Why a 3rd runway is a bad idea

There are so many reasons why a 3rd runway should not be built at Heathrow:

1. It would destroy at least 783 homes. (This is the figure supplied by The Davies Commission based on Heathrow’s proposals.) Longford who’ll be totally destroyed and little would be left of Harmondsworth. Sipson homes would be unbearably close to the airport perimeter. One street of more than 60 houses is surrounded on three sides by the airport perimeter fence! SHE believes that homes in other local areas will be unliveable. On 1st December 2014 Heathrow announced that they would offer to buy around 3,750 homes if a third runway is given the go-ahead. However, it is clear to everyone that the amount of money allocated for compensation and mitigation is totally insufficient.

There are no plans to rehouse any of the people displaced by airport expansion.

2. It would create an appalling noise climate for many people. A new runway means a new flight path. It would be just north of the existing flight path. Sipson, Harlington, Heston, Brentford, Bedford Park and Hammersmith would be in the front-line. As would Langley and Eton. Already 750,000 are impacted by aircraft noise from Heathrow. Astonishingly, that is 28% of all people affected right across Europe. Just think what could happen when the number of planes increases by 250,000 a year.

3. Air pollution would be a problem. Already levels in some places close to Heathrow are above the legal limits set by the European Union. Even with cleaner planes coming on-stream, there is no guarantee that the limits will come down by the time a third runway would expect to open in 2026 or so.

4. More planes = more passengers = more car traffic. Although public transport will improve when the likes of Crossrail opens, the motorways and local roads around Heathrow will continue to have big traffic problems. Heathrow are so worried about the situation that they are saying a congestion charging scheme may need to be brought in.

And we must remember car traffic will increase anyway across West London even without a new runway because of all the new developments that are likely to come on-stream such as the RAF Uxbridge site with 1300 new dwellings, the Southall gasworks site with 3700 new homes and, above all, the planned Park Royal City development with its 12,000 new homes.

5. It would exacerbate the risk of flooding. A third runway would be built over 5 rivers and would also involve concreting over Harmondsworth Moor which acts as a kind of giant sponge for rainwater.

6. It would damage the climate. If a 3rd runway was built, Heathrow Airport would become one of the biggest sources of CO2 – the climate change gas – in the country.

Won't Heathrow close down if it doesn't get a new runway?

The answer is as firm NO. Heathrow itself is quite clear on this. Heathrow will remain as a successful and busy two-runway airport. The only threat to Heathrow would come from a big new Estuary Airport, which the Davies Commission has already ruled out. There is no other threat to it.

The only group suggesting that Heathrow will close is Back Heathrow, which has been set up and funded by the airport. Press reports state that it has already received a six-figure sum for set up and running costs, including widespread mail shots, questionnaires and opinion polls. It looks as if Heathrow has set up the group to distance itself from various discredited tactics used in previous campaigns – such as making promises that can’t be kept. Back Heathrow’s assertion that the airport risks closure without expansion has led to many airport workers feeling they must support an increase in noise and pollution in order to keep their jobs.

A 3rd runway – not just a local problem

A 3rd runway would decimate the villages but, on a wider level, it would do nothing for the planet. Aviation is the fastest growing contributor to CO2 which causes climate change. To have any chance of stopping serious climate change we must cut our CO2 big time. The Government has a target for industries to make huge cuts to the CO2 they produce by 2050. Aviation, because it is so dependent on fossil fuels, gets off more lightly than any other industry. A third runway would mean that aviation would struggle to meet even its more lenient target.

Heathrow is not fit for purpose

27/6/2021 heathrowvillager.co.uk
Dear Editor,
...The general public need to know it's history and why it has squandered the 6 runways it was built with in order to just survive by providing more taxiways and parking, thereby requiring more runways and terminals to be built. The facts do not justify these plans as it was admitted not once but twice in the 1960's that Heathrow was not fit for purpose!!!
The Roskill Commission stated quite clearly that Heathrow was not only built in the wrong place but suffered from very bad design with all terminals at the time being in the middle and accessible from only one point under a runway from the A4. It was then planned to build a new airport on Maplin Sands on Foulness Island to the east of Southend-on Sea. Sadly this never came about probably because the Ministry of Defence own the land and still do to this day.
So the government of the day commissioned 'The Edwards Report' who came to the same conclusion as Roskill ie LHR was badly designed and built in the wrong place! It was then suggested that a new airport be built at Cublington.
It's about time people realised that the building of T4 and T5 was just an attempt to 'bodge' a useless airport' and no amount of further expansion will ever make it 'fit for purpose'. Other cities 'saw the light' many years ago including Paris - Munich - Athens - Hong Kong etc. all had to be replaced because they were no longer fit for purpose! How many times do we have to be told these facts before the penny finally drops? Even the inspector who finally gave the go ahead for T5 has stated he would never have let it go ahead if he'd known they would break their promise and ask for another runway!!
We need a new airport fit for purpose and this rubbish one closed for good as per Boris Johnsons plans.
Trevor Gordon, Bath Road Longford Village West