Next week will see the latest move in Theresa Villiers's campaign against the third runway at Heathrow.
The Conservatives have decided to give over their Opposition Day debate in the Commons next Wednesday to discussion of the expansion of Heathrow airport.
Crucially, this means a motion will be tabled upon which MPs will be able to vote at the end of proceedings - something which transport secretary Geoff Hoon has effectively sought to stop from happening.
Theresa Villiers said:
"Because the Government have run away from a vote, we will be using our parliamentary time to allow one to take place."
She added that Labour MPs are "in disarray" on the issue, although it remains to be seen how many of those on the government backbenches who are sceptical about the third runway would be willing to back a Conservative motion on the issue. There is also the question of what potential Tory rebels who are supportive of airport expansion, such as David Wilshire, will do.
Jonathan Isaby
Surely this isn't going to be a three-line whip?
Is Villiers going to endorse the Boris Island proposal and giove it her full backing before then? If not, the party will rightly get smashed in this debate for not having any alternative.
Posted by: anon | January 22, 2009 at 14:14
Hooray! At last this terrible plan to seize private property including 700 homes for demolition using draconian compulsory purchase powers, not to mention blight thousands, endanger even more, and affect the health of many, will get the debate it deserves. So too will Boris Island, the only long term answer and the airport Brunel would build!
I hope the defence of private property rights takes centre stage. An Englishman's home is meant to be his castle, and this is meant to be a free country not a socialist state!
Posted by: David T Breaker | January 22, 2009 at 14:48
If someone said to you that they would buy your house at its full 2002 value, plus give you an extra 15%, plus pay all your moving costs (stamp duty, legal costs), etc, would you take it?
Posted by: Surrey | January 22, 2009 at 15:07
Re Surrey`s comment. The "someone" making this offer is of course backed by the government`s threat of compulsory purchase. Some choice!
Posted by: Edward Huxley | January 22, 2009 at 15:25
Edward - I'm not siding with anyone here. Just trying to dampen down the ludicrous suggestion that people are having their properties stolen by the state.
There is a dreadful property market which these residents are completely immune from.
Does it make up for losing the actual home they are in? Probably not, but its not theft and its not exactly the worst position in the world to be in.
Posted by: Surrey | January 22, 2009 at 15:37
"f someone said to you that they would buy your house at its full 2002 value, plus give you an extra 15%, plus pay all your moving costs (stamp duty, legal costs), etc, would you take it?"
No, I wouldn't. That 'they would' is also a 'they will or else' as it is backed up by compulsory purchase. What would they do if someone said no?
And I don't think this is the offer either, it certainly isn't for those who face ruin and suffering on the edge of R3 but not CPO.
"I'm not siding with anyone here. Just trying to dampen down the ludicrous suggestion that people are having their properties stolen by the state. There is a dreadful property market which these residents are completely immune from. Does it make up for losing the actual home they are in? Probably not, but its not theft and its not exactly the worst position in the world to be in."
If someone broke into your house and took everything, but left a pile of banknotes and a note reading 'this is what we thought your stuff worth', is it theft? Of course it is. Anything but willful sale is. Only the owner can put a value on their property, if they don't want to sell for less then they shouldn't have to.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6483997.stm
Posted by: David T Breaker | January 22, 2009 at 17:40
David, are you seriously suggesting that CPOs should never be used?
Even for Boris Island and a high speed link there will be a need for CPOs, for the high speed link even more so.
It seems to me that you've bought into the Sipson situation a little too much.
Posted by: anon | January 22, 2009 at 18:35
Nothing I have read or heard from the TV since the announcement of Government backing for the Third Heathrow Runway has made me doubt my support, if anything it has firmed my opinion in favour of Heathrow Three.
I have given up on the Conservatives on this issue with the exception of David Wilshire, the MP for Spelthorne who has a wiser viewpoint than the herd and there may be a few other Tory MPs who think like him but are too afraid to stick their heads above the parapet on this issue. Indeed I was going to write to the Conservative PPC in my constituency to ask his views but in today's local newspaper there is a letter from a well known Conservative activist in this area stating the Candidate's view for him so I won't waste a stamp and envelope.
My interest now lies on whether the Labour MP for Reading West Martin Salter, who has set out his stall against Heathrow Three, bothers to vote on this issue or has an unavoidable important Constituency meeting to attend and is out of the House when the vote is taken?
Posted by: Steve Foley | January 22, 2009 at 22:04
Spelthorne MP David Wilshire is on his own round here on this. My man Hammond in adjoining Runnymede & Weybridge is dead against it, as are other MPs, particularly the Labour Hayes & Harlington MP.
We are all fed up with the noise and congestion and don`t want any more.
Our local paper gives good coverage to the problems we suffer and quotes from a letter to residents in April 1999 from the then chief executive of BAA, Sir John Egan which ends "TERMINAL 5 WILL NOT LEAD TO A THIRD RUNWAY".
Posted by: Edward Huxley | January 23, 2009 at 08:59
I'm amazed that people think the residents of Sipson are in a good position and sitting on golden eggs - they're not.
They are not immune to the property market, a number of people have got the property bond which was supposed to enable free movement in the property market in that area, however, when people have tried to sell they have found that mortgage companies are refusing mortgages to potential buyers.
There are 3,000+ homes that will be left on the new airport boundary, some of them will be 200m or less from the runway itself - those people are not moving anywhere.
There were nearly 70,000 responses to the consultation - the response was an overwhelming NO, just 11% of respondents were in favour of expansion. Only 241 companies, outside of the aviation sector, from across the UK bothered to respond, yet we are told business is clamouring for a 3rd runway, these figures tell a different story.
BA shares fell after the announcement, it would appear investors are not convinced a 3rd runway will be of economic benefit to the company and yet Willie Walsh insists on it.
The prospect of jobs is being overplayed. The DfT document states quite clearly that in 2030 there will be less jobs at Heathrow than there are today.
Then there's the "it's good for the economy argument". The economic benefits have not been properly assessed against the hidden costs.
What about the hidden costs to the taxpayer? Remember this is all supposed to be privately funded. For example, our local authority is responsible for either replacing the schools or extending other local schools to take the extra pupils - this comes from the DCSF who didn't even bother to respond to the consultations!
Who picks up the tab for the health impacts?
Who picks up the tab for replacing housing?
Who picks up the tab for the new road system?
The list goes on, but you one thing we can be sure of is BAA won't be paying for any of it!
If you've not been convinced by what you've read or heard in the media then you should come to the public meetings and debates that will be organised and hear for yourselves what's being said.
Posted by: Geraldine | January 23, 2009 at 10:16
I asked the local agent if we was forced to move and wanted to stay in another London village north of the airport Ickenham ECT we would be 30 to 40% short. Some other village areas close to London and not to far from the M25 we would be even further out.
On top of that, my husband would then have to travel using his time and buy a car I would lose my home and my job.
If a company or anyone is going to take your home you should be able to move into a suitable radius from your present home have choice at no cost to yourself.
We should not have to subsidise a multi million-pound expansion that will create profits to a Spanish company.
Better still, pay us for the stress and trauma we have had several years of this and our homes are blighted and de-valued pay us for the blight and then re-generate the area but of course it only works one way and the hard working class family suffers all the time.
Maxine from sipson
Posted by: maxine Payne | January 23, 2009 at 16:58
To all those who support 3R don't forget this won't be the last.
They'll be back for more. Paul Ellis (BA)said a 4th runway wouldn't be needed before 2030!
There's been a media blackout on the full horror of these immoral plans since 2002. Most people think it's just Sipson. It's not. All the Heathrow villages are affected. 3 churches are under threat - 2 are grade 1 listed buildings and the third a Grade 2*. This runway will bring 25 million extra RTM's on to already congested roads.
Harmondsworth residents will be living on a demolition site (those whose homes aren't bulldozed) effectively airside - trapped by blight, noise and pollution.
Please don't try the line - you knew there was an airport here! Most of us have lived here since before T4. No estate agents, no plans indicated the hell that the Heathrow monster has now become.
The economic case is unproven (see CeDelft report) the social and environmental consequences are unthinkable.
And the worst thing of all is constantly having to correct the lies and spin the aviation mafia trot out.
Posted by: Christine | January 23, 2009 at 23:13
Where did "Surrey" get his information from? I am looking at my copy of BAA's Property Market Support Bond booklet (July 2005). It makes it clear that "as this is a discretionary scheme", BAA Heathrow will determine what is reasonable in terms of "disturbance and legal costs". So not much chance of Sipson residents getting all their expenses and legal costs paid. Catches too on the amount that home owners might get - for example, they say they will pay a sum equivalent to the stamp duty on the home you are forced to sell. With valuations lower than true market value, there is likely to be a shortfall when residents have to buy somewhere else - assuming they can find anywhere in their price range near jobs and family support. Neither my husband nor myself have ever worked in airport-related jobs. I have lived here all my life, as has my mother and her mother. Our family was here before aircraft, let alone the airport! By supporting the runway, Wilshire and Spelthorne Council can't logically oppose the new roads and 10,000 space car park that BAA want. Surrey residents are joining the anti-runway campaign in droves. This runway will never get built - but if BAA wants to go bust making futile plans, that's fine by me. See you in court.
Posted by: Save Sipson | January 24, 2009 at 01:35
In Ipswich, we used to have an airport. The Prince of Wales opened it in the 1930s and a lot of people worked there. However, in the 1990s, we had a Labour Council and they voted to close it to build a thousand houses for which there was no need.
On the contrary, Heathrow does need to expand.
Posted by: Super Blue | January 24, 2009 at 15:48
If Super Blue lived any where near Heathrow he would think very differently.
I and the majority see no need for it to expand; it is a mess now and enlarging it would make it an even bigger mess.
Posted by: Edward Huxley | January 25, 2009 at 08:21
Evenually, this depression will end. If we don't support a little airport expansion we will be like this Government, talking about new nuclear power stations and prisons in 2007 when they should have been planned ten years earlier.
Posted by: Super Blue | January 25, 2009 at 11:47
Super Blue and his "little airport expansion".
I rest my case.
Posted by: Edward Huxley | January 25, 2009 at 13:05
Edward, you haven't actually said anything!
Posted by: Super Blue | January 26, 2009 at 21:42