IT’S been some 50 years in the making, but Heathrow is set to get its third runway.
Within hours of the government announcing the extension Tory MP for Richmond Park Zac Goldsmith resigned, forcing a by-election, where he is expected to stand as an anti-runway candidate.
It also saw the prime minister taking flak from Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and Education Secretary Justine Greening, both of whom asked for permission to break the cabinet convention of collective responsibility and publicly speak out against the decision.
In Scotland, the SNP welcomed the news, saying it would lead to “16,000 jobs across Scotland”. The Scottish Government have been given an assurance by bosses at Heathrow that publicly owned Prestwick Airport will be considered for use as a “logistics hub” during construction work.
The Scottish Greens said the decision would “damage the UK’s credibility on the global stage”.
Transport Secretary Chris Grayling, said the new runway was vital and would have economic benefit worth up to £61bn, and create up to 77,000 additional local jobs.
The decision was taken by a cabinet sub-committee, who chose Heathrow over plans for a second runway at Gatwick. The new £17.6 billion plan comes almost 50 years after ministers first made the case for airport expansion in the south-east.
“I am proud that after years of discussion and delay this government is taking decisive action to secure the UK’s place in the global aviation market – securing jobs and business opportunities for the next decade and beyond,” Grayling told MPs.
Johnson, who previously threatened to lie in front of a bulldozer to stop the extension, said it was the wrong decision.
“I do think that building a third runway slap bang in the middle of the western suburbs of the greatest city on earth is not the right thing to do.
“What I worry about is that down the line, if and when a third runway were to be built, and I don’t think it would be, but suppose it were to be, there would be an overwhelming clamour to build a fourth runway as soon as it was completed and then what would London be like?”
“You’d have New York, a city of beautiful skyscrapers, Paris, the city of light, London, the city of planes. Is that really what we want for our fantastic capital city?”
In Parliament, before he had announced his resignation, Goldsmith told Grayling: “The Government has chosen a course that is not only wrong, it is doomed. It’s wrong because of the million people who will suffer on the back of the environmental harm this project unavoidably produces and doomed because of the complexities and costs and legal complications means this project is almost certainly not going to be delivered.”
Heathrow welcomed the news, saying it was the only option for a stronger and fairer economy.
The runway will lead to a jump of almost 50 per cent in the number of planes flying over London, with new neighbourhoods being brought under the flightpath.
In a bid to see off protests and legal challenges, the Government said it would propose a six-and-a-half-hour ban on scheduled night flights, and harden-up night noise restrictions.
The SNP’s transport spokesman Drew Hendry said the expansion “must benefit Scotland”.
“The UK Government must ensure that when this does eventually get approval Scotland gets a fair deal from the process. We should see a commitment on route investment, guarantees to Scottish cities and an equitable share of any public spending that might be accrued coming to Scotland,” he said.
Scottish Green MSP John Finnie was sceptical of the decision: “What is perhaps a surprise is the Scottish Government’s support for today’s decision, given that it does nothing to advance social justice. Wealthy frequent fliers will benefit, as they will from Scottish Ministers’ desire to cut Air Passenger Duty.”
Glasgow Chamber of Commerce chief executive Stuart Patrick said: “We have long championed the expansion of Heathrow as the UK’s hub airport, and are convinced it is the best decision for Glasgow, for Scotland and for the UK as a whole.”
Review of student finance announced as grant recipient level falls
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here