Showing posts with label Expansion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Expansion. Show all posts
Thursday, 30 June 2011
My Letter in Times re Heathrow and some others
Sir, You appear to be trying to relaunch the failed campaign to expand Heathrow Airport.
People in Hounslow want the aviation industry to be successful — many work at Heathrow or depend on it economically — but we do not want the airport to consume us.
Aircraft noise already makes Hounslow the noisiest London borough. We will not allow it to be increased even further.
Your reports set out a questionable economic case for more aviation, then systematically eliminated all the potential sources of additional capacity, leaving the impression that only expansion at Heathrow would solve the problem of congestion and avoidable carbon emissions. The case for low-carbon alternatives such as high-speed rail was hardly explored.
We are ready for a rational dialogue with the aviation industry but we will fight vigorously against any renewed attempt to pressurise the Government into abandoning its moratorium on Heathrow expansion.
Councillor Ruth Cadbury
Deputy Leader, London Borough of Hounslow
John
Our correspondents disagree on the best way forward for aviation in the UK, although most concur that it plays a key part in the economy
Sir, Heathrow is so overloaded that airlines are talking about leaving Britain (“Airlines plan flight from Britain”, June 28). No wonder, when the same airlines insist that almost all flights from other UK airports route via Heathrow or another London airport. If the airlines offered more direct flights from Edinburgh, Glasgow and Liverpool there would be fewer passengers transiting London and more space for those who need to.
I. Young
Edinburgh
Sir, You quote Theresa Villiers, the Aviation Minister, saying that “it is untrue to suggest that Government does not have a strategy to help UK aviation grow and prosper”.
The UK’s Air Passenger Duty is the highest in the world, and is to rise in 2012. The Government’s new Aviation Framework won’t be consulted upon and implemented until April 2013, meaning the UK will have gone 35 months without a policy — costing jobs, business growth and international connectivity in the meantime.
Darren Caplan
Chief Executive, Airport Operators Association
Sir, John Stewart of HACAN Clear Skies (“Veto will not harm the economy”, June 28) is wrong to say that a block on expansion at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted will not hurt the economy. Heathrow serves as the UK’s only hub airport and it is full. As a result, it has been losing routes to rivals for the past 20 years — it serves just 171 destinations compared to Amsterdam with 222, Paris with 223 and Frankfurt with 262, all of which have room to grow at our expense. Even more worryingly, our potential to trade with such important economies as Brazil, Russia, India and China is threatened by the UK’s inability to expand its hub airport. China will build 97 airports by 2020. By contrast, no full-length runway has been built in the South East of England since the war.
At a time when the UK economy needs all the help it can get, it seems perverse to signal that London is closed to new business.
Simon J. L. Buck
Chief Executive, British Air Transport Association
Sir, John Stewart is misleading when he argues that our economy is not dependent on airport expansion in the South East. Aviation is a substantial net contributor to the Exchequer — even more than the much-vaunted bank levies. It supports the employment of 1.5 million people. It pays for all its own vehicles, airports, policing, security and terminals — even its regulator, the CAA, makes a 6 per cent return to the economy.
Yet with the decision to abandon plans for a third runway, London Heathrow risks becoming a branch line rather than a major hub.
To make matters worse, the Government’s punitive approach to managing aviation’s emissions means that Air Passenger Duty now acts as a £2.7 billion burden on the industry. That is enough to offset all UK emissions four-fold yet there is no Cruise Liner Passenger Tax.
The aviation industry is committed to improving fuel efficiency by 1.5 per cent per year to 2020, capping net emissions from 2020 through carbon-neutral growth, and cutting net emissions in half by 2050, compared to 2005 levels, but it is still pilloried. The aviation industry can only take so many knocks before the damage is permanent. At that stage, the people who will benefit most will not be the green community but rather our international competitors.
Andrew Brookes
Director, The Air League
Sir, A new hub airport would take decades to be fully operational. Extra capacity is needed now even though it may require unpopular decisions.
We are operating in a competitive market, where talented individuals and institutions are highly mobile. London and the UK cannot afford to stand still while our rivals across the globe are building for the future.
Stuart Fraser
Policy Chairman, City of London Corporation
Friday, 26 March 2010
Heathrow: Councils Succesfully Challenge Runway 3 Proposals
From Hounslow Pess Release:
Following a challenge to the Government's third runway proposal, brought by the London Borough of Hounslow and others - the government's Heathrow policy has been left in tatters this morning.
The High Court ruled that ministers' decision to give a green light to the proposed third runway does not hold any weight with the judge dismissing the government's claims to the contrary as 'untenable in law and common sense'.
If the government wants to pursue its plans for Heathrow expansion it must now go back to square one and reconsider the entire case for the runway.
The implications of today's ruling are profound, not just for Heathrow but for airport expansion plans across the UK. Lord Justice Carnwath ruled that the 2003 Air Transport White Paper - the foundation of expansion plans across the country - is obsolete because it is inconsistent with the Climate Change Act 2008.
Cllr Ruth Cadbury, Deputy Leader of the council’s Labour group, said:
“Today’s ruling is a fantastic result, and one that could finally signal the end of the threat of a third runway, which has been hanging over our heads for years.
“We have long said that the economic arguments didn’t add up, and that the noise and pollution arising from the associated transport infrastructure – which hasn’t even been properly planned – would have a direct negative impact on Hounslow residents and businesses, and it’s great that this has been acknowledged.”
The judge expressed real concern over the "hardship caused to the local community by uncertainty" over the third runway. The coalition which brought the successful legal challenge is now calling on the government to end the uncertainty and scrap the runway plans once and for all.
The judge ruled that:
If the government decides to push ahead with the runway project it must now review the climate change implications of Heathrow expansion, the economic case for a third runway, and the issue of how additional passengers would get to a bigger airport.
The government's entire aviation policy must now be reviewed to take into account the implications of the 2008 Climate Change Act. The judge found that "the claimants' submissions add up, in my view, to a powerful demonstration of the potential significance of developments in climate change policy since the 2003 Air Transport White Paper. They are clearly matters which will need to be taken into account under the new Airports National Policy Statement."
On the economic case for Heathrow expansion he would be 'surprised' if the recent tripling of the estimated cost to society of emitting carbon did not have 'a significant effect' on the economic case for the runway. The judge also said that "it makes no sense to treat the economic case as settled in 2003."
On the issue of surface access he said the claimants' case - that there is no credible plan in place to transport millions of extra passengers to an expanded Heathrow - was 'justified'. Significantly, he noted that the government was "unable to provide a convincing answer" in court when it was pressed about over-crowding on the Piccadilly underground line that would result from construction of a third runway.
The judge is now inviting the government to sign a legally binding undertaking that it will not base future aviation policy solely on its 2003 white paper. A further court hearing is expected to take place next month to examine the government's response to the judge's request. At the same hearing the coalition will seek costs and fully expects to recover those costs from the government.
Hounslow’s leader, Cllr Peter Thompson, added: "This is a spectacular victory for our residents. The government had been trying to close down debate on the true economic impact of a third runway by presenting it as a done deal.
“Today’s ruling has blown that position apart. The government just did not want to have to take on board the real consequences of new climate change laws. The judge made it clear the figures just did not add up.
“If after this ministers are still intent on pressing ahead with expansion they will have to go back to the beginning and justify the whole economic case in public. Knowing what we now know about rising carbon costs this is an argument they cannot win.
“The third runway is effectively dead because it cannot survive the proper economic and environmental scrutiny which the government tried to avoid. As local councils we call on the prime minister to do to the decent thing and bury this discredited policy.”
David Nussbaum, chief executive of World Wildlife Fund UK added: "We are delighted with today's judgement. It deals a body blow to the third runway, but more than that it makes it clear that the government's whole policy of airport expansion must be reviewed in order to bring it into line with the Climate Change Act."
The challenge was brought by Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow, Hillingdon, Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and Windsor & Maidenhead councils with support from Kensington and Chelsea, Transport for London and the Mayor of London.The councils were joined by the local residents group (Notrag), aircraft noise campaigners HACAN, World Wildlife Fund UK, Campaign to Protect Rural England and Greenpeace. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds was an expert witness. Some representatives from these groups are pictured above.
The local authorities are all members of the 2M Group which comprises 24 local councils opposed to Heathrow expansion with a combined population of 5 million.
For further information on the challenge visit www.2MGroup.org.uk.
Following a challenge to the Government's third runway proposal, brought by the London Borough of Hounslow and others - the government's Heathrow policy has been left in tatters this morning.
The High Court ruled that ministers' decision to give a green light to the proposed third runway does not hold any weight with the judge dismissing the government's claims to the contrary as 'untenable in law and common sense'.
If the government wants to pursue its plans for Heathrow expansion it must now go back to square one and reconsider the entire case for the runway.
The implications of today's ruling are profound, not just for Heathrow but for airport expansion plans across the UK. Lord Justice Carnwath ruled that the 2003 Air Transport White Paper - the foundation of expansion plans across the country - is obsolete because it is inconsistent with the Climate Change Act 2008.
Cllr Ruth Cadbury, Deputy Leader of the council’s Labour group, said:
“Today’s ruling is a fantastic result, and one that could finally signal the end of the threat of a third runway, which has been hanging over our heads for years.
“We have long said that the economic arguments didn’t add up, and that the noise and pollution arising from the associated transport infrastructure – which hasn’t even been properly planned – would have a direct negative impact on Hounslow residents and businesses, and it’s great that this has been acknowledged.”
The judge expressed real concern over the "hardship caused to the local community by uncertainty" over the third runway. The coalition which brought the successful legal challenge is now calling on the government to end the uncertainty and scrap the runway plans once and for all.
The judge ruled that:
If the government decides to push ahead with the runway project it must now review the climate change implications of Heathrow expansion, the economic case for a third runway, and the issue of how additional passengers would get to a bigger airport.
The government's entire aviation policy must now be reviewed to take into account the implications of the 2008 Climate Change Act. The judge found that "the claimants' submissions add up, in my view, to a powerful demonstration of the potential significance of developments in climate change policy since the 2003 Air Transport White Paper. They are clearly matters which will need to be taken into account under the new Airports National Policy Statement."
On the economic case for Heathrow expansion he would be 'surprised' if the recent tripling of the estimated cost to society of emitting carbon did not have 'a significant effect' on the economic case for the runway. The judge also said that "it makes no sense to treat the economic case as settled in 2003."
On the issue of surface access he said the claimants' case - that there is no credible plan in place to transport millions of extra passengers to an expanded Heathrow - was 'justified'. Significantly, he noted that the government was "unable to provide a convincing answer" in court when it was pressed about over-crowding on the Piccadilly underground line that would result from construction of a third runway.
The judge is now inviting the government to sign a legally binding undertaking that it will not base future aviation policy solely on its 2003 white paper. A further court hearing is expected to take place next month to examine the government's response to the judge's request. At the same hearing the coalition will seek costs and fully expects to recover those costs from the government.
Hounslow’s leader, Cllr Peter Thompson, added: "This is a spectacular victory for our residents. The government had been trying to close down debate on the true economic impact of a third runway by presenting it as a done deal.
“Today’s ruling has blown that position apart. The government just did not want to have to take on board the real consequences of new climate change laws. The judge made it clear the figures just did not add up.
“If after this ministers are still intent on pressing ahead with expansion they will have to go back to the beginning and justify the whole economic case in public. Knowing what we now know about rising carbon costs this is an argument they cannot win.
“The third runway is effectively dead because it cannot survive the proper economic and environmental scrutiny which the government tried to avoid. As local councils we call on the prime minister to do to the decent thing and bury this discredited policy.”
David Nussbaum, chief executive of World Wildlife Fund UK added: "We are delighted with today's judgement. It deals a body blow to the third runway, but more than that it makes it clear that the government's whole policy of airport expansion must be reviewed in order to bring it into line with the Climate Change Act."
The challenge was brought by Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow, Hillingdon, Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and Windsor & Maidenhead councils with support from Kensington and Chelsea, Transport for London and the Mayor of London.The councils were joined by the local residents group (Notrag), aircraft noise campaigners HACAN, World Wildlife Fund UK, Campaign to Protect Rural England and Greenpeace. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds was an expert witness. Some representatives from these groups are pictured above.
The local authorities are all members of the 2M Group which comprises 24 local councils opposed to Heathrow expansion with a combined population of 5 million.
For further information on the challenge visit www.2MGroup.org.uk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)