Airport News
Below are news items relating to specific airports
Stop Stansted Expansion celebrates 10th anniversary of its wood at Broxted – where BAA wanted 2nd runway
Ten years ago, more than 130 Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) supporters took part in a mass tree planting to create the SSE Wood at Broxted Hill Farm, on the very site where BAA was planning to put down a 2nd runway. This wood was planted as a symbol of SSE's defiant determination that BAA's runway would never be built. The trees, all native species, were sponsored by some 700 supporters. On Sunday, 30 November 2014, to mark the tenth anniversary of the wood, SSE held another working party and also planted a tenth anniversary tree. Peter Sanders, SSE's Chairman, said: "At the time when it was first planted the Government of the day was predicting that a 2nd runway would be operational at Stansted by 2010. It is wonderful to see how the wood has flourished, and how the plans for a 2nd runway have so far been thwarted." Terry Waite commented: "We stand firmly against ruthless commercial exploitation which fails to take into account the wishes of local people and spoils a part of the countryside forever."
Click here to view full story...
Majority (56%) of Horley residents against 2nd Gatwick runway – only 43% in favour
Horley Town Council commissioned a survey, of over 1,000 people, and has formally opposed a 2nd Gatwick runway. Horley Town Council is required to give an official response to the Airports Commission on the runway plans, and conducted the study to help shape their view. Of the 1,096 respondents, 34% were in favour of a new runway, while 56% were against, and 10% were not sure. The most common reason residents gave against expansion was increased noise, and the next more common reason was concerns about traffic and road congestion. Reasons for the runway to be approved include "enhanced local prosperity, especially for Horley", followed by "new jobs created, plus job security". The 10% who were unsure wanted more details about roads, traffic and parking impact. Despite councillors' pleas for more people between the ages of 15-25 to take part in the Horley survey, only 15 respondents did so. A full council meeting agreed to oppose a runway. But if a Gatwick runway was got Commission approval, the council would strive to get "the best possible outcome for local residents with particular regard to infrastructure".
Click here to view full story...
Extent to which “Back Heathrow” is funded by Heathrow, and is not a true community campaign, revealed
"Back Heathrow" is an industry funded pressure group, the aim of which is to drum up support for a 3rd Heathrow runway. It was set up with at least £100,000 from Heathrow airport - maybe more. Its website just says that it had money from Heathrow to set up. Matt Gorman from Heathrow admitted at a public meeting in Putney on 27th November than Heathrow continues to fund it, but nobody will give any figures. "Back Heathrow" is a classic astroturfing campaign (ie. making out that it is community led, when it is not). Its co-ordinator is Rob Gray, was previously a director of the Aviation Foundation, another lobbying group established by the industry. Other staff working for Back Heathrow are current or former Heathrow employees. They have recently distributed hundreds of thousands of glossy newspapers to households across west London, with no mention anywhere on these that they are paid for (at least in part) by Heathrow. They try to give the impression of being independent information. Back Heathrow claim to have 50,000 people signed up, but this is largely due to scare tactics, implying Heathrow workers will lose their jobs without a 3rd runway. This has now been revealed by the Sunday Times
Click here to view full story...
LETTER: Cutting air travel is essential choice – not only advocating more cycling & more use of rail
Writing in the local Sussex press, a local resident shows up the logical inconsistency of local LibDem councillor Frances Haigh backing a 2nd Gatwick runway (against the policy of her party) while backing more cycling and more use of rail. With around 35 million passengers per year, Gatwick already provides far more capacity than everyone living within a reasonable distance of the airport could possibly need per year. The extra passengers with a new runway would need to come by road or rail from long distances away, possibly passing other airports which have spare capacity, like Stansted and Luton. To travel more by bike and by rail is commendable, but the carbon emissions from flying far outweigh the savings than can be made by these more sustainable modes. The travel distances flying permits, in just a few hours, can result in the production of more CO2 per person per day than the average per car in a year. For anyone concerned about their contribution to global warming, cutting back on air travel is an obvious and essential choice.
Click here to view full story...
Stansted Parish Council’s concerns over airport’s development plan including fears about land grabbing
Stansted's draft "Sustainable Development Plan" says it hopes to increase Stansted's passengers from the current 18 million, up to their legal limit of 35 million, and then up to 40 - 45 million per year, on the existing runway. Stansted Parish Council has now commented, unflatteringly, about the plan. They fear growth will inevitably be to the detriment of their villagers and said: "MAG claim their plan to develop Stansted Airport is sustainable and, seen from their narrow perspective, that may well be the case. However, viewed from the broader standpoint of the local community, it most certainly is not. ... All [the extra 25 - 30 million passengers per year] will be competing with local communities for use of the same finite infrastructure resources; for example, road, rail, water etc. Without substantial investment, these resources will begin to degrade and ultimately fail. ...... it is clear that [MAG] do not consider they have any responsibility for maintaining or investing in such resources." And "As far as [MAG] are concerned these are matters for local and national government and it is for the taxpayer to pick up the bill. " The parish wants a tax on airport operators to pay for the infrastructure, on which they depend.
Click here to view full story...
Airports Commission consultation shows air quality problems with new runways, but no adequate data yet
The Airports Commission consultation document is aware that air quality is a major obstacle for a new Heathrow runway. It says expanding either Gatwick or Heathrow would have a negative impact on air quality, with all proposed schemes requiring expansions to local road networks to accommodate increased road traffic. For both the Heathrow runway options the Commission says "Both local Air Quality Objectives and EU limit thresholds are at risk of exceedance at a small number of monitoring sites in the local area under this scheme. While in some cases these exceedances are also forecast to occur in the do minimum scenario, there is clearly a substantial negative impact of the scheme on air quality, unless forceful mitigation measures are implemented." But they have not been able to complete full detailed modelling of the air quality impacts of new runways and further work is needed. This unfortunately is not in time for the consultation. The Commission intends to supplement this at a future date with “more detailed dispersion modelling”. That means models to show how wind and weather disperses pollution, and it could be questioned how much faith should be placed on sufficient wind speeds in coming years.
Click here to view full story...
HACAN East’s official response to London City Airport’s flight path consultation
London City Airport has a public consultation on changes to its flight paths, which ends on 27th November. The consultation has been widely regarded as inadequate, as there is insufficient detail, and among those criticising the consultation are several councils. The community group representing people under London City Airport flight paths, HACAN East have published their consultation response. It says concentration of flight paths, without respite, is inequitable and will subject thousands to significantly more noise. They say this concentration without respite is contrary to Government policy, as the CAA itself states: "When seeking opportunities to provide respite for those already affected by aircraft noise it is important that decisions about respite should always be made after considering the specific local circumstances and through engagement with the local community." HACAN East also complains that the quality of the consultation has been poor. The airport did not directly tell local authorities, MPs, GLA or local residents, and refused to hold public meetings in, or leaflet, the affected areas. They are unimpressed at the claims flight path changes would contribute much in savings of carbon emissions.
Click here to view full story...
“Gatwick Obviously Not” tells Stewart Wingate to come clean publicly on flight path changes
In their recent e-newsletter, the recently formed group, "Gatwick Obviously Not" (GON) representing people over flown by planes in all areas east of Gatwick, set out some complaints to Stewart Wingate. It is widely recognised that Gatwick has not been open and transparent over airspace changes and trials this past year. A key issue causing anger and outrage across areas affected by Gatwick is the claims by the airport that nothing has changed, when it is clear to many thousands of people that it has. GON is now calling upon Mrs Ellman, MP, Chair of the House of Commons Transport Select Committee to call Gatwick in to find out what has really been happening. While Gatwick says there is no "superhighway" in the sky plan, GON repeat the statement from CAA that "We discovered that by removing the shortened approach path as aircraft turned into land, we were able to achieve a 25% reduction in the spacing variation." This is to "maximise throughput". Gatwick wanted to re-establish the trust of its passengers after its disastrous flooding last winter. It needs to stop being economical with the truth on flight path matters too, it is to regain any trust locally.
Click here to view full story...
Kent County Council withdraws backing for Gatwick 2nd runway, due to noise burden
Kent County Council (KCC) is intending to oppose plans for a 2nd Gatwick runway, in order to protect residents in west Kent from "intolerable" aircraft noise. A council policy paper sets out the position of the council and gives details of the over-flying problem, and the level of noise which has risen to unacceptable levels. This will be discussed at a cabinet meeting next week. The recommendation states: "The Cabinet agrees that KCC opposes a 2nd runway at Gatwick Airport, opposes the increase in overflights across West Kent as a result of airspace changes, and supports a reduction in the number of night flights." KCC Leader, Paul Carter, said a potential doubling of the noise impacts over west Kent would be intolerable. The number of night flights at Gatwick during the summer period is already three and half times as many as at Heathrow. "Expansion of night flights must not happen.“ KCC said it will call on Gatwick to put in place operational procedures to provide respite for areas experiencing continuing over-flights day and night, to spread out the noise burden.
Click here to view full story...
All local MPs speak out against Gatwick 2nd runway at packed protest meeting
Five MPs were on the platform, and 3 more sent messages of support, at a mass protest meeting on Saturday 22 November organised by the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign (GACC). All of the 8 MPs from around Gatwick attended or sent messages. This helps disprove the assumption in some national newspapers that Gatwick would politically be the easiest option for a new runway. The MPs were united in expressing their concern about new flight paths and about the threat of a 2nd runway. Extracts from their speeches and messages are copied here. Up to 1,000 people crammed into the meeting in Crawley, and were welcomed by 3 racy air hostesses, and by the Mayor of Crawley, Cllr Brenda Smith who later, speaking as the local councillor, expressed her deep-felt opposition to a new runway. Some 20 national and local environmental groups set up stands around the hall and answered questions from anxious members of the public. Questions from the floor were answered by a panel of experts from a range of organisations. The participants unanimously held up large cards saying NO when asked if they were in favour of new flight paths, and held up the NO cards again when asked if they were in favour of a 2nd runway.