HRA AGAINST HEATHROW EXPANSION
Following is from the no 3rd runway coalition - repeated here - how can our government continue to support this proposed expansion in the face of the remarks shown below?
On 10th June 2019 I wrote an email as follows to Theresa May;
Dear Theresa,
Welcome back as our Maidenhead MP who is now more free to fight for the interests of local residents.
Before you became prime Minister, your website displayed much about your stance against Heathrow Expansion.
As you will know the Local Borough Council is also against it.
Will you now please resurrect your opposition and make clear in Parliament that you support the RBWM Borough Council in opposing Heathrow Expansion
Sincerely,
Andrew Cormie
She replied as below;
The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
HOUSE OF COMMONS
2nd July 2019
Dear Mr Cormie,
Thank you for contacting me about Heathrow expansion.
The Government's decision to support a new runway at Heathrow is a significant step for the UK, a
major boost for the national economy and is of vital importance for local businesses in the
Maidenhead area. Heathrow Airport expansion is a central part of the Government's plan to build a
global Britain and an economy that works for everyone.
This will be the first full length runway in the south-east since the Second World War, which I believe
sends a very clear message that this country is open for business. Forecasts show that by the mid-
2030s all five of London's major airports will be at full capacity. Expanding Heathrow will not only
improve connectivity in the UK itself, but will also better connect the UK to long haul destinations
in growing world markets, boosting trade and creating tens of thousands of local jobs.
The Airports National Policy Statement took into account public and industry feedback. The
Government took action to ensure local communities and the environment are protected including a
legally enforceable ban on scheduled night flights for 6.5 hours and a world class package of up to
£2.6 billion of compensation and mitigation measures to help those most affected by expansion.
Development consent will only be granted if the Government is satisfied that UK air quality
obligations are not breached.
Last week Heathrow Airport opened a consultation on their expansion proposals. I would encourage
you to partake to ensure your views are noted. Details of the consultation can be found at the following
website: www.heathrowconsultation.com
In your email you refer to my past opposition to Heathrow expansion plans. I support the expansion
of Heathrow as the current proposal (northwest runway) is a fundamentally different one to the
scheme put forward by the previous Government in 2009, with a world class package of supporting
measures including environmental and noise protections and a more generous compensation package
for the local community.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me on this important issue.
Yours sincerely,
The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Dear Theresa,
Welcome back as our Maidenhead MP who is now more free to fight for the interests of local residents.
Before you became prime Minister, your website displayed much about your stance against Heathrow Expansion.
As you will know the Local Borough Council is also against it.
Will you now please resurrect your opposition and make clear in Parliament that you support the RBWM Borough Council in opposing Heathrow Expansion
Sincerely,
Andrew Cormie
She replied as below;
The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
HOUSE OF COMMONS
2nd July 2019
Dear Mr Cormie,
Thank you for contacting me about Heathrow expansion.
The Government's decision to support a new runway at Heathrow is a significant step for the UK, a
major boost for the national economy and is of vital importance for local businesses in the
Maidenhead area. Heathrow Airport expansion is a central part of the Government's plan to build a
global Britain and an economy that works for everyone.
This will be the first full length runway in the south-east since the Second World War, which I believe
sends a very clear message that this country is open for business. Forecasts show that by the mid-
2030s all five of London's major airports will be at full capacity. Expanding Heathrow will not only
improve connectivity in the UK itself, but will also better connect the UK to long haul destinations
in growing world markets, boosting trade and creating tens of thousands of local jobs.
The Airports National Policy Statement took into account public and industry feedback. The
Government took action to ensure local communities and the environment are protected including a
legally enforceable ban on scheduled night flights for 6.5 hours and a world class package of up to
£2.6 billion of compensation and mitigation measures to help those most affected by expansion.
Development consent will only be granted if the Government is satisfied that UK air quality
obligations are not breached.
Last week Heathrow Airport opened a consultation on their expansion proposals. I would encourage
you to partake to ensure your views are noted. Details of the consultation can be found at the following
website: www.heathrowconsultation.com
In your email you refer to my past opposition to Heathrow expansion plans. I support the expansion
of Heathrow as the current proposal (northwest runway) is a fundamentally different one to the
scheme put forward by the previous Government in 2009, with a world class package of supporting
measures including environmental and noise protections and a more generous compensation package
for the local community.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me on this important issue.
Yours sincerely,
The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
From https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-theresa-may-we-will-end-uk-contribution-to-climate-change-by-2050
We see (Red text highlighted here as being paticularly relevant to Heathrow Expansion)
Published 12 June 2019
Last updated 19 June 2019 — see all updates
From:
Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street, The Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, and The Rt Hon Theresa May MP The Prime Minister has today announced that the UK will eradicate its net contribution to climate change by 2050.
The statutory instrument to implement this will be laid in Parliament today, Wednesday 12 June. This will amend the Climate Change Act 2008.
Theresa May will also meet young science and engineering students today to discuss the ambitious new target, which is based on advice from independent experts: the Committee on Climate Change.
The UK already leads the world in tackling climate change, and Government commissioned this advice in October having recognised the need to go even further to limit its effects.
In its report, the Committee on Climate Change forecast significant benefits to public health and savings to the NHS from better air quality and less noise pollution, as well as improved biodiversity.
This legislation will mean that the UK is on track to become the first G7 country to legislate for net zero emissions, with other major economies expected to follow suit. But it is imperative that other major economies follow suit. For that reason, the UK will conduct a further assessment within 5 years to confirm that other countries are taking similarly ambitious action, multiplying the effect of the UK’s lead and ensuring that our industries do not face unfair competition.
For the first time, young people will have the chance to shape our future climate policy through the Youth Steering Group. The Group, set up by DCMS and led by the British Youth Council, will advise Government on priorities for environmental action and give a view on progress to date against existing commitments on climate, waste and recycling, and biodiversity loss. They will start their review in July.
Prime Minister Theresa May said:
As the first country to legislate for long-term climate targets, we can be truly proud of our record in tackling climate change. We have made huge progress in growing our economy and the jobs market while slashing emissions.
Now is the time to go further and faster to safeguard the environment for our children. This country led the world in innovation during the Industrial Revolution, and now we must lead the world to a cleaner, greener form of growth.
Standing by is not an option. Reaching net zero by 2050 is an ambitious target, but it is crucial that we achieve it to ensure we protect our planet for future generations.
Whilst it will be for future governments to determine the precise direction of future climate policy, the Committee on Climate Change acknowledge that we have laid strong foundations through our Clean Growth Strategy and taken action to tackle climate change across key sectors of the economy identified by the report.
Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Greg Clark said:
We want to continue our global leadership and that’s why we are introducing a legally binding net zero target to end the UK’s contribution to global warming entirely by 2050. The report we commissioned from the Committee on Climate Change makes clear that we have laid the foundations to achieve a net zero emissions economy, and that it is necessary and feasible.
Almost 400,000 people are already employed in the low-carbon sector and its supply chains across the country. Through our modern Industrial Strategy we’re investing in clean growth to ensure we reap the rewards and create two million high quality jobs by 2030.
The UK is already a centre for clean growth and innovation. Low carbon technology and clean energy contribute £44.5 billion to our economy every year. We are ending the sale of new diesel and petrol cars and vans through our world-leading Road to Zero Strategy, and protecting biodiversity and promoting sustainability through our 25 Year Environment Plan.
Businesses, academics and people across society have endorsed the advice from the Committee on Climate Change. Welcoming the announcement, Dame Carolyn Fairbairn DBE, CBI Director-General, said:
UK business stands squarely behind the Government’s commitment to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. This legislation is the right response to the global climate crisis, and firms are ready to play their part in combating it.
Climate leadership can drive UK competitiveness and secure long-term prosperity. This legislation must be followed by a commitment to long-term policies that support decarbonisation across the economy.
Some sectors will need clear pathways to enable investment in low-carbon technologies, and it is vital that there is cross-government coordination on the policies and regulation needed to deliver a clean future.
We will retain the ability to use international carbon credits. Using international credits within an appropriate monitoring, reporting and verification framework is the right thing to do for the planet, allowing the UK to maximise the value of each pound spent on climate change mitigation.
We will continue to work with our international partners to tackle climate change, including through our bid to host COP26.
Here is a link to the Committee on Climate Change's reports re Heathrow;
www.theccc.org.uk/?s=Heathrow
For those of you who are against any expansion of Heathrow Airport, you can download recent (July 2019) news below.
| heathrow_statutory_consultation_hacan_briefing.pdf |
| take_off_july_2019.pdf |
In 1988 Edward Palmer Thompson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._P._Thompson wrote a science fiction book titled "The Sykaos Papers". ISBN 0-7475-0117-3.
I found parts of it relevant to the mis-use of Planet Earth by us humans.
The theme is that an alien civilization whose world (Oitar) is dying is looking for a planet to colonize. They have found Earth, which they call "Sykaos", whose sun they call "Strim". They have located their exploring team on our Moon and one alien, (named Oi Paz) flies down to study Sykaos without landing. But he crash-lands and after some adventures is eventually recognised by us humans as an alien (he has a similar appearance to us), and is imprisoned whilst being studied and languages being mutually learnt. I will not spoil the book further by telling the whole story, but it seems to me that the following passage, written by Oi Paz as one of his reports to his world is very appropriate in describing the current state of our planet due to its mismanagement by us humans.
In the text, Oitarians are referred to as human. We Sykaons are referred to as "mortals" or "man". In the text I comment in italics within [ ] brackets. A few areas I think very appropriate are underlined.
First, at an earlier part of the book, whilst flying down to Earth, Oi Paz records;
Poor, fragile little planet, I thought. And yet how favoured, how very greatly favoured, amidst all the immensity of visited and unvisited space.
It seemed to him that if it should be inhabited by intellectual beings they could not fail to be harmonious within such harmony of elements. The truth shocked him. How could such noisesome, graceless beasts so closely resemble the humans of Oitar and carry on in this higgledy fashion?
Oi Paz's report begins here;
There is no planet in the discovered universe so temperate as is Sykaos, nor more hospitable to life. Yet nothing of this astonishing fortune is owing to intelligence or design. It arises from the occurrence of things, a congruence of benign factors which no computer could predict, a coincidence of accidental favours which only the infinitude of time and space could allow. The eco-system of Sykaos does not lie within the arc of probability, it is a random occurrence at possibility's farthest edge.
Examine probability. As our Colleges have construed, among the multitude of known stars only one in 240 are constituted as solar systems with planets in their orbits. Our space travellers have passed by red giants, inchoate nebulae, brown dwarfs, and have skirted flaring supernovae. Several of our craft have been drawn into the black holes of decaying systems. Yet only rarely have they encountered solar systems poised at the azimuth of their span, with attendant planets bathed in the benign solar winds of the sun's corona.
And when such systems have been found, how many have been the disappointments of our explorers! How often have our Colleges received the reports: the planets, barren rocks, pitted with the infraction of meteorites; the dimensions or density too slight to retain any atmosphere; the surface glaciated in a frozen cape of nitrogen; or great gaseous globes, turbulent with ammonia, helium, hydrogen, methane, outpourings of sulphur dioxide.
In 3,000 years of exploring, of all the solar systems visited by our explorers, none has proved worthy of plantation, unless in the ultimate emergency. Few planets evinced the emergence of life-forms, and these were mostly of primitive kinds - as methane-ingesting bacteria and tube-worms infesting muds of hydrogen sulphide. On four planets it is true that communicant creatures were found, yet these were in atmospheres in which helium or ammonia were predominant. The founders of the science of stellanthropology endured great hazards in their field studies, working from within the protection of oxygen cabins. None of these planets could ever have been made habitable.
The solar system of Strim includes eleven planets, of which two (the outermost) have not yet been detected by the primitive instruments of Sykotic astronomers. Sykaos is the third in orbit from its sun. It flies through space as if obedient to the programme of some Original Goodness, within a narrow band of shelter from the extremities of fire and ice. Had the planet's orbit been one Sykaos `degree' further from its sun, then all its surface would have been frozen to temperatures lower than Oitar's poles. Had the orbit been five degrees closer to its sun, then all its melt would have boiled.
The greater part of the planet is covered - and sometimes to a great depth - with molten water, so that it is indeed a hydrosphere, three quarters of the surface being oceans or ice, one quarter being settled crust.
Sykotic books aver that the poles of the planet are capped with ice, which advances or retreats with the seasons. And this was confirmed by our observatories on its moon. Great stretches of these ice-bound regions could be made habitable with some works of engineering, for they are much like the great plains of Oitar. Yet the Sykaans despise them as unfit for mortal dwelling, and prefer to cluster in unimaginable density in a few favoured temperate zones. In these zones, there is a perpetual circulation of weather which bears water from the oceans to fall as rain upon the land, replenishing the rivers and lakes which lie along the crust. This cycle performs all the supports of life without the intervention of any design or skill, and the mortals describe the occurrence of things as the work of `Nature' or `God'.
As it is with the hydrosphere, so it is with the atmosphere. For the entire globe is protected within a gaseous cloud or layer whose elements are benign to life. There was a brief point of geological equipoise on Oitar also, in primordial times, when the world [Oitar] enjoyed such a balance of happenstance, enabling the first flowers of life and of civilisation to blow. And in the swill of those ancient oceans there was a generation of life in algaes and planktons which acted like an atmospheric plant, digesting carbon dioxide and throwing out oxygen as waste - from which the atmosphere became benign, and life crawled out of the oceans on to the land.
If the sequence was such, then Sykaos is now at that moment of genial self-sustaining equipoise which Oitar briefly passed through some half a billion years ago. And the ecosphere enjoys, within most delicate margins, all the conditions for the fulfilment of civilised life. For the abundant vegetation of this little planet continually replenishes the oxygen in the atmosphere. And the equilibrium of things is even finer than that. For the diminution of carbon dioxide [from the very high level aeons ago] has enabled the planet's surface to remain cool despite an increase in the heat of their sun, by which reason the oceans are stable and do not evaporate, but circulate their moisture as weather in the hydrosphere: for the density of the planet's magnetosphere is just sufficient to afford a compulsion which holds the gases to cling about its surface. An even finer balance is found in the prismatoidal shield of a thin layer of ozone in the upper atmosphere, which absorbs the noxious ultraviolet pulses of the solar wind without the need for the absorbent defences of our domes. Which shield they are busy puncturing with their acids and effluents, so that it is now in peril. [having cut back on that for some years it s now happening again]
Such an equilibrium can be of only the briefest geological duration, which could pass into disorder with any divergence from the norm or alien intrusion. For the precious atmosphere is so thin an envelope of vapours that it seems only a filament lying upon the oceans and land, to be torn away by any natural event, such as the impact of an asteroid or a flux in the solar wind. And the balance of things is so precarious now that the highest of the planet's little mountains (no more than three ersts in elevation) rise into zones where the oxygen count is too rare to support human life; and even in the temperate zones the smallest hills are swept with winds and may be covered with snow although the plains beneath them bask in radiant sun.
LIFE FORMS
Life is of recent evolution on the planet, yet it has already passed through several cycles of development, and has assumed forms more various and more copious than any known in our primordial past. There is a book in this coop [Oi Paz's prison] which declaims that there are now more than 250,000 species of vegetation surviving on this planet and over 10,000 species of animal: but I discard this as Sykotic boasting. Yet the number of forms is undoubtedly very great (as Oi Paz has observed) and the number of extinguished species even greater.
In Sykotic computation of years they suppose that the first life-forms emerged four billion Sykaos years ago. These forms existed only in the oceans, and the emergence of life on to the land and the evolution of chloroplasts and of vegetation capable of photosynthesis is a very recent event.
Three hundred million years ago great regions of the land were made up of swampy forests, populated by scaly creatures of the build of large dragons. This is the greater portion of the history of life on the planet, and these dragon-like creatures were the most successful known, enduring for some two hundred million Sykaos years. (The present dominant species — Sykotic mortals or `man' — has existed for only one-hundredth of that time.)
In the past seven hundred million Sykaos years there have been nine great extinction events, although whether by the impact of asteroids or the cooling of the oceans or the eruption of dust and ashes out of Sykaos's core is uncertain. But the crust of this planet is intermixed with immense deposits of the organic relics of extinguished life-forms, sometimes as shell-like islands or chalky hills, sometimes as great veins of minerals or coals from the forests of the past, sometimes as organic oils, all of which ancient inheritance the present dominant species is burning and destroying with such haste that the product of one million years of life may be consumed in a single year. [A Report from the International Resource Panel, part of the UN Environment Programme states that in 1970, about 22 billion tons of primary materials were extracted from the Earth. These included metals, fossil fuels like coal, and other natural resources, such as timber and cereals. In 2010, that number had ballooned to 70 billion tons.]
All of the mammalian species are of very recent evolution, and in the history of life of this planet they may be seen as trials or brief experiments, soon to be extinct and to give way to fresh trials. And the most recent in evolution is the species `man', which bears a likeness to the physical constitution of humans, although deprived of human spiritual faculties. It must be evident to any human observer that this species also is a botched experiment, whose dead-line for extinction may indeed hap at any moment.
The failure of the species `man' arises from this paradox: evolving within a hospitable and bountiful environment, which afforded no species-threat, they have supposed that the resources of life-support were provided for them effortlessly, as if from the decree of some benign Goodness who would bestow upon them water, sunlight, air and foodstuffs throughout eternity. From this, profound consequences flow, for they have not taken the first steps to manage the ecosphere with prudence, nor to replenish the resources of nature. The very bounty of this temperate planet has bred them into feckless ways, so that mortal culture now affords no place of purchase for Obedience to the Rule - [Oitar is run by Artificial Intelligence and all are subject to strict control to conform to the Rule] nay, it is fragmented into as many identities as there are living specimens, and each one of these many millions posits its own need as an "I". [A selfish individual] So that the species-consciousness blows about the planet like great clouds of dust, swirling this way and that in pursuit of innumerable individual wants and needs.
Since the dead-line of the species is now so close, there might be no need to go on with this bosh. But there is more and worse to it than that. For the species is now symbiotic with the planet, which symbiosis has passed within the last few generations into a parasitic form, so that the dust-cloud of mortality threatens to obscure the planet's sun. And this is said, not just as a trope, but as a literal thing. For the species is polluting the atmosphere with smokes, gases and acids, which, circulating in the hydrosphere, descend again on land and poison the vegetation of distant regions. It is tipping noxious wastes and effluents into the lakes and oceans. It is consuming the oils, carbons and mineral resources of the planet, so that within a generation or two of their brief species-life some scarce reserves will be utterly exhausted. It is hastening the extinction of species of flora and fauna which might serve our needs and which we might regulate to new perfections. In its feckless greed, its lack of any species-planning or duty to the future, in its uncontrolled proliferation of population and its thoughtless satisfaction of each immediate appetite, it has exhausted whole regions of the planet, tainted the soil and seas with chemicals, felled immense forests which can no longer replenish the oxygen of the support-system, and reduced luxuriant lawns of grasses to deserts.
In short, wherever one goes upon the surface of the planet, this odious species is at work, hacking down trees, killing beasts more sentient than they, burning up oils, casting open the rocks and soils, planting their hideous swarming nests upon the genial fields, polluting water and air, and devising new disasters. So that this hospitable ecosphere is now threatened with destruction, not from some natural cause, as a flux in the solar winds or the impact of an asteroid, but from the restless and self-centred appetites of its own dominant species. [Recall that this was written in 1988, and now in 2023 Planet Earth is in a worse state]
CONCLUSION
The planet is in all respects adapted to our immediate colonisation and regulation to the Rule.
In all respects - save one. The damaging and Sykaos-threatening activities of its dominant species, man, must be brought to an end. Even if this were to be effected today, we should still for several generations have many labours to perform in cleansing oceans, lands and air.
Since the species is self-programmed to extinction, no scruple need concern us if we should find it advisable to advance by a little the species' dead-line. (In doing so we would undoubtedly save from extinction a number of more noble and serviceable species.) [We are indeed killing off many such as whales, polar bears, walruses, fish] Yet it may be that our Gracious Goodnesses [Oitar is ruled by Artificial Intelligence computers referred to as "Gracious Goodnesses"] will prefer some experimental interim: as, for example, the segregation of a diminished number of the species into reservations, under the strictest tutelage and rule. There might even be experiments in Sper-insemination and breeding with selected hostesses of the species, from which a higher sort of sentient butler might result. [On Oitar, butlers are an apelike species used as slaves - Oitar is not perfect]
However, in bringing the species within the Rule we are faced with one most serious problem. Our mission has arrived at Sykaos a generation too late. For in the past generation or two their scientists have fallen upon the secrets of primitive nuclear fission.
Such powers ought never to be commanded by creatures which live without the Rule. Let us only suppose that butlers, without appointed captains, should somehow get some anti-matter nodules into their paws! Yet the havoc that would hap would flow out of their unprogrammed confusion and not from foul intent. How much more life-endangering are such powers when commanded by the species man, whose malevolent nature is such that they turn every force into an engine of destruction!
In several great regions of the planet segments of the species are already preparing `wars' against other segments, and plan to detonate huge nuclear explosions upon the other parties. This will fulfil the logic of the evolution of the species, and will perhaps be the apt terminus of its self-extinction. [And we now from 24 February 2022 have the demon Putin inflicting his miseries on the world]
Yet such an outcome would endanger also the Rule. For Sykaos offers one obstacle to human colonisation. The youthful planet still harbours elements of radioactive decay, in the rocks of its crust, its magma and its core. And some small radiation of cosmic rays passes into its atmosphere. Hence the natural background radiation, which they count in `roentgens', is already several times the level found on Oitar, and is close to the upper-most limit which the human corpse can tolerate.
Every passing day these unnecessary creatures are making some small addition to this sum, with crude constructions designed to harness the nuclear force as a source of power; with spillages and wastes; or by testing their poisonous engines of war. So that even now the background radiation in some parts of the planet has surpassed the limits of tolerance. If the background count were to rise by as little as seven of their roentgens, then the prospect of our plantation must be closed.
Imagine, then, the consequences of a nuclear war between some segments of this species! In an instant the radiation level would overshoot the threshold. Indeed, it is published in their newses that all this is well known to their sciences, and that such an exchange of nuclear engines might so pollute the atmosphere as to bring to extinction all mammalian species and render the planet uninhabitable for millennia.
From all that has been declaimed we must reach the following conclusions:
1 A precondition for the colonisation of Sykaos must be the prevention of a nuclear war between any segments of the species.
2 The beastly nature of the species is such that these creatures are to be expected to unleash nuclear detonations not only against each other but even against our own first settlers. Precautions must be taken against this event.
3 The species is not accessible to reason and knows no awe of the Rule.
4 The species can be regulated only by fear, greed or lust.
5 Our settlers must therefore first enter by stealth; or must throw the whole species into a trance; or must send in advance an embassy to subdue them by pandering to their greeds.
In the remote hope of delivery from this keep, and of escaping back to humankind, Oi Paz will meditate upon a Plan.
I found parts of it relevant to the mis-use of Planet Earth by us humans.
The theme is that an alien civilization whose world (Oitar) is dying is looking for a planet to colonize. They have found Earth, which they call "Sykaos", whose sun they call "Strim". They have located their exploring team on our Moon and one alien, (named Oi Paz) flies down to study Sykaos without landing. But he crash-lands and after some adventures is eventually recognised by us humans as an alien (he has a similar appearance to us), and is imprisoned whilst being studied and languages being mutually learnt. I will not spoil the book further by telling the whole story, but it seems to me that the following passage, written by Oi Paz as one of his reports to his world is very appropriate in describing the current state of our planet due to its mismanagement by us humans.
In the text, Oitarians are referred to as human. We Sykaons are referred to as "mortals" or "man". In the text I comment in italics within [ ] brackets. A few areas I think very appropriate are underlined.
First, at an earlier part of the book, whilst flying down to Earth, Oi Paz records;
Poor, fragile little planet, I thought. And yet how favoured, how very greatly favoured, amidst all the immensity of visited and unvisited space.
It seemed to him that if it should be inhabited by intellectual beings they could not fail to be harmonious within such harmony of elements. The truth shocked him. How could such noisesome, graceless beasts so closely resemble the humans of Oitar and carry on in this higgledy fashion?
Oi Paz's report begins here;
There is no planet in the discovered universe so temperate as is Sykaos, nor more hospitable to life. Yet nothing of this astonishing fortune is owing to intelligence or design. It arises from the occurrence of things, a congruence of benign factors which no computer could predict, a coincidence of accidental favours which only the infinitude of time and space could allow. The eco-system of Sykaos does not lie within the arc of probability, it is a random occurrence at possibility's farthest edge.
Examine probability. As our Colleges have construed, among the multitude of known stars only one in 240 are constituted as solar systems with planets in their orbits. Our space travellers have passed by red giants, inchoate nebulae, brown dwarfs, and have skirted flaring supernovae. Several of our craft have been drawn into the black holes of decaying systems. Yet only rarely have they encountered solar systems poised at the azimuth of their span, with attendant planets bathed in the benign solar winds of the sun's corona.
And when such systems have been found, how many have been the disappointments of our explorers! How often have our Colleges received the reports: the planets, barren rocks, pitted with the infraction of meteorites; the dimensions or density too slight to retain any atmosphere; the surface glaciated in a frozen cape of nitrogen; or great gaseous globes, turbulent with ammonia, helium, hydrogen, methane, outpourings of sulphur dioxide.
In 3,000 years of exploring, of all the solar systems visited by our explorers, none has proved worthy of plantation, unless in the ultimate emergency. Few planets evinced the emergence of life-forms, and these were mostly of primitive kinds - as methane-ingesting bacteria and tube-worms infesting muds of hydrogen sulphide. On four planets it is true that communicant creatures were found, yet these were in atmospheres in which helium or ammonia were predominant. The founders of the science of stellanthropology endured great hazards in their field studies, working from within the protection of oxygen cabins. None of these planets could ever have been made habitable.
The solar system of Strim includes eleven planets, of which two (the outermost) have not yet been detected by the primitive instruments of Sykotic astronomers. Sykaos is the third in orbit from its sun. It flies through space as if obedient to the programme of some Original Goodness, within a narrow band of shelter from the extremities of fire and ice. Had the planet's orbit been one Sykaos `degree' further from its sun, then all its surface would have been frozen to temperatures lower than Oitar's poles. Had the orbit been five degrees closer to its sun, then all its melt would have boiled.
The greater part of the planet is covered - and sometimes to a great depth - with molten water, so that it is indeed a hydrosphere, three quarters of the surface being oceans or ice, one quarter being settled crust.
Sykotic books aver that the poles of the planet are capped with ice, which advances or retreats with the seasons. And this was confirmed by our observatories on its moon. Great stretches of these ice-bound regions could be made habitable with some works of engineering, for they are much like the great plains of Oitar. Yet the Sykaans despise them as unfit for mortal dwelling, and prefer to cluster in unimaginable density in a few favoured temperate zones. In these zones, there is a perpetual circulation of weather which bears water from the oceans to fall as rain upon the land, replenishing the rivers and lakes which lie along the crust. This cycle performs all the supports of life without the intervention of any design or skill, and the mortals describe the occurrence of things as the work of `Nature' or `God'.
As it is with the hydrosphere, so it is with the atmosphere. For the entire globe is protected within a gaseous cloud or layer whose elements are benign to life. There was a brief point of geological equipoise on Oitar also, in primordial times, when the world [Oitar] enjoyed such a balance of happenstance, enabling the first flowers of life and of civilisation to blow. And in the swill of those ancient oceans there was a generation of life in algaes and planktons which acted like an atmospheric plant, digesting carbon dioxide and throwing out oxygen as waste - from which the atmosphere became benign, and life crawled out of the oceans on to the land.
If the sequence was such, then Sykaos is now at that moment of genial self-sustaining equipoise which Oitar briefly passed through some half a billion years ago. And the ecosphere enjoys, within most delicate margins, all the conditions for the fulfilment of civilised life. For the abundant vegetation of this little planet continually replenishes the oxygen in the atmosphere. And the equilibrium of things is even finer than that. For the diminution of carbon dioxide [from the very high level aeons ago] has enabled the planet's surface to remain cool despite an increase in the heat of their sun, by which reason the oceans are stable and do not evaporate, but circulate their moisture as weather in the hydrosphere: for the density of the planet's magnetosphere is just sufficient to afford a compulsion which holds the gases to cling about its surface. An even finer balance is found in the prismatoidal shield of a thin layer of ozone in the upper atmosphere, which absorbs the noxious ultraviolet pulses of the solar wind without the need for the absorbent defences of our domes. Which shield they are busy puncturing with their acids and effluents, so that it is now in peril. [having cut back on that for some years it s now happening again]
Such an equilibrium can be of only the briefest geological duration, which could pass into disorder with any divergence from the norm or alien intrusion. For the precious atmosphere is so thin an envelope of vapours that it seems only a filament lying upon the oceans and land, to be torn away by any natural event, such as the impact of an asteroid or a flux in the solar wind. And the balance of things is so precarious now that the highest of the planet's little mountains (no more than three ersts in elevation) rise into zones where the oxygen count is too rare to support human life; and even in the temperate zones the smallest hills are swept with winds and may be covered with snow although the plains beneath them bask in radiant sun.
LIFE FORMS
Life is of recent evolution on the planet, yet it has already passed through several cycles of development, and has assumed forms more various and more copious than any known in our primordial past. There is a book in this coop [Oi Paz's prison] which declaims that there are now more than 250,000 species of vegetation surviving on this planet and over 10,000 species of animal: but I discard this as Sykotic boasting. Yet the number of forms is undoubtedly very great (as Oi Paz has observed) and the number of extinguished species even greater.
In Sykotic computation of years they suppose that the first life-forms emerged four billion Sykaos years ago. These forms existed only in the oceans, and the emergence of life on to the land and the evolution of chloroplasts and of vegetation capable of photosynthesis is a very recent event.
Three hundred million years ago great regions of the land were made up of swampy forests, populated by scaly creatures of the build of large dragons. This is the greater portion of the history of life on the planet, and these dragon-like creatures were the most successful known, enduring for some two hundred million Sykaos years. (The present dominant species — Sykotic mortals or `man' — has existed for only one-hundredth of that time.)
In the past seven hundred million Sykaos years there have been nine great extinction events, although whether by the impact of asteroids or the cooling of the oceans or the eruption of dust and ashes out of Sykaos's core is uncertain. But the crust of this planet is intermixed with immense deposits of the organic relics of extinguished life-forms, sometimes as shell-like islands or chalky hills, sometimes as great veins of minerals or coals from the forests of the past, sometimes as organic oils, all of which ancient inheritance the present dominant species is burning and destroying with such haste that the product of one million years of life may be consumed in a single year. [A Report from the International Resource Panel, part of the UN Environment Programme states that in 1970, about 22 billion tons of primary materials were extracted from the Earth. These included metals, fossil fuels like coal, and other natural resources, such as timber and cereals. In 2010, that number had ballooned to 70 billion tons.]
All of the mammalian species are of very recent evolution, and in the history of life of this planet they may be seen as trials or brief experiments, soon to be extinct and to give way to fresh trials. And the most recent in evolution is the species `man', which bears a likeness to the physical constitution of humans, although deprived of human spiritual faculties. It must be evident to any human observer that this species also is a botched experiment, whose dead-line for extinction may indeed hap at any moment.
The failure of the species `man' arises from this paradox: evolving within a hospitable and bountiful environment, which afforded no species-threat, they have supposed that the resources of life-support were provided for them effortlessly, as if from the decree of some benign Goodness who would bestow upon them water, sunlight, air and foodstuffs throughout eternity. From this, profound consequences flow, for they have not taken the first steps to manage the ecosphere with prudence, nor to replenish the resources of nature. The very bounty of this temperate planet has bred them into feckless ways, so that mortal culture now affords no place of purchase for Obedience to the Rule - [Oitar is run by Artificial Intelligence and all are subject to strict control to conform to the Rule] nay, it is fragmented into as many identities as there are living specimens, and each one of these many millions posits its own need as an "I". [A selfish individual] So that the species-consciousness blows about the planet like great clouds of dust, swirling this way and that in pursuit of innumerable individual wants and needs.
Since the dead-line of the species is now so close, there might be no need to go on with this bosh. But there is more and worse to it than that. For the species is now symbiotic with the planet, which symbiosis has passed within the last few generations into a parasitic form, so that the dust-cloud of mortality threatens to obscure the planet's sun. And this is said, not just as a trope, but as a literal thing. For the species is polluting the atmosphere with smokes, gases and acids, which, circulating in the hydrosphere, descend again on land and poison the vegetation of distant regions. It is tipping noxious wastes and effluents into the lakes and oceans. It is consuming the oils, carbons and mineral resources of the planet, so that within a generation or two of their brief species-life some scarce reserves will be utterly exhausted. It is hastening the extinction of species of flora and fauna which might serve our needs and which we might regulate to new perfections. In its feckless greed, its lack of any species-planning or duty to the future, in its uncontrolled proliferation of population and its thoughtless satisfaction of each immediate appetite, it has exhausted whole regions of the planet, tainted the soil and seas with chemicals, felled immense forests which can no longer replenish the oxygen of the support-system, and reduced luxuriant lawns of grasses to deserts.
In short, wherever one goes upon the surface of the planet, this odious species is at work, hacking down trees, killing beasts more sentient than they, burning up oils, casting open the rocks and soils, planting their hideous swarming nests upon the genial fields, polluting water and air, and devising new disasters. So that this hospitable ecosphere is now threatened with destruction, not from some natural cause, as a flux in the solar winds or the impact of an asteroid, but from the restless and self-centred appetites of its own dominant species. [Recall that this was written in 1988, and now in 2023 Planet Earth is in a worse state]
CONCLUSION
The planet is in all respects adapted to our immediate colonisation and regulation to the Rule.
In all respects - save one. The damaging and Sykaos-threatening activities of its dominant species, man, must be brought to an end. Even if this were to be effected today, we should still for several generations have many labours to perform in cleansing oceans, lands and air.
Since the species is self-programmed to extinction, no scruple need concern us if we should find it advisable to advance by a little the species' dead-line. (In doing so we would undoubtedly save from extinction a number of more noble and serviceable species.) [We are indeed killing off many such as whales, polar bears, walruses, fish] Yet it may be that our Gracious Goodnesses [Oitar is ruled by Artificial Intelligence computers referred to as "Gracious Goodnesses"] will prefer some experimental interim: as, for example, the segregation of a diminished number of the species into reservations, under the strictest tutelage and rule. There might even be experiments in Sper-insemination and breeding with selected hostesses of the species, from which a higher sort of sentient butler might result. [On Oitar, butlers are an apelike species used as slaves - Oitar is not perfect]
However, in bringing the species within the Rule we are faced with one most serious problem. Our mission has arrived at Sykaos a generation too late. For in the past generation or two their scientists have fallen upon the secrets of primitive nuclear fission.
Such powers ought never to be commanded by creatures which live without the Rule. Let us only suppose that butlers, without appointed captains, should somehow get some anti-matter nodules into their paws! Yet the havoc that would hap would flow out of their unprogrammed confusion and not from foul intent. How much more life-endangering are such powers when commanded by the species man, whose malevolent nature is such that they turn every force into an engine of destruction!
In several great regions of the planet segments of the species are already preparing `wars' against other segments, and plan to detonate huge nuclear explosions upon the other parties. This will fulfil the logic of the evolution of the species, and will perhaps be the apt terminus of its self-extinction. [And we now from 24 February 2022 have the demon Putin inflicting his miseries on the world]
Yet such an outcome would endanger also the Rule. For Sykaos offers one obstacle to human colonisation. The youthful planet still harbours elements of radioactive decay, in the rocks of its crust, its magma and its core. And some small radiation of cosmic rays passes into its atmosphere. Hence the natural background radiation, which they count in `roentgens', is already several times the level found on Oitar, and is close to the upper-most limit which the human corpse can tolerate.
Every passing day these unnecessary creatures are making some small addition to this sum, with crude constructions designed to harness the nuclear force as a source of power; with spillages and wastes; or by testing their poisonous engines of war. So that even now the background radiation in some parts of the planet has surpassed the limits of tolerance. If the background count were to rise by as little as seven of their roentgens, then the prospect of our plantation must be closed.
Imagine, then, the consequences of a nuclear war between some segments of this species! In an instant the radiation level would overshoot the threshold. Indeed, it is published in their newses that all this is well known to their sciences, and that such an exchange of nuclear engines might so pollute the atmosphere as to bring to extinction all mammalian species and render the planet uninhabitable for millennia.
From all that has been declaimed we must reach the following conclusions:
1 A precondition for the colonisation of Sykaos must be the prevention of a nuclear war between any segments of the species.
2 The beastly nature of the species is such that these creatures are to be expected to unleash nuclear detonations not only against each other but even against our own first settlers. Precautions must be taken against this event.
3 The species is not accessible to reason and knows no awe of the Rule.
4 The species can be regulated only by fear, greed or lust.
5 Our settlers must therefore first enter by stealth; or must throw the whole species into a trance; or must send in advance an embassy to subdue them by pandering to their greeds.
In the remote hope of delivery from this keep, and of escaping back to humankind, Oi Paz will meditate upon a Plan.
In the 35 years since Thompson wrote his book the human race has continued to destroy Planet Earth!
Latest letters to the Maidenhead Advertiser - including up to the 16th August 2018 issue. Mention made in one about CO2 from aeroplanes. Be aware also that airlines, like ships, pay no tax on their fuel.
|
|
Following letter from Paul Groves sent to Advertiser for 19th July Issue
LEGAL CHALLENGE AGAINST HEATHROW IS GOOD NEWS
I was very pleased to see the Royal Borough joining others in its legal challenge to a Heathrow third runway.
And your report about "Runway support" (July 12, p28) shows that The Maidenhead & District Chamber of Commerce along with others have been hoodwinked by Heathrow Airport Ltd, its shareholders and huge promotional spend.
Heathrow Airport is owned mainly by foreign Chinese, Qatari, Singaporean, Spanish and Canadian investors, who last year were sent £800m in dividends, whilst over the previous 10 years Heathrow paid only £24m in corporation tax to HMRC. They have spent many millions promoting their case for a 3rd runway, in order to gain increased dividends.
Heathrow's jobs projections for West London and the Thames Valley, and around the country are wildly exaggerated. Whilst the Department for Transport and Government have progressively analysed and downgraded the expected economic benefit of a 3rd Runway by around 60% from that projected by the Howard Davies commission in 2015, Heathrow continue to claim an economic benefit for the country even higher than that projected originally by Davies and more than 3 times the current DfT figure. Heathrow’s jobs promises for the country come from the flimsy 4 page “Quod” report that Heathrow commissioned in 2015, which was based on these Davies total economic projections and which are 3 times that most recently forecast by the DfT.
Meanwhile in seeking approval to build Terminal 5, Heathrow promised 6,000 new jobs however, in the time since, the total number employed at Heathrow has declined from around 79,000 to around 76,000, a reduction of around 3,000. At the time of T5 approval Sir John Egan, Chairman of BAA, from whom the current foreign owners purchased Heathrow, stated twice boldly in writing that they “will never need a 3rd Runway” and that “local residents should be assured of this fact”.
They just cannot be believed.
Following the recent parliamentary vote. many residents are pleased to hear the resolve of 5 councils, RBWM, Hillingdon, Richmond, Wandsworth, and recently joined by Hammersmith & Fulham, the Mayor of London and Greenpeace to continue and pursue their legal challenge over the matter. Some may think that the £150,000 committed by RBWM to this action is large, however it amounts to only £3 per household in the borough, to save the huge cost, disruption, additional noise, pollution and congestion for us in the Thames Valley and West London of a 3rd runway.
Transport for London have estimated that the additional public cost for infrastructure, moving the M25, A4 and much else could be as much as £15bn, and most public infrastructure projects end up 2 times or more their initial budget. Cases in point are Eurotunnel which the Government (i.e. you and me) had to pick up and complete, the Olympics which cost twice the initial budget and HS2 which is already almost twice the initial budget and they haven't yet put a spade in the ground.
If the public infrastructure cost of a third runway were only £10bn, then that amounts to a cost of £400 for every household across the country, and it is likely to be much more. Much better to spend £3 per household now to save £400 or more per household across the country on a project that we neither want nor need. Much better also to develop airports, routes and capacity in the regions where they are needed rather than, as Heathrow expects, to have everyone and all freight travelling down and across the country to fly abroad via Heathrow. It is purely an exercise to increase the already large dividends paid to Heathrow's foreign shareholders at the cost, well-being and quality of life of all of us living nearby and under the flight paths. With a 3rd runway to the north of the existing 2, flights, noise and pollution will inevitably increase over Maidenhead like it is already over Windsor, but they don't want to admit this!
Paul Groves
I was very pleased to see the Royal Borough joining others in its legal challenge to a Heathrow third runway.
And your report about "Runway support" (July 12, p28) shows that The Maidenhead & District Chamber of Commerce along with others have been hoodwinked by Heathrow Airport Ltd, its shareholders and huge promotional spend.
Heathrow Airport is owned mainly by foreign Chinese, Qatari, Singaporean, Spanish and Canadian investors, who last year were sent £800m in dividends, whilst over the previous 10 years Heathrow paid only £24m in corporation tax to HMRC. They have spent many millions promoting their case for a 3rd runway, in order to gain increased dividends.
Heathrow's jobs projections for West London and the Thames Valley, and around the country are wildly exaggerated. Whilst the Department for Transport and Government have progressively analysed and downgraded the expected economic benefit of a 3rd Runway by around 60% from that projected by the Howard Davies commission in 2015, Heathrow continue to claim an economic benefit for the country even higher than that projected originally by Davies and more than 3 times the current DfT figure. Heathrow’s jobs promises for the country come from the flimsy 4 page “Quod” report that Heathrow commissioned in 2015, which was based on these Davies total economic projections and which are 3 times that most recently forecast by the DfT.
Meanwhile in seeking approval to build Terminal 5, Heathrow promised 6,000 new jobs however, in the time since, the total number employed at Heathrow has declined from around 79,000 to around 76,000, a reduction of around 3,000. At the time of T5 approval Sir John Egan, Chairman of BAA, from whom the current foreign owners purchased Heathrow, stated twice boldly in writing that they “will never need a 3rd Runway” and that “local residents should be assured of this fact”.
They just cannot be believed.
Following the recent parliamentary vote. many residents are pleased to hear the resolve of 5 councils, RBWM, Hillingdon, Richmond, Wandsworth, and recently joined by Hammersmith & Fulham, the Mayor of London and Greenpeace to continue and pursue their legal challenge over the matter. Some may think that the £150,000 committed by RBWM to this action is large, however it amounts to only £3 per household in the borough, to save the huge cost, disruption, additional noise, pollution and congestion for us in the Thames Valley and West London of a 3rd runway.
Transport for London have estimated that the additional public cost for infrastructure, moving the M25, A4 and much else could be as much as £15bn, and most public infrastructure projects end up 2 times or more their initial budget. Cases in point are Eurotunnel which the Government (i.e. you and me) had to pick up and complete, the Olympics which cost twice the initial budget and HS2 which is already almost twice the initial budget and they haven't yet put a spade in the ground.
If the public infrastructure cost of a third runway were only £10bn, then that amounts to a cost of £400 for every household across the country, and it is likely to be much more. Much better to spend £3 per household now to save £400 or more per household across the country on a project that we neither want nor need. Much better also to develop airports, routes and capacity in the regions where they are needed rather than, as Heathrow expects, to have everyone and all freight travelling down and across the country to fly abroad via Heathrow. It is purely an exercise to increase the already large dividends paid to Heathrow's foreign shareholders at the cost, well-being and quality of life of all of us living nearby and under the flight paths. With a 3rd runway to the north of the existing 2, flights, noise and pollution will inevitably increase over Maidenhead like it is already over Windsor, but they don't want to admit this!
Paul Groves
Most of the content of this page was written in 2017, but now in January 2018 we have had leaflets distributed by Heathrow Airport, (NOT BY GOVERNMENT) inviting us to attend "Consultation Events". The nearest to us to be at Sportsable, Braywick Sports Ground, on 8th February from 12pm to 8pm.
On their leaflet we read that "the government announced that a new north west runway is its preferred scheme for the expansion of airport capacity in the South East."
This is true, but it is not a decision. Government is still considering the responses to its own official consultations.
Responses to the Heathrow Consultation DO NOTHING BUT ASSIST HEATHROW.
Anyone not wishing to have Heathrow Expansion would be best not to bother wasting their time on this - unless to plainly say that we do not want it.
Further down in this page you can see that there is one huge expense for which we taxpayers would have to pay, which is less expensive if Gatwick were to expand than if Heathrow did.
That is road infrastructure building and operations and maintenance.
**** The Highways England document at this link;
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/562063/airports-commission-surface-access-works-strategic-road-network-proposals-validation-of-costs-and-delivery-assumptions.pdf
Whose title is;
Airports Commission Surface Access Works
Strategic Road Network Proposals
Validation of Costs and Delivery Assumptions
tells us;
Build costs for Heathrow roads - £3,571,000,000 - 12 times the cost for expansion at Gatwick.
Operations and Maintenance over 60 years £656,882,920 - 11.2 times the cost for expansion at Gatwick.
Do we taxpayers want to spend 12 times as much on road infrastructure at Heathrow than if the expansion were at Gatwick? No we do not. This on its own should be sufficient to make any sensible decision maker decide against Heathrow Expansion.
I show below the original text of an excellent letter to the press, published with modifications in various local newspapers around 25th January 2018, by RBWM Cllr. Malcolm Beer.
Emphasise NO Third Runway in Heathrow Consultations
Many residents will know of the never ending actions of Heathrow, the aviation industry and central government to win support for further Heathrow expansion with a third runway. The airport’s latest non statutory consultations started last week and ask for your preferences on important wide ranging alternative actions relating to their new North West Runway proposals and related flight operations.
The nearest of 40 display and information drop in sessions will start next Wednesday 31st at Ascot Racecourse, followed by Windsor Youth Centre (off Alma Road) Friday 2nd, Maidenhead Sportsable (Braywick) Thursday 8th (all midday to 8 pm) plus Wraysbury Village Hall Saturday 3rd March (10 am to 4 pm).
Responses close 23.55 pm on 29th March and will be used to support their Development Consent Order (DCO) submission for final approval if the principle of another runway is agreed by MPs in Parliament sometime in the coming months. These dates make it very important to state your views and concerns to Heathrow, a wide range of MPs and local Councils very soon. It is hoped the latter will advise residents on local concerns and the huge pile of problems which Heathrow fails to mention.
The overstated world class mitigations will only give noise insulation assistance in the very noisiest places and noise free periods (“respite”) will be halved to only 4 hours per day.
Glaring omissions include:
How will 180,000 additional airport and related business employees and their families be housed – plus the residents of the 3,500 houses in the communities which will be erased for the runway? An Airports Commission report stated that 70,400 more houses, 5,000 in every Borough across the area, would be needed for the new employees, when there is already an area wide housing crisis and lack of space to build over 14,000 homes already needed in Windsor and Maidenhead.
The additional employees and their families will add to school and health facility stresses, road and rail congestion.
The hollow promise of 50 to 60% of many more passengers and employees travelling by bus or train is unrealistic as despite current efforts with fewer people seldom more than 30% have used public transport. The proposed link to and increased services on SW Rail are impracticable as increased closed time of level crossings and more trains too long for station platforms would increase road chaos. Doubling airport freight traffic will do the same.
Will there really be only 10,000 apprenticeships, or the 4,000 recently stated, to run this complex safety focussed industry - where the need to operate at least one runway in “Mixed Mode” (with high frequency simultaneous landings and take offs to equalise the number of movements) the current numbers of aborted landings and risks will be increased.
How on earth could the depleted construction industry build facilities for 54% more flights and their passengers, replace hotels, refugee resettlement centres and buried services along the demolished Bath Road plus the high tech Grundon Energy from Waste facility at the same time as the millions of new dwellings promised by the Government?
Will Heathrow pay for all of its part of the above, off airport road and rail alterations and upgrades including safely widening the M25 and the M4 Chiswick flyover which are already gridlocked hours every day, plus the six lane road tunnel beyond the M4 near the Hammersmith flyover which Highways England say will be necessary?
At present Heathrow says we will have to pay (up to £20billion) out of our taxes!
The ridiculous website proposal that a borrow pit to take gravel from Old Windsor’s Ham Island over its narrow bridge and village roads to raise the runway over the M25 and afterwards fill with waste material suggests that the relocating or compensating nearly 50 riverside households and the large sewage works which serves the whole Windsor area has not been considered – and casts serious doubts on the whole consultation.
Have Heathrow and the Government taken into account that a three runway Heathrow while others have only one runway would recreate the monopoly which existed before BAA (the British Airports Authority, former owner of Heathrow) was ordered to sell Gatwick, Stansted and other airports by a previous government Monopolies Commission to ensure much needed competition for the airlines and travelling public?
It should be noted that the disputed claim of a circa £60billion financial benefit to the nation is spread over 60 years and does not account for the enormous counter costs above and disruption to many businesses and millions of people.
What faith can be put into any promise that a fourth runway would never be sought after previous ones that T4 would be the last and another runway would never be needed when T5 was allowed? The “unexpected increased demands” excuse for even more extensions will inevitably arise again if R3 is allowed and the forecast capacity is reached by 2040.
Heathrow’s promise of huge benefits to businesses and residents with more flights to regional airports is not realistic as the airlines determine where they fly to, not the airport. In fact the number of such connections has reduced in recent years, probably due to the growing logical preference for direct flights as their numbers grow and avoid the hassle of time consuming hub interchange flights.
All of this emphasises that Heathrow is not the right place for increased airport facilities and a North Midlands location would be a far better location to promote GB plc instead of shortsightedly exacerbating the universally harmful North / South Economic and Social Divide.
In conclusion, it is absolutely essential that respondents state in the first box of the Consultation Response Form whether they support or oppose the expansion with their main reasons. The preferences which you might give should be expressly stated as being relevant only in the unfortunate event of the proposal being approved, to avoid being added to the number of supporters. This is very important as some believe that to have happened with the biased airport funded Back Heathrow Campaign which misguidedly stated that the airport would have to close if it could not expand.
Malcolm Beer,
Old Windsor Residents Association Cllr.,
Many residents will know of the never ending actions of Heathrow, the aviation industry and central government to win support for further Heathrow expansion with a third runway. The airport’s latest non statutory consultations started last week and ask for your preferences on important wide ranging alternative actions relating to their new North West Runway proposals and related flight operations.
The nearest of 40 display and information drop in sessions will start next Wednesday 31st at Ascot Racecourse, followed by Windsor Youth Centre (off Alma Road) Friday 2nd, Maidenhead Sportsable (Braywick) Thursday 8th (all midday to 8 pm) plus Wraysbury Village Hall Saturday 3rd March (10 am to 4 pm).
Responses close 23.55 pm on 29th March and will be used to support their Development Consent Order (DCO) submission for final approval if the principle of another runway is agreed by MPs in Parliament sometime in the coming months. These dates make it very important to state your views and concerns to Heathrow, a wide range of MPs and local Councils very soon. It is hoped the latter will advise residents on local concerns and the huge pile of problems which Heathrow fails to mention.
The overstated world class mitigations will only give noise insulation assistance in the very noisiest places and noise free periods (“respite”) will be halved to only 4 hours per day.
Glaring omissions include:
How will 180,000 additional airport and related business employees and their families be housed – plus the residents of the 3,500 houses in the communities which will be erased for the runway? An Airports Commission report stated that 70,400 more houses, 5,000 in every Borough across the area, would be needed for the new employees, when there is already an area wide housing crisis and lack of space to build over 14,000 homes already needed in Windsor and Maidenhead.
The additional employees and their families will add to school and health facility stresses, road and rail congestion.
The hollow promise of 50 to 60% of many more passengers and employees travelling by bus or train is unrealistic as despite current efforts with fewer people seldom more than 30% have used public transport. The proposed link to and increased services on SW Rail are impracticable as increased closed time of level crossings and more trains too long for station platforms would increase road chaos. Doubling airport freight traffic will do the same.
Will there really be only 10,000 apprenticeships, or the 4,000 recently stated, to run this complex safety focussed industry - where the need to operate at least one runway in “Mixed Mode” (with high frequency simultaneous landings and take offs to equalise the number of movements) the current numbers of aborted landings and risks will be increased.
How on earth could the depleted construction industry build facilities for 54% more flights and their passengers, replace hotels, refugee resettlement centres and buried services along the demolished Bath Road plus the high tech Grundon Energy from Waste facility at the same time as the millions of new dwellings promised by the Government?
Will Heathrow pay for all of its part of the above, off airport road and rail alterations and upgrades including safely widening the M25 and the M4 Chiswick flyover which are already gridlocked hours every day, plus the six lane road tunnel beyond the M4 near the Hammersmith flyover which Highways England say will be necessary?
At present Heathrow says we will have to pay (up to £20billion) out of our taxes!
The ridiculous website proposal that a borrow pit to take gravel from Old Windsor’s Ham Island over its narrow bridge and village roads to raise the runway over the M25 and afterwards fill with waste material suggests that the relocating or compensating nearly 50 riverside households and the large sewage works which serves the whole Windsor area has not been considered – and casts serious doubts on the whole consultation.
Have Heathrow and the Government taken into account that a three runway Heathrow while others have only one runway would recreate the monopoly which existed before BAA (the British Airports Authority, former owner of Heathrow) was ordered to sell Gatwick, Stansted and other airports by a previous government Monopolies Commission to ensure much needed competition for the airlines and travelling public?
It should be noted that the disputed claim of a circa £60billion financial benefit to the nation is spread over 60 years and does not account for the enormous counter costs above and disruption to many businesses and millions of people.
What faith can be put into any promise that a fourth runway would never be sought after previous ones that T4 would be the last and another runway would never be needed when T5 was allowed? The “unexpected increased demands” excuse for even more extensions will inevitably arise again if R3 is allowed and the forecast capacity is reached by 2040.
Heathrow’s promise of huge benefits to businesses and residents with more flights to regional airports is not realistic as the airlines determine where they fly to, not the airport. In fact the number of such connections has reduced in recent years, probably due to the growing logical preference for direct flights as their numbers grow and avoid the hassle of time consuming hub interchange flights.
All of this emphasises that Heathrow is not the right place for increased airport facilities and a North Midlands location would be a far better location to promote GB plc instead of shortsightedly exacerbating the universally harmful North / South Economic and Social Divide.
In conclusion, it is absolutely essential that respondents state in the first box of the Consultation Response Form whether they support or oppose the expansion with their main reasons. The preferences which you might give should be expressly stated as being relevant only in the unfortunate event of the proposal being approved, to avoid being added to the number of supporters. This is very important as some believe that to have happened with the biased airport funded Back Heathrow Campaign which misguidedly stated that the airport would have to close if it could not expand.
Malcolm Beer,
Old Windsor Residents Association Cllr.,
FOLLOWING FROM "THE TIMES" 27 January 2018
BUSINESS COMMENTARY
by Alistair Osborne
Heathrow on flight path to nowhere
Britain has achieved many things over the past 50 years. But few can match not building a third runway at Heathrow. We’ve been at it since 1968, ever since Harold Wilson set us off on our flight path to nowhere. And still no third landing strip: a remarkable achievement by any standards.
We’re having another go now. And guess what? After half a century on the job and enough documents to fill a fleet of A380s, Heathrow still doesn’t even know where to put its new runway. The best it can offer is three options, with “length varying from between 3,200 and 3,500 metres”. Moreover, that’s just the most glaring key fact missing from Heathrow’s latest consultation paper, the 70-pager apparently giving you the “opportunity to have your say to help shape the emerging proposals”.
Yes, “emerging”. In fact, so many crucial details are still up in the air that it’s hard to spot what the ten-week consultation is consulting on — a point driven home by Wednesday’s parliamentary debate, secured by Lib Dem leader Sir Vince Cable, MP for Twickenham.
Apart from the multiple choice runway location, there are three possible sites for a new terminal, a smorgasbord of potential taxiways and some gobbledegook about “realigning” the M25. Having noticed that the “M25 is one of the busiest roads in the UK”, Heathrow says it “will ensure that our proposals do not result in disruption”.
So how does it square that with this? “Our current thinking is to reposition the M25 carriageway by approximately 150 metres to the west, lower it by approximately seven metres into a tunnel and raise the runway height by three to five metres so that it passes over the M25 between J14a and J15.” Nothing disruptive about any of that.
What about costs? Heathrow has magically got the cost of the runway down from an initial £17.6 billion to £14 billion. But it’s not just Sir Vince who’s troubled by Transport for London’s estimate that rail and road links to handle an extra 60 million passengers a year, plus tons more freight, will cost £18 billion. “Where that will come from is one of the big unanswered questions,” he told MPs. Heathrow is offering only £1 billion towards it, even if it disputes TfL’s figures.
Two other crucial issues — illegal air quality and noise — get no more than platitudes. And partly because of one vast hole in the consultation. Because the location of the runway isn’t fixed, no one knows where the new flight paths will be. As Ruth Cadbury, Labour MP for Brentford and Isleworth, put it in the debate: “What is clear in the Heathrow consultation is what is not clear; so little is said . . . If it is not yet possible to map the detailed impact on local communities, what is the point of consulting right now?”
Indeed, 50 years on, Heathrow still reckons it’s at such an “early stage in the process” that “it is not possible to know the exact location of flight paths” — something it admits “may be frustrating”. It’ll only pin that down after a “wider programme of airspace modernisation”. And all followed by another consultation.
Yet that will come only after MPs vote later this year on the Airports National Policy Statement, the poll that determines whether the third runway goes ahead. As consultation processes go, it’s all a bit of a sham.
BUSINESS COMMENTARY
by Alistair Osborne
Heathrow on flight path to nowhere
Britain has achieved many things over the past 50 years. But few can match not building a third runway at Heathrow. We’ve been at it since 1968, ever since Harold Wilson set us off on our flight path to nowhere. And still no third landing strip: a remarkable achievement by any standards.
We’re having another go now. And guess what? After half a century on the job and enough documents to fill a fleet of A380s, Heathrow still doesn’t even know where to put its new runway. The best it can offer is three options, with “length varying from between 3,200 and 3,500 metres”. Moreover, that’s just the most glaring key fact missing from Heathrow’s latest consultation paper, the 70-pager apparently giving you the “opportunity to have your say to help shape the emerging proposals”.
Yes, “emerging”. In fact, so many crucial details are still up in the air that it’s hard to spot what the ten-week consultation is consulting on — a point driven home by Wednesday’s parliamentary debate, secured by Lib Dem leader Sir Vince Cable, MP for Twickenham.
Apart from the multiple choice runway location, there are three possible sites for a new terminal, a smorgasbord of potential taxiways and some gobbledegook about “realigning” the M25. Having noticed that the “M25 is one of the busiest roads in the UK”, Heathrow says it “will ensure that our proposals do not result in disruption”.
So how does it square that with this? “Our current thinking is to reposition the M25 carriageway by approximately 150 metres to the west, lower it by approximately seven metres into a tunnel and raise the runway height by three to five metres so that it passes over the M25 between J14a and J15.” Nothing disruptive about any of that.
What about costs? Heathrow has magically got the cost of the runway down from an initial £17.6 billion to £14 billion. But it’s not just Sir Vince who’s troubled by Transport for London’s estimate that rail and road links to handle an extra 60 million passengers a year, plus tons more freight, will cost £18 billion. “Where that will come from is one of the big unanswered questions,” he told MPs. Heathrow is offering only £1 billion towards it, even if it disputes TfL’s figures.
Two other crucial issues — illegal air quality and noise — get no more than platitudes. And partly because of one vast hole in the consultation. Because the location of the runway isn’t fixed, no one knows where the new flight paths will be. As Ruth Cadbury, Labour MP for Brentford and Isleworth, put it in the debate: “What is clear in the Heathrow consultation is what is not clear; so little is said . . . If it is not yet possible to map the detailed impact on local communities, what is the point of consulting right now?”
Indeed, 50 years on, Heathrow still reckons it’s at such an “early stage in the process” that “it is not possible to know the exact location of flight paths” — something it admits “may be frustrating”. It’ll only pin that down after a “wider programme of airspace modernisation”. And all followed by another consultation.
Yet that will come only after MPs vote later this year on the Airports National Policy Statement, the poll that determines whether the third runway goes ahead. As consultation processes go, it’s all a bit of a sham.
Letters Against Heathrow Third Runway ex Maidenhead Advertiser
REGARDING THE ABOVE LEFT LETTER, I GAVE THE WEBSITE URL TO MAIDENHEAD ADVERTISER BUT THEY DID NOT PUBLISH IT. IT IS SHOWN FURTHER DOWN THIS PAGE AT THE ### MARK AND CAN BE DOWNLOADED FROM THIS SITE BY CLICKING ON THE BUTTON BELOW THAT.
Information about Heathrow Expansion
As you will probably know, especially if you have kept up with this part of the website there was a Government consultation as to whether or not Heathrow Airport should be allowed to have a 3rd Runway. The consultation ended Thursday 25th of May 2107.
As you know - the RBWM has stated, in conjunction with other Local Authorities that they object to the 3rd Runway.
The following leaflet has been produced drawing together some information to summarize reasons to object.
As you know - the RBWM has stated, in conjunction with other Local Authorities that they object to the 3rd Runway.
The following leaflet has been produced drawing together some information to summarize reasons to object.
| maidenhead_leaflet_17may17.pdf |
An internet search for "government airports-commission road network costs Heathrow" revealed a Highways England estimate of road costs for expansion of Gatwick and for Heathrow.
In that document;
On Page 20 Table 2 Gatwick build cost:
Max estimate £300 million
On Page 21 Table 3 Gatwick Operation and Maintenance cost over 60 years:
Estimate £58,585,904.
On Page 22 Table 4 Heathrow build cost:
Max estimate £3,571 million (nearly 12 times as much as Gatwick)!!!!!!!!!!!!
On Page 24 Table 5 Heathrow Operation and Maintenance cost over 60 years:
£656,882,920 over 60 years (11.2 times as much as Gatwick)!!!!!!!!!!!!
In other words Heathrow road build cost will be £3,271,000,000 more than Gatwick would be.
And Heathrow road system Operation and Maintenance costs over 60 years would be £598,297,016 more than Gatwick would be.
Clearly Gatwick development is far far cheaper than Heathrow. These costs alone should be sufficient to persuade anyone that a 3rd Runway for Heathrow must not be contemplated.
I asked Theresa May to stop the consultation on the basis of the above figures, but she merely passed it to the appropriate department who responded saying that my comments would be added to the consultation documents.
### The link to the document is;
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/562063/airports-commission-surface-access-works-strategic-road-network-proposals-validation-of-costs-and-delivery-assumptions.pdf
In case it is no longer there, the following button will deliver it;
In that document;
On Page 20 Table 2 Gatwick build cost:
Max estimate £300 million
On Page 21 Table 3 Gatwick Operation and Maintenance cost over 60 years:
Estimate £58,585,904.
On Page 22 Table 4 Heathrow build cost:
Max estimate £3,571 million (nearly 12 times as much as Gatwick)!!!!!!!!!!!!
On Page 24 Table 5 Heathrow Operation and Maintenance cost over 60 years:
£656,882,920 over 60 years (11.2 times as much as Gatwick)!!!!!!!!!!!!
In other words Heathrow road build cost will be £3,271,000,000 more than Gatwick would be.
And Heathrow road system Operation and Maintenance costs over 60 years would be £598,297,016 more than Gatwick would be.
Clearly Gatwick development is far far cheaper than Heathrow. These costs alone should be sufficient to persuade anyone that a 3rd Runway for Heathrow must not be contemplated.
I asked Theresa May to stop the consultation on the basis of the above figures, but she merely passed it to the appropriate department who responded saying that my comments would be added to the consultation documents.
### The link to the document is;
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/562063/airports-commission-surface-access-works-strategic-road-network-proposals-validation-of-costs-and-delivery-assumptions.pdf
In case it is no longer there, the following button will deliver it;
As the polls elsewhere on this site show that a majority of those who have responded are against Heathrow Expansion, I show below some relevant information.
The pictures of two leaflets following this text have been passed to me by Bray Parish Council. These leaflets are generally against Heathrow Expansion.
The second leaflet gives a link to RBWM website as follows https://www3.rbwm.gov.uk/aviation
The third one is a clip of new flight paths, as shown on the second leaflet, that are estimated to arise if Heathrow is expanded - enlarged and marked to show the new flight paths. I note in passing however, that existing flight paths vary and sometimes are close to the "new" flight paths that are shown as leading to the new runway. I believe that all of the flight paths over us are landing paths.
I expect that, like me, many Holyport and Fifield Residents, and those living on the A308 between Holyport Road and Fifield Road will not be best pleased, and I hope that all will object to Heathrow Expansion. There was a Government sponsored exhibition on 7th March 2017 at Sportsable in the Braywick sports area. I attended and can report that for those against Heathrow Expansion it was not worth visiting. For those for it, it could be a reinforcement of their ideas as to why expansion should take place.
The following is a report of another resident's experience at the exhibition;
"I attended the consultation at Sportsable. I had a heated conversation with those on the Environment stand. We are supposed to give the go ahead to the 3rd runway with no guarantees on the delivery of improvements to public transport or any visibility on flight paths. I was told this would all be consulted on once it went to the select committee with Parliament having the final say. One of the Dept of Transport representatives told me that the expansion of Gatwick was dead in the water and there was no point arguing for that anymore.
All this talk of assurances that 55% of passengers will use public transport by 2040 is nonsense. What guarantees do we have that this will be achievable? Every time I take the train to London in the morning weekday I am standing! Where is the joined up thinking with the rail providers?
There was no mention of the extra capacity coming from the Airbus 380-800 in all this which might make a 3rd runway unnecessary.
I really do believe that a lot of this is the government talking up the expansion of Heathrow in the face of Brexit to try to spin it that businesses should have confidence in the UK and its future post our exit."
I have recently looked at the following website; www.no3rdrunway.co.uk/
I recommend that those who are against Heathrow Expansion look at this and register their support against expansion. If you look at the FAQs section there is much to help in composing objections. The site also gives means to register your objection with the Transport Secretary and with our Prime Minister and MP. I wrote to Theresa May that I objected in the strongest possible terms and in line with her own objections to Heathrow Expansion before she became Prime Minister.
The following link shows a "flyer"; heathrowflightpaths.co.uk/Borough_Flyer/Windsor.pdf
The following shows map of potential flight paths; heathrowflightpaths.co.uk/images/potential.jpg
The pictures of two leaflets following this text have been passed to me by Bray Parish Council. These leaflets are generally against Heathrow Expansion.
The second leaflet gives a link to RBWM website as follows https://www3.rbwm.gov.uk/aviation
The third one is a clip of new flight paths, as shown on the second leaflet, that are estimated to arise if Heathrow is expanded - enlarged and marked to show the new flight paths. I note in passing however, that existing flight paths vary and sometimes are close to the "new" flight paths that are shown as leading to the new runway. I believe that all of the flight paths over us are landing paths.
I expect that, like me, many Holyport and Fifield Residents, and those living on the A308 between Holyport Road and Fifield Road will not be best pleased, and I hope that all will object to Heathrow Expansion. There was a Government sponsored exhibition on 7th March 2017 at Sportsable in the Braywick sports area. I attended and can report that for those against Heathrow Expansion it was not worth visiting. For those for it, it could be a reinforcement of their ideas as to why expansion should take place.
The following is a report of another resident's experience at the exhibition;
"I attended the consultation at Sportsable. I had a heated conversation with those on the Environment stand. We are supposed to give the go ahead to the 3rd runway with no guarantees on the delivery of improvements to public transport or any visibility on flight paths. I was told this would all be consulted on once it went to the select committee with Parliament having the final say. One of the Dept of Transport representatives told me that the expansion of Gatwick was dead in the water and there was no point arguing for that anymore.
All this talk of assurances that 55% of passengers will use public transport by 2040 is nonsense. What guarantees do we have that this will be achievable? Every time I take the train to London in the morning weekday I am standing! Where is the joined up thinking with the rail providers?
There was no mention of the extra capacity coming from the Airbus 380-800 in all this which might make a 3rd runway unnecessary.
I really do believe that a lot of this is the government talking up the expansion of Heathrow in the face of Brexit to try to spin it that businesses should have confidence in the UK and its future post our exit."
I have recently looked at the following website; www.no3rdrunway.co.uk/
I recommend that those who are against Heathrow Expansion look at this and register their support against expansion. If you look at the FAQs section there is much to help in composing objections. The site also gives means to register your objection with the Transport Secretary and with our Prime Minister and MP. I wrote to Theresa May that I objected in the strongest possible terms and in line with her own objections to Heathrow Expansion before she became Prime Minister.
The following link shows a "flyer"; heathrowflightpaths.co.uk/Borough_Flyer/Windsor.pdf
The following shows map of potential flight paths; heathrowflightpaths.co.uk/images/potential.jpg
The following three buttons will display PDF copies of the above that may be downloaded.
The following five buttons will display PDF copies of information from HACAN Clear Skies that may be downloaded.
Further to the above, as of 21st March 2017, having received a leaflet from the Boroughs of Hillingdon, Richmond Upon Thames, Wandsworth and RBWM all of whom are against Heathrow Expansion, I show parts of their leaflet below. It is a revision of the leaflet shown above.
In line with the comments immediately above, I also had concern about where the new flight paths will be. So I sent an email to Sir Jeremy Sullivan, the "Independent Adviser" for Heathrow Expansion. I did not expect a reply - as his website states "Sir Jeremy will not comment or respond on any issue relating to government policy on airport expansion, but will consider all comments he receives on the consultation process.".
In view of this, I copied my letter to Theresa May. However I did receive a reply from the Independent Adviser's office. I show below the email I sent, his reply and my further email.
So far as of 21st March I have had no further response.
In view of this, I copied my letter to Theresa May. However I did receive a reply from the Independent Adviser's office. I show below the email I sent, his reply and my further email.
So far as of 21st March I have had no further response.
Possible Heathrow Airport Expansion
Rod Ball, the Chairman of the Oakley Green and Fifield Residents Association, sent me the following email on 10th January 2015. As Holyport also receives its share of aircraft, and if Heathrow expands, will undoubtedly see more of them I think we should also be concerned.
"Hello All
Paul Jennings and Myself attended a meeting yesterday regarding Heathrow expansion. The Group is made up of various Windsor Councillors and Residents with WWRA representation.
The group were looking for an"expert view" to help with their anticipated response. Hopefully Paul and I were able to assist. This Response has to be in by early February. The objective is to compile a response to provide a good logical objection to the expansion of Heathrow.
In short there is to be a public meeting on Tuesday 20th January at the Windsor Racecourse for residents living to the West of Windsor. There will be 2 sessions. One at 2.30pm and another at 7.30pm. There will be publicity to confirm this.
There are many long and complicated reasons not to support the Expansion of Heathrow in my mind. We live under the flightpath and are well aware of the noise situation, not to mention pollution etc etc. Looking at this in more depth, a third runway would in my view:
1) Increase the noise problems. This is the element that would affect us most.
2) Require loss of up to 4000 homes ( need to be rehoused in the area of Heathrow)
3) Up to 40,000 new jobs? Where will they be housed? Local Plans etc....
4) Infrastructure cannot cope. Need more schools ( already overstretched), hospitals ( need I say more!), roads ( already congested).
5) Overload the Air traffic Control System ( in the SE as well as logistics at Heathrow)
6) Require elements of the Green Belt to be lost.
7) Chaotic environmental logistics with the very long term construction
Then throw in the increased health problems in the area with pollution and you have a compelling argument against any expansion. Would this provide the increase in capacity that they expect?
There are many good arguments, mostly commercial, to expand it but I will not go into them here. I am a strong supporter of retaining Heathrow but mainly as it is. A second runway at Gatwick makes more sense.
As you can see the time element is almost critical. Hence my view for us at OGFRA to back WWRA as they have done much work on this. We will hence not need to respond ourselves. They will add us as a supporter.
Try please to make one of the meetings whatever your views.
Yours
Rod"
The following button gives access to an RBWM Poll showing support for expansion at Gatwick NOT Heathrow, and following this sentence is a link for a site supporting Gatwick expansion. www.gatwickobviously.com/support
Rod Ball, the Chairman of the Oakley Green and Fifield Residents Association, sent me the following email on 10th January 2015. As Holyport also receives its share of aircraft, and if Heathrow expands, will undoubtedly see more of them I think we should also be concerned.
"Hello All
Paul Jennings and Myself attended a meeting yesterday regarding Heathrow expansion. The Group is made up of various Windsor Councillors and Residents with WWRA representation.
The group were looking for an"expert view" to help with their anticipated response. Hopefully Paul and I were able to assist. This Response has to be in by early February. The objective is to compile a response to provide a good logical objection to the expansion of Heathrow.
In short there is to be a public meeting on Tuesday 20th January at the Windsor Racecourse for residents living to the West of Windsor. There will be 2 sessions. One at 2.30pm and another at 7.30pm. There will be publicity to confirm this.
There are many long and complicated reasons not to support the Expansion of Heathrow in my mind. We live under the flightpath and are well aware of the noise situation, not to mention pollution etc etc. Looking at this in more depth, a third runway would in my view:
1) Increase the noise problems. This is the element that would affect us most.
2) Require loss of up to 4000 homes ( need to be rehoused in the area of Heathrow)
3) Up to 40,000 new jobs? Where will they be housed? Local Plans etc....
4) Infrastructure cannot cope. Need more schools ( already overstretched), hospitals ( need I say more!), roads ( already congested).
5) Overload the Air traffic Control System ( in the SE as well as logistics at Heathrow)
6) Require elements of the Green Belt to be lost.
7) Chaotic environmental logistics with the very long term construction
Then throw in the increased health problems in the area with pollution and you have a compelling argument against any expansion. Would this provide the increase in capacity that they expect?
There are many good arguments, mostly commercial, to expand it but I will not go into them here. I am a strong supporter of retaining Heathrow but mainly as it is. A second runway at Gatwick makes more sense.
As you can see the time element is almost critical. Hence my view for us at OGFRA to back WWRA as they have done much work on this. We will hence not need to respond ourselves. They will add us as a supporter.
Try please to make one of the meetings whatever your views.
Yours
Rod"
The following button gives access to an RBWM Poll showing support for expansion at Gatwick NOT Heathrow, and following this sentence is a link for a site supporting Gatwick expansion. www.gatwickobviously.com/support
The following button gives access to an Airport Watch report. From within that document, clicking on "Airportwatch Bulletin for January 2015" gives advice on how to respond to the consultation.
The following buttons give access to;
1. The HACAN publication "Take Off" for January 2015. It highlights;
A rally in London on 3rd March;
The fact that "Back Heathrow" - who claim to be "a group of residents, businesses and community groups who have come together to defend the jobs that rely on Heathrow and to campaign for its secure future" - is a limited company - at least partly funded by Heathrow Airport;
There have been unprecedented protests against Heathrow's flight path trials.
2. HACAN advice re responding to the Airports Commission public consultation RESPOND BY 3rd FEBRUARY 2015
Further - HACAN has a petition - if you want to sign it - please copy and paste the following link.
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/fair-flights-paths-for-heathrow
3. RBWM Response to the Consultation.
1. The HACAN publication "Take Off" for January 2015. It highlights;
A rally in London on 3rd March;
The fact that "Back Heathrow" - who claim to be "a group of residents, businesses and community groups who have come together to defend the jobs that rely on Heathrow and to campaign for its secure future" - is a limited company - at least partly funded by Heathrow Airport;
There have been unprecedented protests against Heathrow's flight path trials.
2. HACAN advice re responding to the Airports Commission public consultation RESPOND BY 3rd FEBRUARY 2015
Further - HACAN has a petition - if you want to sign it - please copy and paste the following link.
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/fair-flights-paths-for-heathrow
3. RBWM Response to the Consultation.