In February of last year, Labour gave the go ahead for a third runway at Heathrow and committed despite mounting opposition.
On Tuesday, a group of seven London councils, three environmental groups, two local groups and the Mayor of London challenged this decision in the High Court.
Labour’s support for a third runway leaves them increasingly isolated. They ignored key advisers-like the Environment Agency. They reverse engineered figures to get the answers ministers wanted. They pressed ahead despite a chorus of local and national opposition. It was only a matter of time before a serious legal challenge was made on Labour’s flawed decision to support a third runway at Heathrow.
Let me be clear about our position: we would scrap Labour’s plans for a third runway at Heathrow. There should be no room for doubt: a Conservative Government will mean no third runway. We will ensure the right decisions are made to make Heathrow a better-not bigger-airport which is why connectivity with Heathrow is a crucial part of our plans for a high speed rail line. Before we made the decision to block a third runway at Heathrow, we examined the evidence-and the Government’s case simply did not stack up.
After careful consideration of the environmental, social and economic impacts of a third runway, we concluded that the costs of the expansion Labour propose significantly outweigh the supposed benefits. We now have the support of a broad coalition of businesses, community groups, environmentalists, local authorities and mass membership organisations such as the National Trust backing our stance.
It is clear that the 222,000 extra flights at Heathrow which would come with a third runway would blight the lives of hundreds of thousands of people with increased levels of congestion, aircraft noise and pollution, damaging the health and quality of life of local communities and significantly undermining our efforts to meet our national targets on climate change.
According to the Times, a judge is expected to reach a decision by the end of next week. While the outcome of the case is uncertain, one thing remains clear: a Conservative Government will ensure that the third runway does not go ahead.
( 5 comments ) Tags: Heathrow, High Court, third runway
Comment by Richard Tebboth on February 25, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Whither/Wither Heathrow?
The Conservatives’ position is clear
The LibDems’ position is clear
The position of many in the Labour party is clear
Whatever the outcome of the impending General Election, Heathrow runway 3 will not be built.
This does, however, beg the question of how the demand for extra capacity (the estimated 222,000 extra flights which would have come with the third runway) will be met.
It is generally accepted that Heathrow “just growed”; starting from scratch it would not be there.
The problems with pollution, traffic congestion and noise with the current volume of flights at Heathrow
are apparent. These problems will be exacerbated by the more intensive use of the existing runways by improved air traffic control which will enable overlapped landing/take-off.
CO2 emissions may be reduced by new engine (open rotor) technology; however, this is noisier – it is highly probable that new generation planes with these engines could not operate from Heathrow
There is another elephant in the room: the issue of security/terrorism issue.
Consider: the ease with which the entry tunnels could be sabotaged, the appalling possibility of another 9/11 style attack on central London or Windsor – targets which could be hit only a few minutes after takeoff.
Let’s call the whole thing off; close Heathrow entirely.
The Manifesto should advocate, if not enunciate, an holistic approach to the entire transport infrastructure of SE England.
The estuary airport as proposed by Boris could also encompass:
- TGV-style rail connections to UK & the continent
- the new Thames Barrier (needed in any case in consequence of climate change)
- tidal (therefore green) power generation
- wind power
- container port linked to rail for freight
This phased development would facilitate the re-development of the Heathrow area as:
- London’s major rail centre linking Great Western, SouthWest Trains, Chiltern Rail, Chunnel
- rail freight interchange
- an exhibition & entertainment centre to rival to NEC
(this would also allow the redevelopment of the out-dated sites at Olympia and Earls Court)
- associated property/leisure development
Comment by Ann Woodward on February 25, 2010 at 9:06 pm
I haven’t heard anything about this on the main stream media – why not?
Comment by midlander on February 26, 2010 at 1:34 pm
So, what will happen to all the extra passengers who will be flying in the future? They will be using other European Airports as a hub, like Paris, Amsterdam.
Already pilots using Heathrow struggle with the overcrowding onto existing runway facilites and say that another runway is essential.
How many years will it be before the ‘estuary airport’ is operational?! Terribly useful for anyone who lives north of the M40 I think not.
Heathrow has been an airport longer than almost anyone has been living under its influence, so no one can complain that they didn’t know Heathrow might expand.
Comment by Jim Dawes on February 26, 2010 at 6:02 pm
It’s all well and good saying that the runway will be scrapped, but what provisions will be put in place to make sure that it won’t happen in the near future?
The area around Sipson and Harmondsworth will be blighted for many years to come and it will take more than the word of politician to allieviate the anxiety in the area.
An agreement must be set up that the runway will not be considered for at least 30 years.
I don’t hear the Conservatives coming forward with more concrete proposals.
Then again, an agreement was set in place regarding T5 and yet that was broken
Comment by Chris D on February 27, 2010 at 8:46 pm
I wouldnt worry about all the “extra” passengers. The way things are going, only the rich are going to be able to afford flights. You will see passenger numbers tumbling as the world economy crash bites hard.