Councillors unite to oppose plane spotters' paradise above the Royal Borough

16 October 2003

Kensington and Chelsea Councillors last night (15 October) voted without dissent to oppose plans for a third runway at Heathrow, as alarm grows over the massive impact it will have on noise and air quality in the Royal Borough.

As the Government prepares to publish its Aviation White Paper, expected later this year, concerned Councillors last night questioned how much research had been done into the noise impact and surface transport issues surrounding a new 2000 metre (2187 yards) runway at Heathrow. They also raised concerns about the likely impact on air quality if the runway is given the go-ahead, given that nitrogen dioxide levels already exceed European Union limits around Heathrow.

Estimates are that a third runway at Heathrow would mean an increase of 175,000 flights each year by 2030. In Kensington and Chelsea this translates to the equivalent of one plane overhead every 90 seconds, as the Borough would lie directly under any new flight path out of Heathrow. Local people would also face additional air traffic in the form of major stacks (queuing points for planes before they land) dotted around the West London skies. The plans would also result in an extra 15 million people each year arriving and departing from the airport via the South-East's already creaking terrestrial transport infrastructure.

A third runway at Heathrow is only one of a number of options put forward for consultation by the Government. But some commentators have suggested that the decision is already made, and that a third runway at Heathrow has the Government's backing. Moreover, experts are predicting that a third runway would inevitably lead to a sixth terminal at Heathrow.

"It seems that almost within minutes of securing what was understood by the general public to be a fifth and final terminal, the airport authorities were already hatching a scheme for yet more expansion at Heathrow," said Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation, Daniel Moylan.

"Of course we recognise the economic case for greater air capacity but there are alternatives to Heathrow, at other London airports, on new sites and of course by increasing capacity in the regions.

"The environmental consequences and the increased safety risks associated with further bloating at Heathrow are just too great," he added.

Notes for Editors: Motion moved by Cllr. Terence Buxton, seconded by Cllr. Miss Doreen M. Weatherhead at Council Meeting of Wednesday 15 September was:

"That this Council regards with alarm the prospect of a third runway at Heathrow Airport, on grounds of significantly increased overflying of the Royal Borough, lack of surface transport facilities for access and additional noise and air pollution across west London; that the Council resolves to work with other affected boroughs, campaigning groups and the Association of London Government to resist this ill conceived suggestion proposed by the Government for consultation."

For more information contact Media and Communications.