Tel: 020 7248 2227 RSS FeedRSS feed

CAA provisional UK airport data for 2013 shows very small (around 0.4%) rise in ATMs & around 3% rise in air passengers

The CAA has published its provisional airport figures for 2013, but not all have yet been submitted so the final totals are only approximate. NATS said there had been 0.4% more flights in 2013 than there were in 2012. The number of air  passengers is around 3% higher than in 2012. At Heathrow passengers were up + 3.4%. At Gatwick passengers were up by + 3.5%. At Manchester they were up + 5.2%; up +2.2% at Stansted (first increase for 5 years); up + 6.3% at Edinburgh; up + 0.8% at Luton; up + 2.3% at Birmingham; up + 2.9% at Glasgow; up + 3.5% at Bristol; up + 1.4% at Newcastle; up + 6.4% at East Midlands; up + 3.4% at Aberdeen; up + 11.6% at Leeds Bradford; up + 13.2% at Belfast City airport; and up + 57.2% at Southend.  Almost all airports grew, even most of the small ones. But there were a few declines in the number of passengers. Passengers decreased by – 6.1% at Liverpool; by  - 6.7% at Belfast International; and by – 4.5% at Bournemouth. The number of flights grew much less than the number of passengers, as some larger planes were used, and airlines got higher load factors. The number of Air Transport Movements at Heathrow was down – 0.4% compared to 2012; at Gatwick it rose by + 1.6%. ATMs were up + 0.4% at Manchester; up + 0.6% at Stansted; up + 1.1% at Edinburgh; and  up + 0.4% at Glasgow.
.

 

 

The number of flights handled by UK air traffic management company NATS rose by 0.4% year-on-year to 2,153,995 in 2013.


From CAA airport statistics

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport_data_prov/201312/December_2013_Provisional_Airport_Statistics.pdf

CAA provisional statistics for 2013 – full year                     (ranked by number of passengers, in descending order)

AIRPORTProvisional statistics Air Transport Movements in 2013 % change from 2012 Terminal passengers in 2013 % change from 2012
HEATHROW 469,578 -0.4            72,332,160 3.4
GATWICK 244,328 1.6            35,433,178 3.5
MANCHESTER 161,063 0.4            20,682,907 5.2
STANSTED 132,234  0.6  17,844,355 2.2
EDINBURGH 103,972 1.1               9,775,222 6.3
LUTON 70,954 -1.1               9,693,850 0.8
BIRMINGHAM ? ? 9,119,709 2.3
GLASGOW 72,541 0.4               7,358,136 2.9
BRISTOL 53,971 6.5               6,125,207 3.5
NEWCASTLE 42,980 -1.6               4,415,684 1.4
EAST MIDLANDS INTERNAT 57,204 4.7               4,328,229 6.4
LIVERPOOL (JOHN LENNON) 32,956 -8.1               4,186,091 -6.1
BELFAST INTERNATIONAL 36,600 -6.4               4,022,479 -6.7
ABERDEEN                99,895 1.1               3,440,361 3.4
LEEDS BRADFORD 30,398 0.6               3,314,398 11.6
BELFAST CITY (GEORGE BEST)                36,867 2.6               2,541,721 13.2
SOUTHAMPTON 36,058 -6.7               1,722,557 1.7
JERSEY 34,365 -6.9               1,429,420 -0.8
PRESTWICK 8,606 5.6               1,144,568 7.3
CARDIFF WALES 14,026 0.4               1,057,088 4.3
SOUTHEND 9,476 30.4                  969,941 57.2
GUERNSEY 33,006 -2.8                  856,768 -0.6
ISLE OF MAN 20,373 -11.4                  738,459 6.2
EXETER 12,529 3.7                  738,157 6.2
DONCASTER SHEFFIELD 4,296 -1.9                  689,761 -0.5
BOURNEMOUTH 6,832 -4.9                  659,021 -4.5
INVERNESS 10,012 -3.5                  607,266 1
CITY OF DERRY (EGLINTON)  3,011 -3.3                  384,973 -3.3
SCATSTA                13,174 -3.3                  298,308 -2
BLACKPOOL                10,289 7.1                  262,757 11.7
HUMBERSIDE                11,676 -6.7                  234,787 0.5
SUMBURGH                  9,199 30.1                  209,747 40.9
DURHAM TEES VALLEY                  4,329 3                  159,311 -3.3
STORNOWAY                  6,340 -1.6                  119,904 3.5
ISLES OF SCILLY (ST.MARYS)                10,816 6.5  89,170 -8.1
ALDERNEY                  6,386 -4 62,855 -2
MANSTON (KENT INT)                  1,644 139.3    40,656 392.1
BENBECULA                  1,887 -22    30,628 -0.7
ISLAY                  1,558 15.2   25,754 21.3
GLOUCESTERSHIRE                  1,256 -10.4          14,129 -7.3
BARRA 880 -29.8                9,410 -17.6
OXFORD (KIDLINGTON) 592 -17.2            6,877 4.6
LERWICK (TINGWALL) 1,330 -13.9              3,787 -24.9
LYDD 127 30.9                  670 50.6
BIGGIN HILL 8 0                       326 0
COVENTRY 604 -18.2                              - 0
TOTAL OF ABOVE AIRPORTS provisional      1,911,226. provisional + add Birmingham ? Nats said a 0.4% increase over 2012 ?             227,180,742provisional 3.0% ?approx. provisional

  

.
For more airport data – on passengers and air transport movements – in recent years, see 

Read more »

Boris Johnson accused by Sir Howard Davies of ‘Vulgar Abuse’ over backing Heathrow not Thames estuary plans

Sir Howard Davies has criticised Boris for his use of “colourful language” and accused him of failing to “illuminate” the debate on airport expansion following the publication of the Airports Commission’s interim findings on 17th December. Boris is fiercely opposed to the possibility of increasing capacity at Heathrow and branded the Airports Commission report, which short-listed the option, as “gloopy and tangled”, “perplexing” and “biased”. Sir Howard dismissed Boris’, insisting the criticisms were at odds with transport experts, and said he would “press on with the job”. Asked about the comments at the Transport Select Committee, the commission chairman replied: “He would say that wouldn’t he?…. Unfortunately, as far as the Mayor is concerned we don’t seem to have produced the answer he wants us to produce. We will proceed with our analysis in the way we have been asked to do. “The Mayor has a particular view about hub capacity and a particular view about Heathrow and that’s where he starts and that’s where he ends. “Anything that is at variance with that is dismissed. Personally I don’t think it is at all helpful that he uses this rather colourful language but I guess that is a matter of style.”  Sir Howard said: “So, I will attempt to rise above this vulgar abuse and press on with the job.”
.

 

Boris Johnson Accused Of ‘Vulgar Abuse’ Over Heathrow Expansion

The Huffington Post UK/PA

20.1.2014

Boris Johnson doled out “vulgar abuse” in the row over a third runway at Heathrow airport, the boss of a government-appointed commission has said.

Sir Howard Davies criticised the top Tory for his use of “colourful language” and accused him of failing to “illuminate” the debate on airport expansion following the publication of interim findings last month.

boris johnson

Boris Johnson recently called Heathrow expansion ‘completely crackers’

 

Mr Johnson is fiercely opposed to the possibility of increasing capacity at Heathrow and branded the Airports Commission report, which short-listed the option, as “gloopy and tangled”, “perplexing” and “biased”.

But Sir Howard dismissed the Mayor of London’s criticism of the report, insisting they were at odds with transport experts, and vowed to “press on with the job”.

Asked about the comments at the Transport Select Committee, the commission chairman replied: “He would say that wouldn’t he?

“I completely dismiss what the Mayor has said about our report. It’s completely at variance with what everyone else has said – transport correspondents, the airports themselves, other economists.

“Unfortunately, as far as the Mayor is concerned we don’t seem to have produced the answer he wants us to produce. We will proceed with our analysis in the way we have been asked to do.

“The Mayor has a particular view about hub capacity and a particular view about Heathrow and that’s where he starts and that’s where he ends.

“Anything that is at variance with that is dismissed. Personally I don’t think it is at all helpful that he uses this rather colourful language but I guess that is a matter of style.

“But I don’t think it particularly illuminates the debate to do so.

howard davies                                          Sir Howard Davies speaks to the Commons committee

 

“But we will not react, we will simply press on because I think there are some important issues to resolve about the future of demand for aviation in this country, about the environmental consequences, about the cost consequences of different solutions. Among those is an estuary option on which we are doing further work.

“So, I will attempt to rise above this vulgar abuse and press on with the job.”

Sir Howard said he thought they had had a good relationship before the publication of the interim report but added: “You are only as good as your last game”.

The commission put forward suggestions for boosting UK air capacity by building a new runway at Heathrow or Gatwick.

Both plans would result in hundreds of houses being destroyed, and cherished buildings being razed.

Sir Howard’s team also kept the door open for a Thames Estuary airport scheme, favoured by Mr Johnson, with the commission saying it would look further at the Isle of Grain option in the first half of next year.

But the commission has not shortlisted proposals for expansion at either Stansted in Essex or Birmingham.

Ahead of the committee hearing, Transport for London (TfL) published a critical response to the report, claiming it placed too much weight on “accommodating short-term commercial interests”.

It said neither option recommended in the Airports Commission report would address the need for a long-term solution.

“The interim report and the recently published appraisal criteria places more weight on accommodating short-term commercial interests than a strategic vision for aviation which is able to secure the UK’s long-term economic prosperity,” the response said.

“The commission identify a significant capacity gap in 2050, but do not address this. They focus instead on runway capacity options to 2030.

“This does not provide the UK with a long-term plan. Their approach also places inadequate weight on public health and quality of life, including air-quality impacts, which are not considered in any detail.”

Daniel Moylan, the Mayor’s chief aviation advisor, said: “The Mayor, as the person directly responsible for London’s strategic development, has a legal responsibility for a range of matters closely related to airports and their effects. It’s therefore disappointing that Sir Howard has ‘completely dismissed’ a detailed and professional critique of his Interim Report published by the Mayor’s aviation team only this morning.

“We would hope he will look again at our concerns, concerns that are motivated by the desire to solve our aviation capacity crisis for the long term good of the UK, and we are pleased tonight that Sir Howard has now proposed that he and the Mayor meet in the next few weeks to discuss next steps.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/20/boris-johnson-heathrow-vulgar-abuse_n_4633091.html

.

SEE ALSO from the Huffington Post:

.

 

 

Read more »

Scale of taxpayer contribution needed for Heathrow or Gatwick runways shown up in KPMG report for Airports Commission

A report dated December 2013 by accountants, KPMG, for the Airports Commission, says a 3rd runway at Heathrow could require £11.5bn of government support, (ie. money from the taxpayer) while a 2nd runway at Gatwick may need as much as £17.7bn of taxpayer contributions.  An airport in the Thames Estuary would need even more from the taxpayer – maybe £64 billion. The report contradict claims by airport operators that an extra runway could be financed either exclusively or predominantly by the private sector.  Gatwick has said it could build a 2nd runway for £5bn to £9bn with no government aid. Heathrow has raised the prospect of £4bn to £6bn of taxpayer support to improve rail and road links, but has argued that a 3rd runway, at a cost of £17bn, would be largely funded by the private sector. The KPMG analysis also highlights the potential burden of building a new runway on passengers, who would pay higher ticket prices. KPMG says these would have to rise by 136% at Gatwick to repay the money borrowed. That would mean charges at Gatwick rising by 2.5% above inflation every year from 2019 to 2050. At Heathrow charges would need to rise by 13% initially and then by 2.5% above inflation. Repaying the money takes till 2050. Unless charges for passengers rise enough, the public (many of whom do not fly) will have to stump up the funds.

.

 

 

The KPMG report is at:

Airports Commission - Interim Report                                                                                 - 0 Paper - High-level Commercial & Financial Assessment of Selected Potential Schemes   - 10 December 2013. By KPMG,

Report is also available from the Airports Commission website, via the link to Long-term options: consultancy reports at:                                                             https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/airports-commission-interim-report   

 

New runway ‘will require taxpayer support’

A third runway at Heathrow could require £11.5bn of government support, while expansion of Gatwick may need as much as £17.7bn of taxpayer contributions, according to a KPMG report

747 Airport Heathrow Jet Plane Runway Take off Uk

The report appears to contradict claims by airport operators that an extra runway could be financed either exclusively or predominantly by the private sector Photo: Alamy

18 Jan 2014

Building another runway in the south east of England will demand “substantial” taxpayer subsidies regardless of the location, a high-level independent analysis shows.

A third runway at Heathrow would potentially require £11.5bn of government support, while expansion of Gatwick may need as much as £17.7bn of taxpayer contributions, claims a report by KPMG for Sir Howard Davies’s Airports Commission.

The research was drawn up for the commission before, last month, it shortlisted two designs for expansion at Heathrow and a second runway at Gatwick.

A new hub airport in the Thames Estuary – a scheme backed by Boris Johnson, the London Mayor – will undergo further investigation by commissioners before they decide in the autumn whether it should be added to the shortlist.

According to KPMG’s commercial and financial assessment, a new hub airport on the Isle of Grain in the inner Thames Estuary would demand £64.7bn of government support. The report appears to contradict claims by airport operators that an extra runway could be financed either exclusively or predominantly by the private sector.

Gatwick has said it could deliver a second runway for £5bn to £9bn with no government aid.

Heathrow has raised the prospect of £4bn to £6bn of taxpayer support to improve rail and road links, but has argued that a third runway, at a cost of £17bn, would be largely funded by the private sector.

The KPMG analysis also highlights the potential burden on passengers of runway expansion.

Landing charges – fees that are passed on to passengers through higher ticket prices – would have to rise by 136pc at Gatwick to repay debt raised to fund a second runway, the report claims.

Charges at Gatwick would then need to increase by 2.5pc above inflation every year from 2019.

In order to fund a third runway at Heathrow, to the north west of the airport’s current site, landing charges would go up by 13pc initially, followed by annual increases of 2.5pc above inflation, the research shows. KPMG experts did not assess the Heathrow Hub scheme, which involves lengthening one of the airport’s existing air strips and effectively splitting it in two.

“The scale of the proposed schemes and of the financing challenge associated with each points to the criticality of government support,” the report states. “Government support could take various forms. For example … this could comprise government subsidy of scheme costs. The scale of this subsidy requirement varies by scheme but is in all cases substantial.”

A spokesman for Gatwick said the airport “doesn’t recognise the KPMG figures” and believes it is not a “like-for-like comparison between Gatwick and Heathrow”.

Stewart Wingate, chief executive of Gatwick, stressed at a conference last week that the airport was planning to produce a design that would keep the price tag as close to £5bn as possible in order to ensure it remains competitive and supports low-cost carriers.

He said Gatwick would challenge the commission on its figures, as it believed road and rail improvements that are either already under way or are already planned by Government had been added unnecessarily to the overall costs of a second runway.

A Heathrow spokesman said: “We’ve always known that expanding Heathrow would be cheaper than building a new hub airport, but this evidence shows that both taxpayers and individual passengers would pay less for a new runway at Heathrow than at Gatwick.

“Passenger charges would rise by less with Heathrow expansion, and the taxpayer support required is less than that needed for Gatwick.”

Daniel Moylan, the Mayor’s chief aviation adviser, said he did not accept the capital expenditure figures KPMG used “nor how they have been modelled”.

He said: “Our work has shown that there are realistic outcomes for the Government to make all of the money it spent on constructing the new airport back – upon selling the facility to an operator.

Mr Moylan added: “This includes the acquisition and redevelopment of Heathrow.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10581910/New-runway-will-require-taxpayer-support.html

.

 

Related Telegraph Articles

.

On Heathrow’s north-west runway option, the KPMG report says (Page 14)

“The capital cost of developing the scheme is estimated at £21.6 billion (comprising £18.7 billion of on-Airport costs and £2.9 billion of off-Airport surface access costs) and this is spread over a 19-year period with costs back-ended (the first five years’ expenditure is just £1.3 billion). This is almost double the existing Heathrow RAB [regulatory asset base]  value and likely to require some form of pre-funding or revenue profiling to achieve a financeable credit rating. Even assuming simple indexation of revenues at 2.5% for the period beyond the current price control period (Q6) to 2019, the indicative borrowing would not be repaid by 2050.

In order to meet the full debt requirement, aero revenues must be increased by 19% and then
indexed at 2.5% per annum thereafter. This would mean peak borrowing of £24.2 billion being repaid in full by 2050. If indexation is ignored for the purposes of increasing the aero revenue (which might be closer to reality given the current regulatory settlement) the initial aero revenue would need to be uplifted by 54% at the outset, although that reduces the peak financing requirement to £12.2 billion.

The above assumes that Heathrow’s owners would be responsible for the entirety of the surface access costs outlined. If that assumption is removed, the revenues would need to increase by 13% at the outset (and indexed at 2.5% thereafter) to see peak borrowing of £21.8 billion fully repaid before 2050. Alternatively a rise of 46% in aero revenues at the outset with no subsequent indexation sees peak borrowing of £10.4 billion fully repaid in the period. Rises above these figures would allow a contribution to surface access costs.”

Airports Commission - Interim Report - 0 Paper – High-level Commercial & Financial Assessment of Selected Potential Schemes   - 10 December 2013. By KPMG

.

On Gatwick’s 2nd runway plan, the KPMG report says (Page 18):

“The capital cost of developing the scheme is estimated at £16.6 billion (comprising £14 billion of on airport costs and £2.6 billion of off-airport (surface access) costs). Whilst this capital expenditure is spread over 21 years, and much of the cost is back-ended (the first five years sees only £0.9 billion expenditure), the anticipated revenue assumptions do not allow debt to be repaid as there is insufficient income to cover the interest on the debt. This is after assuming revenues are indexed at 2.5% from 2019 the period beyond the current regulated cap. Further, at four times the current RAB value, it seems unlikely that the RAB model could be used as an effective means for raising finance for this option.

In order to repay total debt by 2050, aero revenue charges would need to increase by 136% and rise by 2.5% inflation year on year from 2019 and that would give rise to peak borrowing of £13.2 billion.

Alternatively an initial rise of 209% with no further inflationary rise would also see a reduced debt of £8.5 billion fully repaid by 2050.  However, that analysis assumes that the airport pays for 100% of the off-airport capital expenditure. Assuming that it makes no contribution to those off-airport costs the revenue is still insufficient to meet interest costs but the increase required to repay the on-airport related debt is a 112% increase in aero revenues from 2019 and indexed at 2.5% thereafter. In that case peak borrowing would be £11.1 billion which could be reduced to £6.9 billion if the initial rise in aero revenues were 171% with no inflationary rise thereafter. Any increase in revenue above that would theoretically allow a contribution to the off-airport capital expenditure.

Whilst the cost of this scheme is low in comparison to the brand new hub options, it is still too large under the revenue assumptions provided to repay the capital cost and would therefore need some form of revenue increase, subsidy or grant from Government. Without a clear economic rationale it is unlikely that the remainder of the funding would be attractive to external investors or third party debt providers so the extent of the Government subsidy may need to be sizeable. It is noteworthy that the cost of the scheme is a few billion pounds less than Crossrail which has some private sector contribution at the margins but is in essence wholly funded by Government.

To derive a proxy figure for potential Government subsidy to support the schemes (as an alternative to simply raising revenue) a breakeven analysis on the capital expenditure costs has been approximated. Reducing capital expenditure by £17.7 billion, the scheme is viable in the base case and this £17.7 billion is therefore an approximation of the level of Government support that might be required. The additional borrowing requirement would fall to a more manageable £1.7 billion.”

 .

Airports Commission - Interim Report - 0 Paper – High-level Commercial & Financial Assessment of Selected Potential Schemes   - 10 December 2013. By KPMG

.

..

 

Read more »

Airports Commission has published 4 sets of airport level passenger forecasts 2011 to 2050

The Airports Commission is basing its advice to the government, that a new runway is needed over coming decades (not in the short term) on future passenger forecasts. In its Interim Report, on 17th December, the Commission set out its thinking on forecasts, with and without more runway capacity (no new runways, or one or two more) both with current theoretical constraints like the EU Emissions Trading System, and with more stringent controls to actually attempt to limit UK aviation emissions to their 2005 level, by 2050 – though allowing them to rise higher than that level in the interim.  The Commission has now released its forecasts for its 4 scenarios, a matrix of carbon traded and carbon capped, with capacity constrained by no new runway, and with a new runway. They have also published estimates for Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Schiphol airports, from 2011 to 2050. At the extremes the forecasts range from UK air passengers by 2050 being between 178% to 199%  higher in 2050 than in 2013. The figures range, for Heathrow, from passengers being 127% to 195% higher in 2050 than in 2013. For Gatwick the forecasts range from 136% to 153% higher in 2050 than in 2013. 
.

 

 

The Airports Commission’s Interim Report (December 2013) is at 

Airports Commission: interim report

PDF, 4.41MB, 228 pages

On their four scenarios the interim report says:

How the model has been used

4.9 The Commission has used the updated model to develop four core forecasts:

1) Carbon traded, capacity unconstrained.   (ie. ETS with new runway)

This represents total potential demand for UK aviation, in the absence of any constraints on airport capacity or on aviation emissions. It assumes that aviation continues to participate in existing emissions trading schemes, such as the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS),
so passengers face a carbon cost, but no specific emissions level is targeted. It is broadly equivalent to the DfT’s unconstrained demand forecast.

.

2) Carbon traded, capacity constrained.  (ie. ETS with no new runway)

This is the same as the first forecast, except that it assumes that existing constraints on UK airport capacity persist throughout the forecast period. The difference between this forecast and the first allows the Commission to estimate the scale of unmet demand at national,
regional and airport level, and the rate at which airports would fill up in the absence of any limit on carbon emissions. This forecast is broadly equivalent to the DfT constrained forecast.

.
3) Carbon capped, capacity unconstrained.  (ie. higher carbon cost with new runway)

This represents the level of aviation demand consistent with the CCC’s [Committee on Climate Change's] current assessment of how UK climate targets can be met. It includes a higher modelled carbon price, which ensures that forecast emissions return to 2005 levels by 2050, but assumes no constraints on airport capacity. It is broadly equivalent to the CCC’s ‘likely’ scenario, set out in its 2009 report “Meeting the UK aviation target – options for reducing emissions to 2050”.

.

4) Carbon capped, capacity constrained. (ie. higher carbon cost without new runway)

This forecast assumes both a higher modelled carbon price, as in (3), and the continuation of existing constraints on UK airport capacity, as in (2). It allows the Commission to estimate how existing airport capacity would be used if further policies were introduced to return aviation emissions to 2005 levels by 2050.

.


 

.

On 20th January 2014 the Commission issued information on its forecasts.

Airports Commission: airport level passenger forecasts 2011 to 2050

The date in spreadsheets are at

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/airports-commission-airport-level-passenger-forecasts-2011-to-2050


.

The tables below are simplified (by AirportWatch) versions of the much larger documents on the  Airports Commission website).

1) Carbon traded, capacity unconstrained.                                       (ie. ETS with new runway)

This represents total potential demand for UK aviation, in the absence of any constraints on airport capacity or on aviation emissions. It assumes that aviation continues to participate in existing emissions trading schemes, such as the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS),
so passengers face a carbon cost, but no specific emissions level is targeted. It is broadly equivalent to the DfT’s unconstrained demand forecast.

Carbon traded Passengers (rounded to nearest million)
Capacity unconstrained  
Modelled Airport 2011 2013 2020 2030 2040 2050 2050 number as % of 2013 number By contrast the actual passenger numbers for 2005  (CAA data)
Aberdeen 2 2 3 3 4 5 250%
Belfast International 4 4 5 6 8 9 225%
Belfast City 3 2 3 4 5 6 300%
Birmingham 9 9 10 12 15 20 222%
Bournemouth 1 1 1 1 2 2 200%
Bristol 5 5 6 8 10 10 200%
Cardiff 1 1 1 1 1 2 200%
East Midlands 4 3 3 4 5 7 233%
Edinburgh 8 8 10 13 17 20 250%
Exeter 1 1 1 1 2 2 200%
Gatwick 33 32 34 37 42 49 153% 32,693,000
Glasgow 7 7 7 9 10 12 171%
Heathrow 77 81 99 119 136 158 195%  67,683,300
Humberside 0 0 1 1 1 1
Inverness 1 1 1 1 1 2 200%
Leeds/Bradford 3 3 4 6 8 9 300%
Liverpool 5 5 5 5 6 7 140%
London City 3 3 4 6 7 9 300%
Luton 10 9 10 15 18 19 211%
Manchester 20 19 25 33 38 47 247%
Newcastle 4 4 4 5 6 7 175%
Newquay 0 0 0 0 0 1
Norwich 0 0 0 1 1 1
Southend 0 1 1 2 2 2 200%
Southampton 2 1 2 2 2 2 200%
Stansted 18 18 21 25 30 34 189%
Teesside 0 0 0 0 0 0
Blackpool 0 0 0 0 0 1
Doncaster Sheffield 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%
Prestwick 1 1 2 2 1 1 100%
UK total 223 225 261 323 381 448 199% 227,413,000
Paris 56 56 66 81 93 110 196%
Amsterdam 41 40 45 56 66 78 195%
Frankfurt 52 52 59 73 92 115 221%
Dubai 44 45 53 66 80 111 247%
50.2% of  UK traffic at Heathrow + Gatwick in 2013
46.2% of UK traffic at Heathrow + Gatwick in 2050
Total passengers in 2013 (minus Heathrow + Gatwick) = 112 million using the other UK airports
Total passengers in 2050 (minus Heathrow + Gatwick) =  241 million using the other UK airports..

ie. 129 million more using airports other than Heathrow + Gatwick in 2050 than in 2013

.


 

.

2) Carbon traded, capacity constrained.                                              (ie. ETS with no new runway)

This is the same as the first forecast, except that it assumes that existing constraints on UK airport capacity persist throughout the forecast period. The difference between this forecast and the first allows the Commission to estimate the scale of unmet demand at national,
regional and airport level, and the rate at which airports would fill up in the absence of any limit on carbon emissions. This forecast is broadly equivalent to the DfT constrained forecast.

Carbon traded Passengers (rounded to nearest million)
Capacity constrained
Modelled Airport 2011 2013 2020 2030 2040 2050 2050 number as % of 2013 number
Aberdeen 2 2 3 3 4 5 250%
Belfast International 4 4 5 6 8 9 225%
Belfast City 3 2 3 4 5 6 300%
Birmingham 8 10 13 18 26 30 300%
Bournemouth 1 1 1 1 3 4 400%
Bristol 6 5 5 8 10 12 240%
Cardiff 1 1 1 1 1 3 300%
East Midlands 4 3 4 4 6 12 400%
Edinburgh 9 9 10 14 16 19 211%
Exeter 1 1 1 1 1 2 200%
Gatwick 34 33 39 41 44 46 139%
Glasgow 6 6 7 8 9 11 183%
Heathrow 69 71 75 81 83 90 127%
Humberside 0 0 1 1 1 1
Inverness 1 1 1 1 1 2 200%
Leeds/Bradford 3 3 5 8 8 8 267%
Liverpool 5 5 5 6 8 9 180%
London City 3 4 5 7 7 7 175%
Luton 10 9 13 18 18 18 200%
Manchester 20 19 22 28 35 47 247%
Newcastle 4 4 4 5 6 7 175%
Newquay 0 0 0 0 0 1
Norwich 0 0 0 1 1 2
Southend 0 1 2 2 2 2 200%
Southampton 2 2 2 2 4 7 350%
Stansted 18 19 19 26 35 35 184%
Teesside 0 0 0 0 0 0
Blackpool 0 0 0 0 0 1
Doncaster Sheffield 1 1 1 1 1 2 200%
Prestwick 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%
UK total 217 218 248 299 346 400 183%
Paris 57 57 66 81 94 117 205%
Amsterdam 41 40 47 59 71 91 228%
Frankfurt 53 53 64 83 103 114 215%
Dubai 46 49 57 70 86 113 231%
47.7% of passengers using Heathrow + Gatwick in 2013
34% of passengers using Heathrow + Gatwick in 2050
Total passengers in 2013 (minus Heathrow + Gatwick) = 114  million using the other UK airports
Total passengers in 2050 (minus Heathrow + Gatwick) =  264 million using the other UK airports..

ie. 150 million more using airports other than Heathrow + Gatwick in 2050 than in 2013

 

.


 

3)  Carbon capped, capacity  unconstrained

This represents the level of aviation demand consistent with the CCC’s [Committee on Climate Change's] current assessment of how UK climate targets can be met. It includes a higher modelled carbon price, which ensures that forecast emissions return to 2005 levels by 2050, but assumes no constraints on airport capacity. It is broadly equivalent to the CCC’s ‘likely’ scenario, set out in its 2009 report “Meeting the UK aviation target – options for reducing emissions to 2050”.

Carbon capped Passengers (rounded to nearest million)
Capacity unconstrained
Modelled Airport 2011 2013 2020 2030 2040 2050 2050 number as % of 2013 number
Aberdeen 2 2 3 3 4 4 200%
Belfast International 4 4 5 6 7 8 200%
Belfast City 3 2 3 3 4 5 250%
Birmingham 9 8 10 10 12 15 188%
Bournemouth 1 1 1 1 0 1 100%
Bristol 5 5 5 7 7 8 160%
Cardiff 1 1 1 1 1 2 200%
East Midlands 4 3 3 4 4 5 167%
Edinburgh 8 8 10 12 14 17 213%
Exeter 1 1 1 1 1 2 200%
Gatwick 33 32 33 32 34 36 113%
Glasgow 7 7 7 8 9 10 143%
Heathrow 77 81 99 114 127 146 180%
Humberside 0 0 1 1 1 1
Inverness 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%
Leeds/Bradford 3 3 4 6 7 8 267%
Liverpool 5 5 5 4 5 6 120%
London City 3 3 4 5 6 7 233%
Luton 10 9 9 13 15 15 167%
Manchester 20 19 25 29 34 38 200%
Newcastle 4 4 4 5 5 6 150%
Newquay 0 0 0 0 0 0
Norwich 0 0 0 0 1 1
Southend 0 1 1 2 2 2 200%
Southampton 2 1 2 2 2 2 200%
Stansted 18 18 21 23 27 30 167%
Teesside 0 0 0 0 0 0
Blackpool 0 0 0 0 0 0
Doncaster Sheffield 1 1 1 1 1 1 100%
Prestwick 1 1 2 1 1 1 100%
UK total 223 224 259 297 332 377 168%
Paris 56 56 65 76 85 97 173%
Amsterdam 41 40 45 51 58 67 168%
Frankfurt 52 52 58 67 80 99 190%
Dubai 44 45 53 62 73 100 222%
50.45% of  UK traffic at Heathrow + Gatwick in 2013
48.28% of  UK traffic at Heathrow + Gatwick in 2050
Total passengers in 2013 (minus Heathrow + Gatwick) = 111 million using the other UK airports
Total passengers in 2050 (minus Heathrow + Gatwick) =  195 million using the other UK airports..

ie. 84 million more using airports other than Heathrow + Gatwick in 2050 than in 2013

 

.

 


 

.

4) Carbon capped, capacity constrained.                                            (ie. higher carbon cost without new runway)

This forecast assumes both a higher modelled carbon price, as in (3), and the continuation of existing constraints on UK airport capacity, as in (2). It allows the Commission to estimate how existing airport capacity would be used if further policies were introduced to return aviation emissions to 2005 levels by 2050.


Carbon capped Passengers (rounded to nearest million)
Capacity unconstrained
Modelled Airport 2011 2013 2020 2030 2040 2050 2050 number as % of 2013 number
Aberdeen 2 2 3 3 4 5 250%
Belfast International 4 4 5 6 7 9 225%
Belfast City 3 2 3 4 4 6 300%
Birmingham 8 10 13 17 24 29 290%
Bournemouth 1 1 1 1 3 4 400%
Bristol 6 5 5 7 9 12 240%
Cardiff 1 1 1 1 1 3 300%
East Midlands 4 3 4 4 5 10 333%
Edinburgh 9 9 10 13 16 19 211%
Exeter 1 1 1 1 1 2 200%
Gatwick 34 33 39 41 43 45 136%
Glasgow 6 6 7 8 9 10 167%
Heathrow 69 71 75 82 83 91 128%
Humberside 0 0 1 1 1 1
Inverness 1 1 1 1 1 2 200%
Leeds/Bradford 3 3 5 7 8 8 267%
Liverpool 5 5 5 6 7 9 180%
London City 3 4 5 6 7 7 175%
Luton 10 9 13 18 18 18 200%
Manchester 20 19 22 28 33 44 232%
Newcastle 4 4 4 5 6 6 150%
Newquay 0 0 0 0 0 0
Norwich 0 0 0 1 1 1
Southend 0 1 2 2 2 2 200%
Southampton 2 2 2 2 4 7 350%
Stansted 18 19 19 25 35 35 184%
Teesside 0 0 0 0 0 0
Blackpool 0 0 0 0 1 1
Doncaster Sheffield 1 1 1 1 1 2 200%
Prestwick 2 2 2 2 2 2 100%
UK total 217 218 247 295 338 389 178%
Paris 57 57 65 80 92 113 198%
Amsterdam 41 40 47 58 69 87 218%
Frankfurt 53 53 64 81 102 113 213%
Dubai 46 49 57 69 84 110 224%
47.7% of passengers using Heathrow + Gatwick in 2013
34.96% of passengers using Heathrow + Gatwick in 2050
Total passengers in 2013 (minus Heathrow + Gatwick) = 114 million using the other UK airports
Total passengers in 2050 (minus Heathrow + Gatwick) =  253 million using the other UK airports..

ie. 139 million more using airports other than Heathrow + Gatwick in 2050 than in 2013

 

 


.

Air passengers in 2005

(2005 is the year chosen for the 2050 target, for UK aviation emissions to return to this level. The CCC recommended that passengers may be able to rise by 60% from this level, and air transport movements rise by 55% from this level, and still (perhaps) keep within UK carbon targets. To allow aviation to not cut its carbon emissions from their 2005 level, all other sectors of the economy must cut their emissions by 85% of their 1990 level by 2050.

From CAA data at 

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=80&pagetype=88&sglid=3&fld=2012Annual

Table 10.3

Airport Passenger numbers for 2005
ABERDEEN            2,851,784
BELFAST CITY (GEORGE BEST)            2,236,977
BELFAST INTERNATIONAL            4,819,512
BIRMINGHAM            9,311,403
BLACKPOOL                376,808
BOURNEMOUTH                829,108
BRISTOL            5,199,220
CARDIFF WALES            1,764,753
DONCASTER SHEFFIELD                600,651
DUNDEE                  48,624
DURHAM TEES VALLEY                901,917
EAST MIDLANDS INTERNATIONAL            4,181,900
EDINBURGH            8,448,604
EXETER                841,683
GATWICK          32,693,005
GLASGOW            8,775,355
HEATHROW          67,683,317
HUMBERSIDE                459,204
INVERNESS                588,773
LEEDS BRADFORD            2,608,721
LIVERPOOL (JOHN LENNON)            4,409,018
LONDON CITY            1,996,397
LUTON            9,134,748
MANCHESTER          22,083,008
MANSTON (KENT INT)                204,016
NEWCASTLE            5,187,182
NEWQUAY                336,982
PRESTWICK            2,404,654
SOUTHAMPTON            1,835,029
SOUTHEND                     5,133
STANSTED          21,991,733
Total passengers at all UK reporting airports in 2005 227,413,000
Number at Heathrow + Gatwick  100,376,322
% of total passengers from Heathrow + Gatwick  44.2%

 

 

60% more passengers than the 2005 level of some 227.4 million would be an extra 132 million, taking the total by 2050 to 363 million approximately. That is the maximum permitted growth under the Committee on Climate Change advice to the UK government: 60% more passengers than in 2005 by 2050, and 55% more flights (presuming carbon savings made by then by the industry).

 

Read more »

Airports Commission now consulting on Thames estuary airport options – deadlines 14th February and 23rd May

On 16th January the Airports Commission published its consultations on Thames estuary airport options. It did not short-list an estuary option, in its interim report on 17th December. Now there will be a first consultation, ending on 14th February on four options in the inner estuary. The Commission are asking for comments on its current position on the proposed terms of reference, especially if they contain gaps or weaknesses and whether other specific analyses need to be undertaken.  There will be a second deadline date, ending on 23rd May, on an inner Thames proposal in which respondents are invited to submit analysis, evidence, and additional research or comments. The Commission says this will give sufficient time to ensure that appropriate evidence can be considered to inform the final study outputs before the studies are concluded and published. The Commission says it “expects to procure expert assistance from consultants in environmental appraisal and technical support; in the provision of engineering, airport operations and logistics consultancy and in the provision of economic modelling, commercial and financial appraisal.” Presumably at public expense (the Commission has a budget of £20.35 million over 4 years, from DfT). “The Commission expects to be in a position to publish many of the study outputs by July 2014, to ensure that any further evidence from interested parties is taken into account before a decision is made in September.” Final public consultation on the schemes starts in October.
.

 

Introductory note: inner Thames Estuary feasibility studies consultation document

PDF, 80.3KB, 12 pages

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/271634/airports-intro-note.pdf

This publication sets out the Commission’s current position on taking forward additional feasibility and impacts work for an inner Thames Estuary airport proposal.

It invites comments on the draft terms of reference for the 4 research studies which the Airports Commission will be taking forward.

Related inner Thames Estuary documents

.

.


 

Airports Commission website  https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/airports-commission

 


 

The Commission document

Introductory Note: Inner Thames Estuary Feasibility Studies

 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/271634/airports-intro-note.pdf

says:

Purpose

1. The purpose of this introductory note is to set out the Commission’s current position on taking forward additional feasibility and impacts work for an inner Thames Estuary proposal. It also fulfils the twin purpose of:

• inviting comments on the draft terms of reference for the four research studies it
will be progressing; and,
• opening a call for evidence to inform the study outputs.

.
Current position
2. The Commission published its Interim Report on 17 December 2013 setting out the three short-listed schemes to be taken forward for detailed development work, for national consultation this autumn.

3. The proposals received by the Commission for a new hub airport in or around the
Thames Estuary were both imaginative and ambitious.

4. The notion of a once-in-a-century decision to build a new hub airport that would significantly reduce the impacts of aircraft flying into and out of London, especially for the many thousands of people affected by noise around Heathrow, is compelling.

5. In addition, supporting the shift of London’s economic centre of gravity eastwards to allow for further expected population growth, combined with a major redevelopment opportunity of the Heathrow site, are potentially attractive prospects, and could have major impacts on the economic geography of the South East.

6. There are, however, significant challenges and risks associated with an inner
Thames Estuary proposal – for example, the Estuary has many areas of protected
habitat and flood risk and is some 33 miles from central London with no direct
surface access links in place.

7. Therefore, while no proposal for an Estuary airport has presented a sufficiently
powerful case for it to be currently recommended as a credible option, the
Commission was unable to reach a firm conclusion on an inner Thames Estuary
option (see paragraphs 6.24-6.46 of the Interim Report). 5 Introductory note

8. The Commission has recognised that, given the magnitude and complexity of a
scheme of this kind, further research would be of significant value to understand
better the feasibility and impacts of a new hub airport. The lack of evidence in
some key areas was also recognised by a number of interested parties in their
submissions to the Commission.

9. Over the coming months, the Commission is, therefore, proposing to take forward
four studies to address the significant risks and challenges associated with a
scheme of this magnitude and complexity.

10. It is also inviting evidence from interested parties, and commits to engaging with
them in a consultative manner, to inform the study outputs.

11. Following the completed studies and evidence-gathering, the Commission will
then decide whether a new hub airport proposal in the inner Thames Estuary is a
credible option to be taken forward for further detailed development work or not.
The Commission expects to make this decision by September 2014.

12. If the proposal is considered to be credible, it will go forward to the same level of
detailed development as the short-listed proposals and be consulted upon nationally.
Feasibility studies and draft terms of reference

13. As set out in the Interim Report, the Commission has already assessed that
the most viable options for a new hub airport are located in the inner Thames
Estuary and not the outer Thames Estuary. The Commission will, therefore, only
be taking forward further feasibility and impacts work in respect of the inner
Thames Estuary locations.

14. The Isle of Grain option examined by the Commission in its Interim Report
incorporated elements from several inner Thames Estuary proposals (as described
in paragraph 6.25 of the Interim Report and paragraph 5.4 of Appendix 2 of the
Interim Report). It is proposed, therefore, that the studies referred to below may
consider alternative inner Estuary locations in assessing the feasibility and impacts
of a new hub airport. This will enable consideration of the range of impacts which
could materially affect the location and design of such a new airport.

15. The Commission’s current position on the draft terms of reference for the four study
areas can be found in the Annex to this note, and are outlined briefly below in
alphabetical order:

Environmental impacts – assessment of the impacts on the Natura 2000 sites,
coastal system, habitats and species affected and historical and archaeological sites, in constructing and operating a new airport and identifying whether the legal tests could be met.

Operational feasibility and attitudes about moving to a new airport –
assessment of key potential operational issues and potential mitigation, including
meteorological and wildlife impacts, the SS Montgomery and relocating energy
facilities; assessing airline, airport, business and industry attitudes to the decision
to move operations to a new hub airport, and to then moving operations.

Socio-economic impacts – assessment of the local, sub-national and national
economic and social benefits and impacts of building a new hub airport in the
inner Thames Estuary, closing down Heathrow and London City airports, and
redeveloping the Heathrow site.

Surface access impacts – assessment of the operational, cost and
environmental impacts of any surface transport proposals required to support a
new hub airport, as well as impacts on existing and planned local and strategic
transport infrastructure.
16. The Commission is now inviting views and comments on its current position on
the proposed terms of reference (as set out in the Annex hereto). Comments
are invited by no later than 14 February 2014, to inform the project initiation
documents. Please send any comments on the draft terms of reference for the four
studies to estuary.tor@airports.gsi.gov.uk.

17. The Commission is particularly interested to hear whether there are any gaps or
weaknesses in its current position on the draft terms of reference, and whether
there is any specific analysis that will be appropriate to consider in undertaking
these studies.

18. The Commission expects to procure expert assistance from consultants in
environmental appraisal and technical support; in the provision of engineering,
airport operations and logistics consultancy and in the provision of economic
modelling, commercial and financial appraisal. Much analysis has already been
undertaken in Phase 1, and the Expert Advisory Panel will continue to help the
Commission to access, interpret and understand evidence for the studies, as well
as to make judgements about its relevance and potential application.

19. The Commission expects to be in a position to publish many of the study outputs
by July 2014, to ensure that any further evidence from interested parties is taken
into account before a decision is made in September. Figure 1 of this document
sets out how the decision making process for this work is expected to proceed.

.
The call for evidence
20. The Commission commits to engaging with interested parties in a consultative
manner in order to ensure that high-quality, well thought-out study outcomes
are delivered.

21. In addition to welcoming views on the draft terms of reference for each of the
studies, the Commission is now opening a call for evidence from interested parties,
in order to inform the study outputs.

22. Interested parties are welcome to submit analysis, evidence, additional
research or comments in relation to an inner Thames Estuary proposal to the
Commission by Friday 23 May 2014. This will give sufficient time to ensure that
appropriate evidence can be considered to inform the final study outputs before
the studies are concluded and published.

Please send evidence to
estuary.studies@airports.gsi.gov.uk.

23. If you are interested in submitting work, please do not hesitate to get in touch about
the type of analysis and evidence which could best inform the study outputs.

24. The Commission will not be considering new or refreshed scheme proposals on the
Estuary, but will assess the credibility of an Inner Estuary option with particular focus
on the distinct study areas set out in the Annex. Therefore, the Commission invites
analysis and evidence relating specifically to the finalised study terms of reference,
where it has concluded that additional analysis will be of value in reaching its
decision on whether the Inner Estuary option can be regarded as a credible option.

 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/271634/airports-intro-note.pdf

.

.

 

Read more »

TESTRAD questions Airports Commission decision to rule out their “London Britannia” estuary airport

TESTRAD (the Thames Estuary Research and Development Company has appealed to the Airports Commission for more information on how it reached its decision not to short-list a Thames Estuary Airport. The TESTRAD CEO Bridget Rosewell has written to Sir Howard Davies, saying they are “concerned about the adequacy of the assessment upon which the Commission has based its conclusions for the final short-list”.  Sir Howard said that seeing merit for potential to boost economic development to the east of London and reduce noise over the Capital, the Commission would undertake further assessment of its own for a potential airport on the Estuary’s Isle of Grain. A decision on whether to include it on the short-list will be made by “late summer” in time for the consultation on the chosen options in October. At the RunwaysUK conference, the Grain possibility was discussed and it was clear that arguments against it were hugely stronger than those for it. It makes little practical, economic or environmental sense. Bridget Rosewell and her team want clarification on why TESTRAD’s and other Estuary proposals were deemed “not credible”. She also says some projects (Heathrow?) were given preferential access to the Commission and wants details of those meetings.
.

 

TESTRAD questions Airports Commission decision on estuary airports

17 Jan 2014
By Niki May Young

TESTRAD questions Airports Commission decision on estuary airports
TESTRAD questions Airports Commission decision on estuary airports

The Thames Estuary Research and Development Company has appealed to the Airports Commission for more information on how it reached its decision not to shortlist a Thames Estuary Airport in its interim capacity solutions report.

TESTRAD CEO Bridget Rosewell (pictured) wrote yesterday to Sir Howard Davies, who is leading the Commission tasked with finding the best solution to meet the increasing capacity demands on the UK’s airports. In her letter she said TESTRAD “remains concerned about the adequacy of the assessment upon which the Commission has based its conclusions for the final shortlist” after its proposal for ‘London Britannia’ in the Thames Estuary was dismissed.

The Commission’s Interim Report, published on 17 December, shortlisted three capacity-building proposals from over 50 received. Two of the shortlisted choices involved expansion at Heathrow Airport to the west of London, while the other explored capacity at Gatwick, to the south of London.

Further options that would see an airport built on reclaimed land in the Thames Estuary to the east of London were deemed too challenging, expensive and risky for the environment by the Commission. They could pose both flood and legal risk, it advised, adding that no submission had adequately provided plans to tackle all of these issues.

However, seeing merit for potential to boost economic development to the east of London and reduce noise over the Capital, the Commission advised that it would undertake further assessment of its own for a potential airport on the Estuary’s Isle of Grain. The London Mayor Boris Johnson, supported by Atkins had also proposed an airport on the Isle of Grain, a proposal highlighted in the Interim Report as costing around five times that of the three short-listed, at up to £112 billion.

TESTRAD, a team including architecture and planning giants Gensler and Ramboll have been left perplexed: “It is our strong view that, when tested against the Commission’s own criteria, the London Britannia proposal has far greater merit as a location than the Isle of Grain (in any guise),” Rosewell said.

She called for clarification over which Isle of Grain location, design and capacity the Commission would be further analysing and on what basis TESTRAD’s and other Estuary proposals were deemed “not credible”.

Further, Rosewell claims that some projects were given preferential access to the Commission: “We are also concerned that we were not given the opportunity to meet with the Commission and explain the detail of our proposal – our request for a meeting was refused, although, we understand that the Commission did meet other scheme promoters.”

Rosewell requested details of those meetings.

http://www.globalairportcities.com/page.cfm/action=library/libID=1/libEntryID=1226/listID=14

.


 

.

Introductory note: inner Thames Estuary feasibility studies consultation document

PDF, 80.3KB, 12 pages

This publication sets out the Commission’s current position on taking forward additional feasibility and impacts work for an inner Thames Estuary airport proposal.

It invites comments on the draft terms of reference for the 4 research studies which the Airports Commission will be taking forward.

.


.

Airports Commission by Sir Howard Davies to decide in September about four-runway hub airport on the Isle of Grain after public consultation

by Paul Francis  (Kent online)
The government commission examining airport capacity in the south east has started a fresh consultation on plans for a four-runway hub airport in Kent.
The Davies Commission says it wants to hear views about the idea of an airport on the Isle of Grain before deciding whether it should be included in a final shortlist.
The commission says it will decide by September if the scheme, backed by Mayor of London Boris Johnson, is feasible.
An aerial image of Lord Foster's proposed Thames Hub airport at Grain
An aerial image of Lord Foster’s proposed Thames Hub airport at Grain
Last month, the commission headed by Sir Howard Davies said it could not reach a firm conclusion and wanted time to consider a hub airport on the Isle of Grain in more detail.
It is being promoted by the company of world-renowned architect Lord Foster.
A 12-page report announcing the fresh consultation and call for evidence says the Thames Estuary schemes submitted during the first stage of the review “were both imaginative and ambitious”.
It said the idea “of a once-in-a-lifetime decision to build a new hub airport that would significantly reduce the impacts of flying into and out of London…is compelling.”
But it also acknowledges the potential adverse impact on the area, notably the environment.
Lord Foster's plans for a four-runway airport at Grain have provoked a strong reaction
Lord Foster’s plans for a four-runway airport at Grain have provoked a strong reaction
It said these, along with operational issues and the economic and social impacts, would determine whether it was feasible.
The commission will publish an analysis and evidence it receives in June, which will then be subject to further consultation.
A final decision will be made in September on whether the scheme is credible and join expansion options for Gatwick and Heathrow.
The commission will then publish its final recommendations in 2015, after the general election.
Anyone who wants to submit evidence can do so via estuary.studies@airports.gsi.gv.uk.
The deadline is May 23.
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway_messenger/news/estuary-airport-decision-due-in-11450/
.

.


.
Earlier:

“London Britannia” (aka ‘Boris Island’) mega Thames Estuary airport designs publicised by promoters, Testrad

12.11.2013

In the last month before the Airports Commission reveals its interim report, there is a flurry of activity, with airport schemes vying with each other to get media attention – and the attention of Sir Howard Davies. The mega-expensive (and needing huge public funding) scheme calling itself  ”London Britannia Airport” (aka Boris Island) had got itself plenty of media coverage. Its developers, Testrad, say the cost of  £47 billion to develop the airport plus rail links, infrastructure etc, “would be recouped from the real estate value and closure of Heathrow.” There is little new, other than what was reported earlier, in July. The airport claims it would bring huge economic benefits, cover most of the Thames estuary in a development area, allow the area at Heathrow (airport would have to be closed) to become a pleasant London suburb, and there are a list of other claims – including that it “avoids the problems of other land-based airport developments.”  It even makes out that it avoids bird strike problems (?). The entire area is part of the Outer Thames  Estuary Special Protection Area.http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=18321 

The Testrad brochure containing their airport proposal is at                   http://testrad.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Thames-estuary-brochure.pdf

.

Boris Island’ London Airport designs unveiled

Artist's impression of island airport

Medway, Kent and Southend councils, the RSPB and environmental campaigners have opposed the estuary airport plans.

Noise impact map
Testrad said all aircraft landing and departures would be over the estuary

.

Map from Page 18 of English Nature document on the Outer Thames Special Protection Area 
part of Outer Thames SPA map
.
.
.
.
.

 


 

Read more »

RunwaysUK conference shows up the Gatwick/Heathrow battle and the hub+spoke/point-to-point future of air travel

A new alliance, called RunwaysUK, intends to hold a large conference once a year, to bring together everyone involved in trying to get more UK runways built. Their first conference took place in London on 16th January, and was attended by several hundred people, largely from business and the aviation industry.  Not surprisingly their focus was on how desirable building at least one new runway would be. More than one ideally. Over a long day, with a tight schedule of speakers and question sessions (ably held together by Kirsty Wark), a lot of arguments took place, and a lot of points were made. The first item was a speech by Sir Howard Davies, Chairman of the Airports Commission, and the launch of the appraisal framework consultation, which will determine the criteria on which runway proposals will be considered. During the day the battle between Heathrow and Gatwick was repeatedly demonstrated, as were the issues of whether UK aviation is more likely to be based more on low cost, point to point flights, or on the hub and spoke model. There was debate on the Thames estuary, and the Airports Commission confirmed that this option will be given further consideration, perhaps to be added by late summer. Below is some of the press coverage of the conference.
.

 


 

This is the programme for the conference on 16th January 2014

http://www.runwaysuk.com/content/docs/runways-2014-programme.pdf 

RunwaysUK website is at  http://www.runwaysuk.com/about-runways-uk

The list of delegates is at http://www.runwaysuk.com/content/docs/runwaysuk-2014-delegate-list.pdf  (RunwaysUK kindly gave free tickets to many green NGOs and community groups etc to attend)


 

Some of the press coverage of points that came from the conference:

 

Boris adviser attacks ‘touch of Cowell’ in runway decision

Daniel Moylan says Airports Commission turned review into X-Factor style competition
Boris adviser attacks ‘touch of Cowell’ in runway decision. Claims Airports Commission has handed a “grossly unfair advantage” to Heathrow and will result in the “worst possible outcome” for London

By Nathalie Thomas, and Nick Collins

16 Jan 2014 (Telegraph)

Boris Johnson’s aviation adviser has attacked the commission that will decide where to build a new runway in London for turning the process into an X Factor-style competition with “a touch of Simon Cowell about it”.

Daniel Moylan hit out at the Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, claiming it has handed a “grossly unfair advantage” to Heathrow and will result in the “worst possible outcome” for London.

Dr Ralf Speth, the chief executive of Jaguar Land Rover, also accused the government-backed body of giving a “lack of priority” to regional airports, which are often closer to Britain’s manufacturing bases.

Mr Moylan, the Mayor’s chief aviation adviser, lambasted the Commission at a conference in London, saying Mr Johnson suspects the process is simply being used by the Government as a way to smooth the path for a third and “inevitably” a fourth runway at Heathrow.

Sir Howard, the former chairman of the Financial Services Authority, last month short-listed two potential options for expansion at Heathrow, plus proposals for a second runway at Gatwick to be taken forward for further investigation before he delivers his final verdict in 2015.
The Mayor’s proposals for a brand new hub airport on the Isle of Grain in north Kent will be investigated further by the commission before Sir Howard decides in the Autumn whether it should be added to the short-list.

Mr Moylan claimed the consultation that led up to the short-list deteriorated into a “sort of BAFTA Awards” in which schemes that were not backed by wealthy private companies were “clearly at a disadvantage”.

He said: “The decision-making to date…has had a touch of the Simon Cowell about it, with conclusions in some cases startlingly adrift from the numerical and other evidence in the report.”
He questioned why the commission added a “large percentage of risk and contingency” to all other submissions – pushing up the estimated cost of a Thames Estuary airport up to £80bn-£100bn – while it reduced Heathrow’s cost estimates.

Heathrow believes a third runway, to the north-west of its current site, could be delivered for £16.9bn while the commission has forecast a range of £13bn-£18bn.

“Whatever the reason, a grossly unfair advantage has been given to Heathrow,” Mr Moylan said at the conference organised by Runways UK.

Sir Howard said the commission has sought to ensure that all of its decisions so far are “soundly based”.

He fought off claims that he has kept the possibility of a Thames Estuary airport on the table as a “political fudge”.

Sir Howard said: “What we wanted to do was ensure that all of the decisions we make are defensible and soundly-based. That is why we are doing the additional work [on the Thames Estuary proposal] in order to ensure that when we eventually make a decision on this it is…not vulnerable to challenge.”

Dr Speth would not say whether he would prefer expansion at Heathrow, Gatwick or at a new site to the east of London but he said he currently spends “too much time” on the M40 commuting to the capital to take flights when Jaguar Land Rover is a West Midlands-based company.

“One disappointment from the interim report is the lack of priority given to the non-London locations,” the automotive chief said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10577567/Boris-adviser-attacks-touch-of-Cowell-in-runway-decision.html

.


 

‘Boris island’ decision ‘in autumn’

The Airports Commission will make a definite runway recommendation in summer 2015
16 JANUARY 2014 (Belfast Telegraph)

A decision on whether or not the so-called “Boris island” option of a new Thames Estuary airport is to be added to an official airport expansion shortlist will be made in autumn 2014, the head of the Whitehall-appointed Airports Commission said today.

Chaired by former Financial Services Authority chief Sir Howard Davies, the commission has already shortlisted Heathrow and Gatwick Airports as possible sites for a new runway by 2030.

The estuary airport plan, favoured by London Mayor Boris Johnson, failed to make the shortlist in last month’s interim report but the commission promised to look further at the scheme.

Today, announcing the future work of the commission in an “appraisal framework” timetable, Sir Howard said a decision on whether to add the estuary airport option to the shortlist would be taken in “early autumn”.

Addressing an aviation conference in London, Sir Howard said the estuary scheme, costing as much as £112 billion, presented “many challenges and risks”, adding that the cost looked “rather daunting”.

He also said that, in studying the estuary option, the commission would have to “look at the implication of closing Heathrow and London City Airports”.

Mr Johnson is bitterly opposed to a new, third runway at Heathrow and favours, instead, a brand-new airport in the Thames Estuary .

Earlier this week it was revealed that Mr Johnson had written to Sir Howard asking him not to sideline the estuary plan.

Launching the commission’s interim report last month, Sir Howard said the estuary airport plan could cost as much as £112 billion – much more than either the Heathrow or Gatwick options.

He also said the construction challenge in building a new estuary airport would be “massive”.

An extra, third runway at Heathrow was given the go-ahead by the Labour government in 2009, but scrapped by the coalition Government when it took power in May 2010.

In a letter to Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin, the 2M group comprising a number of local councils said that Sir Howard had shortlisted potential sites for new runways before assessing their environmental impacts or delivery costs.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/boris-island-decision-in-autumn-29921739.html


.

Airport expansion debate ‘like Bafta awards’

By Richard WestcottBBC transport correspondent

16 January 2014 (BBC)

A380 superjumbo taking off
An Airbus A380 takes off from Heathrow Airport – the front runner in the expansion debate

The process for picking where Britain’s next runway should go has been ridiculed as being like a “sort of Bafta awards”, in a speech approved by Mayor of London Boris Johnson.

The mayor’s aviation adviser, Daniel Moylan, also said it had “a touch of the Simon Cowell about it”.

Mr Moylan told the BBC he was frustrated that the Airports Commission had refused to meet them since its interim report came out in December.

The report appears to favour Heathrow.

Two of the three shortlisted options involve a third runway in west London, but the mayor’s preferred option – a brand new mega-airport in the Thames Estuary on the other side of the city – failed to make the shortlist.

The Commission’s head, Sir Howard Davies, has promised to look at the scheme in more detail before making a final decision later this year on its viability.

‘Mildly bizarre’

I asked Daniel Moylan whether, by comparing the Commission’s decision-making process to Simon Cowell, he was risking a clash with the man who is going to decide the future of their scheme.

He had this message for Sir Howard: “Well, come and talk. He’s refused to have any meetings with us since his report was published.

“His staff have refused, which is mildly bizarre,” he added. “Maybe one said it in a way that encouraged him to do so, and maybe one said it in a way that put him off. We’ll find out.”

He also told me that he didn’t know, but he “strongly suspects”, that the estuary scheme was added to the interim report at the last minute, probably to make the process look more open.

A few days before the report came out, Boris Johnson was threatening all-out war if rumours were true that the estuary scheme was to be dropped.

A month or so ago, Sir Howard Davies told me that any plan to build in the Thames had higher hurdles to jump over than the other schemes, mainly because of concerns over the cost and the impact that closing Heathrow would have on London.

In theory, the airports debate was pushed into the long grass when they set up this Commission. They were told not to report back until after the next general election in 2015.

But make no mistake, this debate will get punchy long before then.

If Sir Howard decides later this year that the estuary is a goner, Boris Johnson won’t just say, “Thanks very much,” and go away quietly.

When does he ever?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25758602

.


 

Heathrow Rethinks New Runway Site to Avoid M25, Medieval Barn

By Kari Lundgren and Chris Jasper  (Bloomberg)
Jan 16, 2014

Heathrow Ltd. said it’s exploring plans to shift the site of a proposed third runway in an effort to minimize the impact of construction work as Europe’s busiest hub ramps up efforts to win support for its expansion.

The new runway could be built slightly to the south of the location currently proposed, reducing the overlap with a major junction of the M25 orbital motorway and avoiding destruction of historic buildings, Heathrow Chief Executive Officer Colin Matthews said today at the RunwaysUK conference in London.

Heathrow was last month identified as a preferred focus of additional runway capacity serving southeast England in an preliminary report from the state-appointed Airports Commission. The modifications revealed by Matthews would concern a proposed 3.5 kilometer (2.2 mile) strip to the north-west, which Heathrow prefers to the extension of the existing northern runway [as proposed by "Heathrow Hub"] to at least 6 km, which the interim report also short-listed.

Heathrow said in July on submitting proposals to the commission that it might be possible to further develop the northwest runway plan to allow the preservation in their current location of the Tithe Barn and St Mary’s Church in Harmondsworth, “both sites of significant heritage value.”

The barn, built in 1426, bears a grade-one preservation order and ranks with Westminister Abbey and the Houses of Parliament for its exceptional architectural and historic interest, according toEnglish Heritage.

Demand Profile

In total around 950 residential properties would need to be demolished, with construction of the runway completed in six years with a total cost of 17 billion pounds ($28 billion). The strip, just south of the junction between the M25 and the M4 motorway to Wales and western England, would also require the orbital road to be reconfigured, Heathrow said in July.

Responding to questions at the Runways UK conference in London, Matthews ruled out an increase in fees of as much as 100% in order to help fund the new runway.

Howard Davies, the Airports Commission chairman, said earlier that he’d seek to decide between recommending the expansion of Heathrow and construction of a second runway at London Gatwick airport, the other site shortlisted, based on the anticipated nature of future markets.

Heathrow, already Europe’s busiest hub with connections around the world, might be favored were demand deemed to be focused on transfer traffic, while Gatwick could be suitable if the chief goal was to serve point-to-point travel originating or terminating in London.

The commission is too narrowly focused on aviation issues rather than the welfare of Londoners, Daniel Moylan, an adviser to London Mayor Boris Johnson, said at the conference. Johnson favors a new airport in the Thames estuary or expansion of the Stansted low-cost hub to reduce noise over urban areas.

To contact the reporters on this story: Kari Lundgren in London at klundgren2@bloomberg.net; Christopher Jasper in London at cjasper@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-16/heathrow-rethinks-new-runway-site-to-avoid-m25-medieval-barn.html

.

.

Boris Johnson: commission’s stance on airport expansion contradictory

London mayor accuses body of favouring Heathrow despite its own evidence and turning decision into contest akin to X Factor

Boris Johnson airport expansion

A plane prepares to take off at Gatwick. An industry observer questions whether a speech given on behalf of Boris Johnson is a prelude to to a legal challenge by him. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA

The mayor of LondonBoris Johnson, has accused the airports commission of favouring Heathrow expansion against its own evidence while turning the process of choosing a site for a new runway into an X Factor-style contest.

In a speech delivered on the mayor’s behalf to an industry conference, Daniel Moylan, an aviation adviser and close ally, accused the commission of making decisions with “a touch of Simon Cowell”.

He said the conclusions of the commission’s interim report were “startlingly adrift from the numerical and other evidence” contained in the document, and said Sir Howard Davies, who chairs the commission, was failing to “seriously engage with the mayor”.

He said it was “absurd” that Johnson’s office was treated “on a par with a private company motivated by commercial interests” when planning for expansion of London’s infrastructure was a key part of the mayor’s powers and responsibilities.

The decision had to involve the mayor, who was the only politician “articulating the public interest” among the private firms, he said, adding that while the commission was supposed to be independent, it was in danger of becoming “independent of the real world”.

Moylan said Johnson was “profoundly unsettled” by the interim report in December, which drew up a shortlist of possible airport expansion plans. This contained two different runway options at Heathrow and another at Gatwick, while rejecting the mayor’s proposals for a four-runway Stansted – “for flimsy reasons”, said Moylan – and promising only to continue reviewing evidence for a Thames estuary option – a concession widely seen as a last-minute political fudge.

One industry observer questioned whether the speech was a possible prelude to a legal challenge by Johnson.

Moylan said the commission had “added a large percentage of risk and contingency to all submissions, which is why they come up with a huge figure for a new airport, but, before doing so, they actually cut Heathrow’s own cost estimates, uniquely amongst winning submissions. Why did they do this? Whatever the reason, a grossly unfair advantage has been given to Heathrow.”

Speaking earlier at the Runways UK conference in London, Davies had announced the terms of reference for the commission’s continued studies into a Thames estuary airport option. The body will rule on whether the option should be considered alongside Heathrow and Gatwick on the shortlist by autumn.

Asked if it was a “political fudge”, Davies replied: “You may say that; I couldn’t possibly comment.”

He added that they had concluded “we could neither sensibly rule it in or rule it out”. But, he said: “We want to make sure a decision is soundly based and not vulnerable to challenge. The legal advice suggests what we are doing is defensible.” However, the stay of execution granted to Johnson’s estuary proposal was challenged by a rival group which did not make the shortlist.

In an open letter to Davies, the backers of a second Thames estuary proposal, Britannia Airport, demanded to know why its scheme to build on the water was dismissed as “not credible” while the Isle of Grain was kept in consideration – although it was not on the shortlist Davies said there would be a further study on whether the Isle should be an option. The letter on behalf of the Testrad consortium from economist Bridget Rosewell – a Network Rail director heavily involved in HS2 – said it was a “considerable surprise”. It added: “We are also concerned that we were not given the opportunity to meet with the commission – although we understand that the commission did meet other scheme promoters.”

Meanwhile, Heathrow announced the launch of a six-week consultation with local residents about its own third runway plans, with letters sent out to 120,000 households and nine public meetings.

Chief executive Colin Matthews said it would make sure the airport correctly understood what local people value. He said: “We know that opinion is divided locally about whether a third runway should go ahead or not, but everyone has an interest in making sure that if a third runway does happen it is developed in the best way possible.”

Captain Jock Lowe, the pilot fronting the alternative Heathrow Hub proposal to double an existing runway at the airport, said he would back the commission should it choose Heathrow’s own runway plan. But if Gatwick was chosen instead, he said: “I might emigrate, because it shows the country can’t make big sensible decisions.”

The commission is requesting detailed plans for all the options on its shortlist by the autumn, before a period of public consultation. It will deliver its final recommendation after the general election.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/16/boris-johnson-commission-airport-expansion-decision-x-factor

..


.

Former Labour transport secretary Lord Adonis warns of more London airport dithering

SIMON CALDER, TRAVEL CORRESPONDENT (Independent)

Thursday 16 January 2014

Labour’s last transport secretary has urged the Davies Commission on airport expansion to make a strong economic case for additional runway capacity. Lord Adonis, who favoured a third runway at Heathrow while in office, said that the next government could otherwise duck a decision until 2020.

Sir Howard Davies’ Airport Commission has shortlisted proposals for an extra runway at Heathrow or Gatwick, and is looking further at a new hub airport on the Isle of Grain in north Kent.

At the Runways UK conference in London, Lord Adonis told The Independent that he wanted the final recommendation to be made before next year’s election, but admitted “that’s not going to happen, because the Prime Minister has made it clear that it’s not going to come before the summer of 2015”.

He warned that opponents to the chosen scheme would make a “powerful argument” that no decision should be taken in advance before another election, because the voters had not been consulted.

The London Mayor’s office, meanwhile, has launched a stinging attack on the Davies Commission. Boris Johnson’s aviation adviser Daniel Moylan told the conference that the Mayor is “profoundly unsettled” by the commission’s interim report. He said that the report had “a touch of Simon Cowell about it”, with conclusions “startlingly adrift” from the evidence.

In a speech that is understood to have been approved by Mr Johnson, Mr Moylan said that the Commission was intent on “securing the worst possible outcome for the capital, that is an additional runway at Heathrow, which will inevitably be followed by a fourth”. The Mayor’s alternative preference, for expansion at Stansted, had been dismissed for “flimsy reasons”.

The Commission’s interim report stressed it had reduced more than 50 proposals to “the most credible options for new runway capacity, which will be further developed and appraised before the final report”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/former-labour-transport-secretary-lord-adonis-warns-of-more-london-airport-dithering-9065324.html

.


 

Read more »

Airports Commission launches 6 week consultation on appraisal framework for short-listed runway schemes

The Chairman of the Airports Commission, Sir Howard Davies, launched the most recent consultation by the Commission, at the RunwaysUK conference on 16th January. This consultation is on its appraisal framework, and ends on 28th February. The aim is to set out how the runway schemes it short-listed (2 at Heathrow, one at Gatwick and the possibility one for the Isle of Grain will be added by late summer 2014) will be assessed in terms of social, economic and environmental criteria. A summary of responses will be published within 3 months of the consultation closing. The document is 127 pages long, requiring detailed and carefully considered responses. On environmental matters, the Commission lists their objectives, for appraisal of schemes, to include: minimising noise impacts; protecting local air quality; minimising CO2 emissions in airport construction and operation (not from flights); protecting quality of ground and surface water, using water efficiently and reducing flood risk; and minimising impacts on existing landscape character and heritage assets. Under the heading “People” their objectives are to maintain and where possible improve the quality of life for local residents; manage and reduce the effects of housing loss on local communities; and reduce or avoid disproportionate impacts on any social group. They also ask: Are there any other objectives that the Commission should consider, and if so what are they?
.

 

 Airports Commission 

Airports Commission website:

161.2014
The appraisal framework sets out in detail how the Airports Commission expects the scheme designs for additional airport capacity announced in December to be developed, and how the schemes will be appraised. This consultation invites responses on the draft framework which consists of 4 inter-related elements:

-  the Commission’s objectives, against which options will be assessed and on which its final recommendations will be based
-  a refreshed scheme design for each short-listed option, to be used as the starting point for appraisal
- a business case and sustainability assessment for each option, incorporating the information needed to make informed assessments against the Commission’s objectives
-  a set of appraisal modules explaining the methodologies that the Commission proposes to use in assessing options.

The document is at:

Airports Commission: appraisal framework consultation document

Ways to respond
Email to:

Appraisal.framework@airports.gsi.gov.uk

.
Write to:

Airports Commission
6th Floor
Sanctuary Buildings
Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3BT

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/airports-commission-appraisal-framework

 Airports Commission 

.


 

The consultation document

It is a long, complicated document of 127 pages. Below are just a few extracts of it, to give a flavour of just a tiny bit of it.

 

 The consultation document says:

This draft Appraisal Framework sets out in detail how the Commission expects scheme designs to be developed, and how the schemes will be appraised. The framework incorporates four inter-related elements:
• the Commission’s objectives, against which options will be assessed and on
which its final recommendations will be based;
• an updated scheme design for each short-listed option, to be used as the
starting point for appraisal;
• a business case and sustainability assessment for each option, incorporating
the information needed to make informed assessments against the Commission’s
objectives; and
• a set of appraisal modules explaining the methodologies that the Commission
proposes to use in assessing options.

Each of these is described in more detail in this document, and the Commission welcomes views on its suggested approach in each case (whilst noting that the requirement to develop business cases and sustainability assessments for each option is prescribed by its terms of reference).

.

.and

In Phase 2 [ie. now] scheme promoters should take the lead role in designing and developing
their schemes. The Commission will work with scheme promoters to ensure their schemes contain all the evidence necessary to undertake a fair and comparable assessments.
2.2 The Commission will appraise schemes in line with the guidance set out in the final
version of its Appraisal Framework.

2.3 This draft Appraisal Framework has been based on the principles that were used
for the identification of viable long-term options for delivering new capacity ahead of
the Commission’s Interim Report.
2.4 The Commission’s proposed approach is based, therefore, on the same sift criteria
categories used in assessing long-term options in the first phase of its work. These
categories are:

• strategic fit;
• economy;
• surface access;
• environment;
• people;
• cost;
• operational viability; and
• delivery

.

As the basis for reaching the recommendations in its final report, the Commission has identified a number of objectives within each category against which it intends to assess the merits of proposals. These are described in Chapter 3 of this document. The Commission recognises that, in developing and appraising schemes, there may need to be a degree of trade-off between these objectives.

2.6 The first stage in assessing the short-listed options against these objectives will be
the development of updated scheme designs. Chapter 4 of this document outlines the information that the Commission intends to ask scheme promoters to provide.

.

Under Environment, the Commission lists  their objectives as:

To minimise noise impacts. Noise.

To protect local air quality. Air Quality
.
To protect natural habitats and maintain biodiversity. Biodiversity
.
To minimise carbon emissions in airport construction and operation. Carbon
.
To protect the quality of surface and ground waters, use water resources efficiently and minimise flood risk. Water and Flood Risk
.
To minimise impacts on existing landscape character and heritage assets. Place
.
To identify and mitigate any other significant environmental impacts. To be defined
.
.

and on People their objectives are:

To maintain and where possible improve the quality of life for local residents and the wider population. Quality of Life
.
To manage and reduce the effects of housing loss on local communities. Community
.
To reduce or avoid disproportionate impacts on any social group
.
.

.

5.5   In some areas, however, the Commission has outlined appraisal approaches which it thinks will, alongside standard methodologies, help it capture and understand the impacts of delivering major new aviation infrastructure. These approaches include methodologies for considering national and local economic impacts, noise impacts and quality of life impacts of proposed schemes. In addition, the Commission is keen to consider impacts, where possible, across the full lifetime of a scheme, taking into account a range of possibilities for how the aviation industry and other relevant variables may develop over time. This will require the complex assessment of dynamic and uncertain future scenarios.

5.6 The Commission’s decisions will continue to be informed by the principles of strategic environmental assessment, such that at the point of any future decision the Government will have access to a body of environmental information that could inform policy development. This will include both the materials already produced in support of the Commission’s Interim Report and the appraisal materials prepared in this phase of the Commission’s work programme.

5.7 The Commission will take the lead in appraising the updated scheme designs submitted by promoters. Since effective scheme design will need to be based on an appropriate understanding of the potential impacts of the proposal, however, scheme promoters may carry out appraisals of their own to inform their design work. The Commission will consider any such timely appraisal information submitted by proposers. However, the final responsibility for all scheme appraisals will lie with the Commission.

5.8 Scheme promoters will benefit from working closely with the Commission to ensure they are pursuing any assessments in line with the methodologies outlined in this document.

.

.

Sustainability assessment

5.21 The aim of the Commission’s sustainability assessment is to provide robust information about the performance of each proposal against a range of relevant indicators. In line with the principles of sustainable development, this includes examining the likely social, environmental and economic effects of the shortlisted proposals. Where potential significant adverse effects are identified, the sustainability assessment is intended to review and take account of options for avoiding or mitigating these. The process also allows for the identification of opportunities to undertake social, economic and environmental enhancement.

5.22 Should the Government use the Commission’s recommendations as the basis for a
future National Policy Statement, it is intended that the information and analysis in the Commission’s sustainability assessment would provide a useful foundation for the production of the associated Appraisal of Sustainability.

5.23 As with the economic appraisal in the business case, each sustainability assessment
will be undertaken against a baseline. Individual assessment modules articulate how this baseline will be established.

 

.

.

Appendix C: Consultation questions

1. Are the objectives stated in Table 3.1 (pages 11 and 12 of document) suitable for assessing the short-listed options?
If not please explain why not, and suggest any alterations you feel would make them more suitable.

2. Are there any other objectives that the Commission should consider, and if so what are they?

3. Will the appraisal modules described in Appendix A be sufficient to analyse the short-listed options against the stated objectives? If not please explain why not, and provide examples or evidence to support your answer.

4. Will the appraisal modules described in Appendix A be sufficient to construct business cases and sustainability assessments to enable the Commission to make recommendations and the Government to act on these? If not please explain why not, and provide examples or evidence to support your answer.

5. Are the five components of the updated scheme design set out in Appendix B suitable for understanding schemes’ potential performance against the stated objectives? If not, please suggest any modifications that you think would make them more suitable.

6. Is the level of detail in the components for the updated scheme design set out in Appendix B appropriate given the likelihood that some schemes may not progress to full stages of development? Please provide examples or evidence to support your answer.

.

.

 

Read more »

Local Surrey Guardian newspaper asks: “Was Leatherhead sacrificed in the floods to save Gatwick?”

After exceptionally heavy rain and wind on 23rd December, Gatwick airport had serious problems with unexpected flooding, with many flights cancelled or delayed. It is still unclear to what extent actions taken at the airport to divert water from its holding ponds and prevent the airport from flooding meant more water surged down the River Mole, making flooding worse downstream in areas such as Dorking and Cobham. It is understood that investigations are under way, and councillors for Leatherhead are seeking clarifications from the airport. The local press reported that an Environment Agency spokesman had said that Gatwick airport are constructing a further water storage reservoir directly on the Gatwick stream. The Gatwick Stream, where river levels rose rapidly, meets the River Mole south of Horley. Flooded residents feared that the contents of Gatwick airport’s balancing ponds may have been dumped into the River Mole and sluice gates further down were not opened in time.  The beautiful old Burford Bridge hotel, just north of Dorking, was damaged by deep floodwater.
.

 

9th  January 2014  (Local Epsom Guardian)

Gatwick flooding Leatherhead

Gatwick flooding 2

 


 

Fallen trees, floods and power cuts cause Christmas Eve disruption

Heavy rain and winds of around 70mph battered Surrey on Monday night and Tuesday morning as a storm swept through the UK

Guests were evacuated from the Burford Bridge Hotel in Dorking due to flooding

 

A firefighter from Dorking Fire Station has spoken to Get Surrey about Burford Bridge Hotel which had to be evacuated earlier today.

He said: “To my knowledge, there were 33 people evacuated, including nine members of staff.”It is under control now. The water was rising pretty quickly. Cars in the car park were completely were covered completely in water.

“We were there from about 9.30am.

“There were certain complications with people with restricted mobility. Everyone got out safely.”To my knowledge no one was injured. It all went fairly smoothly.

“He said the crew had been called out to various flooding incidents throughout the night.”The most significant was there were a number of vehicles caught in the Mole at Brockham.

“There was a taxi which had two customers, I think it was a mother and a child who was 9-years-old, who were stuck on the roof of the taxi.

“It was quite an urgent matter due to the risk of hypothermia, but that was a successful rescue. “There were another two vehicles stuck there as well.

“They had tried to go over the bridge at Brockham.

“Drivers need to be very careful when approaching flood water. Do not progress otherwise you can get into trouble very quickly.”

We also have a second photo of the scene outside the flooded hotel.

Alistair Pulling
Another photo of Burford Bridge Hotel in Dorking

Another photo of Burford Bridge Hotel in Dorking

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/fallen-trees-floods-power-cuts-6444107


Flood warnings upstream of Leatherhead along the River Mole spark fears

17th January 2014

By Alice Foster, (This is Local London)

This Is Local London: A couple and their pets are rescued by boats from their home in Thorncroft Drive on Christmas Eve
A couple and their pets are rescued by boats from their home in Thorncroft Drive on Christmas Eve

Flood warnings have been issued upstream of Leatherhead along the River Mole, prompting fears among flood victims.

After overnight rain, flood warnings are in place for Mickleham, Dorking, Gatwick, Horley and Sidlow as the level of the River Mole rises. More heavy rain is forecast tonight.

Despite no warning for Leatherhead, by 2.30pm the river level had reached 2.52 metres, above the 2.4 metre level when flooding becomes possible.

Peter Ashdown, chairman of Leatherhead Football Club, whose Fetcham Grove ground was badly flooded over Christmas, said there was renewed fear.

Mr Ashdown said: “We have put sandbags up. We have just got to pray that it does not come to fruition. We have got to hope there is no more damage.

“It’s always yesterday’s rain that comes downstream.”

Flood victim Nik Cookson, who is forming the River Mole Action Group, said: “The water is rising. I hope it doesn’t rise too much.

“I hope that nobody else gets flooded, but my situation can’t get any worse. For other poor people I hope it doesn’t get to the levels that it did before. I would be amazed if it did.”

Mr Cookson said the contents of Gatwick airport’s holding ponds must not be dumped into the Mole and sluice gates further down should be opened in a timely manner.

Mr Cookson’s home in Thorncroft Drive, Leatherhead, was among the properties flooded on Christmas Eve. Gatwick airport has come under fire for how it controlled its balancing ponds during the flooding over the festive period.

The Gatwick Stream, where river levels are also rising rapidly, meets the River Mole south of Horley.

A flood alert for the River Mole said: “River levels are rising in response to overnight rainfall, in particular in the Sidlow area.

“Flooding of low lying land and roads is likely but property flooding is not currently expected. The rivers are currently very sensitive to rainfall and are responding more than usual.

“The weather forecast is for further bands of rain throughout today which may cause a further rise in river levels.”

Ministers have been forced to backtrack on claims that the flood defence spending by the Tory-led coalition was higher than under previous governments.

It has been admitted there were “some minor inconsistencies” in figures provided earlier.

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/10946077.Flood_warnings_upstream_of_Leatherhead_along_the_River_Mole_spark_fears/

.

.


 

.

Since then:

Mole Valley MP Sir Paul Beresford to wait until floods over before tackling Environment Agency

Tuesday 21st January 2014
By Alice Foster, (Epsom Guardian)

Epsom Guardian: Sir Paul Beresford, Conservative MP for Mole Valley, has pledged to review the flooding

Epsom Guardian: Sir Paul Beresford, Conservative MP for Mole Valley, has pledged to review the flooding

An MP who has promised to conduct a review into flooding on the River Mole said he is waiting until the current flood problems subside before quizzing the Environment Agency (EA).

Earlier this month Sir Paul Beresford, Conservative MP for Mole Valley, described the flooding as a “unique disaster” and pledged to work with Surrey County Council and the EA to review why flooding happened and how to prevent it.

But after Leatherhead flooded again at the weekend Sir Paul said it was too soon to tackle the EA about the problem or to speak to Gatwick Airport about rumours it had made the problem worse.

He said: “I want to sit down with them in calmer, slightly less watery days and get to the bottom of a whole lot of things.

“I want to get everything organised and together and put these things to them. At the moment they have got their hands full with water everywhere.

“If you have got a disaster, the last thing people dealing with the disaster want is an MP asking them questions when they are dealing with the problem.”

Sir Paul said there are a growing number of unsubstantiated stories – including barriers being put up downstream, the use of holding ponds at Gatwick and action by BAA [BAA is no longer the owner - that is GIP] - which he wants to raise with the EA.

Sir Paul said he would speak with the EA before deciding whether he needs to approach Gatwick Airport.

He said: “If you are going to shoot from the hip, take the gun out of the holster otherwise you will get holes in your feet.”

Sir Paul said he will also visit flood victims to discuss what insurance companies are doing and offer assistance if any refuse to pay out.

He said: “I will be going round houses particularly badly damaged to talk through with people what is happening.”

He said that he would be “more than happy” to listen to and work with the Mole Valley Action Group, which is being formed by Leatherhead flood victim Nik Cookson.

Sir Paul said: “It’s deeply, deeply sad and this is why we are going to have to work towards improving the flood prevention.”

http://www.epsomguardian.co.uk/news/10951463.MP_to_wait_until_floods_ease_before_tackling_Environment_Agency/?ref=eb

 

Read more »

London Assembly Votes Against Heathrow Airport Expansion

The London Assembly has voted against the expansion of Heathrow and proposed greater use of existing airports in the south-east. They passed a motion -by 13 votes to 7 in response to the Airports Commission’s Interim Report recommendation (17th December) that two options for a new Heathrow 3rd runway would be short-listed.  Caroline Pidgeon, the leader of the Liberal Democrats on the Assembly, who proposed the motion, said: “Airport capacity in London is currently underused; in fact some London airports have more than half of their runway slots free. Rather than inflict further misery on the residents of west London, the Airports Commission should rule out expansion of Heathrow and focus on better use of capacity at other south-east airports.” The motion backed the Commission’s proposals for improving ground transport links to existing airports. Tony Arbour, Conservative London Assembly Member for Richmond and Hounslow, proposed an amendment which said there should be a categorical opposition to any additional flights at Heathrow.  He said the Lib Dem motion, which recognised the need for more airport capacity in the south-east, “opens the door for dual use of runways at Heathrow which will increase noise for millions of Londoners.” All those voting against the motion were Tories. 
.

Assembly rejects expanded Heathrow

15 January 2014 (London Assembly press release)

The London Assembly today passed a motion[[1]reaffirming its opposition to the expansion of Heathrow Airport and suggesting more use could be made of spare capacity at other airports serving the South East. It was reacting to the interim report published by Sir Howard Davies’ Airports Commission and the options proposed for expanding Heathrow and Gatwick.

Caroline Pidgeon AMwho proposed the motion, said: “I am really disappointed to see Heathrow back on the table. Airport capacity in London is currently under-used, in fact some London airports have more than half of their runway slots free. Rather than inflict further misery on the residents of West London, the Davies Commission should rule out expansion of Heathrow and focus on better use of capacity at other South East airports.”

Valerie Shawcross AM, who amended and seconded the motion, said: “This debate has polarised London – with those affected by noise pollution on one side and the interests of the aviation industry on the other. I must add that whatever happens with regard to airport expansion, London does need a noise regulator now. Paris has one – why don’t we?”

The full text of the motion agreed at today’s meeting reads as follows: 

“This Assembly notes the interim report published by Sir Howard Davies’ Airports Commission and the options proposed for expanding Heathrow and Gatwick. The Assembly also notes that the Estuary Airport options have not made the shortlist, though more work will be done before a final decision on shortlisting is made in the New Year.

In particular, we welcome Sir Howard Davies’ recommendations on increasing surface access at our existing airports and we note that a number of projects are now contained within the National Infrastructure Plan.  Namely:

·  Committing £50 million towards a full redevelopment of the railway station at Gatwick;

·  Setting up a new study into Southern Rail access to Heathrow;

·  Accelerating a Network Rail study into the Brighton Mainline;

·  Extending the scope of the East Anglian Mainline study to include access to Stansted;

·  Including the Gatwick to London route on a planned trial of smart ticketing; and

·  Including access to Gatwick in the Highways Agency study on local motorways.

The London Assembly also urges the Mayor to support Sir Howard Davies’ recommendation of the establishment of an independent noise regulator for London.

The Assembly recalls its recent Transport Committee report “Airport Capacity in London” which ruled out expansion of Heathrow and identified significant spare capacity at other airports in the South East.

The Assembly reaffirms its opposition to Heathrow expansion plans and calls on the Airports Commission to rethink its approach targeting the use of spare capacity at airports serving the South East.”

Notes to editors:

1.        The motion was passed 13 votes cast in favour of the motion and 7 against at a meeting of the full Assembly today. Watch the webcast.

2.        As well as investigating issues that matter to Londoners, the London Assembly acts as a check and a balance on the Mayor.

http://www.london.gov.uk/media/assembly-press-releases/2014/01/assembly-rejects-expanded-heathrow

 


 

London Assembly Votes Against Heathrow Airport Expansion

By Thomas Penny  
Jan 15, 2014  (Bloomberg)

The London Assembly voted against the expansion of Heathrow Airport, Europe’s busiest hub, and proposed greater use of existing airports in southeast England.

The assembly passed a motion by 13 votes to 7 today in response to a recommendation in an interim report published last month by Howard Davies’s Airports Commission shortlisting Heathrow alongside Gatwick, south of the capital, as suitable for expansion.

“Airport capacity in London is currently underused; in fact some London airports have more than half of their runway slots free,” Caroline Pidgeon, the leader of the Liberal Democrats on the assembly, who proposed the motion, said in an e-mailed statement. “Rather than inflict further misery on the residents of west London, the Davies Commission should rule out expansion of Heathrow and focus on better use of capacity at other southeast airports.”

The motion backed Davies’s proposals for improving ground transport links to existing airports.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-15/london-assembly-votes-against-heathrow-airport-expansion.html

.

.


 

Tories and Lib Dems at loggerheads as anti-Heathrow expansion motion passed

5th January 2014

By Amy Dyduch  (Local Guardian)

Your Local Guardian: Anti-expansion: But who opposes it more?

Anti-expansion: But who opposes it more?

The London Assembly rejected Heathrow expansion proposals at a meeting today and suggested more use be made of spare capacity at other airports.

Members passed a motion in reaction to the interim report published by Sir Howard Davies’ Airports Commission and the options proposed for expanding Heathrow and Gatwick.

Conservatives said the Lib Dem motion opened the door for more flights at Heathrow due to the support it showed for increased capacity in the south-east.

Tony Arbour, Conservative London Assembly Member for Richmond and Hounslow, proposed an amendment which said there should be a categorical opposition to any additional flights at Heathrow.

He said: “I, and my Conservative colleagues, are unequivocally opposed to any increase in flights at Heathrow and we, unlike the Lib Dems, will not consider any concession to those who would increase the pollution that the airport brings to residents.”

Caroline Pidgeon AM, who proposed the motion, said she was disappointed to see Heathrow expansion back on the table.

She said: “Airport capacity in London is currently under-used, in fact some London airports have more than half of their runway slots free.

“Rather than inflict further misery on the residents of west London, the Davies Commission should rule out expansion of Heathrow and focus on better use of capacity at other south-east airports.”

Liberal Democrats branded Tories expansion-supporters after all Conservative members voted against the motion.

Robin Meltzer, the Liberal Democrat parliamentary spokesman for Richmond Park, said: “It’s no longer the case that the Tories are split on Heathrow.

“Now, almost everyone they have in elected office is in favour of mass expansion or, at best, isn’t bothered. The few who are on our side of the argument are simply sidelined by their leadership.”

MP Zac Goldsmith, who has long made clear his opposition to Heathrow expansion and organised a mass protest rally against additional runways last year, hit back at Lib Dem claims, and said their failure to back Coun Arbour’s amendment meant they were standing in the way of true opposition to Heathrow expansion.

He said: “The fact remains that the Lib Dems could have removed Heathrow expansion from the terms of reference of the Airport Commission without any effort at all.

“That would have killed it off forever, but they chose not to because they see the threat as a campaign opportunity.

“Putting it mildly – for those seriously committed to stopping Heathrow expansion, the Lib Dems have been a real pain in the backside.”

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/10939620.Tories_and_Lib_Dems_at_loggerheads_as_anti_Heathrow_expansion_motion_passed/

.


 

.

Assembly hits out at Davies for keeping Heathrow on the table

Heathrow Airport wants the government to allow a third runway to be built

January 16, 2014 (CityAM)

THE LONDON Assembly hit out at the possible expansion of Heathrow Airport yesterday, saying a new runway would inflict unnecessary noise on nearby residents.

The Assembly voted 13 to 7 in favour of a motion opposing a larger Heathrow, calling instead for airlines to use spare capacity at other airports in the south east.

This compares to a unanimous vote on a similar motion in July 2012. Conservative members voted against the motion yesterday.

“I must add that whatever happens with regard to airport expansion, London does need a noise regulator now. Paris has one – why don’t we?” said Labour member Valerie Shawcross, who seconded the motion.

The vote came as Heathrow pledged to consult with residents near the airport about how a third runway would affect the area.

Chief executive Colin Matthews is expected to say today that he will take the views of locals into consideration when putting together Heathrow’s revised runway proposal in May.

Matthews is due to speak at the Runways UK conference, which will also hear from Sir Howard Davies, the head of the government’s aviation commission.

The commission last month shortlisted Heathrow and Gatwick as possible sites for a new runway in the coming years, while keeping alive the option of a new hub airport built in the Thames Estuary.

http://www.cityam.com/article/1389834280/assembly-hits-out-davies-keeping-heathrow-table

 

.


.

Earlier:

Airport capacity in London is currently underused, says new London Assembly report

1.5.2013

The London Assembly’s Transport Committee has published a report – “Airport Capacity in London” - which  suggests existing airport capacity in London, including at Heathrow and Gatwick, could be used more effectively. Their research shows Stansted (summer 2012) was only 47% full; Gatwick was 88% full; Luton was 49% full. At Heathrow there is terminal capacity for 20 million more passengers, so if larger planes were used, there is ample surplus capacity – though landing slots are 99% filled.  To encourage passengers to switch from Heathrow, the report says improving transport access from central London to Gatwick, Luton and Stansted is needed – for example, by better rail connections and actively promoting public transport. The report questions the alleged “need” for additional hub airport capacity, as the  vast majority of passengers using Heathrow few direct, point to point, rather than transferring. The report also notes that 75% of flights from Heathrow are short haul and that London remains the best connected European city to 23 fastest growing economies. The Transport Committee hopes its report will inform the Airports Commission, and says the Commission must examine whether better use of existing airport capacity could be an intelligent cost-effective alternative to building new airports or runways. http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=1789.

.

and

London Assembly restates its strong opposition to building new runways at Heathrow

10.5.2013

In response to the publication of the Transport Select Committee report “Aviation Strategy”  today, which backs expansion at Heathrow with another runway, the London Assembly  restated its view that no new runways at Heathrow should be built because of serious and rising concerns about air quality and noise pollution. The Assembly has consistently opposed proposals for Heathrow expansion on the grounds that the negative environmental effects are disproportionate to the estimated benefits it might bring to London. Already some 700,000 Londoners suffer from aircraft noise due to Heathrow, and this accounts for 28% of all the people in Europe who are affected by aircraft noise. Air quality standards in the area round Heathrow already breach EU air quality limits. The Assembly has just produced its own report on airport capacity, which concluded that as there is a large amount of spare capacity at some London airports, the Airports Commission should first look at ways to use this capacity more effectively, such as improving rail links, before considering building a new runway.  Luton and Stansted Airports have around half their slots free and the airline industry should be encouraged to use this existing capacity.http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=1108 

.

.

and

London Assembly says Heathrow night flights ‘disturb sleep and should stop’

12.4.2013

London Assembly Health & Environment Committee has submitted its response to the government consultation on night flights. The Committee, chaired by Murad Qureshi, says they would wish to see night flights stopped altogether, or reduced to an absolute minimum. At the margins “quieter” aircraft cut the disturbance for residents at the edges of the noise footprint so their introduction is of benefit.  But modern ‘quieter’ aircraft are still loud enough to wake people & do so regularly after 4.30am, so their number should be reduced. The Committee says Heathrow should adopt a 59 dB Lden threshold for determining areas eligible for insulation, not the current 69 dB Leq or proposed 63 dB Lden. If night flights do continue, an easterly preference at night would help achieve more of a 50/50 split between directions, as at present more come into land from the east over London. Some night flights are because planes are delayed etc so the Committee suggests a reduction in Heathrow daytime number of ATMs would help, so flights do not have to be accommodated at night. They want Heathrow to work towards WHO guidelines; the objective should be to reduce the area within Heathrow’s 40dB night noise contour.http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=2445 

.

,

.

.

 

Read more »