Airports Commission publishes new discussion document – a call for evidence on “Delivering new runway capacity”
Date added: 8 July, 2014
The Airports Commission has published its 7th Discussion Paper, “Delivering new runway capacity: call for evidence.” The deadline for comment is 15th August. The paper explores: – legal and planning issues surrounding runway capacity; engagement with local communities including compensation and mitigation; and the role of the state. The Commission welcomes feedback on these issues, to help in its deliberations. The paper sets out the two main routes through planning that a runway proposal could take, either through the NSIP (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project) route, or through a Hybrid Bill in Parliament. The paper also raises issues such as how decisions on associated housing should be dealt with; it considers how consultation can best be carried out to be effective; it asks to what extent – if at all – the State should subsidise an airport, without falling foul of European regulations on state aid; and likewise on spending tax payers’ money on surface transport, that mainly benefits an airport and its users. The Commission recognises the importance of noise, and will use multiple contours for LAeq and Lden as well as N70 daytime and N60 night ‘number above’ contours.
.
.
1.7.2014
Airports Commission opens a consultation,
This discussion paper calls for evidence on issues which the Airports Commission has identified as being of interest to the delivery of new runway capacity.
The paper explores:
– legal and planning issues surrounding runway capacity
– engagement with local communities including compensation and mitigation
– the role of the state
How to respond: Email to: Airports.delivery@airports.gsi.gov.uk
Consultation closes 5pm on 15th August 2014
PDF, 223KB, 26 pages
The document sets out the planning process, either for a NSIP (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project) requiring a National Policy Statement – or through the route of a Hybrid Bill.
Under its Terms of Reference, the Commission has also been asked to make recommendations for how the need for any new capacity can be met as expeditiously as practicable within the required timescale. This paper sets out some of the areas that the Commission will review in considering how any of the options for new capacity
could be so delivered.
—–
For the purposes of this paper and to ensure fullness of discussion, the possibility of an inner Estuary scheme being chosen by the Commission is considered. However, it is important to emphasise that no decision has yet been taken on whether an inner Estuary option should be considered a credible option to be taken forward to Phase 2 of the Commission’s work.
The paper will look at the following areas which this Commission has identified as
being of particular interest to the expeditious delivery of new runway capacity:
Chapter 2:
Legal and Planning Issues – Any new runway or airport will need to secure the agreement of the relevant planning authority before construction can begin.
Chapter 3:
Local Communities – How airports engage with their local communities is likely to be a key part of delivering new capacity. Local compensation and mitigation schemes may play a role in addressing the needs of those affected by airport expansion, including impacts on the environment.
Chapter 4:
Role of the State – While airports in the UK are most commonly privately owned and operated, the state still plays a role in the licensing and economic regulation of airports. There are also a number of interactions between airports and areas of public life.
The Government of the day could play a variety of roles in securing agreement
and funding or co-ordinating the different elements that must come together to deliver new runway capacity.
Chapter 5:
Next Steps – sets out how you can respond to this Discussion Paper and how the Commission will use responses to inform its ongoing work.
—–
.
New airport capacity would likely require not just runway and terminal buildings, but enhanced surface access and, particularly in the case of a new airport in the Inner Thames
Estuary, possibly also new housing and other local development. Current Government policy is clear that planning decisions on housing should be for local authorities in accordance with their local plan and not part of the national infrastructure regime. The
Commission is interested in views on the breadth of planning and other consents that would needed for any new runway capacity and related development and how effectively
these can be addressed by the DCO (Development Consent Order) process.
—–
Whilst this paper details two alternative routes for securing planning consent for
new airport capacity, (NSIP and Hybrid Bill) the Commission is interested to hear views and suggestions for any alternative strategies. This may include different combinations of the elements discussed.
2.30 Whatever legislative vehicle is used, it is possible that that the process for
agreeing planning permission for new runway capacity could take some time. The Commission is keen to understand how the potential planning journey of its
final recommendation could be as stream-lined and efficient as possible, whilst ensuring that local communities and statutory consultees are properly engaged. For example, it will want to explore the potential interactions of the different stages of any parliamentary or
planning process and whether there may be opportunities for Government, airports and others to do preparation work, without prejudice, ahead of the Commission’s Final Report and to work most effectively afterwards. The Commission will want to ensure that any process can build upon the work that it and scheme promoters have done during this parliament.
—–
In the UK there is a statutory requirement for airports to provide adequate facility for consultation with airport users, local authorities, including in relation to the area of Greater London a reference to the Mayor of London acting on behalf of the Greater London
Authority, and other local groups on any matter relating to the management and
administration of the aerodrome which affects their interests.
—–
At Frankfurt Airport the delivery of an additional fourth runway was managed by the Forum Flughafen und Region (FFR) which is chaired by a triumvirate of an elected community representative, aviation industry representative and a neutral third party, with parity of
information for all sides. The work of the forum has resulted in agreement on a
number of noise restrictions and a new information centre (the ‘Umwelthaus’)
comprising physical noise exhibitions and demonstrations as well as online forecasts and information. However, expansion at Frankfurt has still proved controversial. Disagreement over the airport’s third runway in the 1970s and 80s led to violent clashes between
police and protesters and protests against its fourth still take place regularly even though the runway has now been operating for more than two years.
——
Whilst UK airports are predominately privately owned and operated, internationally this
is often not the case, with airports being funded by state or municipal means. The UK’s position means that public subsidy of the building of airport infrastructure at existing airports, such as new runways or terminal buildings, although perhaps in the public interest would need to be considered in the light of European Union rules on state aid. In
effect, if proper protections were not put in place, government might be subsidising a private company by contributing to the cost of enhancing its assets which would probably constitute anti-competitive behaviour and an illegal state aid.
—–
Surface Access – Improving or providing road and rail links to airports to enable their expansion will incur costs. Traditionally these costs have been met predominantly by local or national government, though in many cases contributions have been made by the
private owners of relevant airports. Broadly this has been justified by reference to the wider societal benefit of this infrastructure. That is that surface access and public transport links are not just for the benefit of airport passengers but used by other people and
businesses in the area. Where airport development supports local growth by providing more jobs and attracting more businesses to the area, which can in turn supports new housing, all of this background activity will also have an impact on local transport.
4.9 The Commission has set out its initial assessment of the surface transport
needs for the short-listed schemes and for proposals in the inner Thames Estuary in its Interim Report. The Commission is doing further work on this analysis as part of its phase 2 analysis of short-listed schemes and separately as part of the inner Thames
Estuary feasibility studies
.4.10 It is possible that the surface access requirements for airport development may, depending on the particular circumstances, also present a state aid challenge. For example, investment in new links to a new airport in the inner Thames Estuary or to reroute existing roads around expansion at Gatwick and Heathrow may arguably not otherwise be of benefit to the public and in effect be delivered wholly to support private sector development and the needs of those using the airport.
—–
The Commission’s Appraisal Framework sets out how we will make use of a number of metrics in assessing the noise impacts of new capacity including multiple contours for LAeq and Lden as well as N70 daytime and N60 night ‘number above’ contours.7
.
.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/326012/discussion-paper-7-runway-capacity.pdf
.
.
.
Posted: Tuesday, July 8th, 2014. Filed in General News, Recent News.
