• Andrew Gilligan: We no longer need a third runway
• Watchdog launches inquiry into mayoral conduct
• Milan's finest operas to be screened live in London

Reader views (40)

 Add your view

A new airport in the Thames Estuary is an excellent idea and has been around in some form or other for a lot longer than Boris Johnson.

It would be bad for the UK if this becomes a solely politically-driven issue. I find it appalling that some local government agencies, in opposing even exploration of the concept, have reacted in such a knee-jerk and undemocratic manner. In this, I think that they are out of touch with their constituents.

I fully support the concept of a new airport and would hope that after careful planning it can be fast-tracked to completion to minimise pressure to expand any other existing airport. Environmental, social and economic considerations would need to be included in the planning.

Once (and if) a new airport is built, I hope that Heathrow airport would be progressively phased out and the space it occupies given back to the people. The environment around west London would greatly improve as a consequence.

Too often, the UK's future is held to ransom by our past. Let's be bold this time!

- Martin, Kent, UK, 21/10/2009 10:22
Report abuse

Typical English doubling up on work already done in '68 - 71 by the Roskill Commision for third airport at Foulness. Discussed as early as '63 but Secretary for War said it was 'impractical'and didn't even give permission to consortium for soil tests.What engineering qualifications did he have to make that ascertion ? Costs then at £100 million incl' monorail and moving gunnery range. Island size 7x 5 miles, ideal location and like Hong Kong,doable.If we were a Republic, it would have been done by now.The English do what they are best at,talk, talk, no action and creating reasons not to do anything. I suggest everybody reads Marin Weiner's book on English Culture and The Decline of the Industrial Spirit to see exactly why we don't DO anything anymore. Blame the university education system, banks and governments of the establishment.That's why we have no industries now.
Bob, Maldon.

- Bob Hill, Maldon Essex, 19/10/2009 11:44
Report abuse

Typical English doubling up on work already done in '68 - 71 by the Roskill Commision for third airport at Foulness. Discussed as early as '63 but Secretary for War said it was 'impractical'and didn't even give permission to consortium for soil tests.What engineering qualifications did he have to make that ascertion ? Costs then at £100 million incl' monorail and moving gunnery range. Island size 7x 5 miles, ideal location and like Hong Kong,doable.If we were a Republic, it would have been done by now.The English do what they are best at,talk, talk, no action and creating reasons not to do anything. I suggest everybody reads Marin Weiner's book on English Culture and The Decline of the Industrial Spirit to see exactly why we don't DO anything anymore. Blame the university education system, banks and governments of the establishment.That's why we have no industries now.
Bob, Maldon.

- Bob Hill, Maldon Essex, 19/10/2009 11:43
Report abuse

Surely there must be a way of combining a new airport with a new Thames barrier, which will be needed in the not too distant future, plus a tidal generation scheme. This would have a fantastic payback for the region and also London's green credentials

- David Oxnam, London, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

The Estuary wildlife should be protected. We don't need another airport, or more noise pollution in this densely populated area. Heathrow being a hub for travellers who are merely passing through the country is not necessary (except for the profits of the airports/BA) - let Amsterdam and Paris take more hub traffic. The Government must balance quality of life, pollution and destruction of habitat against demands for more airport expansion.

- Ab, London, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

Boris has this totally correct. The Thames estuary is the right place to build an airport. Heathrow cannot be expanded anymore. The new airport can be operational 24/7, allow for Heathrow to be shut down as well as Gatwick. It will also cut down on the polution over the capitol.

- Clarky, London, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

Another airport, more roads, polluting ;industry', general pollution, noise and destruction of wildlife habitat. What is it all for? Jobs? Can we only provide jobs that will ultimately destroy us all?

- Helen, norwich, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

Ah, so after scrapping much-needed transport projects within London to 'save money', destroying years of experience in the DLR project teams and pledging 'fewer consultants and more conductors' Boris is now hiring *more* consultants to look at an entirely pointless vanity project outside London that won't benefit anybody. I trust the Evening Standard will dig around and find out how much this costs?

Mr. Malthouse is Deputy Mayor for Policing. You'd think he'd be too busy to moonlight as an amateur airport builder. Likewise, Mr. Oakervee should have enough on his plate with Crossrail. Surely it's more important to get London moving and sort out the Metropolitan Police Farce than to help foreign travellers change planes?

- Tom, London, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

I think the estuary airport is a good idea,Heathrow has become a sprawling mess.I fly into Heathrow twice a year and it makes me ashamed to be British.they should forget about the new runway,build a brand new airport and demolish the monstrous carbuncle that Heathrow has become.

- Jim Ex Pat,N1, thailand, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

What a waste of time and money! Blobby Johnson is only paying lip-service to people who don't want a third runway at Heathrow. But surely a third runway is better than building a completely seperate airport at the opposite end of the city. They would never close Heathrow so all this would do is fragment the airlines further and require more public transport between London's airports, something which is already in short supply.

- Dylan, London, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

Leave the Thames estuary alone! What is it with this airport mania? I thought Boris had more sense. Obviously not!

- Judith C, London, UK, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

How come no one think that an Estuary airport just like the Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick airports would destroy the quality of life for many people and life itself for many wild creatures.

Why can't we humans find something useful to provide a living, something that doesn't involve destruction.

As for providing an interim living, the wages at airports are primarily subsistence ones only.

- Helen, norwich, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

It's remarkable how many experts we have here on wildlife, ecology, climate change, tidal flooding and weather forecasting.

Forget your professionals, Boris. These people obviously have all the answers.

- Howard, Essex, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

This idea should have been taken up and followed through years ago. It makes perfect sense to site a new airport in the Thames Estuary for many reasons, not least the noise from Heathrow.

- Ian, London, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

Build an airport in the Thames Estuary if passengers want to remain stranded there between Kent and Essex. The whole local area is almost permanently gridlocked now with masses of commuters and shoppers visiting Lakeside and Bluewater. And the trains are already full to bursting. And no space left to build any more infrastructure. Let alone the damage to wild life and the environment - good luck.

- Anna, London SE9, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

Please Boris, read the history books regarding the proposed then called Foulness Airport. As a young Land Surveyor in 1971 I spent mant a cold day 'measuring up' for the original proposal. When I was there I felt it would be a disaster building here , both from a communications point of view, and unusually for then environmental. The whole project was then laid to rest, the same will happen again.

- Paul, London, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

My God. Just listen to you all. Boris is going to look into the FEASIBILITY of the airport. That includes impact of and on sea levels, environmental and transport link requirements etc. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here and wait and see what the study concludes.

- Simon, Kent, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

Is this the start of Boris's term of wasting London taxpayers money on endless studies into projects which don't weigh up to much in the beginning?

- Keith Grey, North London, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

Terrible road and rail links so how will the airport work?

- Mike Melbourne, Bedford England, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

So the people of Barking and Dagenham and those in Crystal Palace lost their DLR and Tram extensions to fund a study into a project that will never get off the ground.

- Colin, Barking Essex, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

Best place for it. But expect congestion on the Thames as water traffic increases ferrying people up and down to the Airport. but we'll need that extra Thames Crossing, which Johnson has cancelled. It would be nice to see the return of the old sea-planes again, has a nostalgia value. Boris is the Sarah Berlusconni of British politics.

- Dhanraj, Basildon Essex, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

As the credit crunch induced [massive] flight reduction has removed the imminent need for immediate airport expansion, surely any plans proposed now are for implementing, with work commencing, in about five years time.

Boris' immediate priority should be to prevent further culling of trees in all London's Boroughs, plant and replant more, and start culling those barmy councillors infected with an over-zealous inflammation of the 'Health and Safety' Rash.

- Dave, Cumbria, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

The estuary idea is a good one ,however it will take one of the hundreds of planes stacked above london to fall out of the sky on top of London to drive home the point,
We should also make the thames less tidal, and use it for transportation as it used to be ,Economic tides have turned ,so let us get to work and build for the future,!

- Jb London, london uk, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

If this consultation kills the 3rd runway then it will be money well spent.

- Bruce, London, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

This whole discussion is bonkers. Heathrow capacity is fine if you reduce the amount of transit passengers. What is the % of passengers passing through LHR and not staying in London....quite high I would have thought. So why not encourage more of this transit business through our other airports where there is bags of capacity....Manchester , Cardiff, Stansted , Birmingham ....and let these other cities benefit economically...

- Sir Rick Of Leeds, Leeds , UK, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

Stop fannying about and get on and build it Boris!

- Ron Mcdonald, Plaistow, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

Before he looks at Thames airport look at Crossrail. it's slipping, over-spending and senior staff and managers are in revolt.

- Staffer, Romford, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

An excellent idea, Boris. Heathrow should be closed. It is in the wrong place. Having large airliners overflying central London to land at Heathrow is a nonsense from a
security perspective as well as inflicting unreasonable noise on residents, especially those close to the airport. The main proviso for establishing a Hong Kong-style airport in the Thmaes Estuary should be reliable and fast (and maybe even affordable?) rail links into London. Heathrow has been operating for over 60 years and still lacks decent public transport connections to London.

- Richard Pearce-Higginson, Caterham, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

With sea levels rising is it sensible to build an air port in an estuary when existing flood defences will only last until 2030 and further block the existing navigation after we have just built Europe's newest roll on roll off port?

- Dm, London, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

It's not going to happen. What a waste of money. Aren't there more important things to spend it on Boris?

- Prj45, London, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

I thought Boris was MAYOR OF LONDON so why is he spending money on projects that lie OUTSIDE his area of responsibility.

Just goes to show how much nonsense his talk of abadoning transport schemes for London on the basis of they were not funded were just waffle. After all when was funding for a new airport agreed?


Anyway whats wrong with relocating to Oxfordshire then it would be near where Heathrows current users come from.
Doe Boris not know that coastal areas are liable to fog for long periods in the winter months yet alone the danger of bird strikes. Finally where will all the staff for a 4 runway airport live?

- Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

Since when was it the mayor of London's job poke his nose into the areas outside of the capital. we have no say in who runs London and johnson should simply mind his own business - or is this just a distraction to divert attention from the many problems that he hasn't bothered to address?

- Rob, Rochester, UK, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

Boris has got it right. If we want to maintain London's status as one of the main cultural, financial & trade centres of the world we need a major hub airport of at least 4 to 6 runways. Heathrow can never be this, & if it was, the noise & pollution for residents would be so intolerable no one would want to live here. The future will bring bigger & more environmentally friendly aircraft which will need longer runways & The Thames Estuary is the only place for them. The vested interests of Heathrow, BA & BAA, are only after increasing short term profits for themselves, where as Boris is looking to the long term prosperity of the country. Whether we have more or less aircraft in the future the benefits of building a new airport in the Thames Estuary would open up prosperity to east London & completely outweighs expanding Heathrow which just means destroying thousands of homes & increasing noise & air pollution over an even larger residential area..

- James R. Marsh, London, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

40 years ago,they were banging on about an airport in the estuary at Maplin sands.

- E.Smith, Crawley Sussex, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

Foggy thinking?

- Ty, Beckenham, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

I thought that Boris had just published a TfL strategic plan which had PROMISED that TfL would only pursue projects that were "fully funded" and not spend any taxpayer money on chasing unlikely infrastructure developments.

- Matthew Cain, Stoke Newington, London, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

I don "t live near Heathrow or the Thames Estuary but agree something MUST be done about Heathrow. As on e of the posters has said, it is a disgrace and a third runway
should never be allowed, especially with the new 5 terminal fiasco. Surely since London is so easily accessable from most areas a plan which will work can be devised. From where I live it takes two hours to reach
London , that"s not much longer than it takes to get from
Arrivals to the Carousel to collect my luggage!!!!!!!!!

- Val, Cardiff, Wales, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

Can someone please explain how the residents of south london are going to be able to get to this white elephant ? The airport seems to be located a very long ay from London at over 50 miles it is more than twice the distance of both Heathrow and Gatwick from central London ? The only public transport links seem to be to St Pancras. So many people will need to use their cars to drive miles to get there - completely unsustainable. The proposal is just electioneering politics and will not float ( if you'll excuse the pun).If Heathrow is not be devloped further then it also begs the qusetion as to why cross rail is needed . Irrespective of whether a third run way is provdied at Heahtrow it would make for more sense to expand Gatwick with a second runway once the presnet legal agreement expires .

- Chris, London / Surrey, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

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.

- Gill Moore, Cliffe Kent, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

An estuary airport would only be built if it had more capacity than Heathrow. It would therefore be even more of a climate catastrophe. (And I say that living under a Heathrow flight path.)

- James Page, Richmond, London, 19/10/2009 10:43
Report abuse

Add your comment