SSE welcome Stansted’s Development Plan consultation as an opportunity for an open debate on its one-runway future

Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) is calling for an open debate about Stansted Airport’s long term plan, due to be published later this week. Manchester Airport Group (‘MAG’), which bought Stansted from BAA 18 months ago, will publish its ‘Sustainable Development Plan’ (SDP) for Stansted, setting out what it intends to do with the airport over the next 20-25 years. The SDP will initially be published as a draft for consultation, with a final version of the plan expected towards the end of the year. SSE welcomes this initiative by MAG and wants to encourage maximum public participation in the consultation process. It is understood that the SDP will be based on Stansted remaining as a single runway airport. This will be a great relief for the vast majority of local residents but it still leaves scope – within Stansted’s existing planning permission – for the airport to handle almost twice as many passengers and twice as many flights as it does today. (Up to 35 million passengers and 264,000 flights). SSE wants to see a gradual phasing out of night flights at Stansted and the return of some 270 homes bought near the airport, for a 2nd runway, to private ownership. 
.

 

An opportunity for an open debate on  Stansted’s future

30.7.2014 (Stop Stansted Expansion)
Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) is calling for an open debate about Stansted Airport’s long term plan, due to be published this week. Manchester Airport Group (‘MAG’), which bought Stansted from BAA 18 months ago, will publish its ‘Sustainable Development Plan’ (SDP) for Stansted, setting out what it intends to do with the airport over the next 20-25 years. The SDP will initially be published as a draft for consultation, with a final version of the plan expected towards the end of the year.

SSE welcomes this initiative by MAG and wants to encourage maximum public participation in the consultation process. MAG will be making ‘roadshow’ presentations in a wide range of locations over the coming weeks and this will be an opportunity for local residents to let MAG know about any concerns they have about the current and future operation of the airport.

Importantly, it is understood that the SDP will be based on Stansted remaining as a single runway airport. This will be a great relief for the vast majority of local residents but it still leaves scope – within Stansted’s existing planning permission – for the airport to handle almost twice as many passengers and twice as many flights as it does today.

Night flights have long been the main bone of contention for those living around the airport and beneath its flight paths where ambient noise levels are low. SSE wants to see a gradual phasing out of night flights at Stansted and this issue will be high on our agenda in the consultation on the SDP.

MAG’s continued ownership of about 270 properties around the airport – mostly acquired in connection with the now-aborted second runway plans – is another highly contentious issue for many local communities around the airport, who want them returned to private ownership. The forthcoming consultation and roadshows will give those communities most affected an opportunity to persuade MAG to do the decent thing in this regard.

SSE Chairman Peter Sanders commented “We welcome this consultation on MAG’s long term plan for Stansted. It is being described as a ‘Sustainable Development Plan’ and we very much hope that’s what it genuinely is. Provided it respects all the current planning limits and confirms MAG’s commitment to Stansted continuing to be an ‘Airport in the Countryside’, there should be considerable scope for a constructive dialogue.”

 

NOTES TO EDITORS
Stansted handled 17.8 million passengers and 131,900 Air Transport Movements (ATMs) last year. It has planning consent for 35 million passengers per annum (‘mppa’) and 264,000 ATMs. Stansted handled 24mppa in its peak year, 2006/07.

SSE submitted evidence to the Airports Commission last week (25 July 2014) in response to the Commission’s Discussion Paper on ‘Utilisation of the UK’s Existing Airport Capacity’. Much of this SSE evidence is pertinent to the Stansted SDP – see the SSE Evidence here. This is SSE’s eleventh evidence submission to the Commission – see the Airports Commission page here.

http://stopstanstedexpansion.com/press478.html

.

.


 

.

 

SSE calls for end to night flights at Stansted Airport as national survey backs more runways

Written by SINEAD HOLLAND

28.7.2014 (Herts and Essex Observer)

Stansted Airport - aerial view of main terminal building
Stansted Airport – aerial view of main terminal building

ANTI-expansion campaigners are pinning their hopes on a new long-term development plan for Stansted Airport having just one runway – as a new national survey backs building of more terminals and airstrips.

In the next week Manchester Airports Group (MAG), which bought Stansted from BAA 18 months ago, is expected to publish its Sustainable Development Plan (SDP) for the Uttlesford hub, setting out what it intends to do over the next 20 to 25 years. The plan will initially be published as a draft for consultation, with a final version expected towards the end of the year.

Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) chairman Peter Sanders said: “We welcome this consultation on MAG’s long-term plan for Stansted.

“It is being described as a sustainable development plan and we very much hope that’s what it genuinely is. Provided it respects all the current planning limits and confirms MAG’s commitment to Stansted continuing to be an ‘airport in the countryside’, there should be considerable scope for a constructive dialogue.”

He said it was understood the SDP would be based on Stansted remaining as a single-runway airport, although within existing planning permission there is scope to handle almost twice as many passengers – around 35 million a year – and twice as many flights as today.

SSE will be pressing for an end to night flights for those living around the airport and beneath its flight paths where “ambient noise levels are low”.

MAG’s continued ownership of about 270 properties around the airport – mostly acquired in connection with the now-aborted second runway plans – is another contentious issue and SSE says the forthcoming consultation and roadshows will give those communities most affected an opportunity to persuade MAG to “do the decent thing in this regard”.

A Stansted Airport spokesman said: “We will shortly launch a period of consultation with local communities and key stakeholders on our Sustainable Development Plan to consider the benefits and effects of how the airport might develop to make full use of the existing runway and look forward to that period of engagement to help us inform our plans.”

SSE’s calls come as a new public attitudes survey published by the Department for Transport, carried out by the Office for National Statistics, found that 57% of the British public – up from 47% in 2010 – agree with the view that “in order to boost the economy, new terminals and runways should be built”. Only 17% disagreed.

Gavin Hayes, director of pressure group Let Britain Fly, said: “While our politicians procrastinate on the issue of airports expansion, the British public increasingly agrees that Britain needs new runways to boost the economy and secure future jobs and growth.

“Indeed, this survey shows how strongly attitudes have shifted in support of airports expansion over the last four years. So if voters get it, why don’t our politicians?

“We believe it’s now time for our political leaders to listen to the public they represent and give a clear public commitment to build new runways – it’s a no-brainer.”

http://www.hertsandessexobserver.co.uk/News/Uttlesford/SSE-calls-for-end-to-night-flights-at-Stansted-Airport-as-national-survey-backs-more-runways-20140728175632.htm

.

.

.

Read more »

Caroline Spelman MP calls for end to Birmingham flight path trials

Meriden MP Caroline Spelman has demanded the Transport Secretary, Patrick McLoughlin, calls a halt to Birmingham Airport’s flight path trials across her borough, since 1st May, after being handed a petition with over 1,500 signatures. The petition, which has been signed by a number of local action groups, calls on Transport Secretary to intervene in the trial following complaints over noise. The airport has been trialling two options for new flight paths for the past 6 months as part of the new runway extension. But residents claim the aircraft are not sticking to the routes accurately, causing planes to fly closer to their homes. Caroline Spelman says the fact the planes are not flying the accurate routes has invalidated the trial, and a review is needed of what has gone wrong. “. If the airport plumps for a compromise route which is different from the original two options there would need to be a further consultation.”  The airport claims its new runway extension, as well as creating distressing noise and disruption for several thousand people, will ” deliver global connectivity and thousands of new jobs in the future for local people.” The CAA will finally decide on the flight paths.
.

 

MP calls for end to Birmingham flight path trials

Work starting on the runway
The flight path trials are due to continue until October

Conservative MP Caroline Spelman has called for the transport secretary to stop flight path trials being carried out from Birmingham Airport.

The airport began a six-month trial for two potential new flight paths in May, as part of a runway extension.

But some residents claim noise levels have increased and have organised a petition calling for a rethink on the flight paths.

Ms Spelman called for Patrick McLoughlin’s “urgent intervention”.

Meriden MP Ms Spelman said it was “very hard for the community to tell” which flight paths were better or worse for residents.

“I think we need the transport secretary to intervene and review what has gone wrong here. We have had three months of trials and they aren’t going very well.

“The airport isn’t able to fly these routes accurately and we can’t afford to just let these trials drag on where it is not working properly.”

Caroline Spelman
Ms Spelman said the flight path trials were not working

Dave Ellis, from Balsall Common Action Group, which has organised the petition, said noise levels had increased.

“The noisiest planes are outgoing ones because they are fully laden and there’s some new routes coming in,” he said.

The airport, which has been contacted for a comment, is expected to submit its findings to the Civil Aviation Authority following the trials.

Work to add an extra 400m to the existing runway began in November 2012, after years of planning.

Airport bosses hope the longer runway will allow it to provide flights to more long-haul destinations.

The airport insisted it would assess the impact of the trial once it had ended.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-28541377

.

.


.

MP demanding a halt to airport flight path trials

Caroline Spelman has demanded the Transport Secretary calls a halt to flight path trials across Meriden.

Aeroplanes landing at Birmingham International Airport as seen from Bickenhill

 

Meriden MP Caroline Spelman has demanded the Transport Secretary calls a halt to flight path trials across the borough after being handed a petition with over 1,500 signatures.

The petition, which has been signed by a number of local action groups, calls on Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin to intervene in the trial of the new flight paths from Birmingham airport, following complaints over noise.

The airport has been trialling two options for new flight paths for the past six months as part of the new runway extension. But residents claim the aircraft are finding it difficult to stick to the routes accurately, causing planes to fly closer to their homes.

“I sympathise with the disruption to people’s lives from the noise nuisance and consider that the inaccuracy of the aircraft trying to fly the new routes has invalidated the trial,” the MP said.

“I want the Transport Secretary to call a halt to the trial and review what has gone wrong. If the airport plumps for a compromise route which is different from the original two options there would need to be a further consultation, but I hope this time the airport will consider trialling the option proposed by the community to minimise the noise nuisance.”

A recent statement from the airport said: “A trial to test the actual impact of two potential flight paths has been in operation since May 1st and follows a full consultation period last year with the local community on the two options, known locally as Option 5 & 6. The consultation gave local people the chance to give their views and the trial is in order for the airport to understand the actual impact of the options, rather than theoretical modelling, before submitting its final findings to the Civil Aviation Authority.

“The new flight path, to the south of the airport, is required as a result of the runway extension, which is now open and will deliver global connectivity and thousands of new jobs in the future for local people.

“The airport is aware of a petition circulating in the community and is recording and responding to all correspondence received by residents.”

http://www.solihullnews.net/news/local-news/mp-demanding-halt-airport-flight-7520151

.

.


.

2,000 join outcry over ‘noisy’ Birmingham Airport flight paths

Residents flock to sign petition claiming recent trials have made their lives a misery

More than 2,000 villagers living near Birmingham Airport have signed a petition calling for a rethink on flight paths following an outcry over noise levels.

Residents in Balsall Common, Hampton in Arden and Catherine de Barnes claim their lives are being made a misery by trials launched in May.

The tests have been held in advance of new flight paths following the opening of the airport’s runway extension.

The petition, backed by Meriden MP Caroline Spelman, will be submitted to Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin. It calls on the Government to order a rethink by the Civil Aviation Authority.

The protest campaign was boosted by a public meeting last week at the Heart of England School, in Balsall Common, which attracted around 300 people.

David Ellis, of the Balsall Common Action Group, said: “It is really crazy. We used to accept noise but we are now getting twice the noise we had before. We know we can’t change things as they stand and we have to accept that is the law, but, on environment issues, the Secretary of State can order the CAA to call it in and look at it again.

“There is a lot of ill-feeling in the area. I was staggered by how many people attended the public meeting.

“I do not think that the airport realise that it is not just Balsall Common – it is also Hampton in Arden and Catherine de Barnes. Caroline Spelman is as angry as we are over this.”

An airport spokesman said: “A trial to test the impact of two potential flight paths has been in operation since May 1. The trial is in order for the airport to understand the impact of the options, rather than theoretical modelling, before submitting its final findings to the Civil Avitation Authority.

“The new flight path, to the south of the airport, is required as a result of the runway extension, which is now open. The airport is aware of a petition circulating in the community and is recording and responding to all correspondence received.”

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/birmingham-airport-flight-paths-petition-7467128

.

.

.


.

Earlier:

Battle of Balsall Common’ over plane noise, from Birmingham flight path trial, goes to Parliament

The Battle of Balsall Common – which has triggered waves of complaints of noise nuisance from planes taking off at Birmingham Airport – is to go to Parliament. Angry residents are raising a protest petition to be sent to Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin, to ask him to look at this trial, and call it in. People affected say their lives are being made a misery by trials launched in May in advance of new flight paths being made permanent. This has happened because of the runway extension. People are deeply angry and anxious, because these flight paths are away from the NPR routes (Noise Preferential Routes), which everyone has known about for years. People have checked, in the past, to ensure they have not chosen to live near an NPR. Now, areas which nobody could have guessed would be overflow have planes overhead every few minutes. Campaigners took to the streets of Balsall Common last weekend to get signatures, in a bid to force a Government rethink of the new flight path. David Ellis, of the Balsall Common Action Group, said: ““We are told they are over 3,000 feet but that is not the point – the noise is the problem.” There will be a public meeting on July 16th on the problem.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

.

.

.

Read more »

Gatwick’s consultation shows some 85% of respondents oppose a 2nd Gatwick runway

Gatwick Airport held a consultation over April and May 2014, to try to get backing for its plans for a 2nd runway, and the option the airport wants – the wide spaced option with the runway used for both arrivals and departures. This has always been what the airport wanted, and the proposal the Airports Commission short listed. The consultation gave two options, that the airport did not want and has no interest in. The consultation also initially had no means for any respondent to express their opposition to any new Gatwick runway, but eventually a “none of these options” box was added – difficult to locate, far into the document. The survey results are now out. They are deeply irritating to the airport, as they show huge opposition to any runway. Of about 7,700 respondents, well over 80% said NO. Of the 7,700 or so, only 733 backed Option 3 ( the runway option Gatwick wants) and 2,165 did not want a runway at all. 4,003 responses  came through the Woodland Trust and these are being discounted, unjustifiably, as though part of an e-campaign, many contained specific comments made by the respondents. Taking all the responses for no runway, they amount to some 85% of the total. Even discounting the Woodland Trust responses, 66% opposed a new runway.
.

 

 

 http://www.gatwickairport.com/business-community/New-runway/Second-runway-consultation/

 

1. Gatwick_Consultation_Report_July_2014 produced by Gatwick Airport

2. Ipsos_MORI_Gatwick_runway_options_consultation July 2014 the Ipsos Mori report

 

Gatwick survey showing extent of opposition July 2014

 

2,165 out of 3,304 is 65.5%


 

Out of around 7,700 or so respondents:

6,168 said NO.   This was 4,003 through the Woodland Trust, and 2,165 from the Gatwick figure in their chart.

Only 1,094 supported any of the runway options. That is about 14%.


 

The results of the Gatwick Airport runway consultation are contained in the independent report by Ipsos Mori.  The number of responses in favour of each  runway option was as follows:

 

Option 1       194

Option 2        167

Option 3.       733

None of these options.   6,168

Don’t know     45


 

Gatwick Mori says over 7717 responses were submitted.

This result is so embarrassing for Gatwick Airport Ltd that they have done all they can to conceal it.  They did not mention it to the airport consultative committee or to the press.  In their report to the Airports Commission it only appears in a pie chart on page 50, nowhere in the text.


 

Gatwick Airport Ltd claim that 4,003 responses were the result of a campaign by The Woodland Trust, and can therefore be disregarded.

Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign (GACC) do not agree:  many of these responses contained specific comments and were thus not just the result of clicking a button.  They are a foretaste of the nation-wide opposition to any new runway.


 

Even leaving out the Woodland Trust responses, twice as many people voted for ‘none of these options’ as voted for all three runway options combined.  And that was despite the ‘none of these options ‘ box being difficult to find. Somewhat unobtrusive, in Section 7 of the form.


 

761 people agreed that a new runway would benefit the local economy but 2,020 felt that it would not benefit them much or at all.


 

These are remarkable results!  They prove a strong and determined opposition to any new Gatwick runway.

 


 

 Gatwick consultation losing 4003 responses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Gatwick say in their consultation report:

 

We explained in our consultation document
that Option 3 was our provisionally preferred
runway option and we stated that we would
use the responses to this consultation to help
us reach a firm view on the option we prefer.

We therefore confirm that Option 3 is our
preferred runway option. Section 3 of this
document further explains our reasoning and
rationale for this decision.

Option 3 consists of a new 3,400m runway
positioned 1,045m south of and parallel
to the existing runway. The new runway is
positioned at a sufficient distance from the
existing runway to enable the independent
operation of the runways. The method of
runway operation for Option 3 would be
mixed mode, meaning that both runways
would be used for arrivals and departures.

 


 

The Ipsos Mori report says: (Page 5)

The proposed runway options

When the details of the three options put forward by Gatwick were presented, more respondents who answered the question in the response form expressed a preference for Option 3 compared with Option 1 or Option 2.

However, most said that they would prefer none of these options and a small number of respondents said that they didn’t know.

The main reasons for support for Option 1 were that it would have less impact on the local area compared to other options; that it would be a better compromise, and that it would be the most sensible option. Among those who preferred Option 2, reasons for support were that this option would allow for separate take-offs and landings, and would include a new terminal building. While these aspects would also be realised with Option 3, some of those who preferred Option 2 said that it would be less disruptive in comparison to Option 3 in terms of noise and negative community impacts. Of those who preferred Option 3, the main reasons for support were that it would be the most practical or logical option, that it would lead to improved operational efficiency and that it would be the best solution to deal with capacity issues in the future. A number of respondents who preferred Option 3 also said that the other options would be too short-term, and that sufficient capacity increases would not be realised if those options were taken forward.

Most of those who preferred none of these options were opposed outright to an additional runway. A key reason for opposition related to concerns about noise impact. Other concerns included issues about land-take, and general disruption to local people, communities and businesses.

 


 

Because it was difficult and unclear how respondents should record their preference for no new runway – many went dutifully through the long form, filling in their comments on a range of issues relating to the three runway options.

The option to tick the “none of these options” box only appeared in Section 7.

The comments in earlier sections, of those who ticked the “none of these options” have been considered by Ipsos Mori, and some of the comments were deemed supportive of one or other option.

It can only be hoped that Ipsos Mori does not unjustifiably consider these comments – which were only made because the consultation form did not make it clear from the outset that a NO vote was possible.

It is illuminating that the Ipsos Mori report records the high number of people who were dissatisfied by the report, and complained about its short-comings and inadequacies.


 

 

 

 

 

 

Read more »

Germany’s DFS air traffic service beats NATS to control Gatwick flights below 4,000 feet

Gatwick Airport’s air traffic control services are to be provided by a German state-owned company from next year. A 10-year contract for services below 4,000ft around the airport has been given to Deutsche Flugsicherung (DFS). The service has been provided for more than 30 years by Hampshire-based NATS, which will continue to navigate air traffic above 4,000ft. NATS said it was disappointed, but it was too early to say if jobs would go. DFS is wholly owned by the German government and operates 16 airports in Germany as well as providing air traffic control across the country. Gatwick management said it was planned that, after a period of transition, DFS would start work in October 2015. The successful bid by DFS comes a year after a UK pension fund, the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) beat DFS for a 20% stake in NATS. The Airline Group, which had owned 42% of NATS before the sale, chose USS rather than DFS to buy the 20%, which meant that a partial de-facto merger between two of the largest European Air Navigation Service Providers did not happen.

.

Germany’s DFS beats NATS on LGW bid

Germany’s Deutsche Flugsicherung (DFS) has triumphed over its British counterpart NATS to run air traffic services at London’s Gatwick airport.

The contest to provide air navigation services at the airport until 2025 represents the largest UK airport to consider handing its air traffic services to a foreign provider so far.

The services to be covered by the contract cover air traffic and approach services below 4,000 feet around the airport; these services are currently provided by NATS.

Gatwick’s airport owners said that following a transition period, DFS will start providing the new services from October 2015 for a ten year period. NATS will retain operations for all air navigation services above 4,000 feet, from its base in Swanwick.

“The decision follows an extensive tender process in which a number of companies were invited to submit proposals. The proposal submitted by DFS was considered superior to submissions from all other contenders,” it said, adding that submissions were assessed across a range of criteria which included safety, innovation, airport management, technical capability, cost, resilience and the ability to accommodate the requirements of a growing airport.

Klaus-Dieter Scheurle, the Chief Executive of DFS said: “With this contract, DFS is making its contribution to advancing the consolidation process in the European air navigation services landscape. We are pleased that the DFS Group has been awarded the contract for Gatwick Airport and are looking forward to providing safe and efficient air traffic control services with the Gatwick tower staff. The staff at Gatwick will transfer to the DFS subsidiary in close dialogue with the employees and their representatives and in keeping with our employee relations traditions.”

Gatwick chief execuitve Stewart Wingate said: “DFS is a company of great standing, operating an extensive network of air traffic control services in Germany. We are very impressed with the company’s technical capabilities, track record and safety standards within its existing operations along with the experience, efficiency and innovation it will bring to Gatwick.

“Gatwick operates the busiest and most efficient single runway airport in the world. Naturally safety comes first in everything that we do. DFS is a well-known and well-respected provider in this industry and across Europe and has demonstrated a forward looking approach to its business which matches our own ambitious plans to grow. We look forward to working with our new partners as we continue to grow and connect Britain to the future.”

Mike Stoller, NATS director of operations, airports, said UK air traffic control was extremely disappointed that the highly competitive bid it had submitted to Gatwick has been unsuccessful. “We have added considerable value to Gatwick in recent years, building it to the point where with 55 movements an hour it significantly out-performs every other single runway airport in the world,” he said.

The successful bid by DFS comes a year after a UK pension fund scored a victory over the German air traffic control agency in the race for a 20% stake in NATS, its British counterpart.

The Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS), Britain’s second-largest pension plan, secured the stake last year, managing to beat off DFS, even though it is understood to have submitted a higher bid and had given undertakings not to seek control of NATS.

While DFS had been tipped as favourite as it offered the opportunity to deliver big cost savings through the rationalisation of busy European airspace, it is thought that DFS was undermined by opposition from some airlines as well as NATS management.

The Airline Group, which had owned 42 per cent of NATS prior to the sale, ended up choosing USS rather than DFS to buy a portion of its stake which meant that a partial de-facto merger between two of the largest European Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP)s did not happen.

The move by the Airline Group followed a u-turn by the British Government which in 2011 announced it would reduce its 49 per cent stake in order to help reduce the UK´s national debt.

The Airline Group warned that any reduction in the UK Government´s stake would damage the influence that NATS has in the future development of European air traffic control and urged it not to reduce its stake below 25 per cent.

http://www.airtrafficmanagement.net/2014/07/germanys-dfs-beats-nats-on-lgw-bid/

.

.


.

From Wikipedia:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATS_Holdings

NATS Holdings (formerly National Air Traffic Services) is the main air navigation service provider in the United Kingdom. It provides en-route air traffic control services to flights within the UK Flight Information Regions and theShanwick Oceanic Control Area, and provides air traffic control services to fifteen UK airports and Gibraltar Airport.

The workforce of NATS is mainly made up of Air Traffic Controllers (ATCOs), Air Traffic Control Engineers (ATCEs), Air Traffic Services Assistants (ATSAs) and Science Technical Analytical and Research Staff (STARs). Administrative and Support staff make up the remainder of the 4,500 or so staff employed by NATS.

NATS’ en-route business is regulated and operated under licence from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The terms of the licence require NATS to be capable of meeting on a continuous basis any reasonable level of overall demand. They are charged with permitting access to airspace on the part of all users, whilst making the most efficient overall use of airspace.

As a public private partnership the UK government holds 49% and a golden share, with 42% held by the Airline Group, 5% by NATS staff, and 4% by UK airport operator LHR Airports Limited.

NATS is split into two main service provision companies: NATS En-Route PLC (NERL) and NATS Services Ltd (NSL).

  • NERL holds the monopoly of civilian en-route air traffic control over the UK and is regulated by the CAA who, for example, determine the charges NERL can make. NERL is funded by charging airlines for the provision of air traffic services.
  • NSL competes for contracts in the free market to provide air traffic control at airports in the UK and overseas, as well as providing engineering, technical and education services in fields related to air traffic control.
  • There are two control locations in the UK operated by NERL:

Labour has accused the UK Government of yet another policy U-turn after it was suggested  George Osborne was getting cold feet over a £1 billion plan to sell off the Coalition’s 49% controlling stake in NATS. Industry sources claimed that the Treasury was rethinking the proposal to sell it off as it was fearful the German equivalent to NATS would make a move to take over the UK’s air space after it was suggested the 7 British airlines, which form the Airline Group, might sell their collective 42% share to Germany’s state-controlled DFS. One industry source said: “It would not be a good idea to hand control of Britain’s skies to Berlin.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=2036
.
.

 

 

  • .

Read more »

Restrictions on UK ‘night flights’ at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted extended until 2017

In the Government’s response to the Airports Commission’s December 2013 interim report, Patrick McLoughlin announced that plans to more than double the number of ‘night flights’ at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports have been postponed until 2017. Under proposals outlined in the Commission’s interim report the number of planes allowed to land at the airport before 6am each day would have increased from 16 to 35 from 2015. The government now says it wants to ensure “regulatory stability” at south east airports while the Commission makes its final recommendations on which airport should be recommended to be allowed to build a new runway. The government is also extending the ban on “rare movements made by older noisier types of aircraft.” McLoughlin said: “This decision will help give certainty around the night noise environment for those living near the airports, as well as ensuring operational capacity at these airports is not affected pending decisions on any new airport capacity in light of the commission’s final report.” The government has also postponed the Commission’s recommendation for an Independent Aviation Noise Authority. 

.

 

 

Restrictions on UK ‘night flights’ extended until 2017

By Tom Newcombe  (Buying Business Travel)
16 July 2014

Government plans to more than double the number of ‘night flights’ at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports have been postponed until 2017, the transport secretary has confirmed.

Under proposals outlined in the Airport Commission’s interim report, which was published in December 2013, the number of planes allowed to land at the airport [Heathrow]  before 6am each day would have increased from 16 to 35 from next year. [Airports Commission's interim report with night flight section around page 148]

The government has now put those plans back three years, stating it wanted to ensure “regulatory stability” at southeast airports while the Airports Commission makes its final recommendations on which airport should be used to increase capacity for the UK.

Gatwick is currently competing with Heathrow to build a new runway, with the Airports Commission due to make a recommendation on which airport should be expanded next summer.

Transport secretary Patrick McLoughlin, said: “The government is confirming today that we will be maintaining the existing restrictions on night flights at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports for a further three years until October 2017, as well as extending the ban on rare movements made by older noisier types of aircraft.”

He added: “This decision will help give certainty around the night noise environment for those living near the airports, as well as ensuring operational capacity at these airports is not affected pending decisions on any new airport capacity in light of the commission’s final report.”

The government has also postponed the Commission’s recommendation for an Independent Aviation Noise Authority. It said: “The government believes that it would be more appropriate to consider the role for such a body alongside the commission’s final recommendations on long-term capacity.”

McLoughlin was responding to the Airport Commissions interim report published in December.

Earlier this week campaign group Let Britain Fly criticised the government for failure to respond sooner to the report – calling its lack of response “unacceptable”.

http://buyingbusinesstravel.com/news/1622805-restrictions-uk-night-flights-extended-until-2017

.

.

.

.

Plans to double night flights at Heathrow are shelved

July 15, 2014

By Robert Cumber

Government has also postponed its decision on creating an independent aircraft noise regulator until at least next summer
Plans to more than double the number of night flights at Heathrow from next year were today shelved by the Government.

The number of planes allowed to land at the airport before 6am each day would have increased from 16 to 35 from next year, under proposals outlined in the Airport Commission’s interim report in December.

In return, residents living under the flight paths would have been guaranteed respite from early morning arrivals, with a different runway used each week.

However, transport secretary Patrick McLoughlin today announced he would wait for the commission’s final recommendations next summer before deciding whether to introduce the measure, known as ‘smoothing’.

He also postponed decisions on creating an independent aircraft noise regulator and allowing both runways to be used simultaneously for arrivals to reduce delays, both of which were recommended in the commission’s interim report.

In his response to the interim report, published this morning, Mr McLoughlin said: “In relation to the commission’s recommendation for an Independent Aviation Noise Authority, the government believes that it would be more appropriate to consider the role for such a body alongside the commission’s final recommendations on long term capacity.

“Similarly, we believe that any further government decisions on using the runway designated for departures (eg enhanced TEAM) and for a trial of early morning schedule smoothing at Heathrow should also be considered at that point and in the context of the commission’s recommendations on long-term capacity.”

He added that the current night flight restrictions would remain in place until at least 2017.

Hounslow Council welcomed the delay but said it would continue to fight for a complete ban on night flights.

Gavin Hayes, director of pro-expansion campaign group Let Britain Fly, was not impressed by Mr McLoughlin’s response.

“Instead of bold political leadership, the Government has decided to kick the can down the road for another year,” he said.

“We so desperately need a clear direction of travel and an in-principle commitment to build additional runways to boost our international connectivity and secure future jobs, growth and prosperity. Instead, we have yet more political procrastination.”

The Airports Commission was set up by the Government in 2012 to consider the case for aviation expansion in the short, medium and long term.

It has short-listed two sets of plans for a third runway at Heathrow and one for a new landing strip at Heathrow, and is due to decide this autumn whether to short-list proposals for a new Thames estuary airport.

The commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, is due to make its final recommendation next summer, shortly after the general election.

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/local-news/plans-double-night-flights-heathrow-7426323

.


.

Earlier:

Government to make no significant change to night flights regime at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted until Airports Commission report

11.11.2013
In January 2013 the DfT put out the first part of its consultation on the night flight regime at the UK’s 3 designated airports, Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. The DfT said then that the 2nd consultation would be published later this year, to include specific proposals for the new regime, such as the number of permitted night flights – informed by the evidence from the first consultation. The DfT has now published this 2nd stage, but instead of any specific measures, it proposes no significant change to the night flight regime at Heathrow until 2017. It says it does not want to pre-empt the findings of the Airports Commission which is due to publish its final report in summer 2015. It gives the impression of passing the buck to Sir Howard Davies. The current night flight regime for the 3 airports ends in October 2014. Normally a new regime is put in place to cover the next 5 – 6 years. This time the Government has decided in effect to roll-over the existing regime until 2017. The only change for Heathrow is a proposal “to extend the operational ban on the noisiest types of aircraft to include an extra half hour, the 23.00-23.30 period.

Airports Commission publishes interim report

17 December 2013 (Airports Commission press release)

Airports Commission: interim repor (228 pages) 

(night flights section around Page 148)

Various associated papers are also at                        https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/airports-commission-interim-report

Airports Commission: interim report – appendix 3 technical appendix    PDF, 1.41MB, 116 pages  contains a section on carbon emissions from pages 64 to 72.

.

.

 

DfT announces start of 3 month consultation on night flight regime at Heathrow, Gatwick & Stansted

22.1.2013
The government has begun a 3 month consultation into night flights at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted Airports. It is calling for views and evidence on “the effectiveness of the current regime, the costs and benefits of future options and airlines’ fleet replacement plans”. The consultation closes on 22nd April 2013. Transport Minister Simon Burns says: “This consultation includes a review of current evidence on the costs of night flights, particularly noise, and the benefits of these flights. It sets out our thinking on how we would expect to appraise the policy options for the next night flights regime.” The government will  publish the 2nd consultation later this year. It will include specific proposals for the new regime, such as the number of permitted night flights. The proposals in the 2nd consultation will be informed by the evidence received from this 1st stage consultation. The Dft says it aims to strike “a fair balance between the interests of those affected by the noise disturbance and those of the airports, passengers and the UK economy.” 
see also

Heathrow residents disappointed there is still no night flight ban in the Dft consultation

Date added: January 22, 2013

Commenting on the publication today of the DfT’s consultation into a new night flight regime at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, HACAN (the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise) said is was disappointed that the Government has still not committed itself to a night flight ban. However, they have welcomed the fact that the Government is prepared to look at measures which could mitigate the noise. These include increasing the angle of descent on approach; guaranteed respite periods; changing the existing scheduling or operating bans which affect the noisiest aircraft types. John Stewart, Chair of HACAN, which represents residents under the Heathrow flight paths, said: “We are very clear that we want a ban on night flights before 6 o’clock and a progressive reduction between 6am and 7am. Many people under the Heathrow flight paths don’t need an alarm clock; the first plane wakes them at 4.30 am.”

Click here to view full story…

 

.


 

See also, from the HACAN website:

Economic costs of sleep deprivation to be included in night flights review

In a Lord’s debate (28/5/12) the Government announced it would consider the economic loss due to sleep loss when it reviews night flights later this year. This will be the first time this has been done.  The issue was first raised in a CE Delft Report published by HACAN. Welcome move.

More details of the announcement 

Read the HACAN report

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

 

 

Read more »

Residents in Chicago, fed up with O’Hare airport jet noise, take to the streets to fight it

O’Hare airport in Chicago has been upsetting residents to the northwest of the city, by changing flight paths, so some people are being over flown a great deal than before. This is the result of the O’Hare Modernization Project that took effect in October 2013. The changes mean that 85% of O’Hare arrivals and departures between 11 pm and 6am will fly over homes in certain suburbs. Those living under these flight paths face not only the noise, the annoyance, the potential impacts on their health and the loss of sleep, but also a decrease in their property prices.  The local community campaign, FAiR (Fair Allocation in Runways) has been touring affected neighbourhoods giving out door hanger signs encouraging people to get active and fight the flight paths, or else “kiss your property values goodbye.”  They plan to hand out door hangers to 50,000 homes. They also have “yard signs” (placards to stick in the front garden) for the campaign, selling these to raise campaign funds. Just as in London and near other UK airports, people are devastated by the new noise pollution. One commented that even with noise insulation, it was impossible to avoid the noise in the neighbourhood, even by going shopping, going swimming, going to the park. It cannot be avoided.

.

 

Residents Fed Up with O’Hare Jet Noise Take to the Streets

By Mina Bloom (DNAinfo.chicago)

 July 13, 2014


EDGEBROOK — Susan Schneider moved to Edgebrook 12 years ago in search of a peaceful alternative to the ruckus of Lakeview.

Little did she know that her new neighborhood would turn out to be just as noisy, if not worse. This time, rather than late-night revelers, her everyday life is being disrupted by planes flying overhead every few minutes at almost all hours of the day, a result of the O’Hare Modernization Project that took effect in October of last year.

The project increased air traffic on the Northwest Side and northwestern suburbs. Specificallyit means 85 percent of O’Hare arrivals and departures between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. will fly over homes in Sauganash, Forest Glen, Edgebrook and North Park.

Now, Schneider is looking to sell her Edgebrook home at the end of the year, and she’s worried about her property value.

“I’m greatly concerned that if anybody comes during this onslaught, I’m going to have some issues selling my home,” she said.

Schneider was one of more than 100 community members who voiced concerns about the noisy planes Saturday as an advocacy group moved through the neighborhood to distribute thousands of door hangers urging people to appeal their property taxes.

A door hanger (cut out holes for door knob)

The self-funded community organization, Fair Allocation in Runways Coalition, has been fighting to keep the volume down since the project took effect. The group began with seven members about 15 months ago, and now has around 200, organizers said.

Jac Charlier, a member of FAiR’s leadership team, came ready to pass out 30,000 door-hangers, but has 20,000 on top of that to distribute the rest of the summer. This amount, he said, is three times as many as the coalition printed last summer.

In addition to door-hangers, coalition member Susie D’Alessandro came to the event with yard signs and asked for $5 donations for each sign. All of the yard signs had sold by the time the meeting ended.

FAiR-tophalf_flyer_for_web

Not unlike Schneider, former English teacher Colleen Mulcrone, 40, moved to the neighborhood with her husband and two small children because it had a lot to offer.

 FAiR organizer Jac Charlier speaks to Northwest Side residents about their options regarding the jet noise from O'Hare during an event at the Edgebrook library Saturday.

FAiR organizer Jac Charlier speaks to Northwest Side residents about their options regarding the jet noise from O’Hare during an event at the Edgebrook library Saturday.

The most appealing part of living in Jefferson Park, Mulcrone said, is being within walking distance to neighborhood parks like Wilson Park and Portage Park as well as their childrens’ school, the grocery store and the public library, among other places.

When the planes began flying overhead with greater frequency beginning last October, Mulcrone said her family was “devastated;” she felt “robbed” and cried every night for two weeks.

“Now there’s no place we can go where I can escape the planes,” Mulcrone said. “If I go shopping at Target, there are planes there. If I take my kids to swimming, there are planes there. On the Northwest Side of Chicago, there is no escaping them.”

Mulcrone said she’s grateful that her major home renovations fell through due to permit delays because she was able to use a “big chunk of that money” towards sound-proofing her daughter’s room and installing new dry-wall.

While sound-proofing helps reduce noise, it does not eliminate it.

“You still have ambient noise all of the time in the background,” Mulcrone said.

At this point she said there are a few options for her and her family: she can either “choose to be a prisoner” in her own home, fight for change or move.

She said her husband is already ready to “walk away” from their home, but she is continuing to fight.

“The mayor and (U.S. Transportation Secretary) Ray Lahood and anyone else who is saying this is a great project for Chicago say it’s going to create all of these jobs and all of this revenue,” she said. “At what cost?”

The coalition has requested to meet with Mayor Rahm Emanuel seven times to discuss this issue, and Charlier said all of their requests have been ignored.Recently, Emanuel made his first comment on the issue when he wrote a letter to aviation officals asking them to expedite a study to allow the sound-proofing of more homes, among other things.

Other officials, including Ald. Margaret Laurino (39th), Ald. Mary O’Connor(41st) and U.S. Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Chicago), have called for renewed hearings about the jet noise. Last month, O’Connor said the expansion project should be put on hold until more hearings can be held.

Federal aviation officials said the flight patterns at O’Hare are designed to ensure the airport operates as efficiently and as safely as possible.

FAA spokesman Anthony Molinaro said that federal and local officials held several meetings on the Far Northwest Side last year before the new runway opened.

Chicago Aviation Department spokeswoman Karen Pride said her agency “supports holding a public hearing and has been working with the aldermen and congressmen to schedule a date for the hearing that works for all parties involved.”

Kate McClure, who has lived in Sauganash for 52 years, says moving is not an option. She loves the neighborhood, she said, and is optimistic that the group will force change.

But the planes, she said, fly so low that “you can see people eating their meals in the little windows.”

Patrick Loftus, 58, of Sauganash, and John Ceisel, 54, of North Park, agreed that the constant noise is “completely unacceptable.” They both have been living in these neighborhoods since the late 1980s.

Ceisel said not only do the planes disrupt his sleeping patterns, but he it also affects “whether this is a neighborhood people want to live in.”

“The city is struggling from an education perspective,” said Ceisel, who is a retired corporate educator. “This is one more reason for me to the move to the suburbs.”

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140713/edgebrook/residents-fed-up-with-ohare-jet-noise-take-streets

.

Fair Allocation in Runways in Chicago

 


.

See also a short 2 minute 30 seconds video on YouTube  of a song (great lyrics) called “Highway over our heads” made by some Chicago residents disturbed by the aircraft noise.  This is what FAiR call their new anthem.

.


 

.

FAiR on Facebook

Facebook entry   12.7.2014

Coverage of our meeting yesterday. 113 citizens jammed into the FAiR Summer 2014 Door Hanger Campagn Kick-Off Event in Edgebrook on Saturday, July 12. This is the start of our 50,000 door hanger distribution to areas impacted by more planes, more noise and more pollution from O’Hare all without any real community input.

.


 

FAiR on Twitter


 

.
FAiR’s website says:

What is FAiR about?

FAiR seeks a real voice at O’Hare to secure an equitable distribution of takeoffs and landings, day and night, east and west, and using all existing runways including the diagonals. FAiR is the leading voice for residents on this issue.

What does FAiR believe?

It is our Coalition’s experience that citizens and civic organizations concerned about the severe impact on our communities from increased noise and air pollution occurring as a result of the new October 2013 runway configurations have not had a real seat at the table in the development and implementation of how O’Hare takeoff and landing patterns were designed. FAiR supports the economic engine that is O’Hare, but we believe that as our neighbor, the airport must work with the community to determine when and where those engines fly over our homes, yards, schools, parks and businesses. FAiR’s desire is to obtain acceptable solutions to community concerns as well as future plans so they do not become an issue. To date, that conversation with communities has been non-existent, with the unfortunate viewpoint given that the communities will simply have to live with the consequences resulting from October 2013 and O’Hare Modernization Plan (OMP) changes yet to come. The FAiR Coalition seeks to replace that antiquated institutional practice so common in Chicago and Cook County with a democratic approach involving a modern assessment of the risks and rewards for both O’Hare AND our communities. FAiR’s goal is a better future founded upon a real voice for communities and solutions arising out of collaboration between the citizenry and our government. Solutions to these types of challenges are not solely technical in nature but are more importantly democratic in substance.

What can you do?

As a neighbor, resident and fellow citizen, We ask you to Join FAiR. Then…

  • Sign our online petition
  • Report noise complaints
  • Contact your elected officials
  • Like us on Facebook
  • Put up a FAiR yard sign
  • Tell your neighbors about how our democracy has been imperiled
  • Become active with FAiR in your community

.

  • http://www.fairchicago.org/
  • .
  • .

    . Earlier:

  • Chicago O’Hare airport new runway & flightpaths creating huge opposition by those now over-flown

    26.5.2014Chicago O’Hare airport currently has many runways but not all can be used simultaneously. The airport has been building more, reducing the lengths of others, to get three parallel runways that can be used together. There has been a lot of controversy about the plans over many years, with compulsory purchase of land, from residents who did not want to move.  There is now huge protest against the noise. A group representing city and suburban home-owners, the Fair Allocation in Runways Coalition (FAiR),  is asking the Chicago Aviation Commissioner to resign or for the Mayor to fire her.  FAiR say there is  “mounting frustration over the lack of response from the Mayor on possible remedies concerning “the ceaseless airplane noise” since air-traffic patterns were changed last autumn.  The Aviation Commissioner has refused to consider altering the use of runways at night to spread out jet noise instead of concentrating it over one or two air corridors. FAiR says she has made up her mind that there will be no change at O’Hare no matter how many citizens demand change, no matter what solutions are proposed and no matter how devastating the impact of her decisions on families, children and seniors, and even entire neighbourhoods.http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=21599 

  • .

Read more »

Gatwick admits to sacrificing the lives of those in countryside to satisfy its expansion plans

The Gatwick flight path trial, and other intensified flight paths associated with Gatwick, continue to cause not only annoyance but real distress to perhaps thousands in the area. In an article reported in part of the aviation media, some of the anger and frustration comes across, as well as the callous manner in which Gatwick airport appears to view people who live in the countryside, and whose quality of life has been attacked by plane noise. Stewart Wingate is reported as saying “Why would you choose to fly a quarter of a million more planes every year over one of the world’s most densely populated cities (London) when instead you can fly them mostly over fields.” His ignorant comment about the area over-flown by Gatwick planes as just fields has enraged people. The article says Mr Wingate “appears to suggest sacrificing the lifestyle, peace and quiet of those who have chosen to live outside cities for the profit of a few –  the foreign owners of  Gatwick Airport.”  The airport has already started the process of ‘Air Grab’ over a number of Sussex towns and villages. That is a frightening prospect when Mr Wingate has said his ambition is to make Gatwick larger than Heathrow is today. 

.

Gatwick Airport admits to sacrificing the lives of those in countryside to satisfy its expansion plans

10.7.2014 (Airside International, in EVA International Media) by Nick Smith

[This article is in the aviation press; it is not a press release from an airport community group, though that's what it comes across as !]

Gatwick airport has launched its opening salvo in its bid for a second runway by declaring open season on the countryside.  Its chairman Stewart Wingate appears to have publicly stated that flying over the countryside in Sussex, Kent, Surrey and Hampshire is of little consequence compared to his ambitions to enlarge the airport. Stewart Wingate, CEO of London Gatwick, said: “Why would you choose to fly a quarter of a million more planes every year over one of the world’s most densely populated cities (London) when instead you can fly them mostly over fields.”

As Laura Standing, who has a daughter with a sensory processing disorder and lives in West Sussex, and is currently experiencing a new trial flight path directly over her house,  says:  “Those fields that Wingate is so disparaging about have houses on with people living in them.

Stewart Wingate is living in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks that Surrey, Kent and Sussex are compiled of empty fields devoid of people. “I appreciate that Gatwick airport is seeking to maximise its profits, but at any cost to the lives of those who have chosen to live in the countryside?  My home, which has enjoyed peace and quiet to date, was ideal for my daughter who requires tranquility and stability to help with her autism.  But this has been blown asunder by Wingate’s new flight path which flies directly above our home at under 3,000 feet.  Whilst the incessant plane noise is ruining our lives it is destroying my daughter’s.”

Wingate’s assault on the countryside is being met with firm resistance.  As Sally Pavey, a resident of Warnham in West Sussex says: “Firstly the planes from Gatwick are flying directly over Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), major conurbations and countless villages.  To say that the route that Gatwick’s planes take is only over farm land and open fields is simply ludicrous.

“In addition, the assumption to be drawn from his comments that plane noise doesn’t travel or deviate from some perpendicular line directly under the plane is just barmy.  We all know aircraft noise is loud, travels a huge distance, is intrusive and very tiring on those who receive scant relieve from it.”

Wingate appears to suggest sacrificing the lifestyle, peace and quiet of those who have chosen to live outside cities for the profit of a few –  the foreign owners of  Gatwick Airport. 

With much of the South East already plagued by consistent aircraft noise Wingate also confirmed that Gatwick would seek to increase flights by at least another 250,000 a year, making the skies some of the busiest and most congested in the world During a recent interview on Radio 4’s Today programme Wingate said his ambition was to make Gatwick Airport larger than Heathrow.

Caroline Tayler, who lives in the Ashdown Forest in East Sussex suggests that Stewart Wingate is just demonstrating his obvious lack of knowledge of the countryside in the South East and how densely populated its small towns, villages and hamlets actually are.

She says: “His implication is that the lives of those living in the countryside don’t matter, that somehow their lives are less important than those living in towns or cities. “He also doesn’t seem to realise, or chooses not to care, that many rural businesses rely on tranquility as part of their appeal.  The increase in air traffic from Gatwick and its constant expansion plans will simply just ruin the countryside and many of its businesses.”

And not content with proposing a huge increase in air traffic Gatwick Airport, as part of its ongoing bid to secure another runway, has begun trials to widen its arc of flight paths – which is already substantial.  If these flight paths are given permanent status then even more of the countryside will be burdened with additional plane noise.

Sally Pavey explains:  “There is nothing stopping Gatwick Airport applying for additional flight paths anywhere in the South East.  It has already started the process of ‘Air Grab’ over a number of Sussex towns and villages and it doesn’t even have approval for a second runway.  If it did gain approval then the open season on the countryside will gain pace and it is unlikely that any household in the South East will be immune from repeated plane noise.”

Gatwick Airport’s first ‘Air Grab’ has targeted a number of Sussex villages which previously had been bypassed by aircraft.  The planes now fly directly, or within a couple of hundred metres, over two schools and thousands of homes and businesses whilst still under 4,000 feet.  And this is not the odd flight;  they can come every minute for hours on end.  Gatwick Airport is a 24 hour airport; unlike Heathrow which gives residents a respite from aircraft during the night. The roar of large aircraft now punctuates christenings, weddings and funerals in many Sussex villages hitherto not affected by Gatwick Airport.

And according to rules laid down by the International Standard Organisation an extra 10 decibels would be added to any recorded noise because of the reduced ambient noise in the countryside.

But this is scant comfort to David Lawton who recently moved his young family to Rusper and over the last four months reckons he has had in excess of 4,500 flights directly over his house and at a very, very low height.  He says: “I knew we were buying a house near an airport and there would be some noise.  Prior to purchasing I even checked the Noise Preference Routes and flight paths.  But since Mr. Wingate has introduced his new trial flight path – without any warning or consultation – my family has had trouble sleeping with flights starting before 6am and continuing until after 10pm.  We are all squabbling more and feel very run down from the near continual noise.

“There has been a flagrant disregard for the local community with spin, deception and poor corporate practice surrounding the introduction of the flight path trial.  Gatwick has also shown no interest in engaging in a meaningful way with the affected residents,  which number thousands. “Thanks to Mr. Wingate we are now living in hell.  And, he now plans to make the trial flight path permanent. ”

Perhaps equally disturbing are reports from residents that planes are flying so far off their  pre-determined trial routes.  There are reports of residents complaining to Gatwick about flights over their houses and being sent route maps which differ considerably from reality.

The CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) has already had over 2,700 complaints with the figure rising rapidly.  Perhaps it is the start of a clarion call for Stewart Wingate and his Gatwick brethren to rethink the effects they are having on Laura Standing’s daughter.

http://evaint.com/industry-news/gatwick-airport-admits-to-sacrificing-the-lives-of-those-in-countryside-to-satisfy-its-expansion-plans . . . .

Read more »

Newham Council warns London City Airport over night time disruption, for 3 years, for its building works

Campaigners against London City Airport expansion fear years of night time disruption if a planning application is approved.  The group “Stop City Airport” say long-suffering residents in the area are already facing increased noise issues due to Crossrail works and from the proposed Chinese business park by ABP (Associated British Ports). Stop City Airport raised its latest concerns after a letter from Newham Council was made public, expressing fears over night-time construction work. Campaigner Alan Haughton said: “There will be no relief for residents. Aircraft noise all day long and as soon as that finishes, non-stop piling for three years at least.” The council’s senior development manager Chris Gascoigne said the airport was proposing a construction programme lasting up to 7 years, with 3 of those being 24 hours a day. He commented: “In our view the proposed night time construction noise impacts are not acceptable and represent a potential reason for refusal of planning permission.” The airport has been asked if it can reduce operation hours, to do construction during the day, but council officers have yet to get a reply. The airport’s plans include 7 new aircraft parking stands, a 3-storey passenger pier, noise barriers and a 260-bedroom hotel.
.

 

Newham Council warns London City Airport over expansion disruption

10.7.2014 (Wharf.co.uk)

city airport sign 480.jpg

Campaigners against London City Airport expansion fear years of night time disruption if a planning application is approved.

Stop City Airport released a statement (see below) last week saying long-suffering residents in the area were already facing increased noise issues due to Crossrail works and from the proposed Chinese business park by ABP.

It raised its latest concerns after a letter was made public from Newham Council, expressing fears over night-time construction work.

Campaigner Alan Haughton said: “There will be no relief for residents. Aircraft noise all day long and as soon as that finishes, non-stop piling for three years at least.

“There’s already outrage in the area, not just over the airport, but the Crossrail works, which is probably why Newham has stepped in.”

The council’s senior development manager Chris Gascoigne has written to planning consultants working on behalf of the airport.

He said the airport was proposing a construction programme lasting up to seven years, with three of those being 24 hours a day.

He wrote: “In our view the proposed night time construction noise impacts are not acceptable and represent a potential reason for refusal of planning permission.”

The airport has been asked whether it can reduce operation hours in order to carry out construction during the day, but officers have yet to receive a response.

When asked about the letter, both Newham Council and City Airport played down the row.

A council spokesman said: “The planning application process is ongoing, so residents should ensure their views are known.”

He recommended residents lodge their opinions with the council.

A statement released by the airport said: “London City Airport is working closely with Newham to mitigate the effects of noise on the community during the construction phase of the City Airport Development Programme.

“The airport is committed to using best practicable means to deliver an acceptable programme of construction hours and reducing noise impacts, and is in dialogue with Newham as to how this can best be delivered.”

The airport’s plans include seven new aircraft parking stands, a three-storey passenger pier, noise barriers and a 260-bedroom hotel.

http://www.wharf.co.uk/2014/07/newham-council-warns-london-ci.html

.

.


.

London City Airport residents face up to 7 years of night time construction work

July 1st 2014 (Stop  City Airport)

 

London City Airport residents face up to 7 years of Night Time Construction work.

Newham Council have warned London City Airport that the impacts of night time construction work may see them refuse planning permission for their new Development. [1]

London City Airport’s current Development planning application will see construction work carried out over a 7 year period, including 3 years of full 24 hour work, where noise intensive construction activities like piling will occur at night.

Newham Council have found that the resulting noise impacts are considerable and would significantly impact on residents in North Woolwich. North Woolwich residents currently suffer from the Airports operational noise as well as construction noise from Crossrail. Further construction work like the Chinese ABP development could also see them impacted.

London City Airport is not willing to temporarily alter its business operations to facilitate construction at it’s own development and have submitted noise mitigation measures which Newham Council have rejected.

http://stopcityairportmasterplan.tumblr.com/post/90440914910/press-release-london-city-airport-residents-face-up

 Stop City Airport 

http://stopcityairportmasterplan.tumblr.com/

 

.

.


 

.

See also:

THE FUTURE WATCHES THE AIRPORT – 21st July at 11am

eye ringThere will be a protest against the expansion of London City Airport.  Newham Council will soon decide whether it should expand. A group of local campaigners, working with the affected local community, plans to protest – to show the airport that whatever the Council’s decision – there will be uproar if they try to expand.

If Newham Council allow the airport to expand it will mean more air pollution, more noise pollution and more road traffic – especially for the communities who live around the airport – who are some of London’s most vulnerable.  It will also mean that people will lose their homes to allow for the airport’s expansion.

Details of the protest    Here    and details on Facebook

 


 

.

London City Airport now re-consulting on its expansion planning application

London City Airport has a planning application, initially submitted in July 2013, originally with 28th October as the comment deadline, for “Works to demolish existing buildings and structures and provide additional infrastructure and passenger facilities at London City Airport without changes to the number of permitted flights or opening hours previously permitted pursuant to planning permission.” The comment deadline was extended to 18th December. The local authority, Newham Council, has now announced that it will be re-consulting on the application. The deadline for comment is now 10th July, with the application expected to go to committee on 23rd July 2014. There have so been 1,282 responses to the application, all of which appear to be objecting to it. The airport said last year they were extending the deadline so”as many local people and wider stakeholders as possible can make their voices heard.”

Click here to view full story…


Public consultation on London City Airport planning applications extended to 18th December

October 30, 2013        Newham Council are extending their public consultation on London City Airport planning applications to midday on 18 December 2013. The deadline had been 28th October, but the application is mainly online, and the council planning website was down during some of the time. The planning application was presented in such an impenetrable manner on the Newham website that it was effectively impossible for ordinary people to understand what was proposed. Now Newham says that : “Due to the number of responses to the London City Airport planning consultation, including many who have asked for extra time to submit a response, we have decided to extend the deadline…. The major planning applications propose additional infrastructure, passenger facilities and a new hotel at the airport. We will shortly be publicising the extended consultation deadline including writing to more than 25,000 homes in the local area.” Local campaigners welcomed the extension and said the impacts of the expansion by London City Airport will affect the local area for generations to come, so it is important that local residents have the opportunity to get their voices heard.

 Click here to view full story…

 


 

London City Airport expansion plan – inadequate consultation by Newham – but campaigners have produced guidance on how to respond

October 26, 2013

London City Airport applied back in July for expansion. While the application does not propose to increase the number of flights, it crucially changes the split between scheduled jets and jet centre movements leading to a change in the 2010 baseline public safety zone. The application is to demolish some buildings and structures, and upgrade four aircraft stands, adding 7 new aircraft parking stands. It would also mean extension and modification of the existing airfield, including the creation of an extended taxi lane.There would be changes to parking and vehicle access, and an extension to the terminal building. The consultation in on the Newham Council website (though on some days it has not bee accessible) – it ends on 28th October. There is a huge list of documents, with no accessible detail, making comment by ordinary people nearly impossible. London City Airport campaigners have located the key information, and produced a simple response email which anyone can (adapt and) use. There are real fears of more noise from the airport and building space removed form the enlarged public safety zones. Do send in a reply if you agree these proposals should be opposed.

Click here to view full story…

 

 

.

.

 

.

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Reports on Thames Estuary airport plan show it is costly, risky for the taxpayer and a potential failure

Serious doubt has been cast on the prospect of a Thames estuary airport plan going ahead. Four reports have been produced for the Airports Commission, to aid their consideration of whether an estuary airport should be one of the short listed options to be taken forward, in September. One of three reports prepared for the commission published on Friday has said of the estuary plan: “Overall, the challenges to transition are considerable and amount to a significant cost and risk to the taxpayer in terms of commercial negotiations, infrastructure development and potential failure.” Another report says Heathrow would have to close if the estuary scheme went ahead and that Heathrow’s owners would have to be paid compensation of between £13.5 billion and £21.5 billion. The third report cited possible transport improvement costs associated with the new airport of between £10.1bn and £17.2bn for road, and up to £27 billion for rail. The report on environmental impacts which estimated that moving affected wildlife away from the new airport could cost as much as £2bn.

.


 

Airports Commission website

Inner Thames estuary airport studies


 

Boris Island Thames Estuary airport ‘dead in the water’ after cost estimates soar

By Joseph Watts, Political Correspondent (Evening Standard)

11.7.2014

The Boris Island airport plan suffered a “potential death blow” today as three reports said costs may soar billions of pounds above the Mayor’s estimates.

The bill for new transport links to a Thames Estuary airport could be more than double predictions, said experts.

Researchers outlined huge further costs of compensating Heathrow’s owners and removing a sunken wreck full of explosives. They also questioned the plan’s commercial viability, suggesting it could lead to higher passenger costs and business lost to competitors.

Most people quizzed by researchers thought the estuary plan carried “significant risk, uncertainty and cost”.

The study comes after another found an estuary airport would have “large adverse impacts” on the environment.

London Assembly Lib-Dem leader Caroline Pidgeon said: “This is a potential death blow to the Mayor’s dream.

“It’s bad enough he has spent millions in taxpayers’ money on promoting his fantasy. Now his proposals have been exposed as based on wildly inaccurate estimates.” Labour group transport spokesperson Val Shawcross said the study confirmed that the Mayor’s plan was “pie in the sky”, while the Greens’ Darren Johnson said: “Boris Island must now be dead in the water.”

The Airports Commission ordered four feasibility studies of an estuary air hub. The first looked at environmental impacts and was published last week.

The other three look at the impacts of moving a hub from Heathrow, the economic effects and road and rail links. It was the final report on transport, by engineering firm Jacobs, that outlined spiralling transport costs.

The Mayor’s 2013 estimate suggested road links would cost up to £10.1 billion and rail £13.5 billion. The Jacobs report claimed they may rocket to £17 billion and £27 billion respectively.

A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers said Heathrow owners may need compensation of £21.5 billion. Another by Leigh Fisher says the cost of tackling risks posed by the wreck of a Second World War munitions ship five miles from the airport site are unknown. But it concludes SS Richard Montgomery, still holding 1,500 tons of TNT, may have to be made safe or removed.

The Mayor’s chief aviation adviser Daniel Moylan said the reports would be analysed but he emphasised how they also highlighted economic benefits an estuary hub would provide.

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/boris-island-thames-estuary-airport-dead-in-the-water-after-cost-estimates-soar-9599898.html

.

.


.

Thames Estuary airport poses ‘considerable risk’ to taxpayer

11.7.2014 (BBC)

Artists impression of Foster and Partners' proposed Isle of Grain airport The proposed Thames Estuary airport would be built on the Isle of Grain

An airport in the Thames Estuary would present a “considerable cost and risk to the taxpayer”, according to reports published by the Airports Commission.

An estuary airport on the Isle of Grain has been proposed by London Mayor Boris Johnson.

Four studies into the feasibility of the airport have been published.

They state airlines and passengers believe the scheme would carry “significantly more risk than opportunity”.

One of the reports also stated that explosives on a sunken World War Two munitions ship in the estuary, the SS Richard Montgomery, would need to be removed or treated before the airport could be constructed.

It added: “Full containment or removal are deemed high-risk and high-cost options, potentially requiring evacuation of the local area for a period of many weeks or months.”

‘Significant risk’

The Airports Commission has been tasked with examining the need for additional UK airport capacity. It has shortlisted three options, which include adding a third runway at Heathrow, lengthening an existing runway there, and a new runway at Gatwick.

However, the commission, led by businessman Sir Howard Davies, will also consider a new airport in the Isle of Grain.

The three latest reports looked at operational feasibility and attitudes towards the airport, socio-economic impacts and surface access.

The first report, which looked into the environmental impact of the airport, said it could cost up to £2bn to provide alternative habitats for wildlife if the airport was built.

Boris Johnson suggested the Isle of Grain in Kent as the site for a new, four-runway airport

One of the reports states that Heathrow would have to be closed for a new hub airport in the Thames to open.

It states: “Overall, the challenges to transition are considerable and amount to a significant cost and risk to the taxpayer in terms of commercial negotiations, infrastructure development and potential failure.”

Daniel Moylan, who is the mayor of London’s chief adviser on aviation, said: “Our team will now analyse these reports in detail but it appears they confirm the huge benefits to the country’s prosperity that would flow from moving Heathrow to a new location and prove that there are challenges, but no showstoppers, to achieving that.

“The case studies of how this has been successfully done in other countries are particularly valuable.

“Of course there are risks, but all the proposals being considered by the commission carry risk.

“The Airports Commission can have no alternative but to include the estuary option on its formal shortlist.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28253710

Related BBC Stories

 

Read more »

Four Inner Thames estuary airport studies for Airports Commission finally kill off “Boris Island”

The Airports Commission has now published all four of the studies it has commissioned on an Inner Thames Estuary (ITE) airport. These reports are on environmental impacts, operational feasibility and attitudes to moving to an estuary airport, socio-economic impacts, and surface access. The first report, on environmental impacts was utterly damning, confirming the massive extent of the harm done to highly conserved habitats  and their wildlife, and the near impossibility of successfully moving the wildlife elsewhere. Now the report on the feasibility of moving the airport shows the problems of flood risk, fog, wind direction, bird strike, explosives on the SS Montgomery and the Isle of Grain gas terminal – with many practically insurmountable. The report on socio-economic impacts demonstrates that aeronautical charges would have to be very high to pay for the airport, and be too high to compete with Dubai etc. Heathrow would have to close, at immense cost.  The surface access report shows the cost of even minimal rail services to get most passengers to the airport would be £10 billion and more like £27 billion for a good service. The cost of road improvements would be £10 to £17 billion. The reports’ conclusions now make it nearly inconceivable that a Thames Estuary Airport will ever be constructed. 
.

Airports Commission reports final kill “Boris Island”

10.7.2014 (the “No Estuary Airport Campaign”
(South East Essex Friends of the Earth).

.
On 4 July the first of four reports prepared for the Airports Commission dealt a body blow to Boris Johnson’s plan to close Heathrow and create a new hub airport in the Thames Estuary.

On 10th July the three remaining reports were released, finally laying to rest any hope the Mayor of London had of destroying the Isle of Grain in Kent and parts of south Essex to fulfil his dream.

The sheer level of detailed analysis contained in the reports, and the conclusions reached, now make it inconceivable that a Thames Estuary Airport will ever be constructed.  Never before has so much effort gone into the analysis of the merits of the various estuary schemes and the conclusions are crystal clear.

Jon Fuller of the “No Estuary Airport Campaign” said: –  “the most detailed study into proposals to build a Thames Estuary Airport has categorically proven this to be the wrong location for a hub airport. It has always, and always will be unsuitable for an international airport. We appeal to the Mayor of London to stop wasting time, effort and huge sums of public money in promoting this scheme. It is time for him to accept that his proposal is dead and we appeal to him to now focus upon what he can do to reduce the noise and pollution misery inflicted upon the residents of west London. It is time to reduce night flights and ensure the cost of flying reflects the impact it imposes upon millions of people.”


 

 

Airports Commission website

Inner Thames estuary airport studies


1.  Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 1: environmental impacts

On 4 July the first report for the Airports Commission looked at the environmental impacts of the proposed estuary airport and concluded that the scale of environmental damage and the legal protection to wildlife habitat probably made the challenge of building the airport insurmountable.
 
A devastating analysis of the Mayor’s plan can be seen at   
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/07/08/airports-commission-sink-boris-johnson-s-estuary-airport-pla

The 3 reports published on 10th July finally killed off any prospect of the scheme ever getting off the ground.

2.    Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 2: operational feasibility and attitudes to moving to an estuary airport

See 11-1 Summary and Conclusions   (PDF pages 92-94)
 
Flood risk, fog, wind direction, even bird strike may be surmountable, but the SS Richard Montgomery and the Isle of Grain gas terminal are not. And the killer business and political argument is that Southend Airport and London City Airports would have to close.
 
A Thames Estuary Airport reduces UK capacity.
 
The need for a phased transition from Heathrow to an estuary airport is also seen as exceptionally challenging.

3.    Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 3: socio-economic impacts

See Executive Summary: Pages 2 – 5 (PDF 4 – 7)
 
The PWC report identifies a large number of benefits and losses, weighing up the various costs. The report is not all one sided, but the cost of closing Heathrow is almost certainly ruled out with the conclusion that: –      “Our review has assessed the existing evidence in relation to the compensation that would be payable to the owners of Heathrow. The current estimate is in order of between £13.5 and £21.5 billion for Heathrow.”

 

4.  Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 4: surface access

See Conclusions. 8.2   (from page 136).

The Jacobs report states that (at 8.2.11) “By 2050, rail option 4 is the only credible option, due to the  predicted growth of London, and even then some capacity issue still remain.”  At table 30, page 139 option 4 is said to be:    £26.970,000 million !

At 8.2.16 the new road building costs are said to be between £10.1bn and £17.2bn. And the environmental impacts identified on page 140 are shown to be insurmountable.

 


 


Airports Commission

Open consultation

Inner Thames estuary airport studies

The Airports Commission is seeking views on a number of inner Thames estuary study reports. Specifically, we are inviting responses in relation to 2 questions:

– is there information in the reports which is factually inaccurate?
– is there any new information or evidence that you wish us to consider before making our decision?

Email to:   Estuary.Studies@airports.gsi.gov.uk   by 5pm on Friday 8th August 2014.


 

.

Looking at the conclusions of these reports:

1.  Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 1: environmental impacts

 Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 1: environmental impacts

Report for Airports Commission on environmental impact sinks Boris’s estuary airport plans

Boris Johnson’s dreams of a massive airport in the Thames Estuary have had a major setback, from the new report produced for the Airports Commission, looking at the environmental impacts. The study shows it would cause huge environmental, financial and safety risks and would cause “large scale direct habitat loss” to hundreds of thousands of migrating birds. The cost of creating replacement habitats could exceed £2 billion and may not even be possible. Even if replacement habitat could be found, planes using the airport would still be at a “high risk” of lethal bird strike. In order to counter this risk, even larger areas of habitat would need to be destroyed to secure the airport. The report also found huge regulatory hurdles to any potential estuary airport going ahead. Under environmental regulations,the airport’s backers would have to prove there were “imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI)” for placing the airport in such an environmentally sensitive area. Even if that could be proven, they would also need to demonstrate that all of the habitat displaced by the airport could be placed elsewhere. The report found that while this was “technically possible,” it was highly uncertain, as such a large scale displacement had never been attempted before.

Click here to view full story…

 


 

2.    Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 2: operational feasibility and attitudes to moving to an estuary airport

 Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 2: operational feasibility and attitudes to moving to an estuary airport

The report, by Leigh Fisher, looks at flood risk, fog, bird strikes, wind, explosives on the SS Richard Montgomery, airspace implications, energy facilities, transition and attitudes.

The concluding paragraphs of the section called
OVERALL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS states: (Page 92)
“Examined individually, the topics addressed by each chapter of this report have, in the main, highlighted significant but perhaps not insurmountable challenges and risks to the successful development of an airport in the inner Thames Estuary. Considered together, however, they appear to present a substantial risk that would incur large costs, in the order of billions of pounds, to appropriately manage. Part of that risk may not be mitigated or costed to a reasonable degree, including the risk to safety, the on time delivery of the airport, the consequential impacts on local and regional economies, the attractiveness of
the airport to airlines and their customers, and ultimately the success of a hub airport located in the inner Thames Estuary.
“There are many aspects to the Estuary airport scheme that have no useful precedent nationally or internationally. For example, there are no known examples of successful treatment of explosives such as are held within the SS Richard Montgomery. There are no examples of LNG Terminals located adjacent to large airports and no real world cases of an LNG facility suffering a major storage tank fire or explosion. Equally, there are no known examples of an airport of comparable scale relocating the distances involved, with the requirement to relocate and house (or make redundant, replace and house) a workforce of
considerable size. The complexity of the interdependencies between airlines, airports, businesses and passengers means that any delay to programme delivery could have far-reaching consequences. Yet there appear to be many issues that will involve complex commercial negotiations, planning policy and execution, stakeholder commitment, social change, and substantial amounts of construction, all of which carry great risk of compromise to delivery by 2030.”
.
.


.
3.  Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 3: socio-economic impacts

 Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 3: socio-economic impacts

The report, by PWC, looks at  the rationale for airport closure, commercial considerations, national and local socio-economic impacts and local catalytic impacts and spatial implications.
It comes to no specific conclusions, though a few paragraphs are copied below here:
Our review suggests that the commercial assumptions required to make an inner Thames Estuary airport commercially viable would require aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues per passenger to be significantly higher in real terms than at Heathrow and competing European hubs
…..
High capacity utilisation would also be required from the outset. Failure to capture sufficient
passengers from Heathrow airport could push charges higher in order to remain viable, but this is likely to offer a greater competitive advantage to competing hubs in Europe and the Middle East.   Available evidence suggests that these hubs will have the capacity to handle additional traffic when the Estuary airport opens. All of this means that Heathrow will need to close in order to make an inner Thames Estuary airport commercially viable.
….
The resources invested in building a new airport in the inner Thames Estuary will have substantial economic impacts. However, these impacts are another way of measuring the cost of a scheme and under government appraisal guidelines (as set out in the Green Book) should be treated as a cost, not a benefit. It is also important to highlight that the activity created in the construction phase will largely be temporary because once construction is finished, they will no longer be needed.
….
Operating an airport in the Thames Estuary will also have large-scale employment and GVA effects, as can be seen from around Heathrow at the moment. TfL have estimated the direct, indirect and induced effects of the operational phase of an inner Estuary hub airport to be in the region of 280,000 jobs and £20.9 billion in GVA per annum in 2030, rising to 388,000 jobs and £42.3 billion in GVA by 2050.  These estimates are critically dependent on the airport being a commercial success and achieving passenger traffic of 90 million per annum on opening in 2030, rising to 170 million passengers per annum in 2050. These forecasts are significantly higher than the Airports Commission forecasts in
2050…..A more fundamental economic impact from aviation is the catalytic or supply side impacts from improving the UK’s connectivity with the rest of the world. There is extensive academic literature capturing catalytic effects via the association between aviation connectivity and GDP, although the direction of causality in this relationship is unproven.
….
The review of local economic impacts shows that an inner Thames Estuary proposal has the potential to generate approximately 98,000 additional jobs in 2030 across the six local authorities closest to the proposed airport, a 23.5% increase in the current baseline forecast. However, the deliverability of this employment uplift and its potential benefit to local people may be constrained by local housing availability, labour supply, availability of land and surface access. These constraints are likely to be experienced differently by individual authorities depending on their opportunities and barriers to growth.

.
.


.

4.  Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 4: surface access

Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 4: surface access

This report by Jacobs looks at the 4 proposals for an estuary airport and the road and rail surface transport issues.They say:
The assumptions and surface access options proposed in each of these four submissions were reviewed by Jacobs early in the study programme. A key assumption made in three of the proposals was a high public transport mode share of 60-65% for air passengers making surface access trips to the airport. Foster + Partners and MTTRA stated explicitly in their 2013 submissions that the rail mode share for air passengers would be 60% while the Mayor of London indicated that for testing purposes it was assumed all public transport trips would use rail. These submissions also indicated that a high proportion of airport employees would commute using public transport, ranging from 60% using rail (identified in both the MTTRA and Foster + Partners proposals) to an overall 75% public transport mode share (identified by the Mayor of London) – as with passengers, the Mayor assumed for testing purposes that all employee commuting trips by public transport would be made by rail.

While the submissions differed markedly in terms of surface transport proposals they put forward, there were a number of common elements across many, as follows:
 The provision of an express service via High Speed 1 (HS1) from St. Pancras connecting to the airport via a spur to the south east of Gravesend – included in all submissions with minor variations and assumed by Jacobs to take approximately 26 minutes between St. Pancras and the airport;

 The extension of both branches of Crossrail from Abbey Wood in the south via Dartford,
Gravesend and Hoo Junction and from Shenfield in the north via Billericay – the southern branch extension was included in all three submissions, while both MTTRA and Foster + Partners included a northern branch extension – the southern branch service was assumed to take approximately 51 minutes between Tottenham Court Road and the airport;

 The provision of a semi-fast service from Waterloo to the airport via Bromley South and Swanley – included in the Foster + Partners and MTTRA submissions, and IAAG highlighted the potential for a similar service to Waterloo via Ebbsfleet/Gravesend – this was assumed to take 42 minutes between Waterloo and the airport;

 Regional services linking to North Kent and South Essex (via a river crossing to the Fenchurch Street line) – included in the Mayor of London, IAAG and Foster + Partners submissions.

In addition, the Mayor of London proposed a new express service from Waterloo via London Bridge, Canary Wharf and Barking Riverside that was assumed to take 28 minutes to travel between Waterloo and the airport. This and the schemes summarised above were assembled into four rail packages for assessment.

 

…..
They looked at 4 options, for rail services, from just covering the minimum requirements, to more extensive services with more lines.
They conclude, on page 138 that:

Thus in summary, while rail Option 1 would accommodate predicted demand in 2030, it is dependent on 4 rail paths per hour being available on HS1 and a significant proportion of ITE passengers (around 45%) would experience crush capacity loadings of above 90% on the central sections of Crossrail.  The rail elements of this option would cost around £5bn, rising to around £10bn with rail and optimism bias included.
In comparison, rail Option 4 would provide an additional express rail service to London (the AEX), which would both improve the resilience on relying on available HS1 train paths, and provide faster connections to south and west central London. The predicted Crossrail sub mode share of this option reduces to 27%, so fewer ITE airport users would have to experience Crossrail crush capacities in the core sections. However, the rail elements of this option would cost around £13bn, rising to around £27bn with rail and optimism bias included. By 2050, rail option 4 is the only credible option, due to the predicted growth of London, and even then some capacity issue still remain.
.
.
On roads they say:
Roads assessment
8.2.12 The roads assessment involved using a route assignment model to forecast the impact of road trips to the ITE accounting for the impacts on capacity related purely to expected growth in background traffic. The costs of mitigating for these background traffic-related impacts have not been assigned to the airport.
8.2.13 The analysis detailed the following road widening requirements due to the ITE airport, covering works required in both 2030 and 2050 – our model indicated that these links exceed 100% of capacity as a result of airport-related traffic:
 88km widening of the M25 (73km single lane widening and 15 km double lane widening);
 17km single lane widening of the M2;
 17km widening of the A2 (2km single lane widening and 15km double lane widening);
 Around 30km single lane widening of the A12/A127/A13 roads on their approach to the M25 from outside London.
8.2.14 Additionally, the construction of the ITE airport brings the predicted Volume/Capacity Ratios (VCRs) above the critical 85% threshold on the following links, and additional road widening may be required as follows:
 20km single lane widening of the M25;
 3km single lane widening of the M2;
 Around 55km single lane widening of the A12/A127/A13 in various locations.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Read more »