New calls by CAGNE on Grant Shapps and MPs to curb Gatwick expansion plans

Campaign group, CAGNE, against the expansion of Gatwick, are appealing to newly-elected MPs to help curb the airport’s growth plans. They are also urging local residents, along with the MPs, to protest to the Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps.  CAGNE says Gatwick’s expansion proposals will lead to an extra 55,000 flights per year by 2033 – and that there is insufficient infrastructure to cope with the growth. It will also lead to large increases in noise levels and CO2 emissions, which are environmentally unsustainable. Air quality will also deteriorate. CAGNE is calling on transport secretary Grant Shapps to subject Gatwick’s expansion proposals to more scrutiny by declaring the proposals a ‘National Significant Infrastructure Project’ (NSIP), which requires it to be subject to a different process than a smaller expansion, of under 10 million more annual passengers. A project that qualifies as an NSIP has to go through the Development Consent Order process.  CAGNE  said in their letter to Shapps that Gatwick’s growth plans “are neither compatible with the current climate emergency, nor with achieving the Government‘s net zero carbon target.”
.

 

 

New calls to curb Gatwick Airport expansion plans

By SARAH PAGE  (West Sussex County Times)
6 January 2020

Campaigners against the expansion of Gatwick Airport are appealing to newly-elected MPs to help curb the airport’s growth plans.

Members of the campaign group Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions – CAGNE – are also urging local residents, along with the MPs, to protest to the Secretary of State for Transport.

They say that Gatwick’s expansion proposals will lead to an extra 55,000 flights a year by 2033.

They maintain there is insufficient infrastructure to cope with the growth and that it will lead to increases in noise levels and carbon emissions.

A spokesman said: “The Gatwick Airport management plans for significant expansion from the main runway is simply unsustainable growth for the planet and us all.”

CAGNE is calling on transport secretary Grant Shapps to subject the airport’s expansion proposals to more scrutiny by declaring the proposals a ‘National Significant Infrastructure Project.’

In a letter to Mr Shapps, CAGNE chairman Sally Pavey says: “We believe that these plans are neither compatible with the current climate emergency, nor with achieving the Government‘s net zero carbon target.

“Gatwick already presents an unprecedented burden on our roads and a single railway line that cannot be expanded.

“The predicted increase in road/freight traffic will inevitably result in a further decline in air quality.”

https://www.wscountytimes.co.uk/news/people/new-calls-to-curb-gatwick-airport-expansion-plans-1-9192136

.

.


See also:

 

Gatwick’s Big Enough Campaign writes to local authorities to ask that all Gatwick expansion plans should be properly scrutinised

The newly formed coalition of community groups, opposing the expansion of Gatwick airport and the noise made by its flights, has written to all the Leaders and CEOs of all Gatwick’s Host and Neighbouring local authorities. The letter proposes actions that Councils could take to ensure that all Gatwick’s proposed growth is properly scrutinised, as is the case at every other major UK airport. In particular it urges Councils to ask the Secretary of State for Transport to direct that Gatwick’s main runway development should be considered a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) requiring development consent (a DCO) using his powers under section 35 of the Planning Act 2008. This would ensure that there was proper scrutiny of all proposed growth, of more flights on the existing runway – as well as more flights by using the current emergency runway as a full runway.  As things stand at present, the approximately 60% increase in flights that Gatwick plans would not require any particular planning scrutiny, while the use of the emergency runway (about 40% of the growth) would.  This is an anomaly. The groups are also keen to discuss the issues with the affected councils.

Click here to view full story…

Groups write to Government asking for a moratorium on airport expansion planning applications

Representatives of groups at some of the largest UK airports have written to both the Secretaries of State for Transport, and Housing, Communities and Local Government, to request a halt to airport expansion.  The letter asks them to suspend the determination by all planning authorities of applications to increase the physical capacity of UK airports, or their approved operating caps, until there is a settled UK policy position against which such applications can be judged.  Many UK airports are seeking – or have announced their intention to seek – planning approval to increase their capacity and/or their operating caps. In aggregate it has been estimated that proposals announced by UK airports would increase the country’s airport capacity by over 70% compared to 2017.  There is no settled UK policy on aircraft noise, or  policy on aviation carbon and how the sector will, as the CCC advises,  “limit growth in demand to at most 25% above current levels by 2050”. The letter says: “Until a settled policy with set limits is established for greenhouse gas emissions and noise there should be a moratorium on all airport expansion planning applications.”

Click here to view full story…

Groups write to Government asking for a moratorium on airport expansion planning applications

Representatives of groups at some of the largest UK airports have written to both the Secretaries of State for Transport, and Housing, Communities and Local Government, to request a halt to airport expansion.  The letter asks them to suspend the determination by all planning authorities of applications to increase the physical capacity of UK airports, or their approved operating caps, until there is a settled UK policy position against which such applications can be judged.  Many UK airports are seeking – or have announced their intention to seek – planning approval to increase their capacity and/or their operating caps. In aggregate it has been estimated that proposals announced by UK airports would increase the country’s airport capacity by over 70% compared to 2017.  There is no settled UK policy on aircraft noise, or  policy on aviation carbon and how the sector will, as the CCC advises,  “limit growth in demand to at most 25% above current levels by 2050”. The letter says: “Until a settled policy with set limits is established for greenhouse gas emissions and noise there should be a moratorium on all airport expansion planning applications.”

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Boris Johnson unveils plan to increase number of flights, despite global climate emergency: ‘A total disregard for the planet’

As part of the Queen’s Speech on 20th December, there is to be an “Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill”. This will have the effect of squeezing more flights into same airspace and grow the airline sector.   The details in the Speech documents say the aim of the Bill  is to: “Maintain the UK’s position as a world-leader in aviation, ensuring that regulations keep pace with new technology to support sustainable growth in a sector which directly provides over 230,000 jobs and contributes at least £22 billion to the UK economy every year.”  Its alleged benefits would be:  “Making journeys quicker, quieter and cleaner through the modernisation of our airspace”. [Note greenwashing language].  The Bill will give government powers to “direct an airport or other relevant body to prepare and submit a proposal to the Civil Aviation Authority to modernise their airspace…” And “Modernising the licensing framework for air traffic control”. The government says the aim is to remove obstacles to growth in the number of flights airspace can accommodate. The CAA last year published an Airspace Modernisation Strategy, setting out general principles and methods.
.

 

Boris Johnson unveils plan to increase number of flights, despite global climate emergency: ‘A total disregard for the planet’

New aviation bill promises to squeeze more flights into same airspace and growth for sector

By Jon Stone @joncstone  (Independent)
20.12.2019

New government plans to ramp up the number of flights will make it “all but impossible” for the UK to cut its carbon emissions to the required levels, environmentalists have warned.

Downing Street was accused of “a total disregard for the planet” after it unveiled a new air traffic management bill on Thursday to lift practical limits on the number of planes British airspace can accommodate.

The bill was included in Thursday’s Queen’s Speech and forms part of the government’s legislative programme for the coming years – despite pledges in the Tory manifesto to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Around 15% of the UK’s climate impact come from aviation and environmentalists say that even more flights would be incompatible with the UK’s contribution to stopping global disaster.

But the Government says the aviation sector also contributes £22 billion to the UK economy each year and provides over 200,000 jobs, and says its new laws will grow the aviation sector.

Ministers say growth will be “sustainable” and that supposedly outdated practices “limit the number of flights the airspace can safely accommodate”.

But campaigners have said the approach will accelerate “climate breakdown” and says that claims aviation be expanded without increased emissions are not realistic.

“At a time when the government should be focussing on drastically cutting the country’s carbon emissions, this illustrates the absurdity of the government’s ability to meet its own net zero carbon emission targets, which at 2050 is already too weak. The government has shown a total disregard for the planet,” said Alannah Travers, an Extinction Rebellion spokesperson.

Ms Travers added that the government’s separate environment bill “barely touches the surface of the action we require our government to take if it is to tackle the climate and ecological crisis”.

Jenny Bates, campaigner at Friends of the Earth said: “Aviation is a highly polluting sector, responsible for huge amounts of climate wrecking emissions,”

“You can’t have so-called sustainable growth in a sector like this and stop the climate crisis. And while some may believe developing technologies like electric planes will deliver a green travel future these are nowhere near being a reality.

“The real solution, as part of the fight against climate breakdown, is far fewer planes in our skies. Instead, the opposite is being encouraged with airport expansion projects, including the planned third runway at Heathrow.

“These damaging schemes would make emissions ever higher, making it all but impossible for the UK to meet its targets for cutting emissions.”

Molly Scott Cato, a Green Party MEP, told The Independent: “As the fastest growing source of carbon emissions, the aviation sector must be restricted not expanded.

“This reckless policy of encouraging airport expansion confirms our worst suspicions that the Conservative government is prepared to sacrifice our climate on the altar of profit.”

The Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill, to give it its full name, will also reform the rules for unmanned aircraft and give police more powers to tackle unlawful use of drones.

But the most controversial provisions objected to by environmentalists are a plan to “modernise” Britain’s airspace to remove barriers that “limit the number of flights the airspace can safely accommodate”.

The Government says the primary purpose of the Bill is to “maintain the UK’s position as a world-leader in aviation, ensuring that regulations keep pace with new technology to support sustainable growth in a sector which directly provides 230,000 jobs and contributes at least £22 billion to the UK economy every year”.

The year 2019 saw the development of the flygskam or ‘flight-shame’ movement that discourages people from flying to try and reduce their environmental impact.

But in the UK the winning Conservative party’s manifesto appeared to give the green light to Heathrow expansion, describing it as a “private sector project” and saying parliament had in principle backed it. The manifesto policy came despite Boris Johnson’s longstanding opposition to expanding the airport.

The Conservatives pledged to take the UK to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, while the losing Labour manifesto pledged to make progress towards the aim by 2030 with a “green new deal”.

But scientists have most recently warned that net zero must be reached worldwide well before 2040 to avert serious climate change.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-climate-change-flights-carbon-emissions-net-zero-queens-speech-a9253516.html#r3z-addoor

.

.


The Queen’s Speech full text:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/853886/Queen_s_Speech_December_2019_-_background_briefing_notes.pdf

 

This is the part about aviation: 

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill

The purpose of the Bill is to:

● Maintain the UK’s position as a world-leader in aviation, ensuring that regulations keep pace with new technology to support sustainable growth in a sector which directly provides over 230,000 jobs and contributes at least £22 billion to the UK economy every year.

● Ensure that the police are able to tackle effectively the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft, including drones and model aircraft.

The main benefits of the Bill would be:

● Making journeys quicker, quieter and cleaner through the modernisation of our airspace.

● Improving public safety through greater police enforcement powers, deterring the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft and ensuring that offenders are quickly dealt with in the appropriate manner.

The main elements of the Bill are:

● New government powers to direct an airport or other relevant body to prepare and submit a proposal to the Civil Aviation Authority to modernise their airspace, enabling more efficient, quieter and greener flights.

● Modernising the licensing framework for air traffic control.

● New police powers to tackle the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft. These include the ability to require a person to land an unmanned aircraft and enhanced stop and search powers where particular unmanned aircraft related offences have taken place.

Territorial extent and application

● The Bill’s provisions would extend and apply to the whole of the UK. Civil aviation and airspace are reserved matters.

Key facts

● Many of the UK’s air routes and air traffic management practices were designed when commercial flight first became widespread in the 1950s, and for lower- 96 powered, less efficient aircraft with far poorer safety, surveillance and control systems than now.

● These 1950s flightpaths often constrain aircraft climb performance (by, for instance, requiring them to climb in stages rather than fly straight up) meaning that more time is taken to reach their optimum cruising altitude, more fuel is burned, more emissions and noise are created. Other practices include stacking, where aircraft circle in an airborne ‘queue’ to enter busy airports such as Heathrow. Such practices limit the number of flights the airspace can safely accommodate.

● The Department for Transport’s Strategic Case for Airspace Modernisation, published in February 2017, set out that if nothing is done there could be a delay of 30 minutes for 1 in 3 flights by 2030, which would be 72 times higher than in 2015. This would cost the UK around £250 million per year. Modernisation can also deliver major noise and carbon reduction benefits.

● The Civil Aviation Authority last year published an Airspace Modernisation Strategy, setting out general principles and methods. The next step is individual airports drawing up their own airspace modernisation plans.

● The Bill will give the Secretary of State, or Civil Aviation Authority, a power to direct those involved in airspace change, for example airport operators, to progress an airspace change proposal, failing which they could be fined.

● It will also hand the police powers to tackle the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft, including requiring a person to land an unmanned craft, and new stop and search powers.

 

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Effective anti Bristol Airport Expansion Jamboree held in Weston-super-Mare, by Extinction Rebellion and other groups

On 7th December, a protest Jamboree was organised by a number of groups oppose to the expansion of Bristol Airport – including several local Extinction Rebellion groups. The protest took place in the busiest part of the High Street shopping area of Weston-super-Mare, where thousands of local people pass through. There were a number of gazebos decorated with banners, flags and other XR branding. There were three large boards containing factual information about the airport’s plans, a table of flyers, pre-addressed postcards for objections and posters galore. There was also a questionnaire. Ninety-six postcards of objection were completed on the spot with many more taken away to be completed later. Approximately 3,000  leaflets giving ‘Reasons to say No to airport expansion’ were given out. The town had been chosen because it is the largest town council in North Somerset and has 11 councillors on the planning committee, considering whether the airport should expand or not. It is therefore a place of considerable influence in this vitally important decision. Talking to people, it emerged that too few were aware of the problems, and the likely local impacts of the planned airport expansion, showing how local engagement on the issue had been inadequate.
.

Weston-super-Mare and the Airport Expansion Jamboree

7th Dec 2019
Below is a report from activists in the groups (including XR) that organised the Jamboree
image2.png
The Evergreen Affinity Group based in Bristol XR & co-ordinated the Action in Weston-super-Mare (WSM).
Members of Extinction Rebellion came from XR Bristol, XR WSM, XR Chew, XR Nailsea, XR Taunton, XR Bath & other local groups.  They are all volunteers.
They chose Weston-super-Mare as it is the largest town council in North Somerset and has 11 councillors on the planning committee considering whether the airport should expand or not, and is therefore a place of considerable influence in this vitally important decision.
The anti-airport groups felt they needed to go and talk to the locals about this and to do this in a typically “Extinction Rebellion” way –  by bringing peaceful, non-violent creative spectacle of colour, sound and art.
Part of the rationale for the protest was to do outreach into an area with a different demographic. Central Weston is in the lowest 5% of neighbourhoods for deprivation in England.
The Jamboree action took place in the busiest part of the High Street shopping area where thousands of local people passed through.
The Jamboree had a hub consisting of a number of gazebos decorated with banners, flags and other XR branding. There were three large boards containing factual information about the airport’s plans, a table of flyers, pre-addressed postcards for objections and posters galore. A small team staffed this table.
Ninety-six postcards of objection were completed on the spot & many more were taken away to be completed later. Approximately three thousand leaflets giving  ‘Reasons to say No to airport expansion’ * were given out.
Beside the hub was a group offering block-printing on tee-shirts and other types of clothing.
image1.png
Banners were put on the walls. Musicians from Bayou Tapestry played short sets throughout the four hours the Jamboree was there.
image1.png
A group of campaigners called The Landing Crew took part in the protest, as the silent witnesses of the Jamboree, drawing people in by their colourful clothing & their coordinated slow movements….
The Samba Band, by contrast, led the protest in a noisy & colourful march around the central area of Weston and along the seafront. The procession was supported throughout by the XR stewards who were mindful to WSM residents and passers-by.
Throughout the action a small team of people who had co-designed a questionnaire with the assistance of a doctor in sociology & methodology, spoke to people as they passed-by to ascertain what they knew of the expansion plans & to listen to their opinions.
People seemed surprised to be approached, but in the main many people were willing to engage and give their opinions.
image1.png
Some of the highlights from the questionnaire are below:
33% did not know the airport was expanding & only 36% knew North Somerset council were the decision makers.
Shockingly this indicates that nearly two thirds of the WSM residents don’t know that it is their own local councillors (11 out of the 27) who are going to be making that decision.
They in other words have not realised that they have the power to support or object to the expansion if they so wish to.
An important part of the role of the protest was to make them aware of this. They spoke of their powerlessness over political matters that directly impact on their lives. It seemed like they had long given up trusting.
Campaigners believe this lies at the heart of the failure of our political system as it is organised today.  Here is a really important issue which is going to have repercussions on not just our immediate future but on generations to come.
Despite this, the political system has not reached out and engaged full-heartedly with people in WSM because I believe it doesn’t have the infrastructure or the will to do so.  More and better engagement is needed; one of the best ways we can do this is through Citizen’s Assemblies.
The rest of the survey results indicate strongly that the people of WSM who answered this survey would object to an extra two million passengers using the airport and the thousands of extra planes if they knew they had a voice:
90% of responders were exasperated by road congestion & agreed with the statement ‘there will be an extra 10,000 car journeys to and from the airport clogging up the roads even more’.
People on the whole felt exasperated with the airport’s claims of being a ‘carbon neutral airport’. One person said ‘they must think we are fools’.
As indicated by only 2.5% of people agreeing with the statement that ‘The Airport has no responsibility for climate warming and greenhouse gases released by the planes’.
Whilst 87.5% agreed with the statement: ‘The planes are absolutely the airport’s responsibility. Greenhouse gas emissions mean that ice is melting, sea levels are rising and we are worried about Weston super Mare flooding’.
When it came to health matters & aviation:
77.5% agreed with this statement ‘We believe the local doctors who have said in a recent letter that aviation emissions cause premature deaths and increased risk of heart and lung disease’.
People were also extremely annoyed about noise caused by the planes with 80% agreeing with the statement: ‘We say an extra 23,000 flights a year and more flights between 11.00pm and 6.00 am in the summer months will cause sleep disturbance and increase heart disease to local people’.
Respondents had lived in Weston-super-mare on average for 24 years.
Campaigners were heartened that this piece of outreach could produce results about the material planning considerations that reflect the many objections received by North Somerset Council.
It seems people wherever they live in North Somerset are concerned about road congestion, noise levels and the health of their families.
When communities speak they amplify the callousness of these planning applications.
Bristol Airport is part of a huge multi billion pound investment fund, the Ontario Teacher’s Pension Fund (OTPP) which attempts to manipulate  every aspect of our political system in order to increase their profit.
Desmog* revealed recently British political parties and individual politicians have received more than £9 million worth of donations from the aviation industry. With the former International Trade Secretary Liam Fox receiving the most. This of course is highly worrying as he is an MP in North Somerset where the airport expansion is being considered.
What environmental groups want, and what society needs, if for our towns and cities to have many local people who are involved & engaged with all decision making processes which places them, the natural world and social justice at the heart of all that we do.
The local XR groups believed the day in Weston-super-Mare was a useful piece of outreach which could be replicated outside the traditional XR heartlands. We now need Citizen Assemblies set up in every town & city council throughout the land.

Read more »

Environmentalists protest outside Luton Airport expansion consultation event in Stevenage

Environmental campaigners gathered to protest against the proposed expansion of Luton Airport outside a consultation event. Protesters from Extinction Rebellion, Friends of the Earth, LADACAN and SLAE joined forces for the peaceful demonstration. The airport plans to build a new terminal and increase passenger numbers from the current 18 million per year to 32 million a year. Former Herts county councillor Amanda King is now an active member of Extinction Rebellion which she set up locally in Stevenage; the airport expansion demo was its first action.  She said: “Flying has the highest carbon footprint of all forms of transport. Taking one return flight generates more carbon than people in some countries produce in an entire year. …[aviation] is expected to account for 25% of CO2 emission by 2050.”  As well as CO2, the protesters emphasised the airport expansion will also increase noise, traffic congestion and air pollution. The airport knows there will be hugely increased carbon impact from the expansion, as well as the other negative consequences, but falls back on the old chestnut of there being more jobs and more local prosperity.  In reality, most passengers using Luton are British people taking leisure trips abroad (spending their money there).
.

 

 

Environmentalists protest outside Luton Airport expansion consultation event in Stevenage

11 December 2019

By Louise McEvoy (The Comet)

Environmentalists gathered to protest against the proposed expansion of Luton Airport outside a consultation event at Stevenage Arts and Leisure Centre on Thursday.

Protesters from Extinction Rebellion, Friends of the Earth, LADACAN – Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise – and Stop Luton Airport Expansion joined forces for the peaceful demonstration.

London Luton Airport Limited plans to build a new terminal and increase passenger numbers from the current 18 million per year to 32 million a year – nearly doubling its capacity.

Former Herts county councillor Amanda King, who lives in Stevenage, is now an active member of environmental movement Extinction Rebellion – and most notably arrested during the group’s London protests last month for laying down in a road with other campaigners.

Amanda has now set up an Extinction Rebellion group in Stevenage, and the airport expansion demo was its first action.

She said: “Flying has the highest carbon footprint of all forms of transport. Taking one return flight generates more carbon than people in some countries produce in an entire year.

“Aviation is the fastest growing source of carbon emissions, expected to account for 25 per cent of all emission by 2050.”

As well as carbon emissions, the protesters emphasised the airport expansion will also increase noise, traffic congestion and air pollution.

Two Extinction Rebellion Stevenage members dressed in black and wearing black face masks disrupted the consultation and were ejected from the event.

Anthony Aldridge – programme director of Luton Airport Limited – has said “the proposed development would deliver huge economic benefits to Hertfordshire and beyond”, including the creation of 5,600 jobs and a £2 billion boon to the economy, but said it is their job “to balance this out with the valid environmental concerns”.

He said: “We accept greenhouse gas emissions will be impacted by the expansion, but Luton Airport has shown in the past we are willing to listen to feedback and act accordingly.”

If you are interested in joining Extinction Rebellion’s Stevenage group, email ExtinctionRebellionStevenage@outlook.com

https://www.thecomet.net/news/extinction-rebellion-stevenage-protest-over-luton-airport-expansion-1-6417693

.


Luton opposition groups:

LADACAN  Luton and District Association for the Control of Airport Noise )
SLAE  (Stop Luton Airport Expansion)

HALE  (Hertfordshire Against Luton Expansion alliance group)

STAQS  –  St Albans Quieter Skies on Facebook

Harpenden Sky   Harpenden Sky

.


See recently:

Hertfordshire County Council objects to Luton Airport expansion, due to negative environmental impacts

Proposals to expand Luton Airport have been described as “madness” by a Hertfordshire county councillor.  The council unanimously voted to oppose further expansion of Luton airport at a meeting on 26th November, as they realised the expansion plans to increase to 32 million passengers a year by 2039 (from almost 17m now) would harm the environment. The airport’s proposals – to be decided by Luton Borough Council – include a second terminal north of the runway, an extensive new airfield infrastructure and a third station. There is a huge conflict of interest, as Luton Council both owns the airport, and decides on its planning applications.  At a time of growing realisation of the climate crises the planet faces, and with no realistic ways to reduce the carbon emissions from aviation, the industry should NOT be given permission to expand. The growth plans of airports across the country add up to a massive expansion in the number of flights and passengers, way above what could be compatible even with aiming for net-zero carbon by 2050 (and that is at least 20 years too late). The motion also called for Luton’s plans to be deferred until the new government has set out the Aviation Strategy, for the UK aviation sector, taking into account the advice of the CCC.

Click here to view full story…

Groups write to Government asking for a moratorium on airport expansion planning applications

Representatives of groups at some of the largest UK airports have written to both the Secretaries of State for Transport, and Housing, Communities and Local Government, to request a halt to airport expansion.  The letter asks them to suspend the determination by all planning authorities of applications to increase the physical capacity of UK airports, or their approved operating caps, until there is a settled UK policy position against which such applications can be judged.  Many UK airports are seeking – or have announced their intention to seek – planning approval to increase their capacity and/or their operating caps. In aggregate it has been estimated that proposals announced by UK airports would increase the country’s airport capacity by over 70% compared to 2017.  There is no settled UK policy on aircraft noise, or  policy on aviation carbon and how the sector will, as the CCC advises,  “limit growth in demand to at most 25% above current levels by 2050”. The letter says: “Until a settled policy with set limits is established for greenhouse gas emissions and noise there should be a moratorium on all airport expansion planning applications.”

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Hertfordshire County Council objects to Luton Airport expansion, due to negative environmental impacts

Proposals to expand Luton Airport have been described as “madness” by a Hertfordshire county councillor.  The council unanimously voted to oppose further expansion of Luton airport at a meeting on 26th November, as they realised the expansion plans to increase to 32 million passengers a year by 2039 (from almost 17m now) would harm the environment. The airport’s proposals – to be decided by Luton Borough Council – include a second terminal north of the runway, an extensive new airfield infrastructure and a third station. There is a huge conflict of interest, as Luton Council both owns the airport, and decides on its planning applications.  At a time of growing realisation of the climate crises the planet faces, and with no realistic ways to reduce the carbon emissions from aviation, the industry should NOT be given permission to expand. The growth plans of airports across the country add up to a massive expansion in the number of flights and passengers, way above what could be compatible even with aiming for net-zero carbon by 2050 (and that is at least 20 years too late).The motion also called for Luton’s plans to be deferred until the new government has set out the Aviation Strategy, for the UK aviation sector, taking into account the advice of the CCC.  
.

 

Hertfordshire County Council objects to Luton Airport expansion

By Daisy Smith   (St Albans Review)
2nd December 2019

Proposals to expand Luton Airport have been described as “madness” by a county councillor.

Hertfordshire County Council unanimously voted to oppose further expansion of the airport at a meeting last Tuesday (November 26).

Councillors said the expansion to cater for 32 million passengers a year by 2039 would harm the environment.

The proposals – which will be decided by Luton Borough Council – include a second terminal north of the runway, an extensive new airfield infrastructure and a third station.

Liberal Democrat councillor for Colney Heath and Marshalswick John Hale said: “Expanding the airport to 32 million passengers a year when we are trying to reduce carbon emissions is madness.

“The impact on residents in terms of increased noise and pollution is unacceptable.

“I am pleased the motion got the support of all parties at the council.”

The motion also called for any proposed plans to expand to be deferred until the new government has responded to a letter from national body Committee on Climate Change.

The letter calls for a reduction in airport expansion plans in order to reduce emissions from aviation.

Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate Daisy Cooper welcomed the decision made by the council.

She said: “The expansion of Luton Airport would not only have a massive impact on the climate, but also on the people of St Albans who live under the flightpath.”

London Luton Airport Ltd is holding a second consultation on its proposals. Deadline for comments is December 16.

The airport said the expansion could deliver more than 16,000 new jobs and bring £1.3 billion per year to Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire.

It also said a new funding package will be made to provide £7.5 million to authorities outside of Luton that will be most impacted by the airport.

It added it is making steps to reduce its carbon emissions.

Luton Airport corporate director Graham Olver added: “The airport is aware that neighbouring authorities take a deep interest to expand the airport.

“The airport is keen to hear the views of as many people as possible and would encourage people to attend one of its remaining six consultation events.”

To share your views, visit: futureluton.llal.org.uk

https://www.stalbansreview.co.uk/news/18074877.hertfordshire-county-council-objects-luton-airport-expansion/

.

 


Future Luton

https://futureluton.llal.org.uk/

.


The main local community group is LADACAN

(Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise)

http://www.ladacan.org/

They say:

Luton Airport’s owners want a massive further increase in capacity by adding 14 million more passengers on top of the 18 million a year already using the Airport, so they can make even more money at the expense of quality of life for all of us.

We all have until 16th December to submit hard-hitting objections to their plans.

Local people are very concerned about the proposed expansion because it would:

  • cause 77,000 extra journeys a day on congested roads and rail services
  • increase local pollution and contribution to climate change by over 50%
  • add a further 80,000 flights a year to our already noisy and crowded skies

Click the links below to find out more about what YOU can do to help stop this:

1) Find out more by attending one of the local roadshows >> Roadshows

2) Submit a strong objection and spread the word to others >> Objections

3) Email us at info@ladacan.org to go on the mailing list

THIS IS IMPORTANT AND WE NEED TO ACT NOW !!

OTHER NEWS:

Luton Airport wants to break yet another planning condition
Not content with breaching its night noise planning condition, Luton Airport now wants to exceed its 18-million passenger limit, without delivered the mitigations which went hand-in-hand with the growth permission. >> Airport wants to exceed passenger limit

Updated application to exceed noise contour limits
Planning Condition 10 is designed to keep Luton Airport growth in balance: more flights, but quieter planes. The airport has rushed the growth ahead of the quieter planes, and now wants the rules set aside. Latest update >> Object to Condition 10 Variation

What’s Condition 10 Variation all about? Click here to visit our FAQ page

.


This is LADACAN’S advice on responding to the consultation:

LADACAN opposes FutureLuToN proposals

We have until 16th December to register strong opposition to LLAL’s expansion plans.

LADACAN believes the FutureLuToN project is designed to make more cash for LLAL at the expense of quality of life and the environment in the whole surrounding area. There are a number of reasons why this Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project would not be in the public interest, and we have summarised them below.

If you agree, and want to OPPOSE this project, you need to review our objections, put them in your own words and add your own additional points (perhaps your reaction to what you saw at one of the LLAL roadshows, or your experience from the expansion project which has been happening over the last 7 years) and email them as objections.

This is probably less risky than being suckered by their online application form when ends to manipulate responses to make them look as if they are in support.

GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION – COMMUNITIES WILL BE ADVERSELY IMPACTED

FutureLuToN is bad for communities which already suffer the unmitigated impacts of the recent doubling of capacity – on the busiest routes an additional 90% flights a year. To cram in more passengers, the aircraft have got bigger and noisier, and the number of quieter-engine planes has been offset by introducing more of the larger noisier ones.

TO OBJECT: If you agree with that point, you can copy this email address or click on it to email futureluton@llal.org.uk and base your objection in your own words on our points below:

“I strongly oppose any additional expansion of capacity at Luton Airport on the grounds that it is not in the public interest for the following reasons:

300-450 planes a day already fly at very low altitude over Hertfordshire causing noise, loss of sleep and negative health effects which impact people’s wellbeing. None of effects of doubling capacity from 9 to 18 million passengers between 2013 and 2019 have been mitigated: planes are still held low for up to 16 miles, aircraft have got larger and noisier, the Airport has breached its noise contour limits since 2017.

All of this has seriously degraded quality of life in Hertfordshire, over which all of Luton’s arriving and departing aircraft must fly.

Luton Airport has no control over the complete UK Airspace redesign being delivered in the next few years, other airport expansions such as Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and unknown Brexit effects. It is madness to consider any further expansion plans until we see the outcome of these vital external influences.

Luton is simply trying to jump on the bandwagon of projections for airport capacity which are out of date and unjustifiable in today’s climate. “Making best use of the runway” is not an adequate justification for adding 14 million to the 18 million passengers a year at this Airport so that Luton Borough Council can make yet more money.

The government’s Aviation Policy Framework requires the benefits of airport growth to be balanced with mitigations for the environmental impacts. The current expansion project has taken all the benefits but delivered no balancing mitigations. Night flights have doubled in the past 5 years from 8,000 to 16,000 per year and the night noise contour limit has been exceeded for 3 years.

Since 2013, Luton Airport had doubled its capacity and delivered huge revenue increases BUT: planes are still held low for up to 16 miles; the fleet has become noisier because the 5% slightly quieter neo aircraft have been offset by 5% more of the larger, louder Airbus A321 and Boeing 777 types; flight paths have remained fixed in an out-of-date airspace design.

The current expansion project was due to run until 2028 and should be required to continue until then with no further additional capacity even being considered until all of the noise mitigations have been delivered and all of the existing noise planning conditions satisfied including a reduction of noise contours and a reduction of noise violation limits.

Name, Address, Postcode”

GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION – CLIMATE WILL BE ADVERSELY IMPACTED

FutureLuToN is bad for climate change given the strong effect which aviation has not just from high-level pollutants but contrails which cause additional clouds. The Climate Change Committee has written to government clearly stating that aviation growth must be at least halved to reach net zero by 2050 – the bare minimum we must do to survive.

TO OBJECT: If you agree with that point, you can copy this email address or click on it to email futureluton@llal.org.uk and base your objection in your own words on our points here:

“I strongly oppose any additional expansion of capacity at Luton Airport on the grounds that it is not in the public interest for the following reasons:

DfT aviation demand forecasts in 2017 pegged Luton at 18 million passengers until 2050. In 2019 the Climate Change Committee wrote to government saying that airport expansion must be slashed by at least 50% in order to meet the commitment to net zero carbon emission growth by 2050. Yet Luton’s expansion plan ignores both these facts.

Aviation is one of the most energy and carbon intensive forms of transport, whether measured per passenger km or per hour travelling. In the UK, aviation’s share of emissions is predicted to grow from around 6% today to 25% by 2050, even if the sector is successfully capped at level of 37.5 MtCO2 (equivalent to 2005 levels) as been recommended by the Committee on Climate Change.

Aircraft emit CO2, NOx and harmful particulates while taxiing on the ground and while airborne. The most recent evidence indicates that other non-CO2 effects due to release of high-altitude NOx and formation of contrail clouds could double the warming impact of aviation.

Newer engines are only about 15% more fuel efficient. Official UK forecasts predict annual fleet carbon-efficiency improvements of less than one percent between now and 2050.

Luton Airport has already doubled in capacity in just the last 7 years. It is not appropriate for it to continue this trajectory because no proven and effective mitigations for noise, pollution and increased carbon emissions have been delivered.

Name, Address, Postcode”

GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION – ROAD AND RAIL NETWORKS ARE INADEQUATE

FutureLuToN is bad for commuters because the additional 14 million passengers will cause on average 77,000 additional journeys to and from the airport each day, double that during peak season, clogging road and rail services and causing more pollution. Luton has a very poor track record of passenger use of public transport.

TO OBJECT: If you agree with that point, you can copy this email address or click on it to email futureluton@llal.org.uk and base your objection in your own words on our points here:

“I strongly oppose any additional expansion of capacity at Luton Airport on the grounds that it is not in the public interest for the following reason:

Surface transport by road and rail to and from Luton Airport is busy and often very congested, with no east/west public transport provision. An extra 30,000 passenger rail journeys a day would degrade our already inadequate rail services.

In just the last 7 years, 9 million additional passengers a year have already been added to the road and rail networks feeding Luton Airport, which equates to more than 80,000 passenger journeys a day allowing for drop-off, at busy times.

There is no east/west rail connection to Luton, and the east/west road links are country roads. The main M1 north/south link is heavily congested at busy times and gridlocks if an incident occurs. Trains are often standing room only at Harpenden and further south in the rush hour, and from London going north during the evening peak.

Name, Address, Postcode”

GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION – THE PROPOSER HAS BROKEN TRUST

FutureLuToN is bad for confidence in balanced growth – the airport has taken all the benefits of the recent expansion but failed to deliver better routes, increased altitudes, reduced noise, a quieter fleet, and no evidence that the claimed jobs have materialised. The entire airspace in the south-east is due to be redesigned and until that happens nobody can be sure where these proposed 220,000 flights per year will actually go.

TO OBJECT: If you agree with that point, you can copy this email address or click on it to email futureluton@llal.org.uk and base your objection in your own words on our points here:

“I strongly oppose any additional expansion of capacity at Luton Airport on the grounds that it is not in the public interest for the following reasons:

Luton Airport is owned by Luton Borough Council, its Local Planning Authority, via a private company LLAL which is governed by a board made up of officers and members of the Borough Council, yet is not publicly accountable.

Robin Porter is the CEO of Luton Borough Council (which sets and has failed to enforce a breach of Luton Airport noise planning condition 10 caused by rapid growth). Robin Porter is also now the CEO of LLAL (which currently receives £55 million per year from the airport operators and benefits directly from airport growth). In 2014, LLAL set up a financial incentivisation scheme to stimulate rapid growth at Luton Airport (see p16 of the London Luton Airport Ltd 2016 annual accounts).

Since then, the airport capacity has grown at unprecedented rate, with numbers of passengers doubling in just 7 years, flights up by 40% overall, and yet no balancing mitigations have been delivered. Departures are still held low for up to 16 miles because expansion has rushed ahead of airspace modernisation. Noise impact has increased year-on-year since 2013 because expansion has rushed ahead of fleet modernisation. Night flights have doubled from 8,000 to 16,000 in 5 years and the night noise contour planning condition has been breached since 2017 with no enforcement.

This unbalanced expansion is entirely at odds with the government’s Aviation Policy which states that the benefits of aviation growth must be shared with communities. Over the past 7 years expansion at Luton, driven by LLAL through financial incentivisation, has delivered significant cash benefits to the airport owners, worse environmental impacts for local communities through increased noise, emissions and congestion,and no mitigation. 8 years remains of that project and the owners need to be constrained to deliver redesigned airspace, continuous climb, an overall quieter fleet, and noise and emissions reduction to redress the imbalance.

Even though the decision about future expansion at Luton will be taken by the Planning Inspectorate, the past history of expansion shows that Luton Borough Council has proved ineffective in dealing with the conflict of interest arising because it receives significant cash dividends from the airport but at the same time has a responsibility to protect residential amenity. The fact that it has not enforced against the breach of noise planning condition 10 which was predicted in 2016 and was at least partly due to the  rapid growth incentivisation by LLAL, highlights the conflict.

Name, Address, Postcode”

BEWARE: if you do decide to fiull in their online response form, the questions are worded so that you can easily be suckered into appearing to agree with the proposals. For example, how do you answer the following question if you don’t think they should build a new Terminal on a park:

“Do you have any comments on our proposed park, that would replace Wigmore Valley Park?”

We would recommend prefixing the answer to every response by “I strongly oppose any further capacity expansion at Luton Airport, and I want to see the owners and operators focus on delivering mitigations and abiding by all the current planning conditions.”

See http://www.ladacan.org/llal-consultation-on-futureluton-proposals/

.

.

.

.

Read more »

Local campaigners, AXO, encourage local residents to respond to the Southampton airport expansion consultation

There is a planning application consultation by Southampton Airport, that closes on 23rd December. The airport has published plans for a 164-metre runway extension.  The planning application, lodged with Eastleigh Borough Council, is the first phase of its growth set out in its “masterplan” which it charmingly calls (oxymoron) “A Vision For Sustainable Growth.”  The application is likely to be considered by the council on 21st January 2020.  Local opposition group, AXO (Airport Expansion Opposition) Southampton is urging people to read the application, and submit their comments. There are serious concerns about road congestion, and increases in air pollution – as well as the inevitable increase in noise. The longer runway would mean larger aircraft could use it. AXO warns that the application should not be decided before the CAA’s Airspace Change consultation process is completed, as this may change significantly the impact on residents under or near the flight path. It also should not be decided until the government has finalised its Aviation Strategy, for all UK aviation, expected in early-mid 2020, when it has taken into account the new legal situation for aviation carbon emissions, with a net-zero target for 2050.

.

  • Airport expansion needs to be considered on a regional/national level rather than at local level – expansion of Heathrow would draw custom away from regional airports, and the impact of expansion at other regional airports will impact on passenger flows through Southampton Airport
  • The expansion would lead to increased traffic generation with associated congestion and air pollution as well as air pollution from the flights themselves. The airport makes some very optimistic assumptions about its ability to increase use of public transport as a means of getting to the airport. In reality, rail cannot take much increase so it is likely the majority of traffic arriving at the airport will be on our already congested roads. The policy of Eastleigh BC to prioritise the Chickenhall Road link and effectively dismiss the ‘Eastleigh Railway Chord’ [to link the airport to Portsmouth and the East with greater ease] makes a mockery of the airport MD’s advertising of its rail links.
  • There will be increased noise for those under the flight path. At present over 5600 local people experience noise levels of 55dB and above – this is twice the loudness of 45dB recommended by the World Health Organisation. The number of people affected will increase with airport expansion.
  • Decision on this application should be delayed until after the Airspace Change consultation process is completed, as this may change significantly the impact on residents under or near the flight path.
  • Eastleigh Borough Council has declared a climate and environmental emergency. Airport expansion will lead to increased carbon dioxide emissions and is simply incompatible with addressing this climate emergency. The Airport’s own estimate is that carbon emissions will rise on average by 350,000 tonnes per year. For comparison, homes, industry and road traffic in the entire Borough of Eastleigh is responsible for 610,000t per year. No amount of presumed economic benefit can justify this level of increase in carbon emissions. There is no way of offsetting this level of emissions, and the airport is proposing mitigation for only the (already small) carbon emissions during the construction phase and for its own operations (current plans are for only 6,000 tonne reduction.
  • Neil Garwood (airport MD) has stated that only 2% of CO2 emissions were due to aviation. This is an absolute minimum figure that applies to global emissions. The UK government itself acknowledges that the current UK aviation emissions are 7% and set to go to 25% by 2050 – when aviation CO2 emissions are likely to be the single greatest offender in the UK. You should know this, because it has been reported extensively on the BBC – as have the recommendations by Lord Deben (the Chair of the Government Committee on Climate Change) that everyone’s appetite for air travel should be curbed and that airport expansion needs to be curtailed.
  • The expansion would lead to increased traffic generation with associated congestion and air pollution as well as air pollution from the flights themselves. The airport makes some very optimistic assumptions about its ability to increase use of public transport as a means of getting to the airport. In reality, rail cannot take much increase so it is likely the majority of traffic arriving at the airport will be on our already congested roads. The policy of Eastleigh BC to prioritise the Chickenhall Road link and effectively dismiss the ‘Eastleigh Railway Chord’ [to link the airport to Portsmouth and the East with greater ease] makes a mockery of the airport MD’s advertising of its rail links.
  • The economic benefits are overstated. The Airport promises 500 new jobs on the site, yet its last masterplan in 2004 promised an extra 391 jobs by 2015 – in fact there were 54 fewer. Its own figures show that nearly 80% of passengers are local people, so the effect on tourism from incoming visitors is limited. The percentage of flights taken for business has fallen. Moreover, in a time of climate emergency we should not be basing our economy on expansion of a sector that needs to be reduced.
  • Aviation expansion is a national issue, as we have a climate. Airport expansion therefore needs to be considered on a regional/national level rather than at local level for example, expansion of Heathrow would draw custom away from regional airports, and the impact of expansion at other regional airports will impact on passenger flows through Southampton Airport. These decisions should not be made locally on a case by case basis by the local authority that each airport happens to be located in, but should be decided nationally.
  • Decision on this application should be delayed until after the Airspace Change consultation process is completed, as this may change significantly the impact on residents under or near the flight path.

For more details from AXO, see

https://axosouthampton.wordpress.com/2019/10/09/reasons-for-objection-eastleigh/

.


AXO say:

Why we’re campaigning

Whilst accepting the need for a small regional airport at Southampton, we acknowledge that the Climate Crisis means we must all fly less.


What can you do?

1) Object to Eastleigh Council

The planning application for airport expansion has been submitted [application number F/19/86707] (If this link doesn’t work you enter the number on the planning register ‘simple search’ box).

The consultation period ends on the 23/12/19 so time for reading the application, the associated documents (the devil is in the detail) and commenting is limited. The application is likely to be considered by the Eastleigh Local Area Committee (ELAC) at its meeting on 21st January 2020 (7pm).

Don’t have time to read the planning application? We have! Read our summary of concerns that you may wish to use in your objection.

.


See earlier:

Southampton airport submits runway extension plans

Southampton airport has published plans for a 164-metre extension to its runway.

The planning application, lodged with Eastleigh Borough Council, is the first phase of growth outlined in the airport’s masterplan – recently re-named A Vision For Sustainable Growth.

The airport says extending the runway by 164 metres within its existing boundaries will allow it to increase passenger numbers from two to three million per year, “significantly” increase route choices and allow aircraft to reach further-afield destinations.

It would bring destinations in Scandinavia, the Eastern Mediterranean and Eastern Europe within reach, Southampton airport said.

Managing director Neil Garwood said: “Our plans will make the airport resilient to changes in the aviation market as the longer runway permits year-round viability for an increased number of airlines.

“The longer runway will enable the airport to increase its financial contribution from £160 million to £400 million per year, create over 500 new jobs, and bring huge gains in connectivity and choice for our region.

“Our development plans have been carefully prepared by a project team including ecologists and technical experts, sensitive to the needs of the local community, including comprehensive noise and air quality management plans.

“The airport has nearly four million people in its catchment area, and we firmly believe enabling them to fly from their local airport and taking tens of thousands of needless car journeys off of our already congested roads is the most sustainable way to fly.

“In construction terms, the runway extension is relatively small, but the benefit it will make to our region’s connectivity is significant.”

Southampton airport has pledged to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030, for “emissions within the airport’s control” and has owed to invest in the latest technology to maximise the use of sustainable power sources and developments such as electric aircraft.

http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/350446/southampton-airport-submits-runway-extension-plans

.


Almost 2,000 people sign petition against Southampton Airport expansion plans

About 1,900 people have signed a petition opposing the expansion of Southampton Airport. The local opposition campaign, Airport eXpansion Opposition (AXO), will be asking Southampton Councillors not to back plans to extend the airport’s runway by 164 metres.  AXO members will present the petition to councillors at a full council meeting. The plans to extend the runway and increase the number of flights will increase carbon emissions, and are contrary to the council’s plans to cut CO2 locally.  The airport will submit its expansion planning application to Eastleigh Borough Council. AXO said that if Southampton is serious about declaring a climate emergency, the airport expansion should not be permitted. Airports and their backers try to use the argument that it is better for people to fly (as they assume people will continue to do, in growing numbers….) from a local airport, citing the carbon emissions of their trip to/from another larger airport. Those emissions are generally small compared to those of the flight itself. And the aim of having a local airport is to get people to fly more, as it is more convenient.  Net effect – more flights, more carbon. And more noise and local impacts around the airport.

Click here to view full story…

Local opposition growing to expansion plans by Southampton airport

A group within Southampton Friends of the Earth has set up a campaign to oppose Southampton Airport expansion. Despite the Government’s recent commitment to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, there are many airport expansion applications across the UK. This expansion cannot enable the aviation sector to meet even its current, easy, carbon target – let alone the much more stringent one required for a zero-carbon Britain by 2050. The airport will probably submit its planning application to extend the runway by 170 metres to Eastleigh Borough Council in the next few weeks. The scoping report and Master Plan have received approval in principle from Southampton City Council. Twyford Parish Council has objected, due to a proposed increase of flights over the village. Eastleigh Greens are likely to be objecting as well.  Friends of the Earth Southampton are currently putting together a petition to Southampton City Council to ask them to re-think their support for airport expansion, given that the Government is asking for net zero carbon by 2050. Campaigners started a group here to oppose the proposed expansion but it has not got a name yet. People interested can get in touch via the local FoE group foesoton@gmail.com

Click here to view full story…

 

.

 

 

 

Read more »

Heathrow growth – election briefing (one page) from the No 3rd Runway Coalition – check your candidates’ views

The No 3rd Runway Coalition has put together a simple one-page briefing on Heathrow and its proposed new runway, to help people quiz their parliamentary candidates, and check they know the real facts. The Coalition says: “Supporting Heathrow Expansion comes at the expense of the regions and to the UK as a whole.  Here’ s why it should be opposed.” The briefing deals with the Economic costs, the carbon implications, noise, air pollution, transport impacts, and connectivity. Lots of key points, including on economics:  ” The Government’ s own economic analysis found that once all negative impacts are monetised, a third runway could bring net NEGATIVE economic benefits to the UK overall in the long term.  There is no explicit job model and no clear job creation analysis included in the Airports National Policy Statement. Many of the few jobs created will be low-skilled and short term.  The costs of the project are now expected to rise to over £31bn, increasing Heathrow’s debt from £11bn (2014) to over £40bn in 2028. This could still increase further.” On noise: “Data from the CAA reveals that 2.2 MILLION people would experience an increase in noise from an expanded Heathrow.”

.

 

GENERAL ELECTION 2019 BRIEFING – Heathrow 3rd runway

Supporting Heathrow Expansion comes at the expense of the regions and to the UK as a whole.  Here’ s why it should be opposed.

ECONOMIC COSTS

  • The Government’ s own economic analysis found that once all negative impacts are monetised, a third runway could bring net NEGATIVE economic benefits to the UK overall in the long term.
  • There is no explicit job model and no clear job creation analysis included in the Airports National Policy Statement. Many of the few jobs created will be low-skilled and short term.
  • The costs of the project are now expected to rise to over £31bn, increasing Heathrow’s debt from £11bn (2014) to over £40bn in 2028. This could still increase further.

CLIMATE CHANGE

  • Heathrow is already the biggest single source of carbon emissions in the UK and expansion will add an extra 8-9 megatonnes of CO2 per year. Thus, a third runway is not compatible with the UK’ s legally binding climate targets.
  • The Committee on Climate Change has advised the Government to limit growth in passenger demand to 25% between now and 2050. The Government currently anticipates twice this level of passenger growth.
  • While the CCC model assumes 31 megatonnes of CO2 by 2050 from aviation, the Government’ s forecasts are that with Heathrow expansion, UK aviation emissions would be as high as 40 megatonnes annually by 2050.
  • Consequently, growth would need to be curbed at all other UK airports if a third runway is built in order for the UK not to breach its carbon targets.

AIR POLLUTION

  • The Government accepts Heathrow expansion would have a “ significant negative ” effect on Air Quality.
  • Government has provided no evidence to show how Heathrow can expand and comply with legal limits and there are currently no enforcement methods should Heathrow not meet legal requirements.
  • The area around Heathrow is the second major hot spot for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollution in London, with breaches of legal limits having been recorded close to the airport for many years.

NOISE

  • Expansion would result in an additional 285,000 flights each year or over 700 extra flights per day.
  • Data from the Civil Aviation Authority reveals that 2.2 MILLION people experience an increase in noise from an expanded Heathrow.
  • Transport Select Committee concluded that 323,684 people will be newly affected by noise from Heathrow.
  • Hundreds of thousands of school children across the South East are already exposed to aircraft noise above 54 decibels, the sound level threshold which has a negative effect on children ’ s behaviour, memory and learning.

TRANSPORT IMPACTS

  • Expansion would result in a total of 175,000 additional daily trips on local transport networks.
  • Heathrow has to increase the proportion of passengers accessing the airport by public transport from 40% today to 50% in 2030 and 55% in 2040. However, it has only increased this figure by 1% since 2009.
  • It is unclear what the cost to the taxpayer of the road and rail infrastructure will be. Estimates of these are up to £18bn, which could easily overrun. Heathrow has only committed to contributing £1bn.

CONNECTIVITY

  • Regional Airports will lose 17 million passengers by 2050 if Heathrow expands.
  • Transport Select Committee found that expansion at Heathrow would result in 170,000 fewer flights at regional airports by 2050.
  • The UK Government currently funds three Public Service Obligations (PSOs) into London airports.
  • The total annual subsidy in 2017 for PSO’ s was £10,564,194. The average annual cost of existing PSOs in 2017 was £480,191. 50% of this cost is met by local authorities.

 

See link for original text

Read more »

300th Frankfurt Monday demo against aircraft noise – 1,000 people -.  “Only when no one comes, is it over!”

Back in October 2011 the Frankfurt airport 3rd runway opened. It was greeted with huge anger, because residents had not been informed how much new noise there would be, and that there would be noise where there previously was none. Huge protests started on Monday evenings (airports are public property in Germany, so protests can happen). These carried on with often as many as 1,000 people each week. People were devastated by the noise battering they were being subjected to. Now, 8 years later, the protesters have had their 300th protest, again with perhaps almost 1,000 people present. They say they will not give up, until there are no more protesters. “Only when no one comes, is it over.” Their complaints have not been addressed, about noise or particulate air pollution, or the health issues people are suffering – including depression. The airport is continuing to expand, with a new terminal. Its opponents now hope the increasing awareness of carbon emissions from aviation, with campaigns like Fridays for Future, will help put pressure on Frankfurt airport. There is a new campaign against domestic flights. 
.

 

 

Slightly odd Google Translate version of this German story:

300th Frankfurt Monday demonstration against aircraft noise.  “Only when no one comes, it is over!”

11.11.19

“Deutschland fliegt nicht” means  “Germany does not fly”

Giving up is out of the question for the aircraft noise opponents: About eight years after the first protest, their 300th Monday demonstration took place at Frankfurt Airport. There are plenty of unfulfilled demands.

The participants would like to have spared the anniversary: Monday, people are coming to the Terminal 1 of Frankfurt Airport with posters for about eight years. They protest against the aircraft noise, ultrafine dust and the further expansion of the airport. Now the aircraft noise opponents demonstrated for the 300th time. Around 550 people counted the police. Thomas Scheffler, spokesman for the Alliance of Citizens’ Initiatives (BBI), spoke of more than 1,000 participants.

Frankfurt Airport is located in the center of the Rhine-Main conurbation, with hundreds of aircraft taking off and landing daily. This is felt by many people in the surrounding area whose houses are located in particular in the entry lanes. The circle of those concerned extends far beyond Frankfurt and Offenbach out to the neighboring Rhineland-Palatinate around Mainz. From there, cabaret artist Lars Reichow traveled to the demo on Monday evening and addressed the participants.

Demo was already bigger

At the end of 2011, when the new northwest runway went into operation, resistance had “increased explosively,” says Scheffler. At times even several thousand people came to the demos. Then it was a little quieter. The recently started construction of Terminal 3 caused new displeasure , the opponents fear thereby a further increase of the aircraft noise.

Lately, according to Scheffler, around 250 people have regularly come to the airport for the Monday demonstration. The demonstrators outraged because the new runway had led to an even greater aircraft noise. Not only the ultrafine dust endangers the health , but also the noise. He could cause cardiovascular problems and even depression.

More than a demand

For years, the BBI has called for a stop to the expansion of the airport and an extension of the no-fly ban. Currently, this is between 23.00 and 5.00 clock, which was then set in the construction of the Northwest runway. In addition, the Alliance wants the flight movements to be reduced every year and the Northwest runway to be shut down. The aircraft noise opponents are now hoping for an upswing through the climate debate. A new action, which was presented in the evening, is aimed at short-haul flights.

The initiators of the “Germany-flies-not” campaign are calling on people to refrain from private and professional domestic flights during the week from 10 to 16 February 2020. A photo campaign in Terminal 1 is planned – on a “do-nothing-do” sofa. A photo will be displayed on one of the world’s largest screens in Times Square, New York. Afterwards, the sofa, which is over two meters wide, travels through Germany. At the beginning of December there will be a sofa concert at Frankfurt Airport.

Minister is impressed

The operator of the Frankfurt airport does not disturb actions like these. “We take our responsibility for passive and active noise control in the vicinity of the airport very seriously,” said a Fraport spokesman. Hesse Transport Minister Tarek Al-Wazir (Greens) is impressed by the persistent commitment of the activists. “We’re ultimately pursuing the same goal,” he said. Hesse was able to do a lot within its capabilities – for example, with the seven-hour noise break, during which individual railways are temporarily not used, thus temporarily relieving neighboring municipalities of noise or the upper limit of noise.

For critics like Scheffler that’s not enough. The years of resistance had not been in vain, even if the construction of the new terminal, for instance, was a shadow over Monday’s demos. The most important success was that the subject of aircraft noise and particulate matter pollution is firmly anchored in public discourse today. And climate change movements such as “Fridays for Future” rekindled the debate surrounding the effects of air traffic. And the Monday demos? “Only when no one comes, it’s over.”

https://www.hessenschau.de/wirtschaft/fluglaermgegner-geben-nicht-auf-die-300-frankfurter-montagsdemo,fluglaerm-demo-frankfurt-100.html

.

Video:

https://vimeo.com/374703530/4ab1c50783  video of part of the protest.

.


 

There was also the launch of the “Germany does not fly” …”Deutschland fliegt nicht” campaign

 

DEMONSTRATION AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE

Germany does not fly?

Photo: © Gegenwind 2011 Rhein-Main eV / PR Newswire New York

Photo: © Gegenwind 2011 Rhein-Main eV / PR Newswire New York
With the new campaign “Germany does not fly”, a nationwide campaign to waive domestic flights will be launched in February 2020. Campaign start is already next Monday at the Frankfurt airport.

“Germany Grounded”, freely translated “Germany does not fly”, “Deutschland fliegt nicht” was the message that flickered in New York’s Times Square on October 31 in big letters on the Reuters scoreboard and was seen by thousands of people in the world metropolis. This was the highly ambitious starting signal for the initiative launched by aviation noise opponents from the Rhine-Main area “Germany is not flying”, which will cause a sensation nationwide from February 2020. The aim of the campaign is to get as many people as possible to refrain from flying.

At least since the world-wide Fridays for Future protests, a debate about travel behaviour in Germany has flared up. Frequent flying is becoming more and more in the focus, because air travel damages the climate much more than bus or train travel. Although only about ten percent of the earth’s population has access to the luxury of flying, it accounts for five percent of global CO2 emissions. At nitrogen and water vapour emissions, the proportion is even higher. Germany’s largest airport also plays an important role: it handles 35 percent of domestic flights. Overall, Frankfurt Airport is one of the 15 largest airports in the world, transporting around 70 million passengers a year. Before the construction of Terminal 3 began, the last big step towards the airport extension was the opening of the Northwest Runway in 2011.

He also called the initiators of the campaign “Germany does not fly” on the plan, eight years ago the non-profit associations Stop-Fluglärm.de, headwind 2011 Rhein-Main and the initiative climate, environmental and noise protection in aviation founded and since then demonstrating with great perseverance on Monday evenings at Frankfurt Airport. After demonstrating 6,000 participants on 4 February 2012, the German Aerospace Center (DLR) tested to what extent higher departure angles for noise avoidance are possible and made an adjustment from 3 to 3.2 degrees.

Next Monday the 11.11. the aviation noise opponents propose a new chapter. During the 300th Monday demonstration in Terminal 1 of Frankfurt Airport, as part of the “Germany does not fly” “Deutschland fliegt nicht”  campaign, flying people are to be convinced that they will be able to forego their private and business domestic flights at the latest in the action week in February.

Furthermore, it will be presented on Monday evening “when, where and how the action will reach Germany’s airports and cities by February 2020,” said Rolf Fritsch von Gegenwind 2011. In order to generate as much attention as possible, not only companies, associations, institutions and politics but also prominent “opinion leaders” should be convinced.

Thus television presenter Joko Winterscheidt and former Olympic champion Britta Steffen have publicly commented on their flight renouncement. On 11.11. The Monday demo also receives support from cabaret artist Lars Reichow, whose performance rounds off the program.

Unlike, for example, Extinction Rebellion, which was planning to block the airspace at Heathrow Airport in London with a drone blockade, [it never happened] the aviation noise activists resort to more lenient persuasive methods: “Our appeal is directed to human reason, it should encourage thought and help “Habits change,” it says in the call.

“Flying sustainably does not mean flying,” says Hans-Peter Huppert von Gegenwind in 2011, and sees himself strengthened in Chinese philosophy: “Since Confucius, “do-nothing-together “has been a strong, non-partisan and well-tested instrument.” the “Do-Nothing-together” sofa will be revealed on which the first non-fliers will be presented. This will be photographed in January 2020, among others, before the Chancellery. The initiators are expressing their disappointment at the (not yet) made changes by the politicians. Their concept: putting responsibility in the hands of individuals rather than waiting for prohibitions, ordinances and laws.

>> Official campaign start, 11.11., Frankfurt Airport, Terminal 1, from 18 o’clock Demonstration, from 18.15 Performance cabaret artist Lars Reichow, 18.40 Presentation of the campaign and online-circuit of www.deutschland-fliegt-nicht.de

https://www.journal-frankfurt.de/journal_news/Panorama-2/Demonstration-gegen-den-Klimawandel-Deutschland-fliegt-nicht-34883.html
.
.

See earlier:

The 200th Frankfurt airport Monday Demo (Montagsdemo) against the noise will be on 30th January

The 4th runway at Frankfurt was opened in October 2011. Due to re-alignment of flight paths, with thousands of people either newly overflown, or with more flights than before, there was uproar. The airport had not felt it necessary to warn people, or consult about the noise. Several thousand people started to congregate in the airport terminal every Monday evening, for a protest demo. (The airport buildings are public property, so the airport cannot prevent people gathering.). The 100th Monday demo was on 20th May 2014, when a group from the UK attended. Now the 200th Monday demo will take place on Monday 30th January, and a large crowd is expected. Politicians from the local area and from the region, as well as for Berlin, will be attending. The demands of the protesters are ultimately that the runway is closed down (though that is an ambitious, or unrealistic hope….) but they want no night flights from 10pm to 6am, no further airport expansion, and no 3rd terminal. Work to build the 3rd terminal started in October 2015, and the airport hopes it will open (first phase) in 2022. It is an astonishing achievement that Frankfurt residents have organised 200 Monday protests, all attended by many hundreds of people – sometimes several thousand. The demos are possible because people are so upset and angry about the noise burden that has been inflicted on them, reducing their quality of life.

Click here to view full story…

The 3rd terminal

In 2009, the German government decided to create third terminals for both Frankfurt Airport and Munich Airport, in order to handle expected passenger flows of 90 million in Frankfurt by 2020 and 50 million in Munich by 2017.

The new terminal is scheduled to be built by Fraport, south of the existing terminals on the grounds of the former Rhein-Main Air Base. The new Terminal 3 is to accommodate up to 25 million passengers and will feature 75 new aircraft positions when completely constructed. An extension of the SkyLine people mover system is planned to connect the new terminal to Terminals 1 and 2 and the airport train stations.

In August 2014, the city of Frankfurt granted building permission for the first phase of Terminal 3. The groundbreaking for the new Terminal took place on 5 October 2015. Its first phase, consisting of the main building and two of the planned four piers, is planned to open by 2022 and will be able to handle 15 million additional passengers per year. Total costs are estimated at €3 billion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_Airport#The_new_main_terminal


Residents around Frankfurt hold their 150th huge Monday evening protest against aircraft noise

On Monday 28th September, the 150th Monday evening protest against aircraft noise, due to the new runway, took place at Frankfurt airport. The new 4th runway was opened in October 2011, to the north west of the airport, and caused not only new flight paths but changes to existing flight paths. People had not been expecting the noise problem to be so bad. As soon as the runway opened, residents starting protesting against the noise – that was stopping them sleeping, reducing their quality of life, preventing them enjoying relaxing outside under flight paths, and reducing the prices of their homes. They started protests in the airport Terminal 1 (almost) every Monday evening. These are attended by between about 600 and 3,000 people. That is an astonishing achievement, and manifestation of real anger and determination by the thousands affected by plane noise. They are concerned now that the protests are seen to be becoming routine, and there is some appetite for more radical action, especially now that work is due to start very soon on a deeply opposed 3rd airport terminal. The style of protesting may perhaps now change. In German airport buildings are public property, so protesters are entitled to congregate in the terminal.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

 

Read more »

The Labour, LibDem, Conservative, Green party and SNP manifestos – bits on aviation

The election manifestos for the LibDems, Labour, and the Green Party are not available. They all have short sections on aviation. Labour comments (disappointing) include:  “Any expansion of airports must pass our tests on air quality, noise pollution, climate change obligations and countrywide benefits. We will examine fiscal and regulatory options to ensure a response to the climate crisis in a way that is fair to consumers and protects the economy.” LibDem comments include: “Reduce the climate impact of flying by reforming the taxation of international fights to focus on those who fly the most, while reducing costs for those who take one or two international return fights per year, placing a moratorium on the development of new runways (net) in the UK, opposing any expansion of Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted “. The Greens include: “We will lobby against the international rules that prevent action being taken to tax international aviation fuel. … Ban advertising for flights, and introduce a Frequent Flyer Levy (FFL)to reduce the impact of the 15% of people who take 70% of flights. This FFL only applies to people who take more than one (return) flight a year, discouraging excessive flying…  Stop the building of new runways.” Conservatives say nothing of any consequence, avoiding mention of carbon.
.

 

Liberal Democrats:

● Reduce the climate impact of flying by reforming the taxation of international fights to focus on those who fly the most, while reducing costs for those who take one or two international return fights per year, placing a moratorium on the development of new runways (net) in the UK, opposing any expansion of Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted and any new airport in the Thames Estuary, and introducing a zero-carbon fuels blending requirement for domestic fights.

Manifesto link

.

Labour

Labour recognises the Davies Commission’s assessment of pressures on airport capacity in the South East. Any expansion of airports must pass our tests on air quality, noise pollution, climate change obligations and countrywide benefits. We will examine fiscal and regulatory options to ensure a response to the climate crisis in a way that is fair to consumers and protects the economy.
Manifesto link
.

Green Party

> Apply a Carbon Tax on all fossil fuels, as outlined above in the ‘Green New Deal for energy’ section, which will increase the cost of petrol, diesel and shipping fuel, as well as on aviation fuel for domestic flights. Domestic flights will also lose their VAT exemption and there will be an additional surcharge on domestic aviation fuel to account for the increased warming effect of emissions release at altitude. We will lobby against the international rules that prevent action being taken to tax international aviation fuel.
> Ban advertising for flights, and introduce a Frequent Flyer Levy to reduce the impact of the 15% of people who take 70% of flights. This Frequent Flyer Levy only applies to people who take more than one (return) flight a year, discouraging excessive flying.
> Stop the building of new runways and all increased road capacity, saving thousands of acres of countryside every year and protecting people from the harm of increased air pollution and traffic danger.
Manifesto link

.

Conservatives

Parliament has voted in principle to support a third runway at Heathrow, but it is a private sector project. It is for Heathrow to demonstrate that it can meet its air quality and noise obligations, that the project can be financed and built and that the business case is realistic. The scheme will receive no new public money. More broadly, we will use new air traffic control technology to cut the time aircraft spend waiting to land, reducing delays, noise nuisance and pollution. We will also build on Britain’s pioneering work in electric and low-carbon flight.
Manifesto link

The SNP

We all know that aviation contributes to climate change. But we also know that many of Scotland’s remote and rural communities rely on flights.

We do not believe that aviation can simply be the preserve of the better off. We believe we must find solutions that allow all of Scotland’s communities to flourish…

We are committed to making the Highlands and Islands the world’s first net zero aviation region by 2040, with trials of low or zero emission flights, including electric planes, starting in 2021. The SNP believes aviation emissions should be counted within national emissions and targets. Aviation emissions in Scotland count towards our carbon reduction targets and the same approach should be taken across the UK.

Read more »

Scientists say rules on noise pollution, including aircraft noise, should be tightened to protect wildlife

.

 

Noise pollution rules should be tightened to protect wildlife, say scientists

Researchers examined more than 100 studies on the impact of human-produced noise

Noise produced by human activities should be better regulated to protect wildlife, say the authors of a study exposing how sound pollution affects myriad creatures from fish to birds.

“For example in bats, they try to locate their prey via acoustic cues,” said Dr Hansjoerg Kunc, the co-author of the research from Queen’s University Belfast. “If you have the noise in the background they can’t really hear that, so they have to fly longer and invest more time and energy to find their food.”

Writing in the journal Biology Letters, researchers examined more than 100 studies on the effect of noise on a large variety of animals, from molluscs to mammals.

The studies were based on experiments in which different aspects of the animals’ behaviour or other measures, such as changes in hormone levels, were recorded before and after exposure to noise. The size of any shift from pre-noise behaviour was then calculated on a scale. The latest research took all of these calculations and put them together for six groups of animals, including fish and birds.

The results reveal that human-produced noise affects all six groups of animals considered, encompassing a wide range of species. While some studies showed greater effects than others, analysis carried out by Kunc and his team found this is not down to genetic closeness or the type of species.

“Thus, the significant response to noise can be explained by most species responding to noise rather than a few species being particularly sensitive to noise,” the authors wrote. They added that noise was important from a conservation point of view because it meant efforts to reduce the impact must take into account a host of species within different ecosystems.

Kunc said noise “can change the species composition of an area, and then of course lose the function of an ecosystem.”

The team said it was highly probable that studies have underestimated the impact of noise, but cautioned that their research did not examine whether the effects were beneficial or detrimental to species. Such considerations, they added, were complex – for example, noise that disrupts hunting could benefit prey while creating difficulties for predators.

Even where some animals benefitted, that did not mean noise should not be tackled, since the majority would experience negative effects and it could cause disruption of ecosystems, said Kunc.

Andy Radford, a professor of behavioural ecology at the University of Bristol who was not involved in the study, said particular species or populations might face different impacts – while some may be able to move away from the noise, for example, others may not, while animals might tolerate stress better than others. What’s more, even plants can be affected – for example if pollinators move away because of noise.

However, Radford said there was cause for optimism. “Unlike with, for example, chemical pollution, if a noise source moves away or is switched off, then nothing lingers in the environment itself,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/20/noise-pollution-wild-life-better-regulation?

.


Published:

Anthropogenic noise has become a major global pollutant and studies have shown that noise can affect animals. However, such single studies cannot provide holistic quantitative assessments on the potential effects of noise across species. Using a multi-level phylogenetically controlled meta-analysis, we provide the first holistic quantitative analysis on the effects of anthropogenic noise. We found that noise affects many species of amphibians, arthropods, birds, fish mammals, molluscs and reptilians. Interestingly, phylogeny contributes only little to the variation in response to noise. Thus, the effects of anthropogenic noise can be explained by the majority of species responding to noise rather than a few species being particularly sensitive to noise. Consequently, anthropogenic noise must be considered as a serious form of environmental change and pollution as it affects both aquatic and terrestrial species. Our analyses provide the quantitative evidence necessary for legislative bodies to regulate this environmental stressor more effectively.

Footnotes


See also

Twitter storm: noise pollution creates havoc for birds, study shows

Human activities could be affecting reproduction and even normal social behaviour

Fiona Harvey Environment correspondent (Guardian)

Thu 20 Jun 2019

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/20/twitter-storm-noise-pollution-creates-havoc-for-birds-study-shows

.


The Effects of Noise on Biodiversity (NO0235)

Final Report for Defra

2012

By the University of Bristol

Part of the Exec Summary says: 

The major finding is that a strong evidence base does not exist regarding the potential impact of anthropogenic noise on non-marine UK PS and SPI. Definite conclusions could be made only about the reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus), which exhibits shifts in song frequency in response to road traffic noise. It is also likely that foraging in brown long-eared bats (Plecotus auritus), singing in European robins (Erithacus rubecula), house sparrows (Passer domesticus), starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) and bullfinches (Pyrrhula pyrrhula), and the behaviour of common toads (Bufo bufo) are affected by road traffic noise to some degree. Common issues preventing strong conclusions for other species include a lack of sufficient controls to rule out potential confounding factors (e.g. changes in the behaviour of animals near roads may be the consequence of differences in lighting, disturbance or habitat differences, rather than noise) and the use of acoustic measurements that are more relevant to humans than the auditory capabilities of the study species. In addition, hardly any studies directly considered how anthropogenic noise might impact individual fitness; while several more studies provided good proxies for fitness, definite conclusions in this regard would also be premature.

To make a fair assessment of how much anthropogenic noise affects non-marine wildlife in general, and UK PS and SPI in particular, will therefore require further empirical work. Such work should ideally address the current taxonomic bias towards studies on birds, include carefully designed experimental studies (while bearing in mind that such research on species of conservation priority raises some ethical issues), quantify the noise sources of relevance in a way that relates to the hearing capabilities of the study organism, look beyond short-term studies to consider chronic and repeated exposure, focus on response indicators that can inform models of population viability, and investigate impacts at community and ecosystem levels as well as how individuals are affected.

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=10048_NO0235_PublishedReport.pdf

.


Loud aeroplane noise found to cause aggression in birds

Birds living near airports are more likely to be aggressive and suffer from hearing impairments, a new study has found.

August 27th, 2019

https://www.countryfile.com/wildlife/loud-aeroplane-noise-found-to-cause-aggression-in-birds/

.


WHAT EFFECT DO AIRPLANES HAVE ON BIRDS? – A SUMMARY

Norbert Kempf and Ommo Hüppop,

Institute for Ornithological Research, Helgoland Ornithological Station

Date? Before 2000?

https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/documents/ln_3-1_aircraft_effects_on_birds.pdf

.

.

 

Read more »