Archived decisions

Contact: Peter Murnaghan, ext 6920 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 BAA plc (formerly British Airports Authority), the owner of Southampton International Airport, has produced an Outline Master Plan for the airport for the purpose of public consultation. The County Council is invited to respond to the consultation by the end of October. The Master Plan sets out BAA's strategy for growth at the airport up until 2030. Subject to certain safeguards, the County Council is recommended to accept the provisions of the Master Plan.

1.2 The Head of Economic Development has contributed to the development of the proposed response, which has also been discussed with the Executive Member for Economic Development.

1.3 A location plan is attached and detailed plans will be displayed at the meeting.

2. Corporate Strategy

2.1 This report supports the following Aims of the Corporate Strategy:

(i) Aim 2 (Stewardship of the Environment) by seeking to protect the environment and ensuring that Hampshire remains a place where people want to live; and

(ii) Aim 3 (Achieving Economic Prosperity) by influencing the development of a strong and sustainable economy.

3. Summary of Southampton Airport Outline Master Plan

3.1 The Southampton Airport Outline Master Plan has been developed in response to the Government White Paper `The Future of Air Transport' which requires airport operators to outline their vision for growth up to 2030. The Master Plan anticipates and caters for more than double the number of passengers envisaged for Southampton in the White Paper.

3.2 The Master Plan focuses on two timeframes in its response, from now until 2015 and from 2015 to 2030. The Master Plan forecasts a doubling of passenger numbers for 2015 and a further doubling by 2030:

2015 Conditions

3.3 The Master Plan states that there would be no extension of the runway, nor any need for an additional runway, to accommodate this level of passenger growth. However, new passenger facilities would be required. Development up to 2015 can be accommodated on land currently under the control of BAA. On-airport car parking demand will increase from 2,820 to 5,020 with new car parks in the North East Zone.

3.4 The Master Plan assumes that Chickenhall Lane Link Road will be built by 2010.

2030 Conditions

3.5 There are two scenarios considered to deal with growth in this longer time period:

(i) Scenario 1 involves expanding the current terminal through the development and reconfiguration of existing facilities. Some aircraft parking stands would be on the east side of the site, with passengers transported there by coach.

(ii) Scenario 2 involves building a second terminal in the North East Zone to accommodate approximately 3 million extra passengers.

3.6 In both scenarios the amount of car parking would increase to around 8,600 spaces, a significant number being located in the North East Zone, with a reduced area of land being available for commercial development.

Economic Benefits and Employment

3.7 The Master Plan estimates the following economic benefits from airport expansion:

	2004	2015	2030
Economic contribution	£86m	£140m	£260m
Direct employment	1004	1541	2586
Indirect and induced	552	847	1423
Total employment	1556	2388	4009

The Environment

3.8 Although the Master Plan discusses the noise implications of the planned growth, it gives relatively little information about the extent of the problem. BAA is not required to carry out noise-mapping of the airport because it has too few movements of sufficiently heavy aircraft to trigger EU Directive requirements. The Master Plan mentions that the airport authorities have been carrying out studies into the Noise Preferred Routes. It also suggests that aircraft engine technology is improving the noise levels of aircraft in relation to their size and is expected to do so in the future. This needs to be viewed with some caution. Future technology improvements cannot be guaranteed and may be counteracted by increases in aircraft size and the number of aircraft movements.

3.9 Night flights will continue to be banned. BAA is lobbying in Europe for the aviation industry to be included in the EU emissions trading scheme.

4. Policy Framework

4.1 The Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 (Review) acknowledges the regional economic importance of airports such as Southampton.

4.2 Policy EC5 states that:

`Proposals to expand and enhance the facilities at Southampton International Airport, to maintain its regional role and improve operational safety or passenger facilities will be supported, except where there are overriding environmental, safety or transport objections and provided that such development is consistent with other policies in the plan.'

4.3 The Draft South East Plan also highlights the important role that regional airports can play in providing access to air services that reduces the pressure on the international hub airports.

4.4 Draft Policy T10: Airports states that:

`Relevant regional strategies, Local Development Documents and Local Transport Plans will include policies and proposals that:

...

(ii) Encourage Southampton Airport to sustain and enhance its role as an airport of regional significance.

Priority should be given in the Airport Surface Strategies for each airport to achieve:

(i) A reduction in the environmental impact of surface access.

(ii) A higher modal share in favour of public transport.'

4.5 The European White Paper on Transport - Time to Decide, states:

`Intermodality with rail must produce significant capacity gains by transferring competition between rail and air into complementarity between the two modes with high speed train connections between cities. We can no longer think of maintaining air links to destinations for which there is a competitive high speed rail alternative.'

4.6 Even for flights to UK destinations such as Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Edinburgh, there is no competitive high speed rail alternative. The distance covered and lack of a UK high speed rail network means that Southampton domestic flights offer significant time savings over road or rail to such destinations. However, car journeys may be saved as a result of passengers transferring from Heathrow and Gatwick to flying locally from Southampton, a proportion of whom would find it convenient to use non-car modes.

5. Discussion

Economic Development

5.1 The proposals to expand and enhance the facilities at Southampton Airport, detailed in the Outline Master Plan, are consistent with the existing and emerging policy framework for the region. Crucially they accord with the PUSH vision and objectives for South Hampshire. This is based on improving the relatively poor economic performance of the region. Air transport links are known to be important to businesses.

5.2 The Airport's continuing expansion will make a vital contribution to business and economic activity in the sub-region, as well as providing for a significant number of new jobs (2,453 projected) in an area which has seen some substantial job losses recently (Alstom, Ocular Sciences, Manor Bakeries and B&Q).

5.3 Both 2030 development scenarios will impact upon the existing Northern Business Park employment land allocation, by using part of it for aircraft parking and surface access. This loss of employment land will need to be balanced by the employment/economic gains achieved elsewhere through the airport's plans.

Transport Policy

5.4 The expansion of the local regional airport, with an attractive range of destinations and fares, will help to deflect many travellers from making longer journeys to Heathrow and Gatwick. BAA is not consulting on the level of passenger growth, presumably since the rate of growth was announced in the Government's Aviation White Paper. Whilst it would be open to the County Council to comment on the predicted rate of growth, there may be unexpected implications should a lower rate of growth be adopted. This could include a corresponding increase in growth at Heathrow, Gatwick and/or Bournemouth, with the resulting increases in traffic and noise associated with these airports. It is therefore proposed not to comment on the rate of growth assumed in the Master Plan.

5.5 As well as expanding its catchment area over recent years, the airport has managed, as part of its Surface Access Strategy, to reduce the percentage of travellers arriving by private car from 69% in 2000 to 63% in 2004. However, some of this modal shift may be due to a change in the relative proportion of business and leisure flights, as people flying for leisure may be less likely to drive to the airport.

5.6 It is proposed that the County Council should encourage the airport to continue to set challenging targets for increasing, still further, the proportion of passenger journeys made using public transport. The Airport has had success in devising its staff travel plan and County officers are willing to work with BAA to develop its long term Surface Access Strategy. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of traffic will continue to access the airport by car. Consequently, it will be important for improvements to the road network to be undertaken, not least the access from M27 junction 5.

5.7 The Airport Master Plan assumes that the Chickenhall Lane Link Road (CLLR) will be built by 2010. However, the scheme is likely to cost between £30 and £40 million, which may make it difficult to attract central Government funding. It is to be expected that a proportion of the funding will come from the North East Zone, both from the commercial development of the Northern Business Park and the operational area, now identified. In addition to the traditional contributions from developers, the expansion of the airport's activities will place extra pressure on the local transport network and should therefore provide a substantial contribution towards the necessary improvements. It is proposed that officers explore suitable funding routes with BAA.

Public Transport

5.8 The airport proposals could provide additional justification and opportunity for the construction of the Eastleigh rail chord. Its implementation would provide a new option to the private car for travellers to the airport and local employment sites from the east of the sub-region, particularly from Portsmouth, Havant and West Sussex. This rail chord would help to achieve the more stringent surface access targets mentioned above and assist in mitigating some of the effects of the airport's expansion.

5.9 Better bus provision should be provided, by enabling buses from Southampton to Eastleigh to serve the main terminal, without the necessity to make a `double-run' along the airport approach road. This could be achieved by means of the new bridge across the railway designed as part of CLLR. Any additional terminal built in the North East Zone should ensure that passengers maintain the convenient access to bus and rail services that they currently experience at the existing terminal building.

Environment and Landscape

5.10 The airport and its activities contribute to the cumulative effect of air pollution and the airport should take responsibility for looking at ways of reducing its contribution to this problem (including any implications for climate change). In particular, there is currently concern about pollution levels in the Leigh Road/Southampton Road area and an environmental assessment needs to be carried out to determine the likely impact of the airport expansion upon air quality levels.

5.11 As the River Itchen Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the local authorities should be involved in any ecological strategy that may be required along the airport/ Itchen Valley Country Park border. Local hydrological systems are likely to change under both scenarios, due to the increase in non-permeable surfaces over what is currently open ground. This is especially relevant in view of the proximity of the River Itchen SSSI and SAC and appropriate measures would need to be taken to ensure the maintenance of water quality and avoid increased flood risk. If the eastern part of the airfield is developed, proposals should seek to minimise the loss of the open nature of the site and sustain its visual connection to the river valley landscape to the east. Similarly, a sustainable approach should be taken to the design, implementation and management of the second terminal. Particular attention should be given to the conservation of resources, including whole life cycle impacts, use of secondary (recycled) materials and minimising energy consumption.

Noise

5.12 There is relatively little information in the Master Plan about whether passenger growth will lead to increased problems of aircraft noise. The projected increases in aircraft numbers suggest that flights to and from Southampton airport will become more frequent and will involve larger aircraft. The average aircraft size will increase from around 60 seats to at least 75 seats by 2015. Whilst the County Council can welcome the studies into Noise Preferred Routes, these are not total solutions and can involve moving noise problems from one community to another.

5.13 In response to the consultation exercise it is proposed that the County Council should express disappointment about the relative lack of information on aircraft noise. This makes it difficult to comment meaningfully on the impact of the projected growth in passenger numbers. It is expected that Eastleigh Borough Council, as the Environmental Health Authority, will wish to pursue this issue. It is proposed that the County Council should urge BAA to provide more information and consult more fully once the results of the study into Noise Preferred Routes are known.

6. Impact Assessments

6.1 This report seeks to minimise the impact of projected growth at Southampton Airport by proposing a suitable response to the consultation on the environmental impact and the implications for the transport network.

7. Conclusions

7.1 On balance, it is proposed that Hampshire County Council should offer a cautious welcome to the Master Plan. The expansion of Southampton Airport is consistent with local policies, including sub-regional policies to improve economic performance. It has the potential to remove longer journeys that would otherwise be made to Heathrow and Gatwick.

7.2 However, the environmental and transport impacts of the proposed expansion need to be carefully assessed. Predictions about future aircraft engine improvements cannot be guaranteed. Airport growth should be conditional on such improvements actually being achieved, so as not to damage quality of life for residents living under flight paths. The impact on the surrounding built and natural environment should be thoroughly evaluated. Growth at the airport could add to existing congestion, particularly around junction 5 of the M27. It is proposed that this should be mitigated by improvements to road and public transport infrastructure, funded in large part by contributions from the airport.

Recommendation

That the response to the Southampton Airport Outline Master Plan Consultation document (July 2005) should:

(i) reaffirm the importance of the airport as a regional gateway;

(ii) request safeguards to protect the local environment, including that there should be more comprehensive information and consultation on the issue of aircraft noise and air pollution;

(iii) request that firm targets are established to achieve greater use of non-car modes; and

(iv) request British Airports Authority to commit to contributing substantially towards the cost of necessary transport network improvements.

643Rpt/PJM