Airport Master Plan for next 30 Years - Consultation

[Seasider]

Great news.

 

[BRSflyer]

Great news.

Completely randomly.. are there any jetbridge stands planned for the eastern walkway?

 

[vickersviscount]

I would have thought the Legal Costs are going to be fairly high and may even require a rise in local council taxes. I wonder if all the pressure groups are going to put their hand in their pockets to contribute. No,thought not !!!

 

[Marko1]

Does this mean the appeal has succeeded ? Sorry I’ve had a busy day - wasn’t expecting such good news !!

 

[CM.]

Great news! Finally the news BRS wanted!

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Great news.

Completely randomly.. are there any jetbridge stands planned for the eastern walkway?

There is nothing in this planning application that I can see. The previous major planning approval (in 2011) might have dealt with the question of jet bridges. I have a feeling it did.

Incidentally, if anyone wants to read the entire decision this link will reach the 118 pages of it. Click on the second column from the left near the bottom of the box.

Reference: APP/D0121/W/20/3259234

acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk

This probably won't be the end of the matter. Opponents will almost certainly seek a judicial review which looks at the process not the decision. The local BBC business editor suggested that the secretary of state could still call it in. I think he meant recover the appeal but Gove chose not to do that when he became the minister. Instead he went along with his predecessor's (Jenrick) decision to allow the planning inspectors to decide on his behalf.

To change his mind at this late stage gives an impression of waiting for the inspectors' decision to see if he liked it. He could easily have told the planning inspectors to send their recommendations to him to make the decision at the end of their enquiry although he would not be bound by them.

It does seem that a judicial review application to the High Court would be the most likely avenue for opponents but the planning inspectors are highly experienced and highly qualified in their field. A court would have to find that they somehow erred in law or in their interpretations. They obviously gave the matter a great deal of consideration - nearly four months of deliberation after the planning enquiry ended which was twice as long as the Stansted Airport deliberation process following that appeal..

 

[TheLocalYokel]

BRS response.

Planning Inspectorate gives go-ahead for Bristol Airport expansion

Planning Inspectorate gives go-ahead for Bristol Airport expansion

www.bristolairport.co.uk

Planning Inspectorate gives go-ahead for Bristol Airport expansion​

Created: 2nd Feb 2022

The independent Planning Inspectorate has today announced it will allow Bristol Airport’s expanded capacity to proceed

This will lift the cap on Bristol Airport’s capacity from 10 million passengers a year to 12 million and enables investment – including new upgrades to the terminal building, parking facilities, and public transport links.

Expanded capacity will add 800 jobs at Bristol Airport and up to a further 5,000 regionally. The Airport has an existing plan in place to ensure that local residents are offered future job opportunities and a fund will be created to help support those facing barriers to employment, transitioning people in low paid work into careers at Bristol Airport, with up to £300,000 being made available to kick-start training, work experience, apprenticeships, and job readiness.

Bristol Airport has made one of the fastest recoveries from the pandemic, compared to other UK airports, and expanded capacity will allow the Airport to explore new direct links to Europe and further afield, including the Middle East and North America. As well as providing economic links for our region, new routes will remove some of the 8 million car journeys made from the South West to London airports that were made each year before the pandemic.

Bristol Airport put sustainability at the heart of their expansion proposals and will now push ahead with its multi-million-pound plans for net zero operations by 2030.

Dave Lees, CEO of Bristol Airport said:

“Bristol Airport welcomes the decision of the Planning Inspectorate. The decision is excellent news for our region’s economy, allowing us to create thousands of new jobs in the years ahead and provide more choice for our customers, supporting inbound tourism, and reducing the millions of road journeys made to London airports each year.

We will now push ahead with our multi-million-pound plans for net zero operations by 2030 and look forward to working with stakeholders and the community to deliver sustainable growth.”

 

[forest1979]

This is excellent news. Such an important asset to our region. It’s important to have the green ambition and glad to see these in their plans but the reality is that every leading/developing economy or region needs good airport access.
let’s hope we see some good route and airline development too…

 

[Jerry]

Council is looking at grounds to appeal so I expect the saga isn't over yet.

 

[forest1979]

Well they would.. let it go and focus on other things I say.. Plenty to pick at. Airports are a favourite target.
I don’t see this crap going on so much around airport development in the rest of Europe. The UK is a terrible example of development planning (my opinion)

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Council is looking at grounds to appeal so I expect the saga isn't over yet.

The council and other parties will no doubt be looking at ways of trying to overturn today's decision with a judicial review application to the High Court the most likely but that would deal with the process that led to the decision, not the decision itself. It's possible for a public body found by the court to have erred in law to go back and arrive at the same decision in a way that the court deems lawful.

In my post #506 above I suggested possible next steps in this long saga.

It could well take another year or more before all legal avenues have been exhausted.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I’ve had a look through the 118 pages of the planning inspectors’ decision. I don’t intend to go through everything in detail although it would be useful for insomniacs. They'd be asleep in no time.

I came away with a flavour which is that the inspectors often preferred the airport’s version of many things, although not all, and felt that the local authority had not provided sufficient evidence to support a number of their assertions, although the inspectors have considerable sympathy for the increased noise disturbance that airport growth would bring.

I highlight a few random matters.

The airport had withdrawn its level 3 coordinated application to the DfT in the light of Covid-induced flight reductions - they are currently level 3 during BST between 2300 and 0700. BRS wanted to delay re-applying for 24/7 level 3 until they had reached 11 mppa but the inspectors decreed 10 mppa should be the trigger.

A recurring objection has been the belief by some that BRS is submitting multiple planning applications for incremental growth rather than a single application for an increase to 20 mppa which is said to be the long term aspiration. This was referred to as ‘salami slicing’ with the benefit of downplaying the environmental impact. As things stand the inspectors saw nothing wrong with this approach.

The inspectors almost accused North Somerset Council of being ‘nimbys’.They said in their report that they have concerns about NSC’s approach to displacement. They went on to say that ‘at times during the Inquiry, NSC seemed to be almost advancing a case that economic development, including jobs for the residents of North Somerset, should be provided in other parts of the country, most notably at Cardiff Airport. That is an unusual position for a local authority to take because one of the primary objectives of the CS (the council’s core strategy) is to support and promote major employers such as BA (Bristol Airport)’.

The Welsh Government also came in for criticism: ‘Regarding the objection by the Welsh Government, there is no evidence to suggest that the development would have a significant adverse impact on Cardiff Airport or on Wales. The airports have different offers with BA already having a broader range of routes than Cardiff. There is no policy support in Build Back Better or anywhere else which favours the expansion of Cardiff Airport over Bristol. In any event, BA and Cardiff Airport are both located in the same ‘level 2’ priority areas for the purposes of ‘levelling up’ which does not support the argument that Cardiff is in an area of greater need.’

A key priority of the APF (National Aviation Policy Framework) is to make better use of existing runway capacity at all UK airports because of capacity challenges at the biggest airports in South East England. The APF recognises the important economic role of regional airports in accommodating wider forecast growth and expressly acknowledges the vital role of Bristol Airport in the economic success of the South West.

 

[Foxlimayankee]

Is there any finer detail about what is needed to reach 12m pax?
Things such as;
- Terminal capacity, how much expansion is needed?
- Stand capacity, are more stands required and where will they likely be or are the current additional stand created enough?
- Road capacity and other forms of transport. I find it ironic how Airports and Airlines are pushing the "net zero" targets when they may be making their operations and buildings more environmentally friendly, but will still create more emissions from extra flights and many many more cars on the road.
- And most importantly the number of night flights quota, how many additional will be allowed? Most of the low-cost and more importantly tour operator airlines will require late arrivals and early departures to make their schedules work.

Is 12m pax whether allowed or not, realistic since covid? If so, have timescale forecasts changed since covid?

A lot has changed over the past 2 years which may have delayed any expansion plans by a few years, although still achievable.

I'm a big fan of BRS, i think it's a great Airport, but if logic is applied, the amount of people from the South West that could use EXT and similarly South Wales that could use CWL on the more popular flights such as main Airports in Spain etc could means Airlines can reduce their flying to these destinations to allow other routes to be started in their place, thus not actually adding extra flights. Not great for BRS expansion plans, but if the government want to balance out capacity and emissions, then it needs to be spread out. For many it will also mean less journey time and emissions from cars. My example of this is does Easyjet really need to be providing up to 3 flights a day to some destinations like Malaga or Palma? This obviously would take government intervention which opens all kinds of other issues.

 

[vickersviscount]

I was listening to Radio Bristol this morning as I was driving between jobs.Not surprisingly the bulk of the morning was dedicated to people phoning in, commentating on Bristol Airports successful appeal to increase passenger numbers.From what I heard I'd say the options expressed were 50,50,for and against.But I had to laugh at some of the comments by those who were against.The presenters quite rightly asked them if they had ever used Bristol Airport and a large number said they did but were against further expansion.One Women listed all the ailments physical and mental that the local populace would endure now the appeal had been granted.About the only things she didn't list,were frogs,locusts famine and pestliance. But when asked if she used Bristol Airport, she said yes but that was only because she had a new baby that the relatives in Ireland wanted to see.I think the irony of her comments escaped her.I have a relative who's home is under the flight path and understandably was against expansion.But as they have property in Spain would still expect to fly out from Bristol Airport.
At the end of the day the inspectors have made their decision,Noth Somerset Council, all their acolytes and the naysayers will whine, moan,and complain, they were robbed.The rest of us including many who were against expansion will continue to use Bristol Airport.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

This is the application that has been allowed by the planning inspectors:

The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission (with reserved matters details for some elements included and some elements reserved for subsequent approval) is granted for the development of Bristol Airport to enable a throughput of 12 million terminal passengers in any 12 month calendar period, comprising: 2no. extensions to the terminal building and canopies over the forecourt of the main terminal building; erection of new east walkway and pier with vertical circulation cores and pre-board zones; 5m high acoustic timber fence; construction of a new service yard directly north of the western walkway; erection of a multi-storey car park north west of the terminal building with five levels providing approximately 2,150 spaces; enhancement to the internal road system including gyratory road with internal surface car parking and layout changes; enhancements to airside infrastructure including construction of new eastern taxiway link and taxiway widening (and fillets) to the southern edge of Taxiway GOLF; the year-round use of the existing Silver Zone car park extension (Phase 1) with associated permanent (fixed) lighting and CCTV; extension to the Silver Zone car park to provide approximately 2,700 spaces (Phase 2); the provision of on-site renewable energy generation; improvements to the A38; operating within a rolling annualised cap of 4,000 night flights between the hours of 23:30 and 06:00 with no seasonal restrictions; and landscaping and associated works at Bristol Airport, North Side Road, Felton, Bristol, BS48 3DY in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/P/5118/OUT, dated 5 December 2018, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule to this decision.

The seasonal night time movement limits will be removed and annualised. There will be no overall increase but as winter was grossly under-used and summer at its limit there will undoubtedly be more night flights in summer. The inspectors said they were conscious of the noise disturbance that the expansion would bring.

There was a separate Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) Enquiry held by the same inspectors at the end of the Planning Enquiry. It was originally scheduled to last a week but after North Somerset Council withdrew its objection it was completed in a morning. The inspectors will send their recommendation on this to the secretary of state to decide. The airport owns some land north of the airport near the A38/Downside Road junction but wants to purchase more tracts of land to facilitate road improvements which include turning the A38 into a dual carriageway between the airport entrance and the bottom of Potters Hill.

Some s 106 matters have been agreed by the airport and local authority but others have been left for further discussion. The airport had committed as part of its planning application to increase public transport take-up annually on pain of penalty.

Prior to the pandemic the airport had projected reaching or getting close to its current 10 mppa cap by around now, and that was before Jet2's arrival, with 12 mppa expected about five years later. As it stands the airport said it believes the pandemic has put this timetable back by about five years

The planning enquiry took three scenarios for growth with the slowest seeing 12 mppa by 2034 and the quickest by (I think from memory) 2027.

The South West does lose up to eight million passenger journeys a year to London airports mostly LHR, many from the BRS core catchment. Whilst many of these are long-haul passengers on services that would not be viable or operationally possible from BRS the airport has long believed that a significant number are short-haul passengers on routes already served from BRS but perhaps of insufficient frequency or inappropriate timings. They will be further targeting that group.

As to some sort of spreading the load around neighbouring airports let's take easyJet as an example. They are unlikely to want to lose passengers on popular routes that pay well. Keeping them would mean moving some aircraft to these other airports which itself would generate a cost. Given that easyJet is well established at BRS which is reportedly one of their most profitable bases why would they interfere with that voluntarily? Government decree is a different matter but would open up a host of other issues.

Pre-pandemic BRS was extremely profitable and is expected to be so again. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been invested into amelioration and infrastructure expansion over the past 25 years and there is a high level of debt. That was entirely manageable alongside the profitability pre-pandemic but the virus effects have to be overcome in the meantime.

Rationing and moving flights to even up matters might well work where all airports are owned by the state but when private enterprise is involved competition is vital. Even if all airports were state-owned there would still be the situation with the private sector-owned airlines.

If airlines believed there was more money it in for them if they switched some flights from BRS to EXT and/or CWL would they not have already done so?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I was listening to Radio Bristol this morning as I was driving between jobs.Not surprisingly the bulk of the morning was dedicated to people phoning in, commentating on Bristol Airports successful appeal to increase passenger numbers.From what I heard I'd say the options expressed were 50,50,for and against.But I had to laugh at some of the comments by those who were against.The presenters quite rightly asked them if they had ever used Bristol Airport and a large number said they did but were against further expansion.One Women listed all the ailments physical and mental that the local populace would endure now the appeal had been granted.About the only things she didn't list,were frogs,locusts famine and pestliance. But when asked if she used Bristol Airport, she said yes but that was only because she had a new baby that the relatives in Ireland wanted to see.I think the irony of her comments escaped her.I have a relative who's home is under the flight path and understandably was against expansion.But as they have property in Spain would still expect to fly out from Bristol Airport.
At the end of the day the inspectors have made their decision,Noth Somerset Council, all their acolytes and the naysayers will whine, moan,and complain, they were robbed.The rest of us including many who were against expansion will continue to use Bristol Airport.

Your points are well made. Some of the councillors who rejected the airport's planning application admitted that they used it.

Liam Fox the local MP is even worse. Five or six years ago when APD devolution to the Welsh Government was in the news he strongly objected on the grounds that BRS is vital to the local community and the region as a whole. If BRS lost services because of a tax break at CWL the region's economy would suffer.

On the eve of the NSC planning hearing this attitude had turned full circle. He wrote the council an open letter saying there was no evidence that growth helped the local economy and the application should be rejected. Later he said that he uses BRS which is a valuable local amenity but it is big enough.

The same arguments about Armageddon have been trotted out each time the airport has sought to expand. In the 1990s in Les Wilson's time there was a public enquiry into the airport's planning application for a new terminal that would increase throughput from 1 mppa to 2 mppa within the next ten years. That caused no end of wailing with forecasts from objectors that life as know it would be no more. In the event it increased far more than that. The 2010/2011 major planning application that was subsequently approved and led to the current 10 mppa planning cap would make life intolerable for local residents. Now they seem to accept that 10 mppa is acceptable but no more.

I lived in Wrington in the 1950s as a boy when it really was an idyllic village. Since then it's turned into nearly a small town by constant housing development and incomers. I've no objection to that but for many of these incomers to say that the airport (which was there before they were) reduces their quality of life is to ignore the damage they have done to the village's former quality of life by their presence in such large numbers. The same applies to other villages in the area.

 

[Coathanger16]

So according to the Greens, 10 - 12 million is a doubling of capacity...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1488950901872246790

 

[TheLocalYokel]

So according to the Greens, 10 - 12 million is a doubling of capacity...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1488950901872246790

There has been masses of that sort of thing from opposition groups and individuals ever since the airport submitted its planning application over three years ago.

One Bristol Green Party councillor trots out the number of extra car journeys that he says the expansion will generate. If every one of the additional two million people, including children, using the airport travelled to and from in a single-occupancy car, his figures would still be a gross exaggeration. That sort of nonsense does not wash with planning inspectors but it might with some councillors on planning committees.

More worrying is the increasing note of xenophobia and a Little Englander attitude from many of those expansion opponents who object to the airport being owned by an overseas organisation.

 

[Coathanger16]

More worrying is the increasing note of xenophobia and a Little Englander attitude from many of those expansion opponents who object to the airport being owned by an overseas organisation.

Or the fact that is owned by a teachers pension plan and "what would the teachers think if they knew where their money was being invested".

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Or the fact that is owned by a teachers pension plan and "what would the teachers think if they knew where their money was being invested".

There have already been calls by some pensioners for OTPP to cut its airport ownership.

I'm surprised that the anti-aviation 'industry' has not made far greater efforts to pressurise the public into eschewing the purchase of shares in aviation industry companies including airports and airlines, although not all airport and airline companies are publicly quoted, and to regard the industry as unethical in the way that 'ethical funds' won't purchase shares in sectors such as tobacco and armaments.

OTPP is a large organisation with circa 227 billion Canadian dollars (about 130 billion GBP) of net assets, so Bristol Airport is a very small part of that but one that has seen considerable investment in its infrastructure with more to come.