Airport UK

Retired Gatwick GP warns of health impact of Gatwick runway, especially on those vulnerable to asthma and respiratory illness

Sunday, 24 May 2015

A retired GP, who worked in Langley Green for nearly 40 years, believes a 2nd Gatwick runway would lead to a ‘disastrous’ increase in Crawley’s air pollution. He feels that increased pollution from planes and vehicle traffic would worsen high levels of respiratory illnesses in neighbourhoods near the airport. He says this would lead to ‘considerable’ increases in air pollution and noise in Crawley, a decrease in the standard of living and a fall in townspeople’s health within 15 years of the runway and associated infrastructure being built. People living in Langley Green, Ifield and Crawley’s new neighbourhood, Forge Wood, would be worst affected. Over this time as a GP he had seen quite a substantial rise in the number of respiratory illnesses, particularly asthma, particularly in children. He said “the last thing you would want to do is make that worse” and that the airport’s effect on the increasing rate of lung-related conditions across the area played on his mind during his medical career. He said in Crawley almost 10% of his patients were from South Asian origin, a group that is known to have a higher than average incidence of asthma and greater than average need for emergency admission to hospital for asthma. But little thought seems to have been given to their welfare. He also questions the provision of extra medical facilities that would be needed if there was a new runway. Facilities are already stretched – and Gatwick will not pay for more.

.
Tweet

GP fears airport bid will increase town pollution

CRAWLEY OBSERVER

8th April 2015

A retired GP believes a second runway at Gatwick Airport would lead to a ‘disastrous’ increase in Crawley’s air pollution.

Dr Paul Stillman, a former senior partner at Leacroft Medical Practice claimed increased pollution from planes and vehicle traffic would worsen high levels of respiratory illnesses in neighbourhoods near the airport.

A spokesman for Gatwick Airport said studies on the effect the second runway would have on roads showed the GP’s fears about increased road traffic were inaccurate.

The spokesman added it had not breached EU and UK annual air quality limits. The airport would maintain its ‘100 per cent’ record should the runway be built.

Dr Stillman, 68, of Pound Hill, who worked in Langley Green for nearly 40 years, believed Gatwick expansion would lead to ‘considerable’ increases in air pollution and noise in Crawley, a similar decrease in the standard of living and a fall in townspeople’s health within 15 years of the runway and associated infrastructure being built.

He said: “I think that’s disastrous because living in an area is not simply about the prosperity, it’s about the quality of life that you have.

“I cannot really see this is going to benefit the community and it certainly would have a poor effect on the people who live in that part of the world.”

He said people living in Langley Green, Ifield and Crawley’s new neighbourhood, Forge Wood, would be worst affected.

Dr Stillman said: “Throughout my professional time in general practice in that part of the town [Langley Green] certainly we saw a quite substantial rise in the number of respiratory illnesses – we saw particularly asthma, particularly in children.

“You’ve got a lot of people for whatever reason are suffering of something, of which some of it certainly is reversible – the last thing you want to do is make that worse.”

Dr Stillman said pollution was triggering asthma and other lung-related attacks across the neighbourhood.

He said the airport’s effect on the increasing rate of lung-related conditions across the area played on his mind during his medical career.

A Gatwick Airport spokesman said: “Neither our modelling or that of the Airports Commission, or comments by West Sussex County Council suggest that this is an accurate picture of the impact of a second runway on local roads.

“Gatwick Airport has never breached EU and UK annual air quality limits and would maintain this 100 per cent air quality record with a second runway.

“We have also committed to a range of measures that would improve journey times for local road users and manage all traffic better if the airport expands.

“In addition, Gatwick would create a £10 million Local Highway Development Fund to meet any additional work required to improve local roads.”

http://ift.tt/1HENATw

“Asthma is one of the most common chronic childhood illnesses in the UK. South Asian children are more likely to suffer from their asthma and be admitted to hospital.” UCL

http://ift.tt/1HENATu

The two letters are below:

Letter sent to local GPs.

Dear Dr

The proposed expansion of Gatwick Airport

The decision whether to build a second runway and its associated additional passenger terminal at Gatwick Airport presents the most important decision affecting anybody living in or near Crawley in living memory. It is vital that any of us involved in their welfare make an informed choice and share this in any way we can, through local patient groups, public pressure groups and parliamentary representatives.

Recent surveys by the regional media suggest most residents are in favour of this expansion, although only a small proportion have followed the discussion or read the arguments for and against. And this is easy to understand. The huge publicity machine for Gatwick Airport promises more jobs and new businesses bringing wealth to the area and to those who live in it. The integrity of a company already under scrutiny for the UK taxes they pay may raise doubts, and in reality of course we enjoy one of the lowest rates of unemployment anywhere at just 1.2%. It has been estimated a second runway would create at least 22,000 new jobs by 2050 so these posts would have to be filled largely by commuters from south London, Surrey, Sussex and Kent, and by massive new building programmes around Crawley. This in turn will compound our current rail and road problems and the 95 million people travelling through the extended airport each year must result in a profound impact on noise, air quality and consequent stress levels of all the residents, new and old.

In Langley Green, where I practiced, houses will be compulsorily demolished and many of the remainder left adjacent to perimeter fencing and a very large earth mound. This population already suffers from an unusually high incidence of respiratory conditions. In Crawley we have almost 10% of our patients from Asian origin, 50% higher than the national average. The incidence of asthma amongst them is well known, although little thought seems to have been given to their welfare. The need for emergency admission is three times greater for Asian asthmatics than for the white population. There has been much talk of the 7-8 billion pounds needed to improve the infrastructure in travel, housing, schools and even the old chestnut, a new hospital. Almost all of this – if it actually happens – will come from the private sector and taxation. On a more immediate level we have already seen the loss of a GP practice in West Green with no plans to replace it.

Promise of a new practice to support the housing development off Haslett Avenue never materialised, and a new surgery at Forge Wood has been described as ‘financially difficult’. I understand the Clinical Commissioning Group believe it is unlikely they will be able to support any new practice buildings, despite the current proposals for at least 4000 new houses east and west of the town, including Kilnwood Vale, Forgewood and Copthorne. What chance for a new hospital?

The loss of part of the Manor Royal estate will forcibly remove some of the businesses our current prosperity depends on. How many new ones will be attracted remains to be seen, although our current businesses are spread across a diverse range of companies, surely more healthy than having all our eggs in one basket when approaching an uncertain long term future for the air travel industry.

Crawley Borough Council, West Sussex and Kent County Councils have all withdrawn their support for this development and voted against it. The final decision rests now with central government, guided by a report from the independent Airports Commission. If they decide to enlarge Heathrow anybody who has the ear of their community needs to be able to reassure them this is in their best interests. If they agree with Gatwick Airport Ltd we must be prepared to express our concerns and objections in any way we can.

Thank you for reading this letter. More information can be found at the One’s Enough Crawley Facebook page http://ift.tt/1HENB9L or the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign,www.gacc.org.uk. If you have any comments please email them to me via gatwickonesenough@gmail.com and they will be forwarded.

Yours sincerely

Dr Paul Stillman
.

Letter to MP (and parliamentary candidate at the election)

Dear Henry Smith and Chris Oxlade

I am writing to express my opposition to the expansion of Gatwick Airport. I have worked as a general practitioner in Langley Green, adjacent to the existing airport, for over 30 years. A major clinical problem throughout that time has been the high levels of respiratory disorders, including asthma in children and young adults. Stress related illnesses, including high blood pressure with all its consequences, have also been apparent in this community more than elsewhere. I do not believe this is related to social deprivation or employment issues, simply because we don’t have them. It is however certainly in part the result of poor air quality from both aero fuels and road vehicles, and traffic congestion with the loss of open spaces for us to enjoy. Perhaps saddest of all is that Asians of all ages have an incidence of asthma 50% above the white population, in Langley Green and Ifield represent 10% of the resident population. They already live near the boundary of the airfield but will be much closer to these hazards should this proposed expansion take place. The recent Crawley Borough Council consultation on air quality highlights the existing high levels of pollution on Crawley Avenue, which will be disastrously increased and spread to all arterial roads across and around the town, should a second runway be approved.

The benefits of expansion appear minimal, but the losses frightening. Recreational spaces such as that at Cherry Lane, and north of Stafford Road, will be lost or at best rendered unusable. Cars and delivery vehicles already use roads through this area to attempt to bypass queues on major arteries. The most polluting vehicles are those going slowly, or at a standstill. It is unfortunate although common that schools have been sited on these main roads, often near junctions.

Elsewhere in the town many people, who perhaps see themselves as geographically separated from the worst of the development, are largely in favour of the scheme, although they also admit to little knowledge of the magnitude of the proposals and implications. Yet the size of the potential expansion, together with increased urbanisation, road congestion and pollution will affect those living in Broadfield, Bewbush, and Gossops Green and other neighbourhoods across the town in a similar way. The first residents of Forge Wood which was not included in Gatwick’s consultation plans may be surprised to find themselves perilously close to the new airport.

Crawley was built on a network of communities, each small enough to have its own identity, large enough to boast shops, schools, churches, doctors’ surgeries. I fought and failed to maintain the latter in West Green. At the same time it emerged the housing development at Haslett Avenue on the old sports centre site had been promised a practice but that this never happened. I now learn that Forge Wood may suffer the same fate.

Traditionally people vote on ‘gut’ reaction, without a deep understanding of the issues. That is I hope why they turn to their elected representatives to guide them. The right way forward is not always the most obvious and it is chilling to wonder how history will remember the choices of those of us who ought to have known better.

Yours sincerely

Dr Paul Stillman

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

Fears Cameron may opt for Gatwick runway, just to avoid Cabinet rift on Heathrow

Sunday, 24 May 2015

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

Saturday, 23 May 2015

Clean Air in London (CAL) – which has huge expertise on all issues relating to air quality – 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”.
.
Tweet

Airport expansion at Heathrow or Gatwick would breach air pollution laws

23.5.2015 (Clean Air in London – CAL)

by Simon Birkett

Clean Air in London has made its submission to the Airports Commission’s consultation on air quality.

Airports Commission: Consultation on Air Quality Assessment

The two main points they make are:

– Airport expansion at Heathrow would cause aggravated breaches of nitrogen dioxide limit values and be unlawful

– Airport expansion at Gatwick would not be consistent with sustainable development

Dear Sir Howard

Clean Air in London (CAL) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Airports Commission’s new evidence relating to air quality assessment of the three short-listed options for additional airport capacity.

The Consultation can be seen here:

http://ift.tt/1KR8teU

CAL is a voluntary organisation which campaigns to achieve urgently and sustainably full compliance with World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines for air quality throughout London and elsewhere. Further information about CAL can be found at http://cleanair.london/.

CAL is independent of any government funding, has cross party support and a large number of supporters, both individuals in London and organisations. CAL provides a channel for both public concern and expert opinion on air pollution in London. This document provides both general and expert comments in response to the Consultation.

Airport related traffic is a major cause of air pollution in London, which in turn causes thousands of premature deaths per year, and many thousands more illnesses, chronic illness and disability. For this reason, airport expansion impacts on air pollution.

Background

We refer to the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in ClientEarth versus Defra and the Court of Justice of the European Union:

http://ift.tt/1HCPYKo

Separately, it is open to the European Commission to pursue infraction proceedings against the UK for exceedances of NO₂ limit values since 2010, including in the Greater London zone, and it commenced this process in February 2014. You will understand that this is wholly separate to the Government’s responsibilities to the Supreme Court. For details:

http://ift.tt/1PEifas

You may be aware of guidance published by Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) in 2010. That guidance has been updated by EPUK and the Institute of Air Quality Management[1]. However, neither EPUK’s 2010 guidance nor the updated guidance takes account of or correctly states the significance of the very recent legal developments which have clarified to the law. For that reason inter alia it is our view that the guidance is flawed in important respects.

The legal judgments, letter of clarification previously from the European Commission to CAL (attached), Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe and prospect of escalating infraction action make clear inter alia that: NO₂ limit values must be achieved urgently and ‘as soon as possible’ to protect public health; limit values are absolute obligations that must be attained irrespective of cost; limit values apply everywhere with three exceptions; 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”.

You will be aware that Defra identified the roads around Heathrow airport as having among the highest illegal levels of NO₂ in the UK still by 2030 even without airport expansion:

http://ift.tt/1PEifat

http://ift.tt/1FXwzCq

CAL also brings to your attention its analysis and complaint to the European Commission about breaches of air quality laws arising from the suspension of the M4 bus lane:

http://ift.tt/1PEifau

Airports Commission options

We have seen Jacobs report titled ‘Module 6: Air Quality Local Assessment Detailed Emissions Inventory and Dispersion Modelling’ prepared for the Airports Commission and dated May 2015:

http://ift.tt/1QvOAxm

This report states that: “The assessment has considered changes within a “Principal AIRPORTS COMMISSION AIR QUALITY: Executive Summary ASSESSMENT ii Study Area”, which encompasses a 2km radius around each Scheme boundary, and a “Wider Study Area”, which includes all roads for which a significant change in traffic has been forecast” (Executive summary pages i and ii).

In CAL’s view, this is not sufficient to assess impacts of air pollution since even very slight worsening of air pollution may be unlawful where limit values are exceeded.

[The response quotes the sections from the Commission’s consultation, on each of the runway schemes – see end of the letter] .

CAL’s response

It is apparent from the documents published by the Airports Commission that:

both Schemes for airport expansion at Heathrow would cause aggravated breaches of the NO₂ annual mean limit value in 2030 and perhaps other timescales i.e. the worsening of NO₂ levels where limit values will already be exceeded; and
the Gatwick scheme is predicted to worsen air quality (in terms of annual mean NO₂ concentrations) at about 21,000 properties. This would not be consistent with the duty on Member States under Directive 2008/50/EC to maintain the levels below the limit values and also “endeavour to preserve the best ambient air quality compatible with sustainable development”.

The report for the Airports Commission also misunderstands important obligations under Directive 2008/50/EC. In particular, it wrongly assumes that the worsening of air pollution above limit values (i.e. aggravated breaches) has less significance where an air quality zone or agglomeration has worse air pollution elsewhere e.g. in Marylebone Road. This is not correct. Limit values apply everywhere with three exceptions (see Annex III of Directive 2008/50/EC and the letter of clarification referred to earlier).

In CAL’s opinion development proposals that worsen air pollution, where limit values are exceeded or likely to be exceeded, must ensure that their genuine net impact would be to improve air quality during demolition, construction and operation and not worsen it. Mitigation measures cannot be relied upon to reduce their impact. Limit values must be attained quickly and cannot thereafter be exceeded.

It is apparent from the documents that the two Schemes for Heathrow, if approved, would worsen already illegal concentrations of NO₂ in 2030 (and perhaps also in other time frames). The Scheme for Gatwick would not be consistent with sustainable development. To worsen air quality contradicts the duty under Directive 2008/50/EC and would be unlawful. None of the exceptions to attaining limit values applies. Please therefore reject all three Schemes.

Aviation emissions

CAL is concerned about aviation emissions as well as ground traffic movements. Please see recent research:

http://ift.tt/1PEifYd

CAL understands that computer modelling assumes no impact of aviation emissions on ground-level air quality when aircraft are flying above 1,000 metres i.e. outside the landing and take-off cycle.

CAL considers it highly unlikely that aircraft flying over Greater London would have no direct impact on ground level air quality or contribute only to background concentrations.

Further CAL understands that Terminal 5 at Heathrow could not have been built if proper consideration had been given to the effect of limit values. Please do not make this mistake again.

Please contact me if you have any questions or would like more information on any of the points raised in this letter.

I would be pleased to discuss this submission with you.

Yours sincerely

Simon Birkett

Founder and Director

[1] http://ift.tt/1PEifay

CAL 307 Keuken et al PNC near Schiphol airport AE2015

CAL 307 Defra RFI_7162_Copy_of_Highest_50_modelledroads_NO2_amended_by_BH

CAL 307 Defra RFI_7162_-_20150217_NO2_Concentrations_Redacted__2__amended

CAL 307 Airports_air-quality-consultation-cover-note 190515

CAL 307 Airports_air-quality-local-assessment-report 190515

CAL 307 Airports_air-quality-local-assessment-airports-backing-data 190515

http://ift.tt/1en590v

Gatwick Airport Second Runway Scheme (Gatwick 2R)

The Conclusions on page 56 of the report are:

“The principal conclusions of this assessment with respect to the Gatwick 2R Scheme are:

The Scheme would not affect compliance with the current NECD and Gothenburg Protocol obligations. If the NECD obligation is tightened in line with current proposals, the UK would exceed the obligation with or without Gatwick 2R. The incremental emissions associated with Gatwick 2R represent a very small fraction of the proposed obligations;
The Scheme would not cause any exceedences of the Limit Value or air quality objective for NO₂, and would not delay Defra achieving compliance with the Limit Value in the relevant zone. The proposals for the Gatwick 2R Scheme include realignment of the A23 to the east, but it is not possible to replicate Defra’s PCM predictions at this realigned link, nor is it possible to confirm whether this new link would be included in the PCM model (due to lack of public exposure) and no further assessment can be provided;
The Scheme would not cause any new exceedences of the Critical Level (for NOx) or the lower band of the Critical Load (for nitrogen deposition), at any designated habitat. The Scheme would increase NOx concentrations in locations where the Critical Level is already exceeded (but as noted in Chapter 2, Defra’s interpretation of the Directive is that the Critical Level does not strictly apply at these sites;
The Scheme would worsen air quality (in terms of annual mean NO₂ concentrations) at about 21,000 properties; and
The total costs of the increases in NOx and PM₁₀ emissions over the 60 year appraisal period, based on the unmitigated change in mass emissions with the Gatwick 2R Scheme in place, are £73.6m and £246.9m respectively.” CAL emphasis

Heathrow Airport Northwest Runway Scheme (Heathrow NWR)

The Conclusions on page 79 of the report are:

“The principal conclusions of this assessment with respect to the NWR Scheme are:

The Scheme would not affect compliance with the current NECD and Gothenburg Protocol obligations. If the NECD obligation is tightened in line with current proposals, the UK would exceed the obligation with or without Heathrow NWR. The incremental emissions associated with Heathrow NWR represent a very small fraction of the proposed obligations;
The Scheme would not cause any new exceedences of the Limit Value or air quality objective for NO₂. However, the incremental change associated with Heathrow NWR would cause the Bath Road (A4) sector PCM road links to have a marginally higher concentration in 2030 (48.7 µg/m³) than the Maximum PCM Predicted Concentration in the Greater London Agglomeration (which is 48.6 µg/m³ and occurs at Marylebone Road). The unmitigated Heathrow NWR Scheme would thus delay Defra’s predicted date for achieving compliance with the Limit Value. The proposals for the A4 Bath Road in the Heathrow NWR scenario are to realign the road northwards and then to the east around the boundary of the airport, but it is not possible to replicate Defra’s PCM predictions at these realigned links, nor is it possible to confirm whether these new links would be included in the PCM model (due to lack of public exposure) and no further assessment can be provided.
The Scheme would cause a new exceedence of the Critical Level at the South West London Waterbodies RAMSAR/SPA and Wraysbury Reservoir SSSI. However, the UK Government’s interpretation is that the Critical Level does not strictly apply at this location. The Scheme would not cause any exceedences of the lower band of the Critical Load (for nitrogen deposition) at any designated habitat;
The Scheme would worsen air quality (in terms of annual mean NO₂ concentrations) at about 47,000 properties; and
The total costs of NOx and PM₁₀ over the 60 year appraisal period, based on the unmitigated change in mass emissions with the Heathrow NWR Scheme in place, are £94.2m and £863.5m respectively.” CAL emphasis

Heathrow Airport Extended Northern Runway Scheme (Heathrow ENR)

The Conclusions on page 103 of the report are:

“The principal conclusions of this assessment with respect to the ENR Scheme are:

The Scheme would not affect compliance with the current NECD and Gothenburg Protocol obligations. If the NECD obligation is tightened in line with current proposals, the UK would exceed the obligation with or without Heathrow ENR. The incremental emissions associated with Heathrow ENR represent a very small fraction of the proposed obligations;
The Scheme would not cause any new exceedences of the concentration at which the Limit Value is set, or any exceedences of the air quality objective for NO₂. However, the incremental change associated with the unmitigated Heathrow ENR would cause the Bath Road (A4) sector PCM road links to have a higher concentration in 2030 (55.8 µg/m³) than the Maximum PCM Predicted Concentration in the Greater London Agglomeration (which is 48.6 µg/m³). The unmitigated Heathrow ENR Scheme would thus delay Defra in achieving compliance with the Limit Value;
The Scheme would cause a new exceedence of the Critical Level at the South West London Waterbodies RAMSAR/SPA and Wraysbury Reservoir SSSI. However, the UK Government’s interpretation is that the Critical Level does not strictly apply at this location. The Scheme would not cause any exceedences of the lower band of the Critical Load (for nitrogen deposition) at any designated habitat;
The Scheme would worsen air quality (in terms of annual mean NO₂ concentrations) at about 39,000 properties, but would improve air quality at about 6,600 properties; and
The total costs of NOx and PM₁₀ over the 60 year appraisal period, based on the unmitigated change in mass emissions with the Heathrow ENR Scheme in place, are £69.6m and £618.7m respectively.” CAL emphasis

DIRECTIVE 2008/50/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe

……

Article 12

Requirements where levels are lower than the limit values

In zones and agglomerations where the levels of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, PM₁₀, PM_2,5, lead, benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air are below the respective limit values specified in Annexes XI and XIV, Member States shall maintain the levels of those pollutants below the limit values and shall endeavour to preserve the best ambient air quality, compatible with sustainable development.

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

Council leaders, representing the 2M group, say Airports Commission air quality consultation is “not credible or realistic”

Friday, 22 May 2015

The Airports Commission has published a highly technical consultation on air quality, with only 14 working days for responses (3 weeks). It is presented in a way to make it very hard indeed for non-experts to understand. Now speaking on behalf of the cross-party 2M Group, which represents 20 Councils, the leader of Hillingdon Council (Ray Puddifoot), the leader of Richmond Council (Lord True) and cabinet member for environmental services at Windsor & Maidenhead (Carwyn Cox) have complained to the Commission about their consultation. They say it is “not credible or realistic”. Ray Puddifoot said it is not credible or realistic to imagine Heathrow could vastly increase flights, passenger numbers and its freight operation, but with no extra traffic on local roads, or more pollution. He said a 3rd runway would increase pollution levels for roughly 47,000 homes and break EU NO2 limits. Lord True asked why the Commission is estimating pollution levels in 2030, long before the expanded airport is at full capacity, and road traffic is at its peak. Carwyn Cox said the Commission is “gambling” on road vehicles producing fewer emissions in future, and on a congestion charge zone which “are not going to happen”. Many of the same arguments apply to Gatwick too.
.
Tweet

Heathrow pollution report ‘not credible’

22.5.2015 (Evening Standard)
By Nicholas Cecil

Tory town hall chiefs today launched a scathing attack on the Airports Commission, accusing it of underplaying the impact of a third runway at Heathrow.

They claimed an air quality study published by the commission, headed by former LSE boss Sir Howard Davies, was “not credible or realistic”.

Ray Puddifoot, leader of Hillingdon council, said: “Davies is telling us that Heathrow can vastly increase flights, passenger numbers and its freight operation, but that there will be no extra traffic on local roads. This is not credible or realistic.”

He said a third runway would increase pollution levels for roughly 47,000 homes and break EU nitrogen dioxide limits. Lord True, leader of Richmond council, added: “Why is Davies estimating pollution levels in 2030, long before the expanded airport is at full capacity? People want to know the full and true impacts on their health once the runways are fully utilised and road traffic is at its peak.”

Carwyn Cox, cabinet member for environmental services at Windsor and Maidenhead council, said the commission was “gambling” on cleaner vehicles and a Heathrow congestion charge zone which “are not going to happen”.

The council leaders were speaking on behalf of the cross-party 2M Group, which represents 20 town halls.

Campaigners against a bigger Heathrow believe the report suggests the commission is on the brink of concluding Heathrow could expand within pollution rules. It reports this summer on whether a runway should be built at Gatwick or Heathrow and Boris Johnson has vowed to lie “in front of bulldozers” if Heathrow gets the go-ahead.

The airport said the commission’s report “does not yet fully account for all of Heathrow’s air quality mitigation proposals” but “confirms that Heathrow expansion can be delivered without exceeding air quality levels”.

“Heathrow has already reduced its emissions by 16 per cent over five years, and we recently announced plans to lower them further,” it added.

http://ift.tt/1GtvgOd

Even just considering air pollution in 2030, when the runway would not be used intensively, the Airports Commission expects the Heathrow North West runway Scheme “would worsen air quality (in terms of annual mean NO2 concentrations) at about 47,000 properties.”

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

May 9, 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…

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

May 8, 2015

The Airports Commission has opened 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…

West Kent parish councils complain that the Airports Commission air quality consultation period is too short

May 21, 2015

The Airports Commission was aware, when it put out its main consultation in November 2014, that it had still to produce work on air quality. They finally publicised their consultation the day after the election – 8th May – saying they could not put it out during the pre-election “purdah” period. That left just 14 working days for respondents to reply. The consultation is highly technical, and not something it is easy for a non-expert to read. Another document was added on Monday 18th, leaving only 8 working days till the consultation ends. Now four West Kent parishes have called for more time to put together a “correct and democratic answer”. Richard Streatfield, chairman of the High Weald Parish Councils Aviation Action Group, which covers Chiddingstone, Hever, Leigh and Penshurst authorities, said they would be asking Sir Howard to extend the consultation by nine weeks. A number of new High Weald councillors had just been elected, and they need more time to get understand the issues and gather a lot of information before they can agree on it. The Commission is in a rush, as Sir Howard joins the board of RBS at the end of June, and becomes its chairman on 1st September. The Commission therefore wants to make its announcement in June, but the undesirable rush for this consultation means the democratic process is being subverted.

Click here to view full story…

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

West Sussex council considering congestion charge idea for people travelling to Gatwick

Friday, 22 May 2015

The idea of introducing a congestion charge, if a 2nd runway is built at Gatwick, has been mooted by West Sussex County Council. It is one of several possible mitigation measures mentioned in a draft report produced by the WSCC in response to the Airports Commission’s recent consultation on air quality. If a Gatwick 2nd runway is recommended, West Sussex County Council has called for action to achieve high public transport access and congestion-free road access. Gatwick only has one major road link, and one rail link. If more passengers arrive by rail, there will be serious congestion on the trains. If the passengers arrive by car, there will be road congestion, as well as more air pollution – including more NO2. Gatwick airport has made the rather daft statement that “Gatwick has never breached legal air quality limits and its location means it can guarantee that it never will.” Gatwick, predictably, hopes air quality would stay within legal limits without the introduction of a deeply unpopular congestion charge. WSCC says though the effectiveness of a congestion charge at Gatwick has not been assessed, it might have an impact on car mode share and overall traffic demand. The matter will be discussed by full council on 23rd May.
.
Tweet

Congestion charge idea mooted for people travelling to Gatwick Airport

Could a Congestion Charge by introduced for people travelling to Gatwick Airport?

20.5.2015 (West Sussex County Times)

By Joshua Powling
The idea of introducing a congestion charge if a second runway is built at Gatwick has been mooted by the county council.

It is one of several possible mitigation measures mentioned in a draft report produced by the authority in response to the Airports Commission’s consultation on air quality.

In the event that a second runway at Gatwick is picked ahead of expansion at Heathrow, West Sussex County Council has called for action to achieve high public transport access and congestion-free road access.

However a spokesperson for Gatwick said that should a second runway be given the go-ahead it has guaranteed that air quality levels will remain within the legal limits in the area close to the airport, something that could be achieved without the introduction of a congestion charge.

But a congestion charge for motorists travelling to the airport is mentioned by the county council as one of the additional mitigation measures that ‘could be implemented’ but have not been specifically highlighted by Gatwick Airport Limited.

The report reads: “It is not clear how effective a congestion charge could be. An assessment on demand management measures in reducing car use at Heathrow Airport was carried out for another module of the Airports Commission’s assessment.

“Whilst the outcome of that assessment cannot be directly transferred to a different airport, the overall conclusions that the imposition of additional charges on car users could have a significant impact on car mode share and overall traffic demand, remain valid.

“Depending on the scale of charge imposed, and the extent of the scheme (that is whether it targets passengers, employees and/or taxis), it is possible that traffic generation with the expanded Gatwick Airport could be reduced to 2013 levels.”

Councillors are due to discuss the proposed response to the Airports Commission on air quality issues at a Full Council meeting on Friday.

Back in January county councillors voted to oppose a second runway at Gatwick, as well as agreeing a response to the Airports Commission’s main consultation.

This reversed the county council’s previous position from 2013, where the majority of members voted to support expansion at Gatwick ‘in principle’.

http://ift.tt/1LsdoDo

One person comments below the article:

“So to make a second runway at Gatwick “affordable” we are to have little or no additional transport infrastructure, but rely upon reducing travel by local residents and business users by the imposition of a congestion charge (or travel tax).
For many residents of West Sussex travel north always involves travel via Gatwick (M23 or A23), so a trip from Horsham to the “local” hospital at East Surrey will require payment of a travel tax.
If the airport are not prepared to pay for ALL of the necessary infrastructure upgrades the a second runway must be out of the question.”

The 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…

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

London City Airport challenges Boris’ decision to block its expansion plans, over ‘noise ghetto’ fears

Friday, 22 May 2015

Boris Johnson blocked London City Airport’s expansion plans in late March, as he said it would create a “noise ghetto” for people living under the flight path. Now, as expected, London City Airport has appealed to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Greg Clark, against the decision. On March 26th Boris ordered Newham council to reject the plans on the grounds of noise disturbance and because the airport was intended for business rather than leisure. Under the plans, take-offs and landings were expected to increase from 70,000 a year to 111,000,with passenger numbers doubling to 6 million by 2023. It would also be able to accommodate larger planes, (and be more profitable). This coupled with the airport’s plans to use new PBN technology to create a much narrower and concentrated flight corridor over Wanstead, Leytonstone and Leyton had prompted fears that noise could become an issue. The airport says it is appealing because of the jobs it creates, and its economic impact. The decision by Greg Clark could take 5 months.
.
Tweet

London City Airport challenges decison to block £220m expansion plan over ‘noise ghetto’ fears

Boris Johnson blocked a planned £220million expansion of London City Airport earlier this year

19.5.2015 (East London and West Essex Guardian)

London City Airport has appealed against a decision by Boris Johnson to block a £220m expansion over fears it would create a “noise ghetto” for people living under the flight path.

The Mayor of London on March 26 ordered Newham council to reject the plans on the grounds of noise disturbance and because the airport was intended for business rather than leisure.

Take-offs and landings were expected to increase from 70,000 a year to 111,000 at the airport in Silvertown with passenger numbers doubling to six million by 2023.

This coupled with the airport’s plans to use new technology to create a much narrower and concentrated flight corridor over Wanstead, Leytonstone and Leyton had prompted fears that noise could become an issue.

But today (May 19), London City Airport confirmed it was going to appeal to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Greg Clark.

A spokesman said: “We think the Mayor’s direction is wrong and ignores the significant social and economic benefits that the airport’s development will bring, as well as the comprehensive package of measures that the airport has proposed to mitigate and control noise.

“It sends the wrong message about investment in east London and London generally, and seemingly disregards the 2,000 employment opportunities that the development programme will create, as well as the £1.5bn of annual economic impact that an expanded airport will deliver.”

John Stewart, chair of campaign group HACAN East against the expansion, said he expected the decision to be made in five months time.

He said: “It is not surprising London City has appealed because they are very keen to get the space to allow bigger planes to use the airport.

“But we hope the Secretary of State turns down the appeal and backs Boris who stood up for residents whose lives have become blighted by noise from the airport.”

http://ift.tt/1FHmHRi

See earlier:

Boris turns down London City Airport expansion plans on noise grounds

March 27, 2015

Boris Johnstone, the Mayor of London, has refused London City Airport’s plan to expand on noise grounds. In a letter he has instructed Newham Council, who had approved the application, to refuse it. The Mayor says the application does not “adequately mitigate and manage its adverse noise impacts.” Newham’s decision was always dependent on the Mayor’s approval. London City Airport wanted permission to build new taxiways to permit larger planes to use the airport. It also wanted more car parking spaces. The decision will be a bitter blow to the airport as it will now no longer be able to bring in the larger planes it wanted to serve new destinations. John Stewart, chair of HACAN East, which campaigned against the expansion plans, said “The airport is paying the price for being so cavalier about noise. Quite simply, Boris did not believe its claims that it was dealing adequately with noise. We salute his decision”. The decision appears to be final, and it is unclear whether London City Airport can appeal to the Secretary of State. They may do so.

Click here to view full story…

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1K8mBzP

West Kent parish councils complain that the Airports Commission air quality consultation period is too short

Thursday, 21 May 2015

.
Tweet

Gatwick and Heathrow air quality consultation ‘too short’

20.5.2015 (BBC)

Four parish councils in West Kent are against the expansion of Gatwick AirportCampaigners fighting a second runway at Gatwick say they have not been given enough time to respond to a public consultation on air quality.The Airports Commission gave people three weeks to submit further evidence about air pollution on 8 May.Four West Kent parish councils have called for more time to put together a “correct and democratic answer”.

Next month, commission chairman Sir Howard Davies is expected to recommend a new runway for Gatwick or Heathrow.

Richard Streatfield, chairman of the High Weald Parish Councils Aviation Action Group, which covers Chiddingstone, Hever, Leigh and Penshurst authorities, said they would be asking Sir Howard to extend the consultation by nine weeks.

‘Very late’

He said a number of new High Weald councillors had just been elected.

“They’ve got to do something potentially they’ve never looked at before and gather lots and lots of information and then agree something,” he explained,” he said.

“We think this consultation should be the same as any other and it should be 12 weeks long.”

Sir Howard’s decision to consult further came after a Supreme Court ruling in April, ordering the UK to do more to improve air quality.

Alastair McDermid, Gatwick’s airports commission director, said although it was “very late in the process” they were pleased the commission had launched the consultation.

“This was a topic that we’d already done some work on so we may have been slightly ahead of the field by choosing to do that work at an earlier stage,” he said.

The Airports Commission is considering three options for airport expansion in the South East – a second runway at Gatwick, a third runway at Heathrow, or an extension to one of the existing Heathrow runways.

It declined to comment on the length of the consultation.

http://ift.tt/1FpEV6n

The new document was added on 18th May. It is

Consultation queries and responses

A consultation should present all the relevant documents at the start of the process. Otherwise people who manage to submit their response early may have missed out on vital information, that might mean their response is not complete. Unless people are on the Airports Commission’s mailing list, or hear of the new documents through colleagues, many people could remain unaware that they have been added. The Commission added many documents later in the consultation process, for its main consultation that was November 2014 to February 2015.

See earlier:

Pages

GP fears airport bid will increase town pollution

The two letters are below:

Airport expansion at Heathrow or Gatwick would breach air pollution laws

Gatwick Airport Second Runway Scheme (Gatwick 2R)

Heathrow Airport Northwest Runway Scheme (Heathrow NWR)

Heathrow Airport Extended Northern Runway Scheme (Heathrow ENR)

Heathrow pollution report ‘not credible’

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

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

West Kent parish councils complain that the Airports Commission air quality consultation period is too short

Congestion charge idea mooted for people travelling to Gatwick Airport

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

London City Airport challenges decison to block £220m expansion plan over ‘noise ghetto’ fears

Boris turns down London City Airport expansion plans on noise grounds

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