Forum Topic

Hounslow Council at MIPIM, Cannes - 'responding to the opportunity of a third runway

I am incredulous to read that Hounslow Council is participating in a conference that is actively encouraging the third runway.There is a link to the agenda here:https://twitter.com/Fruitandvegdon/status/707260289880887296

Crispin Flintoff ● 3440d26 Comments

I think it is a reasonable assumption to make, at this stage, that our own local authority has effectively jumped ship and that the continued opposition from both the local community and our MP is being managed by adopting the "nothing we can do about it guv!" approach which now appears to be being taken.

Phil Andrews ● 3410d

"We've done quite a bit of planning around a third runway. We were describing at MIPIM (property conference) how that could be good for the west of the borough, especially if Southern Rail Access to Heathrow is built, with stops at Feltham and Bedfont." Why have they not been doing a lot of campaigning against a third runway instead of planning around it? The reality of this is that thousands of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease will die prematurely as a result of air polution caused by expansion.

Crispin Flintoff ● 3410d

So he should. He should be actively campaigning for his employer's policy.

Ian Speed ● 3411d

"Delay over Heathrow third runway decision 'really hurting' Hounslow, says regeneration chief "http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/west-london-news/delay-over-heathrow-third-runway-11145316Does anyone else sense dissonance between the two statements from Brendon Walsh ?"Our position remains that we want a better not bigger Heathrow but the lack of a decision over a third runway is really hurting us.""If the decision is no and we have to manage a declining situation at least we can manage that"Shouldn't he be welcoming a no decision in line with borough policy rather than grudgingly saying he would have to manage decline ?

Tim Henderson ● 3411d

Then again I suppose when sections of your local party are in bed with UKIP being a red Tory must appear quite progressive.  I do hope there's still some curry left on the hot plate.

Phil Andrews ● 3418d

Because Steve Curran is a Kendall-supporting Red Tory who shows the inclination to stab his constituents and those Isleworth ward in the back over Heathrow.

Ian Speed ● 3418d

Thought you was supposed to be Labour Crispin so why are you taking a swing at the Labour council?

Nicki Drick ● 3418d

Interesting point by Tim Henderson about the planned road from the M3. This is a negative aspect of R3 that I don't think has been fully explored - the likelihood that some of the accompanying transport improvements within themselves will provoke local opposition.

Ian Speed ● 3421d

There is a belated FoI release from Hounslow Council in response to a request for information on the amount of help Heathrow has offered the boroughhttps://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/297743/response/787881/attach/4/Heathrow%20Email%20Correspondence.pdfI was interested to see the comments that Heathrow were eager to see what they could discuss to get the council to remove its objection to the Cranford planning inquiry. The Garden City proposals were to be kept from Councillors until the Leader had agreed an "Engagement Plan". Council officers seem to have done a good job in dissuading the planners from driving a new dual carriageway direct from Heathrow to the M3. The indicative map showing the proposed extent and phasing of noise insulation for homes affected by R3 was also new to me.

Tim Henderson ● 3421d

And there is a flight simulator on the LBH stand with leader of the council, Steve Curran, in the cockpit  and Brendon Walsh, director of regeneration, economic development and environment, as co-pilot. Does this not give a misleading impression to potential investors about the facilities of the airport and possible expansion in a 3rd runway especially as LBH have declined to ally themselves with other boroughs who have opposed on grounds of sound pollution and pollution from aviation fuel and destruction of villages.  How can LBH justify its mantra regarding Heathrow of "better not bigger"?

Diana Vivienne Keay ● 3436d

And LBH have a flight simulator on their stand with Steve Curran, leader of the council in the cockpit, and Brendon Walsh, director of regeneration,economic development and environment, as co-pilot. Does this not give a misleading impression to potential investors about airport facilities ?  Especially as LBH has declined to ally themselves to other boroughs opposed to expansion of 3rd runway because of sound pollution and pollution from aviation fuel and destruction villages.  How can LBH even justify their mantra "better not bigger" ?

Diana Vivienne Keay ● 3436d

There is a lot more data on R3 by CHATR in the Chiswick Herald.Is LBH looking at the Golden Mile as an extension of R3?

Rima Jones ● 3437d

It just shows what puppets our elected representatives have become, whatever their party colours.  It's quite obvious that so called public servants are pulling all the strings and that they are in turn also the puppets of developers and their associates.Get rid of some of these overpaid 'executives who are a cancer in both Ealing and Hounslow and bring no justifiable benefit to the local people of this part of London.  They are just fixers and career ones at that who have no more commitment to the boroughs paymasters than some overpaid footballers do to their clubs.

Raymond Havelock ● 3437d

The fact is that Hounslow councillors should not be seen to be supporting Heathrow when they were elected on an anti-Heathrow ticket.

Ian Speed ● 3438d

We don't need a 3rd runway at Heathrow - it is over-capacity already and we live with very high pollution levels locally (cars and planes).We need a grown up government...please?

William Prentice ● 3439d

Even living here as close to Heathrow that it is. I end up flying from Gatwick, Luton or Stansted far more than from LHR.  That's more to to with destinations than any thing else. However, early morning flights from Terminal 5 can cost almost as much by cab as it does to Gatwick and the bus is a good hour and a gamble and the tube is not running early enough to meet the early check in times. I wonder how staff get there. It can only be by car.But Adam is absolutely right. There is an impending over population crisis already upon us. The population explosion is more like a nuclear explosion Already, the existing infrastructure clearly cannot cope and the soon to come additional rail transport is already predicted to be standing only before Hayes and will benefit out of towners far more than those inside Greater London.It's not just transport creaking at the seams. The already upgraded water and sewerage systems are nearly at capacity and overflow and reserve sites have been sold off for..housing.  The additional super sewer is going to be far too long before it's ready.Energy supplies are near capacity and sooner or later the whole chain will start to break.The building of boxes for people to live in will lead to the same social problems as they did in the 1960s. Initially, Tower blocks were a huge improvement in terms of living space and quality, though,as soon as they started to suffer wear and tear, and the frustrations of being cooped up, led to serious detriment to quality of life , social, health and mental problems and problems that have dogged some parts of our society ever since.The only real solution is to expand the existing New Towns and go back to the Garden City theme and build the kind of homes people want to live in but learn from the short comings i.e. complete reliance on cars and poor build quality. No more Milton Keynes experiments. The original part of Welwyn Garden City still looks as good as as it did when first built.We probably need at least 6 complete new towns, but the sensitivity of the countryside environment, must be fully incorporated and considered.

Raymond Havelock ● 3439d

Even living here as close to Heathrow that it is. I end up flying from Gatwick, Luton or Stansted far more than from LHR.  That's more to to with destinations than any thing else. However, early morning flights from Terminal 5 can cost almost as much by cab as it does to Gatwick and the bus is a good hour and a gamble and the tube is not running early enough to meet the early check in times. I wonder how staff get there. It can only be by car.But Adam is absolutely right. There is an impending over population crisis already upon us. The population explosion is more like a nuclear explosion Already, the existing infrastructure clearly cannot cope and the soon to come additional rail transport is already predicted to be standing only before Hayes and will benefit out of towners far more than those inside Greater London.It's not just transport creaking at the seams. The already upgraded water and sewerage systems are nearly at capacity and overflow and reserve sites have been sold off for..housing.  The additional super sewer is going to be far too long before it's ready.Energy supplies are near capacity and sooner or later the whole chain will start to break.The building of boxes for people to live in will lead to the same social problems as they did in the 1960s. Initially, Tower blocks were a huge improvement in terms of living space and quality, though,as soon as they started to suffer wear and tear, and the frustrations of being cooped up, led to serious detriment to quality of life , social, health and mental problems and problems that have dogged some parts of our society ever since.The only real solution is to expand the existing New Towns and go back to the Garden City theme and build the kind of homes people want to live in but learn from the short comings i.e. complete reliance on cars and poor build quality. No more Milton Keynes experiments. The original part of Welwyn Garden City still looks as good as as it did when first built.We probably need at least 6 complete new towns, but the sensitivity of the countryside environment, must be fully incorporated and considered.

Raymond Havelock ● 3439d

Yes, I do find it staggering that so many travellers either drive or take a cab to Heathrow.  Clearly a mindset I'm not used to as I can count on one hand the number of times I've travelled by cab in the last 10 years.  And taking the car still means paying a small fortune to park, lugging suitcases onto a shuttle bus etc.Fair point about the greenfield sites that will be destroyed by a third runway, my point really is if, as many residents are, they are so generally opposed to high density development within the capital, they have to accept that the only alternative is for the greenfields of Sussex you mention to be given over to major residential and employment development and all of the associated infrastructure.As I've said before, I do my job, but everyday I commute into the office by train and all I see on every side of the railway track is every piece of land being developed, primarily high rise residential.  And all the time whilst I'm seeing this I'm squashed in, with hundreds of others, into a sardine can of a train carriage.And yet I know that the amount of new builds currently being developed is nothing like as high as it was in the 70's and 80's.Which is why I always end up back to my own personal belief that London simply cannot cope in the medium term with the predicted growth, and ultimately the powers that be either need to (a) shifting development away from major cities and start building self-sustaining settlements in the countryside to reduce commuting, or (b) tackling population growth.

Adam Beamish ● 3439d

Figures from the internet:60% of passengers use cars to get to Heathrow Road upgrades are expected to cost £5 billion. Heathrow 3 = 700,000 people under the final approach, Gatwick 2 = 12,000On airport preferences:'Most people have no preference for which London airport they use'

Lorne Gifford ● 3439d

Adam, you're commendable but unusual in taking a tube or bus to Heathrow. The vast majority of people drive to airports either in their own car or by cab. Luggage and the desire to get there and get on a plane quickly tend to be the deciding factor. Rather than go off into a discussion of Heathrow or Gatwick being easier to get through I'll just pick up on the 'brownfield' development you mention.  The new Heathrow runway will be a combination of greenfield and straight through an existing village.Looking at it in an unbiased way as possible, is it better to have an extra 200,000 flights over West London a year or the same number over the greenfields of Sussex? Which one causes less pollution on the people overflown?

Lorne Gifford ● 3439d

Why should a third runway at Heathrow require a significant upgrade of all approach roads ? - you can get to Heathrow quickly and easily by rail, tube or bus.  I've taken a car or taxi to/from Heathrow on perhaps 5% of my trips there (despite normally carrying a large ski bag) whereas I drive to Gatwick more often than not. I also don't find Gatwick any quicker to get through, don't get me wrong, I don't mind Gatwick, but whenever I can I fly via Heathrow. But there's one other key point in your email which to me is applicable to the whole situation around development.  You say Gatwick has a large open area, yep, it does, so when it comes to development the choice is the same - either we start intensively developing the countryside to provide homes, jobs and the infrastructure to reduce the need/desire/incentive to commute into the capital, or we carry on maximising the development potential of every brownfield site within the capital.  Yet the same people who complain about over-development within the capital also don't want to see the countryside lost either.  Something has to give - unless a 1 child policy or such like is brought in (as you may have gathered I see population growth as the biggest problem).

Adam Beamish ● 3439d

One would have hoped 20 years of discussion, a vast number of reports, environmental impact assessments etc that all say Heathrow 3 brings next to nothing to Hounslow or the country at the cost of untold damage and supremely illegal levels of pollution to those affected would have be listened to. But no, they're still banging the drum, small minds fixed on an impression that it makes Hounslow more sellable, using everything and anything they can to push their agenda.As a frequent traveller (as Mr Hounslow Co-Pilot pointed out to me when I criticised the lack of any environmental consideration in what he proposes for Brentford), Heathrow doesn't warrant a third runway. The place is gridlocked most of the time, parking is extortionate, departure and arrivals are not affected by the two runway use, and best of all Gatwick with all that open area for as many runways as you like, is only 30 minutes further to get to, and a lot quicker to get through and onto a plane.What we forget is that a third runway at Heathrow would require a significant upgrade of all approach roads, the A4/M4 for example would need to become M4 over another M4, running as a double decker motorway straight through Brentford, Chiswick roundabout, Chiswick and as far as Earls Court. ENVIRONMENTAL Mr Executive Director is not a tag on title, it affects a million people and is the single weakest link in any plan for Heathrow 3.Common sense on its own is all that's needed to assess Heathrow Versus Gatwick

Lorne Gifford ● 3439d

Does anybody know whether our MP has a view on this?

Phil Andrews ● 3440d

Oh ho! The usual suspects yet again.

Vanessa Smith ● 3440d

That's not how the agenda reads.. At the bottom it reads:In the cockpit:Captain - Councillor Steve Curran LeaderCo-pilot - Brendan Walsh Executive director of Regeneration, economic development and environmentNavigator - Barbara Richardson Managing director property developement Lampton 360

Crispin Flintoff ● 3440d

Presumably Hounslow's delegation will have taken advantage of its seat at the conference to put the case against?

Phil Andrews ● 3440d