Airport Master Plan for next 30 Years - Consultation

[Jerry]

I'm not sure if flights inbound to Cardiff would count towards the BRS night quota, but Superking is correct in that when runway 30 is in use at CWL aircraft are decended to 3500 feet through the Bristol airspace as a more direct route towards final approach at Cardiff.

Yep I've been on many flights in and out of Cardiff where I've been able to see BRS and even seen aircraft landing and taking off.

 

[BRSregular]

I haven’t read the planning application in detail but what exactly was rejected? The increase to 12mppa or everything? Does it mean that even minor improvements such as the level walkway from the multi storey car park can’t be built, or the transport interchange?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Looking at BRS's Annual Monitoring Report for 2018, which is the last available one at the moment, the following appears under Noise Contours heading which only talks about movements to and from BRS and not overhead operations to other airports.

Conditions 30 and 31 attached to the planning permission for the development of the Airport dated 16 February 2011 require forecast aircraft movements and consequential noise contours over a 92 day period between mid-June and mid- September to be reported to the local planning authority on 31 January each year.

Another section of the Monitoring Report describes how noise is continuously monitored with three noise monitors sited within a few miles of the airport.

An interesting table sets out the number of noise complaints received by the airport in 2018 together with the number of complainants. In total there were 379 complaints from 176 separate complainants. Most came from people with an address within a few miles of the airport, viz

Cleeve 82 complaints from10 complainants (I think I might confidently guess as to who might be responsible for most of those)
Felton 56 from 24
Congresbury 26 from 21
Winford 22 from 11
Wrington 18 from 5
Weston-super-Mare 15 from 14
Backwell 14 from 8
Bath 14 from 11
Yatton 11 from 6

The other 30 locations generated single-digit complaints and with two exceptions all came from within the former Avon area. The two exceptions were West Huntspill near Bridgwater (2 complaints from the same person) and one from Taunton which rather beggars belief. There were none from South Wales. In addition six of the complaints were recorded as 'Non-BRS', presumably meaning the aircraft were using other airports.

The following appears in the Moniroring Report under Night Noise Quota heading which confirms the quota only applies to aircraft actually using BRS. Full details of annual noise quota usage going back over many years are provided and show that the summer quota is invariably oversubscribed, or nearly so, with permitted borrowing from the under-used winter quota resorted to in some years. The airport wanted the seasonality aspect taken out but with no overall annual increase. I've given more specific details of the figures in posts to F4A in the past.

The following information relates to the requirements as set out within the conditions of the Section 106 Agreement dated 16th February 2011. Night time operations at Bristol Airport are controlled by a noise quota system. The restrictions specify a night period (23:00-07:00) during which time the noisiest types of aircraft may not be scheduled to land or take off. In addition, between 23:30 and 06:00, the night quota period, aircraft movements are restricted by a noise quota limit. Aircraft count against the noise quota according to their quota count (QC) classification.

I haven’t read the planning application in detail but what exactly was rejected? The increase to 12mppa or everything? Does it mean that even minor improvements such as the level walkway from the multi storey car park can’t be built, or the transport interchange?

The entire planning application was rejected. One option would be for the airport to re-apply with an amended planning application but anything that increases the planning cap beyond 10 mppa is likely to be resisted again, based on the attitude of the current planning committee members. You would think that something like a new transport interchange ought to find favour with the planning committee councillors as it would potentially enhance the public transport provision, but whether the airport would in time submit a new planning application for that and other relatively minor and uncontroversial enhancements after all avenues had failed to overturn the major planning application rejection remains to be seen.

Addendum (15.2.20)

Further to the above I've re-read part of thre 235-page airport planning submission with NSC planning officers comments. This is what is said about the pubic transport interchange:

It is considered that public transport infrastructure at the airport and visibility to it is vital to its success. To date, BAL (Bristol Airport) has consent, as part of the 10mppa permission, for delivery of a Public Transport Interchange (PTI). The approved location is on the top level of a yet to be built Multi-Storey Car Park 1 (MSCP1). Current projections from BAL indicate that MSCP1 is however unlikely to be built before 10 mppa is reached and it may not come forward for several years after that point.

Despite this, BAL say they remain committed to implementing MSCP1, but are currently exploring options to bring forward the early delivery of an alternative PTI ahead of MSCP1. It is likely be located in close proximity to the terminal building and will provide a passenger experience equal to, or better than, that proposed under the extant consent for 10mppa. Subject to obtaining necessary approvals, BAL currently anticipates that construction of a PTI would commence within 12 months of a 12 mppa permission being granted (to allow for the detailed design of the scheme, procurement of contractors and consultation with NSC) with it being operational within 30 months of a 12 mppa approval. The proposed S106 would secure this. The principle of an alternative PTI is and the timeframe for its provision is reasonable.

So it seems that the rejected application contained a request for a different public transport interchange to the one for which they already have planning permission. The original interchange was to be built on top of a yet-to-built multi-storey car park* which might not appear until 10 mppa is attained and perhaps not for several years after that point. The revised interchange would see construction commenced within 12 months of a 12 mppa permission being granted and operational within 30 months of such permission.

* I found the reference to the multi-storey car park confusing at first read because it's labelled MSCP1in the report. The existing MSCP was always spoken about as 1 in the past to differentiate it from further MSCPs in the pipeline.

 

[Foxlimayankee]

What are peoples thoughts on what BRS can do to overcome the rejection? Obviously surface transport plays a big part;

Roads - The A38 often gets backed up through most of the day and only appears to be getting busier. Peak times are usually backed up back towards Barrow Gurney, if not further. The bottle neck appears to be the lights at Downside road and the roundabout leading in to the Airport. Some changes were made to the roundabout entrance points a few years back, but what I think should have been done is splitting the road again, with a left hand bypass lane for anyone continuing past the Airport, meaning through traffic wouldn't have to stop at the roundabout for people exiting the Airport and heading South. They would then merge back in further down the road. That would then allow 2 lanes of traffic on approach to the roundabout to head in to the Airport or to turn back heading North back towards the lights. It's all about keeping the traffic moving rather than extra lanes. You can have a 2 lane dual carriageway all the way from Bristol to the Airport roundabout, without a filter lane it will make zero difference.

Rail - Rail direct to the Airport is never really going to happen, but there are options which I think need to be exploited. Nailsea & Backwell station is only 15 mins down the road, ideal for a bus link. The hourly Cardiff Central - Taunton service stops at Nailsea, which would include Severn Tunnel Jn and stops past Western Super Mare including Burnham, Bridgwater & Taunton. This is the same train that people from Cardiff would need to get to connect in to the A1 service from Temple Meads, but it would mean reduced journey time on the bus.
There is also an occasional Plymouth service that stops at Nailsea. For people from the Southwest especially, there's little option for Rail connectivity without going in to Bristol then back out on the road.

Public Transport - BRS have a pretty extensive public transport network, both local and distant. The Falcon provides an hourly link between Plymouth/Exeter and BRS/Bristol City, and the National Express 216 from Cardiff via Newport to BRS provides around 10 journeys a day and not forgetting the A2 Bath service. That is a fair bit of capacity but only really serves the big cities in the Southwest and Southwest Wales.
There is obviously a big unserved area across the patch. Could the Falcon be extended to Newquay/Penzance? The 216 extended to Swansea? Could a link from Bournemouth/South Devon be created in similar fashion to the Falcon whereby it's destined for Bristol City but stops at the Airport?

Airline capacity - Could the likes of EZY and KL increase seat capacity on current routes? EZY operate a decent frequencies on some routes, especially some domestic and holiday routes. Can more A321's help to boost passenger numbers without actually increasing flights? Could KL up some of their flights to 737's? It's been talked about for some time.
Bearing in mind EZY A320's hold up to 189 passengers and A321's up to 240. Increasing by 51 passenger per flight by adding in say 5 A321's is about 500k per year.
TUI and FR aren't really in a position to until the Max10 arrives.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

What are peoples thoughts on what BRS can do to overcome the rejection? Obviously surface transport plays a big part;

Roads - The A38 often gets backed up through most of the day and only appears to be getting busier. Peak times are usually backed up back towards Barrow Gurney, if not further. The bottle neck appears to be the lights at Downside road and the roundabout leading in to the Airport. Some changes were made to the roundabout entrance points a few years back, but what I think should have been done is splitting the road again, with a left hand bypass lane for anyone continuing past the Airport, meaning through traffic wouldn't have to stop at the roundabout for people exiting the Airport and heading South. They would then merge back in further down the road. That would then allow 2 lanes of traffic on approach to the roundabout to head in to the Airport or to turn back heading North back towards the lights. It's all about keeping the traffic moving rather than extra lanes. You can have a 2 lane dual carriageway all the way from Bristol to the Airport roundabout, without a filter lane it will make zero difference.

Rail - Rail direct to the Airport is never really going to happen, but there are options which I think need to be exploited. Nailsea & Backwell station is only 15 mins down the road, ideal for a bus link. The hourly Cardiff Central - Taunton service stops at Nailsea, which would include Severn Tunnel Jn and stops past Western Super Mare including Burnham, Bridgwater & Taunton. This is the same train that people from Cardiff would need to get to connect in to the A1 service from Temple Meads, but it would mean reduced journey time on the bus.
There is also an occasional Plymouth service that stops at Nailsea. For people from the Southwest especially, there's little option for Rail connectivity without going in to Bristol then back out on the road.

Public Transport - BRS have a pretty extensive public transport network, both local and distant. The Falcon provides an hourly link between Plymouth/Exeter and BRS/Bristol City, and the National Express 216 from Cardiff via Newport to BRS provides around 10 journeys a day and not forgetting the A2 Bath service. That is a fair bit of capacity but only really serves the big cities in the Southwest and Southwest Wales.
There is obviously a big unserved area across the patch. Could the Falcon be extended to Newquay/Penzance? The 216 extended to Swansea? Could a link from Bournemouth/South Devon be created in similar fashion to the Falcon whereby it's destined for Bristol City but stops at the Airport?

Airline capacity - Could the likes of EZY and KL increase seat capacity on current routes? EZY operate a decent frequencies on some routes, especially some domestic and holiday routes. Can more A321's help to boost passenger numbers without actually increasing flights? Could KL up some of their flights to 737's? It's been talked about for some time.
Bearing in mind EZY A320's hold up to 189 passengers and A321's up to 240. Increasing by 51 passenger per flight by adding in say 5 A321's is about 500k per year.
TUI and FR aren't really in a position to until the Max10 arrives.

First of all, I don’t think that anything that might realistically be done to improve public transport connectivity in the foreseeable future would overcome this planning committee’s objection to the expansion of the airport. They clearly feel they don’t want it to grow any more. The chairman of the council did say afterwards that they could re-visit the situation in the future if aviation greatly reduced its carbon footprint and the airport’s surface connectivity saw a vast improvement. They were really empty words because he knew that isn’t going to happen within a generation or two. Had the previous Conservative-dominated local authority still been in place it’s likely they would have approved the application based on the way those Conservatives who are left on the planning committee voted last Monday evening.

In the event of an airport appeal (highly likely to the point of certainty in my view) there must be a more than even chance that a Planning Inspectorate inspector would follow the line taken by the council’s own planning officers who recommended approval. The outcome would then depend on the secretary of state’s final decision.

Roads

I’ve long felt that criticism of the A38 between the city and the airport is too often exaggerated.

I grew up in villages near the airport in the 1950s and actually lived in a cottage on the A38 near the bottom of Redhill. Although I’ve lived on the south-east edge of Bristol for many year I spend a lot of time in the local villages as I still know people whose families have lived there for many generations, centuries in some cases. They tend not to be anti-airport to the degree that many of the ‘incomers’ are.

I use the A38 several times most weeks, admittedly outside commuter times, and the only times I find it really busy in terms of long traffic queues (sometimes beyond the bottom of Barrow Hill) are Friday afternoons in summer when people leave work in Bristol early to return to their village homes or when the M5 is closed or when there are road works.

The traffic lights outside the Airport Tavern do cause queues for traffic coming from the Bristol direction but usually the queues don’t extend more than 200-300 yards and often less than that. The phasing on the lights gives the A38 a good run in my experience. The section between the lights and the roundabout at the airport entrance isn’t usually much of a problem for southbound traffic, but northbound traffic can sometimes block back south of the roundabout making life difficult for vehicles leaving the airport to join the A38.

None of the previous paragraph relates to commuter times of which I have no experience these days. If those periods are bad it must be due mainly to the weight of commuter traffic leaving or returning to the much expanded villages and small towns in the area. These villages continue to grow as will commuter traffic volume.

In its rejected planning application the airport submitted plans to improve the Downside Road junction as well as the lane (name escapes me at present) on the other side of the A38 by the cattle grid.

Obviously the A38 can always do with improvement - since ‘my time’ both Barrow Hill and Redhill have been widened to three lanes for much of the length of those long hills - and below is the NSC planning officers’ response to the West of England Joint Transport Study:

Long-term aspirations to improve surface access travel and the transport system up to 2036 is set out in the ‘West of England Joint Transport Study’ (JTS) final report 2017, which has informed JLPT4. This shows two alternative strategic proposals to improve travel along the A38 corridor. The first is a new mass transit route between Bristol and BA as part of a wider mass transit network. The second is for major improvements to the A38 between Bristol and Weston-super-Mare including: a new M5 Junction, a new highway link from the M5 to the A38 and improvements on the A38 between Langford and the airport. Growth at BA will contribute to the need for these strategic works, but the catalyst is expected to be major urban growth. The JTS has moderate weight.

I think think the third sentence in this section of the report should read …….to the A370 between Bristol and Weston-super-Mare…..

Rail

I agree that direct rail or even tram is unlikely for a decade or so - if then - and probably in the case of rail never. The elected mayor of Bristol is determined to have a mass transport system and his anchor line would be from city to airport, probably a form of tram but he bangs on about an underground as well but that section would never be to the airport. It’s alluded to in the comments of the NSC planning officers above.

A few months ago the airport announced that the A3 Weston Flyer would become 24/7 and call at Worle railway station as well as from Weston station, its town terminus. Thus far that hasn’t happened. Last year the airport also announced an on-demand 24/7 bus service to Clevedon and Nailsea calling at both Yatton and Nailsea & Backwell railway stations. Again a start date is awaited.

MetroWest envisages a frequent rail service in and around Bristol to Weston, Yate and Bath. New stations would be opened and they and the existing ones served frequently. It seems that after many years funding has been secured to re-open the Bristol-Portishead branch (currently freight-only as far as Royal Portbury Dock) and the ‘Henbury spur’ making use of the existing Filton-Avonmouth freight line. The entire scheme is likely to take years to complete though. At least the line from outside Temple Meads up the Ashley Hill bank to Filton is now quadruple track again after many years of being reduced to double track which will permit stopping trains to operate out of the way of the faster through trains. Against that, this section along with the section from east of Bath to TM fell foul of the government’s decision to abandon the partly-prepared electrification to save a relative pittance.

As an aside, I use Melbourne Tullamarine Airport most years. It handles 37 million passengers a year with no rail or tram connectivity, despite Melbourne having one of the most extensive tram networks in the world. It relies on a shuttle bus from Southern Cross Railway Station on the edge of the CBD (a la the BRS Flyer) and other buses to nearby towns. After many decades of talk it looks that a rail connection might be built, although it’s likely to be many years before it opens. Conversely, both SOU and PIK in the UK have good rail station links, especially SOU, but they’ve seen their passenger numbers decline significantly over recent years. I wonder how important rail connectivity would be to an airport of BRS’s size.

Public Transport

I believe that the airport is very well served by its bus and coach network. The A1, A2, and Falcon are 24/7, with the A4 nearly so and A3 promised to be. National Express 216 to South Wales also operates regularly. The A1 has had rail connectivity with through ticketing for many years.

In its planning submission to NSC the airport agreed a public transport target increase that would see the percentage of such use rise from the current 15% to 17.5% as passenger numbers increased from 10 mppa to 12 mppa. Annual percentage rises would be monitored with penalties imposed if an appropriate rate of increase was not achieved each year.

Other public transport-related requirements to satisfy the planning application include:

Integration of the A1 into the Metrobus within 18 months of planning consent approval. Once the A1 is integrated into the Metrobus network, future public transport improvement funding to develop the connectivity options within the Metrobus network. This could include direct connections to the north fringe of Bristol, including Cribbs interchange, potentially providing a choice of onward connections.

The A3 to become a 24-hour service and routed via Worle station, with appropriate infrastructure improvements, following an infrastructure study to be undertaken by the airport within 6 months after consent to determine requirements. Delivery within 12 months post consent (commented on earlier).

Enhanced frequencies, network coverage and infrastructure facilities on public coach services to the South West (Somerset/ Devon/Cornwall) and South Wales services. A review will be required to be undertaken by the airport within 6 months following consent to determine the package of measures, which should be implemented within 18 months following consent.

Specific actions targeted to enhance early morning and late-night public transport provision for both passengers and staff, related to origins of both and changing to enable public transport options suitable for both flight and shift patterns.

Continuation and underwriting of all current commitments and conditions from the 10 mppa planning consent, including minimum frequencies (as at consent of the 12mppa application). This will require a commitment to ensure the continuation of all strategic bus and coach services that are currently operating, whether they are operated or contracted by the airport or otherwise. This includes the services A1, A2, A3, A4, plus the Falcon and National Express 216 and ensures services continue to serve Weston-super-Mare, Bristol, Bath, the South West and South Wales.

Delivery of a demand responsive scheduled bus services operating 24/7 via Yatton, Nailsea, Portishead and Clevedon, initially for a minimum of 24 months, with regular reviews. This should be operational within five months following consent (commented on earlier).

Airline Capacity

I agree that an important element of increasing capacity is the use of larger aircraft. A look at stats going back two decades and more shows that BRS has seen its annual passenger rises most years achieved by fewer air transport movements. The average load per aircraft has risen from around 78 per flight near the beginning of the ‘noughties’ to 130 in 2018. All this has been achieved mainly on the back of a continuing introduction of larger aircraft. It’s not fanciful to suggest that this pattern will continue.

There is possibly now more scope too for growing passenger numbers by increasing the frequencies on a number of existing routes than finding brand new routes, although the later is clearly desirable too. As fundamental to the success of the airport that easyJet has been and still is, it is surely a mistake for any business to rely overwhelmingly on one customer. BRS could do with more 'legacy carriers' to supplement the likes of KLM, Lufthansa and Brussels Airlines. I know that's a simple statement for me to make and that the reality of achieving it is infinitely more difficult.

 

[kraktoa]

The victory by climate groups over Heathrow Expansion today spells a new landscape for Bristol appeals against its own expansion decision.

The Paris Climate treaty now has a precedence in law. What next for Bristol?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The victory by climate groups over Heathrow Expansion today spells a new landscape for Bristol appeals against its own expansion decision.

The Paris Climate treaty now has a precedence in law. What next for Bristol?

The Appeal Court said, "Our decision should be properly understood. We have not decided, and could not decide, that there will be no third runway at Heathrow (my bold). We have not found that a national policy statement supporting this project is necessarily incompatible with the UK's commitment to reducing carbon emissions and mitigating climate change under the Paris Agreement, or with any other policy the government may adopt or international obligation it may undertake."

The government was given advance notice of the decision but gave no indication of its intention to appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court, but Heathrow Airport is reported as saying it will appeal.

As far as I'm aware Bristol Airport is still awaiting the formal reasons for the rejection of their planning application - the reasons are certainly not in the public domain yet - and until it does it will be in no position to decide its next steps.

Solely in terms of climate change BRS is arguably in a different position because even opponents of its expansion accept and indeed advocate that flights that might have used BRS in future had it been allowed to expand can use other airports instead. Perversely for people who are against expansion of air travel, some are in favour of devolution of APD to Wales as they believe that CWL would take displaced BRS flights if it was given the fillip of a tax break. By saying that they are admitting that climate change is not the main driver of their objections because displaced flights to other airports will still still generate the emissions to which they object.

If the decision is taken at face value - and the appeal court has already said it does not necessarily mean no third runway at Heathrow - any UK airport seeking to expand or build a new terminal or new runway would be denied permission if it cut across the UK's climate change obligations.

The PM has never been in favour of a third LHR runway so he could use this decision to his political advantage.

If BRS cannot expand and neither can LHR, which is de facto the West Country's long-haul local airport, the West Country economy is bound to be affected adversely to some degree in the decades ahead.

 

[Marko1]

The trouble with all this nonsense is that people will still need to fly so by passing the issue for others airports to take the demand solves no environmental problem plus it constrains business and the economy as a whole. It’s total nonsense to prevent growth and development when the likes of China and India can continue to develop and expand .

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The trouble with all this nonsense is that people will still need to fly so by passing the issue for others airports to take the demand solves no environmental problem plus it constrains business and the economy as a whole. It’s total nonsense to prevent growth and development when the likes of China and India can continue to develop and expand .

The judgment did not rule out expansion at LHR, or even say that the government’s airports national policy statement was incompatible with the UK’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions. The judgment did say though that the government would need to do more work to ensure that a third runway did not cut across its commitment under the Paris Climate Agreement.

Quite what that means is anyone's guess. When you consider that the USA has reneged on its Paris commitment because it would adversely affect its economy, and the likes of China and India (both Paris signatories) intend building new airports at a furious pace it shows once again that the UK is quite content to cut off its own nose to spite its face when other countries merely pay lip service and go on their merry way.

No doubt the Swedish truant will have plenty to say tomorrow about the BRS expansion. She apparently has it in for Mayor Rees because he is in favour of the expansion. They seem to think that stopping BRS handling another couple of million passengers a year will somehow save the planet.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Decision to veto Bristol Airport expansion set to be ratified by councillors

The application will be brought before the committee again for ratification next week

www.bristolpost.co.uk

North Someret Council expected to confirm airport expansion plan rejection at their next planning committee meeting on Wednesday 18 March 2020.

They will formally set out the reasons for the rejection.

The airport then has six months to make up its mind whether to appeal.

 

[Marko1]

When the next local election ? Is it worth waiting ?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

When the next local election ? Is it worth waiting ?

May 2023. No guarantee that the council political make-up would change much. If by then the electorate is getting fed up with the Conservative Westminster Government, which is often the case around mid-term, voters tend take it out on the party in government at local elections.

Bear in mind that the NSC officers recommended approval. Reading comments after the councillors voted to go against their own officers' recommendations, 'voting with the heart' was a comment in evidence more than once. That would not stand up in planning law. It's likely that a government inspector would agree with the professional officers on the NSC in their interpretation of planning law and local and government guidance. Because of the Green Belt issue the matter would have to be passed to the secretary of state for final decision. The inspector from the Planning Inspectorate would submit his/her recommendations to the sec of state.

People point to the Heathrow Court of Appeal decision where the judges decided that the secretary of state had not considered the UK's obligations under the Paris Climate Change Agreement. The judges made it abundantly clear that they were not saying that there could be no third LHR runway; indeed they stated unequivocally that they had no power to stop it. What they had to consider was the extent to which the sec of state had addressed the Paris Agreement issue and they ruled that he had not acted legally in that particular matter.

There was a hint from them that the matter could be re-visited in an amended application but the government - mainly no doubt because the PM has always been anti-LHR runway 3 - said they would leave any appeal to the Supreme Court to the LHR authorities.

Just because the Appeal Court ruled against the current runway 3 application on climate change grounds it doesn't mean that BRS would be looked at in the same way. In fact, if BRS was frozen at 10 mppa, flights that would have taken the airport beyond that level would be displaced to other airports creating the same amount of emissions so UK plc would be no better off or worse off when it comes to the Paris Agreement.

Next week the NSC will have to set out their reasons for rejection formally. The airport can if it wishes (I can't think it won't) obtain top legal and planning advice as to the likelihood of successfully appealing to the Planning Inspectorate. Beyond that the sec of state will make a political decision and it's hard for any lawyer or planning expert to second-guess that.

Even if at the end of the day the sec of state permits the application there will undoubtedly be people prepared to make legal challenges which will delay matters even further.

As I said in an earlier post, the current stife in trhe aviation industry might actually aid BRS as it will likely have an extra year or perhaps more before it gets close to its current 10 mppa planning cap than would otherwise have been the case.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The North Somerset Council Planning Committee meeting scheduled for tomorrow where it is expected the committee will confirm its rejection of the airport's planning application will still take place although the public are asked not to attend given theCovid-19 situation. They can watch it on a live streamed feed on the internet.

The planning committee has now formally given its reasons for rejecting the exlansion - see below:

The additional noise, traffic and off-airport car parking would result in adverse environmental impacts on communities. Council policy “expressly requires” plans for Bristol Airport to “demonstrate the satisfactory resolution” of environmental issues, including the impact on surrounding communities and roads.

The proposed development does not make a sustainable contribution to economic objectives due to the scale of outbound leisure travel, and with low skilled jobs at the airport giving way to automation it is uncertain that expansion will deliver additional and sustainable jobs. National policy says a balance has to be struck between the positive economic impact of flights and the negative impacts on health, quality of life and productivity.

Lifting seasonal restrictions on night flights would have serious adverse effects on the health and wellbeing of residents. Council policy says any development that would result in pollution or harm people’s health will “only be permitted if the potential adverse effects would be mitigated”.

The proposed increase in passenger numbers would exacerbate climate change and would not help the transition to a low carbon future. Officers said the authority and central government have both made commitments to cut carbon emissions and move to a low carbon economy.

There would be an adverse impact on wildlife habitats and would not boost biodiversity. Officers challenged this, citing Natural England’s confidence that there would be a “net biodiversity gain”.

Extending the silver zone car park and allowing the seasonal car park to be used year round is an inappropriate development in the green belt and there are no “very special circumstances” that outweigh the harm. Officers contended that there were very special circumstances but said the committee was “entitled to come to a different conclusion”.

The proposed public transport provision is inadequate and will not sufficiently reduce the reliance on the car. The result would be an unacceptable increase in traffic volumes, congestion and parking. Officers said the increase in traffic volumes, congestion and parking on the local road would not have a severe impact, and a safe and suitable access can be achieved.

It might all seem irrelevant at the moment but life will go after the virus is finally defeated and the airport will need to be aware of all its options as it, along with every airport, tries to rebuild its position.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

As expected at this afternoon's North Somerset Council planning committee meeting the rejection of BRS's planning application to raise its planning cap to 12 mppa together with associated infrastructure was confirmed. The voting was a bit different though. At the original meeting 18 councillors voted to reject, 7 to approve with 1 abstention. Today there were fewer councillors on the committe and there were also several substitutes and they voted 18 to reject, 2 to approve with 3 abstentions.

Whether this vote indicated a change of view by some councillors or was the result of substitute councillors deciding differently I don't know because, although it was a 'named vote' as was the original meeting, I didn't record the individual votes then or this afternoon. Furthermore, the sound quality wasn't always good at voting time with some councillors apparently not switching on their microphone so it was difficult to hear which way some had voted.

The seven reasons for rejection the application were reduced to five with the main sponsoring councillor admitting that a couple of the original ones were either not sustainable or incorrectly based.

This councillor stated that the airport CEO had sent a letter to the NSC yesterday which the councillor described as 'threatening' and of 'poor quality'. It arrived after close of business yesterday, although the airport had had 'six or seven weeks' to respond .

When I checked the NSC planning portal the most recent airport communication was an email from its solicitors dated 16 March which contained this final summary paragraph.

In light of this we would remind the Council that examples, as set out in National Planning Guidance, where an award of costs may be made against local planning authorities, include failure to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal on appeal and vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about a proposal’s impact, which are unsupported by any objective analysis. Given this, we trust that the Council will fully consider and respond to each of the concerns we have identified above when finalising their reasons for refusal for the Application.

I would not describe this email as threatening or of poor quality and it seems that those on the rejection side took heed of both it and their own planning officers' further comments (which overall still recommended approval) by amending their reasons for rejection. I can only suppose then that the so-called threatening letter from the airport CEO has not yet appeared on the NSC planning portal.

Feelings ran high towards the end when one councillor, who said he was incensed at the rejection on 10 February, averred that the council would 'lose' and it would be a 'huge burden' on it. He bet everyone in the room that if they put down a pound he would pay £100 to charity if the council's decision was upheld following any appeal.

 

[Marko1]

An appeal to follow ?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

An appeal to follow ?

It would seem so. I've always assumed that the airport would appeal a rejection, especially as the councillors made that decision against the advice of their own planning officers.

As I suggested in an earlier post the likely period of time that an appeal would take (and no doubt legal challenges after that if the expansion plans are approved on appeal) might have been a probelm for the airport if airlines were looking to operate from BRS and/or existing ones were anxious to expand their presence further when the 10 mppa barrier was in clear range.

Covid-19 will probably put the industry back a year or two, perhaps more, giving BRS more breathing space before the 10 mppa barrier becomes a problem.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

As I indicated in #354 the NSC Planning Committee reduced their reasons for rejecting the application from seven to five. Below are the five reasons as set out on the NSC planning portal.

1. The airport has planning permission to expand to a throughput of 10 million passengers per annum (mppa) which allows for further expansion in passenger growth of approximately 1 mppa above the current passenger level. The further expansion beyond 10mppa now proposed would generate additional noise, traffic and off airport car parking resulting in adverse environmental impacts on communities surrounding Bristol Airport and which would have an adverse impact on an inadequate surface access infrastructure. The claimed economic benefits arising from the proposal would not outweigh the environmental harm caused by the development contrary to policy CS23 of the North Somerset Core Strategy 2017.

2. The noise and impact on air quality generated by the increase in aircraft movements and in particular the proposed lifting of seasonal restrictions on night flights would have a significant adverse impact on the health and well-being of residents in local communities and the proposed development would not contribute to improving the health and well-being of the local population contrary to policies CS3, CS23 and CS26 of the North Somerset Core Strategy 2017

3. The scale of greenhouse gas emissions generated by the proposed increase in passenger numbers would not reduce carbon emissions and would not contribute to the transition to a low carbon future and would exacerbate climate change contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policy CS1 of the North Somerset Core Strategy 2017. and the duty in the Climate Change Act 2008 (as amended) to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 100% lower than the 1990 baseline.

4. The proposed extension to the Silver Zone car park and the year round use of the seasonal car park constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. There are no very special circumstances which outweigh the harm to the Green Belt caused by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm including the encroachment of development on the countryside and loss of openness contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and policy DM12 of the Development Management Policies Sites and Policies Plan Part 1 2016.

5. The proposed public transport provision is inadequate and will not sufficiently reduce the reliance on the car to access the airport resulting in an unsustainable development contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and policies CS1 and CS10 of the North Somerset Core Strategy 2017.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The local North Somerset councillor for Wrington who is also a NSC planning committee member and who was one of the leaders of the campaign to reject the BRS planning application has now put this statement in the Wrington village magazine.

I am not against Bristol Airport. They are an important stakeholder and provide value and convenience for the local community in a number of ways. But the airport already has existing permission to expand by a further 15% to 10 million passengers per annum, and in my view the economic benefits of further expansion beyond that is more than outweighed by the significant harm to our community via carbon emissions, additional car journeys and the uncapping of night flights during summer months.

Figures seem to be very flexible when it suits the airport's opponents. 15% passenger growth would actually take the airport to over 10.3 mppa from its current total.

 

[Seasider]

They always "round up" to the higher figure, they think that it supports their actions.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

It was three months ago this week that a subsequent North Somerset unitary authority planning committee meeting ratified the decision of the planning committee meeting of 10 February that rejected the airport's planning application which, inter alia, would have increased the annual passenger cap to 12 million.

The airport still has three months in which to launch an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. Covid-19 has obviously put an entirely different complexion on the aviation industry and no-one can be absolutely certain how things will look in the world in five or ten years' time.

If, say, BRS took several years to get back to the 9 mppa it was at when Covid struck that might weaken the case for wanting the annual passenger cap increased from the current 10 mppa. However, no-one can be certain of that in the timescale that an appeal would take to be determined, and an argument could therefore be put that without irrefutable proof nothing has changed in the BRS plans for growth to 12 mppa, except perhaps that it might be delayed by a year or two.

A decision whether or not to appeal will probably lie with the owner's judgement of the future of the aviation industry.

If there is to be no appeal the owner will be left with an airport capped at 10 mppa; in other words a business that cannot realistically grow from that point, other than by short-term cost-cutting methods. Waiting 5-10 years and then starting again with a new planning application might find an environment even more hostile to airport expansion than it is now.

If the owner wants to have an airport that can at least get to 12 mppa (what happens beyond that will undoubtedly stir up even more controversy in the future, but let's not get beyond ourselves at the moment) an appeal against the local authority rejection might present the best chance. After all, if an appeal was won it would not mean that construction of the expansion infrastructure had to begin immediately. Planning consent these days usually lasts three years during which time some evidence of the commencement of construction should be shown.

When North Somerset unitary authority planning committee councillors ignored their professional planning officers' recommendations for approval, they had to set out the formal reasons for their rejection. When they did so their officers advised that two of the seven reasons were illegal and so the number was reduced to five. The strong advice given the planning councillors by their senior planning officer at the planning meeting was that the local tax payers might find themselves with a large bill if the airport won an appeal, which was a nod and a wink that he thought their decision to reject was a weak one.