London City Airport expansion approved

This article is closed to new posts. Discussion continues in the HfP Forums.

• John says:

  29 Jul29 July 07:55

  I’d be very happy if I was a local resident, more flights and compensation! I didn’t get any compensation when they improved a nearby train line, which is far more annoying than planes (I lived near SYD)

• Stan Calderwood says:

  29 Jul29 July 11:32

  Delighted to see some snese in th is expansion. Instead of paying lawyers to yesrs to argue for and against, it has benn given approval and the airport is paying some compensation to local residents.
  Can the government please arrane the same for a new runway at LHR. Rather than make hordes of lawyers rich, perphas Heathrow can pay for improvments to schools or hospitals in the area, so local people se a win-win, instead of the ricj lawyers we saw on the T5 development.

• Stan Calderwood says:

  29 Jul29 July 11:33

  Delighted to see some sense in this expansion. Instead of paying lawyers for years to argue for and against, it has been given approval and the airport is paying some compensation to local residents.
  Can the government please arrange the same for a new runway at LHR. Rather than make hordes of lawyers rich, perhaps Heathrow can pay for improvments to schools or hospitals in the area, so local people see a win-win, instead of the rich lawyers we saw on the T5 development.

  • Rob says:

    29 Jul29 July 16:21

    The problem is that the locals will be having their houses pulled down. Sipson village will be wiped off the map entirely.

  • Will says:

    29 Jul29 July 17:20

    This one’s a no brainier really. Heathrow expansion is a whole different ball game.

    I personally think we need an airport in a different place with much better direct rail links to other airports as well as the centre of London and also an airport which could be further expanded in the future.

    LHR is really not a nice airport compared to, say AMS. It also baffles me why other airports can’t get their security clearance as well organised as AMS.

    • Will says:

      29 Jul29 July 17:23

      To really clarify what I mean here, if population increase is her to stay, we first need a long term plan with regards to where those people will live (London is pretty much at capacity, should we consider a brand new city?) and then you decide what your airport needs to look like.

      Heathrow expansions fixes yesterday’s problem tomorrow.

    • RIccati says:

      29 Jul29 July 23:41

      Who can call those stables in AMS an airport.

      Give me T2 or T5 any day! Except for transit 🙂

    • harry says:

      30 Jul30 July 00:37

      Boris Island was a much better idea than people gave him credit for. Just think of the new Hong Kong airport and you’ll see it was logistically very simple (boy, flying into Kai Tak was amazing! I gather Madeira is fun as well but never did that yet!)

      Fast links train/ 6 lane motorway? Easy peasy. 20 mins to Trafalgar Square. Plus you’d have just compensated a few yokels and had the ideal acreage to build Boris New Garden City, population 2 million by 3030. The houses alone could have financed everything!

      • harry says:

        30 Jul30 July 00:38

        2030 damned iPad

        • harry says:

          30 Jul30 July 00:40

          Just the sort of infrastructure project we need to get the economy going. Scrap the stupid High Speed Train project and spend the money where it will actually benefit the UK.

        • will says:

          31 Jul31 July 12:26

          My thoughts exactly ref Boris Island or a new airport somewhere else. Perhaps sense will prevail. EG : It’s good to see Mrs May reviewing Hinkley. If you run the maths on it then its an £18bn loan to the UK electricity payer and the terms are 11% APR for 35 years. Just borrow the money and stick the asset on the balance sheet (like they did with bank bail outs) then depreciate it over time as any company accounts would.

          As for AMS, I’m always in transit when I go there and it makes me eternally grateful that I’m not transiting between terminals at LHR.

• flyforfun says:

  29 Jul29 July 13:11

  Some news sites were saying they were expanding the runway, but didn’t make clear what it was (a separate taxiway).

  I hope they make the signage a bit clearer. My other half drove into the long stay car park by accident and freaked when he say how the price jumped after 30 mins. You’d think they’d encourage people to save money if they were prepared to walk (that little bit) more to the airport. Hopefully they will sort this out. They will probably need a multi storey car park now anyway.

  • Rob says:

    29 Jul29 July 16:20

    Yes, I saw those stories – they’re wrong!

• Kieran says:

  29 Jul29 July 18:54

  Local resident here, one who has LCY’s planes go right over his house every day.

  Bring it on I say, no bulldozing of housing, more noise (but come on if you bought a house downwind of an airport you knew what you were buying in to) but with the benefits of more flights and destinations? Yes please. The less trekking to LHR or LGW I have to do the better!

• IslandDweller says:

  2 Aug2 August 07:30

  @flyforfun. Don’t expect cheap parking deals. Part of the planning agreements (existing agreements, not this new one) is a commitment to discourage car use to the airport – hence stratospheric car park charges. Already two thirds of LCY passengers arrive/depart by DLR.

  • Rob says:

    2 Aug2 August 07:41

    What a result for the airport. ‘Forced by the council’ to charge crazy car parking prices!

This article is closed to new posts. Discussion continues in the HfP Forums.