星空传媒

It is ironic that just as we are about to celebrate the triumphant opening of Terminal 5, the Department for Transport is in the final stages of a consultation about further expansion at Heathrow.

In part, this reflects the exponential growth of air traffic; in part, the very long lead-in times for new infrastructure investment. But the real irony lies in the fact that when Roy Vandermeer, who had presided for years over the T5 planning enquiry, finally gave it the thumbs up, he also firmly recommended against a third runway.

Not surprisingly, therefore, the consultation about further expansion at Heathrow has proved highly controversial. Despite strong evidence that Heathrow is creaking at the seams and that London鈥檚 economy will suffer if we don鈥檛 tackle the capacity blockages, all the main candidates to become mayor of London have come out against the proposed expansion. This is a forceful indication of the strength of public opinion against a third runway and a substantial increase in the number of aircraft flying over the capital.

That of course brings us to the nub of the problem. Because of its location, flights into and out of Heathrow inevitably affect a large numbers of people who live in the densely populated areas surrounding it. However much technological advances reduce noise nuisance and polluting emissions, the harsh truth is that keeping London鈥檚 premier airport and the UK鈥檚 main aviation hub at Heathrow means imposing significant disadvantages on a sizeable sector of the population.

If there was no alternative this might have to be accepted as a necessary consequence of the economic success of London and the South-east, but for more than 30 years it has been recognised that the Thames Estuary is an appropriate alternative location for London鈥檚 main airport.

The case for siti