UK airport expansion: third runway at Heathrow receives government approval.

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

What do you think we should do?

In party political terms the two main parties are divided although the Tories are in by far the more comfortable position as go any disputes among its ranks i would think.

For my part, speeding the nine or ten junctions round the M25 with a JCB in tow is nowhere on my agenda shall we say.

 

[Melbourne Red]

There's only two?

 

[Melbourne Red]

I mean it's the busiest airport in the world FFS, you'd think they might need more than two runways.

 

[Melbourne Red]

I mean it's Heathrow Airport, not a fecking skate park.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Protesters buy up land to block runway plans.

Land earmarked for the construction of Heathrow's third runway has been bought by anti-expansion protesters.

Land the size of half a football pitch near Sipson village - which would lose hundreds of homes in the expansion - was bought by a Greenpeace coalition.

It has pledged not to sell the land to the government or BAA if the airport expansion gets the go-ahead.

Greenpeace director John Sauven said: "We've thrown a massive spanner in the engine driving Heathrow expansion."

Four key Greenpeace campaigners - including actress Emma Thompson and impressionist Alistair McGowan - bought the land for an undisclosed fee.

Tory front bench spokeswoman Justine Greening and Lib Dem MP Susan Kramer were given a piece of the title to the land by Greenpeace and the group hopes to hand more of the land parcel to others in a bid to complicate any attempt to force them to sell.

They have said plans to increase flights at the airport from 480,000 to 720,000 would create unacceptable noise and pollution.

But BBC transport correspondent Tom Symonds said recent planning legislation included clauses that allowed the courts to consider whether or not a land purchase that blocked planned development was "vexatious or frivolous".

This could, in turn, scupper Greenpeace's plans to obstruct the construction for years.

Our correspondent said the government was due to rule on the plans as early as this week, but that decision may be further delayed.

The airport industry, business and union leaders have said Heathrow's expansion is vital for the British economy's long-term competitiveness and supporters have suggested work on the runway could create up to 65,000 jobs.

Ms Thompson said: "I don't understand how any government remotely serious about committing to reversing climate change can even consider these ridiculous plans."

Mr McGowan said he is in the fight for the long term.

"If it gets to the bulldozer stage, we'll be here getting in the way."

Protesters, including Mr McGowan, have written the words "our climate - our land" on the plot.

Mr Sauven said the group of new landowners would challenge any attempt by the government to force them to sell: "As the new owners of the land where the government wants to build the runway, we'll resist all attempts at compulsory purchase.

"The legal owners of the site will block the runway at every stage through the planning process and in the courts."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7825169.stm

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

A Labour MP has been suspended from the House of Commons for five days after angry exchanges over the decision to approve a new Heathrow runway.

John McDonnell was sanctioned after he picked up the mace, the ornamental club which represents the royal authority of Parliament, in a breach of protocol.

The Hayes and Harlington MP said the decision not to hold a vote on the runway was a "national disgrace".

Anyone manhandling the mace is considered in contempt of Parliament.

'Disgrace'

During a statement by Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon on Heathrow Mr McDonnell left his seat, grabbed the mace - which dates from the reign of Charles II - and put it down on an empty bench on the Labour side of the House.

While doing so, he shouted: "It's a disgrace to the democracy of this country."

Significance of the mace

He was immediately "named" by the deputy speaker of the House, a move which effectively suspended Mr McDonnell from the House for five days.

Mr McDonnell, whose constituency includes Heathrow airport, then left the chamber.

Later he told the BBC that he would not apologise for his actions because he was representing his constituents and their rights to have their voices heard.

By doing what he did, he said he was asserting the values of "democracy and the sovereignty of Parliament" stemming back "to the days of Cromwell".

"This is about asserting the right of MPs to decide the policies of this country and not having them bulldozed through without a vote in the House of Commons."

Several MPs have been banished from the Commons in the past for wielding the mace, including former deputy prime minister Michael Heseltine in 1976.

Watch video :: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7831098.stm

Heathrow expansion approved.



The government's right losing the environmental argument both to the Tories and the Lib Dems, or given up on it.

 

[Fitzjames]

John McDonnell might genuinely be representing his constituency or might actually believe that there should not be a third runway.
But it looks like a classic case of NIMBY ism
NIMBY=not in my back yard

For example
All politicians believe there should be more "social housing" or "recycling facilities" but dont want them built in their constituency.

The notion of celebs like Alistair Magowan owning very small patches of land so as to screw up compulsory purchasing is a joke.
I hope it backfires completely. I daresay Alistair Magowan has a bigger carbon footprint than most people.

 

[Kaos]

Land earmarked for the construction of Heathrow's third runway has been bought by anti-expansion protesters.

Land the size of half a football pitch near Sipson village - which would lose hundreds of homes in the expansion - was bought by a Greenpeace coalition.

It has pledged not to sell the land to the government or BAA if the airport expansion gets the go-ahead.

Greenpeace director John Sauven said: "We've thrown a massive spanner in the engine driving Heathrow expansion."

Four key Greenpeace campaigners - including actress Emma Thompson and impressionist Alistair McGowan - bought the land for an undisclosed fee.

Tory front bench spokeswoman Justine Greening and Lib Dem MP Susan Kramer were given a piece of the title to the land by Greenpeace and the group hopes to hand more of the land parcel to others in a bid to complicate any attempt to force them to sell.

They have said plans to increase flights at the airport from 480,000 to 720,000 would create unacceptable noise and pollution.

But BBC transport correspondent Tom Symonds said recent planning legislation included clauses that allowed the courts to consider whether or not a land purchase that blocked planned development was "vexatious or frivolous".

This could, in turn, scupper Greenpeace's plans to obstruct the construction for years.

Our correspondent said the government was due to rule on the plans as early as this week, but that decision may be further delayed.

The airport industry, business and union leaders have said Heathrow's expansion is vital for the British economy's long-term competitiveness and supporters have suggested work on the runway could create up to 65,000 jobs.

Ms Thompson said: "I don't understand how any government remotely serious about committing to reversing climate change can even consider these ridiculous plans."

Mr McGowan said he is in the fight for the long term.

"If it gets to the bulldozer stage, we'll be here getting in the way."

Protesters, including Mr McGowan, have written the words "our climate - our land" on the plot.

Mr Sauven said the group of new landowners would challenge any attempt by the government to force them to sell: "As the new owners of the land where the government wants to build the runway, we'll resist all attempts at compulsory purchase.

"The legal owners of the site will block the runway at every stage through the planning process and in the courts."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7825169.stm

Good stuff, I hope they keep it up.

 

[rednev]

Fecking hippies. The expansion of Heathrow is inevitable, all they are doing is complicating the matter.

 

[Kaos]

Hippies? This isnt the 60s mate, might want to see whats happening to the earth, or are you enjoying the extreme weather?

 

[rednev]

Hippies? This isnt the 60s mate, might want to see whats happening to the earth, or are you enjoying the extreme weather?

As I'm sure you're aware, if the UK as a whole was to completely shut down, global emissions would be reduced by about 2%. The planned expansion of Heathrow will probably see global emissions rise by a miniscule fraction of a percent, whereas if it was to not go ahead, it would have a noticable impact on the British economy in the coming years. Do you want us to fall behind our fellow European countries?

These sort of decisions should be about weighing up the the impact it'll have on the evironment if it were to go head, and the negative impact on the economy if it was not to go ahead, and in this case, surely even the most extreme environmentalist should be able to see that the expansion would be a sensible and just step?

I could swear these hippies just do it for the craic.

 

[nickm]

John McDonnell might genuinely be representing his constituency or might actually believe that there should not be a third runway.
But it looks like a classic case of NIMBY ism
NIMBY=not in my back yard

For example
All politicians believe there should be more "social housing" or "recycling facilities" but dont want them built in their constituency.

The notion of celebs like Alistair Magowan owning very small patches of land so as to screw up compulsory purchasing is a joke.
I hope it backfires completely. I daresay Alistair Magowan has a bigger carbon footprint than most people.

Your cynicism starts to grate after a bit.

There is already a bloody great airport in Heathrow in case you hadn't noticed, so it is hardly NIMBYism to conclude that's quite enough airport for one place.

As 45% of voters in the surrounding seats seem to have concluded.

 

[nickm]

As I'm sure you're aware, if the UK as a whole was to completely shut down, global emissions would be reduced by about 2%. The planned expansion of Heathrow will probably see global emissions rise by a miniscule fraction of a percent, whereas if it was to not go ahead, it would have a noticable impact on the British economy in the coming years. Do you want us to fall behind our fellow European countries?

In what way? This notion about the supposed economic benefits is not at all clear cut.

The point about global emissions is that everyone needs to play their part. Britain has committed the UK to a cut in co2 emissions of 80% by 2050. According to Greenpeace, the expansion of aviation alone would be enough to destroy this pledge.

These sort of decisions should be about weighing up the the impact it'll have on the evironment if it were to go head, and the negative impact on the economy if it was not to go ahead, and in this case, surely even the most extreme environmentalist should be able to see that the expansion would be a sensible and just step?

Show us some facts then. You certainly seem to have made up your mind based on something.

 

[Fitzjames]

Your cynicism starts to grate after a bit.

There is already a bloody great airport in Heathrow in case you hadn't noticed, so it is hardly NIMBYism to conclude that's quite enough airport for one place.

As 45% of voters in the surrounding seats seem to have concluded.

Far from being cynical I alluded to the possibility that McDonnell was genuine in TWO respects.
His committment to the constituency
AND
In respect of thinking that two runways was enough.

I am sure you are aware that NIMBYISM is rife in Politics.
For example many Labour MPs AND GOVERNMENT ministers supported their Governments running down of local hospital services......and then campaigned for their local hospital to retain its services.

Nor is that confined to Labour governments.
The obnoxious Nicholas Ridley was an Environment minister who blocked work in his OWN constituency against the advice of his own officials.
And the equally obnoxious John Wakeham blocked work on a reactor in his Essex constituency.

Would John McDonnell have walked off with the mace in the Commons.....if he had been MP for a Manchester constituency or a Scottish constituency? Surely the answer is more likely to be NO than YES.

So while allowing the question to remain open as to his sincerity......I think its reasonable to put forward the suggestion he was indulging in NIMBYISM.

 

[lynchie]

As I'm sure you're aware, if the UK as a whole was to completely shut down, global emissions would be reduced by about 2%.

Not really a valid point. The idea is for a developed economy to set an example of a developed economy significantly cutting emissions, and exporting that experience to other countries. That should be good for the UK economy as it would give the country a strong skill set that is in high demand world-wide.

The planned expansion of Heathrow will probably see global emissions rise by a miniscule fraction of a percent, whereas if it was to not go ahead, it would have a noticable impact on the British economy in the coming years. Do you want us to fall behind our fellow European countries?

Once again, UK emissions vs Global emissions, see above. Reducing unnecessary flights could provide more capacity for industry. If you have any figures on how not having a 3rd runway will damage the UK economy significantly, I'd be interested to see them.

These sort of decisions should be about weighing up the the impact it'll have on the evironment if it were to go head, and the negative impact on the economy if it was not to go ahead, and in this case, surely even the most extreme environmentalist should be able to see that the expansion would be a sensible and just step?

To be entirely honest, I'd be for Heathrow's expansion under certain conditions. Heathrow operates very close to full capacity, and often over it. If they spread that capacity to a third runway, they could run more efficiently, actually reducing emissions. However, expanding to a third runway, and operating that at full capacity as well, will just escalate emissions, and in a few years, they'll be asking for another runway.

At some point, there has to be a commitment to reducing air travel and air freight to and from this country.

I could swear these hippies just do it for the craic.

You're a lovely person by the way.

 

[lynchie]

Far from being cynical I alluded to the possibility that McDonnell was genuine in TWO respects.
His committment to the constituency
AND
In respect of thinking that two runways was enough.

I am sure you are aware that NIMBYISM is rife in Politics.
For example many Labour MPs AND GOVERNMENT ministers supported their Governments running down of local hospital services......and then campaigned for their local hospital to retain its services.

Nor is that confined to Labour governments.
The obnoxious Nicholas Ridley was an Environment minister who blocked work in his OWN constituency against the advice of his own officials.
And the equally obnoxious John Wakeham blocked work on a reactor in his Essex constituency.

Would John McDonnell have walked off with the mace in the Commons.....if he had been MP for a Manchester constituency or a Scottish constituency? Surely the answer is more likely to be NO than YES.

So while allowing the question to remain open as to his sincerity......I think its reasonable to put forward the suggestion he was indulging in NIMBYISM.

I think we should distinguish between representing your constituency and NIMBYism. If he supported massive airport expansion in other parts of the country while protesting Heathrow's expansion, I'd call that NIMBYism, but as far as I know, he's doing nothing of the sort.

 

[Fitzjames]

I think we should distinguish between representing your constituency and NIMBYism. If he supported massive airport expansion in other parts of the country while protesting Heathrow's expansion, I'd call that NIMBYism, but as far as I know, he's doing nothing of the sort.

Like I said I am open to three distinct verdicts.............Nimbyism being one of them.
But with around 650 MPs in the Commons, he alone did the heroic thing.

All the other usual suspects Dennis Skinner, Bob Marshall Andrews, Paul Flynn sat on their hands.
Maybe if it had affected their constituencies they would have been grabbing the mace.......and McDonnell would have been sitting on his hands.

If he was motivated by it being in his constituency but not overly motivated if it had been elsewhere.......then it IS Nimbyism.

Btw......when compensation sets in, all those villagers will happily move.
They will be well advised by solicitors.........at a price.
Which will of course cost the Taxpayer more.
Dont see why they should be treated better than the folks whose houses are bulldozed for the Olympics Disaster. Or Ashburton Grove (Arsenal)

 

[The Hairdryer]

I thought the West Stains Massive put an end to this third runway lark?

 

[nickm]

The other thing is the CO2 reduction targets the govt has committed are legal obligations. Therefore what I want to know is what is going to be the price of letting the aircraft industry expand its chunk of the CO2 budget, ie what's going to get cut?

Are we going to lose a powerstation or two: we get a fancy new runway but hey, 100,000 old people get to shiver in the winter.

Are we going to lose a roadbuilding scheme? We get a fancy new runway but you'll be spending an extra hour on the M25.

Does this mean fewer people get to drive cars? We get a fancy new runway but 500,000 people get priced off the road.

Something has to give somewhere.

 

[Wibble]

Nimby

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

If we narrow this right down to the matter of airport expansion at Heathrow at all, it is open to debate mo.

I would say that this is the wrong plan at the wrong airport at the wrong time.

And this government's commitment to high speed rail andthe network in general is these days mere lip service [as is a lot of their green agenda amd all too many policies so it seems to me].

Also does there not reach a point where we have to decide what we want? A long term plan for a better and actually sustainable quality of life in this country, or to forever be chasing the next short term boost and supposed prestige overseas?

 

[Adebesi]

BAA should be made to sell Gatwick and then another runway should be built there where there are less environmental concerns. Then Gatwick and Heathrow could compete on more equal terms, with Gatwick taking some of Heathrow's business, alleviating the pressure on its resources.

The government should definitely also invest in high speed rail in my opinion to offer a viable alternative to air travel for shorter journeys.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

BAA should be made to sell Gatwick and then another runway should be built there where there are less environmental concerns. Then Gatwick and Heathrow could compete on more equal terms, with Gatwick taking some of Heathrow's business, alleviating the pressure on its resources.

The government should definitely also invest in high speed rail in my opinion to offer a viable alternative to air travel for shorter journeys.

Didn't a recent ruling find that BAA do indeed have to sell Gatwick? However i believe i heard earlier this week that there is a "covenant" whereby a further runway cannot be built until at least after 2019.

There also along with rail, needs to be improvement to infrastructure all over the UK, the South East can only take so much concrete.

Partially off topic, but my best traveling experiences at airports have been at Rome's Fiumicino, and a few years back at least, Stansted.

 

[Adebesi]

Didn't a recent ruling find that BAA do indeed have to sell Gatwick? However i believe i heard earlier this week that there is a "covenant" whereby a further runway cannot be built until at least after 2019.

There also along with rail, needs to be improvement to infrastructure all over the UK, the South East can only take so much concrete.

Partially off topic, but my best traveling experiences at airports have been at Rome's Fiumicino, and a few years back at least, Stansted.

That might be right. In which case that covenant is bullshit. The government is pandering to BAA - making it sell that airport but then sweetening it by effectively ensuring it will not be able to compete for a long time.

Competition is what will help keep the cost of flying down while increasing demands are being made on airlines to green up - costs they are going to try and pass on to the consumer. In some cases that will be legitimate and will curb spiralling demand, but for the most part it is just corporate greed.

I agree with you strongly about infrastructure.

But I disagree about Stansted - at least in terms of getting there. fecking Stansted Express usually costs more than the plane ticket for a flight out of that airport.

I dont know about airport experiences but my most pleasurable international travel experiences have been on Eurostar. I have looked into the possibility of travelling to other places like Amsterdam by train but the time it takes - the interchange - and the cost make it prohibitive. I think that is a nonsense. Something has to be done to give people a viable alternative to flying. I want to be green but it is hard when you have to double your journey time and triple your cost to take a train instead of a plane.

 

[Adebesi]

Good to see this debate has moved on so constructively in the last 6 years.

 

[golden_blunder]

whats the latest?

 

[Adebesi]

whats the latest?

Cameron has decided to ponder it a bit more.

 

[Adebesi]

Im not really an expert on this, I have just spent the last half an hour reading a handful of articles in the FT and a load of comments on the subject. And I have to say it seems to me the way forward is to invest heavily in transport links between other London airports and the city - and perhaps between the airports themselves, and then if necessary entice some of the tourist traffic out of Heathrow to Gatwick, Luton and Stansted, which will be more appealing if they are easier to get to.

Same goes for the airports outside London as well. Improve connections to Manchester and Birmingham airports so they become more viable options for people who otherwise have to haul their arses across the country to Heathrow.

 

[LitterBug]

I believe Gatwick is being considered as well and quite frankly it makes sense to do it there as further congesting M4 traffic will be an absolute nightmare.

Also Gatwick is the furthest airport from me so the further the better

 

[Phil]

Just lob it in Heathrow. Done.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Heathrow is quite possibly the worst main airport that I've ever had the displeasure of passing through. It's cramped, poorly thought out (transferring flights usually involves taking a bus to the next gate), the whole place smells of wee, the staff are either grumpy or very, very ugly and worst of all the dan dan noodles in Cathay Pacific's lounge are horrid.

0/10 would rather not bang again.

 

[Adebesi]

I believe Gatwick is being considered as well and quite frankly it makes sense to do it there as further congesting M4 traffic will be an absolute nightmare.

Also Gatwick is the furthest airport from me so the further the better

Its the furthest airport from most people (in London), therein lies the main problem for expanding it. My first instinct was to go with that as well. But actually, if you can find a way to make Luton and Stansted more attractive, there (so I read) isnt actually a capacity issue in London as a whole - only at the two big airports. So if Heathrow wants more flights to big Chinese cities or whatever, it should give up local routes to airports with spare capacity. If you had decent high speed trains travelling from one side of London to the other - both north-south and east-west - travelling from Luton or Stansted might be more appealing and airlines might be happy to leave Heathrow.

 

[Adebesi]

Heathrow is quite possibly the worst main airport that I've ever had the displeasure of passing through. It's cramped, poorly thought out (transferring flights usually involves taking a bus to the next gate), the whole place smells of wee, the staff are either grumpy or very, very ugly and worst of all the dan dan noodles in Cathay Pacific's lounge are horrid.

0/10 would rather not bang again.

Definitely.

Heathrow could never be the hub Schipol is.

 

[LitterBug]

Its the furthest airport from most people (in London), therein lies the main problem for expanding it. My first instinct was to go with that as well. But actually, if you can find a way to make Luton and Stansted more attractive, there (so I read) isnt actually a capacity issue in London as a whole - only at the two big airports. So if Heathrow wants more flights to big Chinese cities or whatever, it should give up local routes to airports with spare capacity. If you had decent high speed trains travelling from one side of London to the other - both north-south and east-west - travelling from Luton or Stansted might be more appealing and airlines might be happy to leave Heathrow.

The problem with increasing capacity at Stansted and Luton is that they're so tiny compared to Gatwick and Heathrow and would never be able to handle it. They're also a mare to get to as well.

Albeit being the farthest Gatwick still has very decent links and if people are not going to drive then trains will get them there in no time.

I have no choice but to drive and use Gatwick quite a bit but I don't have a problem doing the 70 odd mile journey as its all on the motorways. I make sure I choose my flights carefully and I can mostly get there in under an hour.

 

[golden_blunder]

I hate Heathrow

 

[sun_tzu]

Definitely.

Heathrow could never be the hub Schipol is.

Actually it probably could if it existed within the parameters of Dutch planning laws - we worked on T5 as well as Schipol and the planning and regulatory rubbish you had to go through at Heathrow was a different world.

A big compulsory purchase order and a dedicated flight route in from the south coast and you would have a world of possibilities.

That said you could build a high speed rail line between gatwick and heathrow with a circa 10-15 min transit time (you currently have 20 mins between terminals at heathrow) stick a new runway in both places and operate it as one super hub - not that any government will because its going to be quite expensive and unpopular with more than twice as many people as one expansion would be.

Boris island was an interesting option - though costwise probably prohibitive

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Good to see this debate has moved on so constructively in the last 6 years.

Taking politics and communities out of it, both Heathrow (operationally speaking) and Gatwick could probably do with an additional runway. To enhance the facilities south of London will present fewer challenges at Westminster, as Cameron could face resignations from hsi cabinet were he to follow the report's recommendation.

It's rather irksome that we must bother with airports for short-haul travel at all, we're supposed to have flying cars by now.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

T5 ain't too shabby though, i went from the aircraft to the terminal exit in fifteen minutes last year (incl. baggage reclaim). The car was then a good half hour late of course. lol

 

[Adebesi]

The problem with increasing capacity at Stansted and Luton is that they're so tiny compared to Gatwick and Heathrow and would never be able to handle it. They're also a mare to get to as well.

Well yes, my whole argument is predicated on massively improving transport links to those airports. And yes they are tiny, but they are also underutilised, so there is definitely scope for growth there before they run up against capacity constraints.

 

[Adebesi]

Taking politics and communities out of it, both Heathrow (operationally speaking) and Gatwick could probably do with an additional runway. To enhance the facilities south of London will present fewer challenges at Westminster, as Cameron could face resignations from hsi cabinet were he to follow the report's recommendation.

It's rather irksome that we must bother with airports for short-haul travel at all, we're supposed to have flying cars by now.

If you take communities out of it, I guess yes, Heathrow should be massively expanded. But you cant, can you?

Agree though. Another element of the Adebesi Strategy would be, exactly as I said in my last post back in 2009, to improve train links so it was a more viable alternative for short haul travel. If I go to Amsterdam or Berlin or Copenhagen I should be able to get there reasonably quickly and cheaply by train.