So, Heathrow........

woody10381

Yes, agreed.

Difficult one, I can't see it making any difference to houses already affected by the existing flight path / noise zones - but won't a third runway effectively extend that noise zone by at least 2 miles to areas that may have not experienced or suffered in great extent from noise in the past?

Stuey1

It will have an effect on some people yes, but there is no change ever going to happen that doesn't have an effect on someone.

Heathrow is an airport that has noise regulations imparted on it under EU regulations and is monitored closely.

There is also the upside to a new runway of more jobs, increase in the local economy to consider when discussing house prices. I have no doubt it will affect some individuals with hearing planes when they didn't used to so much, but I don't think it will affect house prices to any great extent.

(I could turn out to be completely wrong - only time will tell if they ever get round to building it...)

IronGiant

Uh Oh

Stuey1

I had to put it - although I would agree noise restrictions on airports aren't a bad thing (excluding emergencies)

Although Pedants could point out its a directive (if that's different)

Aviation noise information | UK Civil Aviation Authority

Nevertheless, currently there are some regulations in place regarding noise at major airports, which should hopefully stop the house prices in the area from free-falling

phil t

Although in 1966 there had been an airport there for twenty years.  The airport is also quieter now than it was ten years ago.

IronGiant

Back then it was handling 14 million passengers a year, now it's handling 75 million ayear.  I'm almost surprised the difference is that small.   Fact of the day: London Airport was renamed Heathrow in 1966.

phil t

"46,000 tonnes of fresh Scottish Salmon was exported via Heathrow in the last 12 months"

Enki

75 million persons, imagine the holding of aircraft in the skies wasting fuel that is done everyday at Heathrow, get them down on the ground and let people get on with their day with the new runway.

IronGiant

Much more interesting fact than my one

Derek S-H

Okay, I pretty much accept that I will be a lone voice of dissent here, that no one will agree with me and that this is the "Politics & The Economy" Forum and therefore the only criteria we should use to summarise human purpose and existence is "economic growth" (must keep growing until we explode) and "being competitive" (nothing else matters in life).

We should be flying LESS, not more. Our governments have consistently failed to meet even modest air quality and pollution targets, and this will probably get even worse once we head into the brave new dawn of EU independence.

Oh, but apparently "technology" can be used to resolve any issues around increased pollution. What technology? How much will that cost then? How effective will it actually be?

This might be a poor analogy, but I liken this to our road building/road widening programme. We do this to "ease congestion" and improve "traffic flow". And what invariably happens? This marvellous solution is rapidly exposed as deeply flawed as those new or expanded roads are just filled with yet more traffic and we are back to square one.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, obviously. But we are consistently being warned about the dangers of human hubris and solipsism on the wider ecosystem RIGHT NOW and they're just being ignored.

The one crumb of comfort is that we are so riddled with bureaucracy and ineptitude that this won't happen in our lifetimes and, perhaps, a different set of values and priorities may emerge that go beyond "wealth creation" and "ability to pay".