Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
Pick up your copy of Love: Forever Changes at WHSmith today
More than 60,000 extra flights will pass low over London each year under a government plan to suspend air pollution limits to allow Heathrow to expand.
The two existing runways will be used much more intensively, meaning that people living under flight paths will no longer have half a day's respite from aircraft passing overhead.
The plan will result in an additional 25 million journeys by road to and from the airport each year, causing a sharp increase in air pollution from vehicle exhausts. The worst increases in nitrogen dioxide, which causes respiratory illnesses and premature death, will be along the M4 corridor.
At present, one runway is used for landings and the other for take-offs, with their roles switching at 3pm each day. The Government is proposing to abolish “runway alternation” and replace it with “mixed mode”, under which the runways would in effect be treated as separate airports with continual take-offs and landings on each.
The Government is planning to allow the expansion to start in 2010 despite having promised to adhere strictly to European Union limits on air pollution that come into force that year.
The 2003 White Paper on air transport stated: “We are committed to meeting these standards, and it is clear that major new airport development could not proceed if there was evidence that this would likely result in breaches of air quality limits.”
But ministers are now planning to apply to Brussels for a five-year exemption from the EU limits.
The plan is buried in a paragraph on page 88 of the Department for Transport (DfT) report Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport, which was the subject of a public consultation that closed in February.
The report says that Britain may apply for “a further five years from 2010 for compliance with the NO2 limit values, subject to [European] Commission approval”. But it fails to set out the consequences for the health of people living around the airport.
Ministers are keen to add capacity as soon as possible at Heathrow, which is already close to its planning limit of 480,000 take-offs and landings a year. They claim that there will be more than £5 billion of economic benefits from allowing the number of flights to rise to 540,000 by 2015 on the existing two runways and up to 702,000 after a new runway opens in 2020.
A delegation of leaders of local authorities that represent more than two million residents around Heathrow will travel to Strasbourg next month to ask the Commission to block the Government's plan by refusing to grant a five-year exemption.
Edward Lister, leader of Wandsworth council, said: “The Government has said all along that if it can't meet the new EU air quality targets then expansion cannot go ahead. Now they are trying to move the goalposts.
“We will be telling Stavros Dimas, the European Environment Commissioner, just what UK ministers are up to. The Government is trying to wriggle out of its air quality commitments so it can wave through yet another expansion at Heathrow.”
Darren Johnson, a Green Party member of the London Assembly, said: “Burying this clause deep in the consultation document is a sign that the Government is embarrassed about the way they have neglected the health of Londoners.
“Applying to the EU for a delay in reaching the air quality legal limits will impact on the health of tens of thousands of people. It goes against the whole spirit of consultation to effectively try to hide that fact from the public.”
A DfT spokesman said: “A variety of options on mixed mode were included in the consultation, including the possibility of introducing additional capacity under mixed mode ahead of 2015, and responses are currently being analysed. The department remains committed to meeting its obligations in respect of air quality under the EU directives ... these obligations will come into force by 2010, or 2015 if the UK is granted an extended compliance period.”
The DfT is considering ways of limiting the increase in air pollution, including the imposition of a lower speed limit or a toll on the M4 near Heathrow.
Explore your passion for food with the delights of Thai, Indian & Chinese cooking
In our new series, Tony Hawks takes a dry, wry look at modern life - junk mail, interminable meetings and snooty sales assistants
Read the training tips and advice that helped our London Triathletes
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
2007
£30,000
2006
£14,337
2008
£39,937
Great car insurance deals online
c.£75,000
GlosFirstmeansbusiness
Gloucestershire
c. £90,000 + PRP
Essex County Council
Essex
£
Not Specified
The Bar Standards Board
London
Competitive Package
Npower
West Midlands
1 & 2 Bed apartments
From £249,995
Great Investment, River Views
Great Dubai Investment Opportunities
from £89,950
low-cost ownership homes in London
Multi–Centre 9 Nights
From only £925pp
View thousands of properties online with your Vacation Rental People
£POA
List your property with two leading travel websites
£POA
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Globrix Property Search - find property for sale and rent in the UK. Milkround Job Search - for graduate careers in the UK. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
And what about families like mine, living under the flight path? We have lived in the area for generations. I don't want to move. Where did I ever agree to have a monster of an airport like Heathrow near my home? It used to be a building in the middle of nowhere. But now... And as for democracy!
RK, London,
You couldn't make it up, could you?
Once a ruling was made in Europe that we were entitled to a decent night's sleep. This Government appealed and overturned this decision.
Human rights for murderers, not for taxpayers.
It's a disgrace. This Government (sic) is a disgrace.
Diana, London,
Nowhere in this article does it state where the demand - such as it may be - for these extra flights comes from.
Paul, Coventry,
I cannot see the point of expanding Heathrow - it is already a nightmare to get to. Although I live only about 85 miles away, it takes about 3 hours by car on a weekday, (in traffic jams on the M25) or 4 hours by public transport (with multiple changes lugging heavy suitcases).
Peter, Cambridge,
My long term solution is to build a new European airport hub near Calais by the sea. The cost would be shared between the UK, France and Belgium and the Eurostar would be the fast link to the three capitals providing considerable environmental, cost and transport advantages for travelers, not BAA.
peterfieldman, paris, france
It is physically possible to enable Heathrow to cope with more flights, but the congestion would be intolerable.
The only real answer to our SE Airports i9n England is to build a new island airport in the Thames Estuary to serve eastern destinations.
Roger Lascelles, London W14, England
It is physically possible to enable Heathrow to cope with more flights, but the congestion would be intolerable.The only long term answer is to build a new airport in the Thames Estuary.
Each of our then four airports could then serve destinations corresponding with its compass bearing.
Roger Lascelles, London W14, England
The Government needs to have a coordinated transport policy. A high speed rail line to the Midlands, the North and Scotland would not only cater for increased rail demand but would also mean that fewer internal flights would be required from Heathrow.
Michael Constable, London, England
"Does Britain want to be replaced by Holland or France as the major hub for flights from North America?
What would that do for tourism and industry?"
I am really fed up of this continual willy-waving "Nah,nah my airports bigger than yours". No more expansion at Heathrow!
Sarah, LOndon,
The WHO sets the limits for a good reason due to severe negative consequencies on people's health.
This govt. knows this and the fact it is hiding it's intention to therefore knowingly damage people's health to aid the profit of BAA is OBSCENE! Roll on voting them out! And what about CO2 Gordon?
grant, london,
Also let's not forget about the noise of airplanes. I live under the flight path of approaching planes to Budapest Airport, the noise is terrible. - I only hope that Peak Oil will make these airlines bankrupt soon.
Zoltan B., Budapest, Hungary
Airlines are being squeezed by high oil prices and the credit crunch. Some have already announced route cuts. In light of this, do we now really need a third runway at Heathrow?
Andrew Montgomery, Oxford, UK
"Does Britain want to be replaced by Holland or France as the major hub for flights from North America?"
If the citizens of Holland or France want the pollution, yes!
Mike, Brighton, England
This makes an absolute mockery of the Government's policy of punitive fuel taxation on the back of so called Green/environmental issues. Why on earth would we be persuaded to leave our cars at home so the rich can fly the world on the back of our taxes?
What a bunch of hypocrites they are.
Bev, Bucks, UK
It is time people from London had a say; not those from Canada or Scotland who could not care less what the effects will be on living. There was the same ecconomic argument for asbestos factories; don't get rid of them as they are good for the economy and jobs. Eventually truth and sence prevailed
N Warren, Twickenham,
Why not more public transport ? A rail link to the West !
Peter Minett, Swindon, UK
Don't worry we wont have enough petrol to get to the airport and they will have to cancel the extra flights!
Please don't mention the environment or global warming these subjects are for discussion only never to be implemented.
Ken, Orpington, Kent
Does Britain want to be replaced by Holland or France as the major hub for flights from North America?
What would that do for tourism and industry?
Keith S, Winnipeg, Canada
"Now they are trying to move the goalposts. " well, every other time (nhs, exams, crime, drugs, wmd....) they've done the same, so why not now?
Phil Barnes, preston, england
Let the free market decide upon the proposed extra growth at heathrow by offering some of the £5 billion benifits it would produce to the many householders living within the radius of eviromental havoc the airport produces. Reduced household rates and extensive free health insurance might do it !
Billy Tell, west london,
I'm happy to let the governement have this five year extension on pollution limits if they can also make me immune from the extra pollution for the same five years.
Richard, London,
'' Britain may apply for a further five years from 2010 for compliance with the NO2 limit values....
This is also a get-out for the large areas of the capital which are in breech of the limits thanks to nearly all public and commercial traffic being powered by NO2-emitting diesel engines.
J H Holloway, London,