MidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 16 Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2670 times:
I am sure that the residents will be well taken care of and were probably given notice some time ago, which is what usually happens when this happens.
In Narita (Japan) some time ago, a lone farmer refused to sell his land and the airport authority had to build around his land. It was pretty wild, to see aircraft taxi around his plot of land. Years later, he finally sold his land, I am sure for a tidy profit.
Brons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2969 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2663 times:
According to the article, it's a proposal. It's not for sure to happen.
Personally, I just wish they'd hurry up with fixing the Piccadilly line to T4, that would be nice.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
FlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 57 Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2649 times:
Sky Scape is intended for viewing solely within the UK and ROI. It appears to us that you are based outside of this region and therefore we regret that you are not able to sign up. Early next year we hope to launch an international version of Sky Scape. ...STUPID!
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10188 posts, RR: 63 Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2596 times:
Unfortunate for those who must move, but sometimes sacrafice is necessary for the good of an entire nation.
Carduelis From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2001, 1585 posts, RR: 11 Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2544 times:
Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 5): There is already a thread about this
There is that one - but it was started four hours after this one . . . a different choice of headline I suspect . . . I was more concerned for the residents . . .
Per Ardua ad Astra! ........ Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense!
Glom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2803 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2531 times:
I know 700 sounds like a scary number, but when you consider it in context, it's not a huge number. Other projects have dislocated far greater numbers of people.
Carduelis From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2001, 1585 posts, RR: 11 Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2409 times:
Quoting B742 (Reply 10): does anyone have a map of the proposed expansion?
Glom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2803 posts, RR: 10 Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2386 times:
A nice objective source there. And everyone knows that Heathrow airport has nothing to do with bringing economic growth and prosperity to the country, it's all a dark conspiracy by moustache twirling executives to destroy local villages for no other reason than they are pure evil.
Glom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2803 posts, RR: 10 Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2213 times:
They had a bit of BBCLDN news. The coverage was typically dominated by the downside and not so much mention of the upside, but I've seen worse coverage.
It looks rough because some of those Sipson residents are not in the category of NIMBYs that moved into the area and then complained post hoc. They were already there. You know what this means? How easy is it for a simple traffic accident to set off a nuclear weapon?
Trident2e From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2184 times:
Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 2): In Narita (Japan) some time ago, a lone farmer refused to sell his land and the airport authority had to build around his land
That won't happen here - if the development is approved by the government and the local authority and a property owner refuses to sell, then in the UK we have compulsory purchase orders which would force a sale at market value.
Glom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2803 posts, RR: 10 Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2148 times:
Quoting Trident2e: That won't happen here - if the development is approved by the government and the local authority and a property owner refuses to sell, then in the UK we have compulsory purchase orders which would force a sale at market value.
Send in the jackboots! It's such a conflict of interests. I approve of giving big fat cheques to the residents affected. If 700 families get £1,000,000 each, that's £700,000,000, which is 10% of the earmarked costs. Let's face it, it'll be worth it. I'd rather that than use jackboots, even though I want to see a third runway at LHR.
SamL From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 162 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2102 times:
Quoting Glom (Reply 13): A nice objective source there. And everyone knows that Heathrow airport has nothing to do with bringing economic growth and prosperity to the country, it's all a dark conspiracy by moustache twirling executives to destroy local villages for no other reason than they are pure evil.
With all due respect, this website is hardly "objective" I doubt most people here think about the downside (i.e. a few thousand people being forcible moved) when there is the prospect of a new runway to fuel the industry which we all love.
Also, can someone please explain to me why LHR needs a third runway "to avoid falling behind continental airport." Assuming the people flying to London will still come to LHR and that London is still a huge O & D market, maybe it would be better if we tried to minimise transfer passengers at LHR. BA don't seem to place a huge value on them, VS definately don't and BD only really care about domestic --> codeshare partner transfers. What exactly with the huge problem with AMS or CDG or FRA overtaking LHR in terms of passenger numbers and getting people to transfer there rather than at LHR.
The "prestige" of being Europe's biggest airport seems a pretty poor reason to bulldoze 700 houses especially considering the local residents were promised during the T5 inquiry that a third runway and 6th terminal would specifically not be necessary. I mean, T5 is still a few years off completion and already BAA have gone back on what they said.
As I said in my post on the other thread about this, I think the idea of putting this "out for consultation" is completely pointless as the conclusion is already foregone and no reasonable alternative suggestions (like try and reduce the number of flights or try to encourage airlines to fly to other airports) will even be considered.
Don't get me wrong, I geniunely love aviation and really want to work in this industry after I graduate but I think the industry can't expect to be allowed to dominate literally everything and get its own way every single time. Some compromise beyond, putting in a pond to house some newts moved during T5 construction sound be made. Just my thoughts though
Carpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2769 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1999 times:
MidnightMike,
Actually, there is a plot of land/house sandwiched in between taxiways. It's crazy, I thought there was no one living there and the property owner is just making a stunt but the curtains and everything changes from time to time, so there must be someone there.
Hope you guys have better luck with land acquisition because we, here in Japan, have no eminent domain laws that forces property owners off their land.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1903 times:
Quoting Glom (Reply 16): If 700 families get £1,000,000 each
I'm sure most (if not all) are going to for a small % over what the appraisal value is going to be.
1/2 million quid maybe? I think Million Quid is a bit too much.
Zonky From New Zealand, joined Nov 2004, 432 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1777 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 22): I'm sure most (if not all) are going to for a small % over what the appraisal value is going to be.
1/2 million quid maybe? I think Million Quid is a bit too much.
Why not leave it up to the market?
IF BAA need to aquire land, then they need to be talkign to the owners of said land. The use of legal mechanisms like Compulsory Purchase Orders to primarily benefit shareholders of BAA is contemptable, imho.
25 JGPH1A: Hehe. Build the 3rd runway down Richmond High Street - see the clog-wearing HACAN hippies foam at the mouth then Even though Sipson village was there
26 Trident2e: If a compulsory purchase order is used, the payment will be the market value of the property. Suggesting people would get £1 million is just plain s
27 Fly727: Kuddos to our British friends... It just takes some guts and face the locals and tell them about the improvements. Slightly off-topic... I am still ve
28 Zeekiel: Legislation is wonderful isn't it . There was a big deal over here when they wanted to put the Eastern Transport Corridor here in Auckland. Compulsor
29 Aviationfreak: Why not move London to another location? I've read the part in the white paper regarding all London airports and what is stated in chapter 11.65 amaze
30 Leezyjet: Slightly off topic, but on the M62 between Halifax and Rochdale, there is a house that is in the middle of the motorway. The owner refused to sell so
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2001, 1585 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, 
From Germany, joined Mar 2004, 1190 posts, 
From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, 
From Colombia, joined Jun 2004, 4280 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Mar 2005, 3760 posts, 
From India, joined Dec 2004, 794 posts, 
From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2769 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3777 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2004, 432 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
