Tucked away on page 183 of Howard Davies’s report on a third runway for Heathrow is the admission that if it goes ahead, residents under the flight path would lose the half-day “respite” from aircraft noise currently permitted (“Heathrow braced for long haul towards third runway”, Report, January 30).
The 56 per cent increase in aircraft movements at the airport to 760,000 a year means there would be no let-up from aircraft noise. Several academic studies have shown that aircraft noise is detrimental to cardiovascular health, mental health and to children’s learning.
I do not know from Rachel Reeves’ decision to back the expansion who will pay for the necessary rerouting of the M25 and what will be the impact on the economy while this work is in progress. How long will that take?
Nor is it clear who will pay for the necessary diverting of five rivers. And what about surface infrastructure improvements to ensure the increased traffic can reach the airport. Who will pay for that?
Heathrow is in the wrong place. No sensible nation sites its main airport to the west of its (and Europe’s) largest conurbation. Heathrow already inflicts noise disturbance on more people than the rest of Europe’s airports combined. Reeves and fellow London Heathrow “expansionists” are set to massively increase the numbers affected.
In her Budget, Reeves seems not to have thought through the impact of her national insurance increases on charities, hospices and care homes. I wonder if she has thought through the implications of a third runway at Heathrow.
Elizabeth Balsom
London SW15, UK