On Sunday (9th of June 2018) the Telegraph ran an article titled Clearance for Heathrow's third runway is a double blow (paywall) - by Liam Halligan.
Below is our Director, Parmjit, clearing up some of the points discussed.
I am writing to point out several inaccuracies in your recently published article, ‘Clearance for Heathrow’s third runway is a double blow’.
You argue that adding another 250,000 flights a year will “make a mockery of our anti-pollution laws”. The independent Airports Commission and the Department for Transport concluded that a third runway at Heathrow can be delivered in accordance with legal obligations on air quality. Heathrow has put in place a triple-lock guarantee on air quality to bind itself to these obligations, and at Back Heathrow we expect that strong commitments will also be tied in to the detailed planning consent (the next stage in the process after a Parliamentary vote).
You mention that Heathrow should give up slots for leisure routes in favour of links to “far-flung business hotspots”. Hub airports work because of the right mix of leisure passengers, business passengers, and cargo. It’s also worth remembering that destinations are selected by airlines and not airports. In this case Heathrow has a good mix of businesses that have grown around the airport and a resident community that like to use it for holidays too.
You cite Gatwick’s financing of ‘major improvements’ and say it’s therefore ‘deeply perverse’ to expand Heathrow. Heathrow has invested over £11 billion this past decade – that’s private money that has created thousands of jobs for the local community, 76,000 people work on the site. It’s a success story that has led to Heathrow winning awards for having the best terminal in the world and has seen the airport named as the best in Western Europe.
You refer to the “astonishing” £18 billion cost of expansion. Heathrow’s latest estimate for its proposal is £14 billion. This means £14 billion worth of private investment in the UK – creating new local opportunities for work and businesses. That’s part of the reason that both the TUC and the CBI back the project.
You rightly point out that Britain’s regions need greater connectivity. A strong hub airport boosts rather than hinders other UK airports, by filling gaps in the network and connecting other regions to travel and trade with the world. That’s why over 40 airports across the UK - from Aberdeen and Belfast to Newcastle and Liverpool, support Heathrow expansion.
Finally, you claim that since the Government’s decision to back expansion in December 2016, “no progress” has been made. I agree that progress is slow in this country for major infrastructure projects. But the government has held two consultations on the draft National Policy Statement to hear a range of views, and last week they tabled the final NPS on Heathrow expansion and there has also been another raft of public consultation. If we don’t move forward with Heathrow now, the alternative will be to do nothing, as the Secretary of State has said quite clearly, there is no Plan B.
Heathrow expansion is a crucial national project which is backed by over 100,000 local residents. While it is right and to be expected that this major project should be debated, it’s important that the correct and most up to date information is used for this discussion.
Executive Director, Back Heathrow