Author: John Stewart

Ban on night flights at Heathrow already ruled out

The consultation on night flights, issued by the Department for Transport yesterday (1), offers no hope for residents under the flight, according to pressure group HACAN ClearSkies. The Department for Transport has ruled out a ban on night flights at Heathrow.

The consultation paper is about the night flight regime intended to take effect at Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick for the six years starting in autumn 2005. It will replace the current agreement with the airlines.

This is stage one of the consultation. Stage two is expected to be published later this year.

The Department for Transport makes clear that most of its detailed proposals will not emerge until the second round of consultation. In this consultation paper the Department is suggesting that the noisiest planes might be banned during the night (2). But it also makes quite clear that it sees no prospect of night flights being banned. At present there are 16 flights on an average “night” between 11.30pm and 6am, the majority of which land at Heathrow between 4.30 and 6am.

The Department rules out any prospect of meeting the World Health Organisation’s recommended limits on aircraft noise at night for at least 30 years (3).

John Stewart, Chair HACAN ClearSkies, said, “This consultation offers no hope for residents under the flight path. The fact that the Department might decide to ban some planes that are marginally more noisy is no guarantee that that there will be fewer night flights. We will continue to fight every inch of the way for a night flight ban. Shortly will be publishing a report showing that night flights are unnecessary. We have also linked up with groups across Europe to mount an international campaign against night flights.”

Notes for Editors

1. Night Flying Restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted was launched by the Department for Transport on 21st July 2004

2. Already the noisiest planes are not permitted at night. The Department is asking for views on excluding the next-noisiest category.

3. The maximum sound level recommended by the World Health Organisation guidelines is 45 decibels. That would rule out all night flights at Heathrow. The UK Government has signed up to these guidelines. In this consultation paper the Department for Transport calls them “long term targets”, adding “in respect of aircraft noise at night, the 30 year time horizon of the White Paper provides a suitable time parameter for ‘longer term’.”

For more information contact John Stewart on 0207 737 641 or 07957 385650.

A senior BAA manager has admitted for the first time that the company would be prepared to break the cap on the number of flights

A senior BAA manager has admitted for the first time that the company would be prepared to break the cap on the number of flights permitted to use the airport each year which was set by the Government when it gave Terminal Five the go-ahead in 2001. Stephen Byers, Secretary of State for Transport at the time, imposed an annual limit of 480,000 flights using the airport (1). Until now BAA has made it clear it would adhere to that limit. But one of its senior managers, Tabitha Stebbings, told a recent meeting of the Heathrow Area Consultative Committee that, if it felt that the noise, air pollution and traffic levels would not be excessive, BAA would seek permission to go beyond the 480,000 limit (2).

Ms Stebbings, who heads up BAA’s work on Project Heathrow (3), which is looking at the impact ‘mixed-mode’ and a 3rd runway would have on Heathrow, said that BAA was “not neutral” in these matters. She admitted that if “a number of pre-conditions were met” BAA would be prepared to seek permission to exceed the 480,000 limit (4).

John Stewart, Chair of pressure group HACAN ClearSkies, “At last the truth is out. BAA has been stringing us all along for nearly three years with assurances that they intended to work within the 480,000 limit.”

Notes for Editors

1. When he recommended the go-ahead for Terminal, Roy Vandermeer, the Inspector at the T5 Pubic Inquiry, suggested that, for the sake of the residents under the flight paths, annual flight numbers should be capped at 480,000 when Terminal Five opened (2007). This was accepted by the Government in November 2001. In July 2002, when announcing the consultation for a possible 3rd runway at Heathrow, the current Transport Secretary Alistair Darling said that the 480,000 limit only applied to the existing two runways.

   • At present there are around 465,000 flights at year

   • If mixed-mode was introduced between 7am and 5pm, on Government figures, this would rise to at least 515,000 a year

   • A recent report, compiled by the CAA for the Department for Transport, estimated that a 3rd runway (without mixed-mode on the existing runways) would mean 700,000 flights per year; with mixed-mode, around 735,000 flights.

2. As part of the conditions attached to the Terminal Five decision, the Government said that BAA, if it wanted to exceed the 480,000 limit, would need to make the case at a Planning Inquiry.

3. Project Heathrow has been set up by the Department of Transport to look again at the impact on air pollution, noise and traffic of a third runway and the introduction of mixed-mode operations. (it is working closely with BAA on the project). Currently planes landing over London use one runway until 3pm before switching to the other. This gives residents closer to Heathrow a half day’s relief from the noise. It is known as runway alternation. Mixed-mode operations would mean the abolition of runway alternation.

4. Tabitha Stebbings was addressing the meeting of the Heathrow Area Consultative Committee held on 21st July.

For further information contact John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957 385650.

High Court is expected to hear the case within the next three or four months

The courts have given the go-ahead for organisations challenging the Aviation White Paper to mount a full Judicial Review in the High Court (1). The Government is being challenged by airport campaign groups representing communities around Stansted, Luton and Heathrow and by the London boroughs of Wandsworth and Hillingdon.

The High Court is expected to hear the case within the next three or four months. If the court finds in favour of the campaigners, the Government could be forced to re-run the consultation leading up to the White Paper and probably re-write the White Paper.

A Judicial Review can only challenge specific shortcomings in the decision-making process. It cannot challenge the contents of the White Paper.

The High Court challenge will highlight four key flaws:

• the consultation document did not make clear that the ending of runway alternation at Heathrow could be a short-term alternative to a third runway (2);

• the consultation document failed to give people the opportunity of commenting on the proposal, favoured in the White Paper, of going for an extended runway at Luton (3);

• the White Paper ignores the absence of a commercial justification for a second Stansted runway, contrary to the Government’s own ground-rules for the consultation (4).

• the Government failed to provide the public with information about alternative proposals for new airports at Thames Reach and on the Isle of Sheppey and failed to give proper consideration to those options (5);

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, said, “People in West London are furious that they were not given the chance to comment on plans to end runway alternation at Heathrow. These plans emerged from nowhere in the White Paper. Yet runway alternation is a life-saver for many in West London.”

Stewart added, “This decision by the judges to give us the go-ahead to take our challenge to the High Court is a major blow to the Government. It did not get the green light it wanted for its aggressive plans for airport expansion.”

Notes for Editors

1. The court made its announcement on Friday 11th June.

2. Runway alternation means that people living in West London within about 8 miles of Heathrow only get planes landing over the head for half the day. Planes switch runways at 3pm. The applicants are arguing that there was no indication in the consultation that runway alternation was in any way an alternative to a 3rd runway. Yet the White Paper, which put the proposal for a 3rd runway on the back-burner, contained the proposal that runway alternation could be ended at Heathrow.

3. The consultation document contained two options for expansion of Luton Airport: the construction of a replacement southern runway; and a new runway on a different alignment. It did not include details of plans to extend the current runway, the proposal that emerged in the White Paper. Therefore, the applicants argue, people did not have the opportunity to comment on the proposal that emerged.

4. The consultation documents made it clear that commercial viability was a “hurdle which must be passed for new and existing airport sites”. BAA advised the Government that a second Stansted runway would only be commercially viable if it could be cross-subsidised by Heathrow and Gatwick revenues but the regulator (the CAA) ruled against the option of cross-subsidisation by BAA during the consultation process. Despite this clear impasse, the Government has stated in the White Paper that a second Stansted runway should be built by 2011 or 2012.

5. The applicants argue that the Government had information about the viability of new airports at Thames Reach and the Isle of Sheppey that it did not set out in its consultation document. Therefore, the applicants argue, people were not in a position to make a proper assessment of these options when responding to the consultation. The process was at fault. The fact that the applicants have included this point in their challenge does not mean they favour building an airport at Thames Reach or Sheppey.

For further information contact:

John Stewart, Chair HACAN ClearSkies — Tel: 0207 737 6641 or 07957 385650

Richard Buxton, the solicitor taking this case forward — Tel: 01223 328933

Official: 50% of all flights are routed over Finsbury Park, Stoke Newington and Highbury

BAA has confirmed that half of all flights landing at Heathrow Airport are routed over densely-populated areas of North London. The company, which owns the airport, told pressure group HACAN ClearSkies (1), that many North London residents can expect hundreds of planes flying over their homes most days of the year. Planes land over London when the prevailing west wind is blowing (2).

John Stewart, Chair HACAN ClearSkies, said, “Aircraft noise is no longer a concern just for South West London. Over the last few years it has become a capital-wide problem. BAA has now confirmed to us that the residents of Finsbury Park, Stoke Newington and Highbury can expect half of all planes landing at the airport. This has been done without any warning or consultation.”

Stewart added, “Both BAA and the Department for Transport are reluctant to explain the reason for the big increase in recent years. In the absence of hard information we can only assume it has been done for operational reasons. But the result has been constant noise for many people in North London.”

Local resident Caroline Diehl said, “It’s summer, the birds are singing and the windows are wide-open — but in Hackney we can’t hear the birds sing and we are tempted to sleep with the windows shut. From 6.00am — and often earlier, aeroplanes roar overhead as they make their way down from Finsbury Park, over Stoke Newington and Dalston, to the Thames and Heathrow. The planes are equally noisy late at night. Our children are regularly woken, and we can’t sit outside and hear ourselves talk. It’s time to reclaim the skies as well as the streets! Make your voice heard now, before it’s silenced forever by the roar and whine of the jet engine.”

Notes for Editors

1. HACAN ClearSkies is the well-established group which represents residents under the Heathrow flight paths.

2. In a typical year, the west wind blows over London 70-75% of the time.

For further information contact:

John Stewart, 0207 737 6641 or 07957 385650

Caroline Diehl, 07980 212 814

Proposal receives the backing of just ten British MEPs

MEPs have failed to back a bid in the European Parliament to ban night flights. Only 54 MEPs from across Europe supported the proposal to halt night flights at European airports. It received the backing of just ten British MEPs (1).

The proposal was launched by Green MEP Caroline Lucas in London earlier this year. Together with four European colleagues, she sponsored a Written Declaration calling for a Europe-wide ban in night flights. If a majority of MEPs sign a Written Declaration, the proposal becomes the opinion of the Parliament.

The only London MEPs to sign the Written Declaration were:

• Robert Evans (Labour)
• Sarah Ludford (London’s only Liberal Democrat)
• Jean Lambert (London’s sole Green MEP).

The London MEPs who did not back a ban on night flights were:

• Claude Moraes, and Mary Honeyball (Labour);
• Ian Twinn, Charles Tannock, Theresea Villiers, Richard Balfe and John Bowis (Conservative).

The only South East MEPs to sign were:

• Caroline Lucas (the region’s only Green MEP)
• Chris Hulne (Liberal Democrat)

The South East MEPs who did not back a ban were:

• Deva Nirj; James Ellis; Daniel Hannan; Roy Perry; and James Provan (all Conservative)
• Peter Skinner and Mark Watts (Labour)
• Emma Nicolson (Lib Dem)
• Nigel Farage (UKIP)

The majority of the Conservatives took the view that night flights were the responsibility of national governments, not the European Parliament. But John Bowis stressed that while, as the former MP for Battersea he appreciated the distress night flights caused, he believed that it would be operationally difficult to go for a complete ban. Richard Balfe refused even to consider the issue because he felt the Declaration was an election stunt by the Green Party.

Caroline Lucas said, “MEPs have come up with a number of different excuses for not signing. But to say, as a number of Conservatives have, that night flights are not an EU issue is simply not correct. The treaty which established the European Community states that the Council of Ministers may lay down rules that apply to international transport to or from a member state. The EU has also published a Noise Directive.”

John Stewart, Chair HACAN ClearSkies, said, “MEPs from all over Europe have received hundreds of letters urging them to support a ban on night flights. They have been forced to think about the problem. Night flights are now being talked about in the corridors of power across Europe. We intend to build on that.”

Notes for Editors

1. The full list of British MEPs who signed the Written Declaration: Caroline Lucas, Green (South East); Jean Lambert, Green (London); Robert Evans, Labour (London); Sarah Ludford, Lib Dem (London); Chris Huhne, Lib Dem (South East); Andrew Duff, Lib Dem (Eastern); Eurig Wyn., Plaid (Wales); Jill Evans, Plaid (Wales); Neil MacCormick, SNP (Scotland); and Ian Hudgton, SNP (Scotland).

For further information contact John Stewart on 0207 737 6641.

Over 700,000 Flights Could Use Heathrow

A new report from the CAA has revealed that within 15 years more than 700,000 flights could be using Heathrow each year. Up from 465,000 at present. The report estimates that if a 3rd runway were to be built and runway alternation came to an end, there would 735,000 flights using the airport each year. The report admits that this could mean over 800,000 people experiencing noise levels above the standard recommended by the World Health Organisation.

The report, which was compiled for the Department for Transport last Autumn but only recently made public by the Government, has shocked anti-noise campaigners.

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, said, “Less than a year ago we were told that a 3rd runway would mean a total of 655,000 flights at Heathrow. Now the figure is 700,000. No wonder the Government was so reluctant to release this report.”

Stewart added, “It makes a mockery of the Government’s promise in 2001 to cap the number of flights at 480,000. The Government says one thing in public while planning something very different in private.”

Notes for Editors

1. The report, which in theory accompanied the White Paper in December but in reality only became public very recently, was produced by the CAA for the DfT (ECRU Report 0308 — Revised Future Aircraft Noise Exposure Estimates for UK Airports, by D P Rhodes). It came up with revised estimates for the number of flights that could use Heathrow with a 3rd runway in place. It estimates that with a 3rd runway in place, and mixed-mode operating between 7am and 5pm, the number of flights at Heathrow each year by 2015 would be 735,000. This figure is quite different from the figure used in the SERAS consultation document (which formed the basis of the consultation on the Government proposals for airport expansion prior to the publication of its Aviation White Paper on 16th December last year).

   • SERAS said that, by 2015, with a 3rd runway there would be a total of 655,000 flights at Heathrow each year;

   • Without a 3rd runway, the number would be 480,000 (the cap recommended by the T5 inspector and agreed in 2001 by the Government). Currently around 465,00 flights use Heathrow each year.

   • This new CAA document, says that a 3rd runway would mean 700,000 flights each year.

   • Add that to the DfT’s estimate that the introduction of mixed-mode operations between 7am and 5pm would mean an extra 35,000 flights per year.

   • The CAA report estimates that all this would mean that just over 800,000 people would experience noise levels above World Health Organisation recommended levels by 2015, up from around 600,000 today.

2. The White Paper put plans for a 3rd runway at Heathrow on the back-burner until at least 2015 because of problems with air pollution around the airport.

3. The White Paper announced that it would investigating the ending of runway alternation at Heathrow. Runway alternation means that planes landing over London land on one of Heathrow’s runways between 7am and 3pm, before switching to the other runway which they use from 3pm — 11.30pm. So, for example, if planes land on the northern runway between 7am and 3pm, they will take-off during those hours on the southern runway. At 3pm, they will switch round. Runway alternation only benefits those people in West London who live under the final flight paths in Heathrow, ie the area from about Putney/Barnes westwards. There is no runway alternation when the planes approach over Berkshire (on the days an east wind is blowing) because planes are not permitted by the Cranford Agreement to take off eastwards from the northern runway. There is no runway alternation at all between 6am and 7am, when both runways are used for landing aircraft. Mixed-mode is the opposite of runway alternation.

For further information contact John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957 385650.

Groups set to mount a Judicial Review

The Government’s Aviation White Paper (1) is set to be challenged in the High Court. The organisations mounting the Judicial Review will hold a Press Conference at midday in the House of Commons on Monday 8th March (2).

The Judicial Review challenge is being mounted by airport campaign groups representing communities around Stansted, Luton and Heathrow and by the London boroughs of Wandsworth and Hillingdon (3).

The High Court challenge will highlight four key flaws:

• the Government failed to provide the public with information about alternative proposals for new airports at Thames Reach and on the Isle of Sheppey and failed to give proper consideration to those options (4);

• the consultation document did not make clear that the ending of runway alternation at Heathrow could be a short-term alternative to a third runway (5);

• the consultation document failed to give people the opportunity of commenting on the proposal, favoured in the White Paper, of going for an extended runway at Luton (6);

• the White Paper ignores the absence of a commercial justification for a second Stansted runway, contrary to the Government’s own ground-rules for the consultation (7).

Carol Barbone, Campaign Director of Stop Stansted Expansion, said, “We are determined that our community will not be destroyed by this flawed White Paper. We will fight the Government every inch of the way.”

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, said, “People in West London are furious that they were not given the chance to comment on plans to end runway alternation at Heathrow. These plans emerged from nowhere in the White Paper. Yet runway alternation is a life-saver for many in West London.”

Roger Wood, speaking for LADACAN, said, “As far as we are concerned, the Government has pulled a fast one. People under the Luton flight path were consulted on options for expansion at the airport, but not on the runway proposal that finally emerged in the White Paper!”

Notes for Editors

1. The aviation White Paper was published by the Department for Transport on 16th December 2003.

2. The Press Conference will be held in Room W1 (just off Westminster Hall) in the House of Commons. It will be hosted by John McDonnell MP (Labour, Hayes and Harlington) whose constituency includes Heathrow Airport.

3. A Judicial Review must be mounted within 3 months of the publication of a White Paper and can only challenge specific shortcomings in the decision making process

4. The applicants argue that the Government had information about the viability of new airports at Thames Reach and the Isle of Sheppey that it did not set out in its consultation document. Therefore, the applicants argue, people were not in a position to make a proper assessment of these options when responding to the consultation. The process was at fault. The fact that the applicants have included this point in their challenge does not mean they favour building an airport at Thames Reach or Sheppey.

5. Runway alternation means that people living in West London within about 8 miles of Heathrow only get planes landing over the head for half the day. Planes switch runways at 3pm. The applicants are arguing that there was no indication in the consultation that runway alternation was in any way an alternative to a 3rd runway. Yet the White Paper, which put the proposal for a 3rd runway on the back-burner, contained the proposal that runway alternation could be ended at Heathrow.

6. The consultation document contained two options for expansion of Luton Airport: the construction of a replacement southern runway; and a new runway on a different alignment. It did not include details of plans to extend the current runway, the proposal that emerged in the White Paper. Therefore, the applicants argue, people did not have the opportunity to comment on the proposal that emerged.

7. The consultation documents made it clear that commercial viability was a “hurdle which must be passed for new and existing airport sites”. BAA advised the Government that a second Stansted runway would only be commercially viable if it could be cross-subsidised by Heathrow and Gatwick revenues but the regulator (the CAA) ruled against the option of cross-subsidisation by BAA during the consultation process. Despite this clear impasse, the Government has stated in the White Paper that a second Stansted runway should be built by 2011 or 2012.

For further information contact:

Richard Buxton, the solicitor taking this case forward — Tel: 01223 328933
Carol Barbone, Campaign Director, Stop Stansted Expansion — Tel: 0777 552 3091 or 01279 870558
John Stewart, Chair HACAN ClearSkies — Tel: 0207 737 6641 or 07957 385650
Roger Wood, LADACAN spokesperson — Tel: 0777 615 3299 or 01438 833 146
John Davis, LADACAN spokesperson — Tel: 01582 713535

Europe-wide campaign against night flights to be launched

Campaigners are set to stage a ‘sleep-in’ outside a government conference on night flights being held close to London’s Victoria Station on Friday 27th February (1). Representatives of HACAN ClearSkies, Friends of the Earth and Stop Stansted Expansion expect to be joined by MPs and MEPs. Caroline Lucas, Green MEP for South East England, will launch the Europe-wide campaign to ban night flights at all European airports (2).

The ‘sleep-in’ will take place opposite the Thistle Hotel in Buckingham Palace Road between 8.45 and 9.30am. The Conference, being organised by the Department for Transport, will be held in the Thistle Hotel from 9.30am until 4pm.

Night noise from aircraft is proven to be responsible for sleep disturbance, increased heart rates, and day after affects such as depressed moods (3). The World Health Organisation recommends that night noise heard in bedrooms should not exceed 45 decibels. Even 15 miles from an airport, the noise of a plane landing at the airport can be over 60 decibels (4).

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN ClearSkies (5), said “Night flights are hugely unpopular. Most people believe they should be banned. It beggars belief that the dinosaurs from the Department for Transport should set aside a whole day for a conference like this. Of the 11 speakers on the conference agenda, 9 represent either government or the aviation industry.”

Caroline Lucas said, “Right across Europe people are calling for a ban on night flights. Today marks the start of a Europe-wide campaign to bring them to an end. There is considerable support within the European Parliament for a ban.”

Richard Dyer, Aviation Campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said, “It’s ironic that a ‘sleep in’ demonstration outside a night flights conference will be the only opportunity that many of those protesting here today get to rest. Noise disturbance from aircraft is a serious and escalating health issue, people concerned about this nuisance should demand that their MEP supports the call for a Europe wide night flights ban.”

Notes for Editors

1. The ‘sleep-in’ will take place opposite the Thistle Hotel in Buckingham Palace Road between 8.45 and 9.30am. The photo-call will be on Lower Belgrave Road opposite the hotel, just off Buckingham Palace Road. Campaigners will be dressed in night attire. The Conference, being organised by the Department for Transport, will be held in the Thistle Hotel from 9.30am until 4pm, with registration from 9.00am.

2. Attached is the Written Declaration calling on the European Parliament to introduce legislation for a ban on night flights at all airports in the European Union between 11.00pm and 7.00am. If 318 MEPs from across Europe sign it, it will be debated in the European Parliament before the European Elections in June.

   At a Europe-wide Conference of campaign organisations, co-hosted by Caroline Lucas, night flights were regarded as one of the biggest problems facing community groups across Europe. Few major airports have no night flights. Direct comparisons are difficult because countries define ‘night’ in different ways. But the number of night flights ranges from 16 at Heathrow (overflying 500,000 people — more than anywhere else in Europe) to over 100 at Frankfurt. At the UK airports, night flight numbers per night average out over the year at Heathrow (16), East Midlands (60 mostly freight), Gatwick (over 40) and Stansted (over 30) – with the latter two airports, there are many more flights in the summer than in winter.

3. Reported in ‘Public Health Impacts of Large Airports’ — Health Council of the Netherlands (1999)

4. From ‘Guidelines for Community Noise’, published by the World Health Organisation (2000).

5. HACAN ClearSkies, which represents residents under the Heathrow flight path, took the UK Government to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, arguing that night flights were a breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention which entitles individuals to the peaceful enjoyment of their own homes. In October 2001, the Court ruled in HACAN ClearSkies’ favour. But the UK Government appealed and, last year, the Appeal Court ruled in its favour. Later this year the Department for Transport is expected to consult on the night flight regime between 2005 and 2010 at Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick.

For further information contact John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957 385650 or Richard Dyer on 07940 850328

M4 would need to be put in tunnel if Heathrow is to meet EU pollution standards, claims Government Report

A report just published by the Department for Transport has admitted that part of the M4 would need to be put in a tunnel if air pollution levels at Heathrow were to come even close to meeting the legal limits set by the European Union if a 3rd runway was to be built. It also found that any plans to end runway alternation at the airport are likely to result in illegal pollution levels (1).

The report is one of 27 documents issued by the Department last week to accompany the Aviation White Paper that was published on 16th December (2).

It found that extreme measures would be required to meet the EU legal limits if a third runway was built by 2015:
* the M4 would need to be put in a tunnel between junction 4A and junction 3;
* the M4 spur road would also need to go into a tunnel;
* the southern runway would be need to be extended 1 mile eastwards;
* the total number of planes at Heathrow would need to be limited to 550,000 each year, well below the 650,000 capacity.
Even with these measures in place, the report found that 27 homes would still be experiencing air pollution levels above the EU legal limit. Without these measures in place almost 5,000 homes could be affected in 2015.

The report also found that, if runway alternation was abolished on existing runways between 7am and 5pm by 2010, the additional planes could result in almost 10,000 dwellings with pollution levels over the legal limit (3).

John Stewart, Chair HACAN ClearSkies, said,

“The Government should stop chasing its impossible dream of a 3rd runway at Heathrow. Even on the widely optimistic assumption that planes will become 40% quieter over the next 20 years or so, pollution levels around the airport will still be illegal. Any responsible government would be dealing with existing pollution levels rather than coming up with madcap schemes like putting the M4 in a tunnel. In a sane world this report should kill off any idea of a 3rd runway”

Notes for Editors:

1. The European Directive on Air Pollution sets legal limits that come into force in 2009. In the Aviation White Paper, the Government put a 3rd runway at Heathrow on the back burner until at least 2015 because it was not confident the EU limits on nitrogen dioxide could be met.

2. The Report is called Air Quality Assessments. It is dated December 2003, but was just published by the Department for Transport last week. (the other 26 reports fill in the detail of a number of the issues outlined in the White Paper – most of the reports are not available on the DfT website and were ‘out of print’ within a week of being issued). Air Quality Assessments looked at the effect of different measures on air pollution levels at Heathrow over the next 20 years. It assessed the impact on pollution levels of vehicle traffic, cleaner aircraft engines, different take-off procedures and reduced emissions from ‘on-airport’ activities. It was carried out by the DfT during the Autumn of 2003 following the end of the official period of consultation. The DfT carried out the report because, in their responses to the consultation, both BAA and BA challenged the Government’s assumptions on air pollution levels around Heathrow.

3. The White Paper said, “Our current assessment is that a new runway at Heathrow could not come into operation before some time in the period 2015-2020. It is important, therefore, to consider the scope for greater utilisation of the two existing runways. For example, mixed mode operation in peak hours might be introduced, while retaining runway alternation for the rest of the time.” Runway alternation means that planes landing over London land on one of Heathrow’s runways between 7am and 3pm, before switching to the other runway which they use from 3pm – 11.30pm. So, for example, if planes land on the northern runway between 7am and 3pm, they will take-off during those hours on the southern runway. At 3pm, they will switch round. Runway alternation only benefits those people in West London who live under the final flight paths in Heathrow, ie the area from about Putney/Barnes westwards. There is no runway alternation when the planes approach over Berkshire (on the days an east wind is blowing) because planes are not permitted by the Cranford Agreement to take off eastwards from the northern runway. There is no runway alternation at all between 6am and 7am, when both runways are used for landing aircraft

For further information contact John Stewart on 020 7737 6641 or 07957 385650.