Theresa Villiers distances the party from Boris's Thames Estuary airport

Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers has summarily rejected Boris Johnson's idea of a new airport in the Thames estuary - and let it be known to the world by way of a letter to a Lib Dem MP.

The Evening Standard is reporting that the suggestion of creating a new airport on a man-made island in the Thames Estuary - so-called "Boris island" - would not be considered by a future Conservative government.

In a letter to Norman Baker, the Lib Dem transport spokesman, Ms Villiers states:

"With regard to media debate on the possibility of a new airport in the Thames Estuary, this is not an option at which the Conservative party is looking.

"Boris Johnson is considering a range of ideas relevant to transport and aviation links to our capital city but this is his own initiative."

The idea had worried environmentalists and local residents alike - many of whom live in marginal constituencies. It is also unclear exactly what jurisdiction the London mayor would have over such a proposal in any case.

Bizarrely, two local Kent newspapers this morning give completely contradictory reports of Boris's position on the matter.

The Gravesend Reporter states that "Boris Johnson has assured campaigners that he will not push to build an airport on Cliffe marshes", whilst the Kent Messenger reports that "a controversial proposal for an off-shore airport in the Thames estuary near Sheppey has taken a significant step forward after London Mayor Boris Johnson confirmed a feasibility study would be carried out into his idea".

Update: As those with a better knowledge of the geography of North Kent have pointed out, the Cliffe proposal is indeed in a different location to that which Boris is talking about.

Comments

[Big Jock Knew]

This shows timidity from Villiers. If the Hong Kongers can do it then so should we.

Grow a set Theresa !

[B.Garvie]

Teresa Villiers comments are open but not definitive. Heathrow has been a shambles (building site) for the past 40 years and the experience of passengers and airlines not a happy one.

Most countries have new showpiece airports, for example, Hong Kong, Narita,Osaka,Singapore, Dubai,and many more.

If London is to compete effectively as a world class airport,it needs a new airport. What better place to build one than in the Thames Estuary. It could be well served with modern transport road and rail links and operate 24 x 7. Being situated in the Estuary, it would cut down on pollution especially that of noise pollution.

How many Londoners are regularly awakened by the early arrival of aircraft?

Many years ago, a similar plan was turned down by a Labour Government (Maplin plan??)

London needs a new airport and many would support it being situated there.

[Phil C]

She hasn't rejected it, just "not looking into it" at the moment. Surely this means nothing? And leaves room for making another decision in future.

Having said that, I don't think it will happen as there are too many vested interests. For the airlines who currently have slots at Heathrow, there is no incentive to move to a bigger airport where there will be plenty of slots available - and more competition. BA might then have to compete with RyanAir at the same airport.

But I think it's a great idea. Think how many houses you could build on heathrow!

[Vincent Wall]

Boris's idea is crackpot. Kit Malthouse is to blame of course. He needs to focus on his policing remit.

Well done Teresa!

[Norm Brainer]

The Gravesend Reporter states that "Boris Johnson has assured campaigners that he will not push to build an airport on Cliffe marshes"

Isn't Boris' island plan different to building on Cliffe?

Compared to these new and upcoming eastern cities London will just look very old, very soon without such inspirational ideas. Villiers is right to say that it's not a conservative party thing as it does appear to be the mayor's plan for his legacy but to say that it " would not be considered by a future Conservative government." seems a bit wrong.

[BJK and did nothing]

Wise up Theresa! Where on earth are extra flights to be accommodated?

This is antediluvian.

[Lindsay Jenkins]

Boris' airport is widely applauded in London. What commonsense to have 4 runways working 24/7 and sea approaches.

Just because the RAF in 1944 developed Heathrow as a transport base does not mean it is suitable for vastly different conditions today. It is clearly not.

Ms Villiers appears to be unaware of that powerful accounting concept of sunk cost. Monies spent should not dictate future actions.

But then Ms Villiers was the proponent of the Single Financial Market so damaging to the City of London and proved herself sadly ignorant of money matters.

I am not therefore inclined to believe she knows one end of a runway from the other.

[Nicholas J. Rogers]

Villiers is being short-sighted if indeed she has rejected the idea. Heathrow shouldn't be expanded any further - it's clapped out! The scheme could be largely self-funded by building on the former airport site.

[Jenni]

Those two reports are not contradictory in the slightest!!

There are several proposed locations for a potential Thames Estuary airport. Boris cannot possibly endorse all of them.

[david1]

Many years ago, a similar plan was turned down by a Labour Government (Maplin plan??)

Foulness/Maplin Was promoted by the Heath government, much time and hot air, (along with some money) was spent in convincing the sceptical of it's viability. It became more and more obvious its was, 'not viable'

The Heath government used the '74 energy crisis as a reason to scrap it.

Boris Island is equally absurd, politics is the art of choosing between the, 'unpalatable and the disasterous' A third runway at Heathrow and a second at Gatwick are unpalatable, Boris Island would be disasterous.

[John Moss]

The Island Airport would not be on Cliffe Marshes, that is the old idea which would have wiped out many mediaeval settlements on the Peninsular. It would need to be both further East and further North, more central in the estuary.

Building this is a great idea as it allows London to have an airport operating 24 hours a day, without disturbing people Like Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted all do now.

Kent and Essex would get a regeneration boost as a lot of subsidiary industry would need to be close and would base itself there close to the access bridges.

Thinking outside the box suggests the access road bridges could form the new outer Thames Barrier, be loaded with tidal turbines, act as a barrage so maintianing a narrower tidal range in the Thames, giving more opportuities to use the river for transport and tourism. I'm sure there are other benefits as well.

If we wanted a project of significance which could be ready to go about the time the next recession looms, say 8-10 years, this would be perfect. Most UK airports are make do-and-mend dumps. With Thames Estuary, London would have a modern airport, linked directly to the High-Speed european rail network, which could then be connected to any new UK High-Speed lines.

If, as the CBI etc claim, London needs additional capacity - and I agree with them - then we need to be bold, not continue the nightmare of piecemeal expansion that has made Heathrow such a nightmare place.

[Raj]

I've said this many times and will continue to do so.

Expand Gatwick.

Supposedly there's some sort of agreement that won't happen for 8-10 years or something. So what? At the least you could have the planning/enquiry phase and all the appeals/legal action in the meantime. And it may be that it is not legally binding or could be resolved by a bit of simple legislation.

The only reason I think the gov won't explore this option is that Gatwick isn't "sexy" like Heathrow because the latter has become the UK's international airport in people's minds.

The Conservatives should bring Gatwick to the fore of their future airport plans.

[support the strivers]

Good for Ms Villiers.

Thames Estuary makes no sense at all from a noise pollution perspective - those who say approaches would be over the sea do not understand flight paths or the basic concepts behind flying.

Approaches eg from Europe would be conterintuitively across London from the west, thereby INCREASING noise pollution for millions.

A vote winner? I think not. Someone restrain Malthouse from any more of these schoolboy errors that makes Boris look v silly.

[anon]

Theresa Villiers is clearly barking mad for opposing every aviation suggestion that comes her way.

She completely failed to answer any point on this from Hoon in the debate the other day and it now seems that everything has been ruled out.

No Heathrow expansion, no Gatwick expansion, no Stansted expansion, no new airport. At least she's consistent in wanting to kill off holidays and business travel for all but the super-rich.

Presumably she is staying quiet on City Airport because expansion is already underway and I presume she'll be against maximising capacity at Luton too?

John Major said he wanted a return to nuns on bicycles - Villiers is doing everything she can to deliver on this!

Theresa - is there ANYTHING you will do to keep the cost of families travelling abroad as low as possible?

[Jenni]

I agree with anon 15.41. I am astonished at the recent policies from Villiers. It seems the party is intent on curbing travel for businesses and families as much as possible.

It won't be long before they propose the a hike in flight costs in order to 'encourage' people to get the train to timbuktu instead of flying. The effect on small businesses and middle-low income families will be catastrophic.

Shame on her and shame on the Conservatives.

[Ron Naylor]

Anon - you're absolutely right.

One can only presume TV doesn't believe the masses deserve cheap travel.

A shame really, especially considering its the great unwashed who pay her salary and generous pension.

[Lindsay Jenkins]

Wonderful support here for Boris' airport and excellent ideas.

To support the striver @15.21 ' those who say approaches would be over the sea do not understand flight paths or the basic concepts behind flying.'

I did get a PPL and do a fair amount of flying!

The interesting challenge for ATC would be how the new airport would dovetail with City Airport just up the River - and what a success that has been - but that should not be beyond the wit of man.

[Norm Brainer]

I'm sure the flightpaths could be designed so as to cause a lot less noise than any of the current airports we have.

..and also, as it will be at sea it could be used to launch those planes that hover on water which, if they put a big canal across denmark, could be used to reduce normal flights for anywhere up that part of europe.
Also being in the sea means less things for airships to hit - they're meant to be making a comeback too.

[John Bolton for 2012!]

Just dump it in Essex.

[Saltmaker]

Theresa, it's Party, not party.

[The Bishop Swine]

Isn't it time to throttle back a bit on the airplane as a means of mass transport. After the Car its the worst of the unnecessary polluters of our environment. So I agree in principle with Theresa Villiers. Unless we can find some way of reducing the impact of a new airports carbon footprint then it seems to me we should consider simply making do with what we already have. Supply and demand will do the rest. I also don’t really want any expansion of Gatwick. In a few years time oil will become a big issue again, so perhaps its now time to think the unthinkable.

[John F Aberdeen]

I think the new airport being looked at by Boris is an ambitious and worthwhile idea.
I work in the offshore oil business, often travelling overseas. For the majority of oilmen from Aberdeen, Newcastle etc the favourite hub for international flights is Schipol. Heathrow on the other hand is about as popular as toothache.
Heathrow is an abortion, disjointed with horrible buildings, most of them looking like glorified nissan huts.
As an intenational gateway to Britain it presents an unfriendly face to all passengers, foreign and British.

So a big yes if Boris manages to build an international airport that is as friendly, welcoming, efficient and laid back as Schipol, Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai.
Also it would great if we can once again engineer and construct large magnificent buildings. Where are the young 21st century Brunel,s

As for time,, the Chinese built the second largest container port in the world, on extended islands 30 miles offshore Shanghai including a 30 mile typhoon proof bridge with a 4 lane highway,, from conception to completion,, 4 years. If they can do it so should we,,even if it means hiring Chinese engineers to do the job.

I,m not going to critisise our shadow transport secretary,, I save my venom for for our enemies in Zanulabour and Lib Dems,, however it would be a good idea to promote a person with engineering skills, someone with vision, passion, style and ambition to this position.
In other words someone like Boris

[John F Aberdeen]

I think the new airport being looked at by Boris is an ambitious and worthwhile idea.
I work in the offshore oil business, often travelling overseas. For the majority of oilmen from Aberdeen, Newcastle etc the favourite hub for international flights is Schipol. Heathrow on the other hand is about as popular as toothache.
Heathrow is an abortion, disjointed with horrible buildings, most of them looking like glorified nissan huts.
As an intenational gateway to Britain it presents an unfriendly face to all passengers, foreign and British.

So a big yes if Boris manages to build an international airport that is as friendly, welcoming, efficient and laid back as Schipol, Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai.
Also it would great if we can once again engineer and construct large magnificent buildings. Where are the young 21st century Brunel,s

As for time,, the Chinese built the second largest container port in the world, on extended islands 30 miles offshore Shanghai including a 30 mile typhoon proof bridge with a 4 lane highway,, from conception to completion,, 4 years. If they can do it so should we,,even if it means hiring Chinese engineers to do the job.

I,m not going to critisise our shadow transport secretary,, I save my venom for for our enemies in Zanulabour and Lib Dems,, however it would be a good idea to promote a person with engineering skills, someone with vision, passion, style and ambition to this position.
In other words someone like Boris

[Ron Dandy]

Can't help but agree with Ron Naylor and Anon. The entire aviation industry along with the CBI and most business organisations are certain that there is a capacity shortage and that new airports or runways need to be built somewhere. Whether that extra capacity should be at Heathrow is questionable however not expanding any existing airport nor building any new airports would reduce our competitiveness and only assist our economic rivals. I hope Ms Villiers takes this into account and is not merely taking her instructions from the more extreme elements of the Green lobby.

[MrB]

We need this airport as a new, glittering transport hub for the whole country. One that provides an entrance to Britain that we can be proud of rather than the stuffy, crowded nightmare of our current airports. An airport equivalent of St Pancras, if you will (which was, ironically, built in the 1800s). Why does Britain now seem incapable of taking on these challenges to create something truly great?

[John Moss]

Strivers,

Your comment on noise pollution is wrong on two grounds.

First, because of the relative height of the planes passing over London. The airport would be about 13-15 miles east of the city and as such, planes would be at over 5,000ft over the heavier populated areas of West London.

Second, the direction of the wind determines the direction of take off and landing. So it has no impact on the noise levels as roughly the same number of planes take off as land. It is also not impossible for planes to take off and land the "wrong" way, just less fuel efficient on take off and requiring of more skillful flying on landing. That would allow night flights to both land and take off out to sea.

[Bexie]

Expand Manston. It has a longer runway than Heathrow, has the space for a second and even third runway, both the county and local government is in favour, on balance the people are in favor and with an existing passenger terminal/ customs centre it could be running now.

All it needs is 2.5 miles of rail to connect it to the rail network, and for Network rail/ South Eastern to pull their heads out their backsides to run a proper rail service, and travellers could be at Charing Cross/ Victoria in under an hour.

[Bexie]

FYI stats are here

kentinternationalairport-manston.com

[Opinicus]

Pearls before swine

The next Conservative government is going to be entirely like this - better to get the disappointment over with early.

[anon]

If the next Conservative government sticks to this sort of line then I'll leave the country before they stop me being able to do that too!

[Terry Justice]

I love Theresa to bits but she's wrong on this one. Time for we Tories to become entrepreneurial.
They did it in Hong Kong -- and with British companies -- although they did have a mountain to cut off and throw into the sea; that was a head start. Heathrow, and BA, is a mess and is probably the worst advert for this country that we have. I travel from City, via Amsterdam, with KLM nowadays. It is quicker, even with the transit, than getting pushed and shoved at Heathrow, especially when they either lose your luggage or keep you waiting for it for three hours because their "computer is down".

No Theresa, the sooner an alternative is built, the better.