Category: Press releases

Pressure Group HACAN ClearSkies has revealed that leading figures from BAA, the owner
of Heathrow Airport, and British Airways have got themselves key roles in the management
of Kew Gardens, the world-famous Royal Botanic Gardens which lie directly under the flight
path, just months before the Government is due to reveal its plans for a big increase of flights
over the Gardens. Marcus Agius, the Chairman of BAA, has a key fundraising role for Kew
as the Chairman of the Foundation and Friends of Kew. Andrew Cahn, the Director of
Government and Industry Affairs at British Airways, sits on Kew’s Board of Trustees.

Kew Gardens has consistently refused to speak out against the expansion of Heathrow. If the
Government goes ahead with plans to abolish runway alternation, Kew Gardens could be
under the flight path all day long. The Department for Transport is expected to consult on its
plans in March next year (1).

The role of the Foundation and Friends of Kew (2) is “to provide support for Kew by raising
funds for Kew’s activities”, according to the Kew Garden’s annual report. The report admits
that “financial support through bequests from Friends is becoming an increasingly important
source of income.”

HACAN Chair John Stewart said, “We are very suspicious about the motives of Marcus
Agius and Andrew Cahn. Have they wormed themselves into key positions in order to make
sure that Kew Gardens is not critical of plans to expand Heathrow? Certainly, local people
are in despair about Kew’s refusal to speak out.”

ENDS

Notes for Editors:

(1). At present aircraft landing over West London use one runway until 3pm before switching
to the other one in order to give people some relief from the noise. Kew Gardens benefits
from this. But the Department for Transport is expected put out proposals to public
consultation in March 2006 to end runway alternation.

(2). The Kew Gardens 2005 Annual Report describes the Foundation and Friends thus: “The
Foundation and Friends of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, is a registered charity
(registration no. 803428) which is independently administered. Its purpose is to provide
support for Kew by raising funds for Kew’s activities.” Its membership exceeds 64,000.

For further information contact:

John Stewart on 0207 737 641 or 07957385650

Press Release dated 16/08/05

Angry residents blasted aircraft noise from a sound system outside the home of BA boss Rod Eddington at 5am this morning. Campaigners against night flights paid an early morning visit to Rod Eddington’s home in the normally quiet Berkshire village of Shurlock Row. Their visit was timed to coincide with British Airways AGM which takes place today (1).

The protesters rigged up a sound system outside the BA Chief Executive’s two and a half million pound house and blasted out aircraft noise for 15 minutes. The campaigners, dressed in pyjamas, apologised to other residents of the village who came out of their homes to complain about the noise.

HACAN ClearSkies Chair, John Stewart, who accompanied the campaigners said, “Residents under the flight path wanted to say farewell to Rod Eddington by giving him a taste of his own medicine. The majority of night flights using Heathrow are operated by British Airways or one of its subsidiary companies. And BA is amongst the strongest supporters of night flights.”

Stewart added, “The campaigners have apologised to the other residents of the village who were woken up by the noise, but added the noise was less loud than the planes they have to put up with every night. Rod Eddington’s legacy to residents under the flight path has been one of countless sleepless nights.”

Notes for Editors

1. The British Airways AGM is being held today (Tuesday19th July) at 11am in the Queen Elizabeth 11 Conference Centre in Westminster at 11am. It will be Rod Eddington’s last AGM. In a couple of month’s time he is standing down as BA’s Chief Executive to become a Transport Adviser to the Government.

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

The Government is proposing to increase the number of night flights at Heathrow from 5,800 a year at present to reach 6,420 in 2011/12, according to the consultation on night flights released by the Department for Transport today (1).

The consultation was originally expected to be released in January of this year. Because of the delay, the Government has had no option but to retain the existing night flight regimes at Stansted, Heathrow and Gatwick for another year. But from October 2006 the consultation proposes increasing the number of flights using Heathrow year by year until it reaches 6,420 in 2011/12.

The consultation is proposing limiting the noisiest planes currently using the three airports, but admits this will make little difference at Heathrow because all the night flights using the airport are large, noisy planes coming from the Far East, America and Africa.

John Stewart, Chair HACAN ClearSkies said, “We are disappointed the Government has ruled out a ban, but dismayed they are proposing an increase in night flights. More people will be woken up more often throughout the night. It will simply spread the night-time misery.”

The proposals all concern the period between 11.30pm and 6am, known as the night qouta period (2). The Department is arguing that, because the noisiest pplanes currently flying at night will be banned, they will be able to bring in more planes without worsening the overall noise climate at night. Stewart said, “The overall noise climate is meaningless to residents under the flight path. What matters is the number of passing over their homes. The Government knows this. That is why it has tried to bury the figure well into the consultation document”.

Notes to editors

1. Figures to be found in para 7.25 of the consultation document, but not mentioned in the Department’s press release.

2. The full night period runs from 11pm – 7am, but the Government is just proposing tough restrictions for what is called “the night quota period” from 11.30pm to 6am.

3. The full consulation document is available on the DfT website – the closing date for comments is 16th September.

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

Over 150,000 people face a decade of blight because of the uncertainty over the expansion of Heathrow Airport, pressure group HACAN ClearSkies has claimed. They are under threat from delays in approving a third runway and a sixth terminal at the airport. The plans, first announced in the Government’s Aviation White Paper, are confirmed in BAA’s Master Plan published today (1).

In its Master Plan BAA admits that around 700 homes close to the airport will need to be demolished to make way for a third runway and a sixth terminal (2). But the Master Plan is expected to say less about the thousands of people who face the prospect of living under the third flight path that will be required for a third runway. In its Aviation White Paper the Government admitted that around 150,000 people under this new flight path would experience annoying levels of aircraft noise. Places affected include Slough and Maidenhead to the west of Heathrow and Heston, North Chiswick and parts of Kensington and Chelsea to the east of the airport.

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, “Because a third runway is at least ten years away all these people will face a decade of blight. Hardest hit, of course, will be the communities of Sipson, Harmondsworth and Harlingon, which will be virtually wiped out if expansion takes place.”

Stewart added, “There is nothing new in today’s announcement from BAA. All these proposals were in the White Paper. But they do confirm the way that both the Government and the aviation industry are prepared to play with people’s lives in order to get what they want.”

Notes for Editors:

1. All airports are required to draw up Master Plans. They are expected to set out the way any proposals for expansion will affect the surrounding areas. The requirement was laid down in the Aviation White Paper, published in December 2003. The White Paper suggested that a 3rd runway and sixth terminal at Heathrow be put on the back-burner until at least 2015 because of the concern that they might result in EU legal limits for air pollution, due to come in at the end of 2009, being broken.

2. The publication of the Master Plan does not mean that permission has been given for a 3rd runway or 6th terminal. They would still need to go though a public consultation and Public Enquiry process.

3. The Government’s consultation document, produced in the run-up to the White Paper, estimated that around 150,000 people under the new flight path would experience noise levels in excess of 54 decibels (averaged out throughout the day) – the level where the World Health Organisation has found that the noise will be becoming seriously annoying. Some parts of North Chiswick, northern Earls Court and parts of Kensington currently have no aircraft at all.

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

A demonstration will take place outside the CBI headquarters in London on Monday 23rd May to protest at the launch of Future Heathrow, an new industry-backed body set up to argue for the expansion of the airport (1). Monday’s launch will see Lord Soley, the former Labour MP Clive Soley (2), unveiled as Future Heathrow’s new Campaign Director. To challenge the arguments made by Future Heathrow that a 3rd runway and a 6th terminal are required for economic reasons, HACAN ClearSkies has issued a report which shows that, of the 22 million additional passengers who used Heathrow in 2004 compared with 1992, 19 million were transfer or transit passengers (3), just passing through the airport, thus contributing very little to the UK economy.

The HACAN ClearSkies Study reveals:

• between 1992 and 2004, of the 22 million additional passengers using Heathrow, 19 million were transfer or transit passengers

• in 1992, transfer and transit passengers only made up 9% of passengers using the airport; by 2004, they made up 35% of passengers

• transit and transfer passengers pay no Air Passenger Duty as they are just passing through

It also produces figures which give the lie to the aviation industry’s claims that a high number of transfer and transit passengers using the airport, while not directly contributing much to the economy, do make the airport more attractive to business because it serve more destinations:

• Heathrow is serving fewer destinations now than in 1992 – down from around 200 in the early 1990s to 184 today

• Gatwick, which has few transfer or transit passengers, now serves more destinations that Heathrow – 188.

The study also refutes the claims that London’s airports are being overtaken by Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris:

• it shows that 128 million people used London’s airports ( Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and London City) in 2004, compared with 73 million using Paris, 51 million Frankfurt and 42 million Amsterdam

• and that, between 1995 and 2004, there was an increase of 45 million people using London’s airports compared – much higher than the increase at Paris (18 million), Amsterdam (17 million) and Frankfurt (12 million).

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, said, “Our study gives the lie to the industry claims that Heathrow needs to be expanded for economic reasons. London’s airports are not losing out to Europe’s airports. Indeed, if transfer and transit passenger numbers were reduced to sensible levels, the number of planes using Heathrow could actually be cut without hurting the national economy. The aviation industry should stop dressing up its desire to make ever-higher profits as “the national economic interest”. It is a pity that Clive Soley has fallen for their argument. We urge him to think again and quit lobbying for a bigger Heathrow which will bring so much extra misery to his former constituents.”

Stewart added, “Our members will be amongst those demonstrating outside the CBI on Monday to express their anger at the way Future Heathrow is willing to ride roughshod over their interests, but we are also challenging the very economic rationale behind their arguments.”

Notes to editors

1. Amongst the key backers of Future Heathrow are the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the London Chamber of Commerce, British Airways, the TUC and the trade unions, AMICUS and BALPA (the pilots union).

2. Until the General Election, Clive Soley was the Labour MP for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush.

3. A transit passenger is one who flies into and departs from Heathrow on the same aircraft. A transfer passenger changes planes at Heathrow.

For more information contact:

John Stewart on 020 7737 6641 or 07957 385650

For information on the impact of a 3rd runway on the local community around Heathrow, contact Christine Shilling, Press Officer, NOTRAG on 020 8759 7389.

For information on the impacts of expansion at Heathrow on climate change, Friends of the Earth have issued a press release – contact Richard Dyer, their Aviation Campaigner, 07940 850328.

Chaos broke out when the Transport Secretary Alistair Darling, who attended the launch of the new pressure group, Future Heathrow, today, was ‘pied’ by an environmental protestor. The young woman, who had evaded the tight security surrounding the launch, covered Alistair Darling in carrot cake and cream.

Meanwhile a lively demonstration of people opposed to a 3rd runway at Heathrow was taking place outside the building.

Future Heathrow, supported by many of the country’s leading airlines, the CBI and the London Chamber of Commerce, has been set up to lobby for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. It was launched this morning at the CBI headquarters at Centre Point in Central London. Former Labour MP Clive Soley, now Lord Soley, was unveiled as its Campaign Director.

Alistair Darling, the Secretary of State, made a surprise appearance on the platform. Shortly after the event began a young woman rose from her seat and ‘pied’ the minister. She shouted that ‘Future Heathrow stinks’ and that ‘Alistair Darling’s presence at the launch of this pressure group stinks’. The woman was then ejected from the building.

John Stewart, chair of HACAN ClearSkies, one of the groups organising the demonstration outside, said, “This was one in the eye for Alistair Darling. It is quite inappropriate that any Secretary of State should so publicly align himself with any pressure group. It really calls into question his impartiality and his judgement.”

Notes to editors

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

Pressure group HACAN ClearSkies said that a new report published today by the Green Party (1) ‘nailed the lie’ that noise levels around Heathrow have improved in recent years. The report shows that there will be 36,000 more flights using the airport this year than when the Labour Government came to power in 1997. That is, around 100 extra flights a day.

The report shows that, over the last eight years, the problem of aircraft noise has spread widely across London and Berkshire, extending as far west as Henley-on-Thames. It found that “although some individual aircraft have become quieter since 1997, any reduction in noise levels has been off-set by the huge increase in the number of planes.” (2).

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, said, “This is the report we have been waiting for. It nails the lie that noise levels are improving. It shows that noise from Heathrow is affecting more people than ever before. This backs up what our members have been telling us consistently. And it shows clearly that, if further expansion takes place at Heathrow, the noise climate will only get worse. This well-researched report has done us all a service by revealing the truth behind the spin.”

Notes for Editors:

1. The report was launched by Caroline Lucas MEP and Darren Johnson AM on Thursday 24th March.

2. Key figures from the report:

• In 1997, 429,000 flights used Heathrow

• By the end of 2004, the figure will be over 465,000

• In 2004, 36,000 more flights a year will use Heathrow than in 1997

• …that is, around 100 extra flights a day

By 2002, more than 400,000 people in London alone rated aircraft noise as ‘a serious problem’ (GLA Household Survey 2002)

By 2003, around 400 planes a day were flying over Stockwell in South London — that’s around one every two minutes in an area at least 15 miles from Heathrow.

And in 2003, BAA admitted that half of all planes landing at Heathrow when the prevailing west wind was blowing came in over the Highbury/Stoke Newington area of North London.

Constituencies with over 100 extra flights a day since 1997:
Brentford and Isleworth; Ealing North; Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush; Hammersmith and Fulham; Hayes and Harlington; Richmond Park; Slough; Feltham and Heston; Spelthorne; Twickenham; Windsor

Constituencies, relatively untroubled 10 years ago, now getting as many as 400 flights a day*:
Camberwell and Peckham; Cities of London and Westminster; Dulwich and West Norwood; Greenwich and Wolwich; Hampstead and Highgate; Kensington and Chelsea; Lewisham East; Lewisham West; Lewisham Deptford; North Southwark and Bermondsey; Poplar and Canning Town; Streatham; Vauxhall.
*the build-up in many of these areas began in 1995/6

Constituencies where a significant problem emerged since 2001:
Hackney North and Stoke Newington; Hackney South and Shoreditch; Hornsey and Wood Green; Islington North; Islington South and Finsbury; Finchley and Golders Green; Tooting

The reason why is so many new areas are affected by noise is that the increase in the number of aircraft means that planes are joining their final landing path much further from Heathrow than previously.

For more information contact: John Stewart on 020 7737 6641 or 07957 385650

For the full report contact the Green Party — Penny Kemp on 01622 890601 or 07711 760692, or Ruth Somerville on 020 7561 0282.

Or download the report from our site.

The annnouncement was made yesterday as part of Gordon Brown’s budget speech yesterday. Rod Eddington, who is due to step down from British Airways later this year, will advise ministers on long-term sustainable transport policy in Britain. He will travel from Australia to regularly advise the Department for Transport and the Treasury on the impact of transport decisions on the Britain’s long-term productivity.

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, said, “You couldn’t really make it up. I had to check the date was not April 1st. The Government has asked the boss of BA, the main company pressing for a third runway at Heathrow aswell as more extensive use of the existing runways, to advise them on sustainable transport! And he will be travelling from Australia to do so! It simply cements the links between the aviation industry and government.”

Stewart added: “It reminds me of the words of Chris Mullin, a former aviation minister in Tony Blair’s Government:

“During my 18 months as an aviation minister I learnt two things about the aviation industry. One, that it sdemands are insatiable. Two, that successive governments always give way in the end.”

Chis Mullin, former Aviation Minister (1)

Notes for editors:

1. Written in a letter to HACAN ClearSkies, October 2002

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

• Stansted plans thrown into confusion

• Major re-think required at Luton

• “Full Consultation” required on mixed-mode at Heathrow

• Department for Transport officials accused of telling “half-truths”

The Government’s much-criticised Aviation White Paper received a further setback in the High Court today when Mr Justice Sullivan ruled that key aspects of it were not lawful (1). The judge concluded that the White Paper should not have specified the site of the second runway at Stansted (2). He also found that it was not lawful for the White Paper to propose an extension to the runway at Luton without any consultation (3).

The judge ruled that, while it was lawful for the White Paper to consider the end of runway alternation at Heathrow, any move to introduce ‘mixed-mode’ operations would require “full consultation” (4).

The judgment accuses the Department for Transport of being less than open during the consultation leading up to the White Paper. It accuses Mike Fawcett, the Department for Transport official in charge of producing the White Paper, of telling ‘half-truths’ over the financing of Stansted Airport (5).

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, representing residents under the Heathrow flight path, said, “This judgment represents a setback for the Government. Although the judge has not overturned the White Paper, the Department for Transport will struggle to put a positive spin on its findings. Two of its key proposals – at Stansted and Luton – have been knocked back. The 30 Year White Paper was meant to be the jewel in the Government’s aviation crown. Instead it is limping along like a battered old ram.”

HACAN ‘confident’

Stewart added, “At Heathrow we were hoping that the judge would rule the introduction of mixed-mode to be unlawful, but we are pleased to see that he has called for full consultation on any proposals the Government will come up with. Such is the opposition to mixed-mode that we are confident we will defeat any proposals the Government comes up with.”

The judgment also confirmed that any additional runway at Heathrow would be a short runway and that a 6th terminal would be required to cater for a 3rd runway.

Richard Buxton, solicitor representing the London Boroughs and campaign groups, said he felt “upbeat” about the decision. “No-one has ever challenged a White Paper before. For us and our co-consortium this was the ‘mother of all challenges’. It will be hard for the government to get away with a third runway at Heathrow without a huge fight, not to mention any plans to introduce mixed mode to make up for the shortfall in capacity while a 3rd runway is still being planned. In fact I think the Stansted and Luton decisions today will mean the need to look again at the whole question of runway provision in the South East in the round”.

Notes for Editors

1. Mr Justice Sullivan handed down his judgment on the Judicial Review of the White Paper on Friday 18th February. The challenge made history. It was the first time ever that the courts had allowed a Judicial Review of any government white paper. The Government was challenged on its Aviation White Paper by airport campaign groups representing communities around Stansted, Luton and Heathrow and by the London boroughs of Wandsworth and Hillingdon. A separate challenge to the White Paper by Herts and North Essex was also heard by the court. A third challenge, brought by housing developers near Gatwick Airport, was heard by the court, but dismissed. A Judicial Review can only challenge specific shortcomings in the decision-making process. It cannot challenge the contents of the White Paper. The Aviation White Paper was published on the 16th December 2003.

2. The White Paper not only suggested that a second runway be built at Stansted, but it also specified the site of the runway. This judgment states that it was unlawful to do the latter. This will have the effect of throwing BAA’s plans into confusion. In developing their plans for a second runway at Stansted, BAA had spent a lot of money working up plans for a particular site.

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 argued, people did not have the opportunity to comment on the proposal that emerged. The judged backed the applicants.

4. 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 argued that there was no indication in the consultation that ending runway alternation and introducing ‘mixed-mode’ 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. The judge said it was lawful for the Government to conclude in the Aviation White Paper that ‘mixed-mode’ could be an alternative to a 3rd runway. But he went on to say that the introduction of ‘mixed-mode’ would be “significant” and would require “full public consultation”.

5. 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 had stated in the White Paper that a second Stansted runway should be built by 2011 or 2012. The judge ruled that the Government had not acted unlawfully in dealing with the commercial viability argument, but strongly criticised Department for Transport officials for telling “half-truths” on the matter.

For further information:

John Stewart on 020 7737 6641 or 07957 385650

Richard Buxton – solicitor – 01223 328933