expansion

Projection Activism

Barry — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:11:04 +0000

The Managing Director of Southend Airport, Alastair Welch has been targeted for pushing for expansion at Southend Airport - something which is not acceptable considering the climate change impacts.

Alastair Welch was giving a lecture at Southend's Royal Naval Association HQ when suddenly STOP AIRPORT EXPANSION amongst other messages were projected onto the building. There was no custard thrown, no superglue used - this was a simple, clever, imaginative and effective way to make a very valid point. A pat on the back is in order to whoever was behind this one.

Aberdeen expansion plans approved

Becky — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:41:41 +0000

Expansion plans at Aberdeen Airport have been given the go-ahead, with work expected to start in March 2011 and finish in Summer 2012. This 124m extension plan will leave us with no chance of meeting greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. We need a ban on all airport expansion if we are to have any hope of preventing runaway climate change.

Other groups such as Aberdeen Against Climate Change are also opposing these plans. The chairman of Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future (Acsef) stated that "transport and connectivity are key to acheiving economic growth and enhancing the quality of life in the region". As seen with other airport expansion plans, it is clear that quality of life for those around the airport is certainly reduced significantly, with the threat of having houses bulldozed, increased air pollution and the construction of other infrastructure such as large access roads.

Tourism deficit means that more money is actually lost from our economy, as people spend more abroad than people spend when in the UK. Plane Stupid calls for a ban on all airport expansion, including at Aberdeen.

Victory: expansion at Siena Airport bites the dust

Barry — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 11:18:22 +0000

Campaigners in Italy have scored a fabulous victory against airport expansion. There were plans to turn Siena’s Ampugnano runway, currently just an airstrip with just a handful of flights a week, into a commercial airport bringing short-haul operators such as Ryanair into the area.

It would have devastated the Tuscany countryside around Siena – amongst some of the most tranquil areas left in Europe. Local people, fighting to preserve their way of life, organised a feisty campaign which brought together local residents, students and politicians from the Greens and the Left.

Siena has a long history of radical protest and this campaign both tapped into and maintained that proud tradition. Campaigners made links with other airport campaigns across Europe, organised colourful, high-profile demonstrations, questioned the economic need for the airport. Critically, they exposed the murky links between the local council, the main bank in Siena and the developers of the airport.

The decision of the authorities not to proceed with the airport is a triumph for local people who, when faced with the threat, chose not to dance to the authorities' tune but to pro-actively take them on, to challenge, to set the agenda and to expose their corruption. A great example for campaigners everywhere.

Hypocrite Trump blocks expansion at airport near home in Florida

Barry — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:38:46 +0000

Who would’ve guessed it? Donald Trump, the American golf course tycoon who has been a driving force behind aviation expansion at Aberdeen airport, has launched a lawsuit in a bid to stop the expansion of an airport near his home in Florida.

The Celebrity Apprentice boss filed papers in Palm Beach County Circuit Court on Monday 19th July, accusing county officials of failing to assess noise and associated pollution from jet engines at Palm Beach International Airport, near his Mar-a-Lago estate and members-only beach club.

The complaint, which also targets the airport's director, Bruce Pelly, aims to block construction of a second runway and prevent planes flying over his properties. Plans for the expansion are currently on hold.

Johnny Agnew, 22, from Plane Stupid Scotland said: "This is amazing hypocrisy. Donald Trump's plans would significantly contribute to expansion at Aberdeen Airport. He has created a living nightmare for families who don’t know if they will see their next Christmas in their own home."

"This new information that he is actually fighting to block Airport Expansion near his own home shows that he can only act in self-interest and will never benefit Aberdeen. He is simply acting to make big money for himself, and shows complete disregard to the local community's suffering and to the environmental degradation that expansion at Aberdeen Airport would cause."

Alan Flemming, an Aberdeen resident commented, "For years now we have been opposing Aberdeen Airport expansion because of the greenhouse gas emissions and excessive noise pollution it would cause. Trump has been a driving force for this expansion. He supports the airport expansion plans as they will allow rich Americans to fly into his resort and money to fly into his pocket."

"To find out that he's blocking an airport from expanding in his home town in the states is an outrage to those who have been fighting the proposed expansion at Aberdeen Airport."

Red Bull-shit: the movie

Richard — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:05:14 +0000

GLA: tell us why expanding City Airport is a rubbish idea

Wiz — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:35:22 +0000

It's official. Newham council is crap. Last year, Newham gave the go-ahead to a massive increase in the number of flights at London City Airport, a decision which was given the green light by London Mayor, Boris Johnson. This decision recently earned Johnson the 2010 award for worst planning decision and Newham Council is in the proverbial dodo.

Not only have local campaigners Fight the Flights launched a High Court challenge against the council’s expansion decision but now the Greater London Authority’s environmental committee is holding a public debate and review of the impact that expansion would have.

This is where you come in. The committee want all of us to tell them why Newham's decision to allow City to expand sucks. So, while City Airport flights spew out greenhouse gasses and deafen East London residents in order to fly fat bankers around, here's a summary of why you might want to tell the GLA that expansion at City flies in the face of common sense.

Climate change. Yes, we'll keep saying it until we're blue in the face. No matter what industry would like to have us believe, there's no way we can keep expanding air travel all over the UK and reduce our carbon emissions: high carbon industry is incompatible with a low carbon society. Period.

It’s probably unlawful. Just last week, Lord Justice Carnwath ruled that the decision to expand Heathrow Airport must be reviewed (and hopefully scrapped) in the light of the 2008 Climate Change Act. Following the same logic, this ruling for Heathrow should also stand for City Airport.

Local noise and air pollution. Newham already has above average levels of child mortality, asthma, cancer and respiratory illness. More jets will mean more local air pollution for Newham and East London residents. The airport has also persistently failed to monitor noise pollution levels: since 1999 their noise readings have been based on estimates. How convenient.

Newham council is well dodgy. The relationship between the head of London City and Newham Council is a bit too close for comfort. Conflicts of interest are rife. Newham council didn't bother to consult on the expansion with... well, anyone.

The consultation was a con. Newham claimed to have sent out 10,000 letters to local residents (apparently the opinions of the other people in the borough didn't count), but many residents received up to 6 letters at a time, with many others receiving nothing.

No consultation in neighbouring boroughs. None of the other East London boroughs were consulted, despite the fact that changes in flightpaths from the airport are already blighting the lives of thousands of East London residents.

Unfortunately, as with so many political decision-making processes, we have to spell out the obvious and make sure Newham council are held to account. Normally we encourage people to take direct action to achieve this. On this occasion, the GLA enquiry is important enough to support. So get in touch with them now and tell them why you think City airport shouldn't be allowed to increase its flights.

For more info on why City shouldn't be allowed to expand, check out the Fight the Flights' website and fact page.

They destroy the planet. We get locked up for talking about it

Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:30:44 +0000

4 men and 1 woman were arrested and charged on Wednesday 31st March for speaking in public about the climate effects of aviation at the reopening of Glasgow Airport Terminal 2. The group from Stop Expansion at Scottish Airports (SESA), including a legal observer and two photographers, were leaving the airport after holding a banner for a photograph outside Terminal 1 when a police van and police car pulled up and arrested 4 of the group.

Late into the night, riot police later went to the homes of the arrested without warrants. On Thursday the 5 were charged with obstructing normal airport business. All of the accused deny the charges. The group believes that those arrested were targetted because SESA is calling for a public non-violent peaceful protest at the airport on October 10.

Amelia Birrell, had riot police at her door after midnight saying that they wanted to question her son, Robbie. She said: "I think that this justice system is a joke when it locks up peaceful individuals until 6pm the next day when they are talking about such serious measures as climate change. We were made to feel like criminals when riot police searched around the whole of our house in the middle of the night. I know that the airport is a sensitive place but they are all passionate individuals worried about the future of our country and they were doing nothing to cause any disturbance. I am proud of my son, we are supposed to have freedom of speech in this country and such heavy handed policing is disproportionate and hypocritical."

This is not the first time that Scottish anti-airport expansion campaigners have been subject to heavy-handed policing tactics. In January 2009 Geoff Lamb, a pensioner from Aberdeen was been held in a cell overnight for innocently writing 'you fly, we die' in the snow in food dye. Later in 2009, Plane Stupid exposed a massive police operation to bribe and infiltrate peaceful protest groups.

The disproportionate tactics we have seen by Strathclyde police mirror those infamously used by the Metropolitan police. Arrested for voicing concerns about the aviation industry’s massive and growing contribution to climate change? Who are the real criminals here?

Call out for public shut down of Glasgow airport on October 10

Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:29:26 +0000

For several years now we've sat by and listened as MP after MSP pledged to do something about climate change. So far, they've achieved sod all, and time is running out. It's crunch time: if the authorities won't make climate change policy work, we need to, openly and together. But how, you ask? Well, we're going to start by shutting down Glasgow airport on October 10.

We've formed a new coalition, Stop Expansion at Scottish Airports, and we're calling on anyone who believes in a sustainable future to join us. There have been a number of public actions against climate change in England, but this is the first in Scotland.

We've got to do something about flying. The Air Transport White Paper and the Scottish Climate Change Bill go in opposite directions. One forecasts a massive increase in passengers and the other demands a 42% reduction in greenhouse gases. It's the politics of the madhouse.

An increasing number of people will not stand by and watch airports blast more and more emissions into the atmosphere. We will not let the airlines and the aviation industry destroy any hope of reaching targets defined in the "world leading" Climate Change Bill.

We're targeting Glasgow airport because it's the perfect example of expansion plans gone mad. Over two-thirds of flights are to airports within the UK and half of those are to London. It's right next to a major population centre, with thousands of flights over already-deprived communities. But our problem is with the industry, not passengers, which is why we've given everyone so much notice.

So form a group, get dreaming, and get advice on safe ways to plan effective action. We'll see you on October 10.

High Court: Heathrow expansion "untenable in law or common sense"

Richard — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:16:03 +0000

It is a great day to be alive - unless you're BAA or the Government. In one of the most devastating condemnations of Government transport policy ever seen, the High Court has ruled that the case for Heathrow expansion has no economic or environmental basis. The ruling is so damning that the 2003 Air Transport White Paper - the cornerstone of the Government's aviation policy - is now only suitable for lining cat litter trays.

Firstly, Lord Justice Carnwath found that the economic case underestimated the economic impact of climate change - the external cost to society of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. The actual cost is three times larger than the figure used to calculate the economic benefit.

Two years ago WWF and transport academic Keith Buchan found that using proper Treasury calculations and doubling the value of climate change used in the Government's calculations turned the £5 billion claimed benefit into a £5 billion deficit (i.e. it cost society £5 billion). Imagine what tripling the value would do!

Having dispatched the economic case, Carnwath turned to climate change. It was ridiculous, he argued, for the Government to ignore its own legislation, i.e. the Climate Change Act 2008. When the Government rewrites aviation policy later this year, it will have to take account of climate change in a real and considered manner. This means that all airport expansion can be challenged on climate change grounds, until the Government or industry can show how having ever more planes in the sky is compatible with reducing CO2 emissions.

Finally he looked at surface access. The Government claimed that you could increase by around 40% the number of people travelling to Heathrow without turning West London into a giant car park and pushing the Picaddilly line beyond capacity. Nonsense, cried the judge, citing evidence from Transport for London which showed very, very clearly that there wasn't going to be anything like enough road or tube space for all these extra people to fit into.

As if that wasn't enough, Carnwath turned his mind to the wider idea of challenging Government policy at public inquiries. It was not enough for the Government to say "this is our policy, so shut up and take it". While some aspects of policy were cut and dry there were some grey areas which the public had the right to challenge. The need for a particular motorway or airport should be open to challenge and debate, and public inquiries were the forum for doing this.

I've read the occasional verdict in my time, and this one is sensational. It's well worth reading through the judge's reasoning, if only to see just how spurious and ill-thought out the Government's case is. For once, I have nothing but praise for the legal system... normal service to resume shortly!

Hoon: "£50k and I'll tarmac Sipson for ya!"

Richard — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:49:13 +0000

Three cheers to Dispatches for catching buff-Hoon shouting his mouth off about how much (or how little) it costs to buy his support. You know you've crossed the line when the Prince of Custard, Peter Mandleson, goes on Newsnight to call you corrupt (I mean talk about pot... kettle).

So how much do we think Hoon charged BAA for pushing through arguably the most controversial bit of infrastructure since, well, the last Heathrow expansion? BAA and Labour operate a revolving door policy, but still, persuading the Cabinet to ignore over 80% of the responses to a consultation you've already tried to rig tends to be costly.

Now that everyone knows that Hoon is as crooked as a thrupenny bit, it's time to go back to the third runway decision and consider it afresh. Sure, we don't know that Hoon took cash from BAA to influence Government policy, but the man's got form. The man's got form.

The camp, the bling and a cat called Andrew

Anna — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:43:28 +0000

Last week, without any fanfare or proper consultation Southend-on-sea declared that they would be expanding their airport. Southend is an hour up the line from London. It used to be the East End's top holiday destination, but like so many British seaside towns it's lost out to cheap flights, and the fall of tourism has left it with an interesting growth industry: determined resistance to the ravages of its clueless council. For a flavour of what might be in wait for the airport, here is the story of a cat, a king, and a camp called Bling...

Some years ago in Southend preparations for a road widening scheme uncovered an internationally significant archaeological site: a Saxon King's burial ground. The council decided to raid the treasure and continue with the tarmac. In outraged tribute to their forbears' desecrated goldie looking chains, the locals decided to set up Camp Bling. For 4 years they occupied the land and mounted an incredibly inspiring grassroots campaign, that saw treehouses go up and 100 residents storm a private council awards ceremony.

Eventually the council backed down, and last summer an agreement was made to limit the road widening to a token gesture of 20 metres. The site carefully packed away their defences. Then a couple of months ago the council explained that, while they wouldn't be taking the burial site, they would be going back on their word and expanding 160 metres of road. So camp was set up again, at Cuckoo Corner. Lads who had been too young to be involved in Bling sat up the beautiful beech that was threatened.

For the last three weeks people have occupied the space 24/7, holding off the chainsaws and building a small but sturdy activist centre. On the three Saturday nights before possible eviction, dozens of locals lined the road in readiness. But then the council decided to make a vicious twist with their possession order for the land- just two days before the stated court date, they posted up a hit list of 12 people who they demanded should appeared in conjunction with the case.

Many of the people summoned to court had never even stayed on the site, and one of them, well, one of them was a cat (who had featured in newspaper articles about camp Bling). But it seems that a spot of brazen incompetence doesn't immediately stop Southend council getting their way, and the judge demanded that everyone who showed up to the court case pay costs for the privilege of doing so, and threatened them with contempt of court (and the resulting loss of their assets) if they decided to protest against the tree felling.

On Saturday, just one day after Whitehall gave the final rubber stamp to airport expansion, the bailiffs came in early with fencing, security guards, cutting crew and cranes. Within a few hours the mature trees that had graced the area for over a century were decimated. 50-100 residents gathered in spontaneous protest despite the council's bullying. One man made a bid to lock onto the extraction vehicles but was pulled off.

Camp Bling and Camp Cuckoo have always been clear that their stand was about more than trees and history, however important they know both to be. Ten years after the council tried to pointlessly widen a road, half a dozen trees have been lost from a project that proposed to take out well over a hundred. And many hundreds of people have seen that resistance is fertile, that stupid decisions can be fought, and that land can be won back.

Grimshaws targetted for involvement in Heathrow third runway

Anna — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:01:45 +0000

Grimshaws, the architects firm which portrays itself as greener than green, the people who designed the Eden Project, were appointed late last year as architects for the third runway at Heathrow. No wonder three young men blacked-out their glass-fronted offices on Clerkenwell Road with tar.

Grimshaws thought the most sensible thing to do on the one year anniversary of the Government giving the go-ahead to the third runway was to have a high-level meeting with BAA. Imagine their surprise when they found their six-metre plate glass windows entirely blacked out. Not an auspicious start.

If Grimshaws thought this was just another job, then they've bitten off more than they can chew. The suave, award-winning Sir Nicholas Grimshaw has seriously underestimated the determination of thousands of people to stop the third runway ever being built. Actions like this are going to become common place as people recognise that our Government is not doing enough and start taking action themselves.

But this is not just a message to Grimshaws. It is to any firm that bids for work on the third runway. Heathrow's expansion is a poisoned chalice. Just leave it alone.

P.s. the image above is, of course, a cleverly constructed metaphor. See the tar pit. See the elephant, which is representing Grimshaws. See it struggling in the tar. There's an astute political message in there somewhere.

German airports get expansion fever

Rosie — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:09:03 +0000

German anti-aviation campaigners have been contending with huge regional airport expansion plans. Airport managers hope to stimulate demand by expanding rather than catering to a demand that already exists, excitedly talking up weekend shopping trips to London amongst other equally essential flights.

Construction is already under way at Kassel Calden regional airport, which is going to expand into a commercial airport with the help of massive subsidies of €150 million. Residents, neighbouring municipalities and BUND launched a legal challenge, but their case was dismissed in April last year and a massive forest was cleared last month.

True to style, it wasn’t left at that and campaigners now have to contend with the attempted destruction of the Querumer Forest to lengthen the runway at Braunschweig airport. A spokesperson for the group, Peter Illert said "This airport doesn't serve public interests, it is used by managers of the nearby Volkswagen AG headquarters in Wolfsburg."

Supporting the attempted expansion on such a beautiful natural site is a strange move by Volkswagen, who have been working hard on their greenwash by a sustained campaign of tree planting. Angry at the injustice, climate activists and local groups have set up a vigil camp in the endangered area, similar to one that sprung up near Frankfurt this time last year.

Illert went on to say, "Nowadays, the north of Hessia is a poor country, and gets still poorer - of money and of quality of life - when a new airport is erected for a small number of businessmen and ambitious local politicians for charter traffic and medium distance flights."

We couldn't have said it better ourselves!

Glasgow airport pushes expansion while passenger numbers fall off a cliff

Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:04:29 +0000

Glasgow Airport is determined to pump more carbon into the atmosphere despite a massive drop in passenger demand. Well it’s no big news that the aviation industry does not require consumer demand to expand. Inspired by the predict and provide of the 1990’s road building which brought us a motorway through the centre of Glasgow, the industry is dedicated to creating demand with cheap flights - whether we want them or not.

Nevertheless, it's amazing that managing director Amanda McMillan just announced plans to invest £25 million 'improving' that airport because it lost one-in-eight passengers over the past year. Fly Globespan and Zoom Airline collapsed and most RyanAir flights moved to Edinburgh. Given that part of the airport was closed over winter due to lack of demand, why are they so dead set on expanding?

Technically, of course, they're not expanding; the airport is being "enhanced". In the Scottish National Planning Framework the word "expansion" was changed to allow airports to expand more easily. This means BAA can up the possible passenger numbers without going through any of a legitimate, democratic planning process.

Following the Copenhagen climate conference and a sparkling new Scottish Climate Change Bill, it would make sense to allow passenger numbers to drop naturally whilst driving for a high speed rail link. However, that wouldn't make BAA any money, so unsurpsingly it's not on the cards. Instead, they're dedicated to generating new and unsustainable demand. It's like the collapse of the passenger numbers which followed the recession has taught them nothing.

On top of this BAA Glasgow are also very pleased to announce that they are contributing £1 million towards the famed M74 extension. Not only are they creating excessive noise in Glasgow’s poorer neighbourhoods by flying jets metres above their heads, but also by helping build a motorway through the middle of the city. I wonder if they'll be putting thaton the 'community matters' section of their website. Thought not.

More Government cover-up over Heathrow impacts

Richard — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:35:21 +0000

Another Sunday Times splash: those naughty officials at DfT spent 16 months trying to stop Justine Greening, MP for Putney, seeing information about the third runway. This includes emails which pointed out that "some consultees may ... claim collusion" between the Department for Transport and BAA.

Not only did they do everything to delay releasing documents, but they doctored reports to remove references to technical documents so that campaigners wouldn't know they existed. According to the Sunday Times, a memo from the senior strategy manager on Heathrow at BAA explicitly asks for a reference to BAA technical notes to be removed. It then adds: "He has avoided all references to the TNs [technical notes] in the surface access report and suggests, which I would agree with, that if [name redacted] can change his reference it could minimise the opportunity for a request for access to any or all of the TNs."

The emails show that the Government beefed up a consultation of businesses in the South East to make its case. Just 2.6% of the 6,000 businesses consulted bothered to reply, but the DfT still claimed that 90% of businesses relied on expansion, even though it was obvious that only those with a vested interest in the third runway had bothered to respond.

Nothing the Government did when making the case for expansion was above board. Civil servants and BAA sat down and openly conspired together to try and get the runway built. They moved the NOx meters further from the source of emissions to play down the levels of pollution. They invented magic planes which made no noise and emitted next to nothing (and which no engineer in their right mind would trust to get off the ground in one piece).

These reports are a damning paper trail of the lengths the Government would go to sell for communities around Heathrow down the river. It's time for heads to fall, but the Government will doubtless stand by Sir Humphrey and chums. That's no surprise: there's been a revolving door between Labour and the aviation industry since they first sniffed victory back in 1997. Plus ca change, etc.