5 Terminals Bad, 3 Runways Worse

Written by Vincent Cable MP and published in Informer on Thu 8th Nov 2001

The government is (belatedly) about to announce a decision on Heathrow T5. It is very likely to approve the development subject to environmental conditions such as tougher controls on noise levels and restrictions on night flights.

I have been critical of the T5 development and spoke to this effect at the Enquiry three years ago. But I realise that there is a difficult balancing act: Heathrow is important for the economy of London and locally; but, also, a big new terminal development creates a platform for expanding the number of flights leading to pressure for an extra runway - as well as more ground traffic and congestion.

My own view is that, if the government comes up with a compromise involving concessions on night flights - implementing the European Court ruling - and a binding ceiling on flights, local residents can be reassured that their quality of life is being protected. I have always believed that the third runway is a much more important planning battle than T5 because a new runway would translate directly into more flights, noise and pollution.

I shall however pursue several issues. First, where will the new workers come from to run the new terminal? There is currently a labour shortage (though that may change in the present travel slump). And where will the workers live when there is a housing shortage? Will BAA or the government foot the bill for 'affordable housing'?

Second, there needs to be a fresh look at some of the assumptions behind original expansion. At present, airlines pay no fuel tax, very low loading charges and nothing at all for landing rights. Present policy makes no economic sense. In addition, there may well be a down turn in business travel as people make more use of video conferencing and the telephone. It may be too late to reopen the T5 issue but future expansion should be looked at very critically indeed.