Further Expansion of Heathrow (From Croydon Guardian)

Further Expansion of Heathrow

10:13am Tuesday 11th December 2007

• Print
• Email

My letter on this topic did not get into the print edition. I am a little confused on the interest this topic raises. Sometimes there seems to be much interest and then at other times there seems to be no interest. After one period when it looked as though a debate was starting I posted an item on the Guardian's Message Forum. It drew only two responses, both in favour, from people I believe not in the areas to be most affected by the expansion. I tried to raise the interest of those running a web-site purporting to be against the expansion and suggesting they might like to make a contribution to the Message Forum.
No response. Did I visit a web-site designed purely to identify those who were opposed to the expansion? Or am I being neurotic? The new runway and terminal are apparently planned to open around 2020. I calculate that about a sixth of our population is too young to express an opinion, but will be affected, and another sixth of us will probably been summoned elsewhere by then and will not be affected, even if our children and grandchildren will be affected. That leaves two thirds of the country who really ought to be concerned in their own interests.
The letter that did not get published:-

"Dear Editor,
The Guardian reported the views of the Spelthorne MP on the proposal for a third runway and a sixth terminal at Heathrow.
It was said house prices would fall if the expansion did not go ahead.
It is more likely that house prices will fall if the expansion goes ahead.
In the national interest it is not sensible to concentrate yet more of the national runways at Heathrow when other south east airports have single runways.
By expanding at Heathrow the Government is hoping to save on infra-structure costs.
In terms of the local interests, any further expansion in the heavily built area around Heathrow would be a mistake.
Demolition of 700 hundred homes, and the up-rooting of 700 families would bring hardship and distress to many. Indefensible when the area is desperately short of housing. The compensation paid will be inadequate to compensate those up-rooted for material loses, associated costs, and personal suffering.
Demand for housing in the area will be insatiable even when every possible site is developed. But, the overall effect will be a fall in house prices as the area becomes less attractive and population shift occurs.
Local areas enjoy low levels of unemployment. All the extra labour will come from elsewhere and will have a detrimental effect on local sevices, which Government will fail to fund adequately.

From media reports it appears that already the Heathrow authorities cannot cope satisfactorily.
It is inconceivable that the Spelthorne electorate could be in favour of expansion. They know how little it takes to gridlock local roads.
They know local services are already stretched. They know what the impact will be of the extra labour which will come into their area.
They know how they already have to campaign to try to limit the affects of unsuitable developments. They know the construction of a rail link through Staines will have a detrimental affect on the viability of the shopping centre on which their council has invested so much .They know the population of the south east of England will not receive it’s fair share of national expenditure.
If this development had been in the interests of local people it would have been directed anywhere but in the south east.
Any local MP who cannot put the interests of his electorate first should “consider his position” and resign. If he does not his constituency party should select another candidate for the next parliamentary election."

This week the Government's pro-expansion campaign has started.
Worth remembering where the constituencies of almost all Government ministers are situated and how they blatantly favour their home patches at every turn where their would be any benefit to their constituents.
But they want to press it on to an already over populated, and over polluted area of London, which is short of housing and whose roads hover on gridlock even today, without the increased traffic volumes forecast for future years.
Interesting to see that meetings are being held to present the plans, locations published in The Local Guardian.
Raises the question of how useful such meetings can really be and how few people will attend them.
Interesting to see the meeting locations selected. Major centres of population are not covered and all the locations are on or close to the
line of the present main runways. Areas like Sunbury, said to be affected, on average every third day, because of wind dictated flight patterns have no planned meetings.

What are your views?