It is essential to campaign against the London Mayor’s misguided proposal to site an airport in the Thames Estuary
WHILE Heathrow Airport has been at the centre of the current aviation debate, Tory London Mayor Boris Johnson’s plans to disrupt Essex and Kent have been largely ignored.
During the debate on Heathrow, Tory MPs lined up to proclaim their opposition to expanding the airport, while still conceding that additional capacity was required and all options should be considered.
One option is being vigorously pursued already. Johnson has designs on creating that extra capacity, not in London, but in the Thames Estuary between Essex and Kent.
Labour MPs and parliamentary candidates on both sides of the estuary are now spearheading the campaign to stop a multi-runway airport being built on a man-made island in the middle of the Thames Estuary.
If additional airport capacity is required, it is surely better to look at expanding existing airports and improving and building high-speed rail links than building a brand new airport in the middle of one of the most congested parts of Europe.
Despite the Mayor’s claims, an airport in the Thames Estuary is not a “green option”. Indeed, as Ben Stewart of Greenpeace points out: “Just because you move the emissions to the other side of London, it doesn’t mean they won’t still cause climate change.”
And those of us opposing Johnson’s plans take the view that the costs of the environmental and social damage if his proposals became a reality are unacceptable.
The specific costs of using the Thames Estuary include the building of a new island in the River Thames; tunnels to Essex and Kent with completely new road and rail links (the current estimate of financial costs is around £40 billion); the effect on the wildfowl and waders of the Thames (highlighted by the RSPB recently), as well as marine wildlife; the need under European Union legislation to return to nature three times the amount of land reclaimed; and dredging an area where local fisherman are already suffering. These are added to problems that will always be affected by flight expansion such as noise and pollution.
And added to all this is the issue of migratory birds. This was one of the reasons cited in the Government study which rejected a potential airport on the Cliffe marshes in north Kent in 2003. Thankfully, no one died in the recent plane crash in the United States, when a “bird strike” forced a crash landing in the Hudson River. But the possibilities for a similar calamity must be strong for flights taking off in the estuary, which hosts around 300,000 migratory birds annually.
Across the Thames, Derek Wyatt, the Labour MP for Sittingbourne & Sheppey, has highlighted the dangers of the SS Richard Montgomerie, a sunken wartime freighter with 3,000 tons of explosives still on board. Lying between the Essex and Kent coasts, it is becoming increasingly unstable.
He also warns: “Any airport in the Thames Estuary would strangle the local roads and trains, which are already struggling to cope. The problem is so acute that we are already seeking new investment to speed the movement of the freight we import through the port of Sheerness – the fourth largest in the UK.
“Add to this traffic, 186,000 daily passengers and their baggage, 68,000 workers in and around the airport who
need to commute to their
jobs, and the investment in transport infrastructure that
would be required to assuage demand suddenly becomes prohibitively gargantuan.”
The Mayor cannot expect to entice tourists and business visitors to an airport in the estuary and then make them sit in tailbacks on already congested roads or cram them into the already crowded trains from Kent and Essex into London.
However, despite these objections, Johnson is pushing ahead with his feasibility study, run by the man who had a leading role in developing Hong Kong’s new offshore airport. While the current Secretary of State for Transport has ruled out the Thames Estuary, there is no doubt that, if the Conservatives win the next general election, they would be obliged to look more favourably on a proposal from their own Mayor. They are committed to airport expansion, just not at Heathrow. But if not Heathrow, then where? At Westminster, there is already a Tory-led All-Party Thames Estuary Parliamentary Group.
Meanwhile, our campaign is gathering momentum. Southend Labour candidates Kevin Bonavia and Tom Flynn worked alongside their Labour group to ensure it was raised in Southend’s council chamber to secure an agreement from the local authority to oppose any plans such as those proposed by Johnson.
To aid the campaign in south Essex, we have produced leaflets with a common illustration and theme, but with each candidate outlining their own reasons for opposition. Tear-off slips enable us to keep in touch with campaign supporters. Labour’s candidate for Castle Point, Julian Ware-Lane, has had strong backing from residents supporting his stand against the airport. He says: “Boris Johnson is proposing an environmentally reckless, hugely expensive sop to his west London voters – a cynical ploy that dumps on Essex big time.”
In 2003, a coalition of MPs, environmental and residents groups, led by the RSPB and Kent Wildlife Trust, succeeded in getting a similar proposal for the Cliffe marshes in north Kent thrown out. In the 1970s, plans for Maplin Sands were rejected. As Boris Johnson’s feasibility study continues, we will build as strong a coalition – on both sides of the Thames – to throw out this latest madcap idea.
Angela Smith is Labour MP for Basildon and East Thurrock
