Author: John Stewart

Blog:  Heathrow Airport’s noise claims unravelling fast

Heathrow’s claim that the overall noise climate will improve if a third runway is built is unravelling fast.  It always did leave people shaking their heads in disbelief.  But two recent independent reports show that it does not stand up to serious scrutiny.

The most devastating critique comes from a report from Atkins, the well-established engineering consultancy firm, commissioned by the Mayor of London:

 http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/mayoroflondon-inner-thames-estuary-fs-reponse.pdf.  Although Boris Johnson is not a neutral observer in airport matters, the report undermines many of Heathrow’s claims.  In particular it reveals that Heathrow’s assertion that things will become significantly quieter is based on the assumption that the new runway is only a third full.  Heathrow argues that a third runway will reduce the number of people impacted by noise 48%.  But Atkins shows a fully utilized runway will impact over 1 million people….up from 725,000 today.

Atkins also challenges Heathrow’s much-vaunted claims about the impact of quieter planes.  Akins argues that the noise reduction in 2026 (when a new runway would expect to open) will be ‘relatively insignificant’ even if 90% of the current fleet is replaced by ‘new generation’ aircraft, as Heathrow claims it will be.  Atkins believes that claim is over-optimistic given the fact that the life span of an aircraft can be 25 to 30 years.  The other major report published recently, from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) – http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201165%20Managing%20Aviation%20Noise%202.pdf – 

is equally doubtful if these new planes will be in place.  It says that, even when new aircraft types are available, “refleeting [converting the whole fleet to quieter planes] is a lengthy and expensive process for airlines, with significant resource impacts.”  It goes on to point out that hundreds of the aircraft types would need to be removed by 2026 if Heathrow Airport were to meet its target.

The CAA also highlights another critical failure in Heathrow’s calculations:  it failure to factor in the annoyance caused by the ever-increasing number of planes using the airport.  The CAA is very clear.  Many of Heathrow’s claims and calculations are based on the last into noise annoyance was published the 1980s since when flight numbers have more than doubled.  And, with a third runway, they will increase again by over 50%.  The CAA is unequivocal: it would “support the need for a new aviation noise attitude survey.”  Surely that should be the starting point, given that it is the frequency of flights, not the noise of individual aircraft, that most bothers residents.

Even Heathrow’s plans for respite periods, on which it is setting so much store, don’t stand up to scrutiny.  Heathrow says it will guarantee “periods without over-flights for every community.”  However all is not what it seems. Currently, communities in West London enjoy a half day’s break from the noise when planes switch runways at 3pm.  With a third runway in place, this will be reduce to one third of the day.  It is also unclear if Heathrow is proposing to introduce respite periods for residents living further from the airport where the CAA report acknowledges there can be a real problem: “anti-noise groups report complaints about aircraft noise as much as 20 miles from the airport”.  Heathrow has still much to do to convince it can deliver on respite.

Even Heathrow’s proposals to bring in planes at a steeper angle are sniffed at by Atkins who say the impact on residents would be “relatively small”.

The clinical demolition of Heathrow’s noise case matters….a lot.  It knows that, unless it can detoxify the noise issue, there is little chance it will get permission for a new runway.  It had hoped its new noise proposals would be its trump card.  It now looks as if that card has been comprehensively trumped.

How times change.  Ten years ago the Labour Government was planning four or five new runways across the UK plus full use of existing runways at all the country’s airports.  It proposed a third runway at Heathrow, a second runway at Stansted or Gatwick, plus a second runway at Birmingham and at least one new runway in Scotland.

This morning Sir Howard Davies told an excellent session of the London Assembly that he envisaged just one new runway by 2030, with the possibility of a second one by 2050.   Moreover, he made clear that any new runway would only comply with the Government’s climate change commitments if it was accompanied by an increase in the cost of flying or some other form of intervention to manage demand across the UK.

Davies said that a recommendation for a new runway did “not imply a significant increase in flying.”  His view is that, while there is an economic argument for a new runway in London and the South East, the overall increase in flight numbers across the country would need to be limited to the 55% increase that the Committee on Climate Change, the Government’s official advisers, argues is compatible with the UK’s climate commitment.

Davies is saying let Britain fly but within limits.  He said “unconstrained demand would exceed any plausible amount of emissions that are legislated for” and made it clear that some in the debate had “not taken account of climate change.”

Davies’s focus will be on where a new runway should be.  He explicitly rejected the view that it should be taken for granted that an expanding London’s hub airport was necessarily the best economic solution for the capital.  He made clear that, in his view, London was more like New York (which has two smaller hub airports) rather than some of the European cities which rely on one big hub.  Gatwick Airport will be pleased he acknowledged the strength of their argument that more passengers (business people and tourists) terminate in London than in any other city in the world.  Gatwick argue that this means that second runway at their airport could bring passengers into London as effectively as a third runway at Heathrow.

Davies wasn’t drawn on whether he favoured Heathrow, Gatwick or an Estuary Airport.  What he did make clear, though, that “there was no case for an infinitely expandable hub.”

The big message Davies would have got back from the Assembly was their big concerns about any expansion at Heathrow:  traffic congestion, air pollution and, above all, noise, noise, noise.  Assembly member Kit Malthouse suggested to Davies that planes should fly along the third runway flight path before any decision was taken to give people an idea what it would be like.  Davies doubted it was practicable but said it was an “intriguing” idea which he would “take away and look at”.  And we discovered that flight path would include Ravenscourt Park – home of one, Sir Howard Davies!    

Dear Sir Robin,

We haven’t met.  So I don’t know whether or not you have a sense of humour.  But residents under the Heathrow flight paths aren’t at all amused at the remarks you made when you addressed a recent conference on economic development in West London (http://lookwestlondon.com/2013/10/23/complacency-the-enemy-for-west-london/#more-11409): 

 “What is it with West London? You build an airport, generate thousands of jobs, grow an economy, then say – oh, it’s a bit noisy!”

I suspect that line got a laugh.  But it does betray a total lack of understanding of the way aircraft noise, caused by Heathrow, impacts on residents.  For so many people the noise is seriously disturbing.  For you to pass it off as ‘a bit noisy’ is like telling a starving person they are ‘a bit hungry’.   

Perhaps next time you are in West London, you can meet nine year-old Zoe, who wrote this letter to Heathrow Airport:

Dear Heathrow

I’m a 9 year old girl who can’t get to sleep at night because you send planes every minute or two of the day over our house. I only fall asleep after 23:30 because they fly really low and they are very loud. I have problems focusing on my work at school and have a violin concert coming up next Wednesday. My mum has been in touch with you many times asking you not to be so cruel to us but you don’t help us or care about our health. If you had children of your own you would understand. Why are you doing this to us? We have never been bad to you.

Zoe (aged 9) 

Zoe doesn’t live on top of Heathrow.  She lives with her mum in a small cottage beside the railway lands at Willesden Junction.

Or perhaps you’d like to pop in to have a coffee with Anna in Clapham.  You won’t miss the planes.  There can be over 40 an hour.

I would like to know when my area and my street in particular became a direct arrival path into Heathrow. I have lived in my flat for 5 years and until September 2012 had no disturbance from aircraft. Now I have no peace and am woken up constantly even with the double glazing I had fitted last November in frustration.  Many of my neighbors have lived in the area for 30 years or more and have never experienced so many planes coming from several directions. The planes are extremely noisy, and constant especially early morning starting at 4.30am.”

But you needn’t leave your own borough to meet people whose lives have been turned upside down by the noise.  Just stroll across from your fabulous new council offices to meet Rajneesh in Beckton:

I’ve lived in the area nearly all my life.  Even when London City Airport opened I had no noise problem.  It was only the quieter turbo-prop planes which used it.  But a combination of lots of noisy jets plus, now, Heathrow planes have left me desperate and desolate.”

You may also want to discuss with Rajneesh the remarks you reportedly made that the opposition to the expansion of City Airport just comes from people who moved into the area recently.

Unlike you, Sir Robin, Heathrow Airport, the Department for Transport and the Airports Commission understand that noise is the biggest obstacle to expansion at Heathrow.  They know that, according to the European Commission, over 725,000 residents are impacted by the noise; that is, 28% of all people affected by aircraft noise right across Europe.  Noise is the reason why the aviation industry is looking seriously at such measures as steeper descent approaches and improved mitigation schemes.

Your West London audience may have tittered at your remarks but it is they, above all, who understand what you said was patently and, if I may use the word, laughably, untrue.

We all support job creation and economic development.  And we understand why you caste envious eyes in the direction of West London.  You have been at Newham a long time; in fact you became leader in 1995 and them Mayor in 2002.  

Despite your well-intentioned efforts Newham remains one of the poorest boroughs in the country.  In 2000, it ranked as the 5^th most deprived; in 2004, the 6^th; in 2007, it slipped to the 2^nd most deprived; rising to 8^th in 2011.

You have given the huge Westfields development in Stratford planning permission (including 5,000 car-parking spaces); you have allowed City Airport to expand; you supported the controversial M11 Link Road in the 1990s; the Council has consistently supported new road-based river crossings.

You have brought noise to Newham; but not prosperity.  In your West London speech you jokingly (I think) said that you’d be delighted if Heathrow closed, and the airport moved east.  Heathrow is not going to close any time soon to rescue you.  You need to find your own solution for Newham.  You need to up your game, or move on….

If you do decide to retire to your native Ayrshire, I recommend the smart town of Troon.  It is probably even more prosperous than West London.  I know Prestwick Airport is nearby but it’s only ‘a bit noisy’. 

Yours sincerely,

John Stewart

Chair HACAN  

Heathrow still have a mountain to climb.  Today’s launch of their revised plan for a third runway http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/HeathrowAboutUs/Downloads/PDF/taking_britain_further.pdf shows they understand the need to pull out all the stops to make it politically deliverable.  But it also shows the extent of the task they face.

Their last attempt to get a new runway ended in failure: http://www.hacan.org.uk/resources/reports/how.the.heathrow.campaign.was.won.pdf   Since then, they have changed their name and their tactics.

The new tactics were to the fore in today’s announcement.

There was a clear recognition that, unless a enough “goodies” for voters living under the flight paths and around Heathrow, governments will continue to be reluctant to commit to a 3^rd runway in case history repeats itself and they fail to deliver.

The climate impacts of a new runway are important – and the airport’s claims about CO2 need be assessed to see if they stand up – but it is the proposals to deal with noise and community destruction that most politicians will be interested in.

The offer to people in the 750 homes that Heathrow estimates will be demolished (down from 950 last time because the alignment of the new runway has been moved a little further south) is more generous than before:  the value of the house plus 25%; payment of relocation costs and any stamp duty.  It will be a tempting offer to many residents who have faced years of blight and uncertainty.  But what of those left behind yards from the new runway?    The immediate reaction we are getting is the Heathrow will need to do a lot more to quell local opposition to a third runway.  The quality of life in whole communities in places like Sipson, Harlington, Longford and West Drayton, as well as the village in the eye of the storm – Harmondsworth – will be changed forever.  With so much to lose, expect a big fight back.

The attempt to deal with noise for people living under the flight paths further afield is much more sophisticated than last time.  Quieter planes, improved operational practices and more respite periods are promised.  Runway alternation is guaranteed – long gone is any thought of all-day flying on any runway.  And there is an acknowledgement that aircraft noise is a problem outside the discredited 57 noise contour.  All this is welcome – and, indeed most of the proposals need not be dependent on a new runway – but could I convince our members in Hounslow, Ealing, Richmond, Windsor, Clapham, Brockley and Tower Hamlets that their noise climate will be less disturbing with a 3^rd runway and its extra 260,000 flights a year?   They would tell me it would need a miracle.  And, so far, Heathrow have not proved they can deliver that miracle. 

And then there’s Heathrow M25 problem.  Heathrow has said that 600 metres would go into a tunnel with a runway built over the top.  Possible in engineering terms but messy, disruptive and costly.  Any government would want to know how much it would be expected to cough up.

Heathrow has tried to show it can deal with the air pollution and traffic problems around the airport through a mix of a congestion charge on cars using the airport and improved public transport links.  The proposals are proof that Heathrow is addressing these problems with a seriousness that was missing previously.  Only time will tell whether they have done enough to convince the Airports Commission and any future government to take a punt on a third runway.

And all the time Gatwick – and also still Boris Island – are breathing down Heathrow’s neck.  Heathrow’s strongest argument has always been its economic case, principally the fact that, with a new runway, it could have direct links to around 40 more destinations (although all these destinations can already be reached with just one change).  However it still hasn’t been able to shake off the challenge of the other airports.  

Liverpool, with a new manager and a new style of play, fell just short of winning the League title this season.  Like Liverpool, Heathrow are adopting a much more creative approach.  Whether they can do enough to persuade politicians that a third runway is politically deliverable is still open to real doubt.  The top prize may remain out of reach.

Last week Heathrow Airport claimed that there was more support now for a 3^rd runway than when it was proposed by the last Labour Government.  It cited a recent opinion poll of more than 1,000 local residents by Populus which showed 48% are in favour of a third runway while 34% oppose.

http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Heathrow-Borough-Poll-March-2014.pdf

The reality is different.  HACAN unearthed a Populus poll which revealed that in 2007 50% supported a 3^rd runway and 30% against were against.  http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/download_pdf-170907-BAA-Heathrow-Future-Heathrow-Poll.pdf

In fact, as we blogged last week, a third of people stubbornly refuse to back expansion at Heathrow.  Although some of the other figures fluctuate, the common thread in the Populus polls is the 30% or so of people who oppose expansion.  Here are the last three polls:  

March 2014:  http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Heathrow-Borough-Poll-March-2014.pdf and 

Nov 2013:  http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Heathrow_Poll_Nov131.pdf

May 2013:  http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Heathrow%20Airport%20Local%20Resident%20Research.pdf

Heathrow Airport must be concerned that after more than a year of concerted, expensive and high-profile campaigning support for a third runway is little different than it was at the height of the protest six or seven years ago.

And, indeed, the referenda and surveys that were carried out by Hillingdon, Richmond and Hounslow show even less support for expansion.  Around 72% of residents opposed a 3^rd runway: http://www.richmond.gov.uk/100000_say_no_to_heathrow_expansion 

There has been no UKIP-style surge in support for a 3^rd runway.

Heathrow have only one year in which to change this.  The airport will be acutely aware that they lost the battle for a 3^rd runway last time around because the one the residents who opposed expansion in the 7 boroughs closest to the airport (over 525,000 people in total) were able to forge an effective alliance with residents further afield, environmentalists, politicians from across the political spectrum as well as some key business people and trade unions.

Heathrow Airport will know that, unless they can shift opinion in the next year, the odds against a third runway being built will lengthen…….whatever recommendation the Airports Commission comes up with in summer 2015. 

It was a momentous result.  It was the victory against all the odds.  No one expected the coalition of local residents, environmentalists, direct action activists, local authorities and sympathetic politicians to pull it off.  Except perhaps ourselves.  In the latter months of the decade-long campaign to stop a third runway at Heathrow Airport we sensed we were on the verge of a famous victory.  And so it proved.  The Government of the day and the aviation industry failed to get what they wanted above all else: a third runway at the UK’s only truly international airport.

However, industry and business when the want something badly enough don’t usually take no for an answer.  Within two years they had regrouped and persuaded the current government to look again at a third runway.  It is not yet Government policy to build it but it may become so.

So how do campaigners fight a battle a second time round?

Firstly, by being fully aware, even in the moment of victory, that business has the money and motivation to bide its time and will strike again.  Let go of the daily round of campaigning but never let your guard down.

Secondly, from day one after the victory party (and always have one) remind the powers-that-be again and again that you won last time round.  We were the Andy Murray and they the Novak Djokovic.  These reminders put pressure on them and pep up your supporters.  The worst attitude to adopt is that ‘it’s only a matter of time before they win’.  Because that way they will win!

Thirdly, when they do come back, remember why you were successful last time.  Do those things again!  But won’t the campaigners be worn-out?  That’s the tactic of big business. To grind people down.  But what we are finding at Heathrow is that, although there is a sense of déjà vu, we are in a much better place than when we started out 13 years ago.  Then we hardly knew each other and lacked the confidence we could win.  Now we are a confident, united team knowing we conquered the highest of mountain peaks.

Finally, always remember, although business will come back, they are unlikely to do so forever.  Business needs certainty in which to operate.  If there is forever uncertainty about a project, they will move on.  It is generally recognized that business won’t hang around if a third runway is knocked back again.  We just have to climb that mountain one more time.  Come on, Andy!

It’s got ‘em talking.  And fuming.  Back Heathrow’s latest news-sheet and questionnaire.  I didn’t get one dropped through my door but many of our supporters did and they sent me copies.

The newsletter is a work of art.  The art of not quite telling it as it is.  Take the front page “Hillingdon Council want Thousands of Houses on Airport”.  What message does that convey to you?  The clear implication is that Hillingdon wants the airport to shut.  They have never said that.  It leader, Ray Puddiford, has merely said that, if an Estuary Airport opened and Heathrow had to close, there would be the opportunity for the land to be used for housing and new businesses.  Back Heathrow turns that into “Hillingdon Council Leader Ray Puddiford: Ungrateful – Shutting down Heathrow represents a ‘remarkable opportunity’.”

The sleight of hand goes on.  It quotes from the report commissioned by three London boroughs which indicates that thousands of jobs are at risk if Heathrow were to close.  It conveniently overlooks another key finding of the report that the impact of a second runway at Gatwick would have a ‘negligible’ impact on employment at Heathrow.

And then there are “local residents” who are quoted.  Steve Ostrowski may live in Hillingdon but what we are not told is that he also works at the airport.  And then there is Gary Dixon who says he’s “lived near the airport for years.”  Local Hillingdon people tell me his area is not impacted by planes.  Not forgetting Shaun Brimacombe from Harlingon who asks “If noise does affect them then why did they choose to live next to a major international airport?”  Back Heathrow’s bosom buddies at Heathrow Airport know full well that there are people distraught by aircraft noise living 20 miles from the airport.  They didn’t “choose to live next to a major international airport.”  They don’t get a quote.

Although we don’t share it, HACAN recognizes there is an argument to be made for the expansion of Heathrow Airport but this news-sheet does nothing to advance it.

You can contact Back Heathrow at Premier House, 50-52 Cross Lances Rd, TW3 2AA or by email hello@backheathrow.org or via their website:  www.backheathrow.org 

Thinking of filling in the survey?  Don’t risk it!  You could be quoted out of context in their next news-sheet.  Better to say nothing.  Return an empty envelope.  It’s Freepost! 

The Chancellor’s announcement on Air Passenger Duty (APD) in yesterday’s budget speech was significant.  Less so because of the changes he announced; more for his underlying assumption that APD is here to stay.  This is a considerable blow to the aviation industry which for some years now has been united in its opposition to the tax.  But it was never going to be abolished.

Successive governments have recognized that aviation is under-taxed.  When Kenneth Clarke, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced APD 20 years ago in his budget of November 1993 he said: “First, air travel is under-taxed compared to other sectors of the economy. It benefits not only from a zero rate of VAT; in addition, the fuel used in international air travel, and nearly all domestic flights, is entirely free of tax. A number of countries have already addressed this anomaly”.

At present there is a huge discrepancy between what motorists are taxed and the tax paid by the aviation industry.  Revenue from car travel (tax on fuel and VAT) bring the Treasury about £12 billion a year.  APD raises around £2.8 billion.  It would need to be quadrupled match the income from car travel.  Other European countries are bringing in APD-type taxes (through, so far, at a lower level than APD is charged).   

Yesterday’s Budget sorted out some anomalies in the system.  Currently passengers travelling to the Caribbean, Asia or Australia pay more tax than those going to America.  By April 2015 all long-haul passengers will pay the American rate – currently £67 (for a single journey) rising to £71 when the change comes in.  The change has probably come about more from political pressure than a desire to please aviation industry lobbyists.  The rate on short-haul flight – £13 for a single journey – will remain the same.  APD will be imposed on private jets.

The details of the changes can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/293853/TIIN_6063_air_passenger_duty_banding_reform.pdf 

The changes outlined will cost the Treasury £985m over four years from 2015, according to Budget documents.  It does mean that aviation is even more under-taxed but the big message is:  APD is here to stay.