Anthony Hilton: A better way to land an airport deal


It is understandable that people living near Heathrow do not want the airport to expand, but they can hardly be surprised at the possibility.

There has been an airfield of sorts there since 1929. After being expanded during the latter stages of the Second World War, it was officially opened as London’s civil airport in 1946.

That means only someone aged 85 or over could claim to have bought a house there when there were no  aircraft, and even that assumes  they bought the house when they  were still a baby — which is, to say the least, unlikely.

The same argument effectively holds for the 68 years Heathrow has been designated as London’s airport.

For all practical purposes, almost anyone who today owns a house in the area or under its flight paths must have bought that house knowing it was affected by airport noise.

It is also probable, although they will be reluctant to admit it, that because of the noise, the price they paid for that house was less than it would otherwise have been.

Acceptance of the airport was the deal they made when they moved there so it is a bit late to complain about it now.

Although it might not be popular to point this out, things are in some ways better today than they were 20 or 30 years ago.

Modern aircraft engines are much quieter than those that were used to power the earlier generations of jets such as the Boeing 707 — to say nothing of Concorde.

Because the engines are more powerful, even the present generation of bigger aircraft needs shorter runways, and can take off more quickly and climb more steeply, so the noise footprint is less.

Being more fuel-efficient, they also create less exhaust and pollution — albeit the air round Heathrow can smell pretty horrific.

Aircraft movements at the airport are busier now than ever before but it has never exactly been quiet. Passenger traffic hit one million a year in December 1953, almost 61 years ago.

This was years before the advent of mass flying but even then there were 62,000 flights a year, or well over 1000 a week. This is not to say it is pleasant to live close to the airport, or even to suggest it may be true it is marginally less unpleasant now than it was a few years ago.

But it does suggest that if extra airport capacity is needed — which most people think is the case — it is reasonable to expand an existing facility rather than start again somewhere else.

The other point worth making is that the towns of the Thames Valley have done very well out of their proximity to the airport.

The international connections of Heathrow are a major reason for their success in attracting footloose modern hi-tech businesses from abroad.


These businesses are the foundation of the prosperity of the area but would they stay and grow without a fully functioning and efficient airport?

A couple of years ago at a fringe meeting at the Conservative Party conference, a prominent Tory MP said with relish that resisting Heathrow expansion had been fully justified because it had helped the party win seven close fought seats at the last election.

Others might think this a less than adequate reason — although it does help to explain why so much of Britain’s infrastructure is third rate  and why the likes of Olympic Delivery Authority chairman Sir John Armitt are trying to persuade Westminster to adopt a process that would take  the short-term politics out of infrastructure decisions.

But you also have to question what world the MP inhabits.

Opinion polls of voters in constituencies near the airport give a much more even split for and against expansion than you would get from talking to a local Conservative party member — typically in his or her sixties, retired and upset when plane noise interrupts the barbecue.

There is also a split between MPs and local councillors, who are not only much closer to the local population but also much more tuned in to the economic benefits of expansion.

Not all are in favour — but opposition is getting less vocal. Most give the impression that they would do a deal if the price was right.

This surely is the key. The British have traditionally been niggardly in their compensation to people whose lives are blighted by infrastructure — in contrast to France where the norm is for householders to be overcompensated, and where in consequence opposition is much more muted. It is time for that to change.

Whatever options are proposed for Heathrow or Gatwick will be much more palatable for the local populations and much harder to campaign against if they come with proper levels of compensation.

This is not about subsidised double glazing for houses, but about proper soundproofing and insulation, which really makes a difference.

It is about similar high-quality insulation and air-conditioning for schools, old people’s homes and public buildings in the affected areas.

The irony is that although the cost of proper compensation would undoubtedly be huge, it might still mean a saving if it stopped years more of wrangling, public inquiries and legal challenges. It would be better surely that the millions go to homeowners rather than lawyers.