The local conflict I done my Beehive on is the expansion of Heathrow airport, although the conflict itself ended in 2010 when it was legally resolved there are still effects that were created from the plans to expand Heathrow that have upset many different groups. Here BAA (British Multinational Aviation Services Company) pointed out that Heathrow was currently working at 99.2% capacity utilization meaning that even small incidents would create major delays, such as the ability of Heathrow to cope in extreme winter conditions such as snow. But the Greater London Authority and Hillingdon council argued saying there were different options such as expanding Gatwick airport. Labor parliament also stated the huge increase in passengers should be met by London’s most efficient and largest airport should be developed into the UK’s air hub. However, the conservative party suggested alternatives such as improving rail infrastructure to allow extra capacity to spread to other airports such as Manchester.
This would benefit the north of England especially with the struggling economy. Arguments then arose over the impacts that would come from the expansion of Heathrow and there were many mixed opinions towards this. A positive outcome economically would be that 140,000 new jobs would be created meaning that more people would be earning a decent wage paying taxes that would contribute to the government in funding public services such as hospitals. And if the expansion didn’t go ahead then it was estimated the UK would lose potentially £4.5 billion GDP growth and £1.6 billion of its existing GDP to other nations around the world. But the protest groups say that jobs would only benefit the south east as this is where Heathrow is located, it was also pointed out that the GDP figures are miniscule when compared to the UKs total GDP of £2.435 trillion. In terms of the environment, the labor government at the time presented schemes whereby extra greenhouse emissions would be offset. This included involvement in the EUs new Carbon Permit Trading Scheme.
However many environmental groups and charities argued against this. Greenpeace produced information showing that Heathrow’s post-expansion carbon footprint would be a similar size to that of Kenya’s. The National Trust pointed out that regardless of whether CO2 was being offset around the UK, London air quality would fall. Also, the impacts on local communities came into question. A village on the expansion site known as Sipson would be destroyed if the expansion of Heathrow was granted. This would involve 700 homes being demolished as well as several a listed buildings. BAA claimed it would relocate and reimburse the whole community displaced. They also said they would not destroy but in fact repair and maintain the listed buildings on the site. However Sipson village council, the Greater London Authority and the conservative party argued against this. They stated that significant proportions of Greenbelt land would be destroyed and the sound levels in the area would expand by several km2. In January 2009 Heathrow’s proposal for expansion was granted by the Labor Government. But this was put to a standstill as the demonstration groups opposing the plans for Heathrow appealed the decision to the Higher Court. It took a whole year of a legal battle but it was decided eventually in March 2010 that the Labor government’s decision was invalid and it was placed under review.
