Aviation Strategy

Written evidence from Mr Terence Hughes (AS 97)

I would like make the following points for consideration by the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport with regard to the expansion of Heathrow.  I apologise for the length of my statement and assure you that I am not "anti-aviation." but wish to be constructive.

The Environmental Issue

Noise

I have lived in Putney for over 40 years and during that time the disturbance from aircraft noise has grown considerably for the simple reason that aircraft movements have increased, the planes are larger and the engines more powerful. Although the government claims that the average noise level has decreased since the 1960’s ( by 20 decibels), it is hard for people who do not live under the flight path to understand the degree to which the residents of a large part of London suffer. I find it difficult to work when there is a constant low rumble in the background and almost impossible when the stream of planes fly overhead – sometimes more than a hundred-  at intervals of just over a minute. It is impossible to have a conversation with any person next to you.

 Yet the expansion of Heathrow will lead to a massive increase in the number of flights and even bigger aircraft.

 Impact on Health

Hopefully the Transport Committee will be aware that excessive aircraft noise has a high social and health cost  The effect of noise on people is complex and insufficiently understood.  It is more than a question of intensity but also of pitch, frequency and atmospheric conditions. WHO   Europe states that

 "excessive noise seriously harms human health and interferes with people’s daily activities at school, at work and at home and during leisure time. It can disturb sleep cause cardiovascular and pyschophysiological effects, reduce performance and provoke annoyance responses and changes social behaviour."

 These judgements are supported by clinical studies in Munich which have shown that school children suffer a loss of attention and ability to learn as a result of aircraft noise.

Noise as Torture

The US Department of Defense would certainly agree with the WHO’s conclusions since it has used unbearable levels of sound in Iraq and elsewhere to force its enemies and prisoners into submission.  Surely our government will not permit what can be described as a form of torture to be inflicted on thousands of Londoners who live on the approaches to Heathrow.

 

New Engines?

The expansion lobby maintains that there will be a decrease in noise levels as new engines and aircraft  are brought into service.  However, this assumes further technological advance by engine manufacturers and a massive investment in new power plants by the airlines. Where is the evidence for these developments?  Modern aircraft such as the Boeing 777 and Airbus are still unacceptably noisy as they fly over our neighbourhood and how "quiet"is "quiet" for a jet engine? Furthermore, will the many different airlines flying into Heathrow be willing to find the cash to re-equip their fleets with new engines at a time of recession? If so, how long would it take for the older engines to be replaced?

 Surely it would be foolhardy for the government to invest billions in expanding  Heathrow on the back of a mere promise of quieter engines when they do not exist at anything like acceptable levels and may never exist.  Moreover,  many residents of London are deeply sceptical of undertakings given by the aviation  industry since it has a poor track record in respecting planning decisions. Many remember the judgment of the Planning Inspector into construction of the 5th Terminal that any additional runway would mean that the noise level would be intolerable.

Aircraft Movements

The expansion lobby maintains that the environmental objections can be overcome as larger aircraft come into service allowing more people to be moved by fewer planes. Yet air traffic increases at an average of 5 per cent a year and according to the previous government’s 2007 forecast set out in  "Adding capacity to Heathrow"  current aircraft movements of 480,000  will rise massively to 605,000 in 2020, and a staggering 720,000  by 2030 if a third short runway is built.  Only a small proportion of these movements are likely to be by large aircraft and it defies all reason to think that this huge increase in flights across London will not have a serious effect on the environment.

 Risk

Noise is just one major environmental reason for abandoning any scheme to expand Heathrow, there is also the problem of safety.  A massive increase in aircraft movements over London will surely increase the risk of an accident. Whilst Heathrow’s safety record is good with 11 accidents ( 7 fatal)since it started civil operations, there is always an inherent risk in flight. Some of the most advanced aircraft in the world- the Concorde, the A380 and the Boeing 777 have had accidents.  In 2008, disaster was only narrowly avoided through the skill of the pilot when a Boeing 777 crash-landed at the edge of  Heathrow’s runway..  We trust that the Committee will make every attempt to assess the likely risk of an aircraft accident over London and how the emergency services would cope in such an event.

The Economic Case.

Travelling to the BRICS

The expansion lobby claims that Heathrow needs more runways so that the UK can boost its trade links with emerging markets. However it seems odd that British business should blame lack of a runway for its relatively poor performance in global markets compared to France and Germany. Do the Chinese buy more German goods because there are better airports at Frankfurt and Munich – or do they just like BMW’s?

 

If the Chief Executive of British Airways is so concerned about his airline’s connections with the BRIC’s surely he could change the corporation’s route structure by reallocating the short haul slots that  BA has recently acquired from BE.

 The China case

As a hub airport Heathrow has been of great economic benefit to London and the Southeast but why should the Midlands and North be denied the advantages of developing their major own airports because so much traffic is attracted to London?  In berating the UK’s slow pace of runway construction, the pro-expansion lobby makes endless comparisons with China’s a large airport building programme to overcome is communications needs. . Yet by comparison Britain is well served with three times more airports per capita than China.  Many local airfields have been developed in the Uk and Europe by low cost carriers such as Easyjet and Ryanair making it easier to by-pass Heathrow.  As these regional airports become more attractive and their international appeal grows the demand for point to point flights will surely increase offering business alternatives to the Heathrow hub.  

On the ground

For many travellers – business or otherwise – even getting to Heathrow is a daunting experience. Its ground links are already inadequate.  The Committee should try travelling on the Piccadilly Line at peak or try driving into London on the M25 at rush hour. Yet the expansion lobby pays little attention about to the costs and disruption of providing ground infrastructure..  What will be the scale of the additional road and rail links required by a third runway, perhaps followed by a fourth? How long will the ground links take to construct? What will be the economic and social disruption caused by major road building around the M25? Who will pay the infrastructure costs? Why the silence?

 It is well recognised that airports attract a great deal of property development to meet business and domestic demand,  If Heathrow grows in size there is every possibility that there will be an urban sprawl surrounding the airport and extending along the M4 corridor towards Reading.  Much of the construction will be on valuable green field sites and the economic axis of London will take a further shift west, away from the eastern side of the city where there is a need for development.

An Expensive White Elephant?

Much of the justification for Heathrow seems to be based on our financial services and IT based economy – the laptop travellers rather than the tourist trade.  Is it wise to spend billions expanding Heathrow when the business community  is beginning to use  more cost effective electronic means of communication than expensive, time-consuming air travel? .

 The Political Case – a Running Sore.

Perhaps the greatest issue arising from the Heathrow debate is the risk to democratic values.  All the main political parties made manifesto commitments to scrap a third runway following a successful grass roots campaign organised by local people backed by their elected councils. However, the well- funded Heathrow lobby has worked tirelessly to reverse the electorate’s decision.  BA, BAA  - both internationally owned – have exploited the current economic recession by assiduously courting  Whitehall and the Westminster village.  This serves to undermine the public’s confidence in the parliamentary system which has been forced to weather the scandal of MP’s expenses and the cynical operations of the spin doctors.

 

Whatever one thinks of the Mayor of London’s proposals for a new London airport one can only agree that we may be presented with a "fudgerama" when urgent action is necessary.  Why do we have to wait three or four years before any decision is reached on Heathrow? Why are there no representatives of constituencies affected by the airport’s operations and environmental disturbance on the Transport Committee? In fact the committee seems tilted towards accepting Heathrow expansion.  For example, Londoners can only be dismayed by the strong public positions taken by some members.

 If the government allows further expansion of Heathrow and fails to reverse a planning failure we have lived with for so many years there will be intense opposition from many quarters. Sadly there will be a colossal waste of political energy when there are so many other serious social and economic issues to be tackled.  People will once again campaign vigorously against expansion for the simple reason that they have no alternative, -   they cannot tolerate the continuous noise and environmental deterioration that will not go away.  They do not need the US Department of Defense to tell them that excessive noise undermines well-being.

Future opposition

Many legitimate avenues of resistance to Heathrow expansion will be actively explored through the UK courts and with planning appeals together with action at the European level.  Hopefully the Transport Committee will give due regard to the EU’s 2002 directive calling for member states to establish active plans to control and reduce harmful effects of noise exposure.  There is ever reason to expect that the European Parliament could tighten up environmental requirements.

Why reinforce a Failure?

In many ways I have a great respect for those who have to manage Heathrow. They do an impressive job in handling the huge amount of traffic that has contributed to the economic well being of the country.  In no way am I  anti-aviation but the growth of London’s airport has been a story of muddling through under pressure from the international aviation industry.  Ironically, it is the aviation industry and British business that should have been calling for a new state-of-the-art hub airport in the right place years ago. Heathrow has had its day and now needs to find another environmentally acceptable role in serving the country’s air travel needs.. 

 The time has come for radical and imaginative thinking. Britain has world-class architects and civil engineers who have built spectacular airports and projects around the globe.  As the Olympics have shown we also have the management skills to build the biggest and most complex projects. The UK even has the capability of raising long term funding through the City of London, the world’s leading financial centre.  Why should we have to put up with the second best?

It is surely odd that the country which created the original communications revolution and owes so much to the imagination and enterprise of its forbears should continue in this way,

11 October 2012