Sign the petition
Use our online petition to help campaign against the Mayor of London’s new pie in the sky scheme
Make your voice heard – please add your name and a comment to our online petition below.
Remember, by adding your name, email address and comment below you’re supporting our petition to stop the airport being built. If you don’t want to support the petition, please don’t post your comments below.
Continue the campaign offline too – just download the petition, collect as many signatures as you can and then return to Stop the Estuary Airport campaign, Communications, Medway Council, Gun Wharf, Dock Road, Chatham, Kent. ME4 4TR..
If you wish to sign the petition without leaving a comment, just type ‘I agree’ in the box and add your name and email.
Your email address will only be used to contact you in connection with this campaign.
It will not be shared with any organisations and you will be able to unsubscribe at any time by using the link on any emails you receive from us. As this is a publicly funded website we reserve the right to edit or delete entries made that are inappropriate, political, offensive, defamatory, in contempt of any active court proceedings or promoting commercial organisations or websites. If you need to report a comment that needs our attention please email communications@medway.gov.uk.
As someone who lives within view of the Thames Estuary I am horrified at the idea of an airport destroying such a beautiful and important natural environment. I do not want to live near an airport at all. I moved back to my home area for peace and quiet having lived near City Airport for a few years. I will leave Kent if this goes ahead as I am sick of it being treated like a building site.
I think it is a ridiculous proposal for all the reasons mentioned by others. I voted for change and this was one thing I wanted stopped.
New runways should stay where the existing large airports already exist. I think it is offensive that Boris Johnson wants an island named after himself to the detriment of Kentish people. He should build it on his own doorstep.
I still regard Kent as the Garden of England but it is slowly being turned into the dustbin. Kent is rural and a major airport would completely change its character forever.
Boasting Green credentials yet planning to build another airport – they cannot have it both ways. At a time of economic belt tightening, this proposed scheme is madness.
I feel an airport in the estuary is not needed and will be downright dangerous. When the first plane is brought down by birdstrike will birds be considered terrorists? This waste of money should be stopped and completely forgotten. If Boris wants a memorial let him commission a statue paid for by his own money, not ours.
Why are the government so set on spending all this money, our country they say is BROKE. Everyone is being made to suffer with massive cuts to our wonderful public services.
We do not want or need this airport, we must protect our wildlife, this whole area is unique, and will be gone for ever.
If there is a need for more runway space why not look at MANSTON AIRPORT? It already exists, and could be expanded in an area of high unemployment.
I object to this proposal for several reasons:
1. Existing airports at Gatwick, Stanstead and Luton have single runways. Should there be an incident, such as a burst tyre (or worse), blocking the runway, take-offs would be stopped and landings would be diverted. The cost to business and holiday travellers alike would be high and this has a knock-on effect on the economy. Whilst these airfields have parallel taxiways which could be used, I suspect they would not be allowed to use them for routine flights. A second runway provides considerably more flexibility and a bigger safety margin.
2. Existing airports have the infrastructure and communication links in place. Enhancement of these would cost considerably less than starting from scratch.
3. Manston has some infrastructure and communication links, but would need considerable investment to bring it up to scratch. I imagine Lydd would be similar. However, both these airports have the available space and both are well clear of the London air traffic zones (compared to the Thames Estuary). Neither would result in conflict or reduced airspace, such as would likely result if the Thames Estuary were selected.
4. The arguments about SSSI sites and bird migrations are well rehearsed, and I cannot imagine anyone willingly destroying such an important area. Indeed, an existing industrial site in the area has recently been abandoned because of the impact it would have.
5. The Thames Estuary is an area where flocks of larger birds are often encountered. There is an incompatibility between large birds and aircraft engines. Modern engines are built to withstand a birdstrike but an RAF Nimrod was lost a few years ago, with all persons on board, when a flock of gulls lifted into its path as the aircraft was taking off. Each of the four engines ingested several birds. If you have four engines, loss of one would be a serious problem. Anything less than three would likely be catastrophic. I, for one, would not fly from a Thames Estuary airport if I had a choice.
6. There are other reasons I object, including cost, environmental impact on the river, pollution, need for further road and rail systems in an already busy area, etc etc, but these have also been aired by many.
Overall, it just doesn’t make sense when there are so many better options available. If expansion of Gatwisk or Stanstead are truely out of the equation, and I have my doubts, then my vote goes to Manston.