Heathrow Expansion - News and Debates

[Aviador]

Heathrow expansion: Why British tourism needs a third runway

Heathrow accommodates more flights on just two runways than any other airport in the world

Opponents of a third runway claim the Government has fallen for the corporate arguments and statistics trotted out by the aviation lobby (usually taken from Rod Eddington’s White Paper of 2003). And they may well be right. But, from a British tourism point of view, the argument about whether we need an extra runway at Heathrow is not in doubt.

Heathrow operates at 99 per cent capacity and accommodates more flights on just two runways than any other airport in the world. Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport boasts five runways, Paris’ Charles de Gaulle has four. At present, Heathrow’s system has no slack, so it takes days to recover from security alerts or strikes. In 2007 Heathrow was the least punctual of all Europe’s major airports – one in three people using the airport were delayed.

Simon Jenkins wrote this week that most UK airline users are outbound leisure travellers (69 million people) and therefore curbing air travel through taxation or reducing slots would benefit domestic tourism. It might, but international visitors stand at a record 33 million last year. That is quite a market to turn your back on during an economic downturn as grim as this one.

He also suggests that curbing air travel through taxation or slot rationing could favour inbound tourism from the US and Far East. How exactly? If we are struggling to attract them when the pound is at its lowest levels against most a major currencies how will raising air fares help?

Our new tourism minister says that the downturn in tourism was responsible for half the shrinkage in the UK economy in the three months to September. The industry is worth some £114 billion each year. The CBI and British Chamber of Commerce predict that major corporations such as Microsoft might pull out of Britain if a third runway is rejected. Foreign investment and visitors is what we need to encourage not dissuade.

Not that you would think the Government cared, judging by its “musical chairs” approach to the minister of tourism role – eight different ministers in 11 years and counting.

First impressions count for a lot in the fickle world of travel. Look at the US: visitor numbers fell by nearly 20 per cent between 2000 and 2006, after repeated security delays and overzealous airport officials encouraged people to head elsewhere for their holidays.

Do we really think that keeping businessmen and tourists sat for an hour on a plane for an hour as it circles over the Middlesex countryside gives them the best first impression?

Yes, the recent financial downturn has seen aviation growth slow this year but the response from airlines has been to add routes from London at the expense of regional airports, rather than cut them.

BA no longer has any international routes from regional airports. Bmi has cut all its long-haul services form Manchester so as to move its planes to Heathrow. Thomas Cook has pulled out of Coventry, while Ryanair has left Newquay and is expanding fast at Gatwick and so on.

Blocking expansion will not help reduce carbon emissions – it will merely divert international air traffic to European airports and thereby significantly reduced Heathrow’s importance as an international hub and our airlines ability to compete with the ever-expanding Middle Eastern airlines or invest in greener technology.

Of course this is of little comfort to those who live under the projected flight path or those who face eviction from their home. But perhaps we should be thankful that such debates are happening at all. The Thai authorities’ response to vociferous protests from those living under the flight-path of Bangkok’s new airport? To leave a box of sleeping tablets and ear plugs on the doorsteps of all affected homes.

Source

 

[Aviador]

Re: Does Heathrow Needs Expanding?

Bristol MPs join fight to stop Heathrow expansion

Two MPs have joined 20,000 protestors in buying part of a plot of land which would be sacrificed for a new runway at Heathrow Airport.

Liberal Democrats Steve Webb, of Northavon, and Stephen Williams, of Bristol West, have been named as co-beneficiaries of the land bought up by Greenpeace in an attempt to hinder the Government's plans.

On Thursday the Government announced plans to go ahead with the controversial third runway at Heathrow, sparking fury from environmentalists.

Eco-campaign group Greenpeace bought the plot of land in the threatened village of Sipson, which would be bulldozed to make way for the new runway, on Monday.

Since then, it has been flooded with inquiries from people who want to join the cause.

They include the two MPs, who will both be named on the deeds to the land, meaning they have rights to make representations when the runway scheme reaches the planning stages.

The organisation wants to divide the land up by as many people as possible to bring the bureaucratic process to a standstill.
Mr Williams, who has campaigned for increased carbon emission reduction targets, said: "I'm not entirely sure how much land I have acquired and whether I would have to stand on my tip toes, but I am happy to do anything I can do to frustrate this process.

"I am opposed to the expansion of Bristol International Airport and my position is the same nationally. If we allow the supply of journeys to grow without control we will never get our aviation emissions down.

"A rail link between Heathrow and Bristol is worthwhile in itself and it should not be dependent on us being blackmailed."
Yesterday's announcement did not include any proposals for a widely anticipated Bristol to Heathrow high-speed railway line.
But it did include an announcement to electrify the Great Western Main Line – part of a large number of transport improvements revealed by Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon yesterday.

The decision to expand Heathrow Airport received support from businesses, the tourism industry and workers' unions as it is expected to boost the British economy and create 65,000 jobs.

But the anti-expansion lobby reacted with fury and promised the Government a long and hard fight to ensure the runway never gets started.

Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said: "We have never seen such levels of interest in our history, which shows how much anger there is over this decision."

Leila Deen, from climate action group Plane Stupid, said: "We are as confident as ever that the runway won't be built.
"Through direct action, people will retain the power to stop the runway long after Gordon Brown's brief moment of power expires.

"This decision is an insult to younger generations and we will respond to it as such."
About 700 homes will have to be demolished, with the loss of the village of Sipson, to make way for the new runway which will run north of, and parallel to, the existing runways.

Source

 

[Aviador]

Re: Does Heathrow Needs Expanding?

Wycombe council joins Heathrow protest group

WYCOMBE District Council has joined an alliance of local authorities “concerned about the environmental impact” of Heathrow Airport expansion.

The council this week signed up to join the 2M Group, so called as when it was formed it represented about two million residents, which is concerned with plans for a third runway.

Last month ministers gave the green light to plans for the third runway, which would increase dramatically the amount of air traffic flying over the area.

The majority of member groups are London boroughs, although South bucks, Windsor and Maidenhead and Slough are all represented.

Nationally the Conservative party, which controls WDC, has said it will stop the development if they come to power at the next general election.

Councillor Lesley Clarke, the leader of the council, said they were in favour of the third runway, but wanted the environmental impact to be looked at.

She said: “We were not involved in the original consultation, even though the plans will see more planes flying over Wycombe.

“It's the noise and pollution which will have an impact on the wellbeing of our residents. It might have been given the green light, but there are issues that have to be taken into account.

“There can be conditions put on the development.”

Many local businesses are expected to benefit if the third runway is built, as more passengers fly into the airport.

Cllr Clarke said:”We do not want to stop businesses being prosperous, but we also have to take into account the health of people who live here, and the number of planes flying over the area.

“What we need is for a proper infrastructure to be put in around it. We are trying to get a direct train line from High Wycombe into Heathrow, as it is ridiculous the number of people who drive there.

“These sort of issues need to be sorted out before any improvements or runways can be done.”

Source

 

[Aviador]

Re: Does Heathrow Needs Expanding?

If they are going to be all parallel will they need to relabel the other 2 current runways i.e. 9R, 9C, 9L. Or is the third one going to be just off parallel such as 080 or 100 degrees ??

Good question. There must be other airports around the world that have more than 2 runways with the same heading. I wonder how they do it. To throw a spanner into the works, how about four parallel runways?

 

[Aviador]

Re: Does Heathrow Needs Expanding?

Heathrow third runway plan hits new snag

The proposed third runway at Heathrow has been dealt a serious blow after a government document warned that airport group BAA cannot lodge a planning application for the project before the next general election.

The Conservatives, well ahead of Labour in the polls, have pledged to block a new runway at the UK's busiest international airport. The admission gives a Tory government ample time to draft a new aviation policy that will block BAA's plans.

According to a presentation by the Department for Transport, seen by the Guardian, BAA is not expected to seek planning permission for a third runway until 2012. The last possible date for a general election is 3 June 2010 and BAA's best hope for expanding Heathrow is to start the planning process by submitting an application before then.

Executives at the airport group have conceded that it will be impossible to compile the plans and data necessary for an application by that date. The DfT presentation deals a further blow to BAA's ambitions by conceding that the government document that must underpin a planning request for major infrastructure development, a national policy statement, will not be ready until 2011.

A national policy statement is a key guide for any planning decision by the Infrastructure Planning Commission, the new body that will evaluate a Heathrow proposal. The DfT has admitted that the policy statement must undergo public consultation and scrutiny by MPs before it can be considered by the commission.

The presentation for civil servants drafted by the DfT's head of airports strategy, Jonathan Moor, adds that BAA will not start constructing a runway until 2013 at the earliest, even if it wins planning approval.

In the document the projected date for construction work is also placed next to an ominous picture of an eco-protest camp. However, the runway opponent who gets the most exposure in the document is actress Emma Thompson. Geoff Hoon, the transport secretary, accused Thompson of hypocrisy after it emerged that she uses the airport to fly to Los Angeles. The presentation carries a picture of the actor at the Golden Globes award ceremony in Los Angeles, with her comments that a third runway would be "laughably hypocritical" highlighted in red next to the picture.

Anti-expansion campaigners said the DfT document confirmed the odds of Heathrow getting a third runway were diminishing. "There is no way that BAA can get planning permission before the next general election. The chances that a third runway will never be built are increasing all the time," said John Stewart, chair of the Hacan ClearSkies campaign group.

Plans to expand Stansted are also in doubt after the Competition Commission questioned whether BAA ought to push ahead with plans for a second runway at the Essex airport. The government has postponed a public inquiry into a second runway at Stansted while it considers the implications of a commission investigation into BAA. The commission recommended this month that BAA sell Gatwick, Stansted and one of its Scottish airports. The BAA board is meeting next week to consider its response to the commission and whether it should press ahead with expanding Stansted, where a second runway is due to open in 2017.

A BAA spokesman said the airport operator had yet to confirm a schedule for submitting a planning application for a third Heathrow runway. A DfT spokesman said: "Following the decisions announced in January, it is now for BAA to develop and submit a planning application, the timing of which is entirely for them to decide."

Source

 

[Aviador]

Re: Does Heathrow Needs Expanding?

Eurovision flashmob at Heathrow

Flash mob protesters descended on Heathrow yesterday to sing against airport expansion in a Eurovision-themed demonstration. On the day of the song contest, the protest was designed to coincide with similar protests held across the Continent.

Activists wearing bright red T-shirts with the words 'Stop Airport Expansion' arrived at Terminal 1 departures, as protesters were due to gather at airports in Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Brussels, Dublin and Paris. The climate campaigners then launched into a string of their own versions of some of Britain's most famous Eurovision entries from past years.

Emphasising the plight of the villagers of Sipson, who risk losing their entire community to a third runway, protesters performed an adaptation of the 1996 hit, Just a Little Bit, by Gina G. Waving European flags, they sang: ‘Ooh ahh - no third runway, ooh ahh, we don't want more, ooh ahh - saving Sipson, It's a fight you can't ignore.’

The campaigners used the Abba hit, Waterloo, to emphasise their continued fight against the Government. They sang the words: ‘DfT (Department for Transport)- you'll be defeated, we'll win the war, BAA - no more runways for ever more, Heathrow - couldn't expand if it wanted to, Runway three - finally facing its Waterloo, BAA - finally facing its Waterloo.’

Some of the campaigners dressed up as European caricatures and waved banners with the words ‘no to airport expansion’ written in several languages. The protest, organised by campaign group Hacan, was designed to show that opposition to airport expansion is growing across Europe.

Source

 

[Rob]

Re: Does Heathrow Needs Expanding?

Having spent quite a bit of time in the area, I find it astounding that they can consider a third runway, particularly in the position where it is proposed. The amount of disruption to long established local suburbs and village communities just seems too much to overcome. I'm sure if there was enough will to do it, it can be acheived, but the complications and cost must surely be so high I'd be very surprised to see it go ahead.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Re: Does Heathrow Needs Expanding?

It's a multi-faceted argument.

LHR needs to expand its ability to compete with the likes of CDG, FRA and AMS for the good of the UK economy.

No, it doesn't, there are plenty of other airports in the country that could take up the slack.

Yes but they aren't in the capital city, one of the major capital cities of the world, and most people from overseas, whether leisure or business travellers, want to fly into London, and London to airlines is LHR, and so much of the UK economy is dependent on London and its extended region.

Well, if people want to fly to London they will have to get used to using Gatwick or Stansted or Luton. Business people are happy to use City right in the heart of an important business district.

City is a niche airport and can't be expanded much itself.

Not all business is conducted in London and the South East. There are other airports around the country that are available.

Many of these airports would need to be expanded to meet an increased demand and would meet similar objections to the expanding of LHR.

Fewer people should fly then. The railways should be used more for long domestic journeys as well as short.

Our railways struggle to cope as it is and any upgrading of the infrastructure is many years away.

That may be so but we must protect the environment for future generations

Few people will disagree with that but how do we sustain and enhance our economy if we can't fly and the rail network is logjammed?

Pass

 

[Aviador]

Re: Does Heathrow Needs Expanding?

Conservatives to include axing Heathrow expansion in manifesto

A commitment to axe plans for a third runway at Heathrow will be included in the Conservatives’ general election manifesto. A spokesman for the party said at its conference this week that it would block attempts to expand any of the three main airports serving London.

Rejecting rumours that the party was reconsidering its opposition following protests from the business community, Theresa Villiers, the Conservative shadow transport secretary, made clear the Tories’ determination to fund high-speed rail travel rather than airport expansion. She told the conference: ‘When it comes to new runways at Heathrow it’s time to say 'this far and no further’. Heathrow needs to be better, not bigger.’

Soure

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Re: Does Heathrow Needs Expanding?

Domestic routes are a small percentage of all traffic from LHR and the London airports and rail through the tunnel is only a realistic alternative to those mainland Europe cities relatively close to the south east of England.

Are the Tories contemplating high speed rail travel to the Americas, Asia and Australasia or are they happy for people to train it to Paris and fly from there?

 

[Aviador]

Re: Does Heathrow Needs Expanding?

BAA ‘to give up on Heathrow third runway’

BAA has 'bowed to opposition to a third runway at Heathrow Airport'. The Times reports that it will not submit a planning application before the general election next year and will not sign large contracts to ‘bounce’ a future Conservative government into accepting it. Senior BAA figures are also reported to have also told the Conservatives that the company will cease to fight for the third runway if they form the next government.

Theresa Villiers, the shadow transport secretary, said: ‘Last week BAA conveyed to us at our party conference that it will not be submitting a planning application before the election. It seems BAA has woken up to the fact that we mean what we say on Heathrow and that if we win the general election there will be no third runway.’

Source

I wonder if this will eventually mean possibly more expansion in the regions? Probably not, not doubt people will have to rely more on transiting through European airports in the future.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Re: Does Heathrow Needs Expanding?

I would incline to the latter where the authorities and governments there are far more supportive of expansion of their airports.

FRA is to expand by around 30% I believe.

So we as a nation sit back and let other countries reap the rewards of increased business from air travel. It's not as if aircraft flying to and from other hubs don't create the same carbon emissions that the environmentalists, tree-huggers and now it seems the Tory government-in-waiting are so concerned about.

We've let other countries take over many of our major companies, including vital public utilities, so we might as well throw in the towel with aviation as well. We have to an extent already with overseas companies owning some of our airports (including the Spanish-owned BAA) and some of our airlines - Tui being one example with Thomsonair or is it Thomson Air?

Reading this you'd think I was an extreme right-wing little Englander which, I think, most people who know me would agree that's something I've never been. If someone like me can summon up this sort of anger and frustration I wonder how the life-long right-wingers feel about the country chucking out the family silver.

 

[Aviador]

Re: Does Heathrow Needs Expanding?

It's a gloomy picture isn't it. Aviation is paramount to the globalized culture we live in and I can't imagine any government clamping down on aviation any further. Any further taxes on aviation will hinder future inward investment in the country. I expect that aviation will move off the agenda after the next general election.

 

[Aviador]

Re: Does Heathrow Needs Expanding?

MP backs Heathrow runway to support regional flights

A Tees Valley MP has called for a third runway at Heathrow to help regional businesses, the Journal reports, adding that every region outside the South of England is affected by Heathrow’s pricing structure. Since the early 1990s UK regional services into Heathrow have fallen from 21 to 6 - and just two from England, Newcastle and Manchester.

Durham Tees Valley Airport has been rocked by a number of route cancellations over the past 18 months - including its bmi service to Heathrow. Sedgefield MP Phil Wilson has called on the Government to ring-fence slots for regional airlines in advance of a new third runway at Heathrow, which he claims is a better strategic bet for regional flights than the soon-to-be-sold Gatwick.

He said: ‘We need a third runway. Heathrow is about 99% capacity and there are very few regional services into the airport.’ He also called for a review into Government aviation policy, which he says should take measures to stop regional airlines from being priced out of the market. He said: ‘It’s not just about the economies of the aviation industry; it’s about the economies of the regions. The Government’s strategy should be focused on growing these regional economies.'

Source

 

[Aviador]

Re: Does Heathrow Needs Expanding?

Also posted in the Forums4airports UK Airport Forum....
Why we should recycle our airports

Yesterday’s closure of Heathrow’s Terminal 2 and its now-imminent demolition has gone relatively unnoticed by the architectural community.

It is clear somethings needs to be done at Terminal 2: the existing terminal was designed to accommodate 1.2 million passengers per year and now regularly deals with 8 million. The issue also lacks the Schadenfreude of Terminal 5’s teething problems or the political drama of the third runway battle.

Yet we should ask why airport planners continue to wipe out the old buildings and replace them with entirely new structures - in this case one costing £1bn. This approach would raise eyebrows if copied in hospital complexes, military compounds or train stations.

Colin Matthews, British Airports Authority (BAA) chief executive insists that the replacement terminal will have ‘less impact on the environment’ because it will produce 40 per cent less carbon than the existing building. Although noble, this dodges the question of how much carbon will be produced by constructing the new buildings - and just how much could be saved by re-fitting and expanding the old one. Can a new build’s eco-credentials really outweigh the environmental impact of its predecessor’s demolition and replacement?

It seems contradictory for a government who has introduced astonishingly high sustainability targets - such as all public buildings built from 2016 to be zero-carbon - to endorse such a development. Developers of eco-projects in other sectors - notably residential and offices - may feel undermined by the carbon heavy manoeuvrings of a carbon heavy industry.

Airports have the autonomy and space to implement wind and solar power schemes
Incorporating structural elements or waste material from the existing building could reduce the ground works and overall waste of the development. Aviation will have to get its own house in order, but architecture can help create the zero-carbon airport once the planes are on the ground. Airports have the autonomy and space to implement wind and solar power schemes - and might in future harness the kinetic energy of planes.

It is understandable that the airports need to keep one step ahead of competitors by being ‘cutting edge’, with beautiful precedents such as Rogers’ Stirling Prize wining Barajas Airport in Madrid, Foster’s Beijing Airport and Piano’s Kansai Airport in Japan. Maybe it is time that ‘cutting edge’ means the zero-carbon airport, built in a sustainable way as an example to the rest of the world of what can be achieved elegantly with existing structure and existing space.

BAA claims the newly envisaged terminal is intended to ‘rival’ Heathrow’s own Terminal 5. If Terminal 2 lives up to the hype, perhaps Richard Rogers will be commissioned to re-built terminal 5 in a new streamlined form, to more efficiently cope with the diminished number of visitors.

Source

 

[Aviador]

Re: Does Heathrow Needs Expanding?

Simple plan 'means no need for third Heathrow runway'Steeper flight approach is quieter and would enable more night flights – so no third runway, says Emirates airline

Dan Milmo, Transport correspondent guardian.co.uk, Sunday 29 November 2009 13.56 GMT Article history
A plane arrives at Heathrow. The proposal from Emirates would mean no third runway but more night flights. Photograph: Matt Cardy/Getty Images

A bitterly contested third runway at Heathrow can be avoided if airlines adopt a new landing approach involving thousands more night flights per year, according to a proposal by one of the airport's fastest growing carriers.

Emirates believes that gridlock at the world's busiest international hub will be relieved by introducing a flight technique that gets around strict night noise restrictions. The plan, dubbed the "Eco-Approach" by the Dubai-based airline, involves flying into the airport at a steeper angle which,according to Emirates, will reduce noise while cutting carbon dioxide emissions by reducing the need to stack flights.

In a proposal to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the UK's aviation regulator, Emirates claims that it will mean "no need for a new runway at Heathrow".

Tim Clark, president of Emirates, said the new landing approach would provide an extra four hours of flights and required a £2m investment in a new navigation system at the airport. "For a few million extra pounds you could open Heathrow later at night and earlier in the morning."

Heathrow's congestion problems have been eased slightly by the recession but the airport is still operating close to capacity. In January the government gave its blessing to plans for a third runway, which will increase flights from 480,000 a year to 702,000.

Under the Emirates proposal, ministers would have to consider introducing "mixed-mode" at the airport, whereby both runways are used for take-off and landing simultaneously in contravention of current limitations.

Pressure from the aviation industry and wider business lobby to expand Heathrow without building a new runway is likely to increase with the prospect of an electoral victory next year for the Conservative Party, which has vowed to oppose a third runway.

"If this third runway does not come off what you have to do is look at what you have got and try to make a real job of it," said Clark.

The CAA said it had received the proposal but it would require close study because it requires changes to the airspace around Heathrow. "As with any potential change to airspace it would need to be studied to ensure it could safely be adopted and how it would fit in with the existing airspace structure and routes," said a CAA spokesman.

A veteran campaigner against Heathrow expansion said residents would oppose the proposal vigorously.

John Stewart, chair of the HACAN (Heathrow Association for the control of Airport Noise) group, said: "This would be opposed tooth and nail by residents around Heathrow.

"The limit on the number of flights gives them some reassurance about how many planes there are each night. Residents are not woken up by the average noise but by planes going overhead. The number of planes is critical for residents."

Stewart said the proposal would violate night noise restrictions that limit the airport to 16 flights between 11.30pm and 6am. Under the Emirates proposal the extra four hours of flights would land during the night-time curfew.

However, Clark told the Guardian that the new landing approach would shelter thousands of households from noise and would make the noise of incoming planes "like a rain shower."

Heathrow's owner, BAA, said the proposal would not ease the airport's capacity problems during the day."We have no plans to operate additional flights during the night and are working with airports across Europe to introduce controlled descent, which is considerably more fuel efficient and less noisy than the steep approach being proposed," said a BAA spokesman.

Emirates has cautioned that the

steep flight approach, which involves descending into the outskirts of Heathrow at a 5.5 degree angle rather than the usual 3 degrees, is subject to further trials and can only be carried out safely by the new generation of airliners including the Airbus A380 superjumbo and the yet-to-be-launched A350 and Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

Emirates carries 23 million passengers per year but its Heathrow services are set to expand rapidly as it adds more than 50 A380s to its fleet.

A spokesman for the Department for Transport said there are strict restrictions on night flights at Heathrow and "any proposed changes would be subject to full public consultation".

Source

 

[Aviador]

Re: Does Heathrow Needs Expanding?

A 5.5 degree approach seems too steep be become a standard style of approach. I would imagine this type of approach is effectively a glide approach. I know that the latest aircraft types are built to be able to carry out this sort of manoeuvre but I'm not convinced that it would be safe for them to carry them out on a regular basis.

 

[Aviador]

Re: Does Heathrow Needs Expanding?

Campaigners slam Government over Heathrow runway support

Campaigners fighting the Heathrow expansion have reacted angrily to reports that the Department for Transport (DfT) colluded with BAA over its planned third runway.

Justine Greening, Conservative MP for Putney, obtained emails between Government officials and BAA discussing concerns that evidence for the project would not stand up to scrutiny, a national newspaper reported.

One memo written in November 2007 is said to have claimed ‘90 percent of businesses in the south east’ rated Heathrow expansion as either ‘vital’ or ‘very important’ to their businesses, but officials knew ‘the conclusion [was] based on a very low sample size’ and it should be ‘used with caution’.

John Stewart, founder and chairman of campaign group Hacan, said the emails showed the Government tried to overstate the runway’s importance to business, and also worked with BAA to bury documents about surface access.

Source

 

[Galaxy]

Re: Does Heathrow Needs Expanding?

Heathrow airport expansion e-mails investigated

The Department for Transport (DfT) is facing an "intensive investigation" over claims e-mails about the expansion of Heathrow Airport were deleted.

The exchanges with airport operator BAA were requested by a Conservative MP under the Freedom Of Information Act, who said she then spotted gaps.

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) confirmed it would examine the 2007 e-mails about the third runway.

The DfT said all freedom of information cases had been handled "responsibly".

Justine Greening, Tory MP for Putney in south-west London, said she asked for the investigation after noticing gaps in e-mail conversations between September and November 2007.

'Full facts'

"There were a variety of e-mails on important issues that never had an end. I think it seems very unlikely there was that level of e-mail conversation where there was never an end," she told the BBC.

"And it was unlikely that they were sporadically deleted in a random way... it was the end of conversations that were never resolved," she said.

Ms Greening said she made three identical requests under the Freedom Of Information (FOI) Act, in July 2006, September 2007 and April 2008.

The Conservative shadow local government minister said she wanted to find out what discussions were going on within the DfT in the run up to the consultation on Heathrow's expansion.

"I'm very pleased the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is investigating, it's important one way or another to find out what has happened," she said.

"I very much hope, if e-mails were withheld, that those are then made public."

She said the ICO had told her it planned "quite an intensive investigation in a short timescale with the limited resources available to our office".

Ms Greening, who has campaigned against the £9bn expansion, said millions of Londoners had had their lives ruined by overhead flights and air pollution from Heathrow.

"Until ministers reverse their decision to expand the airport, we will continue to campaign," she said.

Last year the Conservatives pledged to scrap plans for a third Heathrow runway if elected.

A DfT spokesman said: "We are aware of a possible investigation by the Information Commissioner's Office, but have not received any formal notice.

"The department has received a number of FOI cases in relation to expansion at Heathrow, and we believe they have all been handled responsibly and in accordance with the Act."

The ICO said: "We are looking into allegations made by Justine Greening MP concerning requests for information to the Department for Transport.

"We have contacted BAA and the DfT to help us establish the full facts."

It is a criminal offence to delete or conceal records to prevent them from being disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act.

A BAA spokesperson said the company was not covered by the FOI Act and did not have any comment to make.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8502996.stm

 

[News Guru]

Re: Does Heathrow Needs Expanding?

UK £5bn worse off’ if Heathrow runway built

If a third runway is built at Heathrow Airport, the UK will be £5 billion worse off, according to a report from independent think-tank NEF (the New Economics Foundation) The £5 billion includes £2.5 billion of negative impacts on the local community around the airport.

To evaluate the third runway's benefits, NEF said its researchers had used the same economic modeling programme as the Department for Transport (DfT), but updated the input data on economic growth rates, exchange rates, carbon prices, fuel prices and other variables.

However, the group also estimated the costs of a new runway to the local community. This included revisiting the DfT's estimates for noise disturbance and air pollution, and, for the first time, calculating the cost of additional surface congestion and community blight. A spokesman for the group said its report presented ‘the formidable environmental hurdle faced by proponents of a third runway because of the climate change impacts of air travel’.

Source