Busi­ness case for ex­pan­sion flawed

Harefield Gazette - - OPINION -

UKIP Hilling­don re­ject the need to build an ad­di­tional run­way at Heathrow based on a flawed busi­ness case which is all about the prof­its of big over­seas in­vestors and not the needs of the UK econ­omy and lo­cal peo­ple.

The fig­ures show that both busi­ness and ‘hub’ flight num­bers are in de­cline as new air­craft en­able longer dis­tance point to point flights with the trend mov­ing from busi­ness to leisure travel.

The case for one ‘su­per air­port’ when we al­ready have ex­cess ca­pac­ity in the South East at

Stansted, Southend and Lu­ton and a run­way that can be re-ac­ti­vated at Manston for larger air­craft is un­proven.

In­deed, the old BAA was bro­ken up to stop one com­pany hav­ing a mo­nop­oly on air travel around the cap­i­tal yet ex­pand­ing Heathrow will ef­fec­tively re-in­force the dom­i­nance of one site.

New York is a sim­i­lar city to Lon­don and op­er­ates with mul­ti­ple air­ports yet the Davies Com­mis­sion was in­structed to look at a sin­gle air­port ex­pan­sion only rather than con­sider up­grades across the South East that would put less strain on sur­face in­fra­struc­ture and the com­mu­ni­ties that have to live around an ex­panded Heathrow.

Our com­mu­nity in the vil­lages has suf­fered blight, noise and pol­lu­tion from Heathrow with the two run­ways, adding a third will make our en­vi­ron­ment im­pos­si­ble to live in.

Air pol­lu­tion is al­ready dou­ble the

max­i­mum safe lim­its – on a bad day it can be up to nine times that limit with many peo­ple suf­fer­ing ad­verse health con­di­tions be­cause of the air­craft emis­sions and the in­creased traf­fic lev­els that the air­port brings.

CLIFF DIXON Chair­man, UKIP Hilling­don Branch

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.