WEBLINKS
|
The 大象传媒 is not responsible for the content of external websites.
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c206c/c206cd2e262c5030748e5906ddb593beda5d990c" alt="Give Us Your Feedback" | data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/50aca/50aca1d4a957b6eec2993c6995dae2e8591b5f7c" alt="tiny" |
The 大象传媒, as other media organisations, has a responsibility to remain entirely impartial and at no point, has anyone used propaganda. The views expressed here are those sent in by the public and the fact is we have received far more comments against plans for an airport in Rugby than in favour of it.
The meetings will represent honestly the feelings of the people in the room and the best way to ensure your views are heard is to go along to one of the meetings yourself.
Vic
大象传媒 Coventry and Warwickshire website team
No proper debate has taken place, only anti-rugby airport propaganda both in the Evening Telegraph and the Leamington Courier. Your meetings will not inform people,they will only be used as propaganda by ARAC helped by De sturmer,the local press.The bbc has a responsibility to ensure at each meeting that all the merits of the various schemes Rugby,as well Coventry-Birmingham are heard. ARAC will take it over.
J.E
Kenilworth
Many of the MPs in and around the surrounding area of Coventry and Warwickshire seemed to be forgetting that it is going to be destroying many families' homes.
How would they like to live next to an airport and have awful noise pollution day and night, so much that you get no more than two hours sleep at the most per night?
Nobody has actually considered how it will alter peoples lives and livelihoods, I tell a lie maybe they have looked at it from the improving point of view, the new jobs and more cheap flights, but this is people's homes and habitats they will be destroying.
My suggestion is that they don't make any hasty decisions and reconsider other sites as far away from the direct affect of people's homes.
kaligist
No location supplied
Lets face it Birmingham Airport needs to expand and as Birmingham is the second largest city in Britain it is the prime location for a large airport. As Birminghams needs and population grow we need a larger airport with more capabilities. The airport will be a good investment for everyone.
Tom Watts
Dorridge
I find it amazing that you think Phil is a pro-airport person!
Having chatted to Mr Shepherd on several occaisions I know that he and I share the same basic view.
Our biggest concern is the number of people who have turned into sheep "Deirdre says its bad so I will too".
How many people are in possession of the facts?
I know i'm not, I know Phil isn't. I know Rugby Council aren't.
Who are we to make decisions without the facts?
If the facts show it to be a bad thing, I'll be right up at the front of the NO queue. If the facts show it to be a good thing, I'll be right up there at the front of the YES queue. Until then, I take the third option - gather the facts.
Si
Wolston
I am at school at the moment and I'm sorry but Phil Shepherd is sitting there deciding my and my fellow friends' futures more than his.
If this airport is built, we will be alive longer to endure it than him.
He also mentioned earlier that we will have jobs for us. I don't know anyone at my school who wants to become an air hostess or pilot.
Laura
Location not supplied
Far be it for me to interrupt what appears to have become "The Phil Shepherd Show"
Can it be that he's discovered the only Airport forum where he is not outnumbered 250 to one?
Paul Flint
Location not supplied
There is a new questionnaire on Warwickshire County Council's website. Follow the link on the left to complete it and air your views.
Amy Elias
大象传媒 Coventry & Warwickshire website
In response to Mr Shepherd's comment regarding 'man made Church Lawford & Kings Newnham and the surrounding countryside' is not and was never intended to be one of religious beliefs but of what was best overall for the majority of the residents affected.
With even greater respect than that shown by him to his critics I still maintain that, right or wrong, the majority view should prevail - that's what a democracy is all about and is the reason why people such as himself whose opinions differ from those around him are tolerated.
With regard to his second point that the local business men and chambers of commerce quietly approve of the idea is a nonsense and he knows it. He may well know some like minded people who have commercial interests but does that make an informed opinion and one we could base great judgements upon - I think not.
Regarding his final point that decisions on the future of the locality will not be made through forums such as this nor by local or national politicians may well be correct but you have to ask yourself if this is so then why does he spend so much of his time communicating with a community that cannot, as he claims, help itself?
Jack and George
Location not specified
I would like to express my horror about the proposals for an airport near Rugby, apart from all the damage to the environment etc, it will cost as much as 6 times some other options, how can the government justify this on an airport when we have a lack of police on the streets resulting in tragedies like Holly & Jessica, people dying in hospital waiting rooms due to no beds and lack of NHS funds - no to mention education - Surely Blair couldn't be so stupid?
Jason Webb
What no one has yet seemed to realise is that around half the people who currently fly and who live in the Midlands, travel outside the region to do so. Those people will only stop clogging up the roads to the London airports if they can make the equivalent flight from nearer to home. That's why the Midlands has to accept more responsibility for dealing with the demand created by its own people.
Of course the Warwickshire option is a nonsense. Coventry is not capable of expansion and would have to close eventually even if Rugby Airport wasn't built (future air traffic conflict with both Birmingham and East Midlands; no one wants to invest in it; and no airlines want to fly from it - no matter how much the management say they'll attract a low-cost airline).
Brussels will probably ban night flights in Europe in the next decade and aircraft will become even quieter. Logic says that Birmingham, which already has the routes, the airlines and the transport links (e.g. station next door), is best placed to be developed to handle the future demand that will be created by Midlands people.
Phil
North Warwickshire
The basic estimates of the Department of Transport should be scrutinised closely, by people in Birmingham, Coventry and Warwickshire. You do not need airports if people will not or cannot fly. There are three basic points.
First, the resurgence of well-organised terrorism, with its long-term implications for air traffic. Second, other demands on peoples' time. How many people anywhere, struggling with busy jobs, bringing up families, etc, will fly that often? How many businesspeople, in an age of videoconferencing and emails, will actually treble their flights? Third, the estimates of other countries, at the other end of this largely international air traffic.
So has the Department done its homework properly? Does the Foreign and Commonwealth Office agree with this optimism over terrorism? Is it realistic to expect people to have so much time for travel? Are Transport Departments in USA, Germany, France and other major countries also forecasting such massive increases? If not, much anguish may have been caused to decent people quite unnecessarily.
If the Department has not checked its estimates with the FCO and other countries, people have every right to be extremely annoyed. So I really do suggest that they pursue that fundamental enquiry.
David Skinner
Coventry
Nobody's comments on the proposed expansion of airport facilities (at whatever location is finally "chosen") have included mention of NATS - the newly part-privatised air traffic control service.
It is in crisis financially and there have been predictions that this crisis could compromise its safety commitments. Apart from the very grave objections and reservations that many in the aviation industry had about the privatisation of this service, there were also dire warnings from some air traffic controllers, even prior to privatisation, concerning dangers arising from overload of the system.
I imagine they are filled with trepidation at the prospect of DETR's Forecast (published in 2000) that air travel will double by 2015 proving to be an accurate projection.
It can, of course, be argued that the provision of more, or of larger, airports should diminish the dangers by reducing the number of aircraft circling round any one location/runway whilst they await a landing slot, but somehow I am not convinced.
In actual fact, I am not convinced that the demand for air travel will double, nor do I believe that such a growth potential should be encouraged. Aeroplanes require an enormous amount of fuel (which is a finite commodity) and cause massive pollution.
I have many friends who regularly fly to various places for business meetings which, in numerous cases, they feel could be conducted by video conferencing. This would be of economic benefit to the company concerned and of personal benefit to the employee whose personal/family life and productivity often suffers as a result of the
constant travelling. And it would be of benefit to the environment too.
T'would be good too if the verbose Mr Shepherd could learn some spelling and syntax!
Heather Bailey
Leamington
I am very concerned about the environmental impact that the proposed new airport will have on this area. I choose to live in Leamington for lots of reasons, but if this airport is built I may be forced to move out of the area due to the noise pollution.
I think it's a stupid idea to build a completely new airport (and all the required infrastructure) just a few miles from the existing Birmingham International airport. I don't believe anyone who says it's not possible to expand Birmingham. If we can build a channel tunnel, and put a man on the moon, then I have no doubt that we could expand Birmingham Airport!
Not that expanding any airport is really a solution to the air travel problem. I think it's going to be like the roads all over again - we build more roads, and they are soon filled to capacity - so what's the solution?
The current thinking is to try and tax motorists off the roads. Well, why not tax air travellers out of the skies? Then we wouldn't need another airport, and the subsequent loss it would bring to this rural county.
Simon Jones
Leamington
Jack & George, man made Church Lawford & Kings Newnham and all the present day farming landscape around them, are you seriously suggesting that they should be demolished and returned to the original landscape made by the Almighty?
You believe me to be an a minority, when it comes to sticking ones head above the parapit, then yes I am, but if you talk with the local chamber of commerce and people who run small, medium and large business in the area, which employ people in all of the villages and towns nearby, then they are on the whole, quietly in favour.
To all readers, it will not be the local village people, nor forums as this, nor the local or county councillors, nor will it be the local MP's who will make the decision as to whether this proposal is adopted, so for that reason I shall sideline them all (as they are either unable or unwilling to learn from history and common sense) and move to my next stage of campaigning, if you wish to join with me please feel free to email.
Phil Shepherd
Bilton, Rugby
As a resident of nearby Stretton, I live 1/2 mile away from the end of the proposed runway site. My property will not be subject to compulsory purchase and I will receive no compensation for the years of suffering, noise and pollution that will lie ahead. After all, who wants to buy a property so close to an airport that will be possibly the second largest in the world?
In years to come, when expansion to the site is deemed necessary for hotels, offices, etc which village will be next?, Wolston and Stretton maybe!
Remember, no Green Belt land will be safe. Remember, these planes will be stacked above homes for miles around. You may think you are out of the firing line but this monsterous proposal with blight all of our lives for ever. The planners will have chosen to site this airport close to us all, the residents of other airports have in most instances chosen to live close to them.
Beverley
Stretton on Dunsmore
As one who, up until now, has been an interested but passive member of those opposed to the building of a new airport may I just make one small contribution.
Mr Shepherd from Bilton appears to be the most active member yet of the 'pro airport lobby'. He would also appear to no less easier to dissuade from his viewpoint than those actively opposing it so can we just make a contribution.
Mr Shepherd has not cornered the market in intelligence nor common sense and within the framework of a democracy, albeit one that does not allow for a full public contribution, his views will remain that of a very, very small minority.
Those contributors who rail against him will, by the very nature of this forum whose duty will always be to give a balanced opinion, allow him much greater freedom and exposure to expound his modest viewpoint.
Finally, my view for what is worth is that 10,000 new jobs for Rugby will never be worth the price those people living within a 12 mile radius of this complex will have to suffer and I would say to Mr Shepherd just name me one man made construction that improves on that the Almighty gave us for nothing?
Jack and George
Location not specified
NATS (the country's ar traffic controllers) seem to be having a bit of a problem.
Is this the best time to dicuss increasing the country's take off and landing capacity ?
Bill Piper
Lutterworth
I live in Lichfield and one of our local papers came today. The Post reveals that the Government were seriously looking at the Lichfield area in July last year, regarding plans for a new airport. One of the comments made was: "This makes a mockery of the statements from the Department for Transport that this consultation into the future of aviation is to be held in an open and transparent manner" by Chris Crean as part of the article in The Lichfield Post p2 written by Ann Mayo.
Apparently there was no area in the Midlands that wasn't threatened. "Department of Transport experts handed the list of 32 sites to consultants Scott Wilson who in turn whittled the names down to 14 and finally a short-list of eight." The Lichfield Post p2 written by Ann Mayo.
"It is quite clear that the campaigns to protect Church Lawford, Bickenhill and Baginton are now a fight for everyone in the region. The awful shadow of these investigations will send a shiver down everyone's spines that indeed it could have been them. The whole region should now engage in these campaigns to rein in the out-of-control aviation sector." The Lichfield Post p2 written by Ann Mayo.
R Marie Anderson
Lichfield
There are available on www.aviation.dft.gov.uk contours showing noise levels around Heathrow. Is there any clever person about who could superimpose these on a map of the proposed airport? Personally I have yet to see a map of the proposed airport with all the buildings, car parks, approach roads, etc.
B.K.Foster
Bitteswell
Mr Fox,
Greenham Common - The ladies were protesting until the day it was closed. I am fairly sure that running out of money and turning to cocaine smuggling put rather more of a spin on Mr Jolleys operation than the death of a protester and the group that camped out at Bagington. The Newbury by-pass - Swampy although he became famous was still evicted from the site.
As for the location - RAF Church Lawford provided an ideal starting point, RAF Gaydon has already been developed by Rover Group/Land Rover, and the required flight paths would have affected more people.
Si Kellow
Wolston
My argument against building a new airport and extending Birmingham airport:
The Utilitarian grounds for building a new airport is that happiness of the many is better than misery of a few and is thus justified on those grounds.
One of the questions is whether the Government's plans anticipate a valid need in the future or are they trying to create a need, similar to the BNRR, nobody wants the disruption and they also don't want a toll road, but people will use it when it's finished.
The toll road and increased air traffic could well bring increased wealth to the West Midlands at the cost of the reduction of beautiful countryside (and SSSIs), reduction in house prices, increase in business and manufacturing areas.
So for the short term utilitarian principles win and the building of toll roads and the increase in air traffic are justified.
The long term loses include the destruction of nature reserves, destruction of historic villages and most importantly, the destruction of trust.
However many people vote against these plans for Rugby, Baginton and Birmingham they will probably lose (like the BNRR). This produces voter apathy, a powerlessness to control our own environment, cynicism against government policy.
Utilitarianism isn't justified in this case; the happiness of the majority will be eroded in the long-term, plus certain misery for a minority in the short term and that's not even including the cost to the environment in the way of air pollution from increased air traffic and the BNRR.
The Government realises that where-ever a new development is built, the lives of local people will be disrupted, nature conservationists will discover a new SSSI etc.
Compromise gives us back our control. We could decide on a site that could accommodate the proposed new much larger aircraft with a single terminus, perhaps operating as a satellite terminus to Birmingham.
Maybe increasing smaller traffic to Baginton (passenger as well as cargo), with the passenger operation also being a satellite to Birmingham.
Gaydon off the M40, has a test track which can accommodate a Concorde emergency landing and Gaydon is in the middle of nowhere.
There must be many alternatives that are less disruptive and gives people in the West Midlands a greater say in the decision making process.
If the Labour Government is embracing Mrs Thatcher's plans for reductions in future Government i.e. reducing the power of Government by giving back more to the private sector, thus competition provides an evolutionary type progress that drives commerce, then the majority have to be responsible for this power.
The Government have to inspire trust and educate people into taking decisions regarding their environment, we can't just keep saying NO, we now have to provide alternatives.
R Marie Anderson
We need decent railways, good long and short distance buses and interconnection between these.
Why is there no bus station at Coventry or Rugby railway stations?
There could be even tramways joining the centres of Coventry, Rugby, Leamington, Nuneaton and their suburbs.
Mike Hutton
Dear Mrs Key-Vice, I don't think I said people should be 'happy' to be sacrificed, I recall saying 'I felt genuinely FOR them'.
Please be accurate when quoting someone, you wouldn't want to be accused of distorting the truth now, would you?
And, Mr Fox, I whole-heartedly agree with your right to legitimatly protest for your cause, I don't think I've ever suggested to the contrary.
What I've always called for is open debate, I've written nearly 100 letters to my councillors and MP asking for debate, but to date, I've only heard rhetoric, please join with me in asking leaders of public meetings to get someone in authority from all sides of the debate (That is Pro, Con and Neutral), then perhaps we will get to the truth ... which usually lies somewhere in the middle.
Finally, I am really pleased that some of those opposed to the plan have risen to debate some of my comments and not just say 'YOUR WRONG' because that convinces neither you nor me.
With debate it shows that some people are actually THINKING about the matter SERIOUSLY and not just following the crowd. Trying to win me over is surely the better way to influence the debate and I might be inclined to join your camp and work as vigorously FOR you!
Phil
Rugby
how come we get turned down for the new national stadium, but are top of the list for a new airport? surely no one will want to fly into somewhere that no-one outside of london wants to invest in, its not as if theres anything to visit in the midlands anymore!
David
Location not supplied
The proposal for the Rugby airport is with runways running North/South. Every other major airport in the country has runways running mostly East/West to suit the prevailing winds.
If the proposal was to be approved, what is to stop the planners re-orientating the runways East/West once they have realised their mistake? I have seen this stratregy used by proposers of projects before. Have the project approved with a scenario that causes the least public outcry, and then after it is well underway and it is too late to turn back, implement changes that would never have had a chance of being approved had they been in the initial proposal.
I suggest that the people of Coventry and Rugby consider this possibility, as they could be living directly under the take off and landing approaches of the biggest airport in Europe.
Antonella
Location not supplied
I NOW LIVE IN CYPRUS I WAS BORN IN COVENTRY BUT I LIVED WITH MY PARENTS IN RUGBY.
YOU KNOW I LOVE BOTH PLACES ITS MY HOME EVEN THROUGH I LIVE IN CYPRUS. ITS QUITE ITS COUNTRYSIDE IF AN AIRPORT IS BUILT THERE THEN IT WONT BE QUITE ANYMORE IT WILL BE LIKE LONDON NOISY.
I THINK WHEN YOU LIVE THERE YOU FEEL RELAXED. THE PRICES OF HOUSES WILL GO DOWN WHO WILL WANT TO LIVE IN A PLACE WHERE EVERY 5 MINUTES AN AEROPLANE WILL FLY OVER YOU.
CHRISTINA MICHAELIDOU
Cyprus
So Mr Shepherd thinks we should be happy to be "sacrificed" for the greater good? How very 1984!
Last time I looked we were being told this was a democracy and not a totalitarian state.
Of course jobs would come, in 10 years time or more. Are the people from GEC, Marconi and Massey to wait that long for opportunities?
Why is this a better option for the use of greenbelt land than housing? We should be aiming for neither.
This country has a wealth of disused airports and other brownfeild sites which could be used if, and it is a big if, we really need all this extra capacity.
The world has changed since this report was commissioned 4 years ago. This government who are pleased to puff off about the environment should put words into action and look at real alternatives.
And by the way Mr S, the figures do not stack up on the numbers of people who would be inconvenienced. These 80,000 "relieved" people would not be living in blissful silence (and most of them never expected to, as they moved to an area where there is an airport) and it will be far more than 11,000 or haven't you ever stood 6 miles from Heathrow?
Of course there are pluses and minuses in every suggestion but if we want to any countryside left for future generations we do need to be a bit more responsible with a finite resource.
Gillian Key-Vice
Stretton on Dunsmore
I am absolutely against the new proposed airport between Coventry and Rugby. But my greatest fear as a resident of Stoneleigh village is that Coventry airport will be enlarged.
As it is at the moment, the airport's consultative committee is made up of airport management - our local councillor is only advised of any new proposals after the event.
We are forever complaining about night flights flying too low and they are using old planes so they are very noisy and the pollution must be dreadful.
Coventry airport do not monitor the noise level of night flights - they say they can't afford it. Who should we ask to help us as residents of a village which dates back to the 16th century?
The Parish Council don't seem to have any clout at all and the District Council is just thinking of more money coming into the coffers.
The road systems around our village are full to bursting what with Warwick University expanding its residential buildings as well. People should be able to live in peaceful surroundings.
We live in a dear little cottage (parts of which are 400 years old) and our garden goes down to the River Sowe but we will have to move if Coventry airport becomes larger - thats if we can get a buyer!
I do think this new proposal could just be a smoke-screen to take away the fact that Birmingham, East Midlands and Coventry are going to become much larger - why would they consider building a new airport when they have just spent all that money on enlarging Birmingham's facilities?
Surely the train services between the Midlands and the current London airports (Heathrow and Gatwick) should be improved with cheaper and quicker trains?
Diane Francis
Stoneleigh
Once again, people are looking to destroy beautiful parts of the country with the argument that it will increase employment opportunities.
I see that they are not proposing the build an airport between Warwick & Stratford I wonder why? The reason is they wouldn't dare!
Presently Coventry is reinventing itself as a metropolitan, modern city. The last thing we need is an environmental disaster lowering our house prices, polluting our air & suffocating our children. Don't let them get away with dumping more stigma on Coventry.
Lastly, Phil Shepard from Rugby; never under estimate the power of the common man to protest. We did it in 95 against live exports from Baginton, we'll do it again in 2003!
Ed Fox
Coventry
|