Expansion of Heathrow Airport [House of Commons Library Report]

• ' . . THIS paper gives an overview of both the transport and environmental policy background: the planning aspects of the proposal; its anticipated environmental impacts; and relevant statistical issues . . '

'On 15 January 2009 the Secretary of State for Transport, Geoff Hoon, announced that the Government's three conditions for supporting a third runway at London Heathrow Airport had been met. The Government therefore invited BAA, the owners of Heathrow, to bring forward proposals to build a third runway and a sixth terminal at Heathrow.

In due course BAA will bring forward a planning application. Depending on when this occurs, the application will proceed through either the current planning system or under the new procedure for major infrastructure approvals set out in the Planning Act 2008.

The decision is generally supported by business but is opposed by environmental groups as well as both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties and the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson.

This paper gives an overview of both the transport and environmental policy background in which this decision has been taken; the planning aspects of the proposal; its anticipated environmental impacts; and relevant statistical issues.'

'• Summary:

This paper provides an overview of the current proposals to further expand London Heathrow Airport with a third runway and a sixth terminal. These proposals date back to the Government's 2002 consultation that proceeded the 2003 Aviation White Paper and reached their culmination in January 2009 when the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the expansion of Heathrow in this way would meet the criteria laid down by the Government in that White Paper. In between these dates there was a consultation on the various options for developing Heathrow, to which the Department received approximately 70,000 responses. This paper looks at how we got here, where we are and what the future holds for the expansion of Heathrow. It includes the following:

• Transport policy: a brief history of how Heathrow has expanded since the Second World War, including the policy initiatives and decision by both the 1979-1997 Conservative Government and the present Labour Government; and an overview of the surface access issues at the airport.

• Environmental issues: the potential environmental impacts of expanding Heathrow and the various proposals put forward by the Government for addressing them.

• Planning process: a description of the possible planning processes that might be used for an application for the new runway; a discussion whether the Government announcement of support for the runway pre-empts the planning decision.

• Statistical projections: how the DfT assessed the benefits and costs of Heathrow expansion; analysis of the various assumptions used, particularly those used to project air passenger demand and carbon dioxide emissions over several decades; and the implications of changes in those assumptions.

Further information on all these issues is available for . . members of the public on the Department for Transport, Defra and CLG websites.'

' • . . The Liberal Democrat position: Responding to the January 2009 announcement for the Liberal Democrats, Norman Baker expressed his Party's opposition to the plans: "The decision to proceed with the third runway is the worst environmental decision that the Government have made in 11 years. It drives a jumbo jet through their Climate Change Act 2008, on which the ink is barely dry. With a commitment to a reduction of 80 per cent. in carbon emissions, how can the Secretary of State and his colleagues possibly justify the construction of a new runway? It is also one of the worst political decisions in 11 years, on a par with that on the millennium dome. It has huge opposition in the Labour party, and has united the opposition in the House and in the country and destroyed the Government's green credentials. I make it plain that the Liberal Democrat manifesto will include a commitment to reverse the decision.

During the debate in January 2009, Mr Baker took up the environmental and regional concerns surrounding the proposals for further expansion for Heathrow: "I draw the House's attention to the article in The Times that has been referred to, and colleagues in the nationalist parties and in Northern Ireland need to be aware that, far from guaranteeing any extra traffic for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, a third runway at Heathrow "could bring expansion at all other airports to a halt." (...)

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of Heathrow ceasing to exist ... we want guarantees that slots and flights from places such as Belfast, the north of Scotland and so on will be protected, because they have to feed into Heathrow-there is no alternative-to get elsewhere outside the UK (...)

[W]e have long been concerned about the impact of aviation on climate change. That is the primary, but not the only, reason why we oppose a third runway at Heathrow. According to Government figures, aviation accounted for 13 per cent. of total UK climate change damage in 2005-that is all gases, not just CO2. That takes account of departing flights only. If the calculation were based on return flights by UK citizens, the figure would be nearer 20 per cent., according to the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise. Emissions from air travel are due to rise by 83 per cent. from 2002 levels by 2020, and could amount to a quarter of the UK's carbon emissions by 2038 (...)

The Government have to realise that they will have to deliver on their climate change targets. They cannot have a target only for some Government to say, 20 years hence, "We cannot possibly meet it." We must know now how we will meet it, and building a third runway at Heathrow does not help in any shape or form."'

'• . . D. June 2010: what options might be available to a new Government? At the moment it looks most unlikely that the planning application will even have been submitted by June 2010. An incoming Government that wanted to scrap the project would have plenty of opportunity to do so. It might amend the Planning Act 2008 so that all decisions were taken by the Secretary of State after examination by the Infrastructure Planning Commission; it could simply not designate a National Policy Statement, which would automatically leave the final decision to the Secretary of State; it could designate a National Policy Statement rejecting the new runway.'

Related Links

• • Expansion of Heathrow Airport [Research Paper 09/11, Feb 04 2009]
• • Research Papers for 2009