Other News

London Assembly remains opposed to Heathrow expansion

The London Assembly has released a statement reaffirming its opposition to the proposed expansion of London Heathrow. It can be read below.

“973,000 households around Heathrow will experience increased day time noise if a third runway is built.

As a number of fundamental issues remain unresolved with expansion, like noise and essential surface transport improvements, the London Assembly agreed a unanimous motion today asserting its opposition to the expansion of Heathrow Airport.

Caroline Pidgeon AM, who proposed the motion said: “The case for a third Heathrow runway is based on a number of false claims, such as the myth that there is no spare capacity at other airports in the South East of England, or that long distance international flights can only be via Heathrow.

“But one absolute certainty is that a third runway will create noise disturbance for a further 300,000 people and add to higher levels of air pollution in parts of London where air pollution already exceeds illegal levels.

“We can ensure we retain international connections without following the foolish option of the incredibly expensive third Heathrow runway.  A third Heathrow runway comes at a huge price that is simply not worth paying for.”

Léonie Cooper AM, who seconded the motion said: “The Government’s recent decision to expand Heathrow airport and support the building of a third runway will have a far-reaching impact on almost a million London households within the next thirty years.

“There are numerous issues that are yet to be resolved with the prospect of a third runway. In addition, the current plans to mitigate its adverse effects on the surrounding environment and the health and social wellbeing of local communities are inadequate.

“It is clear that the potential costs and risks to Londoners outweigh the projected economic benefits of the expansion- especially when there are still opportunities to be properly explored at other airports in the South East.

This is why I have backed this motion to reiterate why the Government’s decision should be robustly opposed”.