Lydd Airport expansion plans approved

Christopher Coe wrote:

Lydd Airport Expansion 2010 Approval

A victory for common sense at last.
I only wish that this had happened in 1974 when so many of the then staff had to walk away jobless following the demise of Silver City Airways (and associates). Of course the wildlife will survive and prosper, the airfield was a 'nature reserve' in it's early days, despite the noisy and dirty Bristol Freighters that were the main operating aircraft during the 1950 - 1970's era.
Good Luck Lydd!

12 Mar 2010 3:04 PM

Report Abuse

reality wrote:

Tim the jokes on you. If you really believe anyone is going to invest tens of millions of pounds in this hopelessly unconnected fag-end of kent then you are clearly delusional. Take a look at the parlous state of the airlines industry and at other small regional airports and you'll understand why Lydd will never present an attractive investment opportunity.

As for talk about flight paths to North America, does anyone really believe the Lydd-New York route is going to become a reality when Stanstead airport stopped North American routes several years ago? Get real.

So don't get too concerned about traffic and noise, you won't be noticing any.

As for jobs, does anyone think that an investor putting millions into Lydd's development is going to use Smith and Son's Builders of Brenzett; I think not, they will hire a multinational engineering firm, who may or may not employ a few local labourers.

So to Tim - the 'winner' - well done you've just wasted a huge chunk of your life on a hopeless white elephant.

09 Mar 2010 1:59 PM

Report Abuse

Tim Crompton wrote:

Lydd Airport re-development

I have left my comments till now to see how many sour grapes would be forthcoming.
I as many people involved in this debate will know am a spokesman for FLAG (Friends of Lydd Airport Group) we set up some 4 yrs ago to counter the scaremongering & untruths of opponents to the creation of much needed investment in the Romney Marsh.
Many open debates have been held by FLAG to allow both sides to be heard, and for us to see the other side of the arguement and to take into account and allay the fears of those who have only heard the negative side of the arguement put, I can say that we seemed to have won every debate.
I note that a great deal has been made of the Parish poll which was held at short notice with a loaded question being 60% against the re-development of the airport, but lets not forget that a lot of residents were unable to vote due to the short polling time (polls closed at 4pm when a lot of supporters of the airport were still at work but the retired antes were able to vote) only about 25% of the electorate had the opportunity to vote! none of the antes has mentioned the MORI poll carried out by local radio which had 6400 votes cast of which 4400 were in favour (over 60%) maybe our Councillors did then reflect the view of the majority.
The calls by the losers of this debate for a "Public Enquiry" are of course to be expected, having put up all thier weak and flawed arguements, they can not accept that there are facts which have to be taken into accout, we have already had an expensive public enquiry which found in favour of a 700 meter extension to the runway, we have gone through all the submissions to that enquiry and surprise! surprise! there is nothing new in the arguments against. Why is it that selfish people, for that is what the antes are, never seem to accept that they do not have a strong case and do not care about the future of the people of the Marsh, or the prospects for employment of our local children. And before someone replies that there will not be many jobs, they won't go to local people, they will only be poorly paid, I can tell you that 85% of the 100 people working for the airport are indeed local and that not only have they been fully trained by the airport but they are also well paid. This is the writen policy of the airport management and owners. There are aprenticeships filled by people from The Marsh Accadamy, air traffic controllers from Lydd, executive posisions filled by local girls.
I congratulate Shepway District Council for the quality of debate allowed on Wednesday last, the amount of speakers from both sides, local and professional who were allowed to make their points, the weighing up of which evidence was factual and correct by the Councillors and the general conduct of the debate which I watched in full. I also congratulate the Council for making a strong decision in favour of the future of the Marsh and Shepway as a whole.
Lastly to reiterate my earlier point regarding a public enquiry, I think with the amount of speakers that addressed the meeting that has already happened, more of the public were consulted and had an opportunity to make their points than I have ever seen before in a Council Debate.
To the losers, accept that you were wrong, your house prices will increase, only a few minutes of your day will be slightly noisy, not the whole of your day, let the children of the area have employment and prospects for their future, let Shepway be prosperous, do not try to take us into poverty.

07 Mar 2010 5:40 PM

Report Abuse

Douglas Gaussen wrote:

Airport Flight Paths.

Are we allowed to see a definitive chart of the flight paths or are they a state secret worthy of the late President Ceaucescu?

05 Mar 2010 8:06 PM

Report Abuse

Tom MacNeece wrote:

Airpport Flight Paths.

Perhaps I am slower than others, but I have only just printed out the landing and take-off flight paths. I knew the landing flight paths came roughly along the coast, with the busy French and Spanish route skirting Aldington at about 2,000 ft before entering air space over Romney March.
What came as a surprise was the take-off paths, all turning sharply right about 500 ft above Lydd Town. The approved take-off flight paths then show flights to France and Italy heading over Camber and to Spain and Portugal over Rye. Flights to North America and the UK would appear to go between Appledore and St Mary while flight to northern Europe head off over Hythe and Folkestone.
I downloaded eight flight path maps on www.kentnet.org.UK/laag/CAA. These maps are very important. I would have said that as from the date of the Wednesday meeting, solicitors acting for purchasers of property will need something that is clearly 100% legal and formal. Flight paths affect property values. I think the MP and councillors should be asked to ensure proper maps of flight paths are available.

05 Mar 2010 6:52 PM

Report Abuse

M.J.Ludlow wrote:

Airport Expansion

How many lives are going to be lost on the ridiculous road leading to Lydd from Ashford with the increased traffic. It is a death trap at the best of times. Latest fatality last week.Are there any plans for the improvement of this road? I think we all will rue the day because of increased noise and polution and the ruination of a beautiful unique landscape.

05 Mar 2010 8:56 AM

Report Abuse

Patsy Taylor wrote:

Country Lanes

Eralier this week the 2070 was closed for most of the day following a major accident. This is now becoming a regulr occurance. During these times of closure traffic is diverted through the very narrow lanes of the Marsh causing a backlog of traffic and many police hours. Can you imagine the chaos whern all the extra airport traffic is added to the mix. As far as all these extra people coming into the area and boosting our economy, what a load of rubbish. When was the last time you stopped to spend any money in the areas surrounding Gatwick or Heathrow? You travel on the roads to the terminal, catch your plane and then travel on the roads home again. The same will happen here on the Marsh. The only difference is that our roads can't cope with the extra traffic and who wants our beautiful countryside spoiled by a motorway through the Marsh. I don't think so!

05 Mar 2010 1:19 AM

Report Abuse

robbie craig wrote:

dungeness airport

Liam,

The biggest environmental impact the expanded airport will have on the area is noise: the loss of tranquillity is serious and irreversible:there is less and less of it in the SE. No amount of double glazing will make up for the loss of amenity when noisy planes lumber overhead. The new quiet engines are relatively quiet and reduce the level experienced by people in noisy areas, in an area that is not noisy, they add to it. Houses can be triple glazed but we would lose the ability to sit in our gardens and enjoy peace and quiet. The air will also stink of fuel.

If that is the world they want, they always move to beautiful environment of Copthorne and try and enjoy a quiet pint outside.

Regarding the "silent majority" they dragoon in to support their odd viewpoint, by choosing not to vote, they have agreed with the majority view expressed through the vote so cannot support the minority viewpoint.

04 Mar 2010 9:41 PM

Report Abuse

willie wrote:

thinking of others

I have read much over many years on the pros and cons for Lydd airport expansion. The vote has been cast let's hope some of the old ideas from the days of Skyways and Dan Air will resuface and be developed and incorporated in the grand scheme,for example an extension of the branch line to meet the new terminal, such a link with a halt at Lydd nad Brookland would mean a public transport link to the outside world and may reduce the carbon foot print of locals and potential visitors to the area.The biggest problem for northern people thinking of coming to the marsh area on vacation is the thought of negotiating the M25. The air port itself may or not be a viable business the owners must have business plan that they think will work? Approximately two years work in the construction of it is jobs not only for the for the area in the building trades but also in the steel fabrication work both on and of site is not something to be disregarded lightly.
The district councillors who voted for the scheme gave a vote not only for the expansion but more importantly recognised the need the give hope for the future for all local unemployed people.

04 Mar 2010 8:24 PM

Report Abuse

Liam wrote:

Scaremongering

Straight away scaremongering in these comments.

J Winton makes references to planes crashing into Dungeness of wind turbines. I suppose this person was recently protesting against Heathrow's new runway on saftey grounds over central London? The HSE agree's with LAA the risk is low; there is a wide public misunderstanding about what would happen if an aircraft crashed into a power station I feel.

P Taylor makes a valid point; with or without airport expansion a number of roads on the Marsh need to be upgraded including the crucial Hammonds corner roundabout. I often stay in hotels near Gatwick or Heathrow before early flights - does that count as spending in the local area?

I don't have time to respond to Ray's comments about climate change, its obvious he understands little on the subject and is not well read. I suspect Ray drives, or has driven in his life. In the UK, vechicles are responsible for many tens of percent more emmissions than aviation.

The meeting was driven a lot by environmental impacts; if you asked a "typical" Marsh resident to list 3 unique species to the area I challange you to find more than a handful that do!

04 Mar 2010 6:43 PM

Report Abuse

Patsy Taylor wrote:

Country Lanes

Eralier this week the 2070 was closed for most of the day following a major accident. This is now becoming a regulr occurance. During these times of closure traffic is diverted through the very narrow lanes of the Marsh causing a backlog of traffic and many police hours. Can you imagine the chaos whern all the extra airport traffic is added to the mix. As far as all these extra people coming into the area and boosting our economy, what a load of rubbish. When was the last time you stopped to spend any money in the areas surrounding Gatwick or Heathrow? You travel on the roads to the terminal, catch your plane and then travel on the roads home again. The same will happen here on the Marsh. The only difference is that our roads can't cope with the extra traffic and who wants our beautiful countryside spoiled by a motorway through the Marsh. I don't think so!

04 Mar 2010 5:03 PM

Report Abuse

Tom MacNeece wrote:

Romney Marsh Airport.

I did what every good journalist is supposed to do today and visited the scene affected by the decision. What did local people think? I was expecting a lot of concern and, indeed, I think the retired are very anxious.
The reaction from the young I spoke to? "There is absolutely nothing here in the way of work. They have promised jobs to local people". Employment laws? Promises? One wonders and hopes for the young.
I remember Lydd over 50 years ago. An historic little town, relying on fishing (now sadly diminished), farming (two dairy farms a day going out of business nationally) and the army. Once a battalion of 600 men stationed locally. Now apparently many fewer jobs.
A power station, but future in doubt and many jobs said to be contracted from outside the area.
Middle East investors like those backing the airport have first class advisers these days. Will they really come up with the money or try to sell on the site with planning permission?
The difference between the area today and 50 years ago is the sprawl of housing estates, not just round Lydd by all the way down the coast. "It is quite different to when you were here 50 years ago", said one local man.
Personally, I think Louise Barton has put up a magnificent fight and congratulations to her.
She has lost for the time being and I hope Romney Marsh is not about to be "blighted" for nothing. The young bave high hopes, the retired may be about to face a lot of pain.

04 Mar 2010 4:16 PM

Report Abuse

J Winton wrote:

Airport Expansion

Think how dangerous it will be if a plane crashes into Dungeness or even one of the giant wind farm turbines. This is an accident waiting to happen.

04 Mar 2010 3:20 PM

Report Abuse

Daz wrote:

Airport Expansion

I live in the area, I cannot believe we have been let down by the council. Will they cover the cost of my blighted home, never again will I be able to use my garden without ducking for cover everytime a plane comes over. What about the disgusting level of infrastructure in the area. It can not cope now , 500,000 more cars ???? I did notice not many of the council live here !!!!!

04 Mar 2010 3:11 PM

Report Abuse

Simon wrote:

Decision a disgrace

Those in favour of this disasterous, environmentally damaging proposal seem quite happy for one of the most important sites of scientific and environmental value to be destroyed by this ridiculous development. The likes of Stu and his mates might not be so happy when all the many visitors to Dungenss stop coming to the area and see the impact that has on local jobs. Visitors to the Airport will not be stopping in New Romney etc thus boosting the local economy, they will just be heading straight for the airport, clogging up the roads and then leaving again back from where they came. This is a misguided and environmentally damaging decision and let's hope a Public Enquiry will overturn this decision. The fight to stop the expansion is far from over you can be sure!!

04 Mar 2010 1:50 PM

Report Abuse

Ray wrote:

Myopic and short-termist decision by SDC

The decision by Shepway District Council to allow planning permission for Lydd Airport expansion last week shows just how myopic and short-termist they are. It also shows that their signing of the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change is also a total sham and mere lip-service. They should withdraw or be dropped from it immediately.

Further the last minute decision to back the airport by MP Michael Howard also shows just how shallow his concerns for the environment over the years have been, and confirms the recent surveys of the Tory Party which show how little real concern they have for the now pressing need to tackle climate change despite the rhetoric from leader David Cameron.

That said however, the vast majority of opponants, whether locals or campaigning groups, will now lodge very many objections to the decision to push the scheme to a Public Inquiry having very clear grounds to do so. It is very likely that Lydd Airport will then loose this.

Lastly had the airport decided, given the substantial opposition, to withdraw their plans early and then developed a far more diverse portfolio of businesses on the site; such as the long suggested renewables tech industries and green tourism ideas; they would by now have been well into developing such and thus starting to provide the jobs they say they want to create. It is not too late for them to do so though by withdrawing their expansion plans even now.

04 Mar 2010 1:46 PM

Report Abuse

Tom wrote:

Airport Expansion

It seems as though the silent majority of the local residents would like to see a New Runway and Terminal. If it means bringing employment and Investment I am all for it. It seems that the Very Vocal Minority, who don't want it, also don't want a third power station and didn't want the Wind Farm either!

04 Mar 2010 1:28 PM

Report Abuse

Rob Taylor wrote:

Anon...

Dear Anon

I think the problem lies in the fact that people cannot be botehred with local politics. The country has got itself into a state of apathy.

To all those unhappy about the airport expansion, a simple question to answer. Who was there first? You, or the airport?

04 Mar 2010 12:15 PM

Report Abuse

Anon wrote:

Small, Vocal Minority? - Where art thou?

Firstly I must make it clear that I have little interest in whether airport expansion goes ahead. My comments are mainly directed towards the dismay of the British democratic system. In a referendum on the topic 64% of local people voted against expansion. If there was just a small vocal minority against expansion, why could the majority not be bothered to go out and vote for the plans? And then to have Shepway council vote in a manner completely against that of the local people asked is sickening. In the last century 9 million British people died protecting our democracy, something people seem to observe on the 11/11, but never seem to take heed of the lessons that should be learnt! It is nothing short of appalling that in politics now people cannot be bothered to vote, and representatives cannot be bothered to listen to the will of the people!! Wheres the righteousness in that??

04 Mar 2010 11:44 AM

Report Abuse

Tom wrote:

Airport Expansion

It seems as though the silent majority of the local residents would like to see a New Runway and Terminal. If it means bringing employment and Investment I am all for it. It seems that the Very Vocal Minority, who don't want it, also don't want a third power station and didn't want the Wind Farm either!

04 Mar 2010 10:48 AM

Report Abuse

Tom wrote:

Airport Expansion

It seems as though the silent majority of the local residents would like to see a New Runway and Terminal. If it means bringing employment and Investment I am all for it. It seems that the Very Vocal Minority, who don't want it, also don't want a third power station and didn't want the Wind Farm either!

04 Mar 2010 10:41 AM

Report Abuse

A Happy Lydd Airport Supporter wrote:

Support your local airport

I, among several others, am particularly pleased that sense has prevailed and the yes vote went through.

In response to Mr Hinds comments, J. Gordon has only had viable control of the airport for the last 6 months (which you should be a ware of being a project manager). Prior to this a collection of self interested, money making publicity grabbers had tried to in vain to get the planning permission for 7 or so years. Rather than rubbishing a great job done I would suggest supporting the cause and getting behind people that make things happen.

04 Mar 2010 10:01 AM

Report Abuse

Paul Hubert wrote:

Lydd Airport and flooding

I wonder whether all parties have taken account of longer-term flood risk on Romney Marsh: "the extent of the low lying area results in over 15,000 homes and businesses - including two of Britain’s Nuclear Power Stations and the nearby Lydd Airport all being potentially within floodable areas". With sea level rise and more energetic sstorms, this area may not be saveable. That's a problem for the environment which may be threatened by airport expansion but also for the viability of the airport.

04 Mar 2010 10:01 AM

Report Abuse

Liam wrote:

Airport Expansion

I think the council made the correction decicion in this instance and have listened to the silent majority. We all know that with large scale projects that small, minority action groups will make a loud noise, whereas those for the plan are often silent. As someone who watched the whole debate online, I genuinly think they were satisfied that the environmental issues were dealt with satisfactorily. I think recently action groups have been clinging on to any arguement in order to stop the planning application being approved. It was a shame they could not stick to there original argument of noise, which I'm sure most reasonable people will accept will increase at times. But put it into perspective, estimating 500,000 passengers per annum, is about 1370 passengers a day, and give an average aircraft size of 100 seats is about 14 flight. That is only 7 takeoffs and 7 landing. Aircraft noise will be heard for less than a minute each time, so 14 minutes of noise a day for the possibility of economic stimulus in Shepway is a low price to pay in my opinion.

Too many arguments have been put forward about business viability, this should not be of concern to the planning application in my opinion; if someone is prepared to spend money in a deprived area then by all means let them!

04 Mar 2010 9:56 AM

Report Abuse

Stu wrote:

The Greater Good has prevailed!

I think all reasonable people will have seen from last night's presentations that the expansion of the airport is hardly a "blight" on the local area. Far from it. It's something we can and should be proud of.

A betrayal? Hardly! This was a decision based on common sense, taking into account the views of the ENTIRE community, not the small vocal minority. It was a vote for the future of the Marsh, and it was clear to me last night that the majority of local people WANT the airport.

The Anti-lobby's true colours have shone through. Self-serving bullies, who's closed minds have stifled debate and shouted down reason. Well, their misinformation has been laid open for all to see. Even their Lib Dem allies on the Council came across looking foolish, arguing in circles desperately, rather than looking at the facts and making a decision based on them! The facts were clear to me - the airport will not damage the environment. The airport will benefit people. Noise concerns were proven to be nonsense, as most reasonable people realise. They are not living next to Heathrow for crying out loud!

Jobs are coming to our dead area, and I'm excited at the prospect of more investment following! To those who thought the jobs would be "the wrong ones" or "not enough" - GET REAL! Look at your towns. Look at the unemployment and deprivation. Tell us why on earth we should turn down ANY jobs?!

Well-done to the 27 members who voted yes. Shame on those who didn't.

04 Mar 2010 9:43 AM

Report Abuse

A Happy Lydd Airport Supporter wrote:

Support your local airport

I, among several others, am particularly pleased that sense has prevailed and the yes vote went through.

In response to Mr Hinds comments, J. Gordon has only had viable control of the airport for the last 6 months (which you should be a ware of being a project manager). Prior to this a collection of self interested, money making publicity grabbers had tried to in vain to get the planning permission for 7 or so years. Rather than rubbishing a great job done I would suggest supporting the cause and getting behind people that make things happen.

04 Mar 2010 9:28 AM

Report Abuse

R Beer wrote:

airport expansion

This decision is a betrayal of the people of the coastal areas whose lives are going to be blighted by the noise and disruption caused by aircraft movements. Very soon there will little left of Kent which was once a green and pleasant land.

04 Mar 2010 9:04 AM

Report Abuse

Roy Hinds wrote:

Lack of Commercial viablility is the root cause of Lydd's problems

Having been closely involved as project manger from 2006 - 2009, the root cause of Lydd's problems is the Gordon Brothers pre-occupation in regards the planning application, and little or no focus on commercial evolution on the ground.

Passenger numbers from 2001 to 2008 have halved from 4,000 to 2,000 for example.

The overseas investor has no vested interest other than making money on what he views as a "real estate" deal, this will be at the expense of both jobs and sustainable employment. Always the focus was on runway extension, rather than new hangars or facilities wanted by potential operators.

All very sad really given the potential the place has, the hard working people on the coalface and the millions spent to-date,all in vain.

03 Mar 2010 3:33 PM

Report Abuse

Stu wrote:

Let's hope the councillors vote YES!

As a resident sick of the constant selfish moaning of the NIMBYs, I seriously hope the councillors have the common sense and courage to vote YES to the expansion.

Let's ask ourselves what is more important - jobs and investment in a dead local economy, or a handful of people thinking of themselves? The environmental arguments are non-existent - the area is a wasteland. A few newts might have to move? Boo hoo! What matters more is that our children in the area have some jobs to go to, rather than having to leave to look for work elsewhere.

03 Mar 2010 2:47 PM

Report Abuse