Runway 3 threat posponed, but not vanquished ! (Dec 03)

Proposed location of R3 in green [DfT]

West London Friends of the Earth (FOE) is relieved - but only slightly - by the news that Heathrow is not to get a third runway just yet.

The White Paper announced that Stansted was the preferred option for the first new runway in the southeast in 2010-2011.

A third runway at Heathrow is supported in 2015-2020 subject to some environmental constraints.

A second runway at Gatwick would be considered after 2019, if it were not possible to meet the environmetal constraints at Heathrow.

Our reaction

While there is some relief in west London, there is no cause for celebration. Our hearts go out to the people round Stansted. Their quality of life, their countryside and their heritage are all threatened by a second runway.

The main reason for not going ahead with a third runway at Heathrow was concern about levels of air pollution, which would break the UK and EU standards set to protect human health. It is telling that only the threat of EU sanctions deterred the government from going ahead with Runway 3 straight away. Otherwise they would have been prepared to threaten the lives of thousands of citizens in West London. The UK's air quality strategy, promoted by this government, was carefully designed to ensure that it could not do anything about even the most polluting developments such as Runway 3.

The government has said that if will be looking for a reduction in pollution from cleaner surface vehicles as well as aircraft and for no increase in noise levels before Runway 3 could go ahead. FOE is deeply distrustful. Vague statements of hope or intent are not enough. The history of Heathrow is littered with wrong forecasts and broken promises. The people of West London have a right to expect stringent environmental conditions and legally binding guarantees from now on.

Quality of life, already under assault from Terminal 5, would be worsened for millions of people. There would also, less obviously, be significant economic and employment disadvantages arising from R3.

Runway 3 is still an appalling prospect!

The fact that a third runway has been posponed pending more work on air quality issues, does not change our views. Air pollution will still be worse with a new runway, even if the government does manage to get away without sactions from the EU. And other environmental impacts are not really being addressed. The main arguments against R3 are can be found on our page Why R3 is a bad idea.

Our views on the White Paper

The government has said that if will be looking for a reduction in pollution from cleaner surface vehicles as well as aircraft and for no increase in noise levels before Runway 3 could go ahead. FOE is deeply distrustful. Vague statements of hope or intent are not enough. The history of Heathrow is littered with misleading forecasts and broken promises. The people of West London have a right to expect stringent environmental conditions and legally binding guarantees from now on.

FOE has lobbied consistently for a genuinely sustainable airports policy, which takes account of social, economic and environmental issues. There is huge disappointment that the White Paper does not even attempt to achieve this. The government has gone for a blind 'predict and provide' approach. They ignore the fact that much of the demand is fuelled by huge tax subsidies, already costing the taxpayer £9 billion pa.

While there continues to be rhetoric on protecting the environment, the White Paper says little of substance. The government still seems to believe that it can justify evermore environmental destruction and harm to people's quality of life by simply 'balancing' them against claimed economic benefits. Nor will its talk of 'mitigation' impress residents who live near airports. A bit more sound insulation and a few handouts for community projects are no compensation for wrecking our environment.

Bias and spin continues

The government consultation which led up to the White Paper were rather long and complex and are therefore not easy to respond to. More important, they were seriously and systematically biased. The reader was lead to believe, by a series of partial and unbalanced statements, that it is necessary to have a huge and continuous growth in air travel to protect jobs and the economy. These stories are carried into the WHite Paper.

The most important omission of the consultation was the issue of taxes and 'external costs'. At the request of the Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), the government carried out new calculations assuming that air travel would pay its external costs and fair share of taxes by 2030. The conclusions are radically changed - there is no need for more runways or airports in the SE or the whole of the UK. This vital conclusion has been suppressed in the consultation documents and in the White Paper.

In addition to the econonics, jobs and tax issues, the environmental impacts of the proposed growth are systematically under-stated. The government's own Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) said that the consultation is "misleading". They could only reach the same conclusion about the White Paper. The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee was equally scathing.

Links to other pages

• Why R3 is a bad idea
• A history of broken promises
• White Paper - reaction
• Back to Heathrow introduction
• Back to air transport introduction

Dec 03