Mary Dejevsky: “Momentum is gathering behind Heathrow’s 3rd runway. We need to stop it in its tracks”

Writing in the Independent, Mary Dejevsky writes persuasively about the real issue of noise from Heathrow airport, affecting perhaps half a million Londoners. She says it is only near the airport that noise is monitored, regulations apply and residents qualify for insulation. “Noise elsewhere on the flight-path is not regarded by the aviation authorities as any real nuisance.” And complaining is unrewarding and ineffective. “The Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, told the Labour Party conference yesterday that all options for a new runway were on the table, including Heathrow.”  Mary pours scorn on the distasteful full-page ad by Heathrow recently, a small child and implying (unconvincingly) that her future welfare is dependent on a 3rd Heathrow. Mary says what is not mentioned in the advert is “the noise and the pollution not just around the existing airport, but the noise, pollution and safety considerations that somehow don’t count because they are not absolutely on the airport perimeter.”  And “what about other little girls, and the parents who hold down demanding jobs and collect them from school, despite losing a couple of hours sleep a night, are they not “stakeholders” in the country and its transport system, too?”
.

 


 

The appalling Heathrow advert that Mary refers to is copied below:

BxuZLxyCQAA5vdG

 


Momentum is gathering behind Heathrow’s third runway.  We need to stop it in its tracks

(Mary is the chief editorial writer and a columnist on the Independent)

Noise and pollution are bad enough blights on Londoners as it is

At 0440 yesterday morning, I was yanked awake by what sounded a very big and very heavy plane on its approach to Heathrow. By 0500 three more of these monsters had passed low overhead. It’s always hard to know – for this is no isolated occurrence – whether these pre-0500 planes are counted as part of the airport’s night flight quota, or whether they are being stacked to join the daytime quota. Either way, it was well before dawn and I was unlikely to get to sleep again, even though the planes started flying much higher after 0500 and the noise was more of a hum than a roar.

Now, if you lived in the immediate vicinity of the airport – in Staines, say, or Hounslow – or even one of the capital’s outer south-western suburbs, you might have included low-flying aircraft into your calculation. But these planes were traversing the very centre of London, as they regularly do, and waking – I would guess conservatively – upwards of half a million people.

Yet it is only in the immediate vicinity of the airport that noise has to be monitored, regulations apply and residents qualify for insulation. Noise elsewhere on the flight-path is not regarded by the aviation authorities as any real nuisance. If you try to complain, there are three separate websites for doing so and even then it is not obvious how to do it; if you penetrate that thicket, the padding in the stock replies carries no conviction at all.

The only politician who accepts, without ducking and weaving, that noise is a blight – and, of course, there are pluses and minuses to this association – is the mayor, Boris Johnson. But his ardour for an new island airport seems to have cooled following the rejection of his project in July. Nor can we rely any longer on the Labour Party to wade in on green ticket. The Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, told the Labour Party conference yesterday that all options for a new runway were on the table, including Heathrow, in an apparent effort to burnish his party’s business-friendly credentials.

The upshot of all this is that the third runway campaign seems emboldened. For conclusive evidence, look no further than a full-page advert that appeared in newspapers on Sunday, paid for by supporters of Heathrow’s expansion.

If this had simply made the commercial argument, then we would all have known where we stood. But this advert purported to represent the broader national interest into the future, and its centrepiece was a little girl, of primary school age, sitting at her desk and eagerly putting up her hand. Here’s a flavour of the accompanying text.

“We don’t know what this little girl wants to be when she grows up. But we’ve got a pretty good idea what she’ll need to get there. By the time she and her classmates are paying their taxes, Britain’s economic health will be even more dependent on trade with other countries. … Direct flights to long-haul destinations build twenty times more trade with /the emerging markets// them than indirect flights. They are also more environmentally efficient….

But to make all that possible, Britain needs to keep its hub airport…. which is why we need a new third runway. It will deliver more than 120,000 jobs, and least £100 billion of economic benefits the length and breadth of the country. So even if our little girl never leaves home, she’ll still feel the benefit… So while we’re imagining the future for our children, let’s stop speculating. And start building Heathrow’s new runway now.”

Note all the buttons pressed: not just the business case, but the protection of the environment, job creation, some totally undefined “economic benefits” for the country as a whole and, cue soft music – the future of “our” children. And note what is not mentioned: the noise and the pollution not just around the existing airport, but the noise, pollution and safety considerations that somehow don’t count because they are not absolutely on the airport perimeter. I hardly need add that the latest “consultation” on a new runway did not include anyone living under the London flight-paths, only those who might be considered “local” to the airport.

This advert was headed: “Heathrow expansion. It’s time we heard from our most important stakeholders.” That is what the picture of the sweet little blond child was supposed to convey. But what about other little girls, and the parents who hold down demanding jobs and collect them from school, despite losing a couple of hours sleep a night, are they not “stakeholders” in the country and its transport system, too?

Quality of life may be hard to count, but clean air and nocturnal quiet surely have a value. So why is the potential harm to residents beneath the flight-paths not set against an airport’s – dubiously calculated – commercial benefits? How many parents must there be whose little girls (and little boys) go to school tired and stressed because of noise and pollution?  The costs of lobbying, alas, make it unlikely we will see them featured in newspaper adverts, trying to cover their ears against the pre-dawn din.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/thirdrunway-momentum-is-gathering-we-need-to-stop-it-in-its-tracks-9749342.html

.

.


 

.

See also

Does Heathrow advert implying a small girl needs a 3rd runway, for her future, meet Advertising Standards?

Earlier this week, Heathrow put out full page advertisements for their 3rd runway. This is part of an on-going, and expensive media campaign. However, they may have mis-judged the tone of this one. It features a small girl, aged about 5, with her hand up – and the text makes out that her future well being will depend upon ….. guess what?? …. a new Heathrow runway. The advert says the 3rd runway will deliver “… at least £100 billion of economic benefits [no timescale given] the length and breadth of the country. …. So, even if our little girl never leaves home, she’ll still feel the benefit.” People may have been inspired to write to the Advertising Standards Authority, to complain about this rather dubious text, with unsubstantiated claims, making use of a small child, to try to make a PR point. One such letter to the ASA has been copied to AirportWatch, in which the writer clearly puts the case that what this child needs is a stable climate for her future, not accelerating carbon emissions. The writer believes the advert to be misleading, and asks the ASA to have it withdrawn.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

.

.

.