Forum Topic

Heathrow expansion consultation - summary & impact on Ealing area (unbiased)

I have made a study of the detailed proposals for changes to existing flights and expansion at Heathrow, and thought I would try to provide an unbiased summary for the forum. Please let me know of any inaccuracies.The Dept of Transport has launched a consultation on Heathrow Expansion which will end on 27 Feb 2008.The consultation is about several proposed changes at Heathrow as follows:1. MAKING MORE USE OF EXISTING RUNWAYSThis primarily means a change to "mixed-mode" landings and take offs where both existing runways are used for both landing and take off throughout the day (currently take off and landing are usually on different runways for specified periods - "segregated mode"). This would allow a proposed increase from 480,000 flights to 540,000 flights annually. This change will probably have limited effect on the Ealing borough although new take off paths would be created over the area (with a slight increase in flights but more varied flight paths), but would make a lot of difference to anyone on the current landing paths (Richmond, Kew etc.) as it would mean flights all day rather than only in specific periods.This change could start within 3 years with a phased increase to 2015.2. THE WESTERLY PREFERENCEThe westerly preference means that the majority of flights land from the East and take off to the West. Planes usually land & take off into the wind, but at Heathrow planes land from the East and take off to the West even when there is a wind from the East at up to 5km/hr meaning that only about 30% of flights take off to the East. This was introduced to reduce take offs to the East as this area is more densely populated. The government's preference is that the westerly preference is retained.Keeping the westerly preference means less take offs over Ealing area (as opposed to Windsor etc.). If the westerly preference was removed (currently not the government preference) it would have a large effect on the Ealing area, increasing take offs by 60%-70% on current levels.3. THE CRANFORD AGREEMENTThe Cranford agreement is that take offs to the East from the northern runway will be minimised to reduce the noise heard in Cranford. The government's preference is that the Cranford agreement is not retained (to support mixed-mode take offs in both directions).Removing the Cranford agreement would allow take offs from the northern runway with new flight paths over north-west London, combined with higher flight numbers which could affect new parts of the Ealing area.This change could start within 3 years with a phased increase to 2015.4. NIGHT TIME AND EARLY MORNING ROTATIONSThese rotations are slight variations between 0600 and 0700 on the segregated mode operations (take offs and landings on different runways at specific times) currently in force. The government preference is that these remain.The effect on the Ealing area is limited due to the westerly preference, although the rotations introduced in 2000 did increase early morning take offs over the area a little.The government's preference is that these are retained.5. ADDING A 3RD RUNWAYThis is the proposal to add a new 3rd runway to the North of the other two. This runway would be slightly shorter than the others but would probably share a similar load of flights. This proposal would increase flights to up to 702,000 from 480,000 currently, and also create a whole range of new take off flight paths, many of which would be over North-West London and the Ealing Area. A new landing flight path over Brentford would be created.This change is proposed for around 2020.In summary, proposals 1 to 4 have some impact on the area but may also be slightly beneficial to those under the current take off paths, provided the westerly preference is retained. If the westerly preference was removed it would have a very large impact on the Ealing area, increasing current take off numbers by about 60%, which combined with higher overall flight numbers could be as high as 70%, however, this is not the government's current preference. Planes are quieter than they used to be with fewer using 4 engines, which is one of the reasons the government is moving ahead with these proposals. All areas and esepcially Brentford and the extreme South of Ealing would probably be affected by a new landing path to the new 3rd runway if it went ahead.You can find the official consultation documents at http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/heathrowconsultation.More information is available at http://www.hacan.org.uk/.

Matthew Brady ● 6886d14 Comments

I am unclear how you get the 60-70% increase in departures (over Ealing) as a result of removing the Westerly preference.  Westerly is the prevaling wind direction so even without the preference, you would expect more than half the departures to depart to the west.  Did your figure come from the official report?

Tom Henderson ● 6886d

"Westerly is the prevaling wind direction so even without the preference, you would expect more than half the departures to depart to the west."If they introduced an easterly preference, it might be slightly more than 50% of the departures towards the east. That would represent about a 70% increase in departures over Ealing compared with the current number.

Richard Jennings ● 6886d

Matthew, we are also discussing this topic on the BrentfordTW8 forum and I wondered if you have noticed the following information, which may contribute to your analysis of the impact of the next stage of expansion to Heathrow. Does the 25% increase in the Third Runway and its ability to cater for bigger planes suggest anything else? The article:"It seems there will be bigger planes able to land on the third runway:http://www.uk-airport-news.info/heathrow-airport-news-241107a.htm "Heathrow third runway length increased by 25 percent24.11.07The new third runway planned for Heathrow Airport will be 500 metres (1,640ft) longer than the Government had originally proposed in order to allow much noisier and more polluting long-haul aircraft to use it, the Times newspaper reports. It says that Ruth Kelly, the Transport Secretary, has 'quietly abandoned a commitment to allow only short-haul aircraft to use the runway.'Ms. Kelly published a consultation document on Thursday that proposes a new 2500-metre runway and an increase in the maximum number of flights permitted from 480,000 to 702,000 a year. This compares to Government proposals in February 2003 for a 2,000-metre runway, which it said 'could be used only by smaller narrow-body planes.'BAA and the main airlines have been lobbying behind the scenes for a longer runway because it will enable them to increase the number of much more profitable long-haul flights. The newspaper reports that the consultation document says: 'The Government acknowledges the rationale for a slightly longer runway,' adding that the extra length will allow 'short-haul and long-haul off the third runway'.The document claims that the extra 500 metres would not result in any more carbon emissions and would 'not affect the forecast mix of short-haul and long-haul traffic across the airport as a whole'. It adds that the extension is needed simply to allow a 'balanced use of aircraft across the three runways'. However, the newspaper suggest that, once built, the runway could be used for any combination of short-haul and long-haul flights which BAA chooses. The proposal to extend the new runway also casts doubt on the Government's original claim that the it would benefit British towns and cities. If the new runway had been dedicated to short-haul flights, UK regional airports would have been much more likely to regain their connections to Heathrow.'John Stewart, chairman of the Hacan ClearSkies, told the newspaper: 'The Government is trying to sneak in a long-haul runway by stealth. This is another chapter in a sad history of broken promises about Heathrow.'"

Duncan Walker ● 6885d

My name is Duncan Walker, my previous post didn't seem to pick up my last name.

Duncan Walker ● 6885d

Hi TomYou are correct that there is an error in my figures. I thought that I had read in the report that, without the westerly preference, the East/West split would be 50/50; against the current 70/30 level (equating to 66% difference).However, I cannot now find this in the report - and I think I read it somewhere else (probably the HACAN site).The report actually says that winds are "predominantly from the West or Southwest", but I cannot find an actual figure of what the split would be.Before 2000, the westerly preference resulted in an 89/11 split, but this was changed to 70/30 by rotation within the 0600 to 0700 period to East/West and alternate runways (where available).The natural East/West split is difficult to assess, but assuming the early morning rotation is retained, would result in an increase from 70/30 up to a maximum of 50/50 - so the actual increase in take offs to the East would be between 0% and 66% if westerly preference was removed. I will not discuss the possibility of an easterly preference as this is not raised anywhere as an option.The change to mixed-mode take off & landing would result in an overall 12.5% increase in flights, meaning that the combination of both mixed-mode & removing the westerly preference would result in an increase of between 12.5% and 87.5%.Sorry for the confusion!

Matthew Brady ● 6885d

Hi DuncanFrom my reading of the report, the plan would be to share flight volumes between all 3 runways, which is why they increased the proposed length of the 3rd runway. There is something about the runway still not being long enough for all planes, but the flight volume would be equal, I think.Certainly warrants further analysis.

Matthew Brady ● 6885d

I live in Brentford, just north of the flight path for the North Runway, so planes come over us at 1500 ft. When the Third Runway is built, which probably looks like following the route of Chiswick High Street-Chiswick Roundabout-A4/M4, some people in Ealing  will be in a similar position from this runway that I am in to my beloved one!I think you should start to consider the pattern of the noise and not the average/day used by the Government.There is an excellent paper explaining this:http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/documents/SSE6_Appendix_1.pdf The point is that it is each specific noise reading of a plane that is important, when it occurs, and the frequency of these which is important. For instance, I sleep with the window open, but I am woken at about 4.30am each morning by the first plane and I have to close the window. So instead of using an average noise level per day, each flight should be the example, as it is at a higher decibel and once woken it is difficult to get back to sleep before the next plane comes over in 90 seconds time (in future to be 30 seconds!).

Duncan Walker ● 6885d

Hi DuncanAbsolutely fascinating insight into the skill of using statistics for all purposes! It also provides an understanding about how there can be official statements of "reduced noise" despite more flights and clear evidence to the contrary.The proposal to switch to mixed-mode from segregated-mode landing is, in my opinion, a severe threat to the health of people under current flight landing paths and I only hope that it is not approved on your behalf. Never mind the prospect of a 3rd runway ...Finally abandoning my attempt at unbias, the 35% of passengers at Heathrow, primarily long-haul, who only pass-through the airport for connections to other international flights demonstrate that it is all about profitability for BAA and the airlines rather than any tangible benefit to the UK economy.There are plenty of other European airports (close-by) more capable of increasing capacity without destroying the lives of millions of people as their terminal flight paths do not pass over some of the most densely populated areas in Europe. Moreover, these airports are better connected by rail (and road) to other parts of Europe reducing the need for additional outbound connecting flights.We can only hope that the drive to reduce carbon emmissions, resulting from the real effects of global warming and the impact it has on other parts of the economy reverse the madness of ever-increasing flight levels sometime soon ....

Matthew Brady ● 6885d

"I will not discuss the possibility of an easterly preference as this is not raised anywhere as an option."I mentioned it in my earlier post because I saw it mentioned as a possible option, but I also read that the DfT have decided that retaining the westerly preference is the preferred option.

Richard Jennings ● 6884d

Having been on two return trips in the last month and had our return delayed on both by lack of berths I vote for expansion to accommodate demand. Heathrow is most covenient to get to but hell to get through.

Graham Weeks ● 6882d

As someone who enjoys seeing the planes in and out of Heathrow, I am among those untroubled by the airport's planned expansion.  IMO,everyone complaining came here after the airport. Only HMQ has a residence built before the airport. Is she complaining?

Graham Weeks ● 6879d

Several points in answer to that  -  starting with the fact that your Perivale home being well off the Heathrow flightpaths you would be 'among those troubled by the airport's planned expansion', wouldn't you?  - at least re noise, though as a Northerner you may care to consider the long-term economic and social impact of the continuing and increasing over-dominance of this corner of the island over the rest, to which Heathrow is a major contributor.Re 'everyone complaining came here after the airport':-(a) you are in no position to know that, even in the highly unlikely event of its being true  -  as a (supposedly temporary) military airfield Heathrow dates only from WW2, as a civil airport only from the 1950s, and during the succeeding decades Heathrow, its traffic and environmental and other impact have changed and grown out of all recognition, the greatest (adverse) environmental step-change being the supersession of piston engines and propellers by jet engines;(b) Heathrow airport was originally established by subterfuge and stealth, the prime movers including key Labour politicians of the time. Its expansion and development were even exempt from planning controls, till increasing pressure forced the BAA to apply for planning permission for T4 in the 1970s. A local Public Inquiry ensued, and the presiding Inspector Mr Justice Glidewell commented (among much else) in his report, that the airport's creeping expansion had resulted in 'CONDITIONS UNCCEPTABLE IN A CIVILISED SOCIETY' and that he was only reluctantly recommending approval for this further expansion to 4 terminals 'in the (supposed) 'overriding national interest' because only this could provide for the demand in the requisite timescale. At the same time he stated that the Govt should 'MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO REASSURE THE PUBLIC THAT THERE WOULD NEVER BE A 5TH TERMINAL'. BAA thereupon proceeded to apply for major expansion at Stansted (in parallel with gleefully implementing T4) but the Heathrow obsessed British Airways made a contrary planning application for T5 at Heathrow, forcing a combined Public Inquiry re Stansted and T5. The upshot of that Inquiry was approval for Stansted AND opening the floodgates for further Heathrow expansion, the Inspecrtor Graham Eyre QC contradicting Glidewell by remarking that the latter couldn't have meant what he (clearly and unequivocally) said re T5 and that T5 SHOULD be up for consideration. Subsequently T5 has been steamrollered through, and we're now faced with a destructive 3rd runway and a 6th terminal to go with it. Thus anybody coming here as recently as 3 decades ago could not reasonably have foreseen the expansion of Heathrow to anything likke its current, let alone currently projected size and scale of operation.Re 'only HMQ has a residence built before the airport' that's manifestly nonsense  -  THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of homes in outer west London affected by Heathrow noise and other impact date from LONG before the 1950s  -  including my own in South Ealing, circa 1925, one of the NEWEST houses in this street.Re QE2 complaining (or not):-(a) Unlike most of us mere mortals/ her subjects, she's not short of other (more than lavish) boltholes to escape to  -  few of us have 2nd, 3rd, etc homes in remote parts of E Angula, NE Scotland etc  -  though it's noticeable NONE AT ALL IN NORTHERN ENGLAND.(a) She certainly has reacted to planning decisions and developments affecting her personally  -  eg since the obtrusive Hilton Hotel tower in Mayfair emerged to overlook Buck House and its grounds in the 1960s, she has spent a lot less time there and more at Windsor.So a bit less smug 'I'm alright Jack' complacency and a bit more informed thought, eh? Have to say in South Ealing, despite being fairly close to a takeoff flightpath I find the noise not much more than an irritant rather than a serious nuisance, but others even in this area let alone those more severely affected (try living in central Ealing in such as Gordon Road prettywell under the takeoff path, as I once did) undoubtedly have cause to feel otherwise. On the other hand, there's the surfaca transport impact on the rail and road links with central London, but that's another chapter in the story.

Chris Veasey ● 6879d

Thanks for putting me right on the history. I withdraw that part of my comments. But it will still remain that those who lived here before Heathrow are a minority.Yes I live in Perivale. Sometimes there used to be planes coming in from the east flying north of us, quite close which was interesting. When we lived on Cleveland Road I enjoyed watching the flight path. But when the planes take off over our church in West Ealing it does cause disturbance.

Graham Weeks ● 6879d