Bristol Airport expansion plans split opinion amid fears of more congestion and pollution
PUBLISHED: 12:00 05 January 2019
Plans to expand Bristol Airport, which will see millions more passengers fly each year, have been met with a mixed reaction from Weston Mercury readers.
The airport hopes to increase the size of its terminal, improve road access and bolster its parking capacity.
A planning application has been submitted by the airport to North Somerset Council, and if the authority approves the blueprints the number of passengers passing through the terminal will rise to 12 million per year by 2025.
Campaigners have fiercely criticised the plans, with fears of increased pollution and congestion on North Somerset’s road network.
Hilary Burn, chairman of the Parish Councils Airport Association, said: “The planes from Bristol Airport already create more carbon emissions than all the traffic in Bristol.
“More flights will lead to increased traffic and, taken together, we will see significant increases in carbon emissions.
“Bristol Airport’s own master plan stated that 40 per cent of all traffic on the A38 would be airport related should the airport reach 12 million passengers per year, leading to congestion spilling over to rural lanes and the A370, causing severe congestion and gridlock.”
Many people took to social media to share their view.
Jim Inglis wrote: “Before it goes ahead they need to build new link roads and not just one from Bristol.”
Chris Tovey commented: “Gridlocked? What are they on about? Never in my life have I been stuck in a traffic jam near Bristol Airport, but I have spent years of my life stuck on the M5 by Cribbs due to roadworks.”
Angie Day said: “More pollution? I thought we were going to cut it? My windows are filthy all the time, that’s what’s going in our lungs.”
Frank Davidson wrote: “You can’t have it both ways, if you want to fly and want it to be convenient then airports have to expand to facilitate such demand.
“While the parishes say about a rail link, there is a huge capital cost for such projects, are the parishes suggesting how it should be funded? Nothing wrong with criticism, but it needs to have practical solutions.”