Forum Topic

RAF Northolt - More Boris Johnson hypocrisy over airports

It is probably too late now for the country to come to its senses and not elect this man but my jaw dropped over the news item on this site about the expansion of RAF Northolt airport.The government is set to create a new commercial airport with over 50,000 flights with no public consultation and in entirely clandestine way. This is happening in the constituency of Boris Johnson who will also be pressing ahead with the expansion of Heathrow despite his promise to lie in front of the bulldozers.As far as I can see what is happening at RAF Northolt has been woefully underreported and many people in the Uxbridge constituency are completely unaware what is going on. If you know any people who live there, make sure they know what is going on.

Andy Jones ● 2310d24 Comments

Apologies, this topic is about Northolt, I shall limit my Heathrow Rants to another appropriate topic.  😊

Rosco White ● 2297d

What a truly horrible childhood memory. It is patently obvious to most that Heathrow is located in the wrong place from the start, and expanding yet further now is lunancy, you simp!y cannot justify it on the grounds of ££££££s.

Rosco White ● 2297d

Continual low flying aircraft wear you down over a number of years.  People tell that you get used to it, well you dont. I lived near Heathrow really near. My daughter says whenever she smells kerosene it reminds her of her childhood. That is the reality.

Nicholas Beard ● 2300d

I know all that Mark, but I am allowed to disagree with the findings. I think many of these 'independent' reports are just a load of old toffee, as the saying goes.Many of them are just a get out for decisions already made.The suffering public has little chance of making much difference even if it objects until it's blue in the face, which many of us might be due to respiratory problems.

Keith Iddon ● 2300d

But that is the point. All the objections you make, which are not invalid, were considered by the Davies report in great detail. It was concluded Heathrow expansion was the way to go.

Mark Evans ● 2300d

Right on Mr Brooks.  👍  😊

Rosco White ● 2301d

I am missing no points , Mark. I know all that about the independent studies blah blah, but you can't get away from the fact that Heathrow is in a daft place and making it busier is even dafter, imo. If there is to be more misery o noise and air pollution, why dump it on those who already have it in spades, coupled with a much higher level of pollution from the huge amounts of vehicular traffic in London. If there is to be more misery, spread it around a bit. It would also bring the new jobs associated with new airport infrastructure to new areas, away from London.

Keith Iddon ● 2302d

Think you are missing the point here.A series of comprehensive consultation exercises and enquiries were held to decide where expansion of our national airport capacity should be. This was done independently of the government.It concluded that Heathrow should be expanded as the main hub for this country. The fact that means more planes over your house is unfortunate but expansion elsehwhere would mean more planes over someone else's house. I'm under the new northern runway flightpath as well so it will be worse from me because I'll go from relative calm for most of the day to the kind of disruption we currently have.The broad decision about airport strategy having been made then it is not a case of Heathrow or somewhere else but Heathrow or no expansion at all. Put another way the choice is between long term stagnation in our international trade or you getting a bit less sleep. I'm not a betting man but I think the odds are short on which way the government is going to jump on this one.

Mark Evans ● 2302d

I wonder how much has been spent on surveys to determine that poverty = a higher chance of dying younger than the average. Ditto living in an area that has high levels of air pollution. I could have told them all that for 10 bob.For those who support the expansion of Heathrow by denying that increased noise and pollution will matter a jot because it doesn't fit your statistical model, I suggest you get a new model. Is there a way of measuring quality of life, as opposed to standard of living? I have  a low flying aircraft over my house every minute for a couple of hours on many days, and having more is not a prospect I am looking forward to.

Keith Iddon ● 2302d

"infrastructure projects which provide a clear economic benefit"Does it or are you simply embracing the Hethrow 'spin'?

N V Brooks ● 2302d

No one is saying that pollution and low income don't both contribute to shortened life expectancy. What all the available data shows is that claims about the contribution to premature death from pollution are speculative. It is reasonable to assume it does at the margin shortens some people's lives but it is statistically insignificant compare to the impact of income levels. Poor people living in clean air environments have identical life expectancy to their equivalents in highly polluted areas. Rich people living in highly polluted areas live just as long those breathing pristine air.There used to be an identifiable impact of poor air quality on urban dwellers life expectancy but pollution has progressively reduced over the last few decades. This doesn't mean it doesn't cause a problem. Particulants still are a major issue for people with respiratory conditions and we should try to improve air quality where we can but it would be a bad idea to block infrastructure projects which provide a clear economic benefit.It is unclear whether Heathrow actually does do this but, if it does, it will extend the overall life expectancy of Londoners.

Mark Evans ● 2303d

The consensus of the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants and Public health England is that poor air quality causes premautre deaths.Premature deaths from pollution and poverty are, sadly, not mutually exclusive.

N V Brooks ● 2303d

There is no study that shows that air quality has a larger impact on life expectancy than income levels. If you live in Kensington and Chelsea you will have one of the longest life expectancy levels of anywhere in Western Europe despite it being one of the most polluted areas. The idea of 'premature deaths' is very misleading. You could argue that eating coco pops causes 100,000 people a year to die prematurely because of the sugar content but the scientific fact is that there are dozens of other factors which will be far more critical in determining how long we live.One thing most people who have studied this will agree on is that if you are poorer you will tend to have a shorter life.

Mark Evans ● 2303d

"Therefore if Heathrow expansion can be shown to have significant economic benefits then the pollution argument against it is not really that strong."Sorry, I disagree wholeheartedly.Poor air quality contributes to thousands of premature deaths in the UK now (concensus is 64,000 per year). Whereas climate change, although a real challenge, will not have anywhere near that impact for decades.

N V Brooks ● 2304d

You are confusing two issues here - climate change and air quality.Our air is very clean by historic standards and the evidence strongly suggests that income has a far higher impact on life expectency than air quality. Therefore if Heathrow expansion can be shown to have significant economic benefits then the pollution argument against it is not really that strong.Climate change on the other hand could present an existential threat to the planet and so we may have to consider a future in which economic growth is not an objective. We don't really seem to have got to the point were this is being seriously considered and Heathrow expansion in itself is not going to materially add to the problem in a global context. As has been mention previously, if we don't expand it the flights will land somewhere else. Personally I think collective imporvishment to save the planet is a dangerous idea because we are probably going to have to rely on economic growth to generate the longer term solutions to climate change through technology and the wealth to fund them.

Mark Evans ● 2304d

You don't have to be 'pro-Boris' to be anti-3rd runway.Anyone with more than a few braincells can see that they will never be able to mitigate the vastly increased pollution from more flights and traffic.Before anyone says 'use public transport' ask why, buried in the plans for 3rd runway expansion are the plans for an additional 40,000 car par park spaces.

N V Brooks ● 2305d

I wonder how you 3rd runway fans reconcile breathing air that is even more polluted than the muck we breath in at the moment, and having even more noise pollution when the extra aircraft land and take off. How can it be acceptable in these times of worry about climate change, which I suspect is one of your hobby horses?

Keith Iddon ● 2305d

Perhaps this would not be necessary if the third runway was green lighted at Heathrow. People like to complain that there are not enough jobs, the economy is threatened by Brexit, the NHS is underfunded etc etc. It is more hypocritical to complain about such things and fight against Heathrow expansion as we lose more and more business and jobs to Frankfurt, Paris and Amsterdam. A few more flights out of Northholt to deliver a little extra capacity could just be a consequence of this, then again is it really that bad?

James Putland ● 2308d

Presumably the intention of the exemption for the MoD on the need to consult is based on a likely requirement for secrecy in any plans they might have. This exemption was not intended to cover the development of a fully fledged commercial airport and should not apply in this case.

Andy Jones ● 2309d

Boris Johnson only ever wanted to close Heathrow so he could build his ridiculous airport that was never going to happen in the Thames estuary.Any anti heathrow people backing him are utter fools.

Paul James ● 2309d

To be fair, the development went ahead without consultation as it is an MOD site and doesn't need to consult.

Libby Kemp ● 2309d

>>RW writes>> No-one trusts Government anymore, they're all the same.>>TH replies>>  More accurately, they are all awful, some just being more diabolically awful than others.  I know how I'll be voting on Thursday: I'll be placing a line through all of the candidates' names, with the added sentence 'NONE FIT FOR PUBLIC OFFICE'.-----------------------------------------Happy Christmas.  God bless us, every one.

Tony Heath ● 2310d

No-one trusts Government anymore, they're all the same, they'll fornicate you over without a second thought.

Rosco White ● 2310d

Yes, they've kept that very quiet, haven't they? Which is more than Northolt will be with a huge expansion of flights.

Susan Kelly ● 2310d