Response to Heathrow expansion consultation from the Englefield Green Action Group.
We appreciate that this is not a statutory consultation and does not follow the Gunning principles of balance on meaningful consultation.
We wish to make it clear that our response should in no way be counted as any endorsement of a third runway at Heathrow. We oppose an expansion of Heathrow.
We therefore respond with this overriding caveat.
Englefield Green has a topography largely ignored by HAL, in as much as our village is some 6 miles from the runway and some 300 feet higher than the surrounding area. Our population count does not include some 12k students from Royal Holloway University who largely live in term time in our village, but mainly are not on the register of electors. Our village has been a place where many residents have moved to from significantly noisier local areas affected by aviation on the basis of government policies and commitments that a third runway would not be given permission. The higher market price for housing has therefore been reflected. We believe that any expansion at Heathrow will have a major negative impact on our village, which is totally unacceptable. We also note that aircraft have moved closer and lower over our village as recognised by HAL over the past 5 years without consultation or agreement.
We oppose any expansion of Heathrow. London is existingly overflown by a factor of three times more that any other European city. To add to this is not acceptable.
We oppose any new runway so we do not support any of the options.
No runway makes this question redundant.
No new runway makes this question redundant.
Total guarantees that there will be no increase in noise or air pollution, which you cannot deliver with a third runway.
We are totally against any repositioning of the M25 which will not be required if there is no third runway.
We do not support either of the options.
The increase in traffic will not occur if the third runway does not go ahead. The fact that you are looking at ameliorating increases in local traffic seems not to chime with your views that it is road traffic rather than activities at Heathrow that contribute to pollution and congestion.
Stanwell Moor would, under your plans, become a HGV congestion zone which is not in the interests of the environment or local residents.
There would be no need for improved access if there was no third runway.
A diversion of local rivers and flood storage is unnecessary with the existing two-runway airport.
There are no additional land requirements outside of the airport boundary without the proposed third runway. Car parking will not be required as Heathrow are convinced that their clients will be travelling by public transport.
The destruction of the environment by an expanded Heathrow is unacceptable.
Only substitutional parking to help flow should be required but not additional.
Heathrow should not be expanded and the destruction of Sipson and other green areas is not acceptable in the pursuit of increased profits for foreign shareholders at the expense of increased noise, air pollution and congestion in an already overheated London centric location.
We think it totally unnecessary without a third runway.
See answer to Q4e.
Simply guarantee that there will be no increase in night flights, noise and air pollution that the public purse will not have to fund any infrastructure projects/shortfalls and that Heathrow will stop it’s continual drive for growth.
The sites identified, as potential construction sites will put yet more pressure on badly maintained local roads as motorists try to avoid the inevitable congestion caused by any expansion.
If Heathrow are serious about being good neighbours then they should offer to buy any property within a 10-mile radius of the runway at full pre-blighted market price plus a 25% premium and the offer should be open for a period of three years. If the increase in disturbance from a third runway is, as Heathrow claims, as minimal then their financial risk is low.
Concentration is not acceptable. Option 3c is the best of the three evils. Respite should not be less than at present and night flights should be banned for a minimum of 8 hours.
Greater ascent angles and compulsory noise abatement procedures with severe financial penalties for breaches would help to reduce noise. Technology improvements in aircraft to be used for reducing noise for those overflown rather than to improve the commerciality of the airline sector.
Respite should be not less than at present ie 8 hours and there should be no question of it becoming less for “technical difficulties”. If you cannot conform to this then that should be the end of any further discussion on airport expansion at Heathrow.
Too late – should happen if the third runway gets Parliament approval. You cannot insulate the open air. All houses within a 10-mile radius should be offered triple glazing g. Conditions as Q5a above.
5.30 am is totally unacceptable and a worsening of conditions on departures. WHO evidence is that 8 hours sleep is required for good health and wellbeing.
If a third runway was to be agreed no night flights for a full 8 hours would be a red line condition for our local community.
Changes in access is only required if a third runway is agreed. We believe that all infrastructure costs for the M25,M4,M3,A4 and A30 should be wholly funded by Heathrow and there should not be any subsidy by the public purse. Connectivity to other regional airports, which we support, should also be privately funded with no subsidies.
Any road charging should exempt residents within a 10-mile radius. Road charging should be so expensive so as to render an expanded Heathrow uncommercial so expansion does not go ahead!!
Heathrow should not be allowed to increase emissions and indeed there should be a tapering reduction target set over an agreed time period, which would phase out more emitting and inefficient planes. There should not be any offsetting of carbon or emissions against other sectors.
Heathrow should not increase emissions from the current levels. Indeed tapering reduction targets should be set. There should be no offsetting with other sectors.
Natural environment cannot be anything other than to be continued to be harmed by an expanded Heathrow. Your corporate PR is, in our view, Greenwash and does not stand up to examination.
An expanded Heathrow is contrary to common sense, anti the environment, has no part in a joined up strategy for uniting the UK or for helping to develop the regions and the “Northern Powerhouse”. It is wrong headed and we oppose it.
Your PR is excellent but does not give a balanced view of the enormous environmental, people and societal costs that an expanded Heathrow will mean for future generations.
EGAG – March 2018.