Forum Topic

Additional New Flight Path over Putney

Is anyone worried about the additional flightpath due to start across Putney? I noticed Ravi Govindia is urging us to check our postcode to see if we are affected and object if we don't want extra aircraft noise.This seems to be imminent, and is separate from the third runway issue. ‘Airspace and Future Operations’ consultation closes on March 4.(Wandsworth.gov.uk).

Susan Bloomfield ● 2815d28 Comments

Hi, is there a link to the 'check your postcode' bit anywhere? thanks

Matt Palmer ● 2815d

I think the link is www.heathrowconsultation.com.Our wonderful neighbour Heathrow Airport is running a consultation, closing date March 4. Essentially we're being asked: do you want noise? Or more noise?I checked my postcode (I'm not far from the Leisure Centre) and I'm in the worst affected area. I guess that applies to most of PutneyThe front page of this website has a thorough account of the meeting Justine Greening organised last week. Heathrow's Director of Sustainability (no idea what that means) was there, telling us that planes are getting quieter. Problem was that he was drowned out by planes roaring overhead. It would be laughable if it weren't so devastating for our quality of life.Justine is doing an excellent job of trying to fight this, but she's up against our wonderful, competent prime minister who has given her backing to Heathrow expansion. What more do you need to know.

Elizabeth Balsom ● 2814d

This is where you have to go: https://afo.heathrowconsultation.comEntering our postcode gives this unhelpful advice: "Your postcode is within an area where flight paths may be positioned in future."You have to go to https://feedback.heathrowconsultation.com/step/topic/1 to see any detail,  but that shows only broad coloured-in areas that indicate the height at which planes will be passing over. Most of Putney is in the light blue zone,  which indicates that planes will be at >1600ft. However,  this zone covers everywhere between Clapham Common and Barnes Common, so it is so side as to be useless and anyway gives no indication of noise. But it's all of a piece with this hopelessly flawed and fundamentally dishonest "consultation."

Richard Carter ● 2814d

I think the whole of Putney will be affected, I believe the Heathrow Expansion includes 700 more flights a day, and little respite. In addition to the third runway issue. You may be able to find out more here: http://stopheathrowexpansion.co.uk/home. This group attended the meeting in Putney last week with Justine Greening, they are objecting to the third runway as well. https://www.no3rdrunwaycoalition.co.uk

Susan Bloomfield ● 2814d

http://www.putneysw15.com/default.asp?section=info&page=issueheathrow191.htm

Susan Bloomfield ● 2814d

cutoff for objections against the extra flight paths which will also go over Putney every 2-3 minutes from the early hours is this Monday 4th March. This is in advance of the 3rd Runway issue. One important issue raised by the Green Party  was the extra pollution generated and its affect on Global Warming, and is worth mentioning alongside individual concerns. This is some of the advice being circulated on how to respond:SUBMITTING YOUR RESPONSEThe deadline for responses is 11.55pm on Monday, 4 March 2019Attach your response to an email to feedback@heathrowconsultation.comComplete the online questionnaire via Heathrow's website:www.heathrowconsultation.com

Susan Bloomfield ● 2812d

The whole issue of where to increase capacity is the biggest argument against allowing facilities like this to be run by private companies.  In the discussion of the need for increasing capacity only Gatwick and Heathrow were considered.  There was no consideration given to expanding, for example, Luton, Birmingham or Stansted - or even Manchester.  In other words, the decision was a private commercial decision, not one which considered the overall needs of the country or an logical plan.

Jane Eades ● 2812d

the main reason they gave at the Putney meeting last week,for increasing flights, was so visiting business men could travel late or early to get back for meetings, which is, apparently only for our benefit!!

Susan Bloomfield ● 2812d

Chiswick, Hillingdon, Hampstead and Highgate etc,  have managed to get residents involved, and put in objections, which have to be in by this Monday, but Putney seems to have gone to sleep on the issue...not sure why because once the new flight paths are up and running no one will get much sleep!

Susan Bloomfield ● 2812d

I do not think Putney has gone to sleep as many people have protested, vociferously!!The idea that the UK needs to increase its airport capacity I do not deny.  I object that it has to be in Heathrow!  Not because it is next to us, but because the UK is one heck of a lot bigger than London!!I have heard this excuse that business men need to arrive early for meetings and leave in the day.  If that is the case, Gatwick can provide excellent links (much better and  cost effective than Heathrow!).  Also, City Airport could probably have a slight increase of flights, but nothing like those that are being proposed for Heathrow.The next question must be.  How will the businessmen/women transport themselves from Heathrow to their meeting places (presumably in the City?) when the traffic cannot cope with additional vehicles?  Or, I wonder, will there suddenly be helicopters leaving from Heathrow too?What a frightening thought!!

Ivonne Holliday ● 2812d

When Airbus announced it would be ceasing production of the A380 I watched an aviation specialist on BBC TV news (can't remember his name) say that the hub-to-hub model which the A380 is designed to serve, is falling out of favour and people prefer to fly direct from regional airports in smaller planes.Certainly I think instead of expanding Heathrow the government should have focused on developing regional airports to enable business people to get to their destinations directly without needing to fly from Heathrow. And for a lot of leisure travellers flying from  somewhere local is easier and less tiring. I have friends who much prefer this.It seems odd to talk about the "northern Powerhouse" as a key policy objective, yet ignore an obvious aspect of this.But Heathrow clearly has a very tight hold on a lot of decision makers.As for Putney protesting. I've been to a couple of No to Heathrow Expansion demos in Parliament Square (very tame affairs) and there've been people with banners, I think from Chiswick, implying there may be some organised groups in some areas which we don't seem to have, but I have no details on this.

Elizabeth Balsom ● 2811d

I have just renewed my membership of HACAN who seem to lead the campaign against the Heathrow expansion.  £55 for 5 years or £15 for one year.

Martine Guy ● 2811d

Page 4 of The Sunday Times today “Grayling’s Expansion Plan for Heathrow is a ‘giant con’. “Ravi Govindia, Leader of WBC said “It beggars belief that people will believe Chris Grayling in his assertion that no more people will be affected.  When you see the maps, virtually the whole of London and a large part of the southeast will affected by additional flights.”“There are people in the south of this borough who have often said aircraft noise is not their problem.  Well, it’s coming to their doorstep now.”

Martine Guy ● 2810d

It beggars belief that anybody will believe Grayling on anything.

Jane Carter ● 2810d

Anyone know where the new flightpath(s) will be?  We have the planes overhead today.Sunday Times today “more than 250,000 extra flights a year, equivalent to bolting an additional airport almost the size of Gatwick onto the existing site.”

Martine Guy ● 2810d

I'm not sure of the point of responding to this slanted, dishonest "consultation," but if you're going to reply to it, note that today is the last day.

Richard Carter ● 2810d

“Ravi Govindia, the Tory leader of Wandsworth Council, said the public had been the victims of a “giant con”.  “Simon Dudley, Tory Leader of Windsor and Maidenhead Council, said he believed the noise maps now available had been previously withheld by Grayling’s officials “with the intention of deceiving and misleading public”Quotes from today’s Sunday Times

Martine Guy ● 2810d

I replied to it the other day and, as you say Richard, it is slanted and certainly not much of a consultation.  I did respond all the questions but every single time ended saying No to Heathrow expansion.I doubt it will have any sort of impact other than perhaps the delete button from the people analyzing it.  It made me feel somewhat better though....

Ivonne Holliday ● 2810d

You're right Elizabeth, Chiswick seems to be well organised and has even filled in the very  complex Heathrow Consultation Questionnaire as a pdf half way down this link  http://chatr.org.uk    for residents to copy and paste. The problems are similar to the ones we will have in Putney, although the comments about 'envelopes' and listed buildings will differ.  Can possibly use some of the arguments in objection email or adapt it.

Susan Bloomfield ● 2810d

This morning I walked along Howard's Lane to the Pleasance to renew my RGS membership. There and back took about half an hour. The aircraft noise was non-stop and deafening so what might otherwise have been a bit of exercise was unpleasant.It really is galling that such a fellow as Grayling (and May) is a principal mover in inflicting more of this horror on us. I try to take comfort in the fact that I haven't been in prison/am not a prison warder/am not on probation and thus adversely affected by the decisions he took when he was at the Justice Dept.

Elizabeth Balsom ● 2810d

The Green Party have included POLLUTION & CLIMATE CHANGE as additional objections to the extra flights. CLIMATE CHANGE does NOT appear to  have been addressed in the Heathrow Consultation

Susan Bloomfield ● 2810d

you're right, but realistically Heathrow isn't going to own up to a catastrophically damaging impact of expansion. And just think, a few days ago the Committee on Climate Change said that new build houses should not be permitted to have gas cookers or central heating. But nothing must be allowed to stand in the way of Heathrow expansion.

Elizabeth Balsom ● 2810d

But you are affected Elizabeth, as are we all, by Grayling's inept reorganisation of the probation service. The result has been that re-offending, and therefore crime, has greatly increased.

Caroline Whitehead ● 2810d

I know, Caroline. you don't need to be directly involved in the system or an expert in the field to recognise the damage he has done, whether it's us under the flight path or people caught up in the criminal justice system.

Elizabeth Balsom ● 2810d

It's now 20.30 and planes are still overhead.  Respite has obviously been junked already.I missed the first couple of minutes of an item about Heathrow on this evening's BBC1's London News but caught most of it. Someone was saying that when Grayling (no mention of May who is also at fault) backed Heathrow expansion two years ago, either he was so stupid that he was conned by Heathrow. Or that he knew what the consequences would be and sought to con the Great British Public. (Obviously he couldn't con anyone who already lives under the flight path). Take your pick.

Elizabeth Balsom ● 2810d

Hello Elizabeth,I also saw a bit of BBC's London News and I can, hand in heart say, that is was incredibly damning towards the government, particularly Grayling.It is so sickening, incomprehensible and insulting what is happening.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2810d

Hi Ivonne,That item was extraordinary, wasn't it, in its damning condemntation of Grayling, the government and the whole Heathrow affair. It beggars belief that any government could blithely inflict this damage on its citizens.And tell us we'll be better off, with "predictable periods of respite"! No mention of the fact that it will just about vanish.

Elizabeth Balsom ● 2809d

A good letter objecting to expansion from the chief exec. of the Commons Conservators which I accessed from the link on the front page of this website. But I fear that no matter how cogent the arguments, no matter how many hundreds of thousands of people affected, May and Grayling take no notice and just give in to every Heathrow demand.

Elizabeth Balsom ● 2808d