Life in the shadow of Heathrow Airport
Who are the people living with the adverse effects of Heathrow Airport?
Britain is not exactly known for its decisiveness. Back in 1968, when the aviation industry first began to flourish, Harold Wilson’s government set up the Roskill Commission to look at the possible options to further expand London’s air capacity.
At this point, the capital already had two airports, in Heathrow and Gatwick: who with BOAC (now known as British Airways), were revolutionising the transport industry, having documented a tripling of the recorded numbers of passengers for that decade.
The commission recommended that a new airport should be built in rural Buckinghamshire called “Cublington” — a proposal that would require the demolition of three picturesque villages but would also accommodate four runways.
In typical British fashion, the plucky residents of these villages fought off the idea of a giant new airport destroying their humble abodes, and the plan was ultimately scrapped. Instead, the government decided to push ahead with Roskill’s most expensive and least favoured option: building on reclaimed land at Maplin Sands in the Thames Estuary. However, as a result of the 1973 oil crisis, the plug had to be pulled on this idea as well.
Fast forward to today, and this quintessentially British trait of bumbling reluctance has endured the test of time so well that we, once the pioneers of aviation, are now trailing far behind. As we continue to dither how we should utilise and expand our air capacity, China is in the process of building 30 new airports and expanding another 60.
With Heathrow being the UK’s sole hub airport — despite preserving its title as the busiest airport in Europe — it has fallen behind its European rivals such as Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol concerning the number of destinations and, notably, the number of runways.
After Gordon Brown announced in 2009 that the government would back expansion at Heathrow, the proposal was once again put on ice following the election of the Tory-Lib Dem coalition in 2010, with David Cameron pledging that ‘no ifs, no buts, no third runway at Heathrow’. As a symbol of their opposition, he and deputy prime minister Nick Clegg each planted an apple tree on a strip of land bought by Greenpeace, which was ‘slap bang in the middle of the proposed third runway site’.
However, in 2016, after the UK voted to leave the European Union and with the apple trees long dead and decaying — Greenpeace sold the land for £1 — transport secretary Chris Grayling announced that the government would give Heathrow the go-ahead for a third runway and a new terminal, despite the Conservative party’s previous opposition to the project. ‘Global Britain is open for business,’ declared the Eurosceptic.
“It is not possible to do something on this scale without having an adverse effect somewhere” admitted Chris Grayling at the time. So, with that in mind, I went looking for people suffering from the adverse effects of living next door to Heathrow.
Harmondsworth is a village that has frequently been in the news. Here half of the community will make way for a third runway. It is a small settlement made up of medieval listed buildings, which find themselves hidden behind the hotels that surround the airport and an immigration centre. Jane Taylor is the chair of the HSRA (Harmondsworth and Sipson Residents Association), while her sister Christine Taylor, who lives in nearby Harlington, is a co-opted member of the group. As you would expect, both are campaigners for ‘Stop Heathrow Expansion’.
Meanwhile, in Stanwell Moor, a small cluster of residential homes lie in the shadow of Heathrow’s Terminal 5. Similar in demographic to Harmondsworth — wedged in the fields between the airport’s southern runway and the M25 — this unassuming village is one of the loudest areas in the country. Here lives Kathleen Croft, the former chair of the SMRA (Stanwell Moor Resident Association), who runs a private cattery business out of her house.
They speak to me about life in the shadow of Heathrow Airport — the noise, the pollution and of course, the proposed expansion.
Expansion
“I think we’ve got stronger arguments than ever before against having a third runaway”
It is one of Britain’s most divisive political issues. As businesses fight to maintain London’s position as trading capital of the world, they claim that the government needs to make a brave decision for the sake of the UK economy. While, on the other hand, those against expansion argue that it will destroy communities and pollution will rise above illegal levels. Jane also questions the economic argument: “A foreign company runs Heathrow — they say it will improve the economy but whose economy?”
This argument has now been raging for so long that some people argue that both Heathrow and Gatwick, need an extra runway, while Kathleen points out that we are currently so far behind that once there is a third runway, there will then be a push for a fourth. Jane agrees: “They’re always banging on about places like Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt and Schiphol and that’s what they want. So, just giving them a third runway would not satisfy them.”
She adds: “I know when (Howard) Davies gave out his report he said ‘they can have a third runway, but they can’t have a fourth because there’s nowhere to put one’. Well, that has never stopped them from asking for a third runway, because if they’re allowed to knock down houses, destroy communities and cause major chaos with the road system for a third runway, why can’t they do it for a fourth? What would be your argument for not giving them the fourth, if you’ve allowed them to have a third? You would have obliterated all the valid reasons why they couldn’t have had a third.”
Even in the areas around the airport, certain people are happy to leave their homes and be relocated, while there are people who are maintaining their fight against expansion. As I found with my interviews, opinions differing on what should happen next.
I was quite surprised to learn that Kathleen was not against the third runway. In my search for people to interview, I was given her details from John Stewart, the chairman of HACAN (Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise), an organisation that is against Heathrow expansion.
So, I went into our meeting expecting her to make an argument against the third runway. However, she confesses: “It is the only way forward, you can’t go backwards. I run a business, and you have to keep moving forward. If you don’t, it dies. And so this third runway has to come, there is no question in my mind that it has to come.”
However, back in 2012, in an interview with local newspaper Get Surrey, Kathleen spoke in more of a combative tone: “It is the stress of living with the threat every time these runways keep rearing their ugly heads. We will fight this as much as we have fought against destroying Sipson.”
It appears now that Kathleen was resigned to a third runway, more than anything. “There are going to be homes that are lost, which in itself is awful, but what’s even worse is the length of time this has been going on. People are so uncertain, and their houses are blighted because there is all this talk of where’s this runway going to be. There was talk of it being here, the third runway, but we’ve got the reservoirs over the back here.”
The issue has bitterly divided her community in Stanwell Moor. At the time of this interview, Kathleen was the presiding chair of the SMRA. However, while speaking to Jane and Christine a few weeks later, they informed me that the whole committee of the SMRA had resigned.
A group called ‘Sell to Heathrow’, set-up by fellow resident Jim McIlroy, is campaigning for the village to be included in the WPOZ (Wider Property Offer Zone). In the Get Surrey newspaper, McIlroy said: “I must stress that we are not anti-Heathrow or anti-expansion. In fact, to some extent we embrace it as many of our residents earn their livings from Heathrow. However, it is completely unfair that other local areas such as Cranford Cross, Brands Hill and Harlington are included in the WPOZ, whereas Stanwell Moor, which is directly under an existing runway and is hugely affected, is ignored.”
Heathrow explains that owner-occupiers within the WPOZ would be able to choose to remain in their own home, or take the same terms as those on offer to people in the CPZ (Compulsory Purchase Zone) area that includes:
· The unaffected market value of the property — therefore, the value of the property if expansion had never been proposed or had never taken place (as applicable).
· A home loss payment being 25 per cent of the unaffected market value; plus
· Stamp duty costs for the purchase of a replacement home at an equivalent value
· Reasonable legal fees and moving costs.
The group, which has the backing of local pro-Heathrow MP Kwasi Kwarteng, has come at loggerheads with the SMRA. They claimed that “the SMRA had done nothing with regard to Heathrow” and has received “monies from the airport”. The SMRA vehemently deny the allegations.
During the interview, Kathleen mentions that there are a group of people down here who think that we should get the compensation offered to those directly affected in Harmondsworth and Sipson. “Well, frankly, I don’t think that we should get it because we are not losing our homes.”
She adds: “I don’t think that you can put people who are actually going to lose their homes, compulsory purchase, in the same bracket as people here. Personally, I don’t, but they say that ‘oh we get aircraft noise, and we get this and we get that.’ Yes well, we do, but that doesn’t entitle us to the same as people who are going to lose their homes. Yes, we should have more money maybe, but it’s a different issue.”
However, she does concede that following expansion there will be adverse effects for Stanwell. The airport’s perimeter will be extended to within 100 metres of the village, and a nearby roundabout linking the M25 will become a new main entrance to the airport. An immigration centre has also been touted for the area.
It goes to show just how divisive such a project can be. So much so that Stanwell Moor has been left without a long-standing residents association and a split community.
Meanwhile, in Harmondsworth, the effects of the proposed expansion have not been felt harder, having spent years under threat. Though there is an optimism that they will be victorious in their campaign: “I think we’ve got stronger arguments than ever before against having a third runaway,” Christine asserts.
“They’re going to upset somebody wherever they put expansion, so we wouldn’t put it anywhere else because we’ve seen what expansion can cause. However, if you’re talking about the destruction that would be involved of communities and homes and everything else, or pollution, economics, everything, the argument is in favour of Gatwick. They can say it’s for the benefit of the country, but every new report that comes out says it indicates that it is becoming less and less the case, so why they’re still persisting with it? Is it to drag us to the nth degree?”
I ask what their solution would be and Christine says: “There is additional capacity at other existing airports, should we need it. When you’ve used that well the excuse might be ‘well Stanstead doesn’t have the rail network,’ you’re going to have to build something to do with trains here. The current network can barely cope with two runways, so if that’s your issue, you should look at improving the rail network to other airports.”
For Jane and Christine, they explain that their family has lived near Heathrow since before the invention of the bicycle. It is clear that they are not going to give up on their fight. “I guess there are quite a lot of people who are sick of fighting it, but then there are others like us, who feel that we can’t give up, we’ve come this far. You know it’s like running a marathon, you can see the finish ahead of you, you’re not going to suddenly say ‘you know what I’m knackered, I give up now,’ you’ll get there in the end.”
Their family has lived continuously under threat from the airport. Jane points out that the cost of moving the reservoirs to the south of the airport has meant that a third runway has always been proposed to the north. She explains how the family’s attitude is: “We’ve come this far, we’re not going to sacrifice so many years of our lives fighting it just to give up, so we will carry on.”
“The trouble with living in this locality is the majority of the local industries now are focused on being in the airport or supplying the airport. We’ve got loads of hotels, now they would say they provide jobs for the local community, but in reality, they don’t, because what they do is, the management for those hotels, they’re brought in from other areas, other hotels, and then the staff will also be imported. Again, the only people I know who have worked in hotels are on the housekeeping side of things.”
In the village, rows upon rows of houses would have to go in order to make way for the runway. While the listed buildings such as the local church and the Harmondsworth Great Barn — ranked alongside the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey for its exceptional architectural and historical interest — will remain standing, there are fears that with the community gone, these buildings will fall into disrepair.
Christine echoes these worries: “The boundary would be just behind us, the churchyard is there, the community maintains everything, so if you destroy everything that is behind us, it is the community that supports all the businesses. This pub would stay, but where are the customers?”
She continues, saying: “There’s no point leaving them because they’re listed buildings, to make it look better on your proposals, without people appreciating ‘what’s the point of a church without a parish?’ Or the barn has a barn committee maintaining it so that it can be open to the public, all those people would lose their house, so it one fell swoop, like what happened last time when Heathrow started buying, is that you begin to lose those people who are keeping that community running.”
What the residents can count on is the support of their MP (and shadow chancellor), John McDonnell. As someone who was suspended from the House of Commons for five days, after picking up the ceremonial mace in protest at expansion, he has consistently maintained his position against expansion. “We have complete confidence in him,” Jane says. “There is also Zac Goldsmith, Theresa Villiers, Nick Hurd, Justine Greening and Boris Johnson, who support us and now, of course, Theresa May’s government is in the minority.”
Air Pollution
“People see that’s where the runway is, and think that isn’t going to affect me, those in West Dayton, who already get high pollution at peak times, will get even more.”
Air quality is the biggest hurdle facing Heathrow in the fight for expansion. With pollution already rife within the London, those against the development argue that a third runway would make a mockery of any attempts to reduce London’s air pollution.
London Borough of Hillingdon is an air pollution hotspot, due to the airport and traffic from the nearby motorways and main roads, the Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs declared that even without expansion, the A4 running north of the airport would still exceed EU safety limits for nitrogen dioxide in 2030.
In 2016, Sadiq Khan was elected as mayor of London, in a battle where all five leading candidates for election were against expansion, with the pledge that he would clean up London’s air. Khan, who backs expansion at Gatwick, launched a scathing response to the government plan’s for Heathrow. “A new runway for Heathrow,” he stated, “would be devastating for air quality across London. He pointed to the increased air pollution around the airport, which is already above legal levels of NO2. “I will continue to challenge this decision, and I am exploring how I can best be involved in any legal process over the coming months.”
Christine believes that people do not recognise the broader impact expansion would have on air pollution. “People see that’s where the runway is, and think that isn’t going to affect me. But when you see the A4 has moved from down here up to the M4, that increases the pollution along that strip. So those in West Dayton, who already get high pollution at peak times, will get even more.”
Noise Pollution
“You’re sitting there now, if the aircraft were coming in or going out, you and I in here with the doors closed, would have to stop speaking.”
Living in London is never peaceful. It is a city that never sleeps, continually alive with the sounds of traffic, sirens, people — and aircraft. Though Heathrow has restrictions on the number of night flights it is allowed to operate, flights usually arrive and depart between 4:30am-11:00 p.m., allowing only a brief window on respite for peaceful sleep.
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), noise is one of the most disregarded forms of pollution. They note hearing loss, cardiovascular problems, cognitive impairment, stress and depression as symptoms.
Back in 2014, the Civil Aviation Authority estimated that Heathrow’s air traffic disrupts around 270,000 Londoners. As for myself, I never considered just how large an area is affected by the noise of aircraft arriving and departing to and from Heathrow, until I moved to Peckham, 18 miles away from the airport.
Almost every day, every minute, another aircraft lines up with Heathrow’s runways just a few thousand feet above south-east London: a constant rumble can be heard throughout the day — a rumble that only gets louder and louder for those closer to the airport.
This includes areas such as Teddington, Greenford, Old Windsor, Richmond, Twickenham that are hugely affected by the noise of incoming and outgoing aircraft.
For Kathleen Croft, living in Stanwell Moor, the western end of the south runway, the noise is unbearable. “I never get used to it,” she emphasises. “You’re sitting there now, if the aircraft were coming in or going out, you and I in here with the doors closed, would have to stop speaking”.
While running on westerly operations (around 70 per cent of the time), Heathrow employs a runway alternation scheme in an attempt to ease the effect of noise pollution on residents. At 3:00 p.m. planes landing on the south runway will start landing on the north runway, with the departing aircraft doing the opposite, or vice-versa, depending on what week it is.
Kathleen, however, is certain that the alternation system is starting to fade; as Heathrow looks to milk every last percentage of its capacity, to maximise profit. “Heathrow gets £22 for each passenger that travels through the airport — they care very little about anything else apart from money,” she explains.
When easterly operations were in effect, between 1950–2010, the airport had to adhere to something called “The Cranford Agreement”. This agreement prevented aircraft from taking off over the village of Cranford, at the eastern end of the northern runway, except in exceptional circumstances. Although it is no longer in effect, the London Borough of Hillingdon refused modifications that would have allowed the airport to run the alternation scheme while on easterly operations.
This result means that residents who live on Myrtle Avenue at the eastern end of the southern runway, bear the brunt of the noise produced by taking-off aircraft, for the majority of the day.
Using a rather crude app on my iPhone, it registers aircraft at take-off reach about 80–90 decibels for those on the ground. In other words, it’s similar to standing next to someone who is vacuuming. For some residents living under a Heathrow flightpath, they have to listen to this every 45 seconds, nearly every day of the year.
Meanwhile, in Harmondsworth, the noise doesn’t cause as much of a problem compared to somewhere such as Stanwell. Upon arrival, the only indication that I was near an airport was the ‘Stop Heathrow Expansion’ flyers seen in abundance around the village. Given that it lies perpendicular to Heathrow’s runways, it avoids most of the disruption from aircraft arriving or departing (as the noise travels downwards rather than laterally) yet engine testing at the airport late at night can still cause disturbances for those living nearby.
Housing
“One of Jane’s roles, which she was sort of forced to take on really, she didn’t really want to, but is going round policing some of these properties.”
Kathleen lives in a large, spacious detached property with a sizeable garden and a vast driveway for parking. “I have a very nice house and a beautiful garden, but I wouldn’t be able to sell this property for what it is really worth because it is directly under a flight path.”
In Harmondsworth, Heathrow dominates the rental market, having brought up to 240 properties in the area. Christine tells me that: “They can now more or less govern what rents are charged, and standards of the rental accommodation. If their standards are low, then other landlords think they can charge high rent for similar low-quality accommodation.”
Therefore, locals have had to take matters into their own hands, making sure that the market is adequately regulated. “One of Jane’s roles, which she was sort of forced to take on really, she didn’t really want to, is going around policing some of these properties, because they’re sub-let and they are badly maintained,” Christine explains.
Jane continues: “It is very difficult to do because we keep asking for Heathrow to provide a list of the houses that they own, and they say they will, but they don’t. Lots of the properties they own have triangular burglar alarms, and that’s is usually a good indication. The funny thing is that once we told them that we could work out where your properties are they changed them.”
In the hope of gaining more land for expansion, Heathrow continues to buy houses in the area at the expense of the community, which breaks down the opposition to the development. Foreign investors are also buying properties with gardens, giving them space to build larger blocks of flats or airport buildings.
Christine explains that is why people usually only find they only have one person to sell to, which is Heathrow: “There are desperate people who find that they can’t get market value, because they are under threat, and the airport say ‘oh we’ll give you moving expenses or whatever and the deal is done’.”
They also reveal that being under threat affects the investment that goes into their own homes: “We all have this thing at the back of our minds about the runway. What you do and when, how much you invest in your home — we have to bear in mind that values are depreciating, but our houses are starting to crumble, so do you invest what money you have in a property? As things stand, we wouldn’t be able to buy anywhere else, but we don’t want to move.
“The airport even said ‘don’t expect to get your money back’, you know they say do the renovations, but people shouldn’t expect to get the money back they spent on it so, if you’re told that why would you want to spend a lot of money on your home, but then that has an implication.”
Christine explains how in 2011 after the ‘no ifs, no buts, no third runway’ pledge from David Cameron they got planning permission to build downstairs facilities for their mother, due to her mobility. However, in 2012 the Davies commission was set-up to look again at expanding the south-east’s air capacity.
“You know, having got permission and everything to totally transform the downstairs of the house and make it suitable, we’re back where we started, being under threat again, while mum’s struggling to get up the stairs, but what do you do?”
Fearing your own home
“The noise of the damn thing coming in, and then the roar of it going back up again, you would think oh god it’s going to crash, it must be crashing in a minute.”
For the vast majority of us, we live in ignorant bliss utterly unaware of what is happening in the skies above us. Londoners especially take it for granted. There are 1,300 take-offs and landings every day at Heathrow. In particular, the 650 daily arrivals take planes directly over central London for 70% of the year. In other words, a plane will pass over central London at a few thousand feet roughly every two minutes. When an aircraft is passing just a few hundred feet over your house, you would be forgiven for having it on the back of your mind.
I feared that it would be a stupid question to ask, but for Kathleen whose just a couple of hundred yards from the runway’s threshold, she confirms what I had suspected. “I live in constant fear,” she tells me.
Sometimes landing attempts are not always successful and the pilots will have to initiate what is called a “go-around”, where the aircraft is forced to abort the landing — perhaps due to an object or blockade on the runway or weather conditions, or just human error. At maximum thrust, with maximum engine noise, the aircraft climb back into the sky.
“When Concorde used to fly, when they go-around — that was the most frightening experience, because of the noise of the damn thing coming in, and then the roar of it going back up again, you would think oh god it’s going to crash, it must be crashing in a minute,” recounts Kathleen.
In 2008, that fear was almost a reality for those living on Myrtle Avenue. British Airways Flight 38, slammed into the ground 300 metres short of runway 27L. The Boeing 777–200ER was on final approach to Heathrow from Beijing when it lost power to both engines while 3.2km from the runway and 220 metres above the ground. Incredibly, there were no fatalities aboard the aircraft or on the ground, despite having to glide the last few hundred metres.
It was only the split-second decision by the aircraft’s Captain Peter Burkhill that prevented the plane from smashing into the houses on Myrtle Avenue and a nearby petrol station. The raising of the flaps just seconds before impact reduced the aircraft’s drag and allowed it just to make it within the airport’s perimeter. Investigators established that ice that had formed during the flight caused a blockage to the plane’s engines, starving them of fuel.
While this has been Heathrow’s only incident since 1972, the possibilities still play on Kathleen’s mind. “I don’t think that everyone feels like that, but I do.”
Congestion
“They were so shocked at how bad it was that they ended up contacting the CEO of Uber, who banned drivers from picking up a fare from Stanwell Moor.”
Of course, if you live in London, you are never going to avoid the daily traffic jam. However, for residents living by the airport, it is not just those pesky traffic jams alone that they have to put up with.
One of the most significant issues facing locals, not just of Heathrow, but of airports nationwide, is travellers parking down residential streets, hoping to avoid the notoriously high-priced airport car-parks.
Liverpool’s John Lennon airport gained notoriety after cars parked by holidaymakers in the surrounding suburbs were left vandalised by fed-up residents.
Over in Stanwell, it is not just travellers clogging up communities with their vehicles; Uber drivers too were guilty of the same charge. Kathleen explains how she had to get Heathrow representatives to come to the village and see the issue for themselves.
They were so shocked at how bad it was that they ended up contacting the CEO of Uber, who banned drivers from picking up a fare from Stanwell Moor.
Transport Links
“Here in Stanwell Moor, a stones throw away from Heathrow the bus stops and 8 o’clock in the evening, and it only runs once an hour anyway during the day.”
It’s not all doom and gloom living by Heathrow though. For many people living around the airport, one of the main benefits has been the improved links between west and central London. Along with the airport has come an extension to the Piccadilly Line, the Heathrow Express and now the new Elizabeth Line will also provide extra connections between the airport to central London and Reading.
In Harmondsworth, Jane describes how there are now also 24-hour bus services operating locally, granting residents straightforward access to and from central London, without having to worry about getting a taxi if they found themselves returning late at night.
For those in Stanwell Moor, despite being just spitting distance from Terminal Five, they are located just outside London’s travel zones. As a result, they bear no benefit of the improved transport links, unlike those living merely a few miles east.
“Here in Stanwell Moor, a stone’s throw away from Heathrow, the bus stops at 8 o’clock in the evening, and it only runs once an hour anyway during the day,” she explains.
Other Considerations
“We have a high amount of incidents of assault in the villages, which has primarily come from the hotels and detention centre.”
Jane and Christine additionally, describe the unconsidered adverse effects that come with living by Heathrow in an area under threat.
Harmondsworth and Sipson, have a crime rate above the national average, despite being residential villages: Nearby hotels and the immigration centre that superficially rise the crime statistics in the area. “We have a high amount of incidents of assault in the villages, which has primarily come from the detention centre,” Jane reveals. “It’s the same with the hotels, the crime rate in the hotels is high.” She recalls a meeting the previous night, where a police officer passed around an iPad, showing where the hotspots were for all these incidents, which were at the hotels and detention centre.
As a result, the living costs are higher since insurance premiums go up due to them living ‘in a high-risk area’.
In view of the area being under threat, there is a lack of investment from the council when it comes to fixing everyday issues such as potholes. There is also a lack of community facilities around the area. Christine explains that profitable companies get land priority over local businesses and facilities: “they don’t put money into community facilities, leisure facilities — we talk about crime — there is nowhere for young people to go, nothing for them to do. Why invest in anything for young people if you can make more money from that space in something else.”
She adds: “We don’t have a library and whenever we’ve got close, where’s the suitable building for it? Back to the land issue again. No doctors, because doctors are now businesses, and they need a certain number of people to make money. And we don’t get pharmacies, because there are rules about how close pharmacies can be to one another, and most are in Heathrow, and quite a lot are airside, so we can’t access them. Even with supermarkets, they’re all far away enough, so they aren’t under threat.”
On a more personal note, the expansion has affected Jane and Christine’s life to the point where all their free time is spent doing meetings and making arguments. “We don’t lead a normal life,” admits Jane.
“I don’t think I know what a normal life is,” Christine confesses.