Search questions

• Question by: Joanne McCartney
• Meeting date: 08 September 2015

Joanne McCartney AM: Can we move to issues raised in chapter 7, the economic impacts assessment, and in particular the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report into the wider economic benefits of Heathrow? I understand that you put the PwC report out to your expert panel to do a peer review and it came back. If I can quote from its report, it said, “We counsel caution in attaching significant weight either to the absolute or relative results of the ... PwC report”, and stated that the methodology used was “unique or at least very unusual”. Yet your final report quotes extensively from...

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 18 June 2014

Tony Arbour AM: Arising from the last point that Mr Tracey raised, you told us that on the basis of what you already knew it is likely to be true that a third runway is going to generate less noise than two runways. I may say that my constituents in Hounslow and Richmond have frequently heard assertions saying, “More means less”, which has not proved to be so. I wonder if you can tell us on what you base your certainty that there will be a smaller noise footprint from a third runway than there is from the existing two...

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 18 June 2014

Tony Arbour AM: The everyday aggravation which is caused by Heathrow to local residents is not just noise and what has been indicated is the considerable amount of traffic which causes congestion to local centres. Any expansion of Heathrow of necessity means there will be an increase in that traffic. You just made a reference to the congestion zone. My understanding of the congestion zone proposal by Heathrow is predicated on there being a fourth runway in addition to the one which is being proposed. Roger Evans AM (Chairman): That is the first question. Tony Arbour AM: I did mention...