The ArgusAncient woodland warning over second Gatwick runway proposal (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Ancient woodland warning over second Gatwick runway proposal

The Argus: Ancient woodland warning over second Gatwick runway proposal Ancient woodland warning over second Gatwick runway proposal

A proposed second runway at Gatwick would destroy ancient woodland, a campaign group has warned.

The Woodland Trust has issued the warning ahead of a decision on the plans.

They claim all three proposals put out for consultation by Gatwick bosses would destroy up to 19 acres or woodland.

Campaigner Katharine Rist said the plans would “obliterate” the areas of woodland surrounding the airport.

She said: “It's crucial the impact on ancient woodland is given appropriate weighting in any consultation on expansion and we would urge everyone to respond on this basis.

“At the moment, these new plans only serve as yet another example of why ancient woodland needs better protection from national infrastructure.”

A 12-week consultation on Gatwick's proposals will finish on 15 August.

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:48pm Thu 29 May 14

Hove Actually says...

Is that a chain saw I hear?
Is that a chain saw I hear? Hove Actually
  • Score: 5

7:10pm Thu 29 May 14

HJarrs says...

Woodland, climate changing emissions? Surely a small sacrifice to provide capacity for weekend breaks.
Woodland, climate changing emissions? Surely a small sacrifice to provide capacity for weekend breaks. HJarrs
  • Score: 3

7:56pm Thu 29 May 14

Mr chock says...

HJarrs wrote:
Woodland, climate changing emissions? Surely a small sacrifice to provide capacity for weekend breaks.
what ever happened to the other solution of improving the current parallel runway or something i saw in some "think tank document " the runway expansion scheme seems to be only focused on the outside the airports current footprint
i see no trees .. on the Airport estate
http://www.architect
sjournal.co.uk/pictu
res/606x422fitpad/9/4/3/1339943_Gatwi
ck_aerial_shot.jpg

but i do see a better solution two parallel runways not encroaching to the left as the plans released recently show
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Woodland, climate changing emissions? Surely a small sacrifice to provide capacity for weekend breaks.[/p][/quote]what ever happened to the other solution of improving the current parallel runway or something i saw in some "think tank document " the runway expansion scheme seems to be only focused on the outside the airports current footprint i see no trees .. on the Airport estate http://www.architect sjournal.co.uk/pictu res/606x422fitpad[0]/9/4/3/1339943_Gatwi ck_aerial_shot.jpg but i do see a better solution two parallel runways not encroaching to the left as the plans released recently show Mr chock
  • Score: -1

8:16pm Thu 29 May 14

angrymonkey says...

its a small amount of trees to lose and sure Gatwick will plant more trees if asked its a lot better than having to move the M25 and having to rebuild a town that will be built over at Heathrow.
its a small amount of trees to lose and sure Gatwick will plant more trees if asked its a lot better than having to move the M25 and having to rebuild a town that will be built over at Heathrow. angrymonkey
  • Score: 1

3:52am Fri 30 May 14

Dave At Home says...

Ha ha the same Kathy Rist that is trying to stop the HS2 from being built and the same Kathy Rist that lives in Peterborough!!! I am sure that she personally knows of this ancient woodland that she talks about at Gatwick. If it is the "wooded" area that I am thinking about it is not old at all, maybe 40 years old and was mainly swamp land because of its low lying nature and bad flooding that occurs in the area.

I know that the owners of Gatwick will replace trees 10 fold for any that are removed and move or preserve habitat that will be in the way, like they did on the North side but for Ms. Rist to try and hold up much needed employment and money in the SE area of the Country because she thinks there is some ancient woodland there is beyond my tree hugging mind.

As she works for the Woodland Trust and as it is a registered charity, I would think she is on the pull here and looking for Gatwick to make a sizable donation to the Trust, so that she and her mates can carry on doing more of what they are doing now.... poking their noses in places that do not concern them. Bring on the bulldozers.
Ha ha the same Kathy Rist that is trying to stop the HS2 from being built and the same Kathy Rist that lives in Peterborough!!! I am sure that she personally knows of this ancient woodland that she talks about at Gatwick. If it is the "wooded" area that I am thinking about it is not old at all, maybe 40 years old and was mainly swamp land because of its low lying nature and bad flooding that occurs in the area. I know that the owners of Gatwick will replace trees 10 fold for any that are removed and move or preserve habitat that will be in the way, like they did on the North side but for Ms. Rist to try and hold up much needed employment and money in the SE area of the Country because she thinks there is some ancient woodland there is beyond my tree hugging mind. As she works for the Woodland Trust and as it is a registered charity, I would think she is on the pull here and looking for Gatwick to make a sizable donation to the Trust, so that she and her mates can carry on doing more of what they are doing now.... poking their noses in places that do not concern them. Bring on the bulldozers. Dave At Home
  • Score: 4

8:22am Fri 30 May 14

HJarrs says...

Dave At Home wrote:
Ha ha the same Kathy Rist that is trying to stop the HS2 from being built and the same Kathy Rist that lives in Peterborough!!! I am sure that she personally knows of this ancient woodland that she talks about at Gatwick. If it is the "wooded" area that I am thinking about it is not old at all, maybe 40 years old and was mainly swamp land because of its low lying nature and bad flooding that occurs in the area.

I know that the owners of Gatwick will replace trees 10 fold for any that are removed and move or preserve habitat that will be in the way, like they did on the North side but for Ms. Rist to try and hold up much needed employment and money in the SE area of the Country because she thinks there is some ancient woodland there is beyond my tree hugging mind.

As she works for the Woodland Trust and as it is a registered charity, I would think she is on the pull here and looking for Gatwick to make a sizable donation to the Trust, so that she and her mates can carry on doing more of what they are doing now.... poking their noses in places that do not concern them. Bring on the bulldozers.
And what about the wider environmental impact? It seems you don't have much concern for that. Increasing aircraft travel is one of the most efficient way of increasing CO2 emissions.

We already have plenty of airport capacity and creating more for weekend breaks at staggering environmental cost is a tradgedy.
[quote][p][bold]Dave At Home[/bold] wrote: Ha ha the same Kathy Rist that is trying to stop the HS2 from being built and the same Kathy Rist that lives in Peterborough!!! I am sure that she personally knows of this ancient woodland that she talks about at Gatwick. If it is the "wooded" area that I am thinking about it is not old at all, maybe 40 years old and was mainly swamp land because of its low lying nature and bad flooding that occurs in the area. I know that the owners of Gatwick will replace trees 10 fold for any that are removed and move or preserve habitat that will be in the way, like they did on the North side but for Ms. Rist to try and hold up much needed employment and money in the SE area of the Country because she thinks there is some ancient woodland there is beyond my tree hugging mind. As she works for the Woodland Trust and as it is a registered charity, I would think she is on the pull here and looking for Gatwick to make a sizable donation to the Trust, so that she and her mates can carry on doing more of what they are doing now.... poking their noses in places that do not concern them. Bring on the bulldozers.[/p][/quote]And what about the wider environmental impact? It seems you don't have much concern for that. Increasing aircraft travel is one of the most efficient way of increasing CO2 emissions. We already have plenty of airport capacity and creating more for weekend breaks at staggering environmental cost is a tradgedy. HJarrs
  • Score: -3

5:15am Sat 31 May 14

Dave At Home says...

HJarrs wrote:
Dave At Home wrote:
Ha ha the same Kathy Rist that is trying to stop the HS2 from being built and the same Kathy Rist that lives in Peterborough!!! I am sure that she personally knows of this ancient woodland that she talks about at Gatwick. If it is the "wooded" area that I am thinking about it is not old at all, maybe 40 years old and was mainly swamp land because of its low lying nature and bad flooding that occurs in the area.

I know that the owners of Gatwick will replace trees 10 fold for any that are removed and move or preserve habitat that will be in the way, like they did on the North side but for Ms. Rist to try and hold up much needed employment and money in the SE area of the Country because she thinks there is some ancient woodland there is beyond my tree hugging mind.

As she works for the Woodland Trust and as it is a registered charity, I would think she is on the pull here and looking for Gatwick to make a sizable donation to the Trust, so that she and her mates can carry on doing more of what they are doing now.... poking their noses in places that do not concern them. Bring on the bulldozers.
And what about the wider environmental impact? It seems you don't have much concern for that. Increasing aircraft travel is one of the most efficient way of increasing CO2 emissions.

We already have plenty of airport capacity and creating more for weekend breaks at staggering environmental cost is a tradgedy.
This article is not about C02 emissions. Some of the Worlds finest aircraft are now the most fuel efficient in the history of aviation. The A380 and the B787 (together) produce less C02 per passenger than the old B707. There is more C02 created by passengers driving their cars to the airport or the coaches and trains that use diesel engines taking intending passengers to and from the airport than some of the aircraft that fly in there now.

Gatwick is probably THE largest single employer in the South East, with around 70,000 people working directly for the airport and a further 300,000 people working for companies indirectly working there, and on the back of that you have a further 250,000 employed as a result of the airport and its workers. An example of a direct worker would be ATC, check-in staff and estate workers, indirect workers would be aircraft cleaners, cargo companies, catering workers and the others would be the likes of train and bus drivers, shop workers in say Tesco's, in their 3 superstores, Hookwood, Three Bridges and Broadbridge Heath, child care facilities for airport workers children, builders and the list goes on. Some of the workers that I know there, travel from as far away as Hastings, Southampton and Croydon and beyond.

If Gatwick was ever to close, three quarters of the housing stock in Horley and half the housing in Horsham as well as a portion of the Crawley housing would be vacated and the knock on effect of this to the 'other' jobs would be catastrophic. As the largest employer in the SE we need to support one of the last remaining success stories of our times, I am sure you are prone to the odd flight of fancy when the price is right, and as we live in a democratic society and if people have money to fly away and get some sun (which we seldom see here) or want to visit their family abroad, then who are you or me to stop them? There is a complete lack of understanding in how eco friendly Gatwick is, you need to explore the place more and understand what goes on there, before spouting off about what you have heard. I for one will support Gatwick for my future employment and for my childrens employment because the City of Brighton & Hove cannot do it. What people want to do for their weekend breaks is down to them to decide not for you or me to comment on.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave At Home[/bold] wrote: Ha ha the same Kathy Rist that is trying to stop the HS2 from being built and the same Kathy Rist that lives in Peterborough!!! I am sure that she personally knows of this ancient woodland that she talks about at Gatwick. If it is the "wooded" area that I am thinking about it is not old at all, maybe 40 years old and was mainly swamp land because of its low lying nature and bad flooding that occurs in the area. I know that the owners of Gatwick will replace trees 10 fold for any that are removed and move or preserve habitat that will be in the way, like they did on the North side but for Ms. Rist to try and hold up much needed employment and money in the SE area of the Country because she thinks there is some ancient woodland there is beyond my tree hugging mind. As she works for the Woodland Trust and as it is a registered charity, I would think she is on the pull here and looking for Gatwick to make a sizable donation to the Trust, so that she and her mates can carry on doing more of what they are doing now.... poking their noses in places that do not concern them. Bring on the bulldozers.[/p][/quote]And what about the wider environmental impact? It seems you don't have much concern for that. Increasing aircraft travel is one of the most efficient way of increasing CO2 emissions. We already have plenty of airport capacity and creating more for weekend breaks at staggering environmental cost is a tradgedy.[/p][/quote]This article is not about C02 emissions. Some of the Worlds finest aircraft are now the most fuel efficient in the history of aviation. The A380 and the B787 (together) produce less C02 per passenger than the old B707. There is more C02 created by passengers driving their cars to the airport or the coaches and trains that use diesel engines taking intending passengers to and from the airport than some of the aircraft that fly in there now. Gatwick is probably THE largest single employer in the South East, with around 70,000 people working directly for the airport and a further 300,000 people working for companies indirectly working there, and on the back of that you have a further 250,000 employed as a result of the airport and its workers. An example of a direct worker would be ATC, check-in staff and estate workers, indirect workers would be aircraft cleaners, cargo companies, catering workers and the others would be the likes of train and bus drivers, shop workers in say Tesco's, in their 3 superstores, Hookwood, Three Bridges and Broadbridge Heath, child care facilities for airport workers children, builders and the list goes on. Some of the workers that I know there, travel from as far away as Hastings, Southampton and Croydon and beyond. If Gatwick was ever to close, three quarters of the housing stock in Horley and half the housing in Horsham as well as a portion of the Crawley housing would be vacated and the knock on effect of this to the 'other' jobs would be catastrophic. As the largest employer in the SE we need to support one of the last remaining success stories of our times, I am sure you are prone to the odd flight of fancy when the price is right, and as we live in a democratic society and if people have money to fly away and get some sun (which we seldom see here) or want to visit their family abroad, then who are you or me to stop them? There is a complete lack of understanding in how eco friendly Gatwick is, you need to explore the place more and understand what goes on there, before spouting off about what you have heard. I for one will support Gatwick for my future employment and for my childrens employment because the City of Brighton & Hove cannot do it. What people want to do for their weekend breaks is down to them to decide not for you or me to comment on. Dave At Home
  • Score: 2

10:03am Sun 1 Jun 14

1JeremyTaylor says...

Those who oppose cite the loss of 7.7 hectares of Ancient Woodland as a reason to stop the 3rd runway.

According to the latest independent inventories, there are 21,375 ha in Sussex and 11,975 ha in Surrey - a loss of 0.023% of the Ancient Woodland in the two counties.
Those who oppose cite the loss of 7.7 hectares of Ancient Woodland as a reason to stop the 3rd runway. According to the latest independent inventories, there are 21,375 ha in Sussex and 11,975 ha in Surrey - a loss of 0.023% of the Ancient Woodland in the two counties. 1JeremyTaylor
  • 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