We have drafted this template response based on key topics that we know the government is considering. If you have any questions about this, please do get in touch with us at
[email protected]
.
Feel free to edit this email to reflect your own views. If you have any personal examples of why you care about opposing airport expansion, please add them…
Heathrow
Expansion
Consultation Team
Department for Transport
Hello Heathrow Expansion Consultation Team, I am writing to you to respond to the Draft Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement: consultation on proposed amendments. I am copying in my MP, so that they are aware of my views. I am really concerned about the proposed third runway, and believe that this project should not go ahead as it will be harmful for the climate and the local area, while also costing us up to £62 billion. My answers to the consultation questions are as follows. My name is {user_data~First name} {user_data~Last name}. My email address is {user_data~Email}. I am responding as an individual. I disagree that there is a need for the proposed expansion of Heathrow Airport. This is because it would produce a huge amount of harmful emissions, which the government does not have a convincing or costed plan to mitigate. The scale of the emissions from the new runway threaten the UK’s ability to achieve our carbon budgets or meet the 2050 net zero target. In addition, the government’s own numbers show that the third runway would cost us up to £62 billion. The economic costs of the increase in noise and air pollution would also be really high. Four tests: I do not believe that the Government's proposed tests are strong enough to ensure Heathrow expansion could happen without unacceptable impacts. There is no feasible way that the expansion scheme could meet all four tests while protecting communities, public health and the environment. The proposed runway will harm efforts to make communities and their local areas safer and healthier. Air pollution: Heathrow already sits in an area with significant air quality challenges, and London is already the city worst impacted in the world by air pollution from flights. While the ULEZ has reduced air pollution from road traffic, there are still up to 5,000 premature deaths each year in London due to dirty, dangerous air. It does not make sense for London to take sensible, effective action to reduce one source of air pollution, while the government drives forward airport expansion which will increase another source. A third runway would mean around 276,000 extra flights every year, leading to substantial increases in harmful pollution, including nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Ultra-fine particles have still not been properly assessed. The government should not support a project that risks worsening illegal air pollution or exposing more people to harmful emissions. As it stands, the UK’s legal limits for air pollution are already significantly outdated and much weaker than the WHO’s international standards, which the UK must adopt to save lives, protect Londoners from dangerously dirty air, and protect our NHS. Any proposal to expand airports should be compared against the WHO’s evidence-based guidelines for safe air - not the UK’s weak and out-of-date legal limits. Aircraft noise: The consultation does not provide enough information about where aircraft would actually fly and what damage this could potentially do to those that live underneath or near flight paths. The noise modelling is based on flight path assumptions that are more than a decade old and cannot provide reassurance to affected communities. These should be updated before any decision is made on this test. Millions more people could be exposed to aircraft noise at levels known to damage health, wellbeing and quality of life. We have already seen significant impacts from the existing flight paths around Heathrow, and the proposed expansion would only exacerbate the problem. Climate change mitigation: At a time when we are experiencing unprecedented heatwaves caused by the climate crisis, expanding Heathrow would significantly increase aviation emissions at a time when the UK should be reducing them. The proposal would add around 4.4 million tonnes of carbon emissions every year, making it much harder for the UK to meet its climate commitments. The government should not support infrastructure that locks in decades of additional emissions and increases the burden on every other sector to cut carbon even further. Economic growth across the country: The government's own analysis raises serious doubts about the economic benefits of Heathrow expansion. The projected increase in GDP is extremely small, while the overall economic impacts caused by all the environmental and social harms would be negative, to the tune of £62 billion. The evidence also makes clear that much of any economic activity generated may simply be moved from elsewhere in the UK, while not actually creating overall growth. Mitigation: Many of the proposed safeguards rely on future monitoring, future plans or measures that have yet to be developed. Night flights: Communities deserve meaningful protection from aircraft noise during the night. In reality this means that any flight ban should not just take into account when the aircraft take off or land, but the whole journey that the plane takes, which can still negatively affect those in the surrounding area. The government should support an 8-hour night flight ban, in line with World Health Organisation recommendations. CNGI: I do not agree that the third runway should be classified as Critical National Growth Infrastructure. It should not receive special status when the costs vastly outweigh the benefits. I am also concerned that this may be an attempt to make it more difficult to challenge the runway. Compensation: No amount of compensation can replace homes, communities, peace and quiet or people's health. It is devastating for thousands of people in their historical villages and communities to have compulsory purchase forced upon them, with huge amounts of uncertainty and stress. This can’t be measured in financial terms alone. The loss of these communities and homes will cause irreversible harm. Surface access: A larger airport will inevitably place a huge amount of increased pressure on the local roads and public transport. The increase in car traffic will further increase local noise and air pollution. In addition, the taxpayer must not be liable for the costs of the transport infrastructure that will be needed. For London to reach net zero, car traffic must be reduced by 27% between 2018 and 2030, a trajectory which is already off track. Any proposed airport expansion must demonstrate that it will not lead to any increase in motor traffic from current levels. Making Best Use: It is incompatible with achieving the UK’s climate goals to try to maximise usage of existing high-carbon infrastructure. HENPS: I disagree that the draft HENPS provides an effective framework for decision making. It relies far too heavily on future mitigation and over-optimistic assumptions about technological developments, and threatens to seriously harm the UK’s climate commitments, our economy, and local communities. The planning framework should require clear evidence that Heathrow expansion complies with environmental and climate limits before it can proceed. It is also astonishing that the government wants to proceed with a project which its own analysis demonstrates will be economically negative. Additional comments: All the consultation documents demonstrate that Heathrow expansion would result in substantial environmental, health and social harms while also failing to provide economic growth, or even harming our economy. The evidence does not justify support for a third runway. For these reasons, I urge the Government not to designate the Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement and to withdraw support for Heathrow expansion. Kind regards, {user_data~First name} {user_data~Last name}, {user_data~Zip}.
SEND EMAIL
