Campaigners buy land

shillelagh · 13-01-2009, 04:04

Campaigners have bought land that heathrows 3rd runway would go.

BBC NEWS | England | London | Protesters buy up Heathrow land

They say they will stop the runway being built as they will refuse to sell it. Thing is have they never heard of a compulsory purchase order? They also bought it for an undisclosed sum - i wonder how much it was. Especiallly given the names that have bought it ...

blazey · 13-01-2009, 04:30

If they are the owners of the land and it is registered as them then there is nothing anyone can do about it? I've not come across anything that would allow otherwise and I've just wrote an essay on the topic of ownership of land and restrictions.

What is this compulsory purchase order you speak of? I've left my property text book at home. I've not been taught about this in my lectures though.

blazey · 13-01-2009, 04:35

OK I've just looked on wikipedia. (cringe)

Does this apply to airport runways? I don't think it is considered as necessary as a road or town development.

The courts are very interested in social policy in land law cases though so the people might be more likely to keep the land if enough people back them, but land is also considered something which should be kept in active use, and unless it's an area of natural beauty or something of that nature, then they're probably not going to be very successful. The courts balance out social interests and economic necessity in these cases so it wouldn't be certain that the airport would win.

jaysay · 13-01-2009, 11:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by blazey

OK I've just looked on wikipedia. (cringe)

Does this apply to airport runways? I don't think it is considered as necessary as a road or town development.

The courts are very interested in social policy in land law cases though so the people might be more likely to keep the land if enough people back them, but land is also considered something which should be kept in active use, and unless it's an area of natural beauty or something of that nature, then they're probably not going to be very successful. The courts balance out social interests and economic necessity in these cases so it wouldn't be certain that the airport would win.

You can bet your last penny blazey that if they want that runway they'll get that runway, might take a lot of huffing and puffing, but they'll get there in the end irrespective of who owns the land

MargaretR · 13-01-2009, 12:08

The protesters have bought in order to delay the runway construction.
In these volatile political/economic times, a long delay might mean an abandonment of the scheme

Boeing Guy · 13-01-2009, 12:43

This is a very clever idea, the same thing was done in the late 1980's I think, for the M40. The protesters parcelled the land into 1" squares and sold them to people all over the world. This stopped the Government from being able to issue compulsory purchase orders to thousands of people. The end result, the motorway did not go though this field. I cannot remember the name of it and am having difficulty finding the relevant web page regarding this.

As a Pilot and a frequent passenger, I think the expansion of Heathrow is insane. It would be better for all concerned to move the extra runway down the Thames and have a high speed link.
The airspace in London is one of the busiest in the world and it is only a matter of time before there is a Air Traffic or a Traffic Collision Alert System (TCAS) Failure and we have a sky filled with aluminium, and a very bad mid air collision.

But then again, when do politicians or business men listen to anybody who might have an idea about what is going on.

blazey · 14-01-2009, 05:11

Registered land can only have 4 titleholders now to avoid silly instances of being unable to track down a stupid number of owners.

I think there are much more important things to campaign about at the moment but I suppose in regards to UK environmental issues that is the biggest one at the moment. And there are always people trying to shut down sellafield and places of a similar nature.

They'll certainly delay the plans... but I can't help but think that it is a good reason for planning directors to blame it on the hold up now rather than the fact that they probably don't REALLY have money to be wasting on such a thing. So I do question whether these protestors are just wasting time and money on nothing.

Boeing Guy · 14-01-2009, 08:12

You misunderstand me Blazey, the campaigners divided the land into 1 inch parcels. These parcels were registered by the land registry. Each parcel of land is registered in its own right. So in effect this field now has hundreds of thousands of owners.

That said having just looked at the Greenpeace site, they do mention the 4 owner situation, but are requiring people to sign up for free, to become a beneficial owner which can only help tie thing up.

blazey · 14-01-2009, 09:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy

You misunderstand me Blazey, the campaigners divided the land into 1 inch parcels. These parcels were registered by the land registry. Each parcel of land is registered in its own right. So in effect this field now has hundreds of thousands of owners.

That said having just looked at the Greenpeace site, they do mention the 4 owner situation, but are requiring people to sign up for free, to become a beneficial owner which can only help tie thing up.

Ah I see.

Well there are allsorts of rules about land which the airport will be able to use to its advantage. Beneficiary owners are fine and dandy but no court in the land is going to allow that land to go unused. It'll delay the runway but it wont stop it. So in a way it is a very pointless effort that will result in simply annoying a lot of people. And people who do things just to annoy others probably don't deserve freedom if they waste valuable time and effort in such stupid ways.

Imagine how much money will be wasted trying to obtain that land? It's these very people which claim they want to end poverty and starvation yet so willingly force companies to waste money trying to do things which to be quite frank will only be much more beneficial than an empty field next to an airport. It's not like it is likely to be an area of beauty if its right next to an airport.

Green peace have an interest view on immigration if I remember correctly

they'll be playing the 'we don't need more opportunities for immigrants to get into the country' card next and gaining support by putting fear into the ordinary working class man over his job.

I'm all for less pollution but I don't think it's worth a dispute which will cost a lot of money.

Boeing Guy · 14-01-2009, 11:06

Fair point.
I still don't see the need to expand Heathrow, this is a out dated airport and we need to address our airport situation. Yes there is a need for another runway, at least one, in the London area, but I think that there are better and more safer alternatives to adding another runway at the worlds busiest airport.
Of course if the planners did their jobs in the first place, we would not be in this mess.
Gatwick could support another runway, as it currently only has one.
Manchester operates a single runway as well, I know there are two runways there, but to get to runway 23R/05L you have to cross runway 23L/05R. It would have made more sense to put the runways either side of the terminals. But who wants common sense in this world.