Heathrow third runway question

robfosters · 1 Jul 2015 at 09:11

what happens if someone has to sell their house to be demolished for the new runway and they are still mortgaged to 80% or so?

If they are too old or not in the financial position to get a new mortgage, is it tough luck or do the developers end up having to pay off the mortgage AND buy them a new house to the same standard completely?

robgmun · 1 Jul 2015 at 09:14

I wanted Boris Island instead, a missed opportunely to have a HK style airport right there in London. People are just so short sited.

FTM · 1 Jul 2015 at 09:15

usually negotiations and a settlement figure is reached to compensate you

if you hold out for an extortionate sum they will just issue a compulsory purchase order...so you could end up worse off then if you had negotiated a proper settlement in the first place

FTM · 1 Jul 2015 at 09:16

does seem daft they have not considered an airport to the north or east of london

the traffic is already chronic in the heathrow section of the m25

eatcustard · 1 Jul 2015 at 09:17

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7719/147648.pdf

robfosters · 1 Jul 2015 at 09:18

FTM said:
usually negotiations and a settlement figure is reached to compensate you

if you hold out for an extortionate sum they will just issue a compulsory purchase order...so you could end up worse off then if you had negotiated a proper settlement in the first place

Imo, in the case I state above, the settlement figure should include the mortage balance and a new house.

eatcustard · 1 Jul 2015 at 09:19

Heathrow has infrastructure inplace.

Boris Island does not

robfosters · 1 Jul 2015 at 09:19

eatcustard said:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7719/147648.pdf

Read that but couldn't find anything pertaining to the exact scenario I have described.

Orionaut · 1 Jul 2015 at 09:23

eatcustard said:
Heathrow has infrastructure inplace.

Boris Island does not

There might also be a desire to keep new airport developments away from the centres of cities!

(This may not actually make anything safer in practice, But I can still see the thoughts going through the politicians heads)

chanjy · 1 Jul 2015 at 09:38

Heathrow is actually near places people want to go!

Boris Island not so much... unless you really want to visit Gravesend.

You might as well expand Birmingham as build Boris Island

[FnG]magnolia · 1 Jul 2015 at 09:41

Thought this was going to be some exciting sex position.

Left limp

Freefaller · 1 Jul 2015 at 10:14

They should make better use of City Airport - but then it might stop being London's best airport (never had any queues, lots of charging points, good coffee and food, decent facilities).

We do need another runway somewhere though.

Luton is too far away unless you live in the northern suburs of London, Stanstead is again not that great, Southend airport seems to be mainly Easyjet, Gatwick is relatively painless to get to, Heathrow is a bit of a trek but again relatively easy to get to.

MichaelAwkward · 1 Jul 2015 at 10:57

eatcustard said:
Heathrow has infrastructure inplace.

Boris Island does not

Neither did Chep Lap Kok, Kansai, Kobe, or any number of recent airport developments.

chanjy said:
Heathrow is actually near places people want to go!

Boris Island not so much... unless you really want to visit Gravesend.

You might as well expand Birmingham as build Boris Island

Most of the passengers who use Heathrow don't visit anywhere near it...

One big airport (probably keeping City open) could easily replace all of the current airports if done properly, freeing up land for housing and other necessary services. It's ridiculous to maintain the status quo. That combined with investment in Birmingham and Manchester Airport would give us more than enough capacity for a long time.

alx · 1 Jul 2015 at 11:12

MichaelAwkward said:
Neither did Chep Lap Kok, Kansai, Kobe, or any number of recent airport developments.

The problem with Boris Island is that it's in a corner of the UK and anyone west of London would have to travel around or through London to get there, which would pretty much be a nightmare (especially if it was the UK's main hub aiport and hence very busy).

MichaelAwkward said:
Most of the passengers who use Heathrow don't visit anywhere near it...

One big airport (probably keeping City open) could easily replace all of the current airports if done properly, freeing up land for housing and other necessary services. It's ridiculous to maintain the status quo. That combined with investment in Birmingham and Manchester Airport would give us more than enough capacity for a long time.

I do agree it's better to have one big airport rather than a mish mash or small to large airports as we have currently. Probably should have decided 10-20 years ago to make Heathrow the main/focal airport....

Trifid · 1 Jul 2015 at 11:17

eatcustard said:
Heathrow has infrastructure inplace.

Boris Island does not

Heathrow is on prime land with good transport links, the land is valuable to business and housing. Expanding Heathrow will involve major infrastructure changes to rail, roads and a water reservoir. as well expensive housing development to replace homes lost due to the expansion. And once it is complete, the 3rd runway will be a long taxi away from the gate and they still can't fly at night.

Boris island is prime for a new tidal barrier to protect London (will need doing in future anyway), adds in the long needed route from Essex to Kent to alleviate the pressure on the Dartford Crossing (has been on the road map for ages but 'lacked funding'), has 4 runways that are fit for purpose and can be used 24/7. The selling of Heathrow for housing and business can be used to fund the project. The airport should be accessible to passengers by high speed train only.

The argument for a new airport and the arguments against Heathrow are far too strong.

Freefaller · 1 Jul 2015 at 11:19

Heathrow will also get the Crossrail link to it making it even more accessible - so that's already happening.

Nico_Joey · 1 Jul 2015 at 11:19

robgmun said:
I wanted Boris Island instead, a missed opportunely to have a HK style airport right there in London. People are just so short sited.

I agree, it seems like the only real long term plan, a nice new airport in a sustainable area with four to six 24h runways and a fast train to the center of London. And as far as i know even with another run way it still cant run 24h, which is needed to compete with European airports and higher frequency travel in the future.

And the eventual closing down of Heathrow would allow the building of probably couple thousand houses in the area and some parks which are also needed as much as a new runway.

Edit.Hehe, Trifid said it better

Freefaller · 1 Jul 2015 at 11:22

It would be good to have 24hr airports, at the moment flights from Asia have to fly slower to make time slots - it would be nice for the planes to be able to fly faster and therefore have shorter flight times, and not be prescribed as to when they can get to the UK.

Heathrow however will never closer down.

LeeUK · 1 Jul 2015 at 11:26

There are plenty of airports up and down the country, why not just add more flights to these. Take Durham Tees Valley for example, it only flies to Aberdeen and Amsterdam.

Add a few long haul flights then people wouldn't need to go to Heathrow/Gatwick and therefore won't need a third runway.

Trifid · 1 Jul 2015 at 11:28

LeeUK said:
There are plenty of airports up and down the country, why not just add more lights to these. Take Durham Tees Valley for example, it only flies to Aberdeen and Amsterdam.

Add a few long haul flights then people wouldn't need to go to Heathrow/Gatwick and therefore won't need a third runway.

You're missing the point of a hub airport.