The British Government's Secretary of State for Transport, Alistair Darling, announced today that new runways will be built at Heathrow and Stansted airports. The announcement is part of the government's Aviation White Paper that sets out plans for airport expansion in the UK over the next 30 years.

Mr Darling said that a new runway would be built at Stansted by 2011 and at Heathrow between 2015 and 2020. He also revealed plans for additional runways at Birmingham and Edinburgh.

The new runway at Heathrow will also have a terminal, located north of the A4. In addition, a review into the feasibility of allowing aircraft to take off and land on both of Heathrow's current runways simultaneously during peak periods will be undertaken.

Known as "mixed mode" operations, simultaneous take off and landings on both runways would help increase capacity before the new one is built and operational.

Chief executive Rod Eddington welcomed the news. He said: "The decision to build a third runway at Heathrow is excellent news for British Airways, our customers and the British economy."

He also congratulated the government on recognising the enormous benefits that a third runway at Heathrow will bring to Britain:

"For the first time, we have an effective forward-looking aviation policy which recognises Heathrow's key role as Britain's main gateway airport.  Its continuing development has been guaranteed with Terminal Five, the opportunity to introduce mixed mode in peak periods and a third runway with a dedicated terminal.  That is excellent news for the aviation industry, customers, national and regional businesses and tourism."

"We will work with the government and local authorities to establish a programme that addresses the environmental issues at Heathrow and we will play a full part in ensuring that these issues are resolved."  

"We will engage with BAA and other interested parties to ensure that Heathrow's third runway is built as soon as possible in the timescale specified by the government."

"The government's plans for new runways at Birmingham and Edinburgh airports are also welcomed."

Corporate Communications - 16 December 2003

bmi has welcomed the news that the Government recognises the contribution London Heathrow makes to the UK economy and that there is a case for much needed additional capacity. However, the airline has reacted with disappointment that the Government has recommended the building of a new runway at Stansted Airport ahead of Heathrow and believes that this could seriously damage its pre-eminent position as one of the world's leading airports.

In the Government's White Paper, released today, it decided that Stansted should be the preferred option despite calls from the UK's top three airlines that Britain's economic interests would be best served by building a new short runway at London Heathrow Airport.

The Government has suggested that a new runway at Heathrow will not be built until at least 2015 by which time it believes environmental issues will have been addressed. However, the aviation industry is confident that these issues will be addressed well in advance of this date and would expect any Heathrow timetable for development to take this into account

Sir Michael Bishop, chairman of bmi, said: "I am encouraged that the Government has recognized that Heathrow is vital to the South East economy. However, I am disappointed that the Government has not listened to the overwhelming voice of the people, the airline industry, trade unions and the UK's business industry who believe that it is vital that a new runway is built at Heathrow ahead of any development at Stansted.

"It is encouraging that the Government has committed itself to looking at ways to increase capacity out of the existing runways at London Heathrow which could include mixed-mode operations.

"We first started campaigning for mixed-mode operations in 1990, when we published 'Heathrow: How do we meet the demand?, the first report to look seriously at the benefits of such operations.

"Even then, we saw mixed-mode as no more than a short-term option. This remains true today. Heathrow needs new runway capacity and we need to be planning it now. We are extremely disappointed the Government has not taken serious account of the long-term needs of the country's premier international airport."

Sir Michael Bishop added: "The choice of Stansted for initial development of runway capacity in the South East poses serious questions about BAA and how it will finance such development.

"We do not believe BAA can fund such investment without cross-subsidy from its Heathrow operations. But I can promise that we will fight such a threat every step of the way.

"If cross-subsidy looked likely, we would see no way in which BAA could sensibly remain in its current form. We would therefore call for a break-up of the company into constituent parts which did not hold this sort of monopoly over capacity in the South East."

Press Statement - 16 December 2003

Shadow Transport and Environment Secretary Theresa May has warned that Labour's new aviation strategy will blight the lives of millions of people living near Britain's airports.

She hit out in the Commons after Alistair Darling unveiled a 30 year plan for air travel involving, a new runway at Stansted by 2011, a possible third runway at Heathrow by 2020 if certain conditions are met, and more capacity at Birmingham and Edinburgh.

The Transport Secretary said the plan acknowledged the benefits of increasing air travel while seeking to reduce the impact of airports on surrounding communities.

But Mrs May dismissed the aviation white paper as "a fudge from an incompetent government", and warned that it would deliver blight to millions of people.

She declared: "What the British people and the airport industry want is certainty for the future of aviation, but now they have been condemned to uncertainty."

While airport expansion was a crucial issue, she said the Government's inconsistent approach had demonstrated "real incompetence and lack of judgement".

And warning of the massive impact of a new runway at Stansted will have on already heavily congested road and rail links to the Essex airport, she told conservatives.com: "The proposals for Stansted come at the same time as John Prescott's plans to build thousands more houses on the M11 Stansted corridor - another example of inconsistency in the Government's thinking."

Mrs May added: "The failure to consider how each area will cope with the increased volume of transport and the impact that expansion might have on the environment shows that the Government has failed to demonstrate the joined-up thinking it promised."

She said: "Far from setting a clear way forward for air transport in the UK, this announcement is a fudge which will only deliver blight to millions of people living around airports across this country. Indeed, anyone living around any of the airports in the south east is now faced with endless uncertainty."

Press Statement - 16 December 2003

"The Government has failed to grasp the nettle of environmental sustainability for air transport. In the long term, the White Paper is set to land a disaster on our countryside."

This was the immediate reaction by countryside campaigners CPRE to the publication today (Tuesday) of the Government's long awaited Air Transport White Paper.

CPRE's Aviation Campaigner, Andrew Critchell, said: "A sustainable air transport policy should be about ensuring that the industry and consumers pay for the very real environmental damage caused by each flight. The White Paper fails to address this challenge."

The White Paper gives Government sanction to two new runways in the South East, at Stansted and either Heathrow or Gatwick, operational by 2020, and one new runway at Birmingham. The document calls for several other airports around England to have runways extended and large new terminals built.

Local environmental damage is to be controlled in terms of mitigation and compensation, with growth allowed to continue unchecked. Emissions trading is supported in order to combat climate change, yet this depends on complex and uncertain international negotiations and will take years to introduce. With no interim measures in the short term, countryside and communities will continue to suffer from this go for growth approach.

Andrew Critchell concluded: "While we welcome a commitment to the long-term goal of emissions trading to combat climate change, the White Paper is fundamentally flawed in its failure to address the need to manage and reduce future levels of growth."

"Why can't the Government understand the direct link between allowing continued massive growth in air transport and the onset of environmental and social problems such as the further loss of the tranquillity of the countryside and damaging climate change."

Press Statement - 16 December 2003

CPREssex vows that it will continue to fight the expansion of Stansted Airport and is totally opposed to the proposal in the Air Transport White Paper (released on 16 December) to build a second runway.   Lady Walker, Chairman of CPREssex said "CPREssex will now use the planning system to argue vehemently against destroying a beautiful part of the Essex countryside and subjecting many to pollution, noise and the intrusion of extra aircraft movements."  She went on to say that she believes that the White Paper has failed to address the challenge of ensuring that the aviation industry and consumers pay for the very real environmental damage caused by each flight. "Such damage comes at all levels of our environment."  

CPREssex believes the impact of an extra runway will be disastrous for a very attractive rural part of Essex.  The destruction of attractive scenery and historic buildings, together with the threat to the internationally-important Hatfield Forest (a National Trust property), will be a grave blow to the north west of our county, especially in the Uttlesford District.

Urbanisation, including massive house building for those working at the enlarged airport and extra road construction (to provide access), will be as damaging as the destruction caused by the airport itself. All this would be in a part of the County which already has very low unemployment and has no need of more development.

David Simmonds, Press Officer for CPREssex warned that the effect would not just be felt in the immediate area around Stansted. Elsewhere in Essex there would be an adverse impact from increased flights, with the tranquillity of even more of our countryside shattered by the sight, lights, noise and smell of aircraft. Thousands will be affected by extra road building, congestion and house construction.

CPREssex is also concerned that allowing virtually unconstrained growth of air transport will cause damage globally. Increased emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) will boost global warming and lead to further climate change across the globe.   Specifically in Essex, climate change will lead to rising sea levels and cause the loss of land to the sea.

CPREssex is, however, pleased that the proposal to build a massive international airport on the north Kent marshes at Cliffe has been rejected. This would have had a severe adverse effect on south Essex and Thurrock. Having worked with many others to see off this challenge to the County's environment, CPREssex is now all the more determined to stop Stansted being expanded.

Press Statement - 16 December 2003

English Heritage has expressed fears for the future of the historic environment of Essex as a result of the Government’s decision to go ahead with proposals for a new runway at Stansted Airport.

It is feared that the proposals could result in the direct loss of nearly three square miles of historic Essex, including as many as 30 listed buildings and two nationally important ancient monuments. It could also have a serious impact on many adjacent properties and surrounding historic towns and villages including Great Dunmow, Thaxted, Bishop’s Stortford and Saffron Walden. These are part of England’s irreplaceable heritage.

This view is supported by the 1984 Planning Inspector’s report following the public inquiries which took place between 1981-3 into the development of a third London airport. He concluded: “The development of an airport at Stansted with a capacity in excess of 25 million passengers per annum (mppa) … would constitute nothing less than a disaster in environmental terms…if I believed … that a grant of planning permission for an expansion of Stansted to a capacity of 15mppa would inexorably lead to an … airport development in the future to an unknown capacity, I would, without hesitation, unequivocally recommend the rejection of BAA’s current application.” The Government’s proposals envisage that Stansted could be carrying 46mppa by 2012.

In contrast, English Heritage welcomes the Government’s intention to ensure that, over time, the price of air travel reflects its true environmental and social impacts and that an effort has been made to reduce the impact on the historic environment of the expansion of Heathrow and Birmingham International.

Simon Thurley, Chief Executive of English Heritage, said: “As the Government's statutory adviser on heritage issues, we have consistently argued that all the proposed major airport developments would have a significant negative impact on the historic environment.

“The expansion of Stansted will have a serious effect on local heritage.  This will be directly through the loss of historic buildings and archaeology, but also indirectly and in the longer term through the loss of overall amenity of historic towns and villages.  The damage will not just be caused by the new runway itself, but also by the associated infrastructure and development.”

He continued:  “We remain concerned about the apparent absence of systematic measures to manage demand for future air travel.  We will continue to press for the maximum protection possible.  Heritage is not just about visible buildings and scheduled monuments, but also the whole of the historic landscape and buried archaeology.”

English Heritage is now reviewing the detailed proposals. It will be looking to work constructively with the Government and partners in the heritage and environment sector as well as the airport operators and potential developers to ensure any proposals take full account of the impact on the historic environment.  It will be pressing for the damage to be minimised, and for full mitigation strategies to be put in place.

Press Statement - 19 December 2003

Lord Hanningfield, Leader of Essex County Council has criticised today's proposal to develop a new runway at Stansted Airport as "unwanted and unworkable".

The only real result of today’s announcement,” said Lord Hanningfield, “is that thousands of homes in Essex and Hertfordshire are now blighted until the proposal for expansion at Stansted is dead and buried.

“If central government thinks that Stansted is the site of least resistance they will soon be disabused of that notion. We will be consulting lawyers over coming days to examine the possibility of mounting a legal challenge to this proposal.

“The spacing of the proposed runway is particularly worrying. Its proposed location maximizes the blight on the local environment and residents while taking as much space as possible to allow for further runways to be added without acquiring more land.

“The case for expansion is far from proven and, perhaps more importantly, the airline industry simply does not seem to want expansion at Stansted. The decision to allow expansion at Heathrow makes it even clearer that there is neither demand nor need for another runway at Stansted. It would be extra capacity in the wrong place. We will be working with our neighbouring authorities of Hertfordshire County Council, East Herts District Council and Uttlesford to make this case strongly over the coming months.

“Now the government doesn’t just have a policy of ‘predict and provide’ but also of ‘consult and ignore.’ The airlines don’t want this, environmentalists don’t want it and the people of Essex and Hertfordshire certainly don’t want it.

“The airlines that use Stansted at present are frequently paid to land at airports in continental Europe. They do not have a business model that supports the £4 billion needed to pay for the expansion of Stansted.

“Yesterday saw the opening of the latest stretch of dual carriageway on the A120 - a development designed to cope with the initial development of Stansted 20 years ago. We can only speculate how long it will take to provide the infrastructure the government thinks the larger Stansted will need.”

Press Statement - 16 December 2003

Today's Aviation White Paper and its proposals for Stansted trashes a swathe of Essex Countryside, blights the lives of Essex  people living around Thaxted, Dunmow and Harlow - all driven by no tax on aviation fuel giving ridiculously cheap flights for stag nights in Prague, sun in Ibiza and second homes in the Med.

Where does this leave our Government's commitment to reducing CO2 emissions and supporting local communities and local travel?

Essex Wildlife Trust Director John Hall said today: "Stansted expansion has been considered twice at Public Enquiry and once by a Royal Commission, and each time the environmental costs have clearly outweighed the benefits. The Government also talks about a new runway creating jobs in an area where there is virtually no unemployment  - none of this makes any sense to us at all."

With air travel already posing the fastest growing source of climate changing emissions, today's proposals surely make a mockery of any of Government claims to be concerned about the environment, our quality of life in Essex or sustainable development.

Essex will remember these appalling proposals - noise levels, air pollution and loss of heritage and countryside will mean that we will never forget the day that this Government sacrificed our environment instead of facing up to the real issues of managing the demand for air travel.

Press Statement - 16 December 2003

Friends of the Earth accuses the Government of abdicating its environmental responsibilities after it gave the green light to a massive expansion in air travel. The environmental pressure group said that as well as abandoning its most important environmental target - tackling climate change - the Government has also missed a major opportunity to invest up to £9bn in high speed rail and other forms of environmentally-friendly transport.

Today's announcement has plunged into jeopardy the Government's long-term target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions [1] while traffic and noise levels will rise as airports become even more congested. Instead of embracing a policy of demand management, the Government has chosen to accept and meet growth forecasts that will lead to severe environmental damage. The Government's own modelling shows that making the aviation industry pay fuel tax and VAT - which it currently does not - would remove the need for new airports or runways before 2030, at no extra real cost to the passenger.

The Government's Aviation White Paper, published today, supported new runways and increased terminal capacity at airports across the UK. This includes a new runway at Stansted in 2011 - 2012 and a third runway and a possible Terminal 6 at Heathrow in 2015 - 2020, subject to environmental conditions concerning noise and air pollution.

Although Transport Minister Alistair Darling also announced a number of `environmental measures', these were greeted by Friends of the Earth as "window-dressing", and predicted to have minimal impact on reducing the damage that will be caused through the expected increase in flights. The release of greenhouse gases from aircraft is especially damaging as it causes three times the global warming of emissions released at ground level.

Friends of the Earth's Director, Tony Juniper, said:

"Today's Aviation White Paper is worse than we feared. The Government has sacrificed its environmental responsibilities to satisfy the demands of the aviation industry. Alistair Darling's decision to massively expand aviation will not only be felt by people living near airports, it will affect people worldwide and impact heavily on generations yet to come. Today's announcement is yet another missed opportunity to put the air industry on a sustainable course."

"In the face of the dire warnings from climate scientists and its own official targets, our Government has chosen to allow huge increases in emissions from aircraft. If the aviation industry was taxed fairly, rather than letting it pay no fuel tax and no VAT, then we would not need any new runways anywhere in the country. But it seems that for this Government and the aviation industry, not even the sky is the limit".

"Communities affected by airport expansion must be given legal guarantees that noise and pollution limits will not be broken. Without this, all they can look forward to is yet more broken promises".

Notes

The Government has adopted a target to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 60 per cent by 2050 compared with 1990 levels. The House of Commons Environmental Audit Select Committee recently concluded that the proposed growth in emissions "could totally destroy the Government's recent commitment to a 60% cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050".

Press Statement - 16 December 2003

In its response to the Government's white paper on aviation, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has called for an emissions charge on aircraft - the latest highly respected organisation to do so since the Green Party launched its call for an "air traffic congestion charge" and a Zurich-style emissions charge in the summer of 2002. The Greens were soon followed by Labour think-tank the Institute for Public Policy Research, and in July this year the Commons Environmental Audit Committee took a step towards supporting Green Party policy on aviation when it too called for aviation emissions charges.

Warmly welcoming the RSPB's stance, Professor John Whitelegg, Green Party spokesperson on sustainable development and leading Euro-candidate,commented today: "We're delighted to see an organisation of the RSPB's stature calling for similar policies to ours.

"The Green Party has been in the very forefront of campaigning on aviation's economic downside since the mid-1990s, closely followed by Friends of the Earth, and more recently we've seen the determined effort by the Green Party and FoE, and later AirportWatch, start to pay off. The public is beginning to see through the aviation industry's propaganda. We're confident that with more organisations like the RSPB making the case for emissions charges, the public will swing round to the Green view of things on aviation as it has on roadbuilding and a lot of other issues."

The Greens today strongly endorsed the views of RSPB chief executive Graham Wynne, who said of the aviation white paper: "Government has, after all, given in to a 'predict and provide' approach to air travel under pressure from the aviation industry. We don't need the two new runways proposed in the white paper for south east England - at Stansted, Heathrow or Gatwick - and extraordinarily, government has failed to include any measures to manage demand for air travel at all. This is a far cry from the sustainable aviation policy the government promised at the outset. Giving in to the voracious demands of the aviation industry for endless expansion of air travel, as the government has done, will be an environmental disaster."

Going the extra air mile

The Green Party today called on the RSPB to take its policy further. John Whitelegg, who as well as being a leading Green Party figure is also Professor of Sustainable Transport at Liverpool John Moores University, explained: "The RSPB recognises that aviation is the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, and sees the need for constraining growth. Where we differ from the RSPB is in the level of charges necessary."

"The RSPB believes air fares need not increase - merely that they should be held constant. The Green Party believes that this would not be sufficient to deliver the goods. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution has agreed that artificially cheap tickets have been a major stimulus to demand. Indeed, if ticket prices reflected the full external costs of aviation - which we estimate at around £4 billion a year for the UK alone - then prices would rise. And that's even before we address the issue of UK aviation's £9 billion annual tax break."

Professor Whitelegg continued: "The government has accepted that global CO2 emissions must be cut by 60% by 2050, and has theoretically adopted that target. Of course, for a 60% global cut, a highly-polluting country like the UK must achieve more like a 90% national cut. This is not compatible with the continuing growth of aviation."

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said aviation could be accounting for 15% of the greenhouse effect by 2050. Clearly we need to do something quite radical about it."

The Greens will be asking the RSPB to support Green peer Tim Beaumont's Air Traffic Emissions Reduction Bill, expected to have its second reading in the House of Lords in January 2004.

Press Statement - 17 December 2003

As the Government published its Air Transport White Paper today, the National Trust challenged its failure to come up with a viable response to the rising demand for air travel.

Tony Burton, Director of Policy and Strategy at the National Trust, said:

"The White Paper is based on an assumption that the demand for air travel will accelerate. Yet, continuing to pump prime the market for artificially cheap leisure flights – which comprise 74% of all flights - makes no sense when the result is widespread damage to the country's environment and to its domestic tourism industry."

Latest figures show that Britain ran up a massive £15.3 billion deficit in tourism in 2002. The country is losing nearly £175,000 every hour, and an ill-considered programme of airport expansion will make the situation infinitely worse as well as inflicting unnecessary environmental damage.

The Trust welcomed the limited recognition in the White Paper of the need to reflect some of the environmental costs of air travel through emissions trading but cautioned that any benefits would be outstripped by the rapid rise in air travel.

Tony Burton commented:

"The White Paper does not go nearly far enough to create more sustainable market conditions or to reflect the true costs that aviation puts on the environment and the rest of the economy."

Today's announcement of a proposed extra runway at Stansted is symptomatic of the massive damage that the Government's airport expansion plans will create.

"The appalling damage about to be inflicted on Hatfield Forest and the countryside around Stansted is just one example of the price we will all soon be paying for the failure of the Government's aviation policy to address rising demand" added Tony Burton.

Hatfield Forest is a unique survival of an ancient past. It is in the care of the National Trust and is the finest example of a medieval forest in Europe. A National Nature Reserve and a SSSI, its special environment is currently enjoyed by more than 250,000 people each year.

It contains internationally scarce species and around 850 ancient trees. The Forest is situated directly on the approach of a possible second runway and its peace and tranquillity will be destroyed if the Stansted plans go ahead. The Trust is concerned that aircraft emissions may already be damaging the forest and a doubling of traffic out of Stansted could irreversibly damage this unique amenity.

Tony Burton concluded:

"The White Paper is an inadequate, short-sighted and unsustainable policy response to the rising demand for air travel. The result of this misguided approach will be enormous economic damage and the loss of some of our best loved environments. The Government needs to think again or its plans will face the severest of opposition through the planning system when their real impact becomes apparent on the ground."

Press Statement - 16 December 2003

Despite the deafening public outcry that met the Government's proposals for airport expansion earlier this year, new runways which will cause great environmental damage and harm to local communities are still on the agenda and are expected to be announced tomorrow (16 December 2003).  The Ramblers' Association (RA), Britain's largest walking organisation, warned that unnecessary destruction to the countryside could be avoided by taking steps to properly tax the aviation industry.

Communities up and down the country have been up in arms over proposals to build new runways in order to increase aviation capacity, and today anxiously wait to hear if additional traffic and noise pollution will arrive on their doorsteps in the guise of a new runway at their local airport.

Emily Richmond, Head of Countryside Protection at the RA said, "Public concern for the loss of more countryside and tranquillity to airports has forced the Government to down-scale its proposals and think again about its plans for the future of aviation, but it is not prepared to accept the evidence that by properly taxing the aviation industry, it would not have this problem.  Wherever it decides to inflict airport expansion, the quality of life of people living nearby is going to plummet.  Letting the aviation industry get away with not paying its taxes subjects the public and the environment to long term, unnecessary suffering."

If aviation fuel was taxed at the same rate as petrol there would be no need for new runways as this would curb growth of air passengers.  Since 1970 the number of air passengers flying out of the UK has grown by 500%, and this is expected to double by 2020.  This level of expansion is completely unsustainable and is being facilitated by the Government's refusal to tax the industry.

The RA is a signatory to Airport Watch, which campaigns against the unnecessary expansion of airports in the UK.

Press Statement - 15 December 2003

“The release of today’s Aviation White Paper reveals a serious fracture between the government’s policies on energy and aviation”

said Sir Tom Blundell, Chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Sir Tom expressed the Royal Commission’s disappointment in the White Paper published today by the Department for Transport . Sir Tom explained,

“The White Paper fails to take account of the serious impacts that the projected increase in air travel will have on the environment. Earlier this year the government published an Energy White Paper setting out its strategy for tackling global climate change, and set challenging but necessary targets for greenhouse gas emissions. Today’s Aviation White Paper undermines those targets and continues to favour commerce over vital carbon dioxide reduction measures.”

Last year the Royal Commission’s report on air transport pointed out that uncontrolled growth in aviation, to the extent predicted by the government, would mean it would become the major source of global warming emissions in the future, contributing more than half the UK's share of greenhouse gases and their equivalents by 2050. The Royal Commission made a number of recommendations to government on how to avoid this situation.

The Aviation White Paper acknowledges this danger and the consequent need to take steps to make the cost of air transport reflect its environmental damage. It even recognises the role that emissions charges might play in this, as recommended by the Royal Commission. But it makes no clear commitment to action, and at the same time it announces a huge expansion in airport capacity. This leaves a major question mark over the extent to which the government is serious about the carbon dioxide reduction targets set out in its Energy White Paper. Aircraft emissions have between 2 and 3 times the global warming effect of carbon dioxide emitted at ground level.

Sir Tom added "The Royal Commission is not opposed to cheap air travel, and has no intention of suggesting that people should not have affordable access to their holiday destinations. However, the levels of growth predicted in the Aviation White Paper are simply not environmentally sustainable, and the government needs now to start moderating demand, both by increasing the cost of air transport to a fair and equitable level, and by encouraging affordable and environmentally more benign forms of transport." The Commission advises that the debate should not be about where to expand air travel capacity but how to resist this expansion.

In its report last year, the Royal Commission made five recommendations to government:

• impose climate protection charges for aircraft taking off and landing within the EU;
• restrict airport development to encourage greater competition for available take off and landing slots in order to optimise their use;
• develop major airports into land-air hubs integrated with an enhanced rail network;
• support technological development to lessen the damage done by air travel;
• include international aviation in the emissions trading scheme under the Kyoto Protocol.

The Royal Commission calls upon the government to explain how it reconciles the rift between aviation policy and energy policy, and what measures, such as those proposed by the Royal Commission, it will adopt to manage demand for air travel.

Press Statement - 16 December 2003

"At last the Government has accepted the blindingly obvious," said the RSPB's Chief Executive, Graham Wynne on hearing today's news that Cliffe has been ruled out as an option for airport development.

"To include Cliffe in the first place was downright ludicrous" continued Mr Wynne. "It is disappointing that we have been forced to fight to save a site that is already protected by Europe's toughest wildlife laws. Cliffe was not even a runner from an aviation perspective - the risk of birdstrike meant that it would have been the UK's most dangerous airport by far."

While the news about Cliffe is greeted with relief, the RSPB is hugely disappointed that the wider environmental impacts of unconstrained air travel have not been sufficiently addressed. 

Unchecked air travel expansion?
Graham Wynne is deeply concerned: "The Government has, after all, given in to a 'predict and provide' approach to air travel under pressure from the aviation industry. We don't need the two new runways proposed in the White Paper for south-east England - at Stansted, Heathrow or Gatwick - and extraordinarily, Government has failed to include any measures to manage demand for air travel at all. This is a far cry from the sustainable aviation policy the Government promised at the outset."

"Giving in to the voracious demands of the aviation industry for endless expansion of air travel, as the Government has done, will be an environmental disaster."

In the White Paper the Government recognises the impacts of aviation on climate change, but proposes no immediate solution. They rightly identify emissions trading as a long-term solution but this could not start before 2008 at the earliest, due to the EU Emissions Trading Directive. The RSPB calls on the Government to introduce its own emissions charge immediately.

Aviation is the world's fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, and creates serious noise and air pollution problems. Continued airport expansion, such as these latest Government plans, will pose a major threat to the UK's countryside and wildlife.

Do we even need more runways?
The RSPB believes that future demand for air travel in south-east England can be met without building new runways - and without increasing airfares. The Department for Transport forecasts a huge growth in air traffic, based on the assumption that airfares will fall at 1% each year. 

According to the Government's own analysis, simply holding prices constant by means of a charge would halve the demand forecast for aviation. By managing demand in this way, there would be no need for new runways. Research for the RSPB by Transport Research Laboratory shows that more efficient use of existing runways in the south-east could easily cater for such constrained demand. 

Graham Wynne concludes: "The level of expansion proposed in the White Paper is completely unjustified. By managing demand, we could have had a sustainable air transport policy that protected the interests of both the environment and the economy. Giving in to the voracious demands of the aviation industry for endless expansion of air travel, as the Government has done, will be an environmental disaster. Enough is enough."

Press Statement - 16 December 2003

Alistair Darling has today announced the biggest ever disaster for air travellers, residents, airlines and the UK economy. SASIG, which represents some 70 authorities, said that today's announcement is even worse than predicted. A statement which was supposed to decide the future of airports for the next 30 years, will do nothing of the sort.

The Secretary of State lays claim to setting out a 30 year strategy – but does he really know what will happen over the next 5 to 10 years let alone 30? He may have tried to give certainty for all airports in the UK but the small print will leave the battles to be fought over time and time again. Everyone will now have to wait and see what might happen – perhaps for 25 years to see if the airport near them is to expand or not.

Whilst most of the regional airports have been given limited guidance and generally told to make decisions locally, the uncertainties are greatest in the South East.

Alistair Darling wants a new runway at Stansted by 2011 but the airlines say they won't go there and the local people will once again defend their territory. So why should BAA try to get planning permission for something their customers don't want?

At Heathrow the Government are threatening to throw away current environmental controls so as to increase capacity in the short term and then sanction another runway in the longer term. It seems likely that the aviation industry will try to shorten those timescales.

But Gatwick has given the Secretary of State the greatest chance to confuse us all. He doesn't want to break a legal agreement that runs to 2019 – but he wants to safeguard land for another runway in case his plans for Heathrow (and presumably Stansted) are not successful.

Chairman of SASIG, Cllr Richard Worrall, concluded: "I think the Government has said that there is no change in the policy that has been followed for the last 30 years – the aviation industry should bring forward and justify their proposals and, as before we, the Government probably won't say no."

SASIG has campaigned for a new airport rather than expanding existing South East airports, and criticised the Government for failing to publicise possible options in the Thames Gateway that have been shown to be superior to any other solution.

On hearing the contents of the White Paper Chairman of SASIG, Cllr Richard Worrall said: "I believe the Government has missed the opportunity of a lifetime for both British business and British travellers. Whereas most people are saying what they don't want, SASIG has consistently argued for the best solution for the country. It is sad that the Government lacks the courage and flair to do what is right."

Press Statement - 16 December 2003

The Government's proposals for a new runway at Stansted, followed by the likelihood of an extra one at Heathrow, would involve the destruction of historic buildings and sites on an unprecedented scale, said Philip Venning, secretary of the Society for the protection of Ancient Buildings. Even the Channel Tunnel rail link involved fewer losses.

In choosing Stansted for the first phase of expansion Ministers have selected without compromise, and as a sacrifice for unsustainable cheap holiday flights, the one new runway that would cause the maximum damage to our heritage: no fewer than 29 listed buildings and two scheduled ancient monuments (Waltham Manor and The Grange) would be demolished. Though the precise siting of the runway will be up to the airport operator, the Government recognises that it will severely damage the historic environment. Simply asking the airport to see if any of the listed buildings affected could be moved is no answer.

The Government also admits that the area round Stansted is rich in architectural heritage, including small historic villages. Merely stating that these characteristics should be preserved as much as possible is meaningless in the light of the widespread development that will follow the airport's expansion.

The SPAB is also most alarmed to see that the big airlines have got their way and persuaded the Government to include a new northern runway at Heathrow as part of a second phase of development. Though slightly resited since the original consultation it will nevertheless have drastic effects on the ancient village of Harmondsworth. Even if its Norman church, one of the most important tithe barns in the country, and many other fine buildings, are not demolished outright - and this is unknown - they become unusable, sitting at the west end of the new runway.

Press Statement - 16 December 2003

The Government’s intention to allow increased capacity at Heathrow and a new runway at Stansted rather than a new off-shore airport and high-speed rail, is storing up trouble for the future, the TCPA has warned today.

Today’s announcement by Transport Secretary Alistair Darling has ruled out a new off-shore airport, while allowing expansion at Stansted and Birmingham. Relaxation on limits to use of existing capacity at Heathrow, with a potential third runway and sixth terminal in the future have also been announced. A welcome emissions related element will be added to airport charges when Parliamentary time permits.

“This represents a complete lack of strategic thinking and demonstrates that the Government is more interested in the needs of the economy and industry than those of people and the environment”, TCPA Director, Gideon Amos said today.

“Any new increases in capacity must be preceded by demand side measures including raising the cost of flying and development of a high speed rail network. Only then should new runways be allowed. While we welcome the emissions related charges, we will have to await details before evaluating whether or not they will be effective” he continued.

In addition, while the proposal for a new airport at Cliffe had drawbacks, other options for offshore airports had many advantages and could have helped minimise the social and environmental impacts of airports.

“Aviation must be seen as part of an overall package of strategic and integrated infrastructure. Short haul flights, the most environmentally damaging sort, must be reduced by providing high quality, competitively priced and fast rail alternatives”, said Mr Amos.

“The UK cannot continue to accept the levels of growth in air travel that we have seen over the past decade. Viable alternatives exist and are being successfully implemented across Europe. The White Paper shows the Government’s inability to think strategically”.

Press Statement - 16 December 2003

TRANSPORT 2000 said that the Government had missed an opportunity to manage demand for air travel and had opted instead for just a few warm words on the environment and a go-ahead for expansion of the aviation industry that would exacerbate social and environmental problems.

The environmental transport group was responding to the Government's White Paper on aviation launched today. Despite the welcome principle that aviation should pay for its environmental and social impact, no framework has been announced for making this actually happen. Instead the Government has sanctioned extra runways at Stansted, Heathrow, Birmingham and possibly Edinburgh, with no change to Air Passenger Duty and no change to aviation's tax exemptions in terms of fuel duty and VAT. Transport 2000 argues that a boosted Air Passenger Duty could form an environmental tax on air travel while ending aviation's 'tax-free' status is essential if it is to pay its way.

Stephen Joseph, Director of Transport 2000, said: "We've heard a few warm words on the environment but little more than that. The industry certainly hasn't been given the cold shower it needed to bring it into reality. This was the Government's big opportunity to dampen down demand for aviation and bring its environmental and social problems under control but it hasn't taken it. By opting for significant growth, the Government has issued a passport to much greater carbon emissions, pollution and noise nuisance in the future."

Transport 2000 also criticised the White Paper for underplaying the role that high speed rail could have as a substitute for short-haul flights. Around 45 per cent of air journeys in the EuroControl countries are currently 500 kilometres or less in length: ideal for rail.

Press Statement - 16 December 2003

Today’s decision by the government to fudge the issue over another runway at Stansted was greeted with utter dismay by Uttlesford District Council.

In conjunction with the Stop Stansted Expansion group, the Council has lobbied on behalf of tens of thousands of local residents to ensure the Department for Transport does not allow for another runway at Stansted Airport.

However the Department for Transport has done nothing to resolve the issue when it gave the ultimate decision for either building at Stansted or any other airport in the South East to BAA.

Cllr Alan Dean, Liberal Democrat Leader of Uttlesford District Council is determined to continue the battle.

“Stansted remains the subject of expansion speculation and the Council is prepared to fight on behalf of its residents,their quality of life and the region’s heritage.

“This decision means further years of uncertainty and blight to the residents of Uttlesford. We will maintain our stance on opposing any new runways at Stansted.

“The grounds for our opposition are based on sound economic, environmental and transport arguments. We’re appalled that the government has deemed to ignore this. We will continue to fight if any company is reckless enough to try to pour good money after bad into the green fields of Essex

“We will not stand idly by while the threat of bulldozers, ready to knock down listed buildings and destroy the classic English countryside lingers.

“All I can say to anyone who tries to build a runway at Stansted: Whatever you say, whatever you do, we’ll be fighting you every inch of the way.”

Press Statement - 16 December 2003

Virgin Atlantic welcomes today's historic decision by the Government to opt for the building of two new runways in the South East over the next 20 years. New runway development will take place at Stansted and at Heathrow as detailed in the White Paper on the Future of Air Transport published today.

Sir Richard Branson, chairman of Virgin Atlantic, commented:

“Alistair Darling has shown real courage in taking the tough decision to opt for at least two runways and in particular to include Heathrow within his plans for airport expansion over the next three decades. Had Heathrow not been included in the White Paper its pre-eminence in European and World aviation would have been lost, leading to the loss of thousands of jobs to other European airports. Unlike his predecessors the Secretary of Transport hasn't bottled the big decision and Britain will gain from his belief that the benefits of aviation's expansion can be achieved with environmental sustainability."

“I am confident that the environmental challenges accompanying expansion can and will be overcome. To avoid being overtaken by the rest of Europe we now need to move quickly in order to ensure that the new runway at Heathrow is operational as soon as possible after 2015."

“We are pleased that the Government has taken the decision to safeguard land for the possible future development of Gatwick. In the meantime, before new runways are built, it makes environmental sense to make the maximum use of our existing capacity by introducing mixed-mode operations at Heathrow. In this respect, Secretary of State's announcement that there should be a public consultation on mixed-mode is welcome, but we urge all the parties concerned to undertake this as soon as possible."

“ We remain totally opposed to cross-subsidisation between London airports. We look to the independent regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority, to maintain its current position that those who should benefit from Stansted should pay for its development.”

Press Statement - 16 December 2003

Ill-placed and unnecessary expansion will damage UK's richest wildlife habitat

Today’s announcement by Alistair Darling that new runways should be built at Stansted and Birmingham and a new terminal at Manchester has angered the Woodland Trust. The Trust has been campaigning to protect the 86 hectares of ancient woodland and ancient trees at Stansted, 22 hectares at Birmingham, 75 hectares at Gatwick and 45 hectares at Manchester that will be destroyed if the expansion goes ahead. Trees have been growing continuously in these woods for at least 400 years and they are our richest habitat for wildlife. They contain more rare and threatened species than any other UK habitat and only cover two percent of the country.
Ed Pomfret of the Woodland Trust says: “The Government is ignoring its own conservation policies and is conveniently forgetting its commitments to protect ancient woodland. If we really are to have a sustainable aviation policy we must manage demand to ensure that we don’t damage this irreplaceable habitat. The proposals in the White Paper reveal fundamental flaws in Government thinking about sustainable development and climate change. Ancient woodland must be protected from these destructive plans.

“Climate change is the biggest threat to biodiversity and the survival of ancient woods. Aviation makes a significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change and demand must be managed to ensure that damage to our environment is reduced.”

The Woodland Trust is the UK's leading woodland conservation charity. It has maintained sustained, long-term opposition to all airport expansion proposals that threaten ancient woodland. Most recently, on Tuesday 9 December, Peter Ainsworth MP presented a petition to Parliament on behalf of the Trust that thousands of opponents of airport expansion signed.

Despite the fact that damaging proposals at Gatwick have been dropped for now, the Trust remains concerned that expansion will be back on the agenda after 2019. Any loss of ancient woodland is unsustainable as it cannot be replaced or compensated for. Ed Pomfret concludes: “In support of planned expansion at Stansted the Government has already approved other massive housing development in the area which will cause even further loss and damage to irreplaceable woods and trees. The South East’s green lungs are being concreted over. Radical preventative medicine is needed immediately.”

For full details of the impact of the expansion proposals on ancient woodland visit www.woodland-trust.org.uk/petition

Press Statement - 16 December 2003