UK airport expansion threatens to take out entire villages

[webfact]

UK airport expansion threatens to take out entire villages
DANICA KIRKA, Associated Press

LONDON (AP) — With its classic red phone booth, pub, and medieval church, Harmondsworth's center looks quintessentially British. But the search for a twee English village isn't what brings millions of people within a stone's throw of its boundaries.

The attraction is neighboring Heathrow Airport, which served 73 million travelers last year. Now Europe's busiest airport is proposing to build a runway roughly through the center of town, leveling the ivy-covered brick walls of the Harmondsworth Hall guest house and two-thirds of its homes. A village that traces its history to the 6th century would be forever altered, and some argue even what's left would be uninhabitable.

"There's no compensation package that would interest me," said Neil Keveren, who chairs a local community group opposed to the expansion. "We have a historic village with buildings that go back 600 years. You cannot replace that. You cannot buy memories."

Harmondsworth is under threat because London and southeastern England need more airport capacity to meet the growing demands of business travelers and tourists. Heathrow and rival Gatwick, 30 miles (50 kilometers) south of central London, have offered competing projects that will cost as much as 18.6 billion pounds ($29.1 billion). Whichever proposal is selected, homes will be destroyed and surviving neighborhoods will have to cope with increased noise, pollution and traffic.

The issue is so toxic that politicians created an independent commission to weigh the options. Government officials then postponed a decision until after the May 7 election, effectively taking the matter off the political agenda, if but briefly.

The commission is set to make its recommendation as soon as next month. It will then be up to political leaders to make the final decision. A furious public relations battle has raged in advance, with placards all over London's subway system, for example, extolling the virtues of Heathrow or Gatwick. The commission has already rejected other options, including Mayor Boris Johnson's proposal for a new airport in the Thames Estuary.

According to the commission, all three remaining proposals, including two different plans to expand Heathrow, would meet the region's needs, though the costs and potential benefits would vary. Gatwick, for instance, would cost an estimated 9.3 billion pounds and boost Britain's gross domestic product by as much as 127 billion pounds. The most expensive Heathrow project would cost twice as much and boost GDP by up to 211 billion pounds, the commission estimates.

Making the right decision is crucial as London seeks to retain a competitive edge.

In a globalized world, airports offer the opportunity for investment bankers, lawyers, consultants and engineers to make face-to-face connections in major markets where deals are made, said John Kasarda, director of the center for air commerce at the University of North Carolina's Kenan-Flagler Business School.

"This is contact sport, particularly at the global level," Kasarda said. "This isn't done over the net."

And the ability to move — and connect — faster makes a country and its economy more competitive. Opting not to expand is a tacit acknowledgement that the government is willing to have some of those jobs go to a competitor, such as Paris, Amsterdam or Dubai.

"It's the survival of the fastest," Kasarda said. "It's no longer the big eating the small. It is the fast eating the slow."

But there is a human cost, as communities like Harmondsworth and others that might be affected know all too well.

Heathrow external relations director Nigel Milton said he understands that some people are very upset, though he claims there are residents in Harmondsworth who support the project but might not want to come forward to support the idea. He acknowledges the local impact, but said the company would offer compensation packages — even to those whose homes would not need to be leveled but who would find themselves living next to a runway.

"We believe we are being fair," he said.

Countries like Britain have struggled with the notion of balancing national gain with local pain. Harmondsworth and the nearby village of Sipson are "stylized examples of the challenge all big societies face: progress meets obstacles," said Tony Travers, a professor of government at the London School of Economics.

Britain has sought to strike a balance between growth and safeguarding its heritage, and grassroots conservation movements have grown up to protect cultural landmarks. Unlike communities such as Venice in Italy, Britain hasn't allowed beauty to hamper progress — but that doesn't mean it isn't taken into account.

"If Harmondsworth were not this beautiful village, this decision would be that much easier to make," Travers said.

Local campaigners say they've been told the latest proposal would avoid landmarks like St. Mary's Church, which traces its history to the mid-11th century and the Great Barn, a 15th century oak-framed behemoth — 192 feet long, 37 feet wide and 39 feet high — dubbed the "Cathedral of Middlesex" by the late poet laureate John Betjeman.

But opponents say the proposed runway would be so close to what's left of the village that no one would be able to stand to live there because of the noise and the bad air. In other words, there'd be a church but no congregation, said archaeological scientist Justine Bayley.

"They have no concern that they are screwing up the lives of hundreds of thousands of people for their shareholders," she said of her village and others along the flightpath and in west London who are affected by the noise.

Keveren nods. His fury is evident as he waves a 2010 election leaflet in which Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservative Party pledged to fight Heathrow expansion. Keveren says he feels deceived.

"My grandparents worked this land. I have war dead in the cemetery of the church. This is my home and if I am forced to leave here, who will it be for? Foreign investors," he said spinning with outrage. "The message I would give to the world is that the British government can be bought."


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-05-25

[jpinx]

I'd side with the residents of threatened villages. It's too easy to build a new airport in the estuary and provide a genuine high speed non-stop rail link to the other London airports and the city centre. Being in the estuary pretty much guarantees that future expansion will not be hindered by the need to destroy villages.

[aslimversgwm]

Why oh why has the Thames estuary option been so firmly rejected?

I was a member of the RSPB and I know they weren't keen because of the destruction of bird and wildlife habitat but I'm sorry - people come 1st. But I'm sure there must be other reasons. As the writer 'old hand' says a high speed rail link would solve the accessibility issues if that was the other main concern and at considerably less cost than expanding either Heathrow or Gatwick.

[Jay Sata]

Located as it is next to the airport and the motorway and sliced by the Bath Rd, I find nothing twee about the place.

It is also the site of a large immigration detention centre with constant noise from low flying aircraft.

As for citing history the UK has an abundance of the stuff along with bats,owls and rare greated crested newts which despite their so called scarcity are found every time a planning application is submitted.

This story is just a group of local NIMBYS who are found across the UK trying to stop progress.

As for the Thames estuary suggestion what is wrong with Manston? One of the longest runways in the UK it closed recently but has all the infrastructure in place already to provide releif capacity for Heathrow.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Jay Sata

[English 1]

I am all for preserving villages and their lifestyle but Harmondsworth isn't exactly Wordsworth country.

​I don't think siting a new airport in the Thames Estuary is a good option.

The fact is it's too far from London and even with a high speed train would be unpopular.

Most people get to the airport by car.

The Heathrow Express train is brilliant and just a short hop.

[Chicog]

I am all for preserving villages and their lifestyle but Harmondsworth isn't exactly Wordsworth country.

​I don't think siting a new airport in the Thames Estuary is a good option.

The fact is it's too far from London and even with a high speed train would be unpopular.

Most people get to the airport by car.

The Heathrow Express train is brilliant and just a short hop.

There is another factor....

A new airport in the Thames Estuary would be the most dangerous in the UK because of the risk of a plane being brought down by a bird strike, the government has been warned by experts.A report, commissioned by ministers the last time they considered the option of a major new hub airport on the marshes east of London, found the risk of an "aircraft loss" after being hit by one or more birds was between one plane in 100 years and one plane in 300 years - higher than any of the other 10 major UK airports studied. The high risk was calculated even after extensive work to make the area as unattractive as possible to birds, such as cutting down woodland, draining ponds, planting artificial grass and shooting birds when necessary.

[jpinx]

I am all for preserving villages and their lifestyle but Harmondsworth isn't exactly Wordsworth country.

​I don't think siting a new airport in the Thames Estuary is a good option.

The fact is it's too far from London and even with a high speed train would be unpopular.

Most people get to the airport by car.

The Heathrow Express train is brilliant and just a short hop.

Is there some contradiction here -- do most passengers use the Heathrow express or the carparks? Which is preferred?

With good design the trains could actually arrive and depart at the relevant arrivals or departures hall. With a high speed non-stop train to city centre I fail to see passengers objecting.

The lack of vision, inaccuracy of traffic forecasts and penny-pinching by successive governments has created this situation where Heathrow has now stagnated. Now is another opportunity to establish an airport in the Thames estuary which actually has a future.

[MikeOwen]

Located as it is next to the airport and the motorway and sliced by the Bath Rd, I find nothing twee about the place.

It is also the site of a large immigration detention centre with constant noise from low flying aircraft.

As for citing history the UK has an abundance of the stuff along with bats,owls and rare greated crested newts which despite their so called scarcity are found every time a planning application is submitted.

This story is just a group of local NIMBYS who are found across the UK trying to stop progress.

As for the Thames estuary suggestion what is wrong with Manston? One of the longest runways in the UK it closed recently but has all the infrastructure in place already

Totally agree , the place is a dump , you have the Bath Road one side , the M25 then the Stanwell Moor Road , and this place is stuck in the middle, they've been arguing for years over this and it will happen I'm afraid as did T5 , lets move on with this project !

[Thaimike370]

I can not understand why the British government does not use Brize Norton for extra capacity. It has a concrete runway three and a half miles long. Concord practised there for several years. It is close to the motorways and an hour from London. There are several large airfields left by the Americans such as Upper Heyford. This would also mean more jobs in those areas.

[CNXBKKMAN]

Heathrow has been held back for years and its runways are operated to full capacity. Thats why when theres a little bit of snow or bad weather the pace of the landings slows and flights have to be cancelled. Also means the airlines don't serve the UK properly with connecting flights. The slots for domestic destinations are used for long haul flights instead. IOM has no connection. Liverpool has no connection.

Can you imagine the cost of the Thames airport? UK can't do big projects with any value for money, thats if it had the imagination or will to do them in the first place. By the time the Thames airport would be complete it would be the most expensive airport in the world with the passenger paying for it all in ticket prices and GBP5 cups of tea.

The best value for money and the best thing for the UK would be to expand the current Heathrow. Get Heathrow connected with the rest of the UK and being useful to the nation.

The other "London" airports that do well out of Heathrow being held back are Paris and Amsterdam. Lots of runways and capacity for flights to anywhere in the world. These airports pick up all the flights and destinations Heathrow can't accept. Heathrow and the UK has already been left behind.