Heathrow leaders are pursuing a dead horse

Thank you for your article regarding the Supreme Court ruling that the previous Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling’s decision to recommend a Heathrow third runway was not unlawful.

To those very reasonably opposed to a third runway this might seem a disastrous result, however it will likely in the long-term be very positive.

There are various compelling reasons why Heathrow should not proceed with its expansion plans, which bring another 50 per cent or an additional 700 flights per day over Windsor, Maidenhead, Slough and surrounding areas.

The Supreme Court ruling has spotlit these issues with many recent media ar ticles.

Included are the ever-increasing calls and need for action on climate change, with our council and others declaring for Net Zero by 2050, the Government’s new plan just two weeks ago in the build up to its hosting of the COP26 UN Climate Change conference in November 2021 which has set a target for a 68 per cent reduction in CO2 by

2030, and its own ‘levelling-up’ promise and agenda for Midland and Northern regions.

The Government’s own Climate Change Committee (CCC) just two weeks ago outlined that polluting emissions from aviation must reduce by 80 per cent by 2035, instead of previously by 2050, and that expansion at Heathrow would require constraint and even closing one or more regional airports.

Continuing with Heathrow expansion goes against both the Government’s climate change objectives and ‘levelling-up’ agenda.

Heathrow says that it has a sustainable plan, however that is only for its own buildings, facilities and vehicles, and it conveniently omits the CO2 and noxious gases generated by existing aircraft and an extra 700 planes a day.

Like so many of Heathrow's promises, this is just hot air and won't enable us to achieve Net Zero aviation by 2050.

The CCC estimates that bio and sustainable synthetic fuels for aviation will only make up to 50 per cent by 2050.

The Court also confirmed that any Heathrow planning application would need to meet these current objectives, which for the above reasons will not be possible.

Heathrow's main objectives are its intense pursuit of dividends for foreign shareholders, amounting to £4bn over the last eight years.

Last year Heathrow's CEO John HollandKaye took home £2.6m and its 49 directors earned an average of £400k each.

And they want the public to pay for the £550m (twice their £265m budget) that they've spent so far just producing and marketing their third runway plans.

We must urgently develop more responsible plans for national aviation and the climate.

Chris Grayling's Airports National Policy Statement, allowing Heathrow to submit its planning application, was only ever about Heathrow and was based on the 2008 Climate Change Act.

The Government should now replace that statement with a true ‘national’ policy, taking into account the aviation needs of the country as a whole, and within the framework of its new climate and levelling

up objectives.

And Heathrow should stop wasting huge amounts of public money and effort pursuing its dead cause.

COVID-19 has prompted a reassessment of priorities not to live by past standards. Let's use the opportunity to grow back better.

PAUL GROVES Tithe Barn Drive Between Maidenhead and Windsor