Estuary Airport Fight Update

On Saturday I joined Conservative activists, councillors and community campaigners at our Strood market stall fighting proposals for an estuary airport.

Yesterday the Sunday Times emphasised the progress we have made against this ‘pie in the sky’ concept since the Treasury’s initially worrying 29/11/11 autumn statement.

From the moment I spoke with the Prime Minister immediately after that statement to our meeting last month and in ministerial discussions, as well as making the overall case against an estuary airport, I have pressed:

  1. for more time before the government paper so as to push it from March to beyond Boris’ election and allow time for others to put their case;
  2. against the government paper promoting a specific estuary airport option in the way the last government did with ‘Cliffe’; and
  3. for the government to consider BAA proposals for a third runway at Heathrow, just as it is allowing Boris to promote his, reminding them of my success in pushing judicial review of the last government’s refusal to consider a second runway at Gatwick.

Medway Council is now rightly arguing with the strong public affairs support I recommended that there are a large basket of options for greater runway capacity for the south-east, all of which make more sense economically and environmentally than a ‘pie in the sky’ estuary airport.

When the government produces its paper we must use it to kill off any estuary airport option once and for all in favour of options which make economic and environmental sense.



Filed under boris johnson, campaigns, conservatives, david cameron, estuary airport, george osborne, justine greening, Lord Foster, mark reckless, medway, medway council, No Estuary Airport, rochester and strood, Thames Hub, theresa villiers

15 responses to “Estuary Airport Fight Update

  1. barry luxton

    no no no, build the thing. It’s called progress. Do these councillors expect us to spend the next few decades struggling upto the overcrowded heathrow, expect us to struggle around the conjested m25 and the dartford crossing checkpoint. Build the airport and the new road and rail infrastructure we need, shame on the cons acting like new labour.

    • shirley brockwell

      Poor poor you having to travel to get on a plane,so its ok to demolish peoples homes ,wreck peoples lives just so you dont have to travel,shame on you.

  2. Richard Lane

    yes I aree I want the airport built I have yet to meet anyone against it except the older generation who dont like change.We need a new airport weather these greenies like it or not.I am realy anoyed with the council and our MP who are against it.Heathrow is too overcrowded ,big names are already taking there business elsewhere because our airport is so rubbish.We need the jobs in building it and then running it.The Richard Montgomery is a laughable excuse do they think the planes wil acccidently land on top of it.I lived on Isle of Grain for 12 years it never bothered me.Oh and i dont think the planes will accidently bump in to the power station chimneys these modern aircraft ore so up to date they dont realy need pilots I wonder what the next excuse the greenies will have not to build it .As for it being to expensive ,so what we can always find money for wars just use that money.

  3. I hope the airport is NOT built here. Picture the scene if it were to be…

    Within weeks (months if they’re very lucky) an aeroplane would be brought down owing to bird strike. It’s bound to happen, and unless one or more of the commenters here knows something that the chief of National Air Traffic Services (NATS) doesn’t, it’ll happen soon and often.

    Confidence in the new airport would vanish – especially as everyone was warned of this plenty of times – and airlines fearful for their safety reputations and records would be certain to move their traffic elsewhere in the interests of commercial survival.

    Thus the project cannot possibly succeed, so there is no point in anyone pursuing it. To do so within Government would be political suicide for minister(s) involved in the decision.

    Anyone who claims that technology can overcome the bird strike issue will have a hard job of explaining why, in that case, it still.happens to this day at existing major airports that have all the latest tech’.

    • jaybee

      john…..complete scaremongering tosh…….LTGLOBAL…the future

      • johnwardmedway

        Oh, I see: so you think you know better than THE most authoritative voice in the nation, the head of NATS, who has publicly stated that this is “the worst place” to put an airport.

        Unless you can authoritatively PROVE he is wrong and you know better, the source of “tosh” will be shown to be you, jaybee. No exceptions, no excuses: “put up or shut up”, as the saying goes.

    • barry luxton

      yup, birds and planes do use airspace, i grant you that John. However all airports have thier own methods for keeping the two apart, why is the estuary plan any different. Whats one of the first things they do once permission is granted, yup risk acessments. An excuse why not as opposed to why.
      The richard montgomery is quietly rotting away by the way. That’s what wrecks do and has been doing so for the last 70 years. Cargo hold after cargo hold collapsing, bomb after bomb rotting through. It’s got a huge tide washed scour around it, so you can’t use the tide as an excuse, nigel farage, please note. If anything the tide is helping to rot it. Why is it any more dangrous now than when it first sank. If the excuse put up that it is dangrous, why is kent building more houses,flats to cram a few more in to this dangerous place? Shame on ya’s.

  4. Pingback: Estuary Airport Fight Update « Rochester and Strood Conservatives

  5. barry luxton

    Don’t suppose we can have a referendum can we? Although I note the cons are scared of the ordinaries opinions, when it suits.

  6. jaybee

    john….I’ll put up……I will send you a response from John Deakin (NATS)

    • jaybee

      John… put up or shut up

      • johnwardmedway

        Why should I shut up, though? My stance remains exactly as before: don’t put the ‘planes where the birds are. Your idea places the airport well away from the birds’ grounds, unlike those we have been considering ever since 2002. In that respect, yours could have been in (say) Skegness for all the relevance it has to the original argument.

    • Thanks for the material. that looks interesting and well done for the “think different” approach. It might even be ‘safe’ over there, although it would of course need careful planning of approach and departure paths (and holding loops) to avoid the danger zone(s).

      I shall certainly keep all that you sent me on permanent file and watch this idea with interest to see if it gets anywhere once the review commences.

  7. shirley brockwell

    I think it a load of old tosh,how many more times are we going to have to put up with the government putting us forward for the airport just to make the numbers up,to show they are considering all options when they know we will not be getting an airpot here,,,i do not want an airpot here and to be blunt,do you really think we are going to be able to live here if it is ,,,the infrastructure needed would demolish most of the houses and villages on the peninsular,and would probably end up with kent being an extension of london ,so no i do not want the airport here and quite rightly so, why should we have to loose all our family and friends we have grown up with and sell our properties at a loss,this isn’t saying not in my backyard,i do not think we need anymore airports just use what we have already manston ect already their and they would welcome the work.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s