CRASH W4.ORG        CHISWICK RESIDENTS AGAINST THE SPREAD OF HEATHROW

Home

What can I do ?

Events

Resources

News

Links

Contact us
Action home Correspondence          
 

Heathrow’s proposed expansion raises many questions that are unanswered in the consultation document. Parents, teachers, health workers, environmentalists, businesses and those who simply live, travel and relax in the area all have concerns: we suggest you ask the relevant ministers their strategy for dealing with them. Consider writing or copying your letter or e-mail to your own MP, and ask them to contact the Minister concerned to obtain a specific reply for discussion locally with their constituents.. You can also find a list of 20 questions on the expansion in recent publications from London councils and on the 2M Group website.

Possible questions to ask

• On Health and the Environment: What does the latest research show the impact on health will be, from extra plane emissions; additional road traffic; stress from day-long noise? Who will be the most affected by each health risk – children, the elderly, or working adults? How do the extra emissions measure up against other policies to cut pollution and energy use?

• On Local government and Business in London : Where will the planned 10,000 new workers find homes? What is the expected impact on housing prices and on local wages? What plans are in place to ensure that local services and businesses do not suffer? What steps have policy-makers responsible for London and its Councils taken to represent local interests?

• On other forms of Transport: What extra volumes of traffic are anticipated on the roads between Heathrow and Central London (M4, A4, A316), and what impact will this have on rush hour congestion? What extra volumes of traffic are anticipated on the Piccadilly line, and what impact will this have on travellers from Acton Town and Hammersmith? What assumptions have been made about changing use of cars (including taxis), train/tube and buses/coaches, and on what are these based?

• On Education, Culture and Sport: Will schools receive extra funding for sound insulation, to counteract the ending of alternation and the additional flight path? What measures are being taken to counteract noise and pollution effects on sports grounds and open spaces such as Kew Gardens ?

• On the overall cost to the taxpayer:  What account has been taken of the full costs of expansion: adverse impact on housing, schools, health, transport and the environment; and cost of providing new homes, schools, doctors, and dentists for the influx of new workers and their families? What financial analysis has been undertaken to ensure that the developer can complete the project on budget? Will the Treasury step in with taxpayers’ money if the developer or operator meets financial difficulties?

• On the Consultation process itself. What advice was taken on presenting the information in an accurate and accessible form? How were decisions made about where consultation documents should be distributed and exhibitions held?  

• There are other points for our Communities & Local Government Minister, Hazel Blears, such as "What is happening about housing the people displaced by the elimination of hundreds of homes between the A312 and the M25 and any others that become uninhabitable due to pollution and noise ?" and   "Why have you and Ruth Kelly, when she was recently in your post, not listened to the group of local authorities raising objections on behalf of two million residents who will be affected by your department's proposals ?"
 
• Also for the Ruth Kelly herself, as Transport Minister, "Why hasn't BAA reduced the parking spaces for employees on Heathrow as the condition imposed with permission of Terminal 5 required ?", "When will new rail services be committed into Heathrow from the south ?", "When and for what completion date will you commit to the building of a high speed train route (HS2) from London via Heathrow to Birmingham and Manchester, as you mentioned in Parliament ?", "Why did you not take account of potential switch from air to rail for journeys to western Europe ?", "Why have you consulted residents in Hammersmith but not those living to the west of there, nearer to the airport underneath the third runway approach ?", "What are your intentions now for expansion of Stansted and Gatwick ?" and "What effect on air traffic control, aircraft movements and noise will the doubling of flights planned for London City airport have taken together with your proposals for Heathrow ?"

• The Plain English Campaign describes the document as ‘atrocious’ and calls for its withdrawal. And in mid-consultation, the Government distributed forms to Hammersmith and Fulham - but not Ealing. Why not?

When you start to think about your own area of knowledge, the questions are endless. These are only suggestions - your question about children’s health might apply not only to the Health Minister but also to Children’s Ministers. If in doubt, write to them all!

Change this from being treated as an isolated transport issue, and give supportive MPs - who currently have little chance to contribute – the evidence to speak up. Change the parties’ policies – and ask them to prove it! 

Contact details for the principal MP's with responsibilities relating to these issues are on the main suggestions page. Details for the remaining Ministries, in case you have a question for them, are available here for the Government , the Conservatives , the Liberal Democrats, and for other parties on their websites. For other MPs, MEPs and Councillors, visit this website and enter your postcode.

  Write to: [Person’s name] MP, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA  

You can ask government ministers any questions of a factual nature in writing, using the Freedom of Information Act. You should receive an answer in 20 working days.

FURTHER POINTS TO CONSIDER (FROM PETER EVERSDEN'S 'CALL FOR ACTION' E-MAIL) 

  • runway alternation should be maintained for the benefit of those living under the existing flight paths
  • the recent crash at Heathrow is a reminder of the danger inherent in having long low glide paths over densely populated areas and that danger increases with 700,000 flights a year compared with 480,000 now 
  • CO2 emissions projected for Heathrow will render government targets for reductions in emissions impossible
  • aviation could account for 100% of the UK’s carbon allocation by 2050 in a climate stabilisation scenario
  • the third runway will create noise for homes, schools and workplaces not previously affected by aircraft noise
  • additional people under the new flight path may become ill (ashma, stress, distress, etc) costing local businesses and the NHS more than the 5 billion pound Heathrow return on investment planned over the next 70 years
  • over 50m people a year being driven to Heathrow will result in increased pollution and road congestion
  • the potential switch from air to rail for journeys up to three hours has not been considered
  • the Government has ignored the opportunities to manage aviation growth by relevant charges and taxes
  • Stephen Nelson, BAA's C/E, refuses to say if a fourth runway and a seventh terminal will be required
  • over 35 per cent of passengers landing at Heathrow are just switching planes to fly out again
  • only 40% of the passengers at Heathrow are business people
  • the 2003 aviation White Paper pledged that the runway would only go ahead if it resulted in "no net increase" to the size of the area around Heathrow affected by 57 decibels of aircraft noise, the level deemed to mark "the onset of significant community annoyance". But the new Government noise study (NASE) suggests that significant annoyance starts at around 50 decibels.
  • the Government is depending too much in its predictions on the switch by airlines to quieter aircraft
  • there is no hard evidence that the UK economy will suffer without Heathrow expansion
  • 78% of businesses in London oppose the third runway according to the London Chamber of Commerce
  • National Air Traffic Control has not yet announced where the new flight paths over London would have to be with three runways operational at Heathrow
  • the GLA Mayor, Assembly Members and the Mayoral candidates all oppose this increased capacity at Heathrow airport - it is a genuine cross party issue

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Last updated 03 Mar 2008