NORTH KENT: Thames Estuary 'Boris Island' airport would be bird strike hazard (From This Is Local London)

NORTH KENT: Thames Estuary 'Boris Island' airport would be bird strike hazard

7:00am Tuesday 20th October 2009

Print
Email
Share
Comments(5)

BUILDING an airport in the Thames Estuary could lead to bird strikes, congestion in the sky and create noise problems, according to opponents of the plan.

A study commissioned by Mayor of London Boris Johnson has found the floating airport to be technically feasible.

Although no flight paths have been discussed, the estimated £40bn project nicknamed 'Boris Island', has come under a barage of criticism.

The so called ‘island’ airport would fall within a hub for hundreds of thousands of migrant birds.

Dartford Council leader Councillor Jeremy Kite says it is “a ridiculous plan” and warns of the dangers of potential bird strikes.

Cllr Kite said: “This is one of the most significant bird wetlands in Europe.

“All around the world people have avoided building airports in traditional wetlands.

“If you build an airport next door the fact is you are going to pull an aircraft down. It's not an exaggeration.

“Birds and aircraft do not mix. It's a ludicrous place for an airport.”

Chris Corrigan, RSPB regional director for London and the south east, says the bird strike hazard would be up to 12 times higher than at any other major UK airport.

He said: “The airport would damage or destroy huge areas of legally protected habitat.”

John Stewart, chairman of HACAN Clear Skies, which campaigns on behalf of people affected by airplane flightpaths, says an airport could create significant noise problems for the area.

He said: “Although many planes will come in and out over the sea, if you're talking about a huge airport the noise is bound to impact on some of the areas in Kent and Essex.

“If it's something the equivalent to Heathrow then I think Dartford can expect regular flights overhead.”

Councillor Paul Carter, the leader of Kent County Council, believes developing the airport at Manston offers a better solution than building a new one in the Thames Estuary, a view shared by Cllr Kite.

Cllr Carter said: "It makes sense to sweat the assets already available to us in the South East. Kent International Airport at Manston, for example, has one of the longest runways in Europe.

“Manston could, at far less cost be connected to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link domestic services for fast journey times from London to Kent.

“Manston could also handle six million passenger movements a year which would boost the local economy in an area of high deprivation. Far more sensible in our view.”

Planners would also have to deal with SS Richard Montgomery, a ship sunk in the Estuary during the Second World War, which has high explosives on board the equivalent to 2,800 V1 flying bombs.

Mr Johnson is looking to build a new airport as an alternative to a third runway at Heathrow.

A spokesman for the Mayor said: “The report recommends the establishment of a working group to oversee further studies that will properly consider issues such as energy, flood management, transport, ecology and regeneration.

“The Mayor accepts this recommendation, and is therefore setting up a Thames Estuary Steering Group, including members from industry, business, and from across the political spectrum, to oversee further study and research.”

Print
Email
Share
Comments(5)

Your Say YourLondon

MB, local says...
10:13am Tue 20 Oct 09

I wish the politicians would stop talking nonsense on this topic and face the real issue. Birds are not a probelm, they can be culled and scared away. The whole Boris-island plan is also just smoke and mirrors to fight against LHR expansion. And LHR expansion is totally unnecessary because most passengers at LHR are international transfer passengers, not local business people. The Government just approved this because of pressure from BAA and BA. The solution is simple: Britain and London should not compete in the business of catering for transfer passengers. This business brings little money to the country (keeping in mind that BAA is part of a Spanish company) and it has a considerable negative impact on poeple's quality of life. By dropping, say, 20% of transfer business LHR would free up ample capacity to serve London's and Britain's demand for flights without the need for expansion or a new airport. And everybody, except for backpackers travelling from Lagos to Latvia via LHR and the Spanish owners of BAA, would be happy.