Runway 3 - Broken Pledges
|
Aviation |
 |
|
More of these to come? |
After years of denial, it is now apparent that the owner of Heathrow, BAA, is trying to wriggle out of its pledges on Runway 3, with the help of the government.
Here is the real history of R3 - a 'chronology of promises'. If you are concerned about the threat of Runway 3, contact us on nic@wlfoet5.demon.co.uk.
Bad Faith! The Aviation Industry's Broken Pledges on Heathrow's 3rd Runway
Britain's aviation industry is trying to "weasel out" of almost ten years' promises that a third runway at Heathrow will never be built, environment pressure group Friends of the Earth (FOE) said today. A third runway is now one of the most likely options for yet more airport expansion, following Transport Secretary Alistair Darling's statement on aviation policy on 23rd July 2002.
BAA plc in particular has repeatedly claimed to be opposed to a third runway at Heathrow - and even supported the Terminal 5 Inspector's recommendation that the third runway should be ruled out for ever. But as soon as Terminal 5 got the go ahead, British Airways and industry lobbyists began calling for further airport expansion, including a third runway. BAA plc has now gone mysteriously silent on the subject. Friends of the Earth has put three questions to BAA in the light of previous promises:
- Will BAA now speak out against a third Heathrow runway?
- Will BAA use its influence with its industry partner British Airways, to discourage BA's promotion and lobbying for a runway?
- Will BAA's lobbying against a third runway be as vigorous as BA's in favour?
Friends of the Earth has produced a chronology of promises over the third runway (below) to show the "bad faith" of the aviation industry in what it says to local communities, the media and Government about future expansion plans.
Friends of the Earth aviation campaigner Roger Higman comments:
"The aviation industry is trying to weasel out of repeated promises to the public, the media and the Government that a third runway at Heathrow would never be needed. The industry's well-paid and unscrupulous lobbyists shower these promises around like confetti - presumably hoping that the public will forget what was said when the next development comes along. Terminal 5 came with the usual pledges that this would be industry's last 'territorial claim' in West London. Well, it wasn't. There will be no end to expansion - until the Government takes steps to bring the lumbering monster of civil aviation back under control."
A Chronology of Promises on Heathrow Runway
3
1993
RUCATSE, a study into Runway Capacity in South East England, says another runway will be needed in the South East by 2005. Various options explored include a runway to the north of the existing boundary of Heathrow. This would mean destruction of 4,000 houses, a church and one of the finest tithe barns in the country.
1994
BAA, which was on the RUCATSE study, distances itself from the report: "We must stress that this company is not planning or proposing to build a third runway at Heathrow. The airport requires extra terminal capacity, rather than runway capacity." (Uxbridge Informer 25/3/1994)
Hillingdon Council virtually give away Harmondsworth Moor to British Airways (BA). The Council does not allow general development on this Green Belt land, but does allow BA to build their new headquarters there (Prospect Park, now known as Waterside). This means that if the land is wanted for a new runway, only BA's HQ will have to be moved.
The Boundary Commission puts all of Heathrow into the London Borough of Hillingdon and admits that this is to facilitate expansion of Heathrow.
1995
Friends of the Earth and other groups start giving evidence to the Terminal 5 (T5) Public Inquiry, showing that T5 will lead to a third runway. They produce a map showing the likely location of a short runway. This is north of the airport, between the A4 and the M4, and would minimise demolition of property. The evidence is not challenged by BAA, BA or the Government.
BAA mounts a PR campaign denying there will be a third runway. Sir John Egan, BAA's Chief Executive says "T5 does not call for a third runway". ('Dear neighbour' letter to residents in a wide area around Heathrow; 16/5/95).
Inside the T5 Inquiry BAA says something different: "We could not rule out the option of considering Heathrow when another runway is required...We could not give a guarantee about seeking further expansion." (Michael Maine, BAA's Technical Director). The T5 inspector says "I am not sure that we have received evidence of that nature [ruling out more runways]...it does not hit you forcibly that it (ruling out more runways) is said with total certainty." (Inspector Vandermeer, QC, November 1995, during the cross examination of Alison Munroe, Department of Transport witness).
1997
BAA continues to proclaim that runway capacity is not an issue. In a
public newsletter BAA suggests that the inquiry hearings had put to rest
concerns that T5 was a Trojan horse for a 3rd runway: "...some
legitimate fears have been put to rest. We now know for example that there
will be no third runway at Heathrow - a widespread concern before the
inquiry started." ('Heathrow News, Produced For Local Residents
by BAA Heathrow', May 1997)
BAA also claims that runway capacity at Heathrow was not a problem: "The
problem at Heathrow is not the lack of runway capacity but shortage of
terminal space…The inevitable overcrowding until T5 is build is likely
to cause…problems…" (BAA News Release - BAA warns of
potential "national crisis …" 12th October 1997)
Labour wins general election; BAA is an early visitor to John Prescott at the then DETR, lobbying on T5 and aviation growth generally.
1998
The Government effectively admits that is has decided on T5, by announcing the widening of the M25 where BAA's spur road to T5 needs to be connected. "The only sour note [in the Roads Review] lies in the decision to approve the widening of the M25 between Junctions 12 and 15. All other such plans have been scrapped. But the Government has decided that with Terminal 5 at Heathrow due to open in future, the M25 needs this extra space." (Daily Express, 1.8.1998)
1999
BAA continues to say it does not want a third runway: "…Additional runway ruled out forever whether T5 is approved or not" (BAA press conference 12th March 1999).
In another 'Dear Neighbour' letter to residents (April 1999) Sir John Egan writes: "We have since repeated often that we do not want, nor shall we seek, an additional runway. I can now report that we went even further at the Inquiry and called on the Inspector to recommend that, subject to permission being given for T5, an additional Heathrow runway should be ruled out forever. We said: 'it is the company's view that the local communities around Heathrow should be given assurances…BAA would urge the Government to rule out any additional runway at Heathrow, and BAA would support a recommendation by the Inquiry Inspector in his report that the Government should rule it out. Indeed BAA invites the Inspector to make such a recommendation.'" BAA then goes a step further, not just saying that T5 does not "call" for another runway, but that it will not "lead" to another runway: "Our position could not be clearer, nor could it be more formally placed upon the record. T5 will not lead to a 'third' runway."
2001
British Airways (BA) call for a third runway: "Mr Eddington insisted that it was essential that Heathrow had a third runway as well as a fifth terminal…" (Daily Mail, 5.1.2001, reporting on a speech to a business conference, 4th January). But Mr Eddington changes his line when speaking to local residents: "BA is not pushing for a third runway at Heathrow…" (Ealing Times, 1.2.2001).
BAA echos BA's denial and says it is not pushing for a third runway at Heathrow. "It is the company's view that the local communities around Heathrow should be give (sic) assurances. BAA would urge the government to rule out any additional runway at Heathrow."
In November 2001, having sat on the Inspector Vandermeer's report for almost a year, the Government announces its decision on T5 and releases the inspector's report. The inspector says that a third runway could have "unacceptable environmental consequences". He recommends a cap on the number of flights at 480,000 a year in order to prevent the need for a third runway.
The then minister, Stephen Byers, MP, accepts the cap on flights but refuses to rule out a third runway: " ... the third runway will be considered in the context of both the SE of England study and the Aviation White Paper which we shall publish next year."
Friends of the Earth points out that these two stances are inconsistent. If the cap of 480,000 flights a year is to remain, a third runway is not needed. FOE therefore concludes that the Government is already planning to renege on this cap - one of very few meaningful conditions set when granting permission for T5.
2002
Just months after the T5 application is approved, lobbying starts for further expansion. "Airport infrastructure will require new development. T5 was just the beginning." (Roger Maskell of the Amicus trade union, speaking on BBC London breakfast radio news, 16th April 2002).
On 23rd July, the Government publishes its UK-wide regional air studies including SERAS, the South East and East of England Air Services study. One of the options is a short runway north of Heathrow. This is the location that Friends of the Earth identified at the T5 inquiry 7 years before (see 1995 above).
As part of the announcement, Transport Secretary Alistair Darling, MP,
weaves New Labour spin on the 480,000 flights a year cap at Heathrow,
saying in effect that the cap will last only until it is broken: "So
the position on terminal 5, and on the cap on the number of flights that
was referred to at that time, remains good in relation to Heathrow's current
situation. [i.e. 4 terminals and less than 480,000 flights pa]. Everybody
knew that we would look at Heathrow in the context of the other London
airports over a longer period." (House of Commons statement,
23.7.2002)
2003
On 13 May, BAA admits publicly that it wants third runway at Heathrow. In its response to the government's airport consultation, it shortlists a third runway at Heathrow. It says that a new runway at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted should be decided on promptly and that land should be safeguarded for two more runways. So even if Heathrow does not get the first new runway, is likely to get the second or third. This finally proves that BAA were being dishonest and deceitful when they were calling for a third runway to be ruled out.
The anger of local groups is predictable. Hacan branded it the "mother of all U turns". Friends of the Earth said that BAA's claim to be acting responsibly was "a sick joke". Politicians also condemned it, the LibDem spokeperson for the Greater London Authority accusing BAA of breaking their promises. But the comments of the independent press were perhaps most revealing. Planning Magazine said "Even by the dubious ethics of the airline industry, this is lower than a rattlesnake's stomach."
BAA and BA were very concerned that the studies carried out for the airports consultation and 'White Paper' showed that air pollution would be likely to breach standards set by the government and the EU to protect human health. They therefore employed the same consultants, AEA, to come up with 'better' results. AEA were given some more optimistic assumptions and duly showed that only 5,000 instead of 30,000 people would be exposed to air pollution levels which breached standards.
On 16 Dec the Government's long-awaited 'White Paper' was published. This said quite clearly that Heathrow would have been the preferred location for the next runway in the SE, but for concerns about air pollution. Clearly the lobbying of BAA and BA had paid off. There was no suggestion that BAA, BA or the goverment were concerned about air polution or its effects on health per se. After all, there is already a National Air Quality Strategy (NAQS) which could and should have been invoked. In fact it was completely ignored in the consultation and the White Paper. The only concern is that the EU would be likely to impose sanctions if the government were to knowingly breach its own and EU standards by deciding on a third runway. Even BAA's and BA's attempts to show that air pollution would be ok, but getting their consultants to re-do the estimates, would not overcome the EU problem.