The
November AirportWatch news bulletin is now at
AirportWatch Bulletin for November
2015The runway drama has
been maintaining a high level of intensity in recent
weeks, with today being no exception. The Cabinet
sub-committee with the task of deciding on a runway was
due to meet today - but due to the more urgent matter of
bombing Syria, has been postponed. That meeting
may now take place next week instead.
It is
thought that the full Cabinet this Thursday would have
then discussed the sub-committee's conclusion.
That might now happen at the Cabinet meeting next
Thursday. An announcement is expected in
Parliament some time after that, and before the 16th
December. Nobody seems to really
know.
Today the
Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) published their
report into "Airports Commission Report: Carbon
Emissions, Air Quality and Noise". It examined the
environmental implications of the Commission's
recommendation of Heathrow, and what the Government and
Heathrow should do about them. The EAC concluded that: "The
Government should not give final approval to Heathrow
expansion until the airport can demonstrate that it
accepts and will comply with key environmental
conditions." Their report is at
Airports
Commission Report: Carbon Emissions, Air Quality &
NoiseTheir conclusion states:
"The
Government should not approve Heathrow expansion until
Heathrow Ltd. can demonstrate that it accepts and will
comply with the Airports Commission conditions,
including a night flight ban, that it is committed to
covering the costs of surface transport improvements;
that it is possible to reconcile Heathrow expansion with
legal air pollution limits, and that an expanded
Heathrow would be less noisy than a two runway Heathrow.
In each case - climate change, air quality and noise -
it needs to set out concrete proposals for mitigation
alongside clear responsibilities and milestones against
which performance can be measured. It should report
regularly to Parliament, through this Committee and
others, on progress. The Government should not avoid or
defer these issues. To do so would increase the risks of
the project: delay through legal challenge,
unquantifiable costs resulting from unclear
responsibilities, economic risks through constraint of
other sectors to meet increased aviation emissions and
longterm costs to public health from the impact of air
pollution and noise."For details on the
EAC’s Conclusions and Recommendations on Heathrow,
sections summarised
separately:
Surface
access - “the Government has been clear
that it expects the scheme promoter to meet the costs of
any surface access proposals that are required as a
direct result of airport expansion and from which they
will directly benefit.” see
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=28809 CO2
emissions – the Government “should as a
minimum, commit to accepting the CCC’s advice on
aviation in relation to the 5th carbon budget,
introducing an effective policy framework to bring
aviation emissions to 2005 levels by 2050 no later than
autumn 2016." see
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=28811 Air
pollution – "Before the Government makes
its decision, it should make its own assessment of the
likely costs of preventing an adverse impact on health
from expansion at Heathrow and publish it."
see
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=28818 Noise
- "The Government should not approve Heathrow
expansion until Heathrow ltd. can demonstrate that
....an expanded Heathrow would be less noisy than a two
runway Heathrow." see
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=28820None
of that will make getting a Heathrow runway approved any
easier. The EAC held two evidence sessions, the
members were well briefed and asked perceptive and
important questions. It has been very helpful to
have their considered opinion on environmental matters,
on which the work of the Airports Commission contained
many, serious omissions.
Gatwick has definitely
not been ruled out, and GACC (the Gatwick Area
Conservation Campaign) says several of the conditions
set out by the EAC also apply to Gatwick.
Namely:
1.
Noise. The condition that
Heathrow should be less noisy with three runways than
with two would absolutely rule out a new Gatwick
runway. The figures produced by the Airports
Commission showed that Gatwick with two runways would
affect three times as many people as it would with one
runway.
2.
Ban on night
flights. A similar ban would be needed at
Gatwick but would equally be opposed by
GAL.
3.
CO2
emissions. Exactly the same
considerations would apply at
Gatwick.
4.
Air
Pollution. Although a new Gatwick runway
might not breach EU limits it would adversely affect
more houses than one at
Heathrow.
5.
Surface
access infrastructure. The suggestion by
Gatwick that they would pay for all the road and rail
improvements needed for a second runway is disingenuous
because it applies to 2030 when the new runway is
forecast to be only one-third full. By contrast
the figures used for the infrastructure costs at
Heathrow assume the new runway would be two-thirds
full.
The environmental problems of both
Heathrow and Gatwick airports have frequently been in
the news. The serious concerns about air pollution have
not been helped by the VW emissions scandal. The
CAA permitting changes to flight paths, which have the
effect of concentrating aircraft noise along narrow
routes, have caused continuing anger, upset, anxiety and
depression.
There is also more evidence to
question the alleged economic benefits of a new runway.
The Richmond Heathrow Group have looked at just how many
transfer passengers are anticipated, with a Heathrow 3rd
runway. Remarkably, about 50% of the new
runway capacity would be used for
international-to-international transfers.
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=28358
In addition, a professor of economics
from Brunel University has assessed the claims by the
Airports Commission, of huge benefits to the UK from a
Heathrow runway – and found them to be very dubious
indeed. He believes the Commission has presumed
unreliable indirect benefits, and there would not be an
economic case for the 3rd runway without the supposed
benefits to the national economy. The predictions of "up
to £147 billion" are not believable. There are
only small predicted direct benefits, which could be as
low as £11.8 billion (carbon traded model) or just £1.4
billion (carbon capped at the level suggested by the
CCC) - over 60 years. Details at
Critical Analysis of Airports Commission
figuresAnd Willie Walsh (CEO of
International Airlines Group, which owns BA) has
confirmed, yet again, that his airline (over 50% of the
slots at Heathrow) is not prepared to pay for a runway.
And he cannot believe it could possibly cost £18
billion. He says if it costs that much, it will
fail.
Expensive runway would
fail He is not prepared to pay for a
Gatwick runway either.
Representatives of flight
path groups have held meetings with DfT staff, and
recently also met the Aviation Minister, Robert
Goodwill. There is realisation in the DfT, the CAA and
NATS that the way airspace changes are dealt with needs
to be improved and made more accessible to the
public. The people to be adversely affected by
aircraft noise should be properly consulted and their
views actually taken account of.
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=28749
There are details about all
this, and more, in the bulletin. AirportWatch Bulletin for November
2015People living in real fear and
despair about the prospect of a Heathrow runway have
been protesting, and making their opposition known in
many ways. These included a protest about air
pollution outside the EAC evidence session, attended by
John Holland-Kaye and Sir Howard Davies. There was
a flash mob in Heathrow Terminal Two. An aviation
bloc (with the Heathrow No 3rd Runway plane) took part
in the Climate March on 29th November.
Aviation Bloc at the march. And
three activists from Plane Stupid blocked the main road
entrance tunnel to Heathrow Terminals 1 and 2 (there are
other road entrances to Heathrow, so it is not
endangering anyone) for over three hours, by positioning
a van across the road and locking onto it.
Heathrow tunnel blockedSome
photos below.
The November
bulletin http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/AirportWatch-bulletin-November-2015.pdfCONTENTSPage
1
- Willie Walsh says Heathrow’s runway is too
expensive, at that price it would fail and be a “white
elephant” - the airlines will not pay
- John
Holland-Kaye won’t commit to no Heathrow night
flights (11.30pm to 6am)
Page 2
- John
Holland-Kaye and Sir Howard Davies gave evidence
to the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC)
- 3
arrests after Plane Stupid block Heathrow tunnel for 3
hours using a van + activists locked onto it
Page
3
- Ten MPs and council leaders write to PM to warn
over air quality problems of Heathrow 3rd runway
-
Heathrow plans to double its volume of air freight,
necessitating more trips by diesel powered HGVs and
goods vehicles
Page 4
- Heathrow never
mentions imports, only exports – but imports larger by
tonnage and by value than exports
- Heathrow air
cargo tonnage falling recently - just 1.76% higher in
2014 than in 2010
Page 5
- Richmond campaign
shows Heathrow runway would lead to 50% of the new
capacity used for international transfers
-
Environmental Audit Committee says government should not
permit Heathrow runway without strict environmental
conditions
Page 6
- "No 3rd Runway” flashmob
at Heathrow Terminal 2
- Critical analysis of the
Airports Commission economic figures, by an Economics
Professor, sent to Cabinet Members
Page 7
-
TfL confirms extent to which Airports Commission
underestimated Heathrow runway impact on surface
access
- Simon Jenkins comment: Don’t buy the idea
that Heathrow expansion is ‘good for the nation’
-
Teddington Action Group show – from Heathrow report –
that they are now suffering more aircraft
noise
Page 8
- Group of Heathrow Community
Noise Forum members express concerns about the airport’s
treatment of the Forum
- Number affected by Gatwick
night flights up 15% last year – 12,850 in the larger 48
dB Leq contour
- Though Gatwick number of passengers
is up 5.7% this year on 2014, number of flights only up
by 2.6%
Page 9
- Stewart Wingate says Gatwick
won’t give up on its 2nd runway – whatever the
government says
- The CAA’s disappointing PIR finally
published, showing only one Gatwick route to be slightly
changed
Page 10
- New group in Tunbridge
Wells, TWAANG, against increased Gatwick noise
- Meeting of Cabinet’s runway sub-committee
postoponed from Tues 1st December
Page 11
-
Gatwick hopes a YouGov poll of Londoners (not local
people) favouring its runway over Heathrow, will help
its case
- George Osborne launches National
Infrastructure Commission, under Andrew Adonis, so UK
can “think big again”
- Robert Goodwill on flight
path noise problems: “we must think about this
carefully”
Page 12
- Edinburgh TUTUR flight
path trial ended 2 months early – but residents
say changes persist
- Despair in East London as CAA
approves new concentrated flight paths – there may
be a legal challenge
- Jeremy Corbyn reported as
saying we should “look at the under-used capacity” of
other airports
Page 13
- Lands Tribunal rules
that residents near Farnborough can claim if their homes
have been devalued by more flights
- BA pilot’s eye
damaged by ‘military’ laser shone into cockpit at
Heathrow – plus many less serious attacks
- Work on
the new Nantes airport at Notre-Dame-des-Landes might
start by early next year
Page 14
- Solena, the
company meant to be producing jet fuel from London waste
for BA, goes bankrupt
- Some useful
info
------------------------
And just a
few little items for which there wasn't space in the
bulletin:
A 2 foot diameter metal "diffuser" fell
from a plane, into the pool of a popular water park near
Chicago. Luckily it fell early in the morning before
anyone was using the park, so nobody was hurt.
Diffuser falls from plane. Just
one of those hazards of living under a flight path
....
A survey by SellingUp/Populus shows the
serious impact of plane noise on attitudes of house
buyers. The survey suggests if a house suffers
from being subjected to plane noise, 41% of potential
buyers would not proceed with the sale, and 34% would
ask for money off, (including 23% who would ask for a
"substantial amount or many thousands of £s off the
price). 9.11.2015
Survey of effect of plane noise on house
salesThe Paris Climate Talks are taking
place, but there is almost no prospect of any effective
measures to limit the growth of global aviation
emissions. The final draft text before the conference
contained the following [stunningly,unambitious, weak]
text on aviation, with the alternative being no text at
all:
“Option 1: Parties
[shall][should][other] pursue limitation or reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation and
marine bunker fuels, working through the International
Civil Aviation Organization and the International
Maritime Organization, respectively, with a view to
agreeing concrete measures addressing these emissions,
including developing procedures for incorporating
emissions from international aviation and marine bunker
fuels into low-emission development strategies. Option
2: No text.” (draft agreement text, page
12) More details from the AEF on aviation and
the Paris talks.And here is a picture -
apparently spotted in Paris - that fits in with the
spirit of the paragraph above.
Hope to bring you more news
and updates - if and when a government announcement is
made about the runway in the next 2 weeks.
Kind
regards
Sarah Clayton
AirportWatch
co-ordinator
www.airportwatch.org.uk
Email:
in...@airportwatch.org.ukTwitter
@AirportWatchFacebook
AirportWatch 
