The Times : 27 May, 2003
Leader article
The sound of a fully laden jumbo jet taking off at full throttle is deafening. Within a mile of the runways windows rattle, objects vibrate and normal conversation is impossible. Householders living near Heathrow have long had to put up with planes landing and taking off every 90 seconds. Acoustic insulation, automatic closing windows and sound baffles can help. House prices, considerably cheaper under flight paths, reflect the true blight. On the other hand, it should be acknowledged that those who have chosen to live near major airports, rather than have new airports imposed on them, have knowingly taken an economic risk. Even so, there must be limits on such noise.
For years the Government has promised campaign groups that it will take action. It has tried to ban most night flights. It has insisted on quieter jet engines. And it has ordered airlines to follow flight paths that affect the least people. All this was part of the attempt to persuade local residents that airport expansion was inevitable if Britain were to compete with other European gateways. For years the Government has been battling to win acceptance of new runways and terminals in the London area, insisting that it will strike a reasonable balance between social benefits and environmental damage.
Now it appears that these assurances may have been based on a deception. For more than three years the Department for Transport has known that its way of calculating aircraft noise at night grossly underestimates the real noise. And it did this not because it was unaware of the problem, but because such casuistry was able to get round European Union directives. The department did not use actual noise readings, as it does during the day, but based its calculations on a desktop exercise that examines the noise levels jet engines are certified to emit by the manufacturers. At night, when there is far less ambient noise to mask the sound of aircraft, the real effect of aircraft noise is far worse than any theoretical measurement.
Noise is only one area where the Government has been less than open with the facts. It has repeatedly tried to play down the cost of airport expansion, the amount of land it would take and the effects on local economies and house prices. Indeed, the whole debate on the future runway needs for Britain has been opaque, ill-informed and clouded by dubious statistics. Alistair Darling, the Transport Secretary, said last year that by 2030, 500 million passengers will use Britain’s airports, requiring six new runways, including perhaps a new airport on the north Kent coast. The effect of a potentially prolonged downturn in air travel seems hardly to have been considered. Nor for months was the case for Gatwick allowed to surface, ostensibly because of earlier pledges not to add any more runways but probably because this strengthened the need for action at Heathrow.
Assessing real airport needs in 25 years’ time is quite complicated enough; choosing where and how to expand will be extremely fraught. But no debate can get anywhere if it is based on falsehoods, especially on such an emotive issue as noise. Absolute honesty is absolutely essential. No government assurance will be believed and no talk of competition will be persuasive. Noise must be fairly measured, and objections impartially assessed. The Government must clear the runway of obfuscation.
