SOME appear determined to generate turbulence where it doesn’t exist (Oxford Mail, March 10), through misguided assumptions and irresponsible conjecture in relation to London Oxford Airport’s Airspace Change Proposal (ACP): Portrayals, on your pages, of ‘major expansion’ and allegations of increased risk, are unfounded – and perhaps somewhat irresponsible.
Airport representatives have confirmed there are no plans to extend any runway (an exorbitantly costly endeavour!) in Kidlington. Actual aircraft movements are a fraction of already authorised capacity, such that “major expansion” – in ways wrongly depicted by critics with their heads in the clouds – is unnecessary.
Moreover, the airport already has experience of public category flights. Commercial flights (in the form of executive charters) operate there in abundance. The ACP is not expected to result in variation of air traffic levels, and will not change the airport’s capability in terms of aircraft that can land there.
What the ACP would do is help facilitate improved measures for ensuring aircraft reach the airport safely. The proposals are in line with a European-wide initiative, support widened accommodation of modern technologies, and entail mechanisms to further enhance air traffic control in coordination with RAF Brize Norton, as well as more detailed tracking of air traffic in the vicinity.
London Oxford Airport is a major employment site in the area, providing vital services to Oxfordshire manufacturing and engineering industries. Among its tenants are companies providing important training and upgrade activities that benefit and enhance the capabilities of the UK Armed Forces.
Woodstock Town Council formally resolved at its February 13 meeting: “The Town Council notes with appreciation the clarifications conveyed by London Oxford Airport in relation to misconceptions about its reported plans, and the Council acknowledges the Airport’s contribution to local employment, industry, tourism and national security.”
Others should take care in avoiding circulation of inaccurate, misleading conjecture where the contents could be easily checked and verified.
SHARONE PARNES
Woodstock
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel