text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Heathrow Third Runway - rethink the plans - rejected
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  
  
  
  @ MP voted aye to urge the Government to rethink its plans for Heathrow third runway
  @ MP voted no to welcome the Government's plans regarding the third runway at Heathrow
  
  The majority of MPs voted against the motion, which said:[1]
   
  **This House 
  * ''urges'' the Government to rethink its plans for a third runway at Heathrow Airport and to give full consideration to alternative solutions; 
  * ''regrets'' the Government's heavy reliance on data supplied by BAA in assessing the case for expansion and notes the likely forthcoming break-up of BAA's ownership of three of 5 London's airports following the investigation by the Competition Commission; 
  * ''believes'' that the consultation paper [http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/closed/heathrowconsultation/ Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport][2] was deeply flawed, as it paid insufficient regard to the costs of air and noise pollution in the surrounding areas and the commitment to curb carbon dioxide emissions to tackle climate change; 
  * ''regrets'' the fact that provisions to improve high-speed rail lines from 10 Heathrow to major cities have not been fully explored, along with the potential of other UK airports to handle more long-haul flights; and 
  * ''urges'' the Government to initiate a consultation on a new national planning policy statement on the theme of airports and high-speed rail.
  
  In its place, a different motion was proposed, which read:[3]
  
  ** This House
  * ''notes'' the Government's commitment in the [http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/whitepapers/air/ 2003 Aviation White Paper][4] to limit noise impacts and to be confident both that statutory air quality limits will be met and that public transport will be improved before expansion is permitted at Heathrow; 
  * ''welcomes'' the Government's new enforceable target to reduce UK aviation carbon dioxide emissions below 2005 levels by 2050, and the commitment that increases in capacity at Heathrow, beyond the additional 125,000 movements a year already agreed, will only be approved after a review in 2020 by the Committee on Climate Change of whether the UK is on track to meet this independently monitored target; 
  * ''notes'' that development at Heathrow will be conditional both on requirements that the size of the 57 decibel noise contour will not increase compared with 2002 and on adherence to the requirements of the European Air Quality Directive; 
  * ''notes'' the decision not to proceed with mixed mode, thereby ensuring that neighbouring residents will have predictable respite from aircraft noise; 
  * ''welcomes'' the proposal that new slots at Heathrow should be 'green slots' using the most efficient planes; 
  * ''recognises'' the economic and social importance of Heathrow; and 
  * ''welcomes'' proposals on ultra-low carbon vehicles and new rail links to the west of Heathrow and new high-speed services from London to the Midlands, the North and Scotland linked to Heathrow, to the benefit of the UK as a whole.
  
  which passed automatically.
  
  * [1] [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2009-01-28a.299.1 Therisa Villiers MP], House of Commons, 28 January 2009
  * [2] [http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/closed/heathrowconsultation/ Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport], Public consultation closing date 27 February 2008
  * [3] [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2009-01-28a.299.1#g311.0 Geoff Hoon MP], House of Commons, 28 January 2009
  * [4] [http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/whitepapers/air/ The Future of Air Transport - White Paper and the Civil Aviation Bill], 16 December 2003
  
  
  
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  