Heathrow hoping to woo air freight companies with plans to give air freight more priority

There was a small decline (0.2%) in 2015 in cargo volumes at Heathrow compared with 2014 levels. The tonnage of freight (1.496 million tonnes, more imports than exports) is barely changed from the amount in 2011. Heathrow has tried to sell its 3rd runway plans partly on the grounds that it is vital for UK companies that export things needing air freight. Many non-perishable, not especially high value items are air freighted (books and brochures, raincoats and overcoats). Almost all air freight at Heathrow is belly hold, in passenger planes. DHL is the only freight airline there.  Heathrow has plans (nothing started) to try to develop itself as a European cargo hub through the investment of around £180m, including a specialist pharmaceutical storage area — to support airlines to move highly valuable and temperature sensitive medicines. There would be a huge impact on local roads of all the freight vehicles, which would be diesel powered, and the NO2 pollution.  IAG has a large freight hub in Madrid, shipping air cargo into Heathrow and Gatwick. Heathrow says it has restricted air freight capacity on some routes, but overall load factors were only about 60-65%. ie. there is plenty of space for more. Air freight companies would like Heathrow to allocate slots for them.
.

 

 

See also  Air Freight for figures on tonnage etc at UK airports


Airlines eye scheduled freighter operations as Heathrow pushes cargo up priority list

By Alex Lennane (the LoadStar)
12/05/2016

Heathrow is in talks with at least two freighter airlines looking to launch operations at the UK’s slot-constricted airport.

The airport, which, along with the CAA has a newfound interest in freight as it lobbies for a third runway, has very restricted cargo capacity on 19 routes, including to the US west coast, Tokyo and parts of China.

But Nick Platts, head of cargo, said there was a possibility of launching some regular freighter operations in slots that were available.

This was revealed at the Multimodal event yesterday, after Larry Coyne, CEO of Coyne Airways, called on Heathrow to improve its mix of operations.

“I’d like to see a better balance between freighters and passenger capacity,” he said. “All-cargo airports fall flat on their faces – you need a connection between bellies and freighters.

“Get some freighters in, and you’ll have a better mix.”

Mr Coyne admitted that his airline had left the UK for Amsterdam. Coyne had been using IAG’s 747s at Stansted, but “BA couldn’t connect up with its own flights at Heathrow”, he explained.

Currently only one freighter operator, DHL, has “grandfather” slot rights at Heathrow, but the airport made some £5m from ad hoc freighter operations last year.

Mr Platts, while welcoming freighters, added that Heathrow was primarily a belly cargo airport: “We will always be a passenger hub.”

He added that there was still cargo capacity on many routes, as airport load factors were only about 60-65%, and once efficiencies were implemented, more capacity would be available.

“I think we can do a better job of utilising the capacity – our strength is using bellies and it’s a cheaper and more efficient use of resources. We need to get airlines to upgrade their aircraft to get more belly capacity. And expansion would alleviate the capacity constraints on some routes.”

A third runway would add 40 destinations to the 185 already served from Heathrow.

Mr Platts said the airport was trying to determine the value of cargo and the consequent investment.

Heathrow is heavily regulated, with price-capped fees set by the CAA and a “single till”, meaning that all revenues went into the same pot.

“We need evidence that cargo is a good investment for the airport,” he said.

The UK CAA, which represents the needs of airport users, is currently reviewing the price controls at Heathrow, before the current contract expires in 2019. For the first time it is considering cargo owners and forwarders as users, where previously it had only taken passengers into account.

“It wants to ensure that shippers’ needs are being met,” said Mr Platts.

“We need to do more for our exporters. We import more than we export, which is a bad state of affairs and we need to encourage exports. There is an export role at all airports in the UK, but without expansion we can’t ship as much. And so cargo won’t go to Manchester or Stansted, it will go to the continent.”

While Coyne moved its operations from the UK to Amsterdam, Air Canada did the opposite, said Mark Olney, general manager cargo for Europe, Middle East and India.

“We bring in freight from the continent as we struggle with capacity there. Our passenger aircraft at Heathrow are 777s, and they are like freighters.”

He added that the airline was investing in terminal facilities at Heathrow. “It’s an area where we recognise we have to contribute.”

The Multimodal session was held just after Heathrow had announced that it would accept, and in some cases exceed, all the environmental targets set out in the Airports Commission report. It also said it would extend a night flight ban by an hour and a half (from 11pm until 5.30 am) sooner than required if it won consent for the third runway.

Mr Platts said he had been considering low-emission onward transport for freight, including using barges on the nearby Grand Union Canal, which links central London with Birmingham, and by rail.

The airport is investing £8m in cargo facilities, including airside transhipment, and reducing truck congestion.

https://theloadstar.co.uk/airlines-eye-scheduled-freighter-operations-heathrow-pushes-cargo-priority-list/

.

Heathrow air freight in recent years:

2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
1,234,940 1,310,987 1,397,054 1,277,650 1,472,988 1,484,351 1,464,390 1,422,939

 

2014 2015
1 498 906  1 496 551

See earlier:

 

Heathrow plans to double its volume of air freight, necessitating more trips by diesel powered HGVs and goods vehicles

Heathrow plans to double its  air freight volumes in its aspiration to become one of the leading airports for cargo in Europe. CEO John Holland-Kaye announced at the British Chambers of Commerce that Heathrow will invest £180 million in the project and has its blueprint ready. Investment will be made to enhance air to air transit by building a facility on the airport for faster handling of transit cargo that arrives by air and is due to fly out again by air, reducing the times. The improvements to air freight is meant to be “essential for the growth and success of the UK economy.” (Where have we heard that  before?)  There will need to be a new truck parking facility for over 100 vehicles, with waiting arenas for drivers. There will be a special pharmaceutical storage area to move temperature-sensitive medicines and provide better infrastructure for faster freight movement. Holland-Kaye wants the UK “reach its £1 trillion export target by 2020.” Heathrow dealt with 1.50 million metric tonnes of cargo in 2014. This can only increase the number of HGVs in the Heathrow area. HGVs are all powered by diesel, not petrol – with its attendant higher NO2 emissions.  Meanwhile Mr Holland-Kaye was at the EAC saying there would be no extra car journeys to/from Heathrow with a 3rd runway.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/11/heathrow-plans-to-double-its-volume-of-air-freight-necessitating-more-trips-by-diesel-powered-hgvs/

.


Heathrow records 2015 demand decline

11.1.2016 (~Air Cargo News)

The UK’s busiest cargo airport, Heathrow, ended last year with a slight decline in cargo volumes compared with 2014 levels.

The west London airport, which is hoping to add an extra runway, recorded total cargo volumes of 1.5m tonnes in 2015, a 0.2% decline compared with a year earlier.

However, it was not all bad news for the airport as it managed to record a 0.8% year-on-year demand increase in December to 127,153 tonnes.

It said the December increase was down to growth from emerging markets; Nigeria was up 50%, China 20% and Turkey 20%.

In mid-December the Government announced another delay on whether, and how, to expand runway capacity in the south-east of England.

The airport has, however, unveiled plans to develop itself as a European cargo hub through the investment of around £180m.

This includes proposals for a specialist pharmaceutical storage area — to support airlines to move highly valuable and temperature sensitive medicines — as well as better infrastructure to reduce congestion and smoother processes, all enabling freight to flow better through the airport and halving process time from 8-9 hours, to four hours.

http://www.aircargonews.net/news/single-view/news/heathrow-recordes-2015-demand-decline.html

.


IAG Cargo extends reach to tap South African perishables

To capture some of the booming perishables market in Africa, IAG Cargo has added three-times-a-week, London Gatwick to Cape Town service to its winter schedule, using a 777-200 aircraft, beginning Nov. 24.The new seasonal frequencies will supplement IAG’s thrice-weekly A330-300 Madrid-Johannesburg service, which is set to begin Aug. 1, and its existing London Heathrow-Cape Town-Johannesburg service. By the end of 2016, this new Cape Town route brings total IAG Cargo flights to 27 per week to South Africa from both the London and Madrid hubs, offering a weekly lift of up to 440 tonnes.

Over the past 12 months, IAG Cargo said it has seen volumes of mangoes, avocadoes, pineapples and flowers “perform extremely well” out of South Africa, via IAG’s Constant Fresh service. “We now offer an outstanding proposition into and out of South Africa, providing businesses with enhanced flexibility over where and when they ship their goods,” said David Shepherd, head of commercial at IAG Cargo. “The forthcoming Johannesburg route will help to better link Africa with strategic markets, such as Latin America, while the new Cape Town-Gatwick route offers unrivalled access to Europe, North America and Asia Pacific.”

According to the Perishable Products Export Control Board (PPECB), the Middle East, European Union and United States were major importers of perishables from South Africa last year. Year-over-year African export volumes of avocados increased by 26 percent in 2015, while citrus experienced 2 percent growth, PPECB said.  Also, 55 percent of South Africa’s subtropical fruit, including avocados, mangoes, pineapples, and passion fruit, was exported to the EU last year.

http://aircargoworld.com/iag-cargo-extends-reach-to-tap-south-african-perishables/

.

It seems avocadoes from Kenya can be exported by sea freight, as well as by air freight Link and a lot of detail on the options of air freight or sea freight for avocadoes  Link 

Sea shipping of mangoes is possible, and cheaper than by air  Link


Extract from

Exports from Heathrow top £48 billion

11.11.2015 (Air Cargo Week)
………….

The top five UK export commodities by value via Heathrow were precious metals (£26 billion), aircraft turbojets (£3.3 billion), jewellery (£3 billion), medicaments (£2.8 billion) and paintings and drawings (£2.4 billion).

….

Fresh salmon is the UK’s number one export by weight via Heathrow, with 46,000 tonnes exported in the most recent 12-month period.

Books and brochures are the UK’s second largest export by weight via Heathrow with over 20,000 tonnes exported in the 12 months leading up to July 2015.

Overcoats and raincoats are one of the biggest growth exports by weight via Heathrow, with a 60 per cent growth on 2014 figures, highlighting the continued growth of the British fashion and design sector.

Earlier today, Heathrow reports its cargo volumes for January to October 2015 are up 0.1 per cent, and on a rolling 12-month basis volumes are up 0.8 per cent. Cargo to and from emerging markets has risen 3.4 per cent over the past 12 months – notably to Turkey by 26 per cent.

…….

Full article at  http://www.aircargoweek.com/exports-from-heathrow-top-48-billion/

Read more »

Scottish Green Party calls for Sturgeon to abandon plans to halve APD

The Scottish Green party say that Nicola Sturgeon should abandon her plans to slash air passenger duty (APD). Patrick Harvie, co-convener of the Scottish Green Party, said it was clear that there is no longer a majority at Holyrood in favour of halving APD, which would add to pollution and do nothing to tackle social inequality. The SNP manifesto said it would reduce air passenger duty by 50% over the next parliament (to 2020 or 2021). However, no other party in Scotland supported the move, with even the Scottish Conservatives, traditionally in favour of tax cuts, saying it could not be justified “at a time of constrained fiscal conditions.”  The Scottish Green party have suggested models of taxing aviation, such as the Frequent Flyer Levy, which would ensure the cost is shifted onto the minority of mostly wealthy individuals who fly most often. Cutting the rate of APD would have the effect of increasing CO2 emissions from Scottish aviation, by encouraging more  flights. A better way to tax air travel (which pays no VAT, and on which there is no fuel duty) would be to recognise the environmental costs of flying. Communities that are badly affected by the noise from flight paths at Edinburgh and Glasgow airports would suffer more noise. The additional noise – especially at night – is known to have adverse health impacts, which have a cost to society.
.

Greens call for Sturgeon to axe plans to cut airline tax

By Daniel Sanderson, Scottish Political Correspondent (Herald Scotland)

13.5.2016

.
NICOLA Sturgeon should abandon her plans to slash air passenger duty and instead consider a tax on wealthy frequent fliers, the Scottish Greens have said.

Patrick Harvie, writing in The Herald today, said it was clear that there is no longer a majority at Holyrood in favour of the move, which he said would add to pollution and do nothing to tackle social inequality.

The SNP leader has insisted she intends to deliver her manifesto in full, despite falling short of a majority. In the document, the SNP said it would reduce air passenger duty by 50 per cent over the next parliament.

However, no other party supported the move, with even the Scottish Conservatives, traditionally in favour of tax cuts, saying it could not be justified “at a time of constrained fiscal conditions.”

Mr Harvie said: “Let’s look at this as an opportunity to resolve what is a complex issue. In the past Greens have suggested models such as the Frequent Flyer Levy. This would ensure the cost is shifted onto the minority of mostly wealthy individuals who fly most often.

“The SNP’s proposal would add to climate change emissions and do nothing to tackle social inequality. Instead we could create a new way forward that recognises the environmental impact of aviation and ensures the right people pay the lion’s share.”

Ms Sturgeon has said that there remains a possibility that a referendum could take place in the next parliament, citing six Green MSPs, in addition to the 63 SNP members, meaning there remains a pro-independence majority at Holyrood.

Addressing the issue, Mr Harvie urged caution. He added: “We believe the timing of when Scotland asks itself the question again should be for the Scottish people to decide. Parliament retains a pro-independence majority but our case must be strengthened to address some of the weaknesses evident in 2014 such as those around currency. Yet while that work remains to be done, it may suit the Tories in particular to keep the constitution uppermost in everyone’s mind, while simultaneously demanding that everybody else “move beyond” it.”

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14490171.Greens_call_for_Sturgeon_to_axe_plans_to_cut_airline_tax/?ref=twtrec

.


See earlier: 

Edinburgh campaign, SEAT, shows why cutting Scottish APD risks harming people’s health and the environment

The community campaign, SEAT (Stop Edinburgh Airspace Trial) has set out why it is opposed to the Scottish Government intention to cut APD by 50%. Edinburgh airport is delighted that APD might be reduced, so increasing demand for more flights (= more profit). But those badly affected by aircraft noise are very concerned about the increase in the problems they suffer. Air Passenger Duty is needed, to at least partly make up for the tax breaks the aviation industry benefits from by paying no VAT, and no fuel duty. There is no VAT on purchase or servicing of aircraft. Many airports are owned by off-shore corporations, that pay minimal (or no) UK company taxed. Flying is already artificially cheap, and even cheaper, if the only tax is halved. While the Scottish government supports high speed rail links to London, which would cut carbon emissions if rail is used instead of air, they also aim to increase the number of flights, by cutting APD. That means significantly higher Scottish CO2 emissions. SEAT speaks up for people negatively impacted by aviation. The impacts on health from plane noise are now well known, and they are a cost to society. SEAT says cutting APD is unwise, and means putting profit for big business before people’s health, or the environment.

Click here to view full story…

 

SNP to launch consultation on plan to cut Scottish air passenger duty by 50%, starting April 2018

The Scottish National Party (SNP) say they will cut Air Passenger Duty (APD) by 50% between April 2018 and 2021, if they win the Holyrood election on 5th May 2016. There is now a public consultation on this proposal. Control of APD is due to be devolved to Holyrood when the Scotland Bill becomes law, so it is no longer administered by the UK government. The Scottish Labour party has said a reduction would most benefit wealthier people, and should not go ahead. The majority of flights are taken by more affluent people, who can afford multiple short breaks as well as long haul holidays. Details of the APD consultation were announced by Finance Secretary John Swinney during a visit to Edinburgh Airport. The 50% cut in APD would start in April 2018, and be done in stages till 2021. The industry would like cutting APD to increase the amount of profitable high spending tourists to Scotland. They hope this would boost jobs and bring economic benefits. The amount of Scottish money taken out of the country on even cheaper flights is not counted, nor the jobs lost as Scots spend their holiday money abroad. Climate campaigners fear the net effect will be higher carbon emissions from Scottish aviation, if the ticket price is cut.  

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/03/snp-to-launch-consultation-on-plan-to-cut-scottish-air-passenger-duty-by-50-starting-april-2018/

.


Scottish Government to consult on impact of halving, and then removing, APD

The Scottish government intends to remove Air Passenger Duty (APD) from flights departing from Scottish airports, in the hope of attracting more flights. Scottish ministers hope cutting APD would encourage more direct flights from Scotland and reduce the need for connecting flights via Heathrow and Amsterdam. Air travel is already very under-taxed, paying no VAT and no fuel duty.  The Scottish Government says it will halve APD during the Scottish Parliament’s next term, which will run until around 2020. That will mean about £200 million in lost tax to the government, and the Scottish government has to reimburse the UK Treasury. Scottish ministers want APD cut completely “when public finances permit.”  There is to be a new policy forum to look into the implications of removing or reducing APD, and a policy consultation this autumn. The forum will include some environmental groups, as well as aviation lobbies. There would be increased CO2 emissions from Scottish aviation if there was a 50% cut in APD, and even more so with no APD.  The Scottish government will have to explain “which other sectors of society will pick up the shortfall and at what cost.” More cheap holiday flights for Scottish people is likely to increase the tourism deficit, with more money flowing out than is brought in by in-bound tourists. 

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/08/27367/

Read more »

Heathrow’s vague proposal on no night flights – what is Heathrow really saying?

Heathrow currently, under current night flight controls that are due to be re-considered in 2017,  is allowed 5,800 night flights per year. That’s an average of 16 arriving each morning, typically between 4.30am and 6am. The latest flights should leave by 11.30pm but there are many that are later, almost up to midnight. Heathrow has been very reluctant to agree to a ban between 11.30pm and 6am, which was the condition imposed by the Airports Commission. Heathrow claims the early arrivals are vital for businessmen catching early flights – especially those from the UK regions. But now, desperate to be allowed a 3rd runway, Heathrow proposal [very careful, rather odd wording]: “The introduction of a legally binding ban on all scheduled night flights for six and a half hours (as recommended by the Airports Commission) from 11 pm to 5:30 am when the third runway opens.” and “We will support the earlier introduction of this extended ban on night flights by Government as soon as the necessary airspace has been modernised after planning consent for the third runway has been secured.” Heathrow only mentions scheduled flights. Not late ones.  It is widely recognised that for health, people need 7 – 8 hours of sleep per night.  Not 6.5 hours. Heathrow makes no mention of the inevitable concentrated landings and take offs at the shoulder periods, in order to keep 6.5 hours quiet.  Apart from insomniacs and shift workers, who else regards the end of the night as 5.30am?  

There are actually currently no scheduled flights at Heathrow from 11:00 to 11:30 – so the extra half hour claimed by JHK is a bit disingenuous to say the least. Instead of the time with no scheduled flights being the same 6.5 hours the Airports Commission stated, the effective new period without flights is half an hour less than Heathrow’s offer appears to be.

Heathrow do not promise to reduce, or even keep to the same level, overall numbers of night flights at Heathrow. With a 3rd runway it will be possible to re-time the 8 or so arrivals that currently occur between 04:30 and 05:30 into the post 5:30 to 7:00 period.

The change in the night fight regime would be imposed by the DfT under the night flying Regulations which are made under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 section 78. The ban would therefore have the force of law. Airports have to account monthly to DfT on how the regulations have been implemented.

Heathrow would have no option by to accept the law.  They would have no choice, whether or not Heathrow says they will “support” its introduction.

.

 

This is what Heathrow has said on night flights:

Airports Commission

conditions

Heathrow proposal
NIGHT FLIGHTS.

“Following construction of a third runway there should be a ban on all scheduled night flights in the period 11:30 pm to 6 am”

Meeting the Airports Commission

*The introduction of a legally binding ban on all scheduled night flights for six and a half hours (as recommended by the Airports Commission) from 11 pm to 5:30 am when the third runway opens.

Exceeding the Airports Commission

We will support the earlier introduction of this extended ban on night flights by Government as soon as the necessary airspace has been modernised after planning consent for the third runway has been secured.

* Every other one of the proposals contains a verb – what Heathrow is going to do. This one contains no verb.  

http://mediacentre.heathrow.com/pressrelease/details/81/Expansion-News-23/6296

.


Lord True, Richmond Council leader and Conservative peer, describes Heathrow promises as ‘worthless’ and asks David Cameron to deny expansion immediately

The leader of Richmond Council, Lord True, has called Heathrow’s pledge to ban night flights a “feeble attempt to bribe London.” He described Heathrow’s promises as “worthless” and said on the ending of night flights: “This so-called pledge falls short of what the Davies Commission requests and the Heathrow PR men simply cannot be believed. If they can stop pre-5.30am flights, why don’t they do it now? Rather than spending billions of pounds doing it?” On Heathrow’s claims about air quality improvements, Lord True commented:: “They cannot comply with EU air quality limits and their ‘jam’ promises are worthless…..if people’s health comes first – big Heathrow is dead in the water.” He said Heathrow had just made some token alterations to their original proposals. Richmond Council, along with Wandsworth, Hillingdon and Windsor & Maidenhead councils, have already made it clear that should the Government give a 3rd Heathrow runway the go-ahead – they would together launch legal action opposing the plans. Lord True: “I say to Mr Cameron – hundreds of thousands of Londoners remember your promise – “no ifs, no buts,” ….We expect our Prime Minister to keep his promise….”

Click here to view full story…


The current “DfT NIGHT FLYING RESTRICTIONS AT HEATHROW, GATWICK AND STANSTED”  –  June 2014

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330354/night-noise-decision.pdf


Heathrow makes guarded, carefully worded, offers to meet Airports Commission conditions for 3rd runway

Heathrow knows it has a difficult task in persuading the government that it can actually meet the (unchallenging) conditions put on its runway plans by the Airports Commission. Now John Holland-Kaye has written to David Cameron, setting out how Heathrow hopes to meet some conditions. They make out they will even exceed the conditions, in some cases. On Night flights, they say they will introduce a “legally binding ban on all scheduled night flights for six and a half hours (as recommended by the Airports Commission) from 11 pm to 5:30 am when the third runway opens.” [Note, scheduled – not late arrivals etc]. And they will “support the earlier introduction of this extended ban on night flights by Government as soon as the necessary airspace has been modernised after planning consent for the third runway has been secured.” [ie. full of caveats]. They dodge the issue of agreeing not to build a 4th runway, saying it they government makes a commitment in Parliament not to expand Heathrow further, then Heathrow will “Accept a commitment from Government ruling out any fourth runway..” [Words carefully chosen]. On noise and respite, Heathrow say “We will ensure there will be some respite for everyone living under the final flight path by using advances in navigational technology. We will consult and provide options on our proposals to alternate use of the runways.” [ie carefully chosen words, avoiding giving much away].

Click here to view full story…


This is what the Airports Commission Final Report said on night flights and a 3rd Heathrow runway:

P 10.

“Following construction of a third runway at the airport there should be a ban on all scheduled night flights in the period 11:30pm to 6:00am. This is only possible with expansion.”

and

P. 31

“Following construction of a third runway at Heathrow there should be a ban on all scheduled night flights between 11:30pm and 06:00am. This is only possible with expansion. Night flights are very unpopular with local residents, and the additional capacity from a third runway would enable airlines to re-time very early morning arrivals, limiting the commercial impact. ”

and

P. 170

[Taking night as an 8 hour period, as does the WHO – World Health Authority].  “The full range of metrics included in the noise scorecard is: • day noise (LAeq16h 7:00am-11:00pm) and night noise (LAeq8h 11:00pm-7:00am), looking not only at the 57 decibel level used by the government as its key metric, but also down to the lower 54 decibel level during the day and the 48 decibel level at night, and up to 72 decibels in both cases;…”

P 184.

9.42   Night flights are considered particularly disruptive by local residents around both Heathrow and Gatwick. They can contribute to sleep disturbance, which may lead to both health impacts (such as an increased risk of hypertension) and lost productivity for people who have suffered from lack of sleep. As a result of responses to its consultation, a review of the health impacts of aviation noise, including night noise, was commissioned from a member of the Commission’s Expert Advisory Panel, which has been published alongside this report. In addition, health and sleep disturbance effects were included in the monetisation of noise impacts used in the Commission’s economic analysis set out in detail in the Business Case.

9.43   A number of consultation responses called for greater restrictions or a ban on night flights whilst others highlighted the economic value of such flights and argued for their continuation. The Commission has conducted further work to understand the value of night flights at each airport; and the impacts of a ban on the airport’s business model.”

….

9.46   At Heathrow, under current arrangements, the quota system heavily restricts the number of flights that use can use the airport and the noise levels that they may create during the core night period from 11:30pm to 6:00am. In addition, the airlines using Heathrow have signed up to a voluntary agreement that no flights should land before 4:30am. This has led to an average of 16 arrivals from long-haul destinations between 4:30am and 6:00am each day and no departures. Chapter 14 discusses in detail the Commission’s conclusion that further restrictions on core night flights at an enlarged Heathrow would be credible and its recommendation that following construction of any new runway at Heathrow there should be a ban on all scheduled night flights between 11:30pm and 6:00am.

.


Heathrow not willing to accept a ban on night flights, saying it constrains links to regional airports

John Holland-Kaye is hugely confident that he will get a new runway, saying he was now “80%” sure that David Cameron’s decision would be for Heathrow.  The Airports Commission suggested a condition that there would be a complete ban on flights between 11.30pm and 6am due to the unacceptable noise of night flights. Mr Holland-Kaye says night flights were not something to “throw away lightly”. Heathrow currently is allowed 5,800 night flights per year, meaning an average of 16 arriving each morning, typically between 4.30am and 6am. British Airways wants to keep night flights, and is Heathrow’s largest airline. Last week Mr Holland-Kaye said shifting night flights to later slots would damage connections to the rest of the UK. “If I talk to regional airports, they all want to see early morning arrivals into Heathrow. They want a flight that comes in from their airport before 8 o’clock in the morning so people can do a full day’s work, can do business in London or can connect to the first wave of long-haul flights going out. You are very quickly going to use up all of the first two hours of the morning if we have a curfew before 6 o’clock, particularly as we then have to move the 16 flights. That really constrains the ability of UK regions to get the benefits from an expanded hub. So it is not something we should throw away lightly.”  Heathrow’s links to regional airport would actually fall, with a 3rd runway, according to the Airports Commission.  

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/11/heathrow-not-willing-to-accept-a-ban-on-night-flights-saying-it-constrains-links-to-regional-airport/

.


Studies show that at least 7 hours of sleep are needed, each night, by adults

Living under a flight path, along which aircraft fly at below – say 7,000 feet – is noisy. It is all the more noisy now that the aviation industry is introducing narrow, concentrated flight paths. These are replacing the older more dispersed routes, as aircraft have new “PBN” technology (like car satnav) and can fly far more accurately than in the past. And it suits the air traffic controllers to keep flight paths narrow. But if airports allow flights at night, or if the “night” period when flights are not allowed is short, this has consequences for people living near, or under, routes. Studies carried out scientifically show adults need at least 7 hours of sleep, each night to be at their healthiest. Children and teenagers need more.There are some people who need more than 7 hours per night, and some need less. It is not good enough to get less one night, and more the next – the brain does not process the day’s memories adequately. Studies show adverse effects of not getting enough sleep, which are not only related to concentration, speed of thinking or reacting etc, but also medical effects. The concentrated flight paths, and airports allowed to have flights all night, are causing very real problems. A study into noise and sleep by the CAA in 2009 looked at the issue, and said a large and comprehensive study is needed, but it is “likely to be expensive.”

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/06/studies-show-that-at-least-7-hours-of-sleep-are-needed-each-night-by-adults/ 

amount of sleep needed

How Much Sleep Do We Really Need?

.


What the World Health Organisation says on noise levels at night:

Extracts from WHO Night Noise Guidelines for Europe (2009)

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/43316/E92845.pdf

Sleep is an essential part of healthy life and is recognized as a fundamental right under the
European Convention on Human Rights. (European Court of Human Rights, 2003).

 

[The WHO consider “night” to be an 8 hour period.  All the noise measurement metrics assume an 8 hour night.  Most people like to sleep for 8 hours, or at least 7 hours.]

…..
(Table 5.4)
Average night noise level over a year Lnight    outside
Health effects observed in the population
40 to 55 dB .   Adverse health effects are observed among the exposed population. Many people have to adapt their lives to cope with the noise at night. Vulnerable groups are more severely affected.

Above 55 dB .   The situation is considered increasingly dangerous for public health. Adverse health effects occur frequently, a sizeable proportion of the population is highly annoyed and sleep-disturbed. There is evidence that the risk of cardiovascular
disease increases.
Lnight,outside in Table 5.4 and 5.5 is the night-time noise indicator (Lnight) of Directive 2002/49/EC of 25 June 2002: the A-weighted long-term average sound level as defined in ISO 1996-2: 1987, determined over all the night periods of a year; in which: the night is eight hours (usually 23.00 – 07.00 local time), a year is a relevant year as regards the emission of sound and an average year as regards the meteorological circumstances, the incident sound is considered, the assessment point is the same as for Lden. See Communities, 18.7.2002, for more details.
……
Below the level of 30 dB Lnight,outside, no effects on sleep are observed except for a
slight increase in the frequency of body movements during sleep due to night noise.
There is no sufficient evidence that the biological effects observed at the level below
40 dB Lnight,outside are harmful to health. However, adverse health effects are
observed at the level above 40 dBLnight,outside, such as self-reported sleep disturbance,
environmental insomnia, and increased use of somnifacient drugs and sedatives.
Therefore, 40 dB Lnight,outside is equivalent to the LOAEL  [LOAEL is the lowest observed adverse effectlevel (LOAEL) for night noise] for night noise.

Above 55 dB the cardiovascular effects become the major public health concern,
which are likely to be less dependent on the nature of the noise. Closer examination
of the precise impact will be necessary in the range between 30 dB and 55 dB as
much will depend on the detailed circumstances of each case.

A number of instantaneous effects are connected to threshold levels expressed in
LAmax (Table 5.1). The health relevance of these effects cannot be easily established.
It can be safely assumed, however, that an increase in the number of such events over
the baseline may constitute a subclinical adverse health effect by itself leading to significant clinical health outcomes.

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/43316/E92845.pdf

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Heathrow’s commitment on 4th runway – what is Heathrow really saying?

The Airports Commission said, in giving its recommendation that a 3rd Heathrow runway should be built, that a firm condition was that no 4th runway should ever be built there. The Commission’s wording in its Final Report (1.7.2015) was: “A fourth runway should be firmly ruled out. The government should make a commitment in Parliament not to expand the airport further. There is no sound operational or environmental case for a four runway Heathrow.” And  “This may be as part of a National Policy Statement or through legislation.” What Heathrow has now said is that it will: “Accept a commitment from Government ruling out any fourth runway.”  This does not say this ban on a 4th runway would be in legislation. It merely says there would be a commitment. But the coalition government made a commitment not to build a 3rd runway, in 2010. That commitment was then overturned in the next Parliament.  It scarcely encourages trust.  A commentator in the Huffington Post says (as well as the long history of Heathrow’s broken promises)  that allowing the 3rd Heathrow runway would effectively say Heathrow is now and ever will be the UK’s hub airport.  Hub airports actually “need at least four runways and preferably room to expand further.
.

 

What the Airports Commission’s Final Report said (P 11):

“A fourth runway should be firmly ruled out. The government should make a commitment in Parliament not to expand the airport further. There is no sound operational or environmental case for a four runway Heathrow.”

and

(Page 32)

“Government should make a firm commitment in Parliament to rule out any fourth runway at Heathrow, for which there is no operational or environmental case. This may be as part of a National Policy Statement or through legislation.”

and

(Page 309)

“14.117   In addition, the physical geography challenge of fitting a fourth runway in at Heathrow would be increasingly great. The Commission considered the extent to which the shortlisted schemes might be able to accommodate further significant expansion, but it was not possible to identify any option for a fourth runway at the Heathrow site that could be delivered without incurring both reduced benefits and substantially increased financial and environmental costs.

14.118   Moreover, while there is a potential demand case for a second additional runway in the South East by 2050, it does not follow that there would necessarily be an economic or environmental case for such a development.

14.119   Nonetheless, given the history of development at Heathrow, the Commission recognises that the local communities may be mistrustful of such statements, particularly if coming from the airport itself. That is why the Commission recommends that the Government make a firm ruling in Parliament on the matter. A statement that there should be no fourth runway at Heathrow made as part of a National Policy Statement or through legislation would be the best way to give lasting reassurance to communities.”

.


The wording of what Heathrow now proposes:

FOURTH RUNWAY:

“Ruling out any fourth runway. The government should make a commitment in Parliament not to expand the airport further.”

Heathrow’s proposal

Meeting the Airports Commission

Accept a commitment from Government ruling out any fourth runway.

 

On 11th May:

Heathrow makes guarded, carefully worded, offers to meet Airports Commission conditions for 3rd runway

Heathrow knows it has a difficult task in persuading the government that it can actually meet the (unchallenging) conditions put on its runway plans by the Airports Commission. Now John Holland-Kaye has written to David Cameron, setting out how Heathrow hopes to meet some conditions. They make out they will even exceed the conditions, in some cases. On Night flights, they say they will introduce a “legally binding ban on all scheduled night flights for six and a half hours (as recommended by the Airports Commission) from 11 pm to 5:30 am when the third runway opens.” [Note, scheduled – not late arrivals etc]. And they will “support the earlier introduction of this extended ban on night flights by Government as soon as the necessary airspace has been modernised after planning consent for the third runway has been secured.” [ie. full of caveats]. They dodge the issue of agreeing not to build a 4th runway, saying it they government makes a commitment in Parliament not to expand Heathrow further, then Heathrow will “Accept a commitment from Government ruling out any fourth runway..” [Words carefully chosen]. On noise and respite, Heathrow say “We will ensure there will be some respite for everyone living under the final flight path by using advances in navigational technology. We will consult and provide options on our proposals to alternate use of the runways.” [ie carefully chosen words, avoiding giving much away].

Click here to view full story…


Comment in the Huffington Post:

Heathrow Concessions Fail to Hide Stark Flaws in Expansion Proposal

11.5.2016

By Keith Prince, who is Conservative London Assembly Member for Havering & Redbridge

This morning Heathrow Airport announced a number of suggested concessions that they believe should enable them to build a third runway. Some of these, such as a reduction in night flights, would be welcome, but the list was striking for its significant flaws.

Heathrow has promised that it would not seek to build a fourth runway should it be allowed to build a third. However this is a highly dubious promise for two reasons:

First, Heathrow has a long history of promising (see below) that its next expansion will be its last expansion. Over the years Londoners have been told that the fourth terminal would be the last time Heathrow expanded. We were told the same thing when Heathrow gained permission to build a fifth terminal. There is no reason to believe that a third runway would mean the end of the line for Heathrow expansion.

Secondly, is what a third runway at Heathrow would mean for London’s hub capacity. Allowing a third runway would effectively be a statement saying that Heathrow is now and ever will be London’s and the UK’s hub airport. Hub airports, as we have seen around the world, need to have at least four runways and preferably room to expand further. At the moment there is the opportunity to recognise that Heathrow was built in the wrong place and that we should build a new airport, ideally in the Thames Estuary. If a third runway is approved then the Government will be almost closing the door on the most sensible alternative to an ever-expanding Heathrow.

Nevertheless the dubious promise of an end to expansion if the third runway could just be granted was not the most extraordinary suggestion this morning.

The idea that extending the Ultra-Low Emission Zone – which is currently due to be introduced with the same boundaries as the Congestion Charge Zone in 2020 – to the M25 would enable the expansion of Heathrow is truly ridiculous. What they are effectively saying is that every single car, van or black cab driver in London would need to buy a new low-emission vehicle in order to make the Heathrow expansion conceivable.

Heathrow is facing air quality issues that simply cannot be overcome. If the best they can offer is a ham-fisted proposal that would severely impact small businesses and drivers across London then today should be the day that the idea of a Heathrow expansion is knocked on the head for good.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/keith-prince/heathrow-expansion_b_9905442.html

.


That 1999 Sir John Egan “Dear Neighbour” letter

The “Dear Neighbour” letter dated April 1999, from Sir John Egan (then Chairman of BAA, the owner of Heathrow) setting out a range of claims about how Terminal 5 would not make the situation worse for residents. This included the promise there would be no new runway.

Sir John Egan Dear Neighbour April 1999

See the letter, saved on the HACAN website:

http://hacan.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/BAA-1999-letter-to-residents.pdf

.


The History of broken promises over Heathrow’s 3rd runway 

In 1995 Heathrow denied it would want a 3rd runway. It persisted in denying this until 2003, when it came out as lobbying for one.
This Friends of the Earth briefing gives the history, up to 2008, of the broken promises.   http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/heathrow_broken_promises.pdf
FoE says that in 2001 “BAA echoes BA’s denial and says it is not pushing for a third runway at Heathrow. “It is the company’s view that the local communities around Heathrow should be give (sic) assurances. BAA would urge the government to rule out any additional runway at Heathrow.”
In November 2001, having sat on the Terminal 5 Inquiry Inspector Vandermeer’s report for almost a year, the Government announces its decision on T5 and releases the inspector’s report. The inspector says that a 3rd runway could have “unacceptable environmental consequences”. He recommends a cap on the number of flights at 480,000 a year in order to prevent the need for a third runway.
Then FoE says: “On 13 May 2003, BAA plc admits publicly that it wants third runway at Heathrow.  In its response to the Government’s airport consultation BAA short-lists a third runway at Heathrow and claims that this is part of the company’s approach of ‘responsible growth’. “
.
During the 2010 election, local election campaign material in west London said:

No ifs No buts

 

Actual text from Conservative election leaflet for the May 2010 election.   Full leaflet at  http://www.electionleaflets.org/leaflets/full/b58fa8c95aec5d810bfe2ebb16bcbf91/

.

The  Coalition’s “Programme for Government” written in May 2010 states:

• “We will cancel the third runway at Heathrow.   • We will refuse permission for additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted.”

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100919110641/http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk/files/2010/05/coalition-programme.pdf

.


Beryl Wilkins, a retired teacher, questioned why past promises were allowed to be broken, including an inspector who had said in a consultation meeting that Terminal 4 would be the last.

Nigel Milton, director of policy and political relations for Heathrow, said: “The people who made those promises weren’t in a position to make these promises.”

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/pollution-concerns-raised-heathrow-expansion-7778746

John Holland-Kaye also made a similar comment at an Airports Commission public meeting on 3.12.2014 :

Heathrow Airport boss apologises for ruling out Third Runway in 1990s, saying: ‘We got it wrong’

3 DEC 2014

Heathrow’s CEO has apologised for broken promises that he said have ‘hung over the airport’s relationship with local communities’.

John Holland-Kaye made the apology at the Airports Commission’s consultation conference today (Wednesday, December 3), where options for expanding either Heathrow or Gatwick are being discussed.

He said he was sorry for the airport’s past commitment, made almost 20 years ago, to permanently rule out building a third runway.

He said: “I am shocked by that commitment. It should never have been made. And it could never be kept. That is not an excuse. It is an apology. I am sorry Heathrow made that commitment. It has hung over the relationship with local communities, and has led to a deficit of trust that can only be repaired by demonstrating we are a different company from the past.”

Details at  http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/local-news/heathrow-airport-boss-apologises-ruling-8219853

.


 

Read more »

Willie Walsh reiterates that he will fight Heathrow runway, due to cost; content with 3 hub system for IAG instead

Willie Walsh has reiterated his determination not to pay the exorbitant costs of a new Heathrow runway (and that’s without the costs that the taxpayer would have to pick up for surface access improvements – which could be £20 billion).  He said the current proposal to build a 3rd Heathrow runway is “indefensible” from a cost point of view and he will fight it.  BA holds over 50% of Heathrow’s slots. Walsh said he was worried about the current Heathrow proposal because there was now “desperation by the airport to get a third runway and they are willing to do anything to get it.”  He commented: “So the airport is incentivised to spend money while I am incentivised to save money.”  Because the coalition government blocked a 3rd runway in 2010, in January 2011 BA and Iberia were merged to form IAG.  Then IAG bought UK airline BMI, to get hold of its Heathrow slots, gaining an extra 42 pairs.  That  ensured IAG  had enough Heathrow slots to secure its ability to compete from its hub base.  Since then Walsh has made his plans to use  a 3 hub strategy – with Madrid and Dublin as its two others, not depending so much on Heathrow.  IAG also owns Iberia, Vueling and Aer Lingus. Dublin will be adding a new runway – probably by 2020.
.

 

 

IAG’s Walsh: ‘I will fight’ current Heathrow third runway plan

By Karen Walker (Air Transport World)
May 11, 2016

The current proposal to build a third runway at London Heathrow Airport is “indefensible” from a cost point of view and the head of British Airways’ parent company will fight it.

International Airlines Group (IAG) CEO Willie Walsh, speaking as a panelist  on May 11 at the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Aviation Symposium, said he was worried about the current Heathrow proposal because there was now “desperation by the airport to get a third runway and they are willing to do anything to get it.”

Walsh said that has led to a proposal that would cost £18 billion ($26 billion), but just 1% of that would go to building the runway. The rest of the money, he said, would go to all other things at the airport.

“So the airport is incentivized to spend money while I am incentivized to save money,” Walsh said. “I will not support what would be the world’s most expensive runway. I will fight against it and I refuse to pay for it because the cost will be passed on to me and my customers.”

Walsh added, “The proposal that’s on the table now is completely indefensible from a cost point of view.”

Building a third runway at Heathrow was declared the best option for extra runway capacity in the crowded southeast of England after a two-year investigation by a government-backed commission.

Walsh explained that when he first joined British Airways in 2005, the company campaigned for an additional runway at Heathrow, but the new UK government that came into power in 2010 had made denying permission for the third runway a platform of its election campaign.

As a result, IAG acquired UK airline BMI so that it could secure that airline’s Heathrow’s slots and ensure its ability to compete from its hub base.

“Since then, there has been a realization by politicians that there was no magic solution [as an alternative to a third runway] and when they asked me what we were going to do, I said the alternative was to grow somewhere else,” Walsh said.

IAG, which owns Spanish carriers Iberia and Vueling and Irish airline Aer Lingus, operates a three-hub strategy—Heathrow, Dublin and Madrid.

http://m.atwonline.com/airports-routes/iag-s-walsh-i-will-fight-current-heathrow-third-runway-plan

 


“Alternatively, there is a respectable case for deferring this difficult political decision, to see how a very competitive aviation sector copes with the growth of demand for air travel.

“As I have suggested previously, market forces could mean that priority would be given to business travellers at Heathrow, displacing leisure travellers to other airports – such as Stansted – which have plenty of spare capacity.”

David Metz,  honorary professor of Transport Studies at UCL


See also

 

2nd runway at Dublin airport threatens Heathrow’s position as main IAG hub

Heathrow may face more competition for hub traffic from Dublin, if there is a 2nd runway in 2020 – and airlines prefer using Dublin rather than Heathrow.  This might mean Heathrow being partly sidelined.  In May 2015 Aer Lingus, the Irish flag carrier, was bought by IAG (International Airlines Group) – which owns British Airways.  As part of IAG’s takeover there was the benefit of new routes and more long-haul flights from Dublin, where Aer Lingus is one of the two main airline customers, along with Ryanair. Willie Walsh, IAG’s CEO, said in 2015 that owning Aer Lingus would allow IAG “to develop our network using Dublin as a hub between the UK, continental Europe and North America, generating additional financial value for our shareholders”. Willie Walsh believed that buying Aer Lingus was a wise move, as it was “inevitable” that Dublin would get a 2nd runway in the next few years.  IAG believes that it can expand the group’s flights via Dublin or Madrid – especially if there is no new runway at Heathrow.  It could have the impact of removing business from Heathrow – British Airways is the largest airline there with around 50% of the slots.   

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/04/2nd-runway-at-dublin-airport-threatens-heathrows-position-as-main-iag-hub/

 

 

 

Read more »

Lord True, Richmond Council leader and Conservative peer, describes Heathrow promises as ‘worthless’ and asks David Cameron to deny expansion immediately

The leader of Richmond Council, Lord True, has called Heathrow’s pledge to ban night flights a “feeble attempt to bribe London.”  He described Heathrow’s promises as “worthless” and said on the ending of night flights:  “This so-called pledge falls short of what the Davies Commission requests and the Heathrow PR men simply cannot be believed. If they can stop pre-5.30am flights, why don’t they do it now? Rather than spending billions of pounds doing it?”  On Heathrow’s claims about air quality improvements, Lord True commented:: “They cannot comply with EU air quality limits and their ‘jam’ promises are worthless…..if people’s health comes first – big Heathrow is dead in the water.”  He said Heathrow had just made some token alterations to their original proposals.  Richmond Council, along with Wandsworth, Hillingdon and Windsor & Maidenhead councils, have already made it clear that should the Government give a 3rd Heathrow runway the go-ahead – they would together launch legal action opposing the plans. Lord True: “I say to Mr Cameron – hundreds of thousands of Londoners remember your promise – “no ifs, no buts,” ….We expect our Prime Minister to keep his promise….”
.

 

 

Lord True, Richmond Council leader and Conservative peer, describes Heathrow promises as ‘worthless’ and asks David Cameron to deny expansion immediately

By George Odling, (Senior Reporter – Richmond & Twickenham Times)
The leader of Richmond Council has called Heathrow’s pledge to ban night flights a “feeble attempt to bribe London.”

The airport’s chief executive, John Holland-Kaye, announced measures that would “exceed Airports Commission conditions”, including banning night flights from 11pm to 5.30am once a proposed third runway opens.

Heathrow agrees no fourth runway [only with rather odd wording: “Accept a commitment from Government ruling out any fourth runway.”] in attempt to secure third as it “meets or exceeds” Airports Commission conditions

But Richmond’s Lord True described the airport’s promises as “worthless.”

The Conservative peer said: “This so-called pledge falls short of what the Davies Commission requests and the Heathrow PR men simply cannot be believed.

 

“If they can stop pre-5.30am flights, why don’t they do it now? Rather than spending billions of pounds doing it?”

Among Heathrow’s responses to the Airport Commission report, which recommended the airport for expansion over Gatwick in July last year, included creating an ultra-low emissions zone for airport vehicles by 2025 and not releasing new capacity until it can do so without delaying the UK’s compliance with EU air quality limits.

Lord True disputed these claims, however, and said: “They cannot comply with EU air quality limits and their ‘jam’ promises are worthless.

“The recent Volkswagen scandal has only highlighted public concern about the issue and if people’s health comes first – big Heathrow is dead in the water.”

The council leader has previously made it clear that should the Government give expansion the go-ahead – a decision that was expected to be made earlier this year but delayed – the council would launch legal action opposing the plans.

 

He said: “Put plain and simply, this is a feeble emotional bribe from Heathrow. They have cherry-picked one of the many valid reasons against expansion and made token alterations to their original proposals.”

Lord True added: “We have now waited long enough for this decision. We have already made our feelings clear to the Government. Should they rule in favour of a Heathrow expansion – we will fight it in the courts.

“I say to Mr Cameron – hundreds of thousands of Londoners remember your promise – “no ifs, no buts,” and your personal commitment to our air quality.

“We expect our Prime Minister to keep his promise, listen to the people of London and say no to any expansion of the airport today.”

http://m.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/14485548.Richmond_Council_s_Conservative_peer_leader_describes_Heathrow_promises_as__worthless__and_asks_David_Cameron_to_deny_expansion_immediately/?ref=twtrec

.


See also

Heathrow makes guarded, carefully worded, offers to meet Airports Commission conditions for 3rd runway

Heathrow knows it has a difficult task in persuading the government that it can actually meet the (unchallenging) conditions put on its runway plans by the Airports Commission. Now John Holland-Kaye has written to David Cameron, setting out how Heathrow hopes to meet some conditions. They make out they will even exceed the conditions, in some cases. On Night flights, they say they will introduce a “legally binding ban on all scheduled night flights for six and a half hours (as recommended by the Airports Commission) from 11 pm to 5:30 am when the third runway opens.” [Note, scheduled – not late arrivals etc]. And they will “support the earlier introduction of this extended ban on night flights by Government as soon as the necessary airspace has been modernised after planning consent for the third runway has been secured.” [ie. full of caveats]. They dodge the issue of agreeing not to build a 4th runway, saying it they government makes a commitment in Parliament not to expand Heathrow further, then Heathrow will “Accept a commitment from Government ruling out any fourth runway..” [Words carefully chosen]. On noise and respite, Heathrow say “We will ensure there will be some respite for everyone living under the final flight path by using advances in navigational technology. We will consult and provide options on our proposals to alternate use of the runways.” [ie carefully chosen words, avoiding giving much away].

Click here to view full story…

eathrow’s vague proposal on no night flights – what is Heathrow really saying?

Heathrow currently, under current night flight controls that are due to be re-considered in 2017, is allowed 5,800 night flights per year. That’s an average of 16 arriving each morning, typically between 4.30am and 6am. The latest flights should leave by 11.30pm but there are many that are later, almost up to midnight. Heathrow has been very reluctant to agree to a ban between 11.30pm and 6am, which was the condition imposed by the Airports Commission. Heathrow claims the early arrivals are vital for businessmen catching early flights – especially those from the UK regions. But now, desperate to be allowed a 3rd runway, Heathrow mentions [very careful, rather odd wording]: “The introduction of a legally binding ban on all scheduled night flights for six and a half hours (as recommended by the Airports Commission) from 11 pm to 5:30 am when the third runway opens.” and “We will support the earlier introduction of this extended ban on night flights by Government as soon as the necessary airspace has been modernised after planning consent for the third runway has been secured.” Heathrow only mentions scheduled flights. Not late ones. It is widely recognised that for health, people need 7 – 8 hours of sleep per night. Not 6.5 hours. Heathrow makes no mention of the inevitable concentrated landings and take offs at the shoulder periods, in order to keep 6.5 hours quiet. Apart from insomniacs and shift workers, who else regards the end of the night as 5.30am?

Click here to view full story…

Heathrow’s commitment on 4th runway – what is Heathrow really saying?

The Airports Commission said, in giving its recommendation that a 3rd Heathrow runway should be built, that a firm condition was that no 4th runway should ever be built there. The Commission’s wording in its Final Report (1.7.2015) was: “A fourth runway should be firmly ruled out. The government should make a commitment in Parliament not to expand the airport further. There is no sound operational or environmental case for a four runway Heathrow.” And “This may be as part of a National Policy Statement or through legislation.” What Heathrow has now said is that it will: “Accept a commitment from Government ruling out any fourth runway.” This does not say this ban on a 4th runway would be in legislation. It merely says there would be a commitment. But the coalition government made a commitment not to build a 3rd runway, in 2010. That commitment was then overturned in the next Parliament. It scarcely encourages trust. A commentator in the Huffington Post says (as well as the long history of Heathrow’s broken promises) that allowing the 3rd Heathrow runway would effectively say Heathrow is now and ever will be the UK’s hub airport. Hub airports actually “need at least four runways and preferably room to expand further.”

Click here to view full story.


See earlier:

 

Four councils affected by Heathrow threaten to take legal action against Government if it backs Heathrow runway

Four Conservative controlled councils – Hillingdon, Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and Windsor & Maidenhead councils –  are preparing to sue the government over a proposed 3rd Heathrow runway. The four councils are near Heathrow, and affected adversely by it. The warning to David Cameron, from their lawyers, says an escalation in the number of flights would be “irrational and unlawful”.  The legal letter to No 10 says court proceedings will be launched unless the Prime Minister categorically rules out expansion of Heathrow. It says “insurmountable environmental problems” around the airport mean it can never be expanded without subjecting residents to excessive pollution and noise. The councils have believed, since the launch of the (government appointed) Airports Commission’s final report, that it made a “flawed assessment” of Heathrow’s ability to deal with environmental issues (noise, NO2, and carbon emissions among them). The councils also say David Cameron’s previous promise – “No ifs, No buts, no 3rd runway” – had created a “legitimate expectation” among residents that there would be no runway. The authorities have appointed Harrison Grant, the solicitors that led a successful High Court challenge in 2010 against the former Labour government’s attempt to expand Heathrow.  

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/03/four-councils-affected-by-heathrow-threaten-to-take-legal-action-against-government-if-it-backs-heathrow-runway/
.

Read more »

Decision on London City Airport expansion does not rest with Sadiq Khan, but with the Planning Inspector and Secretaries of State

Sadiq Khan, the new Mayor of London, in one of his very first acts, has instructed the Greater London Assembly’s GLA Land to withdraw its objection to London City Airport’s Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) of Royal Docks Land, following ‘new’ evidence supplied by the Airport.  However, a final decision on the airport’s expansion is not in the Mayor’s hands. The decision rests with the Planning Inspector, who will make a recommendation to both Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin and Communities Secretary Greg Clark, following the main planning inquiry into expansion of City Airport that concluded on 5th April. A decision is not expected till the summer. The airport wants to CPO 26.4 hectares of GLA land to facilitate their CADP1 expansion programme which includes parts of the London Plan protected Blue Ribbon Network. of waterways and bodies of water.  GLA Land was one of four remaining objectors to the expansion plans. However, its change of heart is not critical. The current Inquiry into the CPO  has been adjourned until Tuesday 17 May as negotiations between the airport and the DLR continue, with agreement considered likely. The previous Mayor, Boris Johnson, refused permission for expansion on noise grounds.
.

 

 

DECISION OVER FUTURE OF LONDON CITY AIRPORT DOES NOT REST WITH SADIQ KHAN

May 11th 2016

HACAN East press release

.
Sadiq Khan, the new Mayor of London, in one of his very first acts, has instructed GLA Land to withdraw its objection to London City Airport’s Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) of Royal Docks Land, following ‘new’ evidence supplied by the Airport.

However, a final decision on expansion is not in his hands but those of the Planning Inspector, who will make a recommendation to both Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin and Communities Secretary Greg Clark, following the main planning inquiry into expansion of City Airport that concluded on 5th April.

London City Airport wish to compulsorily purchase 26.4 hectares of GLA land to facilitate their CADP1 expansion programme which includes parts of the London Plan protected Blue Ribbon Network.  [The Blue Ribbon Network (BRN) is London’s strategic network of waterspaces (see Map 7.5) and covers the River Thames, canals, tributary rivers, lakes, reservoirs and docks alongside smaller waterbodies].

GLA Land was one of four remaining objectors alongside the DLR, who were objecting for reasons that included the unacceptable risk to passengers, and HACAN East the community group that represents residents under the flight path.

The current Inquiry, about the CPO, has been adjourned until Tuesday 17 May as negotiations between the Airport and the DLR continue, with agreement deemed highly likely. HACAN East will remain as non-statutory objectors and will present their evidence next week, as well as the Deputy Leader of Waltham Forest Council, Cllr. Clyde Loakes and John Cryer, MP for Leyton & Wanstead.

This CPO Inquiry follows the previous inquiry which ended on 5 April into the previous Mayor of London’s decision to refuse expansion of City Airport on noise grounds. The Planning Inspector will now make a recommendation to both Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin and Communities Secretary Greg Clark.

Robert Barnstone, Campaign coordinator for HACAN East, said: “Advocates of expansion at City Airport should get less, not more excited at this stage as this changes nothing. City Airport’s new PR team are claiming this is a bigger victory for them when in reality we will know the outcome of the main planning inquiry later this summer, once the Planning Inspector has reported to the relevant Secretaries of State. Nothing has changed.”
For more information

Rob Barnstone:  robert.barnstone@outlook.com; 07806 947050

 

http://www.hacaneast.org.uk/press-releases/2016/5/11/decision-over-future-of-london-city-airport-does-not-rest-with-sadiq-khan

.


Earlier:

 

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

Click here to view full story…

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 »

Heathrow makes guarded, carefully worded, offers to meet Airports Commission conditions for 3rd runway

Heathrow knows it has a difficult task in persuading the government that it can actually meet the (unchallenging) conditions put on its runway plans by the Airports Commission. Now John Holland-Kaye has written to David Cameron, setting out how Heathrow hopes to meet some conditions. They make out they will even exceed the conditions, in some cases. On Night flights, they say they will introduce a “legally binding ban on all scheduled night flights for six and a half hours (as recommended by the Airports Commission) from 11 pm to 5:30 am when the third runway opens.” [Note, scheduled – not late arrivals etc].  And they will “support the earlier introduction of this extended ban on night flights by Government as soon as the necessary airspace has been modernised after planning consent for the third runway has been secured.” [ie. full of caveats]. They dodge the issue of agreeing not to build a 4th runway, saying itf the government makes a commitment in Parliament not to expand Heathrow further, then Heathrow will “Accept a commitment from Government ruling out any fourth runway..” [Words carefully chosen]. On noise and respite, Heathrow say “We will ensure there will be some respite for everyone living under the final flight path by using advances in navigational technology. We will consult and provide options on our proposals to alternate use of the runways.” [ie carefully chosen words, avoiding giving much away].
.

 

Heathrow exceeds Airports Commission’s package of conditions, so Prime Minister can make the “right choice” for Britain and approve a third runway

Heathrow airport press release

11.5.2016
– Airports Commission unanimously recommended Heathrow expansion
– Heathrow will exceed the overall package of conditions the Commission set
– Measures include support for an early introduction of ban on scheduled flights for six and a half hours every night after expansion planning consent received and the necessary airspace is modernised
– Heathrow CEO John Holland-Kaye writes to the Prime Minister with a plan which will enable the Government to make the right choice for Britain, delivering up to £211bn in economic benefit and 180,000 jobs by approving a third runway

.

Heathrow has announced it will meet and, in most cases, exceed the conditions set out in the Airports Commission’s recommendation for Heathrow expansion.In July last year, the independent Airports Commission unanimously and unambiguously recommended expanding Heathrow, after a three year, £20 million study into the best option for maintaining the UK’s global aviation hub status.

Today, Heathrow Chief Executive John Holland-Kaye has written to the Prime Minister setting out a world leading, ambitious and affordable plan which balances the huge national and local economic gain from expansion with the environmental impacts.

Highlighting Heathrow’s place as a “cornerstone” of Britain’s economic security for the last 70 years and a symbol of an outward looking country, he said:

“You set up the Airports Commission and it unanimously recommended expanding Heathrow.  You demanded ambitious plans from my team to deliver expansion with a bold and fair deal for our neighbours.  

“Today, I am proud to submit a comprehensive plan that meets and exceeds your demands.   This is a big commitment from us, but it is the right choice for the country, local communities and jobs across Britain.  

“We have acted now to let you and your government make the right choice, in the long term interest of our country.   It will enable you to choose Heathrow and secure a stronger economy and Britain’s place in the world.  

“Expanding Heathrow can help Britain win thousands more jobs and ensure that future generations have the same economic opportunity that we have enjoyed.”

.

Heathrow is committed to working with airlines to deliver an expanded Heathrow that is affordable for passengers and airlines, whilst giving the fairest deal to local communities.  Its formal response to the Commission includes:

  • The introduction of a ban by Government on scheduled flights for six and a half hours between 2300 and 0530 – an increase from five hours today –  and supporting the earlier introduction of the ban after planning consent is received and the necessary airspace has been modernised.
  • A proposal for the Environment Agency to  be given the role of an independent aviation air quality authority, to provide transparent scrutiny of the measures Heathrow will introduce to enable it to expand only in accordance with air quality rules.
  • Establishing an Education and Skills Taskforce that will identify how best to develop the airport’s future skilled workforce and to create a legacy for UK infrastructure projects.

The response to all of the conditions:

Airports Commission conditions Heathrow proposal
NIGHT FLIGHTS.

“Following construction of a third runway there should be a ban on all scheduled night flights in the period 11:30 pm to 6 am”

Meeting the Airports Commission

The introduction of a legally binding ban on all scheduled night flights for six and a half hours (as recommended by the Airports Commission) from 11 pm to 5:30 am when the third runway opens.

Exceeding the Airports Commission

We will support the earlier introduction of this extended ban on night flights by Government as soon as the necessary airspace has been modernised after planning consent for the third runway has been secured.

NOISE ENVELOPE:

“A clear ‘noise envelope’ to be agreed, and legally enforced”

Meeting the Airports Commission

Consult on and establish a clear and legally binding noise envelope for the third runway that will give certainty to local people.

Exceeding the Airports Commission

We will support the introduction of an independent noise authority, and a system for the independent regular review of the noise envelope framework and targets to incentivise a reduction in aircraft noise over time.

RESPITE:

“Predictable respite to be more reliably maintained”

Meeting the Airports Commission

Maintain more predictable periods of respite and publish a publicly available timetable of respite for different areas under the flight path so local people know exactly when no planes will fly over their homes.

Exceeding the Airports Commission

We will ensure there will be some respite for everyone living under the final flight path by using advances in navigational technology.We will consult and provide options on our proposals to alternate use of the runways.

PROPERTY COMPENSATION:“Compensate those who would lose their homes at full market value plus an additional 25% and reasonable costs. Heathrow should make this offer available as soon as possible.” Meeting the Airports Commission

Compensate those who would lose their homes at full market value plus an additional 25% above their unblighted market value plus legal fees, stamp duty and moving costs.We will introduce the full scheme after receipt of planning consent.We will extend this offer to a further 3,750 properties close to the compulsory purchase zone, offering local residents the option to move to a new home.After a Government decision has been taken, we will introduce a Hardship Scheme.

COMMUNITY COMPENSATION:

“Heathrow should spend more than £1bn on community compensation. In addition, a new aviation noise charge or levy should be introduced to ensure that airport users pay more to compensate local communities”

Meeting the Airports Commission

Spend over £1bn on community compensation (noise and property) and support the introduction of a scheme to ensure that airport users pay to compensate local communities for the impacts of the airport.

Exceeding the Airports Commission

We will begin funding compensation for local communities from the day when planning consent is granted and we will work with local authorities to ensure we help those most severely affected.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT BOARD:

“Establishment of a Community Engagement Board, under an independent Chair, with real influence over spending on compensation and community support and over the airport’s operations

Meeting the Airports Commission

Establish an independent Community Engagement Board, under an independent Chair, which will have real influence over how Heathrow meets these conditions.

Exceeding the Airports Commission

We will set up this new Board after the Government approves Heathrow expansion. We would propose a number of the members are those who have campaigned for the best possible deal for local residents.

INDEPENDENT AVIATION NOISE AUTHORITY:

“Creation of an independent aviation noise authority with a statutory right to be consulted on flight paths and other operating procedures.”

Meeting the Airports Commission

Back the creation of an independent aviation noise authority with statutory powers.

PROVISION OF TRAINING AND APPRENTICESHIPS:

“Provision of training opportunities and apprenticeships for local people so that nearby communities benefit from jobs in constructing and operating the new infrastructure”

Meeting the Airports Commission

Provide training opportunities and apprenticeships for local people so that nearby communities benefit from jobs in constructing and operating the new infrastructure.

Exceeding the Airports Commission

Immediately following a Government decision to expand Heathrow, we will establish an Education and Skills Taskforce that will identify how best to develop the airport’s future skilled workforce and to create a legacy for UK infrastructure projects.We will double the number of apprenticeships at Heathrow to 10,000 by the time the runway is operational.We will work with local councils and communities to ensure that as many as possible of the 40,000 new jobs at the airport go to those living nearby, aiming to end youth unemployment in those Boroughs closest to the airport.

MODE SHARE:

“Incentivisation of a major shift in mode share for those working at and arriving at the airport, through measures including new rail investments and a continuing focus on employee behaviour change. A congestion charge should also be considered.”

Meeting the Airports Commission

Incentivise a major shift in mode share for those working at and arriving at the airport through measures including new rail investments and a continuing focus on employee behaviour change and including the consideration of a congestion or emissions charge.

Exceeding the Airports Commission

An increase in the number and frequency of trains; our commitment to increase the routes and regularity of bus and coach services serving local employees; and our support for local cycling will mean that there will be no more airport related traffic on the roads after the new runway opens than today.

AIR QUALITY:

“Additional operations at an expanded Heathrow must be contingent on acceptable performance on air quality. New capacity will be released when it is clear that air quality at sites around the airport will not delay compliance with EU limits.”

Meeting the Airports Commission

Additional operations at an expanded Heathrow will be contingent on acceptable performance on air quality and will be in accordance with air quality rules. New capacity at an expanded airport will not be released unless we can do so without delaying UK compliance with EU air quality limits.

Exceeding the Airports Commission

We will create an ultra-low emissions zone for airport vehicles by 2025.We will develop plans for an emissions charging scheme for all vehicles accessing the airport to encourage low-emission technology and fund sustainable transport.To provide further confidence, we propose that the Environment Agency be given the role of an independent aviation air quality authority, to provide transparent scrutiny of our plans.

FOURTH RUNWAY:

“Ruling out any fourth runway. The government should make a commitment in Parliament not to expand the airport further.”

Meeting the Airports Commission

Accept a commitment from Government ruling out any fourth runway.

 

http://mediacentre.heathrow.com/pressrelease/details/81/Expansion-News-23/6296


 

Full text of letter to the Prime Minister:

Dear Prime Minister,

For seventy years, Heathrow has been our global gateway; a cornerstone of our economic security.  Heathrow has been Britain’s airport, creating many thousands of jobs, connecting families and nations; a symbol of an outward looking country.  

We must now build new runway capacity at Heathrow to keep Britain’s economy strong in the next seventy years.  We know it is not enough to just hope for a stronger economy; you need to choose it. 

You set up the Airports Commission and it unanimously recommended expanding Heathrow.  You demanded ambitious plans from my team to deliver expansion with a bold and fair deal for our neighbours.  

Today, I am proud to submit a comprehensive plan that meets and exceeds your demands.   This is a big commitment from us, but it is the right choice for the country, local communities and jobs across Britain.  

We have acted now to let you and your government make the right choice, in the long term interest of our country.   It will enable you to choose Heathrow and secure a stronger economy and Britain’s place in the world. 

Expanding Heathrow can help Britain win thousands more jobs and ensure that future generations have the same economic opportunity that we have enjoyed. 

 

Yours 

John Holland-Kaye 

 

Read more »

Surprise! None of the Transport Select Committee members, wanting rapid Heathrow decision, live anywhere affected by a vast airport

“Colnbrook Views” has pointed out that, while the Commons Transport Select Committee is very eager to get a new runway built at Heathrow as soon as possible, none of its members live anywhere at all near London.  The Committee have asked the government to make a rapid decision, to back a Heathrow runway,  apparently not having much grasp of the extent of the environmental (or social, or even economic) problems involved. Their attitude is that: “We accept that the package of measures to mitigate environmental impacts needs careful consideration and further work. We do not accept that all of this needs to be done before a decision is taken on location. In fact a decision on location would give more focus and impetus to this work.”  ie. decide first. – see if the problems can be sorted out afterwards.  None of the MPs on the Committee themselves experience the problems of living near an airport of the scale of Heathrow. The Chair is Louise Ellman, the MP for Liverpool. The constituencies of the others are:  Stoke on Trent South; North Tyneside; Lincoln; Glasgow South; Fylde; Bexhill and Battle; Colchester; Milton Keynes South; Blackley and Broughton; Cleethorpes.  Perhaps if the problems facing the Heathrow Villages were in any of these constituencies, they might not be so gung-ho?
.

INFOGRAPHIC: Where the Transport Select Committee live

Colnbrook Views
 

Yesterday’s demand by the Transport Select Committee to get moving on Heathrow even before the further work on air quality promised by the Government is completed might have had more weight if any of its members had any experience of life under a busy flight path.

Transport Select Committee

Where they come from: the eleven members of the Transport Select Committee live all over the country, but nowhere near the Heathrow catchment.

The Transport Select Committee yesterday rebuked the Government for “dithering” for failing to make clear its support for Heathrow expansion before it has fulfilled its promise to do further work on the environmental consequences of expansion.

However it could, perhaps, be excused for such bombastic language – given none of its members live anywhere near the Heathrow flight path.  As our analysis shows, “the UK” is geographically well represented on the committee (bar an over-representation of the “Northern Powerhouse”).  But the swathes of the South East currently blighted by aircraft noise are not.

The committee said yesterday that it recognises that local residents and environmental campaigners have raised “legitimate concerns” and that these deserve “serious consideration”.

We accept that the package of measures to mitigate environmental impacts needs careful consideration and further work. We do not accept that all of this needs to be done before a decision is taken on location. In fact a decision on location would give more focus and impetus to this work.

But while the 11-strong committee of Conservative, Labour and SNP MPs says it does not under-estimate the scale of the challenge ahead it nevertheless believes that noise, environmental effects, surface access, and compensation for residents are all matters that can be decided after the Government has confirmed that Heathrow is its preferred choice for expansion.

http://www.colnbrook.info/infographic-where-the-transport-select-committee-live/

 


Transport Committee – members

Mrs Louise Ellman was elected as Chair of the Transport Committee on 17 June 2015.

The remaining members of the Committee were formally appointed on 8 July 2015.

Member Party  Constituency
Mrs Louise Ellman (Chair) Labour (Co-op) Liverpool
Robert Flello Labour Stoke on Trent South
Mary Glindon Labour North Tyneside
Karl McCartney Conservative Lincoln
Stewart Malcolm McDonald Scottish National Party Glasgow South
Mark Menzies Conservative Fylde
Huw Merriman Conservative Bexhill and Battle
Will Quince Conservative Colchester
Iain Stewart Conservative Milton Keynes South
Graham Stringer Labour Blackley and Broughton
Martin Vickers Conservative Cleethorpes

 

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/transport-committee/membership/

.


See also

 

Transport Select Committee wants rapid decision on runway location – then sort out the problems later …..

The Commons Transport Select Committee, chaired by Louise Ellman (for years a strong advocate of a larger Heathrow) has published a report that wants the government to make a rapid decision on the location of a new south east runway. Ms Ellman says Patrick Mcloughlin should set out a clear timetable of the decision making process. He should also set out what research the government has already done and what remains to be done. The Committee wants a decision in order to, in its view, remove uncertainty for business so companies can be planning and investing. The report is entirely of the view that a runway is needed for links to emerging markets. It ignores the reality that most journeys are for leisure, and it ignores the huge costs to the taxpayer, of either scheme. The Committee wants a location decision, and somehow believes that all other environmental and infrastructure problems will then (magically?) be sorted out. They say: “… we believe that the noise and environmental effects can be managed as part of the pre-construction phase after a decision has been made on location, as can the challenge of improving surface access.” So decide first – with what is likely to be a bad decision – and work out how to deal with the intractable, and inevitable, problems later. Is that a sensible course of action for a responsible government?

Click here to view full story…

Read more »

Farmer at Stansted still awaiting compensation, due to airport loophole of not completing all work – to avoid paying

A farm owner who won £1 million from Stansted, because planes flying over his £2 million home slashed its value in half,  is still waiting for the pay-out 17 years later. Patrick Streeter, whose home is about 1.5 km from the end of the runway, was awarded the sum in 1999 but claims Stansted are using a wily “legal loophole”, which says the money needs to be paid only once all work is finished on the airport.  Because white lines have not been painted on a strip of airport apron, (presumably deliberately …) and a fuel pump has not been installed, Stansted has told Mr Streeter that he is not entitled to his pay-out yet.  He says the constant din of planes makes the place unbearable to live in, and he believes it would be almost impossible to sell.  Mr Streeter’s family home, a 13th century seven-bedroom farmhouse in Great Hallingbury, shakes so badly when planes take off that roof tiles are dislodged. “When we are sitting in the garden your coffee cup will wobble. The cargo planes are the worst.”   The airport is legally obliged to pay people living around it compensation because of the detrimental impact of the noise. Mr Streeter is now considering suing the airport .  A Stansted spokesman said: “We are aware of Mr Streeter’s application and the matter is being consulted by MAG (the airport’s owner).” 
.

 

Farmer awarded £1m noise compensation from Stansted airport still waiting for pay-out 17 years later… as white lines haven’t been finished

By Lexi Finnigan  (Telegraph)

10 MAY 2016

A farm owner who won £1 million from Stansted because planes flying over his £2 million home slashed its value in half is still waiting for the pay-out 17 years later.

Patrick Streeter was awarded the sum in 1999 but claims airport bosses are using a “legal loophole”, which says the money needs to be paid only once all work is finished on the airport.

Mr Streeter claims airport chiefs have told him that because white lines have not been painted on a strip of airport apron, and a fuel pump has not been installed, he is not entitled to his pay-out yet.

Mr Streeter claims the constant buzz of planes makes the place unbearable to live in, and believes it would be almost impossible to sell

Since 1999, the number of passengers visiting the airport has increased from just over nine million to 26 million expected this year.

Patrick, 69, said: “One of their clever lawyers saw a loophole and realised that if the work isn’t finished they don’t have to pay out.

“They’ve got round it by not quite completing an area where the aeroplanes are parked.

“It’s 95% completed but they haven’t painted white lines and installed a petrol pump so they won’t pay out.

“Originally they agreed to pay my family £1 million because of the impact the planes have.

“It’s a big house and if it was in an area where there are no planes it would be worth £2 million.

“But because of the noise and fumes it has halved in value.

“They owe us this money but they’re evasive actions have meant we haven’t had a penny.”

Mr Streeter’s family home, a 13th century seven-bedroom farmhouse in Great Hallingbury, Essex, is just 1,500m from the end of a Stansted runway and shakes so badly when planes take off that roof tiles are dislodged.

He claims the constant buzz of planes makes the place unbearable to live in, and believes it would be almost impossible to sell.

The working farm is operated by Mr Streeter’s twin nephews Tom and Will, both 41, who mainly farm rape seed and corn over its 1,000 acres.

“When we are sitting in the garden your coffee cup will wobble. The cargo planes are the worst” Patrick Streeter

Stansted white lines

Tom is the farm’s manager and lives in the historic building with his wife Emma and their two daughters, while Mr Streeter lives 15 minutes away.

He said: “It is frustrating. When we are sitting in the garden your coffee cup will wobble. The cargo planes are the worst.

“They wake up my kids at 1am sometimes.

The airport is legally obliged to pay people living around it compensation because of the detrimental impact the planes have on their lives.

And Mr Streeter is now considering suing the airport for his compensation and has prepared a plan of the airport with incomplete work labelled and a graph showing passenger movements.

A Stansted Airport spokesman said: “We are aware of Mr Streeter’s application and the matter is being consulted by MAG (the airport’s owner).”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/10/farmer-awarded-1m-noise-compensation-from-stansted-airport-still/

.


See MUCH earlier – in 2004:

From SSE (Stop Stansted Expansion)

BAA SLASHES HOMEOWNER COMPENSATION BUDGET

24.5.2004  (SSE press release)

Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) has written to BAA to seek a full explanation for the airport operator’s decision to dramatically reduce the estimated compensation costs for its airport expansion proposals.

The cut was announced last week when Mike Clasper, BAA Chief Executive, presented the company’s annual results, showing profits increasing to £539 million.  At the same time, Mike Clasper also announced that BAA was putting aside “up to £100 million” to compensate people who would lose their homes or have their value eroded by plans to build a second runway at Stansted. [Note 1]

BAA had previously told the Government in May last year that Stansted compensation costs would total £250 million. [Note 2]

“BAA is becoming increasingly desperate in its attempt to cut costs,” said Norman Mead, Chairman of Stop Stansted Expansion, who continued:  “We all know that BAA has a fundamental problem with the commercial viability of a second Stansted runway and this problem has been compounded by the Civil Aviation Authority’s ruling that there must be no cross-subsidy from Heathrow or Gatwick.”

Mr Mead added:  “This attempt by BAA to reduce its compensation fund from £250 million to £100 million is not surprising and we expect further cost cutting attempts in future.  However, if BAA thinks it would be able to expand Stansted ‘on the cheap’ and at the expense of local homeowners, then yet again it has misjudged this local community.  The people of this area are not a soft touch.”

Earlier this month, SSE published a special report, which showed that local homeowners had already lost an average of £28,000 as a result of BAA’s expansion proposals for Stansted.  The report slated BAA for seeking to limit compensation to only 500 homeowners whereas the official Land Registry statistics clearly indicated that at least 12,000 properties had been devalued. [Note 3]

BAA is under intense pressure from its investors and from its biggest Stansted customer Ryanair (which accounts for almost 70% of Stansted’s business) to minimise the cost of expanding Stansted and the airport operator is concerned that the low cost carriers may refuse to pay the higher charges that would be needed to fund major expansion of the airport. [Note 4]

Although BAA profits increased to £539 million last year, profits at Stansted fell by 9.3% to £39 million while Heathrow’s profits increased to £364 million.  Once again, Stansted was the least profitable, per passenger, of BAA’s seven UK airports.

ENDS

NOTES FOR EDITORS

Note 1:
BAA annual results were announced on 18 May 2004 and reported in the financial press on 19 May 2004, including Clasper’s comment on Stansted compensation costs – for example, article in Daily Telegraph Business Section: “BAA offers £100m as homes face bulldozer”.  Full article is available athttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fmoney%2F2004%2F05%2F19%2F cnbaa19.xml

Note 2:
The original estimate of £250 million is set out in Table 18.1, page 132, of  ‘Responsible Growth’ – BAA’s formal response to the Government on the SERAS Airports Consultation, 12 May 2003. BAA based this estimate on the assumption that the measures, identified by the Department for Transport at the end of Chapter 16 of the SERAS Consultation, were implemented.  The more detailed assumptions made in arriving at this cost estimate, based on the addition of one extra runway, were stated by BAA to be as follows:

*  Purchase of households subject to noise levels greater than 69 dB(A) at market value, together with additional payments for home loss and disturbance (10% and 2.5% respectively).
*  Noise insulation for households subject to noise levels of 63 dB(A) daytime or more, at a cost of £8,000 per house.
*  Cash compensation for households subject to noise levels greater than 57 dB(A) but less  than 63 dB(A), at a cost of £2,000 per house.
*  Noise insulation for hospitals and schools at an average of £200,000 per property.
*  For the purposes of the calculations, BAA assumed an average property value of £210,000 around Stansted.
*  The values of cash compensation of £2,000 and noise insulation of £8,000 are notional, as is the average cost of £200,000 for hospitals and schools.
*  The number of hospitals and schools affected at Stansted was assumed by BAA to be a total of 15 buildings.  This means that £3m of the £250m related to schools and hospitals.

Note 3:
“Airport Impact on Local House Prices”, Special Report by SSE, May 2004.  Available athttp://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/documents/STANSTED_SPECIAL_REPORT.pdf

Note 4:
For example, see letter from Michael O’Leary, Ryanair Chief Executive to the Daily Telegraph, 19.12.03 “Time for some competition” and Questor, Daily Telegraph.  These sources are available at:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2003%2F12%2F19%2Fdt1901.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fmoney%2F2004%2F05%2F19%2Fcxquest19.xml

.

.

.

 

.

Read more »