It was announced today that enviromentalists are to lodge an objection to John Lennon Airport's £600 million expansion plans.

The airport wants to expand to create jobs prosperity and security for all Merseysiders but these people are hell bent on stopping the plans.

These people cannot suceed because the future prosperity of the city depends on these plans and would turn Liverpool into an international city again.

In fact expansion at JLA is greener than expansion at Manchester which is already at capacity point and is threatening the Cheshire countryside.

It was announced today that enviromentalists are to lodge an objection to John Lennon Airport's £600 million expansion plans.

The airport wants to expand to create jobs prosperity and security for all Merseysiders but these people are hell bent on stopping the plans.

These people cannot suceed because the future prosperity of the city depends on these plans and would turn Liverpool into an international city again.

In fact expansion at JLA is greener than expansion at Manchester which is already at capacity point and is threatening the Cheshire countryside.

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/9918-1/liverpool-airport-aerial-aa02955b.jpg

The greenies may have a point. The current runway has a flight path right over Hale village - how clever indeed! It could have gone to the right on a causway at both ends so it flys over no one except the river at both ends of the runway. Too easy to think of isn't it. I can see why greenies get pissed off with peope who can only see pound notes.

I don't accept that at all.

Why is it always Liverpool?

The heritage lobby, enviromentalists and others who think Liverpool should be ossified as a museum piece should go and sling their hook and toy with another place.

Liverpool has made reaal progress over the last 10 years but if anything substantial is to be achieved we need a modern 21st Century Airport, a Gatwick to the Manchester Heathrow.

I repeat it is greener to develop Liverpool than Manchester.

I live within spitting distance of airport development land and am all for the development, there are lots of people along the road who are objecting but most of the land is just an overgrown waste of space. The once excelent bowling greens and tennis courts have been destroyed years ago and the social club on the old Dunlops playing feild looks ready to colapse anyway, so why not bring improvement and job prospects to an area that for to long has been neglected.

i agree with spenny.

If the airport develops it will produce a rebirth of Speke. It will create hundreds of jobs and the whole area will be regenerated with hotels, shops, landscaping etc.

I don't accept that at all.

Why is it always Liverpool?

The heritage lobby, enviromentalists and others who think Liverpool should be ossified as a museum piece should go and sling their hook and toy with another place.

Liverpool has made reaal progress over the last 10 years but if anything substantial is to be achieved we need a modern 21st Century Airport, a Gatwick to the Manchester Heathrow.

I repeat it is greener to develop Liverpool than Manchester.

You have missed the point entirely. When it was built the current runway had major opposition, especially from Hale, as it flys right over the village . LOOK AT THE PICTURE. the runway could have gone a few hundred yards to the right with one end on a causeway into the river. It could even be angled to get air traffic from flying over the chemical plants in Widnes/Runcorn. No, no, the *******s wanted to save money and couldn't give a toss about a plane flopping on a chemical plant. One flopped on a factory in 1965 in Halewood. "Well one end flys over the river they said". How pathetic! The runways should be over to the right partially on a causway, then it goes over the river on both ends and not over chemical works or a village. One consultancy advised to put the runway on the river, for future expansion, as at low tide even row boats can't pass at this point.

Keep the planes away from people as much as possible. It was possible at Liverpool but a few bob they wanted to save. If they can't do it properly then they should not do it at all.

Long live the Greenies. If they were around in the 1960s then all this crap would not have been built to begin with.

the area to the right of the runway is classed as a conservation area, there where plans a few years ago to realign the runway and this was the reason it never happened

No thats completely WRONG!!

Wherever an airport is situated you will get local opposition, understandable in a sense because of the noise.

However that is NOT a good enough reason to jeopordise a massive regeneration scheme which will create hundreds of jobs.

The REAL reason the green lobby opposes this plan is because in their elitist vegetarian middle class way they are jumping on the badwagon against air travel per se.

They are the same people who are against cheap flights and want to slap a tax on flights.

The fact that they have flew for years doesn't matter but when the working classes start getting cheap flights well they couldn't have that!

No thats completely WRONG!!

Wherever an airport is situated you will get local opposition, understandable in a sense because of the noise.

However that is NOT a good enough reason to jeopordise a massive regeneration scheme which will create hundreds of jobs.

The REAL reason the green lobby opposes this plan is because in their elitist vegetarian middle class way they are jumping on the badwagon against air travel per se.

They are the same people who are against cheap flights and want to slap a tax on flights.

The fact that they have flew for years doesn't matter but when the working classes start getting cheap flights well they couldn't have that!

You made that up.

Look I can see your point about where the runway is situated.

It is silly but where it is is now a fact and we need to live with it.

I just think that the development of an international airport in Liverpool would create loads of jobs and boost the economy and therefore make Liverpool a better place.

I believe that the development at Manchester is less green than Liverpool and would be safer as it would divert some of the traffic.

Speke would be regenerated and local kids would have prospects.

I believe the green lobby would oppose this plan whatever because they have become opposed to air travel.

But I still think your views are valid and need to be taken into consideration if this scheme goes ahead.

Look I can see your point about where the runway is situated.

It is silly but where it is is now a fact and we need to live with it.


We don't have to live with it.


I just think that the development of an international airport in Liverpool would create loads of jobs and boost the economy and therefore make Liverpool a better place.
...
...

But I still think your views are valid and need to be taken into consideration if this scheme goes ahead.

The cargo terminal is to go between the river and the existing runway. A no, no for me. Move the runway and sort the rest out on the land side Once the cargo terminal is built the runway will not change. Change the runways first. The extsing runway can be a taxiway. The Greenies are right. It is not as if there is no solution - there is a solution. It is solvable. Move the runway and everyone wins.

and moving the runway would mean having to rebuild the new control tower that has been up less than two years

and moving the runway would mean having to rebuild the new control tower that has been up less than two years

Yep. So for 100 years ahead we have an apalling situation because some dork put a control tower in the wrong place (just alump of concrete). Move that as well. Do it properly!!

have a look here for veiw from inside tower
http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/content/panoramas/airport_control_360.shtml

See also:

'Air Travel and the Environment: Finding a balance (http://www.adamsmith.org/images/uploads/publications/air-travel.pdf)' - Adam Smith Institute


'Aviation and Global Climate Change (http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/aviation_climate_change.pdf)' - Friends of the Earth


'Aviation and our Environment (http://www.bata.uk.com/Web/Documents/media/pubs/HomesworldwideMar06.pdf)' - British Air Transport Association

Why don't we just bulldoze Hale Village?
Problem solved.
I don't have a problem with environmental issues but its always Liverpool that suffers the most from whinging fringe groups.
There seems to be no consistancy with these people.
Where were they when acres of Cheshire were disappearing under tarmac for mancs second runway?

Living in holes in th woods. Remember Swampy? :)

Why don't we just bulldoze Hale Village?
Problem solved.


That does not solve the problem at all, as the flight path is still over chemical plants at Runcorn.

Why don't we just move the runway over a matter yards, where it should have been to begin with and all problems solved. Then passenger and cargo terminals can be all on the land side.

Too easy isn't!

Too easy isn't!

Why don't you write the Planning department and JLA and tell them your plan... and I'll hold my breath ;) ..................not! :D

Living in holes in th woods. Remember Swampy? :)

Yeh and what a bunch of hypocrites. They were there claiming to be protecting the environment and they wrecked loads of trees.

I think the Greens attract a lot of no-marks who are there just for a bit of fun. They couldn't give a toss one way or the other. :013:

They wrecked ??? ... how?, by chopping them down ?

I think the Greens attract a lot of no-marks who are there just for a bit of fun. They couldn't give a toss one way or the other.
People like Paul Nolan, Director of The Mersey Forest (http://www.merseyforest.org.uk/) who helped set-up the Last Call (http://www.lastcall.org.uk/) scheme you mean? :rolleyes:

Group stage protest at airport
Sep 24 2006

A group of protesters are holding a "service of remembrance" on the tarmac at Nottingham East Midlands Airport.

Twenty-one protestors are sitting on the taxiway between two cargo holds, led by Baptist Minister Reverend Malcolm Carroll, a spokesman for the airport confirmed.

Ryan Martinez said the group are staging a peaceful protest and that the airport is operating as normal.

The airport's website is warning that one flight is currently delayed but Mr Martinez was unable to say whether the delays are a result of the protest.

"There are a group of 21 protestors who have breached our security. They are sitting on one of the taxiways in between the west cargo apron and the central cargo apron," he said.

"The police are obviously with them but it is peaceful. We haven't had any flights come in or take off since they have been here but the airport is not closed at the moment."

The group, hailing themselves "Plane Stupid", scaled the airport's perimeter fence shortly before 8am and staged the sit-in in a bid to highlight the effect aviation has on climate change, the group's spokesman Joss Garman said.

"Aviation is the greatest contributor to climate change," Mr Garman added.

"Reverend Carroll is leading a service of remembrance for the victims of climate change. The effects of aviation on the climate this century, if we don't stop short-haul flights, will be catastrophic. According to the UN 150,000 people die every year from climate change. That is a 9/11 every week. The only reasonable solution is to stop short-haul flights."

The group, thought to be the first direct action environmental group targeting the aviation industry, are part of the wider "Climate Camp" group, responsible for the recent protests at the Drax power station in North Yorkshire.

Source: icLiverpool (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0300nationalnews/tm_objectid=17810858&method=full&siteid=50061&headline=group-stage-protest-at-airport-name_page.html)

They wrecked ??? ... how?, by chopping them down ?

Not far off. They built tree houses and set up barricades in the trees so the authorities couldn't get near them.

They also used some of the branches to keep their fires going. I don't mean all of them but the protest attracted a lot of people who had nothing to do and went along to cause trouble.

thats an outrage, burning branches to keep warm, imagine what the smoke from that burning is doing to the atmosphere:unibrow:

I think some of the points made by the "Greens" regarding pollution by airports, is quite valid. However, and with regards to Liverpool John Lennon Airport, they will need to get used to it. It is my opinion that Liverpool John Lennon will grow to be one of Europe's largest airports. It is ideally situated on a river estuary with room to construct three more runways and as many terminals. It's flight path on approach and departures is mostly over water and, apart from one fairly small housing subdivision, located in a predominantly industrial area, on both sides of the river. The growth will be gradual and it will be many years befor LPL reaches it's full potential but I am confident it will. IMO.

I think some of the points made by the "Greens" regarding pollution by airports, is quite valid. However, and with regards to Liverpool John Lennon Airport, they will need to get used to it. It is my opinion that Liverpool John Lennon will grow to be one of Europe's largest airports. It is ideally situated on a river estuary with room to construct three more runways and as many terminals.


Look at a map. All around the airport is being developed. The old North Airport is being built on. There isn't much room around there and an awful housing estate pins the airport back to the river preventing expansion. The existing runway is misplaced too. The only way it can be developed to a Heathrow type of airport is have the runways "in" the river, and build over the existing runaways/taxiways. Having the cargo terminal between the river and runways is also a barrier to future expansion.

A long term plan should have:

1. A new runway partially in the river angled to not fly over Hale village and chemical plants at Runcorn.

2. The cargo terminal roughly where the existing runway is.

3. Demolish Speke housing estate to expand onto.

4. Have a rail line run in with an integrated terminal station, as at Gatwick.

5. Have a rail line serve the cargo terminal to link with Seaforth.

6. Have a rail line link with Garston Docks for the cargo terminal.

As none of the above are to happen and in fact quite the reverse (Speke is being done up, the cargo terminal is to go near the river, no rail link planned, etc), John Lennon will not grow to a large major international airport at all.

The location is better than Manchester for the north west, as Manchester airport is in the bottom right hand corner of the North West, which serves the Midlands a lot - Derbyshire is very near, but passengers are passengers. John Lennon airport has potential, however in typical Liverpool style there will be no long term plan that can be implemented in stages to achieve the end goal, just a cheap quick firefighting fix.

The planes are quite low to the ground ready to land once there over Hale.

Imagine all the noise they get from planes.

Anyway, all John Lennon Airport has to do to stop these protestors is hire me and like the Cobra, I will strike!:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

Face up to climate change - and reject airport growth
Oct 17 2006
No other

city is so dependent on cheap air travel
by Larry Neild, Liverpool Daily

Post

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/article/11737055.jpeg

POLITICIANS in Liverpool are being urged by the only Green

councillor to reject airport expansion plans.

Cllr John Coyne has challenged backbenchers in the council chamber to “face up to the issues of climate

change”.

He has called on them to call-in for a full debate the council executive board's decision to approve the expansion plans for Liverpool

airport, and also to turn down plans for a new link road towards the Speke-Widnes road at Halewood.

Cllr Coyne said he is making his stand – for the

sake of the climate and future generations.

In a message to councillors, he said: “With the executive board approving the Liverpool airport master

plan, and cheering on the explosive growth in cheap air travel from Liverpool, I have to ask if we are taking the right course.

“Climate-changing

emissions from aircraft are the fastest-growing and the most potent source of global warming.

“Carbon emissions, globally, need to contract. And

across the planet we need to reduce the inequality between the pollution caused by the lifestyles of the rich and poor.

“To be credible, the new aim

of the city council to be ‘the greenest city in Europe’ requires us to take climate change seriously.

“Therefore, we should reject the demand for a

new link road, for more car parking and for expanded air freight at the airport.

“Instead, we should plan for air travel to peak in 2008 and slowly

contract after that.

“To base the city's regeneration plans on ever-expanding cheap air travel would be about as prudent and morally justifiable as

to bet our future on jobs in the tobacco industry.

“This year and next year, nobody will blame a family which takes a cheap flight to Tenerife when

it's too dear to take the train to Torquay. But even air travellers know that the politicians need to act to put the protection of the climate above the

demands of fancy new holiday habits. Air travel has to shrink and it has to cost more.

“No other city is becoming so dependent on the expansion of a

cheap air transport bubble and Liverpool would be cruelly exposed when that bubble bursts. The motto ‘Above us only sky’ could literally describe an airfield

deserted by planes.”

Labour leader Cllr Joe Anderson rejected Cllr Coyne’s call. He said: “We cannot support his stance. The airport is a key economic

driver for the city and I want us to encourage the airport to grow. The issues raised by Cllr Coyne need to be looked at from a national or global

perspective, but expecting us to turn our backs on regeneration would just see competitors such as Manchester reaping the

rewards.”

larryneild@dailypost.co.uk

Source:

icLiverpool (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpooldailypost/news/regionalnews/tm_headline=face-up-to-climate-change-%2D-and-reject-airport-growth%26method=ful

l%26objectid=17942168%26page=1%26siteid=50061-name_page.html)

Reject the expansions at the Liverpool's expense

Screw him, we shouldn't have to go to Manchester if we want international

flights outside of Europe.:Colorz_Grey_PDT_16:

Let everyone else face up to climate

change.
Why is it always here that these radical ideas are given credance?
This city needs regeneration and employment more than anywhere in Europe,

the last thing we need is this dippy nonsense used as a reason to inhibit development, especially since said councillors have been silent on the filth

emanating from the docks that has been ruining the environment and peoples lives for decades.

Let everyone else face up to climate change.
Why is it always

here that these radical ideas are given credance?
This city needs regeneration and employment more than anywhere in Europe, the last thing we need is this

dippy nonsense used as a reason to inhibit development, especially since said councillors have been silent on the filth emanating from the docks that has

been ruining the environment and peoples lives for decades.

You seem to be anti-everything! I haven't read one thing you have written that

has been positive. ( I do actually support you on this issue though. Airports have to expand, and they should do it as greenly as possible to counteract the

environmental damage)

I'm

pro development for Liverpool and anti every bullsh*t reason not to do it, that's all, simple as that.
I've had enough of the tiny self-interest groups

that crawl out of the woodwork EVERY time anything new is proposed and I'm going to tell it like it is.
I'm actually PRO heritage; I like history and

architecture when its relevant and deserving and I'm environmentally friendly but every fringe lunatic group going are holding up our regeneration and I'm

going to continue giving them the hammer.

I'm pro

development for Liverpool and anti every bullsh*t reason not to do it, that's all, simple as that.
I've had enough of the tiny self-interest groups that

crawl out of the woodwork EVERY time anything new is proposed and I'm going to tell it like it is.
I'm actually PRO heritage; I like history and

architecture when its relevant and deserving and I'm environmentally friendly but every fringe lunatic group going are holding up our regeneration and I'm

going to continue giving them the hammer.

I actually agree with everything you have written. I am also pro-heritage and I also hate all these

little groups that come out and ruin it for everyone else. A prime example is the Edge lane project. I would love to see the old victorian houses refurbished

but I know that this can't happen. The houses are beyond repair and Edge Lane is heavily congested and is only going to get worse. The fact is no-one wants

to live in these houses anymore. I am fed up of the tiny minority of selfish and narrow minded people getting in the way of major developments, but I am also

capable of being positive about things and applaud projects of high quality even if they aren't tall! I don't want Liverpool to become like many other

cities out there with unremarkable tall buildings wiping out any character that is left. Liverpool is unique and must develop in a unique way to preserve its

character and heritage.

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpooldailypost/news/regionalnews/tm_headline=go%2Dahead-planned-for-new-airport-hotel-and-car-park%26method=full%26objectid=18814385%26siteid=50 061-name_page.html

:neutral:
How many of our "objecting greenies" live within earshot of the airport or within 20miles for that matter?
Not many, I bet.
Oh and from a resident of Runcorn = What chemical plants ? At my last count one. But I maybe walking around with my eyes closed.;)

Phredd

It doesn't matter where the runway is. Find a new fuel or air travel will be over in 10 years - whatever class you want to be bitter about