| # | Name | Comments |
|---|
| 201 | Euan Watson | Heathrow expansion beyond the already heavy use is unacceptable because of noise, pollution and traffic congestion |
| 202 | Margaret Watson | Heathrow expansion beyond the already heavy use is unacceptable because of noise, pollution and traffic congestion |
| 203 | Anonymous | Night flights should also be limited further |
| 204 | Jouet | |
| 205 | Amanda Burton | |
| 206 | Simon Tompsett | Climate change is FAR more important than the profits of BAA and the whims of weekend travellers.
The time has come to stop all airport expansion and seriously invest in less polluting alternatives. |
| 207 | Emma Oliver | |
| 208 | Richard Oliver | |
| 209 | Donald Harris | Conversation in our garden is ALREADY impossible at peak periods for the whole day/ night. It is even impossible to listen to the radio in the living room with the windows and doors firmly shut. What is needed is a CUT in air travel, certainly no expansion. |
| 210 | Juliet Sirl | |
| 211 | Rachel Dolan | |
| 212 | Peter Wilson | |
| 213 | Anonymous | |
| 214 | Anonymous | I am woken by flights going over from 6 in the morning til 11pm at night emough is enough |
| 215 | Ian Swankie | We have lived in Richmond under the flight path for 25 years and experienced one broken promise after another from BAA and the Government as Heathrow has grown out of all proportion.
The whole area is blighted by aircraft noise, but the one thing that makes it tolerable is runway alternation. The 3pm runway change-over is absolutely necessary for the well being and sanity of thousands of people. The thought of abolishing or diminishing the relatively quieter periods is horrendous. It would wreck an otherwise glorious part of London. |
| 216 | Oliver Pescott | |
| 217 | Judith McLaren | |
| 218 | Jan McLaren | |
| 219 | John Murphy | Two promises broken is two too many. It is too late to honour the T4 pledges but do the T5 pledges have to go as well? |
| 220 | PJ McGrath | The economy of this country will survive very well without making residents' lives misery with the noise, smell and night flights depriving us of our required rest time. Make the aircraft socially acceptable THEN vie for changes. We pay very high taxes in this country for very little i return |
| 221 | PJ McGrath | Putting the economy ahead of the health and wellbeing of people and countryside? Just shows how the Government's money-grabbing mind works. What has happened to all the money we have had to fork out with taxes? No evidence of that being well spent and distributed. |
| 222 | Farhan Abdi | |
| 223 | Anonymous | I believe that the South East of England is a totally unsuitable place for yet more aircraft activity ,more noise, more pollution, more traffic congestion, and a general dimunition of the quality of life for all living in the vicinity of the proposed expansion of Heathrow.
THIS IS ENVIRONMENTAL MADNESS! |
| 224 | Patrick Curry | I am completely opposed to any further expansion of Heathrow on environmental and social grounds. Pure economic logic is inhuman and inhumane. |
| 225 | Anne Paterson | |
| 226 | Charlotte Maby | The environmental impact (especially noise pollution) is already severe and it would be a shameful and disgraceful Government to go ahead with any further expansion. |
| 227 | Brigid Gardner | The noisiest planes coming to land register more than 60dcb even though we live nearly 20 miles from Heathrow, Enough is ENOUGH. |
| 228 | Ann Cochrane | Noise in this area, already excessive, would become intolerable. There is also the small matter of the contribution of aviation to global warming, which the government irresponsibly chooses to ignore. |
| 229 | Ann Cochrane | What a mockery these plans make of the government's grand environmental pretensions. |
| 230 | George Stuart Walker | The massive expansion of capacity at Heathrow advocated by HMG and BAA is contrary to the urgent need to decrease CO2 emissions from the aviation sector and would have, at most, a marginal impact on the National Economy. It will aggravate noise and air pollution over large areas of London. Also Night flights in and out of Heathrow must cease. |
| 231 | Marcia randell | |
| 232 | Paul Jackson | The economic benefits of LHR have been greatly exaggerated. |
| 233 | Oliver Williams | |
| 234 | Marion Cail | |
| 235 | Matthew Bowen | Airport expansion is unsustainable. So is the aviation industry. How can you ask China and emerging nations to stop building coal fired power stations, prevent their nuclear enrichment schemes, and ask them to meet the Kyoto Protocol/reduce their carbon emissions, when the UK government itself proposes to increase airport capacities.
I don't think the government can take much of a stand towards other nations, when they themselves haven't a clue between them of how to reduce their own carbon emissions.
Its a worldwide emergency. The issue won't solve itself!
Expand this one airport, and the other 32 in the UK will surely follow suit.
And thats the end of life as we know it.
But oh, lucky MPs. They don't care. As long as they get paid sufficiently from our tax money, to do a job improperly.
Stop airport expansion.
Reduce your carbon emissions.
-OR-
Kill all life on Earth through your own selfishness and greed.
Difficult choice perhaps? Not really.
Get it?
Got it?
Good. |
| 236 | colin cant | It is obvious that Heathrow air and ground space is full up and operating it under these conditions makes life intolerable for the many thousands of people living nearby.
To propose increasing that capacity further shows a total and callous disregard for anyone and anything that stands in the way of increased power and profit. |
| 237 | colin cant | It is obvious that Heathrow air and ground space is full up and operating it under these conditions makes life intolerable for the many thousands living nearby.
To propose increasing that capacity further shows a total and callous disregard for anyone and anything that stands in the way of increased power and profit. |
| 238 | H Enthovenh | Abolition of alternation would be catastrophic for West London as would a third runway |
| 239 | C Hutchings | |
| 240 | Stephen Enthoven | I do not accept the Government's economic arguments in favour of expansion and have first-hand experience of the disadvantages. |
| 241 | Tom McGuffie | |
| 242 | Evie Sier | It is not needed, just stop it now. Climate change is real and we need to do something now not in 10 years time!!!! |
| 243 | Lisa Campbell | Enough is enough. We cannot continue to ruin the lives of those living under the flightpaths. Runway alternation is the only thing that helps keep us sane - a short time of relative quiet. It is time now to stop, and consider how ludicrous it is to expand an airport in such a densely populated area. |
| 244 | Kate Greer | Life will simply become unbearable if these plans go ahead. As it is with more flights sneakily coming in earlier and earlier, sleep patterns are affected. |
| 245 | Tom Greer | I doubt if any of the Government ministers or BAA owners live under the flight path. They should try it sometime and will they compensate us for the affect this will have on property prices in this area!!! I doubt it! |
| 246 | Kate Greer | Please sign this petition and perhaps these money grabbing idiots will listen to reason. |
| 247 | John Golding | we must cut carbon emissions |
| 248 | Yvette Crompton | |
| 249 | Elinor Croxall | |
| 250 | Karen Vidler | As a resident of Twickenham I already have disturbed nights sleep for planes flying over my house after midnight - not more of this thank you. |