Why this group is important to you
- How many more flights will there be? (it has been stated 260,000 more planes a year will use Heathrow – an increase of more than 50%)
- Where will the new flight paths go? (why won’t the DfT tell us?)
- Who will pay for the new roads and railways needed for the 3rd runway which could cost the taxpayer £5 – £15 billion?
- What the health impacts will be due to additional noise and pollution and how will these be addressed?
- Will there be independent scrutiny of how the airport operates, in terms of noise, insulation schemes and air pollution?
- What the climate change emissions would be and how that would affect the UK’s carbon emissions targets.
SUGGESTED FLIGHT PATHS FROM DAVIES COMMISSION
Residents and councillors at the rally in EG on Saturday 5th December were shocked to see copies of maps of the flight paths suggested by the Davies commission in the report, published earlier this year, which recommends expansion at Heathrow. Whereas EG (according to current flight paths – watch this space on this topic) sits between two flight paths i.e. Midhurst (which heads west over Great Park) and Dover (which turns to head over Egham), as shown in the first map below, Davies suggests sending flight paths DIRECTLY OVER EG to split on to different paths further south of the village. The impact of this on our area would be dire. The maps are reproduced here for your info. You will also notice that we would have no respite on easterlies – as the Midhurst route has aircraft taking off from the new northwest runway and looping back over the village. All maps taken from the Davies report: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/455285/airports-commission-compendium-of-results-part-F-01.pdf
The government has accepted the Davies Commission Report recommending a 3rd runway at Heathrow. Please see Latest Updates and Info page for news and comment.
Our small group (EGAG) was formed in 2014 as a direct response to the flight routes trialled (‘Airspace Modernisation’) by Heathrow/NATS from August 2014 (curtailed in November 2014). since then many local residents remain convinced that aircraft have not returned to their pre-trial, altitude and frequency. This is in addition to a significant increase in aircraft activity over Englefield Green in recent years. In this area, we are primarily affected by westerly take offs (which account for approximately 70% of Heathrow departures), however we also now experience disturbance from the new route introduced by NATS last June for easterly take offs (on Compton) which means that aircraft end up further north over Englefield Green than they should. Inevitably we have found that our group’s energies have been directed towards Heathrow expansion – the results of which would have dire consequences for us in the village and surrounding areas. Another runway (or extended runway) at Heathrow would mean an increase in movements (flights) from 480,000 to 740,000. The associated increase in noise and air pollution would be untenable. Expansion would also mean demands for additional housing and associated pressures on local roads, infrastructure and services. For more information please see our submission in response to the Davies Commission. We were successful in bringing about a change in Runnymede Borough Council’s stance on expansion in January 2015. We support an active and vibrant Heathrow – not an expanded one.
EGAG works closely with other community and residents’ groups and councils, both to the east and west of Heathrow, under the umbrella of CAIAN (Communities Against Increased Aircraft Noise), who have recently affiliated with City and Gatwick anti-expansion groups. We also have links with HACAN and Airport Watch. We have representatives who attend the following meetings:
- Community Noise Forum; Noise and Data Analysis at Heathrow
- Aviation Environment Federation
- RBWM Aviation Forum
We need your help too: please continue to log and report noise disturbance and incidents to all concerned (contacts given on the ‘Who to Contact re Noise Pollution’ page).