A huge amount! We participated in giving evidence to the Transport Committee, which reported in March. While the Committee recommended Heathrow for expansion, the recommendation was guarded and subject to very strict criteria. It is very disappointing to see that the Government has almost completely ignored those criteria. There were 25 Recommendations from the Committee and the Government has ignored them all to some degree. We have put our views on this on Facebook and Twitter.
Stephen Clark, Dave Gilbert and Katie Williams are quoted in the Transport Committee Report saying:
“the Do Minimum (DM) scenario is not optimised in the way the change (third runway) option is. In order to undertake a proper analysis with a level playing field, the base case should have assumed flight paths could be varied, included deeper landings into the airport and steeper descents introduced to reduce impacts, as this can occur without expansion”.
Dave Gilbert has done a huge amount of research on noise and flight patterns, which has proved invaluable to us in giving evidence
Stephen Clark gave oral evidence to the Committee on behalf of the NO R3 Coalition having done a huge amount of preparation work and is our expert on noise, noise metrics and the differences between them!
The vote in Parliament and subsequent designation of the National Policy Statement was disappointing but there must still be huge doubts over whether this project can ever go ahead. Already Heathrow is such a bad neighbour with its low flight paths. It, together with the other London Airports are about the only airports in the World not to operate a Noise Abatement procedure on departure. That is why we get planes at only 2,000’ 10 kilometres from take-off and the noise is still over 70 dB at places like Molesey, which is some 8 miles from the take-off point. Under the inward flight path, noise monitors in Camberwell pick up planes at over 60 dB and that is 15 miles from touch down.
Our friends in RAGE in Elmbridge have been busy. They have succeeded in getting an approved noise monitor installed which shows a simply staggering amount of noise suffered there even though they are between 8 and 10 miles from the airport
Some less well-informed people ask why do we live near an airport then? The answer is that Heathrow has become a progressively worse neighbour with radical reductions in the height of planes to save money, thereby affecting many more people. Planes may be “getting quieter” but the way they are flown means that they are getting noisier.
Following the vote in Parliament and designation Paul McGuiness has been interviewed extensively by Sky News. You may care to view some of the interviews. The Links are at
Neil Spurrier has been interviewed on the local radio station Radio Jackie (one of the questions put was a request for a response to Jacob Rees-Mogg from Somerset, who stated that residents near Heathrow should expect noise from planes). We think that we gave a good answer saying that people had never signed up to this noise increase, nor people being dispossessed of their properties to make way for another runway, nor the breaches of air quality, nor the failure to meet climate change targets). Some of the interviews at:
http://radiojackie.com/news/ (scroll down to 25th June 2018)
Rob Barnstone of the No R3 Coalition has been interviewed
Neil Spurrier is also preparing a judicial review application to the High Court. He will claim that the National Policy Statement:
1) has not followed the required consultation and sustainability procedure under the Planning Act 2008 and in particular the Secretary of State did not consult as required, did not have regard to the responses to the consultation as required, and did not respond correctly to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons as required. The Secretary of State has failed to observe the requirements on sustainable development contained in the Planning Act 2008
2) Is biased, unjustifiably favours the Heathrow North West Runway, and does not contain the recommendations of Parliament through its Transport Committee
3) Will breach the provisions of EU Regulation 2008/50 by increasing the concentration of NOx and poisonous particulates both (PM10 and PM2.5), which are already above the permitted concentrations. ClientEarth have been successful in three legal challenges on air quality
4) Will breach the treaty obligations of the Kyoto Protocol, the provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008, and the obligations of the Paris Agreement by increasing the emission of greenhouse gases so that our treaty obligations will not be met
5) Will place an unjustifiable burden upon the public purse by pursuing a scheme that will require public funding when it should not require public funding and where there has been a representation that there will be no public funding