Yes to Maplin?
Sir: It has been clear for some time that the Government's concern for growth has become obsessive and may soon reveal itself as technomania, but I fear after reading your " Yes to Maplin" leader that you may yourself be afflicted by the same distressing complaint.
It is just not sufficient, even in a short article, to dismiss environmental objections to an " exciting project " as concerning estuarine sailing, Brent geese, and "The stark beauty of the land affected." Indeed, that phrase makes it clear that you have not considered what the extent of the land affected is at all.
The true heads of objection, which I should have expected you at least to mention, ought to be well known by now but plainly will bear repeating. Here are the main ones.
Cost. Present estimates vary, but if we are starting at around a thousand million pounds any comparison with the still escalating Concorde is terrifying. Government expenditure at pre
sent can hardly be called modest, and the list of other projects cut back to make way for Maplin will be a long one — and with the latest mini-budget has already begun. Of course, we shan't actually be told Maplin is responsible.
Regional policies. Why suddenly completely overturn policies on which so much has been spent over so many years? If we were wrong all the time in trying to restrict development in the crowded south-east, let's at least hear why. The Government's silence on this contrasts splendidly with the racket they make about ...
Noise. It is indeed a strange solution for London's air traffic noise problem to put an airport on the only side of the capital that escapes it, with a weird egalitarianism. And no night flying restrictions this time, although aircraft will be flying at well below ten thousand feet over much of rural Essex, where the noise level bears no comparison with West London.
Environment. Maplin requires a city of half a million in a county already overcrowded and building faster than any other, nicely situated for the prevailing wind to spew pollutants from the " New Rotterdam " on top of it. Under the banner of environment it is actually planned, quite deliberately, that London shall sprawl still further.
Need. Above all, why the hurry? If the recent reports on air traffic have shown anything at all they have at least proved there is time to think again — and again. So why no pause? The answer may be that it isn't really the airport the apparently obstinate Government wants at all, but the seaport. Could it be that they do not want to risk a Roskill into that?
A. R. West Hoggets, Easthorpe, Kelvedon, Essex.
Previous page
