We strongly advise you to respond - you can email your response to email@example.com
You can also respond to the consultation online or by post.
You don't have to respond to everything covered by the consultation.
Our responses focus on opposition to any expansion and in particular, Independent Parallel Approaches (IPA):
We are against Heathrow expansion for the following reasons:
Climate - The UK already has the highest number of flights per capita in the world. Aviation cannot continue to grow given the Government’s net zero carbon emission target, with aviation being one of the fastest rising contributors of CO2 emissions.
Noise - The noise introduced over the past 5-7 years has had a significant detrimental impact on many residents’ lives with regards to their physical and mental health and quality of life. With “early expansion” and the subsequent third runway, the noise will be unbearable for people who find themselves under the new flight paths.
Congestion and strain on infrastructure - Greater London is already congested with overcrowded roads and public transport. To add another 3 million Heathrow passengers to this mix is ridiculous as shown by recent weather related events.
Pollution - The air pollution in London is already at illegal levels. Adding 260,000 more flights per year – 25,000 with Independent Parallel Approaches (IPA) plus 235,000 with the third runway – and the associated support services and transportation is going to worsen the problem exponentially given the increased congestion.
What expansion really means (courtesy of other community groups):
“The aviation sector is one of the fastest growing polluters.It currently accounts for about 2% of global emissions but that figure could more than double by 2050 according to research by Manchester Metropolitan University – or triple if planes don't become substantially more fuel efficient.”
“On On average, an aircraft is operable for about 30 years”
"... carbon offset scheme ... just don't work”
We are strongly against Independent Parallel Approaches, which will bring early morning arrivals ~05:45-06:45* above our homes at around half the altitude of current arrivals – possibly lower – for a full hour of concentrated noise hell in addition to existing morning flights. Our area will have heard nothing like it – and we thought that the 2014 trials were bad.
We are also against abandoning the current Westerly preference and changes to the existing Noise Preferential Routes (NPRs): An increase in Easterly operations means more early morning flights over Surrey Heath.
Heathrow is deliberately targeting quiet areas like Surrey Heath to fulfil their misguided noise targets by concentrating the flights over less densely populated areas so that they can claim that they have reduced noise.
There should be a night flight ban 23:00-07:00 for the important economic benefit to the UK with a healthy and not sleep deprived population.
The horror awaiting Surrey Heath
"Sleep deprivation 'costs UK £40bn a year"
* Heathrow documentation states IPA between 06:00-07:00: These are the times planes arrive at the gates after landing.
The noise compensation is woefully inadequate and doesn’t take into account the loss of property value, loss of quality of life or health consequences of the people affected. Also:
Surrey Heath will probably fall outside of the noise compensation scheme, due to the flawed way airplane noise is measured and calculated and the existing rules for compensation.
Scheme 3 - £3,000 contribution to "approved noise insulation" doesn’t even cover the soundproofing of one average bedroom.
The majority of affected residents will have to bear 50%-100% of the cost of any noise insulation themselves – in effect further subsidising Heathrow expansion, which is already costing taxpayers at least £10bn.
None of the schemes cover the loss of use of gardens.
"The cost to soundproof one standard wall ... between £700 to £1,000 in total"
"Approximately 37,000 homes fall within the Night Noise Insulation Scheme boundary ... eligible to receive: 50% of the cost of replacement bedroom or bedsitting [sic] room windows"
"... about 400,000 homes, which house about 920,000 people, are likely to be entitled to make a claim"
"More than 2 million people would be exposed to additional aircraft noise ... 973,000 households to face increased daytime noise"
"... state-funded Transport for London ... who will foot the bill for at least an additional £10bn"