Heathrow to get third runway and sixth terminal by 2020 despite fury
Last updated at 14:54pm on 22nd November 2007
The full scale of the blight caused by Heathrow expansion emerged today.
Hundreds of people will see their homes bulldozed and thousands more will face worsening noise pollution under the plans for a new runway and sixth terminal.
A long-awaited consultation document reveals the Government's plans for the airport are far more extensive than originally set out.
Ministers are to rip up long-standing agreements which allow residents near Heathrow and those under flight paths a guaranteed respite from the noise.
The proposed third runway will also be longer than planned, potentially allowing for heavier, noisier aircraft.
In addition, a sixth terminal will be built, causing the demolition of 700 properties - including the whole village of Sipson - and 102 listed buildings.
Hundreds of thousands of people will also suffer greater noise pollution with Hounslow, Egham, Putney and Barnes among the areas brought into the belt where noise levels are 57 decibels or above.
And at least 10 schools will also be dragged into the contour where noise levels are 63 decibels or higher.
But the Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly infuriated MPs by refusing to face questions in Parliament about the proposals.
Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers accused her of "running scared".
"This is not democracy" she said. "This is one of the most important decisions we face as a nation and it is scandalous that Ruth Kelly won't answer in Parliament to the MPs who represent people whose lives are directly impacted by the future Heathrow."
The consultation, which closes in February, claims there is a "strong case" for expanding the airport from 470,000 flights a year to more than 700,000.
This would see as many as 120 million passengers using Heathrow by 2030.
Expansion is conditional on there being no rise in local air and noise pollution.
But to the amazement of campaigners, the document also states expansion can take place without any overall increases.
The document claims that, because of cleaner aircraft and the greater use of twin engine planes, that Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels will actually fall over the next two decades.
"Our modelling shows that even with a third runway, the combined effects of these technological improvements will see NO2 emissions in the Heathrow area fall by some 49 per cent between 2002 and 2030," it says.
It also claims there will be no overall increase in the size of the area where noise levels will be 57 decibels or above, despite the massive increase in flights.
It also claims road traffic pollution in the area will not increase.
Opponents of expansion claimed the document was a "fix" as the Government was rejecting its own recent ANASE report showing that noise levels would rise.
Critics also pointed out that ministers had chosen 2002 as the benchmark - the final year when Concordewas in use and when the weather conditions were the most benign for measuring air pollution.
"This is a complete and utter fix," said Conservative MP Justine Greening.
The plans provoked a mixed reaction with environmental groups opposed, but unions and business leaders supportive.
Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said: "New Labour is cultivating a binge-flying culture instead of tackling the problem headon."
The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "I am firmly opposed to this expansion of Heathrow Airport as it runs contrary to all the growing evidence we now have on the impact of aviation on climate change."
But Richard Lambert, director general of the CBI, said: "Good air links are vital to UK businesses operating in a global economy, and Heathrow, as our national hub, has been constrained for too long."
The transport secretary yesterday launched the dossier of shame in a report called "Improving the Air Passenger Experience" was seen as a "softening up" exercise.
The findings said Heathrow had some of the lowest satisfaction scores among airports run by BAA for check-in, finding ways round the airport and for departure lounge crowding.
It also highlighted the fact overall delays at all airports have increased by 15 per cent since 2002 nearly 19 minutes per flight.
Miss Kelly said: "It is not simply the flight that matters. It's the journey to the airport, the time spent in the queue at check-in, security or immigration, and any delays spent on the aircraft waiting for a slot to take off.
"If you travel from London to Frankfurt, for instance, you will spend about 90 minutes in the air, yet the whole journey from one city centre to another takes about five hours."
At immigration and customs, Miss Kelly is demanding agreed published airport-by-airport targets for average and maximum waiting times; better lay out of immigration halls, improved signage and a more "welcoming" passenger experience.
She also wants more co-ordinated flight scheduling "to prevent unnecessary pressures when large numbers of flights arrive at the same time".
Miss Kelly is writing to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to improve the transparency of airline check-in times.
Heathrow is creaking because it has 67 million passengers a year travelling through terminal facilities originally designed for 40 to 45 million. Passenger numbers have increased by 21 per cent in the past 10 years - though the destinations it serves has shrunk by 21 per cent in a decade as foreign rivals have overtaken.
Yesterday Miss Kelly gave a clear signal that she intended expansion to go ahead - regardless of any protests.
"Our policy as a Government is to see a third runway if local environmental conditions can be met," she said.
She understood the sensitivity over noise and pollution, but insisted: "It's equally important to understand that if Heathrow is allowed to become uncompetitive, the flights and routes it loses will simply move elsewhere - to those main European hubs that have ample capacity to grow.
"All it will do is shift the emissions across the Channel - at the expense of jobs and the economy here. It may make us feel purer, but it will make us poorer too, with no beneficial impact on the planet."
Greenpeace said there had been "extraordinary collusion" between Heathrow operator BAA over the expansion plans.
It produced evidence from a Freedom of Information request, suggesting that BAA officials had written parts of the Government's consultation document.
Emily Armistead of, Greenpeace, said: "New Labour has cultivated a binge-flying culture in this country."
If the runway is given the goahead, flights at Heathrow could increase from 480,000 a year to 800,000.
• Heathrow has been rated the world's worst major airport in a survey of business travellers compiled by consultancy service Ascend and design company Legion.
Last updated at 14:54pm on 22nd November 2007
The full scale of the blight caused by Heathrow expansion emerged today.
Hundreds of people will see their homes bulldozed and thousands more will face worsening noise pollution under the plans for a new runway and sixth terminal.
A long-awaited consultation document reveals the Government's plans for the airport are far more extensive than originally set out.
Ministers are to rip up long-standing agreements which allow residents near Heathrow and those under flight paths a guaranteed respite from the noise.
The proposed third runway will also be longer than planned, potentially allowing for heavier, noisier aircraft.
In addition, a sixth terminal will be built, causing the demolition of 700 properties - including the whole village of Sipson - and 102 listed buildings.
Hundreds of thousands of people will also suffer greater noise pollution with Hounslow, Egham, Putney and Barnes among the areas brought into the belt where noise levels are 57 decibels or above.
And at least 10 schools will also be dragged into the contour where noise levels are 63 decibels or higher.
But the Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly infuriated MPs by refusing to face questions in Parliament about the proposals.
Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers accused her of "running scared".
"This is not democracy" she said. "This is one of the most important decisions we face as a nation and it is scandalous that Ruth Kelly won't answer in Parliament to the MPs who represent people whose lives are directly impacted by the future Heathrow."
The consultation, which closes in February, claims there is a "strong case" for expanding the airport from 470,000 flights a year to more than 700,000.
This would see as many as 120 million passengers using Heathrow by 2030.
Expansion is conditional on there being no rise in local air and noise pollution.
But to the amazement of campaigners, the document also states expansion can take place without any overall increases.
The document claims that, because of cleaner aircraft and the greater use of twin engine planes, that Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels will actually fall over the next two decades.
"Our modelling shows that even with a third runway, the combined effects of these technological improvements will see NO2 emissions in the Heathrow area fall by some 49 per cent between 2002 and 2030," it says.
It also claims there will be no overall increase in the size of the area where noise levels will be 57 decibels or above, despite the massive increase in flights.
It also claims road traffic pollution in the area will not increase.
Opponents of expansion claimed the document was a "fix" as the Government was rejecting its own recent ANASE report showing that noise levels would rise.
Critics also pointed out that ministers had chosen 2002 as the benchmark - the final year when Concordewas in use and when the weather conditions were the most benign for measuring air pollution.
"This is a complete and utter fix," said Conservative MP Justine Greening.
The plans provoked a mixed reaction with environmental groups opposed, but unions and business leaders supportive.
Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said: "New Labour is cultivating a binge-flying culture instead of tackling the problem headon."
The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "I am firmly opposed to this expansion of Heathrow Airport as it runs contrary to all the growing evidence we now have on the impact of aviation on climate change."
But Richard Lambert, director general of the CBI, said: "Good air links are vital to UK businesses operating in a global economy, and Heathrow, as our national hub, has been constrained for too long."
The transport secretary yesterday launched the dossier of shame in a report called "Improving the Air Passenger Experience" was seen as a "softening up" exercise.
The findings said Heathrow had some of the lowest satisfaction scores among airports run by BAA for check-in, finding ways round the airport and for departure lounge crowding.
It also highlighted the fact overall delays at all airports have increased by 15 per cent since 2002 nearly 19 minutes per flight.
Miss Kelly said: "It is not simply the flight that matters. It's the journey to the airport, the time spent in the queue at check-in, security or immigration, and any delays spent on the aircraft waiting for a slot to take off.
"If you travel from London to Frankfurt, for instance, you will spend about 90 minutes in the air, yet the whole journey from one city centre to another takes about five hours."
At immigration and customs, Miss Kelly is demanding agreed published airport-by-airport targets for average and maximum waiting times; better lay out of immigration halls, improved signage and a more "welcoming" passenger experience.
She also wants more co-ordinated flight scheduling "to prevent unnecessary pressures when large numbers of flights arrive at the same time".
Miss Kelly is writing to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to improve the transparency of airline check-in times.
Heathrow is creaking because it has 67 million passengers a year travelling through terminal facilities originally designed for 40 to 45 million. Passenger numbers have increased by 21 per cent in the past 10 years - though the destinations it serves has shrunk by 21 per cent in a decade as foreign rivals have overtaken.
Yesterday Miss Kelly gave a clear signal that she intended expansion to go ahead - regardless of any protests.
"Our policy as a Government is to see a third runway if local environmental conditions can be met," she said.
She understood the sensitivity over noise and pollution, but insisted: "It's equally important to understand that if Heathrow is allowed to become uncompetitive, the flights and routes it loses will simply move elsewhere - to those main European hubs that have ample capacity to grow.
"All it will do is shift the emissions across the Channel - at the expense of jobs and the economy here. It may make us feel purer, but it will make us poorer too, with no beneficial impact on the planet."
Greenpeace said there had been "extraordinary collusion" between Heathrow operator BAA over the expansion plans.
It produced evidence from a Freedom of Information request, suggesting that BAA officials had written parts of the Government's consultation document.
Emily Armistead of, Greenpeace, said: "New Labour has cultivated a binge-flying culture in this country."
If the runway is given the goahead, flights at Heathrow could increase from 480,000 a year to 800,000.
• Heathrow has been rated the world's worst major airport in a survey of business travellers compiled by consultancy service Ascend and design company Legion.
