Once again, we should remember that all the reasons why a 3rd runway at LHR would not be feasible environmentally or financially were brought out during the consultation leading upto the White Paper called The Future of Air Transport, produced by the Department for Transport (Alistair Darling in charge) in 2003.
Public Safety Zones, pollution levels etc were all cited as problems that would be nearly impossible to overcome.
Notwithstanding, the determination of the Department and its supine Secretary of State (A. Darling) to give BAA what it wanted, regardless of the interests of the country or indeed the facts, led to the infamous conclusion that each BAA airport round London should have a new runway; a conclusion that could have been written on a fag packet before £100m was spent on consultants.
The placement of around 26 BAA staff in the Department to "assist" with the evaluation of other proposals meant that it came as no surprise that these were all kicked into touch.
Since then BAA has been sold to a bunch of Spaniards who had to borrow heavily to finance the purchase; a debt which is now encumbering the business.
The safety zone issue is only one; the White Paper reminds us that thereare mandatory EU limits for levels of pollutants in the air, irrespective of the source. In supporting development of a new runway at Heathrow, it specified that this support was "provided that stringent environmental limits can be met".
Unfortunately, they cannot be if a new runway is built with the stated increases in ATMs and passenger movements. The ATMs generate pollution from aircraft, and the passenger movements generate pollution from surface transport. The increase in pollution from both these sources would put the air around Heathrow far above the EU limits.
So while the Department said what BAA wanted it to say, it covered its ass by adding the proviso "provided that stringent environmental limits can be met", knowing full well that they can't be. Both they and the BAA hoped that when they said, 3 or 4 years later, that the runway should go ahead this little caveat to the Government's support would be forgotten.
Mind you, one solution under discussion at that time was to control the surface transport emissions by tunnelling the M4 from Chiswick to Reading, and possible quite a long stretch of the M25 as well. Doing so would allow the 3rd runway to go ahead, and probably wouldn't cost much more than £12.5bn; the reason that it was rightly deemed to be an absurd solution at the time.
Of course £12.5bn is a ridiculous figure as an investment in a third runway.
But, hold on, tunnelling the M4 and M25 as suggested would solve the PSZ issue, now wouldn't it! In a Government that is clearly incapable of even basic financial arithmetic (Northern Rock?) crazier things have happened.