Heathrow Consultation
Background Information
- Index
- Read Background Briefing here
- Dft Exhibitions fuel residents' anger
- Local MP would not object if runway destroys area south of Heathrow
- Report on aircraft noise kept quiet by DfT
- True nature of DfT "CON"sultation exposed
- Summary document hides the facts
Dft Exhibitions fuel residents' anger
Residents from the areas most affected by a third runway, were even more furious when they attended Monday's Department for Transport exhibition.
Experts at the West Drayton venue, near the proposed sites for demolition, told visitors that new aviation and road vehicle technology would mean that most people would not be significantly affected by Heathrow expansion.
One elderly couple queried this with a noise expert from the Civil Aviation Authority. He admitted that the couple would be affected by increased traffic on the nearby M4 and suggested speaking to a pollution expert.
The pollution experts, from groups funded by the DfT to provide research material, claimed that there would be "a dramatic decrease in road vehicle emissions" by 2015 and pointed to a graph on display. However, this gave insufficient data to back up this claim. For a start, enquirers would need to know the dates of individual pieces of EU legislation on vehicle pollution standards!
If the DfT believes its information stands up to scrutiny, why present it in a form that makes it impossible to understand?
Visitors were also told that pollution predictions assume no increases in road size - wishful thinking considering T5 will at least double road traffic in 2008.
One thing was clear - residents, with considerable knowledge gathered from years of local debate about expansion, were sceptical about the claims being made. Although a few appeared confused. For example, one man believed he had been told "exactly where the roads will be" even though the road system in the consultation document is only an indication. (Minutes of pre-consultation meetings between the DfT and BAA revealed that what was shown in the consultation documents would be AN option that was credible rather than THE option. So the reality is likely to be worse.)
The Dft did not permit anti-noise campaigners, HACAN ClearSkies, to direct people to its alternative exhibition at the Crown Plaza Hotel next door.
Local MP would not object if runway destroys area south of Heathrow
On Monday 12th December, Spelthorne MP David Wilshire retained his pro-runway stance even when asked if he would object if a third of his own constituency were destroyed.
During an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, John McDonnell MP asked how David Wilshire would feel if the proposed runway was reconfigured for the south of Heathrow.
David Wilshire MP responded: "I can only repeat that I hope that my views remain the same wherever the runway goes, and even if it were in my constituency."
Julian Brazier, MP for Canterbury warned: "That is an option."
Mr Wilshire's focus is jobs and he claimed that a quarter of the "economically active people" in his continuency "depend directly on Heathrow for their living".
He thought it likely that runway alternation would end (massively increasing flights) but he hoped that a third runway would result in this respite agreement eventually being re-instated.
The MP's only reservation was whether the government could "sort out the environmental issues". He then admitted that he have not read all the documents, so "could not comment one way or the other on whether the Government have achieved what they said they would."
An apparently better informed former pro-expansion MP, Alan Keen, has now joined the No Third Runway camp.
John Randall MP, who secured the debate, asked the Aviation Minister, John Fitzpatrick MP what was being done for people forced from their homes.
After a wordy response in which the Minister failed to address the issue of a lack of affordable housing, the exasperated Mr Randall MP remarked: "The whole thing is ridiculous."
Report on aircraft noise kept quiet by DfT
On Friday, 2nd November 2007, The Department for Transport published a study on aircraft noise, which it commissioned back in 2001.
Critics claim the delay is because the study suggests that hundreds of thousands more people are affected by aircraft noise than had previously been thought.
Despite the ANASE study (The Attitudes to Noise from Aviation Sources in England) being the first major national study on the subject for 22 years, it has simply been put on the DfT website.
Unusually, the Department has also published comments by people asked to review the findings - some of which are critical of the study.
True nature of DfT "CON"sultation exposed
A briefing to campaign groups exposed the truth that there is very little consultation in the DfT "CON"sultation (22 Nov-27 Feb) on the Aviation White Paper.
The government believes a third runway "is right and necessary" so all that is standing in BAA's way are strict EU pollution targets, which are currently not met.
Yet the consultation document suggests that by 2015, with mixed mode and 67,000 more flights, only 27 homes will experience air pollution above legal limits.
Presumably these Hayes residents will be made homeless just like those in Sipson, the first to be forced out.
That being the case, what are people being asked to comment on?
It's not flightpaths - because the DfT won't give that information.
It's not roads - the DfT don't want our views on those even though a map shows much of Harlington will be destroyed for a new M4 Spur road.
Is it noise? Well the document ignores the government's own ANASE report which inconveniently showed people get annoyed by noise of 50 decibels.
There are no plans! Apparently these people are BAA's responsibility.
Summary document hides the facts
The 15-page summary of the Dft Consultation Document fails to give the full picture of what expansion at Heathrow will mean for millions of people.
This version of the full 120-page document arrived on some doorsteps the day after the consultation announcement.
Yet, for those eager to know which homes are worst affected, there is not a single map to show the location of the third runway and sixth terminal.
The total destruction of Sipson, displacing over 2,000 people,is glossed over in one 5-line paragraph.
Road changes are similarly dismissed, yet a new M4 spur will destroy much of Harlington to the east of the development.
However, Sir Rod Eddington's Transport Study is given prominence without any reference to his former job as Chief Executive of British Airways.
NoTRAG urges residents NOT to complete the questionnaire enclosed until they have attended public meetings and exhibitions.
