The wrong place for third runway

I AGREE with Dave Robins’ letter in the Uxbridge Gazette “Speculation in air pollution report” on October 19.

In this he pointed out that a recent study saying that a third Heathrow runway should go ahead was flawed. The researchers at Cambridge University said they thought in the future traffic might one day give off less pollution, so on that basis they ruled that the extra pollution from expanding Heathrow Airport would not matter. The study measured poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels in and around the airport. It then used modelling to predict what might happen in the future. But the Aviation Environment Federation said the research was “highly speculative” and there is no guarantee air pollution would fall. They said “There just isn’t evidence to suggest that’s going to happen.”

A past report “Emissions Impossible” said thousands of people around Heathrow are exposed to unhealthy high air pollution which break EU limits.

Heathrow airport is in the wrong place for a third runway with approach flight paths low over London’s densely populated suburbs. Over a million people are affected by noise, pollution and an increased risk of a crash during take-off or landing makes it unacceptable.

It would only take one crash – heaven forbid – to change attitudes, but by then it would be too late. We will subject London to overflying, destroyed villages and years of chaos on the busiest section of the M25. Some favour building a Thames-Medway airport as the area has modern road and rail links to the nearby M2 and High Speed Channel Link. Unlike Heathrow, it would provide an approach over water. NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED