SAY NO TO AIR AND NOISE POLLUTION
Severe stress and health implications
Article in SEBRA NEWS W2
Please follow this link to view our article which featured in the Autumn 2019 edition of SEBRA NEWS W2, the official magazine of the South East Bayswater Residents' Association
Stop Heathrow Polluting us
- An additional 281,000 flights a year which amounts to 700+ flights a day
- Increased jet noise, day and night - NO SLEEP
- Increased AIR POLLUTION
- Protect us and our children, the elderly, ill and the vulnerable
- Say no to NEW flight paths DIRECTLY OVER US in London
- Say no to destroying the quality of Life across London – for residents and people working or visiting
Say NO to Heathrow Expansion
If you think the expansion of Heathrow won’t turn your world upside down, then think again, because once it happens it is irreversible.
What does building a 3rd runway and introducing the proposed Independent Parallel Flight Paths (IPAs) mean?
- Volumes of flights over London will increase from 475,000 to 756,000 flights a year = 700+ additional flights per day.
- The introduction of new flight paths - which will run directly over a greatly increased number of local areas - implies significant additional noise from 5.00 am every morning. Heathrow Airports Ltd is particularly interested in increasing the volume of early morning flights.
- The indicated noise level of 51-70 db significantly exceeds the World Health Organisation (WHO) guidance on maximum levels of 45db day time and 40db night time. Levels above this can lead to increased blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, strokes and sleep deprivation and stress. How can this be allowed?
- Our air quality will be seriously impacted by a massive increase of air pollution. This is in clear breach of governmental Co2 emission targets agreed upon in the Paris agreement. Air pollution can lead to reduced lung function, lung cancer, respiratory infections and aggravated asthma, and will significantly effect all Londoners, in particular the children, the elderly, the ill and vulnerable.
- Air quality is already very poor in London. A number of initiatives, including ULEZ aim to improve this. An increase of flights over the city goes completely against the objective of these initiatives.
- Heathrow wants to offset the pollution it will generate, by buying credits in other countries/industries. However, we want a reduction in the absolute level of noise and air pollution in London, not just financial/ carbon off-setting.
- A 3rd runway will add 3Km2 to the current site, taking the total surface area to approximately 15km2, consuming 1,000 acres of greenbelt land, housing the world’s largest carpark for 50,000 vehicles. This will cause 750 houses to be demolished and the displacement of thousands of people because 5,500 homes will be deemed too noisy or polluted.
Interesting additional facts - did you know that Heathrow Airports Ltd is a 100% private and profit maximizing consortium?
- As a private company Heathrow wants to increase its revenue and keep costs down, and one of its drivers for the Heathrow expansion is its strategy to double its cargo business from 1.7 million tonnes to 3.4 million tonnes per year.
- Can it really be right to expand Heathrow and cause misery to the London population now and in the future, in order for Heathrow to grow its cargo business? It is madness that cargo traffic should be allocated to a city-based airport. There are numerous more suitable airports, which would also avoid the need to carry out years of costly work to the M25.
- The Department for Transport (DfT)’s Updated Appraisal Report (2018) shows that the Net Present Value (NPV) of the 3rd runway ranges from £3.3bn to negative £2.2bn over a 60 year period.
- Furthermore the DfT has recommended that Heathrow’s economic forecasts should be reduced to reflect the expectation that 75% of the 3rd runway’s capacity will be taken up by international transfer passengers who will not contribute to the UK economy, resulting in an NPV of negative £2.2-7.7bn.
The UK Taxpayers will have to fork out billions.
- An estimated £18 billion tax payers’ money will be spent on the required expansion of road and rail networks, whilst Heathrow Ltd say they will contribute £1 billion. Like Crossrail these tax payer funded costs could skyrocket.
- The Heathrow business case assumes a significant volume of regional flights. These flights have previously proved to be commercially unviable due to lack of demand, and the Government has therefore ended up subsidizing them with tax payers money. These journeys should be completed by train and taxpayers money should not be used for this.
- The increased NHS bill to treat mental and physical health issues caused by noise and air pollution.
Any UK infrastructure initiative will generate jobs for the UK.
- There is talk that UK-wide jobs will be generated in connection with Heathrow, primarily through the construction phase. This job creation is not sustainable. All regions should directly benefit from the tax payer funded infrastructure budget. NOT only Heathrow. It is also estimated that regional airports will miss out on 170,00 flights a year as a result of the Heathrow expansion.
- Construction Phase. We are in the midst of a serious skills shortage in London. As a consequence, some 60% of Heathrow’s construction procurement will be through off-site hubs outside of London. The building of increased capacity at regional airports, rather than in the South-East, would be a better way to address this skills shortage and deliver permanent economic benefits to all of the UK.
- Permanent Employment. Automation, self-service, AI and productivity improvements mean that the expansion is unlikely to create many permanent jobs. Revised figures from the Department of Transport indicate that many jobs created by expansion will have disappeared by 2040, and that the jobs remaining would be mainly low wage jobs in retail outlets in the terminals. As regards to the indirect expansion of jobs at new businesses in the vicinity of an airport, expansion of regional airports would be as effective or even more so.
We need 100,000 signatures to secure a parliamentary debate and we are desperately short of that figure. Each of you have your own set of personal and professional networks and we need your help to spread our message and ensure “it’s not a done deal”. Every household member can sign the petitions, please encourage them to do so.