Putting spend­ing into per­spec­tive

Uxbridge Gazette - - OPINION -

IN re­sponse to the three pro third run­way let­ters pub­lished in the Uxbridge Gazette (11.01.17) I feel the let­ters pub­lished re­cently about the coun­cil’s spend­ing on le­gal ac­tion against a third run­way need to be put into per­spec­tive.

For one, the coun­cil must rep­re­sent all of its res­i­dents and those of us in the south of the bor­ough who suf­fer far more due to our ‘neigh­bour’ Heathrow airport are grate­ful for the coun­cil sup­port.

The £204,219 spent in the last 20 months would equate to £2.55 per month per house­hold if it was just di­vided by the 4,000 homes in the Heathrow vil­lages that face de­mo­li­tion or ren­der­ing un­in­hab­it­able.

If di­vided by all the homes in Hilling­don the amount would be less than a penny. Con­sid­er­ing the south of the bor­ough has been ne­glected of ser­vice in­vest­ment due to years of blight it’s a small price to pay.

We are of­ten told to ac­cept our fate in the vil­lages as it is ‘progress’.

Heathrow an­nounced at a staff event last week that 2.4mil­lion seats left Heathrow un­sold in 2016, if an av­er­age air­craft held 300 pas­sen­gers that’s 8,000 flights a year.

If air­lines or­gan­ised their sched­ules more ef­fi­ciently they could sell back the slots they do not need and Heathrow could open up slots to the emerg­ing coun­tries that re­quire routes, pro­duc­ing the new jobs men­tioned with­out the need for a new run­way and de­struc­tion of homes and com­mu­ni­ties. Now that would be progress! J CLARK Sip­son Res­i­dent

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.