

HACAN East chair John Stewart said, “Quite simply, London City is creating a noise ghetto.  No wonder they are afraid to spell out to the residents what is in store for them.  The contrast with Heathrow couldn’t be more marked.  Heathrow are planning to consult widely on the changes and to use the new technology to share out the noise burden.”

Stewart added, “We will be officially reporting London City to the CAA because of the poor quality of their consultation.  They simply have not made clear to people what is in store for them.”

ENDS

Notes for Editors:

(1). The consultation documents can be found at http://www.londoncityairport.com/londonairspacemanagement.  

 It started on 4th September and runs until 27th November 2014.  Responses to the consultation should be emailed to lamp@londoncityairport.com

http://stopcityairportmasterplan.tumblr.com/post/96861365085/press-release-london-city-airport-creating-a-noise

The London City Airport website says of their consultation:

From 4 September to 27 November 2014 London City Airport (LCY) is consulting on proposals to modernise its flight paths, to allow the introduction of Area Navigation (RNAV**), superseding the ground-based navigational systems used today.  The consultation is a statutory requirement according to Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) regulations.

The London City Airport proposal seeks to replicate the existing conventional flight paths with equivalent RNAV routes.  The concept is not optional – a legal mandate is being introduced by the Civil Aviation Authority which will require all aircraft to be equipped to navigate using RNAV by November 2017, and a mandate for the airspace to provide RNAV routes is expected to be effective by winter 2019. 

The proposed changes are key to achieving network efficiency and reducing delays in the south and are an important part of the London Airspace Management Programme (LAMP), NATS’ wider programme to modernise the air route system over London and the south east.


Right arrow London City Airport says:

http://www.londoncityairport.com/londonairspacemanagement

What do these proposals mean to people living, and businesses located, near to the airport?

Aircraft departing from, and arriving at, London City Airport will continue to fly along the same routes as they do today. However, because these will become RNAV routes, the aircraft will fly them more accurately, meaning they will be consistently closer to the centreline of said route.

This has the effect of reducing the overall area overflown, but it will increase the concentration of over-flights in some areas beneath the centreline of the given route.

—-

Is London City Airport alone in this concept?

London City Airport is not alone in changing over to RNAV routes. The proposed changes are an important part of the London Airspace Management Programme (LAMP), a  wider programme to modernise the air route system over London and the south east that is being led by NATS, the UK’s leading provider of air traffic services. This is essential for the delivery of the Future Airspace Strategy (FAS), the Civil Aviation Authority’s blueprint for modernising airspace by 2020.The undertaking of LAMP and the introduction of RNAV routes at airports is not optional – a legal mandate is being introduced by the Civil Aviation Authority, which will require all aircraft to be equipped to navigate using RNAV by November 2017, and a mandate for the airspace to provide RNAV routes is expected to be effective by winter 2019.

Right arrow 

—-

Why is the consultation required?

While the London City Airport proposal is for replication of existing flight paths to make them RNAV compliant, the CAA’s Airspace Change Process and the CAA Policy on RNAV replication of conventional procedures state that formal consultation is required to ensure that the London City Airport Consultative Committee has the opportunity to provide feedback.

Right arrow 

—-

What is this consultation not about?

This consultation only concerns aircraft arriving to/departing from London City Airport. It is not related to air traffic growth in general nor changes to the ground-based infrastructure at London City Airport.

This consultation is specifically not about the permission that London City Airport has to increase its flight movements to 120,000 per annum, nor is it about the City Airport Development Programme planning application which is with Newham Council for determination.

This consultation is also not concerned with RNAV as a future tool, any other or future development, any aspect of Government airport or airspace policy or the establishment of controlled airspace.

—-

Right arrow 

Who are the stakeholders in the consultation?

This is a public consultation, however the key stakeholders are:

  • The London City Airport Consultative Committee (ACC) which includes representatives of Local Authorities, community representatives and other organisations that have expressed an interest in the activities of the airport
  • Members of the National Air Traffic Management Committee (NATMAC) which includes representatives of all types of airspace users.
  • Airlines that operate from London City Airport.
  • [Note - this does not mention local residents and those to be overflown, with a concentration of flights overhead, and therefore substantially more noise].
  • —–

Right arrow 

What happens to the responses to the consultation?

Responses to the Consultation are used to prepare a formal submission to the CAA Safety and Airspace Regulation Group (SARG) regarding proposed routes.

Right arrow —

When does the CAA SARG decide on the outcome of the consultation?

Following consultation, London City Airport will submit an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) to the CAA. The CAA will make a decision within 16 weeks of the submission of the ACP. This is expected to be during the summer 2015

Right arrow —

Where can I go if I have concerns regarding how the consultation is being carried out?

This consultation is being conducted by London City Airport. The CAA SARG will oversee the consultation, to ensure that it adheres to CAA process and government guidelines. If there are any complaints about how this consultation has been conducted, these should be referred to:

Airspace Business Coordinator
Airspace, ATM and Aerodromes
Safety & Airspace Regulation Group
CAA House
45 – 59 Kingsway
London
WC2B 6TE

E-mail: airspace.policy@caa.co.uk

Please note that this address is for concerns and complaints regarding non-adherence to the defined consultation process. The SARG will not engage with consultees on details of this consultation. Response to the nature of this specific consultation should be addressed to London City Airport. The SARG will receive details of your response as part of the formal ACP submission for this proposal.

 —


 

.

** RNAV is explained by NATS to mean:

Precision RNAV, otherwise known as RNAV1 is a capability that uses the aircraft’s Flight Management System (FMS) to fly routes with an accuracy of 1 mile or better. In practice this is a minimum standard and the aircraft actually fly very much more accurately than that. The advantage over conventional procedures is that routes can be designed to optimise trajectory for fuel burn, noise, air traffic control capacity and safety without being constrained by the position of traditional ground based navigation aids.

With aircraft being able to follow a defined route much more accurately, it is possible to concentrate them over a smaller area, radically reducing the number of people exposed to aircraft noise. The problem of course is that those under the new departure route could potentially experience more noise.

—-

It is explained by London City Airport as

RNAV is an advanced, highly accurate method of aircraft navigation.  RNAV (Area Navigation) is the ability of an aircraft’s Flight Management System (FMS) to navigate by means of waypoints defined by latitude and longitude, rather than by conventional ground based navigational aids. Basic Area Navigation (B-RNAV ) has navigational accuracy ± 5 nautical miles either side of a routes centreline and its capability is mandated in UK controlled airspace currently.

The RNAV (technically known as RNAV1) has an accuracy of + 1 nautical mile either side of the centreline which allows better track keeping and as such the replicated route’s proposed for London City Airport are all designed to this specification.


.

An AirportWatch member commented:

My recollection of the Southend & Gatwick airspace change proposals had to take account of London City, in quite a complicated way, and interweave etc., accordingly.
Hence my limited perception would be that closing LCA would enable flights for other airports to fly higher and cause less disturbance to those on the ground.
.
.
.
.
..

Read more »

HACAN to distribute 50,000 copies of newspaper “Third Runway News” setting out reasons against it

HACAN has proudly launched a new local newspaper, called “Third Runway News,” a new publication which provides residents of west London, east Berkshire and north Surrey with the facts about what an expanded Heathrow Airport would mean for them. It is 4 pages in full colour, illustrated – link at Third Runway News.  HACAN is a residents-led campaign, and by contrast with the millions of ££s that Heathrow airport has for its publicity, benefits from the work of local volunteers. The new newspaper has been designed by a local HACAN member, not by a hugely expensive professional design company.  The paper asks people to get in touch to say which of the many impacts of a 3rd runway they are most concerned about. These include noise pollution, air pollution, increased car traffic, loss of their home – or loss of the value of their home, or impacts on children and schools from aircraft noise. Meanwhile Heathrow airport have massive adverts, containing extravagant claims for “benefits” of a 3rd runway, (with no supporting evidence), such as “120,000 more jobs” and “£100 billion of economic benefits (not time-scale indicated)” and “loss of £125 billion per month in last trade” for every month without the new runway.  Really??
.

 

HACAN to distribute 50,000 newspapers outlining reasons why a 3rd Heathrow runway should not be built

5.9.2014  (HACAN)

HACAN has proudly launched Third Runway News, a new publication providing residents of west London, east Berkshire and north Surrey with the facts about what an expanded Heathrow Airport would mean for them.

Read the illustrated 4 page newspaper: ThirdRunwayNews-digitalversion (temporarily hosted on the site of S.H.E Stop Heathrow Expansion,our sister organisation).

Third runway news

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page one (of four) of Third Runway News.

HACAN is a residents-led campaign and indeed this newspaper was designed by one of our local members, not by a hugely expensive professional design company.  HACAN relies on donations and membership fees to fund our activities.

Unlike some other campaign organisations, we are not bankrolled by Heathrow Airport!

Whether it is noise pollution, air pollution or increased traffic, there are plenty of reasons why a third runway should never be allowed to take off. This newspaper explains why.

Find your village or town in the yellow banner running across the top of each page and spread the word around your neighbourhood today!

Will it affect you

 

For much more information on our campaign and activities, email us on info@hacan.org.uk

[HACAN = Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise]

http://hacan.org.uk/hacan-to-distribute-50000-newspapers-outlining-reasons-why-a-3rd-runway-shouldnt-be-built/

 

.


 

.

Heathrow airport adverts

By contrast, Heathrow (with millions of ££s to spend on its PR campaign) has recently put out a new set of adverts.

Below is one of them. Judge for yourself the accuracy of these claims (for which no backing evidence is given).

Heathrow advert Sept 2014

Heathrow advert text

 

 

 

http://your.heathrow.com/new-adverts-release-taking-britain/

.

.

Prime Economics: “Out of thin air – the economic case for a 3rd Heathrow runway” – takes apart the claims made by Heathrow

Prime Economics, a group of independent economic thinkers, has taken a look at Heathrow’s claims about the economic case for a 3rd runway. They are not impressed. While Heathrow (see its latest advert) says: “If we want Britain’s economy to keep growing, we need to grow Heathrow”, the reality is very different. Among Heathrow’s dodgy 3rd runway economic claims, they say: “• It will bring economic benefits of £100bn • It will bring 120,000 new jobs • Every month the problem goes unresolved is costing the British economy £1.25bn through lost trade”. Prime Economics says “the evidence for each of these is very thin and hypothetical …. The link between trade and airport capacity is at best indirect, and certainly opaque. At a macroeconomic level, the impact is simply invisible.” They say “Economies depend on many factors, and hub capacity is one of the least significant, at least once you reach a decent threshold of scale.” They pick to pieces the £1.25 billion figure; the idea that the UK needs flights to every destination in every country; and the hub competition between EU countries. “The current debate assumes exponential growth both of our economies and of our travel into the indefinite future. This will not happen … Airports …are not the main drivers of economic success nor of national well-being.” Well worth reading.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

 

 

 

.

.

.

Read more »

Woodland Trust asking Gatwick respondents to send a photo of themselves, to prove to Gatwick they are real people

Gatwick carried out a consultation, that ended on 16th May) about its 2nd runway plans. There were some 7,700 responses (the vast majority against a new runway) and of those, 4,092 came through a campaign by the Woodland Trust. However, in its analysis of the consultation responses, Ipsos Mori decided to discount these responses, as they had been generated by a campaign and were sent in electronically. It is too convenient for the airport to discount over half the responses in this way. The Woodland Trust is now asking everyone who backs their campaign against Gatwick destroying areas of ancient woodland for its runway, to send in photos and details of themselves, in order to prove to the powers-that-be that they are real people, their opinions are real, and there is no reason for their consultation responses to be invalidated.You can add your photo, and a brief comment, on the Woodland Trust website here. The Trust is rightly appalled at suggestions by Gatwick that they can justify destroying ancient woodland by just offsetting it, through planting 3 new saplings to replace each ancient tree – or translocating woodland soil to new locations for new saplings. Neither even partly replace the richness, quality and diversity of true ancient woods.
.

 

 

Click here to upload your photo, on the Woodland Trust site.

Say NO to ancient woodland loss at Gatwick

Map of land at Gatwick airport

Gatwick’s owners need to see the real people behind genuine concerns for ancient woodland.

The Woodland Trust says:
Thank you for all your responses to the consultation into a new runway at Gatwick Airport. Over 50% of all responses received were generated by our campaign. As a result, the impact on ancient woodland and the existing wildlife corridors from each of the three new runway options has been pushed to the forefront of the debate.

However, a post-consultation report suggests the views we helped submit to the official consultation were collected as part of an ‘organised campaign’. We need to make sure they are counted as individual submissions.

New plans also continue to include fundamental misunderstandings about the ecological impact a new runway will have, as well as worrying ideas like ‘offsetting’ irreplaceable ancient woodland.

Better understanding of this precious woodland is crucial to its future, so we’ve invited Gatwick’s Airports Commission Director to visit nearby Edolph’s Copse with our conservation experts to see ancient woodland close up.

We also want to make sure your views are taken into account, so we’ll personally hand him a hard copy of the 1,058 additional comments our campaign generated.

You’re a real person; help us prove it to Gatwick’s owners

To further emphasise that the submissions our campaign generated came from real people, with unique views about the impact of a new runway, we are asking you to send us a selfie with a special message to Gatwick’s owners. We’ll take these photos along to our meeting to make sure your views are heard.

Show your face for ancient woodland – add your photo to our website.

http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/campaigning/campaigns/gatwick-expansion/

.


4092 responses were facilitated by the Woodland Trust’s campaign – more than half of the total number Gatwick received – and all expressed concern about three areas of ancient woodland that will be lost or severely damaged by the plans. Respondents included customers of Gatwick and local residents.

Concern has been raised locally about whether these responses have been properly considered by Gatwick’s owners, Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP).

The Woodland Trust is satisfied that respondents’ calls for the airport to think carefully about ancient woodland protection have been heard, but is alarmed that in an apparent attempt to alter its plans, GIP has made inaccurate, and in some instances completely inappropriate, proposals that neither avoid, nor fully compensate for the loss and damage that would be caused to ancient woodland – an irreplaceable habitat.

Woodland Trust Campaigner, Katharine Rist, said: “Thanks to thousands of people raising the issue, ancient woodland is mentioned extensively within Gatwick Airport’s report. But Gatwick’s new proposals to deal with loss and damage to wildlife corridors and precious habitats are misguided at best. We hope to speak directly to the owners of Gatwick and help them understand the complex nature of ancient woodland and why best practice would actually be to avoid any loss of this irreplaceable habitat in line with the mitigation hierarchy.”

Gatwick’s report cites the need to ‘offset’ (1) the loss of ancient woodland and proposes to do this by planting three new trees to every one lost in an ancient wood, which it describes as ‘meeting best practice’.

Katharine continued: “Ancient woodland is not solely about trees. It is a habitat of national significance – a unique ecosystem containing complex soil structures that have lain undisturbed for hundreds, potentially thousands, of years. It is crucial GIP fully understand what it is putting at risk. Both the Woodland Trust and DEFRA agree it can not be ‘offset’. Planting new woodland at three times the amount of ancient woodland lost will never result in a habitat of the same biodiversity value.”

‘Translocation’ is also cited by Gatwick as a possible solution to ancient woodland loss. This method requires a woodland habitat first to be felled, and then the top layer of soil dug up and relocated by lorry to another site to use as the basis for new planting. The Woodland Trust has seen no evidence of successful translocation despite several Freedom of Information requests to Government departments (2) and considers it a salvage operation at best.

A suggestion was even made in the report that the Woodland Trust might take on ownership and management of land that had been used for offsetting the loss of ancient woodland, which goes completely against the charity’s stated aims.

The Woodland Trust will continue to oppose any airport expansion that results in the loss of ancient woodland and to lobby for the protection of ancient woodland around Gatwick Airport. To this end, it will be attending the GATCOM meeting in October and hopes to see Gatwick’s plans improve significantly before they form part of any further consultation.

===========

(1) Biodiversity Offsetting

There is currently no best practice when it comes to biodiversity offsetting for other habitats since Government is yet to publish its response to the consultation it held last year, or publish the results of the pilot studies that ended in April.

The maximum metric currently advocated by Defra for biodiversity offsetting is 30:1. Defra agree that ancient woodland can not be offset because it is irreplaceable and suggest that where loss is deemed unavoidable a ‘bespoke’ scheme should be used. Therefore, the Trust believes that any bespoke scheme should take 30:1 as its starting point and planting should be sensitively sited, taking full account of the principles set out in the Lawton review and endorsed by the Natural Environment White Paper of “bigger, better, and more joined up landscapes”.

(2) Translocation – FOI requests

The Woodland Trust has asked for monitoring records from a site translocated as part of HS1 (the Channel Tunnel rail link) but, despite being referred to by ministers as a ‘success’, no monitoring records can be traced.

.


.

Earlier:

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

6.5.2014

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

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=21208

 

with more detail of how the Woodland Trust encouraged their supporters to respond to the Gatwick consultation, to help protect woodland (and other habitats) at threat.

.

.

.

 

.

.

 

Read more »