Announcement made on National Noise Action Day

The four principal candidates for Mayor of London have all confirmed to pressure group HACAN ClearSkies that they are opposed to any further expansion of Heathrow Airport. They have all come out against a 3rd runway at Heathrow. They are united in their opposition to any plans to end runway alternation and support a phasing out of night flights (1).

HACAN ClearSkies released the news to coincide with National Noise Action Day (2).

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, said, “This is a huge snub to the Government. It refuses to call a halt to expansion at Heathrow. Yet here are all the main mayoral candidates asking it to do just that. They know that a bigger Heathrow is not required to boost London’s economy. It is time the Government stopped obeying the voices of the aviation industry and started listening to the representatives of the people of London.”

Stewart added, “The Government makes a big deal of Noise Action Day. It spends a lot of money to tell people to turn their music down and stop their dogs barking. But all the time it is planning to make the noise climate worse for people living under the Heathrow flight path. Very much a case of don’t do as I do, but do as I say.”

Selected quotes from the Mayoral candidates:

Simon Hughes, Liberal Democrat: “The Liberal Democrats remain totally opposed to any further development at Heathrow. The residents who live under the flight path have suffered enough.”

Darren Johnson, Green Party: “The Green Party campaigns to bring about an end to airport expansion and action to make rail cheaper than flying.”

Ken Livingstone: “The Mayor opposes a third runway. He does not believe it is acceptable to Londoners.”

Steve Norris, Conservative: “Environmental concerns must have a significant influence in any decision over airport expansion. That is why I am against plans for a third runway at Heathrow.”

Notes for Editors

1. HACAN ClearSkies has met with each of the candidates or their representatives and has had written and verbal statements from each of them covering a 3rd runway, night flights and runway alternation.

2. Noise Action Day is held each year. It is organised by the noise division of the National Society for Clean Air and financially supported by DEFRA (the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs).

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

High Court says residents are not expected to put up with the ‘fearsome’ noise of Harrier training

Catherine and Darby Dennis are delighted that the High Court says that they are not expected just to put up with the ‘fearsome’ noise of Harrier training from RAF Wittering that blights their lives and home at Walcot Hall, Near Stamford. Walcot is right in line with the runway at Wittering, and Harriers doing circuit training and landing approaches create what the court said “manifestly amounts to a nuisance”.

The Dennis’ went to court after years of getting nowhere with polite complaints to the Ministry of Defence. They claimed that Harrier training ruins the enjoyment of their home and seriously devalues it. The Court has agreed that even if Harrier training must continue at Wittering in the public interest, they must be compensated.

Awarded damages

Contrary to Government claims of a right to create a nuisance because it has gone on for a long time, or because it is in the public interest, MrJustice Buckley said that “selected individuals should not bear the cost of the public benefit”. He has awarded damages based on nuisance, and infringement with human rights, for risk of loss of capital value, loss of business opportunities, and loss of amenity.

Mr and Mrs Dennis say the best news is that the court has warned the MoD that even if compensation is sufficient in relation to Harrier nuisance, they and other residents cannot be expected to put up with the “Future Carrier Borne Aircraft” that is due to replace Harriers in 2012 but may be more than twice as loud. “Maybe after a few more years of Harriers, we will have some relative peace and quiet”, Darby Dennis said. “There is light at the end of the tunnel not just for us, but for other people in similar situations”.

Real legal breakthrough

Richard Buxton, their solicitor, said “this is a real legal breakthrough. It shows that people do not just have to put up with government doing what it likes. The Ministry of Defence says it is convenient for them to operate from Wittering, so it makes lots of sense that they should pay for damage that they cause doing so. It is like the need to pay for fuel for their aeroplanes. It is a cost of doing business”.

Ken Jones of FPDSavills Lincoln, the Dennis’ property adviser, said “after all this time common sense has prevailed to bring some justice to the situation”.

The Court went out of its way to say that the Dennis’ brought the case very reluctantly and have the highest regard for the RAF and what it does.

Contacts

Richard Buxton, solicitor: 01223 328933, Mobile 07900 413762.
Ken Jones, chartered surveyor: 01522 551100, Mobile 07967 555543.

Department for Transport accused of a Del Boy approach to noise measurement

• Under the way the Department measures noise, one Concorde is the equivalent of 120 Boeing 757s.
• This means, now Concorde has retired, 120 extra Boeing 757s a day could use Heathrow without changing the noise contour.

A major new report from HACAN ClearSkies (1) reveals the extent to which government figures underestimate aircraft noise. The Quiet Con alleges that the Department of Transport is preparing for airport expansion in the forthcoming Aviation White Paper in the full knowledge that the way it calculates aircraft noise is misleading.

The Quiet Con reveals that, when measuring noise, the Department for Transport:

• Gives undue weight to the noise of each aircraft passing overhead and not enough weight to the number of planes. This means that, under the Department’s calculations, one Concorde is the equivalent of 120 Boeing 757s. The report argues that for most people, “four hours worth of non-stop Boeing 757s at a rate of one every two minutes is very much worse to have to endure than one extremely loud Concorde, followed by 3 hours 58 minutes relief.”

• Doesn’t reflect the real level of noise people experience when a plane passes overhead. This is because the Department includes the quiet times of the day, and the quiet days of the year, when averaging out the noise.

• Refuses to measure low-frequency noise — the rumble and roar of an aircraft. The report’s researchers found that, when low-frequency noise is taken into account, a plane passing overhead can be around 8 decibels louder.

• Underestimates the level at which people start to get annoyed by aircraft noise. The Department for Transport argues that ‘the onset of community annoyance’ sets in when noise averages out at 57 decibels. This would mean that, in the Department’s eyes, aircraft noise is not a problem in places such as Putney, Fulham and Battersea. The World Health Organisation maintains that annoyance starts at around 50 decibels and serious annoyance at 54 decibels.

HACAN ClearSkies argues that the Department for Transport is likely to be in breach of the EU Noise Directive if it does not alter the way it measures noise (2).

The Quiet Con makes a number of recommendations (3). These include adopting the approach used in Sydney. In addition to averaging out noise, the Sydney authorities produce maps showing the actual noise level of planes along the flight path together with figures of the number of planes passing over any one area.

John Stewart, the Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, said, “The Department for Transport has a Del Boy approach to measuring aircraft noise. Our report shows that its methods are flawed and biased. But they give the impression that Government wants to get across: that the noise climate is better than it really is. The Aviation White Paper, which may propose a 3rd runway at Heathrow, will be fatally flawed unless the Department begins to measure aircraft noise accurately.”

Notes for Editors

1. The report, The Quiet Con, was produced by HACAN ClearSkies with the assistance of FANG (the Federation of Aircraft Noise Groups) and the UK Noise Association. It was written by Richard Hendin, a former pilot with the Royal Navy, with technical input from Dr David Manley BSc Hons, F InstP, MIEE, MIOA, an independent acoustician and expert in low-freqency noise.

2. See report’s summary for more details.

3. Key recommendations are listed in the summary of the report.

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

Residents would prefer the ‘freedom to sleep’

HACAN ClearSkies, representing residents under the Heathrow flight path, has branded the Freedom to Fly lobby group, to be launched on Monday (1), as nothing more than front organisation to enable the industry to campaign for a big expansion of aviation regardless of the social and environmental consequences.. The new group, which is to be headed-up by John Prescott’s former right-hand man Joe Irvin (2), is expected to argue that if aviation is not allowed to expand people on lower incomes will not have the freedom to fly open to others. (3). It is also expected to reveal survey figures to show that most people want to fly more often (4).

John Stewart, the Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, said, “If all Freedom to Fly tells us at its launch is that most people like flying and want more airports, the whole thing will be a damp squib. To tell us that people like cheap flights is no new dramatic revelation. What this new lobby group fails to address is the effect that an expansion of aviation will have on the people living under the flight paths to airports and the damage aviation is doing to our wider environment. Our members are more concerned about the freedom to sleep than the freedom to fly”.

Stewart added, “The Freedom to Fly campaign is the response of an industry under pressure to clean up its act. In recent years it has been heavily criticised by residents’ groups and environmental organisations concerned about noise and pollution. Freedom to Fly claims it is interested in campaigning for the continued right of ordinary people to fly around the world at low prices. But that is simply a smokescreen to allow the industry to carry on expanding. Freedom to Fly is a propaganda organisation for the aviation industry masquerading behind a concern for the rights of ordinary citizens. It has very little to do with equity. The appointment of Joe Irvin to front the organisation once again raises questions about the close relationship between the Labour Government and the aviation industry.”

Notes to Editors

1. Freedom to Fly is to be launched on Monday 14th January at 8.00 for 8.30am at the offices of the CBI at Centrepoint, Charing Cross Rd.. Its backers include BAA, BA, Virgin Atlantic, the Confederation of British Industry, The Transport and General Workers Union and the British Tourist Authority.

2. Joe Irvin was John Prescott’s political adviser for several years until he stood down last Summer. Previously, he was head of research at the Transport and General Workers Union.

3. The Freedom to Fly campaign is expected to argue that if residents and environmental groups get their way, people on low-incomes will be denied the freedom to fly open to their better-off counterparts.

   The equity implications of more expensive air travel are often raised. HACAN ClearSkies counter-arguments would be:

   • The poorest in society would not be losers from a clampdown on aviation. Frequent air travel is not an option for the least well off, and probably never will be. They are more concerned with finding the money to pay the local bus fare than thumbing through the brochures of Ryanair or Easy Jet.

   • Leisure travel by air is so cheap at present that it would need to go up enormously before people would need to cut flying out altogether.

   • Any equity ‘losses’ need to be balanced against the equity ‘gains’ that would result from more expensive air travel: the improved quality of life for some of the very poorest in the UK living under aircraft flight paths.

   • Curbing air travel would have environmental gains for poor people in developing countries as it is often those countries that are the big losers from global warming, to which aviation is becoming a major contributor

   • The backers of the new group promise “dramatic new polling results on the public’s attitude to flying and airport development.”

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

Pressure group accuses government of burying the true number of homes that might be demolished to make way for 3rd runway at Heathrow

A pressure group has accused the Government of burying the true number of homes that might need to be demolished to make way for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. HACAN ClearSkies, which represents residents under the Heathrow flight path, has unearthed evidence which suggests the number could be much higher than the 260 the Government has talked about. The Government might need to evict 35,000 people from their homes if an expanded Heathrow is to keep within the air pollution standards set down by the European Union.

The consultation document looking at options for airport expansion in the South East, published last week (1), admits that, if a 3rd runway were built, 35,000 people in the Heathrow area could, by 2015, be exposed to levels of nitrogen oxide above that permitted by the European Union (2).

In the consultation document the Government admits that, if it decided to go ahead with the 3rd runway, the only way it might be able to stay within EU limits would be to buy the properties of the people who would be exposed to unlawful levels of nitrogen oxide. The consultation document says the Government might “undertake fully to fund the purchase (and, if necessary, demolition) of properties which would otherwise be made subject to exceedences, and to properly compensate the owners (3).”

John Stewart, the Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, “Jo Moore would be proud of the way the Government has buried this information. It is tucked away in 3 lines in the consultation document well away from the section on land and property. The Government needs to come clean. Just how many houses could go and where will there be. Many of the homes to go could be well away from the site of the new runway”

John Mcdonnell, the Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, said, “Nobody believes that only 260 homes will go. If a runway is built many more homes will become unliveable because of the noise and the pollution. I will be pushing for a clear statement on exactly how many homes will be lost.”

Notes for Editors

1. The Regional Air Studies, laying out options for airport expansion across the country, were published by the Department for Transport on Tuesday 23rd July. They are being put out for 4 months consultation. The results will be fed into the Aviation White Paper, due out in Spring 2003. SERAS (the South East Regional Air Study) outlined options for London and the South East. The options included the building of a 3rd “shorter” runway at Heathrow.

2. Government can be subject to hefty fines by the European Court of Justice when pollution levels are exceeded. If it is drawn to the attention of the European Commission that a member state is breaching the pollution limits, the EC is obliged to ask the member state to comply. If it refuses, the EC is required to take the member state to the European Court of Justice. If the Court finds the member state guilty, it imposes fines backdated to when the breach occurred and the fines are added to on a daily basis until the member state complies. This why the Government states in the section on Air Quality (p56): “Another runway at Heathrow could not be considered that levels of all relevant pollutants could be consistently contained within EU limits”. The one way the Government could get round the EU air quality limits would to remove the people exposed to the limits by compulsorily purchasing and knocking down their homes. This emerges on p120 of the document: “undertake fully to fund the purchase (and, if necessary, demolition) of properties which would otherwise be made subject to exceedences, and to properly compensate the owners”

3. The other key quotes in the consultation document:

   In the section dealing with Land and Property (page 53): “around 260 homes would need to be physically taken”.

   In the section on Air Quality (page 55): “our modelling predicts there will be significant numbers of people exposed [to nitrogen oxide] in 2015 if a third runway is built”, but admits that number could fall to 5,000 if there were significant improvements in aircraft technology. The documemt makes no attempt to assess how likely these improvements are. But most experts agree that the industry has still to develop the technology to significantly cut levels of nitrogen oxide.

For further information contact John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650 (mobile); or Brian Sobey (of the local residents association in Harmondsworth) 0208 759 1677.

Heathrow Residents’ Group Calls on the Government to Come Clean on its Plans for the Airport

HACAN ClearSkies, the organisation which represents residents under the Heathrow flight path, has called on the Government to come clean on its plans for the airport. Reports in the weekend press (1) suggest that one of the options in the forthcoming Regional Air Studies (2), to be released shortly by the Government, will be a 3rd runway at Heathrow. But the residents’ group points out that only last November Stephen Byers, when giving the go-ahead to Terminal Five, agreed to a limit of 480,000 flights a year at Heathrow (3).

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, said, “The Government is either mixed up and muddled or dreadfully devious. Less than a year after recommending a cap on flight numbers at Heathrow, it is touting the possibility of a 3rd runway that would destroy the cap at a stroke. Local people are angry and cynical. They feel they cannot believe a word the Government says.”

Notes to Editors

1. The Sunday Times (7/7/02) carried a story which detailed the options for airport expansion that the Government is expected to unveil later this month.

2. The Regional Air Studies, which the Government has been drawing up over the last 2/3 years, are expected to be published, for 4 months consultation, on 22nd or 23rd July. The most controversial study is expected to be the one covering London and the South East — the SERAS Study. A third runway at Heathrow is expected to be amongst the options it will outline.

3. When he gave the go-ahead for Terminal Five in November 2001, Stephen Byers agreed with the recommendation of Roy Vandermeer, the T5 Public Inquiry Inspector, that the number of flights at Heathrow should not exceed 480,000 per year by the time the Terminal opens (2007). Last year the number of flights was 460,000. A 3rd runway — even if it were not a full-scale runway — would guarantee that the 480,000 cap could not be adhered to. In April 2002, an all-party coalition was launched, supported by over 90 MPs, calling for the cap to remain.