Archived decisions

Contact: Iain Reeve, ext 5301 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 This report summarises the Government's White Paper on "The Future of Air Transport", which was published on 16 December 2003, and comments on the implications of the White Paper recommendations for Hampshire. It also provides an update on recent legal judgements affecting the implementation of airport growth proposals. The report considers how the implications of airport growth are being taken forward as part of the development of the South East Plan.

2. Corporate Strategy

2.1 This report supports Aims 2 and 3 (Stewardship of the Environment and Achieving Economic Prosperity) of the Corporate Strategy by examining how airport expansion in the South East would affect the environment and economy of Hampshire.

3. Background

3.1 The Government's intention with the White Paper "The Future of Air Transport" was to set out a strategic framework for the development of airport capacity in the United Kingdom over the next 30 years. This was in the context of concerns from the aviation industry that the existing airports in the UK did not have enough runway capacity to accommodate rising demand for air travel.

3.2 The publication of the White Paper followed extensive consultation on a number of options for airport expansion, including:

(i) one, two or three additional runways at Stansted;

(ii) an additional runway at Heathrow;

(iii) one or two additional runways at Gatwick;

(iv) a new airport at Cliffe in Kent; and

(v) whether any of these options could form an additional international hub to complement Heathrow.

3.3 The County Council's formal response to the consultation exercise was approved by Cabinet on 23 December 2002.

4. Summary of the White Paper

4.1 Copies of the White Paper are available from:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/sectionhomepage/dft_aviation_page.hcsp

4.2 The White Paper concludes that demand for air travel would be between two and three times current levels by 2030. At Heathrow, demand exceeds capacity for virtually the whole of the day. This is also the case at Gatwick and Stansted for a part of the day. To remedy this, the first step should be to make use of existing runway capacity by techniques to increase the number of flights. However, this would not be enough to meet likely demand for air travel. Two additional runways would be needed in the South East in the next 30 years.

4.3 The White Paper rejected proposals for a new airport at Cliffe in Kent. It also rejected proposals for a second international hub to be built to complement Heathrow.

4.4 The first of the new runways would be built at Stansted airport as quickly as possible (possibly by 2012). The second of the proposed new runways would be built at either Heathrow or Gatwick as required after 2012. Heathrow was the preferred first choice, but this would only be taken forward if stringent environmental limits could be met. If this proved impossible, an additional runway would be built at Gatwick. This could not take place before 2019 because of a local legal agreement.

4.5 The Government supported in principle the development of smaller South East airports to meet local demand, including Southampton airport. This was subject to relevant environmental considerations. During the consultation exercise, the Government had suggested that Southampton could accommodate 7 million passengers per year, but the airport operator considered that a capacity of 2-2.5 million passengers per year was more realistic.

4.6 The White Paper did not make specific recommendations on the surface access implications of airport growth, including the need for additional road and rail links and/or capacity. This should be considered by relevant transport bodies, local authorities and regional transport strategies.

5. General Criticism of the White Paper

5.1 The White Paper provoked considerable opposition from residents located close to the proposed developments, especially in connection with Stansted and the since-abandoned proposal for a new airport at Cliffe in Kent.

5.2 Two criticisms were levelled at the White Paper on more general principles. Firstly, several commentators complained that the White Paper did not seriously consider the option of constraining demand for air travel. Instead, the Government appears to have taken a "predict and provide" approach which seeks to accommodate a considerable proportion, if not all of the growth in demand. Conversely, the aviation industry has suggested that the proposed new capacity will not be enough to meet likely demand. Environmental groups have expressed concern about the air pollution caused by aircraft. Some have called for more emphasis to be placed on long-distance rail travel especially as an alternative to domestic flights.

5.3 A further concern raised by local authorities and the Regional Assembly is that the lack of a decision on whether the second runway should be at Heathrow or Gatwick prolongs the uncertainty and planning blight around both airports. The White Paper was supposed to remove this uncertainty by providing a definitive strategic framework for airport expansion.

5.4 The White Paper has recently been the subject of legal challenge. In February 2005, the High Court ruled that the White Paper's plans for airport expansion were legal. In particular, a second runway at Stansted was "a fair outcome of the consultation process". However, the High Court stipulated that residents and local authorities close to the airport should be consulted on the design of the runway and the amount of land it would require. Expansion at Heathrow was also upheld by the High Court.

6. Implications for Hampshire

6.1 The provision of an additional runway at Stansted is unlikely to have a significant impact on Hampshire. The airport is too remote to cause environmental or transport problems for Hampshire residents. As Stansted is not expected to assume Heathrow's role as an international hub, it is not expected that an additional runway would significantly change travel patterns to airports for Hampshire residents.

6.2 An additional runway at Heathrow would add to the environmental and traffic impact of existing growth, including the ongoing construction of Terminal Five. The full impact of this is not yet known. The aviation industry has argued that technological improvements in aircraft design could reduce the noise and air pollution affecting properties under the flight paths. The Government is carrying out research into these claims. This would help to determine whether the additional runway is built at Heathrow or Gatwick. In the meantime, greater use will be made of the capacity of Heathrow's existing two runways.

6.3 Additional capacity at Heathrow would create more jobs. At the moment, the airport directly or indirectly supports around 100,000 jobs. This is greater than the population of Basingstoke. The additional jobs created by a new runway would aid employment and hence economic growth, but would also create pressure on housing supply and journey to work transport capacity. This would mainly affect the Thames Valley and London, but could also have an impact on Northern Hampshire and the Blackwater Valley.

6.4 The White Paper did not make recommendations about surface access transport improvements needed to support growth at Heathrow. It reported the decision following the Thames Valley Multi Modal Study not to widen the M4 and said that improvements to surface access would therefore need to concentrate on public transport. Congestion charging might also need to be considered. This creates considerable uncertainty about the transport implications of the additional runway. This will need to be considered as part of the transport modelling work for the Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley sub regional strategy for the South East Plan.

6.5 Expansion at Gatwick raises similar issues, although air pollution is less of a factor as the flight paths are over less populated areas than is the case for Heathrow. As with Heathrow, the implications of an additional runway were not fully considered by the White Paper. Further work is needed as it becomes clearer whether Heathrow or Gatwick is likely to receive an additional runway.

6.6 Future growth at Southampton airport is likely to be a mixed blessing for Hampshire. Increases in the number of flights would add to problems of noise and air pollution, especially if the South East Plan were to propose additional house-building close to the airport. The impact of this would probably be reduced by expected improvements in aircraft design, although the extent is not yet known.

6.7 The expansion of Southampton would also create more jobs, but at the cost of increased travel demand to the airport. The M27 junction 6 already suffers from congestion at peak times and may need to be upgraded. Upgrades may also be needed to the parking facilities and the rail station at Southampton Parkway. However, expansion at Southampton could reduce the need to travel to Heathrow or Gatwick and so ease congestion problems on the rail network and the M3 and A3(M).

6.8 It is unlikely that Southampton Airport will require an additional runway in the short to medium term. Its current and forecast capacity is considerably lower than Gatwick Airport, which is able to operate with a single runway.

7. Conclusions

7.1 The full implications of the "Future of Air Transport" White Paper are not yet known. The aviation industry, environmental organisations and other stakeholders could not agree on the likely need for further airport capacity or the implications that this would have. The White Paper acknowledges this lack of understanding and agreement by commissioning several new pieces of research and by flagging up several other issues that would need to be resolved in the future.

7.2 It is certain that the White Paper will lead to increased travel, both by air and to airports. The White Paper appears to be inclined more towards accommodating growth in demand for air travel instead of managing the level of growth. There is a deliberate policy to locate much of this additional capacity in the South East.

7.3 It is not clear how much of this will result in additional travel in Hampshire. Organic growth at Heathrow, Gatwick and Southampton airports will increase travel in the region, although there would be some mitigation if increased services from Southampton reduced the need for Hampshire residents to travel to Heathrow or Gatwick. There may need to be some upgrading of road and rail connections to Southampton airport as a result.

7.4 In the short term, Hampshire will be protected from the major changes proposed by the White Paper. The first additional runway at Stansted is too remote to affect Hampshire significantly. An additional runway closer to Hampshire will not be constructed until 2015 at the very earliest. An extra Gatwick runway cannot be built until 2019. The White Paper did not propose very high growth at Southampton or a second runway, and BAA do not seem to want to pursue this.

7.5 The longer-term transport implications are harder to assess. The White Paper's strategy of public transport and road user-charging seems unrealistic, especially given the Government's recent reluctance to fund major public transport schemes. It is highly likely that considerable additional road traffic would be caused by the construction of the second runway, regardless of whether it is located at Heathrow or Gatwick.

7.6 The County Council intends to model predicted traffic flows and travel demand over the long-term. This is needed both as part of the development of the second Local Transport Plan and also to assess the transport implications of the South East Plan. This modelling work will need to take into account growth in air travel and the subsequent need for travel to airports. However, it will be impossible to reach robust conclusions until the Government has made further key decisions, such as whether an additional runway would be built at either Heathrow or Gatwick and what additional transport schemes would be needed. These decisions may not be made for a number of years.

7.7 The environmental implications are also unclear. It is not yet known whether improvements in aircraft design would allow the numbers of flights to grow without increasing problems of noise or air pollution. One likely outcome is that there would be more over flights but that each one would be quieter than currently.

7.8 The growth in Southampton airport is likely to be beneficial to South Hampshire in terms of increased employment and economic activity.

Recommendation

That the Committee considers the current position on "The Future of Air Transport" White Paper, set out in this report, notes the issues raised, and keeps the position under review during the development of regional and sub regional spatial planning and transport policy in the context of the South East Plan.

275/IR