Evidence supporting airport expansion is flawed, says government adviser

The decision on whether to press ahead with the bitterly contested expansion of Heathrow and Stansted airports must be postponed because the evidence supporting Britain's aviation strategy is "inadequate" and the subject of "fundamental disagreement," a damning report by the Government's own green watchdog will say today.

Controversy over issues such as the contribution of air travel to climate change and its benefits to the economy is so deep that only a special commission, similar to the Turner commission on pensions, can dispel the atmosphere of "rising distrust" on aviation between the Government, voters and environmentalists, according to the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC). The body, which was set up by Labour and is charged with advising ministers on contentious environmental and economic issues, said making a decision on major projects such as the third runway at Heathrow, expected this summer, and a second runway at Stansted on the basis of current heavily disputed evidence was "impossible" in the current climate of "conflict and controversy".

Instead, the SDC study – published today with the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) think-tank after 12 months of discussion – calls on the Government to go back to the drawing board and revise its 2003 Air Transport White Paper, which argued that as long as certain environmental safeguards were met, an expansion of Britain's airports would provide a boost to the economy. One government-backed consultation paper on expanding Heathrow said the net benefit would amount to £5bn per annum.

Hugh Raven, the SDC commissioner behind the report, said: "The Government thinks its evidence base is adequate. We don't think it is. This data is heavily contested. While we expected to find areas of conflict, we were unprepared for the level of fundamental disagreement over the data underpinning the Government's whole aviation strategy.

"Until some basic questions are answered, the UK cannot be in a position to make major decisions about the future of air travel. The Government must live up to its commitment to listen to voters' concerns and ensure we make the best possible decisions for everyone involved."

The proposal for a special commission, which received backing last night from campaign groups including Greenpeace and WWF, as well as the Institute of Directors, put the Government in the uncomfortable position of attacking a body which was set up by Tony Blair in 2000 with a remit to help shape Labour's green policies. The Department for Transport (DfT) criticised the SDC findings and said a further debate on airport expansion, as well as revision of its White Paper – which would take until 2010 or 2011 – was "not a serious option".

The plans to add a third runway – and potentially a sixth terminal – to Heathrow, the world's busiest international airport, have become a cause célèbre for campaigners concerned at the impact of aviation on global warming and issues such as noise pollution, as well as a major headache for Gordon Brown's embattled government as it seeks to balance economic growth with cutting carbon dioxide emissions at a time when passenger numbers are growing inexorably.

Transport department figures suggest that the extra runway, at a cost of up to £8.3bn, will increase the number of flights to and from Heathrow from 473,000 a year to more than 700,000 by 2030 and generate an extra 181 million tonnes of CO2 by 2080. The number of passengers passing through British airports is predicted to rise from 241 million last year to 500 million by 2030.

The SDC report, entitled Breaking the Holding Pattern, found there was "widespread controversy" over six key areas, in particular accurately calculating the impact on the climate of rising aviation emissions, the economic benefits of higher aviation in terms of inbound and outbound tourism as well as wealth creation, and the extent to which improvements in aircraft technology can reduce or stabilise CO2 from air travel.

The Government has already been accused of underestimating the cost of climate change caused by expanding Heathrow, put at £4.8bn in the Stern Review. Friends of the Earth says the true figure is £13.4bn.

Such "high levels of conflict" between campaigners, the industry and the Government mean that the only meaningful resolution is a powerful independent commission on the lines of the Stern Review on climate change, or the Pensions Commission chaired by the former CBI director general Lord Turner, according to the SDC and IPPR.

The study found there was a "lack of policy coherence" across government and an "urgent need for renewed political leadership". In such a context, making a decision on an expansion of Heathrow and Stansted or signing up to new international agreements on climate change without "evidence that is widely agreed to be sound" was therefore "impossible".

The SDC report said: "While the evidence informing these decisions is so widely contested, and the outcomes of important political decisions on addressing aviation's climate impacts remain uncertain, we believe the risks of decisions in favour of expansion outweigh the possible benefits."

Campaigners said the proposals were a significant blow to the Government's efforts to claim solid evidence for backing airport growth. Anna Jones, a transport campaigner at Greenpeace, said: "Now even Gordon Brown's own environment advisers are calling on him to halt the rush towards Heathrow expansion. It's hardly surprising, given the overwhelming evidence that the case for a third runway has been fixed by the Government and the aviation industry."

Both BAA, the airport operator which owns both Heathrow and Stansted, and the DfT sought to counter the report findings by saying there had already been widespread consultation on the expansion plans and that any delay would damage the economy and hit thousands of homeowners with "planning blight".

A DfT spokesman said: "We fundamentally disagree with the findings of this report. It is simply wrong to claim that there is consensus that the evidence base [for expansion] is flawed... Given that the Government has conducted a widespread debate over the last six years, deferring a decision in favour of a further three-year debate as this report suggests is not a serious option."

Grand plan for expansion

Air travel in Britain will grow inexorably in the next 20 years and airport capacity must expand dramatically to cope with a tripling in passenger numbers by 2030 to 465 million a year, the Government says.

The centrepiece of the UK aviation strategy for the next three decades, as laid out in the 2003 Air Transport White Paper, is the building of a third runway and possibly a sixth terminal at Heathrow – the world's busiest international airport – and the addition of a second runway at Stansted in Essex "as soon as possible".

Permission for BAA, the embattled owner of Heathrow and Stansted as well as Gatwick and several regional airports, to build the third runway at a cost of up to £8.3bn was made contingent on several environmental restrictions, such as meeting new European air pollution rules. If the Government gives the go-ahead this summer and planning permission is granted, the runway would be in operation between 2015 and 2020.

Stansted, where proposals for a second runway have been the subject of a ferocious campaign by opponents, will be able to handle up to 80 million passengers a year if the plans are approved. There will be no new runway at Gatwick before 2019, when a planning restriction on additional capacity at the airport expires.

Beyond south-east England, the White Paper said there was a case for a new runway at Birmingham International and an extra terminal and runway extension at Bristol.

In Scotland, land has been set aside at Edinburgh airport for a new runway to accommodate 20 million passengers per annum by 2020 alongside a new terminal. Runway extensions have also been earmarked for Aberdeen and Inverness airports.

Cahal Milmo

Interesting? Click here to explore further