Category: BLOG

The Sunday Times expose of Back Heathrow’s methods is significant – http://hacan.org.uk/?p=2753 . Not because Back Heathrow has hidden the fact it has received considerable funding from Heathrow Airport.  It has made it clear from the early days that Heathrow had put money in.  Much more because the Sunday Times reveals how Back Heathrow fails to spell out to the public it is trying to influence where its funding comes from.  As the Sunday Times said, “Three of the four newsletters delivered during the past year fail to disclose that Back Heathrow is funded by the airport.”

This matters.  If we get a leaflet through our door this Christmas extolling the virtues of Sainsbury’s mince pies over other brands, we will take much more notice of it if we believe it comes from a neutral body.  Similarly, when a Back Heathrow leaflet warns that “114,000 jobs are at risk if Heathrow shuts down”, we are much more likely to be concerned if we believe Back Heathrow is a neutral body.

Concerned people sign up to Back Heathrow.  Back Heathrow then can claim 50,000 supporters.  The impression is given to politicians that there is growing support for a third runway at Heathrow.

The reality is different.  There is no hard evidence that support for a 3^rd runway is growing (or declining).  We spelt this out in a blog in May of this year –     http://hacan.org.uk/blog/?p=281:

“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”

Support for expansion has always hovered just under 50%, with around a third of people remaining firmly opposed.  In actual numbers, that means hundreds of thousands of people don’t want expansion.  That was enough to kill it off last time.  Back Heathrow need to give politicians the impression that has changed; that a 3^rd runway is deliverable.  And they are prepared to use some questionable methods to do so.

Back Heathrow’s methods exposed

The method’s of the controversial pro-expansion group Back Heathrow have been exposed in the Sunday Times (30/11/14)

“HEATHROW came under fire from senior politicians and environmentalists this weekend after bankrolling a community campaign group that claims to represent the “silent majority” who want a third runway at the airport.

Hundreds of thousands of homes in London have received a series of glossy newsletters and surveys from Back Heathrow, a group that says it is “building a community of support for Heathrow airport”.

Designed like a tabloid newspaper, the leaflets include stark warnings that “114,000 jobs are at risk if Heathrow shuts down”. Three of the four newsletters delivered during the past year fail to disclose that Back Heathrow is funded by the airport.

Critics claim the group is a version of an aggressive lobbying tactic called “astroturfing” — when a movement is portrayed as a grassroots initiative but is actually run on behalf of corporate interests.

“This is straight out of Big Tobacco and anti-climatechange-type strategies where you simply scaremonger through an ‘astroturf’ group that you set up and fund at arm’s length,” said Jeff Gazzard, a spokesman for the pressure group Aviation Environment Federation.

Back Heathrow denied it was a front for the airport and Heathrow said it had “always been transparent” about the fact it helped fund the group.

The most recent newsletter, which was delivered to up to 750,000 homes, claimed more than 50,000 residents were supporting Back Heathrow’s campaign.

“People from all ages and walks of life are joining Back Heathrow and this silent majority is beginning to have its voice heard,” it said.

Back Heathrow’s campaign co-ordinator, Rob Gray, is a former director of the Aviation Foundation, a lobbying group established by the industry.

He set up Back Heathrow as a limited company in July 2013 with Nathan Fletcher, a senior PR officer at the airport. Fletcher, who is now Heathrow’s head of news, resigned as a director in April.

Michael Appleton, Back Heathrow’s communications manager, is a former communications officer at the airport.

Gray refused to reveal how much funding Back Heathrow had received from the airport, saying only that it was more than £100,000. He said the group had also received a donation from Heathrow Hub, a group that has submitted a rival plan to expand the airport, as well as smaller donations from residents and businesses.

Matthew Gorman, the airport’s director of sustainability and environment, was questioned about Heathrow’s support for the group during a heated meeting last Thursday of around 150 residents in Putney, southwest London.

Gorman insisted the airport had been “very open” that it had “provided some funding to set Back Heathrow up and we continue to provide some funding”.

Asked by The Sunday Times after the meeting how much funding the airport had provided, he replied: “I don’t know exactly.” He then refused to answer further questions.

Justine Greening, the Conservative cabinet minister and MP for Putney, accused Back Heathrow of “making out that they are some sort of residents’ group”.

Ravi Govindia, the Tory leader of Wandsworth council, said Heathrow was not being “open” about its relationship with the group, and Ray Puddifoot, the Hillingdon council leader, who has been criticised in Back Heathrow’s literature, said his local authority regarded the airport with “disdain because of the tactics that they are using”.

Back Heathrow states on its website that it was “initially launched” with money from the airport but does not admit it continues to receive donations.

One of its leaflets, delivered in September last year, discloses it is “supported and financed” by Heathrow.

Gray said: “The uncomfortable truth for those opposed to Heathrow expansion is that the levels of support we have attracted from residents reflect what almost all independent polls show — that there is majority support in local areas for growth at the UK’s hub airport.”

A Heathrow spokeswoman said the airport “continued efforts to give a voice to those who had previously not been heard in the debate on the airport’s future”.

Sharing Flight Paths: the classic call of the Nimby or a desperate plea for help?

HACAN is open 365 days a year and every single day we get emails from people driven to distraction by aircraft noise.  Every. Single. Day.  People in despair.  Two from this weekend’s batch: 

“I haven’t slept without earplugs for over a year and now spend 2 nights away from home each week now just to try to sleep…”

“Have we lost the fight? Do we always now have to have this assault on our senses? Will we ever get respite?”

And many of these people didn’t move close to an international airport.  Most live over 15 miles from Heathrow.  In fact we get far fewer complaints from West London.  Over generations, I suspect, many have learnt to live with the noise.  And some of course benefit from runway alternation when the planes landing over West London switch runways at 3pm to allow a break from the noise.

The complaints come from Clapham, Brockley, Vauxhall – places that can get as many as 40 planes an hour, often through much the day.  And from people living under the take-off routes as they have become more concentrated: Hanwell, Staines, Ealing.

The call of all these residents for relief as been branded as Nimby in some quarters.  I would strongly argue it is not. None of them are wanting all the planes to be shifted elsewhere; simply for the noise to be shared around on the basis that, if this is done well, nobody’s life should be turned upside down in the way theirs has been.

When I campaigned against road building in London in the 1980s some Dulwich residents, faced with the prospect of the South Circular outside their homes being widened, advocated a new highway was built through Brixton and Peckham.  That’s Nimbyism.  That’s parcelling up the misery and exporting it elsewhere.  Precisely what the overflown residents are not calling for.

HACAN has worked hard over the last few years to promote to not Nimbyism, but respite.  We are pleased to say that respite is now official Government policy and that Heathrow Airport supports the concept.  We are engaging with Heathrow to find ways in which it can work for both the airport and residents.

London City Airport, by contrast, is planning to concentrate their routes – http://www.londoncityairport.com/londonairspacemanagement.  Not that they have gone out of their way to tell anybody.  Information has simply been put on their website and given to their supine consultative committee.

HACAN has worked hard to publicise their proposals.  Last week the story hit the front page of the South London Press and featured heavily in the East London newspapers.  Tonight we are holding a meeting in Wanstead Library which is expected to be packed with residents and local councillors.  It will be addressed by GLA members Roger Evans and Murad Qureshi.  GLA members and councillors south of the river also plan to write to the airport with their concerns.

It’s a battle that HACAN is fighting to win.  We will be questioning whether the consultation has been conducted properly and indeed whether the absence of respite from London City’s proposals means they maybe flouting Government policy.  And we are doing because sharing is fairer.  That’s not Nimbyism.

Dear London City,

Your flight path proposals will have a profound effect – for the worse – on tens of thousands of Londoners…..and you are simply not telling them.  You are planning to concentrate the planes using the airport on narrow corridors, meaning that the unlucky communities will suffer all the noise.

It is deeply inequitable.  It reminds me what has happened on the roads.  These days traffic noise these is largely a main road problem.  This is because, over the years, it has been diverted from ‘residential’ roads on to main roads.  It has been concentrated on these main roads.  

I wrote in my book Why Noise Matters, published by Earthscan in 2011, “The policy in the UK, and in many other European countries, has been to direct through-traffic away from so-called ‘residential’ roads on to ‘main’ roads.  I would suggest this is deeply inequitable, made more so by the fact that it is the people living on main roads who are less likely to own and drive cars or be able to move away.  They are victims of other people’s noise.”

And now you are proposing to do the same with your planes.  I know you are arguing that the changes are not significant because the planned flight paths are not noticeably different from the current routes.  Tell that to Bow, Leytonstone, Wansted, Catford, Brixton and Vauxhall!  And the other areas that will be under the concentrated flight paths.

Of course, we know you are not going to tell them anything.  You’ve said to us you will not be holding public meetings, or even leafleting the areas.  Your current consultation brings a whole new meaning to the word ‘minimalist’.  You have informed your consultative committee (which you must know is widely seen as one of the weakest and least responsive in the country).  And have put your plans on your website: http://www.londoncityairport.com/content/pdf/LCY-LAMP-Consultation-Document.pdf.   But is thought they you may not even have informed some of the local authorities affected about the proposals.

Now I suspect I know what you are thinking: that HACAN is ‘anti-airport’ and is simply jumping on these proposed flight path changes to have a go at the airport.  But that is to miss the point:  the issue here is much deeper than what anybody thinks about the airport.  It is about fairness, equity, treating people properly; concepts that existed long before you began your short life just over 25 years ago.  

You are badly failing the fairness test.  You may also be acting contrary to government policy which suggests airports seek to give respite to communities which are overflown.

I suspect you will argue that your minimalist consultation is doing all that the Civil Aviation Authority, which is overseeing the process, requires you to do.  We’ve already raised this with the CAA and will do so again unless you start informing people what’s in store for them.  I urge you to do so.

John Stewart

Chair HACAN East 

Fight Path Consultation Letter of objection to London City Airport

London City Airport is planning to concentrate its flight paths over certain areas.  But it is not telling anybody.  The areas particularly in the line of fire are Bow, Leytonstone, Wansted and Colliers Row, Dagenham, Hornchurch,  Catford, Dulwich, Brixton, Stockwell and Vauxhall.  It is deeply inequitable.

Here is a letter you can email to the airport: lamp@londoncityairport.com.  Feel free to adapt it as you wish and to encourage others to also email in.

I strongly object to the way you intend to concentrate the flight paths in and out of London City Airport over particular areas.  It is creating noise ghettos and is deeply unfair.

I also object to the fact that you are refusing to tell directly the communities that will be affected what is in store for them.  You are holding no public meeting and are doing no leafleting.  Most people don’t even know what is on your website.

If you want to read the full consultation it is at http://www.londoncityairport.com/londonairspacemanagement.   It started on 4th September and runs until 27th November 2014.  

For more detail read HACAN’s open letter to the airport – http://www.hacaneast.org.uk/?p=493 – and our blog:  http://www.hacaneast.org.uk/?p=491 

The key consultation document ishttp://www.londoncityairport.com/content/pdf/LCY-LAMP-Consultation-Document.pdf.  The maps are indistinct but the main ones to look at are on:

Page 22.  which shows how places like Bow, Leytonstone, Wansted and Colliers Row would be impacted by take-offs on the days the west wind blows (about 75% of the time in a typical year)

Page 23 which shows how places like Dagenham and Hornchurch would be affected by take-offs when an east wind is blowing

Page 33 which shows how places like Catford, Dulwich, Brixton, Stockwell and Vauxhall will be affected by landings during an east wind

Recent events have illustrated how much flight paths matter.  As Mark Hookham put it in today’s Sunday Times “low-flying aeroplanes are causing uproar in affluent commuter towns and idyllic villages across Britain as airports test new flight paths” – Suburbia in revolt at new f light paths

Unless you are a Harmondsworth resident whose home is threatened by a third runway or an Indian farmer whose land is taken for a new runway, flight paths are what matter to local people.  If planes could land and take off perpendicularly most local objections would fade away.

Flight paths are the motorways of the sky.  Building new ones or doubling the traffic on existing ones will always bring a flood of complaints.  It happened in Ascot and Teddington in recent months.  Eighteen years ago it happened in Brixton, Stockwell and Clapham when landing procedures were tightened up.  Aviation Minister Glenda Jackson told the House of Commons (28/10/97): “when the airport is busy, which is for much of the day, aircraft will join the ILS [the final descent path] further east over Battersea, Brixton or Lewisham.”  Ms Jackson, the least sympathetic of recent aviation ministers, refused to meet with residents.

One resident wrote at the time: “I’ve lived in Clapham North at the same address for almost 20 years.  Until 3 years ago one hardly noticed the planes, apart from Concorde, of course.  Then in summer ’95, as if someone somewhere had flicked a switch, the occasional drone became a remorseless whine.  It was like an aerial motorway, open from early morning till at least mid-evening.”

And flight paths are going to change again.  This time driven by the new computer technology which enables planes to be guided more precisely when landing and taking off.  The industry believes this will allow it to make more efficient use of airspace, thus saving on fuel, cutting emissions and reducing delays.

The American airports have gone for the easy option and concentrated flights on a very few number of routes.  This has resulted in big protests in places like Chicago:  http://www.aviationpros.com/news/11681350/noise-complaints-about-ohare-skyrocket  London City Airport, to its shame, is proposing to do the same thing:  http://www.hacaneast.org.uk/2014/09/campaigners-call-on-caa-to-suspend-consultation-on-city-airport-flight-paths/ 

I believe concentration is indefensible in built-up areas.  It is asking the chosen communities to bear all the pain.  And, whenever surveys are done, they show that people prefer the flight paths to be shared, so that everybody gets a break – some respite – from the noise.

That doesn’t mean piling the pressure on Ascot so that other areas can get some relief.  What it does mean is finding a balance so that the fewest number people possible are truly disturbed by the noise.

I would argue the current situation across huge swathes of London and the Home Counties is untenable and chance can only be a good thing.  40 planes an hour an overfly the Oval Cricket Ground or Clapham Common.  This video of Vauxhall, 17 miles from Heathrow, gives a flavour of the disturbance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXf8o_khz8s.  A report commissioned by HACAN from the consultants Bureau Veritas found that in Ruskin Park in Camberwell, almost 20 miles from the airport, “aircraft noise dominates the local environment”.  And many under the take-off flight paths are experiencing a volume of planes they never imagined possible twenty years ago.

Heathrow estimates that, if they get it right, most communities could get relief from the noise 50% or even 75% of the time.  In an attempt to get an answer which works for the industry and for as many residents as possible, Heathrow is doing more pre-planning and conducting more experiments than any other airport in the world before it puts its final proposal out to public consultation.

The devil will be in the detail and there will be areas where ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ – maybe parts of West London which enjoys runway alternation.  And real care should be taken to avoid the very few ‘oasis’ which still exist that are plane-free.  But there is a fighting chance to get it right and banish the dark era Glenda Jackson helped usher in nearly 20 years ago.  Ms Jackson is standing down at the next General Election

For many people whose lives we changed forever when Glenda Jackson authorised operational changes twenty years ago, the possibility of respite is the first glimmer of hope they have had for nearly two decades.  A  

Heathrow, at the time, were as unhelpful as Glenda Jackson.  Twenty years on, flight paths are about to change again.  I have to say for most people, (certainly outside West London where residents get a half day’s break from the noise when planes switch runways at 3pm on landing), view the possibility of change as the first glimmer of light they have seen for nearly two decades.

Certainly the current situation across huge swathes of London and the Home Counties in untenable.  40 planes an hour can overfly the Oval Cricket Ground or Clapham Common.  This video of Vauxhall, 17 miles from Heathrow, gives a flavour of the disturbance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXf8o_khz8s.  A report commissioned by HACAN from the consultants Bureau Veritas found that in Ruskin Park in Camberwell, almost 20 miles from the airport, “aircraft noise dominates the local environment”. 

The challenge for Heathrow and air traffic control now is to use the changes that will be happening to benefit as many residents as possible.  The Americam airports have used the new computer-technology which is driving the changes to concentrate flights on a very few number of routes, thus creating noise ghettos.  London City Airport in its current consultation is proposing to do the same:  http://www.hacaneast.org.uk/2014/09/campaigners-call-on-caa-to-suspend-consultation-on-city-airport-flight-paths/ 

On the face of it, it may seem odd to cite the economy as a reason why Heathrow does not need a third runway.  After all, many in business back a third runway.  And it is the main reason Heathrow Airport gives for promoting one.

Let’s acknowledge up front that a 3^rd runway would bring economic benefits.  And that it would improve connections for business to key markets in the world’s emerging economies – places like China, India and Brazil.

But all that is very different to saying that a 3^rd runway is essential to London’s economy.  There is clear evidence it is not.  

Only today, the influential Forbes international survey named London as the top city in the world for business – without a third runway.  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-tops-forbes-list-of-the-worlds-most-influential-cities-in-2014-9676264.html It is worth reading what, Joel Kotkin, the author of the Forbes report wrote: “London is not only the historic capital of the English language, which contributes to its status as a powerful media hub and major advertising centre, but it’s also the birthplace of the cultural, legal and business practices that define global capitalism. The city has upward of 3,000 tech startups, as well as Google’s largest office outside Silicon Valley. Compared to New York, it is also time-zone advantaged for doing business in Asia, and has the second best global air connections of any city after Dubai, with non-stop flights at least three times a week to 89 per cent of global cities outside of its home region of Europe.”

The Forbes survey gives added weight to what a number of commentators have been saying for some time.  To meet current growth projections London and the South East may need a new runway by 2030 but it need not be at Heathrow.

The main reason the London economy doesn’t depend on Heathrow expanding is this:  more passengers (business people and tourists) terminate in London than in any other cit yin the world.On the whole, they do not mind which London airport they use.

Heathrow must be looked at in the context of all London’s airports.  London has six airports and seven runways.  London has more runways than any of its European rivals, except Paris:  Paris is served by 3 airports and 8 runways; Amsterdam by 1 airport and 6 runways; Frankfurt by 2 airports and 5 runways; and Madrid by 1 airport and 4 runways. 

As the Forbes survey so clearly indicated, London is the hub.  The vitality of London is what draws business people and tourists in world-beating numbers.  Because London is the magnet, Heathrow does not need to expand as a hub in order to enable more transfer passengers to provide sufficient numbers of people to fill flights to destinations across the world that would not otherwise be commercially viable.  

If airport capacity is provided – at whatever airport – people will flock to the capital in even larger numbers, drawn by the magnetic pull of London. A third runway at Heathrow may boost the coffers of Heathrow Airport’s foreign owners.  It is not, though, essential for the health of London economy.

Populus, Heathrow’s favourite pollster, are in trouble.  Their questionable methods have been exposed in a poll they did for the fracking industry. Thie poll published on Monday, carried out for UK Onshore Oil and Gas, was described by a polling expert as ‘one of the most misleading poll findings I’ve ever seen’.

And today the pressured on Populus has increased with the publication of a Government-funded survey which shows markedly different results to the Populus poll.  The Government survey found  that only 25% of people supported fracking compared to the Populus poll which claimed 57% support.

The headline in today’s Times gets to the heart of it: Public back fracking . . . depending on how you ask the question http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4174476.ece …  Ben Webster, the Times environment editor, puts it like this in his article: “The questions about fracking in the two surveys were posed in very different ways. The survey commissioned by UK Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG) asked several questions about Britain’s need for investment and greater energy security before the key question on fracking.  The question included a long preamble explaining the “tiny fractures” involved and how shale gas could “heat the UK’s homes for over 100 years”.  The energy department survey included a brief explanation of fracking as “a process of pumping water at high pressure into shale”,then asked people to state their level of support for it”.

Polling expert Leo Barasi wrote in Noise of the Crowd http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/this-fracking-poll-finding-is-one-of-the-least-convincing-ive-ever-seen/  about the Populus poll: “Short of faking results or fiddling the weights or sample (which this poll doesn’t), there are two ways to get a poll to give the answers you want. You can ask a series of leading questions that get respondents thinking the way you want them to, then ask the question you’re really interested in. Or you can word the questions so respondents only see half the argument. This poll does both”.

Barasi says: “This isn’t an attempt to find out what the public think about fracking. It’s message testing. That’s what political candidates or businesses do before launching a campaign. They fire a load of messages at respondents to see how much support they could gain in a theoretical world where only their view is heard, and which arguments are most effective. It’s a useful technique for finding out how people might respond to your arguments.  But it’s not supposed to represent what people actually think now”.

The criticism of Populus has important implications for Heathrow.  The airport has consistent commissioned polls from Populus in an attempt to show support for a third runway is growing.

In May 2014 Heathrow Airport claimed, on the basis of a Populus poll,  that there was more support now for a 3^rd runway than when it was proposed by the last Labour Government.  The poll claimed to show 48% were in favour of a third runway while 34% opposed.

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

In an uncanny parallel with the fracking results, these Populus results were flatly contradicted by referenda and surveys carried out by Hillingdon, Richmond and Hounslow local authorities which found around 72% of residents opposed a 3^rd runway: http://www.richmond.gov.uk/100000_say_no_to_heathrow_expansion 

All the polls done by Populus for Heathrow must now be regarded with suspicion.  In December last year Heathrow claimed “people in West London are more likely to vote for their MP if they support Heathrow expansion than if they oppose a third runway according to new research from independent polling company Populus”.

http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.com/Press-releases/One-quarter-of-West-London-more-likely-to-vote-for-their-MP-if-they-back-Heathrow-expansion-77e.aspx .  This is in flat contradiction to what MPs are telling us they are hearing on the doorstep and reading in their mail.

Heathrow need now to publish not just the questions Populus are asking people but also the ‘spiel’ leading up to the questions.  Unless they can convince us all that they are not leading people to their chosen answer, their results can only be regarded as fiction rather than fact…..to be filed alongside this entertaining incident from Yes Minister http://youtu.be/G0ZZJXw4MTA  

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