TERMINAL 5 GETS THE GREEN LIGHT WITH CONDITIONS - BYERS

20 Nov 2001 05:20 PM

Heathrow will get a fifth terminal to help UK aviation remain globally competitive but with strict conditions imposed.

Stephen Byers, Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, today gave planning approval to the fifth terminal at Heathrow. The decision strikes a balance between environmental and economic concerns. There will be limits on flights and a consultation on stricter controls for night flights.

Stephen Byers'' decision is in line with the recommendations of the Inspector, Roy Vandermeer QC, who held the public inquiry into the Terminal 5 proposals. His report is also being published today.

Stephen Byers said:

''Such a development is in the national interest. It will enable Heathrow to remain a world class airport. It will bring benefits to the British economy both locally and nationally. At the same time as giving my approval to the development I have also imposed conditions in order to protect the interests of those living in the vicinity of Heathrow. They include:

- a limit has been set on the number of flights each year at 480,000. This limit has been imposed on a precautionary basis, and because of the Inspector''s concerns about noise. Last year Heathrow handled some 460,000 flights and just under 65 million passengers. Even with a limit of 480,000 flights, the Inspector adopted a figure of 90 million passengers per annum as the potential capacity of Heathrow if Terminal 5 were built.

- the noise effects of Terminal 5 will also be limited by a condition restricting the area enclosed by the 57-decibel noise contour to 145 square kilometres as from 2016.

- The Inspector recommends stricter controls on night flights. I recognise that there is considerable concern about night noise. I am not legally entitled to change the night noise regime without consultation. I will consult on an extension of the night quota period when I next put forward proposals for the night noise regime for the BAA London Airports. I have decided that this consultation will take place by 2003 at the latest.''

In addition the Secretary of State has agreed with the Inspector:

- on the need to promote the use of public transport - requiring the extension to Terminal 5 of both the Heathrow Express and the Piccadilly Line before the new Terminal is opened;

- that there should not be any widening of the M4 between junctions 3 and 4b; and

- in cutting the provision of car parking spaces for the airport as a whole below that in the original proposals - limiting total spaces to 42,000 rather than the 46,000 proposed by BAA.

The Secretary of State has already announced

- a change to the system of so-called ''westerly preference'' at Heathrow, to reduce the number of night flights over built-up west London; and

- a major research study to reassess attitudes to aircraft noise. This will permit a fresh look at the present ''Leq'' noise index on which the Inspector commented.

Before work can start on construction of Terminal 5, a separate planning consent must be given for diversion of the Twin Rivers that flow across the site. BAA put forward revised proposals only in August of this year, after the issue was considered at the Inquiry. A consultation on these plans was completed in mid October.

Notes to editors

1. Please find attached

a) Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions'' statement to the House

b) Terminal Five factsheet

Public Enquiries: 020 7944 3000 DTLR website: http://www.dtlr.gov.uk

HEATHROW TERMINAL 5 STATEMENT: 20 NOVEMBER 2001

1. With permission Mr Speaker I would like to make a statement concerning the proposal to build a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport and to outline our intention to streamline the handling of major infrastructure projects in the planning system.

2. I am today publishing the Inspector''s report into Heathrow Terminal 5 as well as my decision letter. Copies of both have been placed in the Library of the House. My decision and the reasons for it have been set out in the decision letter itself.

3. The inquiry into terminal 5 was the longest in British planning history. It opened in May 1995 and closed in March 1999.

4. The Inspector Mr Roy Vandermeer QC reported to my Department on 20 December last year. I would like to thank the Inspector for his report. I am grateful to him for the great diligence which he has shown.

5. The delay in reaching a decision since the report was received in December arises because, since the Inspector reported, the applicants - BAA, who are the owners and operators of Heathrow Airport - warned in May that they wished to revise the Twin Rivers Scheme, which was a part of the original application; it was August before they put forward any details. This then required consultation which was completed in mid October.

6. Mr Speaker after considering the Inspector''s report and taking into account all the relevant considerations I have today given my approval to the development of Terminal 5 at Heathrow.

7. Such a development is in the national interest. It will enable Heathrow to remain a world class airport. It will bring benefits to the British economy both locally and nationally. At the same time as giving my approval to the development I have also imposed conditions in order to protect the interests of those living in the vicinity of Heathrow.

8. The Inspector stresses in his report that the issue is essentially one of striking a balance. He identifies the benefits of Terminal 5. They are considerable. He sees Heathrow as essential for keeping the UK air transport industry strong and competitive.

9. The Inspector sees wider benefits, beyond the aviation industry. He points to benefits for London and for the UK as a whole. He says that Heathrow has done a lot to attract investment to the UK, and that London''s success as a world city and financial centre could be threatened unless Heathrow stays competitive. He says that by ensuring Heathrow''s continued success, Terminal 5 would make a major contribution to the national economy. And he says that it would be good for passengers, providing a terminal equal to the best in the world - and relieving the pressure on the other four terminals. I also agree with the Inspector that the real beneficiaries if Terminal 5 is not provided will be Charles de Gaulle in Paris, Schipol Amsterdam and Frankfurt airport.

10. The Inspector rightly draws attention to the disadvantages. They too are important. There is noise: the Inspector looks at that issue at length. And he looks at matters such as extra road traffic, air quality, intrusion in to the Green Belt, and the effects of construction.

11. The Inspector weighs all the benefits and costs very carefully. He says - and I use his words - that he has come to the clear conclusion that the benefits of Terminal 5 would substantially outweigh the environmental impact as long as its effects are properly controlled.

12. I agree with him that Terminal 5 should go ahead, but subject to conditions. I would like to outline the key conditions to the House.

13. First, a limit has been set on the number of flights each year at 480,000. This limit has been imposed on a precautionary basis, and because of the Inspector''s concerns about noise. This was recommended by the Inspector. Last year Heathrow handled some 460,000 flights and just under 65 million passengers. Even with a limit of 480,000 flights, the Inspector adopted a figure of 90 million passengers per annum as the potential capacity of Heathrow if Terminal 5 were built.

14. Second, the noise effects of Terminal 5 will also be limited by a condition restricting the area enclosed by the 57-decibel noise contour to 145 square kilometres as from 2016. Again, I follow the Inspector''s recommendation.

15. The Inspector recommends stricter controls on night flights. I recognise that there is considerable concern about night noise. I am not legally entitled to change the night noise regime without consultation.

16. I will consult on an extension of the night quota period when I next put forward proposals for the night noise regime for the BAA London Airports. I have decided that this consultation will take place by 2003 at the latest.

17. The House should also be aware that we have already announced a change to the system of so-called ''westerly preference'' at Heathrow, to reduce the number of night flights over built-up west London. This is in line with one of the Inspector''s recommendations. And we have also announced a major research study to reassess attitudes to aircraft noise. This will permit a fresh look at the present ''Leq'' noise index on which the Inspector commented.

18. I have also agreed with the Inspector on the need to promote the use of public transport. So I have imposed conditions - as he recommended - requiring the extension to Terminal 5 of both the Heathrow Express and the Piccadilly Line before the new Terminal is opened.

19. And I have agreed with the Inspector in cutting the provision of car parking spaces for the airport as a whole below that in the original proposals. I am imposing a condition limiting total spaces to 42,000 rather than the 46,000 proposed by BAA. Of these, only 17,500 - rather than the 21,700 originally proposed - will be available for employees.

20. The Terminal proposals also included widening of the M4 between junctions 3 and 4b. But I agree with the Inspector that widening would not be appropriate. I have therefore refused approval for it.

21. As to timing, I have imposed conditions requiring that work to implement any of the planning approvals should not start until a separate approval has been given to the essential scheme for diversion of the Twin Rivers that flow across the Terminal 5 site. That will ensure that there will be proper opportunity for full examination of that scheme.

22. Mr Speaker, I should touch on three further points. First, the tragic events of 11 September and the effects of those terrorist attacks on air travel. In reaching my decision, I have noted that the Inspector has based his conclusions on forecasts as far ahead as 2016; and clearly Terminal 5 is expected to be in operation much longer than that. Planning decisions such as this require a lengthy time horizon, and I believe that my decision is well justified on that basis.

23. Secondly, Hon members will know of the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights delivered on 2 October in the case of Hatton and others versus the UK. This concerned night noise at Heathrow, and the court held by a majority that there had been an infringement of the Convention. I am considering that judgement, which does not become final until at least three months after it was delivered. Quite apart from my decision on Terminal 5, I will of course wish to ensure that the night noise regime at Heathrow complies with the European Convention on Human Rights.

24. Thirdly, I am well aware of the length of time that was taken by the process of the public inquiry into Terminal 5. In saying that, I mean no criticism of the Inspector; but there must be an issue as to whether such lengthy inquiries are appropriate. Accordingly, I announced on 20 July that we were considering a package of measures to streamline the handling of major infrastructure projects in the planning system. This included a commitment to publish up-to-date statements of Government policy before major infrastructure projects are considered in the planning system, to help reduce inquiry time spent on debating the policy, the introduction of new arrangements to give Parliament the opportunity to approve projects in principle, and improved public inquiry procedures. We shall be publishing further details for consultation in the next two months.

25. Taken together with the other steps we will be proposing to improve the operation of the planning and compulsory purchase systems, these measures will both safeguard the rights of people to have their say and reduce the time that is taken in future to reach decisions on major infrastructure projects.

26. My decision and the reasons for it as set out in full in the decision letter which I have issued today; nothing I say here today should in any way be seen as a substitute for what is in that lengthy decision letter.

27. Giving the go-ahead for a fifth terminal at Heathrow is essential if we are to maintain Heathrow as one of the world''s leading airports and bring benefits to the British economy both locally and nationally.

28. I have no doubt that the national interest requires that this project should proceed so long as we put in place measures to safeguard local people and their communities.

29. This I believe my decision achieves and I commend it to the House.

TERMINAL 5 FACTSHEET

- BAA first submitted its main application for a fifth terminal at Heathrow on February 17, 1993.

- Inquiry opened on May 16, 1995 at the Renaissance (formerly Ramada) Hotel Heathrow. It closed on March 17, 1999 after 525 days of hearings spread over 46 months.

- Inspector Roy Vandermeer QC delivered his report to the Secretary of State on December 20, 2000.

- Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions Stephen Byers announced his decision to Parliament on November 20, 2001.

- Inquiry considered a total of 37 applications and draft Orders under eight Acts of Parliament, including planning, highways and Transport & Works Acts.

- 433 witnesses gave evidence in person at the inquiry, of who:

- 82 represented organisations

- 16 were MPs or MEPs

- 335 were individual members of the public

- Nearly 6000 documents were submitted as evidence.

- Inspector held 17 special sessions of the inquiry for members of the public and community groups. Eleven sessions were held in local communities around Heathrow including Spelthorne, Twickenham, East Sheen and Hounslow. About 340 members of the public spoke at these sessions which were attended by more than 1,500 people.

- 62,118 written representations from individuals or organisations were received during the inquiry both for and against T5. They included a 5,000 signature petition from the Putney Society.

- The Inspector and his team made nearly 100 site visits during the inquiry. These included sites in and around Heathrow and visits to airports in south east England, as well as Amsterdam Schipol, Paris Orly and Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt, Atlanta, Chicago and Singapore''s Changi Airport.

- The total cost of the inquiry exceeded #80 million of which some #64 million was borne by the private sector (BAA/British Airways) and the rest (around #18 million) by central and local government. Private sector costs also include expenditure incurred before the inquiry opened.

- Last year (2000) Heathrow handled 460,000 total aircraft movements and just under 65 million passengers.

The inquiry report, summary and full decision letter are available at www.planning.dtlr.gov.uk/callins/terminal5/index.htm