DOCSLIB.ORG

Written Evidence from Marinair, the Thames Estuary Airport Company Limited (AS 103)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Written Evidence from Marinair, the Thames Estuary Airport Company Limited (AS 103) Written evidence from Marinair, the Thames Estuary Airport Company Limited (AS 103) Thames Estuary Airport 1.0 Preamble 1.1 In all that follows in this submission to the current Parliamentary Transport Committee, the inescapable and indeed overriding fact remains - as it has done for the past 40 years - that for Great Britain to successfully meet future demand for adequate runway capacity in the south- east of England, it is necessary for HM’s Government to both demonstrate leadership by confirming the need for an appropriate and long-term solution to the current inadequacies in the provision of hub-airport facilities to serve the region and also, to support in a timely manner, a clear and positive policy which defines the principles of the solution to such serious problem. 1.2 A continued approach of ‘patch-and-make-good’ has in the past been and remains today, a wholly unacceptable response. This has been demonstrated not only to be not in the best interest of Great Britain but also, damaging to Great Britain’s economy. 1.3 For a period in excess of 20 years, TEACo has identified sources of finance to take forward the Marinair solution to the lack of runway capacity in the south-east of England and which have been reported to successive Parliamentary Transport Committees. However, no financial institution will move matters forward in the absence of support from HM’s Government for a new airport to be created within the Thames Estuary. 1.4 TEACo’s Marinair project is THE ONLY effective and environmentally acceptable long- term solution to the provision of a hub-airport to serve London and the south-east of England and it is THE ONLY genuine Thames Estuary island airport submitted to Government. 2.0 General background to Marinair 2.1 The Thames Estuary Airport Company Limited (TEACo) was founded in 1988 by a group of architects, engineers, economists, aviation consultants and other design, engineering and cost consultants, who were aware of predictions by credible authorities that suitable runway capacity in the south-east of England which was at that time provided principally by London Heathrow Airport (LHR) and London Gatwick Airport (LGW) would, at a time in the not too distant future, be insufficient to accommodate air traffic movements (ATM’s) to serve the capital city of Great Britain and to maintain London’s position as the pre-eminent first choice of entry to Europe for long-haul travellers. 2.2 TEACo was set up to be the special purpose vehicle (SPV) both to lobby HM’s Government to recognise that ‘piecemeal’ development at LHR and LGW would serve only to delay the time when a new hub-airport would need to be constructed and also, to be the focal point for parties interested in providing funding for both a new hub-airport in the south east of England and the marine and land based infrastructures that would be required to properly serve such a facility. 2.3 The Directors of TEACo were aware that a potential problem of providing suitable runway capacity in the south east of England had been identified as early as 1973 when HM’s Government granted approval for a third London airport to be constructed on Maplin Sands albeit that the project was abandoned following the subsequent global oil crisis. In addition to the provision of a new hub-airport, the Maplin proposal also included a deep-water harbour, a high-speed rail link to London and a new town to accommodate the airport workforce. 2.4 Since the abandonment of Maplin, improvements have been made to both LHR and LGW to increase both the number of ATM’s and the passenger and cargo throughput and, civil aviation operations have commenced in 1987 at the newly constructed London City Airport (LCY) and in 1991 at the newly converted London Stansted Airport (STN). 2.5 Customers of airlines – be these passengers or cargo distributors – wishing to gain access to London have many different requirements. However, the two principal requirements are to gain access to London as the destination or, to gain access to London for onward travel to a destination elsewhere in Great Britain or outside of Great Britain. The latter of these is described as ‘hub-and-spoke’ operations whereby long-haul and medium-haul services are supported principally, by other medium-haul or short-haul services to other destinations operating from the same airport. LHR and LGW are both hub-airports from which ‘spoke’ operations operate. 2.6 Although STN has sufficient runway length, it has never gained a position as an airport favoured by long-haul operators. Airlines that have at times in the past attempted to operate long-haul services from STN include Air Asia X, American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Eos Airlines, MAXjet Airways and Sun Country Airlines. All of these long-haul operators have now ceased services from STN with some of them having transferred to LHR and/or LGW. 2.7 Whilst it might seem that it is a good idea to locate airports in different locations around London, the reality of the situation is that such dispersal of facilities fails to provide the airlines with what they really require which is, a multi-runway airport which can operate without restrictions and which can accommodate all long-haul, medium-haul and short-haul ATM’s within one facility so that ‘hub-and-spoke’ operations can be efficiently and cost effectively carried out to the benefit of the airlines and their customers. Transfer between LHR, LGW, STN and LCY is today possible only by surface transport systems and then, only with changes between various modes of such surface transport. For this reason alone – and there are many other good and practical reasons – any future expansion of LHR, LGW and STN so as to try to attract long-haul and medium-haul operators to serve these airports, will be no more than a short-term solution to a long-term problem. For the avoidance of doubt, LCY does not have a runway of sufficient length to accommodate long-haul flights without refuelling stops on the way. 2.8 To state what has become obvious to those involved in the air transport industry, there is no long-term solution to the proper provision of suitable runway capacity in the south-east of England other than the construction of a new hub-airport. If this statement is accepted as factual – and there has not yet been a credible argument offered against the statement – then the only question that needs to be answered is where, within the south-east of England, the new hub-airport should be located. 2.9 The technical parties associated with TEACo, reviewed all previously considered locations for a new hub-airport. These included sites around London and further to the north and west of London and included former and existing military airfields and ‘green field’ sites. To a greater or lesser degree, all of these required the ‘disturbance’ of centres of population and/or the loss of prime agricultural land. Given that a new 4-runway airport suitable for long-haul operations with its attendant on-airport and off-airport facilities must by its operational requirements cover a significant area of such land, TEACo concluded that there was no suitable land based site on which the new hub-airport could be located. 2.10 For the reason given above, TEACo concluded that the most suitable place to locate a new hub-airport would be off-shore. TEACo established that the location of a suitable site off- shore closest to London and capable of being linked to major surface infrastructures is in the relatively shallow water in the Thames Estuary to the north-east of Herne Bay and to the east of the sea forts. 2.11 During the period from 1979-1982, one of the advisors to TEACo had been involved in the selection of the site for and the physical master planning of the new Hong Kong International Airport, the airport island for which, has been created by reclaiming land from the sea within the Tung Chung Basin to the north of Lantau Island. The airport island was created by demolishing the 460m (1500ft) high island of Chek Lap Kok and using the spoil for reclamation. Hong Kong International Airport and the Kansai International Airport which is also constructed off-shore in Osaka bay, are two off-shore airports constructed on artificial islands. The principle of building and operating civil airports off-shore is therefore well established. 2.12 For reason that the site selected by TEACo for further study and promotion as being a suitable site for an airport was located in a marine environment, the project was given the name ‘Marinair’. 2.13 As stated above, the location proposed for Marinair is in the Thames Estuary to the north-east of Herne Bay. In principle, the project proposes: 2.13.1 The construction of an airport island by way of reclamation; 2.13.2 4No x 4,000m instrument runways and attendant taxiways; 2.13.3 Passenger and cargo terminals and attendant parking aprons; 2.13.4 Aircraft maintenance hangars and attendant parking aprons; 2.13.5 Landside airport surface infrastructure; 2.13.6 New road link from M25-J29 via A127 and M25-J30 via A13 to tunnel to Isle of Sheppey and to the airport island; 2.13.7 New road link link from M20-J7 and M2-J5 via extension of A249 across Isle of Sheppey and tunnel to the airport island; 2.13.8 New HS rail link from north of Maidstone alongside A249 and across Isle of Sheppey and tunnel to the airport island; 2.13.9 New rail link by way of extension to Crossrail from Abbey Wood and across Isle of Sheppey and tunnel to the airport island; 2.13.10 New industrial parks and housing estates in south Essex and north Kent; 2.13.11 Electricity generation by way of water driven turbines incorporated into the airport island.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Thames Estuary Airport: AEF Position Paper
    Thames estuary airport: AEF position paper 3rd December 2009 Summary The London Mayor has suggested that the development of an estuary airport may provide an alternative to Heathrow expansion and commissioned Doug Oakervee, the engineer who masterminded Hong Kong’s island airport, to conduct a feasibility study. This briefing takes a historical look at estuary airport proposals and the issues that have arisen, assesses the recent report from Douglas Oakervee, and sets out AEF’s view on the proposal to construct a new airport in the Thames Estuary. AEF considers that all UK aviation expansion plans should be put on hold pending a review of the fundamental evidence underpinning Government policy on airports. We are concerned about the environmental impacts of a new airport in the Thames Estuary in terms of biodiversity loss and likely increases in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of increased aviation activity. Purported environmental benefits of in terms of noise, air pollution and risk, meanwhile, remain uncertain. We are therefore opposed to the building of a new airport in the Thames Estuary, and consider that rather than investing further public money into consideration of new airports, investment should instead focus on provision and promotion of low-carbon alternatives to aviation. Why estuary airport proposals have never got off the ground: some historical examples Maplin Sands A proposal to build a new airport at Maplin Sands was considered as part of the Airports inquiries 1981-83. TCPA – the Town and Country Planning Association – supported it on the grounds that, in terms of both agricultural and noise impacts, it was preferable to the expansion of Stansted.
    [Show full text]
  • Inner Thames Estuary Airport: Review of the Evidence on Socio- Economic Impacts a Report for the Airports Commission
    www.pwc.co.uk Inner Thames Estuary Airport: Review of the evidence on socio- economic impacts A report for the Airports Commission Airports Commission June 2014 Final report www.pwc.co.uk Important notice This final document has been prepared for the Airports Commission in accordance with the terms of the Provision of Consultancy for Commercial, Financial and Economic Option Appraisal and Analysis (DfT) framework and the Contract Reference RM 2750 (650) dated 12th February 2014 and solely for the purpose and on the terms agreed with the Airports Commission. We accept no liability (including for negligence) to anyone else in connection with this document. This document contains information obtained or derived from a variety of third party sources as indicated within the document. PwC has not sought to establish the reliability of those sources or verified the information so provided. Should any person other than the Airports Commission obtain access to and read this document, such persons accepts and agrees to the following terms: 1. The reader of this document understands that the work performed by PwC was performed in accordance with instructions provided by our client, the Airports Commission, and was performed exclusively for their benefit and use. The document may therefore not include all matters relevant to the reader. 2. The reader agrees that PwC accepts no liability (including for negligence) to them in connection with this document. Inner Thames Estuary Airport: Review of the evidence on socio-economic impacts Contents Executive summary 2 1. Introduction 6 2. Rationale for airport closure and commercial considerations 8 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Flying Into the Future Infrastructure for Business 2012 #4 Flying Into the Future
    Infrastructure for Business Flying into the Future Infrastructure for Business 2012 #4 Flying into the Future Flying into the Future têáííÉå=Äó=`çêáå=q~óäçêI=pÉåáçê=bÅçåçãáÅ=^ÇîáëÉê=~í=íÜÉ=fça aÉÅÉãÄÉê=OMNO P Infrastructure for Business 2012 #4 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ________________________________________ 5 1. GRowInG AVIATIon SUSTAInABlY ______________________ 27 2. ThE FoUR CRUnChES ______________________________ 35 3. ThE BUSInESS VIEw oF AIRpoRT CApACITY ______________ 55 4. A lonG-TERM plAn FoR GRowTh ____________________ 69 Q Flying into the Future Executive summary l Aviation provides significant benefits to the economy, and as the high growth markets continue to power ahead, flying will become even more important. “A holistic plan is nearly two thirds of IoD members think that direct flights to the high growth countries will be important to their own business over the next decade. needed to improve l Aviation is bad for the global and local environment, but quieter and cleaner aviation in the UK. ” aircraft and improved operational and ground procedures can allow aviation to grow in a sustainable way. l The UK faces four related crunches – hub capacity now; overall capacity in the South East by 2030; excessive taxation; and an unwelcoming visa and border set-up – reducing the UK’s connectivity and making it more difficult and more expensive to get here. l This report sets out a holistic aviation plan, with 25 recommendations to address six key areas: − Making the best use of existing capacity in the short term; − Making decisions about where new runways should be built as soon as possible, so they can open in the medium term; − Ensuring good surface access and integration with the wider transport network, in particular planning rail services together with airport capacity, not separately; − Dealing with noise and other local environment impacts; − Not raising taxes any further; − Improving the visa regime and operations at the UK border.
    [Show full text]
  • Whose River? London and the Thames Estuary, 1960-2014* Vanessa Taylor Univ
    This is a post-print version of an article which will appear The London Journal, 40(3) (2015), Special Issue: 'London's River? The Thames as a Contested Environmental Space'. Accepted 15 July 2015. Whose River? London and the Thames Estuary, 1960-2014* Vanessa Taylor Univ. of Greenwich, [email protected] I Introduction For the novelist A.P. Herbert in 1967 the problem with the Thames was simple. 'London River has so many mothers it doesn’t know what to do. ... What is needed is one wise, far- seeing grandmother.’1 Herbert had been campaigning for a barrage across the river to keep the tide out of the city, with little success. There were other, powerful claims on the river and numerous responsible agencies. And the Thames was not just ‘London River’: it runs for over 300 miles from Gloucestershire to the North Sea. The capital’s interdependent relationship with the Thames estuary highlights an important problem of governance. Rivers are complex, multi-functional entities that cut across land-based boundaries and create interdependencies between distant places. How do you govern a city that is connected by its river to other communities up and downstream? Who should decide what the river is for and how it should be managed? The River Thames provides a case study for exploring the challenges of governing a river in a context of changing political cultures. Many different stories could be told about the river, as a water source, drain, port, inland waterway, recreational amenity, riverside space, fishery, wildlife habitat or eco-system.
    [Show full text]
  • A Monte-Carlo Approach to Estimating the Effects of Selected Airport Capacity Options in London
    A Monte-Carlo approach to estimating the effects of selected airport capacity options in London. Daniel Irvine, Lucy C.S. Budd and David E. Pitfield. Transport Studies Group, School of Civil & Building Engineering Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU U.K. [email protected] Abstract The issue of future airport capacity in London is currently the subject of much political debate in the UK. Through the use of Monte Carlo simulation, the paper quantifies and compares the relative capacity enhancements that may be afforded by the construction of a new hub airport, additional runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and changes to operating practices at Heathrow. The simulations indicate that a new hub airport would be the most effective way to increase capacity, although the reported financial and environmental costs of such a development suggest a comparatively poor rate of return. Proposed new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and the removal of runway alternation at Heathrow provide more modest increases in capacity. Keywords: airport capacity, Monte Carlo simulation, London, UK. 1. Introduction Debates surrounding the provision of future airport capacity in London and the South East have had a long and controversial pedigree with the issue polarised between those who claim connectivity is vital for economic growth and those who believe that 1 airport expansion creates an unjustifiable social and environmental burden. At the time of writing, a UK Government-appointed Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, is evaluating a number of possible options to enhance airport capacity in London and the south east. This paper employs Monte Carlo simulation to provide estimations of the relative effect on airport capacity that five proposals, which are all reportedly under consideration, afford.
    [Show full text]
  • Explosive Ordnance Threat Assessment for Future Works
    Explosive Ordnance Threat Assessment for Future Works Site: MoD Beach & Park Garrison Site, Shoeburyness Client: Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Ref: 6180TA Rev-3 Date: 27th November 2015 Dynasafe BACTEC Limited Make the world a safer place 9, Waterside Court, Galleon Boulevard, Crossways Business Park, Dartford, Kent, DA2 6NX, UK Office: +44 (0) 1322 284 550 www.bactec.com www.dynasafe.com Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Explosive Ordnance Desktop Threat Assessment for Future Works This document was written by, belongs to and is copyright to Dynasafe BACTEC Limited. It contains valuable Dynasafe BACTEC Limited proprietary and confidential information which is disclosed only for the purposes of the client’s assessment and evaluation of the project which is the subject of this report. The contents of this document shall not, in whole or in part (i) be used for any other purposes except such assessment and evaluation of the project; (ii) be relied upon in any way by the person other than the client (iii) be disclosed to any member of the client’s organisation who is not required to know such information nor to any third party individual, organisation or government, or (iv) be copied or stored in any retrieval system nor otherwise be reproduced or transmitted in any form by photocopying or any optical, electronic, mechanical or other means, without prior written consent of the Managing Director, Dynasafe BACTEC Limited, 9 Waterside Court, Galleon Boulevard, Crossways Business Park, Dartford, Kent, DA2 6NX, United Kingdom to whom all requests should be sent. Accordingly, no responsibility or liability is accepted by Dynasafe BACTEC towards any other person in respect of the use of this document or reliance on the information contained within it, except as may be designated by law for any matter outside the scope of this document.
    [Show full text]
  • Holding Pattern: an Analysis of Heathrow Airport’S Capacity Quandary
    Bridgewater State University Virtual Commons - Bridgewater State University Honors Program Theses and Projects Undergraduate Honors Program 4-30-2018 Holding Pattern: An Analysis of Heathrow Airport’s Capacity Quandary Dudley G. Oscar Bridgewater State University Follow this and additional works at: https://vc.bridgew.edu/honors_proj Part of the Aviation Commons Recommended Citation Oscar, Dudley G.. (2018). Holding Pattern: An Analysis of Heathrow Airport’s Capacity Quandary. In BSU Honors Program Theses and Projects. Item 392. Available at: https://vc.bridgew.edu/honors_proj/392 Copyright © 2018 Dudley G. Oscar This item is available as part of Virtual Commons, the open-access institutional repository of Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, Massachusetts. Running head: HOLDING PATTERN Holding Pattern: An Analysis of Heathrow Airport’s Capacity Quandary Dudley G. Oscar Submitted in Partial Completion of the Requirements for Departmental Honors in Aviation Science Bridgewater State University April 30, 2018 Dr. Michael Welch, Thesis Advisor Prof. Michael Farley, Committee Member HOLDING PATTERN 2 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3 Chapter 1: History ......................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 2: To Expand or Not to Expand? .................................................................................... 11 Chapter
    [Show full text]
  • Seascape Character Assessment Report
    Seascape Character Assessment for the South East Inshore marine plan area MMO 1134: Seascape Character Assessment for the South East Inshore marine plan area September 2018 Report prepared by: Land Use Consultants (LUC) Project funded by: European Maritime Fisheries Fund (ENG1595) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Version Author Note 0.1 Sally Marshall First draft desk-based report completed May 2015 Kate Ahern 1.0 Kate Ahern Updated draft final report following stakeholder consultation, August 2018 1.1 Chris Graham, MMO Comments David Hutchinson 2.0 Kate Ahern Final report, September 2018 2.1 Chris Sweeting Independent QA © Marine Management Organisation 2018 You may use and re-use the information featured on this website (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. Visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government- licence/ to view the licence or write to: Information Policy Team The National Archives Kew London TW9 4DU Email: [email protected] Information about this publication and further copies are available from: Marine Management Organisation Lancaster House Hampshire Court Newcastle upon Tyne NE4 7YH Tel: 0300 123 1032 Email: [email protected] Website: www.gov.uk/mmo Disclaimer This report contributes to the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) evidence base which is a resource developed through a large range of research activity and methods carried out by both MMO and external experts. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of MMO nor are they intended to indicate how MMO will act on a given set of facts or signify any preference for one research activity or method over another.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Watch the Latest on London Real Estate
    CAPITAL WATCH THE LATEST ON LONDON REAL ESTATE The Recipe for Great Places ISSUE 01 • 2019 FEATURE SET • 16 IN CONVERSATION • 30 TRENDING • 34 Twitter: Transport: Joe Borrett Proptech VC @CushwakeLDN What's Next Google Welcome What’s Inside Welcome to our winter edition of COVER STORY THE HOT ISSUE Capital Watch! The Recipe for Great Places Who Will Own London At the time of writing, Brexit stands in 2030? on a knife’s edge; the deliberations over the next weeks and months will have significant impacts on our economy, PAGE 03 PAGE 07 which are as yet obscure. However, the ebb and flow of politics and the economy OPINION ROUND-UP tends to be timebound and quickly How Will London Do Business London at a Glance forgotten. Meanwhile other truths stand in the Future? eternal. One such truth is the recipe for creating great places, and this is the PAGE 10 PAGE 12 subject with which we have chosen to lead this edition. Beyond this we look at SPOTLIGHT ON FEATURES who will own our capital and how will we Bloomberg Building Wins Transport: What's Next do business in it in the future. Someone 2018 RIBA Sterling Prize well qualified to offer a view on the future of offices is Google’s real estate chief, PAGE 13 PAGE 16 Joe Borrett, who takes the time to talk workplace and technology with our own LONDON DNA LONDON IN FIGURES Andy Tyler. Marylebone: A Bustling and Transport in London Our themed spread this edition looks Carefully Curated Village in at another critical factor to London’s the Heart of London success, Transport, in respect of which we chart key interventions, consider global PAGE 23 PAGE 25 innovations and look to what’s next.
    [Show full text]
  • Consultation on Revised Draft Airports National Policy Statement
    Consultation on revised draft Airports National Policy Statement Summary report of consultation responses June 2018 A report to the Department for Transport Prepared by OPM Group OPM Group Consultation on revised draft Airports National Policy Statement – Summary report of consultation responses Client Department for Transport Company OPM Group Title Consultation on revised draft Airports National Policy Statement Subtitle Summary report of consultation responses Status Final Classification Public Project Code DfT2 Quality Assurance by Helen Ashley Main point of contact Ilina Georgieva Email [email protected] If you would like a large text version of this document, please contact us. OPM Group 252B Gray’s Inn Road +44 (0)20 7239 7800 London www.opm.co.uk www.dialoguebydesign.co.uk WC1X 8XG [email protected] [email protected] © OPM Group The contents of this document should not be copied, reproduced or disclosed to any third party without prior written permission from a Director at OPM Group. Public Final Page 2 of 150 OPM Group Consultation on revised draft Airports National Policy Statement – Summary report of consultation responses Contents Executive summary ................................................................................................... 5 List of acronyms ........................................................................................................ 9 Chapter 1: About the consultation ..................................................................... 13 Background ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tfl's REPORT to the MAYOR on CONSULTATION
    Draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy Statutory consultation with the public and stakeholders TfL’S REPORT TO THE MAYOR ON CONSULTATION: Appendices 1, 2 and 3 Annexes B and C March 2010 Contents Appendix 1 - List of Stakeholders consulted .............................................................. 3 Appendix 2 - List of Stakeholders who responded to the consultation ..................... 14 Appendix 3 – List of meetings relevant to the development of the draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy.................................................................................................... 19 Annex B – Summary for each stakeholder response received ................................. 24 Annex C - TfL’s consideration of late responses to the consultation ........................
    [Show full text]
  • Airportwatch Bulletin 66 February 2014 Page 1
    AirportWatch bulletin 66 February 2014 Page 1 Page 7 - From John Stewart, Chair of AirportWatch - Scale of taxpayer contribution needed for - Airports Commission consulting on Thames Heathrow or Gatwick runways shown up in estuary airport options – deadlines 14th Feb KPMG report for Airports Commission and 23rd May. Decision whether to short-list - Heathrow to hold 6 week consultation (starting one by September 3rd Feb) with households on their north-west runway plan Page 2 - TESTRAD questions Commission decision to Page 8 rule out their “London Britannia” estuary - CAA decides on only RPI -1.5% charges at airport Heathrow and more controls on Gatwick. No - Airports Commission interim report further price regulation at Stansted recommends setting up an Independent - London Assembly votes against Heathrow Aviation Noise Authority expansion Page 3 Page 9 - A Revolution in Aircraft Noise Measurement? - Committee on Climate Change to report in July - Airports Commission launches 6 week 2014 on climate implications of Davies runway consultation on “appraisal framework” for proposals short-listed runway schemes - Taxpayers to cover Heathrow‟s £160 million contribution to Crossrail Page 4 Page 10 - RunwaysUK conference shows up the - Campaigners target airport investors to warn Gatwick/Heathrow battle and the them off risky investment in politically hub+spoke/point-to-point future of air travel undeliverable 3rd Heathrow runway - Presentation by Tim Johnson, Director of AEF, - WWF‟s “One in Five” challenge has cut at the RunwaysUK conference
    [Show full text]