Category: Press releases

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.

West London will become ‘the noise capital of the world’, claims pressure group

Anti-noise group HACAN ClearSkies has claimed that the number of aircraft over London will soar if the Government goes ahead with proposals to end runway alternation at Heathrow (1). At present, planes use one runway for landings and one for take-offs, changing over at 3 o’clock in order to give people living under the final flight path some relief from the noise. In the Aviation White Paper, published on 16th December, the Government announced proposals to end this practice (2). It wants to introduce ‘mixed-mode’, where planes would land on both runways simultaneously for much of the day.

The Government has already asked the airport operator BAA to draw up plans to end runway alternation. These plans will be put out to public consultation later this year.

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, said, “Ending runway alternation sounds like a mere technical change. In fact, it is anything but. Runway alternation is a life-saver for the people of West London. It is the only thing that gives them some relief from the noise. They now face the prospect of a plane passing overhead, one every 90 seconds, for much of the day. It will turn West London into the noise capital of the world. None of the local residents believe the Government’s claims that it is only looking to end runway alternation during peak hours and they are furious because, less than two years ago, the then Transport Minister accepted the Terminal Five Planning Inspector’s recommendations that the number of flights at Heathrow should be capped, specifically to preserve existing practice.”

Stewart added, “But it is not only the people of West London who will suffer. More planes using Heathrow will mean more planes in the skies over London and the Thames Valley. It will be like living under a sky of sound.”

Notes for Editors

1. 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 grfand 7am, when both runways are used for landing aircraft.

2. 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.”

For more information contact John Stewart on 0207 737 6641, 07957 385650 or Anne Hardy on 0208 878 3629.

White Paper condemns London and the Thames Valley to ‘years of uncertainty’

But campaigners ‘having won the first round’ confident of final victory

Pledge to stand ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with campaigners at other airports

Pressure group HACAN ClearSkies has claimed there will be years of uncertainty for the people of London and the Thames Valley as a result of the Government’s refusal in today’s White Paper to rule out a 3rd runway. It claimed that the houses that would be required for a 3rd runway will remain blighted. It also expressed dismay that runway alternation may be brought to an end in West London (1).

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, said, “Alistair Darling has left Heathrow up in the air. Of course, we are pleased that a third runway has been ruled out for now. But blight and uncertainty remains. We will redouble our efforts to ensure that further expansion at Heathrow is ruled out for ever and a day. We have won the first round. We are confident of final victory.”

Stewart added, “The threat to end runway alternation in West London will cause fury amongst local people. It is the only thing that makes life bearable for them. It will also be a betrayal of the Government’s promise that flight numbers at the airport would not exceed 480,000 a year (2). We will oppose mixed-mode tooth and nail.”

HACAN ClearSkies argues the no new runways in the UK would be required if the tax concessions currently enjoyed by the aviation industry were removed (3).

Stewart said, “Our battle is not with the campaigners at Stansted and Gatwick, but with the Government and the aviation industry. We will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with our fellow campaigners at the other airports.”

Notes for Editors

1. At present people living under the flight paths in West London (from Barnes to Heathrow) only get planes for half the day. One week they will land on the southern runway between 7am and 3pm (and take off from the northern runway) and on the northern runway between 3pm and 11.30pm (and take off from the southern runway). The following week they swap round. This only applies when planes land over London – they do this when the west wind is blowing (75% of the time during a typical year). There is no runway alternation when planes approach Heathrow from the west – the reason for this is that planes are not permitted to take off to the east from the northern runway because of the Cranford Agreement. The Cranford Agreement protects Cranford which is just yards from the eastern end of the northern runway. The Government has already announced it will review the Cranford Agreement in 2004.

2. When giving permission for Terminal 5 to go ahead the Government accepted the recommendation of the Public Inquiry Inspector that there should be a cap of 480,000 on the number of flights using the airport each year. At present there are around 462,000. The introduction of mixed-mode would bring flights numbers over the 480,000 limit. To break the limit, BAA would need to get the permission of a planning inquiry.

3. For At present the tax concessions amount to £9 billion a year, through no tax on aviation fuel and no VAT on aviation transactions. If the VAT exemptions were removed and fuel was taxed at the same rate as petrol for cars, work published by the Aviation Environment Federation shows that, although there would be growth, there would be no demand for any new runways or airports.

Further information contact John Stewart on 0207 737 6641, 07957 385650, or 0776 9838273 (Tuesday only) or Monica Robb on 0208 876 0455.

Protestors block key road leading to the site

Early this morning a group of direct action protesters disrupted work on the site of Heathrow Terminal Five by blocking a key road leading to the site. The protesters have blocked a road that carries the vehicles that work on the site over Stanwell New Road (1).

This is the second time within a month that direct action protesters have disrupted work. Last month protesters occupied a crane on the Terminal Five Site for almost a week.

John Stewart, Chair of the anti-noise group HACAN ClearSkies, “Once again I’m sure that many local people will support the direct action. When the protesters climbed the crane last month we got lots of letters and phone calls from people wishing them well.”

Stewart added, “People are angry and bitter. They feel that they have been let down and lied to by the authorities. They were told that there would be no further expansion after Terminal Four. Then they were led to believe that Terminal Five would be the last major development at Heathrow. Now they are faced with the prospect of a 3rd runway. Many believe that direct action is the only thing that will make the authorities sit up and take notice.”

Notes for Editors

1. The road carries vehicles over Stanwell New Road. It is just south of the roundabout that connects Stanwell New Road with Bath Road.

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

Conservative mayoral candidate Stephen Norris has come out against a 3rd runway at Heathrow.

Conservative mayoral candidate Stephen Norris has come out against a 3rd runway at Heathrow. A Parliamentary Reception, held last night in the House of Commons (1), was told of Stephen Norris’s oppposition to a 3rd runway (2). The reception, staged jointly by Hillingdon Council and HACAN ClearSkies, brought together politicians from across London to express their opposition to a 3rd runway.

The reception, hosted by the three Hillingdon MPs, was attended by a wide range of MPs, peers, local authority representatives and campaigners (3).

John Stewart, chair of HACAN ClearSkies, said, “The message to government is crystal clear. The people and politicians of London are saying no to a 3rd runway.”

Stewart added, “It is of great significance that Stephen Norris has come out against a 3rd runway. He was a strong supporter of Terminal Five, but is now saying that enough is enough.”

Notes for Editors

1. The reception, ‘London Against a Third Runway at Heathrow’, was held in Committee Room 18 of the House of Commons from 6-7pm on Tuesday 18th November. It was sponsored by HACAN ClearSkies and co-ordinated by the London Borough of Hillingdon. The reception was jointly hosted by John McDonnell MP (Lab Hayes and Harlington), John Randall MP (Con Uxbridge) and John Wilkinson MP (Con Ruislip Northwood).

2. Stephen Norris sent a message of support to the meeting. Earlier he had written a letter to Hillingdon councillors outlining his position:

   Dear Councillor
   There are two current major issues affecting your borough where the Mayor of London has an important role — the third runway at Heathrow and the proposed West London tram scheme. I wanted, therefore, to take this early opportunity to set out my policy in these areas. As a former Minister for transport in London I am familiar with the arguments advanced for a third runway at Heathrow but I am clear that I cannot support such a proposal. The development would be detrimental to many thousands of Londoners whose homes are already significantly affected by increased levels of aircraft noise, traffic and pollution. When BAA made its case to the Inspector for a fifth terminal, the company indicated clearly that this would not necessarily lead to a third runway and I intend to hold them to that commitment.

3. Amongst those attending were Jenny Tonge MP (Lib Dem, Richmond Park), Ann Keen MP (Lab Brenford and Isleworth), Alan Keen MP (Lab Feltham and Heston); Anne McIntosh MP (Con, Vale of York and an official Conservative Spokesperson on Transport and the Environment); Darren Johnson (leader of the Greens on the GLA and Green Party Mayoral candidate); Richard Barnes (GLA member for Ealing Hillingdon); Lord Richard Faulkner (Chair of the All-Party Sustainable Aviation Group); Lord Berkeley; and Nick Lester, Head of Transport and the Environment at the Association of London Government (which represents all the boroughs and which has come out against a 3rd runway). Amongst the local authorities represented were Hillingdon, Hounslow, Richmond, Wandsworth and Chelsea and Kensington. Amongst those who sent their support were Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP, Caroline Lucas MEP, Glenda Jackson MP and Sue Doughhty, Liberal Democrat Shadow Environment Minister. Gill Cannon represented the No Third Runway Campaign.

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

“This must rank as one of the longest guilty pleas in history”

Pressure group HACAN ClearSkies has claimed that the publication of BAA’s Water Strategy last week (1), is the first time the company has admitted the extent of the problems it has faced. BAA admits it has not cleaned up all the rivers and holding ponds that have been polluted by run-off water from the airport. The Strategy reveals that BAA has particular problems in dealing with groundwater.

HACAN ClearSkies ecology specialist Mike Riley said, “While we are pleased that BAA has at long last produced a strategy to deal with the water pollution it causes, we remain concerned that it has taken years for the company to admit the seriousness of the problem if faced. For over four years we have beeen called scaremongers and worse for pointing out the problems BAA now admits were there all the time! This must rank as one of the longest guilty pleas in history.”

Mike Riley added, “After years of almost complete denial that the airport was a major source of water pollution, BAA has recognised the real problems that we have been highlighting and investigating over the last four years. We will continue with our own investigations into river silt and monitor BAA’s progress in cleaning up the area around Heathrow. We will also press BAA to look at the areas further away from the airport. There is evidence to suggest that they are being polluted by run-off water from the airport.”

Note for Editors

1. The Water Quality Strategy, published by BAA, sets out the company’s plans for dealing with water for the years 2003-2008. The Strategy will be reviewed each year.

For further information contact Mike Riley on 07810 007477 or John Stewart, Chair HACAN ClearSkies, on 0207 737 641 or 07957 385650.

Residents ‘won’t lose any sleep’ over the end of Concorde

Residents won’t lose any sleep over the end of Concorde (1) pressure group HACAN ClearSkies claimed today.

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, said, “Residents under the flight path won’t lose any sleep over the demise of Concorde. Undoubtedly it was a beautiful bird, but it was also one of the noisiest and dirtiest beasts in the sky.”

Stewart added, “The real significance today, though, is that Concorde has shown that supersonic air travel has proved uneconomic. It means that manufacturers are now more likely to concentrate on producing cleaner and quieter sub-sonic planes rather than a new generation of supersonic jets. If supersonic travel had taken off, the constant noise for people under flight paths would have been truly horrendous.”

Notes for Editors

1. Concorde’s last flight will take place on Friday 24th October.

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