Forum Topic

I believe Mary Macleod has been quite clear on Heathrow.Her March newsletter states:QuoteHeathrow UpdateIn my written submission to the Airports Commission this month, I made it clear why I feel that Heathrow expansion would not be tolerable or acceptable. Instead I believe that Gatwick should be the preferred option chosen by the Commission when they report back in June 2015.The key concerns I raised included: The impact of noise on residents – up to 900,000 would be impacted at Heathrow compared to only around 24,000 at Gatwick. The absence of flightpaths in Heathrow’s submission - up to 300,000 new residents would be impacted by the noise at Heathrow but many residents remain unaware of how it would affect them. The importance of competition – adding a runway at Heathrow would return it to a near-monopoly position which is not in the interests of the country or passengers. Overemphasis on the hub model at Heathrow – the growth in air traffic continues to be in low-cost, point-to-point travel. Gatwick is ideally designed to take advantage of this trend. Cost to taxpayers – the considerable work required to the transport network around Heathrow would cost taxpayers £5.7bn compared to only £787,000 at Gatwick. Political deliverability – with anything up to 2 million people thought to be impacted by the noise from an expansion at Heathrow, the campaign against it would be huge, making it politically undeliverable. Safety – no other significant city in the world overflies such a densely populated area. Increasing the number of flights further would inevitably increase the risk of a major incident. Air pollution – Heathrow already breaches the EU limits for air quality on a regular basis. It is inconceivable that adding up to 250,000 extra flights, and the extra car journeys that would come with that, could be achieved within these legally binding limits. If you would like a copy of my full written submission, please do contact me or you can read it herehttp://www.marymacleod.com/sites/www.marymacleod.com/files/mary_macleod_response_to_airports_commission_public_consultation_february_2015.pdfUnquote

Steve Taylor ● 3794d

From a distance and having experienced both council structures, the committee system and the 'cabinet' style -even if just for a fairly short while. The 'cabinet' structure gives too much power to too few. The old committee system may have been more time consuming but more people were able to contribute and involve themselves in decision making. It gave all councillors a far broader view across the borough and the opportunity to listen to ward members and take into account their local knowledge before making any decisions. For example I was told that in spite of the fuss here the Dear Leader had made the decision re the park? Why should a councillor who does not represent this ward be able to overrule anyone else? The Leader is elected by his peers, he is not - well as far as I know anyway - endowed with some superhuman insight or intelligence. If this is the situation why not just elect a one person council as we do with an M.P.? Again the fine words and titles mean nothing, Lead Members with portfolios are not even involved in areas they are given responsibility for, it is all pointless posturing. The old system gave everyone a chance to have some input and influence and a real purpose to being a councillor, this system, it seems to me, gives officers a chance to meddle  and dictate what goes on, with ordinary backbench councillors having no chance to get their view across, and cabinet members being too busy preening themselves for being important rather than listening to real people and learning from mistakes.

Vanessa Smith ● 3810d

Absolutely correct, this is NOT about horses it is about representation, integrity and trust all of which have been sadly lacking all through this unhappy saga.Yesterday, to rub salt in the wounds, I was sent "Hounslow Council's Thriving Communities Strategy", The first preamble contains the gem: "We continue to assert it is vital to work effectively in partnership with residents", this is credited to none other than Cllr. Sue Sampson, one of the leading players in Isleworth. You could paper the walls of a decent sized house with all these grandiose policies, but they mean nothing when local councillors abdicate their responsibilities and instead play the blame game. I had had some hope that as Parliamentary candidate Ruth would indeed have a word in some ears, not least that of the Dear Leader who apparently has issued a decree re the park's short term use. Ruth's publicity actually invites people to get in touch with her on local issues - well, I ask, what is the point if all you get is limp excuses for why she can't do anything? Yes she is a Brentford councillor, but in a few weeks we will be in the middle of a general election campaign, in this constituency votes will matter. Perhaps Ruth can't do anything practical in this case, but at least telling us that she will prevail upon her colleagues to consider what they are doing would be some sort of start. Wimping out does not inspire confidence, what would happen in a really dire situation? We need to know that our elected representatives can be relied on to speak up for us, not comfortably perch on the fence which is getting mighty crowded.

Vanessa Smith ● 3810d

I think she needs to make a clear stand on issues irrespective of what the numbnuts in her party are coniving and lying at, after all, that's nothing new.I find it abhorrent that no less than 7 MPs of differing parties have not been able to deal with the shenanigans of Housing Associations and dreadful A2D in particular. The continuing green lighting of luxury developments marketed for overseas investors which is now a London and Home counties issue and deeply threatens the well being and stability of the whole gamut of our resident communities.The indecisive and weak resistance to Heathrow and Gatwick developments and the total reluctance of anyone to detail what sort of jobs are going to be created and exactly where is left to site service industries and small businesses that could benefit from the airport.The messed up and incompetence seeping through LBH which was one of the better functioning authorities irrespective of poor policies.There is so much either candidate could choose to make a stand and campaign on.The problem is they only pick easy, winnable options. No candidate wants to upset the apple cart and make enemies, which in a way tells you just what nasty times we really live in.Ms Cadbury has an opportunity here. If she just takes stock of how some in her party manage to side step the nerks in Labour and not sit on the fence all the time. It takes a lot but I hope she does. So far I've not seen enough to convince me. But not from anyone else either.Clealy the current incumbent is eyeing up a junior minister position and is not really committed to local issues which she has managed to tap dance around, but her keeness for all things profitable like arms dealers is not really what local people need right now.We need a tough no nonsense MP Not a careerist or a press release artist.

Raymond Havelock ● 3812d