Reply With QuoteIt's not so much the addition of a fourth runway that makes me wonder - it's the idea that there are enough slots free over London for a fourth runway to be viable. Separation's got to be pretty tight as it is, surely?
Yes I'm sure we need more flights from Heathrow and we certainly need the jobs but this decision is going to cause a whole heep of trouble.
I certainly wouldn't like to be told that I had to sell my house as my village was going to be demolished.
I can picture those Chinese who were forcefully removed from their houses which were in the way of the Bird's nest olympic stadium, I thought at the time that it just wouldn't happen in England but it seems that it will soon, not all will go quietly. I wouldn't.
Chris
It's not so much the addition of a fourth runway that makes me wonder - it's the idea that there are enough slots free over London for a fourth runway to be viable. Separation's got to be pretty tight as it is, surely?
It seems insane that these things get the "go ahead" even though most people object/petition/lobby about it. I guess it's just the way things work :(
A small example of this is last year we all got letters about a Mobile Phone mast that O2 wanted to install up the road from our house. Obviously they had to apply for planning permission and EVERYONE who lived in the area objected to the council... guess what, it still gets permission and has been installed. A mate used to work for the council at the time and looked up on the system what the outcome was... there were 174 complaints from households (essentially all the houses that could SEE the mast) but permission was given because "there was no other suitable location". I mean, what the hell is the POINT in asking for permission if you're just going to do it anyhow?!
I hate this country sometimes :(
Compulsory Purchase - happens all the time in road building, so why not for an airport :?Originally Posted by chrisparker
Since when do you "own the view" !!!
Too many people seem to think their title deed extends beyond their property footprint...
:?
people are very happy at Ferrovial right now.
Its not about the view (we can't see the thing) it's the fact its a mobile mast :roll:
Anyhow, my point is what is the POINT of "planning permission" when it matters not what anyone thinks?
Are you joking me - you specifically quoted "essentially all the houses that could SEE the mast" so save the cheeky rolling eyes will ya.
Because Planning Permission reviews VALID objections i.e. ones which fall within the statutory remit of what is an acceptable reason of objection.
Pretty simple really isn't it :?
By saying SEE the mast that was simply a term to cover the houses that would be sent a letter from the council regarding the proposal, I don't know how its decided who gets these letters so sorry if that was unclear.
Anyhow, many thanks for you kind and helpful clarification. I shall stick to watch talk and not get bogged down in these political threads.
You're welcome.
(Which of us is being more sincere, i wonder...)
Aha so you edited your initial response....
Just so you know, any property with a title deed immediately adjacent to the applicant's title gets the notification.
Great finding out information about how the law works isn't it ?? :)
Not the best decision, imho.
AP.
Thank goodness. London desperately needs Heathrow to be expanded.
Part of living in an organised civilisation is that individuals sometimes are called on to make sacrifices for the 'greater good'. These people will all be well reimbursed for their houses - and it's not like it's a historic village in the Cotswolds being demolished. The majority of residents knew they were buying a house next to a busy airport.
Part of the reason the British economy is in the toilet is that everyone is so used to their 'rights' - no decent infrastructure projects can be done anymore.
Build baby, build! :wink:
100% agree. The good points massively outweigh the bad. It's not the first time villages have been taken off the map, there are a couple sat under huge reservoirs in the lake district/peaks. It won't be the last time either! Don't get me wrong, I feel massively sorry for the residents but living next to Heathrow is hardly the most desireable of areas in the first place I wouldn't have thought. :?
Those 'green' protesters should go and find something worthwhile to protest about instead of attacking an industry where genuine and measurable improvements are being made! Out of interest, what happened to 'acid rain' and 'deforestation' - the things I was taught at school in the early 90's but that no one even mentions now? :? Or have the governments realised they can't tax us for that and abandoned the idea? Carbon footprint my arse!!
Fourth runway - chance'd be a fine thing :)
HMP Heathrow used to have about six runways but extensions to the smaller ones to cope with bigger jets weren't viable given the encroachment into so many existing settlements, IIRC. Also the extra ones were all crosswind runways. *And* that was in the Jet Age. Now we are in the Numpty Age, the legal challenges will take two generations to overcome; those against will fight to the death over this one. Meantime, use of the already massively over-used two runways (TWO runways? Busiest international airport in the world? TWO runways?) will increase to 100%, your actual 100% with no room for error. A crash wil happen, wee Wilie and the distant Spaniards of BAA will talk about lessons learned and use it to hit the "anti" camp over the head. It will be undignified, highly politically charged, involve the rolling of many, many heads and ultimately a waste of time as a combination of CDG, Schipol and the Eurostar gets more attractive by the way.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
*checks NATS paperwork*Fourth runway - chance'd be a fine thing :)
What happened to 05/23?
Edit: Ah, they've turned it into a taxiway. My mistake - third runway it is.
Tax flying as much as motorists are taxed for driving.
<hides behind couch>
It already is!!
Posting Permissions