The DfT has now announced that it has asked Sir Howard Davies to chair an independent Commission tasked with identifying and recommending to Government options for maintaining this country’s status as an international hub for aviation. It says the Commission will examine the scale and timing of any requirement for additional capacity to maintain the UK’s position as Europe’s most important aviation hub; and identify and evaluate how any need for additional capacity should be met in the short, medium and long term. In doing so, the Commission, will provide an interim report to the Government no later than the end of 2013 setting out its assessment of the evidence on the nature, scale and timing of the steps needed to maintain the UK’s global hub status; and its recommendation(s) for immediate actions to improve the use of existing runway capacity in the next five years – consistent with credible long term options. The Commission will then publish by the summer of 2015 a final report, for consideration by the Government and Opposition Parties. A decision on whether to support any of the recommendations contained in the final report will be taken by the next Government. The call for evidence has been abandoned.
Aviation - from DfT website
The Secretary of State for Transport (Patrick McLoughlin): International connectivity is vital to support economic growth. This Government has made clear that its priority is returning this country to sustainable economic growth and our aviation networks and infrastructure have an important role to play.
The UK is an island nation dependent upon its transport links to the rest of the world for its prosperity. The aviation industry in the UK is extremely successful. It is a significant economic sector employing 220,000 directly and supporting many more indirectly and it contributes more than £16 billion of economic output. 35% of UK non-EU trade by value enters or leaves the country by aeroplane. Importantly the industry also provides this country with the global connections which our businesses need to sell their products abroad and which inward investors to the UK demand. [ AW - this 220,000 figure is disingenous - see below ].
The Government recognises the importance of aviation to the UK. It is taking forward the Civil Aviation Bill to reform the economic regulation of airports to further the interests of passengers and create a better environment for investment. It is implementing the recommendations of the South East Airports Taskforce, including a trial of operational freedoms at Heathrow airport to improve reliability and reduce delay. In July the Government published a draft Aviation Policy Framework (APF) for consultation; a framework which will set the high-level policy parameters within which any new proposals for airport development may be considered. The final APF will be adopted by the end of March 2013. Alongside the draft APF the Government announced a number of short term measures to deliver operational improvements and boost economic growth within existing airport capacity constraints including £500 million towards a western rail link to Heathrow, a review of the UK’s visa regime and the recruitment of 70 additional border staff at Heathrow.
Today the UK is amongst the best connected countries in the world. Our airports, particularly those in the South East, deliver direct flights to over 360 destinations, [AW - this should say 360 international destinations, as CAA data for 2011 show 400 destinations from London's airports including domestic destinations (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=80&pagetype=88&sglid=3&fld=2011Annual - see tables 12.1 and 12.2).
including those of greatest economic importance. London has more flights to more destinations than any other city in Europe. More flights to the important trading centres like New York, Hong Kong, and Singapore. The Government is determined to deliver a solution which will continue to provide that connectivity in the short, medium and longer term.
This is a very difficult debate, but the reality is that since the 1960s Britain has failed to keep pace with our international competitors in addressing long term aviation capacity and connectivity needs. Germany, France and the Netherlands have all grown their capacity more extensively than the UK over the years, and so are better equipped, now and in the future, to connect with the fast growing markets of emerging economies. The consequences are clear. Our largest airport and our only hub airport – Heathrow – is already operating at capacity. Gatwick, the world’s busiest single runway airport, will be full early in the next decade, while spare capacity at Stansted airport is forecast to run out in the early 2030s.
The Government believes that maintaining the UK’s status as a leading global aviation hub is fundamental to our long term international competitiveness. But the Government is also mindful of the need to take full account of the social, environmental and other impacts of any expansion in airport capacity.
Successive Governments have sought to develop a credible long term aviation policy to meet the international connectivity needs of the UK. In each case the policy has failed for want of trust in the process, consensus on the evidence upon which the policy was based and the difficulty of sustaining a challenging long term policy through a change of Government. The country cannot afford for this failure to continue.
The Government has asked Sir Howard Davies to chair an independent Commission tasked with identifying and recommending to Government options for maintaining this country’s status as an international hub for aviation.
The Commission will:
- examine the scale and timing of any requirement for additional capacity to maintain the UK’s position as Europe’s most important aviation hub; and
- identify and evaluate how any need for additional capacity should be met in the short, medium and long term.
In doing so, the Commission, will provide an interim report to the Government no later than the end of 2013 setting out:
- its assessment of the evidence on the nature, scale and timing of the steps needed to maintain the UK’s global hub status; and
- its recommendation(s) for immediate actions to improve the use of existing runway capacity in the next five years – consistent with credible long term options.
The Commission will then publish by the summer of 2015 a final report, for consideration by the Government and Opposition Parties,containing:
- its assessment of the options for meeting the UK’s international connectivity needs, including their economic, social and environmental impact;
- its recommendation(s) for the optimum approach to meeting any need;
- its recommendation(s) for ensuring that the need is met as expeditiously as practicable within the required timescale; and
- materials to support the Government in preparing a National Policy Statement to accelerate the resolution of any future planning application(s).
A decision on whether to support any of the recommendations contained in the final report will be taken by the next Government.
The Government intends this independent Commission to be part of a process that is fair and open and that takes account of the views of passengers and residents as well as the aviation industry, business, local and devolved government and environmental groups. We would like, if possible to involve the opposition as part of our work alongside Sir Howard to finalise the arrangements for the Commission. I will provide Parliament with further details on the full membership of the Commission and the terms of reference for its work shortly. .
The 220,000 jobs claim:
The ONS data (based on the 2009 Annual Business Survey) shows 120,000 jobs in UK aviation, down from 200,000 jobs 10 years ago. Rather than accept this, DfT has tried to muddy the waters by adding aerospace to the aviation sector. The UK aerospace industry (manufacturing, including avionics and aero engines) employed 100,000 people in the UK in 2009 but many of these jobs were in the military rather than the civilian sector (ONS doesn't provide that breakdown). In any event, it's disingenuous for DfT to include these manufacturing jobs in the UK aviation sector. DfT hasn't done this in the past and it seems to have changed its definition of UK aviation simply to hide the fact that there has been a 40% reduction in the number of jobs in the sector over the past 10 years. (You can check the numbers by looking at paragraphs 2.2 and 2.5 of the Draft Aviaition Policy Framework (http://assets.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2012-35/draft-aviation-policy-framework.pdf ) and following the footnote references provided therein.
Aviation Commission; an opportunity to be objective
Here’s the RSPB’s reaction to the announcement of the Aviation Connectivity Commission – a topic, I have no doubt, that this blog will return to regularly.
Government has announced the creation of an independent Aviation Connectivity Commission in a ministerial statement issued today [Friday 7 September, 2012].
Martin Harper, the RSPB’s Director of Conservation, said, “An independent commission to consider options for UK airport expansion is an opportunity to defuse the political tension that has surrounded this. It is also a chance to look objectively at the facts. We think that once the issues have been aired the commission will agree with RSPB to rule out a Thames Estuary Airport, which would be disastrous for wildlife if given the go ahead.
“We also believe a new airport would do nothing to tackle the urgent issue of aviation’s rapidly growing contribution to climate change, the biggest long-term threat to wildlife and people. If we don’t act now to limit our emissions, we’re putting our special places and species at grave risk as well people’s homes and livelihoods.
“When it comes to climate change, an essential first step is for Government to include international aviation emissions in the UK’s carbon budgets, otherwise aviation will continue to remain a special case compared to other industries. We also need a bold new vision for the UK’s wider transport strategy. Instead of thinking about aviation expansion, the Government should be investing much more in improving the UK’s surface transport network, in new technologies for efficient and electric vehicles, and in using existing airport capacity better.”
New independent commission to be set up to investigate airport growth
September 3, 2012 The Prime Minister has announced that there will be an independent airports review by a commission, on the issue of a third Heathrow runway, or a new south east airport. This is to have outside experts taking the controversial issue, rather than politicians. It is likely to have the effect of delaying any decision on Heathrow. The Chancellor has recently said: “We need more runway capacity in the southeast of England,” and looking at where it should go: “let’s examine all the options. Let’s make sure we can try and create a political consensus.” Other Conservatives want to avoid breaking a firm manifesto commitment for no 3rd runway, and do not believe it would actually help the UK’s economy. The news of the commission comes as plans emerged for a £60 billion four-runway airport to the west of Heathrow – in Oxfordshire or Berkshire. A major feasibility study has been commissioned by a secret consortium of British businesses. Click here to view full story…
Read more »
Quotes from the two OEF reports:
1999 report by OEF
Taking these estimates together implies that total value-added by the UK aviation industry in 1998 was £9.4 billion in 1995 prices and £10.2 billion in 1998 prices. This is equivalent to 1.4% of GDP
Directly employed 180,000 people in the UK in 1998, 0.8% of the total.
“Taken together, these figures imply that the aviation industry contributed directly £2.5 billion to The Exchequer in 1998-99 (equivalent to around 1p on the basic rate of income tax)”
The aviation industry directly contributed £11.4 billion to UK GDP in 2004 and
employed 186,000 people.
The aviation industry generated £11.4 billion value-added in 2004 – in other words, it
contributed £11.4 billion to GDP, 1.1% of the overall economy
• It directly employed 186,000 people (full-time equivalents) in 2004
On a conservative estimate, the industry contributed £3.55 billion to the Exchequer in
2.4 A 1999 aviation industry-sponsored report by Oxford Economic Forecasting
(‘OEF’) put the number of direct jobs in UK aviation at 180,000, equivalent to 1,132 jobs for every million passengers carried and, in a 2006 follow-up report, OEF updated this to 186,000 direct jobs, equivalent to 862 jobs per million passengers. This implies a remarkable 31% productivity improvement in the space of six years, albeit on the basis of the crude productivity measure of jobs per million passengers.
2.5 A third industry-sponsored report, this time by Oxford Economic Research Associates
(‘Oxera’) , published in November 2009, concluded that aviation directly provided 141,000 UK jobs in 2007. This is equivalent to 646 jobs per million passengers, which suggests an even more remarkable 75% improvement in productivity in the space of nine years.
2.6 For the UK aviation industry to achieve a 75% productivity improvement in the space of
nine years stretches credulity but it may actually be broadly correct. The period 1998-2009
coincides with rapid growth in the low cost carrier (‘LCC’) sector and one of the side effects of aggressive competition from the LCCs has been to force traditional full service airlines to address their cost base, particularly labour costs. British Airways, for example, shed 42% of its workforce between 1998/99 and 2009/10.
3 A major policy shortcoming of the 2003 ATWP was that it ignored the UK trade deficit on
international air travel. In fact the ATWP ignored outward tourism altogether but it was at pains to emphasise the benefits of inward tourism, for example:
‘Around 25 million foreign visitors a year contribute to a tourist industry that directly
supports more than two million jobs; two thirds of these visitors come by air. … The
aviation industry itself makes an important contribution to our economy. It directly
supports around 200,000 jobs, and indirectly up to three times as many. In a tough
competitive environment, UK airport operators and UK-based carriers of all types
are leaders in their fields, whose success brings significant economic benefits to this
country. An illustration of this is the fact that one fifth of all international air
passengers in the world are on flights to or from a UK airport.’
3.4 The first sentence of the above extract from the ATWP rightly highlighted the contribution
to the UK economy made by inward tourism with 25m foreign residents visiting the UK (in
2002) of whom 17m travelled by air. But the ATWP made no mention of the comparable
(2002) data for outward tourism showing 59m overseas visits by UK residents, 44m of whom travelled by air.
3.5 The final sentence of the above ATWP extract is also woefully incomplete because it
omits to point out that 72% of these international passengers were UK residents and the vast majority were on overseas leisure trips.
The ONS reported at the time:
‘Travel expenditure by overseas residents in the UK accounts for around 16 per
cent of total exports of trade in services, while expenditure by UK residents
travelling abroad accounts for around 40 per cent of total imports. The travel
deficit has grown significantly since the late 1980s. The £13.9 billion deficit in
2002 was the highest on record, up from £13.3 billion in 2001. Exports of travel
services to overseas visitors to the UK increased by 6.8 per cent in 2002 to £14
billion while imports by UK residents travelling abroad grew by 5.6 per cent to
3.6 Just as surprisingly, the DfT 2011 Scoping Document makes no mention of the UK trade deficit on international air travel or of the economic impact of outward tourism.
3.7 There are those who argue that the air travel deficit in the UK Balance of Payments
Current Account is of no consequence and should be disregarded when considering aviation policy. We respectfully disagree. In the short term the trade deficit must somehow be financed and it must ultimately be addressed either by a lower Sterling exchange rate or
higher interest rates or a combination of the two. In short, there is no free lunch
Read more »
An article in the Guardian, on cuts to subsidies for UK onshore wind turbines mentions that a recent DECC report states that the amount of renewable electricity that needs to be generated in the UK by 2020 is now magically lower, due to aviation emissions now being removed from the carbon calculations. This is news to everyone. Another recent DECC document states that: ” International aviation and shipping emissions are not currently included in the UK’s 2050 target and carbon budget system, although international aviation is included in the EU ETS. The Government must decide whether to include them by the end of 2012, or explain to Parliament why it has not done so. This decision will need to be considered alongside development of the UK’s sustainable aviation policy framework through 2012/13, which will also consider whether to adopt the previous administration’s 2050 aviation CO2 target”. So, has somebody jumped the gun?
The article in the Guardian below, about wind farms, ends with this paragraph:
The pledge to supply 15% of energy from renewables can be met despite building less generating capacity partly because since the last analysis, aviation emissions – which would have to be offset by renewable electricity in the short term at least because of the difficulty of finding affordable alternatives to kerosene – have been removed from the calculations.
The ENSG report also assumes 12% of heat and 10% of transport will be powered by renewables by 2020.
[The figures were published on the website of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) (pdf) in the past few weeks but not publicised]
This DECC document says, on Page 11 : The exclusion of energy used in the aviation sector from the overall target calculation which reduces the amount of renewable capacity required to meet the 15% target. This would also result in a reduction in the overall renewable capacity in the scenario. This reduction has been applied to wind generation capacity required as it is the main source of renewable energy. [ By 2020 ].
on page 41:
Increase in assumed nuclear generation due to potential 10-year extensions of
existing plants. Results in lower coal generation. Differences in calculating the exclusion of energy used in aviation sector from overall target calculation reduces renewable capacity required to meet 15% target.
By contrast, shipping is not mentioned. Normally international shipping and international aviation are mentioned together.
The Guardian article was talking only about the UK’s renewable energy target of 15%, which is separate from the CO2 targets and budgets.
The Committee on Climate Change has been fairly open about stating that its advice to Government will be to include aviation and shipping formally in the carbon budget. But they are not due to formally set out their views on why and how until later in March or early April. It will then be for the Government to decide whether to accept their advice.
At present the CCC ‘takes account of’ aviation emissions in its budgets; in practice this means that they assume aviation emissions are capped at today’s levels, then adjust the cuts that are required in other sectors to still meet the overall target. Their advice to Government is likely be that it moves from informal to formal inclusion of aviation. It is likely that they will advise that aviation is included on the basis of its EU ETS cap (97% of average annual emissions between 2004 and 2006). That level happens to be the same, approximately, as the 2005 level, which was the last government’s target for aviation in 2050.
At present, the government is considering how to include aviation in UK climate totals.
A DECC report, December 2011, called “The Carbon Plan: Delivering our low carbon future” states on Page 48 :
2.81 Domestic aviation and shipping are already included in UK carbon budgets and so will need to contribute to meeting the 2050 target. International aviation and shipping are not currently included; a decision whether to include them is due by the end of 2012.
and on Page 56:
2.109 International aviation and shipping emissions are not currently included in the UK’s 2050 target and carbon budget system, although international aviation is included in the EU ETS. The Government must decide whether to include them by the end of 2012, or explain to Parliament why it has not done so. This decision will need to be considered alongside development of the UK’s sustainable aviation policy framework through
2012/13, which will also consider whether to adopt the previous administration’s 2050 aviation CO2 target [of no higher aviation emissions in 2050 than in 2005. AirportWatch comment].
So the government is now trying to reduce the apparent total of UK carbon emissions by around 6 – 7 %, and thereby produce less renewable electricity, as a proportion of the total.
Sounds like deeply dodgy mathematics, and more sleight of hand with the figures, rather than any practical solution to either producing low-carbon electricity, or reducing carbon emissions.
It is akin to, instead of marking an exam out of 100%, reducing that to a maximum of 93%, so your previous mark of, say, 60% now appears to be 64%.
Aviation emissions are about 6.5% of the UK total
The DECC figures refer to domestic aviation, which is included in UK carbon totals, while international aviation is not.
In 2010 the UK used around 150,000 million barrels of oil equivalent. The electricity consumption was 28,230 million barrels of oil equivalent. http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/stats/publications/energy-consumption/2324-overall-energy-consumption-in-the-uk-since-1970.pdf
Fuel used by air transport was 12,288 thousand tonnes oil equivalent in 2010.
(Aviation is about 6.5% of UK carbon emissions, excluding radiative forcing).
Net UK emissions were 495 million tonnes CO2 and 156 million tonnes CO2 from power stations in 2010.
In 2010 carbon emissions from international aviation were 31.5 m tonnes CO2 and 8.7 m from international shipping bunkers in 2010
The carbon emissions from civil aviation (domestic, cruise) 1.3 m tonnes CO2 and
civil aviation (domestic, landing and take off) 0.5 m tonnes CO2 = 1.8 m tonnes CO2,
(which is 6.7%).
Windfarms axed as UK loses its taste for turbines
In the first of a three-part series, we look at the political shifts causing investors to doubt Britain’s commitment to wind
by Juliette Jowit, political correspondent
Read more »
There have been major protests at several German airports today, against aircraft noise, with whistles, drums and banners. There were about 20,000 protestors at Frankfurt protesting against noise from the new runway that opened in October. This was the largest protest at the airport since the opening . The police estimated the number of participants to 7,700, the organizers – a coalition of citizens’ groups against the airport expansion – spoke of 20,000 people. There were also demonstrations at Berlin, Leipzig, Munich and Dusseldorf.
Aircraft Noise demos from Frankfurt to Berlin
Thousands noise opponents protest in several cities
(original article in German, with web based translation to English – not perfect !)
Citizens to the barricades: Thousands of people have protested against aircraft noise. At Frankfurt airport, making up to 20,000 people with whistles and drums air their anger. Also demonstrations at Berlin, Leipzig, Munich and Dusseldorf.
Thousands of demonstrators gathered on Saturday in Frankfurt’s airport, in protest against the increasing noise pollution in the region. In the central departure hall of Terminal 1, they caused a deafening noise with whistles and chants. Many drummed it on buckets, cookie jars and other containers. Some wore ear muffs. “Aircraft noise causes illness”, according to many posters.
So far, the greatest noise-protest in the terminal
It was the largest protest at the airport. The police estimated the number of participants to 7,700, the organizers – a coalition of citizens’ groups against the airport expansion – spoke of 20,000 people. There were no incidents. After a kick-off rally, the demonstrators marched to the airport building.
(there is a short video clip in German
Rhein-Main “Wutbürger” against aircraft noise (ZDF heute journal. 16/01/2012)
The protestors support a complete ban on night flights, some of the closure. The new runway opened in October. Among the demonstrators were representatives of the protest movement and Stuttgart 21 airport and opponents from Berlin, where there was a demonstration at the same time. At the beginning of the protests, the police blocked a portion of the terminal. The reason was an abandoned suitcase, standing beside the entrance to Hall A. It later turned out to be harmless.
Fraport shows understanding
Since the opening of the new Runway Northwest in late October the protest against aircraft noise has become increasingly stronger. Some residents protest at Frankfurt Airport since November regularly on Monday nights against the noise. According to civic initiatives, there are up to 5,000 participants taking part.
Fraport AG expressed understanding for the concerns of residents in the Rhine-Main area. The new runway has created new problems, or worse, admitted the CEO Stefan Schulte. ”We must take the concerns and complaints of the people seriously – and we do that too.” The goal must be to find common solutions, said Schulte. Next week, wants the prime minister of Hesse, Volker Bouffier (CDU) to introduce a noise Summit plans to reduce the noise. In the debate is above all a new and quieter approach procedure.
Hundreds of opponents of noise in Berlin
In Berlin, hundreds of aircraft noise opponents protested in the departure hall of theBerlin-Schönefeld airport. With posters and promotions such as drums, whistles and chanting to protest against aircraft noise, which they fear from the new Berlin Brandenburg airport when it opens. Their demands include an absolute ban on night flights 22.00 to 06.00. The airport is due to go into operation in June. Had called the Coalition for Berlin-Brandenburg (ABB).
The protests in Frankfurt and Berlin were part of a nationwide day of action against aircraft noise. At the same time there were demonstrations at airports in Leipzig, Munich and Dusseldorf.
Epidemiologist: Aircraft noise causes illness
According to the epidemiologist Eberhard Greiser, the science is now agreed that there is a causal link between noise and heart and circulatory disease. “In other words, heart attack, stroke, heart failure and coronary heart disease,” Greiser said on Saturday in Germany Kultur. Aircraft noise is harmful, especially at night. For a study on the impact of aircraft noise Greiser had analyzed data from one million policyholders in the area of Cologne / Bonn.
Read more »
Read more »
In 2000 civilian aircraft flew a total of 25 billion kilometres. If someone flew this distance they could circle the earth more than 630 000 times. If the total distance flown by all aircraft passengers was divided equally between everyone living in the world, we would each fly 317 kilometres a year. In fact some people fly thousands of kilometres a year, whilst others have never been in an aeroplane.
The people flying the most kilometres tend to be from island territories. On the other hand, people from Haiti and the Dominican Republic, also island territories, are amongst those flying the smallest number of kilometres per year.
Territory size shows the proportion of all kilometres flown around the world by aircraft that were registered there.
Over 21 million civilian aircraft departures occur every year. That is 40 departures every minute around the world. Departures are recorded by the territory to which the aircraft is registered, not the territory from which they physically take off. The difference between registered departure and physical take off is highlighted by Monaco, with the second most registered departures per person, but without an international airport inside its borders.
Two thirds of the worldwide aircraft departures are of aircraft registered in North America and Western Europe. Africa is particularly small on this map. The entire continent accounts for only 2.5% of all departures.
Territory size shows the distribution of aircraft take-offs, measured by the aircraft’s territory of registration.
Of all the air passengers in the world, 40% fly on aeroplanes registered in the United States. These flights are both domestic and international. In the year 2000 there were 1.6 billion aircraft passengers. In these statistics, every time a person takes a flight, they are counted as an aircraft passenger. Some people are passengers many times in a year so far fewer than 1.6 billion individual people fly in a year.
Territory size shows the proportion of worldwide aircraft passengers flying on aircraft registered there.
In 2003 2.2 trillion kilometres were travelled by train passengers. Of this total a fifth were in India, a fifth were in China, and a tenth were in Japan.
The world average for the number of kilometres travelled by people per year by train is 358 kilometres each. The unevenness of the real distribution of kilometres travelled is highlighted by the fact that 64 territories (out of 200) do not have a rail system. At the other extreme, an average of 1876 kilometres are travelled by train each year by every person who lives in Japan.
Territory size shows the proportion of all train passenger kilometres travelled in the world that occur there.
In 2000 403 trillion tonne-kilometres of freight were flown around the world. A tonne-kilometre is when one tonne (1000 kilograms) travels one kilometre. Together North American and Western European registered aircraft carry over half of the world total. Central Africa-registered aircraft carry 0.1% of all air freight in the world.
High counts of tonne-kilometres could be due to many heavy loads being transported short distances, lighter freight being moved a long distance, a combination of both, and/or many average weight loads being transported average distances.
Territory size shows the number of tonne-kilometres of freight transported by aircraft registered there.
© Copyright SASI Group (University of Sheffield) and
Mark Newman (University of Michigan)
Read more »
15.12.2011 (SEMA – Stop Expansion at Manchester Airport)
Dave Cullen and Robbie Gillett attended a Ringway Parish Council meeting last week. Ringway Parish is to the south of Manchester Airport. Hasty Lane resident Peter Johnson is a Parish Councillor. It was a formal meeting of around 12 residents who were not fully aware of plans to take large chunks of their neighbourhood out of the Greenbelt and into the Airport’s Operational Area.
They were very angry that Manchester City Council had not formally (or informally) consulted them as a Parish Council on the Airport plans contained within the Local Development Framework. Their next meeting is 1st February.
A new resident moved into Rose Cottage last July. Her impression is that Manchester Airport are no closer to beginning work at Hasty Lane.
Stop Expansion at Manchester Airport (SEMA)
Update 12th December 2011
Information relating to expansion plans at Manchester Airport; local and national policy developments.
The Local Context
Proposals for the ‘Airport City Enterprise Zone‘ and the more general expansion of Manchester Airport were included in the Manchester City Council’s Local Development Framework ‘Core Strategy’. This is the framework in which all planning decisions will be made up until 2027. The following is intended as a summary of the airport-related aspects of the plan only.
This draft Core Startegy can be found here:
The pages relevant to the Airport are p.82 – 95 (Policies EC11 and MA1). These include plans to take large areas of land out of the Green Belt in order to include them in the Airport’s Operational Area (see map on page 94 of the Core Strategy draft document). This includes Cloughbank Farm and land to the west of the A538 (Oak Farm).
An independent examination of the Core Straegy took place between 22nd – 26th November 2011. This was held by an independent Inspector Jill Kingaby BSc (Econ) MSc MRTPI. The Inspector assessed the Core Strategy to determine whether it complied with relevant legislation and whether it was ‘sound’. To be sound a Core Strategy should be justified, effective and consistent with national policy.
The Inspector raised several questions in advance which were then discussed at the Examination. These can be found here: http://www.manchester.gov.uk/download/17479/manchester_matter_3-airport
These questions included, amongst others:
Should more weight have been given to the responses from consultees who argued against airport expansion?
Has the impact of the proposed extensions on the local community and the environment/ land around the airport been fully and fairly assessed?
The Inspector will report back at the end of January 2012. There are various courses of action available. The Inspector could recommend no changes to the policies – or recommend small changes, which would be adopted immediately by Manchester City Council.
Alternatively, the Inspector could recommend larger changes to certain policies, which would take the Council a longer amount of time to re-work. There is also the (less likely) option of sending the entire document back to the drawing board. The Inspector’s decision is binding – the Council cannot ignore the recommendations.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England and others made written objections to the proposal to take land out of the Greenbelt and other aspects of the Airport expansion plans. These can be found here with other submissions:
More information on the Core Strategy can be found here:
The Programme Officer who answered queries from SEMA about the Independent Examination was Joanne Conmee (firstname.lastname@example.org). Manchester City Council has sent information about the Core Strategy from this address: email@example.com. These could be good contact addresses to start from if enquiring about the Core Strategy. Councillor Nigel Murphy is the Executive for the Environment at Manchester City Council. It may also be worth writing to him at firstname.lastname@example.org with any objections or questions.
For very detailed reading of how exactly the Airport wishes to expand (including moving further into the Green Belt), Manchester Airport produced a document called ‘The Need for Land‘ in June 2010. This formed part of the submissions to the Local Development Framework. It is available here:
SEMA made a response to one stage of the consultation process for the Local Development Framework in September 2010: http://stopmanchesterairport.blogspot.com/2010/10/sema-submission-to-planning-framework.html
The National Context
Manchester Airport’s Masterplan to 2030 is based on the 2003 Air Transport White Paper – which advocated a ‘go-for-growth’ approach to aviation. Due to sustained campaigning and an increasing awareness about the impacts of climate change, this 2003 White Paper is now recognised as outdated.
In March 2011, the Coalition government released a ‘Scoping Document’ on aviation for ‘key stakeholders’. The forward from the Transport Secretary included the following:
“The previous government’s 2003 White Paper, The Future of Air Transport, is fundamentally out of date, because it fails to give sufficient weight to the challenge of climate change. In maintaining its support for new runways – in particular at Heathrow – in the face of the local environmental impacts and mounting evidence of aviation’s growing contribution towards climate change, the previous government got the balance wrong. It failed to adapt its policies to the fact that climate change has become one of the gravest threats we face.”
The government invited responses to the Scoping Document up to October 2011. Stop Expansion at Manchester Airport made a response which can be read here:
Other detailed responses on noise, climate, economics, biofuels and many other issues made by national organisations can be read on the Airport Watch website:
In March 2012, the government will release a draft new aviation policy. This will be followed by a public consultation. Bodies such as Ringway Parish Council should respond to this – as well as individual residents and members of the public.
The new aviation policy will be formally adopted in March 2013.
Greenbelt row over Manchester Airport City development
A row has broken out between councillors over the future of a green ‘buffer zone’ between Hale Barns and Manchester Airport, the MEN reports. Labour councillors say Davenport Green – on the other side of the M56 from the airport – must be designated green belt to stop the new ‘airport city’ [the enterprise zone development around the airport] creeping onto it. However, council planners say it would be difficult to legally carry out the change, adding that it already has enough protection.
The 335-acre area has tough restrictions to prevent anything but a ‘world class’ development being built on it. At a meeting of Trafford Council, Labour said only green belt status would safeguard it. Councillor David Quayle said there is a ‘toxic mix’ of problems – including suggestions it might feature in the planned enterprise zone. If that happened, the council would lose control of what is built on it, making the site is very vulnerable.
Labour leader Dave Acton said including the area in the enterprise zone would be ‘disastrous’, adding: ‘Protecting it is absolutely vital.’ However, Councillor Michael Cornes, executive member for economic growth and prosperity, said the council would face a legal challenge from the site’s owners if it tried to put into the green belt. A public consultation on the future of the land is due to open in the next few weeks.
1 Aug 2011 (CPRE Lancashire)
Manchester Airport City – Enterprise Zone
A report commissioned by CPRE North West (Lancashire & Cheshire) casts doubt on the wisdom of locating an Enterprise Zone at Manchester Airport.
Enterprise Zones are supposed to minimise displacement, and fit with economic priorities and maximise benefits across a wider area, but the report, carried out by independent consultants, suggests that it may fail to do that.
Andy Yuille, Senior Policy & Campaigns Officer for CPRE North West, said “The evidence suggests that jobs and investment attracted to an Enterprise Zone at Manchester Airport will be displaced from other parts of Greater Manchester and the North West. There’s a real risk that major development in the Green Belt here will undermine attempts to revitalise town and city centres elsewhere. Nothing in the proposals we’ve seen so far indicates how this will be prevented. It’s certainly not the case that only businesses that need an airport location are being targeted.”
“As the airport is less accessible by sustainable means than the city or other town centres, it will also increase congestion, pressure for new roads to be built in the Green Belt and overall carbon emissions.”
“We fully appreciate the need to attract investment and create jobs, but looking at the prosperity of Greater Manchester and the surrounding areas as a whole, this just isn’t the right place to do it. It will add pressure to build on the Green Belt south of Manchester while taking potential jobs and investment away from locations to the north of the conurbation that really need an economic boost. It also means that greater carbon savings will have to be found elsewhere, which is a huge national challenge.”
The report will be submitted to IPPR North’s Northern Economic Futures Commission as well as being submitted to Manchester City Council as evidence when they consult on the wider Enterprise Zone.
Please click HERE for the full report
TRAFFORD CORE STRATEGY
Comments on Trafford Council response to RLAM –
further suggested changes to Policy W1 and R4 -
Comments on Trafford Council response to RLAM
– 25 September 2011
In his submission regarding Manchester City Council’s proposed changes to the
Green Belt in the vicinity of Manchester Airport, Mr Smith makes it clear that any
such changes would cause Trafford Council, “to have significant concerns
should this proposed amendment to the Green Belt boundary result in an Page 2 of 3
increase in such development pressure, which ultimately could seek to
undermine the Timperley Wedge”.
Now, just six months later, Trafford Council, apparently, does not have any of
the same concerns regarding the Timperley Wedge and is more than happy to
consider the inclusion of text of the sort that reads as follows:-
“18.10 The identification of land at Davenport Green as having potential for an
exemplar, very high quality B1 business / office development in order to
support growth at Manchester Airport City and/or Medipark reflects the unique
status of Davenport Green in Policy R4 as a Countryside designation outside
of the Green Belt, protected from development until such time that strict
criteria are met.”
The uses above show that land use proposed by Trafford Council, as at 23
September 2011, at Davenport Green is for the Airport City and Manchester
City Council, not the residents and Council Tax payers of Trafford and is
inconsistent with the current Planning Inspectorate permitted use.
The overall thrust of the Council’s policy position is not only radically different
to the position it adopted as recently as 24 March 2011 in relation to the
Timperley Wedge, but the proposed uses of land at Davenport Green are no
longer for the principal benefit of the residents of Trafford Borough; they are
not properly evidence-based and they have not been subject to proper public
scrutiny. These proposed changes are therefore unsound.
Report shows Manchester Airport is the ‘wrong place’ for an enterprise zone
A new report from CPRE shows the Manchester Airport enterprise zone will undermine attempts at economic regeneration in other parts of the city. The research hits out at the Government’s decision to locate Greater Manchester’s enterprise zone (one of the first 4 “vanguard” enterprise zones announced in March) at Manchester Airport, saying the site is the “wrong” place for a zone. Areas other than the airport have more need for investment.
Read more »
What exactly is this “airport capacity crisis”?
- are ALL of the South East airports full? … (NO)
- are they likely to be full in the short term? … (NO)
- are there passengers unable to get flights, regularly turning up just to be turned away because their flight is overbooked etc (? … NO)
- are businesses unable to increase their turn over/profits just because they can’t fly somewhere? … (NO)
So what exactly is the crisis?
So what exactly is the crisis?
? BAA/BA see their dominance slipping from them.
Meanwhile they fan the flames by suggesting the horrors that Londoners
might have to change flights at someone else’s hub airport because
they don’t have the runway capacity to do direct flights to everywhere
They have contributed to the decline in Heathrow reliability by
overfilling the capacity and have no plan to reduce it to manageable
levels by organising and policing the slot schedule on proper data to
something that works………
Read more »
The head of the United Nations body that oversees civil aviation said on Friday that his agency still plans to have a proposal on measures to address emissions from aviation by the end of 2012, even as critics push for faster change.
“I read the press like anyone. I listen to all of the criticisms which have been stated by some about the pace,” Secretary General Raymond Benjamin told Reuters in an interview marking his reappointment for a new three-year term at the helm of the Montreal-based International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO.L.
“You have to understand that ICAO is an international organization with a membership of 191 countries, and you have to find a consensus.”
ICAO, created in 1944, sets what it describes as strategic objectives for the airline sector, focusing on safety, security and environmental issues.
It was thrust into the global spotlight after the European Union proposed controversial new rules for airline carbon emissions, forcing ICAO to accelerate its hunt for “market-based measures” that could be an alternative to the EU proposals.
The EU rules mean that all airlines that use the bloc’s airports must pay into a carbon offset program, stirring threats of an international trade war with the potential to disrupt global air traffic.
More than two dozen countries, including the United States and China, are opposed, and have suggested retaliatory measures that could include barring national airlines from participating in the EU’s scheme, cutting off talks with European airlines on new routes and imposing levies on EU airlines.
Benjamin said ICAO’s governing council is considering four unspecified market based measures, and two others have been eliminated. The council will be asked this month to endorse those four options and identify next steps, with a final proposal due by year end.
If all goes according to plan, the ICAO’s next general assembly would approve the new guidelines when it meets in the fall of 2013.
An ICAO spokesman said in December that the basic options under consideration are some form of emissions trading, fuel-based carbon levies, levies on departing passengers and cargo, and carbon offsetting.
MARKET ACCESS FOR AVIATION
Benjamin said ICAO is working towards a more liberal environment for air transport, and is planning a global conference that will address the issue in March 2013.
“We are totally in favour of liberalization. We are in favour of market access,” he said.
“All of these issues about competition will be on the table. It will not be only governments meeting here to discuss them, but all of the industry and regional organizations.”
Pressure is growing in the United States and elsewhere to relax restrictions on who can own airlines, a change that would push the sector toward global airlines rather than to carriers tied to particular countries.
(Reporting By Allison Martell in New York and Susan Taylor in Toronto; Editing by Janet Guttsman)
Read more »
Airport study is breath of fresh air
Engineers from the Faculty of Engineering have chosen Newcastle International Airport as the ideal place to study how planes affect air quality as they take off and land. For many years it has been known that aircraft emissions can have a negative effect and extensive research has been carried out in South East England, but limited information has been available for regional airports – until now.
Newcastle International Airport is working with academics from the University of Leeds aviation department to see exactly how the exhaust from jet engines influences the air quality in surrounding communities. Since August 2011, state-of-the-art monitoring equipment has been positioned on the airfield to continuously check a number of factors including the levels of nitrogen dioxide, carbon dioxide and oxygen. And with six months of data collected, the results are now being analysed as part of wider national project. Dr Darron Dixon-Hardy and Dr Hu Li, members of the aviation staff at the Energy Research Institute, are leading the research along with Helen Hughes, the airport’s Environmental Adviser.
The research will contribute to a better understanding of aircraft emissions and their impact on air quality at medium-sized airports in particular. It is hoped the joint research will provide an insight into what contributes to airborne pollution and allow new ways of controlling and dispersing it.
Dr Dixon-Hardy said; “We’ve been monitoring aircraft emissions at a location very close to Newcastle’s runway using state-of-the- art equipment. Results so far indicate that prevailing wind conditions dominate the dispersal of aircraft emissions and show that Newcastle Airport does not have a significant impact on local air quality. “Newcastle Airport is forward-thinking in addressing the need to work with the university and we would like to thank them for offering us the opportunity.” Learning more about the impact of aircraft emissions at regional airports is becoming increasingly important as they make up the majority of the 50-plus airports in the UK and existing studies have mainly concentrated on air quality in neighborhoods, rather that at the pollutants’ source.
Helen Hughes, the airport’s environmental adviser, said: “The expertise and knowledge brought by Leeds University will provide Newcastle Airport with valuable information on local air quality. “We are delighted with the partnership, and the results so far. The airport has been monitoring air quality levels for more than 10 years across 22 separate locations on site. “This project will increase our knowledge in this area so we can monitor how we impact on our local community.” The academics will analyse the results and provide a report at the end of the study .
Read more »