AlanFirst of all I will answer your points:(A) Heathrow would certainly not be built where it is today if it dod not exist already. But it is there,it causes immense problems so why should we make things worse by making it much bigger?(B)A recent economic study by CE Delft of The Netherlands demonstrates conclusively that the economic effect of Heathrow Expansion has been greatly exaggerated and may in fact be negative.(C) London would be prosperous without Heathrow Expansion. London has 4 other airports- Gatwick, Stanstead, City and Luton, it has Eurostar, it has high speed rail links, it has motorways and it has ports. It has swift links to other airports such as Southampton, Bristol and Birmingham and executive jet airports such as Hendon and Biggin Hill.London existed and was properous for 2000 years before Heathrow and will be properous without Heathrow Expansion.(D) Historically Heathrow has been responsible for importing workers into London from all over the world.West London has full employment and does not need more jobs at Heathrow. In contrast, if 10,000 jobs were cut at Heathrow tomorrow the workers would be swiftly employed elsewhere in West London or, depending on their skills, elsewhere.(E) Money spent in Ealing by airport employees would still be spent in Ealing except the employees may be working elsewhere e.g in Ealing.(F) How many of the new jobs created by Heathrow Expansion would be filled by Ealing residents?(G)17% of CO2 emissions come from aviation. Aviation CO2 emissions are growing rapidly globally and are a major contributor to global warming. Aviation also causes other forms of emissions and poluutions. For example, aircraft dump fuel and human waste into the atmosphere above our heads every day. What goes up, must come down(H)Modern aircraft are less noisy and less polluting than older ones. However they are bigger and more expensive.An aircarft has a life of 20 to 30 years, therefore in 20 years time many aircraft will still be flying which are not as clean and noisy as the very newest Airbus or the newest Boeing. Many old, dirty, noisy Boeing 737's, 747's, 757's, 777's and Airbuses will still be flying. There may even be a few BAe HS 146's, DC-10's, Tristars or even Tupolovs !(I) The Government proposes to increase the number of flights from 480,000 to 700,000. That must inevitably lead to more pollution, emission and noise.(J) The 3rd Runway will bring more flights over Ealing because it is further North.(K) Some of the money spent in the shops in Heathrow would in fact be spent in the shops in West London if the shops at Heathrow did not exist. I don't go to Heathrow to do my shopping, but it is a huge shopping centre.(L) One-third of passengers landing at Heathrow are transit pasengers and do not enter the UK so their economic benefit to the UK is marginal.(M) London existed and was prosperous 2000 years before Heathrow. It will continue to be prosperous without Heathrow Expansion.The prosoperity of London does not depend on Heathrow. Other factors are much more important.This is what of what I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport, Ruth Kelly MP, today:"I wish to express my strong opposition to any expansion at or of London Heathrow Airport.1. I am particularly concerned regarding the increased carbon emissions, increased aircraft noise and increased pollution that the building of a Third Runway would cause not only in the London area, but elsewhere in the world. 2. The Government's plans to expand Heathrow are directly contrary to the Government's objectives for achieving carbon dioxide and other emission reductions. 3. In addition, the plans will cause gridlock on the M4 and M25 and draw more aircraft and vehicle traffic into already over-crowded and congested London and the South-East of England. 4. It will lead to a serious reduction of air quality all over London and the surrounding counties. 5. It will constitute a much increased threat to the health, safety and security of millions of people in London and the South-East of England.6. It will bring little or no economic benefit to London and the South-East of England and indeed will cause economic losses and costs in other parts of England, Scotland and Wales as it represents yet a further centralisation and concentration of international transport links and infrastructure in the crowded London and the South East.7. Having lived in Chiswick since 1974, I am also opposed to the ending of runaway alteration, the proposal to end the Cranford Agreement which prevents flights taking off to the East from the Northern Runaway and the continuance of night flights.8. The Government's document "Adding Capacity at Heathrow" is intentionally and deliberately difficult to understand and to respond to. However I have read it carefully and as a result, I remain totally unconvinced by the case put by the Government or by anyone else for the Expansion of Heathrow. The Government has failed to convince me and many millions of others that there is a sound environmental, transport or economic argument for expanding Heathrow.9. All of these points will have been made to you already by many others. However, as a Christian, born like you in Ireland and being in the Catholic tradition, there are some other points I would like you to consider.10. I am extremely concerned about the effect that the Government's proposals will have on the areas surrounding Heathrow and in particular the destruction of the communities of Sipson and Harmondsworth. Last Sunday, my wife,my sister and I visited Sipson and Harmondsworth, and we were appalled by the effect the Government’s proposed Heathrow Expansion will have on these two small but important and functional communities.11. Sipson is a modern village north of the A4 and South of the M4 which nevertheless is a community which is home to several hundred families. It will be destroyed in order to make way for the Third Runway. No amount of money can compensate the people of Sipson for the destruction of their homes, their neighbourhood, their neighbourly relations, their friendships or their way of life12. Harmondsworth is a very ancient village which contains a manor house, many pre-twentieth century houses, several pubs and shops, two primary schools and modern houses. It also contains the Harmondsworth Great Barn, a unique 15th Century masterpiece and listed building, and the Church of St Mary the Virgin, the Parish Church for Harmondsworth, Sipson and Longford, which is also a listed building. 13. When we arrived last Sunday the church door was open, the organ was playing and we went in. We were warmly greeted by a lady who told us that there had been a Church in the site since 1067. She turned on the lights and invited us to view this wonderful small, old Church which has impressive stained glass windows, a proper pipe organ, Lady Chapel, antique pews and furniture, many plaques and a marvellous personality. She told us that if Runway 3 and Terminal 6 are built, the Church would be within the Heathrow Airport perimeter and possibly airside, which means that it would be totally cut off from the Parish and the communities it has served for nearly 1000 years. She told us that, like many in the Parish, she had worked at Heathrow Airport herself. 14. We then met the Parish Priest, Rev. Canon Awatu Onundu Christian-Iwuagwu. Canon Amatu had only arrived in Harmondsworth just before Christmas. He told us he originally came from South- Eastern Nigeria where he was taught as a child and believed that English people had a great Christian history and heritage which they valued greatly. He was therefore very shocked to learn what was being proposed for his Parish. He pointed out that the bell in the church tower was the prototype for Big Ben in the Palace of Westminster and that the extensive churchyard contains graves going back hundreds of years. All of these graves would have to be removed to facilitate the Expansion of Heathrow, causing great distress to the relatives of those buried there.15. Even if the Church and the Barn are preserved, if they are incorporated with the Airport perimeter or if the runaway is built near them, they and their purposes will effectively be destroyed. It will only be a matter of time before they are destroyed by the physical forces exerted by aircraft taking off, landing and taxiing and all of the other forces at work within a busy airport. In my view this would be a barbaric act worthy of the Taliban, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Nicolae Caeusescu, Mao Tse-Tung, Hitler or Stalin. Do you want to be associated with such barbarians ? I think not.16. In view of the fact that you are a practicing Roman Catholic, I am appalled by the fact that you would sanction such a threat to a wonderful and unique Church built long before the Reformation. I recommend that you pay Harmondsworth a visit, meet the Parish Priest, visit the Church and stay for a while and pray for guidance.17. I have noted that this Expansion has been opposed by the Conservative Party, by the Liberal Democrat Party, by the Green Party, by the 2M Group of Councils representing all eight West London boroughs, Slough, Spelthorne, South Buckinghamshire and Windsor and Maidenhead, by a majority of the members of the Institute of Directors (of which I am one), by a majority of London businesses, by the Greater London Assembly, by all 4 London Mayoral candidates including the Labour Party candidate, by many Labour MP’s including Government ministers and former ministers, peers, councillors, members and voters, by Greenpeace, by Friends of the Earth and by a very wide number of organisations and groups of varying political views and none. 18. Based on this wide opposition and the overwhelming arguments against your Government’s proposal for the expansion of Heathrow, in my view your Government will find it very difficult to secure Parliamentary for its proposals and would be well advised to withdraw them forthwith.I wish my strong objections and opposition to be formally noted and I look forward to receiving your response."
David Giles ● 6792d