Oxfordshire eyed as site for London airport

CHANCELLOR George Osborne said “all options” need to be looked at to increase airport capacity in the South East, after reports that a consortium want to build a four-runway airport in Oxfordshire.

But Mr Osborne yesterday said he had also not ruled out a controversial third runway at Heathrow airport to deal with growing demand.

The Chancellor spoke as it was reported in The Independent on Sunday that an unnamed group of British businesses has commissioned a “world-leading infrastructure firm” to assess potential sites to the west and north of London which could rival, or even replace, Heathrow.

The paper claimed the consortium has opened talks with Chinese sovereign wealth funds over the financing of the project, which could cost between £40bn to £60bn. And it named Banbury and Twyford in Berkshire as two possible locations with good rail links to London.

Department for Transport spokesman Jon Rhodes said: “In the medium term the UK does face a capacity challenge, especially in the South East, and it is this challenge we will seek to address in the call for evidence later this year.”

Related links

Comments (40)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:58am Mon 3 Sep 12

sablond oxford says...

We already have enough LOW FLYING air traffic with London Oxford Airport in Kidlington.
We already have enough LOW FLYING air traffic with London Oxford Airport in Kidlington. sablond oxford
  • Score: 5

12:17pm Mon 3 Sep 12

Gunslinger says...

Or maybe the Steventon site? It's level, near the GW main rail line and A34, and relatively undeveloped having been blighted by the reservoir proposals for many years. I believe it has also been considered as a possible airport site in the past.
Perhaps people would rather have had the reservoir!
Or maybe the Steventon site? It's level, near the GW main rail line and A34, and relatively undeveloped having been blighted by the reservoir proposals for many years. I believe it has also been considered as a possible airport site in the past. Perhaps people would rather have had the reservoir! Gunslinger
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Mon 3 Sep 12

Andrew:Oxford says...

Fantastic news on two counts.

Firstly anything that improves public transport infrastructure in the Oxford area can't be a bad thing.

Secondly, between this and HS2 it'll keep the CPRE so busy that they won't have the time or energy to meddle in the smaller affairs of the city or county.
Fantastic news on two counts. Firstly anything that improves public transport infrastructure in the Oxford area can't be a bad thing. Secondly, between this and HS2 it'll keep the CPRE so busy that they won't have the time or energy to meddle in the smaller affairs of the city or county. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Mon 3 Sep 12

EMBOX1 says...

Remember LOX, people. Its back again, this time twice as big.

But seriously, we need to be careful.

A very good and available site is Didcot A - massive open land towards Sutton Courtenay, the A34 minutes away, and an existing double track rail loop into the site - perfect for getting people to/from London.
Remember LOX, people. Its back again, this time twice as big. But seriously, we need to be careful. A very good and available site is Didcot A - massive open land towards Sutton Courtenay, the A34 minutes away, and an existing double track rail loop into the site - perfect for getting people to/from London. EMBOX1
  • Score: 1

3:24pm Mon 3 Sep 12

Megs says...

Are we out of the "silly season" yet? I remember LOX was announced over Christmas and this is just on the margin of the summer counterpart.
What fun. Just imagine all those fuming travellers delayed for 8 hours or so on the A34, the M4,the M40, or the tender mercies of First Great Western (or replacement) from Didcot Parkway or Oxford. They could probably fly half way around the globe in the same time it would take them to travel from an Oxfordshire airport to the Great Wen. They'd probaly opt for Charles De Gaulle or Schipol rather than chance an alleged "60 minutes" from this neck of the woods.
Are we out of the "silly season" yet? I remember LOX was announced over Christmas and this is just on the margin of the summer counterpart. What fun. Just imagine all those fuming travellers delayed for 8 hours or so on the A34, the M4,the M40, or the tender mercies of First Great Western (or replacement) from Didcot Parkway or Oxford. They could probably fly half way around the globe in the same time it would take them to travel from an Oxfordshire airport to the Great Wen. They'd probaly opt for Charles De Gaulle or Schipol rather than chance an alleged "60 minutes" from this neck of the woods. Megs
  • Score: 2

4:13pm Mon 3 Sep 12

bart-on simpson says...

Good to know we are all saving the planet.

The small noisy planes overhead do make quite a nuisance - and I live three miles from Kidlington - though the balloons coming over here far more of a disaster waiting to happen.
Good to know we are all saving the planet. The small noisy planes overhead do make quite a nuisance - and I live three miles from Kidlington - though the balloons coming over here far more of a disaster waiting to happen. bart-on simpson
  • Score: 2

4:45pm Mon 3 Sep 12

Gunslinger says...

Andrew:Oxford wrote:
Fantastic news on two counts.

Firstly anything that improves public transport infrastructure in the Oxford area can't be a bad thing.

Secondly, between this and HS2 it'll keep the CPRE so busy that they won't have the time or energy to meddle in the smaller affairs of the city or county.
Yes, the NIMBY's will be so busy with this and HS2 that any number of waste incinerators and housing developments can be slipped through on the nod.....
[quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: Fantastic news on two counts. Firstly anything that improves public transport infrastructure in the Oxford area can't be a bad thing. Secondly, between this and HS2 it'll keep the CPRE so busy that they won't have the time or energy to meddle in the smaller affairs of the city or county.[/p][/quote]Yes, the NIMBY's will be so busy with this and HS2 that any number of waste incinerators and housing developments can be slipped through on the nod..... Gunslinger
  • Score: -1

7:47pm Mon 3 Sep 12

mytaxes says...

Huge areas of West London and further to the west have been blighted by Heathrow. The propaganda that aircraft are getting quieter does not help those that have to keep their windows closed in the summer because of the noise. Quiet enjoyment of gardens are ruined, washing left out to dry turns yellow with aviation fuel. Try living near an International Airport before you jump for joy.
Huge areas of West London and further to the west have been blighted by Heathrow. The propaganda that aircraft are getting quieter does not help those that have to keep their windows closed in the summer because of the noise. Quiet enjoyment of gardens are ruined, washing left out to dry turns yellow with aviation fuel. Try living near an International Airport before you jump for joy. mytaxes
  • Score: 6

8:17pm Mon 3 Sep 12

Andrew:Oxford says...

mytaxes wrote:
Huge areas of West London and further to the west have been blighted by Heathrow. The propaganda that aircraft are getting quieter does not help those that have to keep their windows closed in the summer because of the noise. Quiet enjoyment of gardens are ruined, washing left out to dry turns yellow with aviation fuel. Try living near an International Airport before you jump for joy.
Everyone in Oxford does.

Benson, Brize Norton, London Heathrow, London Oxford, London Luton, Coventry all within a short distance.

No matter where you are in the South of England, if you put whites at 7am on a day with strong sunshine and go to work - 12 hours later when you take them back in they'll be bleached yellow by the sun.
[quote][p][bold]mytaxes[/bold] wrote: Huge areas of West London and further to the west have been blighted by Heathrow. The propaganda that aircraft are getting quieter does not help those that have to keep their windows closed in the summer because of the noise. Quiet enjoyment of gardens are ruined, washing left out to dry turns yellow with aviation fuel. Try living near an International Airport before you jump for joy.[/p][/quote]Everyone in Oxford does. Benson, Brize Norton, London Heathrow, London Oxford, London Luton, Coventry all within a short distance. No matter where you are in the South of England, if you put whites at 7am on a day with strong sunshine and go to work - 12 hours later when you take them back in they'll be bleached yellow by the sun. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: -6

8:56pm Mon 3 Sep 12

knowall999 says...

mytaxes wrote:
Huge areas of West London and further to the west have been blighted by Heathrow. The propaganda that aircraft are getting quieter does not help those that have to keep their windows closed in the summer because of the noise. Quiet enjoyment of gardens are ruined, washing left out to dry turns yellow with aviation fuel. Try living near an International Airport before you jump for joy.
The vast majority of people living there moved in AFTER Heathrow was built,then moan like feck about the noise.......get real !!!!!
[quote][p][bold]mytaxes[/bold] wrote: Huge areas of West London and further to the west have been blighted by Heathrow. The propaganda that aircraft are getting quieter does not help those that have to keep their windows closed in the summer because of the noise. Quiet enjoyment of gardens are ruined, washing left out to dry turns yellow with aviation fuel. Try living near an International Airport before you jump for joy.[/p][/quote]The vast majority of people living there moved in AFTER Heathrow was built,then moan like feck about the noise.......get real !!!!! knowall999
  • Score: 3

9:44pm Mon 3 Sep 12

abingdonguy says...

Why not use Lynham now the RAF dont use it anymore? Thats got good links to motorways, and its already got the runway built.
there are a lot of old disused RAF airfields up and down the country. Wouldnt it make more sense to use one of those?
Why not use Lynham now the RAF dont use it anymore? Thats got good links to motorways, and its already got the runway built. there are a lot of old disused RAF airfields up and down the country. Wouldnt it make more sense to use one of those? abingdonguy
  • Score: 2

10:44pm Mon 3 Sep 12

Arkright says...

Just build the extra runway at Heathrow and stop messing around talking about it .... or use Upper Heyford !!
Just build the extra runway at Heathrow and stop messing around talking about it .... or use Upper Heyford !! Arkright
  • Score: 5

1:19pm Tue 4 Sep 12

EMBOX1 says...

Upper Heyford isn't a bad idea you know...they can maintain a museum there, and not disturb anyone. Plus its not far from the A34 and the train line to Oxford/north..
Upper Heyford isn't a bad idea you know...they can maintain a museum there, and not disturb anyone. Plus its not far from the A34 and the train line to Oxford/north.. EMBOX1
  • Score: 0

1:29pm Tue 4 Sep 12

to ny w says...

Why not send it to Bicester, we seem to get all the crap going at the moment!
Why not send it to Bicester, we seem to get all the crap going at the moment! to ny w
  • Score: 1

2:23pm Tue 4 Sep 12

Nick Mawer says...

Ah yes Tony, I hope you have obtained your copy of the Consultation draft of the Local Plan and Bicester Masterplan.
Ah yes Tony, I hope you have obtained your copy of the Consultation draft of the Local Plan and Bicester Masterplan. Nick Mawer
  • Score: 1

3:13pm Tue 4 Sep 12

Andrew:Oxford says...

EMBOX1 wrote:
Remember LOX, people. Its back again, this time twice as big. But seriously, we need to be careful. A very good and available site is Didcot A - massive open land towards Sutton Courtenay, the A34 minutes away, and an existing double track rail loop into the site - perfect for getting people to/from London.
That would be a really good site.

It would also fit in with the "secret" plans that were published a few years back that showed the 6 lane A34M link road between Didcot and J9 of the M40 to relieve pressure on the A34 at Oxford.
[quote][p][bold]EMBOX1[/bold] wrote: Remember LOX, people. Its back again, this time twice as big. But seriously, we need to be careful. A very good and available site is Didcot A - massive open land towards Sutton Courtenay, the A34 minutes away, and an existing double track rail loop into the site - perfect for getting people to/from London.[/p][/quote]That would be a really good site. It would also fit in with the "secret" plans that were published a few years back that showed the 6 lane A34M link road between Didcot and J9 of the M40 to relieve pressure on the A34 at Oxford. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 1

8:11pm Tue 4 Sep 12

bodchris says...

6 lane A34M link road between Didcot and the M40???

FANTASTIC!!! Bring it on! Do the A40 as well, 6 lanes from the M40 to Cheltenham!

Why Banbury for the Airport?? Why not Otmoor nearer Oxford?? Not many humans near Otmoor, flat and under-developed...pe
rfect.
6 lane A34M link road between Didcot and the M40??? FANTASTIC!!! Bring it on! Do the A40 as well, 6 lanes from the M40 to Cheltenham! Why Banbury for the Airport?? Why not Otmoor nearer Oxford?? Not many humans near Otmoor, flat and under-developed...pe rfect. bodchris
  • Score: -3

8:16pm Tue 4 Sep 12

bodchris says...

to ny w wrote:
Why not send it to Bicester, we seem to get all the crap going at the moment!
I think Bicester would be a very good site as well, good rail links (but who uses rail anyway?) and a badly needed upgrade to a 6 lane A41 would be excellent also.
[quote][p][bold]to ny w[/bold] wrote: Why not send it to Bicester, we seem to get all the crap going at the moment![/p][/quote]I think Bicester would be a very good site as well, good rail links (but who uses rail anyway?) and a badly needed upgrade to a 6 lane A41 would be excellent also. bodchris
  • Score: -4

8:24pm Tue 4 Sep 12

bodchris says...

abingdonguy wrote:
Why not use Lynham now the RAF dont use it anymore? Thats got good links to motorways, and its already got the runway built.
there are a lot of old disused RAF airfields up and down the country. Wouldnt it make more sense to use one of those?
Upper Heyford would be better, possibly Abingdon, but both would need major extensions and huge infrastructure upgrades. RAF Fairford, even better, massive runway. Little Rissington still has runways but the escarpment at the end of runway rules that out. Chalgrove would be another candidate, plenty of land about and nearer to London. Yep, Oxfordshire is a good county for the airport. Thumbs up!
[quote][p][bold]abingdonguy[/bold] wrote: Why not use Lynham now the RAF dont use it anymore? Thats got good links to motorways, and its already got the runway built. there are a lot of old disused RAF airfields up and down the country. Wouldnt it make more sense to use one of those?[/p][/quote]Upper Heyford would be better, possibly Abingdon, but both would need major extensions and huge infrastructure upgrades. RAF Fairford, even better, massive runway. Little Rissington still has runways but the escarpment at the end of runway rules that out. Chalgrove would be another candidate, plenty of land about and nearer to London. Yep, Oxfordshire is a good county for the airport. Thumbs up! bodchris
  • Score: -3

9:19pm Tue 4 Sep 12

bodchris says...

Well said Summertown!!

As for the UK being too crowded...what rot, get up in a plane and look down...bags of green spaces, all potential building ground but the CPRE and it's crew wish to deny us the right to build decent houses rather then the awful rabbit hutches being built today. A disgrace!
Well said Summertown!! As for the UK being too crowded...what rot, get up in a plane and look down...bags of green spaces, all potential building ground but the CPRE and it's crew wish to deny us the right to build decent houses rather then the awful rabbit hutches being built today. A disgrace! bodchris
  • Score: -10

10:48pm Tue 4 Sep 12

AndrewAtAbingdon says...

They could link it up with HS2 to give a convenient connection to both London and Birmingham. That way a hub could serve both major cities. Oxfordshire would then be at the centre of all that activity.
They could link it up with HS2 to give a convenient connection to both London and Birmingham. That way a hub could serve both major cities. Oxfordshire would then be at the centre of all that activity. AndrewAtAbingdon
  • Score: 0

9:42am Wed 5 Sep 12

to ny w says...

Actually you have all missed the obvious spot.
Finmere.
Ex WWII airfield and right next to proposed HS2 route. Therefore quick links north and south and quick links to M40.
No brainer.
Actually you have all missed the obvious spot. Finmere. Ex WWII airfield and right next to proposed HS2 route. Therefore quick links north and south and quick links to M40. No brainer. to ny w
  • Score: -2

9:44am Wed 5 Sep 12

to ny w says...

Nick Mawer wrote:
Ah yes Tony, I hope you have obtained your copy of the Consultation draft of the Local Plan and Bicester Masterplan.
Bit like the horse has bolted Nick, still I suppose it saves you some face in Cherwell promoting the ECO CON without a local plan being in place at the time.
Naughty naughty!!
[quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: Ah yes Tony, I hope you have obtained your copy of the Consultation draft of the Local Plan and Bicester Masterplan.[/p][/quote]Bit like the horse has bolted Nick, still I suppose it saves you some face in Cherwell promoting the ECO CON without a local plan being in place at the time. Naughty naughty!! to ny w
  • Score: 0

10:20am Wed 5 Sep 12

Nick Mawer says...

If that is what you want to believe Tony
If that is what you want to believe Tony Nick Mawer
  • Score: -4

10:32am Wed 5 Sep 12

to ny w says...

Nick Mawer wrote:
If that is what you want to believe Tony
Facts are facts, aren't they?
[quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: If that is what you want to believe Tony[/p][/quote]Facts are facts, aren't they? to ny w
  • Score: -1

11:35am Wed 5 Sep 12

Diddyman says...

Environmental and noise requirements: any new site will need to have a 16km long x 3.5km wide glide path either side of the airport, without overflying large built-up areas.

So Steventon or the Didcot A site I would have thought do not meet the above requirements. Why not build to the north of London?
Environmental and noise requirements: any new site will need to have a 16km long x 3.5km wide glide path either side of the airport, without overflying large built-up areas. So Steventon or the Didcot A site I would have thought do not meet the above requirements. Why not build to the north of London? Diddyman
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Wed 5 Sep 12

Dilligaf2010 says...

The Thames Estuary is the most sensible option, plenty of room for expansion, it'll also mean the land currently used by Heathrow can be used for housing, it's a no brainer
The Thames Estuary is the most sensible option, plenty of room for expansion, it'll also mean the land currently used by Heathrow can be used for housing, it's a no brainer Dilligaf2010
  • Score: 0

2:27pm Wed 5 Sep 12

Andrew:Oxford says...

bodchris wrote:
6 lane A34M link road between Didcot and the M40???

FANTASTIC!!! Bring it on! Do the A40 as well, 6 lanes from the M40 to Cheltenham!

Why Banbury for the Airport?? Why not Otmoor nearer Oxford?? Not many humans near Otmoor, flat and under-developed...pe

rfect.
Indeed. Here is the story from "The Oxford Times" way back in 2004...

http://www.oxfordmai
l.co.uk/archive/2004
/05/21/Oxfordshire+A
rchive/6565703.Propo
sed_A34_route_could_
be_a_blunder/
[quote][p][bold]bodchris[/bold] wrote: 6 lane A34M link road between Didcot and the M40??? FANTASTIC!!! Bring it on! Do the A40 as well, 6 lanes from the M40 to Cheltenham! Why Banbury for the Airport?? Why not Otmoor nearer Oxford?? Not many humans near Otmoor, flat and under-developed...pe rfect.[/p][/quote]Indeed. Here is the story from "The Oxford Times" way back in 2004... http://www.oxfordmai l.co.uk/archive/2004 /05/21/Oxfordshire+A rchive/6565703.Propo sed_A34_route_could_ be_a_blunder/ Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 0

4:24pm Wed 5 Sep 12

Nick Mawer says...

to ny w wrote:
Nick Mawer wrote:
If that is what you want to believe Tony
Facts are facts, aren't they?
Yes Tony - and when you grasp them we can have a sensible debate.
[quote][p][bold]to ny w[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: If that is what you want to believe Tony[/p][/quote]Facts are facts, aren't they?[/p][/quote]Yes Tony - and when you grasp them we can have a sensible debate. Nick Mawer
  • Score: -1

6:44pm Wed 5 Sep 12

mandate says...

Why not just pump some money into developing London Oxford (Kidlington airport). The proposed Oxford to Marylebone train link could provide a quick rail service to London and via Bicester to Birmingham.

As for the people living near to Oxford, it's a pain to have to travel to Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton or Stansted airports. Just imagine being able to start a business trip, or holiday, without having the cost or bother of travelling to any of these airports.
Why not just pump some money into developing London Oxford (Kidlington airport). The proposed Oxford to Marylebone train link could provide a quick rail service to London and via Bicester to Birmingham. As for the people living near to Oxford, it's a pain to have to travel to Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton or Stansted airports. Just imagine being able to start a business trip, or holiday, without having the cost or bother of travelling to any of these airports. mandate
  • Score: 2

7:08pm Wed 5 Sep 12

mytaxes says...

Mandate: I presume you have an odd sense of humour or just trying to wind people up?
Mandate: I presume you have an odd sense of humour or just trying to wind people up? mytaxes
  • Score: -1

7:25pm Wed 5 Sep 12

Arkright says...

Nick Mawer wrote:
to ny w wrote:
Nick Mawer wrote:
If that is what you want to believe Tony
Facts are facts, aren't they?
Yes Tony - and when you grasp them we can have a sensible debate.
Nick, maybe you and/or Cherwell DC would have the decency to explain to us all, as to how you came to allowing the 'Eco' town to go ahead. It makes no sense to an awful lot of people, not just Tony.
[quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]to ny w[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: If that is what you want to believe Tony[/p][/quote]Facts are facts, aren't they?[/p][/quote]Yes Tony - and when you grasp them we can have a sensible debate.[/p][/quote]Nick, maybe you and/or Cherwell DC would have the decency to explain to us all, as to how you came to allowing the 'Eco' town to go ahead. It makes no sense to an awful lot of people, not just Tony. Arkright
  • Score: 1

7:50am Thu 6 Sep 12

Nick Mawer says...

Arkwright, here isn't the right place for a detailed discussion on the history of the Eco-town, but feel free to contact me on the phone and I will try to do just that.
Arkwright, here isn't the right place for a detailed discussion on the history of the Eco-town, but feel free to contact me on the phone and I will try to do just that. Nick Mawer
  • Score: 0

8:20am Thu 6 Sep 12

to ny w says...

Nick Mawer wrote:
Arkwright, here isn't the right place for a detailed discussion on the history of the Eco-town, but feel free to contact me on the phone and I will try to do just that.
Ok Nick,I accept your offer to discuss the ECO CON outside this forum, do you have the balls to set up a public debate on this subject?
No local plan, no general consensus, no commercial requirement, no private funding = BONKERS DECISION.
BaECON would welcome you to join us in a forthright discussion on the ECO TOWN.
[quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: Arkwright, here isn't the right place for a detailed discussion on the history of the Eco-town, but feel free to contact me on the phone and I will try to do just that.[/p][/quote]Ok Nick,I accept your offer to discuss the ECO CON outside this forum, do you have the balls to set up a public debate on this subject? No local plan, no general consensus, no commercial requirement, no private funding = BONKERS DECISION. BaECON would welcome you to join us in a forthright discussion on the ECO TOWN. to ny w
  • Score: -6

10:42am Thu 6 Sep 12

Nick Mawer says...

Tony - I accept that I will never convince you. You are in possession of all the facts yet you still come to the conclusion that you do. I can only imagine that there is some other reason for your stance.
Tony - I accept that I will never convince you. You are in possession of all the facts yet you still come to the conclusion that you do. I can only imagine that there is some other reason for your stance. Nick Mawer
  • Score: -1

4:09pm Thu 6 Sep 12

to ny w says...

Nick Mawer wrote:
Tony - I accept that I will never convince you. You are in possession of all the facts yet you still come to the conclusion that you do. I can only imagine that there is some other reason for your stance.
So that's a no to a public debate then?
Not surprised.
[quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: Tony - I accept that I will never convince you. You are in possession of all the facts yet you still come to the conclusion that you do. I can only imagine that there is some other reason for your stance.[/p][/quote]So that's a no to a public debate then? Not surprised. to ny w
  • Score: -3

7:28pm Thu 6 Sep 12

Arkright says...

Nick Mawer wrote:
Arkwright, here isn't the right place for a detailed discussion on the history of the Eco-town, but feel free to contact me on the phone and I will try to do just that.
Nick, it's a bit late as the decision has already been made to go ahead regardless of what any of us think. But thank you for your offer and I will call you early next week.
[quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: Arkwright, here isn't the right place for a detailed discussion on the history of the Eco-town, but feel free to contact me on the phone and I will try to do just that.[/p][/quote]Nick, it's a bit late as the decision has already been made to go ahead regardless of what any of us think. But thank you for your offer and I will call you early next week. Arkright
  • Score: 0

9:04am Fri 7 Sep 12

to ny w says...

Arkright wrote:
Nick Mawer wrote:
Arkwright, here isn't the right place for a detailed discussion on the history of the Eco-town, but feel free to contact me on the phone and I will try to do just that.
Nick, it's a bit late as the decision has already been made to go ahead regardless of what any of us think. But thank you for your offer and I will call you early next week.
Technically that is incorrect. The exemplar site for 394 houses has detailed consent subject to many onerous conditions. The rest of the 850 a site has no consent. It is merely included in a much awaited local plan which is out for consultation and has yet to be adopted. There are still a lot of hoops to be jumped. One of them is the commercial inadequacies of any scheme that is being built to code 5 sustainability, using there figures it may take 50 years to build!!!!For further info
please got to our website
www.baecon.blogspot.
co.uk
[quote][p][bold]Arkright[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: Arkwright, here isn't the right place for a detailed discussion on the history of the Eco-town, but feel free to contact me on the phone and I will try to do just that.[/p][/quote]Nick, it's a bit late as the decision has already been made to go ahead regardless of what any of us think. But thank you for your offer and I will call you early next week.[/p][/quote]Technically that is incorrect. The exemplar site for 394 houses has detailed consent subject to many onerous conditions. The rest of the 850 a site has no consent. It is merely included in a much awaited local plan which is out for consultation and has yet to be adopted. There are still a lot of hoops to be jumped. One of them is the commercial inadequacies of any scheme that is being built to code 5 sustainability, using there figures it may take 50 years to build!!!!For further info please got to our website www.baecon.blogspot. co.uk to ny w
  • Score: -15

6:16pm Fri 7 Sep 12

Bon Rurgundy says...

This would be great news if it happened, providing a huge boost to the local economy and cutting house prices, but let's face it, there's more chance of Oxford United winning the Premier League than there is of this airport being built.
It's a classic diversion tactic - get the tree huggers and nimbys out in the sticks crying into their Starbucks while the third runway is slipped in. Dave's hardly going to defecate on his own doorstep.
This would be great news if it happened, providing a huge boost to the local economy and cutting house prices, but let's face it, there's more chance of Oxford United winning the Premier League than there is of this airport being built. It's a classic diversion tactic - get the tree huggers and nimbys out in the sticks crying into their Starbucks while the third runway is slipped in. Dave's hardly going to defecate on his own doorstep. Bon Rurgundy
  • Score: 0

6:24pm Fri 7 Sep 12

bodchris says...

Bon Rurgundy wrote:
This would be great news if it happened, providing a huge boost to the local economy and cutting house prices, but let's face it, there's more chance of Oxford United winning the Premier League than there is of this airport being built.
It's a classic diversion tactic - get the tree huggers and nimbys out in the sticks crying into their Starbucks while the third runway is slipped in. Dave's hardly going to defecate on his own doorstep.
Wonderful, Ron, I couldn't have put it better myself.....
[quote][p][bold]Bon Rurgundy[/bold] wrote: This would be great news if it happened, providing a huge boost to the local economy and cutting house prices, but let's face it, there's more chance of Oxford United winning the Premier League than there is of this airport being built. It's a classic diversion tactic - get the tree huggers and nimbys out in the sticks crying into their Starbucks while the third runway is slipped in. Dave's hardly going to defecate on his own doorstep.[/p][/quote]Wonderful, Ron, I couldn't have put it better myself..... bodchris
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree