Boris Johnson joins with other candidates to oppose third runway for Heathrow

The advert below appears in a number of national newspapers this morning.  It's the work of enoughsenough.org whose website (which is described as "solar powered") includes a large number of hard-hitting ads on climate change.

Opposition to a third runway is the consensus position amongst London Conservatives.  Zac Goldsmith has written for the London Evening Standard and argued that the "world's busiest airport" doesn't need to get busier.  Justine Greening MP has been campaigning against it.  In an article for The Times GLA candidate Kit Malthouse advocated relocation for Heathrow.

There is no mainstream candidate representing those voters who think London needs a third runway at Heathrow but, then again, there's no mainstream candidate representing those Londoners who want the congestion charge abolished.

Comments

[Michael Rutherford]

Boris shouldn't support Heathrow just to be "different". I think he's quite wise to oppose the runway.

[Editor]

Agreed Michael. Boris must be true to his beliefs but consensus among politicians often isn't healthy. I think it's the main reason for low turnout.

[Alan S]

They're all in favour of the Olympics too.

[John Moss]

We need to be bold.

Build an island in the Thames Estuary out past Grain and Canvey, link it to the HS Line out of St Pancras and then very few flights will disturb London again.

£25bn over 8 years should do the trick and solve London's air capacity problem for decades to come.

No further expansion of Heathrow, Stansted or Gatwick would then be required. Indeed, one of them could probably be closed.

[powellite]

Er...so all these people claim to be committed to the economic success of the capital? And they're also committed to keeping the main portal for the city in a shabby, overcrowded and unpleasant state? Why is no-one advocating expansion? If we don't have a third runway, then conditions at Heathrow will get worse and worse, more people will complain, travellers will have an increasingly horrendous experience, and avoid London all together. And businesses too.

Not quite sure that's in London's interests...

[Ryan Lovell]

It is amazing that all of the main candidates for London Mayor, are so short sighted that they are not prepared to say what is in the best interests of our capital city.

The public does not become disillusioned with politics because politicians may say things with which they disagree - straight talking politicians such as Ann Widdecombe for example are widely respected exactly because they say what they believe, instead of following the whims of short term political fashion. Many people would disagree with lots that Ann Widdecombe says, but they do not doubt her convictions, integrity or honesty.

The public are fed up with politicians who merely say what it is they think they want to hear. It is also disingenuous of the Mayoral candidates to oppose the extra runway at Heathrow as they do not have the powers to stop it anyway.

If London is serious about being a truly global city and the UK serious about its status in the world too, then it needs an extra runway at Heathrow.

[Gareth Knight]

Sadly this is an issue where everyone wants a third runway except those living anywhere near it.

I sympathise with the residents (despite the obvious question of, why live near Heathrow if you can't tolerate aircraft noise!) but rather than opposing the runway, why don't they give us an answer to the airport needs of London?

Until someone comes out with a constructive and positive line on the alternatives, the third runway must go ahead.

It is humiliating to be British when you look at Heathrow (compare it to LAX or JFK which are roughly the same size and a million times better) - something has to be done and few seem to have an alternative.

[Londoner]

Time to replace your photos of the ex-candidates with Boris. How about putting Livingstone, Paddock etc up there. Don't necessarily need to delete "winner" from over Boris's photo if you do that either...

John Moss is right to this extent. Boris should say that he would encourage a competitor to BAA to come up with a Thames Estuary proposal. It is ludicrous that we have the flight paths of one of the largest airports in the world over some of the most densely populated residential areas of the world. It might also be a step towards ridding ourselves of the BAA monopoly.

[Londoner]

Clever of Greenpeace of course to publicise the Green Candidate, whom no-one previously knew of, as equal with the other 3.

Rather better looking than the others too...must be a few red blooded males who are seeing the advert and thinking "I'd like to see a bit more of her..." Couldn't possibly say if I am one of them, but I am going looking for her website now. Better make sure Boris is kept away from her though...(oh, maybe it's OK, he doesn't seem to go for blondes).

[Bill]

How many flights a year does Boris make when he's not cycling?

[Wayne Bridges]

Not as Many as Ken Livingstone makes to visit his dictating friends in other countries at the expense of the tax payer.

[Iain]

"I sympathise with the residents (despite the obvious question of, why live near Heathrow if you can't tolerate aircraft noise!) "

I suppose its the same argument that even when living next to a road, as all of us do, doesn't give the state or business the right to turn it into a motorway.

The fact is that the British state gave local people in the area some undertakings on noise, aircraft movements, and expansion of Heathrow, all of which the British state has reneged on, even past Chairmen of planning enquires state that they were duped and lied to by BAA, and wouldn't have permitted the expansion if they had known what BAA really had in mind.

When BAA reached the agreed aircraft movement limits, BAA got some compliant minister to give them more. When BAA wanted further expansion of the night flight quota, they got some compliant minister to shrink what was designated as the night. When BAA wanted T4 they gave the undertaking that that would be the limit of their expansion, but that led to T5, here they gave the undertaking that they wouldn’t need another runway or a scrap runway alternation, two undertakings they are now seeking to renege on.

Local people in the area have no reason to trust what ever the British State or BAA say on Heathrow, yet it’s the British State which is allowing Heathrow annex all the motorways and transport systems to service their needs, and local peoples living environment . As an environmental refugee from Heathrow’s blight ( I had to sell up and move out) I came to the conclusion the British state was nothing short of useless in protecting my interests, and as such the British state should be removed from being a protector of the Airport business, and Heathrow made to negotiate with local people for a toll to over fly their homes and communities. After all I had purchased the title deeds to my property, so why should Heathrow be permitted, with state protection, to deprive me of the use of my property with their noise pollution?

So yeah let Heathrow operate, but operate like any other business without state protection for the environmental damage it is doing, and restore the property rights of the people in the area.

[powellite]

Iain:

"After all I had purchased the title deeds to my property, so why should Heathrow be permitted, with state protection, to deprive me of the use of my property with their noise pollution?"

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think 'property rights' have anything to do with that. When you buy a house, and someone wins planning permission for a development in your vicinity, as long as it's legally and fairly granted then there's nothing you can do about it.

I know you'll argue about deception and all that, but I'm pretty sure there's no 'householders rights' to object to any development in their vicinty. The only piece of land you have jurisdiction over is that which your house sits on and its curtilage. You may not like the fact that noise affects your house, but you don't necessarily have legally-enforcable rights against development in your area.

[Iain]

"The only piece of land you have jurisdiction over is that which your house sits on and its curtilage."

So I could have put up a barrage ballon and that would have been alright would it?

But I do believe there is a law which protects people from being deprived of the use of their asset/property, and that is exactly what Heathrow had done with my home. I had a garden but it was impossible to enjoy it because of Heathrows noise pollution, even my bedrooms had become useless as you couldn't get a nights sleep without being woken up by aircraft noise.

[Gareth Knight]

Iain, never mind the issues around the residents - how else do you suggest we meet London's need for more air travel capacity?

Unless you can provide some answer that question, any other argument is irrelevant because at the moment, a runway has to go somewhere, and until you tell us otherwise, it's going to Heathrow and I'll be happy with that!

[Moral minority]

Londoner, if Boris had not entered the race, the Conservatives would have had a candidate that nobody had heard of. Too many leading Tories lacked the testicular fortitude to take on Red Ken. Like Brown, they bottled it.

There are too many votes at stake for any Mayoral candidate to support the third runway. It is easier to attack the plans, the aviation industry and the Government than address the real issue of how increased demand for air travel will be met.

[Adam-]

I was driving around the perimeter of Manston not so long back. You could hear the howling of the wind and the tumbleweed rolling past...

[Iain]

"how else do you suggest we meet London's need for more air travel capacity?"

As laid out in my argument, restore the property rights of the people living in SW London and let the market decide. i.e. withdraw the States protection from Heathrow, have Heathrow negotiate a toll with local people to overfly their communities, and if Heathrow wants to fly more planes into Heathrow let them pay more to the local people in tolls.

Of course the sums might not work out, and like many other businesses which were cited in the middle of london, like iron foundaries and heavy industry, they might have to develop better and more cost advantageous site elsewhere.

[Tapestry]

London airport can be moved.

Fast trains are available which can zoom passengers from St Pancras 70 miles in 20 minutes. The largest airport in Britain is accessible, Kent International formerly RAF Manston, in an ideal location to handle large numbers of flights at all times of the day and night - away from populations.

Heathrow could become a car-free high-rise City, housing 100,000's of people in relative luxury including high level shopping centres, leisure complexes, schools and so on.

London needs the housing, the jobs and the peace and quiet, and reduction in pollution.

[Richard Price]

Boris is opposing new transport infrastructure in London? Um, isn't transport infrastructure something the capital needs much more of?!

At the very least he should suggest where else a runway should be built. Stansted? Luton? A new airport for London?

Otherwise it just seems a compitulation to Nimbyism.

[James Wright]

Boris knows how many runways there are at Heathrow? And that one more is on the way? Wonders will never cease! Although I suppose he has been in debates when the other candidates may have mentioned that.

Jolly good show, Boris, there's a good chap.

[Iain]

"Otherwise it just seems a compitulation to Nimbyism."

No its not, Heathrow is a private company, owned by a Spanish property company, if they want to expand their business then they should pay the going rate to the people they are going to inconvenience. No need for a planning enquiry, no need for compulsory purchase orders, all they need do is just get out there and buy people out or financially compensate them.

What I find really reprehensible is for private businesses expecting to get State protecting from the people whose assets they want to get at a knock down rate and protection from the people they inconvenience with their business activities.

The fact is if Heathrow was such a strategic asset then it shouldn't have been privatised, but the fact is it wasn't seen as a strategic asset, for it was sold off, and sold off to a Spanish property company. So why should this Spanish property company get special privileges? It shouldn't its just a company, and like the rest of us it should have to pay for the assets it wants and the blight it causes.

[Duncan Flynn]

I'd be interested to know the reasons for Boris' decision before criticising this however as a supporter of the free market I believe the Party should continue to support the aviation industry which contributes so much our economy and to our cultural enlightenment.

If there is demand for increased aviation capacity in London and the South East then this must be addressed. Whether expanding Heathrow or another of the region's airports is the solution is open to debate. Clearly there are environmental issues attached to increasing aviation capacity and these need to be addressed by promoting cleaner fuel and technology and by ensuring airlines are environmentally responsible however it should not be the consumers who suffer.

[Iain]

"as a supporter of the free market I believe the Party should continue to support the aviation industry "

That's a contradiction, if you believe in a free market then you should be supporting the stance I have taken, that BAA should pay its way, and if it wants to expand it should buy people out and compensate people for the blight of their business activities.

[david]

Heathrow need a third runway, the country needs Heathrow to hold its position as Europe's No1 airport.

The events of the last few days, only goes to show how idiotic and stupid these politicians of all parties are.

[Richard Tracey]

Justine Greening did a fine job in front of 700 people packed into St Mary's Church, Putney (location of the Cromwell's Levellers Debates!). There is absolutely no justification for expansion of Heathrow - and people living under the flightpath have had enough of being woken from 5.00am in the morning. We should be encouraging more use of regional airports and high speed trains and stopping so much transit air traffic at Heathrow. And fully investigating Kit Malthouse's suggestion of a complete new start way out east of London in the estuary.

[powellite]

Iain

I very much see your point and have some sympathy with it. But the fundamental fact is that no-one forces anyone to buy a home near an airport. I presume that you bought your house before the third runway was proposed? I don't think it's reasonable for people to complain about existing noise when they knew what it was going to be like.

As for the impact on more houses from a third runway, then it's by no means desirable. However, you can't just say "Not in my back yard" without proposing an alternative. Nimbyism shows the Tory part at its worst, as on housing.

We need more airport capacity - that's indisputable. How would you propose we increase it instead? (without simply stating 'let the market' decide, as that's something of a cop-out)

[Malcolm Dunn]

'We need more airport capacity-that's indisputable'.Is it? The number of people using Stansted this year has gone down but those honest chaps at BAA still believe that it is essential that we need to increase the number of passengers from 25,000,000 to 35,000,000. The problem is the two major airlines (Ryanair and Easyjet) don't want to pay for it.

[powellite]

"'We need more airport capacity-that's indisputable'.Is it?"

Have you used Heathrow of Gatwick recently?

[Malcolm Dunn]

I've been to both.The fact that BAA have invested heavily in attracting retail outlets rather than on terminal capacity, checkin desks, security etc is what makes flying from Heathrow in particular (Gatwick is usually alright)an unpleasant experience. The fact is that the aviation business is not as profitable as it was and if we have a recession it is likely that demand for flights will go down rather than up across the UK.

[powellite]

I agree to an extent on the recession. However, Heathrow is at well over 90% capacity, which Terminal 5 won't make a dent in. Runway capacity is chock-a-block. So....any alternative suggestions?

[Josh]

Politically, it's fairly sensible, though seeing Boris on a Greenpeace poster makes me want to vomit, as I do whenever I hear those two syllables together (Greenpeace, not Boris).

What pisses me off about NIMBYs is T5. There was no reason for it to be the debacle it was. There is a desperate need for better terminals, and building T5 is the opportunity to transform the airport, with or without expanding capacity.

The point of T5 was to improve ground facilities, not increase airport capcaity overall. It was not synonymous with a third runway or mixed mode. It was all about ground facilities. The site for the new terminal is on an old sewage works. HArdly a bastion of high land value. It is flanked by the runways, the CTA and the frackin M25. No-one is living round there who is not already more affected by the existing airport. In fact, having T5 where it is improves access from the M25 and draws traffic AWAY from the neighbours.

T5 is good LHR and good for the surrounding areas. Yet is was opposed on the knee jerk reaction that anything that is good for the airport is automatically bad for local people. It should have just been allowed to go ahead without a ten year public inquiry.

Now because of that the NIMBYs have to suck it. They have lost my goodwill and the goodwill of quite a few others who would normally be sympathetic to them. Most of them haven't been living there that long anyway so to start complaining when the airport wants to expand is just sheer stupidity. Okay, so BAA lied. If you believed those lies, I have a bridge in New York to sell you. If BAA said tomorrow that the third runway was as far as they want to go, I would laugh in their faces. I wouldn't believe it just as no-one should have believed them before. It's Heathrow for crying out loud!

NIMBYs are a blight on the landscape of a (by 2012 at least) good airport.

[Iain]

"There was no reason for it to be the debacle it was. There is a desperate need for better terminals, and building T5 is the opportunity to transform the airport, with or without expanding capacity."

But that's exactly what BAA intended it to be, doubling the size of Heathrow to increase capacity. The fact that they now want a third runway, the fact that they want to scrap runway alternation, which goes against the undertakings they gave the planning enquiry, is proof of that, and facts which rubbish your premise.

As for the debacle, it takes to tango you know? For where as BAA was given tax concessions to pay for its legal costs of the planning enquiry, local councils (and all of them were opposed )and local people had to fund their own legal costs.

The fact is the Government, BAA and BA thought they could steam roller the planning enquiry with their troop of QC's and high priced lawyers, but they came up against a very determined group of local councils and local people who fought it all the way, and embarrassingly for the Government proved their case. For at least in one area they made BAA go back and redo their figures, eg on traffic congestion. But as the recent report by Sir John Egan who came out promoting the case for road charging, notably for the M3 M4 M25 corridor around Heathrow because of, you've guessed it, traffic congestion, which is a bit rich for when he was boss of BAA he was claiming T5 wouldn't have any effect on traffic in the area.

One further point, would you like to guess who were the first two people to come calling on John Prescott in 1997? Sir John Egan and Bob Ayling of BA, Bob Ayling also made himself as help full as possible to Blair when he was attempting to put up his Millennium tent in Greenwich!

[Josh]

"But that's exactly what BAA intended it to be, doubling the size of Heathrow to increase capacity. "

Of course they did. But a terminal on its own does not an increase in capacity make. It simply allows the existing capacity to be better.

Do you think we like having to travel through T1 all the time? I'll be travelling with BA in April for the first time in ages (I normally travel with BMI) because I get to avoid T1. T1 is horrible. The CTA is horrible. Can't wait for Heathrow East.

BAA's plans can be scuppered by simply denying them expansion. But at least allow them to build a better terminal so they can scrap the old and crappy ones.

Livingstone is particularly two faced on this one. He calls Heathrow an abomination (which it is) while also saying they musn't be allowed to build new terminals. How can they fix Heathrow if they can't build new terminals? T5 allows them to close T2, which means they can build East phase 1. With phase 1, they can close T1 and build phase 2. Then the airport is transformed into something civilised.

None of that needs involve extension of capacity.

" but they came up against a very determined group of local councils and local people who fought it all the way, and embarrassingly for the Government proved their case."

But why?

As I've said. They built it on an old sewage works contained between the two runways, the CTA and the M25. There's no-one around to disturb unlike T4. It's accessed directly from the M25 therefore no need for local roads to be screwed up as with T4. And it makes Heathrow a better airport.

Do you think T5, as is, should have been built? Do you think Heathrow should have been stuck to using those aging and crumbly CTA terminals in perpetuity?

[Iain]

The reason I opposed T5 was because T5 was never about giving passengers a better travelling experience, for it was always about increasing Heathrows Terminal capacity so they could increase the number of fligts into Heathrow and people through Heathrow.

In light of your argument I presume you are opposed to Heathrows plans to have a third ruway, and their intention to scrap runway alternation ? For this would go against your desire for a better traveling experience for its about cramming more flights and more people into Heathrow.

[Josh]

"The reason I opposed T5 was because T5 was never about giving passengers a better travelling experience, for it was always about increasing Heathrows Terminal capacity so they could increase the number of fligts into Heathrow and people through Heathrow. "

But as I've said T5 could not have increased capacity on its own. So therefore the right thing to do would be to support T5 but oppose the third runway. It should be taken as given that anything BAA does is with a view to expansion. But we should judge whether those matters will give them what they want.

You sound like your opposition was a point of principle, rather than a point of practicality. Now that T5 is built, without a third runway, do you think it's a good thing it's there?

"In light of your argument I presume you are opposed to Heathrows plans to have a third ruway, and their intention to scrap runway alternation ? For this would go against your desire for a better traveling experience for its about cramming more flights and more people into Heathrow. "

I have no enthusiasm for the third runway.

[Fred Baker]

Heathrow always had three runways. Its not a new one, it is a relocation.