The Angle of Descent

Heathrow: A photographic investigation of a blighted landscape

by Daniel Norwood

The Angle of Descent

1

I

ndecision. The inhabitants of the Heathrow Villages have been living with the prospect of the airport gaining a third runway for decades.

Ever since Lord Balfour, Minister for Air, requisitioned prime agricultural land in 1944, under the false pretence that it was needed for a military airfield, those within earshot of propeller, then jet engines, have known that their lives are inextricably and tangibly linked to ideas of progress, economics and big business.

This publication explores the area blighted by the latest proposals for Heathrow’s expansion. It seeks to weave together meaning from a disparate collection of images gathered over a period of six months. This is an oblique look at a landscape found covered red on a map on the internet under the search terms ‘heathrow+airport+expansion’. There are no malevolent markers in the ground. Yet. In July 2013, however, Heathrow submitted three ambitious new proposals which blight previously unaffected neighbourhoods.

On the 22nd May 2013, I attended a public meeting organised by Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL) together with the Harmondsworth and Sipson Residents Association (HASRA). The following text is an ad verbatim transcript of the question and answer session. It is a record of the frustrations and dilemmas faced by both sides in their struggle to balance ideologies.

At regular points throughout the meeting, planes accelerating down the north runway 2000ft away made voices indecipherable.

These moments are marked with a black line through the dialogue text at an angle of 5.5 degrees.

This is the angle of descent.

2

3 The Taylor family home, 29 degrees, 4252 ft from the tower

H

ASRA: In the newspaper recently – I think it was the Evening Standard – they quoted the referendum held in Hillingdon and Richmond, and as we know, there were 77% against the runway. The response from Heathrow was that we were voting on an out of date topic. What was out of date? The two questions were – do we agree with the new runway; and are we happy with increased numbers of flights?

Now if that’s the old plan, I don’t really know what the new plan... and I know you have a number of plans...I don’t see how any new plans that you have at Heathrow would not include either a new airport (runway) or extra flights. So I fail to understand how that was an out of date referendum.

the Aviation White Paper 2003 and the proposal being put forward in 2003. No one is currently proposing that particular option. So as I said, there are options building new runways to the South of the Airport (and) to the West of the Airport. If, like Hounslow, Hillingdon and Richmond it had been more generic about just Heathrow expansion, I agree with you on the second question - do you want more flights? I think that’s about it, but in terms of the proposal with which Richmond and Hillingdon were consulted - on question 1, the accompanying literature which was circulated on their website was an out of date proposal. So that was what that comment was responding to.

Well...

Sorry, that’s ridiculous.

Either you know or you don’t.

H

AL, Director of Policy and Political Relations, Heathrow Airport: It wasn’t that the questions were out of date, it was that the proposal, which the Council were consulting on, was out of date. If you looked at Hillingdon and Richmond’s websites that gave information on the impact of the third runway, it was using pictures and data from

Are you therefore saying that the proposal to build a third runway and knock down Sipson is off the agenda?

I’m saying that proposal is not currently on the table, so if they’d asked the question as Hounslow did about a generic third runway...but they didn’t. They were very specific about a proposal. Now that proposal is not now currently on the table.

I don’t know, as I said at the beginning, I don’t know what is going to be on the table, but at the moment nothing is, but wait until you see what our proposal is and consult on that. Richmond and Hillingdon refused, Hounslow said ‘that’s a fair point, OK, we won’t consult on that proposal, and we’ll just consult on a generic one’. We’ve been far more willing to accept the result of the Hounslow consultation than we have of the Hillingdon one or the Richmond one which we think was based on a proposal which was ten years old, and based on data that was ten years old.

Well…sorry, that’s ridiculous, either you know or you don’t.

4

5 A 1945 map of Heathrow alluding to the area’s agricultural past. The current airport is overlaid with a 2009 proposal - similar to one of three 2013 proposals - in red.

You’re saying that it’s the wrong proposal, and you’re saying that you don’t know what the proposals are; either you know and it’s one of them, or you don’t know and then you should simply say. I mean come on. We’ve been here before… and you’ve said you’d be honest.

So is a third runway a proposal or not?

I’m being honest, in that at the moment there is no proposal on the table. There isn’t a third runway proposal on the table and we are looking at options, which are looking at whether or not a third runway is built elsewhere than in the vicinity of Sipson and Harmondsworth.

The point we made to Hillingdon and to Richmond was…wait to see what proposal was on the table and then consult, because then you will have a decent consultation on plans actually being proposed.

The way the consultation was undertaken was on a proposal that BAA Heathrow was not currently proposing. So what we said was to consult the residents on something which is actually being proposed, not on something which was proposed ten years ago. The plans, which were proposed in 2009 - that is that plan won’t be proposed now, because things will be different.

things stand today, no, we were due the planning application for the third runway in June 2010 and we haven’t got anything else in the public debate. Other people have, we haven’t.

I’d just like to point out – you’ve just said that we’re due to a few more years of uncertainty.

Over the past few years, you’ve already decimated the village.

You own more than 50% of the properties here. Now, instead of a village where everyone knows each other, you’ve got a transient population. People are in and out. The places that BAA own they’re renting out. There are people moving in and out of houses, every three months, every four months, every five months.

You’ve completely decimated the village as it is. So, if a third runway isn’t still on the proposal, what are you going to do with all the property, all the real estate that you currently own at the moment?

You’ve suggested that ‘Oh...

Heathrow might shut down,’ and pigs might fly. That’s never going to happen.

So you’re saying that there is no proposal on the table at the moment for a third runway at Heathrow?

There is no specific proposal. We will be putting forward a submission before the 19th of July which will contain proposals, but as 6

Because we are looking at options for expansion at Heathrow, some of the options we are looking at do build a runway in the vicinity of Sipson and Harmondsworth, so we don’t want to sell properties and then have to re-buy them.

You’re not really being honest are you? You’ve suggested that, ‘Oh… Heathrow might be shut down,’ and pigs might fly. That’s never going to happen.

7

West Drayton, 40.9 degrees, 11486 ft from the tower

(New questioner)The gentleman said to be patient and wait two years. Well, we’ve waited 60 years (applause)...more than you’ve been alive, so I think you can keep quiet about that statement.

We had a voluntary scheme between 2008 and 2010 where we bought houses in Sipson and Harmondsworth within the boundary of the scheme that was being proposed at that time, and when the Coalition Government came in - the previous government’s policy and Council Plans for the third runway we closed that scheme, and since then we have owned two hundred and thirty seven properties in the two villages out of seven

hundred. The scheme closed in June 2010.

Well certainly, I heard recently - you had submitted recently to the Davies commission a runway.

One runway. So the question is – on the basis that it isn’t true – and you’re not selling the houses, it’s got to be true. Are you going for a long runway or a short runway – because the last time we were sold a short runway?

And if you are actually trying to compete with Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris, they’ve got four and five runways. You can’t have four runways with two runways here. So,

in that case, we should say, you can’t have one runway, you have to have two. Therefore you’re not going to have it here. Therefore you can sell your house and leave us alone.

No, we haven’t submitted anything on runways to the Davies Commission. We will be submitting before July 19th. We’ve made submissions to the Davies Commission.

They’ve asked a number of questions about things like connectivity, climate change (I can’t remember what the others were) so we have done that. In terms of long or short runways, those are some of the questions, which are being looked at, as I said there are forty options, some are for

short runways, some for long runways, so I don’t know yet. As for competing with Amsterdam and Paris, I understand that Amsterdam has six runways. It can only actually use four runways at any one time and one of those runways is a short runway, so although it has six runways, two of them are what’s called “cross wind runways” which means that if the wind is in a certain direction they use those runways. So apart from the plans for airports in Dubai and Beijing, and maybe Chicago, there aren’t many airports around the world that have more than four runways that are parallel to each other. So, our view is - and our submission that we have made in the Davies Commission - is for the foreseeable future.

8

9 Perimeter road, 283 degrees, 6872 ft from the tower

Perimeter road, 283 degrees, 6872 ft from the tower

We can say with confidence, that a three runway Heathrow would meet demand. But we can see that the forecast the Government has got, that a four runway Heathrow may be required in the future, and that our view is rather than having three runways now, the Davies Commission should make it clear, whether Heathrow will ever move to a four runway Airport. If it decides that Heathrow is going to move to a three runway Airport it should at the same time decide whether it is going to be a four runway Airport.

Everyone knows that sometime in the future a fourth runway….we don’t want to get in the situation we got into before, which is that people think it is only going to be two and then it ends up being three, we don’t

want people in the future to think it’s going to be three, and it ends up being four. So the position needs to be clear. What is the future of Heathrow? Is it three runways or is it four? And they need to make that clear in Summer 2015.

I was under the illusion that we as a people actually beat you lot in the Royal courts of justice.

Now, that would make me think that you’re not really going to be able to come here and build a third runway. We’re actually run by the courts of this land. And you lied to us and the Royal Courts of Justice about the emissions and

the flight capacity and everything else. And the powers that be, be they judges, they turned round and said ‘NO!’(impassioned shout) Sipson, Harmondsworth and Harlington – no, you are not going to have a third runway. So if we beat you in the Royal Courts of Justice – that means we’ve got the Supreme Court. Then we’ve got Brussels then I believe it goes to Geneva. So in-between all the lies, fabrication, and your brilliant media hype, that’s scaring local residents - because we know the truth – you can’t build it. It’s not down to you, it’s not down to the government,

and it’s down to the courts. It’s not down to the politicians that you deal with...Because I’ve danced with the devil for many a year, and I’ve got a lot of spirit and I’ve got a beautiful little girl and a husband too. And I can tell you. You ain’t going to get my house - I can guarantee you that! I told you eight years ago you weren’t going to get my house, and you looked at me like I was a crazy woman. CRAZY WOMAN BACK!(raised and impassioned voice) Because you ain’t getting my house, you ain’t getting my job and you are not digging up Elsie Howard from Cherry Lane cemetery.

10

11 Bath Road, 4201 ft, 330 degrees from the tower

Hatch Lane 331 degrees, 4963 ft from the tower

Because it’s going to be someone else’s life destroyed before you take mine. {sustained applause} Are you taking this back to the Royal Courts of Justice or going to the Supreme? Sorry, I didn’t ask that question...

I think that the Government Policy will…I don’t want to get into a row about Constitutional Law with you…obviously, quite rightly, whatever is proposed by Government, if it is in breach of any law then, quite rightly, there are legal avenues available to people to challenge that decision, and that is as it should be.

A hypothetical question: you said you could possibly go with three runways. On your past record, how can we possibly trust you? Because when you built terminal four, you said you didn’t want a fifth. When you got terminal five you said you didn’t want another runway. Now you’re fighting for another runway, and as soon as you’ve got that one you’ll come back for another one. It’s really unfair on the residents, who have been under this pressure for far too long. And it’s just not fair.

ago or ten years ago, because recession has had an effect and shows that effect, so what we’re saying is that at the moment the forecasts say that a four runway hub is needed by 2040. Well, a lot can happen between now and 2040, so what we’re saying is that you might not necessarily need a four runway airport, but you might. So what we’re saying is: if you decide that you might at some stage need a four runway airport then decide that now and make it clear. It’s exactly the point you’re making.

What we don’t want to happen again is that we get a third runway and everyone says, ‘that’s great, that’s all we need,’ and then in twenty years time we then say, well, actually we needed a fourth one. So, Mr Davies, make the decision now: either it’s a three runway Heathrow or it’s going to be a four runway Heathrow... although you might not have to deal with a four runway Heathrow for a while, but make it clear now. Don’t do what we’ve done in the past which is that - because the temptation for us to come out and say what we need is three runways is very high because that’s the easiest thing for us to do because three runways is always enough - we can’t say that because the forecast suggests that after 2040, a fourth runway might be needed. So it’s for Davies to make recommendations and ultimately for the Government to decide: is this country at some point going to need a four runway Airport. If it is, and if you don’t believe a four runway Airport can be built at Heathrow, then don’t build a third runway here, because you’ll need a fourth runway.

If you’re going to need a four runway Airport then build that four runway Airport somewhere else.

There are not many things on which we agree, but whatever decision is taken in Summer 2015, let’s make it a decision that sticks, and not one where we then

On your past record, how can we possibly trust you?

In terms of what I said about three runways, our submission is clear. What our submission stated was that according to our submission on capacity stated that we think there’s a clear demand currently for an additional runway at Heathrow, for a three runway hub, whether that be at Heathrow or somewhere else. If you look at the forecasts which are issued by the Transport Minister last year, they show a lot of lower demand for 2014 than the forecasts issued five years 12

13 Grow Heathrow, 17.4 degrees, 7051 ft from the tower

go through this, every kind of five years, every ten years, every time the Government changes, we just go over it again and again and again.

If Davies recommends expansion here, then yes…I think that it’s an interesting point that it’s something that we have discussed in terms of Heathrow, going back to the point that you made, sorry I don’t know your name, Tracey, nice to see you again. So I think that there are legal avenues, whatever Davies decides, there are legal avenues for people disappointed with that decision, whatever he decides, whether he decides to put a new Airport somewhere, not build an Airport somewhere, then people will be

upset and legal avenues will be available to them. Whether they will take those or not I don’t know but legal avenues will be available, so even after decisions have been taken and recommendations made in 2015, and even after the Government has decided something, that’s a big assumption to think that a Government will make a clear decision, because they are not well known, are they, for making decisions. But I think that, you know, the Davies Commission is the best chance that people have had since... And it’s got cross-party support which means that it’s more likely to survive changes of Government than previous Commissions that were set up, which were supported by the Government of the day

and not supported by the opposition so both Labour and the Tories and the Lib Dems’… well, there is inherent uncertainly, but what we have been arguing with, what we’ve been saying to Davies is, you know, make sure the process is robust. Is thorough. Looks at all the issues. Isn’t flawed. So that when you get to the decision at the end, then that’s a clear decision. Now, of course it will be a decision for the shareholders of my Company at the time, whether they take that decision to Court, whether they think there’s flaws in the process or not, but I think that the message I have been trying to give them is that this uncertainty isn’t any good for anybody and if Davies decides that the Airport is going to be built somewhere

else, then as much as people can say, I’m scaremongering and whatever else... But the Airlines that operate from Heathrow - and the Airlines have been clear that the only way that they would move to a new Airport is if they were forced to. And the only way you could force them to is basically to close Heathrow down. So, if Davies does decide to build a new Airport somewhere else, then this Airport would close.

The statement that I last heard from Mr. Willie Walsh - if I can call him that - at the Evening Standard debate... Firstly, that it wasn’t financially viable to put a third runway at Heathrow...

14

15 Sipson Recreation Ground, 28.3 degrees, 4628 ft from the tower

Sipson Community Centre - where the meeting was held - 28.3 degrees, 4751 ft from the tower

I’m quite happy to do as I’m told, if other people do what they’re told...(louder) So if you would give up your home, your job, your daughter’s school, and more importantly, would you dig up your Nan, to make way for the third runway - because that’s basically what you are asking me to do.

Because if you’re willing to do what I have to do, to make way for this third runway, I’d like to know if you would walk in my shoes. And would you really dig up your Nan to make way for the third runway? I’m a little bit irate, I do apologise.(the sound of restless, muffled voices)

You’ve asked a very personal question so I’ll give you a very personal answer. I would. (commotion and shouting) I would move home, I would give up my house. Provided I was given adequate compensations that I could move …Tracey, you absolutely right to be…don’t apologise about being emotional about a subject which is incredibly important. If I had adequate compensation then I would …that’s a very difficult one and I think that …is your Grandparent the Cherry Lane Lady? The Plan that was originally produced in whenever it was, 2005/6/7 had an access road that went through the cemetery, and I’ve heard this from people that I do trust even though you wouldn’t.

They were very clear with me that the plan

with that access road was produced without the person who drew it understanding what the land use was. They just had a plan… this is what I was told, and as soon as it was made aware that the land underneath was a cemetery, the access road was moved.

The plans that were then approved by the Government of the day in 2009, then didn’t have any access roads. I accept it would have cut the cemetery off. It made the cemetery...discrete. So moving cemeteries is an incredibly emotive issue, and I honestly, I don’t know on that one. Moving a house, moving a school I can be quite clear on. On the cemetery one, I accept that is a very emotional, very difficult issue.

I may be mistaken, but I believe I heard you say that in 2015 – if the proposals were put out by the government – if BAA asked for a 3rd runway but asked for a fourth runway, then that wouldn’t be acceptable. Obviously they might want a fourth runway there and then, or sometime in the future.

If that were to happen, obviously Sipson is the 3rd runway; do you have any idea as to which villages would be under the axe for the 4th runway?

Those are the options, which are being aerated, so I don’t at the moment, but in July, yes we will share that with you. There

16

17 Sofitel Hotel, 273.8 degrees, 6074 ft from the tower

Russell Gardens, Sipson, 14.75 degrees, 7315 ft from the tower

are lots of options. Some have been in the media others haven’t but what we do want to do is release forty lines of maps, some of which are never going to happen so what we’ll do is publish in the Summer realistic options which we think could be practically taken forward.

I have been to the airport quite often and I see that BAA is advertising all over the airport – the new Terminal 2 is as big as Terminal 5. At the beginning of the evening you insulted our intelligence saying that Heathrow was going to close. When you say something like that to us, nothing

you say after that is really believable.

You are absolutely right to believe me or not to believe me. I’ve worked in the air industry for fifteen years and I’m not saying that people in this room don’t understand the industry or don’t have different views.

People in the air industry have different views. But my view, and the view of my Company, and the view of British Airways and Virgin and all the airlines that currently operate from Heathrow is that if Davies decides that the Country can only have... if he agrees with our research that what the Country needs in order to provide the connectivity is - for want of a better word a “Mega Hub”: a big Airport to compete

with Amsterdam and Paris and Frankfurt, then there can only be one of us. And then the choice is either to expand. And at the moment Heathrow is the only hub.

And the choices are you either expand the hub you’ve got or you build a new one.

As much as I disagree with the Mayor, Boris Johnson’s conclusions on what he’s proposing, he also agrees with us that there’s going to be one (hub). The German model is that there’s going to be one, the French model is that there’s going to be one, the Japanese one is…so around the world there is only one airport (hub). So apart from countries like the US and China where they are so big that you can have different hub airports...But essentially, most countries

are served by two hub airports in the world.

So our research says there can only be one hub airport, so would you like to expand the airport you’ve got at the moment, or do you build a new one. Now, if you build a new one, what do you do with the old one? Now that’s where another aspect of the debate starts. The view is expressed by the Airlines.

It’s the Airlines who ultimately operate out of the airports. We don’t want to alienate ourselves there. The only way that they would leave Heathrow to come to this new airport is if they were forced. So how do you force Airlines to leave an airport? Do you bribe them to; the obvious answer is you close the airport. There may be another use for Heathrow as a smaller airport, you know

18

19 Stanwell Moor Road, 212.7 degrees, 13264 ft from the tower

Grow Heathrow, 17.8 degrees, 7298 ft from the tower

djnorwood.com | +44(0)7905797266

Air Traffic Control Service (NATS) Tower, Heathrow, 285 ft

it could be like Stansted is today or London City is today, but there can only be one hub.

Ultimately, our view is that you need to have the option for four runways…I keep coming back to the point...I think that this incremental growth - where basically we have said, or your government have said, or the Alliance have said, ‘that’s all we are going to need and that’s enough’, has been incredibly disrespectful. It’s been wrong. It’s been lies. I don’t know. Use any negative words you want to use. But essentially that incremental growth has been wrong. And let’s just use the word ‘wrong’. And what we said to Davies is, ‘whatever you decide to do, it’s got to be for the foreseeable future’, what’s that, forty or fifty years, so make a

decision now. So if you are deciding there needs to be a hub airport and there needs to be four runways and six terminals then say that now and then at least everyone knows where they stand and we know where we are.

Now, in terms of terminal capacity, this is different. Runway capacity is how many flights coming in...terminal capacity is how many passengers. At the moment, once Terminal 2 is...Heathrow will have capacity for 80 million passengers. Currently we have capacity for just over 70 million. So that will give an extra ten million in terms of passengers. What the forecast shows is that if Davies decides to build a hub airport to meet the demand then we will need a hub

airport that will cope with about 115 to 120 million passengers by 2030/2035. So, the current Terminals can cope with 90, looking at Terminal 5, Terminal 2, they cope with 30 million passengers each, they need to build an Airport that can cope with 120, and then I think it’s a fair assumption to say that you need another Terminal.

Can I just say, I think the way you treat the residents is absolutely disgraceful. Over the years with all the building works that are going on...I don’t know anyone else’s house, which is filled up with fine dust every single day. Ten minutes after

I’ve cleaned, there is a film of dust all over the house. We’re breathing in all this dust, which can’t be good for anyone – especially the children around here. And it’s due to the building work, which continues around here night and day at Heathrow. Have we been given any compensation?

Or even an apology? Absolutely nothing. We just put up with all this dust, breathing it in everyday. And I think it’s a disgrace.

(New questioner) What I’d like to say is: You’ve done all these elaborate calculations for demand in the

22

23 Sipson Way, 30.3 degrees, 4711 ft from the tower

The angle of descent, 72.4 degrees, 11293 ft from the tower

next 30-40 years. What if there’s a referendum and we pull out of Europe. All your calculations are going to be all to cock again.

You’re definitely right to point out, Audrey, that things can affect forecasts. I don’t think that if we left the EU it would necessarily have that big an impact but you’re definitely right, Audrey, to point out that things can happen that can affect forecasts... Which is why we are very supportive of the fact that the Davies Commission has dispersed…the paper that was issued was about forecasting, and about what the forecast might be in the future, and the fact that we have seen in history that things that have happened that have changed the forecast.

But I mean, Davies has been set the challenge of coming up with assumptions...Air Force Policy 2040, he’s got to base it on something.

He’s got to make some assumptions. People have imparted their views to him about what those assumptions should be, and our view is, that there is demand for a third runway today, and there might be demand for a fourth runway at some point in the future.

But there might not be. But, given that there might be, it would be sensible to make provisions for that fourth runway. He might decide that actually the chances happening that a fourth runway may not be necessary are greater, so actually he decides that actually he is not going to go ahead with a fourth runway. That’s not our position, but that might be his. It’s not us that set the policy.

coming in and out – BA employees coming in and out. I couldn’t sell my property because the value has gone down. I can’t expand on my property because I would lose out. So, technically, for two more years our lives are on hold. What are you going to do about that?

Is there any point spending 6/7 thousands pounds when it’s going to get knocked down? I’m just on hold. There should be some kind of explanation.

I can’t have you say, you keep blaming the government, that it’s nothing to do with you.

I live in a property and there are ten houses on my street. Seven are rented out – I’ve got tenants

We haven’t set the timetable. All I can say is, I sympathise with what you’re saying. I do think it’s unfair, but that’s the stark reality, they’re going to make a decision in 2015 and for the next two years there’s going to be a certain amount of uncertainty in this area and in others.

I can’t have you say, you keep blaming the government, that it’s nothing to do with you.

There should be a blight scheme running currently – and why isn’t there? Because BAA, as it was then, decided as a gesture of good will – conveniently before the election - that it was going to put an end to the third runway.

You opened the ‘bond scheme’ – and you decided when you were going to end it. And within that ‘bond scheme’, there has been negotiated 10% for all those who have been forcibly removed from their homes. But those people that took the bond still kept that 10%.

So there are about 200 people out there that took the money and

24

25 The Rising Sun Pub, 211 degrees, 4886 ft from the tower

stand to make a bonus from the misery of the people in this room, who are trapped in properties with no blight scheme? HS2 has a blight scheme I understand, but the people around here, who have suffered for decades at the hands of BAA and Heathrow have no blight scheme. You can’t blame that on anybody else but Heathrow.

Before you answer, I’ve got a number of other points. You told a lady that you owned two hundred and thirty eight (houses) out of seven hundred. But let’s be honest, not all of those were owner-occupiers. You bought up half the owner-occupiers, and

that’s what made the difference with businesses like the garden centre. So you own a fair chunk of the area, but there’s no consideration given to the people whose properties you don’t own.

On the subject of air pollution – I’ve noticed that all the subject is on noise pollution. When you level out the amount of noise pollution a lot of us suffer, including Harlington, which is where I’m living – we don’t qualify for anything. Because you look at peaks and troughs, we don’t get anything. The airport has told me, that aircraft never fly over me – but they do! I was

26

27 Quarry, Southern Perimeter Road, 227.5 degrees, 5937 ft from the tower

McDonald’s, Bath Road, 316.7 degrees, 5082 ft from the tower

told I would never qualify for anything because I’m not in the area. And likewise air pollution.

There’s been no talk about particulates. Particulates are not just generated by aircraft.

But we still have a problem with things like diesel engines. Anyone who lives on main roads around here – you don’t have to be under aircraft. I went to another meeting the other week with my sister and I saw a map, I don’t know if it was shown in Aviation Weekly. That shows the destruction of Harlington as well. Now that isn’t well publicized. People of Harlington are sitting in bliss

thinking it’s just Harmondsworth and Sipson being destroyed. Every time you mention a scheme in someone else’s back yard, you are blighting that area for another two years. So I have to make a point about the motivation of Heathrow. People should remember that the Spanish, Qatar, China, Singapore and Canada now own Heathrow. Since the monopoly’s been broken down, 95% of your business is from Heathrow. That’s the reason why you want [the hub] at Heathrow. So don’t go telling us it’s all about the British economy. None of those countries are interested in the British

28

29 Vapour trail over waste ground, Sipson, 42.55 degrees, 6818 ft from the tower

Bath Road, Longford, 315 degrees, 5039 ft from the tower

economy; they’re interested in the money they earn. Don’t start parcelling it off saying it’s the government. Your people will not stop. We need some sort of assurance that if the Davies report rules out Heathrow – YOU WILL STOP. You’ve already said – if you (Davies) rule it out, you’re going to go to the court.

You’re going to appeal. And give us another few years. So don’t tell us again! Don’t tell us we have to sit back and wait for Davies to say, and we’re going to know once and for all.

Because we know full well that we won’t. Can we get a promise from you?

I’m sorry , but we’re not stupid, and I’ve heard you say on the subject of compensation when I ask – when all those people that left are still getting the 10% - that was arranged for people when you put in for a planning application, which you haven’t put in, for a third runway, because it’s not government policy. So they’ve got the 10%. You said to me it would more generous for the next people who would get moved on. Well, I hope you’re still around to keep that promise. Right. End of. Thank you. (Long applause)

because that would have created blight on forty different terminals. Now, the report that Val showed you was a leaked report that somebody within Heathrow or one of our consultants leaked, and that did contain ten plans for different airports including two planned totally new airports. And that has caused blight to those areas. Now, we are not taking forward forty plans and the reason why we didn’t want that report to be leaked was that we didn’t want to cause blight to those communities.

Now, we are well aware that the options that we come out with in July will cause blight to the exclusive XY areas, which is why we don’t want to come out with huge numbers of... but at the same time we do want to come out with options to give Davies an understanding of the analysis that we have done, and that there isn’t just one solution to expanding Heathrow.

So, I think that’s where I stand on the leaked report.

Air pollution is absolutely an issue. From a noise point of view there isn’t actually a law in place that says that an entity in an airport is in breach of noise. There’s no legal limit on noise. But there is a legal limit in air quality, so going back to the point that Tracy was making about legal process, if we are in breach of air pollution levels then the proposals can’t go ahead, so I think that air pollution is definitely… It may not be one that grabs as many headlines as noise, but I can assure you that within Heathrow it does garner as much attention as noise because it is a legal requirement and one where we know that if we don’t, if we don’t come up with a plan to address air pollution then we have no legal basis on which to proceed.

On noise, to be honest with you, it’s more

We are well aware that the options that we come out with in July will cause blight to the exclusive XY areas

The issue of Blight is a very real one and the reason why the report that Val shared with you, the leaked report…We have looked at forty options and we could have released those forty options. We decided not to, 30

31 Green Finch, Southern Perimeter Road, 160 degrees, 5601ft from the tower

on the basis of a political issue, there isn’t an absolute level, we know that it’s noise that angers people, that gets people protesting, so therefore we know that we need to address noise. But it isn’t actually a legal obligation to address noise. Maybe in the future, but not yet. There’s a legal obligation on air quality. There isn’t a legal obligation on noise. Air pollution is something that has to be taken into account.

I didn’t say if we don’t get the result we wanted from Davies that we will definitely challenge, what I said is that there are courses open to us...that if he does decide to go ahead with Heathrow, the legal recourses available to people who oppose that, endorse that. So I was making the point that

is a route that is available. I can’t make that decision or that promise to you that if Davies rules out Heathrow, that is it. All I can say to you is that the point that I have been making (to) you internally and externally is that Davies needs to make a decision that’s clear, that’s well founded, that the Country can move together on.

Now, I don’t know how our shareholders will decide to respond. And I’m not going to make the same mistake that my predecessors made of making promises that I can’t keep, but…I can’t make that promise as much as you’d like me to. So all I can say is that we believe that this process is the best chance we’ve got of having a clear decision.

The point that you raised about the

32

33 Western Perimeter Road, 281 degrees, 6502 ft from the tower

Grow Heathrow, 19.8 degrees, 7279 ft from the tower

multinational ownership of Heathrow and the fact that they couldn’t care less about the UK’s connectivity is actually I think quite a good point because in the past when it was British Airport’s Authority, even when it was BAA and the shares were owned by the general public, there was an attitude both internally and externally that BAA was a public interest company and therefore that it would do something that was in the national interest. But that is not the case any more. It is a private company with very aggressive shareholders who only do things that make money, so therefore our options - like Heathrow closing are actually potentially (depends on the compensation) but are actually potentially attractive. They

34

don’t care about whether west London has employment. So we can argue it both ways. But certainly from my meeting that I have had with them, there isn’t any kind of emotional resonance for them with regards to Heathrow. It would be a clinical business decision for them.

Again, I’m very aware of the allegation that I’m sitting up here with sloping shoulders and its everyone else’s fault and it’s never Heathrow’s or mine, but the point is that it’s obviously the Government that does care about the future of the UK. At least I hope it does care about the future of the UK. And therefore the remit under which Davies is operating does take that into account. So the point I was making is that for Davies

that is a very relevant consideration. So that the argument we are making in terms of the importance of Heathrow to the economy is that that’s what Davies is looking at.

So there are different audiences for different arguments. What happened in the docks is that they closed over a period of probably a decade, and its taken 50 years, some would argue, for London to recover, so that is a fair comment.

What about the 10% you still owe to the people who took the 30 pieces of silver and left the area. They’re still owed 10%. So you are actually giving money to the people that upped and left and

didn’t have the courage to stand and fight? Are you going to find the heirs to the people who have died and give the 10% to them? And you are denying us the money? The people who are still here. And we don’t get anything – double glazing, noise pollution. And you have the audacity to pay people who took your money and were very well paid to actually leave. And you are looking us in the face and saying, tough – we actually owe them an extra 10%. That is absolutely immoral! (apploause) (New questioner) I want to talk about an issue that we haven’t really talked

‘Airplot’ - land bought by Greenpeace in 2009 to fend off plans for a new runway, Sipson, 14.6 degrees, 6669 feet from the tower Stanwell, 185 degrees, 7367 ft from the tower

35

that much about. We’ve heard that it’s ruining people’s lives here. We’ve heard it’s having an impact on people’s homes. But we’re also hearing quite a bit of ‘let’s not have it here, let’s have it somewhere else’. Let’s not forget that if we don’t have it here, we’re giving some other people those same problems. The carbon emissions – whether it’s here or Stansted or Gatwick – are completely at loggerheads with the UK’s attempt to reduce carbon emissions. Big companies like HAL are rubbishing those efforts and putting profits before attempts to lower carbon emissions. We’re not

able to meet those targets because of companies like this. People in Bangladesh are being flooded due to climate change. We’re seeing changes to our climate with colder winters and wetter summers, all contributed to by emissions from industry such as aviation. This is one of the root causes. This greed which puts profit before people - it all comes down to the greed of rich people who believe that lining their greasy pockets is more important than looking after each other. Are you telling me that profit at the expense of all these things is not your fault?

Well, you’re a part of that team

and contributing to it. What will it take to stop companies like BAA putting profit before people?

The carbon issue is a very important one.

The Committee for Climate Change have decided...have given advice that they believe that aviation expansion isn’t inconsistent with hitting the targets. They have said that we can have 60% increase in aviation in this country and still be compliant with the target on climate change. I appreciate your view that those targets aren’t strict enough. I take advice from the government on these issues.

Because Heathrow is full, people are still going to fly, so I think there’s a valid issue to say that people need to fly. The demand is there. If Heathrow can’t satisfy that demand,

then what happens is that people will still fly to where they need to go, but they won’t fly direct. They will fly from Amsterdam or Paris for Frankfurt. And instead of taking one journey from Heathrow to their destinations, they’ll take two. And as it’s the landings and takeoffs that create more carbon than the rest of the journey, indirectly it’s worse for the climate change than actually flying directly. So actually by being able to meet the demand that there is at Heathrow, I appreciate from a UK point of view it will be less, but from a global point of view carbon emissions will actually be more.

I’ve already said tonight that our six international shareholders are driven by returns of profit. To say anything else would

36

37 Bath Road, 17.9 degrees ,3552 ft from the tower

‘Airplot’ - the battle prematurely considered won, the site was reclaimed by the original landowner. 14.5 degrees, 6601 ft from the tower

be misleading. The investment that’s going on with regard to Terminal 2 – that’s 35,000 jobs. Now I’m not saying, therefore, that means that you can expand at any cost.

And the fact that Heathrow has come out not proposing this is fact that the company has now changed from that view that growth should happen at any cost. What we are talking about is sustainable growth, and you can define what sustainability means quite clearly. You and I can disagree what sustainability is, but sustainable growth is now what Heathrow is advocating, and I think that we mustn’t overlook the amount of jobs that are created by Heathrow. And the idea that Heathrow doesn’t care about people at all is just not true.

Heathrow provides those connections to enable those companies to grow, to enable those companies to, yes, make profits and return dividends to shareholders, but also to employ people and pay people a fair wage.

At the cost of peoples’ lives… (general restlessness and commotion) You mentioned that there would be a blight scheme. When will we be notified about that? You’ve also mentioned numerous options, which you will be putting on the table, and then in 2015 they will be short listed down from 7 to 3. In the meantime there are very many of us that have been blighted for a very long time, those of us in Harmondsworth previously didn’t fit into the Bond Scheme, still suffer blight. How is that going to work when you have numerous options? How will we receive any compensation? How are you going to narrow it down?

When last couldn’t you get a seat on a plane?

I think it’s realistic, I think you’ll find. I’ve spoken to loads of people who work at Heathrow that say that Heathrow doesn’t care about people.

Equally, I could take you to the airport to show you people who think it does.

What will it take to make Heathrow put people before profit?

I think that you and I disagree on the impact of Heathrow on global climate change. I think we disagree on what putting profit before people actually means. I think that giving livelihoods to 110,000 people and their families is a very important role that Heathrow plays. I think that increasing in the globalized world, these companies are getting fewer, and I think that if you look at West London, the Thames Valley, London as a whole, that the amounts of companies that don’t need international travel in order to make money - employ people - is getting smaller. We live in a busy globalized world where people need those connections.

These are all excellent questions. I don’t know when we are going to choose a scheme and we are aware of those issues. I do think that the Bond Scheme that we had in place before - which doesn’t actually cost anything up front but is kind of a liability...

So therefore you could have a Bond Scheme for multiple options and as those options are cancelled that Bond is in place to protect the value of properties affected by...and as the schemes are dropped then that Bond then ends because as they are no longer applied, so there are ways in which a Bond Scheme could cope with multiple options. I’m not expecting for there to be more than one Heathrow option to be taken forward to the short listing. So that once

38

39 Stan, retired Air Steward, 209.7 degrees, 4886 ft from the tower

we get to December there will just be one Heathrow option. But there will still be other options elsewhere in the South East.

It’s a discussion I’ve had with Government and others because some of the schemes being taken forward won’t be those of airport operators I would assume. For example, if the Mayor puts forward a scheme that is designed by an architect in the Thames Estuary, who’s going to put the Bond Scheme there? So I think that the issue that the Davies Commission are aware. And there is a lot of uncertainty…

All I can say is that from Heathrow’s point of view, we are only too well aware of the fact that the damage that Blight causes.

The effect it has and that we need to come up with a solution. But I don’t know what that solution is but I do know that it’s an important one that we need to deal with.

You spoke about Heathrow needing to be the hub. So people wouldn’t have to change at Amsterdam or elsewhere. Where in the world can’t you get to in a plane from Heathrow? Secondly, when last couldn’t you get a seat on a plane?

In terms of where we don’t fly to. Well, we fly to 178 different destinations from Heathrow. There are thousands of cities around the world. The important places I think that you can’t fly to are…There are only three cities in China you can fly to from Heathrow, there are 12 cities in China with a population of over 10 million that you can fly to from other EU destinations and most of these cities are cities that we haven’t heard of…

For instance, BA fly to Tokyo and you can get on a JAL, to fly down to Kyoto to fly down

40

to the south – it’s a change there. So I don’t actually see why everyone’s going to have to be changing at Amsterdam, if Heathrow’s not the hub. We’ve got most of the world covered as it is.

Indonesia, China, Vietnam, and South America – we don’t have the coverage there that other countries have. In the 80’s and 90’s, when the growth companies were American and Japanese, and they were looking to set up their EU headquarters, they would fly to Heathrow and set up in London and the Thames Valley, which led to a lot of the growth there. Going forward, the businessmen from India, China and Indonesia – when they come to Europe to set up their EU headquarters, they’ll be flying to Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt. Our assertion is that they won’t then get on a flight to London. They’ll get out of a plane in Paris, Frankfurt or Amsterdam and set up their EU headquarters there.

London Docklands closed because transit became too big to go that far up the Thames. London Docklands closed because it was in the wrong place. We are living with the mistake of building the airport in the wrong place. When it was built on the west side of London, sooner or later it was going to reach its limit of expansion, which it did with terminal 5.

It cannot be expanded any more without disrupting the lives of millions of people living round the airport.

They ain’t gonna stand for it.

A

You ain’t gonna get it.

t the end of the meeting, I went up to the stage to photograph the HAL Manager and the Chairperson, who had his arm in a sling from a bicycle accident.

Letting off steam, the HAL Manager put his hands around the Chairperson’s neck and started to throttle him in mock strangulation. In an instant, this playful act seemed to crystalise complex environmental, economic and social issues. The HAL Manager then looked drained and stared into the lens while the Chairperson grinned as I released the shutter.

Acknowledgements: The inhabitants of Harmondsworth, Sipson and Harlington, particularly Charlie Key, Jane, Christine and Sheila Taylor, Douglas Rust, Philip Sherwood, Armelle Thomas and Friends of the Tythe Barn in Harmondsworth. Huw, Mohammed, David West and all at ‘Grow Heathrow’. Will and Kevin for design and moral support.

Finally, Ben Edwards and Max Houghton for the inspiration. angle of descent (aerospace engineering) The angle between the flight path of a descending vehicle and the local horizontal. www.djnorwood.com djnorwood@gmail.com

+44(0)7905797266