White Paper, ‘once the jewel in the Government’s crown’, now ‘limping along like a battered old ram’.

• 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

“Behind the glamour and glitz of the launch ceremony is the reality for residents. This plane will be one of the noisiest beasts in the sky.”

The A380, the world’s biggest passenger plane, able to carry over 550 passengers, which will be launched in the presence of Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac in Toulouse on Tuesday (1), will be “one of the noisiest beasts in the sky”, claims Heathrow pressure group HACAN ClearSkies. Airbus, the company that has manufactured the aircraft, claim that “it will make less noise than its closest competitor, while carrying 30-50% more people.” Nevertheless, airports will place it in their highest noise category. It will just meet the international standards for new planes (2).

The A380 will be enormous. It will be a double-decker plane, a third larger than a jumbo jet. It will replace the Boeing 747 as the world’s biggest passenger aircraft. Runways at Heathrow and the other major airports which the plane will use have had to be widened to accommodate it. It has cost over £6 billion to develop. The first passenger flight is expected early next year.

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, said, “On Tuesday we will get the hype. Once more the aviation industry will pull out all its public relations stops. But behind the glamour and glitz of the launch ceremony is the reality for residents. This plane will be one of the noisiest beasts in the sky. It is quite ridiculous for Airbus to try and imply it will be a quiet plane just because it is quieter than a 747. The fact is that the A380 just meets the international noise standards for new planes. That means that, over the coming years, it will be one of the noisiest planes in the sky”.

Stewart added “This new plane might have some advantages if airports and governments were going to use its huge passenger-carrying capacity to cut the overall number of flights using major airports. But that is not the intention. Our call is for BAA to use the A380 to cut overall flight numbers at Heathrow to their mid-1990 levels.”

Notes for Editors:

1. The launch will take place in Toulouse on Tuesday 18th January in the presence of Tony Blair and President Jacques Chirac.

2. From 2006 new planes must meet what are known as Chapter 4 noise standards. These are internationally agreed standards. These replace the 1977 Chapter 3 standards. The A380 only just meets the new Chapter 4 standards.

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

High Court, Monday 13th December: Judicial Review of Aviation White Paper
High Court, Tuesday 14th December: Judicial Review Night Flight Consultation

The Government is being challenged on two major planks of its aviation policy. On Monday 13th December it faces a Judicial Review of its Aviation White Paper in the High Court in London. On the next day, at the same venue, a Judicial Review of its recent consultation on night flights will take place (1).

The challenge on the White Paper will make history. It is the first time ever that the courts have allowed a Judicial Review of any government white paper. The Government is being challenged on its 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 will also be heard by the court. A third challenge, brought by two businessmen near Gatwick Airport, will be heard by the court after Christmas. A final judgement is expected by mid-February.

The night flight challenge is being brought by the London boroughs of Wandsworth and Richmond. A decision on this case is expected first.

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

The High Court challenge on the Aviation White Paper will highlight four key flaws:

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

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

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

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

The key grounds for the challenge on night flights are:

• the recent consultation document (6) on night flights made no mention of the fact that the Government may abolish the limit on the number of flights using Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick at night despite the fact that it was clear in the Aviation White Paper that the Government would seek legislation to give it the powers to do so;

• the consultation document did not deal with the fact that some of the planes using the airports at night are actually noisier than the DfT’s computer-generated measurements show.

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, said, “These challenges spell double trouble for the Government. Almost exactly a year ago (7) the Government published its 30 year Aviation White Paper with much fanfare. It hoped that would be the end of the debate and it could proceed with its plans for a massive expansion of aviation. Yet, a year later the protesters are still here…..and stronger than ever. Our message is clear: we stand united against both the Government’s proposals for airport expansion and night flights.”

Notes for Editors:

1. Both cases will take place at the High Court in the Strand. Both cases are expected to start at 10.30am (but the courts do not give final confirmation until the day before). There will be an opportunity on both days to interview members of the protest groups and the local authorities outside the High Court before the cases start.

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

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

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

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

6. Every 5/6 years the Government agrees with the airlines on a night flight regime for Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick. The current agreement runs out in October 2005. The Government is consulting on a new regime in two parts. Consultation on the first consultation paper ended in October. This is the consultation paper that is the subject of the Judicial Review. The Department for Transport plans to publish a second consultation paper (containing more detailed proposals) in January, but that will depend on the outcome of the Judicial Review.

7. The Aviation White Paper was published on the 16th December 2003.

For further information contact:

John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957 385650 (note on Wednesday 8th he is in Scotland and only contactable on the mobile).

Richard Buxton — solicitor in both legal challenges — 01223 328933

Steve Mayner, Wandsworth Council — 0208 871 7560 or 07860 481368

Over a thousand people have signed a nationwide pledge to resist airport expansion…

Over a thousand people have signed a nationwide pledge to resist airport expansion just over a month after it was launched outside Parliament on 8th October (1). The signatories include Dr Caroline Lucas, the Principal Speaker of the Green Party and MEP for South East England, the author and columnist George Monbiot and the veteran environmentalist, Teddy Goldsmith. People are currently signing the pledge at the rate of over 20 a day. The organisers of the pledge, to be found at www.airportpledge.org.uk, expect many more people will sign the pledge over the coming months.

The pledge is being distributed to groups and individuals across the country. People are being invited to sign up, pledging themselves to take personal action to resist airport expansion. Personal action could include anything from setting up local campaigns to taking part in non-violent direct action (2).

The pledge is in response to the Government’s Aviation White Paper launched last December. The White Paper forecast a near-trebling of passengers using UK airports over the next 30 years. It predicted there could be runways built at Stansted, Heathrow or Gatwick, Birmingham, Edinburgh and Glasgow, as well as significant expansion at most of the UK’s other airports. This is thought to be the first time that a coalition of organisations has used the threat of personal resistance to pre-empt government policy at its development stage.

George Marshall of Rising Tide, who will be administering the pledge, said, “The response to the pledge over this first month shows just how much anger there is at the Government’s aggressive plans to expand airports. If the Government does not listen, I think direct action in inevitable.”

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN ClearSkies and one of the organisers of the pledge, said “People from all walks of life are signing the pledge. It is not surprising since people feel the Government is only listening to the well-funded voices of the aviation industry.”

Green MEP Caroline Lucas said, “I have joined the hundreds of activists who have already signed the Airports Pledge to signal my commitment to taking whatever non-violent lawful measures I can to prevent new runways from being built across the South-East.”

Tony Juniper, Director of Friends of the Earth, said, “The Government’s go-for-growth plans for aviation must be stopped. They completely contradict Tony Blair’s pledge to fight climate change and will cause immense damage to our countryside, our communities and our natural habitats.”

Stephen Tindale, Director of Greenpeace, said, “Tony Blair has made climate change a key priority. Aviation is the fastest-growing contributor to climate change. If the Prime Minister is serious about tackling climate change, he has no option but to abandon any thoughts of new runways or new airports.”

Ian Leggett from People and Planet said, “Tony Blair describes climate change as the world’s greatest environmental challenge. But leading a Government that is committed to airport expansion is not consistent with global leadership on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

Stephen Joseph, Director Transport 2000, said, “Airport expansion has no place in a sustainable transport system. The Government should be concentrating on providing the UK with a first-class rail and bus system and particularly promoting substitution of short haul flights with high-speed rail. It is just not sustainable to go on giving the aviation industry the huge tax breaks it currently enjoys.”

Notes for Editors:

1. The launch took place on Friday 8th October on College Green, opposite the Houses of Parliament. The pledge is being backed by Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Green Party, People and the Planet, Rising Tide and Transport 2000, together with local protest groups HACAN ClearSkies and Swansea Airport No Expansion.

2. The Pledge is not a petition. It is an invitation for people to pledge themselves to take action. The exact wording is:

“In the event that the Government chooses to ignore the widespread and well-informed opposition, and refuses to back away from its expansionist policy, I will take personal action to block airport expansion and to prevent companies from supporting and funding it.”

People are being encouraged to sign up online at a specially-created website: www.airportpledge.org.uk

For further details contact:

John Stewart, Joint Co-ordinator of the Pledge and Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, 0207 737 6641 or 07957 385650

George Marshall from Rising Tide, Joint Co-ordinator of the Pledge, on 01865 241097.

Beware BAA Bearing Gifts, Cautions Pressure Group

Residents group HACAN ClearSkies has called the plans BAA published yesterday to deal with blight and noise around Heathrow ‘generous but cynical’.

Yesterday BAA announced a three month consultation on its proposals to assist residents whose properties may be blighted because of the continuing threat from a third runway. It also announced plans to deal with noise levels in areas close to Heathrow (1).

BAA has said that, if it finally decides to go-ahead with a third runway (2), it will offer compensation to residents whose homes would need to be demolished. It will offer to buy people’s homes at their 2002 prices (before the possibility of a third runway was proposed), plus inflation, plus 10% removal expenses. Removal expenses would also be available to people, within two or three miles from Heathrow, who would be living under the 3rd runway flight paths (3).

BAA has issued a separate consultation on noise mitigation measures. It is offering people who currently live about 2 miles from the airport help with reallocating if they decide to move (4). And it is planning to install improved sound insulation in schools and hospitals under the existing flight paths for areas within about 5 miles from the airport (5).

HACAN ClearSkies Chair John Stewart said, “This is a generous but cynical package. The levels of compensation are higher than before, but BAA’s motives in making the offer must be questioned. They are simply trying to buy off protest. This is Santa with a sneer. There is nothing whatsoever in this for the tens of thousands of people across London and the Thames Valley who live further away from the airport and who will experience increased noise levels if a 3rd runway is built.”

Notes for Editors

1. The Aviation White Paper, published by the Government on 16th December, required BAA to draw up these consultation proposals.

2. In the Aviation White Paper a 3rd runway at Heathrow was put on hold until at least 2015. The Government was concerned that, if a 3rd runway was built earlier, pollution levels around Heathrow would exceed the EU legal limits.

3. People who will live within the 66dBA Leq contour — that is the area where the daytime noise averages out at 66 decibels over the course of a year.

4. People living within the 69dBA Leq contour

5. Schools and hospitals within the 63dBA Leq contour.

Maps of the areas affected are available on BAA’s website.

For further information contact John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or his new temporary mobile number 07985 944802.

New research “destroys the myth that planes would need to leave America or Asia at unsociable hours if night flights were banned at Heathrow”

Joint Press Release from London Green Party and HACANClearSkies

Press Launch:
10am, 20th September at City Hall

Brand new research challenges the myth that night flights are required for operational or economic reasons. It destroys the the argument that planes would need to leave America or Asia at unsociable hours if night flights were to be banned at Heathrow. The findings form part of a new guide (1), published by pressure group HACAN ClearSkies, which will be launched by Darren Johnson, Chair of the GLA Environment Committee, at City Hall on Monday 20th September (2).

The launch of the guide comes at a time when the Department for Transport is consulting on a new night flight regime for Heathrow (3). It is also published to coincide with a major meeting in Paris in a few weeks time when organisations from across Europe will come together to plan a campaign to ban night flights at all European airports (4).

The question of night flights at Heathrow soared up the political agenda when Heathrow residents defeated the UK Government in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in October 2001, successfully arguing that the right to a good night’s sleep was a human right. That ruling was partially overturned when the Strasbourg Appeal Court ruled in the Government’s favour in July last year, allowing night flights to continue at Heathrow (5).

Green GLA member Darren Johnson said, “I am delighted to launch the guide. The call for a ban on night flights at Heathrow has wide support across the political spectrum. What is so useful about this handy guide is that it answers simply and clearly many of the basic questions people ask about night flights.”

John Stewart, Chair HACAN ClearSkies, “Our guide exposes the airlines to be myth-makers. It destroys the argument that planes would need to leave America or Asia at unsociable hours if night flights were banned at Heathrow. It shows the real issue is not time zones, but that it would cost the airlines more if flights were confined to the day. It will provide useful ammunition to the growing Europe-wide campaign to ban night flights.”

Notes for Editors

1. The guide asked key questions. Is a night ban practicable? It also asked questions about the economic value of night flights – below is an extract from the guide:

   “Won’t a ban merely move the problem to other countries, as it is not possible to depart and arrive during the day because of time zones?”

   Time zones are unlikely to present insuperable problems. It is on long-haul flights to Europe where it is alleged there could be problems. We consider several examples of routes to/from the UK:

   From the East Coast USA — flight time 7 hours, time difference 5 hours — so a departure after 7pm but before 10pm would arrive in the UK between 7am and 10am. Allowing a four hour turnaround, a plane leaving the UK at 2pm would arrive on the east coast at 4pm — no problems with this example.

   From the West Coast USA — it is 9/10 hours flight time and eight hours difference making a total time of 18 hours. So a US west coast departure at 6pm would arrive at 12 noon UK time. If it then took off from the UK at 2pm, it would arrive back on the US west coast at 4pm — so again, no night flights at either end, and no scheduling problems.

   From Africa — there is only a marginal time difference of +/- 2 hours. So taking Jo’berg as an example, leaving London at 7pm would arrive Jo’berg at 8am — return at 10am, would arrive at 11pm in London.

   From the Far East — a 9pm flight to Singapore would arrive at 6pm — you could not do a 24 hour return trip so they would need two aircraft. In which case a Singapore departure at 8am would arrive London at 2pm.

   In conclusion, you may not be able to get the businessman to a 9am meeting every time but it certainly looks possible to rota most flights outside the night period in both directions. The main issues for airlines appear not to be different time zones but the threat of competition (who gets in earliest) and cost (maybe some flights you can only make two rotations a day instead of three, forcing the cost up: the airlines would get less trips out of each aircraft and may also, if the rotation became particularly difficult, be required to buy additional aircraft).

   The real issue is not time zones, but that it would cost the airlines more if flights were confined to the day

2. The launch will take place on Monday 20th September in Room CRI (Lower Ground Floor) at City Hall, Queens Walk, London SE1 at 10am. GLA members, London and Thames Valley MPs and key local authority members have been invited. Some residents who live under the flight path have also been invited. Refreshments will be served.

   Copies of the guide will be available at the launch and thereafter by email.

3. The Department for Transport is currently consulting on the night flight regime at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. The current agreement with the airlines runs out in Autumn 2005. The Department is consulting on proposals for 2005-2011. It is a two-part consultation. Deadline for responses to part one is the end of October. That has taken the form of a consultation on general principles. The detaled proposals will be contained in part two, expected towards the end of the year.

4. On the 2nd October, community groups from Europe’s major airports will meet in Paris to start planning a Europe-wide campaign to ban night flights. In January 2005, the groups expect to launch ‘The Million Signature Petition’ calling for a ban on night flights at Europe’s airports. Under the terms of the new EU Constitution, if citizen groups from EC countries collect a petition with a million signatures on any topic, it requires to be taken note of by both the European Parliament and the European Commission.

5. The Judgement of the Appeal Court upheld the finding of the lower court that, in certain circumstances, night flights could infringe people’s right to a good night’s sleep under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention, but ruled that, in this case, the UK Government had balanced that against the needs of the economy, of air passengers and the profits BA claim to make from night flights.

For further information contact:

Green Party Press Office on 0207 983 4424 or 07795616812
John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957 385650

Ban on night flights at Heathrow already ruled out

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes for Editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes for Editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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