Heathrow Airport expansion in doubt after Theresa May promotes critics to top cabinet posts

A 3rd Heathrow runway appears increasingly unlikely after Theresa May appointed to her Cabinet a series of opponents to it. Justine Greening, the new Education Secretary, has said building another runway at Heathrow is not a “smart decision” while Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson have also been opposed. Chris Grayling, who is now the Transport Secretary, replacing Patrick McLoughlin,has voiced few public opinions on airport expansion in recent years – though probably privately backed Heathrow in 2009.  He will now help oversee the decision on whether Heathrow or Gatwick is chosen for expansion. Whether the option of not choosing either, which would be the sensible decision, is also being reconsidered is not known. Both David Cameron and George Osborne were keen on a Heathrow runway – indeed it was likely that a decision to approve it would have been taken days after a “Remain” vote in the EU Referendum – are now both just backbenchers. Boris Johnson, who has said he would “lie down in front of the bulldozers” if Heathrow built a runway, would face calls to resign if he remained in a Cabinet that backed the project. Philip Hammond, the new Chancellor, said last year: “London’s role as an international air transport hub can be maintained without additional runways at Heathrow. A second runway at Gatwick, plus enhanced transport links between the airports and better transport links to London will create a ‘virtual’ hub airport, maintaining Heathrow’s role in the local economy without expanding it.”
.
Tweet

 

Heathrow Airport expansion in doubt after Theresa May promotes critics to top cabinet posts

By Ben Riley-Smith, political correspondent   (Telegraph)
14 JULY 2016
Expansion of Heathrow Airport appears increasingly unlikely after Theresa May appointed to her Cabinet a series of opponents to a third runway.

Justine Greening, the new Education Secretary, has said building another runway at Heathrow is not a “smart decision” while Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson have also been opposed.

Chris Grayling, who was named Transport Secretary, has voiced few public opinions on airport expansion in recent years – though was reported to have privately backed Heathrow in 2009.

He will now help oversee the decision on whether Heathrow or Gatwick is chosen for expansion after years of delay under David Cameron.

Mr Grayling, who was Commons Leader before the promotion, will also have to ensure High Speed Two (HS2) is rolled out over the coming years, despite criticism in some Tory heartlands.

Mr Cameron had said a decision on airport expansions in the South East would be taken this summer after a series of delays, but the timetable is now unclear after a change in leadership.

The former prime minister and George Osborne, the former chancellor, were said to be supportive of the Heathrow bid but have now returned to the backbenches.

However critics of Heathrow have now been handed some of the most senior roles in government by Mrs May, raising questions about whether the airport will be chosen.

Boris Johnson, the new Foreign Secretary, repeatedly campaigned against expansion during his eight years as London Mayor and would face calls to resign if he remained in a cabinet that backed the project.

When asked about a third Heathrow runway last year, Mr Hammond, the new Chancellor, said: “London’s role as an international air transport hub can be maintained without additional runways at Heathrow.

“A second runway at Gatwick, plus enhanced transport links between the airports and better transport links to London will create a ‘virtual’ hub airport, maintaining Heathrow’s role in the local economy without expanding it.”

John Stewart, the chair of the campaign against Heathrow expansion, also claimed Mrs May had attended a meeting and criticised the project in 2008.

“I will continue to put pressure on the Government over the third runway at Heathrow as an extra 222,0000 flights a year would undermine our national targets and seriously damage the health of the local community,” she said at the time, according to Mr Stewart.

Ms Greening spoke out against Heathrow as recently as March, when she told The Telegraph: “I don’t believe that this government will proceed with a third runway decision. I just don’t think it is a smart decision.

“Trying to expand Heathrow is like trying to build an eight bedroom mansion on the site of a terraced house. It is a hub airport that is just simply in the wrong place.”

She added: “The sooner that we can move onto working out a long term airport strategy for Britain the better.”

http://ift.tt/29Gjlp5

.

 

 

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/29CIfQK

Read more ...

Theresa May urged to ‘quickly rule out’ Heathrow expansion by Hounslow Conservatives

Read more ...

Aircraft noise and mental well-being – the looming challenge only starting to be acknowledged

Chris spoke movingly at the event held at the House of Commons, on 4^th July, about his experiences of dealing with both mental health problems and the unwanted imposition of aircraft noise from Heathrow flights near his home.  In a blog, Chris explains some of the issues of depression, especially serious depression, its impacts on other family members and the time people can take to get well. Many people with mental ill-health are vulnerable to noise, and noise sensitive. Through no fault of their own, other than choosing to live in the wrong place, people can find themselves subjected to relentless intrusive plane noise, that causes stress, anxiety and depression. Having moved to a quite area, to recover from illness, Heathrow changed flight path use, so Chris’s home was intensely overflown. The anxiety this cause was made worse as there was no proper information or reassurance from anyone about what was going on, or why, or when it might stop. Worse still, it was unclear what, if anything, anyone affected could, do to try and protect themselves. As well as annoyance, eventually the feeling of powerlessness, having no legal remedies, and the perceived lack of fairness about the situation, lead to a crushing sense of helplessness.  For those with mental conditions, this can have dangerous – even life threatening – results. The seriousness of the noise problem, especially for those already susceptible to depression, needs to be acknowledged. The issue of people who are vulnerable to noise should not be ignored any longer.
.
Tweet

 

 

Aircraft noise and mental well-being – the looming challenge only starting to be acknowledged

With thanks to Chris, (West London resident)

10.7.2016

Chris spoke movingly at the event held at the House of Commons, on 4^th July, about his experiences of dealing with both mental health problems and the unwanted imposition of aircraft noise from Heathrow flights near his home.

He spoke of having suffered from severe depression, with his last episode about 12 years ago, and the struggle following a ‘near death experience’ to slowly reclaim his life after a period of hospitalisation and lengthy rehabilitation. Confidence and the ability to do the smallest of things such as to go out, go to the shops, travel on public transport, and eventually return to work had been lost, and took years to recover.

Severe depression, is a serious illness, which although treatable in many cases, may not always respond. Sadly more than 6,000 people a year commit suicide in the UK each year. Many are severely depressed.

Now much better, Chris does not want to ever trigger a relapse, not least because the prognosis for a successful recovery is very poor. This is why he actively does everything possible to remain healthy, and has publicised the risk of aviation noise to mental health – for example, for people recovering, or who have ‘recovered’ from, severe depression.

Ironically he and his family moved to a new home about four years ago to de-stress. Very soon after, there were unannounced changes to Heathrow flight paths, and the introduction of PBN, meaning much more concentrated flights. The anxiety it caused, was made worse as there was no proper information or reassurance from anyone about what was going on, or why, or when it might stop.  Worse still, it was unclear what, if anything, anyone could do about it, to try and protect themselves. Eventually the feeling of powerlessness, having no legal remedies, and the perceived lack of fairness about the situation, had the effect of increased annoyance and a strong sense of helplessness.

Chris spoke of how difficult it is to describe intense depression, and the feelings of those who suffer from it. The stress is not only on the person with depression, but also on their families.  The strain and uncertainty can be immense, on everyone, and it is not something that is quickly treated with the person returning to being well in a week or two, once they complete a course of tablets.  It can take months or even years to recover, if at all, and for families to begin living and believing again.

The unanticipated and unannounced arrival of aircraft noise, over areas that previously were not affected by concentrated flight paths, is, Chris felt, certainly a trigger for stress, anxiety, and in many cases depression (mental illness). He was convinced, through  ‘lived experience’, that concentrated aviation noise is unhealthy and causes mental health to deteriorate.  The effect can be that people either (newly) acquire depression, or in the case of pre-existing conditions depression/severe depression, is reactivated. These risks and impacts were currently ignored by the government and public health policy.

To those attempting to kick this public health issue into the long grass, advocating further research to scientifically establish a link before doing anything, Chris advised that there wasn’t time.  If flight paths changed in the meantime innocent people who are vulnerable to noise and their families would be harmed. At the extreme, for a minority worst impacted, their risk of suicide could increase.

As to the question as to whether aircraft noise led to metal illness Chris advised that one merely had to ask the question, ‘does a duck quack?’.

Chris has been taking all steps he can to be pragmatic, to adjust to the noise situation in which he finds himself, while promoting awareness around the issue (the ‘elephant in the room’), and the immediate need for assistance, especially for the  ‘noise vulnerable’.  There is no point if someone is in crisis now, he reasoned, waiting on the chance that they may –eventually – get some assistance from the local airport. For example, double glazed window s may be promised, 6 months or more into the future. The airports, government, public health and local authorities need to understand that in the case of debilitating mental stress caused by the over-flight noise, action needs to be taken without delay. Otherwise he reasoned there could be increased mental illness, or worse.

He noted that there is a whole raft of possible mitigations against the noise, but unless people happen to live within the recognised appropriate noise contour for the airport, (eg . 57dB) they are not considered to have a problem. They are therefore given no assistance.  There is much more that airports could do to help those who really suffer from the effects of plane noise.

Unfortunately the current government policy of reducing the number of people over flown has the (unintended) effect of creating unacceptable levels of noise for the minority that is overflown, by compressing and concentrating noise.  There is not yet proper research into the effects, on physical and mental health, of exposure to high levels of unrelenting aircraft noise, although the NORAH study has made a direct link between increases in aviation noise and depression.  Chris particularly mentioned areas where several flight paths overfly the same areas, giving people a particularly intense noise exposure, and that these are often concealed in noise contours.

In the context of new flight paths / ‘new noise’, and absence of an Ombudsman, Chris therefore advocated,  a ‘double take’ which may be triggered where several flight paths converge at low altitude, with high frequency traffic, and where people overflown have serious pre-existing mental health conditions. Where someone also has pre-existing  hypertension, for example, the risk factor increases still further, and the solution required is amplified. The process should allow the existing flight path architecture to be challenged. If a ‘least harm’, rather than ‘least people’ approach was taken in such case, then relatively minor adjustments in flight paths might see the number overflown increasing.  This might return to more like the numbers who were moderately overflown, before route concentration was introduced. The more equitable sharing of noise could potentially save lives.

Once active mitigation opportunities (flight path location) have been exhausted there needs to be effective, adequate and available passive mitigation measures, with insulation to tackle any significant residual noise. This needs to provide people with choice, and an opportunity to ‘switch off’ noise from leaking into their homes, so people to take back some control.

For noise vulnerable people, the range of insulation products and services needs to increase from the basic acoustic survey, double glazing and insulation to in addition include triple glazing (if it was more effective), acoustic roof lights, and internal and acoustic external window shutters, where required, acoustic baffles, and other measures (Chris listed approximately 12 altogether).

In some cases, the noise levels mean people have no option but to move house.  Financial help needs to be provided in order to do this, and Chris mentioned a range of approaches that could see blended funding – from airport, government and even health sources in the short term  – being used to address this, especially where over concentration has brought the airport perimeter to one’s neighbourhood.

There was much more to be done to protect the potentially badly affected/noise vulnerable people, where respite alone will be insufficient. This is a major concern.  With more planes, and more concentration of flight paths, the issue of the impact of aircraft noise on mental health is an issue that can no longer be ignored.  It must be tackled.  An advanced society should look after the welfare of its more vulnerable members.

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/29QtBYz

Read more ...

Blog: Heathrow’s noise must not be discounted, merely because the airport provides employment

At at event held on 4th July in Parliament, the issue of the noise impact of Heathrow flights on mental health was considered. This is perhaps the first time this has been discussed, and the links made. Heathrow’s Matt Gorman spoke at the meeting, and said Heathrow creates   jobs and those employed have been mental health because of their financial security. This spurred Murray Barter, a member of one of the groups that emerged in the past 2 years, due to changes to Heathrow flight paths, to write a blog about the widespread dissatisfaction there is with Heathrow and the way it is dealing with communities. In his impassioned  blog, Murray says: “Employment at Heathrow for a minority is not, and cannot be, an antidote to the known adverse impacts on health, well being and quality of life that are caused by the airport’s operations. These affect hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of people living as much as thirty miles from Heathrow.”  And “The adverse effects of plane noise on vast numbers of people – including increased incidence of mental stress and depression  – cannot, and must not, be swept under the carpet merely because Heathrow provides employment. The good does not outweigh the bad, and attempting to blur the two does Heathrow no credit.” And Heathrow expansion cannot be used as a social experiment in noise torture for the unfortunate minority who find them selves under a “noise canyon” (the CAA’s term). Read the full blog.
.
Tweet

 

Heathrow’s negative noise impacts on so many people must not be discounted, merely because the airport provides employment.

6th July 2016

By Murray Barter (RAAN)

.

At the event in Parliament on Monday 4th July, looking at the links between exposure to aircraft noise and negative mental health impacts, Matt Gorman (Heathrow’s Director of Sustainability and Environment) was invited to speak.

Matt made the somewhat unrelated point, but one that Heathrow is always keen to promote, that having a job at Heathrow, or associated with it, increases physical and mental well-being. True enough, having a job and financial security is much better for mental stability than the     stresses of being unemployed – and having financial problems.  But it somewhat misses the point.

What the meeting was about was the impact of aircraft noise, so this employment argument was seen by some as a cheap point and dismissive of the real problems that Heathrow creates for those its planes overfly.  Employment at Heathrow for a minority is not, and cannot be, an antidote to the known adverse impacts on health, well being and quality of life that are caused by the airport’s operations. These affect hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of people living as much as thirty miles from Heathrow.

Matt’s attempt to excuse Heathrow’s noise impacts, by job claims, was a stark reminder of how the aviation industry continues to seek to spin every ounce of information/data into a positive – for their own benefit.

The adverse effects of plane noise on vast numbers of people – including increased incidence of mental stress and depression  – cannot, and must not, be swept under the carpet merely because Heathrow provides employment. The good does not outweigh the bad, and attempting to blur the two does Heathrow no credit.

There are few bounds to Heathrow’s publicity, propaganda & their deliberate warping of information, data, and science.  The incessant advertising shows this, with several adverts and claims found wanting by the Advertising Standards Authority.

One of Heathrow’s most insidious forms of distorting reality is their use of the outmoded and discredited 57dB “average noise contour” measurement, and also how PBN-based flight concentration is deliberately used to gerrymander the apparent reductions in the size of noise contours. (They recently state a range of noise metrics ought to be considered, though their publicity & speeches always stick to the averaged noise contours, as it shows them in the most favourable light. What would be more appropriate are contours showing individual noise events > 50dB, e.g. grouped into > 25, > 50, > 75, > 100 etc. All studies show significant increases in community annoyance at much lower levels than 57 dB.  See the ANASE study )

Given this, with aircraft landing and taking off every 90 seconds for 13+ hrs/day, it has become increasing clear that raised risk of mental illness for sections of the population is being wilfully – if unintentionally – delivered by Heathrow.

These negative effects are being glossed over and ignored by the airport and those who back its expansion, who are chiefly :

1). A predominance of MP’s from constituencies north of Bedford & west of Swindon who are simply unaware of the serious issues of noise anguish, and the detrimental impacts of airborne pollution & associated surface access movements. The MPs appear uncaring towards those affected.

2). Businesses salivating at the anticipated honeypot of potential profits, from prospects dangled before them of rising GDP and more exports, or airport construction work. They conveniently ignore the likely disproportionate increase in imports, and the capital & jobs outflows, as do Heathrow – which only considers exports and inbound tourists, and not the reverse.

3).  The highly conflicted and aviation-centric DfT & CAA – and the Treasury. (By contrast, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), DEFRA, DCLG, DoH need to deal with the consequences of aviation expansion, with its environmental and social costs).

4). The conflicted Airports Commission, with its Economist-centric staffing bias, coupled with its Chairman who has Prudential board membership . The Commission was given misdirected Terms of Reference (‘to maintain the UK’s position as Europe’s most important aviation hub’), resulting in only one feasible outcome, given the status quo

Against all this, the tax-paying, law-abiding communities are at the butt end, and in the vast majority of cases, derive no benefit from Heathrow’s operations. The airport has paid lip service to its responsibility to them for decades, never making serious attempts to be a good neighbour. The current Community Noise Forum is the latest in a long line of headline-grabbing, perfunctory talking-shop smokescreens with zero achievement made, after two years and counting.

The Airports Commission didn’t include any economic modelling based upon Brexit, and therefore the discredited, exaggerated and double-counted 60-year economic forecasts need serious and immediate remodelling.  That would immediately downgrade Heathrow’s already patently absurd claims of expected GDP growth.

Incidentally, the Airports Commission didn’t seem to take into account the disproportionate increase in imports that would inevitably happen at the same time as any growth in exports, further adding to our net trade deficit, nor the net capital and jobs outflows. It would therefore appear the £24 million Airports Commission report started out as being misdirected, finished as incomplete upon publication, then became obsolete in under 12 months.

Heathrow expansion cannot be used as a social experiment in noise torture for the unfortunate 20% underneath a proposed “noise canyon” (source: the CAA).  Those unluckly enough to live in these “canyons” are being subjected to inhuman and/degrading suffering and treatment, through the noise burden inflicted on them.  And this excess noise is merely the result of Heathrow, NATS and the CAA attempting to “squeeze a quart into a pint pot” in terms of south east airspace – and enabling Heathrow to meet its allotted (outdated, outmoded, discredited) noise measurement criteria, as set by the government.

What future, 21st century vision do we have for our children and their children in Britain? Are we genuinely serious about schools with adobe huts, as an illusion of outdoor play spaces? Or the desecration of huge areas where instead of homes being places of calm and quiet, they are becoming mental-torture chambers of repetitive noise, where “respite” can shrink to as little as just 4 hours per day without the din?  This is not a modern progressive society, which cares for the well-being of all its members, including the most vulnerable.

Heathrow accounts for 28% of people affected by aircraft noise in the whole of Europe. It talks of an £18.7 billion ‘privately funded’ infrastructure project as a boost for the UK economy at this time,.  However it, and its business backers, conveniently chooses to omit the ‘elephant in the room’ –  the taxpayer requirement of up to £20 billion (Transport for London figure) for regional infrastructure spending needed to support it.  Without these improvements in surface transport, the new runway means gridlock and illegal air pollution for miles around the airport.

I’m sure the government has other rather more pressing priorities than this runway, in terms of time & resource allocation, at this present time where most economists are forecasting downturns of economic activity & travel.

If the appropriate question is posed, Heathrow expansion is most certainly NOT the answer

Two questions:

“Is Heathrow Airport one of the:

a). most mendacious and least trusted

b). most polluting

c). most noisy and most complained about

d). worst positioned major source of noise and pollution

companies in UK corporate history?

And are Heathrow’s multi million £ media and lobbying campaigns, glossing over its insuperable problems that are an inevitable consequence of its operations, a satisfactory and sufficient basis for its expansion?

by  Murray Barter, Residents Against Aircraft Noise (RAAN)

 

RAAN is one of the groups set up in 2014 due to the worsening noise from Heathrow airport, affecting new areas in Berkshire, Surrey and North Hampshire.  RAAN attends the Heathrow Community Noise Forum.

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/29D7Lef

Read more ...

With Theresa May becoming PM, Transport Secretary urges quick decision on South East runway

Patrick McLoughlin has said Theresa May must get on and make a runway decision quickly, if the timetable to get the runway built – by 2030 – is not to slip. He said: “So long as we can get a decision as quickly as we can in October, we can still stick to the timetable that was set out in Davies.”  He said the decision was for the Prime Minister, and “Parliament rises next week so in all honesty I still think we’re probably looking at around about the October period.  I don’t think this is a decision that could be made when Parliament is not sitting.”  Parliament does sit from 5th to 15th September. On 30th June he had said:  ‘Clearly any announcement on airports capacity would have to be made with the House in session and, being realistic given recent events, I cannot now foresee an announcement until at least October.’  He said in February: “Basically, there are 6 months for the planning inquiry and examination in public; 3 months for the planning inspector to report to the Secretary of State; 3 months for the Secretary of State to consider, report and announce a decision; a 6-week period for any potential judicial reviews; and within that period there are also parliamentary occasions when Parliament can take a vote on the issues.” The timetable the government is working to is a runway by 2030, though Heathrow and Gatwick would prefer it to be by 2025.
.
Tweet

 

Transport Secretary urges quick decision on South East runway

13.7.2016  (Press Association)

The expansion timetable set out by the Airports Commission might be met only if incoming prime minister Theresa May makes a decision on which project to back by October, Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin has warned.

The commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, published its final report in July last year stating that a new runway was needed in south-east England by 2030 and recommending that Heathrow’s plan should go ahead.

But in December the Department for Transport announced that further investigation into noise, pollution and compensation was needed and last month Mr McLoughlin said the decision had been deferred until “at least October” following David Cameron’s resignation.

In an interview with the Press Association, the Transport Secretary stressed the importance of the decision being made as soon as possible.

Mr McLoughlin said: “So long as we can get a decision as quickly as we can in October, we can still stick to the timetable that was set out in Davies.”

The timing of the decision was “a case for the Prime Minister”, he said, adding: “Parliament rises next week so in all honesty I still think we’re probably looking at around about the October period.

“I don’t think this is a decision that could be made when Parliament is not sitting.”

Mr Cameron was expected to confirm whether projects at Heathrow or Gatwick would be supported shortly after the EU referendum, but the victory for the Leave campaign means the decision has been left for successor Mrs May.  [It was expected that a decision, favouring Heathrow, would be made on 7th or 8th July, after a Leave victory in the Brexit Referendum. But the result in favour of Leave changed all that.  AW note].

Business leaders have criticised the delay, with the British Chambers of Commerce claiming the Government was “missing a golden opportunity to stimulate business confidence”.

http://ift.tt/29xMyfQ

.

---

See earlier:

 

Patrick McLoughlin evidence to Transport Cttee – he “very much hoped” to give runway location decision by July

February 11, 2016

The Commons Transport Committee held an oral evidence session on 8th February, inviting Transport Secretary of State, Patrick McLoughlin, to comment on the decision by the government to delay a statement on the location of a possible new runway. The tone of the session was that the Committee was eager for a decision to be made rapidly, with concern that undue time was being taken. Mr McLoughlin explained that even an EU referendum in June would not rule out a decision before Parliament’s summer recess.  He said though there has been a delay, partly due to air pollution problems and the VW “defeat” scandal, he hoped the government was ensuring all necessary research had been done, to minimise the chance of legal challenges causing yet further delays. The timetable the government is working to is a runway by 2030, though Heathrow and Gatwick would prefer it to be by 2025. Mr McLoughlin said he “very much hoped” there would be a statement to Parliament at least several days before summer recess  (starts 21st July) to allow time for MPs to comment etc. He stressed how the 2008 Planning Act would make pushing a runway through fast, and gave the various timings, with only 6 months for a planning inquiry and examination in public.

http://ift.tt/1ouu4UZ

.

---

 

Transport Select Committee wants rapid decision on runway location – then sort out the problems later …..

May 4, 2016

The Commons Transport Select Committee, chaired by Louise Ellman (for years a strong advocate of a larger Heathrow) has published a report that wants the government to make a rapid decision on the location of a new south east runway. Ms Ellman says Patrick Mcloughlin should set out a clear timetable of the decision making process. He should also set out what research the government has already done and what remains to be done. The Committee wants a decision in order to, in its view, remove uncertainty for business so companies can be planning and investing. The report is entirely of the view that a runway is needed for links to emerging markets.  It ignores the reality that most journeys are for leisure, and it ignores the huge costs to the taxpayer, of either scheme. The Committee wants a location decision, and somehow believes that all other environmental and infrastructure problems will then (magically?) be sorted out. They say: “… we believe that the noise and environmental effects can be managed as part of the pre-construction phase after a decision has been made on location, as can the challenge of improving surface access.” So decide first – with what is likely to be a bad decision – and work out how to deal with the intractable, and inevitable, problems later.  Is that a sensible course of action for a responsible government?

http://ift.tt/1SY5zdx

.

.

.

.

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/29Ng1GJ

Read more ...

Prestwick hopes of becoming a “spaceport” boosted by deal with US company

The Scottish Government bought the loss-making airport for £1 in 2013, and is trying to find ways for it to make money. Prestwick now has hopes of becoming a “space hub” delivering small satellites and tourists into low-level orbit.  The Scottish Government will provide a funding package, for 2 years, of £240,000 from South Ayrshire Council and Scottish Enterprise. This will cover “infrastructure, business development, energy reduction and supply chain development.”  The Queen’s Speech in May confirmed aims to drive through the complex legislation needed to certify the safe operation of space vehicles through the Modern Transport Bill. The DfT is setting up a regulatory framework to license individual sites, with Prestwick and two other Scottish locations – Campbeltown on the west coast and Stornoway in the Western Isles – among those short-listed last year. There are hopes of jobs, if the project goes ahead. Prestwick has now signed a memorandum of understanding with California-based space launch vehicle designer XCOR Aerospace, and space plane design and operating company Orbital Access Limited, setting out an action plan. This would be a competitor to the Virgin Galactic sub-orbital passenger flights, taking 2 passengers at a time into an orbit of 350,000 feet for a short time, at immense cost.
.
Tweet

 

Prestwick’s spaceport ambitions boosted by deal with US spaceplane designer

13.7.2016 (Herald Scotland)

By Helen McArdle

Space tourism from Prestwick is a step closer after a US firm at the cutting edge of spaceflight design struck a deal with the Ayrshire base to bring manned launch services to Scotland.

The spaceport has signed a memorandum of understanding with California-based space launch vehicle designer XCOR Aerospace and space plane design and operating company Orbital Access Limited, setting out an action plan for operations at Prestwick.

The move takes it closer to launching manned flights using XCOR’s Lynx, a two-seater supersonic spacecraft which is vying with Virgin Galactic to become the first firm to launch sub-orbital passenger flights.

XCOR has already sold more than 200 tickets at $95,000 (£72,000) each for the inaugural flights, which promise give passengers a view of Earth from a gravity-defying altitude of 350,000ft.

The tie-up between XCOR and Glasgow Prestwick comes as the taxpayer-owned airport ramps up its efforts to become the UK’s first spaceport, a venture that would also allow it to become a major base for scientific research and satellite launches.

Mike Stewart, business development director at Glasgow Prestwick, said: “We already have the vast majority of the infrastructure in place and with as little as £1million investment we could be up and running.

“Having a pipeline of partners, customers and suppliers in place will be hugely helpful in pulling together the business case for the investment required to get up and running.

“The progress that we are making now that the UK Government has decided to make this a licensing regime rather than a bidding process demonstrates that this was the right decision for the industry and the UK economy.

“This has allowed the market to accelerate the process and decide where it feels that launches can be best delivered. We are delighted that Orbital Access and XCOR have decided that the best place for them is Glasgow Prestwick Spaceport and that they are establishing operational bases onsite.”

XCOR president and CEO, Jay Gibson, added: “Strategic aerospace industrial partnerships and strong routes to market characterise our approach to bringing this ground breaking system to fruition.

“Our unique reusable rocket motor technology is at the core of the Lynx and we are looking forward to working with partners in the Scottish aerospace and space sector.”

The collaboration, which is supported by Scottish Enterprise, was unveiled yesterday at Farnborough International Airshow.

Stuart McIntyre, the chief executive of Orbital Access, said: “The Lynx represents a highly versatile manned spacecraft to service space research missions in zero gravity, and provide academics and industry with a unique and responsive research environment. It can also support leisure sub-orbital flights.

“This will complement our satellite launch systems, which are in development, and complete the suite of launch services Orbital Access will be offering at spaceports globally.”

The development comes after doubts over the future of the Lynx project when XCOR began laying off US staff involved in designing the spaceplane, which was first announced in 2008.

In March, there were also reports that XCOR might divert resources into other research after it signed a deal with United Launch Alliance, the Boeing-Lockheed partnership that launches lots of military satellites, to develop a new rocket engine powered by liquid hydrogen.

The prospects for space tourism generally suffered a blow when Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo crashed during a test flight over the Mojave desert in 2014, killing co-pilot Michael Alsbury.

http://ift.tt/29CDRqA

.

---

Funding lift for Prestwick Airport space hub plan

30.6.2016 (Scotsman)

Officials say a spaceport at Prestwick could deliver 1,450 jobs.

Plans to create a space hub around Government-owned Prestwick Airport have received a fresh funding package of £240,000 from local government and economic development authorities.

The money, supplied equally by South Ayrshire Council and Scottish Enterprise, will fund a two-year support package covering infrastructure, business development, energy reduction and supply chain development.

It includes the appointment of a new “programme manager” to be based out of the airport’s administrative offices. The move comes as the struggling operation competes to become one of the UK’s first “spaceports” delivering small satellites and tourists into low-level orbit.

Last month’s Queen’s Speech confirmed aims to drive through the complex legislation needed to certify the safe operation of space vehicles through the Modern Transport Bill.

The Department for Transport is setting up a regulatory framework to license individual sites, with Prestwick and two other Scottish locations – Campbeltown on the west coast and Stornoway in the Western Isles – among those short-listed last year.

Should Prestwick get a licence, officials say the project could deliver as many as 1,450 jobs within ten years, with £320 million of additional economic activity. The new programme manager will work alongside a variety of organisations through the Prestwick Aerospace partnership.

Eileen Howat, chief executive of South Ayrshire Council, said it is now the right time to push forward ambitious plans for Prestwick. The Scottish Government bought the loss-making airport for £1 in 2013, and is seeking to re-build its fortunes under newly-appointed chief executive Ron Smith.

http://ift.tt/29DiT6A

.

---

Earlier:

Scotland leading race to host UK’s first spaceport

4 January 2016 (Scotsman)

Campbeltown, Stornoway and Prestwick among Scottish contenders Scottish spaceport ‘could be operational by 2019’ Cornwall and Gwynedd also in running
SCOTLAND is leading the race to host the UK’s first space port, with a new report suggesting it could be operational by 2019.

All of the potential Scottish space sites are in step with a government checklist of base requirements – with their remote nature helping allay safety and noise pollution fears over bids south of the Border.

Spaceports have previously only been seen in films like Star Wars, but the government is keen to establish one in the UK to allow regular space tourism flights and to send satellites into orbit.

With firms like Space X and Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic expressing an interest in launching flights from the UK as soon as 2018, the reality of space tourists and commercial rocket launches is tantalisingly close.

The Department of Transport published a list of criteria for any site bidding last week.

Key among them was a clear flight path north, over the sea, into a polar orbit.

The government also made it clear it preferred a coastal site with low population density.

The demands put the Scottish contenders, Campbeltown, Stornoway and Prestwick, ahead of competitors in England and Wales.

Newquay in Cornwall and Llanbedr airport in Wales are also being considered, but Tom Millar, director of the Campbeltown-based Discover Space UK bid, said he was ‘confident’ of a Scottish victory.

He said: “I’d be surprised if our bid doesn’t finish top of the league. The more detail we get of what the government wants, the more convinced I am that our bid is the best.

“The driver from our point of view is that we are suffering depopulation and unemployment. This could be a game-changer.”

Howie Firth of the Spaceport Scotland group added: “Economically, a spaceport is not a luxury – it’s a vital investment.

“It would be a tremendous prize to come to Scotland. It would attract industries, create jobs and it would be the most incredible inspiration. The potential is huge.”

The UK’s space industry is still relatively small, with firms looking to launch satellites having to wait for a slot on rockets launching from South America or Kazakhstan.

Mr Firth added: “The current situation is like having a shipbuilding industry thousands of miles from the sea.

“If instead of having to package up a satellite and send it miles away you could simply put it in a van and drive to a spaceport it would make a tremendous difference.”

A final list of technical specifications for the spaceport will be published next year before the official bidding process opens.

http://ift.tt/29CDs7d

.

---

.

 

 

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/29Dj6qA

Read more ...

Around 25,000 attend a massive protest against the Pointless New Airport – Notre-Dame-des-Landes

At another of the massive protests organised by the campaigners against the new airport, there were some 25,000 people, from across France.  They came again, in huge numbers, from the 200 or so support committees across France and Belgium, who work to block the new airport.  John Stewart attended and his blog about the event explains just how pointless the plan is to move the airport to this new site, closing down the existing Nantes airport, which is not even full.  The new airport at Notre-Dame-des-Landes has become the most controversial environmental project in France.  It is causing the Government of Francois Hollande a major headache. The (non-binding) referendum held on 26th June voted by a small majority for the new airport, but much of the pro vote was from areas some distance to the north, perhaps hoping for jobs or easier trips to the airport on holidays. The new airport is not being built to cope with high demand, or to avoid flights over Nantes. The economic case is very weak. Opponents feel the new airport is largely an ego project for local politicians. Work has to start before February 2017, when the planning consent runs out. There are fears there will be violent scenes – perhaps this autumn – when the army is likely to be called in to evict those defending the ZAD area. And all for such a pointless, seriously environmentally harmful, project with little real justification.
.
Tweet

 

Photos of the gathering below.

The Pointless New Airport – Notre-Dame-des-Landes

July 12, 2016  (Hacan blog by John Stewart)

Even if you are a big fan of aviation, you’d be hard-pushed to back the proposed new airport outside Nantes in west France.

The huge numbers (possibly as many as 25,000) that turned up last weekend (9^th and 10^th July) to two days of protest highlighted once again why the plan to build the airport at Notre-Dame-des-Landes has become the most controversial environmental project in France.

It is causing the Government of Francois Hollande a major headache.  There are over 200 groups across Belgium and France which back the opponents of the airport and which carry out demonstrations in their own areas in support of them.  There were violent scenes a few years ago when the French Police tried to evict some of the thousands of young activists who are camped in Le Zad on the site of the proposed new airport.

Hollande tried to get round his problem by calling a (non-binding) regional referendum this summer.  People were asked to decide whether they wanted to retain the existing one-runway airport close to the city or back the new two-runway airport over 17 kilometres outside Nantes.  Hundreds of thousands of people voted.  The vote went 55% to 45% in favour of the new airport.

But, far from settling the issue as Holland had hoped, the breakdown of the result has highlighted the pointlessness of the new airport.  The city of Nantes split 50/50 but the communities in the city close to the existing airport plus those under its flight path voted to keep it.  They wanted to keep the jobs it provides and signalled that the flights to the half-empty airport are not a problem.  The vote in favour of the new airport was swung by communities 20 – 50 kilometres north of Nantes, some of whom felt the new airport might provide them with jobs and others who believed it would be easier for them to get to than the exiting airport on the other side of the city.

So this is a major new airport, ‘Nantes International’, being proposed on prime farmland not to relieve congestion at the existing airport, nor in response to demands for noise relief for those under existing flight paths, nor even because Nantes is in the middle of nowhere; it is just two hours by train to Paris.  And not because a convincing economic case has been made for it.

The justification for the new airport seems to be that it will act as a catalyst for economic growth in the west of France.  Plonked in the middle of nowhere, the idea is will serve the surrounding towns, Nantes, Angers and Rennes, each of them many kilometres from the airport.  But there are real doubts whether there are sufficient people in these medium-sized towns to sustain such a project.

Almost certainly, any realistic assessment of the market would rule out the airport.  And the links to these towns from the new airport are unplanned.  There may or may not be a rail link to Nantes.  Rennes and Angers would be served by coaches!  The campaigners claim that the airport has more to do with the egos of the local politicians than the needs of the local area.

The Government needs to start building the airport by February 2017 or the planning permission it got five years ago falls.  That means it would need to start evicting the environmental activists in Le Zad (the Zone a Defendre) and the local farmers in the autumn.  It recognizes that, given the scale of the opposition across France and beyond, it will require the army rather than the police to do so.  It may be a battle it cannot win.

You don’t need to be an anti-aviation activist to be against this new airport.

http://ift.tt/29wutir

.

 

No works. No expulsions.  It is always NO to the airport.  (Don’t touch my tree) 

No expulsions. No works. No airport.

One tiny part of the crowd.

Speakers.  Gaspillage means Waste.

Inside the main tent, listening to speeches

Sowing the seeds of democracy.

Hundreds of lanterns against the NDDL airport, and in memory of Rémi Fraisse, who died recently while opposing the building of a dam at Sivens, in the Garonne. Link

 

The “Free Ride” stall at the gathering.  Leo Murray set up the campaign, to show how in the UK 70% of the flights are taken by only 15% of people. More airport capacity is  generally to serve these very frequent fliers. They can fly so much because flying is artificially cheap, paying no fuel duty and no VAT.

The AirportWatch Europe stall at the gathering. http://ift.tt/18RCZrs

AirportWatch Europe is a network of aviation and airport activists from across Europe concerned about the expansion of aviation.  

---

See earlier:

Joint statement by the Nantes anti-airport movement at Notre-Dame-des-Landes

June 28, 2016

This is the joint statement of the anti-airport movement on Sunday night following the results of the consultation. “As was shown the various components of the movement, the setting, the process and the content of this consultation were fundamentally biased . This was based on a series of government lies and was radically unfair. There was no question for us that this is just one step in the long struggle for a future without an airport at Notre Dame des Landes. This struggle continues tonight. We know that the attacks of the government and pro-airport side will be strengthened. On our side, we will not cease to live, grow and protect this farmland. It will continue to be defended with great energy because it carries the ineradicable hopes today against the destruction of the living and the commodification of the world. We call on all supporters and committees throughout France and beyond to mobilize and be vigilant in the weeks and months ahead. There will not be an airport at Notre-Dame-des-Landes. We call in this sense, and in the first instance, for a massive convergence at Notre-Dame-des-Landes for a summer anti-airport gathering, on 9th and 10th July.”

Click here to view full story…

Notre-Dame-des-Landes referendum: 55% majority in favour of new airport – ACIPA fights on

June 27, 2016

There was a referendum in the Loire-Atlantique département on 26th June, with the question whether people backed the moving of the current Nantes-Atlantique airport south of Nantes, to a site north of Nantes, at Notre-Dame-des-Landes. Finally the voting was 55% in favour of the move. The area to be destroyed for the new airport is good farm land and valuable wetland habitat, and there has been fierce, determined opposition to the project for years. The local opposition, focused through ACIPA, was deeply critical of the way the referendum was organised. They believe areas other than just those in Loire-Atlantique should have been consulted. Some of these areas would be opposed to the move, and some have to contribute public funds towards it. The government wanted the poll as early as possible, as there is a “declaration of public utility” lasting till October, so work has to start by then. The prime minister, Manual Valls, made a statement as soon as the referendum result was known, that “the government will implement the verdict.” Those backing the new airport want to clear the protesters living illegally on the ZAD, some of the land on which the airport would be built, moved away soon, so clearing work can start. ACIPA said this result was just one step in their long struggle against the airport, and their struggle now continues.

Click here to view full story…

English translations of some videos explaining arguments against a new Notre-Dame-des-Landes airport

June 20, 2016

The local opposition around Nantes, to the building a new airport north of Nantes, have produced a series of short videos, setting out some of the issues. There will be a referendum on 26th June, for people in the area, on whether the existing airport, Nantes-Atlantique, should be closed and a new airport constructed at Notre Dame des Landes (NDDL). The opponents of the NDDL airport say, among other things: – The number of flights at Nantes has hardly grown in 10 years. – It is possible to slightly grow the current Nantes-Atlantique airport (just south of Nantes) and slightly extend the runway by 60 metres. – It is possible to take measures to slightly reduce the noise at the Nantes-Atlantique airport. – The new NDDL airpot would cost the taxpayer about €280 million. – There would be no more destinations from the new NDDL airport than from the Nantes-Atlantique airport. Germany has 45 airports, and France has 156 airports. – The NDDL airport would mean the destruction of 700 hectares of wetland and about 900 hectares of farmland. – Many protected species would be lost. – About 200 agriculture-associated jobs would be lost, and most of the alleged new jobs would just move from the old airport. – The costs to passengers will be higher at the NDDL airport. And there is a lot more. With English translations here.

Click here to view full story…

Local referendum on whether to move Nantes-Atlantique airport to Notre-Dame-des-Landes – 26th June

June 3, 2016

On 26th June there will be a consultation/referendum on the issue of whether the existing airport, Nantes-Atlantique, just south of Nantes should be moved to a site north of the town at Notre-Dame-des- Landes (NDDL). The government announced this referendum back in March.The question that will be asked is: “Do you support the proposed transfer of Nantes-Atlantique airport to the municipality of Notre-Dame-des-Landes?” The referendum is open to voters of the municipalities of Loire-Atlantique. Opponents are running an active campaign, to provide information to every potential voter and attending public meetings, with their spirit of quiet determination. Opponents, including local campaign ACIPA, say nobody asked for this referendum, and it does not in any way legitimize the airport project at NDDL, which they consider to be illegal, ruinous and destructive. They say the conditions for real democratic debate are not met; the area chosen for the referendum excludes some important local communities; the question is biased; and there is no guarantee of fair treatment of the opposition. They are not impressed that the Prime Minister has announced the start of work in the autumn, despite the referendum. They say the airport cannot proceed until various legal matters have been sorted out. There will be another huge anti-NDDL gathering on 9th and 10th July. “On a tous une bonne raison de voter NON.” (We all have a reason to vote NO.)

Click here to view full story…

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/29wvGGe

Read more ...