A History of Deception

The story of Heathrow airport is a story of deception by the aviation industry and successive governments. Whilst there has long been opposition to the continual expansion of the airport, this has grown significantly since the 2007 "consultation".

The Background

1940s:  Heathrow: The Child of Deception

“Almost the last thing I did at the Air Ministry of any importance was to hijack for Civil Aviation the land on which London [Heathrow] Airport stands under the noses of resistant Ministerial colleagues. If hijack is too strong a term, I plead guilty to the lesser crime of deceiving a Cabinet Committee.”  Harold Balfour, Aviation Minister during the 2nd World War, writing his memoirs, Wings over Westminster (1973).

In the 1940s the aviation industry saw Heathrow – then a small airfield surrounded by market gardens – as the ideal replacement for Croydon as London’s Airport.  The Aviation Minister Harold Balfour agreed with them.  But Balfour recognised that he could never persuade Churchill’s War Cabinet to go for Heathrow unless he sold it to them as a military airport essential for the war effort.  The Cabinet agreed to the proposals for a military airport. The first flight to use the airport was a civilian aircraft in 1946: Heathrow was never used by the RAF and it has remained a civilian airport ever since. Balfour and the industry had got their way…….by deception.

The respected planner, Colin Buchanan, writing in No Way to the Airport, in 1961 described the decision to site the airport at Heathrow as “the most disastrous planning disaster to hit our country.”

1952: Plans to demolish Harmondsworth, Sipson and Harlington abandoned

“No Government would be prepared to consider a project that involved razing the three old-world villages of Harmondsworth, Sipson and Harlington to the ground.”  Air Ministry Committee.

The original plans for Heathrow envisaged extending it north of the Bath Road, but that would have involved demolishing Harmondsworth, Sipson and Harlington. To much local rejoicing, the plans were abandoned in December 1952.

1979/80: Terminal 4 will be the last major development

“The Government concludes that the idea of a Fifth Terminal at Heathrow and a second runway at Gatwick should not be pursued.  This effectively limits expansion at these airports.”  Aviation Minister, Lord Trefargne, the House of Lords, 14th February 1980.

In 1979, the Terminal 4 Planning Inspector reported that the noise climate around Heathrow was “unacceptable in a civilised society”. He recommended that Terminal 4 should be built but on the understanding that it would be the last major expansion at Heathrow. The Government authorised Terminal 4 in 1980 and agreed that there would be no further expansion. It also agreed to a cap of 275,000 flights a year. By the time T4 opened in 1986 there were over 300,000 flights.

1995: Terminal 5

By the mid-1990s BAA had put in an application for a fifth terminal. It was adamant that Terminal 5 would not lead to a third runway, as this piece of deception published in 1995 in Heathrow News, the newspaper produced by Heathrow Airport, would have had us believe:

"For months now, BAA has been accused by highly vocal yet minority groups such as HACAN of not telling the truth about a third runway.

BAA has said repeatedly Terminal 5 did not require and would not lead to a third runway.
BAA has said repeatedly that it was pressing the Secretary of State for Transport to rule out a third runway.
BAA has said repeatedly THERE WILL NOT BE A THIRD RUNWAY.
And BAA has been proved right. The Secretary of State has accepted the BAA view. The issue has been settled; people's concerns have been met.

What now of those who claimed that BAA was not telling the truth? Will they perhaps show a little humility and accept that the company does listen and can actually help local people argue their case? Will they now listen to what else BAA is saying? For instance:

BAA also says THERE WILL BE NO ADDITIONAL NIGHT FLIGHTS AS A RESULT OF T5.
BAA continues to argue THERE IS NO NEED FOR A 14-LANE M25 BECAUSE OF T5 (If it is built it will be for other reasons).

And the company has proved it can and will deliver."

2001: Terminal Five given the go-ahead but with a cap on flight numbers

“We are making it a planning condition that there will be a limit of 480,000 flight movements a year.” Transport Secretary of State, Stephen Byers, House of Commons, 2001.

The new Labour Government endorsed the Public Inquiry Inspector’s recommendation that Terminal 5 be given the go-ahead but with a cap on the number of flights. That would rule out a third runway.

2002: First consultation on plans for a 3rd runway

“The decision on terminal 5 holds good, and was made in the light of existing pressures on Heathrow and its two runways. So the position on terminal 5, and on the cap on the number of flights that was referred to at that time, remains good in relation to Heathrow's current situation." Transport Secretary of State, Alistair Darling, House of Commons July 2002.

That was Alistair Darling’s way of telling the House of Commons that the 480,000 cap only ever applied to the existing runways. This had never been mentioned before. It was a whole new way of breaking a promise! The proposal in 2002 was a 3rd runway which would result in a total of 655,000 flights using Heathrow.

2007/08:  Consultation on 3rd runway and plans for more planes on existing runways

And so to the current "consultation". The Government has decided to go ahead with plans for a third runway at Heathrow, and launched a three month consultation period between November 2007 and February 2008 to look at whether the runway could meet air and noise pollution standards.

During the run up to the consultation, opponents of expansion had concerns about the extent of cooperation between the Department for Transport (DfT) and BAA. This cooperation allowed BAA to influence the assessment of whether the environmental conditions for the expansion could be met. However, throughout the consultation process opponents of expansion (including the 2M Group, an alliance of local authorities concerned at the environmental impact of Heathrow expansion on their communities) were denied access to this vital data.

The DfT declined to hold any public meetings during the consultation. Instead a series of one-day exhibitions were held in different parts of south and west London. None were held in Wandsworth, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea even though these areas are all directly affected by the proposals.

So local councils and campaign groups held a series of public meetings. All were very well attended with massive opposition to the expansion proposals. In Chiswick, almost 1,000 people attended a meeting in January 2008, which resulted in CRASH being formed.

The Proposals

In addition to the third runway, which would create a new flightpath across west London and bring noisier aircraft across parts of south London, the Government proposed:

• New mixed mode operations - where each existing runway is used concurrently for both arrivals and departures
• An end to runway alternation during the day – planes currently switch runways at 3pm every day
  
• To end the Cranford agreement which restricts take offs to the east from the northern runway
  
• A planning application to lift the 480,000 annual movements limit set as a condition of Terminal Five to 702,000 flights per year
  
• A new Terminal Six to support the third runway
  
• A review of westerly preference – where planes normally descend from the east
  
• To destroy the village of Sipson, along with part of Harmondsworth and a reduction in the size of Harlington, because this would be necessary for a third runway to be built
  

On January 15th 2009, the government announced its expansion plans:

• The third runway is to go ahead
• A sixth terminal is to be built
  
• The Cranford agreement is to be scrapped
  
• The limit of annual movements is to be raised as soon as possible from 480,000 to 605,000 with a review in 2020
  
• To accomodate the third runway and sixth terminal the village of Sipson will be destroyed, along with part of Harmondsworth and a reduction in the size of Harlington
  

The announcement also said that westerly preference would stay - meaning that approximately 70% of flights will continue to approach Heathrow over London. With this increase in movements, as soon as permission is granted, 26% more planes will be flying over our heads.

Mixed mode has been ruled out as an interim measure, but not permanently nor in the longer term. As Geoff Hoon, then Secretary of State for Transport, would not commit to a timescale for this interim measure (it is "pending construction of a third runway") this could be a very short respite.

What this means for Chiswick

The third runway flight path would be right through the heart of Chiswick and could be operating all day without a break. Jets could be flying over Chiswick High Road at 2,000 feet every ninety seconds if the Government, BAA and the airlines get their way.

The plan affects everyone in Chiswick. The north will be disturbed by the brand new approach path; the south will suffer from two. And Grove Park will sit in the middle of all three.

Noise will blight our homes. Noise will disrupt our children's education. Noise will ruin our sleep. We will see road traffic increase.

Ealing and Hounslow councils object. All the main London Mayoral candidates objected. The majority of local MPs object. Despite this united front, the Government refused to include the people of Chiswick in its consultation exercise and has now decided to go ahead regardless.

The Campaign

This campaign is about citizens defending their quality of life, the environment and fighting to retain their homes. As it has developed, disturbing evidence about collusion between government and the aviation lobby has come to light. Concerns have turned to anger.

The campaign itself is being conducted by various groups and involves increasing awareness, lobbying, events and rallies and, in some cases, direct action. CRASH is totally opposed to any further expansion of Heathrow airport. Join us now and add your voice to the clamour against these ill-conceived and unnecessary proposals.

Please browse the website to see how you can join in.