PDA

View Full Version : Airport at Cliffe


T0ny
Friday 24th January 2003, 13:31
NEWS RELEASE
From the office of the Green MEPs

23 January, 2003

EU THROWS NEW KENT AIRPORT PLAN INTO DOUBT

PLANS to build a new airport the size of Gatwick on the Thames Estuary at Cliffe in Kent have been thrown into doubt today after the European Commission warned the Government any threat to the site's protected birds would be illegal under EU law.

The news will come as a blow to Transport Secretary Alistair Darling, who has already been forced to abandon consultation once on the biggest ever expansion to UK aviation, after the High Court ruled last year that expanding Gatwick should have been considered, despite an earlier pledge not to expand Europe's busiest airport further.

Responding to a question from Green Euro-MP Caroline Lucas, environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom said the proposed development at Cliffe, which lies within the Thames Estuary and Marshes Special Protection Area (SPA), would be subject to an environmental assessment - and any "significant damage" to the SPA would be allowed only in the absence of alternative
solutions. The Government would also have to demonstrate any development would be in the "overriding public interest".

Dr Lucas, whose South East England constituency includes Cliffe, had asked the Commission to investigate whether the Government's proposals would contravene European laws designed to protect wild birds and endangered habitats.

"The Thames Estuary is one of the most important sites for waterfowl in the UK and building the proposed airport at Cliffe would spell disaster for its birds and wildlife, leading to the largest ever loss of wildlife habitat to a single development," said Dr Lucas.

"The Commission's ruling could be the project's death knell however. Cliffe is one of several options proposed in the Government's consultations - so it will be impossible to argue that there is no alternative available."

The decision will be welcomed not just in Kent but by an increasing number of campaigners and organisations across the UK who argue no airport expansion is necessary.

Dr Lucas added: "The supposed need for a new airport is based on the Government's own projected increase in demand for aviation, which assumes the industry will continue to enjoy a raft of hidden subsidies and tax breaks amounting to £180 a year from every man, woman and child in the country.

"The best 'alternative solution' would be to level the playing field for transport, manage demand and build no new airports anywhere. Not in Kent's backyard - and not in anyone's back yard."

ENDS

For more information please contact Ben Duncan on 020 7407 6280 or 0776 997 0691

Note to Editors

Copies of Dr Lucas' question to the Commission and Commissioner Wallstrom's response are available from Ben Duncan on 0207 407 6280.

www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk

Ben Duncan
Green MEPs' Press Officer
Suite 58, The Hop Exchange, 24 Southwark Street, London SE1 1TY
020 7407 6280 (tel)
0776 997 0691 (mob)
020 7234 0183 (fax)
press@greenmeps.org.uk


*** From the e-mail news bulletin of The Green Party of England & Wales ***
General enquiries, including membership: office@greenparty.org.uk ***
For further information about the content of this message, please see the contact details within it ***
*** List administration enquiries: greenlists@headweb.co.uk
*** To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail to green-unsubscribe@topica.com
**** To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to green-subscribe@topica.com ***

Johnny1
Friday 24th January 2003, 13:34
Excellent news for Cliffe. I personally feel that building or extending any airport is just more concrete instead of green fields.

Reader
Friday 24th January 2003, 13:38
Let's hope that this plan never gets off the ground. If it becomes a reality no site would remain safe.

I went to Draycote reservoir yesterday which is quite near to the proposed airport in the Rugby area. The village nearby - Dunchurch - has signs plastered all over the place to stop the airport there. If this one goes ahead whole communities will dissapear as there are a few villages that will be flattened requiring quite a few people to be relocated.

To me this is unreal. How can the government even consider such a thing as this. It is monstrous to affect so many peoples lives this way.

The main problem is the high growth in air travel and the infrastrucure needed to cope with that demand. What the answers are I haven't a clue but what is being considered at the moment seems too extreme.

Steve
Friday 24th January 2003, 13:39
I personally feel we need new runways and any extensions
as Quickly as possible.

peter hayes
Friday 24th January 2003, 13:45
Quite, Steve. Politicians always procrastinate for several years on airports because they know whatever they decide is going to upset voters somewhere.

John J I think you are entirely safe in Warwickshire. This is a nightmare scenario cynically put forward to make smaller schemes such as Cliffe seem reasonable.

The problem for the Government is that people are far more geared up in terms of lobbying MPs, using the law etc to stop developments going ahead, especially if they are likely to damage the environment.

So the answer has to be more runways at existing airports and improving regional airports, which will have the added bonus of cutting down on people travelling by car to Heathrow and Gatwick.

winkle
Wednesday 19th February 2003, 18:48
Cliffe is no small scheme and it's favourite as it is the only proposal that could opperate 24 hours a day.

Having read the bunff on it, the bit that intregues me is how the 13km exclusion zone for large birds will work. I'm sure a flight of 1000 Brents being sucked into a Jumbo's engines won't do it any good.

Ashley beolens
Wednesday 19th February 2003, 18:56
In all honesty what would happen to the government if they were to just go ahead and build on Cliffe or any of these sites? I doubt very much maybe a hefty fine but by then the damage is done. For all the good work that people are doing at Cliffe etc I can't say public oppinion seems to concern the Blair government.

peter hayes
Wednesday 19th February 2003, 21:18
Quite. If one and a half million people can't change TB's mind over Iraq, what chance have a few thousand got re Cliffe?

T0ny
Wednesday 19th February 2003, 21:25
Peter / Ashley,

Politicians always assume that the silent majority support their views - that's why it's so vital to continue to protest.

Tony

peter hayes
Wednesday 19th February 2003, 21:55
T0ny

I couldn't have put that better myself.

Andrew
Wednesday 19th February 2003, 22:50
I still reckon Cliffe is a dummy proposal to distract us from another airport's expansion.