Nantes campaigners say: Let’s bury the Notre Dame des Landes airport project for good ! 3rd & 4th August – huge summer gathering.

Over the weekend of 3rd and 4th August, at Nantes, there will be a weekend gathering of all those who have worked over the past years to oppose a new airport at Notre-Dame-des-Landes. This is part of a series of protests against  Imposed Useless Major Projects (les Grands Projets Inutiles et Imposés) across and outside France. There will be music, forums and debates, on a range of subjects such as threats to agricultural land,  environmental and energy transition, urbanization, spatial planning, transport,  water and biodiversity. Thecampaigners say this will be  “The essential rally this summer to defend the land and agricultural jobs that are threatened, for better use of public money, and to stop projects as useless as destructive, here as elsewhere!” It will also be THE place to invent and create, in solidarity, essential alternatives on the fight against global warming and the return to solid citizen representation, which they feel has been removed from local people during the process of forcing through the new airport plans.confiscated. They say: “No giving up ! Neither here, nor anywhere else!”


.

  

Let’s bury Notre Dame des Landes airport project for good !

LE rassemblement incontournable de l’été pour la défense des terres et des emplois agricoles menacés, pour une meilleure utilisation de l’argent public et pour l’arrêt des projets aussi inutiles que destructeurs,  ici comme ailleurs !
 
THE essential rally this summer to defend the land and agricultural jobs that are threatened, for better use of public money, and to stop projects as useless as destructive, here as elsewhere!
 

2013_08_03-04_Affiche_Notre-Dame-des-Landes2013

On ne lâche rien! Ni ici, ni ailleurs! 

means approximately: 

We’re not giving up anything! Neither here nor elsewhere!

15.6.2013

We note that the real halt that occured in the AGO/ Vinci, and government progression has come true on site, and that has been the case for several weeks now.

Strenghtened by the improvement acquired in recent months (see below, the local citizen’s group ACIPA and the Coordination of opponents aim to increase pressure on decision makers by organizing a large summer gathering  – which has now become traditional ; this year, it will have an unprecedented scale.

They are inviting all support committees across France to spread the information and organize widely to mobilize for the  NDLL 2013 (NDDL is Notre Dame des Landes) gathering, just as they managed to do after the police invasion of 16th October on the ZAD. The great national transmission belt they represent will build the success with us.

However, the airport project is far from being completely stopped !

We must snatch victory now !

We can do it!

The project managers are obstinately misled into a major political impasse, both by their actions on the ZAD (evictions, house demolitions, police brutality …) and by their repeated lies and contempt of the conclusions of the three commissions, in particular those of the scientific committee.

 Fichier:Acipa-aeroport-non.jpg

The weekend of August 3 and 4 will be both festive and militant

Militant : in continuation of our previous summer gatherings, we will go on with discussions on issues that are dear to us as they relate to this airport project of Notre Dame des Landes. We’ll gather in many forums :

•   about Imposed Useless Major Projects, across and outside France

•   about lands that feed – agricultural land

•   about environmental and energy transition,

•   about urbanization,  of spatial planning, and transport,

•   about water and biodiversity ..

Active thinking to invent and build alternatives …

Festive: Along with the support of many collectives (elected officials, pilots, geographers, lawyers, naturalists), musician artists want to play their part in the struggle of Notre Dame des Landes. About 30 groups of all kinds will participate to the event of summer 2013. Children are not forgotten : places to have fun and relax will be built for them and performances will also be offered. 

 

One week after the third European Forum against Imposed Useless Major Projects in Stuttgart,

The Gathering 2013 in Notre Dame des Landes will beTHE place to be this summerto defend land and agricultural jobs threatenedfor a better use of public moneyand to stop projects as useless as destructive, here as elsewhere !

It will also be THE place to invent and create, in solidarity, essential alternatives :

About energy Transition, about the fight against global warming and the return to solid citizen representation, confiscated by the ruling political class. The hour of victory may ring soon ! No giving up ! Neither here, nor anywhere else!  

.

What’s new about  NDLL project ?

On October 16, 2012, the government tried to clear up the zone dedicated to the airport project and its so-called “illegal” but quite legitimate residents !

The “Caesar maneuver”, planned to last 36 hours, was never able to overcome immediate resistance, which has only gained momentum as in the big event of reoccupation which gathered 40,000 people on November 17, 2012 , after that:

•  all over France, many committees were created to support the fight

•  many new people came to settle in the area at the height of winter

•  Mid-January 2013, Bellevue farm was saved from destruction by the Collective of Professional Agricultural Organisations Outraged by the airport project (COPAIN) and is now back to agriculture.

•  Mid-April perennial plants – mainly vegetables – were planted during the operation “Sow your ZAD”

•  On May 11, again nearly 40,000 people came and gathered in a large human chain circling  the area so as to protect it by burying the project .

 

Opponents also progressed in legal and administrative proceedings that are still on :

•  End of January 2013 : The French Supreme Court rejected the request of AGO / Vinci to accelerate a judgment “breaking” against the order of expropriation, therefore delaying the eviction of the residents and farmers of the area.

 •  March 17, 2013 : the European Petitions Committee took the NDL file in hand and kept open the two petitions of the opponents ACIPA / CEDPA and FNE / Bretagne Vivante.  A commission of inquiry may move on to Nantes Atlantique and Notre Dame des Landes to investigate…

•  End of March 2013 : rendering of the three commissions :

 – The so-called “dialogue committee” which validates the correctness of our arguments and alternative proposals advanced in the public debate of 2003 : study of a new noise exposure perimeter, economic study on the optimization of Nantes Atlantique…

– The agricultural committee confirms our figures on the waste of agricultural land and reassures expropriated farmers : they can carry on exploiting their land and live decently again this year!

–  The scientific committee of expertise does not validate Vinci/AGO and governmental proposals made in the public inquiries, considering the “Water Act”, meaning that the whole content of environmental compensations has to be reviewed!

 

This has the immediate effect of stopping preventive archaeological excavations, stopping evictions, stopping housing demolitions and withdrawal of the police forces from the area.  Additional environmental investigations will be carried out.

Strong because of all our support, we follow the progression of the project with calm and determination, especially in the European institutions that can put pressure on the French government.

The success of our summer gathering will increase this pressure.

 HOPE IS NOW IN OUR CAMP!

Web site : http://www.notredamedeslandes2013.org 

Contact : ndl2013@free.fr

 

.


 

.

NOTRE DAME DES LANDES 2013
On ne lâche rien! Ni ici, ni ailleurs !

 
 
Nous constatons qu’un coup d’arrêt à l’avancée d’AGO/Vinci et de l’Etat est bien réel sur le terrain depuis quelques semaines déjà.
 
Fortes des avancées acquises ces derniers mois (voir au dos), l’ACIPA et la Coordination des opposants entendent  augmenter la pression sur les décideurs en organisant le grand rassemblement estival devenu traditionnel mais qui, cette année, va prendre une ampleur inégalée. Elles invitent l’ensemble des comités de soutien à organiser largement l’information et la mobilisation pour le rassemblement NDL 2013 comme ils ont su le faire au lendemain de l’invasion policière du 16 octobre sur la ZAD. La formidable et inventive force collective qu’ils représentent construira avec nous la réussite.
 
Une semaine après le  3ème Forum européen contre les Grands Projets Inutiles et Imposés qui se tiendra à Stuttgart,
Le Rassemblement 2013 de Notre Dame des Landes sera
LE rassemblement incontournable de l’été
pour la défense des terres et des emplois agricoles menacés,
pour une meilleure utilisation de l’argent public
et pour l’arrêt des projets aussi inutiles que destructeurs,  ici comme ailleurs !
 
Mais incontournable aussi pour inventer et mettre en œuvre de manière solidaire
les alternatives indispensables :
Pour la transition énergétique, la lutte contre le réchauffement climatique
et le retour à une solide représentation citoyenne, confisquée par les classes politiques dirigeantes.
 
L’heure de la victoire peut sonner bientôt ! On ne lâche rien ! Ni ici ni ailleurs !
 
http://notredamedeslandes2013.blogspot.fr/
 

Read more »

Speculation that Maplin might be looked at again as an airport – ruled out for very good reasons in 1974

By 19th July, all outline proposals airport plans need to be submitted to the Airports Commission (see below). There will be a great many, some more serious contenders than others. At this stage, the Commission does not require detailed design and assessment materials and limits submissions to 40 pages. Unsurprisingly, there is speculation that schemes like Maplin could be dug up and submitted. Maplin Sands was considered as a possible airport in the early 1970s, under Edward Heath. The plan was abandoned in June 1974, after the oil price rose and the it was decided that the Maplin Development Authority should not spend any more money. Maplin was mentioned, in passing, in a reply to a question in the Lords – which did not rule it out.  In reality, it is inaccessible and in the wrong place. It would be unworkable and hugely expensive, as well as the problem of needing to move the military firing range from Shoeburyness, and clearing the site of projectiles.  Not a likely runner.

.

 

Maplin Sands back on airport shortlist

Friday 14th June 2013  (Southend Echo)

A NEW airport at Maplin Sands, off the coast of Foulness – which prompted huge opposition in the Seventies – will be considered again.

Earl Attlee, Government transport spokesman, told the House of Lords a new airport at Maplin Sands will be looked at as part of an investigation into aviation capacity in the south-east. [What he meant is more likely to be that the Airports Commission will have to look at all plans submitted; he did not mean that they will look at a plan for Maplin with any great favour. AW]. 

A new Thames Estuary airport will also be considered as part of the inquiry by the Airports Commission.

The prospect of a new airport at Maplin Sands sparked a huge campaign in the Seventies and was shelved in 1974 in the wake of an oil crisis.

Lord Higgins,a Tory peer, asked Earl Attlee in the Lords debate: “Given the legislation for a hub at Maplin Sands went through with comparatively few problems back in the mid-Seventies, is there not a case for looking at that site again?”   [ Lords discussion in Hansard on Monday 10th June 2013 ].

Earl Attlee responded: “The Airports Commission will look at all sites, including Maplin Sands or the Thames Estuary airport, and will then come up with a shortlist of which options need to be looked at in greater detail.

Rochford district councillors have dismissed the latest investigation into Maplin Sands as a “complete waste of money”, claiming none of the problems of access or cost that stopped the plans in the Seventies had been solved.

Terry Cutmore, Tory leader of Rochford council, said: “Any proposal would be incredibly expensive.

“Because of where it is situated, if any proposal did come forward, there would have to be a great deal of investment in local transport infrastructure.

“Yes, you can get there, but Maplin Sands is not easily accessible like Southend or Stansted Airport–that does not make it particularly attractive to air passengers.”

“The site is also very close to testing facilities run by the MoD that would be very difficult to replace.

“The plans are unworkable and any investigation would be a total waste of money.”

Mr Cutmore said an airport would bring extra jobs and investment to the area, but this could be at a high cost.

He added: “Much of Rochford is very green and residents have a good quality of life.

“We want to preserve that as much as possible.”

The last government considered the plans again in 2002, but they were again abandoned for being unworkable.

Speaking in the Lords debate, Lord Attlee, said: “The long-term question of aviation capacity is a matter of national importance.

“It is vital the Airports Commission has sufficient time to carry out a thorough investigation of the options, and to build consensus around its long-term recommendations.

“The timetable set for its final report, by the summer of 2015, will allow this to take place, and will enable a stable, long-term solution to be found.”

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/10481817.Maplin_Sands_back_on_airport_shortlist/?ref=twtrec

.


 

.

Maplin (Foulness) – from Wikipedia

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

One influential member of the Roskill Commission, Colin Buchanan, dissented [against Cublington) on environmental and planning grounds and proposed an alternative site at Maplin Sands, Foulness, in the Thames Estuary. This opened the door to strong political opposition against Cublington and in April 1971 the government announced that the site at Maplin Sands had been selected for the third London airport, even though it was the most remote and overall the most expensive of the options considered, and that planning would begin immediately.

In due course the Maplin Development Act received Royal Assent in October 1973. In 1973 a Special Development Order was made under the Town and Country Planning Acts granting planning permission for the project, and the Maplin Development Authority was constituted and began its work. The project would have included not just a major airport, but a deep-water harbour suitable for the container ships then coming into use, a high-speed rail link together with the M12 and M13 motorways to London, and a new town for the accommodation of the thousands of workers who would be required. The new town would eventually cover 82 square miles, with a population of 600,000 people, while the surface route to the airport would require a corridor 100 yards wide and over 30 miles long. The cost would be a then-astronomical £825 million (£7,430 million today), which many – particularly in the Labour Party, which was in opposition at the time – regarded as unacceptable.

The Maplin airport project was abandoned in July 1974 when Labour came to power.  A reappraisal of passenger projections indicated that there would be capacity until 1990 at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton, aided by regional airports. The scheme was abandoned in favour of a cheaper plan to enlarge Stansted rather than building an entirely new airport; the requirement for a container ship harbour was to be discharged by the development of Felixstowe. The dilemma regarding the location of an additional airport, whether inland or on the coast, was summed up by an airport expert quoted by New Scientist magazine in 1973: “An inland site is not on politically, and a coastal site is not on economically.”

 

.


.

 

London’s Thames Estuary airport plans – déjà-vu all over again!

7.9.2012  (Royal Aeronautical Society, blog)

 

Airports in the Thames Estuary are nothing new, 40 years ago they were headline news.  A guest post from David Hurst MRAeS delves into the archives.

 

Tests had shown that an airport built on sand could cope with the weight of a VC-10. (RAeS/NAL photo).

Forty years ago the papers were full of stories about the need for the third London airport. Airport capacity is still news and the Thames Estuary is again being looked at as the solution.

Back in 1970 the stories largely resulted from the opinion of the late Sir Peter Masefield, a lifelong civil aviation businessman, who, depending on your point of view, was either a far-sighted visionary or had simply got his figures wrong. He showed that Heathrow and Gatwick would run out of capacity during the 1980s unless something was done. He was wrong then but maybe the crunch is happening now.

The worldwide civil aviation business has grown at an average 5 per cent a year since the 1950s and continues to do so. There are occasional recessions and wars which can delay the effects for a year or two but the trend is clear.

World air traffic growth

After 1945 the major airports were directly run by government departments. In 1966 four airports were grouped together to be run by a separate organisation, the British Airports Authority, under the chairmanship of Peter Masefield. The four airports were Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted serving London, together with Prestwick in Scotland. Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen airports were added later. Southampton joined much later.

Masefield was convinced that the third London airport should be Stansted, then a small public airport with a large runway built for the US Air Force.

Continuous controversy resulted in the Roskill Commission which was to consider all possible sites. Roskill gave the government a choice of four: Cublington – not a million miles from the current HS2 track in Buckinghamshire; Nuthampstead, Herts; Thurleigh, Essex, and Foulness, later called Maplin for obvious reasons after sands slightly further south.

The Commission plumped for Cublington following a detailed cost/benefit analysis. There was a dissenting opinion by the transport planner Sir Colin Buchanan who favoured Maplin.

 

Backing Maplin

Edward Heath’s Conservative government decided to back the Maplin option. Detailed studies had quietly started in July 1971 and on September 28, 1972, the first meeting of the confidential Maplin Project Management Committee was held under the auspices of the Department of the Environment to co-ordinate the work.

A wide range of studies were commissioned but a major obstacle was seen as the moving the military firing range from Shoeburyness and clearing the site of projectiles. The Ministry of Defence were less than enthusiastic but eventually a civilian workforce of some 200 people were engaged on the clearance work. The likely location of the replacement range was Tain in Scotland. It was decided that it was only necessary to clear the sands only to a depth of 1.5 metres as tests on Concorde and VC10 aircraft had optimistically shown that, with concrete and the fill on top of the sand, the vibrations of landing were unlikely to disturb anything that had penetrated further down. The Boeing 747, just entering service, let alone the undreamed-of Airbus A380, were not mentioned.

The Maplin Development Authority, tasked with reclaiming the 30 square miles of land required for the new airport and sea port, held its first official meeting on November 6, 1973. The chairman, Sir Frank Marshall, said in his only annual report that the investigations had indicated that it was ‘an area exceptionally suitable for reclamation at a lower cost than was previously envisaged’. The Dutch were particularly helpful with their experience in such matters.

Once the land was reclaimed it was to be handed to the British Airports Authority to build the airport and to the Port of London Authority to build the accompanying sea port.

Norman Payne, then chief executive of the British Airports Authority, announced broad plans for the airport in March 1973. When it opened, it would have a single runway and one terminal but, by the late 1990s, the plan was for four runways, each of 4,250 metres, and ten terminals arranged as a spine between the runways.

Plan view of proposed Maplin Sands Airport (via Author).

Access would be by a non-stop rail service from Kings Cross, taking just 40 minutes There would be a motorway link from the planned London Ringway (subsequently abandoned but parts would become the M25) and both the road and the railway would enter the spine of the airport from the south and later continue from the north end of the site. The airport would handle 32 million passengers annually by 1986 and 120 million when completed in the late 90s. Cost estimates at the time produced figures of around £1,000m for the entire project, including urbanisation, by the 1990s.

Aircraft would approach and depart entirely over the sea. There would be 400 houses within the 35NNI noise contour as opposed to 250,000 at Heathrow.

The Port of London Authority had identified the potential of Maplin a decade earlier and had extended its area of responsibility to include the site. It had seen the need for a major deep-water container port and a terminal for super-tankers and were eager to start construction. The reclaiming of 30 square miles at Maplin was just part of its broad plans to reclaim some 300 square miles along the Thames estuary.

Connections from the proposed airport. (via Author).

 

Cancellation

Problems arose in October 1973. As a result of the Arab-Israeli Yom Kippur war, the price of crude oil soared from $3 a barrel to $12 (or $60 at 2011 prices – today’s price is around $135 a barrel). By March 1974, petrol prices at the pump had risen 70 percent and the first fuel crisis was in full swing.

In February 1974 there was a general election which resulted in a hung parliament with Labour forming a minority government under Harold Wilson. Various reviews were undertaken and on May 8, 1974, the Department of the Environment wrote to the Maplin Development Authority instructing them not to incur further costs and to plan to shut down by 30 June. The Cabinet confirmed the cancellation at their meeting on 16 July 1974.

Curiously the sea port was not mentioned in the cancellation and even in 1976 the PLA was still hoping that it could be developed.

 

What if…?

If Maplin had gone ahead, what would have been the consequences? First, Stansted and Southend airports would have closed completely and would probably have been turned over for housing or industrial estates. Development of Luton airport would have been curtailed and much of its traffic would have moved elsewhere. Manston would probably have shut when the RAF moved out. Development at Heathrow would have stopped at three terminals and two runways and Gatwick would have remained with a single terminal and one runway. Their aircraft movements would be capped at 1980 levels. In 1980 Heathrow handled 294,619 aircraft movements (480,906 in 2011); Gatwick reached 143,522 (251,067 in 2011). West London and north Sussex would have been around 40 per cent quieter now.

With a major seaport at Maplin, Felixstowe docks would not have happened, and much port development on the Thames estuary may not have taken place. Plans for the estuary airports would not have even been considered.

One could surmise that London’s development towards the east would have happened sooner and, without the major airport development at Heathrow, there might have been less urban development in west London and along the M4 corridor as well as the Crawley/Burgess Hill area. East Anglia would have had much more development, especially in Essex. The airport alone would have eventually needed 60,000 staff by the 1990s. And the 2012 Olympics might be taking place in Wembley, not Stratford.

Gatwick Airport in 1972. Would a successful Maplin project prevented its development? (RAeS/NAL)

The significant question is whether the airlines would have used Maplin. Moving the infrastructure of a home base is hugely complex so UK airlines would have faced serious decisions. Overseas carriers rarely consider a particular route more than a season or two ahead so they are more flexible – note how quickly current low-cost airlines start-up and stop services. However, the large scheduled carriers prefer to work on the honeypot principle and swarm in one place even if facilities are better elsewhere.

Alternatively, airlines will always go where they think they can make money. If there is enough traffic, someone will operate an air service.

In the 1970s the government was enthusiastically interfering in business decisions. After the cancellation of Maplin it attempted to move all the Canadian and the Iberian air traffic, including British Airways, from Heathrow to Gatwick. That was only avoided by a general election. It did insist any new airline wanting to serve London should use Gatwick and not Heathrow, just at the time US airlines were expanding into Europe. Today, those airlines have disappeared or squeezed into Heathrow and there are now few major overseas scheduled carriers serving either Gatwick or Stansted.

The panic caused by the escalating oil price rise did not last. Air passenger figures for the London area peaked at 29.41 million in 1973, dropped by two million in 1974 and were back at 31.03 million in 1976. In 2011 the six London area airports handled a total of 133.71 million passengers; nearly fourteen million more than the planned capacity of the completed Maplin.

Back to the future? The latest Thames Estuary Airport proposal from Sir Norman Foster (Foster & Associates).

http://media.aerosociety.com/aerospace-insight/2012/09/07/londons-thames-airport-plans-deja-vu-all-over-again/7288/

 

.


.

Airports Commission – 19th July deadline for submissions

Following the submission of expressions of intent in February, the next deadline for submissions will be 19 July 2013. By this date, we will need to receive outline proposals. These should give an overview of the level of additional capacity that would be provided, along with some of the key economic, social and environmental considerations. As stated above, we do not require detailed design and assessment materials at this stage; we are envisaging submissions of no longer than 40 pages. They may not need to include detailed designs for new runways and terminals, though in some cases those bringing proposals may wish to include them where they are fundamental to other areas of their analysis.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/70285/submitting-evidence-airports-commission.pdf

.

.

.

.

 

 

Read more »

EasyJet signs deal to double its annual number of passengers at Stansted

EasyJet is planning to increase its annual passenger numbers at Stansted from 2.8m now to 6m per year, over the next 5 years.  EasyJet has announced a framework agreement with MAG, which now owns Stansted.  Stansted wants to be seen as a key part of the current  debate on South East’s airport capacity and hopes that EasyJet will help with that – and halt its steady decline. EasyJet currently flies 8 planes on up to 27 routes from Stansted. It has around twice as many planes and routes at Luton and about 6 times as many at Gatwick as at Stansted. Stansted had around 18 million passengers in 2012, which is about 26.5% lower than its peak in 2007. It could cater for 35 million per year, on its one runway. EasyJet has also struck similar deals with Edinburgh and Gatwick airports since they were sold off by BAA.

.

 

 

EasyJet signs deal for major expansion at Stansted

13.6.2013 (TravelMole)

EasyJet has signed a deal with the new owners of Stansted Airport allowing it to more than double its passenger numbers there to 6 million in the next five years.

M.A.G, which acquired the London airport three months ago, said the new “long-term growth framework” would help “make Stansted the best airport in London”.

EasyJet currently has 2.8 million passengers at Stansted, operating eight aircraft on up to 27 routes from Stansted, including new flights to Bulgaria, Morocco and Egypt.

M.A.G chief executive Charlie Cornish said: “We are delighted that easyJet has chosen Stansted. We’re working hard with existing and prospective airlines to drive passenger growth at Stansted so today’s announcement by easyJet on the new framework for growth is a positive first step.

“London Stansted will flourish under M.A.G’s ownership as we actively market the airport, the region and its strong connectivity, including direct rail access to both London and Cambridge, to airlines and introduce lots more airline competition into the London market.

“The quality of our offer is compelling and we strongly believe that London Stansted has a key role to play in any debate on South East capacity and today’s positive announcement by easyJet confirms that.”

But it is not certain that easyJet will take advantage of the deal’s full potential, as it has also struck similar deals with Edinburgh and Gatwick airports since they were sold off by airports operator BAA.

http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?c=setreg&region=2&m_id=s~T_Y!vnm&w_id=9036&news_id=2006814

.

The Guardian says:

EasyJet deal at Stansted could halt decline

The deal will be seen as significant as a potential vote of confidence in the airport, which has long been lambasted – most notably by Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary – for perceived high charges.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jun/13/easyjet-stansted-airport-essex

The easyJet deal will mean progressively lower charges as passenger volume rises but is understood to be only one option for the airline as it considers where to deploy its aircraft in the coming years.

.


 

.

easyJet agrees deal with new Stansted owner

easyJet is planning to increase its annual passenger numbers at Stansted Airport from 2.8m currently to 6m over the next five years.

The airline has announced a framework agreement for the growth alongside Stansted’s new owner, M.A.G, which took over the airport in late February.

Charlie Cornish, chief executive of M.A.G, said: ‘We are delighted that easyJet has chosen Stansted. We’re working hard with existing and prospective airlines to drive passenger growth at Stansted so today’s announcement by easyJet on the new framework for growth is a positive first step.

‘London Stansted will flourish under M.A.G’s ownership as we actively market the airport, the region and its strong connectivity, including direct rail access to both London and Cambridge, to airlines and introduce lots more airline competition into the London market.

‘The quality of our offer is compelling and we strongly believe that London Stansted has a key role to play in any debate on South East capacity and today’s positive announcement by easyJet confirms that.’

Paul Simmons, UK director for easyJet, added: ‘We are pleased to have reached a new deal with the new owners of Stansted which gives us the ability to grow at the London airport. We look forward to working with M.A.G over the coming months and years.’

easyJet currently flies eight aircraft on up to 27 routes from  Stansted, making its operation at the airport roughly half the size of its Luton base and a sixth of that at Gatwick.

Stansted is the UK’s fourth biggest airport, handling around 18m passengers a year, but with approval to serve 35m annually.

According to figures from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), Stansted’s traffic has fallen by 26.5% since 2007.

http://www.e-tid.com/easyjet-agrees-deal-with-new-stansted-owner/80567/

 

.

.


 

.

Earlier

easyJet announces three new routes from Stansted

October 29, 2012

Written by: Oonagh Shiel

Budget airline easyJet has revealed that it will be launching three new longer routes from Stansted Airport in 2013.

The airline will be flying year-round to Marrakech three times a week on a Monday, Wednesday and Friday with the inaugural flight taking off on February 15 2013.

This will be followed by a new route to Bulgaria’s capital Sofia, operating twice a week on a Tuesday and Saturday, with the first flight due to depart on February 16 2013.

The final route to Sharm el Sheikh, which will also be year-round, will fly twice a week on a Thursday and Sunday, with the first flight taking off on February 17 2013. Flights on the new routes will go on sale through easyJet’s website on November 1.

“easyJet is committed to making travel easy and affordable for all and each season we decide where to add new flights based on the places our customers tell us they most want to visit, so I’m sure these three new summer sun destinations are going to be a huge hit with holidaymakers,” said Hugh Aitken, easyJet’s UK Commercial Manager.

“Currently, easyJet operates two mid-haul routes from Stansted to Bodrum and Dalaman so today’s announcement shows a real commitment to offering more varied destinations further afield, and the best value for our passengers.”

The airline’s 2013 summer schedule from Stansted Airport now features 1.7 million seats on 10,900 flights to 27 routes across Europe and North Africa.

The low-cost airline has recently been awarded with a licence to fly to Moscow, and will launch the service in spring 2013.

It will operate an Airbus A320 on two services per day between London Gatwick and Moscow Domodedovo airport.

Each aircraft will have 180 seats and easyJet expects to fly over 230,000 passengers in its first year of operations.

The four-hour flights will depart London at 7am and 2pm each day, departing Moscow at 2:40pm and 9:40pm, and start from as little as £125 return.

http://www.cheapflights.co.uk/news/easyjet-announces-three-new-routes-from-stansted/

.

.

Read more »

Greg Hands MP: Why do we fly 1,000 planes a day over London?

Greg Hands, MP for Fulham & Hammersmith, asks why Heathrow is one of the very few cities which have so many planes flying over hundreds of thousands of people, on their way to the country’s largest airports.  There was a recent interview, in the BA in-flight magazine, in which a pilot said:  ‘I always enjoy flying over London, because there are so few approaches over cities’. Greg Hands questions not only the noise implications, but also safety – everyone was recently reminded of the problem when the BA jet with one of its engines in flames was routed directly over London – including Chelsea, Fulham and Hammersmith. Greg says: “Thankfully, it made it back to the airport and nobody was hurt, but it again begs the question: why do we fly more than 1,000 planes a day over London?”

.

 

Greg Hands MP: Why do we fly 1,000 planes a day over London?

Greg Hands, MP for Fulham & Chelsea offers his thoughts on aircraft noise in this week’s Constituency Matters.

13.6.2013 (Fulham & Hammersmith Chronicle)

On a recent British Airways flight to Heathrow I was surprised to see in the airline’s High Life magazine an interview with one of the pilots, who said that, ‘I always enjoy flying over London, because there are so few approaches over cities’.

I wouldn’t want to deprive anyone of their enjoyment, but there is something quite significant in this statement. A very frequent flyer is pointing out that planes normally land at airports (most of which are on the edge of cities, like ours is) by coming in over the countryside, not over the city itself.

Heathrow is in a very unusual location. Due to the prevailing westerly winds, planes need to fly in from the east, over the city. Hence, London suffers far more from aircraft noise than almost any other major city. Indeed, nearly a third of the victims of aircraft noise in the whole of Europe live near Heathrow. But there is not only the issue of aircraft noise, we must also consider how safe it is for so many planes to fly over the centre of one of the world’s largest cities.

Last month, a BA jet with one of its engines in flames was routed directly over Chelsea, Fulham and Hammersmith. Thankfully, it made it back to the airport and nobody was hurt, but it again begs the question: why do we fly more than 1,000 planes a day over London?

All of these are factors which should be considered by the Davies Commission, which is looking at the whole issue of airport capacity in the south east, on behalf of the government. I remain opposed to the expansion of Heathrow Airport. I would welcome the views of Chronicle readers on the future of Heathrow Airport.
Please email me at mail@greghands.com or write to me at the House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA.
http://www.fulhamchronicle.co.uk/views-and-blogs/constituency-matters/2013/06/13/greg-hands-mp-why-do-we-fly-1-000-planes-a-day-over-london-82029-33468005/
.
I don’t think Fulham and Chelsea were included in the Populus poll (purporting to show Londoners in various boroughs favour Heathrow expansion) either !
.
Greg Hands has said in the past that he is steadfastly opposed to Heathrow expansion.
.

.

Earlier comment by Greg Hands about Heathrow:

Heathrow complaints unit too busy to deal with complaints

October 21st, 2012

Heathrow Airport’s noise complaints unit are so inundated that they have given up providing individual responses to disgruntled residents.

Theresa Gruber, Community Communications Manager at Heathrow Airport Ltd, emailed an H&F resident, who was complaining about increased aircraft noise last month, to say: “Thank you for your email and I hope this finds you well. Unfortunately due to the high volume of complaints we are receiving at the moment, we are currently unable to provide detailed individual responses. We aspire to providing individual responses in future.”

The revelation comes as H&F residents, concerned about disruptive aircraft noise at Heathrow, are being invited to a public hearing in November.

Senior executives from the airport’s owners, BAA, will attend Hammersmith & Fulham (H&F) Council’s Transport Select Committee on November 6th to answer questions about BAA’s trial of new runway rules.

Complaints about BAA’s ‘operational freedoms trial’ – which allows the airport operator to use runways simultaneously under certain circumstances – are soaring in H&F, according to the council.

Fulham resident Carolyn Smyth said: “Since just before the end of July the incoming aeroplane noise has been horrendous. The flights are continuous so as the terrible scream of one flight is beginning to slightly fade the next one follows on. I have never experienced flight noise to this extent and it is unbearable on both sides of my house.”

Councillor Victoria Brocklebank-Fowler, H&F Cabinet Member for Transport & Technical Services, said: “Residents’ complaints over aircraft noise have overwhelmed Heathrow’s complaints department to the point where they can no longer function properly. BAA should not try to ignore this massive groundswell of opinion as, if this trial were to become permanent, residents could be subjected to intolerable disruption forever.

“We now need to get more detailed answers from BAA about what has gone wrong with their trial at our public scrutiny meeting.”

Chelsea & Fulham M.P., Greg Hands, added: “As residents know, I am strongly against any third runway at Heathrow, and against night flights to Heathrow. Nearly a third of the victims of aircraft noise in the whole of Europe live in the vicinity of Heathrow. If the airport cannot deal properly with noise complaints from its existing operations, what hope is there that it could do better with a larger operation?”

Cheryl Monk, BAA’s Head of Community Engagement, and Tim Hardy, BAA’s Director of Airside, will give a presentation on the Operational Freedoms trial followed by a question and answer session with Transport Select Committee councillors and residents.

The public meeting, which will focus solely on the operational freedoms trial at Heathrow, starts at 7pm at Hammersmith Town Hall on Tuesday, 6th November.

Residents, who are disturbed by aircraft noise, should respond directly to BAA so that concerns are formally logged in their consultation. Visit www.heathrowairport.com/noise or call 0800 344 844 or emailnoise_complaints@baa.com.

Link to cached copy of story above

www.­greghands.­com/­news/­heathrow-­complaints-­unit-­too-­busy-­deal-­complaints

 

Read more »

Demonstration of the pitfalls of polls: 2 polls. Same place. Same issue. Utterly different results

It is curious that the Hillingdon survey recently sent questionnaires to all 205,634 residents on their electoral role, and got 80,457 responses. Of these responses, 66% said No in reply to the question: “Are you in favour of more flights into and out of Heathrow? Yes/no”.  Richmond Council recently also sent out 136,880 questionnaires, and 58,953 responses were received, of which 82% replied NO to the same question.  Link to Hillingdon and Richmond poll results . However, in the Populus poll for Heathrow,  in response to the question: “Taking everything you know into account, do you currently support or oppose expanding Heathrow?” they say that of the 1,000 or so Hillingdon residents questionned, 47% were opposed and of the 1,000 or so residents in Richmond, 51% were opposed. So with a survey size some 80 times larger, the Hillingdon response was substantially more negative (66%  cf. 47%) and with a survey size some 60 times larger, the Richmond response was also substantially more negative, (82% cf. 51%). 
.


 

 

Heathrow poll ‘shows most residents back expansion’

by Nicholas Cecil (Evening standard)

12 June 2013

Residents who live near Heathrow are slightly more likely to be in favour of expansion than be opposed, according to a large poll commissioned by the airport.

The Populus survey of more than 6,000 people found that 46% supported a bigger Heathrow, compared with 43% who were against expansion.

Communities with more people who worked at the airport were found to be more in favour of expansion.

In Feltham and Heston, 51 per cent backed expansion, with 38 per cent against, in Spelthorne the breakdown was 48-36, in Windsor 48-39, Brentford and Isleworth 46-43, Hillingdon 44-47 and the least support was in Richmond Park [sic. Richmond Park. Not Richmond. See the Populus findings ].  with 50 per cent opposing a bigger Heathrow compared with 39 per cent in favour.

Clare Harbord, Heathrow’s director of corporate affairs, said: “This research shows that most local residents back Heathrow. Anti-Heathrow campaigners claim that everyone living near Heathrow is opposed to the airport, but that simply isn’t true.”

John Stewart, chairman of anti- Heathrow expansion group HACAN, challenged the findings. He said: “This poll is a little bit out of kilter with the majority of polls which have been done which show overall opposition to a third runway at Heathrow.”

Heathrow bosses say 114,000 jobs in the area depend on the airport. It is to fund a “new community campaign” to argue for the benefits of expansion.

Populus interviewed more than 6,000 adults between 27th Feb and 4th May.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/heathrow-poll-shows-most-residents-back-expansion-8655308.html 

.

 


.

CATI Fieldwork : 27th February – 4th May 2013

 

The questions in the Populus survey:  link

Q1a. Thinking specifically about your own constituency and the candidates who are likely to stand there, what will be the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE in determining which party’s candidate you are likely to vote for at the next General Election?

Q1b. And what will be the SECOND MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE?

Q1c. And what will be the THIRD MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE?

Q2. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following [three] statements [below] about Heathrow?

For me and my family the benefits of Heathrow generally outweigh the disadvantages.

or

For my local community  the benefits of Heathrow generally outweigh the disadvantages. as a country

or

For the country as a whole  the benefits of Heathrow generally outweigh the disadvantages.

Q3. Taking everything into account, based on what you have seen, read and heard, how positive or negative would you say you feel towards Heathrow Airport? On a scale of 0-10, where 0 means very negative, 10 means very positive, and 5 is neutral.

Q4. Taking everything you know into account, do you currently support or oppose expanding Heathrow?  [Strongly support, somewhat support, neither support nor oppose, strongly oppose, somewhat oppose].

And to which of these ethnic groups do you consider you belong …

Which of the following best describes your current working status?

The age and gender.

 

.


.

New polling shows residents back Heathrow

12 June, 2013  (Heathrow airport press release)

New polling of the communities around Heathrow shows that more people back Heathrow than oppose it. The findings have prompted Heathrow to announce that it will provide funding for a community campaign to give a voice to the hundreds of thousands of residents who back Heathrow.

The survey, which was conducted by Populus, is a representative sample of more than 6,000 residents from Hounslow, Richmond, Hillingdon, Windsor and Spelthorne. It found:

  • 60% of residents feel positive towards Heathrow compared to just 6% who feel negatively
  • 66% say that the benefits of Heathrow outweigh the disadvantages for their community
  • 46% support expanding Heathrow, compared to 43% who oppose expansion
  • Heathrow is the 12th most important issue is determining which candidate to vote for at the next general election, with jobs and the economy the most important issue.

 

The area with the most aircraft noise, Feltham and Heston, is the area which is most supportive of the airport expanding. 51% of people in Feltham and Heston support expanding Heathrow compared to 39% who are opposed.

Heathrow Director of Corporate Affairs, Clare Harbord said

“This research shows that most local residents back Heathrow. Anti-Heathrow campaigners claim that everyone living near Heathrow is opposed to the airport, but that simply isn’t true.

“The recent report by MPs on Parliament’s Transport Committee lays bare what the Mayor’s plans for a new airport would do to this region: it says an estuary hub airport would require the closure of Heathrow – a course of action that would have unacceptable consequences for individuals, businesses in the vicinity of the existing airport and the local economy.”

“We believe that local jobs and businesses are worth fighting for. It’s time to give people who agree a voice in this debate. It’s time to back Heathrow”

114,000 jobs in the area depend on Heathrow, representing 1 in 5 local jobs in the five boroughs closest to Heathrow. If Heathrow closed then people directly employed at the airport would have to be re-located or would be made redundant. It would be Britain’s worst ever mass redundancy with job losses greater than when MG Rover closed its factory at Longbridge in 2005 (6,500 jobs), or during the worst year of UK pit closures in 1984 (30,000 jobs).

The results of the polling has prompted Heathrow to announce that it will provide seed funding for a new community campaign to provide a voice for the thousands of local people who support Heathrow. Plans for the campaign are in their early stages but it will seek to establish itself and start identifying and recruiting support before the end of the year.

 [Comment: sounds like an 'astroturf' campaign i.e a commercial vested interest paying for an artificial grassroots campaign. AW ]

Notes to editors

  • Populus interviewed at least 1,000 adult residents (18+) in each of five constituencies and one London Borough local to Heathrow Airport by telephone between 27 February and 4 May 2013. In total, 6,003 residents were interviewed. Results were weighted to be demographically representative of all adults in each constituency and borough. Constituency results were also weighted by past vote to be politically representative of all adults.
  • http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.com/Press-releases/New-polling-shows-residents-back-Heathrow-590.aspx
  • .
  • .

  • .

  • By contrast:
  • Over 100,000 residents of Hounslow, Hillingdon and Richmond vote in local polls against a 3rd Heathrow runway or more flights

    May 21, 2013     Three of the local council areas most affected by Heathrow aircraft noise – Richmond, Hillingdon and Hounslow – recently carried out referendums of their residents on the subject of Heathrow growth. All three ended on 16th May. In total, well over 140,000 people responded to the polls. They voted overwhelmingly against expansion of the airport, against a new runway, and against more flights over Londoners. In the Hounslow poll, 72% of residents said they are against expansion, but 64% said they did not want to see a new hub airport built if it meant losing Heathrow. 83% of Hounslow residents were in favour of a night flight ban (11pm to 7pm) and 94% wanted better noise insulation for schools and residents living under the flight path. In the Richmond and the Hillingdon polls, 72% were against a 3rd runway, and 73% were against increasing the number of flights. The Standard says the findings of the poll are bound to be exploited by councillors as they go to the voters in next spring’s local elections. Heathrow sought vainly to rubbish the polls by saying they were voting on an outdated 3rd runway proposal.      Click here to view full story…

    .

  • .
  • .
  • ..

 

Read more »

Heathrow Airport to provide funding to set up pro-Heathrow expansion group

Heathrow Airport has announced that it will provide seed funding for a new community campaign “to provide a voice for the thousands of local people who support Heathrow”. Plans for the campaign are in their early stages but it said it will seek to establish itself and start identifying and recruiting support before the end of the year.  The announcement comes on the back of polling results Heathrow released today which claims almost half the people in the boroughs closest to the airport favour its expansion. The Populus telephone poll took place between 27th February and 4th May, and questionned 6,000 residents in Hounslow, Richmond Park {?}, Hillingdon, Windsor and Spelthorne. It found that 46% support expanding Heathrow, compared to 43% who oppose expansion. They say 60% of residents feel positive towards Heathrow compared to 6% who feel negatively.  In reality, it is well known that the results of a poll depend on the wording of questions, and how they are asked. Previous surveys have shown most residents are opposed to expansion – and many other residents should be questioned in other boroughs to get full data.

.

 

Heathrow Airport to provide funding to set up pro-Heathrow expansion group

12.6.2013 (HACAN)

Heathrow Airport announced today that it will provide seed funding for a new community campaign “to provide a voice for the thousands of local people who support Heathrow”. Plans for the campaign are in their early stages but it said it will seek to establish itself and start identifying and recruiting support before the end of the year.   [ Heathrow press release copied below ].

The announcement comes on the back of polling results Heathrow released today which claims almost half the people in the boroughs closet to the airport favour expansion of the airport. The poll, commissioned from Populus by the airport, found that 46% support expanding Heathrow, compared to 43% who oppose expansion.

The poll of 6,000 residents in Hounslow, Richmond Park, Hillingdon, Windsor and Spelthorne, found:

– 60% of residents feel positive towards Heathrow compared to 6% who feel negatively

– 66% say that the benefits of Heathrow outweigh the disadvantages for their community

– 46% support expanding Heathrow, compared to 43% who oppose expansion

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN, the residents’ organisation which opposes expansion, said, “This poll is out-of-kilter with previous surveys which have shown most residents are opposed to expansion. But, even on the polls own findings, it is clear Heathrow would face significant opposition if it tried to build a third runway.”

Stewart added, “We take it as a compliment that Heathrow Airport wants to set up a residents group that supports expansion. Our only piece of advice to them is to find a better name than the obscure one we are stuck with!”

ENDS

www.hacan.org.uk

.

Heathrow says:

The results of the polling has prompted Heathrow to announce that it will provide seed funding for a new community campaign to provide a voice for the thousands of local people who support Heathrow. Plans for the campaign are in their early stages but it will seek to establish itself and start identifying and recruiting support before the end of the year.

.


.

Comments by AirportWatch members:

As someone who had the pleasure of being interviewed by Populus in the telephone poll, I am not sure that the detailed results published at  Populus Heathrow Local Area Polling
properly explains the context of the questioning.

There was a whole lot of other stuff on noise including something like “of these seven options, which do you think would do the most to show that Heathrow was seriously trying to mitigate the impact of noise ?”

Perhaps this is still to be reported or was just used as input to the development of the recent commitments on future noise work and/or submissions to the Davies Commission.

I don’t suppose Heathrow/Populus will publish the telephone script that the questioners actually used.

.

As Heathrow affects way more people than those in the areas polled, the poll results are not representative.

Statistically it is called a selection error – although it depends on your point of view as to whether it is an “error” or not .  As anyone who has looked into the art/science of polling will know, a poll be shown to say almost anything you want – it depends on who you ask and what you ask them.

If there is genuinely so much support for Heathrow expansion, one could question why it is necessary for the airport to pay for a community group to curry it up.

.

East Midland Airport use a similar tactic in that it is an important centre of employment and trade, which it is of course.  However, we have seen skewed and counter-intuitive survey results – presumably because the airport has pushed airline and other employees to take part in surveys, over and above responses from the general public.  When individuals have had letters published in the local press, commenting on the need for more sustainable airport operations, there are usually howls of protest in follow-up letters that obviously emanate from airport employees.  We know of situations where responses have been orchestrated by the airport management or their underlings.  Having said that, the general public are often reported to be in favour of the airport simply because of its convenience and their love of cheap long distance travel

.

 

It is curious that the Hillingdon survey recently sent questionnaires to 205,634 residents on their electoral role, and got 80,457 responses. Of these responses, 66% said No in reply to the question: “Are you in favour of more flights into and out of Heathrow? Yes/no”
and at Richmond council sent out 136,880 questionnaires, and 58,953 responses were received, of which replied NO to the same question.
http://www.richmond.gov.uk/home/council_government_and_democracy/council/civic-offices/departments/communications/press_office/press_releases/may_2013/100000_say_no_to_heathrow_expansion.htm
However, in the Populus poll for Heathrow, they say 57% of the 1000 or so residents in Hillingdon gave responses from 7 – 10 (with 10 being the most positive and 0 the most negative) .
And of the Richmond 1000 or so residents, Populus says 51% gave responses from 7 – 10.
http://www.populus.co.uk/uploads/Heathrow%20Airport%20Local%20Resident%20Research.pdf
(That is, presuming they meant to put Richmond, but calling it Richmond Park was an error. If they were genuinely interviewing those walking in Richmond Park, that is different ! )
.

.

Heathrow poll ‘shows most residents back expansion’

by Nicholas Cecil (Evening standard)

12 June 2013

Residents who live near Heathrow are slightly more likely to be in favour of expansion than be opposed, according to a large poll commissioned by the airport.

The Populus survey of more than 6,000 people found that 46% supported a bigger Heathrow, compared with 43% who were against expansion.

Communities with more people who worked at the airport were found to be more in favour of expansion.

In Feltham and Heston, 51 per cent backed expansion, with 38 per cent against, in Spelthorne the breakdown was 48-36, in Windsor 48-39, Brentford and Isleworth 46-43, Hillingdon 44-47 and the least support was in Richmond Park [sic. Richmond Park. Not Richmond. See the Populus findings ].  with 50 per cent opposing a bigger Heathrow compared with 39 per cent in favour.

Clare Harbord, Heathrow’s director of corporate affairs, said: “This research shows that most local residents back Heathrow. Anti-Heathrow campaigners claim that everyone living near Heathrow is opposed to the airport, but that simply isn’t true.”

John Stewart, chairman of anti- Heathrow expansion group HACAN, challenged the findings. He said: “This poll is a little bit out of kilter with the majority of polls which have been done which show overall opposition to a third runway at Heathrow.”

Heathrow bosses say 114,000 jobs in the area depend on the airport. It is to fund a “new community campaign” to argue for the benefits of expansion.

Populus interviewed more than 6,000 adults between 27th Feb and 4th May.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/heathrow-poll-shows-most-residents-back-expansion-8655308.html 

.


.

CATI Fieldwork : 27th February – 4th May 2013

 

The questions in the Populus survey:  link

Q1a. Thinking specifically about your own constituency and the candidates who are likely to stand there, what will be the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE in determining which party’s candidate you are likely to vote for at the next General Election?

Q1b. And what will be the SECOND MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE?

Q1c. And what will be the THIRD MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE?

Q2. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following [three] statements [below] about Heathrow?

For me and my family the benefits of Heathrow generally outweigh the disadvantages.

or

For my local community  the benefits of Heathrow generally outweigh the disadvantages. as a country

or

For the country as a whole  the benefits of Heathrow generally outweigh the disadvantages.

Q3. Taking everything into account, based on what you have seen, read and heard, how positive or negative would you say you feel towards Heathrow Airport? On a scale of 0-10, where 0 means very negative, 10 means very positive, and 5 is neutral.

Q4. Taking everything you know into account, do you currently support or oppose expanding Heathrow?  [Strongly support, somewhat support, neither support nor oppose, strongly oppose, somewhat oppose].

And to which of these ethnic groups do you consider you belong …

Which of the following best describes your current working status?

The age and gender.

 

.


.

New polling shows residents back Heathrow

12 June, 2013  (Heathrow airport press release)

New polling of the communities around Heathrow shows that more people back Heathrow than oppose it. The findings have prompted Heathrow to announce that it will provide funding for a community campaign to give a voice to the hundreds of thousands of residents who back Heathrow.

The survey, which was conducted by Populus, is a representative sample of more than 6,000 residents from Hounslow, Richmond, Hillingdon, Windsor and Spelthorne. It found:

  • 60% of residents feel positive towards Heathrow compared to just 6% who feel negatively
  • 66% say that the benefits of Heathrow outweigh the disadvantages for their community
  • 46% support expanding Heathrow, compared to 43% who oppose expansion
  • Heathrow is the 12th most important issue is determining which candidate to vote for at the next general election, with jobs and the economy the most important issue.

 

The area with the most aircraft noise, Feltham and Heston, is the area which is most supportive of the airport expanding. 51% of people in Feltham and Heston support expanding Heathrow compared to 39% who are opposed.

Heathrow Director of Corporate Affairs, Clare Harbord said

“This research shows that most local residents back Heathrow. Anti-Heathrow campaigners claim that everyone living near Heathrow is opposed to the airport, but that simply isn’t true.

“The recent report by MPs on Parliament’s Transport Committee lays bare what the Mayor’s plans for a new airport would do to this region: it says an estuary hub airport would require the closure of Heathrow – a course of action that would have unacceptable consequences for individuals, businesses in the vicinity of the existing airport and the local economy.”

“We believe that local jobs and businesses are worth fighting for. It’s time to give people who agree a voice in this debate. It’s time to back Heathrow”

114,000 jobs in the area depend on Heathrow, representing 1 in 5 local jobs in the five boroughs closest to Heathrow. If Heathrow closed then people directly employed at the airport would have to be re-located or would be made redundant. It would be Britain’s worst ever mass redundancy with job losses greater than when MG Rover closed its factory at Longbridge in 2005 (6,500 jobs), or during the worst year of UK pit closures in 1984 (30,000 jobs).

The results of the polling has prompted Heathrow to announce that it will provide seed funding for a new community campaign to provide a voice for the thousands of local people who support Heathrow. Plans for the campaign are in their early stages but it will seek to establish itself and start identifying and recruiting support before the end of the year.

Notes to editors

  • Populus interviewed at least 1,000 adult residents (18+) in each of five constituencies and one London Borough local to Heathrow Airport by telephone between 27 February and 4 May 2013. In total, 6,003 residents were interviewed. Results were weighted to be demographically representative of all adults in each constituency and borough. Constituency results were also weighted by past vote to be politically representative of all adults.
  • http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.com/Press-releases/New-polling-shows-residents-back-Heathrow-590.aspx
  • .
  • .
  • ..

 

Read more »

Birmingham Airport unveils vision for growth, up to 70 million passengers per year, new business park etc etc

Birmingham Airport has unveiled long-term growth plans to challenge Heathrow’s supremacy and help to what they say will ‘rebalance the UK economy’. The plan would see Birmingham catering for 70m air passengers a year and 500,000 flights a year – both slightly more than Heathrow now. A business park for the Midland’s manufacturing sector is also  proposed alongside the expanded airport site and has the backing of some business leaders and local councils.  It, of course, predictably, promises huge numbers of jobs – no less than a quarter of a million.  Paul Kehoe, the airport’s CEO, expects that in 20 years’ time British air travel will double – though there is no evidence for this, and it is utterly at variance with the advice of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change that UK air passengers could perhaps increase by 60% on 2005 levels by 2050. For the whole of the UK.  Birmingham airport thinks transport infrastructure acts as an economic enabler, “a pathway to a virtuous cycle of growth”, and “each major regional economy cannot succeed without its own meaningful international gateway.” They believe “the UK economy is large enough to support at least four major ‘national’ airports – London, Midlands, North West, Scotland”. 

.

 

 

Birmingham airport says:

Birmingham Airport – A great airport for a great city

On 10th June 2013, Birmingham Airport launched its long-term vision for UK aviation. The vision shows how Birmingham Airport will be at the centre of a network of great airports delivering aviation capacity and connectivity to the great cities of Britain. The Airport’s development strategy will plug the greater Midlands economy into global wealth and enable businesses to reach the markets they need to deliver jobs and growth for future generations.

Birmingham Airport’s proposal meets the Airports Commission’s criteria because it is not just about runways. It is about creating the infrastructure to support Birmingham, London and Manchester. Each region has its own economic identity and requires unique international connectivity to cater for those needs.

Expansion at Birmingham Airport will make a substantial contribution to meeting growth in the UK’s air passenger demand in the long-term. It is cost effective, in line with UK climate change commitments and has been carefully designed to align with existing regional development and transport investment strategies. This consistency will maximise the social and economic value of major developments, such as the M42 gateway, HS2, and the Greater Birmingham project.

The Airport will be submitting a full response to the Airports Commission on 19th July 2013.

Birmingham airport plugging the midlands ....

Birmingham airport launch pamphlet with the main points of the plan:

http://www.balancedaviationdebate.com/pdf/Launch%20Pamphlet/index.html

(the only comment on climate or carbon emissions in this pamphlet is to say that “it is line with UK climate change commitments”.

Read Paul Kehoe’s, CEO Birmingham Airport, speech at the launch event here.

 


 

Birmingham Airport unveils vision for growth, a new business park and 250,000 jobs in the region

Airport’s long-term vision endorsed by Midland business leaders including GBSLEP and Chamber of Commerce

9.6.2013 (Birmingham Post0
Paul Kehoe, chief executive of Birmingham Airport
Paul Kehoe, chief executive of Birmingham Airport

Birmingham Airport has joined forces with a coalition of business leaders to unveil plans that enable it to grow and help create a quarter of a million Midland jobs in the process.

Its vision, which has been formally endorsed by the Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP, the Black Country LEP and the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce Group, supports growth of up to 70 million passengers each year and up to 500,000 air transport movements from an expanded facility. [Bearing in mind Birmingham airport had approximately 9 million passengers in 2010 - AW].

The airport’s plan supports the development of a business park for the Midlands manufacturing sector alongside the expanded site, and one of Europe’s biggest conference centres at the NEC.

The airport’s long-term vision is a response to questions asked by the Airports Commission, which is examining the need for additional UK airport capacity and will recommend to government how this can be met in the short, medium and long-term.

Paul Kehoe, CEO of Birmingham Airport, said great cities like Birmingham deserve great airports.

“In 20 years’ time British air travel will double and it is widely acknowledged that all the country’s long-haul traffic cannot be routed through one airport in West London,” he said. [There is no reason why the UK's air travel will double. The UK's population may grow from some 63 million now to some 73 million by 2035  link. ie. 16% more. So needing a doubling in flights? The Committee on Climate Change anticipates that to keep within UK climate targets, an increase of some 60% in the number of air passengers, over the number in 2005, might be possible by 2050. link  Birmingham Airport sees itself taking a highly disproportionate share share of this expansion for itself.  AW]

“Instead, we believe that the best thing for UK aviation is to create a network of long-haul national airports, each supporting the comparative economic advantages of that region to boost trade, foreign investment and tourism.”

A high proportion of the country’s potential demand for business air travel comes from the Midlands catchment area, which is home to half a million businesses, 6.5 million employees and specialises in high-value manufacturing sectors.

The Airport’s vision is for London, Birmingham and Manchester to all have the great long-haul airports that they need to succeed, whilst at the same time providing flexibility and resilience for the UK aviation sector.

The network proposal excludes expansion at Heathrow because that would expose too many people living in West London to unacceptable noise pollution. However, the network complements a new mega-hub in the South East or a more dispersed model.

With central transport links, long-haul runway and spare capacity for 27 million passengers, Birmingham Airport has been arguing to the Commission that it can offer much-needed capacity in the short-term. This recent announcement gives Birmingham the ability to play its part in the long-term strategy too.

Mark Garnier MP (Conservativ, Wyre Forest), chair of the West Midlands APPG said: “A global travel hub at Birmingham Airport will bring long-haul air-travel to within one hour of the airport for 45 million people by 2032 when the HS2 network is fully operational. This will make it the most accessible airport in Britain.”

Sir Albert Bore, leader of Birmingham City Council believes the vision will help bring trade and prosperity for Britain’s industrial base in the Midlands, just as Heathrow has helped the high-tech concentration along the ‘M4 corridor’ and helped support the global position of The City.

Jerry Blackett, chief executive of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce said: “At a time of our manufacturing renaissance, it makes no sense for business people to traipse to London to travel to major markets overseas. To succeed, our business people need direct, convenient flights to visit suppliers and clients in major new markets like China and India.

http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/business/birmingham-airport-unveils-vision-meet-4282404

.

.

Birmingham Airport expected to announce plans for 2nd runway and new terminal to the Airports Commission

7.6.2013

Birmingham Airport is expected to announce shortly that it is considering building a 2nd runway, and submit its plan to the Airports Commission. The airport wants to be considered as a major part of Britain’s aviation plans for the future, and could be a hub for European airports.  Back in 2007 the airport’s plans for a second runway, in its Master Plans, were dropped in favour of the runway extension – due to open in 2014. If HS2 is built, Birmingham airport intends to benefit from it. Proposals include another terminal, incorporating HS2, as well as the  runway. It is thought that  the airport will say, in its submission, that the runway may not be needed for a long time, even decades as it currently caters for some 9 million passengers and could take over 25 million on its one runway. The airport’s plans are reported to be supported by the West Midlands Economic Forum which will release a report expected to say that there is plenty more potential growth for Birmingham Airport as the world economy grows. MP Mark Garnier said the airport needed to capitalise on being at the heart of the motorway and potential high-speed rail networks.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=3742

 

.


.

 

Comments from AirportWatch members:

Looking at Birmingham airport’s submission to the earlier Airports Commission discussion on making the best use of short term and medium term airport capacity (May 2013) at  Response from Birmingham Airport  I notice that – as usual – on page 5 they have given the greenhouse gas impacts of this an neatly only count the landing and takeoff emissions and not any part of the cruise emissions. I cannot understand how a rational person can include merely the take-off and landing cycle emissions, but not the rest of the flight, including the one and not the other ?

In addition, they classify the aviation emissions as an indirect impact of expansion,not a direct one,  as if they would pay all that money to make a bigger airport just for the privilege of driving their luggage trains round a bigger piece of concrete, and selling sunglasses to sightseers to the white elephant they had built? Of course, the purpose of the airport is to fly more passengers, and over long distances.

As Birmingham airport says on the basis that “An important part of understanding howBirmingham Airport can reduce emissions is to measure what is currently emitted from our operations what gets measured gets managed”.  ie. not a lot.

Air travel is one of the very highest carbon-emitting activities known to man, especially if calculated on a per hour basis.

 

.


.

Birmingham Airport press release:

 

BIRMINGHAM AIRPORT UNVEILS VISION FOR LONG-TERM ECONOMIC GROWTH

Birmingham Airport, together with a coalition of business leaders and local councils [1], will today (10 June) unveil a vision that would enable the Airport to grow in line with future demand, boosting global connectivity and creating over a quarter of a million new jobs in the Midlands, helping to rebalance the UK economy. This vision supports growth of up to 70 million passengers each year and up to 500,000 air transport movements from an expanded facility. The Airport’s vision supports the development of a business park for the Midland’s manufacturing sector alongside the expanded site, and one of Europe’s biggest conference centres at the NEC, all based at the cross-roads of Britain’s road and rail systems [2]. The Airport’s long-term vision is a response to questions asked by the Airports Commission, which is examining the need for additional UK airport capacity and will recommend to Government how this can be met in the short, medium and long-term. Paul Kehoe, CEO of Birmingham Airport, said: “Great cities like Birmingham deserve great airports. In twenty years’ time British air travel will double and it is widely acknowledged that all the country’s long-haul traffic cannot be routed through one airport in West London. “Instead, we believe that the best thing for UK aviation is to create a network of long-haul national airports, each supporting the comparative economic advantages of that region to boost trade, foreign investment and tourism.” A high proportion of the country’s potential demand for business air travel comes from the Midlands catchment area. It is home to half a million businesses, 6.5 million employees and specialises in high-value manufacturing sectors. Expanding Birmingham Airport alongside the M42 gateway project and High Speed Two is a once in a generation opportunity to meet the UK’s aviation capacity needs. The Airport’s vision is for London, Birmingham and Manchester to all have the great long-haul airports that they need to succeed, whilst at the same time providing flexibility and resilience for the UK aviation sector. The network proposal excludes expansion at Heathrow because that would expose too many people living in West London to unacceptable noise pollution. However, the network complements a new mega-hub in the South East or a more dispersed model. With its excellent transport links, long-haul runway and spare capacity for 27 million passengers, Birmingham Airport has been arguing to the
Commission that it can offer much-needed capacity in the short-term. This
recent announcement gives Birmingham the ability to play its part in the
long-term strategy too.
Mark Garnier MP, Conservative MP for Wyre Forest and Chair of the West
Midlands APPG said:
“A global travel hub at Birmingham Airport will bring long-haul air-travel
to within one hour of the airport for 45 million people by 2032 when the
HS2 network is fully operational. This will make it the most accessible
airport in Britain”.
Sir Albert Bore, Leader of Birmingham City Council said:
“This vision will help bring trade and prosperity for Britain’s industrial
base in the Midlands, just as Heathrow has helped the high-tech
concentration along the ‘M4 corridor’ and helped support the global
position of The City.”
Jerry Blackett, chief executive of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce said:
“At a time of our manufacturing renaissance, it makes no sense for business
people to traipse to London to travel to major markets overseas. To
succeed, our business people need direct, convenient flights to visit
suppliers and clients in major new markets like China and India.”
-ends-
Key facts:-

· In 2011, 3 million business trips were made from Birmingham
Airport. Economic consultancy Capital Economics, has predicted that by 2032
the Airport could serve up to 18m business travellers, second only to
Heathrow.

· Birmingham Airport’s catchment has the second biggest demand for
business travel. It has 500,000 businesses in its catchment, second only to
Heathrow at 600,000.

· The majority of these are high-value manufacturing companies that
currently export goods valued at £25.1 billion each year to long-haul
markets without direct air links.

· Three million business people from the Airport’s catchment travel
to Heathrow each year, adding unsustainable pressure and clogging up the
road and rail network.

· Over the next 20 years annual passenger numbers will increase by 220 million passengers and yet plans for an additional runway at Heathrow only offers additional capacity for 20 million passengers.

.

Notes to editors:- 1. [1] The Airport’s submission to the Commission has been formally endorsed by the Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP, the Black Country LEP and the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce Group. 2. [2] The launch document can be found at: http://changeopinion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/WES_fast_leaflet_may2013_PRINT_single_pgs_small.pdf.

The contents of this document are also embargoed until 0001 Monday 10th June. 3.

The full press Q&A can be found at http://changeopinion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Press-QandA-full.pdf.

The Capital Economics Report can be found at www.balancedaviationdebate.com

This vision will form part of Birmingham Airport’s long-term response to the Airports Commission who will decide which proposals merit more detailed consideration. If the Airports Commission reaches a view in its interim report that a significant increase in aviation capacity is needed, the recommended options will be developed into more detailed schemes on which further public engagement will be sought.

More information can be found at www.balancedaviationdebate.com ‘Best Airport’ Winner at the National Transport Awards 2012. Let’s have a proper debate about UK’s aviation needs & how to make best use of what we already have www.balancedaviationdebate.com/

.

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Heathrow’s latest plan for southern 3rd runway “R3S” would be death to Stanwell Moor

Plans by Heathrow to build a third runway to the south west of the existing runways have met with dismay by those who would have their homes demolished, and their local area ruined. The new southern runway, already dubbed “R3S”, is regarded as both cheaper and more attractive than the northern option. Simon Calder says it would be used exclusively by smaller jets – the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 series – which are somewhat less noisy than wide-bodied aircraft. Also that the eastern end of the new runway would be located about a mile further west than the existing two runways. Arriving and departing aircraft would therefore be significantly higher when flying over the capital. Heathrow apparently also says there would be no need for a 6th terminal, as the runway could be accessed from Terminal 4 (Skyteam alliance) and Terminal 5 (BA). Much of the land on which the new runway would be built is currently covered by airport-related buildings, including cargo warehouses and car parks. Simon Calder thinks these could be re-located “with little fuss”. But the western end would encroach on Stanwell Moor, a post-war development less than a mile from Terminal 5, where residents have not been consulted in any way on the proposals.

.

 

 

Heathrow’s latest plan for third runway would be ‘plane crazy’ for one village

Simon Calder meets the people who could soon have jets landing on their doorsteps

SIMON CALDER  (Independent)
 7 JUNE 2013

When the Concorde used to fly over Stanwell Moor it set off car alarms. Now, after a decade of relative quiet, long-suffering residents of the Surrey village under Heathrow’s flightpath face having a runway outside their front doors.

They reacted with a mixture of indignation and resignation to the news that their village is the latest “silver bullet” solution to Britain’s aviation woes. The owners of Heathrow are understood to have abandoned plans for a third runway north of the present airport perimeter – and instead propose to build it to the south, encroaching on a village of 1,300 inhabitants.

The new southern runway, already dubbed “R3S”, is regarded as both cheaper and more attractive than the northern option. It would be used exclusively by smaller jets – the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 series – which are quieter than wide-bodied aircraft.

In addition, the eastern end would be located about a mile further from London than the existing two runways. Arriving and departing aircraft would therefore be significantly higher when flying over the capital.

The planned location could be constructed with no need for a sixth terminal. It would offer direct access from British Airways’ exclusive hub, Terminal 5, and Terminal 4 – home to Air France, KLM and the rest of the Skyteam alliance.

Much of the land needed for the runway is occupied by airport-related buildings, including a cargo village and car parks, which could be re-located with little fuss. But the western end would encroach on Stanwell Moor, a post-war development less than a mile from Terminal 5.

Villagers have not been consulted on the plans. Aslam Andanjee, 58, who owns Stanwell Moor Post Office, said: “It’s a surprise to me. We’ve never been mentioned before.”

“Bloody hell – are they really?” exclaimed Robert Mandry when presented with a sketched diagram of the proposed third runway. The 69-year-old retired compositor has lived in Stanwell Moor for 10 years, and conceded that noise has abated during that decade. He speculated that residents could be persuaded to move with sufficiently generous offers: “Our house is worth £250,000. If they offer us £350,000 I expect we’ll leave.”

Then he left to alert his partner, Rosemary Brown, who has lived in Stanwell Moor for 40 years. “She won’t half be upset when I tell her,” he said.

LHR Airports Ltd, which owns Heathrow, has declined to confirm or deny the reports.

The company will submit its proposals for expansion to the Davies Commission, which is evaluating solutions for the airport capacity crunch in South-East England, before 19 July.

HACAN ClearSkies, which opposes expansion at Heathrow, said the new runway could increase flights by 46 per cent. Its chair, John Stewart, said: “It is a clever plan which Heathrow hopes might neutralise opposition amongst some of the communities and local authorities which successfully opposed a new runway to the north of the airport.”

He added that the campaigners would oppose the proposals because a new runway would be “massively disturbing” to “vast swathes of people”.

But back in Stanwell Moor, Sri Haran – proprietor of the village shop, T5 Stores – gestured towards the airport and sighed: “There’s not a lot a village can do when they decide”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/heathrows-latest-plan-for-third-runway-would-be-plane-crazy-for-one-village-8650168.html

.


 

.

Map showing location of terminals at Heathrow from http://www.heathrow-airport-guide.co.uk/directions.html

 


.

Earlier

Heathrow planning new runway to the south-west in Stanwell Moor area

June 6, 2013      The Standard reports that Heathrow is planning a new runway south-west of the airport, in one of three options that the airport will submit to the Airports Commission. The south-west runway would destroy the village of Staines Moor, and might be just north of the two large reservoirs, the George VI and the Staines reservoir. The Standard believes that Heathrow is no longer seriously considering a northern runway, at Sipson. A south-west runway might mean the demolition of fewer properties unless Stanwell itself was destroyed. Heathrow knows it can only get another runway if it can persuade enough people that the noise burden from extra flights will not be significantly larger. Therefore the airport has been trying to hard to convince those under flight paths that there will be improvements. A new runway to the south-west would increase aircraft noise for Feltham, Twickenham, Ham, Richmond Park and Wimbledon Common – where there would be intense opposition. Daniel Moylan, the Mayor’s chief aviation adviser, said: “Even to discuss this is to add a new blight to the lives of thousands of Londoners. It is further proof Heathrow expansion is environmentally and politically impossible.”    Click here to view full story…

 

Stanwell Moor aerial

Read more »

Redhill Aerodrome hard runway plans rejected

Councillors have thrown out plans for a hard runway at Redhill Aerodrome because it would “scar” the landscape.  The aerodrome currently only has grass runways, so cannot operate in bad weather. But the aerodrome’s owners, RAV, say they will appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.  Both Tandridge and Reigate & Banstead councils decisively rejected the plans to build a 1,349m-long concrete runway . A planning officer’s report had recommended councillors reject the scheme on the grounds of inappropriate development in the green belt. The new runway would have enabled the air field to increase air traffic movements by about 72% by flying in wet weather. The applicant had “dismally failed” to argue a case of special circumstances in order to gain approval to develop green belt. Opponents said 90% of households were against the hard surfaced runway, and  a local councillor agreed with many residents in saying that there was “no merit” to the application which would “spoil the rural area” if given approval.

.

 

Redhill Aerodrome hard runway plans rejected

By Amy De-Keyzer  (Get Surrey)
June 03, 2013

Redhill Aerodrome in South Nutfield wants a hard runway
Redhill Aerodrome in South Nutfield wants a hard runway

COUNCILLORS have thrown out plans for a hard runway at Redhill Aerodrome because it would “scar” the landscape.

But the owners of the airfield, in Kings Mill Lane, South Nutfield, have vowed to fight the Tandridge District Council (TDC) planning committee decision and appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

More than 60 people packed into the council offices in Oxted last Thursday evening (May 30) and erupted into applause when committee members voted to refuse the application to replace the aerodrome’s grass runways with a 1,349m-long concrete surface.

A planning officer’s report had recommended councillors reject the scheme on the grounds of inappropriate development in the green belt.

Objector Paul Murray said the application had “dismally failed” to argue a case of special circumstances in order to gain approval to develop green belt land, which is usually ruled out by planning policy.

Aerodrome bosses argued that the hard runway would boost the number of flights to around double the current 41,000 a year, because they would be able to use the all-weather strip all year round.

Mr Murray said that would mean more noise and more traffic, adding: “The development would result in air traffic movements increasing by 72%.

“The community has overwhelmingly rejected this plan – 90% of households agreed that permission should be refused.”

And Nutfield Parish Council’s David Chapman said there was “no merit” to the application which would “spoil the rural area” if given approval.

Aerodrome hard runway is not wanted by villagers
Safety fears over Redhill Aerodrome runway proposals
MP Sam Gyimah appalled by Redhill hard runway plan
VIDEO: Aerodrome boss defends hard runway proposal
Redhill Aerodrome hard runway plans rejected again

Councillors raised concerns about the impact a larger, busier aerodrome would have on surrounding roads and local residents.

They said they were also unhappy with the damage it would do to the green belt.

Councillor Patrick Cannon said a hard runway would be a “scar on the landscape”, while Cllr Tony Elias added: “Whichever way one looks at this, the concreting of 34,000sq-m and installing lighting poles goes against [council] policies.

“It’s high time that the owners of the airport get the message loud and clear that this is a green belt area and our policies remain as robust as ever.”

Cllr Jane Ingham said: “The surrounding roads are totally inadequate to support any further development.

“These are not modest changes, they are huge changes that will adversely affect the residents’ amenity.”

Appeal concerns

But Cllr Ken Harwood said he had “grave doubts” over the committee’s reasons for refusing the application and said he was concerned they would not hold up on appeal.

Redhill Aerodrome’s John Horne claimed that the runway plans would not impact on the openness of the green belt site and said planning approval was important in securing existing jobs and creating new roles.

A number of committee members raised concerns about future employment at the site if the plans were not successful, but that did not stop them voting against the scheme.

Writing online following the decision, Redhill Aerodrome said: “True to form TDC Planning Committee refused permission for paved runway. Next step appeal!

“Thanks to all who attended TDC this evening to support the application. Much appreciated.”

The aerodrome straddles the border between Tandridge and Reigate & Banstead, and the plans are set to go before the second council’s planning committee on Wednesday (June 5).

Reigate & Banstead officers have also recommended refusal.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2135034_redhill_aerodrome_hard_runway_plans_rejected

.


 

.

 

6 June 2013 (BBC)  

Redhill Aerodrome concrete runway plans rejected

Redhill airfield
Aerodrome bosses said the plans would create 170 new jobs and secure the future of businesses
 

Related BBC Stories

Plans to build a runway at Redhill Aerodrome have been rejected, two years after the original plans were refused.

The aerodrome wanted to replace its three grass runways with a concrete one, giving it potential to increase flights from 60,000 to 85,000 a year.

Bosses said the plans would create 140 new jobs and secure the future of the firms at the business park there.

Reigate and Banstead councillors refused the application at a meeting on Wednesday.

They said the plans constituted “inappropriate” development in the green belt and rejected claims businesses would leave the premises without a hard runway.

Jon Horne, chief executive of the aerodrome near Gatwick Airport, said in the first three months of this year, business was down 40% from last year due to wet weather.

“You just can’t run businesses viably on that sort of basis,” he said.

He said the aerodrome was likely to appeal against the decision.

The plans were also rejected by Tandridge District Council last week.

Both councils turned down the aerodrome’s original application in 2011, “on green belt and highway grounds”.

The aerodrome, which is home to more than 20 companies employing hundreds of people, has been in operation for about 80 years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-22795296

.


 

.

7.6.2013

From local opponents, KRAG (Keep Redhill Aerodrome Green)

Last night at Reigate town Hall the Planning Committee of Reigate & Banstead Borough Council voted 17-0 in favour of supporting their Planning Officers recommendation to REFUSE the application to develop Redhill Aerodrome.  There were 2 abstentions, 1 being the Chairman which is a matter of proceedure.  Former KRAG Chairman Jerome Lynch QC spoke for the opponents in his usual elegant and forceful style.

This huge defeat for RAV comes on the heels of the 9-0 defeat they suffered last week at Tandridge. 

So I make that 26 – 0 to us!!

RAV have 6 months to lodge an appeal which we expect them to do.

A more complete report will follow shortly ….. 

KRAG will continue to work closely with other groups involved ( NPC, Nutfield Conservation Society and Salfords & Sidlow Parish Council) and our District Councillors Debbie Vickers, Tony Elias and Dorothy Ross-Tomlyn to defend our Green Belt against this predatory company.

Paul Murray – KRAG Secretary

 

.


 

.

Earlier

Important economic information on Redhill aerodrome hard runway application kept secret

March 11, 2013

Redhill Aerodrome has been trying to get a hard surfaced runway to replace its current three grass runways for many years. It submitted an application in July 2011, which was refused by Tandridge District Council (TDC) and Reigate & Banstead Council (R&B). Redhill Aerodrome then submitted a very slightly changed application in June 2012. The concrete runway would enable the aerodrome to increase flights from 60,000 to 85,000 a year including larger planes. There are problems with the application in relation to drainage and a local brook, as well as traffic impacts. But the aerodrome was asked by the councils to supply more detailed information on future activities of the aerodrome. This information is being used to back up the aerodrome’s claim for special grounds for building in the Green Belt. The aerodrome asked both councils to sign a confidentiality agreement so that the economic information supplied (eg. employment) would not be published. R&B signed the agreement, but after taking legal advice Tandridge refused to do so. Local campaigners say the application cannot be assessed without access to the financial details including employment and impact on the economy.    Click here to view full story…

.


 .

Redhill Aerodrome applies yet again for a hard runway to replace 3 grass runways

Owners of Redhill airfield, RAVL, have submitted a revised application for a hard runway after their first bid failed.  They want to replace the 3 grass runways with a one concrete one, giving it potential to increase flights from 60,000 to 85,000 a year and for larger planes. Tandridge and Reigate councils turned down the original bid last year. The airfield think their new application “addressed the reasons for refusal in 2011″. As usual, they exaggerate the  number of possible jobs that might be created – alleging it will increase the 450 jobs it supports today to some 590 in future – and attract investment to the area etc.  Over 1,000 people opposed the original plans which were rejected last year, realising the plans would create an unacceptable level of noise and pollution,  breach green belt restrictions, and destroy the landscape.

31 July 2012 (BBC) 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-19059673

 

.

 and more about Redhill Aerodrome at   Redhill Aerodrome

Read more »

Standard says Heathrow planning new runway to the south-west in Stanwell Moor area

The Standard reports that Heathrow is planning a new runway south-west of the airport, in one of three options that the airport will submit to the Airports Commission. The south-west runway would destroy the village of Staines Moor, and might be just north of the two large reservoirs, the George VI and the Staines reservoir. The Standard believes that Heathrow is no longer seriously considering a northern runway, at Sipson. A south-west runway might mean the demolition of fewer properties unless Stanwell itself was destroyed. Heathrow knows it can only get another runway if it can persuade enough people that the noise burden from extra flights will not be significantly larger. Therefore the airport has been trying to hard to convince those under flight paths that there will be improvements. A new runway to the south-west would increase aircraft noise for  Feltham, Twickenham, Ham, Richmond Park and Wimbledon Common – where there would be intense opposition. Daniel Moylan, the Mayor’s chief aviation adviser, said: “Even to discuss this is to add a new blight to the lives of thousands of Londoners. It is further proof Heathrow expansion is environmentally and politically impossible.”

Heathrow Airport said it will give full details of its submission before the  19th July deadline.

.


 

 

New Heathrow runway plan revealed

New runway: tarmac planned to the south-west of the airport
by Nicholas Cecil  (Evening Standard)

6 June 2013      See maps of location – map and aerial – below

Heathrow is planning a new runway south-west of the airport, the Standard reveals today.

The development in the Stanwell Moor area is one of two or three options to be submitted to the Davies Commission into airport expansion, according to well-placed sources.

Bosses at Heathrow have torn up the blueprint for a third runway to the north of the existing two runways, which was backed by the previous Labour government but ran into strong opposition from Londoners and environmentalists.

The Standard has been told the favoured new option is to build on land stretching from the existing airport towards Stanwell Moor village and north of local reservoirs. This could mean few properties being demolished.

Alternatively, the village could be significantly pulled down, say aviation experts, with generous compensation for locals. Heathrow chiefs are understood to have come up with the plan after examining at least 50 options for expansion.

It is expected to include a series of measures to mitigate additional noise from tens of thousands of extra flights. The bosses have already rejected most proposals, including one for a new four-runway “superhub” airport close to Slough or 15 minutes from Oxford.

A plan from a group led by Concorde’s longest-serving pilot, Captain Jock Lowe — which would see the two existing runways extended to create four — has also been dismissed.

Aviation experts say the Stanwell Moor proposal shows that Heathrow is seeking to minimise the noise impact of a bigger airport, seen as the main obstacle to its expansion.

It would also be in Spelthorne, a  borough housing many Heathrow staff and whose Conservative MP Kwasi Kwarteng has led calls for a third or even a fourth runway. The development would not be expected to in- crease disturbance significantly for most residents living under the flightpaths of the current two runways.

But there could be more noise over Feltham, Twickenham, Ham, Richmond Park and Wimbledon Common, which is likely to spark a major campaign — including by Stanwell Moor residents — against the scheme.

John Stewart, the chairman of anti-Heathrow expansion group HACAN, said: “This is an attempt to reduce the impact for residents but our concern remains over the huge overall increase in numbers of planes over London a third runway would bring.” The proposal effectively meant the plan for a northern third runway had “no chance of seeing the light of day,” he added.

Daniel Moylan, the Mayor’s chief aviation adviser, said: “Even to discuss this is to add a new blight to the lives of thousands of Londoners. It is further proof Heathrow expansion is environmentally and politically impossible.”

Heathrow has not yet made a decision on whether to put forward one scheme as its “favoured” option when it makes its submission to the Airports Commission, headed by Sir Howard Davies.

Spelthorne councillor Marian Rough, of the Heathrow Airport consultative committee, said there would be local opposition to a runway affecting Stanwell Moor but added: “We can’t afford not to consider all alternatives.”

Heathrow Airport declined to comment, saying it will give full details of its submission in mid-July.

.

‘If it got any worse, I could not live here. It is dreadful’

RESIDENTS of a village next to Terminal 5 today said a third runway would destroy their community.

People in Stanwell Moor said that when there are no planes flying over, the village of 1,300 residents — which has a hall, two pubs, a few shops, nearby stables and the River Coln running through it — is a pleasant place to live.

But they warned that it would be ruined forever if the third runway plan was given the go-ahead. They feared the village would become “blighted” like nearby Sipson, where many residents have moved out because of Heathrow noise.

However, some admitted that the noise — which in some houses reaches up to 100 decibels during landings and take-offs — and pollution levels are already so bad that they would happily take compulsory purchase orders. Kathleen Croft, 69, whose house is less than half a mile away from Terminal 5, said: “Normally, living here is like living in Iraq. You cannot talk to somebody standing next to you in my garden.”

Mrs Croft, chairwoman of Stanwell Moor Residents Association, said at peak periods there is one flight every 45 seconds. She added: “If it got any worse than this I could not live in it, I just couldn’t, it really is dreadful.”

John Leer, 79, said of the proposal: “In one way, I’m against it but in another way I am all for it because this village has gone down so much because of the airport.”

However, mother of five Amy Pearce, 37, who has lived in the village for 17 years, said: “The only time it bothers me is when we’re in the garden entertaining with friends and you’re talking and you have to say, ‘Wait a minute’ when the plane goes over.”

Miranda Bryant

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/exclusive-new-heathrow-runway-plan-revealed-8647410.html

 

.


 

.

Tour of the Heathrow villages with Lucinda Lambton

There is a Radio 4 edition of Saturday Live, on Saturday 1st June at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0210pl6  with Lucinda Lambton doing a tour around the villages around Heathrow, and rejoicing in their history and buildings.  Starts 14.45 minutes in, and ends  at 21.08 minutes.

.

.

Stanwell Moor sw of Heathrow

 

Stanwell Moor aerial

The large green area to the west of the King George VI reservoir is Staines Moor, which is a SSSI  – see below.  It is bordered to the north by Stanwell Moor.

.


.

Heathrow’s latest plan for southern 3rd runway “R3S” would be death to Stanwell Moor

Date added: June 8, 2013

Plans by Heathrow to build a third runway to the south west of the existing runways have met with dismay by those who would have their homes demolished, and their local area ruined. The new southern runway, already dubbed “R3S”, is regarded as both cheaper and more attractive than the northern option. Simon Calder says it would be used exclusively by smaller jets – the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 series – which are somewhat less noisy than wide-bodied aircraft. Also that the eastern end of the new runway would be located about a mile further west than the existing two runways. Arriving and departing aircraft would therefore be significantly higher when flying over the capital. Heathrow apparently also says there would be no need for a 6th terminal, as the runway could be accessed from Terminal 4 (Skyteam alliance) and Terminal 5 (BA). Much of the land on which the new runway would be built is currently covered by airport-related buildings, including cargo warehouses and car parks. Simon Calder thinks these could be re-located “with little fuss”. But the western end would encroach on Stanwell Moor, a post-war development less than a mile from Terminal 5, where residents have not been consulted in any way on the proposals.

Click here to view full story…

 

.


 

.

Map indicating areas that would be overflown, by approaches from the east over London

Heathrow approach paths from the east

 


.

Staines Moor is a SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest)

Staines Moor borders the southern edge of Stanwell Moor.

http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/Special/sssi/unit_details.cfm?situnt_id=1008715

with a Natural England map of the reservoirs SSSI at map

Staines Moor is a large area of alluvial meadow that has been designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest, along with two adjacent reservoirs (King George IV Reservoir and Staines Reservoir). The moor covers 117 hectares (290 acres) and the whole SSSI covers some 515 hectares (1270 acres). The moor is managed by Spelthorne Borough Council in partnership with the Moormasters (see below). Map:

Staines Moor is one of England’s largest areas of neutral grassland that has never been extracted for gravel or agriculturally improved. Because chalky residue brought down by the Colne mixes with the silty Thames Valley soil during times of flood, the moor has acquired a unique ecostructure, with a rich and diverse flora including plants not found elsewhere in Surrey. Grazing by cattle and horses helps to this flora. The moor is crossed by the Colne and Wraysbury rivers and also features ponds, ditches, marsh, scrub and woodland. The large reservoirs on either side of the moor help to attract wildlife to the area.

There are details of the very many species of birds that can be seen on Staines Moor SSSI at

http://londonbirders.wikia.com/wiki/Staines_Moor

The King George VI Reservoir  is to the east of Staines Moor. The reservoir carries nationally important wintering populations of tufted duckspochard,goosander and goldeneye.

Staines Moor is one of the last remaining pastures of the medieval Manor of Staines. Originally a clearing in the Forest of Windsor it has remained unploughed for over 1,000 years and has been registered common land since 1065. Registered commoners, who must live in the old parish of Staines, are entitled to graze one horse or two cattle on the moor but may assign their right to other commoners. The grazing is managed by elected representatives of the commoners, known as Moormasters.

.

There is more about the birdlife on Staines Moor and on Stanwell Moor at http://www.leedingain.com/p/staines-moor.html

 

.


 

.

 Revealed: Heathrow Airport to submit plans for third runway south west of the airport

6.6.2013 (Hacan)

Heathrow Airport (formerly known as BAA) wants to see a third runway built close to the village of Stanwell Moor, just south-west of the exiting airport (link to Standard article). In leaked news it emerged today that the airport operator will submit plans next month to the Airports Commission for a new runway in the Stanwell Moor area. Heathrow Airport’s submission may contain other options but this is thought to be their favoured one.

They will drop their previous plans for a new runway north of the airport which would have demolished the village of Sipson.

A new runway to the south-west of the airport is likely to require less demolition of properties. Heathrow Airport will also argue that the new flight paths will overfly fewer communities.

To the east of the airport places in the firing line would be Feltham, Twickenham, Ham, Richmond Park, Wimbledon Common and Tooting. To the west, the areas around Windsor Great Park would be most affected.

It is expected that the plans for a third runway will be accompanied by the noise mitigation measures Heathrow Airport published last week. These included steeper descent approaches, less noisy planes and the naming and fining of the noisiest aircraft.

Heathrow Airport is expected to argue that at this stage they have no plans for a 4th runway. They also intend to retain runway alternation on the existing runways.

John Stewart, chair of HACAN, which represents residents under the existing flight paths, said, “This is a clever plan which Heathrow hopes might neutralize opposition amongst some of the communities and local authorities which successfully opposed a new runway to the north of the airport [eg. Hillingdon]. It would create less noise disturbance than a northern runway but we will oppose it because a whole new runway of planes will be massively disturbing to vast swathes of people across London and the South East. Flight numbers will rise from 480,000 a year to over 700,000.”

 

ENDS

The Airports Commission was set up by the Government last year to assess whether more airport capacity is required in London and the South East. Proposals for new runways or airports need to be with the Commission by 19th July. The Commission will publish an Interim report at the end of this year in which it will short-list the proposals it intends to examine further. Its final report will be published in summer 2015, two months after the next General Election.

www.hacan.org.uk

.


.

Bid to rename village as Stanwell on the Moor

From Get Surrey,  28.2.2013

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2129917_bid_to_rename_village_as_stanwell_on_the_moor

.


 

.

It’s ‘Heathrow or nothing’ for airlines – according to BAR UK

Most airlines that are unable to fly to Heathrow due to a lack of space take their business away from Britain to rival hub airports abroad, the head of a powerful aviation body has warned.

By  (Telegraph)

1 Jun 2013

The Board of Airline Representatives in the UK (BAR UK), which represents all of the major foreign as well as British carriers, said airlines frequently choose rival airports abroad rather than operating from another UK base such as Gatwick or Stansted.

Dale Keller, chief executive of BAR UK, has told the government-backed Airports Commission that it cannot be assumed airlines will take their business to another UK airport if they are unable to get slots at Heathrow, which is operating at close to full capacity.

A survey of the organisation’s members shows that most carriers will in fact go abroad to competitor hubs such as Amsterdam Schiphol or Paris Charles de Gaulle, rather than operate flights from one of London’s other airports.

As a result, business lost at Heathrow often means business is lost to Britain, the survey’s findings show.

In a survey of 51 of BAR UK’s members – which include Delta, American Airlines, Air China, Emirates and British Airways – more than half of respondents said they have certainly, or probably, diverted flights or capacity to other countries rather than to UK airports in the past two years because of capacity constraints at Heathrow. Mr Keller said most long-haul carriers are interested in flying from hub airports, where they can take advantage of local as well as transfer traffic to make routes profitable. “Because we don’t have another hub in the UK, that’s why the UK could miss out,” he said.

Mr Keller said major airlines are already free to grow at other London airports, such as Stansted, where there is plenty of spare capacity but are still clamouring for slots at Heathrow.

Foreign carriers have no particular loyalty to Britain and will move their business to rival hubs abroad if it means routes will be more profitable, Mr Keller added.

Aviation bosses such as James Hogan, the president of Etihad, have previously warned that airlines from fast-growth countries in the Middle East and China will be forced to operate their aircraft from rival hubs in Europe and even the US if the UK fails to make a clear and swift decision on increasing hub capacity.

The Airports Commission, headed by the former Financial Services chairman Sir Howard Davies, will publish a report by the end of this year on how Britain’s aviation capacity problems can be improved in the short and medium term. The commission’s final recommendations on where to build new runways in the South East won’t be delivered until 2015.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10093446/Its-Heathrow-or-nothing-for-airlines.html

Related Telegraph Articles

.


.

Read more »