ACR0079
Written evidence submitted by Stop Heathrow Expansion
This is a submission to the Committee from Stop Heathrow Expansion (SHE). We are a campaign group set up by residents of the Heathrow Villages - Harmondsworth, Sipson, Harlington, Longford and Cranford. Our environment has suffered significantly from the impact of having a busy international airport in our midst and we endure a repeated cycle of threat and reprieve in relation to airport expansion. Our group was formed in 2014 but several of our committee were at the heart of the previous campaign group (No Third Runway Action Group), which was founded in 2002 and successfully fought the third runway proposals that would have seen an operational runway in 2015 with the destruction of Sipson and most of Harmondsworth and Harlington. This time round, the third runway proposals are very similar but a slight shift of the runway now means that is Longford that will be wiped off the map with almost all of Harmondsworth destroyed in the first wave of demolition.
Heathrow claims that 750 homes would go and the Airports Commission added a further 33 homes, which is has not specified. Heathrow’s plans leave homes ridiculously close to the airport boundary fence. For example, Blunts Avenue in Sipson (over 65 houses and flats) will have boundary fence on three sides and will effectively be INSIDE the airport. The fences will presumably replace the garden fences as they will need to be considerably higher and topped with razor wire for security. No doubt there will also be the need for additional 24-hour lighting. The same would apply to houses on the west side of Sipson Road. In reality we believe that the increase in pollution and noise levels will result in the many more homes being considered uninhabitable by their owners and tenants. Heathrow has said that it would consider buying 3,750 homes in areas around an expanded Heathrow. This is no solution. The Airport does not intend to provide sufficient payments for people to buy a comparable home in an appropriate area -i.e. one suitable for their needs and not under threat from something else such as increased noise from flightpaths, flooding or HS2. The communities with the support networks they provide, saving the government billions, cannot be replaced.
Whether the indicative policies and proposed mitigations set out in the Airports Commission's recommended option are realistic and achievable.
There are groups better able to go into the detail of how to achieve climate change targets than SHE. However, it does seem a nonsense to expect people to respect the need to reduce emissions if the government approves the massive third runway development at Heathrow. Inevitably the airport and airlines will want to encourage its use, which will only increase emissions. During the previous campaign against a third runway (2002-2010) residents were promised that air quality limits would be well below EU limits by 2015, when the aircraft were due to take off. There was no room for argument, according to the experts at consultation events. A large chart was displayed that showed all the EU regulations that would force road vehicles to reduce their contribution to pollution levels and thus there was no likelihood of levels not be met. We now know that although vehicles complied with the rules, their vehicles did not produce the required reduction because test results could not be replicated on the road. Car travel has also been encouraged, despite congestion charging and parking charge increases, so there is little chance of seeing an improvement. The BBC has reported that Transport for London has issued 85,000 licenses for private hire vehicles for example. A huge number of these vehicles drive around the airport and park in every available spot around the airport.
We know that mitigation measures are not the answer, they just put a sticking plaster on a gaping wound. The answer is to avoid the gaping wound, in this case a third runway. If permission is given, there will be no legislation or mitigation that will avoid the devastation it will cause. There is mention of penalties such as fines but these never work since airports and airlines can afford them. Airports and airlines are not taxed like other industries (avoiding VAT for example) so small fines are of no consequence. It is no benefit to the dying community to claim to put this money into a fund to provide daffodil planting or a scout hut roof.
We already know that ending night flights is a carrot to reduce opposition but will never happen. Airlines need to adhere to curfews in other countries and if it were possible to end night flights it could have been done already. This is the same argument that can be used for the measures suggested: If they will achieve a reduction in noise and pollution they should be done now and no expansion of Heathrow WHATSOEVER should even be consider until that is done. There is no hope of noise and pollution levels being reduced if expansion is given the go ahead.
What the implications of adopting or not adopting those policies and mitigations are for wider Government policy.
As above, it is irresponsible of any government to suggest that legislation and mitigation will work with a third runway when it has been shown not to work without a third runway.
Whether realistic and achievable alternatives to those policies and mitigations exist, should the Government adopt the recommended option.
The question is whether any alternatives can be proved to be realistic and achievable. Our argument is that they cannot and that the Government should not accept Davies’ recommendation.
Further information:
Pollution near Heathrow Airport.
Pollution, especially Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) is a major cause of illness and premature death in the
United Kingdom. The safety levels are quoted as an annual average level and peak levels. The annual average should not exceed 40 micrograms per cubic metre. From this graph you can see the that this level is constantly being exceeded. This is a major cause of heart problems, cancer and early death in the south of the Borough of Hillingdon. With newer planes without the increase in numbers, this figure can be reduced. However, by increasing the number of flights at Heathrow either with or without a new runway, the mortality rate will increase. The figures used, together with the graph below came from a study by Kings College, London.
The URL is http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/reports/2012_LAQN_Summary_Report.pdf.
Noise Levels
Air pollution, is know to be detrimental to health. No study has ever shown a benefit so it must be eliminated or reduced. There is also an issue with noise know to cause irritation. According to a study from the the World Health Organization and the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. The report, Burden of Disease From Environmental Noise, claims that western Europeans lose up to 1.6 million years of healthy living annually from noise pollution, compared to 4.5 million years lost for air pollution (noise is only second to air pollution in environmental hazards, according to WHO)
In the HAL document The Promise of Heathrow chapter 5 HAL claims that Heathrow is significantly quieter than it was in the 1970s. In a report dated 10th February 2012 by D P Rhodes for the CAA carried out comparisons in noise levels of the A380, A340, Boeing 747 and Boeing
777 under a number of conditions. The document gives the identities of the noise monitoring stations, aircraft used and the measurement taken. The two measurements used are SEL and Lmax. SEL is Sound Exposure Level generated at a specific point and accounts for the duration of sound as well as its level. Lmax measures the maximum sound level measured during an aircraft fly-by.
We cannot see how Heathrow can claim that the aircraft noise will reduce. Comparing the latest planes against those from the 1970s there is little evidence to show noise reduction. With an increase in the number of flights, the noise level can only go up.
Nnoise is a major cause of heart disease and stroke. The constant interruption caused by noise from Heathrow causes the blood to thicken. The BMJ concluded that high levels of aircraft noise were associated with increased risks of stroke, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease for both hospital admissions and mortality in areas near Heathrow airport in London. Studies are now taking place to see if this is also causing various forms of cancer.
A study reported by The British Medical Journal stated how best to meet commercial aircraft capacity for London and other major cities is a matter of active debate, as this may provide major economic benefits. However, policy decisions need to take account of potential health related concerns, including possible effects of environmental noise on cardiovascular health. Our results suggest that high levels of aircraft noise are associated with an increased risk of stroke, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease.
Transport 2000 predict that by 2015 air travel will more than double 1995 levels and if current trends continue, by 2050 passenger-kilometres flown could grow to between five and nine times the figure for 1995.
Professor John Whitelegg, who researched the report, highlighted the need for more stringent standards on noise and emissions around airports, better monitoring of the effects of air travel and more promotion of the alternatives such as rail for short-haul flights. He also called for an environmental charge on air travel based on emissions and the ending of tax exemption on aviation fuel.
In an editorial for the BMJ, Stephen Stansfeld, professor of psychiatry at Barts and London School of Medicine, said that the results “imply that the siting of airports and consequent exposure to aircraft noise may have direct effects on the health of the surrounding population. Planners need to take this into account when expanding airports in heavily populated areas or planning new airports,” he said.
“Matt Gorman, Heathrow’s director of sustainability, said that the airport was already taking “significant steps” to reduce noise pollution by charging airlines more for louder aircraft and offering insulation and double glazing to local residents.“Together these measures have meant that the number of people affected by noise has fallen by 90 per cent since the 1970s, despite the number of flights almost doubling. We are committed to ensuring this reduction continues,” he said”.
This comment is utter rubbish. The only way for people to escape this level of noise as quoted by Matt Gorman is if all of those people who are affected by noise never leave their home to go to work, do the shopping or go out in their garden. This is typical of the rubbish that Heathrow come out with when trying to support an unsupportable option of Heathrow Airport expanding.
A 1997 English study found a cancer corridor within three miles of highways, airports, power plants, and other major polluters. The study examined children who died of leukemia or other cancers from the years 1953-1980, where they were born and where they died. It found that the greatest danger lies a few hundred yards from the highway or pollution facility and decreases as you get away from the facility. This also affects adults living near airports.
Conclusion
The conclusion from these reports show that early death is a real problem for those living near airports. The airport owners cannot be trusted to tell the truth about their operations.
The Davies Commission should not have accepted the risks being placed on local residents knowing what the true risks are to local residents. Profit, particularly when it is primarily to benefit private companies since the taxpayer will be given an additional burden, should not be put before residents’ lives.
The possibility for people to move away from the effect of any new runway is minimal when the country is already suffering a housing crisis and is being asked to accommodate and increasing population in London and the South East.
No government or opposition should make a decision that points so strongly to a catastrophic environmental outcome. Companies, including the foreign investors who own Heathrow, have shown their reluctance to provide the funding needed to the additional housing, health care, education facilities etc that would be required for the proposed expansion. A government would have to accept that it is giving future generations a debt that they never requested.
No new airport or expansion should cause the number of deaths that have been attributed to pollution at Heathrow. The location of new runways/airports should not be in areas that would cause illness and early death to local people.
Http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5432i http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-17419/Now-living-airports-cancer.html
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_8-10-2013- 16-59-51
http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0603/et0603s21.html
3 September 2015