John Rowland wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5024770.stm

I can't see the logic of building houses at Heathrow and then complaining
about the job losses devastating West London. Surely Heathrow should be
turned into an industrial estate/business park, if anything.


I agree with the report, at least with regards to it's criticism of
Heathrow as the location of London's main airport. Such criticism is
nothing new, though it's still great to have an authoritative report
such as this clearly lay out the reasons why Heathrow is a calamity.

I also agree with your point John, it's what came to mind when I heard
the story earlier today - why build houses when the airport jobs would
be going.

But I think any such argument is highly academic. I can't see any
government anytime in the near making a decision future to close
Heathrow and open a new airport out east, however good the case may be.
It'd be a massive political scorching-red-hot potato.


Anyway here's some very interesting reading about how Heathrow came to
be - basically Harry Balfour, the Aviation Minister, conned the War
Cabinet into requisitioning the site for a military airfield using
wartime powers, but he only really had in mind Heathrow becoming the
site of London's main civilian airport after the war finished. An
example of just the kind of deceptive hotchpotch planning we do best in
Britain!

http://www.thisislongford.com/heathr...me_To_Heathrow