South Essex Tories slam 'Boris airport' plans

London Mayor Boris Johnson championed the Estuary airport

London Mayor Boris Johnson championed the Estuary airport

First published in South Essex
Last updated
by

Tory MPs hit out at one of their own after Boris Johnson’s plans for a Thames estuary airport were sunk in a new report.

South Essex MPs are delighted the Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, has dismissed proposals from the London Mayor to build a new four-runway airport to improve the country’s airport capacity.

There were fears a new airport could cause severe damage to wildlife, completely alter the landscape of south Essex and have serious consequences for the continued success of Southend Airport.

Welcoming the commission’s report, MP Mark Francois, who represents Wickford and Rayleigh, said: “We have played our part in south Essex in helping to boost aviation, for instance via the new investment at Southend Airport, but what was proposed here was on a vastly different scale, ruinously expensive and bad for the environment.

“I hope this announcement will put paid to this idea once and for all.”

Stephen Metcalfe, who represents South Basildon and East Thurrock, said: “I’m very pleased Sir Howard has seen and recognised what we’ve all been saying – that this is too expensive, the impact on the environment will be too great, and it won’t solve the problems we have now.

“I’m pleased we have been vindicated.”

The estuary airport would have been located on the Isle of Grain, in Kent, and could have cost up to £90billion to build.

Sir Howard Davies said the plan, devised by Lord Foster, would have led to “huge economic disruption”.

Ron Woodley, Independent leader of Southend council, said: “Everyone in the world, apart from the Mayor of London, recognised that the so-called ‘Boris Island’ was not a suitable place for an airport.”

Essex County Council, which has championed investment into Stanstead Airport as an alternative, was also quick to praise the commission’s decision.

David Finch, Tory leader of the council, said: “I am pleased that Sir Howard Davies has finally ruled out the “Boris Island”

plan, which has always been pie in the sky.”

But Mr Johnson slammed his critics, saying: “In one myopic stroke the Airports Commission has set the debate back by half a century and consigned their work to the long list of vertically filed reports on aviation expansion gathering dust on a shelf in Whitehall.”

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:22am Thu 4 Sep 14

eurodoomed says...

Airports cannot be designed on the back of a fag packet. An estuary airport is as daft now as "Maplin" would have been and would have been economically devastating for the economy of West London, and the whole of the M4 corridor all the way to Swindon, as well as environmentally catastrophic. It would also inevitably have led to vast immigation as the majority of jobs at the airport would have gone to foreigners.
Airports cannot be designed on the back of a fag packet. An estuary airport is as daft now as "Maplin" would have been and would have been economically devastating for the economy of West London, and the whole of the M4 corridor all the way to Swindon, as well as environmentally catastrophic. It would also inevitably have led to vast immigation as the majority of jobs at the airport would have gone to foreigners. eurodoomed
  • Score: 2

10:44am Thu 4 Sep 14

jayman says...

eurodoomed wrote:
Airports cannot be designed on the back of a fag packet. An estuary airport is as daft now as "Maplin" would have been and would have been economically devastating for the economy of West London, and the whole of the M4 corridor all the way to Swindon, as well as environmentally catastrophic. It would also inevitably have led to vast immigation as the majority of jobs at the airport would have gone to foreigners.
"It would also inevitably have led to vast immigration as the majority of jobs at the airport would have gone to foreigners." ???

what leads you to this conclusion?

"Maplin" would have been and would have been economically devastating for the economy of West London, and the whole of the M4 corridor all the way to Swindon"...???

how, why?
[quote][p][bold]eurodoomed[/bold] wrote: Airports cannot be designed on the back of a fag packet. An estuary airport is as daft now as "Maplin" would have been and would have been economically devastating for the economy of West London, and the whole of the M4 corridor all the way to Swindon, as well as environmentally catastrophic. It would also inevitably have led to vast immigation as the majority of jobs at the airport would have gone to foreigners.[/p][/quote]"It would also inevitably have led to vast immigration as the majority of jobs at the airport would have gone to foreigners." ??? what leads you to this conclusion? "Maplin" would have been and would have been economically devastating for the economy of West London, and the whole of the M4 corridor all the way to Swindon"...??? how, why? jayman
  • Score: -3

12:33pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Ian P says...

jayman wrote:
eurodoomed wrote:
Airports cannot be designed on the back of a fag packet. An estuary airport is as daft now as "Maplin" would have been and would have been economically devastating for the economy of West London, and the whole of the M4 corridor all the way to Swindon, as well as environmentally catastrophic. It would also inevitably have led to vast immigation as the majority of jobs at the airport would have gone to foreigners.
"It would also inevitably have led to vast immigration as the majority of jobs at the airport would have gone to foreigners." ???

what leads you to this conclusion?

"Maplin" would have been and would have been economically devastating for the economy of West London, and the whole of the M4 corridor all the way to Swindon"...???

how, why?
There are businesses in the corridor offering employment to many people both directly and indirectly involved with Terminals 4 & 5. If Maplin had been built those terminals would not exist and neither would the supporting employment in that area.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eurodoomed[/bold] wrote: Airports cannot be designed on the back of a fag packet. An estuary airport is as daft now as "Maplin" would have been and would have been economically devastating for the economy of West London, and the whole of the M4 corridor all the way to Swindon, as well as environmentally catastrophic. It would also inevitably have led to vast immigation as the majority of jobs at the airport would have gone to foreigners.[/p][/quote]"It would also inevitably have led to vast immigration as the majority of jobs at the airport would have gone to foreigners." ??? what leads you to this conclusion? "Maplin" would have been and would have been economically devastating for the economy of West London, and the whole of the M4 corridor all the way to Swindon"...??? how, why?[/p][/quote]There are businesses in the corridor offering employment to many people both directly and indirectly involved with Terminals 4 & 5. If Maplin had been built those terminals would not exist and neither would the supporting employment in that area. Ian P
  • Score: 2

12:39pm Thu 4 Sep 14

wobblybob says...

What right has Boris to propose ANYTHING THAT IS OUTSIDE OF LONDON. He's not Mayor of everything south of WATFORD! If he wants to build a new airport within London fine, otherwise get lost!
What right has Boris to propose ANYTHING THAT IS OUTSIDE OF LONDON. He's not Mayor of everything south of WATFORD! If he wants to build a new airport within London fine, otherwise get lost! wobblybob
  • Score: 2

5:59pm Thu 4 Sep 14

sesibollox says...

Running a Government is all about trial and error, however he is to be congratulated for his vision, and without vision nothing would be brought to fruition.
The involvement of Joe public was again a big mistake, as they really haven't a clue, in regards to the bigger picture, and should feel honoured to have been allowed an insight to this vision.
Running a Government is all about trial and error, however he is to be congratulated for his vision, and without vision nothing would be brought to fruition. The involvement of Joe public was again a big mistake, as they really haven't a clue, in regards to the bigger picture, and should feel honoured to have been allowed an insight to this vision. sesibollox
  • Score: -4

9:12pm Thu 4 Sep 14

eurodoomed says...

jayman wrote:
eurodoomed wrote:
Airports cannot be designed on the back of a fag packet. An estuary airport is as daft now as "Maplin" would have been and would have been economically devastating for the economy of West London, and the whole of the M4 corridor all the way to Swindon, as well as environmentally catastrophic. It would also inevitably have led to vast immigation as the majority of jobs at the airport would have gone to foreigners.
"It would also inevitably have led to vast immigration as the majority of jobs at the airport would have gone to foreigners." ???

what leads you to this conclusion?

"Maplin" would have been and would have been economically devastating for the economy of West London, and the whole of the M4 corridor all the way to Swindon"...???

how, why?
West London and the M4 corridor are hugely dependent on Heathrow. Were it to close, the economic and social consequences would be catastrophic.

Re the likely mass immigration of people to fil airport jobs, take a
Look at Heathrow, and surrounding areas. that would be replicated in the areas surrounding a new estuary airport, with dire consequences for local communities.

The environmental consequences of a new airport are clear. the Thames and Medway are internationally important Sites of Special Scientific Interest. How could we destroy them when we are supposed to care about green issues? s so often, politicians are only green when it allows them to put up taxes? Otherwise they are al too often ready to destroy environmentally sensitive areas and then bleat when CO2 emissions increase.

Boris Island, like Maplin was Never a serious option. let us now have a sensible debate about viable options, not the pipe dream of a failed and out of touch politician who has probably never visited the area.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eurodoomed[/bold] wrote: Airports cannot be designed on the back of a fag packet. An estuary airport is as daft now as "Maplin" would have been and would have been economically devastating for the economy of West London, and the whole of the M4 corridor all the way to Swindon, as well as environmentally catastrophic. It would also inevitably have led to vast immigation as the majority of jobs at the airport would have gone to foreigners.[/p][/quote]"It would also inevitably have led to vast immigration as the majority of jobs at the airport would have gone to foreigners." ??? what leads you to this conclusion? "Maplin" would have been and would have been economically devastating for the economy of West London, and the whole of the M4 corridor all the way to Swindon"...??? how, why?[/p][/quote]West London and the M4 corridor are hugely dependent on Heathrow. Were it to close, the economic and social consequences would be catastrophic. Re the likely mass immigration of people to fil airport jobs, take a Look at Heathrow, and surrounding areas. that would be replicated in the areas surrounding a new estuary airport, with dire consequences for local communities. The environmental consequences of a new airport are clear. the Thames and Medway are internationally important Sites of Special Scientific Interest. How could we destroy them when we are supposed to care about green issues? s so often, politicians are only green when it allows them to put up taxes? Otherwise they are al too often ready to destroy environmentally sensitive areas and then bleat when CO2 emissions increase. Boris Island, like Maplin was Never a serious option. let us now have a sensible debate about viable options, not the pipe dream of a failed and out of touch politician who has probably never visited the area. eurodoomed
  • Score: 2

10:27pm Thu 4 Sep 14

jayman says...

eurodoomed wrote:
jayman wrote:
eurodoomed wrote:
Airports cannot be designed on the back of a fag packet. An estuary airport is as daft now as "Maplin" would have been and would have been economically devastating for the economy of West London, and the whole of the M4 corridor all the way to Swindon, as well as environmentally catastrophic. It would also inevitably have led to vast immigation as the majority of jobs at the airport would have gone to foreigners.
"It would also inevitably have led to vast immigration as the majority of jobs at the airport would have gone to foreigners." ???

what leads you to this conclusion?

"Maplin" would have been and would have been economically devastating for the economy of West London, and the whole of the M4 corridor all the way to Swindon"...???

how, why?
West London and the M4 corridor are hugely dependent on Heathrow. Were it to close, the economic and social consequences would be catastrophic.

Re the likely mass immigration of people to fil airport jobs, take a
Look at Heathrow, and surrounding areas. that would be replicated in the areas surrounding a new estuary airport, with dire consequences for local communities.

The environmental consequences of a new airport are clear. the Thames and Medway are internationally important Sites of Special Scientific Interest. How could we destroy them when we are supposed to care about green issues? s so often, politicians are only green when it allows them to put up taxes? Otherwise they are al too often ready to destroy environmentally sensitive areas and then bleat when CO2 emissions increase.

Boris Island, like Maplin was Never a serious option. let us now have a sensible debate about viable options, not the pipe dream of a failed and out of touch politician who has probably never visited the area.
you seem very impassioned for a casual observer. I only asked you to validate the points you made. -you failed by the way-

I know your screen-name is both a misguided warning and pointless mission statement. However! It's best to stay focused and on the topic of aircraft, places for aircraft to land and take off and all the stuff that's required on the ground to help out with this business.

all the points you raised are just as applicable at southend airport. Southend's glide path is over SSSI's and RAMSAR sites. bird strike is just as likely (Brent geese seem to have an attraction to the river roach too) and the isle of grain is home to a mothballed oil burning power station, a functional gas fired power station a liquid gas storage facility, a port and other industries. Its hardly an unspoiled or picturesque vista.

What makes you think that southend airport is a British only bastion of right-wing, patriot employees? I think UKIP members would fail the medical on account of the swivel-eyes.
[quote][p][bold]eurodoomed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eurodoomed[/bold] wrote: Airports cannot be designed on the back of a fag packet. An estuary airport is as daft now as "Maplin" would have been and would have been economically devastating for the economy of West London, and the whole of the M4 corridor all the way to Swindon, as well as environmentally catastrophic. It would also inevitably have led to vast immigation as the majority of jobs at the airport would have gone to foreigners.[/p][/quote]"It would also inevitably have led to vast immigration as the majority of jobs at the airport would have gone to foreigners." ??? what leads you to this conclusion? "Maplin" would have been and would have been economically devastating for the economy of West London, and the whole of the M4 corridor all the way to Swindon"...??? how, why?[/p][/quote]West London and the M4 corridor are hugely dependent on Heathrow. Were it to close, the economic and social consequences would be catastrophic. Re the likely mass immigration of people to fil airport jobs, take a Look at Heathrow, and surrounding areas. that would be replicated in the areas surrounding a new estuary airport, with dire consequences for local communities. The environmental consequences of a new airport are clear. the Thames and Medway are internationally important Sites of Special Scientific Interest. How could we destroy them when we are supposed to care about green issues? s so often, politicians are only green when it allows them to put up taxes? Otherwise they are al too often ready to destroy environmentally sensitive areas and then bleat when CO2 emissions increase. Boris Island, like Maplin was Never a serious option. let us now have a sensible debate about viable options, not the pipe dream of a failed and out of touch politician who has probably never visited the area.[/p][/quote]you seem very impassioned for a casual observer. I only asked you to validate the points you made. -you failed by the way- I know your screen-name is both a misguided warning and pointless mission statement. However! It's best to stay focused and on the topic of aircraft, places for aircraft to land and take off and all the stuff that's required on the ground to help out with this business. all the points you raised are just as applicable at southend airport. Southend's glide path is over SSSI's and RAMSAR sites. bird strike is just as likely (Brent geese seem to have an attraction to the river roach too) and the isle of grain is home to a mothballed oil burning power station, a functional gas fired power station a liquid gas storage facility, a port and other industries. Its hardly an unspoiled or picturesque vista. What makes you think that southend airport is a British only bastion of right-wing, patriot employees? I think UKIP members would fail the medical on account of the swivel-eyes. jayman
  • Score: -2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree