Lewisham Green Party groupLondon Borough of LewishamRushey GreenCatfordSE6 4RU
Freepost RRRR-TARL-ABJSAdding Capacity at Heathrow Airport (DfT Consultation)Research Services HouseElmgrove RoadHarrowHA1 2GQ
25 February 2008
Consultation Response: Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport This response sets out the views of the London Borough of Lewisham’s Green Party councillors.
IntroductionWe are opposed to the expansion of capacity at Heathrow Airport, through the building of a 3rd runway and sixth terminal or the introduction of mixed mode on the existing two runways. We disagree with the Government that the proposals strike the right balance between environmental, social and economic considerations. The proposed expansion would have a highly negative impact on the quality of life of Londoners, by exposing them to unacceptable levels of noise and air pollution, including areas some distance away from the airport, including south east London. It would also make a significant contribution to climate change.
Instead, the Government should invest in alternatives to aviation. The new Crossrail scheme will create a high-speed rail link between Heathrow and Stratford, where passengers can change for Eurostar services to Paris and Brussels. High-speed rail links could also be developed between London and other parts of the UK. Legislation should be introduced to ban short-haul flights from London, in order to free up vital capacity for long haul and business trips and allow the overall size of the airport to be scaled back.
The Consultation Process The consultation process has been unfair in that the consultation document was only sent to residents living in the immediate area around Heathrow airport. We are very concerned that our constituents in Lewisham have not been consulted, given the noise impact they would suffer if the expansion proceeds. Similarly, the official consultation exhibitions are only being held in the boroughs closest to the airport. This assumes that it is solely these people who will be affected by the proposed expansion. In reality Lewisham will also be affected by increased aircraft noise and poorer air quality.
In order for this to be a fair consultation there also needs to be clearer information on which areas will be directly under the flight paths once a third runway is operating. The current indicative flight paths mean that residents are unable to obtain confirmation as to whether they will be under the flight paths. The Government could have run a more comprehensive consultation by co-ordinating it with the consultation into flights paths across the South-East, which is being conducted by National Air Traffic Control (NATS) later this year. This would have provided clearer information, thus allowing residents to give a more informed response.
Economic ArgumentsWe are concerned that the Government has overestimated the economic case for expanding Heathrow airport. The case for expansion as set out in the 2003 White Paper, did not factor in the economic cost of expanding Heathrow in terms of increased noise, worsening air quality, community destruction and accelerated climate change. HACAN estimates that the national environmental cost of aviation is between £4bn and £24bn. The Government should therefore conduct an independent audit of the economic benefit of expanding Heathrow before pressing ahead with its plans.
It is also important to recognise that businesses have been coming to London in record numbers over the last ten years, despite the fact that the number of destinations Heathrow serves has been declining since 1990. It is therefore a mistake to suggest that businesses would leave London if the expansion did not go ahead. In fact, a survey by the London Chamber of Commerce shows that 78% of London firms are opposed to expansion at Heathrow.
Heathrow’s role as a hub airport should be diminished, as it provides no benefit to Londoners but merely leaves them suffering the negative consequences of air travel.
Britain’s rail network has also suffered as a result of the rise in numbers of domestic flights. For example, between London, Edinburgh and Glasgow, air now holds three-quarters of the combined air and rail market. The Government needs to intervene to make it more attractive for people to make such trips by rail than by air.
NoiseWe are concerned that the Government has underestimated the levels of noise that Londoners will be exposed to if a third runway is built at Heathrow or the airport’s capacity is increased. The Leq calculations used in the Government’s noise contour maps are based on an averaging of aircraft noise during the daytime period of 7am – 11pm and assume that significant community annoyance begins at an average of 57 decibels. However, the calculations were based on the noise levels over London in 2002, when Concorde was still operating. This assumes that a Concorde passing overhead every 4 hours, followed by 3 hours and 58 minutes of silence has the same impact as 120 Boeing 757s passing overhead every two minutes, which is unlikely to reflect the reality of residents’ reactions to noise.
The consultation also focuses solely on the number of people who will be within the 57decibel noise contour, and therefore claims that only 258,000 people will be significantly affected by aircraft noise. However, research from ANASE shows that significant noise disturbance actually begins at 50 decibels, which would place a further 2 million people within this bracket.The consultation recognises that the number of aircraft from the current fleet operating out of Heathrow would have to be limited in order to meet the noise restrictions. It claims that the older, noisier aircraft would be phased out as technology improves, but there is little evidence to suggest that aircraft will become significantly quieter over the next few years and it is likely that the current fleet of 747s would have to be replaced except for the series 8 planes, in order to meet these restrictions. It also seems unfair for all the benefits of improved technology to go to the airline industry, by allowing them to significantly increase capacity, but none to the local residents, including Lewisham residents, who would continue to experience high levels of noise.
Adding a third runway at Heathrow would also mean that new parts of London and the South East would come under the flight path. Estimates suggest that at least 150,000 people would be under the third runway’s flight path, in communities such as Maidenhead, Southall, Kensington, Harrow, Northolt and Paddington, while there is significant concern that areas of Lewisham, such as Blackheath, will suffer increased noise as the aircraft ‘stacks’ become wider.
Air QualityIt is estimated that a third runway at Heathrow would expose 35,000 people to nitrogen dioxide levels that breach EU standards, the main cause of which would be fumes from the increased traffic around the airport. We are concerned that the Government may seek to derogate from EU legislation on air quality in the Heathrow area, in order to press ahead with the expansion. The Government’s argument that air quality limits will be met by 2015 – 2020 due to cleaner vehicles and new technology seems to be purely a leap of faith, with little evidence to suggest this will be possible. In fact, research from the London Sustainable Development Commission states that it is likely that nitrogen dioxide levels will exceed the EU limits by 2015 even if a new runway is not built.
Climate ChangeFlights from Heathrow already pump as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year as five million cars. The introduction of a third runway would cause Heathrow’s annual CO2 emissions from flying to increase by up to 9.8 million tonnes, which is the equivalent to the whole of Kenya’s annual CO2 output. The Government and BAA have sought to make clear that expansion of Heathrow would not be allowed to proceed ‘at any cost’, yet it seems that the right of a rich minority to fly exactly when and where they choose is being placed above the right to life of those in the developing world who are already experiencing the severe consequences of climate change, through drought, flooding and other severe weather conditions.
Recent research from Oxford University ‘Predict and Decide – Aviation, Climate Change and UK policy’ concluded that it would be impossible for the UK to meet its target of a 60% carbon reduction by 2050 without curbing our aviation growth. Research from the London Sustainable Development Commission also shows that aviation emissions are estimated to have between two and four times more impact on climate change than carbon emissions alone, due to the complex chemical reactions that occur at altitude. We should therefore be urgently seeking to contract the UK’s airports rather than expand them.
Positive OptionsWe are calling on the Government to develop a managed approach to flights from Heathrow airport, in keeping with the approach adopted to transport planning in other transport modes, such as road and rail, rather than continuing with the current demand-led approach. The Government would therefore be able to work towards the contraction of Heathrow, rather than its expansion.
Six of the top ten destinations flown from London’s airports are short-haul destinations (Amsterdam, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Paris, Manchester and Frankfurt) that could potentially be accessed using a high-speed rail link. These flights represent 14% of all London airport traffic. If the Government placed a ban on flights to these destinations, space would be freed up for essential long haul and business flights and the airport could also begin to contract.
The Government’s new Crossrail scheme will create a high-speed rail link between Heathrow and Stratford, where passengers will be able to change for Eurostar services to Paris and Brussels. This will encourage international travellers transferring to mainland Europe at Heathrow to use the train rather than to fly. High-speed rail links could also be developed between London and other parts of the UK, as a way of reducing feeder flights from regional airports. For example, 40 flights a day currently operate between London and Manchester.
We support the Government’s proposals to reform taxation of aviation by replacing the Air Passenger Duty with a duty payable per plane, which will encourage planes to fly at full capacity. However, a tax payable per passenger could be retained on a sliding scale, increasing in line with the number of times a year a person flies. Local authorities should also have the power to levy charges on aircraft landing in their area, reflecting the localised damage that flights cause in terms of noise and air pollution, as well as the increased volume of traffic generated by airports.
Whilst this consultation deals specifically with Heathrow airport, we wish to make clear that by opposing expansion at Heathrow we do not advocate the expansion of other London airports as an alternative. Such a proposal would merely shift the problems of noise and air pollution to other areas of the capital and would continue to have a devastating impact on climate change.
ConclusionMeasures to add capacity at Heathrow airport would be a leap in the wrong direction for UK transport policy. The Government must recognise that airports cannot continue to expand without severe environmental consequences. Journeys must be switched to more sustainable alternatives, such as high-speed rail links and incentives provided to cut down on unnecessary trips.
Cllr Sue Luxton, on behalf of Lewisham Green Party group (Cllr Darren Johnson, Cllr Mike Keogh, Cllr Sue Luxton, Cllr Ute Michel, Cllr Romayne Phoenix, Cllr Dean Walton).
25 February 2008
.jpg)
