The commoners are united in their objection to this outrageous land grab. How dare an Australian bank, as owners of Bristol Airport, think they can rob common land from the indigenous population of the UK with commoners’ rights to Felton Common. This Australian bank would not contemplate pulling the same stunt with land owned by Australian First Nation peoples because of the reputational damage they would incur. In 1952, commoners’ convictions for tearing down structures erected on Felton Common were overturned at the Court of Appeal. In delivering the court’s judgement, Lord Justice Goddard advised commoners to do whatever is necessary to protect their rights. Nothing has changed. Bristol Airport cannot be trusted in their dealings with local residents, as reflected in there being no mention in their most recent “master plan” of their plans to snatch part of the common. That master plan cannot be relied upon to know what the airport’s true intentions are and is not worth the paper it is written on. The consultation document seeks to create the impression that there is a safety issue regarding planes landing at Bristol Airport and that the lights to be placed on Felton Common are a necessary safety feature. If this is the case, then all existing flights must be cancelled forthwith. The Civil Aviation Authority clearly consider that the existing runway is perfectly adequate for the existing services provided. Larger planes might need a longer runway, so why have Bristol Airport been disingenuous in their claims? They have not set out, despite being asked, which airlines, flying what planes to which destinations, will require a longer runway. Do they have the necessary slots to fly any such routes? Enough is enough. Bristol Airport is already too big for the local infrastructure to cope with. The roads through the Chew Valley, used by those travelling by car from Bath, Wiltshire and Dorset, have not been altered significantly since the days of the horse and cart and cannot cope with the volume of traffic generated by the airport. Bristol Airport have no real interest in improving public transport links to the airport because a significant part of their profit is derived from car parking that they control. Bristol Airport have insufficient car parking to meet current demand, let alone the spaces required to accommodate their proposed expansion. The operator of the most high-profile off-site parking business reports that his business is asked by the airport car parking operation to park cars they cannot accommodate. This proposal is the thin end of the wedge, as Bristol Airport would clearly like control of Felton Common in order to expand not only the runway but their lucrative car parking operation. The importance of car parking to the airport operator is demonstrated by their willingness to pay North Somerset Council to employ an enforcement officer to work towards shutting down off-site car parking operations providing lower-cost competition. Bristol Airport wish to have a monopoly on car parking so they can rack up their already exorbitant charges, including drop-off. North Somerset planners have obstructed the development of alternative off-site parking, thereby protecting the airport parking monopoly, most recently in refusing an application at Hewish. If Bristol Airport really cared about the local community, they would have covered the cost of repairing the cattle grid intended to prevent livestock straying onto the A38. Instead, there is a view that North Somerset have conspired with the airport to have the cattle grid removed to make it more difficult for commoners to exercise their grazing rights. With the availability of virtual-fence GPS technology, commoners’ rights continue to be exercised and cattle continue to graze the common. Those rights extend to a potential for at least 1,544 head of livestock to be grazed. The consultation document provided little information about the negative environmental impact of putting lights on the common, particularly light and noise pollution on local residents, wildlife and livestock grazing on the common. In the consultation document the airport have ruled out expanding westwards onto land they probably already own because building up the land would “have an impact on the landscape”. They don’t appear to see the irony in erecting 8-metre-high structures on Felton Common, a public open space. The airport planning manager at the public meeting dismissed the western-end runway expansion as too expensive because they would have to buy the material to bring the land to the required level. He quoted 1.5 million cubic metres being required and the transport issues. This is patently nonsense, since the value of such tipping is estimated to run into millions. A haul road constructed and entered off the Silver Zone car park, running down the side of the runway, would add traffic to the A38, but the airport don’t seem to be concerned about the traffic an extra 3 million passengers will generate. There is little available tipping space in the Bristol area, so the airport could name their price in the way they seek to with car parking charges. The consultation document says aircraft will be lower than at present when crossing the common. Commoners, already concerned about the current level of damage, want to see the airport’s assessment of the increased risk through aircraft being even lower on approach, causing damage to property through down-draught and turbulence. The commoners want to see from Bristol Airport properly considered and evidenced assessments of the impact of the proposals on: • Increased risk of structural damage to properties under and close to the flight path. • The risk to grazing livestock of low-flying aircraft. • The risk to the lives of commoners tending their stock under the path of incoming aircraft at low level, and similarly members of the public using this public open space. • The impact on existing flora and fauna. • The overall environmental impact. • How light and noise pollution will impact on residential property and livestock.