§ 3.15 p.m.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now reconsider, on safety grounds, the decision to permit the erection of an hotel beneath the approach path to runway 28R at London Heathrow Airport.]
§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN)My, Lords, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has no present intention of revising the advice on this he has given to the planning authority who are responsible for the planning decision. As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade made clear in Written Answers to Questions in another place on February 25, the proposed hotel would conform to the internationally agreed standards for safeguarded take-off and approach slopes and would not interfere with the performance of the instrument landing system or the radar. The building would also be outside the public safety zone for this runway.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, is the Minister certain that it is a wise thing to 560 allow this hotel to be built on this spot? Is he aware that some airlines will now operate in bad weather with a clearance of only 250 feet over the roof of this hotel? Is he satisfied with a situation in which a pilot is expected to bring probably 300 people in bad weather and under instrument conditions over an unnecessary obstruction in this manner?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, so far as bad weather conditions are concerned, I am advised that the all weather instrumentation (automatic landing) for operating in Category II conditions is superior to that for operating in more favourable conditions and ensures that there is less chance of deviation from the approach path. All flights in any conditions use the same glide slope of three degrees.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, there is a difference of technical opinion as to whether this building will actually distort the beam in this case. I would advise the noble Lord to go further into that question. But, apart from that fact, we are here dealing with a minimum. Certainly the ICAO regulation has been met. But the ICAO regulation applies to countries all over the world—to a hundred countries, some of which probably have only two or three movements a day, and we are here dealing with the busiest international airport in the world. May I ask the noble Lord, therefore, if he will be good enough to say that he will look into this matter again?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, before I answer the last part of the noble Lord's question. I think I should say on a point of fact—and this is not a quibble, as the noble Lord knows—that the IACO standard is not a minimum: it is a standard, something which applies and which can be applied in giving planning decisions of this kind. So far as the last part of the noble Lord's question is concerned, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has given his advice on this, and the planning decision has been made.
§ LORD LEATHERLANDMy Lords, does the noble Lord agree that my noble friend Lord Beswick is really an expert on these matters, and will he therefore give consideration to what he has said? Furthermore, in view of the suggestion that there might be a danger to navigation 561 at Heathrow, will Her Majesty's Government speed up the establishment of the new airport at Foulness?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I think that the last part of the noble Lord's question refers to a different problem. So far as the first part of his question is concerned, I fully agree that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is an expert in these matters, and I know that he is well advised upon them, as well. The difficulty is that this decision has been taken, and, as I have said, the Department of Trade and Industry are satisfied that the advice which they gave on this matter was the correct advice.
§ LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that in Spain an hotel was allowed to be erected in a similar position to the approach path of a runway and is now having to be abolished?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, one can never compare exactly two cases of this kind. I am well aware of what the noble Lord has said, but the point is that no statement has been made, I am advised, by the Spanish Government of the exact reasons for the action that it took.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord can tell me, without binding Her Majesty's Government to his answer, whether he would personally enjoy staying at this hotel, which is in line with the main runway, and has aircraft passing 250 ft. overhead all the time?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I am told that an hotel of this kind would be soundproofed throughout, and that to that extent it would be very much better off than the houses will be round about it.
§ LORD KILBRACKENMy Lords, is soundproofing much good if a jumbo-jet flies in at your bedroom window?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I am told that statistically the chances of that happening are over one in ten million.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, does the noble Lord recognise that any impediment to the use of Heathrow would be welcomed by many people who suffer 562 from noise in that area, and who hope that more impediments will lead to a quicker decision to the use of Foulness instead of Heathrow?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I might accept that, but I would simply observe that in the opinion of the Department of Trade and Industry such an hotel would not constitute an impediment to the use of Heathrow.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLMy Lords, in view of the general concern of planning around the major airports, would my noble friend, and the Government, consider issuing a more precise planning directive than at present exists around the airport, both on safety grounds and on the ground of acceptable noise levels?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, the planning directives are perfectly clear on this matter. The ICAO standard is incorporated in regulations of this country. There is also the question of the public safety zone, and, as I have said, this site would be well outside the public safety zone.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he is quibbling about my use of the word "minimum"? This is a minimum; it was intended to apply to a hundred different countries in the world, and I am saying that in this country we should allow something above the minimum that is being applied elsewhere. Now may I ask the noble Lord whether he will be good enough to say what is the nature of the advice which his right honourable friend tendered to the planning authority?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord may think that this was a quibble, and it occurred to me when I was probing this matter also that it might appear to be so. But this is not so; this is a standard, and it is different from a recommendation. In addition this is above the minimum; it is not just barely the minimum. I have forgotten the second question the noble Lord asked.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, it was with regard to the advice—
§ LORD DRUMALBYNYes, my Lords, I remember. It was: what was the advice that was given? The advice that 563 was given was that the height of the proposed building should not exceed 160 feet above Ordnance datum, which is equivalent to approximately 83 feet above the local ground level; and, in addition, there was a condition attached.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this company proposes to erect a hotel so close to the minima that the hotel is to be 87 feet at one end, and 80 feet at the other end, so that the undercarriage of an aircraft can just conform to the figures on the way down?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, it is not for me to say; it is a matter for the planning authority. But if at any point the height exceeded this 83 feet then it would not accord with the planning permission which has been given.