Boris Johnson has appointed Doug Oakervee, Executive Chair of Crossrail, to conduct a preliminary feasibility study into locating a new airport in the Thames Estuary.
Oakervee was involved in the construction of Hong Kong’s acclaimed offshore International Airport and yesterday met with Mayoral advisor and London Assembly member Kit Malthouse to discuss how he could help take the project forward.
City Hall says a provisional Greater London Authority study suggests the project is technically feasible but says the Mayor will not proceed if there’s “an overriding economic, environmental, political or practical reason why the airport would not work”.
Commenting this afternoon Malthouse said: “To have such a colossal figure from the engineering world bringing his extensive skills and judgement to this unique and important project is great news.”
Update 15.16: Since publication a spokesman for the Mayor has confirmed that no costs are expected for this feasibility study and that no public money will be involved should the project proceed.
Friends of the N rth Kent Marshes says
Along with the RSPB, Friends of the North Kent Marshes are wholly opposed to the construction of an airport anywhere in the Thames Estuary because of the immense damage it would cause to the area’s internationally important wildlife and the wider environment.The whole issue was exhaustively investigated between 2002 and 2005 in the Government’s Aviation White Paper. All the key players, including the aviation industry, contributed. The idea of an airport in the Thames Estuary was conclusively ruled out and upheld by the High Court. In addition to the unprecedented environmental damage and the resulting massive legal implications, the investigation found that an estuary airport did not make sense economically, would not meet the requirements of the aviation industry and presented a significantly higher risk of ‘bird strike’ than at any other major airport in the UK. It would potentially be the single biggest piece of environmental vandalism ever perpetrated in the UK. The Government would have to recreate any lost or damaged habitat elsewhere BEFORE work on the airport could start and even then only if they could prove there is no alternative site for the expansion and it is in the overriding public interest.They would face a legal battle, which could last for years.
Joan says
Climate change remains the greatest threat to biodiversity and I believe that there should be no further airport expansion. The construction of a massive new airport in the Thames Estuary will have impacts that extend far outside the immediate area. Emissions from aircraft remain (one of) the fastest increasing sources of greenhouse gases and the demand for flights should be managed rather than just accepted as necessary.The Government’s plans for the regeneration of the Thames Gateway are being promoted as low-carbon and stress the importance of greenspace and the natural environment as part of its success. An estuary airport would remove any possibility of the Thames Gateway being “low-carbon”.
Gill Moore says
Just a thought
Having appointed a civil engineer
I wonder if Boris has also approached the RSPB or the British Trust for Ornithology to bring their considerable expert skills and knowledge of the Thames Estuary to the feasibility study or does his appointed civil engineer already have the required specialist knowledge?
I would be very interested to see his specialist expert qualifications in this field
For Boris’s information
the real experts can be contacted
quite easily see below
RSPB
The Lodge
Potton Road
Sandy
Bedfordshire
SG19 2DL
British Trust for Ornithology
http://www.bto.org/aboutBTO/staff_contacts_topics.htm
Chris Pocock says
Don’t let the bird-watchers mislead you! The Thames Estuary option was given only token consideration in the Airports Consultation 2002-03 and rejected in the 2003 White Paper because BA and the BAA – to whom the DfT are in thrall – were against it. I know of no High Court judgement against it – however, there WAS a High Court ruling that Gatwick should not be excluded from the options under consultation.
European legislation does NOT rule out a Thames Estuary option. Given the overwhelming case against expansion at Heathrow and Stansted, and the huge protests, there is an obvious public interest in exploring alternative options in the Thames Estuary.
For the most sensible of these options, including ‘green’ provisions such as a co-located Second Thames Barrier and tidal power station, see wwww.thamesreachairport.com
(I have no connection with that group, BTW).