PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE ITEM 9
8TH APRIL 1991
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT CONSULTATION
"RUNWAY CAPACITY TO SERVE THE SOUTH EAST"
REPORT OF THE COUNTY SURVEYOR AND COUNTY PLANNING OFFICER
1 Introduction
1.1 This report is to formulate a response to the Department of
Transport's consultation "Runway Capacity to serve the South
East: A Consultation Document". This document is produced as
a result of the Civil Aviation Authority's (CAA) advice to
the Secretary of State for Transport on "Traffic Distribution
Policy - the next 15 years" (CAP 570). In November 1990 the
Secretary of State announced the establishment of a working
group (RUCATSE), chaired by the DTp, to consider future
runway capacity to serve demand by 2005 in south-east
England. RUCATSE will consider:
(i) development and environmental implications;
(ii) surface access;
(iii) aircraft noise; and
(iv) airport development.
The Joint Airports' Committee of Local Authorities (JACOLA)
has been invited by RUCATSE to take the lead in assessing the
contribution of regional airports. Hampshire County Council
is not represented on this Committee.
1.2 The Department of Transport are now inviting comments to
ensure that RUCATSE has the views of relevant authorities and
organisations.
2 CAP 570 - Runway Options
2.1 To meet likely runway capacity demands by 2005 the CAA
examined eight options for further development of existing
airports, which appeared to be able in airspace and air
traffic control terms, to handle the additional air traffic.
At the request of the Secretary of State for Transport, the
CAA did not consider green field sites. The eight options
are set out in the attached Appendix.
2.2 The runway options have not considered capital costs or the
environmental/social impact, and it is acknowledged that in
several cases these would be very significant.
1
2.3 The CAA concluded that options 4(b) (Heathrow STOL runway), 6
(Lydd), and part of 8 (Bedford) could probably be eliminated
at this stage on airspace and air traffic control grounds.
3 CAP 570 - A Near Regional Option (Bournemouth and Bristol) -
Full Single Runway Capacity
3.1 Both airports were evaluated operating at 20 movements an
hour so as to achieve the equivalent of a full runway
capacity. Runway extensions at both Bournemouth and Bristol
appear technically possible. Bournemouth was selected in
preference to Southampton both because of the relative ease
with which the necessary aircraft holding patterns and route
system could be designed and because it was likely to have
less impact on the Central Control Function (CCF) System.
3.2 Although a Southampton scenario was not simulated, results of
the Bournemouth evaluation indicated that Southampton could
be considered as an alternative to Bournemouth. However, the
same strict sectorisation of aircraft movements would have to
be applied, sufficient runway length would have to be
available and the ground movement and safeguarding
requirements would have to be satisfied.
3.3 The CAA concluded that the small near regional airports at
Bournemouth (and Lydd, Manston) could be developed by the
turn of the century without producing a significant effect on
CCF operations, provided that movements were restricted to
about 20 per hour and traffic sectorised. The report states
that regional airports will continue to grow rapidly whether
or not additional capacity is provided in the London area.
4 Working Group (RUCATSE)
4.1 Organisations invited to join the working group or sub groups
include SERPLAN, environmental bodies at Heathrow, Gatwick
and Stansted, the Airfields Environment Federation (AEF) and
the Chairman of the Consultative Committees at the airports
concerned (this includes Southampton and Bournemouth).
Others include British Airports Authority, airports and
airline representative bodies.
4.2 The Airports Policy Consortium, of which the County Council
is a member, has not been invited to join the working group.
The DTp have pointed out that Consortium authorities will be
represented by SERPLAN on the working groups and also have
the opportunity to submit their own representations.
4.3 Representations affecting Hampshire will therefore be made on
the RUCATSE group by representatives of SERPLAN and by the
Chairman of the Consultative Committees. The County Council
will also be able to make written representations direct to
2
the DTp and through the Airports Policy Consortium. The
Committee's conclusion on this report will, therefore, form
the basis for Members to respond throughout SERPLAN, Airports
Policy Consortium and Consultative Committees.
5 CAP 570 - Implications for Hampshire (Southampton and
Bournemouth Airports)
5.1 Bournemouth airport currently handles 250,000 passengers per
year and the east-west runway is 1,838 metres long;
Southampton handles 500,000 passengers per year with a runway
1,723 metres long.
5.2 The report states that at Bournemouth a runway extension to
the west would entail aircraft flying lower over the northern
Bournemouth outskirts, but that there is scope for an
extension to a full 3,500 metres to either the east or the
west. It suggests that Southampton might be considered
instead of Bournemouth, if an adequate runway length were
possible and provided that strict sectorisation was enforced
and ground movement operations and runway safeguarding issues
could be accommodated.
5.3 It may be technically feasible to extend the runway either to
the east and/or west at Bournemouth to provide a 3,500 metre
runway. However the CAA have already stated one of the
implications of extending it to the west. The feasibility of
extending the runway at Southampton to 3,500 metres is
questionable both in technical and environmental terms and as
a result of recent legal agreements in relation to the
redevelopment of the airport.
5.4 A significant increase in passengers through either
Bournemouth or Southampton would have major environmental,
noise, pollution and traffic implications for residents in
Hampshire.
5.5 Policy T11 of the draft Hampshire County Structure Plan to be
considered by the Committee at this meeting states "... that
any development proposals or changes in aviation activity at
existing airfields which will generate development pressure
and/or increase environmental disturbance will normally be
opposed". However, the Structure Plan makes it clear that,
subject to Policy T11, proposals will normally be supported
at Southampton which maintain its sub-regional role and
improve operational safety and passenger facilities.
5.6 Further development of runway or terminal facilities at
Heathrow and/or Gatwick could create environmental and
development pressures in North and East Hampshire. The
County Council have previously supported the Airports Policy
Consortium in its opposition to further developments at
either of these airports. This support should be reaffirmed.
3
It is, therefore
RECOMMENDED
1 That the Department of Transport be informed, in response
to "Runway Capacity to Serve the South East", that the County
Council oppose any proposal for increased runway capacity in
the south-east at Heathrow, Gatwick, Bournemouth or
Southampton.
2 That these views be brought to the attention of the:
(i) Chairman of the Southampton (Eastleigh) Airport
Consultative Committee;
(ii) Chairman of the Bournemouth Hurn Airport Consultative
Committee;
(iii) Airports Policy Consortium; and
(iv) SERPLAN
0654/LIN/JG
4
APPENDIX
OPTIONS SELECTED IN CAP 570
1 Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton operating at the
currently envisaged runway capacities.
2 A second, parallel runway at Gatwick.
3 A second, parallel runway at Stansted.
4 A third runway at Heathrow, being either:
(a) a full parallel runway; or
(b) a parallel STOL runway.
5 Luton operating at full theoretical single runway capacity.
6 A South Coast example (Lydd) operating to either full or half
single runway capacity.
7 A near regional option (Bournemouth and Bristol) developed
jointly so as to achieve full single runway capacity.
8 The joint development of military airfields (Bedford and
Manston) which have been offered by the Ministry of Defence
(MOD) as possible sites for civilian use.
5
Top of this page
Hantsweb Homepage