The White Paper on the Future of Air Transport
The Government issued its White Paper on 16th December 2003. The Heathrow option was supported provided the air quality standards to be introduced by the European Union in 2010 can be met. The Project for the Sustainable Development of Heathrow has been set up to look into how these European standards can be met.
What exactly is the Heathrow option?
The Heathrow option is a short 2000 metre east/west runway. To be sited between
the A4 and the M4. The Heathrow option now includes a sixth terminal or passenger
handling facilities north of the A4. BAA has stipulated that the full potential
of a 3rd runway could not be realised if aircraft had to taxi across the live
northern runway to reach the existing terminal buildings. Therefore some form of
passenger handling facility would be required north of the A4. This would primarily
be sited where Sipson is today. The option, as far as we know right now, would cause
the demolition of some 700 homes.
This number of properties does not include the land take required for roads or other
ancillary buildings that may be required for the runway. It does not take into account
the realignment of the M4 airport spur.
A Third Runway at Heathrow Would be Operated as a Single Runway Airport
What else did the Government ask for?
The Government said that BAA should look at means of making better use of the existing runways but the only method of doing this would be to renege on the agreements that were entered into many years ago to make life tolerable for local residents, in days when there was nothing like the traffic or size of aircraft we have today.
These measures are:
- Alternation of runway use whereby one runway is used for take-off and one for landing and switched around later in the day.
- Westerly preference, whereby aircraft continue to land and take-off to the west even if a light easterly wind is blowing, to avoid flying over the denser residential areas.
- Cranford Agreement whereby aircraft use the southern runway in easterly winds to avoid flying over Cranford which is near to the runway.
How difficult will it be to meet the standards?
In May 2001 an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) was declared in Hillingdon. The AQMA runs from the A40 to the southern boundary of Hillingdon Borough. The AQMA came into force because of predicted exceedences of nitrogen dioxide. The European standards cannot be met now without a third runway, in fact they have been exceeded in 2003 and 2004, it is highly unlikely they can be met in the future with a third runway.
The True Impact of a Third Parallel Runway at Heathrow
The year 2006 sees the publication of various reports which will have a serious effect on the lives of the people who live around Heathrow Airport. These will include noise and air quality reports, both of which have to meet strict standards before any third parallel runway can be built. At the end of the year, the Government intends to draw all these things together in their Review of the White Paper. Everyone should recognise what impacts, a third runway, terminal, taxiways and road construction would have on the local environment and upon the lives of the people who live here
People and Homes
The Government's scheme, as was shown in the Consultation Paper, was particularly vague in its description of what the impact of it would be. For a start, it assumes, probably quite wrongly, that people would be able to live adjacent to the airport's new boundary, irrespective of noise and air pollution and security needs. The homes so affected could total over 2000. It does not allow for cutting off cul-de-sacs. It does not allow for the construction of taxiways or aircraft waiting areas. BAA's Interim Master Plan, however, goes far beyond anything produced by the Government and indicates that 700 homes, would be destroyed and between 1600 and 2000 people would be evicted (an entire community, Sipson, and part of another, Harmondsworth, removed from the face of the Earth). Additionally the "end of runway" homes would be jeopardised by excessive noise and being in the Public Safety Zones. This amounts to another 480 homes, taking the total to nearly 1200.
Schools
There are four schools which would be immediately affected by a short third parallel runway. Heathrow Primary School, one of the best in the Borough, would be demolished; William Byrd Primary School would be over-flown at low level; Harmondsworth Primary School would be sandwiched between the present northern runway and the take-off track of the third runway; Cherry Lane Primary School would be seriously affected by noise and pollution, previously not experienced. Noise and pollution would of course spread even further towards other schools.
Businesses
Apart from the businesses north of the Motorway M4, which would lose a large portion of their customers, there is, in the villages, a number of small, and not so small, businesses which stand to lose their premises, including three post offices; five public houses, three hotels, two crèches, three garden centres, a coach depot, parking facilities and 4 business parks. There would, of course, be a loss of jobs. The loss of the facilities would affect people who would be left behind.
Green Lung and Wildlife
The area between the two villages to the north of the airport provides a green lung for the area, including the residences to the north of the M4, and would be a severe loss, if a runway were built between the M4 and the A4. There is currently a wide diversity of wildlife from many species of birds to foxes in this area. There are protected bats in Lanz Farm, which would be demolished under any of the schemes. Harmondsworth Moor park lies west of Harmondsworth Village and provides a very large area for wild habitats, in accordance with British Airways Section 106 Agreement imposed as a condition of approval for their Waterside Headquarters. All would be jeopardised by any runway operation. Any scheme would destroy our part of the M4 Linear Park and the Hillingdon Green Corridor. The large artificial Saxon Lake, in the Moor complex, would have to be in-filled for the runway to operate safely, an enormous environmental loss.
Road Construction and Diversion
The illustrative drawings issued by BAA do not show how the road systems would be adapted to cope with the new runway complex, nor how the roads would be re-directed around the, effectively, new airport. They may or may not produce this information with their next "interim master plan" which will probably come out in July 2006. Early examination of the drawings indicates that the A3044, Hatch Lane, would be diverted through Harmondsworth village and around the back of the Great Barn. This would clearly require further demolitions and transform the present cul-de-sac into a major road together with its traffic. To the East, the present Sipson Road would need to be diverted around the "new airport" and could well finish up beside the homes in Harlington. The present M4-spur would need to be tunnelled or diverted around the "new airport". Current indications are that diversion is the preferred option. This would create a completely new junction on the main M4 just north of Harlington. We believe this would require more land take and that houses in the north of Harlington would be demolished along with William Byrd Primary school.
This analysis indicates that the concept of developing Heathrow further is flawed. Not only would it do immense damage to people and their communities, the countryside, the wildlife, and the environment generally, but it would not, in the long run, provide a solution. Because of the nature of the development, i.e. a short runway, in a relatively small area, surrounded by buildings, it would always represent a threat to all the remaining dwellings and to the other villages around the airport, as further expansion would be sought by the industry. NoTRAG believes that the airport has reached its capacity, and that any of these schemes would cause so much damage and anxiety for a comparatively small gain, producing at the same time a major security problem, that they should be abandoned.
