SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL REPORT TO Leader and Cabinet 28 th November 2002 AUTHOR: Planning Director Purpose SOUTH EAST REGIONAL AIRPORT STRATEGY 1. To determine the Council s response to the consultation by the Department for Transport on the South East Regional Airport Strategy (SERAS). 2. This paper was reported to Planning Policy Advisory Group on 11 th November and should be read in conjunction with the draft minutes of the meeting (Appendix 1). Background 3. Air passenger numbers have risen by 462% in the last 30 years, from 32 million in 1970 to 180 million in 2000. The projected demand, if unrestricted, would treble to 500 million passengers per annum (mppa) by 2030, 300 million in the south-east. This would be the equivalent of another 5 or 6 new Heathrows. 4. At the same time the UK airports are reaching capacity. Following the publication of the White Paper in 1998, the Government is now proposing to look ahead 30 years in an Air Transport White Paper which will provide for the long-term future of aviation and airports in the UK. The Government has therefore embarked upon one of its largest public consultation exercise with the publication of a number of studies looking at regional airport development. One of these regional studies is for the south east and east of England and is known as SERAS. 5. The existing situation at airports in the south east is: Heathrow: the runways are full for 15 hours a day (Gatwick is in a similar position, but less severe) Stansted: operating close to the permitted level of 15mppa (although recently granted an extension to 25mppa) Heathrow has a problem with operating efficiency due to congestion (65% flights were delayed in 4 th quarter of 2000) A shortage of slots at the main London airports and their high value has reduced the numbers of internal flights to regional airports in the UK 6. The SERAS study had the following objectives: To develop a better understanding of the demand for, and constraints on, airports and air service development in the South East and East of England, consider how
these might be addressed, and evaluate how any future proposals might impact on the aviation strategies being developed for other parts of the UK. To examine options for the sustainable development of airports and air services in the area over the next 30 years as a key input to the preparation of a new national airports policy statement. To ensure that full consideration is given in the development of airports and air service provision to the environmental, economic, employment, housing and transport implications, in the light of regional economic and spatial planning objectives for London, the South East and the East of England; and to inform future reviews of Regional Planning Guidance and the Regional Development Agencies regional strategies for the three regions. 7. The consultation on South East airports seeks to address three questions: Should new airport capacity be provided in the South East over the next 30 years and if so, how much? A particular issue is whether there is a case for having at least one major hub airport. Where should any new airport capacity be located? A particular issue is whether or not Heathrow should be developed further. What measures would be needed to control and mitigate the environmental impacts of any airport growth? Meeting or Managing Demand 8. The SERAS and other regional studies appear to be based on projecting demand and meeting it. There is reference to the environmental consequences but not as that set out inppg13 on transport where Government policy is clearly stated as being designed to reduce the need to travel for reasons of sustainability. There is considerable evidence that air travel is in fact the most energy consuming and environmentally polluting form of travel. 9. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (Transport and the Environment) which was published in 1994 set out the energy consumption for various modes at typical occupancy as follows: Express coach 0.3 megajoules per passenger-km Diesel 125 train 0.8 ײ ײ Small diesel car 1.2 ײ ײ Small petrol car 1.4 ײ ײ Large diesel car 1.8 ײ ײ Large petrol car 2.8 ײ ײ Air, internal flight 3.5 ײ ײ 10. Although efficiency has increased since 1994 there is no evidence to suggest that the relative disparities between these modes has changed significantly. The Royal Commission concluded that aircraft are more environmentally damaging than other modes and that An unquestioning attitude towards future growth in air travel, and an
acceptance that the projected demand for additional facilities and services must be met, are incompatible with the aim of sustainable development. 11. The Government studies including SERAS place great emphasis on the potential adverse impacts of not meeting projected future demand. However the environmental consequences, including the impact on health, are regarded as essentially local issues. Yet one source estimates that a jumbo jet expels into the air as many pollutants, including nitrous oxides, causing smog, acid rain and a reduction in ozone as 1,000 cars. The suggestion that demand should be met must therefore be questionable if the Government is to retain credibility on its overall commitment to sustainable transport. The Government imposes high levels of fuel tax on road traffic yet there is no equivalent taxation at this level on aviation fuel. There may therefore be strong arguments for imposing additional taxation, either through an environmental tax or a levy on aviation fuel, or both so that air travel meets its true environmental costs as the Government is continually reminding the motoring public. Such fiscal measures could reduce the demand for travel and bring air transport into line with PPG13. Planning Policy Committee considered the Government s consultation paper on The Future of Aviation in February 2001 and resolved to question whether the lack of any reference to the need to travel in respect of aviation is consistent with the Government s policy for transport by other modes which use fossil fuels. Options for new airport capacity and their impacts 12. The airports considered in SERAS are shown in Figure 1 and the options put forward for addressing the air capacity issue are set out below: Figure 1: South East Airports considered in SERAS
Heathrow: one additional short runway Gatwick: no additional development proposed Stansted: options of one, two or three new runways Luton: realign or replace the existing runway to the south Cliffe: new airport with two or four runways London City, Southampton, Norwich: retention and enhancement to cater for local markets Alconbury: create a specialised low cost airport with substantial air freight capabilities Cambridge: no contribution due to noise constraints and the possibility of redevelopment for housing Other: Biggin Hill, Farnborough (no contribution due to planning constraints), Lydd, Manston, Shoreham and Southend provide limited local capacity 13. The potential increase in capacity of each of major schemes proposed is shown in Table 1 in Appendix 2. The table shows the base case of each airport at 2000, compared with the potential capacity with each of the proposed options. 14. Each of these options has been evaluated in the SERAS study against a number of factors, including noise, residential properties taken, land taken, heritage, ecology, local air quality, impact on water resources and regional planning issues. This information is summarised in Table 2 in Appendix 3. It recognises that Many of these factors are important determinants of local people s health and some of these concerns are built into the appraisal. It considers them to be essentially local issues. After each airport section I have added an officer comment in italics. HEATHROW 15. Terminal 5 is due to open in 2008, which will provide a capacity of the airport with two runways of around 89mppa. An option of a third 2000m runway is proposed, which would be half the length of the existing two and would not be suitable for large aircraft. 16. In addition, there would need to be a number of surface improvements, including signalling improvements on the rail network and a new rail line. Highway improvements would be needed on the A4 and M4 spur and a new southern link in a tunnel to the M3. However, this would also bring forward capacity problems on the M3, M4 and M25. Comment: Successive Governments have said that they would limit further development at Heathrow, and as such, any proposals are likely to meet fierce opposition from local residents. Any further development at the airport will lead to increased surface travel which it would not be possible to serve with high speed trains like European counterparts and generate increased traffic on the highways, adding to already congested routes.
GATWICK 17. BAA signed a planning agreement with West Sussex County Council in 1979 agreeing not to construct a second runway before 2019. On this basis a runway would not be open before 2024, late on in the 30-year period, and it has not been included. The omission from the options of Gatwick is now the subject of a legal challenge from Kent County Council. STANSTED 18. Stansted currently handles 15mppa, but has received permission to expand to 25mppa. With one runway this could expand to 35mppa. However, there are options for one, two or three new runways. The larger options would change the role of Stansted into a second international hub airport, particularly if no further expansion is proposed in the south-east. 19. There would be a requirement for new rail infrastructure in the form of a second rail tunnel from the airport to West Anglia main line and additional tracks would also be needed with the addition of one runway. If more than one runway is built, the additional frequency of service to London would require a new railway south of the airport. With the largest expansion, there may also be a need for an additional railway to the east, allowing services to Norwich, Ipswich and Chelmsford. In addition, new highway infrastructure would be required to provide dual-carriageway links from the airport to the A120 and M11, and even improvements to sections of the M11 as well as other works to cater for the growth in traffic. Comment: Expansion of Stansted has serious implications for the Cambridge sub-region. Due to the closeness of the airport, development of several runways will have a significant impact upon the city of Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire District. Expansion would result in a sectoral shift in employment from more distant areas. In addition, this is likely to present demand for a further 83,000 houses with the development of all the extra runways, which would put the current employment and housing markets under considerable stress and would result in a fundamental change in settlement pattern. It represents a major deviation from a carefully worked out strategy for the area being pursued through Regional Planning Guidance and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan. As such, it is a compelling reason for arguing against Stansted s expansion. There are also clear ramifications for the next Regional Planning Guidance (RPG14) for the east of England which is currently at consultation on options also to be discussed at the meeting. English Heritage has in particular made expressed considerable alarm at the implications of major expansion at Stansted, and quote the Inspector at the Third London Airport Public Inquiry as saying A statement should be made on behalf of Government in unequivocal terms that the principle of developing Stansted beyond the capacity of its existing runway has now been abandoned and that it should never be brought forward again. Again he is quoted as saying that the impacts would be a catastrophe in environmental terms and that no landscaping scheme
could ever be devised which would effectively offset the impact of such a vast development affecting such an enormous area. Further development at Stansted would result in a significant increase in surface movements. The London to South Midlands (LSMMMS) and Cambridge to Huntingdon (CHUMMS) Multi Modal Studies have not taken this into account. Whilst improvements are currently being made to the M11 junction 8 to cope with current travel demand, they may not be sufficient to cope with the additional traffic generated. The M11 and A14, which are already heavily congestion during peak periods, would be stretched to over capacity. It may be easier to provide high-speed rail access to Stansted than Heathrow, by adding an extra two tracks on the Stansted Express route in the Lea Valley. However, the proposed improvements to the rail network would benefit London bound travellers and provide little to benefit passengers from Cambridge and the southeast. This would in turn exacerbate problems of road traffic in the area. LUTON 20. The Bedfordshire Structure Plan allows the airport to expand to a capacity of 10mppa and there are two options for replacing the existing runway with a new 3000m runway. However, there are no proposals for any additional runways. 21. There are already planned enhancements to the rail network, namely to Thameslink, Thameslink 2000 and Midland mainline. There is also scope to extend the Luton- Dunstable guided bus to the airport via the Airport Parkway station. A new Luton northeast bypass and widening of the A1081 from the M1 to Airport Way are required with the replacement runway. By 2030, there will need to be remedial measures on the M1 between junctions 9 and 13 to deal with a growth in traffic. Comment: The proposal for Luton is one of the least harmful of those proposed in the study. It also has the benefits of generating employment in an area designated for economic regeneration and there is also the flexibility to accommodate additional housing required. CLIFFE 22. Cliffe provides the opportunity to provide a purpose-built hub airport with four runways, although there would be significant environmental impact on the natural environment. The main reasons SERAS selected Cliffe as an option were: The availability of sufficient land for a major new airport Potentially good surface transport links with London and other areas The relatively low numbers of people affected by aircraft noise Potential for 24-hour operation to meet the needs of air freight The support an airport could give to regeneration policies in the Thames Gateway
23. There would be a range of rail links for regional and express services, provided by the North Kent Line and to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. In addition, a multi-modal crossing of the Thames could provide a rail connection to the Tilbury-Southend line and there could be scope for rail connections through Crossrail. 24. The principle road connections to Cliffe would be links to the A2/M2 via the proposed Lower Thames Crossing to the A13/A128. Additional traffic created by the airport would require improvements to the A13 and capacity problems on the eastern sections of the M25 would arise sooner. When the airport reaches full size, there may also be a requirement for an additional road crossing of the Thames to provide better access to the Essex labour market and relieve crossings to the west. Comment: Whilst Cliffe airport would have major ecological impacts, it would also provide valuable employment in an area where there are 100,000 more people than jobs. With a local workforce, employment could be met with only limited additional housing development, for which there is some previously developed land available. There are excellent opportunities for high-speed rail links to the airport, providing a viable alternative to travel by road. It could also assist in the regeneration of the Thames Gateway areas of south Essex and north Kent. ALCONBURY 25. The SERAS study suggests that Alconbury has the potential to become a specialised low cost passenger airport with substantial air freight capabilities, an express parcel hub and aircraft maintenance facilities. It has an existing runway, access to the south east market, good strategic road and rail infrastructure, and, it is claimed, is significantly remote from large population centres allowing the possibility of night time operations. 26. Alconbury would be able to handle 1 million tonnes of freight annually, rising to 1.25 tonnes by 2030 and 5mppa with the existing runway constraints in the south east. However, if additional capacity is provided elsewhere, Alconbury could handle around a quarter of a million tonnes of freight and just over 1mppa. 27. Improvements would be needed to the A1(M)/A14 junction and a new access road, as well as a rail spur into the airport from the East Coast Main Line. 28. The study suggests that most of the employment could be met from the local labour market without having to attract people in from outside the area and that all the land needed for business and housing could be accommodated locally. Comment: Following the publication of the Cambridge Airport Study, Marshall Aerospace is considering various options including a potential move to Alconbury. A regional airport at Alconbury would provide employment opportunity within the Cambridge sub-region
without having to attract people from outside the area and thus reduce the need for additional housing development. This would be less likely if the full scale option were to be developed, as the study suggests 12,000 jobs could be created which would seem unlikely to be met from the immediate labour force. However, there are potential issues surrounding access, which may require improvements to local infrastructure, particularly the A1(M) and A14 and a new rail spur. Other considerations 29. The SERAS report is one of seven consultation documents covering the whole of the UK, as shown in Figure 2. It is important to consider what is proposed in other areas, as they can have implications for the south-east region. Figure 2: Airport consultation in the UK 30. Proposals in the Midlands include an option for a new airport in Church Lawford, situated between Coventry and Rugby. This proposal is only likely to be economically viable if there were no significant degree of capacity provided for in the south-east and it also assumes the closure of Birmingham International airport in 2011. Such an airport could generate wider economic benefits to the regional economy in the Midlands. It is expected that closure of Birmingham and Coventry airports and the creation of a new airport site could generate in the region of 100,000 jobs (direct and indirect) and present an opportunity for redevelopment, including 21,000 additional houses (20% of the Structure Plan requirement). It would also take trips from outside the region, mainly the south east, which would help to relieve pressure. 31. The paper covering the North of England focuses on Manchester airport, which already has two runways, the only other airport to Heathrow with twin runway capacity. There is potential to raise the profile of the airport in the European hierarchy. Even with two runways Manchester has the potential to accommodate 70mppa by the end of the forecasting period, larger numbers than Heathrow today. Implications are that Manchester could become the UK s largest charter airport and even an alternative
international hub, which could help claw back North of England traffic from the south east. 32. Expansion of Manchester airport could generate around 33,000 jobs by 2030, meeting local objectives for regeneration in the region. Labour could be pooled from the unemployment black spots in the east and south of Manchester. However, large numbers of the population (over 46mppa) would be affected by noise and many will be exposed to air quality in excess of the pollutant limits under the high growth scenario. In addition, growth of the airport beyond 30mppa will require limited highway improvements to relieve congestion on the M56 and the wider motorway network, including M6, M56 and M60. The South East Manchester Multi-Modal Study also identified the possibility of building an eastern link road to the airport. 33. The London to South Midlands and Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi Modal Studies did not include scenarios for further development at Stansted Airport, or the associated housing development which would be required. As a result, recommendations from the two studies dealt with lower levels of forecast traffic growth and were not designed to accommodate the significant levels likely to arise for expansion of Stansted. This in turn could have serious implications for the regions already congested infrastructure. 34. Stansted airport is currently used as a diversionary airport in the event of hijacking situations. If Stansted were to be expanded to a hub airport, presumably there would be a requirement for an alternative standby airport. This issue has not been dealt with by the consultation paper. Conclusions 35. The consultation paper raises a number of important issues surrounding air travel, not only in the southeast but also throughout the UK. There is no easy solution to meeting or managing future demand for air travel but care needs to be taken to ensure that proposals outlined in SERAS have minimal adverse impact upon the Cambridge sub-region. 36. It is important to also take into account Regional Planning Guidance 14, currently the subject of consultation on options, and the implications for future development in the region. It suggests continuing economic growth for the Cambridge area, particularly in terms of hi-tech development. Proposals for major expansion of Stansted could have serious implications for the area, generating severe development pressures not only close to Stansted itself, but also in the Cambridge Sub-Region. If there is pressure to develop major airport capacity in the south east, a new airport at Cliffe has certain advantages. Not withstanding the serious environmental implications of the development, an airport at Cliffe would provide valuable employment in an area where there are 100,000 more people than jobs, and such employment could be met locally, reducing the need for significant additional housing development. The location of the airport has excellent opportunities for high-speed rail links, providing a viable alternative to travel by car, whereas this is a major constraint at Stansted. 37. Further information on RPG 14 is contained in a separate Cabinet paper.
38. None. 39. None. Financial Implications Legal Implications Staffing Implications 40. Continuing involvement of Planning Policy staff. Sustainability Implications 41. Significant as set out in the report. Recommendation 42. It is recommended that this Council makes the following comments to the Department for Transport: Government should consider environmental impacts and tax fuel properly to reflect the true cost which would manage future demand in a way consistent with Government objectives on sustainable transport. There would be significant advantages, in terms of regeneration in giving priority to the development of regional airports outside the south-east. Manchester in particular has the potential to develop further as a hub airport. Whilst it is accepted that this could not totally substitute for additional capacity in the southeast, it would reduce the overall additional capacity needed in the south-east with there being less environmental problems as a result. Object to major additional capacity at Stansted would impact on carefully planned strategy in RPG/Structure Plan and have serious implications of noise, urbanisation, development pressures and traffic implications. If Stansted were expanded, what alternative provision would be made for emergency diversionary situations? Support further expansion of Luton because of its employment regeneration opportunities and the ability to support additional support housing Support the development of regional air facilities at Alconbury subject to further feasibility and transport studies. The priority for Alconbury should be the accommodation of Marshall Aerospace, the potential to develop an aerospace business cluster together with a regional airport rather than a small national budget carrier or freight facility which would serve national rather than subregional needs Support there being little scope for further development at Cambridge Airport and that, subject to Marshall Aerospace finding an acceptable alternative location, this presents a long term opportunity for the urban expansion of Cambridge
If major capacity has to be provided in the south-east, then Cliffe offers the best opportunity to develop an international hub airport with significant opportunities for regeneration in the Thames Gateway. Background Papers: Cambridgeshire Draft Structure Plan 2002. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 1994 Cambridge Airport Study, Stage 1 and Stage 2,Arup Economics & Planning July 2002. The Future development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East, Dept. for Transport, July 2002. Consultation on options leading to Regional Planning Guidance for the East of England 2021, East of England Local Government Conference September 2002. The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East: Stansted Proposals, English Heritage, October 2002. Contact Officers: Michael Monk, Principal Planning Policy Officer 01223 443182 Claire Spencer, Senior Planning Policy Officer 01223 443418
APPENDIX 2 Table 1: Capacity benefits of additional development Terminal passengers (mppa) HEATHROW Use of airport in 2000 64 460,000 Capacity/forecast in 2030 with Terminal 5 89 480,000 Capacity/forecast with 1 new runway in 2030 (Additional terminals/facilities and advances in air traffic control) 116 655,000 (128) STANSTED Use of airport in 2000 12 133,000 Maximum use of existing runway 35 260,000 Forecast in 2030 26 231,000 Capacity with 1 new runway 82 513,000 Forecast with 1 new runway in 2030 74 492,000 Capacity with 2 new runways 102 637,000 Forecast with 2 new runways in 2030 98 624,000 Capacity with 3 new runways 129 756,000 Forecast with 3 new runways in 2030 122 746,000 LUTON Use of airport in 2000 6 54,000 Capacity / forecast in 2030 10 100,000 Either runway option capacity 31 240,000 Forecast in 2030 29 221,000 CLIFFE Capacity with 2 runways 77 530,000 Forecast with 2 runways in 2015 58 436,000 Capacity with 4 runways 113 781,000 Forecast with 4 runways in 2030 110 712,000 Air transport movements (Annual ATMs)
APPENDIX 3 Table 2: Impacts of airport proposals DAYTIME NOISE (population exposed to >57 decibels) DAYTIME NOISE Area km 2 LAND / HERITAGE HEATHROW STANSTED LUTON CLIFFE 2000 2030 2000 2030 2000 2030 2000 2030 307,000 332,000 6,000 2 350km Loss of 260 residential properties Loss of 228ha agricultural land (all Green Belt) Loss of 1 church, 1 Grade I & 8 Grade II Listed buildings 14,000-28,000 8,000 365km 2 131km 2 286-524km 2 49km 2 Loss of 100 (1 runway) or 200 (2/3 runways) residential properties Loss of 700ha (1 runway) or 1200ha (2/3 runways) of high grade agricultural land Loss of 2 Scheduled Ancient Monuments (+ third 3 runway), 1 Grade II* (2/3 runways), 29 (1 runway), 50 (2 runways) or 64 (3 runways) Grade II Listed buildings Encroachment onto land designated as a countryside protection zone 19,000 (Southern) 14,000 (realigned) 112km 2 (Southern)1 07km 2 (realigned) Loss of 10 residential properties Loss of just over 100ha agricultural land Loss of 2 Grade II Listed buildings (realignment) or none (southern) affected 0 14,000 0 311km 2 Loss of 1100 residential properties (some holiday homes) Loss of 2,000ha agricultural land Loss of 1 Grade I, 1 Grade II* and 7 Grade II Listed buildings Ecology Impact on several national & internal designated areas Thames Estuary & Marshes Special Protection Area and Ramsar site & Northward Hill SSSI/National Nature Reserve Risk of large birds colliding with aircraft
AIR QUALITY (population exposed to levels of nitrogen dioxide exceeding EU limits) WATER REGIONAL PLANNING By 2015, 35,000 people affected, which could drop by 5,000 if faster engine technology improvements are made Surface and groundwater at risk (can be controlled through appropriate management) Extra passengers will put additional demand on water resources Within the Western Policy Area designed to put minimal additional pressure on limited labour and land resources Could add 30,000 additional jobs at Heathrow in 2015 (falling to 10,000 in 2030) and more off site Associated requirements for land for housing and business will require further loss of Green Belt Small number exposed 20 by 2015 and no more than 300 by 2030 All options require several rivers to be diverted significant impact Extra passengers will put additional demand on water resources Impacts on wider London/Stansted/ Cambridge subregion Increase from 10,000 jobs to between 57,000 and 93,000 by 2030 Require significant change in land allocation, especially for housing Would need to attract workforce from further afield Not part of the current planning policy for the area Small number exposed by 2015 - less 50 people (southern) & none (realigned) Groundwater risk to major aquifer (can be mitigated through appropriate construction techniques) Extra passengers will put additional demand on water resources Designated an Area for Economic Regeneration and would welcome more employment Employment could grow from 9,000 to 21,000 by 2030 Modest amount of housing would be required in excess of planned provision but there is flexibility to accommodate it No population is predicted to be exposed to levels of nitrogen dioxide that exceed EU limits Destroys marshes and creeks and increases risk of flooding elsewhere on the peninsula Extra passengers will put additional demand on water resources Generate economic development in Thames Gateway an area in need of regeneration Employment could grow to 53,000 by 2015 and 79,000 by 2030 Current labour catchment has 100,000 more workers than jobs Additional 162,000 homes might be provided by Regional Planning Guidance