Letter in FT from Paul McGuinness, Chair of No 3rd Runway Coalition: MPs should assess risks of 3rd Heathrow runway
Letter to the Editor of the Financial Times, from Paul McGuinness (Chair of the No 3rd Runway Coalition). In it Paul says that while the government says no decision on the 3rd Heathrow runway will be taken until after a parliamentary vote (this summer), Heathrow is behaving as if the matter is already agreed and the runway approved. It has now launched a “consultation” on how it might build it. The airport’s “consultation” floats the possibility that the proposal before parliament could be mutated into a less expensive project — by tunnelling the M25 and shortening any new runway (although such a mutation could effectively make for a “new” proposal, requiring a new round of scrutiny). Coalition members regard this latest “consultation” to be little more than a charade. A key issue of concern to large numbers of people under Heathrow planes is noise. However, there is no information about which areas and communities would be overflown more intensively than now, or newly overflown. According to the government, it is for Heathrow to designate these, but there’s nothing in this consultation. Nor is there any plan to publish them — until after parliament has voted, perhaps approving the runway. Those preparing a legal challenge, on behalf of 4 councils (members of the Coalition) are ever more certain that the proposal will not survive the courts. It would be regrettable if MPs were to vote for the runway, just to find was then challenged and defeated at some stage, because the huge risks and impacts had not been properly assessed.
.
Tweet
Letters to the Editor:
MPs should assess risks in a third Heathrow runway
From Paul McGuinness, Chair, No 3rd Runway Coalition,London TW11
19.1.2018 (Letter to the Financial Times)
Sir,
While the government may have “accepted the Airports Commission’s recommendation” to expand Heathrow (Comment, January 15), the secretary of state continues to insist that no decision can be said to have been taken until after parliament has scrutinised — and MPs have approved — its Airports National Policy Statement.
Meanwhile, the airport is behaving as if the decision is done and dusted. Whether it knows something the rest of us don’t, or is merely trying to twist the arms of decision makers, Heathrow has been spending money preparing for its third runway, and has even launched a “consultation” on how it might build it.
The airport’s “consultation” floats the possibility that the proposal before parliament could be mutated into a less expensive project — by tunnelling the M25 and shortening any new runway (although such a mutation could effectively make for a “new” proposal, risking a new round of scrutiny).
Either way, our members consider this latest “consultation” to be little more than a charade.
Heathrow is the world’s most highly disruptive airport, by virtue of its planes overflying the most densely populated residential region in the UK. Residents want to know where new flight paths will be — which areas will be overflown more intensively than before?
Which new communities will be overflown for the first time? How, a child might ask, could the negative noise consequences even be assessed without such essential information?
According to the government, it is for Heathrow to designate these, but there’s not a dicky bird in this consultation. Nor is there any plan to publish them — until after parliament has voted.
To many who have studied the issue and considered its likely problems, it seems absurd the government should have allowed itself to have considered the building of a new airport, the size of a Frankfurt or Gatwick, on top of the current Heathrow operation.
As the matter draws to a head, those preparing an environmental legal challenge, on behalf of four of our borough council members, are becoming yet more certain that the proposal will not survive the courts.
It would be a shame if parliamentarians were to join the government in succumbing to Heathrow’s hard-arm strategy, to back an idea that will be challenged and felled at some stage, because it was too replete with risk to see the light of day.
Paul McGuinness
Chair, No 3rd Runway Coalition
.
https://www.ft.com/content/dc4020b2-fb7b-11e7-9b32-d7d59aace167
.
.