Welcome to the website of Spelthorne Liberal Democrats

Campaigning for a better Spelthorne

 Spelthorne Map

Heathrow Expansion - Growing at the expense of local residents

Heathrow Expansion

More aircraft, more noise, more pollution

Local Liberal Democrats are against the further expansion of Heathrow Airport. This is in stark contrast to the local Conservative MP who is actively campaigning for a 3rd runway and a 6th terminal. He claims to have the support of local residents and regularly spreads the scare story that if the airport does not continue to expand, then thousands of Spelthorne residents will lose their jobs.

It is now official Conservative Party policy to oppose the third runway at Heathrow on the grounds of need, pollution, noise and carbon emissions. The Shadow Transport Secretary warned, "A third runway at Heathrow would inflict devastating damage to the environment and to the quality of life of millions of people and the Conservatives will fight them every step of the way."

This official policy is in stark contrast to the Spelthorne Conservatives who stubbornly insist that Heathrow must expand or die. No other Local Authority close to Heathrow is in favour of the proposed expansion.

The case against Heathrow expansion

Why do we need it?

The proponents of expansion say that the continued development is vital to the role of the Heathrow as a "hub" airport.  A "hub" airport is one which people fly to so that they can fly somewhere else.  At Heathrow about a third of passengers only stop at Heathrow to change plane.  Hub airports need to be big so that they can offer the range of destinations that makes them attractive to passengers.  There is nothing attractive to local residents about Heathrow being a hub.  It means more planes, more pollution and more noise with the promise of more to come.  
"In a recent study published by Cranfield University …….. found that the noise and emissions social cost impact of the point-to-point networks was significantly lower than the hub-to-hub in all cases.  ……………  Not only is point-to-point less expensive to operate, it is also better for the environment." Boeing website
Those in favour of the expansion say that we will loose jobs if the expansion does not go ahead.  Heathrow employers project a decrease of employment if the absence of increased capacity, but this would be the result of efficiency saving - this is the same as for any other business.  If the level of movements remained capped at 480,000 per year the number of passengers would still continue to increase as the aircraft got bigger - this will happen with the introduction of the A380 and 787 aircraft regardless of increased slots.  Heathrow will not disappear if it is not expanded.
In reality the expansion proposals represent a "predict and provide" strategy.  There is no serious attempt at managing the development of London airports as a whole.  

Local Employment

The argument that Spelthorne will suffer if the level of employment declines is spurious.  This is an area of high employment with further projected growth which is not dependant on an increase in airport capacity.  Additionally, any additional jobs at the airport will increase the strain on the already overstretched infrastructure, with a corresponding increase in demand for housing and transport.
The growth in business travel projected takes no account of the improvements in technology, such as video conferencing which allows instant face-to-face communication to anywhere in the world.  Business efficiency will dictate that this type of working will become ever more prevalent.

Climate Change is Real

Aircraft make a significant contribution to CO2 emissions and other pollutants.  The impact may be relatively small, but it is a growing rapidly and to a very large extent air travel is optional.  We don't have to fly off on multiple foreign holidays, not every business trip is essential.  We chose to regard air travel as a necessity when it should be a luxury.
Air travel does not pay the full economic cost and it receives favourable treatment when compared to other forms of transport.  There is no tax on airline fuel.  Just compare this to the price of petrol and diesel where about 70% of the cost is tax.  There is also no VAT on tickets.  We are told that this is regulated by international agreements, but the fact remains that airlines are unfairly advantaged and this allows them to provide cheap flights.  This encourages us to travel and damage the environment more than we would otherwise do.  The modelling of the demand for Heathrow air travel assumed that fuel prices would be LOWER than they actually are today.  They have projected demand for travel through to 2030 based on this totally unrealistic assumption of fuel prices.

Inadequate Infrastructure

BAA has no real interest in the provision of local infrastructure.  The road and rail network in the area of Heathrow are totally inadequate.  The plan for the expansion of Heathrow pays lip-service only to the need for a fundamental rethink on how people access the airport.  The public transport links from Spelthorne are wholly inadequate and AirTrack will do little to change the situation.

There is no real integration of transport across the whole area.  For example, there is no public transport available to staff to cover the start or end of the working day.  This leads to very high car use by airport workers.
The traffic congestion in the area of Heathrow is dreadful; there is regularly a state of grid-lock which can extend well beyond the immediate vicinity of the airport.

Heathrow assumptions are unrealistic

The assumption that fuel prices will only increase in line with general inflation is unrealistic.  We are currently at or close to peak oil production, in other words it is downhill from here.  To suggest that oil prices won't now rise inexorably as it becomes a scarcer commodity is to ignore the reality of the situation.  We have seen oil prices rise rapidly in the last few years and there is no reason to believe that this will not continue to be the case.

The projections for the use of public transport are unconvincing.  Without a major improvement in the public transport and road infrastructure Heathrow traffic will become an even worse blight on the area surrounding the airport than it is already.  The consultation fails to take this into account and just takes the view that it is not going to be a problem.  Well clearly the people managing the consultation don't live in the area.

General Local Opposition

All the Local Authorities which surround Heathrow are against further expansion, except for Spelthorne.  Together they form a Group known as 2M - which stands for 2 million - the number of residents they represent.  Spelthorne has recently withdrawn from this grouping without any consultation or discussion.

The other Authorities oppose Heathrow expansion because it will have a detrimental effect on the local residents.  They are putting their resident's health and wellbeing before the narrow commercial interests of BAA and its fellow travellers.

All the main political party candidates in the London mayoral election are against the expansion.  All the local MPs are opposed, except the Spelthorne representative.  David Wilshire supports the expansion "provided the environmental issues are properly addressed".  The criteria that the Government has set for the environment are so weak that it is inconceivable that they will not be met.  Heathrow already blights the lives of tens of thousands of residents and a tick-box approach to the environment will not make this any better.  Another runway with more flights will not make the environment better - it will make it worse.

Direct Local Impact

About 900 homes will be destroyed to make way for the new runway and terminal.  There will be the loss of historic villages and a large area of Green Belt land.  This will not directly impact on Spelthorne, but Liberal Democrats find this totally unacceptable.

Heathrow and London Compared to Other Cities

Why does the status of Heathrow I the league table of world airports matter?  If we had the world's largest cesspit would we defend its status with such zeal?  Being number one means that we have more air traffic movements than anyone else.
Heathrow does not have the same amount of space available to it that other comparable airports have.  Paris (Charles de Gaulle) and Frankfurt have much more space available to them and they are not surrounded on all sides by residential areas.  The urbanisation of the Heathrow area means that far more people are effected by the ex[pansion than would be the case in Paris or Frankfurt.
Heathrow is not well served by transport because it was not planned from the outset as an international airport.  It just grew up as the result of a combination of factors such as location, and commercial expediency.  The result of this is a hotch-potch of transport services with no design or interoperability.
For the above reasons the Liberal Democrats say
"NO" to Heathrow expansion

Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (HACAN)

Stop Heathrow Expansion

Official Heathrow Expansion website

Printed and hosted by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY.
Published and promoted by Jon Edwards on behalf of Mark Chapman and Spelthorne Liberal Democrats at 5 Abbey Mews, Laleham Park, Staines TW18 1SH.
The views expressed are those of the party, not of the service provider.