Heathrow Airport Air Quality Test “Vulnerable to Legal Challenge”

After an investigation which has taken three years and the best part of £20 million of taxpayers’ money, the Airport Commission – headed up by Sir Howard Davies – cleared Heathrow airport to add a third runway earlier this month. The Prime Minister is widely expected to cave to pressure from big business and forge ahead with the construction, though he is likely to face opposition on a number of fronts.

The Local Cost

The commission and supporters of the project insist that the investment in a third runway could increase the number of available flights from Heathrow from 480,000 to 740,000 per annum. With this obvious advantage would come a reduced strain of London transport links and cheaper airfare prices for all.

However, it would not be without its price. Firstly, as many as 800 local homes in Longford, Harmondsworth and Sispon would have to be demolished to make way for the runway, while the noise pollution inflicted on local residents would also be undesirable. The London Mayor Boris Johnson (a staunch opponent of the plans) has claimed them nothing short of ridiculous: “This is the sort of thing you could have got away with in China in the fifties,” he told a crowd at the Commons earlier this month. “But the impact on London, the city, the environment… would be so great that it cannot be delivered.”

Quite apart from the effect that such construction would have on local business and residents, the resulting air pollution might also be a major factor in blocking it. While the Commission’s report cleared the runway on environmental terms, new protests have cast aspersions on the reliability of such support.

Protecting our Air

The importance of the air we breathe has been well-documented over recent years and is an increasing area of concern among scientists, environmentalists and politicians. However, Alan Andrews – an environmental lawyer representing ClientEarth who has already defeated the government in the Supreme Court once before over nitrogen dioxide concerns – has called for the Commission’s report to be challenged.

“There is shaky logic on the test that the Airports Commission is using for air quality,” Andrews told the media. “If the Government makes a decision based on this test, it would be vulnerable to legal challenge.” The logic does indeed seem to be on flimsy ground – it appears that Sir Howard Davies may have given the go-ahead to the project on the understanding that other areas of London would contain even filthier and more polluted air, thus rendering the condition of that surrounding Heathrow irrelevant.

Of course, such an approach is not only disingenuous in the extreme, it is also negligent of our planet and our duty towards maintaining it. Instead of bowing to big business and increasing revenue by expanding the airport, we should be employing better, more accurate and more sophisticated methods of air monitoring. Only with a clear conscience and an even clearer set of lungs should we think about building more runways, at Heathrow or elsewhere.