Heathrow proposes big extension of noise insulation scheme

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/02/heathrow-extension-of-noise-insulation-scheme

Version 0 of 1.

Heathrow has proposed a big extension of its noise insulation scheme at a cost of around £700m should the third runway be developed, in a final attempt to persuade the Airports Commission of its case.

The move would almost treble the previously designated budget to offset the effects of aircraft noise, which has been the dominant factor in rousing local opposition to expansion.

Heathrow said the scheme would be comparable to those on offer at other European hubs and came in response to its own local consultations over the past eight months. If it went ahead, 160,000 homes could be eligible for insulation from Windsor in Berkshire to Richmond in southwest London.

John Holland-Kaye, Heathrow’s chief executive, said: “It will reduce the impact of noise, and treat local people fairly.

“Now we want to work with local communities to ensure that the opportunities from expansion – up to 40,000 new skilled jobs at Heathrow, 10,000 apprenticeships, tackling youth unemployment – benefit those who are most affected by expansion.”

Local opposition group Hacan (Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise) welcomed the proposal, but said it suggested that residents had been short-changed in the past.

The announcement came as the Airports Commission’s final consultation on its shortlist for new runways was drawing to a close. After Tuesday’s deadline, it will consider the three options – two separate schemes for an expanded Heathrow, or a second Gatwick runway – and give its recommendation after the general election.

Gatwick released polling showing more Londoners would prefer the Sussex airport to expand than Heathrow.

In the YouGov poll, 43% picked Gatwick, compared with 36% for Heathrow, highlighting noise and air quality as their most important considerations.

Gatwick airport’s chief executive, Stewart Wingate, said: “Where Heathrow expansion means 130,000 more planes over central London and further breaches of air quality, Gatwick would have a fraction of the impact, delivering the economic benefits the UK needs at an environmental cost it can afford.”

He claimed support was building across the UK for Gatwick from politicians, regional airports and business, adding: “Heathrow have tried and failed for decades to expand, yet in just over a year huge momentum has gathered behind Gatwick’s credible and compelling case for a new runway.”

One backer appears to be Danny Alexander, the Treasury secretary, who told the Guardian on Monday: “I’m very sceptical about Heathrow. I’d like to see the case developed for Gatwick.

“We’d have to go back to our party, but I personally think that there is a need for more airport capacity if it is done in an environmentally sensitive way.”

Environmental groups remain opposed. A Greenpeace spokesman said: “The only way building another new runway can be made to appear economically viable is by ignoring the bulk of the carbon costs, which is exactly what the Davies [Airports] Commission are doing.”

The airports’ regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority, in its first public intervention in the debate, said new runways will be needed to avoid impacts on consumers, but warned that the industry would need to spend much more time and money engaging with and compensating local communities if expansion was to happen.