• The loss of runway alternation will bring noise throughout the day with no respite at 3pm. This could hit Tooting as more aircraft cut the corner over south east London and join the approach at a later stage. These planes may seem lower in the sky than currently because the 'continuous descent approach' will not apply for the southern runway.
• There could also be more noise from increased numbers of take-offs from the southern runway.

• Mark worked in international business for many years so knows first hand how important having excellent access to planes is for London’s international standing. Mark’s family are also in the West Indies so for him, like for so many people in Tooting, easy and ready access to flights is critical to staying in touch with family overseas.
• So Mark is not dogmatically opposed to seeing better access to aviation. But this must not come at the cost of either people’s quality of life or their health.
• Unfortunately, the Government’s approach to Heathrow expansion raises concerns in both these areas. Mark believes that before a responsible decision can be made, four tests must be met – on Nox pollution, on noise, on alternative ways to meet demand and free-up capacity and, above all, on meeting our climate change targets.
• Mark is concerned that the Government has a closed mind on this issue; they are determined to press ahead with expansion without proper consideration of the environmental issues. Their consultation is a sham since their minds are already made up. Also they have not consulted people outside the immediate area of Heathrow and refused to consult people in Wandsworth – despite the fact that we will be affected.

1. Can expansion go ahead in a way which still allows us to meet our targets on climate change and cutting CO2 emissions?  Flight numbers in an expanded Heathrow (a new third runway coupled with the end of “alternation” on the two existing runways) could see flight numbers increase to over 790,000 (over 68 per cent more than current levels). The government will have some tough questions to answer on how they reconcile this with meeting their targets on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
2. Can expansion go ahead in a way which is consistent with meeting EU requirements on Nitrogen Dioxide emissions?  Heathrow’s proximity to the M25 and some of the busiest roads in Europe means that there is a serious pollution problem from Nitrogen Dioxide (or “Nox”). EU limits on Nox pollution will come into force from 2010. Meeting these in an expanded Heathrow will require a significant shift on public transport access to the airport to reduce emissions from surface transport.
3. Is expansion consistent with no increase in the overall noise footprint of the airport and a progressive reduction of that footprint in the medium term?  The Government must take into account the impact of expansion on the quality of life of residents of south west London and around the airport.
4. Is it possible to meet increased demand with more efficient use of existing capacity or providing better transport alternatives such a high speed rail?  The Hacan (Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise) campaign group believes that 100,000 Heathrow flights every year are to destinations with a viable rail alternative. The Government should consider whether the capacity needed at Heathrow could be freed up by providing better, faster and more efficient rail alternatives to a range of short haul flights.

Mark favours the option of a new airport in the Thames Gateway. Building Heathrow was a huge planning error. Expanding Heathrow only compounds that error. See this article from Kit Malthouse, the Conservative Assembly Candidate for West London who brilliantly outlines the vision for how this could be achieved and the benefits for us all.

Promoted by R Morritt on behalf of Tooting Conservatives, both of 3 Summerstown, London, SW17 0QB
Design and Hosting by Rouse Media