Heathrow runway plan is dropped

Airlines accuse Government of 'political stitch-up' as Stansted option is favoured

Plans to build a third runway at Heathrow are to be abandoned because of concerns that it would break European Union pollution limits.

In a decision that will be greeted with fury by some of Britain's biggest airlines and welcomed by campaigners against a new runway so close to London, Government sources made it clear a second runway at Stansted in Essex was the favoured option.

In an announcement to be made by the end of the year, Transport Secretary Alistair Darling will say that more planes arriving at Heathrow could risk breaking EU pollution limits, which come into force in 2010.

The Government is worried that extra traffic into the area, already one of the most congested parts of the roads network, would also increase pollution and lead to gridlock.

Officials also believe that the demolition of housing and schools to make way for the new runway would lead to endless legal appeals that would make the option unviable.

Airline sources told The Observer that they were furious at the decision and blamed the Government for trying to put in place a 'political stitch-up'.

'It hasn't escaped our attention that there are a lot of marginal Labour seats around Heathrow and west London and that Stansted is in the Tory heartlands,' said one senior airline official. 'This has turned into a political solution; it is certainly the wrong solution.'

The heads of British Airways, Virgin and bmi, formerly British Midland, have written a personal letter to the Prime Minister demanding the Government change its position. 'There is clear evidence that Heathrow generates far greater benefits to the UK economy than Stansted,' says the letter, signed by Rod Eddington, chief executive of BA; Sir Richard Branson, chairman, Virgin Atlantic Airways; and Sir Michael Bishop, chairman of bmi.

'We are not aware of any significant support for developing Stansted first. We believe it would be a mistake to constrain the industry by requiring development in a location that is unsuitable for the needs of the market.

'It is also clear that funding for such a development would not be forthcoming.'

The letter says that modern aircraft will mean pollution limits can be met despite the increase in the number of flights.

The airlines also pointed out that having a third runway would mean more efficient use of Heathrow because planes would not have to wait so long for take-off slots with their engines running and would not be forced to fly in holding patterns above London and the Home Counties because of congestion.

The airline industry is now considering possible legal action if Heathrow is not made the leading option.

Government officials, who said the announcement would be 'lawyer proof', pointed out that although some of the leading airlines would be disappointed with the result of the consultation exercise, they 'did not represent the whole industry'.

'They have their own interests at heart obviously but we have to act in the interests of the whole country,' said a Whitehall official.

'They want Heathrow or nowhere. If they get Heathrow they will get more landing slots. If it's nowhere then the value of the slots they have will rise. We have to look at other options.'

The official said that Heathrow was on the corner of the M4 and the M25, two of the busiest motorways in Europe, which would struggle to contain the extra traffic generated by a third runway.

The moves will be welcomed by campaigners who have fought against a third runway which they say will make the lives of millions of people who live under the flight path a misery.

Although there will be objections from people who live near Stansted, development there would affect far fewer people.