Protesters buy up Heathrow land

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Biped, Jan 13, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    BBC

    Thought for the day: If I was aware of a bunch of land that was badly needed for a massive development, and I had the funds, I might be inclined to jump in first, buy the land while it was of little value (as it was about to be tarmacked over) and then make a nice little packet when the developers came a-knocking.

    'But, they are refusing to sell the land!' says you. Well, that's as may be, but the truth of the matter is, when a project like this gets the green light from . . . . . the gobment and local councils, then what follows for those who are retiscent to sell is a compulsory purchase order, at market rates, which, in actual fact are rates set as if the land or property had NOT been devalued by talk of development.

    So, what I'm thinking is that these hearty, fine, upstanding protestors are well aware of this fact, and are spinning this thing like a top whilst quietly rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of making a fast buck. They are learning from the experts in making a fast, quiet buck while pretending to give a sh!te - the gobment.

    Thoughts please.
     
  2. Sadly, it will only slow this ludicrous scheme down. The 'Stalinist' government will simply acquire compulsory purchase orders.

    It is clearly nonsense to expand an organisation that barely functions now. The road, rail and underground infrastructure are stretched to breaking point and frequently break! The fat oik Prescott's 'private' motor-way lane compounds the problems.

    The noise, the pollution and the dangers are quantifiable. The claimed 'importance' of this expansion is not quantifiable and I suspect that there are little clumps of vested interest liberally scattered in the 'pro lobby'.

    PS: Considerable funding and a good lawyer is required to operate the 'purchase one square yard of this parcel of land scheme'. This, in a democratic country and one that operates a politically disengaged legal system, really slows things down.

    Sadly, this country is no longer truly democratic (unelected prime minister) nor does it operate a politically free legal system (Straw - Justice Minister - Napoleonic appointment).
     
  3. When I read this in the paper this morning it really pissed me off! A third runway will only have a positive affect! It will create a more efficient Heathrow; which is a long time overdue! It will bring in more tourism, more business and possibly cheaper flights, all of which will boost the economy! More to the point, despite what the greenies say it will actually reduce the carbon foot print, not increase it!

    The average delay at Heathrow is 16mins, which means each plane sits on the runway or is in transit (taxi and or queuing in the air waiting for a landing slot) for an extra 16mins minimum (in reality is usually far more)! This 16mins causes a huge amount of carbon pollution and creates far more noise pollution as the planes constantly circle Heathrow.

    Creating a third runway reduces the taxi/running time for each plane which translates to less fuel, less cost, less pollution! Lets not forget the jobs that will be created, 65 000!

    On a bright note the greenies have shot themselves in the foot! By saying they are refusing to the sell the land at all costs they will be force to give up the land...

    “Recent planning legislation included clauses that allowed the courts to consider whether or not a land purchase that blocked planned development was "vexatious or frivolous".”

    Less fuel, less polution, less cost...a longer life for all!
     
  4. Your wish is our command...Heathrow now has a second runway. Now back to the issue about the third runway....
     
  5. Well they knew an airport was there when they bought the land- so they can hardly complain about the noise... :roll:
     
  6. So, in the interests of a balanced debate:

    1. Heathrow is hugely important for the UK and London economies. It supports jobs and business - providing the UK's only air links to many long-haul destinations. In 1990 Heathrow served 227 international destinations. This had fallen to 180 by 2006. Heathrow, and UK airports, will continue to fall behind without growth.

    2. Heathrow is full. Its two runways operate at 99% of permitted capacity. 40% of delays at Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester are caused by late arriving flights, due to a shortage of runway capacity. In 2006 Heathrow handled some 67 million passengers using facilities designed for around 40 million. This has a pan-UK impact: Heathrow now has 9 domestic links with UK cities compared to 21 from Amsterdam Schipol. This means UK passengers are less able to travel via a UK hub. This has significant implications for the viability of regional air links.

    3. The Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change put aviation’s contribution to global carbon emissions at less than 2 per cent and predicts that this will grow to 3 per cent by 2050. Flights associated with Heathrow Airport account for a very small percentage of the global total. The introduction of emissions trading for aviation from 2012 will further minimize that impact.


    4. Despite protests, proposals for a third runway enjoy significant support, including from the CBI, the TUC, the London Chamber of Commerce and local business. In fact, a recent poll conducted by the independent polling company Populus showed that it is also supported by many local residents. By more than 2 to 1, local people feel that the advantages of Heathrow for this area generally outweigh the disadvantages. It also showed that more local people support construction of a third runway than oppose it.

    5. As many as 1 in 10 local people in employment work at the airport in some local boroughs. Heathrow supports 70,000 direct jobs and over 100,000 indirect jobs making it the biggest single-site employer in the UK. A York Aviation study in 2005 estimated that every airport job represented some £60,000 in gross added value. On this basis, employment at Heathrow adds at least £4.2 billion to the economy.

    6. Frankfurt has three runways (with a fourth under construction), Paris has four and Amsterdam has five. Europe is desperate to take business away from London and the UK. The UK is falling behind.

    7. Heathrow’s dependence on two runways, while European competitors have four or five, causes delays, stacks and crawling taxiway queues. The cost of this congestion can be measured economically and environmentally. More efficient, or mixed-mode, use of the existing runways would allow us to cut delays at a stroke. An 8.5 minute hold (the average at Heathrow) therefore uses 468 kg. of fuel. In 2006 aircraft held in stacks over Heathrow emitted around 50,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Increasing runway capacity and increase utilisation of runways currently under utilised will reduce the need to keep aircraft ‘stacked’ over airports, cutting emissions and bringing environmental rewards.

    So remind me, why is this a bad thing?
     
  7. Sympathetic_Reaction

    Sympathetic_Reaction LE Book Reviewer

    [quote="Biped]So, what I'm thinking is that these hearty, fine, upstanding protestors are well aware of this fact, and are spinning this thing like a top whilst quietly rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of making a fast buck. They are learning from the experts in making a fast, quiet buck while pretending to give a sh!te - the gobment.

    Thoughts please.[/quote]

    You are half way to understanding their method. what they have done is bought a large area of land that is needed...if they were going to keep this and then wait for it to be bought then you would probably be correct in your suggestion.

    BUT...what they are actually going to do is sell if off again in very small packages (1msq) to hundred/thousands of individuals around the world, some of whom are in very difficult locations (eskimos/native indians/indonesian farmers etc.) all of whom have agreed to not sell it back. This means that to get the couple of acres of field the government/company will need to go through hundred/thousands of compulsary purchase orders. The majority being from foreign owners, who aren't easily contactable and generally are there to be disruptive.

    This will cause a huge cost and time penalty to the process.

    I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but i'm saying that your suggestion that the block of land has been bought for profit is not correct.

    S_R
     
  8. As someone who lives locally, directly under the flightpaths...I want the expansion, screw the NIMBY fcukers sitting pretty with everything sorted for them, theres plenty of people who could do with the jobs and plenty of companies who could do with the work in the current economic climate, I'm not surprised its a bunch of posh richmond tw@ts moaning, living off inheritances they don't need the work, they're interfering with my mission to entirely concrete over the South East!
     
  9. Don't give a monkies either way as i only use it to flyonwards.

    Haha, I just want to see their faces when they are given a cheque for much less than they paid for it
     
  10. How can an "average 16 mins delay" turn into a "16 mins minimum"?
     
  11. No story, just spin...hardly even a speed bump in the inexorable progress of the third runway saga!
     
  12. I'm actually in Staines, so yeah I agree Hounslow is a sh1tpit! Saying that Bartertown (I mean Feltham) is a lot better since they did the high street up...
     
  13. The proposed 'Thames Gateway' idea is much more in line with the modern world (very similar to the New Hong Kong Airport). And what the sensible consultants have recommended, cost is resonable and is very do-able. Also the traffic chaos that was caused by that crappy T5 building would be eliminated. A 3rd runway is a no brainer & is only going to go ahead because of BA & that T5 building.
     
  14. The Estuary Island idea is an utter non starter. It would take 15 years to build at least, cost £35 billion (which no one has), would require the UK Government to circumvent masses of EU legislation on the protection of habitats, and it would place an airport in the middle of the biggest offshore windfarm in Europe.

    It's utterly barking, and the sooner people accept that the better.
     
  15. If the tree huggers can at least force the government to link a decent high speed rail connection to Bham, Manchester and High Speed 1, then I think they should be quite pleased with themselves. I also live under the flightpath, but also have to put up with the M4 blockages on a regular basis, so any form of improvement in the availability and access to public transport/high speed rail would be a bonus, even if I have to put up with a few more 747s over the back garden.