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.