A third runway at Heathrow would cause real harm to people’s lives, to wildlife and to the planet (Heathrow expansion gets government approval, theguardian.com, 25 October). The third runway will require the demolition of almost 800 homes, result in nearly one million people living under the airport’s flight paths, risk air pollution levels exceeding legal limits and mean Heathrow becomes the biggest single emitter of CO2 in the country. The aviation sector is already set to exceed the government’s own target to limit emissions in 2050 to no higher than 2005 levels. Any further runway expansion would break this target, put an unfair and potentially unachievable burden on the rest of the economy to decarbonise, and undermine the UK’s international credibility on climate change. A new runway will also stoke growth in the south-east, leading to greater housing demand in a region that already has a housing crisis.
Indeed, a third runway may be undeliverable. The cost to the public purse of the road and rail infrastructure will be colossal – with potentially huge implications for British taxpayers. The opposition to it ranges from cabinet ministers to campaigners sitting on runways. The prime minister has been forced to take the unusual and probably unprecedented step of allowing cabinet members to dissent on an issue that is not constitutional or a matter of conscience. Local authorities are planning legal action.
The last Labour government tried and failed to build a third runway in the face of diverse opposition from local people, Conservative politicians – including members of the current government’s own cabinet – environmental NGOs, local authorities, direct action activists and many in the business community and in the trade union movement. That coalition is as strong as ever.
Some projects are opposed on simply parochial grounds. A third runway at Heathrow is very different. There is a solid body of evidence to show it is both damaging and undeliverable. It should be killed off as soon as possible.
John Sauven Greenpeace
John Stewart Hacan
Robert Barnstone Stop Heathrow Expansion
Murray Barter RAAN
Rob Beere Aircraft Noise 3 Villages (Lightwater, Windlesham and Bagshot)
Craig Bennett Friends of the Earth
Charles Burke Colnbrook Community Association
Mike Clarke RSPB
Nic Ferriday West London Friends of the Earth
John Holdstock West Windsor Residents’ Association
Suzanne Jefferies Campaign Against Climate Change
Stephen Joseph Campaign for Better Transport
Neil Keveren Residents Against Expansion
Margaret Majumdar Ealing Aircraft Noise Action Group
Hamish Pringle Chiswick Against Third Runway
Duncan Reed Eton Community Association
Shaun Spiers CPRE
Christina Smyth H&F No Third Runway (Hammersmith and Fulham)
Katie Williams Teddington Action Group
Peter Willan Richmond Heathrow Campaign
• We welcome the government’s decision to build a new Heathrow runway – just as we would have done several years ago. But now the welcome is tinged with a sense of urgency. Even if we have a clear run in progressing the plans for Heathrow, it is not likely to be operational for nearly 10 years.
Meanwhile Brexit is looming, other economies are growing and it is more critical than ever to drive tourism, inward investment and connect our businesses to key markets in places like China, India, Brazil to remain competitive.
We should not forget that just a few months ago the £344m expansion programme at London City Airport was given the go-ahead by ministers. This will deliver an extended terminal, a new aircraft taxiway and upgraded public transport links, creating more than 2,000 jobs and increasing the number of take-offs and landings from 70,000 a year to 111,000.
We also need to link to Stansted, which is currently only operating at about 50% of its capacity.
If we can press on with improvements at London City Airport, with improving links to Stansted, and maintaining the case for another runway at Gatwick, then London and the rest of the UK can truly future-proof our economy.
Sean McKee
Director of policy, London Chamber of Commerce and Industry
• If the need is for a “hub” for long-haul passenger flights, or freight, it doesn’t have to be in or near London. If the problem is continued growth in short-haul holiday flights, neither we nor the planet can afford it.
Theresa May says she wants to rebalance the economy. That will never happen while most infrastructure spending is still gobbled up by London and the south-east of England. If the UK really does need a large increase in airport capacity the obvious answer is to provide it in the north of England.
Tony Greaves
Liberal Democrat, House of Lords
• I would have thought that since HS2 and the “northern powerhouse” are so important to this government, an extra runway should be built at Manchester.
Anthea Burrell
East Hoathly, East Sussex
• There is an interesting alternative. This is not my idea. It was put forward by T Dan Smith, leader of Newcastle city council from 1960 to 1965, who was later indicted for corruption. In a radio broadcast at the time of arguments over a third London airport in the 1970s (remember Maplin Sands?) he made a strong case for a new English National Airport. The ideal site for this facility would be Thorne Waste near Goole, where massive air traffic would disturb comparatively few people. It would be connected by upgraded rail lines to make the major centres of population accessible within 90 minutes. It would be staffed by workers using fast shuttle services from Doncaster and Scunthorpe. The people of these two towns would jump at the chance of better-paid jobs. Has any proper consideration been given to this eminently sensible proposal?
Tony Hodbod
Haslingden, Lancashire
• With regard to the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow, with apologies to Guardian readers, I agree with Boris Johnson. A new airport in the Thames estuary with an eastern loop to the M25 with a new tunnel crossing would also ease congestion at the Dartford crossing for traffic to and from Dover. As soon as the third runway is complete there will inevitably be a need for another runway – somewhere.
David Prothero
Harlington, Bedfordshire
• How long will it be before a letter emerges, written by Boris Johnson to himself, arguing that a third Heathrow runway was always the right choice?
Geoff Booth
Knebworth, Hertfordshire
• It is ironic that on the day the government announces an airport expansion, you report that atmospheric CO2 levels have risen to 400 parts per million (Carbon dioxide levels bring climate change into a ‘new era’, 25 October).
To facilitate an increase in an activity that is as fossil fuel-intensive as air travel demonstrates a reckless disregard for the most serious issue facing life on earth, namely climate change. It is worse than fiddling while Rome burns: it is almost literally pouring (aviation) fuel on the flames.
Richard Mountford
Hildenborough, Kent
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Two letters above were amended on 26 October 2016, correcting “Dartmouth” to “Dartford” and “wreckless” to “reckless”.
