BA’s CEO, Willie Walsh, says post-election indecision will block building of any new south east runway

Willie Walsh, CEO of IAG, the parent company of British Airways, has again said that there will not be a new south east runway. He has often said this before, but this time he sees the likelihood of political indecision after the election as an additional issue. Willie Walsh thinks  that to build a runway, there would need to be “political consensus across all the parties – not just coalition partners.”  He also warned that the cost of each of the 3 runway proposals would all be prohibitive.  The expense would lead to higher landing costs, and airlines would not find that acceptable.  Willie Walsh reiterated his view that there was “no business case” for a 2nd Gatwick runway,  with not enough demand from airlines for it.   He has said in the past that Gatwick does not have the same international attraction as Heathrow.  He commented that Heathrow was already “the most expensive airport around.”  The runway decision would be a political one, and with a coalition government looking to be inevitable, there would be huge political difficulties in pushing through an unpopular runway, with dubious benefits even to the airlines.
.
Tweet

 

Post-election indecision will halt airport expansion in south-east, says BA boss

Willie Walsh also warns cost of three competing runway schemes at Heathrow and Gatwick are a political barrier

30.4.2015 (Guardian)
By Gwyn Topham (Transport correspondent)
Post-election indecision will scupper the building of any more runways in the south-east, according to British Airways boss Willie Walsh, despite pledges from the main parties to respond to the Airports Commission’s verdict on expanding Gatwick or Heathrow.

Walsh, who is chief executive of BA’s parent company IAG, said there needed to be “political consensus across all the parties – not just coalition partners – before you can have any confidence that anything will come about. I don’t see any evidence of change in the outlook.”

He also warned that the cost of the three competing runway schemes – two Heathrow options or Gatwick – would be prohibitive: “The politics of this will be the main stumbling block – not the only one, because the cost of all three options are excessive and would translate into an unacceptable increase in charges at the airports.”

Walsh reiterated his stance that there was “no business case” for Gatwick expansion, but said Heathrow would also need to review its proposals. “Heathrow is the most expensive airport around and increasing costs here would be unacceptable to us, so I think they’re going to have to sharpen their pencil and come up with a way to make it more cost-effective.”

Walsh declined to endorse a party ahead of the election, but said he did not think the Conservatives were good for business or that the prospect of a Labour-led coalition would affect his company’s economic fortunes. He said: “I’ve been very open in my criticism of all politicians. I don’t take the view that Conservatives are good for business and therefore Labour are bad. We’ve looked at the election and in the totality it’s not going to impact on IAG.”

He said devolving decisions on air passenger duty to Scotland and potentially seeing the tax cut should the SNP hold power would benefit BA but would damage airports in the north of England. “If you devolved APD the Scottish economy would benefit but at the expense of the north of England.”

Walsh was speaking as the airline group revealed it had for the first time made a profit for the first quarter of the year – traditionally a difficult trading period for European aviation. [First announced last year].

The group made an operating profit of €25m, compared with a loss of €150m in the same period in 2014. Revenue rose 12% to €4.7bn. BA drove much of the increase but Walsh said sister airline Iberia’s performance was particularly pleasing, with the standing of the brand and customer satisfaction having improved as well as revenue growing and costs being cut.

Walsh defended his own 30% pay rise to £6.4m, revealed last month. “I’ve seen my pay increase largely as a result of the increase in the share price … my base salary has remained the same. The benefit I see is one that all of the shareholders see.”

Regarding IAG’s ongoing bid to buy Aer Lingus, Walsh said “constructive” discussions were continuing with the Irish government over its stake. “We’re hoping they will be able to make a decision in relation to their shares in the next couple of weeks … we’re relatively calm about the timing.”

http://ift.tt/1Ex8imW

.

---

.

Earlier:

Willie Walsh says there is no business case for a 2nd Gatwick runway – BA has Gatwick’s 2nd largest number of passengers

November 1, 2014

Willie Walsh, the head of IAG, will not support a 2nd Gatwick runway, even if it is chosen by the Airports Commission or backed by the next government. He does not believe there is a business case to support its expansion, and there is insufficient demand from airlines for extra capacity at Gatwick. Mr Walsh campaigned heavily for a 3rd Heathrow runway before 2010, but has made frequent comments indicating he does not believe UK politicians will have the “courage” to build that. Willie Walsh says British Airways would resist higher landing charges, which would be necessary to fund a runway – either at Heathrow or Gatwick. (EasyJet has also said in the past they don’t want a new runway, if it means substantially higher charges – their model is low cost). BA would want lower costs, not higher costs, from a new runway. IAG’s shares have now risen as it has now made a profit at last, and will be paying its first dividend (and maybe some UK tax). Gatwick’s main airline is EasyJet with around 37% of passengers, and British Airways 2nd largest at around 14%. 

http://ift.tt/1zJZkzj

.

---

Willie Walsh still wants 3rd runway – but “Heathrow is always going to be a 2-runway airport”

Date added: May 26, 2014

Edit this entry.

Interview in the Independent on Sunday with Willie Walsh. He wants a 3rd Heathrow runway, though he unwillingly accepts it will not happen. He says he stopped campaigning when “the Conservatives said they were not going to support it.” … “I accept it…. I’ve not done anything since.” Now, he says, there is “not sufficient political will – it’s seen as too risky to support a 3rd Heathrow runway. Even Labour, which did back the idea when in government, has changed. “Ed Miliband was the only member of the Labour Cabinet against the 3rd runway. Now he’s the leader”…. “It’s highly unlikely we will see a 3rd runway. Heathrow is always going to be a 2-runway airport.”  We can, Walsh says, dismiss Boris Island for a start. “There’s no support for Boris island other than from Boris.” As for Sir Howard, it does not matter what he concludes, because “whatever he does will be handed over to politicians, none of whom are bound by his recommendations”.  So with no new runways we just reach south east airport capacity and UK aviation stops growing? Yes, says Walsh.

http://ift.tt/1Ex8imY

.

---

Willie Walsh of BA: Heathrow expansion is a ‘lost cause’

October 3, 2014

Willie Walsh, chief executive of BA owner, IAG, has said again that there will not be a 3rd Heathrow runway, as it is too controversial.  He says UK politicians “lack the character” to get it built. “Historically, politicians have not been brave enough and I don’t think they will be brave enough going forward. You need a big shift in the politics of the country,” he said. However, Walsh warned a Conservative or Labour-led government against choosing Gatwick for an extra runway, adding that the case for growing the capital’s second-largest airport is “significantly weaker.”  Gatwick did not have the same international attraction. He said: “You won’t find many airlines that say ‘God I’d love to be able to fly to Gatwick’. That’s why this isn’t a business issue, an economic argument. It’s a political argument and the politics of expanding Heathrow are significantly more difficult than the politics of expanding Gatwick.”

http://ift.tt/1OKiEb5

.

---

 

.

Willie Walsh tells AOA that a Heathrow 3rd runway will never be built – it is too politically difficult

October 23, 2013

Willie Walsh has said – at the Airport Operators Association in London – that a 3rd runway at Heathrow will “never” be built  – as he claims politicians will always put their election campaigns over national interests. He said nimbyism will stop politicians from doing anything with the findings of Sir Howard Davies’s Airports Commission – and a new  Heathrow runway is just politically too difficult.”  He claims, rather bitterly, that “This is politics with a small ‘p’. The national interest gets lost as the individual politicians look to understand how this will impact on them getting elected.” Perhaps he is also considering self interest. Sir Howard Davies, also speaking at the AOA conference, said of the airport capacity/new runway decision:  “Realistically this is the sort of decision that gets made early in a Parliament if it gets made at all,” as it is too contentious to be dealt with by politicians in the run-up to an election.  The Airports Commission know any new runway would take “a decade or more to come into effect” and the process will likely be delayed by legal challenges. The commission already faces the threat of a judicial review after campaign group, Stop Stansted Expansion, initiated legal proceedings earlier this month.

http://ift.tt/1Ex8jHz

.

---

.

Willie Walsh tells Transport Committee there is no business case for a Gatwick 2nd runway

December 4, 2012

At the Transport Committee evidence session, Stewart Wingate, Gatwick chief executive, said he would oppose a 3rd runway at Heathrow and wanted to see Gatwick develop as a competing hub airport.  But BA’s Willie Walsh said airlines will only pay for expansion at one UK airport and that is Heathrow, implying he would oppose a 2nd Gatwick runway.  Willie Walsh also told the committee there was no business case to expand Gatwick, and he was not aware of any discussion with airlines about the extra amount they would have to pay for a new Gatwick runway.  Willie Walsh said “the only business case you could stand over is one to invest in a 3rd runway at Heathrow, but I’m not going to waste my time because it’s not going to happen.” 

http://ift.tt/1Ex8in2

.

---

.

IAG is to pay its first ever dividend and British Airways is due to return to profit

September 28, 2014

The parent group that owns British Airways, IAG, have said that they are now making profits and will give their first dividend, probably in November.  This is their first dividend since they were created in 2011 through the merger of British Airways and Spain’s Iberia. IAG has also bought bmi and Spanish budget carrier Vueling since its formation. Analysts believe shareholders will receive their first payment at the end of IAG’s 2015 financial year at the latest, as the controversial turnaround at Iberia, which required the loss of some 4,500 jobs and sparked strikes and political outcry in Spain, has stemmed the losses. IAG posted a €96m pre-tax profit for the six months to June 30 this year, up from a €503m loss at the same time in 2013.  IAG says it is on track to improve operating profit this year by “at least” €500m, from €770m in 2013. British Airways’ CEO, Willie Walsh said in August that BA had now returned to profit for the first time since 2007, the start of the financial crisis. BA has barely paid any UK corporation tax for years – it may pay round £61 million for the 2013 financial year. 

http://ift.tt/1Ex8jHt

 

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1OKiEb9

Read more ...

Edinburgh Airport unveils 5 month trial of flight path to boost the airport’s capacity

Read more ...

New briefing on the Airports Commission – why their runway recommendation is likely to be flawed and incomplete

Before the 2010 General Election, both Conservatives and LibDems had come out against new runways in SE England. However, by September 2012 the Coalition government set up an  “Independent Commission” to look into the runway issue. Though the impression has been given that the Commission’s work is thorough, painstaking, and has assiduously covered every issue, the reality is somewhat different.  A short paper produced for AirportWatch (very readable) sets out the areas where the Commission’s analysis has not dealt with issues adequately, including key social, health and environmental costs. Some examples are that the extent of claimed economic benefits of a new runway are based on an “innovative” – ie. unproven – economic model, which leaves out the cost of noise and air pollution. There is obfuscation on climate change, where the bald fact is that any new runway would almost certainly be inconsistent with the UK’s climate target for 2050. Air quality work has not been done. The paper concludes: “… politicians and others should feel entirely free to make their own judgements about airport expansion – based if possible on genuinely independent and unbiased evidence.  They should not be influenced by recommendations from the Airports Commission. ”  
.
Tweet

 

---

 

Pdf version of the paper can be found here

Airports Commission_and_airport_expansion_28.4.2015

---

 

The truth about the Airports Commission and airport expansion

The story so far

29.4.2015

(By Nic Ferriday, for AirportWatch)

Before the 2010 General Election, both Conservatives and LibDems had come out against new runways in SE England. [i]

In October 2009 David Cameron said: “No third runway at Heathrow – no ifs, no buts.” [ii]  This was widely recognised as a political tactic to protect marginal constituencies around Heathrow.

In June 2010, soon after the coalition government was formed, transport secretary Philip Hammond said: “We have been clear in our opposition to additional runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, so the challenge we face now is making them better within existing runway capacity constraints.” [iii]

However, these statements did not prevent heavy lobbying from industry and backbench Conservative MPs for airport expansion.

An “Independent Commission” was established in September 2012.  The government appointed an ‘establishment’ figure, Sir Howard Davies, as part-time chair and four establishment and virtually silent part-time commissioners.  The detailed work was devolved to a secretariat drawn mainly from the DfT (Department for Transport).  Those staff will return to their roles at DfT after the Commission finishes to implement the policies of their political masters.

The Commission was tasked with producing a shortlist of expansion options by December 2013.  It duly responded, producing its interim report with a shortlist of Heathrow (two options) and Gatwick. [iv]

The Commission was tasked with making its final recommendation in summer 2015, conveniently after the latest date for a general election.

The Commission’s work for the interim report failed to demonstrate convincingly economic benefits of new runways.  It used an “innovative” – ie. unproven – economic model [v], for ‘wider economic benefits’ but the Commission could not find the time to explain it properly to consultees.  The assessment omitted the cost of noise and air pollution and other impacts. [vi]

While there was a good deal written about climate change, it was largely obfuscation.  The bald fact was that the expansion options would almost certainly be inconsistent with the UK’s climate target for 2050. [vii]

Despite these major shortcomings, the Commission’s interim report in December 2013 recommended one new runway by 2030.  It had, to all intents and purposes, decided there should be a new runway, irrespective of environmental and social impacts.

By this means, the Airports Commission, with other supporters of airport expansion, had firmly moved the public debate on from “if” there would be a new runway to “where” it should be built.

The Commission duly published its evaluation of the 3 shortlisted options in November 2014, for consultation. [viii]

The impenetrable economic studies in the Commission’s consultation documents produced economic benefits for all the shortlisted options (when carbon constraints were ignored). [ix] ‘Wider economic benefits’ were again based on an “innovative”   (ie. unproven) economic model, which again was not explained. [x]

The Commission’s assessments continued to omit key social, health and environmental costs which could well have made the net economic outcome negative.

The Commission failed to explain why British business opportunities in the global economy would suffer from lack of UK airport capacity at Heathrow and Gatwick when there is a large amount of spare runway capacity at all other British airports.

It failed to highlight the fact that under a quarter of flights are for business and just 14% are UK business people’s trips abroad. [xi]  The vast majority of flights are for leisure, which takes far more money out of the UK than it brings in.

The Commission failed to show how much of the demand for extra capacity is due to the current tax regime which inflates demand.  Tax-free fuel and VAT exemptions for the aviation industry are worth about £10 billion pa. [xii]

If aviation were to pay its fair share of tax, growth in demand would be far less and the economic impact of a new runway would probably move from being positive to  become negative.

The Commission has failed to assess air pollution impacts in any detail [xiii] , despite the fact that air pollution levels round Heathrow already breach legal UK and EU limits set to protect our health. [xiv]  Air pollution is estimated to kill over 4,000 Londoners every year. [xv]

It has failed to assess noise impacts properly; it has just used some “indicative” flight paths to gauge possible impacts. [xvi]  The real flight paths, and numbers of people that would be affected, are not known.

The Commission has hidden away the fact that all its shortlisted proposals are inconsistent with the UK’s targets for reducing CO2 emissions. [xvii]

Unlike other economic activities, aviation produces large amounts of greenhouse gases in addition to CO2, emitted at high altitude.  These have been dismissed by the Commission [xviii], thereby under-stating the climate impacts of expansion.

It has failed to carry out the recommendation by the government’s Committee on Climate Change that an assessment should be made of the economic benefits of new runways if aviation remains within its allowable CO2 emissions. [xix]

The reason for not doing the study on CO2 emissions is that the estimated future economic benefits of a new runway would become negative [xx]  (due to CO2 emissions requirements alone – even without the adverse economic impact of the industry’s favourable tax status, social and health costs and environmental costs).

Although jobs would be created, the Commission provides no evidence that expanding Heathrow or Gatwick would reduce unemployment.  It concludes that extra jobs at Heathrow would lead to inward migration and a need for up to 70,000 new housing units. [xxi] At Gatwick it estimates up to 18,400 new housing units. [xxii]

It gives no assessment of the impacts on schools and hospitals that are already stretched to breaking point, or road congestion, water supply or sewerage.

The Commission may do some further work on these issues.  But results will not be published or open to public scrutiny before the Commission’s recommendations are published.  So in practice such work will have no effect.

And to cap it all, the DfT has just appointed Simon Baugh from Heathrow as its Communications Director!

*************************************************************************************

Conclusions

The history of the Commission and analysis of its findings point inexorably to a ‘stitch-up’.

The Coalition government, having originally confirmed opposition to new runways, then set up a Commission whose recommendations would enable it to renege on its promise.

The Commission was packed with government employees and establishment figures and duly came up with the result the government wanted – airport expansion justified by economic benefits. 

To this end, the Commission had to leave out major ‘inconvenient truths’ – about air pollution, climate change, tax avoidance and social impacts.

It had to leave out these impacts and use an unproven economic model for ‘wider economic benefits’ in order to demonstrate an economic justification for a new runway.   

Given this situation, politicians and others should feel entirely free to make their own judgements about airport expansion – based if possible on genuinely independent and unbiased evidence.  They should not be influenced by recommendations from the Airports Commission.   

Nic Ferriday,  April 2015

http://ift.tt/1eFtvLm

---

 

Notes:

[i]  http://ift.tt/1PXAHaP ;

http://ift.tt/1zolFqJ

[ii] http://ift.tt/1PXAHaS

[iii] http://ift.tt/1zolFqL

[iv] http://ift.tt/1ieCgTH

[v] See endnote x.

[vi] http://ift.tt/Lt0lb3  paras 2.11, 17, etc

[vii] http://ift.tt/Lt0lb3   Para 5.17, page 71

[viii] http://ift.tt/1sv2rVW

[ix] http://ift.tt/1s9F0s1  Eg paras 3.22,23,72,73

[x] Ibid Para 3.128

[xi] http:/www.aef.org.uk/uploads/Bus_proportion.doc  See “detailed results”.

[xii] Green Alliance press release 15/6/10: “The UK aviation sector enjoys historic tax exemptions worth £10 billion a year, because it does not pay fuel duty and VAT is not paid on airline tickets”;
Policy studies Institute report: “ .. if it [aviation] was taxed to the same extent as trains and coaches are on fuel it would pay £8.5 billion a year (Eagle [ministerial answer] 2008) .. If VAT was charged on tickets at the standard rate of 17.5 per cent that would  bring in £2.3 billion a year (House of Commons Transport Committee 2010).”

[xiii] http://ift.tt/1s9F0s1  paras 2.56,57.

[xiv] http://ift.tt/1PXAJzx

[xv] http://ift.tt/1hpIlHL

[xvi] http://ift.tt/1s9F0s1  para 2.54.

[xvii] http://ift.tt/1LgS9FV

[xviii] http://ift.tt/1muWNUo ; Box 41, p15: “As scientific understanding in this area continues to improve, climate policies may need to evolve to take better account of NCEs.[non carbon emissions]”

[xix] http://ift.tt/1vK4KId

[xx] AW members were told at a meeting on 17/12/15 with DfT that if the ‘abatement cost of carbon’ were included in the economic assessment, the net benefits would be negative.

[xxi] http://ift.tt/1zolI5S  para 1.56 “The additional employment supported by Heathrow’s expansion would lead to a significant requirement for additional housing. The Commission’s analysis indicates this would total between 29,800 and 70,800 houses by 2030 within the local authorities assessed as part of the local economy assessment. This additional housing and population growth would also require substantial supporting infrastructure including schools and health care facilities.”

[xxii] http://ift.tt/1qcK5ir  Para 8.13

.

.

Pdf version of the paper can be found here

Airports Commission_and_airport_expansion_28.4.2015

.

.

.

.

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1zolImg

Read more ...

Landmark air pollution ruling by Supreme Court could impact 3rd runway at Heathrow due to high NO2 level

The UK Supreme Court has quashed the Government’s ineffective plans to cut illegal levels of air pollution in Britain and ordered it to deliver new ones by the end of the year. The Supreme Court Justices were unanimous in their decision, saying: “The new Government, whatever its political complexion, should be left in no doubt as to the need for immediate action to address this issue.”  This could have implications for a 3rd runway at Heathrow, as areas around the airport continue to be stubbornly above the EU legal limits.  That is due both to air pollution from the planes in addition to the huge amount of traffic on the M4 and M25. In their verdict, 5 judges ordered the Secretary of State at DEFRA to consult on strict new air pollution plans that must be submitted to the European Commission by 31 December 2015. The EU Air Quality Directive demanded the UK brought pollution down to legal limits by 2010 or apply for an extension by 2015. But the government in 2011 said that a number of areas, including London, would be unable to comply by 2015 and instead argued the law allowed it to comply “as soon as possible”. The judgement marks a victory for the campaigning legal firm ClientEarth.  HACAN commented: “This is a potential show-stopper as far as a 3rd runway is concerned.”
.
Tweet

 

 

Landmark air pollution ruling could impact 3^rd runway at Heathrow

29.4.2015 (HACAN)

A landmark ruling by the Supreme Court handed down this morning could have implications for a third runway at Heathrow.

In a unanimous verdict, five judges ordered the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to consult on strict new air pollution plans that must be submitted to the European Commission no later than 31 December 2015.

The plans require the Government crack down on the UK’s high levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollution. Lord Carnwath said the court was “in no doubt about the seriousness” of the UK’s breach of EU law in failing to meet legal pollution limits, which leaves it open to the risk of European Commission fines totalling £300 million.

The EU Air Quality Directive demanded the UK brought pollution down to legal limits by 2010 or apply for an extension by 2015. But the government in 2011 said that a number of areas, including London, would be unable to comply by 2015 and instead argued the law allowed it to comply “as soon as possible”.

The judgement marks a victory for the campaigning legal firm ClientEarth which had sued the Government over its lack of action.

The judgement could also have implications for a third runway at Heathrow.

Areas around the airport continue to be stubbornly above the EU legal limits.  It is down to a combination of pollution from the planes and the huge amount of traffic on the M4 and M25. Due to the proximity of these huge roads, it is the only airport in the UK where the EU limits are breached or are likely to be so in the future.

John Stewart, the chair of HACAN, which campaigns against a third runway, said, “This is a potential show-stopper as far as a third runway is concerned.  It is difficult to see how any Government will get away with backing a new runway at Heathrow when the plans it is now required to draw up urgently to present to the EU say it must come up with a coherent plan to cut air pollution.”

www.hacan.org.uk

 

---

UK Supreme Court orders Government to take “immediate action” on air pollution

29 April 2015 (Client Earth)

The UK Supreme Court has quashed the Government’s ineffective plans to cut illegal levels of air pollution in Britain and ordered it to deliver new ones by the end of the year.

The Supreme Court Justices were unanimous in their decision, handed down this morning, saying: “The new Government, whatever its political complexion, should be left in no doubt as to the need for immediate action to address this issue.”

The historic ruling is the culmination of a five year legal battle fought by ClientEarth for the right of British people to breathe clean air.

The ruling will save thousands of lives a year by forcing the Government to urgently clean up pollution from diesel vehicles, the main source of the illegal levels of nitrogen nioxide found in many of the UK’s towns and cities.

ClientEarth Lawyer Alan Andrews said: “Air pollution kills tens of thousands of people in this country every year. We brought our case because we have a right to breathe clean air and today the Supreme Court has upheld that right.

“This ruling will benefit everyone’s health but particularly children, older people and those with existing health conditions like asthma and heart and lung disease.

“The next Government, regardless of the political party or parties which take power, is now legally bound to take urgent action on this public health crisis. Before next week’s election all political parties need to make a clear commitment to policies which will deliver clean air and protect our health.”

The Supreme Court ruling means the Government must start work on a comprehensive plan to meet pollution limits as soon as possible. Among the measures that it must consider are low emission zones, congestion charging and other economic incentives.

ClientEarth is calling for action to clean up the worst polluting diesel vehicles, including through a national network of low emission zones.

http://ift.tt/1EnGb9O

.

---

 

Supreme Court orders UK to clean up air pollution in landmark ruling

Major victory for ClientEarth after five year legal battle

By Jessica Shankleman (Business Green)

29 Apr 2015

Ministers must draw up strict plans to crack down on the UK’s high levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollution, following a landmark ruling in the Supreme Court today.

In a unanimous verdict, five judges ordered the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to consult on new air pollution plans that must be submitted to the European Commission no later than 31 December 2015.

Lord Carnwath said the court was “in no doubt about the seriousness” of the UK’s breach of EU law in failing to meet legal pollution limits, which leaves it open to the risk of European Commission fines totalling £300m.

The EU Air Quality Directive demanded the UK brought pollution down to legal limits by 2010 or apply for an extension by 2015. But the government in 2011 said that a number of areas, including London, would be unable to comply by 2015 and instead argued the law allowed it to comply “as soon as possible”.

Defra’s plans revealed that some of the worst polluted areas of the country, such as London, the West Midlands and West Yorkshire, will be unable to meet legal limits until after 2030.

The NGO ClientEarth sued the government over its proposal, in an attempt to force the government to take more ambitious action to tackle air pollution, which is blamed for tens of thousands of deaths a year.

At a hearing earlier this month, the government volunteered to publish a consultation this autumn on a new plan that included “appropriate, feasible and effective” measures for bringing down NO2. That plan would then be submitted to the Commission by the end of this year, the government said.

The Secretary of State argued that an injunction was unnecessary because the European Commission launched its own infraction proceedings against the UK last year, which it was working to comply with.

However, ClientEarth argued Defra could not be relied upon to deliver voluntarily and asked the Supreme Court to impose an injunction.

The judges agreed with ClientEarth, saying they would be “failing in their duty” if they “simply accepted” assurances from the Secretary of State without any legal underpinning. They also noted that since 2010, the government has revealed more pessimistic predictions of when some areas could comply.

The outcome is likely to place fresh pressure on ministers to introduce bolder measures for tackling air pollution.

Some campaigners have called on the government to ban the most polluting diesel vehicles, which are widely blamed for causing spikes in NO2 pollution that may increase the risk of breathing and heart problems, expand ultra low emission zones in urban areas and revisit plans for road pricing and higher taxes for the dirtiest vehicles. The ruling could also impact plans to expand Heathrow Airport, as it is located in one of the UK’s worst air pollution blackspots.

ClientEarth lawyer Alan Andrews said the Supreme Court ruling upheld the right for people to breathe clean air. “The next government, regardless of the political party or parties which take power, is now legally bound to take urgent action on this public health crisis,” he said in a statement.

“Before next week’s election all political parties need to make a clear commitment to policies which will deliver clean air and protect our health.”

Ellie Watson, an environment lawyer for Pinsent Masons said the ruling could open the door for a series of similar legal challenges across European Member States as the UK is not alone in failing to comply with NO2 limits.

“UK Government will now have to act fast to cut nitrogen dioxide levels to avoid hefty fines,” she said. “For business, this will inevitably mean more stringent regulation but savvy firms will translate investment into low emission vehicle fleets and ramped up green travel policies into cost savings and PR benefit.

“EU law-makers may now find themselves under some pressure to rethink the directive and the EU’s approach to managing pollution levels.”

http://ift.tt/1zntsVL

.

.

---

 

See also:

EU ruling on air pollution compliance is a ‘major blow’ for Heathrow Airport expansion plans

December 16, 2014

The levels of air pollution in the Heathrow area already routinely breach EU limits (the Air Quality Directive), for nitrogen dioxide, due to the concentration of road traffic in the area – in addition to the aircraft. The UK has tried to avoid a showdown with the EU by agreeing to reduce air pollution levels in line with the EU directive by 2025, but the date has since slipped to ‘post 2030′. The European Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has now rejected this plan and UK ministers will have to prepare new measures for reducing illegal pollution levels ‘as soon as possible’. The CJEU has given the UK Supreme Court responsibility for enforcing compliance with air quality law. Judges will examine the case next year. The cross-party 2M group of councils opposing a 3rd Heathrow runway say this is a ‘major blow’ for the plans. Heathrow hopes that improvement, over coming years, in road vehicle emissions will solve their problem, but this is outside their control. The 2M groups says the Supreme Court will have to be convinced about the unlikely scenario in which air pollution can be reduced  -while Heathrow increases flights, road traffic and freight.”

http://ift.tt/1qTIxda

.

---

Defra condemned for proposals – yet again – to scrap local air pollution monitoring, with danger of reducing air quality

January 8, 2015

Edit this entry.

Just before Christmas Defra released a consultation (ends 30th January) which proposed to scrap the requirement for local authorities to monitor air pollution. Under the plans, councils would no longer have to produce detailed assessments, including those showing pollution hotspots. The number of monitoring stations could be reduced to Defra’s network of 100 stations from the current 10,500 used by local authorities. Clean Air in London, and AEF (the Aviation Environment Federation) both strongly oppose removing the requirement for local authorities to monitor air pollution, particularly given its importance as a potential ‘showstopper’ for a 3rd runway at Heathrow.  The consultation follows a similar proposal last year which we, along with over 18,000 other organisations and individuals, objected to.  Clean Air in London says it is unclear whether Defra also intends (catastrophically) to scrap the duty on local authorities to review the need for continued assessment and reporting on objectives that have been met e.g. PM_10.  Buried in the fine print, Defra admits that 38 of the UK’s 43 air quality zones will not be compliant with EU limit values forNO2 by 2015 with 3 zones (Birmingham, Leeds and London) unlikely to be able to comply with these limits until after 2030. 

http://ift.tt/1scuIHs

.

---

 

 

Defra condemned by Clean Air in London for proposals scrapping local air pollution monitoring

January 4, 2015

Air pollution is a key problem for Heathrow, making the addition of a 3rd runway very hard to justify – or to fit within legal air quality limits. The main pollutant with which Heathrow has problems is NOX – nitrogen oxides, the  majority of which comes from road traffic. The actual proportion from aircraft, airport vehicles and other road vehicles is very difficult to establish. The other key air pollutants are PM10 and PM2.5 – tiny particles which lodge in the lungs and can cause long term health problems. DEFRA has responsibility for air quality monitoring. It put out a consultation on streamlining some air pollution  monitoring, on 19th December (finishes 30th January). The aim is to no longer require local authorities to monitor 4 pollutants, and to combine monitoring of PM10s with PM2.5s. The group, Clean in London says “DEFRA’s plans would result inevitably in the scrapping of thousands of local monitoring sites that have taken a decade to put in place and probably all of them within a few months or years.”  Also that “Alarmingly, local authorities are being told to make use of Defra’s tiny national monitoring network (i.e. 137 monitors, few of which measure two or more of NO2, PM2.5 and PM10).”

http://ift.tt/1F4duSl

.

---

ClientEarth wins case – EU Court rules UK government must act to clean up deadly air pollution

 November 20, 2014

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has delivered its judgement in ClientEarth’s case,  that the UK must act to clean up illegal levels of air pollution “as soon as possible”.  Under current plans the UK will not meet legal limits for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) until after 2030 – twenty years after the original deadline.  NO2 has known harmful health impacts including increasing the risk of heart attacks and asthma. In their case at the ECJ, ClientEarth win on all points.  The judgement says the UK’s plans should have aimed at compliance by 1 January 2015 at the latest.  The UK remains in ongoing breach of EU law, and UK courts must order the government to produce a plan which rapidly achieves NO2 limits. To be successful, a plan to deal with air pollution needs to drastically cut nitrogen oxides from diesel vehicles. Much of the air pollution around airports, like Heathrow, is caused by these diesel vehicles.  Around 29,000 people die early in the UK each year as a result of air pollution, making it the biggest public health problem after smoking. ClientEarth’s case will return to the UK Supreme Court for a final ruling next year. 

http://ift.tt/1EnGbqf
.

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1znJpLC

Read more ...

April 29th: International Noise Awareness Day – Campaigners issue their ‘Noise Manifesto’

Noise campaigners representing different organizations in the UK are joining forces with campaigners in Germany, to mark the 29th April – as International Noise Awareness Day. UK campaigners want the next Government to take noise seriously.  They have a manifesto on noise, which includes a demand for reductions in aircraft noise with fairer flight paths; reduction in road traffic noise by lower speed limits; measures to limit noise from wind farms; and a ban on piped music in public areas where people cannot avoid it.  2015 marks the 20th anniversary of Noise Awareness Day. The UK noise campaigners have made links with anti-noise campaigners in Germany.  In Berlin, a day of events, including demonstrations and a conference, will take place on 29^th April organized by campaigners against road, rail and aircraft noise. Val Weedon, president of the UK Noise Association, said: “Each year local authorities and government departments are deluged with complaints about noise. Yet the election manifestos are virtually silent on noise.  We are urging the next Government to speak out about noise and implement practical measures to improve the noise climate”.
.
Tweet

 

 

April 29^th:  International Noise Awareness Day – Campaigners issue their ‘Noise Manifesto’

29.4.2015

Noise campaigners representing different organizations have come together to call on the next Government to take noise seriously.

To mark the 20^th anniversary of International Noise Awareness Day http://ift.tt/1HW0H5i on 29^th April, the campaigners have issued their Noise Manifesto.  It outlines six key things the next Government could do to improve the noise climate (see below).

 

Campaigners launch their manifesto outside Parliament

The UK campaigners have made links with anti-noise campaigners in Germany.  A day of events, including demonstrations and a conference, will take place in Berlin on 29^th April organized by campaigners against road, rail and aircraft noise.

Val Weedon, president of the UK Noise Association, said: “Each year local authorities and government departments are deluged with complaints about noise. Yet the election manifestos are virtually silent on noise.  We are urging the next Government to speak out about noise and implement practical measures to improve the noise climate”.

Meanwhile, at Gatwick on Saturday 25th, to tie in with the German activities on April 29^th, the polar bears from Plane Stupid invaded the terminal at Gatwick to protest against any plans for a 2^nd runway. Local people helped them out with a bit of singing (including in the song, a verse about “What shall we do with the noisy flight paths? … response “Keep on protesting till they stop them.”

This entertaining video shows the polar bears at work: http://ift.tt/1HW0IpP

 

 

A range of events are taking place in  Berlin on 29th and 30th April.  For more information of the Berlin events:

 

erwin.stufler@t-online.de

 

Six key things the next Government could do to improve the noise climate:

1. Aircraft Noise: Ensure fair flight paths for all

2. Road Traffic Noise: Cut speed limits

3. Rail Noise: Retrofit all trains with quieter brakes – would cut noise by up to 50%

4. Wind Farm Noise: Update official noise guidelines in order to better assess the impact on communities

5. Neighbour Noise: Fine local authorities who persistently fail to tackle neighbour noise problems

6. Piped Music: Ban piped music from public places, such as hospitals, where people have no choice but listen to it

Published by the UK Noise Association – www.ukna.org.uk, with the support of

AirportWatch  http://ift.tt/1eFtvLm,

HACAN – www.hacan.org.uk and

Pipedown – www.pipedown.info

 

April 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1HW0H5j

Read more ...

Read more ...

Not only is the election silent on climate or the new runway issue, but the runway debate is silent on climate change

The glaring omission in this election of discussion of a range of issues has been noted by many commentators. A recent open letter in the Independent asked the parties to set out their polices on a range of climate issues. Tim Johnson, Director of the Aviation Environment Federation (AEF), in a letter in the Independent, has said of the gap in  the current political discourse about climate change, that this is “nowhere more apparent than in relation to the impending decision on airport expansion….Shortly after the election, the new government will receive the advice of the Airports Commission in relation to new runway capacity. But while the commission’s head, Howard Davies, speaks as though climate change impacts are being taken fully into account, in fact the commission’s own analysis predicts that aviation emissions will exceed the maximum level compatible with the UK’s Climate Change Act if any of its shortlisted schemes at Heathrow or Gatwick is granted approval. ….This enormous climate hurdle in the way of expansion appears almost totally absent from political debate. With a new runway potentially locking the UK into an emissions path entirely at odds with our long-term climate commitments, politicians will very soon need to face up to the CO2 consequences of sanctioning airport growth.”
.
Tweet

 

 

Letters:  Airport debate is silent on climate change

26.4.2015 (Independent on Sunday)

Peter Wadhams and his co-signatories (18 April) highlighted the gap in current political discourse about climate change. This is nowhere more apparent than in relation to the impending decision on airport expansion.

Shortly after the election, the new government will receive the advice of the Airports Commission in relation to new runway capacity. But while the commission’s head, Howard Davies, speaks as though climate change impacts are being taken fully into account, in fact the commission’s own analysis predicts that aviation emissions will exceed the maximum level compatible with the UK’s Climate Change Act if any of its shortlisted schemes at Heathrow or Gatwick is granted approval.

This enormous climate hurdle in the way of expansion appears almost totally absent from political debate. With a new runway potentially locking the UK into an emissions path entirely at odds with our long-term climate commitments, politicians will very soon need to face up to the CO2 consequences of sanctioning airport growth.

Tim Johnson
Director, Aviation Environment Federation (AEF), London, SE1

http://ift.tt/1PS1Ufc

.

.

Nic Ferriday, speaking for AirportWatch, said:

“The Airports Commission is well aware that a new runway puts UK carbon targets seriously at risk. However, this is not politically convenient. All the main parties have been only too glad to keep the climate implications of a runway hidden away, and keep the highly contentious issue of a runway off the agenda for the election.

“That was why the Conservatives arranged for the Commission to only report after the election. Some would call that cynical.”

.

---

 

Letters:  Climate change: time is shorter than we thought

16..4.2015 (Independent)

Atmospheric CO2 has risen above 400 parts per million and is accelerating. The Arctic Ocean may well be ice-free this summer; methane gas is being released from the melting permafrost into the atmosphere and ocean acidification is intensifying. Sea levels are now rising far faster than predicted only a couple of years ago.

All these changes are irreversible. They make maintaining the global temperature rise below 2C an illusory goal. The unavoidable outcome of this nightmare scenario is a rapidly deteriorating climatic situation.

It will pose a number of grave problems for all aspects of society in the short-term and certainly well before the end of the next parliament.

The effects will be economic as well as ecological and are already evident. The mitigation actions needed are colossal. They will drive up energy demand at a time when international agreements on climate change will require the imposition of strict limits on carbon emissions and drive up public expenditure as tax receipts from economic growth shrink.

The future of all nations is irrevocably and immediately threatened. Yet we see little or no discussion of this by any of the main political parties during this general election campaign.

We therefore request for the benefit of the electorate and as a matter of urgency that all parties specifically set down clearly what policies they propose on  the following:

– ceasing all infrastructure development in flood risk areas as determined by the latest science and observations of ice- sheet collapse;

– plans to evacuate flood-prone cities and to protect critical infrastructure such as nuclear power stations;

– moving to a zero fossil-fuel economy by the next decade, with full acknowledgment of all  the political and  economic impacts;

– the extent of international co-operation to be pursued on climate change, in particular focusing on the management of security – given the paradox that the global nuclear weapon arsenal (including Trident) is being upgraded when  the futures of all nations  are most threatened by climate change.

Peter Wadhams – Professor of Ocean Physics, University of Cambridge

Angie Zelter

Dr Mark Levene

Dr Mayer Hillman

Robert Aldridge

Professor John Whitelegg

Dr Robin Stott

Jeffrey Newman

John Pilger

Paul Ingram

Kevin Lister

 

---

 

Letters:  The neglect of the issue of climate change in the election

16.4.2015 (Independent)

The present election campaign is being labelled fascinating by some and frustrating by others. My frustration is the comparative neglect of  the massive issue of  climate change.

A consensus of scientists suggests that on current trends we have 15 years before the emission of greenhouse gasses destabilises the world climate disastrously and irreversibly. With this prospect, political wrangling over many other issues becomes irrelevant or even absurd.

Why should political leaders not appeal to the electorate with a programme that involves the necessary investment in renewable energy sources and the disinvestment in fossil fuels?

The financial cost of such a policy would be substantial, but the long-term benefit would be immeasurable.

People do care about the future for their children and grandchildren. Rather than buy votes for short-term advantages, shouldn’t our leaders be visionaries who can harness this deeper concern, and implement effective policies on climate that can be replicated across the world?

Maurice Sinclair

Birmingham

---

 

General Election 2015: Academics call on parties to set out plans to evacuate cities and move to a fossil fuel-free economy

They slammed politicians for ignoring climate change during election campaigning

by TOM BAWDEN
17 April 2015 (Independent)

Academics and campaigners are calling on all parties to set out clear plans to evacuate cities and move to a fossil fuel-free economy, as they condemn politicians of all persuasions for virtually ignoring climate change during their election campaigning.

In a letter published in the Independent, University of Cambridge Professor Peter Wadhams and nine other leading climate change experts warn that the world is headed for an ‘unavoidable nightmare’ that will “pose grave problems for all aspects of society in the short-term and certainly well before the end of the next parliament”.

Particular problems are likely to result from the rising sea levels, ocean acidification and melting Arctic ice and permafrost associated with climate change, the letter warns.

“The future of all nations is irrevocably and immediately threatened. Yet we see little to no discussion of any of this by any of the main political parties during this general election. We therefore request for the benefit of the electorate as a matter of urgency that all parties specifically set down clearly what policies they propose,” said the letter, also signed by Professor John Whitelegg of the University of York and University of Southampton genocide researcher Dr Mark Levene.

The letter also calls on parties to set out their policies for protecting critical infrastructure such as nuclear power stations from flooding, for building infrastructure in flood risk areas and for international co-operation to tackle climate change.

“I think it’s a disgrace that climate change is seeing so little attention and it’s a sad indictment of the political system in the UK and internationally,” Prof Wadhams told The Independent.

“Emissions in the UK and EU have come down a little bit but only because we have outsourced our manufacturing to China and India where emissions have gone up in leaps and bounds,” he added.

http://ift.tt/1CTrhVI

.

Another area where the silence on climate impact is stunning is the possible new south-east runway.

The Airports Commission, due to make its runway recommendation shortly after the election, has given the impression that it has carefully considered the issue of carbon emissions generated when saying that Heathrow or Gatwick should expand.

The industry, the media and the politicians have taken it as unquestioned that a runway can be added without endangering carbon targets. However, the reality is that the Commission and the Department for Transport are well aware that the addition of a new runway would mean UK aviation would exceed the recommended carbon limit, if the UK is to meet its overall climate obligations. But that information is hidden away in an appendix to the Commission’s consultation.

Nic Ferriday, speaking for AirportWatch, said:

“The Airports Commission is well aware that a new runway puts UK carbon targets seriously at risk. However, this is not politically convenient. All the main parties have been only too glad to keep the climate implications of a runway hidden away, and keep the highly contentious issue of a runway off the agenda for the election.

“That was why the Conservatives arranged for the Commission to only report after the election. Some would call that cynical.”

Some background:
The Committee on Climate Change recommended in 2009 that the carbon emissions from UK aviation should not exceed their level in 2005, by 2050. The figure set for annual UK aviation carbon is 37.5 megatonnes of CO2 pa.

That level is what is required in order for the UK to have a good chance of meeting its climate targets under the Climate Change Act, by 2050.

(The target for aviation is already a very generous one – effectively double the carbon emissions compared to their level in 1990, while all other sectors have to cut theirs by 85%).

Adding a new runway in the SE does not of itself increase UK aviation CO2 emissions, but it has to be taken as part of the UK whole. Taking into account the growth forecast by the Airports Commission at all regional airports as well as a new runway in the SE, the target is breached by a large margin.

This is actually shown in the Airport Commission’s report but is buried away in the small print. www.aef.org.uk (home page) shows their results in accessible form.
The graph is shown on the attached.

While the political parties mention airport expansion when pressed, none except the Green Party are citing climate change as a consideration when discussing airport expansion.

http://ift.tt/1eFtvLm

 

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1EMZUmv

Read more ...

Newham Council lacks the bravery of Boris to turn down unsuitable developments like City Airport expansion

Read more ...

Polar bears & anti-2nd-runway campaigners descend on Gatwick terminal with dance & song

On Saturday morning, in Gatwick’s South Terminal, there was an invasion of fancy-dress polar bears took place, who danced, chanted and unequivocally put their “NO NEW RUNWAY” message across. The dancing polar bears – Plane Stupid – descended on the terminal, putting across their message that a new runway (either at Heathrow or Gatwick) is a threat to our carbon targets.  Asking” Whose Climate?”(response “Our Climate”) and “Whose Future?” (response “Our Future”) and with huge banners proclaiming “Any Runway is Plane Stupid” and “Climate Chaos Obviously” (rather that Gatwick Airport’s mantra of “Gatwick Obviously” they entertained travellers, putting their message across in a good humoured way (somewhat perplexing the security guards …) for half an hour. No arrests were made, and the polar bears then danced their way out of the terminal. Other protesters against the 2nd runway plans sang the “No Way, 2nd runway, NEVER NEVER NEVER” song, and marched a banner around the terminal. T-shirts read: Gatwick protest. “NO 2nd runway.” “Save our tranquillity.” “Save our economy.”  “Save our countryside.”  ” Save our environment.”  “No new flight paths”  (No passengers were inconvenienced in the making of this protest).  
.
Tweet

25.4.2015

and

 

Despite the light hearted tone of the protest, it indicates the intensity of opposition to a new runway at Gatwick.  This comes from all across the political spectrum, and from all sectors of the local communities around Gatwick.

The reasons for intense local opposition are many and varied, including noise, air quality, total change in character of the area, threat to parts of the local economy, pressure on surface transport, need for thousands of more homes, loss of Green Belt ….. and so on ……..

There are also serious concern about the UK’s carbon emissions, and the likelihood of a new runway breaching UK aviation carbon limits. That would be likely to then cause the UK to miss its national carbon target.

 

The Gatwick song (to the tune of “What shall we do with the Drunken Sailor” lyrics are here.The Gatwick Song (2)

Refrain:    

“No Way, 2nd Runway (x3)

Never, never, never

---

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1EuTFlb

Read more ...

Great majority of election candidates around Gatwick oppose a 2nd runway

GACC (Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign) members have carried out a survey of the views of parliamentary candidates about a new runway at Gatwick. All 11 Conservative Parliamentary candidates in the seats around Gatwick (Crawley, Horsham, Arundel and South Downs, Mole Valley, Reigate, East Surrey, Sevenoaks, Tonbridge & Malling, Tunbridge Wells, Mid Sussex, and Wealden) oppose a 2nd  runway.  So do all Green Party candidates.  So do all UKIP candidates.  Almost all Lib Dem candidates oppose a 2nd runway – except for a few; the odd ones out being the candidates for Crawley and Horsham.  The Labour candidates are about equally divided, half for and half against the runway.  Many of the candidates have now signed a pledge against the runway, appreciating the runway would produce an increase in aircraft noise, worsened environment and lack of infrastructure such as roads, rail, schools and hospitals. At the national level both the Labour and Conservative manifestos say in effect that they will wait for the recommendations of the Airports Commission (expected June/July).  At the Lib Dem conference last year a resolution supporting a Gatwick runway was overwhelmingly defeated, and their manifesto reflects this policy but leaves a little wriggle room if the Airports Commission comes up with “compelling new evidence.” 
.
Tweet

 

Candidates Oppose Gatwick 2^nd Runway

26.4.2015

(GACC – Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign)

All eleven Conservative Parliamentary candidates in the seats around Gatwick oppose a second runway.  So do all Green Party candidates.  So do all UKIP candidates.

Almost all Lib Dem candidates oppose a new runway, the odd ones out being the candidates for Crawley and Horsham.  The Labour candidates are about equally divided, half for and half against.

GACC members carried out a survey of parliamentary candidates with many of them signing a pledge to oppose a new runway due to increase in aircraft noise, worsened environment and lack of infrastructure such as roads, rail, schools and hospitals.

At the national level both the Labour and Conservative manifestos say in effect that they will wait for the recommendations of the Airports Commission (expected June/July).  If all the Conservative candidates were to be re-elected the bloc of eleven votes in a hung Parliament might perhaps just be sufficient to stop the runway.

The Green Party candidates are in line with their national manifesto which opposes any new runway, mainly on climate change grounds.

The UKIP manifesto opposes any new runway but supports instead greater use of Manston.

At the Lib Dem conference last year a resolution supporting a Gatwick runway was overwhelmingly defeated, and their manifesto reflects this policy but leaves a little wriggle room if the Airports Commission comes up with compelling arguments.

The constituencies included in the survey were Crawley, Horsham, Arundel and South Downs, Mole Valley, Reigate, East Surrey, Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Malling, Tunbridge Wells, Mid Sussex, and Wealden.

Not all candidates could be contacted but the summary above gives an accurate reflection of the majority views.

www.gacc.org.uk

.

---

Councils around Gatwick opposed to a 2nd runway

Almost all the county, borough, district, town and parish councils around Gatwick have decided to oppose a second runway.

• Kent County Council has reversed its position, from support for a second Gatwick runway to opposition.
• After a long and passionate debate, West Sussex County Council councillors voted 37:26 to cancel their support in principle and to oppose a 2nd runway.
• Surrey County Council is sticking to its policy, agreed a few years ago, to oppose a second runway unless sufficient infrastructure improvements are made first.
• Crawley Borough Council, the planning authority for Gatwick, has voted 25:11 to oppose a second runway.
• Horsham District Council has voted 23:1 against.
• Mole Valley District Council has voted unanimously against.
• Tunbridge Wells Borough Council has voted 39:1 against.
• Tandridge District Council has sent in a response drawing attention to its core strategy to oppose any expansion of the airport which would adversely affect their residents.
• Mid Sussex District Council has strongly opposed a 2nd runway
• Wealden District Council has opposed a 2nd runway
• Reigate and Banstead Council is still making up its mind.
• Horley Town Council and virtually all the fifty or so parish councils around Gatwick have voted No to a runway
• The only odd one out is East Sussex County Council which voted 27:19 to support a 2nd runway. Most of the votes in favour came from councillors in seaside areas such as Hastings or Eastbourne who were enticed by the prospect of more jobs.
• None of the Members of Parliament around Gatwick support a 2nd runway. Eight out of nine MPs have declared their opposition. One (Henry Smith) says that Gatwick have not yet made a case for a new runway, and has now stated that the costs would outweigh the benefits.

 

.

and see

http://ift.tt/1BsQ2sU  for much more on councils opposed to a new Gatwick runway

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1DAdHHa

Read more ...

Heathrow finally completes £4.8 million of insulation work on schools etc – after 10 years

Read more ...

Crispin Blunt, Kwasi Kwarteng and Sam Gyimah send open letter to Gatwick Chairman blasting Gatwick 400,000 Heathrow leaflets stunt

Crispin Blunt, Kwasi Kwarteng and Sam Gyimah (all Surrey MPs in the Coalition government and Conservative candidates) have written to Gatwick Airport Chairman, Sir Roy McNulty, to complain about Gatwick’s leafletting of the Heathrow area. Gatwick has sent out provocative leaflets to some 400,000 households in constituencies around Heathrow, pushing the case for a Gatwick runway. It is doing this at the same time as failing to engage with local communities around its own airport. Gatwick is trying to frighten residents around Heathrow, about the appalling noise and other environmental and economic impacts of a 3rd Heathrow runway. Instead it pushes Gatwick’s negative and unbalanced campaign for its runway. The MPs say Gatwick’s actions demonstrate “an astonishing disregard for the concerns of families and communities around Gatwick, about whom you should have most concern.” They say: “Instead of frightening the communities around your competitor, you should focus on engaging with the communities that surround your airport.” “If Mr Wingate or his team had taken the time to adequately consult with his local communities …[Gatwick would know] … there are wide ranging concerns about the huge strain Gatwick expansion would place on local transport infrastructure, housing, schools and healthcare.”
.
Tweet

 

 

Crispin Blunt signs open letter to Gatwick Chairman blasting Gatwick leaflet stunt

 21.4.2015 (Crispin Blunt – MP for Reigate in the Coalition government)

Crispin Blunt has co-signed an open letter to Gatwick Airport Chairman, Sir Roy McNulty, following revelations that Gatwick Airport is sending provocative leaflets to 400,000 households in constituencies around Heathrow.

Whilst Gatwick is failing to engage with local communities around its own airport, with this leaflet, they are seeking to frighten residents around Heathrow. It ignores the considerable local and national benefits of Heathrow expansion and escalates Gatwick’s negative and unbalanced campaign against Heathrow.

Below is the letter co-signed by Crispin Blunt, Conservative candidate for Reigate, Kwasi Kwarteng, Conservative candidate for Spelthorne, and Sam Gyimah, Conservative candidate for East Surrey:

The Letter:

Sir Roy McNulty, Chairman, Gatwick Airport

Dear Sir Roy,

On behalf of constituents in communities around both Heathrow and Gatwick – residents we hope to continue to represent if re-elected – we are deeply concerned about the scare tactics being deployed by your Chief Executive, on behalf of Gatwick airport, as the debate on airport capacity draws to a conclusion.

The mass mail you have sanctioned, targeting 400,000 leaflets to residents around Heathrow – west London, Surrey and Berkshire – demonstrates an astonishing disregard for the concerns of families and communities around Gatwick, about whom you should have most concern.

It is unacceptable that you continue to ignore your own communities, those who will be most affected by the considerable impact of expansion at Gatwick, and to suggest that ‘Gatwick sounds better’. It doesn’t, and if Mr Wingate or his team had taken the time to adequately consult with his local communities he would know this. You would also know there are wide ranging concerns about the huge strain Gatwick expansion would place on local transport infrastructure, housing, schools and healthcare. Local groups, such as CAGNE and GACC, continue to raise concerns – which have been ignored – about the devastating impact of an expanded Gatwick leaving little local authority or local political support for your plans.

In addition, taking this approach during the election campaign is a blatant attempt to capitalise on outdated views of the political landscape around Heathrow, where expansion is supported by more than 50% of local people polled, precisely because of the employment (40,000 local jobs, 10,000 apprentices) and other benefits that will follow.

Airport expansion, wherever it may be, will require careful and considered planning to ensure that the whole country benefits and that local communities are protected. Your proposals deliver neither.

Instead of spending resources on leafleting households around Heathrow you should be looking after your own neighbours, by concentrating resources on mitigating the impact of P-RNAV and sorting out the altered Gatwick departure flight paths, which are causing an explosion of complaints from residents newly affected by noise.

Instead of frightening the communities around your competitor, you should focus on engaging with the communities that surround your airport.

Yours sincerely,

Kwasi Kwarteng
Conservative candidate for Spelthorne

Sam Gyimah
Conservative candidate for East Surrey

Crispin Blunt
Conservative candidate for Reigate

.

http://ift.tt/1DoFadI

.

---

---

 

Earlier:

Gatwick distributes 400,000 flyers around west London warning of Heathrow noise (to get backing for Gatwick runway)

April 16, 2015

As Gatwick has difficulty getting much local support for its runway plans (almost all local councils and local MPs oppose it) this week the airport is distributing 400,000 flyers to homes across west London. Uxbridge and South Ruislip in particular are being targeted, (86,000 leaflets) warning about the increased noise there would be from a Heathrow 3rd runway.  Gatwick has focused its attention on negative campaigning about Heathrow, though Heathrow has not – publicly – being doing the equivalent on Gatwick. Gatwick is not revealing the cost of their 400,000 leaflet effort. As the local residents do not have the ability to choose whether a runway is built, the aim is to influence local politicians. Gatwick claims that 683,000 people and 362 schools would be impacted by noise if a 3rd Heathrow runway was built, while only 36,000 people and 15 schools by a Gatwick runway. In the 55 Lden contour. (Clever of them, as the flight paths are not yet know …. nobody knows the numbers). Heathrow and Gatwick are arguing over the figures. Gatwick appears to discount the impact of increased noise from its own planned runway. This has infuriated local residents in the Gatwick area. Gatwick’s ploy of leafleting people near Heathrow, who are rightly frightened at the prospect of a 3rd runway – playing on their fears – has further increased local opposition.

http://ift.tt/1NOMURu

.

.

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1DoFatY

Read more ...

Stop Stansted Expansion calls for cross-party support at the election, to end night flights

Ahead of the general election and local council elections on 7th May, SSE is calling upon all local candidates to support a ban on night flights at Stansted. Stansted currently has permission to operate 12,000 night flights a year, between 11.30pm – 6am, more than twice as many as are permitted at Heathrow. [Heathrow is restricted to 5,800 night take-offs & landings /year between 11.30pm- 6am]. SSE has long argued to the Government that night flights have a far greater impact on local residents around Stansted because of its rural location where background noise levels are generally very low. The number of Stansted night flights has significantly increased over the past year, and this is believed to be largely due to the closure of Manston Airport and transfer of its cargo flights.  SSE says “night” should not only be a 6½ hour period, but should be the 8 hours between 11.00pm to 7.00am, to give people a proper night’s rest. There are no restrictions on the number of aircraft permitted to take-off and land at Stansted during the so-called shoulder periods between 11.00pm and 11.30pm and between 6.00am and 7.00am. SSE is inviting politicians of all parties to support a timetable to progressively phase out nights flight
.
Tweet

 

Stop Stansted Expansion calls for cross-party support to end night flights

25.4.2015 (SSE)

Ahead of the general election and local council elections to be held on 7 May, Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) is calling upon all local candidates to support a ban on night flights at Stansted.

Stansted currently has permission to operate 12,000 night flights a year, more than twice as many as are permitted at Heathrow. SSE has long argued to the Government that night flights have a far greater impact on local residents around Stansted because of its rural location where background noise levels are generally very low.

The number of night flights at Stansted has significantly increased over the past year, and this is believed to be largely due to the closure of Manston Airport. This led to Manston’s remaining cargo airlines transferring to Stansted. Whilst at Manston, these aircraft were subject to a ban on night flights, imposed by the local council. However, there is no such ban at Stansted.

SSE also wants all politicians to recognise that the 12,000 limit only applies to the 6½ hour period between 11.30pm and 6.00am whereas the normal definition of ‘night’ is the 8-hours between 11.00pm to 7.00am. There are no restrictions on the number of aircraft permitted to take-off and land at Stansted during the so-called shoulder periods between 11.00pm and 11.30pm and between 6.00am and 7.00am.

SSE has long argued that those living in the vicinity of Stansted and/or under its flight paths should have the right to an uninterrupted night’s sleep, which should mean a full 8 hours and not just the 6½ hours covered by the current restrictions on night flights.

Martin Peachey, SSE’s noise adviser, commented: “Politicians of all persuasions appear sympathetic to ways of reducing the effects of sleep disturbance and adverse health impacts caused by night flights for residents around airports. With the approaching general election and local council elections, we invite politicians of all parties to support a timetable to progressively phase out nights flights”.

ENDS

NOTES TO EDITORS
Further background is contained in SSE’s submission on night flights to the Government in January 2014 – see http://ift.tt/1E5UmjC

FURTHER INFORMATION AND COMMENT

SSE Campaign Office,

01279 870558

info@stopstanstedexpansion.com

http://ift.tt/1dlrXFG

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1E5UnE9

Read more ...

Knutsford Council urged to lobby Manchester airport over possible increase in night flights

Councillors in Knutsford are planning to lobby Manchester Airport on concerns about more night flights over the town. Knutsford is only a few kilometres from the end of the runway. Map.  A Knutsford councillor, who is on the airport’s community relations team, was informed by the airport’s management that Terminal 2 is set to double in size, with plans for more night flights to cope with increased traffic.  This will affect Knutsford.  Currently, an agreement curtails night flights – take offs and landings – but circumstances will change with both the expansion and the ending of the current arrangements in 2017. The council need to lobby on details of the timing of those night flights. The airport statement gave the usual bland assurances about “improving the passenger and airline experience” and having controls  on night noise that are “amongst the toughest in the UK ” and balancing the “interests of our local communities and the demand from our passengers to fly.” Sadly, the benefit tot he airlines and passengers generally trumps the interests of the residents. Manchester Airport allows a large number of night flights already – with a limit of around 11,000 per year (7% of the total flights). That can work out to more than 45 per night, in the period from 23:30 to 06.00.
.
Tweet

 

 

Council urged to lobby airport over possible increase in night time flights over Knutsford

22.4.2015 (Knutsford Guardian)

COUNCILLORS in Knutsford are planning to lobby Manchester Airport bosses over concerns about more night flights over the town.

Worries surfaced after a Knutsford councillor, who is on the airport’s community relations team, met with management last month and was told Terminal 2 is set to double in size, with plans for more night flights to cope with increased traffic.

Currently, an agreement curtails night-time flights in and out of the airport, but circumstances will change with both the expansion and the ending of the current arrangements in 2017.

Cllr Tony Dean told a meeting of Knutsford Town Council it would lead to more flights and disturbance to Knutsford residents.

He explained: “Terminal 2 will double in size and that will mean more night flights.

“The current restrictions and agreements run out in the next two years, so as a council we need to lobby when those night-time flights will be and so they are not keeping residents awake.”

The Guardian asked the airport specific questions, including which areas of Cheshire would be affected by the expansion of T2 and how the current restrictions on night-time flights would change when the current agreement runs out.

A spokesman said: “At Manchester Airport we continually assess ways in which we could enhance our infrastructure so as to further improve the passenger and airline experience.

“Our controls on night noise are amongst the toughest in the UK and balance the interests of our local communities and the demand from our passengers to fly. Retaining this balance will always be a significant priority.”

What do you think about the expansion of terminal 2 and the possible ramifications it could have for Knutsford? Emailyourviews@guardiangrp.co.uk.

http://ift.tt/1Gr90mg

.

.

Manchester Airport has just under 163,000 air transport movements (flights) in 2014.

7% of that is  11,410.

Divided by the number of nights in the year, it averages out at 31 flights per night – with night being considered to be 23.30 to 06.00.

---

---

 

Manchester Airport’s Night Noise policy   2012 – 2017

http://ift.tt/1I5HRHF

Some extracts: 

Policies NN1-NN3 cover the period 23:30-05:59.

This policy ensures that the number of night movements is capped at no more than 7% of total movements of the airport. This obligation is part of a legal agreement with Cheshire East Council.

An essential part of our night-period noise controls is a system of classifying aircraft according to their ‘quota count’. The system gives each aircraft a ‘quota count’ depending on the noise they generate on take-off and when landing (based on the noise levels measured at the time that aircraft was first introduced).

NN1 Night movement limits will not exceed 7% of the Airport’s total movements.

NN2 The QC [Quota Count] points budget for each Summer/Winter season up to Summer 2017 will be fixed at 7000 points for Summer and 3000 points for Winter. Points that are unused in any season shall not be carried forward to subsequent seasons.

NN3 Seasonal movement limits of 10150 (Summer) and 3895 (Winter) will be maintained until Summer 2017.  [Summer is start of April to end of October – the period between clock changes].

NN4 Between 23:00 and 06:59 no QC16 or QC8 aircraft will be allowed to arrive or depart. NN5 Between 23:30 and 05:59 no QC4 aircraft will be scheduled to depart.

.

Noise penalties;

NN6 Between 23.00 and 06.59, financial penalties will be applied to aircraft that exceed the following noise levels on departure (monitored at 6.5km from the start of roll). 23.00 – 23.29 82 dB(A) 23.30 – 05.59 81 dB(A) 06.00 – 06.59 82 dB(A) A minimum penalty of £750 will be applied for the first decibel by which the noise level is exceeded. A further £150 will be added for each decibel in excess of the noise limit.

.

.

.

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1Gr90mm

Read more ...

Teddington residents miserable under Heathrow easterly take-offs – though officially they are not affected

Teddington is an area largely affected by easterly take-offs from Heathrow.  The wind direction in the south east of England is generally for westerly winds for around 70 – 77% of the time. The level of aircraft noise over Teddington is therefore not a problem during westerly take-offs.  The way aircraft noise is measured – by taking an average over a period of time, and over many months, rather than the plane noise on a particular day – means that Teddington and areas like it, are not deemed to be within the noise contours that imply a significant level of noise nuisance. However, during periods of easterly winds, which can last for over 10 days, the level of noise is deeply intrusive. The campaign, Teddington Action Group, has made a powerful short film that illustrates the noise they are subjected to, for perhaps 25 -30% of the year. Yet, on the noise averaging system used by the CAA and the Airports Commission, they are considered not to be affected by noise. They wonder how many other areas can be regarded as untroubled by noise, when the reality on the ground is very different. And how much worse would this situation get, with how many more affected, if there was a Heathrow 3rd runway.  Watch the film. 
.
Tweet

 

 

 http://ift.tt/1JxZoGQ

 

 The map above is one prepared by the CAA for the DfT, in October 2014.

The blue line shows the level of noise in 2013, with the outer line showing the 57 dB Leq noise contour for a year with 77% westerly wind and 23% easterly wind.

More on how Leq is measured here].

---

 

The map below was prepared for the Airports Commission, rather confusingly combining the noise area with and without a new runway. Either way, Teddington is shown as outside the noise are, though it would in reality be heavily overflown.

http://ift.tt/1JxZoXb

---

 

The Teddington Action Group (TAG) website says:

19.4.2015

Last week was a busy week what with meeting Boris Johnson with Tania Mathias and Zac Goldsmith and them pledging their support, and having a meeting with Vince Cable about the future and current concerns.

TAG were present and contributed to the Community Noise Forum last Monday. .http://ift.tt/1HwxD2p

---

A 3rd HEATHROW  RUNWAY COULD BRING AN EXTRA 260,000 FLIGHTS A YEAR

* A third runway could bring 54% more air traffic roaring over our homes, schools and open spaces.
* More aircraft means more noise and airborne pollution and the effects can be a serious health hazard.
* A third runway at Heathrow could see flights increase from 480,000 to 740,000 a year.
* Increased noise nuisance will inevitably affect quality of life the value of your home.

Although the initial trials are behind us, (summer 2014) more may take place and a public consultation in 2016 will help determine where flight-paths will be by the 2020 mandate.

Even without Heathrow expansion, there are proposals for new concentrated flight paths over Teddington, Twickenham and other areas.

Studies show that aircraft noise causes sleep deprivation and affects health and well-being. Can you imagine if Heathrow gets night flights as well?

The Commission’s  ‘affected areas of expansion’ map (click for full size).

Heathrow expansion could increase flights by an estimated 54% from 480,000 to 740,000. There have been some illustrative flight-paths included in the report but no detail – it is currently unknown which communities (new or existing) would be affected by the increased plane numbers, but it’s likely that if combined with the new concentrated flight-paths, they could have a very detrimental impact on areas such as Teddington.

Disturbingly, using the measurement standard 57 LAeq that the Davies Report uses Teddington, Twickenham and other nearby towns aren’t within the contour of those currently affected and are ‘relatively unaffected by aircraft noise‘.

That is something locals might disagree with and particularly when flight-paths are combined and concentrated!

The Leq method measures noise on days when planes are flying over and when they are not. As planes take off towards the west 70% of the time, this means that these days when planes aren’t overhead bring down the average noise levels. The overall number of affected people is 250,000 using this method.

Using the European standard 55 Lden noise method (only measuring plane noise when they are actually overhead), our area is indeed included in those affected by noise nuisance and the overall number of residents affected by plane noise around Heathrow rises to over 750,000. This startling number makes up 28% of all people affected by aircraft in Europe!

[ Lden is defined as:  “Day-evening-night equivalent level : A-weighted, Leq. noise level, measured over the 24 hour period, with a 10 dB penalty added to the levels between 23.00 and 07.00 hours and a 5 dB penalty added to the levels between 19.00 and 23.00 hours to reflect people’s extra sensitivity to noise during the night and the evening.]

http://ift.tt/1JxZoXf

 

---

.

See also:

London MPs and Councils challenge Airports Commission on aircraft noise with updated “ANASE” report

February 27, 2014

In 2005 the ANASE (Attitudes to Noise from Aviation Sources in England) report into what level of sound caused community annoyance was undertaken, and it indicated that the 57 decibel contour  – the measure the UK authorities still use – did not satisfactorily measure aircraft noise.  In reality, significant annoyance was caused at much lower level of sound exposure.  However, this finding was inconvenient and so the report was shelved by the government.  The 57 dB contour is still being used, and is the measure being used by the Airports Commission. The ANASE report has now been revised and updated, and this new report has just been launched by Hillingdon Council on behalf of the all-party 2M Group of councils opposed to Heathrow expansion.  It shows far more people are badly affected by aircraft noise than the 57 dB contour would suggest.  The 2M group are asking that the Commission investigate a new, more rigorous noise metric with which to assess and compare the noise impacts and costs of all the airport proposals. They say the Commission’s decision on a new runway cannot be  based on seriously out of date evidence which bears no resemblance to real-life experience.

http://ift.tt/1JxZoXm

Dr Ian Flindell said:

“From a purely research evidence perspective, it is surprising that UK policy-makers continue to base their understanding of numbers of people affected by aircraft noise on out-of-date, biased, non-independently-reviewed research – especially when there is available much more up-to-date evidence of UK residents’ views on aircraft noise that is consistent with all other recent and substantive pieces of research in the UK and elsewhere in Europe.

“The consequence is that policy-makers continue to presume that ‘the onset of significant
annoyance’ is 57 LAeq and that communities below this noise exposure threshold are relatively unaffected by aircraft noise – despite the fact that many such residents say that they are.”

.

---

 

.

.

.

.

.

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1HwxFY0

Read more ...