R46-Ministerial Report from the Environment Secretary, Heathrow's 3rd runway Watch

This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
R46- Ministerial Report from the Secretary of State for Environmental Affairs and Infrastructure: Government Decision on Heathrow Airport Third Runway






Ministerial Report from the Secretary of State for Environmental Affairs and Infrastructure
Government Decision on Heathrow Airport Third Runway






[field defaultattr=]


The new Government has collectively considered the proposal to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport. Since the original decision in October 2016, there has been some new factors that need to be taken into account, including:

1. The Paris Climate Change agreement coming into force in November 20161
2. Improvements to long distance electric train travel both in the UK and in the near continent, including direct train services from London to Amsterdam2
3. Air quality information that many places in London exceed legal limits, in 2018 some exceeding annual limits in one month, such as Brixton Road3
4. The impact of airport closures such as for the drone sightings in December 20184
5. Information published in January 2019 that demonstrated that air pollution goes farther than the 2km assumed in the original recommendation5
6. The publication of the Heathrow Master Plan in June 20196
7. The proposals to use the second runway at Gatwick, in July 20197

The Government concludes that the original decision did not fully take into consideration the total environmental impacts of adding a third runway, including those beyond the immediate area. The anticipated growth in air travel, were it to be allowed unchecked, is in any case expected to be to emerging nations which lie east of the United Kingdom, not west. Adding flights whose paths will mean crossing over more of London and the South East does not make logical sense and increases noise and misery for more people.

The Heathrow Master Plan8 shows the extent of the costs and the disruption to the local area and beyond from construction, which will take many years. Any planning inquiry must meet the norms of consultation and justice, and is likely to take several years. By the time of its conclusion, HS2's initial stage is likely to be open, and there is expected to be more direct travel alternatives, or those with only one change, by train from London to France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and beyond. A case as well as the main one where we should in any case be flying less.

Expanding Heathrow would lead to a greater market dominance on certain air routes by British Airways and its Star Alliance partners. This increased dominance has not been tested by the Competition Commission. Any disruption from natural conditions such as fog or man-made ones such as IT failures will have a much greater effect if much of the UK airport's capacity is in one place. Hotels and other accommodation that would be expected for overnight stays or in times when flights are cancelled/delayed will be at the expense of local housing. Such housing costs for workers in all jobs locally may price more out of the housing market, and/or increase their time to get to work and environmental footprint.

The Government cannot willfully add to local air pollution and carbon footprint in an area that breaches air quality limits, especially as Heathrow is the only airport in the UK in an area that does so. There is greater knowledge as to how far pollution extends, given studies of other airports. The low or zero carbon alternatives for many journeys are increasing. The housing crisis in west London should not be made worse.

Not only was the original decision in 2016 flawed, developments and new knowledge since then has made the case even weaker. The Government has therefore decided that the plan to add a third runway at Heathrow should be cancelled.

The Government commends this statement to the House.

Sources
1 https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf
2https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/n...-to-Amsterdam/
3https://www.londonair.org.uk/london/...ary_Report.pdf
4 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-48086013
5http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2019/...-dft-is-wrong/
6https://www.heathrow.com/file_source...w_Jun_2019.pdf
7https://www.gatwickairport.com/globa...-plan-2019.pdf
8https://www.heathrow.com/file_source...w_Jun_2019.pdf[/field]
Last edited by Andrew97; 2 weeks ago
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#2
Hopefully I have now fixed the formatting, which continues to be a pain in the rear end.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 weeks ago
#3
Ok. A - "greater market dominance on certain air routes by British Airways and its Star Alliance partners" - excuse me what?

B - If not, Heathrow. Then what? Gatwick?
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by ns_2)
Ok. A - "greater market dominance on certain air routes by British Airways and its Star Alliance partners" - excuse me what?

B - If not, Heathrow. Then what? Gatwick?
British Airways and the Star Alliance partners will just take up more slots at an expanded Heathrow. Look at their dominance on certain North American routes for example.

The best of all is less air travel. The second best is Gatwick using a runway that is already there, and/or regional airports. New destinations in expanding markets and emerging economies are not to the west of London where Heathrow is.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by barnetlad)
British Airways and the Star Alliance partners will just take up more slots at an expanded Heathrow. Look at their dominance on certain North American routes for example.

The best of all is less air travel. The second best is Gatwick using a runway that is already there, and/or regional airports. New destinations in expanding markets and emerging economies are not to the west of London where Heathrow is.
You're then confusing the issue of increasing infrastructure, and regulating its use - what's to say that Star Alliance members will take the additional slots? If they dominate, they are different ways to deal with that.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 weeks ago
#6
surprise surprise the government arrives to do all it can to harm the nation, how long until we return to 90% tax rates in a desperate attempt to spend our way out of the basketcase economy this government is determined to create

Where does the government suggest the extra capacity come from, or does it take the view that we should opt for simply feeling better rather than actually being better?
Last edited by Jammy Duel; 3 weeks ago
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by barnetlad)
British Airways and the Star Alliance partners will just take up more slots at an expanded Heathrow. Look at their dominance on certain North American routes for example.

The best of all is less air travel. The second best is Gatwick using a runway that is already there, and/or regional airports. New destinations in expanding markets and emerging economies are not to the west of London where Heathrow is.
Is this the second runway that can only be used when the main runway is out of operation due to how close they are together meaning that on multiple grounds they are unsafe to use simultaneously, and that's before considering the infrastructure does not current exist to use both concurrently, even if it were possible to safely use both?
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Is this the second runway that can only be used when the main runway is out of operation due to how close they are together meaning that on multiple grounds they are unsafe to use simultaneously, and that's before considering the infrastructure does not current exist to use both concurrently, even if it were possible to safely use both?
The second runway would be widened to be used for departures only under the plan.

This could be introduced much sooner than any third runway at Heathrow, which I think could be at least 15 years away.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
surprise surprise the government arrives to do all it can to harm the nation, how long until we return to 90% tax rates in a desperate attempt to spend our way out of the basketcase economy this government is determined to create

Where does the government suggest the extra capacity come from, or does it take the view that we should opt for simply feeling better rather than actually being better?
If we need extra capacity there is the Gatwick proposal and more use of regional airports.

As the statement mentions, more high speed rail options are now available than a few years ago- there are not only direct services to Amsterdam but also to several places in France such as Marseille and Lyon, and with only one change you can reach much of Germany and parts of Switzerland. There is also more capacity being introduced on long distance services in the UK, especially between England and Scotland. So extra capacity can come from rail, whose power can be sustainably generated.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by barnetlad)
The second runway would be widened to be used for departures only under the plan.

This could be introduced much sooner than any third runway at Heathrow, which I think could be at least 15 years away.
The width of the second runway isn't the issue, it's how close it is to the main runway. A second runway at Gatwick would likely take just as long as a third at Heathrow because there will be exactly the same NIMBY issues to get around
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by barnetlad)
If we need extra capacity there is the Gatwick proposal and more use of regional airports.

As the statement mentions, more high speed rail options are now available than a few years ago- there are not only direct services to Amsterdam but also to several places in France such as Marseille and Lyon, and with only one change you can reach much of Germany and parts of Switzerland. There is also more capacity being introduced on long distance services in the UK, especially between England and Scotland. So extra capacity can come from rail, whose power can be sustainably generated.
Are there more high speed options in practice though? People who want to go to London want to fly to a London airport, there is a reason that as far afield as Luton and Stansted the airports are labeled as London-x and not just x: it's the only way to get traffic (and even then demand is weak). People will not fly to the continent to go to London, they'll just go to Amsterdam or Paris instead.

Manchester too has plenty of capacity and yet the demand does not exist for the same reasons, you don't fly half way across the world to still be hours away from your destination when you can fly direct
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by ns_2)
B - If not, Heathrow. Then what? Gatwick?
Hope this helps:

The anticipated growth in air travel, were it to be allowed unchecked, is in any case expected to be to emerging nations which lie east of the United Kingdom

0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 weeks ago
#13
Hmm... Does the Sec'y for Environmental Affairs think Boris Island is a good idea?
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by ns_2)
You're then confusing the issue of increasing infrastructure, and regulating its use - what's to say that Star Alliance members will take the additional slots? If they dominate, they are different ways to deal with that.
A lack of people saying they won't?

There are, but why risk that in the first place? Heathrow isn't being stopped due to this, it is only one factor of many. It would be irresponsible to consider increasing infrastructure without considering its use.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 weeks ago
#15
Mr Speaker, i shall be opposing this horrific act of self imposed economic restraint and asking that the Leader Of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition send this to a vote so that it may be opposed in division.

Mr Speaker, it is my opinion that the state has no place in preventing the expansion of airport capacity in cases where subsidy or unfunded liabilities are not required from the taxpayer (such as the Gatwick proposal) and nor must we restrain the airport industry when regulation can ensure that more efficient aeroplanes can be used. Finally, the state should not be picking and choosing which airports can and cannot expand in such an arbitrary manner.

Mr Speaker, as the Shadow Secretary of State for Finance and Infrastructure i shall be bringing forward legislation on this very topic.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by Rakas21)
Mr Speaker, i shall be opposing this horrific act of self imposed economic restraint and asking that the Leader Of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition send this to a vote so that it may be opposed in division.

Mr Speaker, it is my opinion that the state has no place in preventing the expansion of airport capacity in cases where subsidy or unfunded liabilities are not required from the taxpayer (such as the Gatwick proposal) and nor must we restrain the airport industry when regulation can ensure that more efficient aeroplanes can be used. Finally, the state should not be picking and choosing which airports can and cannot expand in such an arbitrary manner.

Mr Speaker, as the Shadow Secretary of State for Finance and Infrastructure i shall be bringing forward legislation on this very topic.
The decision not to expand Heathrow and not worsen air quality is not arbitrary. The cost of treating the ill-health from poor air quality largely falls upon the taxpayer.

I would welcome the opportunity to vote in favour of this statement.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by Rakas21)
nor must we restrain the airport industry when regulation can ensure that more efficient aeroplanes can be used.
I suspect the airport industry would see regulation and restraint as the same thing.
(Original post by Rakas21)
Mr Speaker, as the Shadow Secretary of State for Finance and Infrastructure i shall be bringing forward legislation on this very topic.
Which will do what?
Last edited by 04MR17; 3 weeks ago
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by 04MR17)
I suspect the airport industry would see regulation and restraint as the same thing.Which will do what?
Legislation would take this decision out of the hands of central government while addressing aforementioned concerns.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 weeks ago
#19
Given some countries require greater separation than the ICAO minima, for instance the FAA requires nearly a mile for some runways, I decided to check the CAA and you're in luck, they don't have higher than ICAO, but also not in luck because with the two runways are LGW being less than 760m apart they are considered as just 1 runway by the CAA.

In theory widening would work, but it would require one of the runways to be extended to as to be about three quarters of a mile wide as it would need making 1124m wider
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 weeks ago
#20
barnetlad with Gatwick entirely out of the picture do you have any alternatives or are you just going to move the economic activity to Paris and Berlin?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

What's your favourite genre?

Rock (175)
24.17%
Pop (180)
24.86%
Jazz (29)
4.01%
Classical (41)
5.66%
Hip-Hop (132)
18.23%
Electronic (46)
6.35%
Indie (121)
16.71%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise