May 2015

Gatwick, Heathrow and London City Airport campaigns come together to oppose airspace change

Sunday, 31 May 2015

Over the past year or more, changes to flight paths and airspace being introduced in the UK, and these have caused considerable anger and upset among the many communities – and tens of thousands of people – now affected. Many new groups sprang up, in response to the greatly increased levels of aircraft noise people were being exposed to. Now these flight path groups at Gatwick, Heathrow and London City airports have joined forces and got together, to show the DfT, the Government, the CAA and NATS the anger of residents across the UK to these airspace changes. They have signed a joint letter, being delivered to the Secretary of State for Transport, Patrick McLoughlin, demanding that Government policy should be changed to minimise the impact of aircraft noise on residents. They also demand that the right of people to health, well-being and family life should be prioritised by Ministers over the drive of airlines, airports and aviation industry for greater profits. They are asking that Government should consider legislation to govern and control the usage of airspace. Also that the CAA gives true consideration to residents who are affected, which is not the current situation.
.
Tweet

Gatwick, Heathrow and London City Airport campaigns come together to oppose airspace change

1.6.2015 (From Gatwick, Heathrow and London City groups)

The letter will be handed in to the Department for Transport at 11am on 1st June, at 3 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 4DR

The letter is copied below.

The groups are working together, in their determination to get changes to the manner in which airspace changes are introduced and the increasing noise burden being suffered by people who previously were only overflown to a small extent.

This is a first – City, Gatwick and Heathrow Airport action groups come together to oppose airspace changes that are affecting tens of thousands of people lives.

The joint letter shows the Department for Transport, the Government, Civil Aviation Authority and NATS the anger of residents across the UK to airspace changes.

The letter demands that Government policy be changed to minimise the impact of aircraft noise on residents and that the right of people to health, well-being and family life be prioritised by Ministers over the desire of airlines, airports and aviation industry for greater profits.

The groups ask Government to consider legislation that governs and controls NATS’ usage of airspace, demanding that the CAA gives true consideration of residents affected, which is not what happens at present.

The airspace changes are part of a Europe-wide programme to make more effective use of airspace and are now impacting the whole of the UK. They are designed to enable airlines to save fuel, to allow aircraft to land at and depart from airports more efficiently but give little, if any, consideration to the impact the changes have, and will have, on communities. In the UK Gatwick and London City have been earmarked as first in line for the changes. Heathrow is expected to have its changes in place by 2019 with national changes by 2020.

Residents fear that the changes will result in excessive concentration of aircraft along selected routes with no consideration for the impact the changes have on health and wellbeing of residents.

Brendon Sewill Chairman of GACC said:

“We can not see how any airport expansion can go forward with the anger that is being vented at all airport operators due to the current airspace changes. All the protest groups coming together should send a clear message to the Government that residents are fed up with being ignored and that they will not be disregarded.”

Helen Hansen of Heathrow community group CAIAN, (Communities Against Increased Aircraft Noise) said:

“Many of us affected by Heathrow have already had our lives turned upside down by new flight procedures introduced without consultation, exposing us to periods of over 17 hours a day of unrelenting and intolerable concentrated flight noise. It’s time to put human health and wellbeing before profits for airlines and airports, by instituting proper regulatory safeguards to minimise aircraft noise over heavily populated areas.”

The joint statement of 6 pages long will be handed to the Department for Transport with a copy being handed direct to the Prime Minister.

This joint statement has the endorsement of groups representing communities of Kent, Mid Sussex, East Sussex, West Sussex and Surrey as well as London boroughs.

Names of signatories and groups

Gatwick Airport –

Brendon Sewill, for GACC (Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign) www.gacc.org.uk

Sally Pavey, for CAGNE (Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions) www.cagne.org

Ian Hare, for PAGNE (Pulborough Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions)

Dominic Nevill, for ESCCAN (East Sussex Communities for the Control of Air Noise)

Martin Barraud, for GON (Gatwick Obviously Not) http://ift.tt/1nSysWK

Simon Byerley, for CAGNE EAST www.cagne.east.org

Mike Ward, for Plane Wrong www.planewrong.co.uk

Langton Green Village Society

Heathrow Airport –

John Stewart, for HACAN www.hacan.org.uk

Robert Beere, for Aircraft Noise Lightwater http://ift.tt/1m7GmAJ (representing Lightwater, Bagshot and Windlesham in Surrey Heath)

Natasha Fletcher, for Teddington Action Group http://ift.tt/1JxZoXf (covering TW11, TW12, TW1, TW2)

Helen Hansen-Hjul, for CAIAN (Communities Against Increased Aircraft Noise (representing newly affected areas of West Heathrow inc Berkshire, Surrey, Oxon)

Kate Mann, for PlaneDAFT – Defending Ascot’s Future Today

London City Airport –

HACAN East – people under the London City Airport flight paths

Momentum – community organisation based in the Royal Docks

Heathrow area Community group’s spokespeople:

Helen Hansen: 07947 871292

Stephen Clark 07831 775915

Gatwick are spokesperson

Sally Pavey 07831 632537/ sallypavey@yahoo.com

The joint letter:

1st June 2015

To:
The Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP
Secretary of State for Transport
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London SW1P 4DR
Dear Secretary of State

Congratulations on your reappointment.

We are writing to you as representatives of many thousands of people impacted, often
profoundly, by noise from aircraft using Gatwick, Heathrow and London City airports.
We believe current airspace management and air traffic control arrangements are
unacceptable and undemocratic; in our view they amount to a serious failure of regulation
and an abuse of government policy. Our communities are deeply frustrated by what has
happened to them; they feel ignored, angry and persecuted. We have collectively lost
confidence in the ability or willingness of the aviation sector – both regulators and businesses
– to address the issues that impact us.

But we believe these issues can be addressed, using the technology now available, if the
parties were brought together and required to discuss, develop and implement solutions.
We are not NIMBYs. We fully recognise the benefits that the aviation industry brings but a
key theme of this letter is that fairness must be paramount in deciding on flight paths, with
proper account being taken of communities’ views.

We hope you will work with us to explore and put in place a new set of regulatory and
operational arrangements designed to reduce, minimise and fairly distribute aircraft noise
(fully dispersed within existing NPRs in the case of departures). This has, we believe, the
potential to achieve a major and badly needed step forward in responsible, community
friendly, aviation policy. We set out, later in this letter, specific policy and process proposals;
we would welcome an opportunity to discuss these with you and your officials.

We emphasise that the issues raised and proposals in this letter relate solely to the current
operations of Heathrow, Gatwick and London City airports; we have not sought to address
the creation of additional runway capacity being considered by the Airports Commission,
which would raise further profound issues for our communities.

Current policy and regulation

Current airspace management policies, and the associated regulatory arrangements, are
complex, multi-faceted and highly technical. They are barely penetrable by lay people
impacted on the ground, like most of us. To some extent this may be inevitable. But it has
contributed to an environment where consultation and communication with communities,
where it takes place at all, is not fit for purpose. This was widely acknowledged by Ministers
and MPs in the last Parliament, and should be addressed; we return to this fundamental
point below.

It is clear that some “airspace changes”, such as in the make-up and classification of
controlled airspace, require the consent of the CAA and are subject to a change process and
consultation. But the CAA has taken the view that other changes, such as the routing of
aircraft through blocks of airspace by air traffic controllers, do not require consultation or
consent.

These arrangements make no sense to our communities: consultation is required for
changes that have little impact on the ground, such as to standard arrival routes to
nominated holds all of which are at over 7000 AMSL; but no consultation is apparently
required, and the CAA takes no interest, where a permanent vectoring procedure is altered,
below 4000ft, however significant the impact on communities, tranquillity, health or property
values. The CAA is patently failing to “play an active role” in “balancing the interests of
local communities and relevant stakeholders with those of the aviation industry” that your
Department’s 2014 Environmental Guidance expects it to. It is particularly failing to
implement the aspects of your Guidance which require the noise impact of aircraft and the
number of people on the ground significantly affected by it to be the environmental priority
from the ground to 4,000 feet (amsl). At Heathrow, for example, communities previously
unaffected by aviation noise are now suffering up to 17 hours of unremitting departure
noise daily, without consultation, to achieve marginal gains in fuel and emissions.

Airports and air traffic controllers have taken advantage of this position to change vectoring
practices and narrow the swathe over which arriving aircraft reach their final approach, using
or in preparation for the use of Precision Navigation Technology (PBN). This will clearly
benefit the aviation industry. It will enable airlines to save fuel and allow more aircraft to use
airports increasing their revenue or, in the case of Heathrow where there is an annual
movement cap, help it to operate with more resilience. But they have taken no account, and
are not required to take account, of the significant increase in noise for those under the new
routes, who suffer numerous consequential effects including on health and asset values.

This is wholly uncontrolled behaviour, by unaccountable monopoly businesses; a clear case
of regulatory failure that has led to an unacceptable balance between the commercial
interests of the aviation sector and its customers and those of local communities. Gains for
the industry, which are frequently marginal and unproven, should not be at the expense of
the quality of life of local people. This complete absence of proportionality would be
unthinkable in any other part of the economy and should not be tolerated in the aviation
sector no matter how distinctive and valuable it is.

We would welcome your lead in addressing this failure. One of our organisations has
recently initiated Judicial Review proceedings against the CAA on this point. We hope the
JR will establish that the position the CAA has adopted is both illogical and contrary to the
purpose and letter of the Directives issued to it. But it should not be necessary for our
communities to resort to expensive JR action to force a regulator, and indeed the
government, to take proper account of their legitimate interests and reasonable
expectations.

More broadly the flight path changes introduced recently by air traffic controllers and airports
fly in the face of the Government’s long established policy “to limit and, where possible,
reduce the number of people significantly affected by aircraft noise”.

There are two issues here. First, the policy itself, while at first glance reasonable, is
insufficiently specific and facilitates abuse. It is clearly a good thing to reduce the number of
people significantly affected by aircraft noise if that can be done without materially adversely
impacting others. It is quite another thing to create persecuted noise ghettos, and no British
Government should allow itself to be associated with such a policy no matter how politically
attractive. It is simply not consistent with core British values

Secondly, the changes that have been made, in our view, have clearly increased the number
of people significantly affected by aircraft noise. At Gatwick, for example, aircraft arrivals
that were previously dispersed over a 5nm swathe are now concentrated in a 2nm wide
corridor. Aircraft now meet the ILS between 10-12nm where previously it was 7-12nm; a
reduction of 60%. The consequence is that we have moved from a position where many
people were somewhat impacted by aircraft arrival noise (but few were significantly
impacted) to one where many are significantly impacted by a constant stream of aircraft,
hour after hour, day after day. A new class of significantly affected people has been
created, in the name of the government’s policy, with no consultation or redress.

Taken together, these factors have led to a position where there is no trust – and an
increasing standoff – between airports and air traffic control organisations on the one hand
and overflown communities on the other, with the regulator standing to one side unwilling or
unable to act. In the past few months alone the record number of public complaints has
forced both Heathrow and Gatwick to cancel trials or defer proposed changes in airspace
usage, a position that is likely to be replicated nationwide, unless the policy is changed, as
PBN is trialled and introduced. This is clearly not an environment that will support good
policy making, let alone deliverable decisions on future airport capacity. The government
and its regulator need to step in, review the policy and its implementation and work with
communities to, as the Department’s 2014 Guidance to the CAA says, “consider new and
innovative approaches to regulation and [work with] the industry to innovate in noise
management techniques”. There is no sign that this is happening currently.

Our proposals

We propose the set of measures described below. Taken together we believe these would
send a powerful signal to our communities and others impacted by aircraft noise that the
government recognises their concerns and is willing to work with them to find mutually
acceptable solutions. This would, in our view, represent a very significant step forward in
aviation policy.

1. Announce that the government will seek to ensure, if necessary through new
legislation or Directions, that: aircraft noise will be progressively and materially
reduced; noise impacts will be dispersed and minimised (within existing NPRs in the
case of departures) and meaningful public consultations will be undertaken at all times
including in relation to any changes within NPRs that have been introduced since 2011
that impact communities.

2. As a specific component of 1 above, direct the CAA urgently to research and trial the
potential for using PBN technology to achieve the maximum dispersal of flight
approach paths (up to a joining point of 3 miles from the airport) without using merge
points and the maximum dispersal of flight departure paths within Noise Preferential
Routes, with the full involvement of impacted communities.

3. Pending the implementation of 1 and 2 above, require the industry to reverse all
vectoring and other trials carried out since 2011 and return flight paths to their pre
2011 positions and status and to reverse the arbitrary 10 nautical mile minimum joining
point procedure for arrivals.

4. Ensure that the industry uses PBN to achieve the greatest possible safe height with
smooth Continual Descent Approach / Continual Ascent Departure at all times, and
require the CAA to police this and report on it periodically.

5. Amend your Department’s Guidance to the CAA to make clear that noise and noise
shadow minimisation is the primary environmental consideration in the design of all
arrival and departure routes up to at least 6,000 feet (amsl) (currently 4,000 feet amsl),
and require it to report periodically on its implementation of this Guidance.

6. Review regulatory and contractual arrangements in the aviation sector, particularly
those involving airports and air traffic control organisations, to ensure that they contain
appropriate incentives to reduce and disperse noise on the basis set out above, with
meaningful financial and other licence sanctions where this is not achieved.

7. Require airlines immediately to address the debilitating cavity whine caused by the
Airbus A320 family of aircraft. This issue is well understood, and there is an easy and
affordable solution already being deployed by other airports and airlines including
Lufthansa. The UK should be a leader in this area not one of the last to act.

8. Develop, launch and generously fund a community-oriented programme intended to
achieve radical change in the culture of the aviation industry towards the noise (and
other environmental damage) it creates and the outcomes it achieves. This could, for
example, play a key role in: far more intensive noise monitoring; honest, audited,
complaint reporting; the development and dissemination of best practice noise
management amongst airlines; and accelerated research into options that would keep
aircraft higher for longer, such as steeper ascent and descent paths.

We very much hope you will work with us to achieve the significant change needed properly
to balance the interests of impacted communities, the aviation industry and those who use
its services, through the actions proposed above. We would welcome the opportunity to
discuss our proposals with you.

We have copied this letter to the Prime Minister and the Chair of the CAA.

Yours faithfully

Names of signatories and groups

For the Gatwick Airport area –

Brendon Sewill, for GACC (Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign) www.gacc.org.uk

Sally Pavey, for CAGNE (Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions) www.cagne.org

Ian Hare, for PAGNE (Pulborough Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions)

Dominic Nevill, for ESCCAN (East Sussex Communities for the Control of Air Noise)

Martin Barraud, for GON (Gatwick Obviously Not) http://ift.tt/1nSysWK

Simon Byerley, for CAGNE EAST www.cagne.east.org

Mike Ward, for Plane Wrong www.planewrong.co.uk

Langton Green Village Society

For the Heathrow Airport area –

John Stewart, for HACAN www.hacan.org.uk

Robert Beere, for Aircraft Noise Lightwater http://ift.tt/1m7GmAJ (representing Lightwater, Bagshot and Windlesham in Surrey Heath)

Natasha Fletcher, for Teddington Action Group http://ift.tt/1JxZoXf (covering TW11, TW12, TW1, TW2)

Helen Hansen-Hjul, for CAIAN (Communities Against Increased Aircraft Noise (representing newly affected areas of West Heathrow inc Berkshire, Surrey, Oxon)

Kate Mann, for PlaneDAFT – Defending Ascot’s Future Today

For the London City Airport area –

HACAN East – people under the London City Airport flight paths

Momentum – community organisation based in the Royal Docks

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

Heathrow and Gatwick fighting to get support from Scottish MSPs for their runway plans

Friday, 29 May 2015

Continuing with their lobbying across the country, to try to get support for their runway plans, both Heathrow and Gatwick say they would provide more flights to Scottish airports. Both Mr Holland-Kaye and Mr Wingate are due to appear before a cross party group on aviation at the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood. The improved links to London is sold as providing better links for Scotland to global markets. Heathrow says getting a new runway would enable there to be more flights to the regions. These have been cut back in recent years, as they are less profitable than international flights. Heathrow is keen to tell Scottish leaders how very useful Heathrow will be for them, (though they have been conveniently ignored in the past – it is now time to try to win their support). Stewart Wingate is doing his usual negative campaigning, pointing out, helpfully, all the deficiencies of Heathrow’s plans, while being conveniently blind to the deficiencies of his own runway plan. Both airports hype economic benefits … lots of figures …The reality is that increasingly flights can be point to point, and people in Scotland have less need to transfer to London, before flying elsewhere. More long haul flights from Heathrow would cut demand for these to develop at Scottish airports.
.
Tweet

Flights alert amid runway rivalry

Thursday 28 May 2015 (Herald Scotland)
THERE could be fewer direct flights in and out of Scotland if plans to expand Heathrow Airport get the go-ahead, the boss of a rival London airport has claimed.

Gatwick chief executive Stewart Wingate argued that building a new runway at Gatwick would lead to more competition between UK airports, which would in turn benefit Scotland.

But he has warned that if the plans to expand Heathrow are approved, some long-haul flights in and out of Scotland, including those to North America and the Middle East, could be under threat from the creation of a “monopolistic mega-hub” in the South East of England.

However, the CEO of Heathrow Airport John Holland-Kaye is preparing to tell MSPs today that an expansion of his terminal will create 16,000 new jobs, compared with 4,000 from an expansion of Gatwick.

He will argue that an expansion of Heathrow is the “only option that will grow Scottish exports, increase tourism and attract foreign investment to create local jobs”, arguing that the rival airport mainly flies to leisure destinations already served by airports north of the border.

Both men are speaking to MSPs on the cross-party group on aviation today as the Airports Commission continues to consider the best way to increase runway capacity at UK airports.

The commission, which is examining plans to build a new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick, is expected to make its recommendation to the UK Government in the coming weeks.

Mr Wingate insists that the decision about where the new runway is located is an “important debate for Scotland” and will later address MSPs on Holyrood’s cross-party group on aviation.

He said: “The choice boils down to competition versus monopoly. Do we want to protect and strengthen Scotland’s growing network of routes by creating a competitive system across the UK, or put that at risk by creating a monopolistic mega-hub at London Heathrow?

“The Airports Commission itself found that in every future scenario, Scotland will have a larger share of the UK airports market if Gatwick expands.

“That amounts to 14 per cent more daily scheduled international services from airports outside London and 50 million more passengers through Scotland’s airports.”

Mr Holland-Kaye, meanwhile, will tell MSPs the next few weeks are “crucial” for those campaigning for an expansion of Heathrow.

He will say: “To win the global race for jobs, trade and convenient flights for growth, Scotland must have easy access to long-haul growth markets with frequent and Scottish airports have secured direct connections to key markets in Europe, the Middle East and North America over recent years. [sic misquoted ….]

“I have no doubt that within the next decade we will see Glasgow or Edinburgh secure a direct flight to Beijing.

“But there will always be cities that local demand alone cannot sustain but the Scottish economy needs to be connected to. To access that wealth, investment and export potential, Scotland – and the rest of the UK – needs to connected as conveniently as possible.”

http://ift.tt/1LQq074

Rival London airports bid for Scots support

28 May 2015 (BBC – Scotland)
The Airports Commission is to choose between expanding Heathrow or Gatwick
Plans to expand Heathrow Airport could mean fewer direct flights to and from Scotland, if they are approved, according to bosses at Gatwick Airport.

But Heathrow bosses insist that expansion there would better improve Scotland’s links to global markets.

It comes as the Airports Commission is due to give its recommendation to the UK government on whether a new runway should be built at Heathrow or Gatwick.
The chief executives of both London airports are to appear at Holyrood.

The UK’s need to expand its airport capacity in a bid to meet growing demand for air travel means introducing an extra runway in the south east of England.

The short-listed options include a new runway for Heathrow, a new runway for Gatwick, or the extension of an existing runway at Heathrow.

Competitive system

Stewart Wingate, chief executive of Gatwick Airport, believes Scotland’s direct air routes would be at risk if Heathrow were to gain a monopoly by being chosen over Gatwick for expansion.

“The Airports Commission itself found that in every future scenario, Scotland will have a larger share of the UK airports market if Gatwick expands.

“That amounts to 14% more daily scheduled international services from airports outside London and 50 million more passengers through Scotland’s airports.”

The Airports Commission will recommend one of three expansion options at either Heathrow or Gatwick Airports.

But John Holland-Kaye, the chief executive at Heathrow, claimed that an expansion at Gatwick would result in Scottish firms losing out to rivals based near London while a Heathrow option would “drive more value for the Scottish economy”.

He said: “It would mean 16,000 new jobs in Scotland, £14bn to the Scottish economy and that’s because Heathrow helps connect Scotland to more global markets that aren’t serviced by Scottish airports directly.”

Mr Holland-Kaye added that there are currently 15 to 20 long-haul direct routes to and from Scottish airports and a further 75 routes are covered by Heathrow.

He conceded that flights between Scotland and Heathrow had reduced but added that this was because “Heathrow is at capacity so airlines have had to make a choice between adding new flights to long-haul destinations and maintaining flights to Scotland”.

Both Mr Holland-Kaye and Mr Wingate are due to appear before a cross party group on aviation at the Scottish Parliament.

The Airports Commission will deliver its final recommendation to Westminster in the coming weeks.

http://ift.tt/1eCwImP

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1LQq075

How to respond QUICKLY to the Airports Commission consultation on air quality

Friday, 29 May 2015

The Airports Commission consultation on air quality ends today at 12 noon.

If anyone wants to send in a quick response, some points are given below – general between Heathrow and Gatwick (both have serious problems with air pollution if a new runway is added). It is useful for as many people as possible, for whom this issue is important, to let the Commission know their concerns.

If people don’t have time to write a response, they can just write to say they support the response sent in by either Clean Air in London, or the Richmond Heathrow Campaign, or GACC (Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign). More details about those at the bottom of this page.

Richmond Heathrow Campaign response

Clean Air in London response

GACC response to the Airports Commission

Comments can be submitted via email to :

air.quality@airports.gsi.gov.uk

Below are a list, in no particular order, of problems with the Airports Commission’s air quality consultation:

1. The consultation itself has been inadequate. There was no prior notice, the documents are too technical for a layperson to understand, the consultation period was only 14 working days, and another document was added half way through the consultation period. It appears that no effort has been made to present the information in a clear manner, so it can easily be understood.

2. The consultation only looks as far forward as 2030, and this ignores the significant growth in demand thereafter. Heathrow Airport Ltd (HAL) estimates Heathrow will have 570,000 flights a year by 2030 against capacity of 740,000 flights and by 2030 a third runway will be just 35% full. The assessment is therefore incomplete, as there is no indication that air pollution will be substantially reduced between 2030 and 2050. It is likely to increase.

3. The consultation documents presume that there will be lower emissions from surface transport in future, and that a higher proportion of passengers will come by means other than by car. Figures indicating lower air pollution are highly dependent on this assumption.

4. The area around Heathrow already has high levels of air pollution, and has struggled to bring this down in recent years. Whether it could meet the air quality targets by 2030 even without a new runway is uncertain. The addition of a new runway could only make that worse. Heathrow is covered by the London Air Quality Plan and it seems that adding a runway could slow down achievement of the plan.

5. Knowing the health impacts of air pollution, as confirmed by the Supreme Court decision, it would be inappropriate and perhaps illegal for the government to permit a development that would lead to serious deterioration in air quality for a large number of people.

6. London is growing very fast, and the consultation does not appear to take into account the growing numbers living in affected areas.

7. Much of the air pollution around Heathrow is from diesel vehicles. The anticipated improvements in NO2 emissions from diesel engines have been slower than expected, and it is likely they will continue to be high for years to come. The report makes optimistic projections about future car engine technologies reducing the levels of NO2 emissions from the road network. These are a gamble, with no guarantee the improvements will happen.

8. Most heavy lorries transporting freight, to and from the airport, burn diesel. They contribute markedly to local air pollution. Heathrow is keen to publicise the amount of freight it ships, and its value to the economy. It is less keen to talk about the diesel emissions that are associated. The Airports Commission consultation also does not deal with road freight.

9. For the airports to have the level of rail transport they would need to cut road vehicle emissions enough, there would need to be considerable public spending on railways. That would be at the expense of the taxpayer, and this is not considered in the consultation. The costs could amount to billions of ££s, at a time of public spending cuts. This may simply not be affordable.

10. EU air quality standards expect governments to improve air quality, and not let it deteriorate. Either runway proposal would only have the effect of causing a deterioration in air quality.

11. The health of people especially vulnerable to pollution exposure does not appear to be considered by the Airports Commisison reports. There is no mention of children, of those vulnerable to asthma, or to sections of the population with increased susceptibility.

12. The Jacob’s report for the Commission does not appear to include the impact of the UK’s Supreme Court decision at the end of April 2015 that the UK is in breach of its obligations for air quality. It was written earlier. The Supreme Court said the UK must produce updated plans by the end of 2015 and secure compliance as soon as possible.

13. The Jacobs report also ignores the extra road traffic due to the increase in catalytic employment (ie businesses which are attracted to the area by the prospect of the new runway). The staff of these new firms, and of existing firms which would grow in size, would need to travel to and from work, mostly by car. In addition, the new or expanded companies would create a large increase in road movements by HGVs and a plethora of white vans.

14. The air pollution forecasts also ignore the extra road traffic created by induced employment. The increased number of workers at the airport, or indirectly employed (eg in local hotels), plus the extra workers in the new firms attracted to the area, will all spend a proportion of their incomes locally. This will create additional induced jobs, and thus additional road traffic. The report’s suggestion that there will be no extra traffic on local roads after a huge increase in number of flights, number of passengers and number of freight operations is neither credible nor realistic.

15. The increase in air pollution, from the extra road vehicles, does not appear to be consistent with the stated objective of the Airports Commission’s Appraisal Framework: to improve air quality consistent with EU standards and local planning policy requirements. Nor with the EU Air Quality Directive, the Preamble to which states that: Air quality status should be maintained where it is already good, or improved. Article 1 states that the Directive lays down measures aimed at the following: ….. maintaining air quality where it is good and improving it in other cases.

16. Air pollution affecting areas under flight paths is not considered. Though much is dispersed by wind, areas under concentrated flight paths, with aircraft only at an altitude of only a few thousand feet, may have higher levels of some pollutants. People living under flight paths are concerned about this.

17. Pollution impacts are depressed by the inclusion of a series of controversial and untested mitigation measures, like congestion charging zones (or in the case of Heathrow, re-routing of the A4). These schemes have not been developed in detail and may not be possible.

18. Even after the ultra low traffic levels and futuristic clean engines are factored in the report still projects an increase in pollution levels – for the Heathrow north-west runway – of around 47,000 homes, compromising the health of around 121,377 people and costing £10.8m [Jacobs report Page 173] through increased numbers of hospital appointments. This is far too high a price.

The equivalent figures for the Heathrow Hub northern runway are around 39,000 homes, compromising the health of around 100,389 people and costing £4.2 million through increased numbers of hospital appointments. This is far too high a price.

The equivalent figures for a second Gatwick runway are around 21,000 homes, compromising the health of around 51,328 people and costing £4.0 million through increased numbers of hospital appointments. This is far too high a price.

How to respond to the Airports Commission consultation

The consultation started on 8th May, and ends at midday on 29th May.

Links to the various documents are below:

Air quality consultation cover note (2 pages)

Air quality assessment: detailed emissions inventory and dispersion modelling (206 pages)

Air quality assessment: figures appendix (51 pages)

Air quality assessment: spatial maps (10 pages)

Air quality assessment: airports backing data (multiple spreadsheets)

On 18th May another document was added.

Stakeholder Air Quality Consultation Queries and Airports Commission Responses May 2015

The Commission is now inviting further comments on its analysis prior to midday on Friday May 29.

Comments can be submitted via email to :

air.quality@airports.gsi.gov.uk

or by post to:

Airports Commission
6 Floor
Sanctuary Buildings
20 Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3BT

Richmond Heathrow Campaign response to Commission’s air quality consultation

May 27, 2015

The Richmond Heathrow Campaign (RHC) have submitted their response to the Airports Commission’s consultation on air quality. They comment on the inadequacy of the consultation, and the difficulty for lay people in understanding it. They say that with at least 100,000 people affected by a worsening of the air quality resulting from Heathrow expansion, plans, it is not realistic for the government to approve such a plan. The various possible mitigations for NO2 “may not be sufficient to avoid delaying compliance with standards that are already being breached. This will mean that if expansion were approved by the Government, it would knowingly be planning to continue breaching standards without a realistic plan to put this right.” The RHC put – in plain English – some of their concerns about the Jacobs study, done for the Commission, and the things it has left out. Just a few of these include: the date chosen to assess air quality is 2030, when a runway would only be perhaps 35% full; much of the anticipated reduction in air pollution is from a higher proportion of air passengers travelling to and from the airport by rail; the cost of the necessary enhancements of rail services would be a huge cost for the taxpayer; health impacts, especially of vulnerable groups, have not been assessed. Richmond Heathrow Campaign response here.

Click here to view full story… Richmond Heathrow Campaign response

Clean Air in London respond to Commission consultation – Heathrow or Gatwick runway would breach air pollution laws

May 24, 2015

Clean Air in London (CAL) has made its response to the Airports Commission’s air pollution consultation (ends 29th May). They make 2 key points – that either runway at Heathrow would cause aggravated breaches of the NO2 annual limit value, in 2030 (and perhaps other timescales) and therefore be unlawful; and that a runway at Gatwick would not be consistent with sustainable development, as it would worsen air quality. The Airports Commission expects the Heathrow north west runway scheme would mean worse air quality, (in terms of annual mean NO2 concentrations) at about 47,000 properties, and 39,000 for the Hub ENR runway scheme; and at about 21,000 properties for the Gatwick runway. For Gatwick to do this would not be consistent with the duty on Member States under Directive 2008/50/EC to maintain the levels below the limit values. Under Directive 2008/50/EC NO2 limit values must not be exceeded once attained; and where air quality is ‘good’, Article 12 of the directive applies i.e. Member States shall not only maintain the levels below the limit values but also “endeavour to preserve the best ambient air quality compatible with sustainable development”. Clean Air in London response here.

Click here to view full story… Clean Air in London response

GACC response to Airports Commission: Gatwick runway could breach EU pollution law

Date added: May 27, 2015

GACC, in their submission to the Airports Commission, predict that pollution levels around the airport could become much worse than the Commission forecast. They point to a judgement by the Supreme Court on 29th April that the UK Government must enforce the EU Directive 2008/50/EC on Air Quality. A clause in Directive states that: “Air quality status should be maintained where it is already good, or improved” and limit values must not be exceeded once attained. According to GACC chairman, Brendon Sewill: “The Airports Commission are seriously underestimating future pollution levels. First they are looking at 2030 when the new runway would only be half full; and second, their estimates of future road traffic are only about half of what would be created by an airport larger than Heathrow today. There will be around 100,000 extra cars per day in the Gatwick area plus a ten-fold increase in freight and commercial vehicles – all adding to pollution.” The Airports Commission expects the Gatwick runway scheme would mean higher mean NO2 concentrations for about 21,000 properties. There have been many studies of the adverse impact on health of NO2 and other pollutants from aircraft and vehicles, particularly for those with respiratory diseases.

Click here to view full story… GACC response to the Airports Commission

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1KC5Lgj

Data on air pollution challenged by group of MPs representing areas around Gatwick

Thursday, 28 May 2015

Questions about the robustness and impact of Gatwick’s proposals have been raised by the Gatwick Coordination Group (GCG) of MPs, which now includes all local long-standing and newly elected MPs around Gatwick. Particular concerns are raised about air quality, and Gatwick’s own emissions modelling, which the GCG described as “inadequate” for failing to capture the impact on the new transport and housing provision in the local area, if a 2nd runway got the go ahead. The report by Jacobs for the Commission, suggests that the impact of an expanded Gatwick would be considerably worse than assessments by Gatwick airport. NOx and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), are estimated to be 50% higher than the initial estimates of emissions suggested by Gatwick. Jacobs’ assessment confirms that Gatwick expansion would cause significant deterioration of air quality for over 51,000 people; officially put “at risk” the health of at least 151 people; and have the highest % increase in NOx emissions (28% up) out of the 3 runway options. Chair of the GCG, Crispin Blunt MP, said: “…Gatwick’s plan would ruin thousands of lives and push local services and infrastructure beyond their limits. There is no economic or practical case for Gatwick to become the same size as Heathrow.”
.
Tweet

GCG Response to Airports Commission Air Quality Consultation.pdf

Reliability of Gatwick data challenged by MPs

28 May, 2015 (Crispin Blunt’s website)

The air quality submission for a second runway at Gatwick is “unreliable” and would lead to a significant deterioration in air quality for the airport’s surrounding communities, a group of Conservative MPs warn.

Questions about the robustness and impact of Gatwick’s proposals have been raised by the Gatwick Coordination Group (GCG), which now includes all local long-standing and newly elected MPs around Gatwick, in response to the Airports Commission’s consultation on air quality. The consultation, which closes on Friday 29th May, is on an assessment of the impact on air quality of each of the Airports Commission’s three shortlisted proposals.

Particular concerns are raised about Gatwick’s own emissions modelling, described as “inadequate” by the GCG for failing to capture the impact on the new transport and housing provision in the local area should a second runway get the go ahead. In contrast, much of the Heathrow transport and housing provision already exists.

The Air Quality Assessment, prepared for the Airports Commission by Jacobs, suggests that the impact of an expanded Gatwick would be considerably worse than assessments made by Gatwick. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), are estimated to be 50% higher than the initial estimates of emissions suggested by Gatwick.

Jacobs’ assessment confirms that Gatwick expansion will:

• Significantly deteriorate the air quality for more than 51,000 people;

• Officially put “at risk” the health of at least 151 people;

• Have the highest % increase in NOx emissions (an unsustainable increase of 28%) out of all shortlisted options.

On publishing their response to the Airports Commission consultation, Chair of the GCG, Crispin Blunt MP, said:

“Gatwick expansion would be a disaster for the local area. It is now clear that Gatwick’s own assessments of the air quality impact of a new runway are completely unreliable.

“This adds to the data already established in the consultation that Gatwick’s plan would ruin thousands of lives and push local services and infrastructure beyond their limits. There is no economic or practical case for Gatwick to become the same size as Heathrow: no labour force, no surface infrastructure and no environmental case either.

“Gatwick is fundamentally the wrong solution, both locally and nationally. It will devastate local communities and provide just a fraction of any additional benefit to the UK compared with Heathrow. It’s time for Gatwick to stand aside.”

GCG Response to Airports Commission Air Quality Consultation.pdf

Members of the GCG (Gatwick Coordination Group)

Following the election on 7th May 2015, the Members of Parliament on the group are now as follows:

• Crispin Blunt MP – Member of Parliament for Reigate (Chairman)

• Sir Paul Beresford MP – Member of Parliament for Mole Valley

• Nus Ghani MP – Member of Parliament for Wealden

• Sam Gyimah MP – Member of Parliament for East Surrey

• Rt Hon Nick Herbert MP – Member of Parliament for Arundel and South Downs

• Jeremy Quin MP – Member of Parliament for Horsham

• Tom Tugendhat MP – Member of Parliament for Tonbridge and Malling

• Henry Smith MP – Member of Parliament for Crawley

• Rt Hon Sir Nicholas Soames MP – Member of Parliament for Mid Sussex

http://ift.tt/1d1Giyj

OTHERS HAVE RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT THE COMMISSION’S AIR QUALITY REPORT

Pollution estimates go up to 2030, around twenty years before the expanded Heathrow or Gatwick airport would reach full capacity. We expect nitrogen dioxide levels to continue to rise until 2050 as the expanded airport’s operation intensifiy but these increases are not accounted for.

Pollution impacts are depressed by the inclusion of a series of controversial and untested mitigation measures, like a new congestion charging zone. These schemes have not been developed in detail and may not be possible.

The report makes optimistic projections about future car engine technologies reducing the levels of NO2 emissions from the road network.. This is a gamble, not a serious projection.

The report suggests there will be no extra traffic on local roads even after Heathrow or Gatwick vastly increase flights, passenger numbers and freight operation. This is not credible or realistic.

Even after the ultra low traffic levels and futuristic clean engines are factored in the Jacobs report on air quality for the Airports Commission still projects a huge increase in pollution levels. By 2030.

Heathrow NW runway – would worsen air quality (in terms of annual mean NO2 concentrations) of around 47,000 homes, compromising the health of around 121,377 people and costing £10.8m per year [Jacobs report Page 173] through increased numbers of hospital appointments.

Heathrow Hub northern runway – would worsen air quality (in terms of annual mean NO2 concentrations) of around 39,000 homes, compromising the health of around 100,389 people and costing £4.2 million per year through increased numbers of hospital appointments.

2nd Gatwick runway – would worsen air quality (in terms of annual mean NO2 concentrations) of around 21,000 homes, compromising the health of around 51,328 people and costing £4.0 million per year through increased numbers of hospital appointments.

These are high prices to pay in terms of health.

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1d1Gkq2

GACC response to Airports Commission: Gatwick runway could breach EU pollution law

Wednesday, 27 May 2015

Gatwick runway could breach EU pollution law

27.5.2015 (GACC – Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign)

pollution image

GACC, in their submission to the Airports Commission this week, ( Air quality response GACC ) predict that pollution levels around the airport could become much worse than the Commission forecast.

They point to a judgement by the Supreme Court on 29th April that the UK Government must enforce the EU Directive on Air Quality, and to a clause in the Directive which states that: Air quality status should be maintained where it is already good, or improved.

According to GACC chairman, Brendon Sewill: ‘The Airports Commission are seriously underestimating future pollution levels. First they are looking at 2030 when the new runway would only be half full; and second, their estimates of future road traffic are only about half of what would be created by an airport larger than Heathrow today. There will be around 100,000 extra cars per day in the Gatwick area plus a ten-fold increase in freight and commercial vehicles – all adding to pollution.’

There have been many studies of the adverse impact on health of NO2 and other pollutants from aircraft and vehicles, particularly for those with respiratory diseases. GACC quotes doctors who draw attention to the above average incidence of asthma among the Asian population in Crawley. Also a new American study showing that pollution could mean 10,000 extra cases per year of Alzheimer’s in the UK.

The consultation by the Airports Commission on Air Quality closes at mid-day on Friday 29th May.

GACC’s response is here. Air quality response GACC May 2015

See earlier:

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

Clean Air in London respond to Commission consultation – Heathrow or Gatwick runway would breach air pollution laws

May 24, 2015

Click here to view full story…

Airports Commission rushes out new technical consultation (for just 3 weeks) on air quality

May 8, 2015

The Airports Commission has, at the last minute, produced a very short (only 3 weeks) consultation on air quality. It says this was not done earlier due to the pre-election “purdah” period when there are restrictions on activities such as consultations by government. The timing, shortly after the ruling by the Supreme Court, that more has to be done by the UK on air quality may, or may not, be coincidental. The consultation ends on 29th May. The Commission aims to make its runway recommendation in June, before Sir Howard starts work at RBS (joining its board at the end of June). The consultation outline is given in a cover note, with one main document, an appendix document, 10 pages of maps, and databases of backing data – over 280 pages. All to be checked through in 21 days, including a Bank Holiday. The November 2014 consultation stated that dispersion modelling still needed to be done. That was not included in time for the main consultation. The Commission has now found some differences between the two Heathrow options. It has looked at a range of “mitigation measures” to reduce the level of NO2, and considers whether these would be enough to keep within legal limits. It is a technical consultation, very difficult for lay people – who are not expert in the area of air quality – to understand.

Click here to view full story…

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1RnP1u1

Queen’s Speech section on climate says an ambitious global deal has widespread support and is strongly in the UK’s interest

Wednesday, 27 May 2015

In the Queen’s Speech she said: “My Government will seek effective global collaboration to sustain economic recovery and to combat climate change, including at the climate change conference in Paris later this year.” The government’s briefing on the Speech said: “The Government is seeking to address climate change through ambitious action at home and at the international level. We are hoping to agree an ambitious global deal on international climate change in Paris this year to take effect from 2020.” Some extracts from the briefing include: “A [global] deal is strongly in the UK’s interest.”… “It’s not just governments who want this deal. There is widespread support from business, NGOs and the wider public both in the UK here and internationally.” …”The UK has taken decisive domestic action through the Climate Change Act and has already reduced its emissions by 30% as part of its commitment to an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 from 1990 levels. This target is in line with the global objective to keep temperature increase below 2 degrees.” …”The UK has set targets in legislation, 5 year carbon budgets and review mechanisms, which is providing a leading model for climate change policies both domestically and at the international level.”
.
Tweet

27 May 2015

Paris Conference

Quote from the Queen’s Speech:

“My Government will seek effective global collaboration to sustain economic recovery and to combat climate change, including at the climate change conference in Paris later this year.”

The Government is seeking to address climate change through ambitious action at
home and at the international level. We are hoping to agree an ambitious global deal
on international climate change in Paris this year to take effect from 2020. A global
deal is the only way we can deliver the scale of action required. The most cost effective
and competitive way to achieve this is an international, legally binding, rules
based agreement covering every country. We are negotiating this under the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), covering over 190 countries.

A deal is strongly in the UK’s interest.

• A global climate agreement is the only way to deliver the global response
necessary.

• The UK is a world leader in green technology and innovation, and a global
commitment on climate change will open our new opportunities for our lowcarbon
industries

• In addition to the science and sustainability arguments, there is a compelling
case to avert direct threats to the UK such as severe weather events from
floods to heatwaves that can wreak economic and social damage; and indirect
threats through global changes such as rising costs and regional instability.

• Global impacts also underpin the need to support developing countries to
improve economic stability and growth, and move to a low carbon, climate
resilient growth path.

• A global climate agreement is vital to deliver the global response needed to
mobilise the necessary finance to invest in adaption and mitigation across the
world.

• It’s not just governments who want this deal. There is widespread support
from business, NGOs and the wider public both in the UK here and
internationally.

There are a number of negotiating sessions and events in the lead up to Paris,
including the UNFCCC Intersessional in Bonn in June, which will be an important
opportunity to discuss elements of the deal such as countries’ intended contributions
and rules regarding transparency and accountability.

The UK has taken decisive domestic action through the Climate Change Act and has
already reduced its emissions by 30% as part of its commitment to an 80% reduction
in emissions by 2050 from 1990 levels. This target is in line with the global objective
to keep temperature increase below 2 degrees.

The UK has set targets in legislation, 5 year carbon budgets and review
mechanisms, which is providing a leading model for climate change policies both
domestically and at the international level.

Written by:

Media Team, Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), 3 Whitehall Place, London SW1A 2AW 030 0068 5476

…….

section copied from the Briefing Pack from the Government, on the Queen’s Speech. 27.5.2015

http://ift.tt/1FY1jHp

Carbon budgets

The Climate Change Act is something of which the UK is proud. As are the 5 year carbon budgets. They would be even better if they fully included the carbon emitted by international aviation and shipping, which currently just have to be taken into account – rather than fully included. Talks will take place over the next year about their full inclusion in the 5th carbon budget, to be set in 2016..

Government fails to properly include international aviation in UK carbon budgets – decision put off till 2016

December 19, 2012

The government was legally required to make a statement to Parliament by the end of December on whether it will include CO2 emissions from international aviation and shipping (IAS) in the UK’s climate target under the Climate Change Act. Today Ed Davey went against the advice from the Committee on Climate Change, and postponed the decision, using some ambiguous wording. His exact words were that the government “is deferring a firm decision on whether to include international aviation and shipping emissions within the UK’s net carbon account” and that it “will revisit this issue when setting the fifth Carbon Budget (2028 – 2032).” ie. in 2016, which is after the next general election. IAS will continue to be excluded from the first 4 carbon budgets, which run until 2027. The Chancellor and many Conservatives are reluctant to do anything that can be seen as strengthening environmental regulations. If the greenhouse gases from IAS were included in the UK targets, other sectors, including electricity generation and industry, would have to make steeper cuts in their emissions. Government justifies its postponement by arguing that there is uncertainty about the EU ETS at present, and also whether there just might be progress on a global aviation carbon scheme through ICAO in 2013.

http://ift.tt/1AtyAbi

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1Q9W0UT

IAG given clearance by Irish government to buy its 25% shares in Aer Lingus takeover

Wednesday, 27 May 2015

International Airlines Group (IAG), the owner of British Airways, is set to take over Aer Lingus in a deal that values the airline at €1.4bn after the Irish government agreed to sell them its 25% stake. The Dublin government’s agreement to sell their stake was critical for the deal to progress. Donohue said: “IAG has provided additional information and certain commitments in relation to its proposal.” IAG has further extended guarantees about routes to Ireland from Heathrow, from five to seven years, although they remain some way short of the decade-long commitment Dublin had sought. The guarantees also are dependent on airport charges being limited to inflation. The government has secured important guarantees on the maintenance of Aer Lingus’ iconic brand, and its head office staying in Ireland. There are also some assurances over protecting existing Irish jobs at Aer Lingus, which wants to continue to use Irish crew bases. Ryanair still owns 29% of Aer Lingus shares. About 46% is owned by Aer Lingus. The 24 landing slots Aer Lingus controls at Heathrow are among the most lucrative for BA. The Heathrow-Dublin link is one of the busiest in Europe, and highly profitable.
.
Tweet

IAG given clearance by Irish government for Aer Lingus takeover

The Irish government is to sell its 25% stake in Aer Lingus to British Airways owner International Airlines Group. British Airways owner offers extended guarantees about routes to Ireland from Heathrow in deal that values Dublin-based flag carrier at €1.4bn.

By Henry McDonald, Ireland correspondent (Guardian)

26.5.2015

The owner of British Airways is set to take over Aer Lingus in a deal that values the Dublin-based flag carrier at €1.4bn after the Irish government agreed to sell its stake to International Airlines Group.

Paschal Donohue, Ireland’s transport minister, confirmed that the sale of the former Irish state carrier to IAG can now go ahead.

The Dublin government owns 25% of the airline but its agreement, after six months of consideration, was critical for the deal to progress.

Following a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday evening, Donohue said: “IAG has provided additional information and certain commitments in relation to its proposal. Following detailed consideration of this and all of the issues surrounding a potential disposal of the state’s shareholding in Aer Lingus, the government has decided that it will support IAG’s proposal.”

IAG has further extended guarantees about routes to Ireland from Heathrow, from five to seven years, although they remain some way short of the decade-long commitment Dublin had sought. The guarantees also are dependent on airport charges being limited to inflation.

Donohue added: “This proposed offer has been the subject of very detailed discussions and negotiations with IAG since the board of Aer Lingus indicated on 27 January that it was prepared to recommend the offer. The government has secured important guarantees in respect of Ireland’s future connectivity, particularly to London Heathrow, and on the maintenance of Aer Lingus’ iconic brand and of its head office in Ireland.

“IAG has set out ambitious growth plans for the company and the government is confident that supporting IAG’s offer for Aer Lingus is the best way of securing Aer Lingus’ future in an increasingly-competitive global airline market and of enhancing Ireland’s connectivity with the rest of the world and our potential for growth and development into the future.”

Earlier on Tuesday, Aer Lingus chief executive officer Stephen Kavanagh wrote to the minister with some assurances over protecting existing Irish jobs at the airline in the event of the takeover. Kavanagh and the Aer Lingus board had backed IAG’s plans once it took control of the carrier.

Kavanagh told the minister that “the airline’s preference is to continue to use Irish crew bases – provided it continues to be as competitive and efficient as at present – and to only restructure its business when required.”

Later on Tuesday evening, an IAG spokesman confirmed that the takeover was going ahead.

A spokesman for Ryanair, which owns 29% of the shares – but has been told by competition authorities that it must sell down its stake after its own takeover bids were blocked – said the its position remained unchanged. “The board of Ryanair has not received an offer and will consider any offer on its merits, if and when an offer is made.”

The sale of the Irish state’s 25% share in Aer Lingus has been opposed by the two main opposition parties – Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin – along with a host of leftwing deputies in the Dáil.

Reports in the Irish media earlier on Tuesday suggested that IAG gave the Fine Gael-Labour coalition commitments about routes, regional airports and jobs in its takeover bid. The commitments also include the continued use of Cork and Shannon airports for routes principally to the UK.

There were further claims that IAG had promised to introduce four new transatlantic routes from Ireland creating a further 635 jobs by 2020. SIPTU, the largest trade union at Aer Lingus, had, alongside the Labour party, sought these concessions if it was going to accept the takeover deal.

The 24 landing slots Aer Lingus controls at Heathrow are among the most lucrative for Willie Walsh, IAG chief executive, to capture in the takeover with the Dublin-to-London route the busiest intercity air connection in Europe.

The Dublin route is highly profitable, with a projected 28 million passengers expected to pass through Ireland’s premier airport by 2022.

The takeover would see Walsh again at the helm of the airline where he made his name as chief executive – and started his aviation career as a pilot. He has championed consolidation in the European airline market, and created IAG with the union of British Airways and Iberia in 2011 – with the latter finally turning a profit on the back of a savage cost-cutting and redundancy regime this year. Walsh has since added Vueling, a Spanish low-cost carrier, to the group.

http://ift.tt/1FC2oS1

Ryanair owns over 29% of Aer Lingus stock and the Irish state owns over 25%. The state had previously held an 85% shareholding until the Government’s decision to float the company on the Dublin and London Stock Exchanges on 2 October 2006. The principal group companies include Aer Lingus Limited, Aer Lingus Beachey Limited, Aer Lingus (Ireland) Limited and Dirnan Insurance Company Limited, all of which are wholly owned.

http://ift.tt/1z5IBHV

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1Q9OOYZ

Richmond Heathrow Campaign response to Commission’s air quality consultation

Tuesday, 26 May 2015

The Richmond Heathrow Campaign (RHC) have submitted their response to the Airports Commission’s consultation on air quality. They comment on the inadequacy of the consultation, and the difficulty for lay people in understanding it. They say that with at least 100,000 people affected by a worsening of the air quality resulting from Heathrow expansion, plans, it is not realistic for the government to approve such a plan. The various possible mitigations for NO2 “may not be sufficient to avoid delaying compliance with standards that are already being breached. This will mean that if expansion were approved by the Government, it would knowingly be planning to continue breaching standards without a realistic plan to put this right.” The RHC put – in plain English – some of their concerns about the Jacobs study, done for the Commission, and the things it has left out. Just a few of these include: the date chosen to assess air quality is 2030, when a runway would only be perhaps 35% full; much of the anticipated reduction in air pollution is from a higher proportion of air passengers travelling to and from the airport by rail; the cost of the necessary enhancements of rail services would be a huge cost for the taxpayer; health impacts, especially of vulnerable groups, have not been assessed. Richmond Heathrow Campaign Response to Air Quality Consultation
.
Tweet

Responding to the consultation:

If people wish to respond to the consultation, details of how to do so at the bottom of this page. We suggest you write a short, non-technical response, using some of the points below. The response by Clean Air in London is especially useful.

Below are a list, in no particular order, of problems with the Airports Commission’s air quality consultation:

4. The area around Heathrow already has high levels of air pollution, and has struggled to bring this down in recent years. Whether it could meet the air quality targets by 2030 even without a new runway is uncertain. The addition of a new runway could only make that worse. Heathrow is covered by the London Air
Quality Plan and it seems that adding a runway could slow down achievement of the plan.

6. London is growing very fast, and the consultation does not appear to take into account the growing numbers living in affected areas.

10. EU air quality standards expect governments to improve air quality, and not let it deteriorate. Either runway proposal would only have the effect of causing a deterioration in air quality.

The response to the consultation by Clean Air in London:

Clean Air in London respond to Commission consultation – Heathrow or Gatwick runway would breach air pollution laws

May 24, 2015

Clean Air in London (CAL) has made its response to the Airports Commission’s air pollution consultation (ends 29th May). They make 2 key points – that either runway at Heathrow would cause aggravated breaches of the NO2 annual limit value, in 2030 (and perhaps other timescales) and therefore be unlawful; and that a runway at Gatwick would not be consistent with sustainable development, as it would worsen air quality. The Airports Commission expects the Heathrow north west runway scheme would mean worse air quality, (in terms of annual mean NO2 concentrations) at about 47,000 properties, and 39,000 for the Hub ENR runway scheme; and at about 21,000 properties for the Gatwick runway. For Gatwick to do this would not be consistent with the duty on Member States under Directive 2008/50/EC to maintain the levels below the limit values. Under Directive 2008/50/EC NO2 limit values must not be exceeded once attained; and where air quality is ‘good’, Article 12 of the directive applies i.e. Member States shall not only maintain the levels below the limit values but also “endeavour to preserve the best ambient air quality compatible with sustainable development”.

Click here to view full story…

The launch of the air quality consultation:

Airports Commission to carry out a new consultation on air quality impact of runway schemes

May 8, 2015

It is reported that the Airports Commission is now intending to carry out a new public consultation on the the impact of air quality of a new runway. It is thought that the Commission is keen to avert a potential legal challenge to their decision, if the runway would put air quality standards at risk. Only recently the UK Supreme Court ruled that as Britain is still not meeting EU air quality standards, it must quickly produce plans to limit pollution, especially NO2. The FT reports that the consultation would be a very quick, technically focused one, perhaps being completed by the end of May. It is not anticipated to involve any meetings with the general public. Sir Howard Davies is off to become Chairman of RBS, starting that job on 1st September. He joins the RBS board at the end of June. Therefore the runway decision was anticipated during June. If the consultation on air quality is to be thorough enough, and give those consulted adequate time to respond, getting an announcement by the end of June would be very difficult. Parts of the Heathrow area regularly breach air quality limits. Though Gatwick has less of an air quality problem, expanding it to the size Heathrow is now would risk breaching air quality limits – and the Commission should not recommend a development that would mean NO2 limits would be broken.

Click here to view full story…

How to respond to the Airports Commission consultation

The consultation started on 8th May, and ends at midday on 29th May.

Links to the various documents are below:

Air quality consultation cover note (2 pages)

Air quality assessment: detailed emissions inventory and dispersion modelling (206 pages)

Air quality assessment: figures appendix (51 pages)

Air quality assessment: spatial maps (10 pages)

Air quality assessment: airports backing data (multiple spreadsheets)

On 18th May another document was added.

Stakeholder Air Quality Consultation Queries and Airports Commission Responses May 2015

The Commission is now inviting further comments on its analysis prior to midday on Friday May 29.

Comments can be submitted via email to :

air.quality@airports.gsi.gov.uk

or by post to:

Airports Commission
6 Floor
Sanctuary Buildings
20 Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3BT

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1SB1Xyc

Heathrow’s north west runway plan would destroy historic village of Harmondsworth

Tuesday, 26 May 2015

Road noise combined with aircraft noise raises risk of laying down increased abdominal fat

Tuesday, 26 May 2015

Living near a main road causes people to gain weight, with the risk of obesity doubling for homes that are also under a flight path and near a railway line. Researchers believe that the stress of traffic din may raise stress levels to the point where the body starts laying down more fat because it thinks it is heading for a time for crisis, when food may be scarce. The noise exposure may be a physiological stressor that raises the production of cortisol, which increases appetite. Normal traffic noise is around 45 decibels, but research indicates that for every 5 decibels above that, the average home-owner gains an extra 0.2cm on the waist measurement. “Traffic noise is a common and increasing environmental exposure, primarily due to ongoing urbanisation and growth of the transport sector,” said lead author Dr Andrei Pyko, Karolinska Institute in Sweden…..Our results suggested associations with waist circumference primarily in the age group below 60 years.” Obesity around the waist is one of the most harmful types of fat, and has been linked to diseases like diabetes. Researchers at Imperial College also found that hospital admissions for stroke, heart and circulatory disease are higher in areas with high levels of aircraft noise.

.
Tweet

Why living on a main road could be making you fatter

The stress of traffic noise makes people put on more weight around their waist, a study has shown

By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor (Telegraph)

25 May 2015

Living near a main road causes people to gain weight with the risk of obesity doubling for homes that are also under a flight path and near a railway.

Researchers believe that the stress of traffic din may raise stress levels to the point where the body starts laying down more fat because it thinks it is heading for a time for crisis, when food may be scarce.

Normal traffic noise is around 45 decibels, but for every five decibels above that, the average homeowner gains an extra 0.2cm on the waist measurement.

London’s Tottenham Court Road regularly records noise of up to 80 decibels meaning residents could expect to be on average 1.4 cm larger waistlines than if they lived in a quieter location.

And noise levels around Buckingham Palace exceed 75 decibels, suggesting even the Queen may be affected by the problem.

Living under a flight path combined with a road and railway was also found to double the risk of obesity.

“Traffic noise is a common and increasing environmental exposure, primarily due to ongoing urbanisation and growth of the transport sector,” said lead author Dr Andrei Pyko, Karolinska Institute in Sweden

“Road traffic is the dominating source, followed by railway and aircraft noise. Health effects related to traffic noise are widespread and span from annoyance, sleep disturbances and changes in stress hormone levels to adverse effects on the cardiovascular system.

“Our results suggested associations with waist circumference primarily in the age group below 60 years.”

• Obesity crisis: overheated homes and offices adding to weighty problem
• Pollution: the biggest killer on Britain’s roads
• Diesel cars could be banished as Britain ordered to cut air pollution

The results suggest that people who are trying to lose weight should consider living in less urbanised environments.

And the findings are particularly worrying because obesity around the waist is one of the most harmful types of fat, and has been linked to diseases like diabetes.

The researchers assessed how much road traffic, rail, and aircraft noise 5075 people between 43 and 66 living in five suburban and rural areas around Stockholm, Sweden, had been exposed to since 1999.

They then completed a detailed questionnaire covering lifestyle, current state of health, levels of psychological distress, insomnia and job strain. They were also asked about environmental noise pollution from road traffic, trains, and planes.

The study found that there was a 0.21 cm increase for every additional 5 decibel increase in noise level. Living under a flight path doubled the rate of obesity.

In Britain, 25 per cent of adults are obese — 12 million people — compared with fewer than 3 per cent in the Seventies. The proportion is predicted to grow to one in three by 2030.

A recent study found that for every 10 decibel increase in road noise, the risk of stroke among over 65s increases by more than a quarter. Researchers at the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology in Copenhagen believe one in five strokes in urban areas could be due to living in noisy homes.

Researchers at Imperial College also found that hospital admissions for stroke, heart and circulatory disease are higher in areas with high levels of aircraft noise.

Dr Anna Hansell, at the Centre for Environment and Health, Imperial College London, said: “While interesting, this is one of the first studies to look at the link between waist size and traffic noise, so it’s definitely too soon to be able to blame your increasing waist-line on traffic noise!

“Also, the size of the reported associations with traffic noise are small. Eating a sensible diet and taking regular exercise remains the best way to help prevent a midriff bulge.

“A number of recently published studies have found associations between transport noise and high blood pressure, heart disease and stroke.

The research was published in the BMJ journal Occupational & Environmental Medicine.

http://ift.tt/1J0y6L7

Speculation from Swedish research that stress from aircraft noise could raise risk of obesity

May 5, 2015

Millions of urban Europeans are exposed to aviation noise that contributes to stress, high blood pressure and even weight gain, say health specialists who want stronger measures to make flying quieter. While plane engines have become slightly less noisy over the past 3 decades, there are considerably more flights and also demand for bigger passenger planes – which make more noise than smaller ones. As well as the effects of exposure to noise being linked to heart and blood pressure problems, and slower learning in children in some circumstances, there is now concern about an increase in obesity. Medical researchers at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm have added weight gain to the potential impact of noise on public health. In a study of people living near the Swedish capital’s Arlanda Airport, the research team found that prolonged exposure to aircraft noise caused a “statistically significant” increase in waist sizes. They found a noise level raised by 5 decibels correlated with an increase in waist size of 1.5 cm. The mechanism for this may be that stress from sleep disturbance and annoyance could increase production of cortisol, leading to increased appetite.

http://ift.tt/1IcSf04

Living near a busy road or airport can give you a pot belly claim scientists in Sweden

25 MAY 2015 (Mirror)
BY ANDREW GREGORY

Scientists in Sweden claim to have discovered link between noise levels from traffic, trains and aircraft and bulging waistline

People who live near noisy traffic face a bigger risk of developing a pot belly, a study shows.

And those whose homes are near railway lines, flight paths and busy roads are the most likely to acquire a spare tyre.

Central obesity – too much fat around your waist – is said to be one of the most harmful types of fat deposition around the body.

It happens when excessive fat around the stomach and abdomen has built up to the extent that it is likely to have a negative impact on your health.

People with pot bellies face an increased risk of a number of conditions including Type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

Scientists did not find a link between traffic noise and your overall BMI, according to research published in Occupational & Environmental Medicine.

But they found that noise exposure may be an “important physiological stressor” and bump up the production of cortisol.

And high levels of this hormone are thought to have a key role in fat deposition around the middle of the body.

Prof Goran Pershagen, of the Karolinska Institutet at the Institute of Environmental Medicine, in Stockholm, Sweden, said: “This may explain why the effects of noise were mainly seen for markers of central obesity, such as waist circumference and waist-hip ratio, rather than for generalised obesity, measured by BMI.”

Traffic noise from any or all of the three sources may also affect metabolic as well as cardiovascular functions, through sleep disturbance, the study suggests, altering appetite control and energy expenditure.

The researchers assessed how much road traffic, rail, and aircraft noise 5,000 people living in five suburban and rural areas around Stockholm, Sweden, had been exposed to since 1999.

They did this, by using official figures on road and rail traffic noise levels and flow. The comprehensive study included information on ground surfaces, building heights, speed limits and noise barriers from the five areas.

They also used national data on aircraft noise from Stockholm’s main airport, Arlanda.

Between 2002 and 2006, when they were aged between 43 and 66, the participants completed a detailed questionnaire covering lifestyle, current state of health, levels of psychological distress, insomnia and job strain.

They were also asked about environmental noise pollution from road traffic, trains, and planes.

Hounslow ChronicleAeroplanes landing at Heathrow Airport
And they underwent medical tests, which included blood pressure and a test for diabetes, as well as measures of central body fat (waist and hips and the waist:hip ratio), and overall obesity (weight and height to define the body mass index or BMI).

The researchers calculated that well over half (62%) had been regularly exposed to road traffic noise of at least 45 decibels (dB) while one in 20 had been exposed to similar levels of noise from trains. More than one in five had been exposed to aircraft noise of more than 45 dB.

Just over half (54%) had been exposed to one source of traffic noise, 15% to two sources and 2% to all three. Around a third (30%) had been exposed to levels below 45 dB, which were not considered to be harmful.

The scientists found no link between road traffic noise and BMI. But there was a link between road traffic noise and waist size, with a 0.21cm increase for every additional 5 dB increase in exposure.

A larger waist was significantly associated with exposure to any of the three sources of noise, but the link was strongest for aircraft noise.

And the more sources of noise pollution a person was exposed to at the same time, the greater their risk of a pot belly seemed to be.

The heightened risk of a larger waist rose from 25% among those exposed to only one source to almost double for those exposed to all three sources at the sane time.

The scientists said their findings were not influenced by socioeconomic factors, lifestyle, or exposure to air pollution from the traffic.

But they did find the link link between a spare tyre and road traffic noise only in those aged under 60.

Commenting on the study, Dr Anna Hansell, of Imperial College London, said: “While interesting, this is one of the first studies to look at the link between waist size and traffic noise, so it’s definitely too soon to be able to blame your increasing waist-line on traffic noise.

“The study needs to be replicated in other areas and in other study populations to confirm the findings. Also, the size of the reported associations with traffic noise are small. Eating a sensible diet and taking regular exercise remains the best way to help prevent a midriff bulge.”

http://ift.tt/1JTio5f

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

Pages

Gatwick, Heathrow and London City Airport campaigns come together to oppose airspace change

Names of signatories and groups

The joint letter:

Names of signatories and groups

Flights alert amid runway rivalry

Rival London airports bid for Scots support

Below are a list, in no particular order, of problems with the Airports Commission’s air quality consultation:

How to respond to the Airports Commission consultation

Air quality consultation cover note (2 pages)

Air quality assessment: detailed emissions inventory and dispersion modelling (206 pages)

Air quality assessment: figures appendix (51 pages)

Air quality assessment: spatial maps (10 pages)

Air quality assessment: airports backing data (multiple spreadsheets)

Richmond Heathrow Campaign response to Commission’s air quality consultation

Clean Air in London respond to Commission consultation – Heathrow or Gatwick runway would breach air pollution laws

GACC response to Airports Commission: Gatwick runway could breach EU pollution law

Reliability of Gatwick data challenged by MPs

Members of the GCG (Gatwick Coordination Group)

Gatwick runway could breach EU pollution law

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

Clean Air in London respond to Commission consultation – Heathrow or Gatwick runway would breach air pollution laws

Airports Commission rushes out new technical consultation (for just 3 weeks) on air quality

Paris Conference

“My Government will seek effective global collaboration to sustain economic recovery and to combat climate change, including at the climate change conference in Paris later this year.”

Carbon budgets

Government fails to properly include international aviation in UK carbon budgets – decision put off till 2016

IAG given clearance by Irish government for Aer Lingus takeover

Below are a list, in no particular order, of problems with the Airports Commission’s air quality consultation:

Clean Air in London respond to Commission consultation – Heathrow or Gatwick runway would breach air pollution laws

Airports Commission to carry out a new consultation on air quality impact of runway schemes

How to respond to the Airports Commission consultation

Air quality consultation cover note (2 pages)

Air quality assessment: detailed emissions inventory and dispersion modelling (206 pages)

Air quality assessment: figures appendix (51 pages)

Air quality assessment: spatial maps (10 pages)

Air quality assessment: airports backing data (multiple spreadsheets)

Why living on a main road could be making you fatter

The stress of traffic noise makes people put on more weight around their waist, a study has shown

Speculation from Swedish research that stress from aircraft noise could raise risk of obesity

Living near a busy road or airport can give you a pot belly claim scientists in Sweden