Please support this campaign

Cardew

Seakay wrote:

a) I do not "give" that the demand has to be met - thanks for expressing that view so clearly gromituk

b) I live in Cardiff so in what way am I a NIMBY?

a. You might not "give", but it is the elected Government of this country that make such decisions.

b. The campaign is NIMBY; doesn't matter if you live in the Outer Hebrides

c. The expansion, for expansion there will be somewhere, should be based on sound logical reasoning, not emotional claptrap that so many of these pressure groups expound.

gromituk

==StanstEd!==

tr3mor

gromituk wrote:

==StanstEd!==

Cheers! All these places down south are the same anyway

Seakay

Cardew wrote:

a. You might not "give", but it is the elected Government of this country that make such decisions.

b. The campaign is NIMBY; doesn't matter if you live in the Outer Hebrides

c. The expansion, for expansion there will be somewhere, should be based on sound logical reasoning, not emotional claptrap that so many of these pressure groups expound.

Actually I think that I am NIABY (Not In Any Back Yard) in this case, and if the elected government of this country had not given in to the pressure group of the air industry and kept fuel for aircraft virtually untaxed then it is unlikely that demand for flights would be growing and there would be no justification for airport expansion anywhere.

Plus, what exactly was the logical reasoning for allowing BAA to retain control of all three London airports after privatisation, and then continuing to treat this private company as though it was still a nationalised one eg the Deputy PMs office allowing it powers of compulsary purchase?

Cardew

Seakay wrote:

Actually I think that I am NIABY (Not In Any Back Yard) in this case, and if the elected government of this country had not given in to the pressure group of the air industry and kept fuel for aircraft virtually untaxed then it is unlikely that demand for flights would be growing and there would be no justification for airport expansion anywhere.

Plus, what exactly was the logical reasoning for allowing BAA to retain control of all three London airports after privatisation, and then continuing to treat this private company as though it was still a nationalised one eg the Deputy PMs office allowing it powers of compulsary purchase?

I would not argue with any of the above – particularly the point about BAA; and accept a desire to curtail air travel is a perfectly valid position to take.

However as said before – this Government and every other Government do not agree with you and have decided there will be increased capacity.

My point on Stansted is that it is NIMBY campaign that, if successful, will merely transfer the problem to another area.

I do think it rather ironic that on this Money Saving forum the standard response to anything that doesn’t met our approval is to tax it heavily – large cars and air travel being the latest ‘fashionable’ victims.

gromituk

I don't think it's ironic, when tax doesn't disappear into a black hole; it becomes government spending money, which could just as well result in the consumer saving money in some other area.

"Fashionable" is a rather lame way to dismiss something that's simply acquiring more public support.

oliveoyl

from the bbc http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6194346.stm

Stansted expansion plan refused

Expansion plans for Stansted Airport which could boost passenger numbers have been rejected, amid objections including the effect on climate change.
Uttlesford Council turned down BAA's planning application to extend the existing runway.

The airport operator wanted to increase passenger numbers to 35m a year.

The impact of expansion on climate change and the local environment had concerned councillors. BAA said it would appeal against the decision.


Terry Morgan, Stansted Airport's managing director, said the issue would be decided at a public inquiry.

He said BAA still wanted to build a second runway at Stansted and would make an application next year.

Economic benefits

Uttlesford planning officers' reasons for recommending refusal included the impact it would have on noise levels, air quality, road and rail networks and local quality of life.

They said economic benefits had not been demonstrated to be strong enough to outweigh all other factors.

A second runway at Stansted was contained in the government's 2003 Aviation White Paper, a review of which is due from the Department for Transport before the end of this year.

Local residents who have formed a Stop Stansted Expansion campaign said they were "absolutely delighted" by the decision.

Environmental campaigners hailed the decision as a benchmark, saying it was the first time climate change had been listed as a reason for refusing a planning application.

"We are delighted by this local authority's decision," said a spokesman for Friends of the Earth.

"I think increasingly people are waking up to the threat of climate change. This decision is a fantastic sign that the public realises the need to do something."

Shadow aviation minister Julian Brazier said: "This result confirms the extent of local opposition to Stansted.

"We have to ask the wider question as to whether we should be predicting or providing for current growth rates in aviation, given the problems of climate change."

Cardew

oliveoyl wrote:

from the bbc http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6194346.stm

Stansted expansion plan refused

It was a forgone conclusion that Uttlesford Council would vote against the expansion plan - with the weight of vocal, and understandable, local opposition they could hardly do anything else.

I doubt if there has been a major airport extension in UK for the last 20 years where the local council have not voted against the plans - and lost. These matters are decided at National, not local level.


You have to love this typical politician’s quote:

Shadow aviation minister Julian Brazier said: "This result confirms the extent of local opposition to Stansted.

"We have to ask the wider question as to whether we should be predicting or providing for current growth rates in aviation, given the problems of climate change."

Seakay

Actually, I don't think that it was a forgone conclusion because Uttlesford Council has put off announcing a decision 3 times.
I think that the publication of the Stern Review had a large impact on their thinking.
Also, they may be doing what at least part of the government wants:

"The UK’s local authorities are at the ‘forefront’ of the country’s efforts to combat climate change, it has been claimed this week following the publication of local and regional emission details for 2004 this week.

The statistics showed that nationwide; 44% of emissions were attributed to 'industrial, commercial and public sector' sources; 29% to the domestic sector and 28% to road transport. In about a third of local authorities, the emissions from the domestic sector were higher than from the industrial, commercial and public sectors.

“Everyone has a role to play in fighting climate change and reducing emissions,” said Climate Change Minister Ian Pearson. “As estate managers, service providers and community leaders, local authorities are at the forefront of the fight to reduce carbon emissions in the UK. They have the power to make a great difference throughout the UK, and these statistics are an increasingly valuable resource to help them cut emissions.”

Cardew

Seakay,
If you wish to move the focus of this debate from the Stansted campaign onto the wider issue of cutting down emissions, you will have no opposition from rational people in this country; albeit you might find the Chinese and Indian Governments(to name but a few) not so understanding.

However I re-iterate my earlier statement that the campaign with its focus on ‘save Hatfield Forest, one of the last areas of ancient broad leafed woodland … and the destruction of a village’ is essentially NIMBY.

The Friends of the Earth and other green Pressure groups, again understandably, latch on to any campaign against expansion of transport etc to pursue their own agenda.

Given current Government policies, in the unlikely event that Stansted is not finally given approval, all it will do is move the problem to another area of the country.