Whatever your views on a Third Runway, remember two things;
- I will vote on any parliamentary vote as you say and;
- I will aim to persuade people to reject it.
Remembering that I will vote as you say, here are some of the issues that you should consider carefully.
Supporting Heathrow Expansion comes at the expense of the regions and to the UK as a whole.*1
The Government’s own economic analysis found that once all negative impacts are monetised, a third runway could bring net NEGATIVE economic benefits to the UK overall in the long term.
There is no explicit job model and no clear job creation analysis included in the Airports National Policy Statement. Many of the few jobs created will be low-skilled and short term.
The costs of the project are now expected to rise to over £31bn, increasing Heathrow’s debt from £11bn (2014) to over £40bn in 2028. This could still increase further.
Heathrow is already the biggest single source of carbon emissions in the UK and expansion will add an extra 8-9 megatonnes of CO2 per year. Thus, a third runway is not compatible with the UK’s legally binding climate targets.
The Committee on Climate Change has advised the Government to limit growth in passenger demand to 25% between now and 2050. The Government currently anticipates twice this level of passenger growth.
While the CCC model assumes 31 megatonnes of CO2 by 2050 from aviation, the Government’s forecasts are that with Heathrow expansion, UK aviation emissions would be as high as 40 megatonnes annually by 2050.
Consequently, growth would need to be curbed at all other UK airports if a third runway is built in order for the UK not to breach its carbon targets.
The Government accepts Heathrow expansion would have a “significant negative” effect on Air Quality.
Government has provided no evidence to show how Heathrow can expand and comply with legal limits and there are currently no enforcement methods should Heathrow not meet legal requirements.
The area around Heathrow is the second major hot spot for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollution in London, with breaches of legal limits having been recorded close to the airport for many years
“Expansion would result in an additional 285,000 flights each year or over 700 extra flights per day.
Data from the Civil Aviation Authority reveals that 2.2 MILLION people experience an increase in noise from an expanded Heathrow.
Transport Select Committee concluded that 323,684 people will be newly affected by noise from Heathrow.
Hundreds of thousands of school children across the South East are already exposed to aircraft noise above 54 decibels, the sound level threshold which has a negative effect on children’s behaviour, memory and learning.”
Expansion would result in a total of 175,000 additional daily trips on local transport networks.
Heathrow has to increase the proportion of passengers accessing the airport from 40% today to 50% in 2030 and 55% in 2040. However, it has only increased this figure by 1% since 2009.
It is unclear what the cost to the taxpayer of the road and rail infrastructure will be. Estimates of these are up to £18bn, which could easily overrun. Heathrow has only committed to contributing £1bn.”
Regional Airports will handle 17 million fewer passengers in 2050 if Heathrow expands.
Transport Select Committee found that expansion at Heathrow would result in 170,000 fewer flights at regional airports by 2050.
The UK Government currently funds three Public Service Obligations (PSOs) into London airports. The total annual subsidy in 2017 for PSO’ s was £10,564,194.
The average annual cost of existing PSOs in 2017 was £480,191. 50% of this cost is met by local authorities.”
50+ top health institutions worldwide have studied the various effects of airport operations and aircraft overflights and, alarmingly, note the sometimes deadly and cumulative effects on health of; Aircraft noise; Aircraft air pollution; Traffic pollution
60+ medical conditions caused by airport operations including Increased mortality; Greater number of deaths; Reduced life expectancy; Increased morbidity
Increasing the number of overflights and passenger and freight journeys with an expanded capacity at Heathrow are therefore, logically, likely to result in greater levels, and extent of sickness
Reduced quality of life and wellbeing Individuals exposed to persistent aircraft noise over 50dB (Windsor residents included) greater risks of hospital admission and death (BMJ 2013)
24% higher for stroke
21% higher for coronary heart disease
14% higher for cardiovascular disease
“mortality from myocardial infarction in those exposed to the highest level of aircraft noise and who had lived at least 15 years in their place of residence””
It will mean a new approach path coming in over Eton i.e. noisy, and often continuance and damaging disturbance and pollution from idling aircraft engines not to mention the visual blight on your outstanding views of the River Thames flood plane and Windsor Castle.
Rendering Colnbrook unliveable.
Increasing noise and disturbance over Poyle and Langley
There will also be additional departure routes though they are unclear at this stage.
Remember, at the end of the day, I will give you the chance to direct any vote I have to take in parliament on this issue
*1 Hacan https://hacan.org.uk/?page_id=286
*2 West Windsor Residents Association https://www.wwra.org.uk/homepage-features/missed-heathrow-public-meeting/2659
Ascot, Sunninghill, Colnbrook, Poyle, Datchet, Horton, Old Windsor, Windsor, Dedworth