LAX_LHR ... Nowhere do I suggest 'wiping' large swathes of existing housing from anywhere. Where did that idea come from? However, that doesn't make it a great idea to stick high-density car parking on fields in the undershoot of an intensively used runway (which is a different issue altogether). The issue here is not whether it is better to impact onto housing or parked cars, but whether it is better to impact onto densely parked cars or open farmland in the event of an accident. As you say, I'm sure H&S boxes have been ticked, but expedient saving on construction costs is clearly triumphant over real-world safety precautions in this instance. And certainly no consideration has been given to environmental consequences. A large multi-storey car park integrated with Airport City would not have cost mega-bucks in the context of major airport expenditure.
MAN777 ... I accept your comment that you were not being dismissive. No personal offence is intended. One factual correction though: the block of houses which was aligned with the runway threshold was demolished relatively recently. The first block of remaining houses to the east of Shadow Moss Road is offset to the right of the approach (with the runway threshold at your back). They are certainly close to the runway but not in line with it.
Speaking generally (not to anybody in particular), the mindset that boxes have been ticked so we can all be complacent now is not commensurate with the safety culture that a major airport deserves. Yes, there have been thousands upon thousands of safe movements at MAN. But it only takes one slip to break that cycle so there is no room for complacency if we want our good run to continue. The safety record needs to be proactively earned by implementing best practice, not entrusted to chance and casino odds. We should not work down to the lowest common denominator in this industry (well airport XXX has a car park in a dodgy spot so it must be OK for us too).