Please cut and paste this template letter into your email and send to:

heathrowconsultation@dft.gsi.gov.uk
 

Dear Secretary of State for Transport,

Re: Opposing the expansion of Heathrow Airport

I REJECT THE PROPOSAL FOR ADDING A 3RD RUNWAY AND 6TH TERMINAL, AND ANY ALTERATIONS TO THE CURRENT PRACTICE OF ALTERNATION, IN ITS ENTIRETY.

There is no case for the Proposal based on the evidence, reasonable assumptions and rational argument.

•     The Noise Condition of 57decibal contour is too lax - it should be 50 decibel contour as per ANASE report 2007. Retention of current Noise level criteria (established 22 years ago) is unacceptable - noise is already too high and the condition should require reduced noise levels at all locations within the 50 decibel contour, which itself should be significantly reduced in area by 2030. The benefits of technological improvement in aircraft noise levels should be enjoyed by the community and not exploited solely by the beneficiaries of expansion.

•     Projected Noise reductions from aircraft over 20 years are unreliable and the risk of failing the 57 decibel contour Condition, let alone the more stringent 50 decibel contour, (1) has not been presented as a risk analysis and (2) is likely to be an unacceptable cost to the community.

•     The Air Quality Condition in the White Paper 2003 is too lax. The aim should be to reduce levels of nitrogen dioxide emissions. The benefits of technological improvements in pollution levels from aircraft and surface transport should be enjoyed by the community and not exploited solely by the beneficiaries of expansion.

•     The Projected Emission reductions from aircraft and surface transport over 20 years are unreliable and the risk of failing the White Paper Condition, let alone more stringent criteria, (1) has not been presented as a risk analysis and (2) is likely to be an unacceptable cost to the community. Legal nitrogen oxide standards have been exceeded near Heathrow for the last 5 years.

•     Safety is likely to decrease given the added risk of a disaster over the high population city caused by air space congestion and potential terrorism from a 50% increase in aircraft movements. Furthermore, no Safety Case has been presented which is particularly amiss given the increased risk. Neither the risk nor the fear of risk by the population has been adequately taken into account.

•     Airspace Congestion is currently high and the Proposals have been made without a solution to this or provision for added congestion from expansion.

•     Transport Congestion on roads accessing Heathrow is currently high and the Proposals have no reliable solution or provision for added congestion from expansion. Road passengers accessing Heathrow are estimated to double to 53 million by 2030.

•     The true cost of climate change arising from the current levels of air transport is too high and is not being reduced fast enough. The 50% expansion at Heathrow and the estimated additional 3 million tonnes of CO2 a year can only add to the CO2 harm. The true cost has not been properly assessed or included in the economics which therefore significantly overstate the net economic benefits of expansion.

•     The Broad Economic Case for expansion (as opposed to the economics of the aviation sector) is superficial, incomplete and erroneous. It underestimates or ignores the true cost of noise, emissions from aircraft and surface transport, safety, climate change and delays arising from congested airspace and surface transport. It omits tax breaks the aviation receives on fuel and VAT. It omits the balance of payments deficit from tourists going overseas from Heathrow exceeding those coming to the UK. It over-estimates the economic benefits to business, to the local region and the UK (only 26% of passengers terminating at Heathrow are business). It over-estimates the hub, route connectivity and competition economic values of expansion at Heathrow. 35% of all passengers are transfer passengers who add little economic benefit other than to the aviation industry. Demand is over estimated on account of failure to price travel on the basis of its much higher true cost.

•     The Decision to expand Heathrow compares the wrong alternatives. Expansion is compared with a “do nothing” Base Case. Expansion should be compared with alternative solutions to the issues  such as the possibility of fast train connections between London’s airports and with destinations served by short-haul flights. The decision to expand is a short-term expediency at the expense of a long term solutions which neighbouring countries are pursuing rationally.

•     There is an unacceptable risk that the 3rd runway will be used for night operations resulting in additional night time disturbance.


 Yours sincerely,