Click on image to enlarge
Filed under boris johnson, estuary airport, hoo peninsula, isle of grain, Lord Foster, Mark In Westminster, mark reckless, rochester and strood, Thames Hub, theresa villiers
I too think this idea is daft, however I also think it is dangerous to assume that it won’t happen. The Mayor seems very wedded to the idea and blind to the environmental implications, not to mention the devastating consequences for wildlife. Please keep opposing the plans, you will have my support.
Alongside the RSPB, Medway Council and a broad coalition of millions we remain wholly opposed to the construction of an airport anywhere in the Thames Estuary because of the immense damage it could cause to the area’s internationally important wildlife and the wider environment and the impact it would have on carbon emissions.
The whole issue was exhaustively investigated between 2002 and 2005 in the Government’s Aviation White Paper. All the key players, including the aviation industry, contributed. The idea of an airport in the Thames Estuary was conclusively ruled out. In addition to the unprecedented environmental damage and the resulting massive legal implications, the investigation found that an estuary airport did not make sense economically, would not meet the requirements of the aviation industry and presented a significantly higher risk of ‘bird strike’ than at any other major airport in the UK.
No matter how impressive Boris Johnson’s, Lord Foster’s or any other estuary airport plan may look the threats and the risks remain the same. An airport in the Thames Estuary is a complete non-starter ecologically, environmentally and economically, and to go through all these arguments again is a complete waste of everyone’s time.
We believe that an airport anywhere in the Thames Estuary is unacceptable because:
• Building an airport in the estuary would be an act of environmental vandalism.
• It is home to thousands of birds and welcomes hundreds of thousands more migratory species every year, with aviation industry experts estimating the likelihood of bird strike with aircraft is 12 times more likely within the estuary compared with any other UK airport.
• The estuary is unique and so large that it could not be recreated anywhere else in Europe, so mitigation is not possible.
• The argument for a massive increase in aviation capacity cannot fit with the UK Governments targets to reduce emissions.
As communities, we must never forget that thousands of people live on the Hoo Peninsula, we support the RSPB response to the big scale proposals tabled by the likes of Boris Johnson, Sir Norman Foster and others which is equally big and grandiose. It is the sustainable habitat management of our landscape along the whole Thames Estuary; called Futurescape. Creating an area where development happens sympathetically to enhance and increase the unique natural spaces of the region to benefit people and wildlife.
We will not be deterred from this goal by the fanciful imaginings of the Mayor of London, Lord Foster et al.
Ours IS the marsh country down by the river, within, as the river winds, twenty miles of the sea and We will fight any attempt to destroy our communities, our cultural heritage and our globally important wildlife sites with the utmost vigour.
We fully support you in opposing these damaging ideas
Conservation and Communities United
How can we possibly trust a Government that says there are no plans in mid-November 2011 and then instigates a consultation in mid-January 2012?! Has Nick Clegg been offering U-turn classes?
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Enter your email address to subscribe to Mark's newsletter and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 7,663 other followers
This website is not funded from Parliamentary allowances and is the responsibility of Mark Reckless