Comments on: Thames Estuary Airport proposed by Boris Johnson

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:33:42 +0000

The idea worked in Hong Kong and the engineer who designed it believes it would work in the Thames. Not being an airport planner, I wouldn’t know – but IF it is to be done THEN it should be done well.

By: John

John — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 01:27:37 +0000

Putting a barrier lower down the estuary than Tilbury will completely alter the ecosystem of the region. I can’t see it happening. Why would anyone want to fly into an airport out there anyway?

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:15:23 +0000

Karina: I know of no landscape architects who are arguing FOR an airport in the Thames Estuary. One day, society may have the good sense to seek landscape advice on airport location. At present, the involvement of the landscape profession is conditional. I, for example, believe that IF an airport is to be built in the Thames Estuary THEN it should be done in the most environmentally sensitive way possible.

By: Karina

Karina — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:11:14 +0000

I find it astonishing that anybody could be so ignorant as to suggest that the Thames Estuary is a good site for developing a new airport. The area is an important biodiversity zone and ownership of land has recently transfered from the MOD to the RSPB to secure the further “development” of the Rainham Marshes Reserve to protect our indigenous and migratory wildlife. The migratory corridor on both sides of the Thames Estuary is crucial to the survival of many wading and fishing birds; not to mention the negative effect any development would have on fish, vegetation and invertebrate populations in the area.

I refer the Landscape Architects to an area of study which I’m sure they must have undertaken at least at postgraduate level – Landscape Ecology – to further investigate the effects that their ideas would have on the biodiversity of this region.

On another note, to suggest that you should move aircraft noise from central London (where I live) to a less populated area is merely expanding the high decibel zone of London. In central London we barely hear the noise of aeroplanes over the traffic, sirens, etc. In rural regions such as the Thames Estuary, there at least remains a preserve where bats can (hopefully) echolocate, birds can mate as they can hear each other singing and our other fauna can thrive. For this to be destroyed by a new airport would be a travesty.

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 08:05:24 +0000

I am confident that it is possible to make an ‘overwhelming case’ against any aiport expansion – just as I am confident that it is possible to make an ‘overwhelming case’ for airport expansion somewhere . The landscape architect’s job is only to answer the question IF an airport is to be made in a certain location THEN how can it be done in the best possible way.

By: Friends of the North Kent Marshes

Friends of the North Kent Marshes — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:15:05 +0000

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.

For your information the Environment Agency TE 2100 consultation, looking at flood risk management within the Thames estuary over the next 100 years, has totally discounted any kind of outer estuary barrage over the next 100 years.

By: Christine

Christine — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 03:14:15 +0000

Every so often at uni you learn a gem that says with you for life. One of those gems was the definition of a ‘weed’;

A weed is just the wrong plant in the wrong place.

Plant the weed in the right place and it becomes a plant again.

Another important lesson was on process rather than definition;

It goes something like this – the problems that you encounter while designing are often the source of your greatest creative advances. Blessings in disguise you might say.

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:06:53 +0000

I share your distrust of the International Civil Aviation Organization

By: Advisor

Advisor — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:02:28 +0000

Comment by Tom Turner — June 28, 2009 @ 6:06 am “Advisor, you seem to be arguing against airports and air transport.”

Actually, I am just presenting the facts, which are usually hidden by the members of ICAO.

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:06:35 +0000

Advisor, you seem to be arguing against airports and air transport. Personally, I agree with this to the extent that I think air travel should be used for business rather than for leisure. But this is not a question which the built environment professions are capable of dealing with. I see the Thames Estuary Airport proposal as a response to ‘IF London’s airport capacity is to increase, HOW should this be done?’