Airports Commission publishes its “sift criteria” for long term capacity options at UK airports
The Airports Commission has published its “sift criteria” by which it will determine which options for additional long term airport capacity submitted by airport scheme proposers/ developers should be taken forward for more detailed development, “should a need for more capacity be identified.” It sets out a range of criteria on economic, social and environmental matters. For instance, on noise it asks: “What are the noise implications of the proposal? How will the proposal alter current and predicted patterns of noise in the surrounding area? What changes to noise profiles would be seen at other airports as a result of the proposal? What measures are envisaged to limit or reduce the number of people affected by noise?” And on climate it merely asks “How might the proposal compare, in terms of its impact on greenhouse gas emissions, with alternative options for providing a similar amount of additional capacity?” but does add “The Commission’s consideration of climate change will primarily focus on the overall compatibility of any potential growth in UK aviation with national and international climate change frameworks.” See the whole list of sift criteria.
.
Sift criteria for long term capacity options at UK airports
3.5.2013 (Airports Commission)
The relevant DfT policy is : “Making sure UK airports and airlines are safe, secure and competitive while reducing their impacts on the environment and communities”
The Commission announced the composition of its expert panel (see link ) at the same time as the sift criteria.
In their press release Howard Davies said:
…..In addition, our sift criteria underline the Commission’s intention to conduct a process which takes into account the full range of relevant issues, including economic, social, environmental and operational factors.
The sift criteria announced today (3 may 2013) outlines the information required by the Commission in determining which options for additional long term airport capacity should be taken forward for more detailed development, should a need for more capacity be identified.
Guidance document 02: long term capacity options sift criteria
270KB, 25 pages
This is the sift criteria which the Airports Commission will apply to determine which options for additional long term airport capacity submitted by scheme proposers should be taken forward for more detailed development, should a need for more capacity be identified.
.
It is a relatively long document, but copied below are the sections relating to economy and environment
Economy
What are the potential national economic impacts of the proposal?
3.7
The Commission is reviewing the evidence on the links between connectivity and the economy as part of its work programme assessing of the scale and timing of any need for additional aviation capacity in the UK. We have also published a discussion document on this issue. This document summarises the evidence base in relation to this issue and provides an opportunity for those with an interest to submit evidence and make their views known. We invite those developing proposals to set out their assessments of how the additional aviation capacity and connectivity enabled by their proposals impacts upon the nation’s economy as a whole – including supporting growth across the UK’s regions. This could include impacts on trade, foreign direct investment and tourism, as well as how it enhances access to international aviation services for both passenger and freight users throughout the country.
What are the likely impacts of the proposal on the regional/local economies surrounding a) the proposed site for new or enhanced capacity and b) other airports affected by the proposal?
.
3.8
Airports can have a significant impact on the local/regional economies, both in a direct and indirect sense. Scheme promoters should set out their assessment of these effects in their submissions including details of how their assessments have been made. This could include, for example, impacts on local employment opportunities, changes/access to specific pools of labour, local agglomerations and investment, housing stock, impacts on regional business growth and fit with regional strategies. This list is by no means exhaustive and proposers should include any additional impacts and appropriate assessment. This is also an opportunity for those proposals which include changing or closing operations at another site to explain how those changes will affect upon the local/regional economy/s of the other affected site/s, and how they would propose to mitigate and manage those impacts.
What is the likely impact of the proposal on the UK aviation industry? How will other airports be affected by the proposals and what will the impacts of this be for air passengers and other users, airlines and the wider economy?
.
3.9
The aviation sector is in itself a significant contributor to the UK economy. The Commission will be interested in examining the implications of proposals for the health and long term
viability of this sector. This will include making an assessment of the implications for the airline industry, as well as for the ability of the UK’s airports to be competitive upon the international stage and how this environment will benefit air passengers and freight
operators. The Commission will also be interested in the benefits to passengers, other users and the national economy as a result of any changes in the level and nature of competition between airports and/or airports within the UK as well as internationally.
.
Surface access
.
What estimate has been made of the surface access requirements of the proposal for both existing and/or new infrastructure?
.
3.10
For each proposal, the Commission will be interested in understanding how airport users (including passengers and freight users) and workforce will access the airport site. Many of the likely proposals may require the delivery of additional surface transport infrastructure above and beyond existing networks. Where this is the case, the Commission will need to understand the likely scope and estimated cost of this new infrastructure, including how these estimates have been calculated and any assumptions underpinning them. Potential enhancements to existing infrastructure may also need to be considered, particularly where this infrastructure already suffers, or is forecast to suffer from capacity constraints.
.
Does the proposal provide effective surface access for passengers, businesses and relevant freight traffic? Will surface access plans provide the capacity needed for expected future demand? How does the proposal impact upon local traffic and congestion? What is the expected surface access split between public and private transport?
.
3.11
The Commission is interested in how the surface access elements of proposals can meet the needs of the various groups of airport users. Specifically, the Commission is interested in how the airport will be accessible to leisure passengers, business users and freight
and logistics companies who depend upon air freight networks. As part of its work, the Commission will consider issues such as the ability of people and organisations to reach the transport as well as the share between different transport modes. It will also consider the associated benefits of the proposal to wider transport users and the impact upon local traffic and congestion issues. Issues around mode share, (showing the percentage of passengers arriving by public and private transport) may be of particular relevance to the Commission’s considerations of environmental factors such as air quality, emissions and noise, as well as to their implications for transport issues such as congestion.
.
How will the proposal change journey times from major business and population centres for users of aviation services?
.
3.12
Efficient journeys between airports and major population and business centres are of particular importance to many airport users. Accordingly, the Commission would be interested in understanding the likely end-to-end journey times between key business hubs, population centres and the airport site, and how these differ from the current and forecast situation without the proposed new infrastructure. This should not be restricted to access from important locations in London and the South East, as well as other business clusters such as in the Thames Valley and around Cambridge, but should also consider journey times to major conurbations and economic centres elsewhere in the UK. This might also include identifying changes to journey times resulting from impacts on other airports (e.g. where the closure or scaling back of another airport leads to a deterioration in access to air services from some areas).
.
Environment
.
Air quality
.
What are the air quality implications of the proposal (including impacts due to aircraft, air side operation and local surface transport links)? Are these consistent with the legal frameworks for air quality? What mitigation plans are proposed?
.
3.13
The Commission is interested in understanding any air quality implications of proposals, including those associated with aircraft and airside operations and from local surface transport links. Where any locations already identified as Air Quality Management Areas might be affected, either positively or negatively, this should be documented, and where any risk of exceeding air quality thresholds is identified, scheme developers should explain how they would mitigate these effects to comply with the legal frameworks governing this issue. As with other criteria, scheme promoters should consider effects both at the proposed site for new infrastructure, but also at any other sites that may be affected as a result.
.
Noise
What are the noise implications of the proposal? How will the proposal alter current and predicted patterns of noise in the surrounding area? What changes to noise profiles would be seen at other airports as a result of the proposal? What measures are envisaged to limit or reduce the number of people affected by noise?
.
3.14
We recognise that the noise impacts of proposals for additional aviation capacity are an important concern for stakeholders. The Commission is therefore interested in understanding the noise implications for any proposals made. This should include information on both day and night noise impacts and on any measures the proposer intends to limit or reduce the number of people affected by noise. In setting out their proposals, scheme developers may wish to have reference to the Government’s Noise Policy (NPSE), the Aviation Policy Framework and the National Planning Policy Framework. Those affected by changes in airport capacity may not be restricted to the areas and communities in the vicinity of communities close to other airports that may be affected by any proposal. For example, if a proposal assumes the closure or scaling back of an existing airport, or changes to arrival and/or departure routes, these assumptions would need to be documented and the noise implications for both locations considered in the submission. Proposed scheme developers should also consider any significant noise implications of surface access.
.
3.15
As well as setting out changes in noise impacts for local communities, scheme promoters should also consider whether their proposals would have other noise impacts that should be taken into account – for example, in relation to increases in noise over previously tranquil areas, including but not limited to National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Where there is potential for such impacts to occur, proposers should document this in their submissions, including the potential trade offs between tranquillity and community noise impacts that might be made.
.
3.16
Proposers should explain in their submissions how their noise assessments have been derived, including setting out any methodologies used and the baseline scenario which they have adopted for comparison with their proposal. Any assumptions underpinning this baseline or the assessed impacts of the proposal, for instance in relation to expected changes in aerospace technology, should be documented in the proposal.
.
Designated sites
Does the proposal affect any designated sites (for example Sites of Scientific Interest or Special Protection Areas) and if so how might any effects be managed?
.
3.17
The Commission is keen to understand the impacts of proposals upon any designated environmental sites. These may include, for example Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Special Areas of Conservation or Ramsar sites amongst others 5. Where a proposal might have implications for any designated site, proposers should document this in their submission, and set out any measures they would put in place to mitigate these effects. It should be noted that effects may not be restricted to designated sites in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site for new capacity. Scheme proposers should consider where appropriate the relevant environmental regulations and directives governing this area. Proposers should clearly state the assumptions they have made and assess whether any residual impacts may remain following mitigation.
5 For more detail on designated sites, see the Natural England website at: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designations/
.
Climate change
.
How might the proposal compare, in terms of its impact on greenhouse gas emissions, with alternative options for providing a similar amount of additional capacity?
.
3.18
The Commission’s consideration of climate change will primarily focus on the overall compatibility of any potential growth in UK aviation with national and international climate change frameworks. This is because the climate change impact of a given number of flights is not expected to vary greatly due to the geographic location of the airport from which they depart (e.g. the emissions from a given number of flights departing from Heathrow is likely to be broadly equivalent to the same number of flights departing from Gatwick). However, the Commission will consider whether any proposal made could generate significantly greater or fewer emissions relative to other potential options. This might potentially include, for example, carbon emissions resulting from construction, airport operations or surface access. Scheme developers may therefore consider in their submissions whether there are specific carbon implications of their proposals which may differentiate them from other potential options. They should also set out any plans or measures proposed to deliver reductions in carbon emissions over time.
.
Other
.
What other significant local environmental impacts should be taken into account?
.
3.19
Where proposals may have other significant environmental impacts beyond those outlined above, these should be identified and documented. This might include, for example, impacts on landscape and/or townscape, water availability and flooding, biodiversity or historical and archaeological sites. In considering potential environmental impacts, scheme developers may wish to have reference to the factors set out in DEFRA’s Sustainable Development Indicators.
.
People
.
How will the proposal impact upon the passenger experience (eg. choice, cost, accessibility, etc.)?
3.20
The Commission is keen to understand the impacts of proposals upon the end users of aviation. Accordingly, the Commission will consider issues such as the impacts of proposals on issues such as the range of choice of routes and carriers available to passengers and the cost of air travel. This may include consideration of the implications of proposals for the competitive markets which currently exist within the aviation industry, as well as the extent to which proposals could enhance or limit access to aviation service for customers from different geographical areas and social groupings.
.
What are the likely local social impacts of the proposal, including impacts around the proposed location for new capacity and around any other airports which would be affected, for example on: employment, housing and local communities, vulnerable groups, quality of life and health
.
3.21
The Commission believes that its decisions must take into account a broad range of social impacts and we are therefore interested in examining the implications, both positive and negative, of proposals for communities and urban areas in the vicinity of the proposed sites.
.
3.22
Airports play a substantial role in the economic life of their neighbouring communities, both as direct employers but also indirectly through the businesses which support them, and scheme developers should consider the potential employment implications of their proposals, including for example the potential scale and nature of any job creation resulting from the proposal, and details of how any significant changes to the local workforce could be enabled and accommodated. Submissions should also consider where appropriate the potential consequences of changes at other airports, and if necessary how any negative effects might be mitigated. They should also set out how any quantified employment effects have been calculated and the assumptions used.
3.23
Other relevant social impacts could include impacts on regeneration, where proposals support broader plans to promote growth and development in deprived areas, or impacts on local housing and associated infrastructure – for example, where construction would require significant numbers of demolitions or where new housing, schools etc would be required to support the proposal and its workforce. Where there is a risk that vulnerable groups or particular communities would be disproportionately affected, whether in the vicinity of the new capacity or any other site, this should be noted and any proposed mitigation explained. Effects on health, both positive and negative should also be given consideration.
.
3.24
These assessments may be used to make an overall assessment of the impacts of proposals on local and regional quality of life. In doing so, scheme developers may also wish to set out whether and how their proposals might support any wider local or metropolitan strategies
.
What other significant wider social impacts of the proposal should be taken into account?
.
3.25
Where parties developing proposals have identified other significant social impacts beyond those outlined above which they believe may be relevant to
the Commission’s deliberations, these should be identified and documented.
.
How does the proposer plan to engage with local communities in taking forward their plans?
.
3.26
In order for any proposal to be deliverable, the involvement and engagement of local communities will be vital. The Commission is therefore interested in understanding how the proposer plans to engage with local communities, including local authorities, local businesses and other community stakeholders, as part of the development of their proposal. This will also help to inform the development of appropriate public engagement processes if the proposal is taken forward into Phase 2 for further assessment.
.
.
.
See also
Airports Commission unveils new expert panel
Date added: May 3, 2013
The Airports Commission has announced the composition of its new expert panel, the job of which is to ensure the Commission has access to good scientific and technical expertise in its deliberations. Sir Howard Davies said, of the panel: “The experts we have appointed bring a wide range of skills and experience, and will ensure the Commission has access to a broad spectrum of quality scientific and technical expertise as we progress our work.” There are several experts on the panel with environmental expertise; Professor Helen ApSimon – studies Air Pollution; Dr Charlotte Clark works on Environmental and Mental Health Epidemidogy, including noise; Professor Piers Forster; works on Physical Climate Change with interest in forest: Dr Andrew Kempton works on noise for Rolls Royce; Professor Andreas Schäfer works on Energy and Transport; Professor Keith P. Shine is head of the Atmospheric Radiation and Climate group at Reading University including radiative forcing; and Professor Callum Thomas; Professor of Sustainable Aviation, Manchester Metropolitan University (by training, a bird biologist). There is some biographical detail about all the expert panel members.
Click here to view full story…