BUILT HERITAGE UNDER SERIOUS THREAT: JOINT RESPONSE TO HEATHROW AIRPORT CONSULTATION
ADDING CAPACITY AT HEATHROW AIRPORT
1. Introduction
The Joint Committee of National Amenity Societies consists of the national amenity
societies which by law must be notified of all applications that involve the demolition
of listed buildings in England and Wales. It also includes the Civic Trust and
the Garden History Society which must be consulted over certain works to historic
gardens and landscapes. This response is the collective view of the Joint Committee,
though individual societies may also be submitting their own more specific comments.
2. Response
• The consultation starts from a clear presumption in favour of further expansion
at Heathrow. The Aviation White Paper in 2002 asked if it was possible to expand
the airport’s capacity while minimising environmental damage. In the case of the
extraordinary potential damage to the heritage we said confidently that it was
not. This remains our view. Indeed this disastrous outcome is now worse than in
2002 because of the proposed sixth terminal – the need for which was categorically
denied at the time. The Heritage Impact Assessment in the consultation document
acknowledges that additional capacity “would generate high adverse impact on heritage”.
• We are very concerned by possible damage - both direct and indirect - to the
102 listed buildings, monuments, archaeological sites, historic settlements and
landscapes identified in the consultation that could result from the proposed
construction of a third runway, sixth terminal and associated taxiways, roads
and ancillary structures. The lack of detailed information on the precise siting
of the runway and related developments because they are “indicative” is particularly
worrying as a variation could easily increase the risk to sensitive areas.
• The sheer scale of the possible damage to sound, legally protected, historic
buildings and sites at Heathrow (as at Stansted) is without postwar precedent,
and should be wholly unacceptable as it would be under any other commercial or
private development.
• Under planning law proposals for the demolition of listed buildings or those
seriously affecting scheduled sites are normally only granted consent under exceptional
circumstances; and almost never when the building is in a sound condition as is
the case of those identified as at risk.
• Many of the existing buildings and structures, particularly those in Sipson,
that are likely to be affected will not be listed but nevertheless form a valuable
part of the overall historic environment.
• The scope for ameliorating the effect on the historic environment by dismantling
and re-erecting a small proportion of the most important buildings is extremely
limited, and will almost always be both technically and philosophically highly
problematical. It is not a serious option and should form no part of the discussions.
• The historic environment is a finite resource that cannot be renewed once it
is lost. It is wholly wrong to sacrifice buildings that may be 800 years old for
the comparatively short term expansion of an activity that is unsustainable in
the long term.
• The whole basis of the proposals is misconceived - that of uncontrolled growth
in demand for air travel, and commercial pressure from airlines and airports for
further unjustifiable expansion. We believe many of the arguments for unchecked
expansion put forward are weak.
• Even if a case for further expansion could be made, it is quite clear that Heathrow
is in the wrong location. It would be a terrible betrayal of future generations
to jeopardize the ancient settlements in the vicinity by a short sighted compounding
the original mistake.
• The proposals for a third runway in the RUCATSE report of 1993 were rejected
principally because of the environmental damage they would have caused. The latest
proposals are just as serious for the historic environment (and more so in some
locations) and should also be rejected. The Government should be thinking more
radically about proper longterm solutions that do not depend on destroying our
precious heritage.
3. Heathrow’s Historic Environment
(i) The area to the north of Heathrow is a quite remarkable and special historic
survival so close to the centre of London and engulfed by more recent development.
It also includes individual historic buildings of great importance, including
one - Harmondsworth barn - which is one the finest examples anywhere in the United
Kingdom. It is an area rich in historic interest that merits special measures
to protect its sensitivity. Instead we have proposals that would jeopardise most
of its historic value, and which would be unthinkable if any equivalent form of
commercial or private development were proposed.
(ii) The consultation rightly recognizes that the current airport site and the proposed
area of expansion lie within an area of high archaeological importance, with human
activity dating from prehistoric times. The pattern of landscape and settlement
probably changed little from the Mediaeval to post-Mediaeval period. In spite
of the growth of surrounding suburbia, an extraordinary semi-rural enclave still
survives. The proposed expansion would lead to substantial archaeological disturbance,
the Heritage Impact Assessment concedes, and could affect 38 undesignated sites
within the smaller study area. The maximum area of expansion contains an additional 32 sites, while a further
55 lie in the wider corridor, as do three scheduled ancient monuments.
(iii) The consultation refers to 102 listed buildings within the study area, though
the document is factually wrong in referring to the churches affected by their
former alphabetical listings. The two most significant churches at risk – Harlington
and Harmondsworth – were relisted as Grade I and Grade II* respectively some years
ago. We hope that similar mistakes have not been made elsewhere.
(iv) Because the location of the third runway, sixth terminal and associated taxiways
and ancillary works are only “indicative” the four listed buildings said to be facing
complete demolition are not identified. However they would appear to be three
in Sipson, including a former Mediaeval hall house, now the King William IV pub;
and neighbouring Lanz farmhouse, a late 17th or early 18th century timber framed
house revamped in the 19th century. A listed but much altered late 18th century
house would also seem to be doomed. To these must be added 700 other properties
in Sipson which are to be erased to make way for the new terminal. Several of
these are unlisted but are of clear historic interest.
(v) The most important casualty of the third runway is likely to be the tower, if
not the whole, of Grade I listed St Peter’s Church, Harlington. This lies immediately
underneath the main approach to the proposed runway. The recent crash landing
of a Boeing aircraft short of an existing runway emphasizes its vulnerability.
St Peter’s is a Norman church, with 14th century chancel, 15th century tower and
16th century porch. The churchyard is famed for its yew trees and tombs, one of
which is listed in its own right. Though Harlington falls just outside the indicative
boundary of the airport the new M4 spur road threatens several listed buildings
which would be uncomfortably close to it. Most at risk is likely to be Elder farmhouse,
identified in the list description as 16th century or earlier with an 18th century
front, and slightly further away the Pheasant pub, also Grade II, and listed as 18th century.
(vi) Harmondsworth at the west end of the site is a wholly unexpected survival, an
almost secret remnant of an historic Middlesex agricultural enclave, now marooned
among suburban sprawl and marginal farming. As well as the Grade II* Norman church,
it is renowned for one of the finest 12 bay tithe barns in the country, a scheduled
ancient monument, with its surrounding former Manor farmhouse and farmbuildings.
Other listed buildings in danger include the early 18th century Harmondsworth
Hall; the Grange of 1675; the 17th century Five Bells Inn; 16th century Sun House;
The Crown (18th century); The Gable Stores (19th century); a K6 telephone box;
Acacia House of 1725; the 19th century former Vicarage, and the handsome brick
Lodge. Unlike previous plans the proposed runway will now be sited just north of Harmondsworth,
missing it by a short distance. In theory this will permit the central core of
the hamlet to survive, recognizing its historic importance and value. But the
eastern end will be wiped out (22 per cent of the conservation area) with the
demolition of one listed building. The plan is unclear but the most likely candidate
seems to be a house of about 1600. But demolitions aside it is hard to see how
any of the remaining buildings will be usable or have any sort of sustainable
future because of their proximity to the runway. The noise alone will make them
untenable. Accidental damage will always be a concern.
(vii) Apart from the areas close to the airport it is important to remember the consequences
for other historic buildings and sites on the new flight paths resulting from
an extra runway. Buildings of supreme importance such as Chiswick House will find
it increasingly hard to operate as a public heritage site because of the huge
increase in noise from low flying aircraft.
3. Listed building/Scheduled monument consent
(i) Air travel is a commercial operation and the pressure for expansion has come
from airlines
and airport operators. In any other circumstances listed building or scheduled
monument
applications to damage large sections of statutorily protected heritage assets
for commercial
gain would be rejected out of hand, and rightly so. Consent is almost never
given for
demolition of buildings that retain their historic integrity and interest.
(ii) In addition dozens of unlisted older buildings within conservation areas, or
which are
integral parts of the local historic environment, appear to be in danger and
should not be
seen as dispensible.
(iii) Noise and other forms of pollution are likely to jeopardise the continued use
of and care for many more historic buildings over a much wider area. Blighted
by airport expansion, the future of previously much loved structures in the vicinity
may be put in doubt, with the erosion of their historic character and possible
deterioration as the longterm outcome. This largely falls outside the planning
system but over time this insidious process can be as destructive as more direct
threats.
4. Amelioration
Reference has been made in previous plans to the possibility of relocating some
of the listed buildings facing outright demolition - the implication being that
if the most important ones can be "saved" by this method, the loss of others may
be acceptable. We reject this most strongly, and suggest it would be wholly mistaken
to regard this as a serious answer to the heritage threat.
Relocation can take two forms - the most technically difficult, expensive and
least common is by undermining the building and lifting it whole to a new site.
What is much more usually meant is dismantling the building and re-erecting a
replica using a proportion of the materials salvaged from the original. On the
face of it this may seem easier with timber-framed buildings, but the loss of
historic fabric and identity is inevitable however carefully it is done. Equally
important is the removal of the structure from its historic context and setting,
inevitably destroying the link between it and its historic site, and in the process
seriously diminishing its value and interest.
5. The Need for Radical Thinking
The Joint Committee of National Amenity Societies must leave judgments about
the real need for airport expansion and the best ways of achieving a sensible
transport policy to those better qualified to do so. However we would like to
make the following points:
(i) In rejecting all the runway options that result in serious damage to heritage
assets we are not
opposing the need for economic development. Rather we urge the Government to
think
more radically about more imaginative ways of creating a long term, sustainable
transport
policy that is achievable without destroying large numbers of historic buildings
and sites in
the process.
(ii) The absurdity of using "predict and provide" as a basis for planning transport
policy is self-
evident and does not need arguing. It also seems clear that completely unchecked
growth in
air travel bears far too high an environmental price. The Government should
acknowledge
the need for some control - whether through fiscal measures, the reduction in
subsidies, the
rationing of airport capacity, or in other ways.
The UK's historic building, monuments, sites and landscapes are a finite and
constantly eroding resource. We must value them and protect them. Their loss should
not be seen as the inevitable consequence of progress. Once lost they cannot be
recovered. The Consultation Document concedes the scale of the damage to the heritage
resulting from the proposal. The Government should recognise that this is too
high a price to pay, and think again.