Heathrow third runway pollution plan 'inadequate'

There are "clear inadequacies" in pollution safeguards imposed on the planned expansion of Heathrow Airport, London Assembly members have said.

Measures against the impact of a third runway were not "fit for purpose", its environment committee added.

It was also concerned that no single authority would ensure owners BAA and airlines complied with pollution rules.

A Department for Transport spokesman said its environmental criteria for the airport were "robust and relevant".

A new runway would increase the number of passengers from 67 million to 82 million per year, and potentially up to 135 million.  [And over 200,000 extra flights per year].

New capacity will only be released once strict air quality and noise conditions are shown to be met and on the basis of independent assessment. Department for Transport

The government gave the plan the go-ahead in January last year on condition that measures were put in place to limit aircraft noise, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

But London Assembly committee chairman Murad Qureshi said: "Our investigation has raised grave concerns about some of these safeguards, including clear inadequacies in approaches to tackling air pollution levels around Heathrow.

"We would also question whether the suggested noise benchmark is fit for purpose and if the aviation emissions targets are achievable."

It said BAA's range of measures, which include levies on more polluting aircraft and efforts to reduce congestion on the airfield, were insufficient.

The committee also said more action was needed to reduce road traffic, which contributes to the airport's pollution.

'Enforcement framework'

It called for a joint government and BAA plan for improving air quality and said a failure to meet EU pollution targets could result in fines totalling hundreds of millions of pounds.

The Department for Transport said a new Heathrow runway would secure jobs and ensure Britain remained a place where the world could come to do business.

Its spokesman said: "However, in giving support for a third runway at Heathrow, the government was absolutely clear that new capacity will only be released once strict air quality and noise conditions are shown to be met and on the basis of independent assessment.

"An enforcement framework for this is being developed and we will consult on our proposals later this year."

A new runway would be too noisy, too dirty and pose too much of a threat to the climate Anna Jones, Greenpeace

In December the government's official climate watchdog Committee on Climate Change said Heathrow expansion was "entirely consistent" with its target to reduce aviation emissions to 2005 levels by 2050.

The Department for Transport spokesman said: "This target helps give the UK one of the toughest emissions regimes for aviation of any country in the world."

The runway is due to be built in 2015 and Conservatives and Lib Dems are among those fighting the £7bn plans.

Anna Jones from environmental charity Greenpeace said:  "It's simply impossible to bolt a new airport the size of Gatwick on to the present airport at Heathrow and not breach noise and air pollution regulations.

There are "clear inadequacies" in the safeguards against air, noise and climate pollution imposed on the proposed expansion of Heathrow Airport, London Assembly members have warned.

The Assembly's environment committee said it had "grave concerns" over the environmental conditions put in place by the Government for controversial plans for a third runway at the UK's busiest airport.

Building a third runway at the west London airport is set to increase passenger numbers from 67 million to 82 million a year, and potentially up to 135 million, and could increase aircraft noise, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

A report by the Assembly committee warns the safeguards put in place to protect against the impacts of a bigger airport were not currently "fit for purpose". The committee also raised concerns there was no single authority which would ensure Heathrow owners BAA and the airlines complied with the rules.

Three Government departments, two quangos and the Committee on Climate Change have all been charged with responsibility for different aspects of the conditions, it warned. The environment committee's chairman, Murad Qureshi, said: "Heathrow expansion is a hugely contentious issue which has made many Londoners worry that they will have to cope with even more aircraft noise and poorer air quality. It is therefore vital that the Government's environmental conditions are strong enough.

"However, our investigation has raised grave concerns about some of these safeguards, including clear inadequacies in approaches to tackling air pollution levels around Heathrow. We would also question whether the suggested noise benchmark is fit for purpose and if the aviation emissions targets are achievable."

Even without the construction of the controversial third runway, Heathrow's air pollution levels already exceed EU limits, with the airport a hotspot for nitrogen oxides and particulate matter which can both damage people's health.

The committee warned BAA's range of measures, including levies on more polluting aircraft and efforts to reduce congestion on the airfield, were not enough. It said more action was needed to reduce road traffic - which contributes to the pollution - by improving public transport, cutting the cost of the Heathrow Express and potentially introducing road user charging schemes at the airport.

The committee's report also found that while the Government had set limits for the noise levels of an expanded airport, the baseline year for the constraint - 2002 - was the last year Concorde flew, distorting the figures. The noise from one Concorde flight is equivalent to 120 Boeing 757s, research has shown. Methods of measuring noise levels of the airport also did not take into account night flights or the busiest time for landings, 6am to 7am.

(29th January 2010)

:: Back to News Index ::

Copyright AirportWatch, 2004