Boris produces TfL report on estuary airport, saying Sir Howard & the Commission “must” short list it

Boris remains desperate to get his fanciful plans for a Thames Estuary airport short listed by the Airports Commission, which has repeatedly found it would not be a realistic option. The Commission’s verdict on inclusion (or not) of the estuary scheme, in the airport plans to be taken forward for detailed consideration -and public consultation – is expected next month. In an 11th hour attempt to persuade the Commission to keep it in, Boris has got TfL to do yet another report, pushing the scheme and making out that is imperative.  The report is called “Gateway to our Future“, is a good example of an attitude towards encouraging and facilitating growth, and more growth, in the manner of the cancer cell – regardless of what damage that never-ending growth has on other things.  The report goes big on the numbers of jobs created, the need for London to grow into an even more massive city, for it to have a vast airport (as if London did not already have the largest airport for international passengers in the world)…. and so on.  Says Sir Howard “must” include it.  Boris‘ aim is to bamboozle the Commission and Sir Howard into including his scheme. …. Regardless of huge volumes of evidence recently produced, showing just how unrealistic – and damaging – an estuary airport would be.  Boris the bully?
.

 

Mayor in 11th-hour plea to get ‘Boris island’ on airport shortlist

By NICHOLAS CECIL   (Evening Standard)

 26 August 2014

With the Airports Commission expected to make a decision within weeks on whether to shortlist a “superhub” airport in the estuary, the Mayor argued that it would support 336,000 jobs and underpin £92 billion a year of GDP by 2050.

Sir Howard Davies, the former London School of Economics boss who chairs the Airports Commission, has already shortlisted another runway at Gatwick or Heathrow as options for expanding capacity. But Mr Johnson has claimed the Gatwick plan would not deliver the hub capacity he believes Britain needs, and has said Heathrow expansion would create too much noise and environmental pollution.

“There is no better example of the stark choice between planning for the future and depressing short-termism,” he said today. “A new hub airport, properly planned, has the potential to reshape the economic geography of London and the whole of the South-East for decades to come.

“It would be a project of a scale we are no longer accustomed to in this country, though it has become commonplace elsewhere. We simply cannot afford to miss out on the opportunities a new airport would give us.”

However, the Commission has highlighted obstacles which an estuary airport would need to overcome, including cost — which could be over £100 billion — the moving of wildlife habitats and altering flight routes.

When Gatwick and Heathrow were shortlisted last December, Sir Howard agreed to look again at the “Boris island” proposals, given that they were of a different order than expanding existing airports.

Mr Johnson today published a City Hall report, called Gateway to our Future: Why the UK needs a New Hub Airport, which included figures from forecasters Oxford Economics that claimed the connectivity available at a four-runway hub airport in the Thames Estuary would underpin £92.1 billion of GDP each year, compared to £59.1 billion for a three-runway Heathrow and £22.6 billion for a two-runway Gatwick.

But the study cut the number of jobs the airport is predicted to support to 336,000, compared to Transport for London’s estimate of 388,000. City Hall sources said this was partly because the Commission is now examining proposals for an airport serving 150 million passengers a year, rather than 180 million. A Heathrow spokesman said: “A new Thames Estuary option is estimated to cost more than £100 billion, while expanding Heathrow can connect the UK to growth more quickly at a fraction of the cost.”

Stewart Wingate, CEO of London Gatwick said: “We share the Mayor’s passion for wanting to keep London the best connected city in the world and limit the environmental damage to the Capital.  Expansion at Gatwick is the obvious choice to make this happen, with a deliverable runway solution that would create the economic benefits the country needs at an environmental cost it can afford.”

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/boris-johnson-island-thames-estuary-airport-gatwick-heathrow-london-9691024.html

.


 

Thames estuary airport: Boris Johnson makes final case for jobs

Mayor warns airport commission’s Sir Howard Davies ‘may feel daunted by ambition’ of extra 67,000 jobs on Isle of Grain hub

Boris Johnson has launched a last-ditch attempt to sway the airports commission into supporting a Thames estuary airport, warning that Sir Howard Davies “may feel daunted by the ambition” of a four-runway hub that the London mayor claims would sustain almost 67,000 more British jobs than an expanded Heathrow.

A decision is expected as early as next Tuesday from the commission whether to dismiss Johnson’s plan for a new airport on the Isle of Grain, or include it on a shortlist alongside an expanded Heathrow or Gatwick for building new runways in the south-east of England.

Research published by the mayor’s office [TfL Report called “Gateway to our Future“] claims that an estuary airport would support 336,000 jobs around the country in 2050 – compared to 269,000 at Heathrow or 62,000 at Gatwick if either had an additional runway – in its operation and supply chains. The numbers do not include additional jobs that the mayor believes would be created in the south-east via new transport connections. The figure is lower than previous estimates given by Transport for London, after forecast future demand for air travel was revised down.

Johnson said: “There is no better example of the stark choice between planning for the future and depressing short-termism. A new hub airport, properly planned, has the potential to reshape the economic geography of London and the whole of the south-east for decades to come. It would be a project of a scale we are no longer accustomed to in this country, though it has become commonplace elsewhere. We simply cannot afford to miss out on the opportunities a new airport would give us.”

In a foreword to his office’s final submission before the commission rules on whether the Thames Estuary case is pursued, Johnson wrote: “Sir Howard Davies and his colleagues may feel daunted by the ambition of what I am proposing.

He added: “Whatever misgivings they may have, on the evidence they have published they cannot sensibly or reasonably rule out the Thames estuary option at this stage.”

Johnson’s case was bolstered by a survey showing strong support from local businesses. The Kent chamber of commerce survey found that more than 40% of 300 businesses polled backed the proposal to build in the estuary rather than expand other airports.

Other backing has come from business groups around the UK, in parts of Cornwall, Scotland, the north-west and north-east that have struggled to maintain air links with Heathrow, but hope to get more connections via a bigger hub.

The airports commission omitted the Thames estuary from its original shortlist last December but tempered the political fallout by agreeing to consider the proposal at greater length, on the basis that it was a qualitatively different plan than additional runways. Davies has said that the south-east requires one net additional runway by 2030, underlining that Johnson’s plan would effectively close Heathrow. The commission will deliver its final recommendation after the 2015 election.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/26/thames-estuary-airport-boris-johnson-makes-case-jobs

 


 

The  TfL Report called “Gateway to our Future

(36 pages, many of them glossy pictures).

Boris says, in his introduction:

“World cities need world-class airports. If we look
elsewhere we see other leading and emerging global
cities served by efficient, effective hub airports, airports
which have the capacity to meet the pressing demand for
international and domestic travel that characterises all
growing economies.

We must give our own economy every possible
opportunity to thrive and, while doing so, ensure that we
provide homes and facilities for all our people. Against
a backdrop of significant national population growth,
London is reliably forecast to grow from 8.3 million people
to hit 10 million by 2030 – a 20 per cent increase that will
place an immense demand on housing, jobs, transport
and other services.

These two challenges – global connectivity and
population growth – sit at the heart of the aviation
debate. London needs to meet these challenges head on
and that is where my interest in this vital policy area lies.”

.

and

Boris ends his introduction to the report by saying:

“My appeal now is simple: Sir Howard Davies and his
colleagues may feel daunted by the ambition of what I
am proposing (though it is no less than the challenging
circumstances we face demand); nonetheless, whatever
misgivings they may have, on the evidence they have
published they cannot sensibly or reasonably rule out the
Thames estuary option at this stage. It would limit their
final recommendation too narrowly and would disconnect
their thinking from the practical needs and challenges of
this tremendous, successful and growing city. They must
short-list the Thames estuary option and give it a fair
crack of the whip alongside the other options.

My Infrastructure Investment Plan, published very
recently, shows how a new hub airport and the
redevelopment of Heathrow, alongside other long term
investment that London needs and can deliver, will enable
us to meet the challenges ahead.

We simply cannot afford to miss out on the opportunities
a new airport would give us. We need to keep that option
on the table, for the sake of the rising generations.”

 


 

.

.

Comment from an AirportWatch member:

It is understood that the Commission has had a very large amount of pressure from Boris and his staff, urging them repeatedly – regardless of the evidence – to get the Thames Estuary airport plans onto the short list.  Interesting to see what Boris does if the Commission manages to stand its ground,  stick to its evidence, and decide to continue with just Heathrow and Gatwick.  It may not be a pretty sight.

.

.


 

.

Earlier:

 

Four Inner Thames estuary airport studies for Airports Commission finally kill off “Boris Island”

The Airports Commission has now published all four of the studies it has commissioned on an Inner Thames Estuary (ITE) airport. These reports are on environmental impacts, operational feasibility and attitudes to moving to an estuary airport, socio-economic impacts, and surface access. The first report, on environmental impacts was utterly damning, confirming the massive extent of the harm done to highly conserved habitats and their wildlife, and the near impossibility of successfully moving the wildlife elsewhere. Now the report on the feasibility of moving the airport shows the problems of flood risk, fog, wind direction, bird strike, explosives on the SS Montgomery and the Isle of Grain gas terminal – with many practically insurmountable. The report on socio-economic impacts demonstrates that aeronautical charges would have to be very high to pay for the airport, and be too high to compete with Dubai etc. Heathrow would have to close, at immense cost. The surface access report shows the cost of even minimal rail services to get most passengers to the airport would be £10 billion and more like £27 billion for a good service. The cost of road improvements would be £10 to £17 billion. The reports’ conclusions now make it nearly inconceivable that a Thames Estuary Airport will ever be constructed.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

 

 

 

 

Read more »

Work on Carlisle airport revamp for freight centre could start in 6 weeks, if there is no legal challenge

Work on the redevelopment of Carlisle Airport could begin in 6 weeks, unless there is another legal challenge to the planning approval granted by Carlisle City Council councillors. Their development control committee has given the scheme – which includes the creation of a huge freight distribution depot – full approval. It was the 4th time that the matter has gone to committee for decision. Work can start, if there is no application by opponents of the scheme for a judicial review of the planning approval. That application would have to be lodged within 6 weeks. The planning law has recently changed, so the council did not need to consider whether the airport would be commercially viable, nor whether Stobart would actually keep the airport open – rather than just use the land for freight storage and transfer. One key opponent, Peter Elliott, has stressed that the runway should be realigned, to take it away from Irthington village, due to safety. Supporters of the scheme hope it will create jobs, but that is uncertain. Stobart shareholders had previously been told that the huge freight distribution centre would reduce rather than create jobs. Stobart hope 40,000 people per year would fly from Carlisle to Southend Airport, plus 20,000 per year to Dublin.
.

 

WORK ON CARLISLE AIRPORT REVAMP COULD START WITHIN WEEKS

Work on the long-awaited £20 million redevelopment of Carlisle Airport could begin in six weeks – provided there is not another legal challenge to the planning approval granted by councillors.

The city council’s development control committee has given the scheme – which includes the creation of a huge freight distribution depot – full approval.

It was the fourth time that councillors have given the project a green light.

The only thing now likely to stop the development proceeding would be an objector applying for and securing yet another judicial review of the planning approval.

Anybody wishing to do that must lodge the application within six weeks.

This week’s special meeting of the committee came after a change in the law gave fresh impetus to the airport plan: new case law means councillors were not obliged, as they were previously, to consider whether the airport would be commercially viable.

Nor did they have to make planning permission conditional on a promise to keep the airport open.

While there was little debate about the latest application, several members of the public did exercise their right to speak.

The first to do so was former helicopter pilot and aviation director Peter Elliott, one of the scheme’s most outspoken opponents.

He showed the meeting a dramatic projector image of a helicopter crash in the US city Seattle, suggesting that granting permission to the scheme could produce a similar result and “endanger life”.

“I think it is a statistical certainty that there will be an aircraft which will crash within the next 50 years,” Mr Elliott claimed, adding that it was a statistical probability that this would happen during take off or landing. He said that all he wanted was for the runway to be realigned, to take the flight path away from Irthington village.

Dale Ransley, speaking for Irthington resident Charmi McCutcheon, said there was nothing in the report prepared for councillors which prevented Stobart from closing the airport, and doing this as soon as possible made “complete business sense”.

Crosby-on-Eden resident Mike Fox, who is also a Stanwix Rural parish councillor, said Stobart shareholders had previously been told that opening the freight distribution centre – measuring 241m by 151m – would reduce rather than create jobs.

He also suggested Stobart could close the airport before work to upgrade the runway even began.

The meeting also heard from Stobart officials, including the firm’s estates manager Richard Butcher who said: “Stobart genuinely want the airport to succeed – not only for our own business aspirations but also to make a significant contribution to the growth of the Carlisle and Cumbrian economies.”

Stobart Air boss Julian Carr predicted 40,000 people a year would fly from Carlisle to Stobart’s existing Southend Airport, and a further 20,000 a year to Dublin.

In the debate on the issue, the main contribution was from Councillor Ray Bloxham, who represents Longtown and Rockcliffe. He said the development would have a “heavy effect” on the area’s roads.

He called for restrictions on HGVs travelling through villages of Irthington and Ruleholme, and for central reservations to be introduced to improve safety at the junctions for those villages on the A689 next to the airport.

After the plan was approved, Stobart boss Andrew Tinkler said: “We believe the flights we have identified will be sustainable, and our customers often want air freight.

“Our business plan has always stacked up. Ideally, we would like to see work start in a couple of months.”


.

See earlier:

Carlisle CIty Council gives go-ahead to Carlisle airport overhaul – largely to be a freight centre

Plans for the £20 million overhaul of Carlisle Airport have been given the go ahead – again. A special meeting of Carlisle City Council took place on 18th August, with councillors asked to approved Stobart Group’s proposals for a massive freight distribution centre and revamped runway. One councillor expressed concerns over potential traffic congestion but no councillor voted against the motion to approve officers’ recommendations. The Stobart Group chief executive Andrew Tinkler said that work could begin within “a couple of months” – provided there are no legal challenges. The decision came despite the High Court quashing a previous planning permission decision, as new case law has since emerged which means that the need to take into account the viability of the airport is no longer relevant. However, opponents of the plans are questioning the legality of the council decision. Local people are asking for this decision to be called in. This freight depot proposal is deeply opposed by a large proportion of the local community. There is concern that the proposal was permitted because Tinkler showed a film, of Stobart employees begging for consent to be granted, at the planning meeting.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

.

Read more »

Indignation in Frankfurt at the approval of the 3rd Terminal, for yet more flights and more noise

Frankfurt airport protesters continue their huge gatherings on most Monday evenings (they have a break in the summer, and do vigils instead). There have now been 108 Monday protests and 34 vigils, with around 1,000 at the protests and around 100 at the vigils. After the news that planning had been granted for a 3rd Frankfurt airport terminal, there were far more people than usual at the vigil, with around 500, mobilised by the news. It was “the first Monday after the Tuesday,” and people were deeply angry at the news, and that it had been broken in August, in the holiday period.  The terminal enables the airport to grow, with more flights and more passengers. That means more noise misery for the thousands who already find the over-flights unacceptable. Opponents want the right to sleep, which they say is a fundamental right that is destroyed by aircraft noise. It is unacceptable for people to be rudely woken from their sleep at 5am and that they can no longer sit in the garden when the weather is good is described as “a monstrosity”. “We do not want to live like this.”  Opponents hope the decision can be reversed, when there is a proper study of the surface transport infrastructure required for a new terminal. .

 

Wave of indignation

 From    (fr-online.de) 18.8.2014

[Imperfect Google translation from the German, below].

About 500 people hold in Terminal 1 of Frankfurt Airport vigil. Photo: Andreas Arnold

At the vigil in Terminal 1 of Frankfurt Airport, far more people than usual.The approval granted planning permission for the third terminal mobilized the expansion opponents.

It is “the first Monday after the Tuesday,” says Erwin Stufler of the citizens’ initiative against aircraft noise in Mainz. Since the start there have been 108 Monday demonstrations against the airport expansion and 34 Vigil, who carry on the protest during the holidays. Is common that more than 100 people participate in these vigils. After last Tuesday, as the Frankfurter Supervision issued the building permit for the third terminal on the grounds of the Frankfurt airport, was mobilized vigorously, and actually come in the evening about 500 expansion opponents into the terminal first “We realize that people are absolutely angry” and “pissed” – also because the permission “hewn out in the summer holidays” was. “We realize that it goes to the point that the political opponents of facts creates,” says Stufler, the da Costa and protest veterans Roger Treuting organized from Rüsselsheim a small panel discussion while standing with the airport architect Dieter Faulenbach.

He had “never thought that in my country violates human rights” would. The right to sleep is a fundamental right that is destroyed by aircraft noise. That people were being torn 5am clock from sleep and could no longer sit in the garden when the weather is “a monstrosity”. Hofmann recalled “the general law of self-defense”. The people under the approach and departure routes befänden itself “in an emergency”. He urged the expansion opponents to defend themselves “stronger and more aggressive.” “We do not want to live like this.” Airport would not be sufficient, but will be dismantled. The airport does not belong to this place, not in the region. ”

The fifth track

The airport expert Dieter Faulenbach da Costa holds the location of Frankfurt Airport inappropriate. In the planning decision for the airport expansion in 2007 was on the page 789, that the first phase of construction of Terminal 3 in 2013 would come into operation. “The predictions were all wrong.” Da Costa asked if it were not at the time now, “stop and think about whether there are alternatives.” In the opinion of Roger Treuting,, who protested even as a student against the airport’s expansion, airport operator Fraport manages the building the third terminal needs the creation of a 5th railway. After the Runway West Terminal 2 was built, then the fourth runway. New capacities are always created, which were then served/filled up by the continued expansion. The Left Party politician Janine Wissler appealed to the expansion opponents, not to be persuaded, “now that nothing more was to change”. Many expansion opponents are pinning their hopes on the initiative presented by the Rhein-Main report, according to which the construction should not have been approved because the issue of transport/road infrastructure was not cleared up. Ursula Fechter of the BISachsenhausen, criticised the fact that the Frankfurt Director of Planning Councillor Olaf Cunitz have not even taken the opinion knowledge.

http://www.fr-online.de/flughafen-frankfurt/mahnache-am-frankfurter-flughafen-welle-der-empoerung,2641734,28159840.html .


Facebook

Opponents ofthe 3rd Terminal, are at  “Kein Terminal 3″  (No Terminal 3) campaign on Facebook  .


.

More older news stories about Frankfurt airport at


Earlier:

Frankfurt Airport given planning permission to build Terminal 3, to increase passenger number

Frankfurt airport currently has 2 passenger terminals with a capacity of approximately 65 million passengers per year, plus 4 runways. In 2009, the German government decided there should be a new Terminal 3 in order to handle the expected passenger flow of 90 million per year by 2020. The new terminal is scheduled to be built by Fraport, south of the existing terminals. Fraport has now announced that it has been granted approval of its planning application, by the city of Frankfurt. However, it still needs a demand assessment. The building of a new terminal has been deeply controversial, and has been strongly opposed – as it is a means by which the airport can grow substantially. Fraport hopes the first phase of construction will start next year. Fraport say the airport will reach its maximum passenger capacity of about 64-68 million passengers a year by 2021 and that the new terminal when finished will allow it to serve up to 25 million more. Opponents say the airport already creates too much noise and does not need to be expanded. The CDU and the Greens said in their coalition agreement at the end of 2013 that they were in favour of looking at alternatives to building a new terminal. Opponents say they will keep fighting the expansion plans.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

.

.

.

Read more »

Carlisle council gives go-ahead to city airport overhaul – largely to be a freight centre

Plans for the £20 million overhaul of Carlisle Airport have been given the go ahead – again. A special meeting of Carlisle City Council took place on 18th August, with councillors asked to approved Stobart Group’s proposals for a massive freight distribution centre and revamped runway. One councillor expressed concerns over potential traffic congestion but no councillor voted against the motion to approve officers’ recommendations. The Stobart Group chief executive Andrew Tinkler said that work could begin within “a couple of months” – provided there are no legal challenges. The decision came despite the High Court quashing a previous planning permission decision, as new case law has since emerged which means that the need to take into account the viability of the airport is no longer relevant. However, opponents of the plans are questioning the legality of the council decision. Local people are asking for this decision to be called in.  This freight depot proposal is deeply opposed by a large proportion of the local community. There is concern that the proposal was permitted because Tinkler showed a film, of Stobart employees begging for consent to be granted, at the planning meeting.
.

 


Carlisle council gives go-ahead to city airport overhaul

Monday, 18 August 2014 (News & Star)

Plans for the £20 million overhaul of Carlisle Airport have been given the go ahead – again.

Carlisle airport photo
Carlisle airport

A special meeting of Carlisle City Council took place this morning, with councillors asked to approved Stobart Group’s proposals for a massive freight distribution centre and revamped runway.

Councillor Ray Bloxham expressed concerns over potential traffic congestion but no councillor voted against the motion to approve officers’ recommendations.

Speaking to the News & Star after the meeting, Stobart Group chief executive Andrew Tinkler said that work could begin within “a couple of months” – provided there are no legal challenges.

The decision came despite the High Court quashing a previous planning permission decision, as new case law has since emerged which means that the need to take into account the viability of the airport is no longer relevant.

However, objector Mike Fox said the “devil was in the detail” and questioned the legality of the council decision.

.


Have your say

There is a lot of money in air freight. the transport of food goods and horses. Good luck to the Stobart group,  I would think passenger numbers would be few as we in Cumbria and the Borders are not briming with people.

Let’s hope there is a legal challenge. This needs to be stopped as soon as possible before that area is used simply as another Stobard depot and not an airport .

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/carlisle-council-gives-go-ahead-to-city-airport-overhaul-1.1155741


.


 

Work on Carlisle airport revamp for freight centre could start in 6 weeks, if there is no legal challenge

Work on the redevelopment of Carlisle Airport could begin in 6 weeks, unless there is another legal challenge to the planning approval granted by Carlisle City Council councillors. Their development control committee has given the scheme – which includes the creation of a huge freight distribution depot – full approval. It was the 4th time that the matter has gone to committee for decision. Work can start, if there is no application by opponents of the scheme for a judicial review of the planning approval. That application would have to be lodged within 6 weeks. The planning law has recently changed, so the council did not need to consider whether the airport would be commercially viable, nor whether Stobart would actually keep the airport open – rather than just use the land for freight storage and transfer. One key opponent, Peter Elliott, has stressed that the runway should be realigned, to take it away from Irthington village, due to safety. Supporters of the scheme hope it will create jobs, but that is uncertain. Stobart shareholders had previously been told that the huge freight distribution centre would reduce rather than create jobs. Stobart hope 40,000 people per year would fly from Carlisle to Southend Airport, plus 20,000 per year to Dublin.

Click here to view full story…

 


.

STOBART GROUP’S CARLISLE AIRPORT PLANS SET TO BE GIVEN GO-AHEAD AGAIN

Stobart Group is poised to again get the go-ahead for its £20m Carlisle Airport overhaul – without the pressure of proving it can make commercial flights a success.

Carlisle Airport photo

Carlisle Airport

Councillors are being recommended to approve the transport giant’s proposals for a massive freight distribution centre and a revamped runway at the airfield at a special meeting on Monday.

They are also being advised that a legal agreement obliging Stobart to keep the airport open is not necessary.

That advice comes on the back of new case law, which has emerged since a High Court judge quashed a previous planning permission decision, which means the need to take into account the viability of the airport when considering the distribution centre is no longer relevant.

Stobart Group chief executive Andrew Tinkler, however, insists the firm remains committed keeping the airport open, running passenger flights in tandem with its other operations and that its plans are based on a robust business case to make the airfield a success.

He said: “Nothing has changed for us.”

Mr Justice Collins stopped the development in March after Gordon Brown, a farmer who lives opposite the airfield, sought a judicial review. He found a defect in viability forecasts.

When it tabled information for the revived application, Stobart offered a £250,000 subsidy for scheduled flights to London Southend and Dublin through Aer Arran – now Stobart Air, the airline in which Stobart Group has a 45 per cent stake.

But, in a new twist to the long-running saga, success for the scheme may no longer be dependent on whether the Carlisle-founded company can prove the flights will be profitable and keep the airport open.

And a new set of independent consultants commissioned by Carlisle City Council to look at the case afresh believe Stobart’s plans for passenger flights could secure the airport’s future in the short to medium term.

Opposition, however, remains and viability of these operations is heavily disputed by experts employed by Mr Brown, who has described the weight of evidence for refusing the application as “overwhelming”.

A report to councillors states: “Based on the likely estimate of passengers, the council’s aviation consultant considers that there is a realistic prospect of developing a public transport/commercial route, with particular regard to Dublin, for both the operators of the airline and the airport in the short-medium term.”

On the issue of whether legal conditions should be attached to the future of the airport, if the distribution centre is given the go-ahead, the report adds: “In these circumstances it is not considered reasonable for the council to require the applicant to enter an agreement obliging them to keep the airport open.”

Airport Planning and Development, the consultants employed by the council, described projected passenger demand for flights from Carlisle as “realistic”

York Aviation, acting for Mr Brown, however, says Stobart’s projections for passenger numbers are out of date and that any subsidy would have to be greater than the 250,000 promised by the firm.

The consultant concluded: “I remain of the view that air services are unlikely to be operated or, if operated at all, not sustained for more than a year or so.”

Stobart’s first airport scheme was passed by the council in 2008 and the third planning application was approved in February last year.

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/stobart-group-s-carlisle-airport-plans-set-to-be-given-go-ahead-again-1.1155399

.

.


.

Call in the application

A local organisation, Radiation Free Lakeland, is asking for the application to be called in.

They say:

 

Please write to Development Control NOW asking them to call in the Carlisle Airport Expansion decision.

Development Control Carlisle City Council :  dc@carlisle.gov.uk

Cumbria CC Development Control Chair: Alan.Clark@cumbria.gov.uk

Vice Chair:   Lawrence.Fisher@cumbria.gov.uk

ANTI NUCLEAR GROUP URGE CALL IN OF CARLISLE AIRPORT EXPANSION

Radiation Free Lakeland have today urged Carlisle City Council’s
Development Control Committee to call in their decision to overturn a High
Court ruling to squash plans for the expansion of Carlisle Airport.

The letter sent to Carlisle City Council and to Cumbria County Council says:

Dear Development Control and Regulation Committee.

Radiation Free Lakeland urge you to call in the decision to grant Carlisle
Airport a huge expansion for freight and passengers.

There has been a huge and it has to be said unaccountable push to smooth
the way forward for this commercially unviable expansion which aims to see
650 passenger and 1,560 cargo flights each year by 2025 and an average of
276 heavy-lorry movements each day.

This decision has huge implications not just for the whole of Cumbria but
for our neighbours

We urge Development Control to call in the decision to give Carlisle
Airport an expansion and to refer the decision back to Cabinet and to the
full Council for the following reasons:

1. Carlisle Airport appears to be registered to carry radioactive freight
over a populated area and in the near vicinity of Sellafield.

2. This development would ensure a huge increase in air traffic in the
near vicinity of Sellafield. The potential for terrorist attack or human
error is hugely increased

3. The county should not have been held to ransom by Stobarts threat to
move out of Cumbria should the airport not be given an extension. What
exactly are Stobarts links to the nuclear industry?

Please call in this decision as a matter of urgency.

yours sincerely

.


.

Comments from local residents on the Stobart proposal:

I object to Stobart’s industrialisation of countryside that Carlisle City Council has given consent to, against previous court rulings won more than once at huge expense.
This is for a huge lorry depot, with a new roundabout on farmland, a huge 5 storey building, up to 300 lorries daily (through the night too), huge light poles with all-night lighting – visible for many miles around from the Gelt and Irthing Valleys to the Pennines.
Also the promise of expanding the small and insignificant airfield into a freight airport with a runway pointing directly into the unspoiled and quiet village of Irthington, and removal of trees between.
Also the displacement of a local farmer, Gordon Brown, who fought this for years before and who, with his father before him, has rented the fields where the odious depot and roundabout will be built.
Stobart is determined to get its way.  So much so that he has threatened Carlisle and Cumbria County Councils with withdrawal of Stobart’s HQ from Cumbria if they don’t approve the inappropriate ‘development’.
It is understood that Carlisle City Council accepted this after Tinkler played them a video of his employees begging them to approve the development or they would have to leave Cumbria – Tinkler would relocate.
This is just blackmail to get a development in a rural location, unfit for purpose, to satisfy Tinkler’s wish to make money from the site, against the wishes of the local people, the Government’s own guidelines, traffic management sense and at the expense of our beautiful countryside – a great and important asset to Carlisle and Cumbria.
The press said there was no opposition at the council meeting  from councillors, apart from one. They just sat through a film of Stobarts with all the employees on, one after another, pleading for the expansion as they didn’t want their family to have to move from Cumbria – if Stobarts didn’t get this they would have to relocate.
It is  understood that Tinkler is determined to build his depot in this unsuitable location because he personally sold it for £12 million to his own company (with a £10 million profit apparently). He is putting undue pressure on the council to accept it, against the wishes of local people (other than Stobart employees).
The development will harm wildlife, preservation of the Hadrian’s Wall route, preservation of Cumberland’s remaining unspoilt scenery and the value of our way of life.
It is wrong for the council to have approved this because Tinkler threatens to leave Cumbria if his development plan is not permitted.
It is also wrong that so much money has been spent fighting this before, and winning, but that Tinkler can just come back and do it again.  It is wrong that big business can trample people so easily, through the English planning system, with the apparent collusion of the council.
The planned development will mean a huge five story building, huge wire fences, huge all-night light poles, 300 thundering juggernauts a day, a new roundabout in the middle of the country and the destruction of hedges and trees.  The area will be entirely urbanised and ruined.
This idea that it’s all to help Carlisle by providing an airport is ridiculous.  We have Newcastle airport so near, and even then most people drive elsewhere as local airports don’t fly to many holiday destinations – what hope of Carlisle being able to support a commercial airport?
People of this area are under the impression that they’ll be able to jet off to Spain from Carlisle and this is almost certainly not the case. The airport “carrot” has been used to garner public support, like the threat of pulling out of Cumbria has been used as a stick.
.

 

.
There are two press articles about allegations about Stobart below:

 

.

.

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Responses to the Gatwick airspace consultation (closed 16th August)

On 23rd May Gatwick launched a consultation on airspace changes it proposes. This is part of the airspace change programme to “modernise” flight paths, in line with the UK Future Airspace Strategy published by the CAA. The consultation was widely regarded as inadequate, badly written and presented, and effectively almost impossible for ordinary people – unused to the jargon and the technicalities – to either understand or respond to. The consultation finally ended on 16th August. Many organisations, and MPs, have asked for the consultation to be considered void, due to its deficiencies, and re-done to include maps, showing all proposed flight paths at Gatwick for arrivals and departures up to 10,000 feet. These were not included before, making responses difficult. These are some of the consultation responses sent in from local councils and parishes, representing their members. They all comment negatively on the quality of the consultation. One comments: “The air travel industry appears to be in total denial of the collateral damage which would be caused by these proposals”
.

 


 

The Gatwick airpace consultation

Gatwick Airport Ltd (GAL)  consultation on their plans to redraw many of the flight paths around Gatwick.  They call this Phase 2 of the consultation.  Link

This is Gatwick airport’s summary (2 pages) of their consultation 


 

GACC’s guidance

GACC (Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign) produced a detailed and excellent document, deciphering the badly written consultation document, and setting out the important facts to help people to respond to the consultation. GACC notes on Airspace Consultation Phase 2  –  July 2014


 

GACC’s consultation response

GACC are demanding that:

– Gatwick Airport should scrap the proposed new routes;
– the CAA should declare the consultation void, and insist on a new consultation, with proper maps, to include new arrival routes;
– the Government should veto any new routes, and should issue a Direction that Gatwick (and other large airports) must provide full compensation for people whose houses are devalued by new concentrated flight paths; and
– the Land Compensation Act should be amended to include new ‘motorways in the sky’.

GACC response


 

High Weald Parish Councils Aviation Action Group (HWCAAG) response

In summary, they say:

  • We oppose the realignment because there is insufficient information to make a reasonable judgement. Being under a realigned flight path would blight any community.
  • We propose a further round of consultation after the realignment has been decided.
  • We propose multiple routes on a rota basis (not a multiple of 7)
  • We propose that CDA is enforced.
  • We propose that height levels of aircraft should be maintained at the maximum height through the controlled area in accordance with safe landing.
  • We propose that given the aims of AONB, NT and other heritage properties in the group area they suffer unduly from visible and noise impact of aircraft and should qualify for greater respite.
  • We propose that affected individuals and communities and businesses should be compensated financially.
  • We propose that a new metric for measuring aircraft noise and impact is found that takes account of tonal change and ambient noise.  The current measure is obsolete.
  • We propose no increase in night flights and preferably a reduction to no night flights.
  • We oppose a second runway at Gatwick.
  •  The Chiddingstone Parish Council response to this consultation can be found here.The HWCAAG response to the consultation can be found here. 

 

The Slinfold Parish Council response

Slinfold Parish Council’s response to the Gatwick Airport Consultation.

They agreed at a council meeting to reject any of the current options to change Gatwick departures from RWY26 to the south.

Due to a list of errors and inaccuracies, they are asking for the consultation to be re-done.


The Warnham Parish Council response (from Warnham, Slinfold and Rusper councils)

The first part of their response, on 7.8.2014 is  here

Their further response on 14.8.2014 is  here

Among other comments, they say:

“The GLAC (Gatwick Local Area Consultation) documentation is technically complex, it makes a number of unsubstantiated and sometimes contradictory statements. It offers weak or overly complex supporting material.  It deploys dubious or misleading rationale in a number of areas and finally proposes a limited number of ‘take it or leave it’ options without any adequate attempt to explore or explain the need for the options proposed. Neither does it seek to explain any alternative strategies or mitigation techniques available or planned by GAL, National Air Traffic Services (NATS) or the CAA. WS find this entirely unreasonable and completely unacceptable.”

“Also that Warnham Parish Council and the Slinfold Parish Council “will be recommending to the DfT and the CAA that airports proposing any form of development, including airspace changes, are obliged to set aside a fund to provide for the conduct of the fully independent assessment, analysis and reporting of any proposed options, for use by affected stakeholders.”


 

Kent Council Council response

Response for KCC from David Brazier, Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, Kent County Council

They appreciate the stress and nuisance that Gatwick over-flying is causing to parts of Kent, and to the heritage attraction sites such as Hever Castle, Penshurst Place and Chartwell.


 

Alfold Parish Council response

Alfold is south west of Gatwick, 5 miles from Cranleigh.  Response

They say:

We cannot accept any change in NPRs for departures until GAL presents the facts, well
researched, accompanied by meaningful statistics and details. We insist that more
research be done into the impacts of new routes on communities overflown. This must
be presented in a comprehensible way to the public.

And they add: “We understand the Chief Executive of GAL has been
asked to provide a simplified version but he has refused. As the CAA is monitoring this
consultation for compliance, a copy of this response will be sent to Dame Deirdre
Hutton.”


 Withyham Parish Council’s response

A narrowing of the broad swathe approach to one around 500m wide is an unjust and intolerable proposal, for whoever ends up under it. Retaining the current dispersal of flights over a wider area is preferred.   Response  here 

Among many comments they say:

“The Council notes that no population assessments have been done prior to making this proposal.  Withyham Parish Council is appalled that a potential life altering and health damaging decision is being proposed without any proper assessment of the effect on the people most affected. The Council question whether this is in fact a proper consultation due to the lack of definitive information on the narrowed flight paths.”

and “Withyham Parish Council believe that Gatwick have failed to place sufficient weight to the quality of life of any population living under a flight path or the effect that such a narrow aerial motorway would have on the health and well-being of the population of this Parish which will be severely affected.”

 


 

Sevenoaks Borough Council response

Sevenoaks response   

They appreciate that the noise is an intrusion into the lives of thousands of people in the area, and also disturbs the tranquillity of the AONB. They note their disappointment that their recent application to join Gatwick’s Consultative Committee, GATCON, was rejected.  They comment on the lack of maps illustrating the flight paths proposed. They say aircraft noise over the AONBs should be reduced.


 

Horsham District Council response

The response is at LAMP follow-up consultation response August 2014 Horsham Council

They comment:

 Horsham District Council is opposed to all of the proposed options A, B and C as they will all result in detrimental implications for those newly overflown. We do not support any of the options and we trust our response will be interpreted in this way.

 

They also say:

 

“All the options proposed will have seriously deleterious implications for those communities both under and close to the new routes as they will be affected by a new intrusive noise which disrupts peaceful enjoyment of one’s property and more importantly adverse effects on health.”

 

and “The forecast effects for the years 2016 and 2020 on Leq and SEL and those for the calculated population count changes do not show the significance of the disturbance and misery which will be experienced by newly affected communities.”

 

Also a  follow-up letter from Councillors Vickers and Rogers clarifying the Council’s position. LAMP Consultation, Horsham DC Follow-Up Letter, August 2014

Horsham’s Gatwick Aircraft Noise page


 

 

Speldhurst Parish Council response

They say they endorse the comments made by the neighbouring parish of Penshurst.

Speldhurst response

They add:  “The air travel industry appears to be in total denial of the collateral damage which would be caused by these proposals. The [High Weald] AONB with its low ambient noise levels relies heavily on national and internaitonal tourism for its sustainability, and further noise intrusion will inpact irretrievably on the local economies  …. and hitherto tranquil surroundings.”


…… and there are many others …….

.


 

.

MPs who have spoken out against Gatwick’s flight path trial, and against a second runway at Gatwick:

.

Nick Herbert, MP for Arundel & South Downs, joins others in speaking out against noise nuisance from ADNID trial

Click here to view full story…


Mole Valley MP Sir Paul Beresford joins the battle over Gatwick aircraft noise

Click here to view full story…


Tunbridge Wells MP Greg Clark urges Gatwick CEO to “go back to the drawing board” on flight paths

Click here to view full story…


Francis Maude says it is intolerable for some people to be very intensively overflown, “to the extreme detriment of their lives”

Click here to view full story…


Crispin Blunt MP investigates recent increase in aircraft noise in Redhill area due to changes to Gatwick flight paths

Click here to view full story…

.

.

..

 

 

Read more »

Frankfurt Airport given planning permission to build Terminal 3, to increase passenger number

Frankfurt airport currently has 2 passenger terminals with a capacity of approximately 65 million passengers per year, plus 4 runways. In 2009, the German government decided there should be a new Terminal 3 in order to handle the expected passenger flow of 90 million per year by 2020.  The new terminal is scheduled to be built by Fraport, south of the existing terminals. Fraport has now announced that it has been granted approval of its planning application, by the city of Frankfurt. However, it still needs a demand assessment. The building of a new terminal has been deeply controversial, and has been strongly opposed – as it is a means by which the airport can grow substantially. Fraport hopes the first phase of construction will start next year. Fraport say the airport will reach its maximum passenger capacity of about 64-68 million passengers a year by 2021 and that the new terminal when finished will allow it to serve up to 25 million more. Opponents say the airport already creates too much noise and does not need to be expanded. The CDU and the Greens said in their coalition agreement at the end of 2013 that they were in favour of looking at alternatives to building a new terminal. Opponents say they will keep fighting the expansion plans.
.

 

 

kein t3

Fraport given building permission for Frankfurt airport expansion

BERLIN 

12.8.2014  (Reuters)

The city of Frankfurt has approved airport operator Fraport’s building application for a much-debated new Terminal 3 at Europe’s third-largest airport, the company said on Tuesday.

Airport expansion is a hot topic in Europe at present. A long-planned new airport in Berlin has been beset with delays and accusations of fraud, while in Britain, Heathrow and Gatwick are competing for the right to expand.

Fraport estimates the investment cost will be more than €2 billion (£1.60 billion) for the first phase of construction, which is due to start next year.

The company expects the airport in its current form to reach maximum capacity – of about 64-68 million passengers a year – in by 2021 and that the new terminal when finished will allow it to serve up to 25 million extra passengers a year.

Anti-airport campaigners, meanwhile, maintain that the airport just outside Frankfurt already creates too much noise and does not need to be expanded.

Campaigners in Frankfurt, who also want to see a night flight ban extended by two hours, had hoped that the new ruling coalition of conservatives and greens in the state of Hesse, where Frankfurt is situated, would do more to prevent expansion of the airport.

The CDU (Christian Democratic Union) and Green parties said in their coalition agreement at the end of last year that they were in favour of looking at alternatives to building a new terminal.

But while the building application has been approved, the project still has to undergo a demand assessment, the Hesse conservatives said.

“The state government is holding continuous talks with Fraport on this matter,” a spokesman said in a statement on Tuesday.

It is not yet clear when this assessment will be finished, a Fraport spokesman said.

Frankfurt airport served just over 58 million passengers last year, up 0.9% on 2012, but Fraport predicts growth of between 2% and 3%  this year.

The new terminal would be built in stages, with the first phase aimed at providing capacity to serve an additional 14 million passengers a year.

Fraport’s shares were up 0.8% by 1214 GMT, outperforming a 0.4% fall in the MDax index for medium-sized companies .MDAXI.

The state of Hesse owns about 30% of Fraport and the city of Frankfurt holds 20%.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/12/uk-germany-fraport-airport-idUKKBN0GC16L20140812

.

.


 

.

Third terminal approved for Frankfurt Airport to meet rising passenger demand

The City of Frankfurt has issued a building permit to build a third terminal at Germany’s Frankfurt Airport (FRA) to help boost the airport’s ability to cope with rising demand for air travel.

18 Aug 2014 (Out-Law which is part of Pinsent Masons, a UK law firm)

FRA’s owner and operator the Fraport Group said the capacity of the existing two terminals to cope with an increasing number of passengers is expected to be “exhausted” by 2020, with growth already exceeding projections.

Fraport said long-term traffic forecasts issued by the German transport and digital infrastructure ministry indicate that the number of passengers will grow by an annual average of 2.5% by 2030, which makes aviation “Germany’s fastest-growing mode of transportation”.

However, Fraport said FRA “has already exceeded this value, posting average passenger growth of 3% in recent years”, as a result of “FRA’s significant international hub function”. Fraport said current trends point to passenger numbers continuing to rise, with growth reaching 2% to 3% by the end of 2014.

The modular construction of the new terminal will be implemented in phases, with the first phase to be completed “no later than 2021”, Fraport said.

The first phase will include the central terminal building and two piers designed to serve up to 14 million passengers each year. When fully completed, the new terminal will provide a total of 50 aircraft docking positions.

Fraport said the construction project, on FRA’s southern side, “is an integral part” of the airport’s expansion programme. FRA’s baggage conveyor systems and ‘Sky Line’ elevated passenger train network will also be expanded to link the new terminal to the existing terminals and airport rail stations.

Planning for the passenger terminal is focused on using “highly efficient energy standards” and the design of the building’s technical systems “will completely eliminate the need for external heating”, Fraport said.

Fraport’s executive board chairman Stefan Schulte said the group would continue to analyse passenger data to “assess requirements for future terminal capacity”. He said: “The deciding factor is that we will continue to be able to provide our passengers with the necessary capacity and a wide range of flight connections with the best possible services and processes.”

Schulte said: “German companies are very successful on the global market, which secures and creates jobs and prosperity in Germany. Prerequisites for this success are direct, fast and reliable flight connections to the rest of the world. This is the role of Frankfurt Airport for the region, the (federal) state of Hesse and Germany as a whole.”

Figures posted by Fraport earlier this year for fiscal year 2013 (4-page / 224 KB PDF) showed that revenue increased by 4.9% to €2.56 billion compared to the previous year, while the group’s operating profit rose to some €880 million, which was an increase of 3.7%. Passenger numbers at FRA increased by nearly 1% to more than 58 million. Fraport said cargo traffic at FRA also “developed positively”, rising by 1.4% to almost 2.1 million tonnes.

In July 2014, Fraport recorded the busiest passenger month in FRA’s history with almost 5.9 million passengers served. “Despite weather-related cancellations during the reporting month, passenger traffic advanced by 2.3% compared to the same period last year,” Fraport said.

http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2014/august/third-terminal-approved-for-frankfurt-airport-to-meet-rising-passenger-demand/

.


.

Opponents will continue fighting the airport’s growth.  On hearing of the planning permission for the 3rd Terminal, the “Kein Terminal 3″  (No Terminal 3) campaign on Facebook  said (approximate translation):

The planning application for Terminal 3 is approved – but our protest and our resistance are not finished yet!

The Working Group on aircraft noise and environmental invites people to the
1st Joint conversation about possible information and protest actions to “race day of the airport” on 24th August.2014 on the racecourse for an exchange of views on the current situation in the fight against airport expansion and for a liveable region.

When? Thursday, 21.08.2014, 19.30  to about 21.00 hours.

Where? In the “Hirsch” in 60599 Frankfurt-Oberrad, Offenbacher Landstrasse. 289

Why not combine the pleasure of horse racing with a little information and protest against the destruction of our region through the airport’s expansion?

Who is motivated to present some information and mark our protest after the recent betrayal of the voters of the Greens “urban society”, when given the 8/24/2014 opportunity.

Last year, Fraport has advertised with the following text:
“Race day is supported by Fraport AG, which are also a sponsor for the main race.
As operator of the busiest airport in Germany, the largest local workplace of the Federal Republic and the economic engine of the Rhine-Main region, Fraport AG plays an important social role. Fraport AG is committed to the region and contributes to the attractiveness and quality of life in the Rhine-Main area …. “(2) ..

.

.

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Stop Stansted Expansion supports call to take part in flight path consultation, and says changes should be postponed

Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) welcomes NATS’ call to local residents to have their say and respond to the proposed transfer of traffic on departure routes from Stansted Airport.  The proposed change involves switching daytime traffic from the existing south-east (Dover) departure route to the existing east (Clacton) route (see map).  The consultation closes on 8th September.  Traffic on the Clacton route would double if this proposal were implemented.  NATS’ own figures show 1,470 fewer people would be overflown, but 2,400 people would be overflown more intensively.  NATS says that the driver for change is network performance and to avoid Heathrow traffic congestion. SSE says significant changes to Stansted’s airspace are likely to come in the next airspace review phase scheduled for 2018/19.  If there is a new south east runway, that will mean significant redesign of Stansted routes in future. Therefore SSE says there must be clear and compelling benefits for local residents before any changes are implemented. They recommend that NATS’ proposed changes should be postponed until the airspace redesign planned for 2018/19.
.

 

 

SSE supports call to take part in flight path consultation

18.8.2014 (Stop Stansted Expansion – SSE)

Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) welcomes NATS’ call to local residents to have their say and respond to the proposed transfer of traffic on departure routes from Stansted Airport.

The proposed change involves switching daytime traffic from the existing south-east (Dover) departure route to the existing east (Clacton) route.  The consultation closes on 8th September.

NATS says that the proposed change would result in reduced CO2 emissions and reduced delays for Stansted and other airports.  SSE has calculated that the reduction in CO2 emissions would be less than 1% and an even smaller percentage if long haul routes came to Stansted.  For delays, NATS’ performance in 2012 was the best on record with Air Traffic Control (ATC) delays averaging just 1.6 seconds per flight.

Traffic on the Clacton route would double if this proposal were implemented and, according to NATS’ own figures, for local communities living around the airport, 1,470 fewer people would be overflown, but 2,400 people would be overflown more intensively.  NATS says that the driver for change is network performance and to avoid Heathrow traffic congestion.  This currently keeps Stansted’s southbound Dover traffic lower in the south of Essex, the Thames Estuary and sometimes well into Kent.

SSE also draws attention to the fact that significant changes to Stansted’s airspace are likely to come in the next airspace review phase scheduled for 2018/19.  Additionally the Government is expected to decide next year on a further runway in the South East.  These developments are anticipated to involve a significant redesign of Stansted routes including improved noise reduction procedures such as Continuous Descent Approach.

SSE urged caution when this NATS consultation was launched in mid-June and said that there must be clear and compelling benefits for local residents before any changes are implemented.

Peter Sanders, SSE’s Chairman, says “SSE is not convinced that these conditions have been met and we recommend that NATS’ proposed changes should be postponed until they can be assessed in the context of the much more significant airspace redesign planned by NATS for 2018/19.”

http://stopstanstedexpansion.com/

.

.

The summary of the proposal, (just two pages) from NATS, is at 

  • Download the summary leaflet (PDF)
  • Images below taken from the summary leaflet. [The area within the black dotted line will get fewer flights, and the area in the continuous black line will get more flights]
  • Stansted proposed flight path change July 2014

NOTES

NATS’ Departure Route Proposal at the London Stansted Airport Consultation can be found at http://www.nats.aero/environment/consultations/lamp-stansted-sid-consultation/

SSE’s guidance on the proposed changes to Stansted departure routes can be found at http://stopstanstedexpansion.com/documents/SSE_GUIDANCE_FOR_NATS_DEPARTURE_ROUTE_PROPOSAL_Final.pdf

SSE’s position and recommendations on the changes proposed by NATS can be found at

http://stopstanstedexpansion.com/documents/NATS_Stansted_Departure_Routes_Consultation-SSE%20Position.pdf

SSE Campaign Office

Tel:   01279 870558; info@stopstanstedexpansion.com

.


 

.

SSE’s RECOMMENDATIONS
SSE concludes that it should recommend opposing the proposed change on the basis that:
 it offers negligible benefits.

 it has adverse noise impacts overall for the local community living within 20 miles of
the airport under the flight paths below 7,000ft.

 it cannot be assessed in the context of the next LAMP phase which will involve a
significant redesign of the Stansted routes.

SSE is recommending that this proposed change is postponed until the next LAMP (London Airspace Management Programme) phase when significant airspace changes will be proposed for Stansted and after the Government has made its decision on the Airports Commission’s final report. In so doing, the proposed change would be able to be assessed in the context of the whole airspace plan and include Continuous Descent Approach for all arriving aircraft to the easterly runway.
6th August 2014.

.


 

.

http://www.nats.aero/environment/consultations/lamp-stansted-sid-consultation/

The NATS consultation says:

NATS Departure Route Proposal at London Stansted Airport

This consultation is about a change to the use of existing London Stansted Airport departure routes heading to the southeast and east of the airport. It is driven by NATS at the air route network level, and supported by Stansted Airport which has a focus on low level routes in the vicinity of the airport.

This consultation is part of a wider programme to modernise the route system over London and the southeast; known as the London Airspace Management Programme or ‘LAMP’.

LAMP is being progressed by NATS which provides air traffic control for the route network across the whole of the UK. It involves collaboration between NATS and individual airports in the development of, and consultation on, changes to airspace management; collaboration ensures that modernisation achieves both network and local benefits.

What is this consultation about?

This consultation is for a proposal to formalise the use of existing alternative routes for Stansted Airport departures heading to the southeast and east.

No new routes are proposed – only different usage of existing routes. It would not involve changes to the airspace structure in the vicinity of Stansted Airport.

This consultation describes the proposal and its objectives in detail. It provides maps and data indicating areas that would see fewer overflights, and those that would see more.

Benefits

The benefits of this are:

  • Reduced CO2
  • Reduced delay (for Stansted and neighbouring airports)
  • Reduction in the number of people regularly overflown during the day

Achieving these benefits would also mean that some people would be overflown more often.

Airlines may already choose to fly the alternative route, and are expected to do so increasingly in the future to avoid congestion. This proposal will ensure that the benefits of the alternative route are maximised.

The consultation opens 9am Monday 9th June and closes 9pm Monday 8th September 2014 (twelve weeks).

Consultation documents

Feedback

.


.

Earlier:

Plan to redirect Stansted Airport departures to reduce Heathrow congestion

Air traffic control service NATS proposes to redirect the majority of Stansted departures from an established southerly route, to an existing route to the east of the airport. “At the moment, departures from Stansted heading towards the South East are kept lower for longer when compared to the route heading east because of Heathrow arrivals.” The changes would only affect daytime departures. This is to reduce congestion above Heathrow. Arrivals are not affected. NATS has started a 12-week consultation on the proposals. Martin Peachey, noise advisor for Stop Stansted Expansion campaign group said: “We basically support the proposal because NATS say it should reduce the amount of people flown in the day and reduce CO2 emissions. It would remove day time departures for a large area to the south but it would double the amount of flights to the east so that would need to be carefully studied. …. There will be winners and losers.” The changes are part of the NATS’ London Airspace Management Programme (LAMP).

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

 

 

Read more »

Monarch airlines plans to slash workforce by 1,000 jobs, up to 30%, to compete with Ryanair and EasyJet

Up to 1,000 jobs, about one third of its work force, will be cut at Monarch as it tries an overhaul to reposition itself as a low-cost airline competing with easyJet and Ryanair. Monarch is currently controlled by a wealthy Swiss-Italian family,  and has been undertaking a strategic review of its business in order  to attract new investors. It will drop its charter flights and focus on short-haul scheduled flights. It will cut its fleet of aircraft from 42 to 30. It will keep its focus on holiday destinations like Spain, the Canary Islands and Turkey but add more European cities and skiing destinations. Overall, it will fly more frequently to fewer destinations. Monarch has its HQ at Luton airport, is made up of Monarch Airlines, tour operator Cosmos Holidays and an aircraft maintenance division. They will no longer fly from East Midlands Airport. Monarch’s MD said “We’re on a trajectory of changing from a charter airline to a scheduled European low-cost carrier.” They recently ordered new planes, at the Farnborough air show.  This is a £1.75bn order for 30 new Boeing 737 aircraft to be delivered by 2020. They carried about 6.8 million passengers in 2013. .

Monarch airlines plans to slash workforce by up to 30%

18 August 2014  (BBC)

Monarch Airlines
Monarch chief executive Andrew Swaffield said it would be “difficult” to continue to operate long haul flights with only two aircraft

Monarch Airlines may cut as many as 1,000 jobs as part of a major strategic review that aims to cuts costs and may lead to the end of long haul flights.

The airline will instead aim to compete with low cost airlines Ryanair and Easyjet and concentrate on short-haul flights to Europe.

The job losses amount to around a third of the airline’s workforce.

The airline has not yet officially announced the cuts, but sources told the BBC jobs would be lost.

Despite increased capacity the airline said passenger demand was flat.

It is retiring three Boeing 757s this Autumn and will have replaced its whole fleet in the next five years.

In July, it confirmed a £1.75bn order for 30 new Boeing 737 aircraft to be delivered by 2020. It is likely to mean a reduction in the size of its fleet from 42 to 30, although the airline does have an option with Boeing to buy a further 15 aircraft.

A statement released by Monarch on Monday said: “The company has previously stated that the new management team is conducting a strategic review of the group’s businesses, including in relation to their operations, ownership and financing.

“That review is on-going and further announcements will be made upon its conclusion or as otherwise appropriate.”

Strategic review

In an interview with Travel Weekly, Andrew Swaffield, who took over as Monarch chief executive in July, said:

He added he expected Monarch to be competing with Easyjet and Ryanair within the next year to 18 months. Mr Swaffield added it was “difficult” for Monarch to operate a long-haul business with only two aircraft.

Earlier in August, Monarch announced it will stop flying from East Midlands Airport next year.

The company began operating from East Midlands after low-cost airline BMI Baby ceased trading in September 2012.

It currently operates 34 flights a week from the airport to nine destinations, mainly in and around the Mediterranean.

A spokesman said the decision came after a review of services. The final Monarch flight will take place at the end of April 2015.

Analyst Howard Wheeldon said the change in strategy at Monarch would come “as little surprise” for many given the strength of competition, high costs and industry overcapacity.

He added many believed the “continuing rise in airport passenger duties….have and will continue to depress and further damage the UK airline industry”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28833343

.


.

More about Monarch on Wikipedia at 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch_Airlines

.

On 3 November 2011, Monarch received a £75m rescue package for the airline. It was then announced that Monarch were to launch of 14 additional routes serving new destinations in Italy, Croatia and Greece from their bases. The new flights commenced at the start of the 2012 summer season. Monarch also received two Airbus A320 aircraft to support the increased level of activity. The addition of these aircraft also marks the first stage of a medium-term plan to increase the fleet size to 40 aircraft in support of the airline’s goal to carry 10 million passengers annually by the time the final stage has been fully implemented. Growing the fleet to enable an increase in passenger numbers will allow the airline to spread its fixed costs over a higher level of output, thus resulting in greater economies of scale.[55][56][57]

On 3 May 2012, Monarch announced that they were to open a new base at East Midlands Airport in Autumn 2012, to replace some routes previously flown by Bmibaby, who ceased operations completely on 9 September 2012.[58]

On 8 May 2012 the airline announced operations from Leeds/Bradford with 2 new winter destinations, Munich and Grenoble. They also announced plans for a large expansion in summer 2013. [59] On 10 July 2012, it was announced that Monarch were to launch a new base at Leeds/Bradford with 12 new destinations.[60] The base opened on 22 March 2013.

On 13 December 2012 Monarch announced that they have come on board as a new sponsor for Leeds United AFC, working in partnership with Leeds United to promote Monarch’s new base and routes at Leeds Bradford Airport.

On 1 July 2013, Monarch announced an order for a further two Airbus A321s. The aircraft are due to be delivered in April and May 2015 and are to be fitted with sharklets.[61]

On 12 December 2013, Monarch announced that Monarch Airlines had returned to profit in year ending October 2013 and announced that passenger numbers were up 9.5% to 7 million and in line to carry over 10 million by 2016. In the same announcement Monarch confirmed that it plans to order 60 new aircraft in an order worth $6 Billion for delivery up to 2024 and would announce the successful tender in Q1 of 2014 from either Airbus/Boeing and Bombardier.

On 14 August 2014, Monarch announced the closure of their East Midlands base.[62]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Read more »

Mole Valley MP Sir Paul Beresford joins the battle over Gatwick aircraft noise

Sir Paul Beresford, the MP for Mole Valley, has joined the battle against aircraft noise due to Gatwick airport, over the south of the district.  Documents for the recent airspace consultation by Gatwick (closed on 15th August) show that one of Gatwick’s departure routes was changed in November 2013. This flight path had too tight a turn for modern aircraft (though they can climb faster than older planes) and planes were increasingly straying further north. As a result, the official route, the NPR (noise preferential route) was changed at the end of last year to allow for a wider turn, meaning 7,200 people who were previously unaffected are now under the flight path – including communities in Leigh, the Holmwoods, Brockham, Capel, Betchworth and Beare Green. Sir Paul said: “It’s quite a disaster. People who bought houses under the previous flight path knew what they were buying. People who have bought under the new flight path did not know. ….. the whole thing is totally unacceptable.” He is deeply opposed to a 2nd runway, partly due to the thousands of houses that would have to be built, on green field land, to accommodate workers. “They are actually bussing people in from the South Coast to do jobs” already.
.

 

 

Mole Valley MP Sir Paul Beresford joins the battle over aircraft noise

By J Hardwick

August 17, 2014 (Dorking & Leatherhead Advertiser)

Mole Valley MP Sir Paul Beresford joins the battle over aircraft noise

Mole Valley MP Sir Paul Beresford joins the battle over aircraft noise

​MOLE VALLEY’S MP has joined the battle against aircraft noise over the south of the district.Sir Paul Beresford is working with Reigate’s MP Crispin Blunt to fight against changes made to the routes planes use to fly from Gatwick.As reported in the Advertiser last week, documents released as part of the airport’s ongoing airspace consultation reveal one of the departure routes was changed in November last year.According to the document, the route  had too tight a turn for modern aircraft and planes were increasingly straying further north.

[When Gatwick refers to RWY26 – meaning runway 26 – they mean the single runway used for take-offs towards the west.  ie. 280 degrees from north. When they refer to RWY08 they mean the runway used for take offs to the east. ie. 80 degrees from north.  AW note].

As a result, the official route was changed at the end of last year to allow for a wider turn, meaning 7,200 people who were previously unaffected are now under the flight path – including communities in Leigh, the Holmwoods, Brockham, Capel, Betchworth and Beare Green.

Sir Paul told the Advertiser: “It’s quite a disaster.

“People who bought houses under the previous flight path knew what they were buying. People who have bought under the new flight path did not know.

“The value of their properties will go down and the whole thing is totally unacceptable.

“I have looked with an expert at the proposed changes.

“It is incredibly difficult to understand and the nature of the consultation is such that most people will not respond because they don’t understand.”

He added: “There is a horrible suspicion in my mind which is that it could be related to the prospect of Gatwick having a second runway, which I am absolutely opposed to.

“They say they’re going to create thousands more jobs but the other weekend they couldn’t get people to move baggage.

“They are actually bussing people in from the South Coast to do jobs, so what this would really mean is more houses between Gatwick and Dorking.

“The end result will be a half-hub at Gatwick and a half-hub at Heathrow with a parking lot in between called the M25.”

Brockham resident Caroline Horn said: “We moved to Brockham two years ago and enjoyed a very peaceful existence until earlier this year.

“We used to live very close to Heathrow Airport, so not hearing planes all the time in our new home was a blessing and one of the reasons we moved.

“Now, however, I hear planes overhead at 3am, 4am, 5am and onwards.

“It’s particularly busy during the mornings and evenings, but even during the day they fly over every five to ten minutes.”

A consultation on changing flight paths for planes in and out of the airport, ended yesterday (Saturday, August 16).

http://www.dorkingandleatherheadadvertiser.co.uk/Mole-Valley-MP-Sir-Paul-Beresford-joins-battle/story-22734217-detail/story.html

.


 

Map from Gatwick airspace consultation at

http://www.gatwickairport.com/PublicationFiles/business_and_community/all_public_publications/aircraft_noise/Airspace%20consultation/Map_16-22.pdf

Gatwick map showing Reigate area flight paths 2014

.

.

 


.

Sir Paul Beresford (MP for Mole Valley) joins with fellow MPs to oppose Gatwick expansion

28.8.2014 (Sir Paul Beresford update)
MPs Crispin Blunt, Sir Paul Beresford, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas Soames, Rt Hon Sir John Stanley, and Charles Hendry have formed the Gatwick Coordination Group following a meeting at the House of Commons on Wednesday 11th June 2014.

The Gatwick Coordination Group is established to represent the serious local concern at the plan for a second runway at Gatwick Airport which has been shortlisted by the Davies Commission.

Gatwick Airport Limited has made its submission to Sir Howard Davies, which is yet to be published. Sir Howard’s Commission will make its recommendation on airport capacity to the Government in 2015.

The group released the following statement:

“We believe that the building of a second runway at Gatwick airport would be a disaster for the surrounding communities and environment. The level of development, associated with an airport serving nearly three times as many passengers as it does now, would devastate the local environment and leave the UK with its major airport in the wrong place.

There is also no adequate plan yet presented to provide the necessary infrastructure, of all types, to support this development. The size of the Gatwick site only lends itself to a single runway airport, serving as a sensible, competitive alternate to London’s main hub airport. While they pursue that objective, Gatwick Airport Limited will have our support, but this proposal is not in the local interest, nor is it in the national interest, and this group will work to prove that case.”

.

Gatwick Noise

Many residents surrounding Gatwick Airport have been shocked by Gatwick “trialling” a new flight path. Villages in Mole Valley, Reigate and East Surrey have had their relatively peaceful lives damaged by noise pollution due to the changes. The residents’ uproar is justifiably huge. To add insult to injury few knew this trial was to happen, few knew that there was a related consultation document and those who did know found the consultation document incomprehensible.

Surrey County councillor Mrs Helyn Clack and I have joined forces with our neighbouring Surrey MPs to apply pressure on the CAA as they will be taking the changes forward to Government if they agree with Gatwick that they should be made permanent.

If you have been affected by these changes please write to

Mr. Mark Swan,

Director Airspace Policy,

Civil Aviation Authority,

CAA House,

45-59 Kingsway,

London, WC2B 6TE
.
Please make your letters succinct and reasoned. Please encourage other members of your household and neighbours to write as well.

.


 

CONTACT YOUR MP

Sir Paul Beresford
86 South Street Dorking Surrey RH4 2EW

t: 01306 883312
e: molevalley@btconnect.com
w: http://www.mvca.co.uk/

 

 

Read more »

“Grow Heathrow” squatters in Sipson pledge ‘peaceful’ resistance to bailiffs, due to evict them

The remarkable “Grow Heathrow”squatter community, occupying land near Heathrow in protest at the airport’s expansion, are expected to be evicted by bailiffs today – or soon.   They say they will “peacefully” resist, but a range of non-violent means, including digging tunnels and locking themselves onto items. Grow Heathrow, which includes some 15 families, moved onto a derelict site near Sipson in 2010. The privately owned land had been a wasteland, and an area for anti-social activities. Grow Heathrow cleared rubbish from the site, and created a garden, as well as being as self sufficient in food as possible. They also ran creative and artistic workshops, and a positive and productive community. However, the land owner wants the land back, perhaps for sale to Heathrow airport (their 3rd runway plans would make most of Sipson impossible to live in).  Many local people in Sipson have been delighted to have Grow Heathrow as neighbours, rather than a derelict site. The local MP, John McDonnell said he “wholeheartedly” supported the activists. “These are people who not only helped us fight off the third runway, they’ve actually occupied a site which would have been the sixth terminal for the expanded Heathrow Airport.”

.

 

Grow Heathrow squatters pledge ‘peaceful’ resistance to bailiffs

Grow Heathrow eviction campaignMembers of Grow Heathrow have been on the site since 2010

Squatters occupying land near Heathrow in protest at the airport’s expansion say they will “peacefully” resist bailiffs.

About 15 families moved onto a derelict site near Sipson in 2010, creating a garden they call Grow Heathrow.

The land is privately owned and after a lengthy legal battle, the High Court ruled in favour of the owner and ordered the protesters to leave.

The protesters were due to be evicted on Friday morning.

Paddy Reynolds, a member of Grow Heathrow, said: “We plan to peacefully meet them with a barricade of music and dancing and singing.

“If they were to get past that and go inside the actual site, they’d find there’s lots of people there prepared to not very easily be moved from the site, in a very peaceful way.”

BBC London 94.9’s reporter Richard Main, who is at the scene, said the owner of the site, Imran Malik, had entered and left the site after taking a letter from local Labour MP John McDonnell.

‘Sympathetic’ treatment

The MP for Hayes and Harlington has been trying to arrange for the protesters either to buy or rent the land.

Eddy Charles, who has been a resident at the site for one year, said: “The owner and the bailiffs have arrived but I can’t imagine they will do anything today now.

“We are not feeling nervous any more. It’s been warming to see such great numbers turn up and try and protect this space. I think everyone is feeling very upbeat and empowered.”

Earlier protesters had locked the gates and barricaded themselves in, before later opening them.

The local authority, Hillingdon Council, is opposed to the airport’s expansion, but its deputy leader David Simmonds said he could not condone any illegal action.

“We’d like to see them treated sympathetically, and we’ve been very grateful for the support that they’ve provided in that local campaign which has helped in the recent past to persuade the government that expansion shouldn’t go ahead,” he said.

Mr McDonnell said he “wholeheartedly” supported them.

“These are people who not only helped us fight off the third runway, they’ve actually occupied a site which would have been the sixth terminal for the expanded Heathrow Airport.

“They’ve helped us not just in that campaign, but they’ve become part of the community and they’ve turned what was a derelict site into a real community asset and they’re at the heart of our community.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28801239

 


 

Grow Heathrow squatters ready to ‘resist’ eviction

Grow Heathrow eviction campaignThe Grow Heathrow campaign has received world-wide support since it started in 2010

After transforming a derelict plot of land into a community market garden in a bid to prevent a third runway being built at Heathrow Airport, a group of squatters are set to be evicted.

Having made Vineries Close in Sipson their home since 2010 they are not prepared to give up their self-built homes easily and have offered their supporters workshops and coaching lessons in how to defend the land.

There is fighting talk from the group of squatters who, under the name of Grow Heathrow, have occupied a slice of greenbelt land in west London for the past four years, seducing their supporters with a post on their website, offering up nature’s rewards.

“If Grow Heathrow hasn’t been evicted, we’re going to bottle loads of blackberries. Bring clean empty jars and you will earn respect, win honour and know true righteousness. If we have been evicted, we’ll just go and eat blackberries.”

The 15 full-time activists and their hundreds of supporters have cleared the site of 30 tonnes of rubbish and created a self-sufficient community, all in defiance of a third runway being built at Heathrow.

Grow HeathrowFrom a wasteland full of rubbish, the residents and volunteers have created a luscious garden

Behind the “doors” they care for the land, building homes from trees, selling produce in the local shop and offering workshops on subjects from bike maintenance to foraging, for anyone who wishes to join them.

The group wanted to create a “place of resistance” for Sipson residents who had seen “the heart ripped out of the community” with the buy-up of land and property by the airport in anticipation of a new runway.

But while Sipson properties may have been spared under new plans, which would see a potential runway built further west than originally proposed, the Grow Heathrow protest site still lies in its path.

The land is owned by businessman Imran Malik and although the activists have garnered support from local residents, MPs and even a judge, they have been told that despite the commendable work it is time to hand the land back to its rightful owner.

Last year Mr Malik, represented by Burch Phillips & Co Solicitors, secured a ruling to evict them, a decision that was upheld during a challenge by the activists at the Court of Appeal in July.

The result means the bailiffs are due to arrive later.

The squatters cleared 30 tonnes of rubbish from the site when they moved inVolunteers estimated that 30 tonnes of rubbish was initially cleared from the site

Georgia Woods, 21, who moved to the site when she was 18, said: “It’s very hard not knowing what’s going to happen and for the incredible space to be threatened.”

The squatters moved onto the site in March 2010 but it is not just a point they wanted to make, it was also about trying to save homes and livelihoods.

Ms Woods said: “We don’t get paid but we all have to do things that make the site run, like growing food or running the free community workshops.

“With the solar panels and wind turbine we have more than enough energy for phones, lights and music. We have totally normal electricity but you learn to appreciate the weather so much more.

ForagingForaging is one of the jobs required to be undertaken by residents of the site

“It’s really understanding the power of community and a gift economy.”

Ms Woods’ home has come from the land too.

“Mine’s made out of hazel and it’s just very small and has got a little woodburner which we built,” she said.

“We’re happier and creating a lighter footprint on the world rather than causing harm to someone through our consumerist polluting lifestyle.”

Winter 2010Even in the depths of winter in 2010 the residents remained self-sufficient and living on site

Despite the idyll of living on a currency-free land, Grow Heathrow does recognise harsh reality and has been trying to buy or rent the land from Mr Malik.

The group has so far offered £50,000, which they say is “above market value” and would have been generated through a crowd-funding project.

John McDonnell, MP for Hayes and Harlington, who has supported the squatters “from the first day” said: “We’ve been trying to get involved in some formal negotiations and asked them to get around the table, we’re quite happy as a community to rent the site.

“We’ve heard nothing back from the solicitors, but the door is always open.”

Whether or not it is right that an MP supports the squatters, Mr McDonnell said it had been a “tremendous success and a brilliant asset”.

Wind turbineA wind turbine and solar panels have been constructed to generate enough electricity for every day life

“It’s a demonstration that a small part of land can be so environmentally sustainable, it’s a shining example of what you can do through voluntary effort and what Grow Heathrow have done is turned it back to what it was, an environmental benefit for the area,” he said.

However, little consideration has been given to what happens after the bailiffs arrive.

Rob Hickley, 32, a gardener, said: “We’re not really thinking that far ahead yet, but with the relationships made over the past five years perhaps people will stay with others in the community.

“People will be made homeless as a result of this.”

Grow Heathrow eviction campaignGrow Heathrow has been running workshops and classes to prepare people for the arrival of the bailiffs

Heathrow Airport said it recognised that as well as “bringing huge advantages to the UK and the local people” a new runway would have “downsides for people living nearby”.

It said: “That is why we have rejected our previous plans for a third-runway and have put forward a new option further to the west of the airport, which strikes a better balance between the need for growth and local communities like Sipson.”

That is of little consolation to the squatters, who will be evicted regardless of where a runway could eventually be built.

Ms Woods said: “It’s been four and a half years, we had no idea it would last that long. We thought it was going to be squatted for potentially months, so it has been a success.

“Everyone’s pretty apprehensive and it’s pretty scary, but we’re not doing anything wrong, we’re doing amazing things.”

Efforts have been made to contact Mr Malik but, having recently parted company with his solicitors, he has not been located.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28759853

..

Related Stories


 

Transition Heathrow eviction day starts with a song round the piano

Local people and supporters of the Grow Heathrow campaigners have blocked the entrance to the squatted old nurseries and are awaiting the arrival of baliffs.

Local people and supporters of the Grow Heathrow campaigners have blocked the entrance to the squatted old nurseries and are awaiting the arrival of baliffs.

A piano sits the other side of the colourfully decorated fence and those inside the community are singing: “We don’t want your runway”.

Also: “Throw your vegetables in the air”, and even: “You are my sunshine.”

 In front of the gates of the former nursery in Vineries Close, Sipson, there is a smoothie stand and people making drinks with fruit and vegetables grown on in the greenhouses.

There is also a seed stand and people are quietly planting them in the ground.

The aim of the peaceful protest is to show exactly what grow Heathrow is all about, says Eddie, a resident.

TV and radio crews are milling around.

People expect bailiffs to arrive with police support. They said they would be there from 8am.

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/local-news/transition-heathrow-eviction-day-starts-7618465

.


What is Grow Heathrow?

As residents prepare to resist eviction today, one squatter explained what brought him there

Oliva Howard, 15, a Sipson resident. She D-locked herself to the Grow Heathrow entrance. ‘You can’t evict an idea’, reads her sign.

 

There are around 15 families who live permanently in self-made homes at the community garden site in Sipson and at least 100 others who regularly work at the site.

Eddie has been a resident for a year.

He would not reveal his surname or age, but was happy to explain how he became part of the Grow Heathrow family.

He joined after hearing about it through word of mouth.

Squatters make tea and coffee on a stove in front of a ‘LOVE’ sign

“I’m now friends with them, I love the people who love here, this is my livelihood, it gives me purpose,” he said.

“A lot of people have found they take great fulfillment out of skills we promote here; growing food, bike mechanics, communal living, learning to live with other people – all those different elements.

“The whole value system of this place is our intrinsic goal of community cooperation as opposed to intrinsic goals of individualism and financial gain.”

 

A squatter makes smoothies using a blender powered by a bicycle

 

The third runway campaigners and the Grow Heathrow supporters are not isolated to one political party.

“There’s a huge political spectrum – right and left – that is against the third runway,” explained Eddie.

“It’s important that the Government and authorities don’t paint us with a brush of radical squatters or other negative stereotypes.

 

The Hillingdon branch of Friends of the Earth support Grow Heathrow

 

“This project has within it other groups which you can’t paint with that brush. For example, Hillingdon Friends of the Earth and campaign groups against the third runway such as HACAN.

“We have common ideas and motivation with them.”

 

28-year-old Teresa Green with her baby, Raven, Teresa is a part time resident of Grow Heathrow.

 

John Stewart from HACAN did a talk at the site yesterday (Thursday, August 14), explaining the successes of the campaign group so far.

“The government was unsuccessful in making the third runway happen,” said Eddie.

“John said that’s the first time the aviation industry has had such a crushing blow.

“That was a result of alliance and coalition between direct action and more formal campaign groups, plus using your civil rights to lobby and campaign where you can.

“That is visible in the demonstration here today.

“That coalition is very effective. It is politically very difficult and risky for them [the Government] to go ahead with this proposal.”

The group wants “peaceful resistance” to the eviction threat.

Sipson resident Tracy Howard, 40, and her daughter Olivia Howard, 15, D-locked themselves to the site entrance by their neck as they sang along to songs coming from the other side of the gates.

 

Made possible by squatting – a sign on the fence of the Grow Heathrow community garden

 

As of 11.30am there was no sign of police or bailiffs.

Land owner Imran Malik made a brief appearance but refused to engage in conversation with squatters or media.

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/local-news/what-is-grow-heathrow-7619812

.


.

Earlier:

“Grow Heathrow” still hanging on in Sipson – which would be wiped out by a 3rd northern runway

25.11.2013A small Transition community calling itself Grow Heathrow set up in Sipson three years ago, in order to give heart to the community, so badly damaged by the runway threat and the purchase by Heathrow airport of many properties. The Grow Heathrow site is a hub for local residents and environmental activists to share knowledge and practical skills such as organic gardening, permaculture design, bicycle maintenance and wood and metal work. They endeavour to be self-reliance, producing their own food; by use of solar and wind power, as well as simpler heating technologies, they are completely “off grid”. They collect water from the greenhouse roofs to feed the plants, fruit and vegetables; they use fuel-efficient rocket stoves to heat water; they have compost toilets making “humanure.” The site has been  under threat of eviction for many months. Following an Appeal Court decision on 3rd July 2013 that the landowner could take possession, nothing has happened. They could be evicted at any time. They are still trying to negotiate with the landowner to buy the land, and the legal process seeking to apply to appeal to the Supreme Court is still trundling along. Meanwhile Heathrow’s proposal for a 3rd runway in the Harmondsworth area, west of Sipson, has been short-listed by the Airports Commission.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=19127


Grow Heathrow campaigners fight eviction at High Court

15.1.2013

A group of young people, calling themselves “Grow Heathrow”, set up a market garden and informal community on squatted land in Sipson in 2010. The land had been derelict and was not being used by its owner, Mr Malik. He has been attempting to remove the squtters, who are environmental activists, for the past two years or more. The case for their eviction went to the High Court on Tuesday 15th January. Grow Heathrow say their case is an important challenge to the idea that landlords can leave land empty in the middle of a housing crisis. Mr Malik was given the judgement of possession in July. The basis of Grow Heathrow’s appeal is Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is the right to have a home and family life. On the one hand, Grow Heathrow say they have added “social value” of the garden while it is wrong to keep the owner out of land for which he had paid a six-figure sum.  Given the widespread importance of the issues raised by the case, Lords Justice Ward, Lloyd and Toulson are expected to reserve their decision until a later date – probably 14th February.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=795

.


.

“Grow Heathrow” in court facing eviction from their organic gardening site in Sipson – (now delayed a few weeks)

18.6.2012

The “Grow Heathrow” community, who have turned an area in Sipson that was once a “derelict mess”, into a thriving market garden, are facing eviction. However, the young people living there are popular with the local community, who want them to stay. When they arrived several years ago, they cleared as much as 30 tonnes of rubbish off the site, renovated greenhouses and now grow organic lettuces, courgettes,squashes etc.  The site happens to be where a 3rd runway was to be built – a location in many of their neighbours’ interests to protect. The owner of the land wants his land back, and a hearing at Central London County Court began on Monday but the judge has decided to take more time, so they are not due back in court for several weeks.  The court is expected to weigh up the human rights and hard work of those who have moved in against the simple fact the land is not theirs.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=2203


Transition Heathrow. We’re not going anywhere !

17.11.2011Transition Heathrow’s “Grow Heathrow” project were due to be in court on 17th November, for a hearing about having them evicted from the site they are occupying at Sipson.  The judge took into account the human rights arguments and adjourned the case to the higher authority of Central London County Court where a two day hearing will take place in a few months time. The owner of the site wants the land back, though it had been neglected for years, and Grow Heathrow has turned it into a thriving community venture.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=5978

.


 

New video from Transition Heathrow to mark the group’s first birthday

1.3.2011

Check out this video of the Transition Heathrow first birthday – a very positive
aftermath of the battle to defeat the third runway at Heathrow.  http://bit.ly/fpG4ps

 

There is much more about Transition Heathrow athttp://www.transitionheathrow.com/author/joe/page/2/

.

.

..

.

.

 

 

 

Read more »