Transport Select Committee wants rapid decision on runway location – then sort out the problems later …..

The Commons Transport Select Committee, chaired by Louise Ellman (for years a strong advocate of a larger Heathrow) has published a report that wants the government to make a rapid decision on the location of a new south east runway. Ms Ellman says Patrick Mcloughlin should set out a clear timetable of the decision making process. He should also set out what research the government has already done and what remains to be done. The Committee wants a decision in order to, in its view, remove uncertainty for business so companies can be planning and investing. The report is entirely of the view that a runway is needed for links to emerging markets.  It ignores the reality that most journeys are for leisure, and it ignores the huge costs to the taxpayer, of either scheme. The Committee wants a location decision, and somehow believes that all other environmental and infrastructure problems will then (magically?) be sorted out. They say: “… we believe that the noise and environmental effects can be managed as part of the pre-construction phase after a decision has been made on location, as can the challenge of improving surface access.” So decide first – with what is likely to be a bad decision – and work out how to deal with the intractable, and inevitable, problems later.  Is that a sensible course of action for a responsible government?  

.

 

Government urged to set clear timetable for airport expansion

4 May 2016
Transport Select Committee website

The opportunity to end decades of political dithering on airport expansion has been squandered, says the Transport Committee in its report on airport expansion in the South East.

In the report, the Transport Committee urges the Secretary of Stateto set out a clear timetable for expansion, making clear the measures which have been accepted or rejected and the work which needs to be completed.

The report concludes that arguments for and against expansion have changed little in a quarter of a century. The Committee continues to back Heathrow, with the package of accompanying measures recommended by the Airports Commission.

Chair’s comments

Chair of the Transport Committee, Louise Ellman MP, [who has been in favour of Heathrow for many years] said:

“The Government must make up its mind. The decision on location is not the end of the process, it is the start of one. Real progress cannot begin until the location is declared. Work on environmental issues can run in parallel with other pre-construction work.Across the world, cities are collectively planning to build more than 50 new runways with capacity to serve one billion additional passenger journeys by 2036. The growth of large hubs in the Middle and Far East and North America threatens our position as a hub of international aviation. The UK’s connectivity with the world’s emerging markets is a major concern.The months ticking by constitute time wasted for the UK’s economic prosperity. UK PLC needs to know that a decision will be taken. Doing nothing means the UK continues to lose out.”

Background

The report documents the progress of the debate on airport expansion from the 1990s to the December 2015 statement in the House. The Secretary of State, Patrick McLoughlin MP, said the case for expansion was ‘clear’ but further work was needed before a decision could be taken on location. The Government indicated that the work should ‘conclude over the summer’ so that the timetable for delivering additional capacity by 2030 could be met.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/transport-committee/news-parliament-2015/airport-expansion-report-published-15-16/

.


Government must resolve air quality before going ahead with airport expansion

4 May 2016 (ClientEarth)

The Transport Select Committee have issued a report on airport expansion calling on the government to set out a clear timetable for expansion, making clear the measures which have been accepted or rejected and the work which needs to be completed. In December the Department for Transport confirmed that new runways at Heathrow or Gatwick, or extension of an existing runway at Heathrow – were “viable”.

More work required before Heathrow expansion

It also announced further work on noise, pollution and compensation would be carried out before it made a decision on which project to support. It expects this will be completed by the summer.

The select committee report states that work on environmental issues can run in parallel with other pre-construction work.

ClientEarth Chief Executive James Thornton said:

“Air pollution is a major and unresolved concern for Heathrow and must be dealt with before any decision is made to go ahead. It would be economic madness to begin any construction before resolving the crucial issue of air quality which is damaging the health of people living and working around Heathrow and further afield.”

“Greater London already has illegal levels of air pollution, which the Supreme Court has ordered the Government to bring within legal limits as soon as possible.”

“For once, we are in agreement with the Department for Transport – that more work on the environmental impacts, including air quality, is required before any work on any new runways can begin.”

http://www.dev.clientearth.org/government-must-resolve-air-quality-going-ahead-airport-expansion/


Guardian article:

Heathrow expansion opportunity squandered, MPs say

Transport secretary urged to commit to timetable in light of Airports Commission report backing third runway

By Gwyn Topham Transport correspondent

Wednesday 4 May 2016 

Delaying a decision on a third runway has “squandered the opportunity” to act on evidence and expand Heathrow, a cross-party committee of MPs said as it called on the government to commit to a clear timetable.

The Commons transport select committee described ministerial claims of progress in the decision-making process as “illusory” and demanded that the transport secretary, Patrick McLoughlin, make clear what the outstanding areas of contention were.

The Airports Commission, established in 2012 by the coalition to recommend if and where a new runway for London should be built, delivered its final report in July last year backing Heathrow expansion. The government did not respond until December, when it announced it would be conducting more work on air quality, and left open the possibility of a second runway at Gatwick instead.

In the transport committee’s report on airport expansion, published on Wednesday, MPs said: “The arguments for and against expansion have changed little in a quarter of a century … The creation of the Airports Commission briefly held out the hope that an evidence-based decision would end years of political dithering, but the government has largely squandered this opportunity by delaying its decision and calling for further work.”

They added: “The secretary of state needs now to have the courage to take a difficult, and for some people unpopular, decision.”

The committee has already established that it backs a third runway at Heathrow, although the government has continued to maintain the candidacy of Gatwick, which was shortlisted by the commission.

MPs demanded that McLoughlin make clear which parts of the commission’s findings he had accepted or rejected, and what further work was being carried out. The committee said: “The government needs to be more open and transparent or the perception that this is yet another attempt to ‘kick 

The Department for Transport will make a formal response to the committee’s demands later this month, and a spokesman said it anticipated that additional work on environmental impacts would be concluded by the summer. He said: “The case for aviation expansion is clear – but it’s vitally important we get the decision right so that it will benefit generations to come.

“As well as progressing the package of further work announced in December, the government will continue to consider the commission’s evidence before reaching a view on its preferred scheme.

“We are undertaking more work on environmental impacts, including air quality, noise and carbon so we can develop the best possible package of measures to mitigate the impacts on local people.”

Louise Ellman MP, chair of the transport committee, said: “The government must make up its mind. The decision on location is not the end of the process, it is the start of one. Real progress cannot begin until the location is declared. Work on environmental issues can run in parallel with other pre-construction work.”

She said the continued growth of large hubs in the Middle East, east Asia and North America threatened Britain’s position in international aviation, while the number of flights to the world’s emerging markets was also a major concern. “The months ticking by constitute time wasted for the UK’s economic prosperity. Doing nothing means the UK continues to lose out,” Ellman said.

Business groups backed the committee’s call for a clear timetable. David Leam, infrastructure director at lobby group London First, said the government needed “to show backbone”, adding: “We need a clear timetable for airport expansion as soon as possible, because the decision to greenlight a new runway won’t get any easier.”

However, Gatwick airport said the committee’s statement that the arguments over airport expansion had changed little in a quarter of a century was “astonishing”, saying that it ignored “significant change within the aviation industry following the breakup of the BAA monopoly in 2009, and the worsening of air quality in the UK which has repeatedly halted Heathrow’s plans in the past”.

Air quality, and the possibility of judicial review in the light of a 2015 supreme court ruling, were the primary ostensible reasons for the delay, with the government now having indicated that its verdict will not come until after the EU referendum on 23 June. 

The postponement has also averted a public clash between the Conservatives and their candidate for this Thursday’s London mayoral election, Zac Goldsmith, who has been a staunch opponent of Heathrow expansion.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/04/heathrow-expansion-third-runway-london

.


The report’s Conclusions and recommendations

Conclusions and recommendations

The work already done
1. The arguments for and against expansion have changed little in a quarter of a century. Indecision by Government has remained constant over much of the same period. Few now disagree that additional airport capacity is needed in the South East if the UK is to remain economically competitive. The creation of the Airports Commission briefly held out the hope that an evidence-based decision would end years of political dithering, but the Government has largely squandered this opportunity by delaying its decision and calling for further work. (Paragraph 18)
2. We have reviewed the findings of our predecessors in light of the Government postponing its decision on airport expansion; we have seen no new compelling evidence that would change the balance of the arguments and we endorse their conclusions and recommendations. Expansion at Heathrow offers the greatest economic benefit and would do more to improve connectivity internationally and within the UK. We recognise that local residents and environmental campaigners have raised legitimate concerns; these deserve serious consideration. We do not under-estimate the scale of the challenge but we believe that the noise and environmental effects can be managed as part of the pre-construction phase after a decision has been made on location, as can the challenge of improving surface access and devising suitable schemes for compensation for residents in affected communities. It is vital that a decision is taken. (Paragraph 19)
3. We recommend that the Government take a decision on location at the earliest possible opportunity. We would prefer that decision to be for the construction of a third runway at Heathrow, together with the package of accompanying measures recommended by the Airports Commission. (Paragraph 19)
Further delay
4. The crucial decision on location was widely expected. The other “decisions” amount to nothing more than an acceptance of the Airports Commission’s findings on the need for expansion and the viability of all three shortlisted options. These decisions serve only to confirm what was already known. The Government could have made clear its acceptance of the findings much earlier; it did not need six months to do so. (Paragraph 24)
5. The absence of a decision on location creates uncertainty. This is exacerbated by the lack of clarity the Government has created about exactly when a decision will be taken. A decision on location is not the end of a process; it is the start of one. We accept that the package of measures to mitigate environmental impacts needs careful consideration and further work. We do not accept that all of this needs to be done before a decision is taken on location. In fact a decision on location would give more focus and impetus to this work. In the absence of a decision on location any “progress” is illusory. Real progress cannot be made without a decision on location. The detailed and evidence-based work of the Airports Commission on environmental issues provides an ideal starting point for any further work on environmental issues to be undertaken in parallel with the other pre-construction work. (Paragraph 25)
6. The Secretary of State should make clear which parts of the Commission’s findings he has accepted, what he has rejected and on what findings further evidence is required before he can take a decision. The Secretary of State must set out a clear timetable for the decision, making clear what additional work has been commissioned, when it will be completed, when the Economic Affairs (Airports) Cabinet sub-committee will consider its recommendation to Cabinet, and when the Cabinet will take a decision on location. The Department should publish this information by the end of April 2016. (Paragraph 26)
7. By delaying this decision the Government has created uncertainty that could have an effect on business confidence and its willingness to make long-term investments in the UK. Not only will this have a cost to the UK economy in terms of missed opportunities, but it is a gift to Heathrow’s and the UK’s international competitors. The cost of this delay is measured ultimately in lost growth and jobs. It is not just businesses that are affected; residents near Heathrow and Gatwick expectantly awaiting a decision are held in limbo. And people up and down the UK who could benefit from improved international and domestic connectivity are forced to wait. (Paragraph 33)
Further work
8. The apparent need for further work has again delayed the crucial decision on location. On balance, we believe it likely, indeed probable, that the Secretary of State and the Department have thought through their approach and that it has a sound basis. We are not, however, persuaded that the Government has made a case publicly for delaying the decision. We are also not convinced that this work must be done before the Government can take a decision on location. (Paragraph 37)
9. As well as making clear the timetable for further work and taking a decision, the Department must also make much clearer than it has to date what work is being done and why. The Government needs to be more open and transparent or the perception that this is yet another attempt to “kick the can down the road” cannot be adequately challenged. (Paragraph 37)
Revised timeline for decision and construction
10. A decision by Government on location is the beginning, not the end, of a process. The Government is right to have chosen to proceed by a national policy statement on airports and a development consent order rather than a hybrid bill procedure. The certainty over the timetable for a decision that this process will give is welcome and it will afford those affected by the development a chance to make their case. It will be important for the Government to be clear about not only the consent needed to build a new runway and its associated infrastructure but also where separate transport and works orders might be needed for improvements to surface access. Certainty over the timetable for the process is useful but only becomes truly meaningful once a decision on location is taken. (Paragraph 40)
11. We urge the Government to take a decision on airport expansion without further delay. (Paragraph 40)
.
.
.
.
.