The government’s decision on Heathrow expansion today is a case of the wrong answer to the wrong question, accompanied by the usual empty promises about ‘environmental tests’. 

It’s an airport, and expansion will lead to a huge increase in flights and emissions. Whatever green promises have been made, they should be taken with a big pinch of salt. But what should infuriate even those for whom climate change is still just a possibility, is the manner in which this decision has been reached. 

When protestors climbed aboard the roof of Parliament to protest against the government’s plans, Gordon Brown told MPs; “the message should go out today very clearly that decisions in this country should be made in the chamber of this House and not on the roof of this House.” How does he reconcile that message with his disgraceful refusal to give MPs a chance to vote on the very same issue?

Residents beneath the flightpath remember all too well the BAA Chairman’s promise in 1999 that;  “Our position could not be clearer, Terminal 5 will not lead to a third runway”, and the government’s condition that flight numbers would be capped at 480,000 per year, a figure that will be dwarfed as a result of the decision today. 

In addition to the lies and sham consultations, the government’s economic case for expansion is hopelessly flawed. It believes the net benefit will be in the region of £5billion over seventy years. Even if that’s true, it works out at £70million a year, or just £35 per person living beneath the flight path. 

But it’s not true. The calculation ignores a long list of costs. For instance what will be the effect on London of some 25 million extra road passenger journeys to and from the airport each year? What will be the effect on house prices of increasing noise pollution? What is the cost to the environment of increased emissions? How would the governments’ projections look if air fuel were taxed – currently a yearly saving of £9 billion to the industry?

If the government had genuinely set out to find the best way to connect Britain, it would not have decided in favour of Heathrow. When all its airports are taken into account, London has double the capacity of Paris. Indeed Heathrow is already the world’s busiest international airport.

Instead it would have planned a roll out of high speed rail which would create jobs and provide people with a popular alternative to short haul flying. Nearly a fifth of flights using Heathrow are on routes where a reasonable train alternative already exists. No one is saying people shouldn’t fly. I’m sure the majority of campaigners against Heathrow use planes. It’s about common sense.  How can it make sense to operate 32 flights a day from Heathrow to Manchester?

Despite today’s decision, all is far from lost. The Labour Party is divided on Heathrow expansion, and both the Lib Dems and Conservative Party have ruled it out entirely. If the Conservatives maintain a good lead in the polls, and if campaigners can slow the process down by a few more months, the battle against the Third Runway can still be won. 

Zac Goldsmith, PPC for Richmond Park, and quarter owner of the Greenpeace ‘Airplot’ in Sipson Village

At the launch of his national programme, ‘Disappearing Britain’, David Cameron said “small shops are the lifeblood of local economies, and their survival is vital.” He is right. Distinctive, often family-owned small shops define communities. But despite that, in the past six years, London alone is estimated to have lost more than 7,000 independent shops. 

One reason for that is a planning system that offers virtually no room at all for local involvement. Even where residents, local councillors and elected MPs are united in determined opposition to a given plan, their wishes can be, and so often are, simply brushed aside by remote and unaccountable planning bureaucrats. I experienced this first hand last year. 

When a retail site fell vacant on White Hart Lane in Barnes last year, Sainsbury’s snapped it up. Local people were enraged. The last thing they wanted was a large new store undermining the local independents, bringing more traffic into a residential area, with large delivery lorries rumbling up and down the street. The Council was bombarded with letters of protest from residents, and in response it rejected the application. Astonishingly the decision was then overruled by the National Planning Inspectorate in Bristol – over 100 miles away from Barnes.

Communities offer the best possible hedge against continued social and environmental instability, and their protection should be a priority. That requires a re-think of Planning– and a shift towards a much more localised approach. 

The downward trends are nearly universal, but the fact that some areas are fighting back suggests there is a lot our local authorities could do – even in the absence of Planning reform. 

Ten years ago for instance, Marylebone High Street had 51 empty shops and barely a single independent. It is now the leading independent shopping street in London. This didn’t happen by chance. The landlords understood that a good mix of shops, in an attractive and well-maintained environment, would bring in new shoppers. They were proactive and developed a long term vision for the area. Having identified the gaps on the high street, they actively sought new operators. 

Inspired by the success story of Marylebone High Street, Kensington and Chelsea Council launched a wide-ranging Retail Conservation programme. K+C Council has begun re-writing the planning process so that the retail categories are more detailed and prescriptive. Mobile phone shops, coffee shops, large chains, estate agents all have their own categories. The effect is that where vacancies crop up, it is easier for the council to ensure that the replacement operator is something that adds to, rather than detracts from, the overall mix of shops in the area. More than that, where vacancies arise, they will actively seek out the best possible occupants, as the Marylebone Landlords did in their area. 

We need the same energy and commitment across the board. Communities don’t have to accept decline. But to reverse it we need to work together and ensure our Local Authorities know we are watching them.

A recent government report downplayed any vulnerability in the UK’s food supply chain, preferring to place confidence in international trade and globalisation, and denying any potential adverse impact from climate change; ‘Climate change particularly is likely to bring new challenges for the food security, not of rich countries like the UK, but of less developed, tropical, regions.’

Given a number of deeply worrying emerging trends, it’s surely time to question that approach. Food prices globally have increased by 83% in little over three years; the world’s breadbaskets are almost without exception shrinking; water shortages affect more than 100 countries; and with the global rush to biofuels, we are seeing more and more agricultural land (not to mention forests) given over to growing fuel. 

All this combined with ever rising oil price and uncertainty over the world’s true oil reserves, means food security ought to be high on the political agenda. The issue won’t go away. But there are things we can do now to alleviate it, while we begin the process of sorting out our own rural crisis, and shifting away from the kind of agriculture that is undermining the very basis of food production; soil and water.

The key today is to establish a clear set of standards for biofuels.

The issue has been discussed at length in the media, and is reasonably well understood. So why did a majority of MPs allow the passage of a piece of legislation two weeks ago that requires 2.5% of fuel sold on garage forecourts to come from biofuels, rising to 5% after two years?

Only the Conservatives voted against the measure, pointing out that in the absence of clear standards, the policy will exacerbate the problems associated with biofuels. The tragedy is that in the same week that the so-called Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation came into force, both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor called for international action on the impact of biofuels on global food prices.

If ever there was a case for joined up thinking…