I READ with some interest, and not without some amusement, your article Ecology Considered by Airport Inquiry on June 14 As a trained research ecologist, who specialised in woodland and wetland conservation, I find it inconceivable that Hatfield Forest
I READ with some interest, and not without some amusement, your article 'Ecology Considered by Airport Inquiry' on June 14
As a trained research ecologist, who specialised in woodland and wetland conservation, I find it inconceivable that Hatfield Forest is being used to front the case for the environment against Stansted's expansion.
This is particularly in view of harmful aircraft emissions. I don't know if you are aware but the car parking arrangements in the forest are such that they require visitors to drive through the forest to park at its centre.
The environmental damage of low level emissions, due to this peculiar arrangement, is far more damaging to Hatfield Forest than the airport expansion is ever likely to be.
This is particularly true on a Bank Holiday when the world and his wife and dog descend on the forest.
As my granny used to say, it's "the pot calling the kettle black".
I am sure if BAA's barrister, Michael Humphries QC, was aware of that little nugget, the case for the defence would have collapsed toot sweet.
Tim Harrison BSc, PGCE:FE, MSc (Environmental Management)
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 The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.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 here