This was a significant (although not decisive) factor in my choice of party in the last election.

But how do you get around the bird strike issue here? You can't kill all the birds (the odd international treaty removes that option) the birds migrate there so that's another thing they would have to sort out. There's the tonnes of explosives sitting on the WW2 wreck that could go off and is too unstable to attempt removal. So even assuming all that can be accomplished what do you suppose will be the time frame to achieve it, I'd guess we'd be talking at least tens of years to do that? Then you've got to do all the legal stuff (planning applications etc.) before we even get close to construction time which will take another X years. So what are we supposed to do for the next XX years, I mean it makes a decade for a third runway looks like a very quick solution.

"Conservative party admits it was wrong on the airport. "

My £250k was well-spent :)

In addition to:

Fog
Wrong side of London
Bad for M4 corridor industry
Unfair for Thames estuary residents who, unlike those near LHR, have not chosen to live next to a major airport

So what did Sam cook you for lunch as you whispered into Dave's ear?

I hope so.....but very much doubt it.

It is now three years since the government announced wheel clamping on private land would be outlawed. Here we are in 2012 and the "Chequers" in Woodley and their criminal partners are still making a killing out of the motorists' misery! Taxi drivers in Portsmouth still won't take you within 100 yards of the Gunwharf - even if you are chronically disabled - because they have been getting clamped while the passenger fumbles about looking for change.

The Government, and the LapDog Alliance, in the UK are a sick joke!

I live on Sheppey and the Montgomery (the wreck) comes up quite a bit in local conversation - it's a great unknown in terms of the damage it'd do if it went up. Some say it'd just shatter a few windows, others say it'd submerge half of the Isle. Hopefully we won't find out!

Locally I'd say it's around 80% against versus 20% in favour of a nearby airport. There's a heck of a lot of infrastructure that would be needed to support it though; the 2-lane 1960s M2 would have to be massively upgraded for a start, as would the other local roads. Not to mention all the faff of building houses, industrial estates and all the other ancilliary businesses that surround airports the size of Heathrow.
(Remember that the widest motorway in the country is just west of Heathrow, the 6-lanes-each-way M25).

Maybe in the long term, but getting something sorted sooner rather than later means a third runway at Heathrow is more likely to get the go ahead IMO.

For those who've not seen it, the Government has a document listing all the proposals for an Estuary airport since the 1940s - along with the (recurring) reasons why decisions went against them.

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04920

PS - I love the way that concept diagram manages to make one of the UK's largest LPG importing terminals (plus storage tanks) vanish! It must be magic...

1. Birdstrikes

No more of an issue than is the case at other similarly busy airports. If a cull was deemed necessary, the National interest should overrule a treaty and legal negotiations undertaken to vary the terms. Technology is going some way to giving more warning about birdstrike danger, as well as getting better at scaring them off.

2. The Montgomery Wreck Ordnance

The wreck has lain adjacent to one of the busiest international sea lanes for decades. There's divided opinion as to how powerful any explosion might be - even if it's still capable of exploding. Should a controlled explosion be necessary, it's not as if the UK/QinetiQ is exactly new to remotely extracting and making safe bombs. We have enormous expertise in this area.

3. Fog

Other airports manage. Again, technology is the solution here.

4. Wrong Side of London

All depends on speed and convenience of transport links attached to the scheme; developing this underused land area and making it accessible would be a huge boon to the economy - just as developing Canary Wharf was in the 1980s. The hugely valuable land on which LHR is sited would make an excellent technology park, and create prime residential land for expanding a London bursting at the seams.

5. Bad for M4 Corridor

As above.

6. Unfair to Thames Estuary Residents

The Thames Hub would in fact improve non-air transport to the Estuary region, and as approach would be over the sea, has significantly less impact than even the addition of one additional runway at LHR. Massive increase in the value of local property (now accessible to central London) would enable those who still wanted to move to do so. Enormous benefit from reduced pollution, noise and risk of a major incident to the millions who live in central London.

Quite sad that the party fundraisers pimp her out.

Freshly shot peasant since you ask though. (Or was it pheasant?)

Which numnuts came up with the Northolt plan?

John Cleese? ;)

Can you name another airport that sits in a prime bird migratory area?

To quote someone who is qualified to speak on this issue
So even if some magic way is found, assuming the top end of the scale of birds (based on the cost per ruddy duck of around £742) we are looking at north of £163m and at the lower end £103m with ongoing costs needed to deal with the birds that migrate there each year.

But as I have said before, if a Thames estuary really is such a total non-starter it would have been abandoned long, long ago. The fact that it hasn't would suggest any wildlife issues can be overcome. Otherwise the promoters of the scheme would look very, very silly still spending millions on consultants and feasibility studies for something that could never happen.

Ah, you haven't read the study then. Even with the best bird control available, a Thames based airport such as the one you are proposing would have an order of magnitude greater risk than any existing airport in the UK today. Please don't make statements you cannot substantiate.

BTW what technology? Radar? There have been no significant improvements in scaring techniques in 30 years.

You cannot cull the birds. Unless you nuke the place. As someone with significant experience in issues like this, it's actually going to be pretty much impossible. Sorry to destroy your pipedream. Afterall, African countries have been trying to destroy flocks of Quelea for years, and failing. And the way they do it in Southern Africa is to firebomb the roosts (never a good idea in places where there are boats, people and LPG plants) or to spray with extremely toxic contact poisons - the kind of stuff which kills people too and which would probably kill off half the southern North Sea.

I'm sorry to be a bit of a bore about this, but you seem to think you can wish the hazards away.

But you are a perfect example of why the idea keeps resurrecting itself - people's capacity to ignore information they don't want to accept. You don't want to accept that the idea is a non-starter on safety grounds, so you assume that all of the problems can be managed away so you make ludicrous, naive statements which are entirely inaccurate. If the problems could be managed away, there wouldn't be any aircraft losses due to birds anywhere in the world. Sadly, there are. Sadly, people die as a result. But people cannot accept that such a 'simple' issue as 'wildlife' can prevent a multi-million pound development, so they, as you and as BOH are, are convinced that something can be done. You never say what. And you'd go to the experts in the field - all of whom I know - and you'd get exactly the same answer. You over-estimate our capacity to control wildlife. You over-estimate our technology in your desire to push an option which seems like the best solution and which has some inconvenient wildlife in the way. With fifteen years in wildlife management, I can tell you, wildlife management issues are some of the most intractable ones you can try to resolve. We can't even stop gulls nesting on roofs satisfactorily, and you think we can manage hundreds of thousands of birds? There are limits, and what you propose is way beyond our capacity.

The legislation is European, and beyond our control to rewrite. Pulling out the Bern and Ramsar conventions, likely to be unpopular (consider the lobby power of the RSPB) would do nothing to remove the area's protection as an SPA. To be able to pull out the Birds Directive, we'd have to leave the EU too. Are we really willing to do that over such a stupid issue, just so we can endanger more of our population?

I still dont understand why the UK needs only 1 hub airport. Other countries manage to have 2 or 3. If you look at LH flying from Germany to Hong Kong or the US, you get a choice of airports. BA has 1 airport, that is is. We need capacity now, not 20 years down the line.

It's perfectly possible to overcome obstacles; just some determination and intelligence needed.

What's also interesting about the Foster & Partners proposal is the integrated infrastructure which would support the airport:

http://static.dezeen.com/uploads/201...-Partners2.jpg

A long overdue expansion to the East.