Heathrow Expansion Consultation

[JMK]

Whilst there was a previous post with regards to aircraft noise (http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,44985,page=1)this post has now been lounged

Since then, the government consultation with regards to expansion of Heathrow over the next 20 years has commenced and runs until 27 February 2008

There are two areas which, from a reading of the Executive Summary, appear to have a direct impact on noise pollution in this area relating to (i) ending of alternation (ii) possible third run way which would have flights taking off eastwards and exiting over south east london

The net effect of both of these would likely be to increase the levels of noise pollution from aircraft which will have a negative effect on the quality of life in this part of London.

The previous thread indicated that people had a mixed view as to the current levels of aircraft noise pollution

Personally, I believe it is much too high and I don't subscribe to the view put forward by some people that they're willing to put up with it on the basis it's much worse if you live in Hounslow/Richmond/Putney/Fulham etc....

There are many reasons why in my view such an expansion is unwarranted and many of these go beyond the scope of noise pollution in this area of London (risks of concentration of UK economy in SE England/questionable economic benefits, particularly given the high level of transit passengers/strain on public services etc...)

Irrespectively, this is an important opportunity for all people to put forward their views with regards to something that affects us all and to date appears not to have been highlighted on this forum.

I note that neither our local MP nor council have anything on their websites with regards to this consultation despite the material implications it has for the well being of their respective constituents/council tax payers

[LostThePlot]

So does this consultation look at the interests if those living to the west of Heathrow, or is this all a bit NIMBY-ish?

Sorry, but so long as we travel overseas then surely we have to accept those consequences? Personally, the noise levels are barely perceptable, and there are other matters in the area that need attention before we put our efforts to worrying about plane noise.

[Mr Bojangles]

Thanks for the post

I think the noise is worse than SW london although it may be worse cause I'm on top of a hill. I think you get used to it but its still v loud and seems to go on all day (save for about 4 hours in the night). People who stay really notice the noise.

I can't believe it is going to get worse.

[lozzyloz]

As LTP said "so long as we travel overseas then surely we have to accept those consequences." So if aircraft are unavoidable then surely we should petition for them to be more entertaining in the skies above us. Formation flying, stunts, low fly past, trail smoke in different colours etc. Imagine, 7 Airbus 380's in a flying V trailing smoke in red, white and blue, then the lead peels of to do a loop the loop whilst the remaining do barrel rolls. Good value too for the passengers on no frills flights.

[snorky]

I fully accept that my travelling has a downside, thats the way things work - this will get publicity as the wealthier are going to feel the brunt of it - if this affected the scummers in Tower hamlets or Dagenham say, then there would be a great deal less fuss.

(see also extension of congestion charge & mooted larger vehicle charges within zone)

[LostThePlot]

lozzyloz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As LTP said "so long as we travel overseas then

> surely we have to accept those consequences." So

> if aircraft are unavoidable then surely we should

> petition for them to be more entertaining in the

> skies above us. Formation flying, stunts, low fly

> past, trail smoke in different colours etc.

Spot on.!

[mamafeelgood]

pleased to see people taking a big issue seriously. the expansion of heathrow is ridiculous, it's about making more money for baa etc... are there any reasons why expansion of gatwick is not undertaken before adding more terminals and traffic at heathrow?

thanks for letting me know about the consultation.

[Mr Bojangles]

But isn't the expansion to cope with (and also to make Heathrow more attractive to ) International transit travellers which makes more money for BAA et al. I'm sure that if it was just people going on holiday it wouldn't be quite so bad.

Obviously, there is a downside to (i) being an international city and (ii) being able to travel abroad but that doesn't necessarily mean that we shouldn't give a rat's a*se about the consequences of this. For example, flight paths should avoid (where possible) densely populated areas which includes rich and poorer areas. This isn't NIMBYISM its about making sure that the quality of life of londoners isn't slowly eroded further.

It's important that the interest of londoners be taken into account when considering the heathrow expansion

[SeanMacGabhann]

Bottom line is:

No matter what decision is made SOMEONE is going to lose out.

A consultation excercise is going to be useful to flush out the interested parties and examine the different permutations but you can't appease every interested party (some of which overlap on the Venn diagram). As a society we do want our cake and eat it and we are NOT very good at being told "no". To anything.

You don't need to live in a major city to have to accomodate flight path noise - airports everywhere are expanding. A small village in rural Devon is no guarantee of peace and quiet.

I love travelling but have taken the decision to avoid airports whereever possible. As I'm being herded around I feel much like I suspect a cow does when it's about to be taken to the slaughter. I don't mean I'm going to be killed, just a feeling in my bones about what life will be like in the future

[LostThePlot]

mamafeelgood Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> pleased to see people taking a big issue

> seriously. the expansion of heathrow is

> ridiculous, it's about making more money for baa

> etc... are there any reasons why expansion of

> gatwick is not undertaken before adding more

> terminals and traffic at heathrow?

>

So, to make my point again, is it OK to expand Gatwick then? So long as we don't have the noise? Someone has to suffer, it's the way, with flight, that society has developed.

[snorky]

LostThePlot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> mamafeelgood Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > pleased to see people taking a big issue

> > seriously. the expansion of heathrow is

> > ridiculous, it's about making more money for

> baa

> > etc... are there any reasons why expansion of

> > gatwick is not undertaken before adding more

> > terminals and traffic at heathrow?

> >

>

> So, to make my point again, is it OK to expand

> Gatwick then? So long as we don't have the noise?

> Someone has to suffer, it's the way, with flight,

> that society has developed.

exactly.

One issue campaigns are usually driven by a vested interested iniatially

See also CafE Nero petition on LL

[david_carnell]

LostThePlot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> mamafeelgood Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > pleased to see people taking a big issue

> > seriously. the expansion of heathrow is

> > ridiculous, it's about making more money for

> baa

> > etc... are there any reasons why expansion of

> > gatwick is not undertaken before adding more

> > terminals and traffic at heathrow?

> >

>

> So, to make my point again, is it OK to expand

> Gatwick then? So long as we don't have the noise?

> Someone has to suffer, it's the way, with flight,

> that society has developed.

In 1979 an agreement was reached with the local council not to expand further before 2019, but recent proposals to build a second runway suitable for large jets at Gatwick led to protests about increased noise and pollution and demolition of houses and villages. The government has now decided to expand Stansted and Heathrow but not Gatwick. Gatwick's owners, BAA, have published a new consultation which includes a possible second runway south of the airport, but leaves the villages of Charlwood and Hookwood, north of the airport, intact.

It is not as simple as merely flying the planes in a different direction to avoid heavily populated areas. Wind direction is the major factor.

It is worth noting though, that Heathrow is a cock-up from start to finish. Built in the 1950s in is so poorly designed, with the terminals in the middle, that all future expansion makes the problem worse. The entry tunnel is evidence of the lack of foresight in planning. The way to build airports is with the terminals at the edge of the site not the middle.

What any government with balls should have done is demolish the whole lot and start again. Except not in the same place. Whislt initially this appears madness it makes sense. Build a brand-new airport on an artificial island in the Thames Estuary with high speed links to central London enabling planes to take off and land over the North Sea thus eliminating noise pollution and ensuring a higher number of night flights.

See here for a project site map

The massive amounts of land that Heathrow occupies is then sold off to developers for much-needed housing.

It would, by all accounts, be almost cost neutral within a decade of completion. Alas, it's too late. As always, Britain has failed to build anything exciting or original and goes for the conservative option.

[EDmummy]

I HATE AIRCRAFT NOISE - but knew it was part of the deal when I moved to East Dulwich - Concorde was flying overhead when we first saw the garden in the house we bought! Like many others, I am not keen to have the air noise pollution increased where I live but not sure how much petitioning I do personally will make a difference. All I know is that that the next house I buy will be somewhere without a flight path overhead and no plans for one in the future - know anywhere on the globe that this place may be???

[Sue]

I find the plane noise in East Dulwich very bad, but I guess that's because I don't have double glazing.

If I wake up in the middle of the night, once the planes start, I can't get back to sleep again.

And you can hear them approaching in the distance long before they go over here, with the noise steadily increasing.

I can put up with it when sitting in the garden, but not when trying to sleep (td)

I first moved here sixteen years ago, and it wasn't anything like so bad then.

[mamafeelgood]

didn't mean to upset anyone about gatwick. i just happen to have lived most of my life way closer to heathrow and am still shocked at the noise people near airports accept as normal. i don't wish that noise on anyone and apologise to the people of gatwick, indeed anyone who has to suffer the 4 a.m. rumble of a boeing anouncing the start of a regular flow all day.

personally on this one i'm an idealist hippy who, like with car use, hopes that the problem will go away. but i know it won't.

[lozzyloz]

d_c that project map looks very interesting. Do you think it is truly feasible within the next 50 years (my estimated time left on this planet)? How much will it cost? Assuming the Olympics wont give much change out of ?20bn then I would expect this to cost around ?200bn. Where will the funding come from? Even if half of it was privately financed I'd prefer that the investment was made in our public transport infrastructure, not relocating Heathrow.

This might also clash with the proposed London Array wind farm, not to mention a severe depression in the West London economy that depends on Heathrow and disruption to the businesses that have relocated out of London along the A4/M4.

If it's a given that air travel will not diminish, then more pressure needs to be put squarely onto the operators and manufacturers to work towards tougher targets to reduce emmissions and noise not how to further drain public resources.