Slaughter resigns on Heathrow

A few days ago I posted the comments of Andrew Slaughter, the MP for the northern part of next-door Hammersmith & Fulham, setting out his opposition to Heathrow.

Andy has now resigned his government position so that he can advocate for his position against the expansion of Heathrow, which he was unable to do from within Government.

Clearly his position is different to Justine Greening's who is choosing to hang onto her Opposition frontbench job and is presumably content with the Conservatives' muddled and contradictory policy on aviation.

This is the letter Andy is sending to his constituents explaining his decision:

Dear Resident,

I am writing personally to explain why I have resigned from the Government over the decision to allow the 3rd runway to be built at Heathrow.As a lifelong resident and elected representative here for almost 25 years, I feel this issue is so important that I need the freedom to continue campaigning against Heathrow expansion.

As Labour MP for Ealing, Acton and Shepherds Bush, I continue to support the Government as it works to lead Britain out of recession. This year will, I believe, see the biggest investment ever in schools, hospitals and public transport.But my first duty as an MP is to you. I have fought many local campaigns in recent years: to keep post offices and our job centre open; against the licensing of sex clubs; and to stop cuts in vital council services.
Heathrow is a bigger issue, but not a new one. I have battled airport expansion for 20 years. Heathrow's owners promised there would be no expansion after Terminal 5. Now they want a 3rd runway and 6th terminal. Like many local people, I say enough is enough.

Ministers are insisting that stringent noise and pollution limits are met before the new runway can be used, and that use of existing runways will not grow. But Heathrow will seek a way to break these promises once again.
Thousands of us could be affected by all-day aircraft noise, not to mention the impact on the wider environment. Opposition from residents and green groups means that we can stop a 3rd runway being built. I assure you that my fight against it will go on.

I hope you agree that I have made the right decision.

Yours faithfully

Andy Slaughter MP

For more visit www.andyslaughter.com

More on Heathrow

Andrew Slaughter, Labour MP for the northern part of next-door Hammersmith & Fulham (and former Leader of the council there which was one of the founders of the anti-Heathrow organisation that is now the 3M Group) , has written this about the Heathrow decision, which builds upon my comments of Thursday.


When the announcement on Heathrow expansion came on Thursday, after many delays, there were some surprises. Mixed mode - the doubling of traffic and noise on existing runways - has been dropped.

This is good news for millions of Londoners - including those in the southern half of Hammersmith & Fulham, not only because runway alternation will continue granting half a day of peace but because mixed mode could have been introduced almost immediately.

The binding undertakings on noise and pollution and the promised new high-speed rail links are also more than we were expecting even a week ago.

But while I don't doubt the sincerity of Ed Miliband and Hilary Benn, who secured the guarantees that additional flights would not be allowed unless environmental targets were met, I do doubt the honesty of BAA to keep to those promises over the coming decades.

But - and it is an enornmous BUT - all the safeguards and mitigation in the world can't disguise the fact the BAA is intending to build effectively a new airport in the most densely populated area of the country (The capacity of the third runway alone will make it the third biggest 'airport' after Heathrow and Gatwick).

Hundreds of thousands of people living across London will experience sustained aircraft noise for the first time and the pressure on overloaded tube lines and motorways will not be sustainable.

Personally, I believe that the logic of Runway 3 is so faulted that it will never be built and I intend to continue to campaign against it. There are legal challenges underway and the planning process is far from clear. In the current economic climate it looks like a white elephant and the coalition against it is expressed in the 130 MPs from all parties who have condemned it.

Curiously, only 30 Tory MPs have signalled their opposition (compared with 50 Labour), supporting a story in the Financial Times today that many shadow cabinet members are secretly in favour.

Heathrow expansion threatens our quality of life in west London and the wider environmental interest of Britain and the world. It demands the broadest coalition to oppose it.

Heathrow

Along with many local residents, I was dismayed and disappointed by the decision to press ahead with a third runway at Heathrow. Like my Labour predecessor Tony Colman, I've been consistent in the importance I place on protecting Putney from aircraft noise.

Almost a year ago I set out my opposition to Heathrow's expansion and my support for a sensible aviation strategy that will protect London's economy. My views have not changed one bit.

I believe Parliament must get to vote on this issue. The argument the Transport Secretary gave for not proceeding with one - that Parliament does not get involved in "quasi judicial planning matters" does not wash. This is not a planning matter until a planning application is submitted - until then it is a matter of national transport policy, and a £9billion one at that. MPs should surely get a say on how to spend £9billion of public money.

Our collective lobbying has won a concession in the fact that mixed mode at Heathrow - that is, flights being able to take off and land on the same runways simultaneously - has been abandoned and runway alternation, which gives us hours of peace, will remain. That is good news and certainly not an inconsequential victory: mixed mode would have significantly increased noise over Putney, and its defeat means that Putney will continue to receive the same respite it gets now from flights in the afternoon. The ending of the Cranford Agreement may also see some minor improvements to noise levels.

Some of the anti-Heathrow campaigners are describing today as just the end of the beginning in the fight against a third runway and sixth terminal. I share that view. Putney is united against this expansion. And I continue to stand with Putney.

Heathrow: who got consulted

After several weeks of battling with the Department for Transport, I've finally managed - via a Freedom of Information request - to obtain the list of streets to whom Heathrow expansion consultation documents were sent.

We know from the low resolution maps that were produced that only a small corner of the constituency was within the noise contour deemed loud enough to merit being consulted, but until now the DfT has been tight-lipped about the exact streets that did - and as importantly did not - get the consultation paper.

Just over 9,000 consultation documents were distributed - and they went to households in:

Abbotstone Road, Arabella Drive, Archway Mews, Ardshiel Close, Ashlone Road, Atney Road, Aubyn Square, Bangalore Street, Beauchamp Terrace, Bemish Road, Bendemeer Road, Biggs Row, Blackett Street, Blade Mews, Borneo Street, Breasley Close, Brewhouse Lane, Briar Walk, Burke Close, Burstock Road, Carlyle Place, Carmalt Gardens, Charlwood Road, Chelverton Road, Clarendon Drive, Colinette Road, Commondale, Daylesford Avenue, Dealtry Road, Deodar Road, Dover House Road, Dowdeswell Close, Dungarvan Avenue, Dyers Lane, Earldom Road, Egliston Road, Mews and Lawns, Eliot Gardens, Erpingham Road, Fairdale Gardens, Fairfax Mews, Fanthorpe Street, Farlow Road, Felsham Road, Festing Road, Florian Road, Gamlen Road, Gay Street, Gipsy Lane, Gladwyn Road, Glendarvon Street, Gwalior Road, Gwendolen Avenue and Close, Henry Jackson Road, Horne Way, Hotham Road, Howards Lane, Huntingfield Road, Isis Close, Kingsmere Close, Lacy Road, Landford Road, Lantern Close, Lifford Street, Lower Common South, Ludovick Walk, Lysons Walk, Malbrook Road, Mascotte Road, Merivale Road, Modder Place, Montserrat Road, Newnes Path, Norroy Road, Olivette Street, Parkfields, Pentlow Street, Pettiward Close, Priory Lane, Putney Common, Putney Embankment, Putney High Street, Putney Park Avenue, Putney Park Lane, Queens Gate Gardens, Quill Lane, Redgrave Road, Rockingham Close, Roehampton Lane, Roskell Road, Rossdale Road, Rotherwood Road, Ruvigny Gardens, Salvin Road, Sefton Street, Spencer Walk, Stanbridge Road, Stockhurst Close, Stratford Grove, Swinburne Road, The Platt, The Pleasance, Upper Richmond Road, Waters Place, Weimar Street, Weiss Road, Werter Road, Westhorpe Road, Woking Close, Woodborough Road and Wymond Street.

No to Heathrow

It gives me no pleasure to criticise the Government over the consultation on Heathrow expansion.

Excluding most Putney homes from the consultation process and making the consultation document itself all-but-unreadable has stripped the process of credibility locally. The consultation overlooks so many crucial questions that this has been just about the worst conducted consultation I've ever seen.

The government argues that they consulted on aviation policy in 2006 and night-flights will be reviewed in 2009.

For me, that's not good enough. How can we decide whether more capacity is needed at Heathrow if the potential capacity of Gatwick, Stansted and Luton isn't compared? Why isn't the possibility of a national high-speed rail network like the Maglev - almost as fast as flying - on the table? Might we be more inclined to back extra day flights if they came with a guaranteed end to night flights?

You cannot slice and dice the issues surrounding Heathrow into little chunks to consider every few years: each issue is interlinked. We need a long-term transport settlement and for governments of all stripes to then honour it.

I oppose a third runway at Heathrow. I oppose using both runways simultaneously for landings and take-offs. And just as Putney's last Labour MP Tony Colman halved night-flights over our area, I will make reining-in nightflights my top priority. London's Labour Mayor Ken Livingstone is also opposing Heathrow expansion.

This is not a party-political issue. I'll work with anyone committed to tackling this challenge, including my political opponents. That's because for me, standing up for Putney comes before standing up for the Government.

It's the easiest thing in politics to just be 'against' something. I believe local leadership also requires setting out a sensible alternative.

And here I do differ from Putney's Conservative MP, who's been good at opposing but bad at the harder task of coming up with a different idea. Putney would have a louder voice if she had managed to set out a credible alternative to Heathrow.

Most of us accept that London needs more air capacity. Gatwick and Stansted should be expanded and a new airport east of London should be planned - all with excellent high-speed links into the capital.

It makes sense to decentralise London's air transport. Economically, so that if an accident or bad weather closes one airport it does not ground our entire air fleet. Environmentally, because it's far easier and less damaging to disperse smaller quantities of pollution in rural areas than far larger amounts in urban areas London. And in terms of national security it makes sense because January's Heathrow air accident would have been catastrophic if the engines had failed seconds earlier and the plane ended up crashing into London.

So that's where I stand. Opposed to Heathrow expansion; supporting the need for more aviation capacity; with a clear alternative that makes sense. Whatever your view, please make sure you take part in the consultation because the louder our collective voice, the more persuasive we will be.

Heathrow air crash

It is somewhat ironic that last Thursday's crash at Heathrow coincided with the meeting on the proposed airport expansion, which I attended along with several hundred other residents.

Someone at the meeting claimed that had we had runway alternation at Heathrow the plane would have crashed on London. I'm against runway alternation but this claim is wrong - it would just have crashed at the other end of the runway.

To argue that the potential risk of a crash - though a legitimate fear - is grounds alone to scrap Heathrow expansion is actually an argument that air travel shouldn't take place at all. I don't share that view.

However, there is an indirect argument which I think is far stronger.

The disruption caused by this accident, while inevitable, goes to whether a world class capital like London should rely so heavily on one major airport. If other regional airports - in particular Gatwick - were expanded to meet the capital's needs then on the rare occurence where accidents, or indeed fog or other extreme weather conditions force delays at Heathrow, far less inconvenience would ensue.

Of course, residents around Gatwick oppose expansion there too. The job of government is to make the best strategic decision. Thursday's accident doesn't change that one bit. Nor does it change the overwhelming economic, security and environmental arguments the government itself put forward when terminal 5 was approved: that Heathrow is big enough and busy enough already.

Aircraft noise maps published

The Government has today published up-to-date noise maps for all of the country's major airports, including Heathrow.

The maps were drawn up during 2006/7, which is a big improvement on the noise data contained in the Heathrow consultation papers which dates from 1980. They also include a night-flights noise map.

But before you get too excited by these new maps, you'll actually be hard pressed to spot much difference between the old and new maps: they still only contour noise down to 50 decibels, which results in the vast majority of Putney apparently not being affected by aircraft noise.

This goes to the whole problem of how noise nuisance is measured. The recent ANASE noise study that was controversially not used in the Heathrow consultation argues that while air traffic has become quieter, intolerance of noise has risen; that there is no particular boundary where people suddenly start to notice aircraft noise and complain about it.

This makes sense to me. Irrespective of whether planes are quieter, they are still incredibly loud at the level of descent they are at over our area. To be really of use, I'd like to see noise contour maps that measure the area affected by 45 and 40 decibel aircraft noise - an area certain to cover pretty much the whole of Wandsworth, I suspect.

The argument in favour of retaining the 55dBa contour is that if there is no specific level (or "logical threshold" in government-speak) where noise becomes a real problem there is no reason to use noise contours as a means of containing noise from Heathrow - and removing the 55dBa contour axes what little protection we locally get from the current noise framework.

My view is that this debate is a red-herring: regardless of whether noise contours or a more subtle measurement of noise disturbance is used it is clear that 55dBa represents too big an intrusion into peoples' lives locally. My priority is reducing noise over Putney, however the government chooses to meaure it.

The new maps and other information can be found on the Department of Environment & Rural Affairs website.

Heathrow exhibition

Last Friday I attended the Department for Transport's exhibition as part of their consultation into adding capacity at Heathrow airport at the Wetland Centre in Barnes.

The exhibition essentially comprised blown-up panels of the summary consultation document and interactive touchscreen devices to look at the maps; but slightly more usefully a range of Department for Transport officials were on hand to answer questions and some of the more detailed reference documents were available to take away.

Outside the exhibition the anti-Heathrow expansion campaign HACAN clearskies had a stand - I spent some time chatting with the group's chair John Stewart.

I have also submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to find out exactly which areas have received the consultation document: some 9,000 have been distributed in Putney: principally in the area closest to Barnes, which falls within (or just short of) the contour considered by the DfT as the area most affected by noise nuisance from planes. I am currently obtaining the specific list of postcodes because of course, even if it is conceded that noise is slightly reduced elsewhere in the constituency it remains a major blight.

There are two key problems with this consultation for me:

First, it isn't about the question of whether Heathrow should get a third runway - because this was consulted on and agreed to a couple of years ago - but rather what options are best (or least bad) for the development of the airport in light of this;

And second, the consultation questionnaire is "opaque" to say the least - the questions are highly technical and you need to have a considerable determination to plough through the jargon and references to other texts to be able to contribute meaningfully;

To date, I don't think the government has done itself any favours with the way it has gone about this exercise: it has looked evasive even when it has not actually been so and by dripping out every few years very narrow aspects of the aviation problems facing London (the next will, of course, be in 2012 when night-flights policy is reviewed) rather than giving us a say on the overall strategy for London it is very difficult to submit views for or against the broader issues.

I'll be blogging further about the issues within this current consultation and my broader views concerning aviation policy in general in the coming weeks.

Heathrow consultation underway

You may have seen news coverage about the government's consultation on the future of Heathrow in the last few days.

This is a massive issue for the country, for the Capital and for our part of London, so it's really important not to pay attention to the noise made by politicians, pressure groups and special interests and reach your own opinion on the basis of the facts.

The Department of Transport has published a comprehensive consultation document - the full thing is 77mb and runs to 240 pages - but don't worry if that puts you off: there's a summary document and other tools to help assess the impact.

The consultation runs through to 27 February 2008: you can find out more here.