Yourmedway news editor Simon Robinson on why readers should oppose the ‘Boris Island’ scheme.

Boris Johnson’s barmy Thames Estuary airport plan must never touch down.

The hare-brained £40 billion proposal has numerous fatal flaws, most of which are so patently, smack-in-the-face obvious a child could point them out.

The floating airport proposal has been criticised for being too expensive, impractical, environmentally and ecologically unsound, unfeasible, unwanted and a host of other bad words.

Furthermore, it fails miserably against any set of criterion you may wish to stack it up against.

Let’s just consider one or two of the main drawbacks to plopping a huge six runway airport off the Kent coast.

First things first, there’s the astronomical cost.

With the £40 billion sum – that’s £40,000 million or £40,000,000,000 – we could build the equivalent of ten London Heathrow Terminal 5’s or buy Cristiano Ronaldo, the world’s most expensive player, 500 times over.

Quite what we’d do with 500 Portuguese step-over merchants is another matter but that’s beside the point.

Then there are the logistical issues.

The Mayor of London wants to build an airport in the middle of the Estuary, a few miles away from land.

The airport would be served by two terminals, one in Kent, and one in Essex.

How would thousands of passengers get to and from these terminals each day?

They couldn’t get there by car. Anyone who’s tried to drive through Medway, Maidstone, Ashford, Canterbury, Dover or anywhere else around the county can vouch for the fact that the road network is on its knees.

Adding a few thousand extra cars to our roads is not only impractical, it’s downright dangerous.

And they won’t get there by train either. Again, anyone who’s been faced with the prospect of a peak-time journey on Southeastern trains knows all too well that the carriages are already full to bursting and the customer satisfaction levels are somewhat short of ‘acceptable’, let alone ‘good’ or ‘we need more passengers on board’.

Then you’ve got the ecological impact of building a six runway airport off Kent’s wildlife-rich coast.

This serene stretch currently plays home to a whole host of migrating and breeding birds, many of whom are rare or protected.

These birds would not fare too well against several hundred jumbo jets in a winner-takes-all battle for the skies.

For all these reasons, and many, many more, Medway Council, Kent County Council and the RSPB have joined forces to oppose the plans.

The partners have set up a website – www.stopestuaryairport.com – which Yourmedway supports.

There are whispers around Whitehall that the Mayor’s Estuary airport plans are simply political grandstanding of the highest order, diverting attention away from further developing London’s airports ahead of next year’s London elections.

But let’s not take the risk. It’s up to us to send a clear message to Boris that Kent does not want his airport.

We need to get thousands of names on the anti-airport petition and force the Mayor to scrap his plane-stupid plans.

Go build your airport somewhere where the transport network can cope and the environmental impact will be less devastating.

I'm not sure if your leading article 'Let's shoot Boris down in flames.' is meant to be a formal 'your medway' petition or Simon Robinson's personal crusade but I know one thing, there is a distinct air of dévà vu about the whole campaign.

People should cast their minds back to the mid seventies when, with the closing of Chatham dockyard, both the Government and the Council crept into their shells and did nothing.  And so it continued for twenty five or more years despite the political changes in Government and Councils.    There has always been an excuse for doing nothing, be it recession, finance or that permanent political football, the Theatre Royal.   The result was that Chatham High Street, once known as the golden mile became nothing more than tin can alley.  Almost all of the quality stores have gone and the Pentagon has had posters over its upper floor windows for years asking us to 'watch this space for developments'.   Well, Medway Council, I, for one, am still watching ... and waiting.

And don't come back saying that commercial development is outside of the council's remit.    It isn't.    The interests of the Medway Towns requires a partnership of commercial and residential development to the mutual benefit of traders and residents alike.   Had the old Kent County Council (who was far more interested in promoting Maidstone) and (successive) Medway Councils made more effort to regenerate Chatham, albeit at the cost of increased rates, there might have been grounds for commercial companies to consider investing here.    But the council stayed in its shell.   It even provided finance for the Theatre Royal so that it would have an excuse and grounds NOT to invest in Chatham.

And while I am on the question of rates, I am sick to death of hearing political parties spouting how Medway rates are amongst the lowest in the country.   Of course they are, we have nothing to offer the residents.    Little work, no panache, no quality entertainment and as already suggested, nothing but bargain basement shopping facilities.     Indeed, apart from the Historic Dockyard (which took thirty years, yes, thirty years to bring up to its current state) Chatham is one huge ZERO.

But let me return to the objections to Boris's Island.

Take KCC leader Paul Carter's statement about a growing consensus that the estuary airport is undeliverable.    I don't believe you, Paul Carter.    What I do believe is that it is not in the interests of Kent County Council that an industrial and commercial powerhouse should appear on Maidstone's doorstep ... and that is exactly how Medway and Swale would benefit in the event the airport goes ahead.   And that, Mr Carter, is why you don't want it.

And as for the Medway Council leader, Rodney Chambers.    Here is a chance to endow Medway residents with quality long term employment, opportunity, infrastructure and business development and all he can think about is birds.

Mr Chambers, when the airport becomes a reality the birds will simply go somewhere else, the Norfolk Broads, for example; they are quite intelligent you know, but to keep the local population in the dark ages for the sake of a few bird watchers is the height of foolishness.    These ornithologists do not put bread on the table, give hope to struggling families or do anything to raise the standards of Medway, which is pretty much an economic and social  backwater as far as the South East, indeed the country, is concerned.

So get real, gentlemen.   With a burgeoning national population there will be a need for such development and much as we may not like the idea, some areas of natural beauty will be sacrificed, somewhere, to accommodate it ... and in view of the state of our local economy, it might just as well be here.

And one last point.   Should the airport get the go ahead, the cost will not fall on Medway and Swale's shoulders; it will be national infrastructure and as such, the responsibility of the Government.    True some investment will need to be made in the early stages but that will quickly be balanced by the fiscal benefits of the development process.

In my opening paragraph I expressed a fear of déjà vu, yet it doesn't have to be.   If it turns out that the venture is not feasible then so be it, but if we were to miss this opportunity without properly rather than hysterically examining the detail, we would have only ourselves to blame.

Michael Smith.

Alongside the RSPB, Friends of the North Kent Marshes are wholly opposed to the construction of an airport anywhere in the Thames Estuary because of the immense damage it would cause to the areas internationally important wildlife and the wider environment. the whole issue was exhaustively investigated between 2002 and 2005 in the Government's aviation White Paper.All the key players, including the aviation industry,contributed. The idea of an airport in the Thames Estuary (not just Cliffe) was conclusively ruled out and 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.
The Government would have to recreate any lost or damaged habitat elsewhere BEFORE work on the airport could start and even then only if they could prove there is no alternative site for expansion and it is in the overriding public interest. They would face a legal battle that could last for years
It would potentially be the single biggest piece of environmental vandalism ever perpetrated in the UK.
Friends of the North Kent Marshes

Surely as far as OVERALL environmental impact is concerned this airport is a bad idea. People need to be discouraged from flying (in the same way they are discouraged from drink/driving).

But you're so right about the Historic Dockyard and subsequent council actions. This spring saw the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the dockyard CLOSING !! 25 years since 4,000 people were sent to join the dole queue !! And lovely though The Dockyard now is - it is run largely by volunteers

Thames Gateway seems to offer little for The Towns either. More housing, more misguided property speculation, but little offered by the way of REAL aspirational jobs.

The Medway and its banks offer unique opportunities, once the upmarket riverside flats are built, that opportunity is lost.

What is Boris thinking? Just down the road is a fully functioning airport with a long runway capable (and does) of handling anything up to the size of 747's. The money should be invested into the road and rail network connecting existing routes to Manston. Most of us travel an hour or so to Gatwick, so why not travel the other way to Manston. Manston and existing airports should be considered before a silly idea like building one in the middle of the Thames Estuary.  

Well thanks for fobbing your problems off on us! Manston is about a mile from Ramsgate, a Victorian seaside town of 40,000 people and almost a 1,000 listed buildings, and the planes fly only a few hundred feet over our heads. Any major expansion of Manston would be disastrous for the town's budding regeneration. Just down the road is Pegwell Bay, a SSSI, which attracts RSPBers from around the country.

Paul Carter and his KCC cronies have been plugging Manston over Boris Island. Neither are suitable for a major airport, but if you're going to be nimbys and plug Manston instead, we Ramsgatonians reserve the right to nimby you back!

For 5 generations my family have lived in Thanet so I have the interests of my home are close to my heart.

I support the expansion of Manston because being fairly young, I see that there are not many chances of employment for the young residents of Thanet.

Thanet is an area of high unemployment after all. I feel that Boris is being very short sighted as I said above.

For those that complain about Manston and the possibility of expansion I wish the RAF would come back and really make a noise.

I'm sure they would be really upset then. Buy a house on a flight path and you can expect aircraft.

Buy a house next to a railway line and you expect trains to go by. Buy a house next to a motorway and you'll get traffic noise.

Manston must be pushed by the powers that be as a real alternative.

I think I can say that most people in Thanet are all for Manston where as those that seem to be against it always publicise the fact.

NO TO BORIS ISLAND. SUPPORT MANSTON.

Pretty convincing refutation there by Michael Smith. Just to further pick up on a few points:

"First things first, there’s the astronomical cost.

With the £40 billion sum – that’s £40,000 million or £40,000,000,000 – we could build the equivalent of ten London Heathrow Terminal 5’s or buy Cristiano Ronaldo, the world’s most expensive player, 500 times over."

It would appear that there is considerable interest among sources of international finance - particularly in the middle east and China - in funding the airport. It may not have to cost taxpayers a penny. This has been widely reported so I'm surprised your correspondent isn't aware of it. Although of course a lot more detail will be required before we can decide whether it is really viable - something I don't think Boris Johnson is denying.

"The airport would be served by two terminals, one in Kent, and one in Essex.

How would thousands of passengers get to and from these terminals each day?

They couldn’t get there by car. Anyone who’s tried to drive through Medway, Maidstone, Ashford, Canterbury, Dover or anywhere else around the county can vouch for the fact that the road network is on its knees.

Adding a few thousand extra cars to our roads is not only impractical, it’s downright dangerous.

And they won’t get there by train either. Again, anyone who’s been faced with the prospect of a peak-time journey on Southeastern trains knows all too well that the carriages are already full to bursting and the customer satisfaction levels are somewhat short of ‘acceptable’, let alone ‘good’ or ‘we need more passengers on board’."

This objection presumes that the surrounding infrastructure, both road and rail, remains the same as it is now. Such an objection is patently absurd - of COURSE any such airport would require an increase in other infrastructutre, and of course that needs to be taken into account in the overall cost. It also however needs to be taken into account that such infrastructure would provide further benefits for the area, in terms of jobs, transport etc.

There are already, as you point out, considerable shortcomings to transport in the area, such as road congestion at Dartford and the creaky old slow trains. These are slowly being addressed, for example through the HS1 rail project, and the airport would seem like an ideal opportunity to attract funding towards these needs from outside the local area itself, while benefitting the local area in doing so.

Lastly, you have failed to consider the main logic behind the proposal - the fact that, because planes would approach and leave the airport over the sea, disruption to homes and communities from noise, pollution etc. would be minimal. This is the one fact that the idea has over any other proposed alternatives, such as expansion of Heathrow or Manston. objectively, it would seem fair to at least consider this before rejecting the idea outright.

Although personally, I can't see the logic behind wanting to expand air travel AT ALL, when ever second pronouncement the government comes out with is about global warming and the need to reduce carbon emmissions. There's something seriously not-joined-up going on there.