Tonight:
8°c
Sheikhs to fund ‘Boris Island’ airport in the Thames estuary
Sri Carmichael, Consumer Affairs Reporter07.10.09
Boris Johnson's plan to build an airport on platforms in the Thames estuary is being backed by money from oil-rich countries in the Gulf, it was claimed today.
“Boris Island”, as the £40billion proposed site two miles off Sheerness has been called, could be entirely bankrolled and owned by sheikhs.
The Mayor's deputy, Kit Malthouse, said it could be built within 10 years. Plans indicate it would dwarf the capacity of Heathrow's two runways.
He added: “We have had an incredible amount of interest from countries such as Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE, which have signalled they would like to fund the airport. It is possible we could build it without taxpayers' money.
“Who wouldn't want to own an immovable fixed asset just off the coast? It's extremely valuable and the owners of sovereign wealth funds know they could bequeath it to their children.”
Mr Malthouse said the Chinese government had also indicated it may want to put cash into the project during discussions at the Beijing Olympics.
The interest from countries willing to fund the airport answers critics who dismissed the scheme as far too expensive.
The Government, which is planning to increase airport capacity through a third runway at Heathrow if it wins the next election, has previously called it “fantasy island”, while airport operator BAA has questioned where the money would come from.
In two weeks the Mayor will publish the first “surface level” feasibility study into the airport, which is looking for any “howler” hurdles that could prevent construction.
Mr Malthouse said it will show the two artificial islands built in four-metre deep water and holding up to six runways will be “technically possible”.
The islands are to be linked to terminals on the mainland by tunnels or bridges and the buildings would be powered by giant water turbines using the tides.
Planes would take off and land over the sea, solving the blight of noise from engines and allowing the airport to operate around the clock.
Reader views (21)
Cool. Hope it happens.
- David, London
It will help with the litigation of global warming, as Eskimos have already lost 7% of their words for snow.
- Bill Ford, Hay~Heath UK
I must admit, the idea of selling off a chunk of land ust off the coast to some foreign interests seems like a great idea. But why stop at the Sheiks and the Chinese?
If anyone in Noth Korea is reading this I have a parking space within walking distance of Romford Station available to rent for a rvery reasonable price.
ALL HAIL DEAR LEADER!
- Tom, Romford
1. If this is to work it has to be linked to an 'orbital' bullet train service linked to all the London airports i.e. City, Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton and Stansted (could Oxford be added?). There would also need to be stations at big 'park n ride' places at points suitable for passengers to join the network.
2. The issue here is long-term competition for the intercontinental traffic which will either stop off in Paris, London, Frankfurt, Schiphol or Zurich. Heathrow will not be able to expand capacity, so is not a long-term viable solution. The site proposed would also be viable for executives wanting to go to Paris or Brussels, as it would be linked to the Eurostar services quite easily.
3. Old airports were built according to old models. Time for a new one with revolutionary design?
4. Linking the airport into ultra-rapid train services accesses the airport for far more people. If the orbital train service could get to any airport in 40 minutes going either clockwise or anticlockwise, how would that seem?
5. Heathrow is well sited, long-term to become a massive Science & Technology park alongside Stockley Park, with potential for new housing without green belt issues. Companies created at Oxford, Brunel, RHUL, Imperial and RPMS could easily move out there.
6. The reality might be that a 30-50 year gradual transition from Heathrow might take place so many of us would not necessarily see a radical change to transport arrangements. Is that the reality?
- Rhys Jaggar, London UK
If this story is correct then the only argument against is an environmental one.
If you can get £40 Billion in foreign investment in these economic times, it is a fantastic achievement. Think of what this means for employment, tax revenues etc
It does not matter if it becomes a white elephant, because not a single public £ is used. It does not matter where an airport is located, what does matter is how easy and fast you can get there.
Regarding the Queen, maybe she will be happy not to be waken up every morning (at widsor) by some big 747s....
- Johan, London
If Boris proves this is feasible and lines up investors then he's repaid my vote. Of course Heathrow should be shut if this went ahead, capacity would be more than adequately catered for with a 6 runway, 24hr airport. Upgrading the existing rail network in Essex and widening the A13, etc. shouldn't prove too tough. Go Boris! I would imagine a Conservative government would be keen to follow though with this.
- Mark, London
Why don't we just re-invent the sea plane and land on any disused docks, rather than build new airports out to sea, which will be fun when sea levels start to rise!
- Andy, London
We 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 issue was exhaustively investigated between 2002 and 2005 in the Government’s Aviation White Paper. All the key players, including the aviation industry, contributed. An airport in the Thames Estuary was conclusively ruled out and this decision 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 ‘birdstrike’ than at any other major airport in the UK.
What Kit Malthouse and Boris Johnson are suggesting is environmental vandalism on a grand scale
- Friends Of The North Kent Marshes, Medway UK
This is excellent news and goes to show Boris and his team are really working hard on his proposals to make them reality. This is now very likely to be delivered and built unlike so many phantom projects the previous Mayor banded about but failed to materialise.
- Sarah, London
Gawwwd - the devoted commentary spouting from political activists like this is cringeworthy! Boris has no intention of sticking around after a term to see it through, and the area does not come under his jurisdiction anyway. Somehow I do not think Kent County Council will pass this phantom of phantom projects.
- David, N10
Sarah, London, very obviously works for Boris’s PR team; sorry Sarah but you’re not fooling anyone are you? Like most of Boris’s proposals this is nothing more than populist PR bluff that plays very well in the press but has no substance. What Boris’s “team” won’t tell you is that an airport in the Thames estuary is highly unlikely to be built as geographically it is the wrong side of London to have a very big catchment area for passengers and therefore unlikely to be used by the airlines, Heathrow is however is ideally placed, which is exactly why there is an airport there. Whether you liked Ken and his policies at least he was a proper politician with conviction and didn’t just play being mayor like Boris.
- Nj, London
Any airport in the Thames Estuary would also destroy very important bird and natural habitat. Currently the Thames Estuary plays host to millions of migratory birds every year. There would need to be some enormous cull to prevent the problem of air strikes on jets.
- Mcw, London
I think that there are better uses than parking planes for this offshore opportunity.
For example it is clearly chav central for the supply of duty free booze and fags. What about an unlicensed casino or two better still what a great place to buy recreational drugs. Not too bad a place for some covert eavesdropping and tax free financial enterprise.
Yes welcome sheiks one and all; may your camels have many offspring
- James, City of London
Erm, what about the ever so little problem of the shipwrecked SS Richard Montgomery in the way, primed with around 1500 tonnes of explosives?
- Anthony, Esher, Surrey
@Diane Robards
HM would be delighted to grant a long lease and collect a juicy ground rent.
- Tom, London
This is excellent news and goes to show Boris and his team are really working hard on his proposals to make them reality. This is now very likely to be delivered and built unlike so many phantom projects the previous Mayor banded about but failed to materialise.
- Sarah, London
I vehemently oppose this. Four extra runways in London... only way I could possibly support this is if there was a cast-iron guarantee that Heathrow and Gatwick would close in their entirety. The fact of the matter is that no such guarantee has been offered - partly because the economies -and jobs- of the areas surrounding the airports rely on them, so we will end up adding four more runways, and vast additional increases in pollution in our city.
- Mark Lee, Vauxhall
Ahem. Just on be tiny, constitutional fly in the ointment. All UK coastline, up to 12 miles out to sea, is owned by the Queen. Can't see HM permitting some sort of offshore Emirates outpost blotting the marine landscape!
- Diane Robards, London UK
Franco is correct - Boris Johnson has no jurisdiction in this area yet he's wasting London taxpayers' money in commissioning a report because of failed airline entrepreneur Kit Malthouse's obsession.
Such a scheme would also require an enormous amount of infrastructure to transport passengers, freight, catering and retail supplies, etc to and from the airport, plus the associated industrial estates.
- Helen, West London
I bet the residents of Hammersmith and Barnes etc. are VERY enthusiastic over these plans. Those poor souls having to put up with all that horrible jet noise. It must be quite stressful...But don't worry, if it ever happens thousands of workers will get help with re-deployment.
Somehow, I think £40 million is a low quote...and guess who'll pick up the extra costs..?
- Mark H, London England
I think you'll find it's at least £40 BILLION, or that's a very cheap airport.
Wembley stadium cost a billion.
- Swiss Bob, Gen, Switz
How about the hurdle that Boris doesn't have jurisdiction over North Kent? He can't sell a patch of the sea he doesn't own.
- Franco, Sheerness
