Ministers should not use the capital’s improvements in air quality as “headroom” to justify a third runway at Heathrow Airport, the London Assembly has been told.
By Kumail Jaffer, Local Democracy Reporter
Ministers should not use the capital’s improvements in air quality as “headroom” to justify a third runway at Heathrow Airport, the London Assembly has been told.
Earlier this month the level of toxic nitrogen dioxide pollution (NO2) in the air in London fell to within the legal limit for the first time since UK regulations were introduced in 2010, with the Mayor of London putting it down to the imposition and expansion of the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ).
But Chancellor Rachel Reeves has said the Labour Government will back the expansion at Europe’s busiest airport despite environmental concerns being raised by MPs and campaigners.
The ministerial green light has prompted concerns that London’s progress with air quality improvement could be reversed as Heathrow almost doubles its passenger capacity by the middle of the next decade.
At a meeting of the London Assembly Environment Committee last week (Thursday, October 16), panellists cast doubt over promises to decarbonise aviation to an extent that it would offset almost 66million extra passengers flying every year.
Christina Calderato, Director of Strategy at Transport for London (TfL), told members that expansion plans “need to be compatible with the Mayor’s environment and transport objectives” to go ahead.
“We have a number of serious concerns around noise, carbon emissions and air quality – we’ve done a lot in London to improve air quality, and we don’t want to see those gains used as headroom for the Heathrow expansion,” she said.
“As things stand, an increase in aviation emissions will increase overall London emissions and that is difficult to reconcile.”
She also raised concerns around how the extra passengers would travel to and from the airport itself. TfL say that an expanded Heathrow “would mean an additional 170,000 trips by passengers and staff each day”
In order for no extra road trips to be made, the percentage of public transport users would need to increase from 39 per cent to 65 per cent.
“Our analysis indicates that this cannot happen without extra connectivity and capacity on the rail networks serving the airport,” TfL has previously said. “The Government’s proposals do not currently guarantee the significant investment needed to create this, nor does Heathrow accept the need.”
“If lots of those extra journeys are made by car, we will see buses slowing down and then even more car trips – it’s self-fulfilling,” Ms Calderato added.
“We’ve just had the amazing news that London is legally compliant [with NO2 levels] for the first time but that is not a situation that is banked – you can easily go the other way and we need to be really careful to not undo the progress we have made.”
The London Assembly also heard from representatives of Heathrow, who said an increased use of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) would help slash carbon emissions and offset the impact of the expansion.
Director of Carbon Strategy Matt Gorman told members: “There shouldn’t be a choice between aviation growth and decarbonisation. In order for us to grow, we need to put forward a comprehensive plan to decarbonise. There is no world where aviation thrives unless we are on that path.”
But there is doubt over scaling up its use, which currently stands at 2.5 per cent. Toby Perkins MP, who chairs the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, said aviation bosses should not “over-rely” on SAF and that it was not a “silver bullet” to reduce emissions.
The Mayor of London has long opposed plans for a third runway, and has recently argued that the recent backing for the expansion of Gatwick Airport undermines the case for doing the same to Heathrow. He has also raised concerns over increased air pollution.
Sir Sadiq told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) last week: “The Government’s got it wrong when it comes to a Heathrow expansion. I think we want a better Heathrow.
“Many of us don’t want a bigger Heathrow, what Heathrow are doing if they proceed with these plans to have a third runway, will not just lead to issues in relation to the environment, air pollution, noise pollution, but also be a huge expense to the taxpayer, but also will mean that it will be more difficult to meet our climate change obligations.”
