REPORT OF:
/ DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND ENVIRONMENTAUTHOR: /
TONY WALKER
TELEPHONE: /01737 276202
E-MAIL: / TO: /EXECUTIVE
DATE: /19TH JUNE, 2003
EXECUTIVE MEMBER: /COUNCILLOR M.H.C. BUTTERY
AGENDA ITEM NO: / 3 /KEY DECISION REQUIRED:
/ YESWARD(S) AFFECTED: / ALL
SUBJECT: / GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSALS FOR ADDITIONAL RUNWAYS AT GATWICK AIRPORT
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT: / To highlight the main issues affecting the Borough and suggest a response to the Government’s consultation.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The Council’s response to Government be based on the issues identified in the Appendices to this report and be finalised by the Director of Policy and Environment, in consultation with the Leader and Deputy Leader.2. The response replaces that sent to the Government in November 2002.
Executive has authority to determine the above recommendations.
Background
1. In the Transport White Paper published in 1998, the Government indicated that it would prepare a UK Airports Policy looking 30 years ahead and bring forward new policies on civil aviation. It commissioned a wide ranging programme of studies, culminating in the publication of seven consultation documents covering the whole of the country in July 2002. These set out a range of options for increasing airport capacity and their appraisal of them. One of these studies was the South East and East of England Regional Air Service Study (SERAS).
2. Additional runway capacity at Gatwick was not included in the SERAS options for consultation in July 2002 because the Government decided that it did not have sufficient advantages compared to other potential runway sites to seek to overturn the 1979 Legal Agreement, which precludes the construction of a second runway at Gatwick before 2019. Options for an additional runway at Heathrow, up to three new runways at Stansted, and a new four runway airport at Cliffe on the north Kent coast were included.
3. Following a legal challenge, the Government agreed to include options at Gatwick in an extended consultation. The February 2003 Consultation introduces three options for additional runways at Gatwick:
· A close parallel runway to the south (to open either in 2011 or in 2024 after the 1979 legal agreement expires);
· A wide spaced parallel runway to the south (to open either in 2011 or in 2024 after the 1979 legal agreement expires);
· Two wide spaced parallel runways, one to the south and one to the north (to open sequentially in 2011 and 2018 or both in 2024 after the 1979 legal agreement expires).
4. These now feature in 18 combinations (packages) of runways in the South East with Heathrow, Stansted and Cliffe, to meet forecast demand to 2030. A particular issue is whether there is a case for having at least one major hub airport. This would need to have at least three runways.
5. A copy of the Second Edition Consultation Document and a Summary has been placed in the Members’ Room. Plans will be displayed on the evening of the meeting in the Old Council Chamber.
6. In parallel with the work on the Regional Air Services studies the Government consulted on a range of aviation policy issues in Spring 2001 (“The Future of Aviation”). Following reports to the then Environmental Services Committee on 22nd March, 2001, the Council agreed to joint working with the other local authorities in the area on preparing to respond to any proposals for additional runways at Gatwick.
7. In response to the “The Future of Aviation”, the Council resolved that such a proposal would be totally unacceptable, principally for environmental reasons. The Council supported the suggestion by the LGA Strategic Aviation Special Interest Group (SASIG) that a sustainable solution for the South East is likely to lie in the development of a new airport in a new location, where 24-hour operation would be possible with minimal disturbance.
8. The Council’s response to the July 2002 Consultation was to continue to support the role of Gatwick as a single runway, two terminal airport and to support the provision of a new airport, as then proposed at Cliffe, rather than adapting existing airports to meet the forecast demand. The Council also noted the locational advantages of Stansted to serve as a national hub, should the Cliffe option not proceed (see Appendix 1).
9. The response to the February 2003 Consultation will incorporate these views, as appropriate, and replace the earlier response.
Factors for Consideration
10. First, it should be noted that none of the additional runways proposed in the new consultation is physically within the Borough (see attached plan). The two southern runways are sited in Crawley Borough and the northern runway is sited in Mole Valley District. Secondly, the proposals and layouts for each airport e.g. terminals, are not detailed. SERAS states it is for the future airport operator to work up the proposals, which will be signalled in the White Paper at the end of this year. Neither are there any details of the additional urbanisation and surface access impacts.
11. However, in the two runway option, the northern runway is close to the west side of Horley and, despite the stated intention in SERAS that it would only be operated to and from the west, our residents would still suffer some take off and ground noise. Terminal and other airport development would also intrude into the countryside to the west of the A217. In terms of the noise and pollution, employment, traffic and urbanisation impacts, all three options would have adverse effects on this Borough to differing degrees.
12. This section reports on the technical work and appraisal being undertaken on the consultation. It does not consider the wider issues raised by the consultation, which are more the prerogative of SASIG, WSCC and SCC. Other issues include the response to the consultation by BAA plc published on 12th May, 2003 and the development of Redhill Aerodrome, which is being promoted concurrently by its owners.
13. Some technical work was carried out on behalf of the Gatwick local authorities prior to the July 2002 consultation, mainly by consultants on the employment impact of a possible additional runway and of the maximum use of the existing runway. This work has been extended by the consultants to include the current options. Technical papers, including on the built and natural environment, urbanisation (see Appendix 2), noise and pollution (see Appendix 3) and surface access (see Appendix 4) have been prepared by officers.
14. The technical work and the appraisal by officers indicates that the following issues need to be included in the Council’s response to Government (which are detailed in Appendix 5):
· the Government’s previous decisions about development at Gatwick and the importance of the1979 Legal Agreement;
· the local impacts of the proposed options;
· the ability for a substantial increase in capacity to be provided to sustain the local economy without a further runway;
· the limitations of Gatwick for major expansion, and its location too far south to serve the region as a hub airport; and
· the need for an appropriate location for a new major airport, not necessarily at Cliffe.
15. Appendix 6 lists the 18 packages for the South East and shows and comments on the cost/benefit analysis included in the consultation, as amended by the latest Treasury figures.
16. BAA published its response to the runway consultation on 12th May “in order to allow others to consider their thinking”. They support the forecast need for three new runways in the South East, and ask the Government to pick three from a short-list of four, a short runway at Heathrow, one at Gatwick and up to two at Stansted. The site at Cliffe is dismissed by the operator as not viable.
17. The impression is given that the operator has ruled out the Gatwick northern runway option, as the scale of the earth-moving required costing £1.3bn and not being able to identify an appropriate rail strategy for two new runways is emphasised. However, neither this or their choice of one runway is explicit.
18. BAA suggests that the SERAS plans for a close parallel runway would not provide the necessary increase in capacity. It therefore puts forward a number of alternative designs, which push the runway closer to Crawley. Two plans show a new satellite terminal building, new maintenance area and new cargo area, all to the south of the new runway. This layout would avoid the need to take green belt land on the north side of the airport as proposed in SERAS. The airport boundary would be almost identical to the boundary shown for the wide spaced option.
19. The number of people affected by NO2 pollution either in the wide spaced or close parallel options has been greatly reduced as a result of new modelling for BAA.
20. BAA repeat that it ‘stands by’ the legal agreement but hints that the Government might include in the White Paper a question as to whether the agreement should run its full course. If so, BAA indicates that it would negotiate with WSCC to build a new runway before 2019.
21. It is suggested that BAA’s response is noted. In fact it adds uncertainty to the process, as it would not provide the long-term solution that a brand new hub airport would. It would also cause blight at Gatwick, as the threat of a third runway would remain.
22. The July 2002 consultation did not include any proposals for the development of Redhill Aerodrome. A northern runway for Gatwick at Redhill with a capacity of 15 mppa was examined but dropped earlier in the process. This was a development of the much smaller feeder-reliever proposal rejected after a public inquiry in 1995.
23. In response to the July 2002 consultation, the owners of Redhill Aerodrome submitted a similar proposal to Government and have been promoting it concurrently with the February 2002 consultation. As no such proposals are part of the latest consultation, they could not appear in the White Paper without further consultation. In the unlikely event of that happening then that would be the time to comment on it.
Options
24. In view of the importance of the issues raised for the Borough it is vital that the Council makes its views known to Government. Therefore, a response to the extended consultation needs to be made.
Resource Implications
25. The Council agreed a budget of £20,000 in March 2001 for contributing towards technical work commissioned by the Gatwick local authorities and for an awareness campaign. The campaign is being organised by the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign (GACC) with a contribution from this budget of £7,000. A contribution of £400 has also been made to the Horley Anti-Runway Campaign to help increase awareness amongst Horley residents. There is £3,700 remaining in the budget.
Consultation
26. The Department of Transport (DfT) organised exhibitions of the Gatwick proposals on 2nd, 3rd and 31st May, 2003 at Gatwick and Crawley. DfT sent summary documents to 19,000 households in the Crawley/Horley area. GACC has been involved in over 20 public meetings as part of the awareness campaign and has received good press coverage both locally and nationally.
27. The Council organised a public meeting on behalf of the Eastern Surrey local authorities at the Harlequin Theatre, Redhill, on 16th June, 2003. The purpose of this meeting was to increase awareness of wider impact of the proposals through overflying and noise impact, traffic congestion etc. further away from the airport.
Policy Framework
28. The last aviation policy statement was the 1985 White Paper, which dealt more with the then proposals to develop Stansted Airport, than a long-term policy for UK airports.
29. The current Surrey and West Sussex Structure Plans support the development of Gatwick Airport as a one runway, two terminal airport, subject to environmental safeguards. In pursuance of that policy position, the Gatwick local authorities agreed in 2001 to proposals set out in the Gatwick Sustainable Development Strategy and Legal Agreement to increase the capacity to 40 mppa by about 2008.
Conclusions
30. The inclusion of options for additional runways at Gatwick in the extended consultation is of great concern. This is particularly so when the reason given why Gatwick was not included in the July 2002 consultation was that, after 3 years study, the options considered did not have sufficient advantages compared to other potential runway sites to seek to overturn the 1979 Legal Agreement. DfT confirmed at a meeting of GATCOM on 10 April 2003 that there was no new information available since the July 2002 consultation.
31. In view of BAA’s published views on their favoured package of options, which includes one additional runway at Gatwick, it is more important that the Council’s response to Government is robust and emphasises that the shortcomings of the Gatwick options, which will not be removed after 2019. Furthermore, the Council would join with the other local authorities to resist any attempt to overturn that legal agreement.
32. The Council should continue to work with the other local authorities to refine its response, while emphasising the particular local impacts. The awareness campaign will continue until the end of the year, when the White Paper is expected. The local authorities and MPs will also be taking further action to persuade the Government not to include any additional runways at Gatwick between the close of the consultation period at 30th June, 2003 and the publication of the White Paper.