B6- Response to topic: ‘Managing the effects of expansion’. Sub-topic: ‘Health’.


Sub-topic: ‘Health’- Question:
‘Tell us what you think about our proposals to help health and well-being. Are there other proposals that you think we should consider to address the effects of the Project on health and well-being of our colleagues, neighbours and passengers?’

Link to question:

  • I am concerned about the severe adverse implications on the physical and mental health and well-being of the London population of the both the ‘Early Growth’ ( API) proposal and the 3rd Runway proposals. This is in particular as a result of the increased volume of flights flying above London, but also from the increased road surface traffic to and from the airports including cargo transport which will impact colleagues, neighbours and the wider population further.
  • In my view the severe adverse health implications on the London population are not correctly presented in the consultation. The WHO regards noise levels about 45dBL during the day and 40 dBl at night as having adverse impact on the health. Noise above 45 decibels/ is associated with raised blood pressure, cardio-vascular disease and stress. The dBL levels in the Heathrow proposals are far above these WHO noise levels, which is deeply worrying.
  • My understanding is that in addition to impacting the health of individuals in London, the adverse health impact of the proposals will also vastly increase the burden on the NHS and add significant cost to the NHS bill to be covered by UK tax payers.
  • It is important to ensure that any decisions relating to Heathrow are based on the correct information. The House of Commons March 2018 brief , grossly underestimated how much of London’s population will be impacted by the Heathrow 3rd Runway. This is because the information presented in the brief incorrectly assumed the concentrated flight path approach only. To be correct, the impact numbers presented should also have included the ‘Early Growth’ proposal scenario where flights are dispersed widely across London affecting a much wider group of the population.
  • In conclusion it alarms me that economic benefits appear to have been overstated and adverse health implications have been severely understated in government briefings and consultations.
  • The adverse health and well-being impacts on the London population are wholly avoidable by not proceeding with either proposal.

Back to Start Page 11