LEAD GREEN SW EURO CANDIDATE ANGER AT MOVE TO EXPAND GLOS AIRPORT
20th December 2008
On 11th December Glos City Council Cabinet decided to endorse the
recommendations of the 'Overview and Scrutiny Management' committee and
support the Airport's plans for expansion.
Cllr Ricky Knight, the lead South West Green party candidate in next years Euro elections who had written to all Gloucestershire councillors ahead of the vote urging them to end plans for expanding Staverton Airport (i), said: "This is a deeply disappointing decision. Staverton Airport's plans may be small fry compared with say Bristol Airport, but the principle is clear: if we are to make 80% cuts in CO2 emissions as the Government now recognises then we all will have to play our part. Why should other businesses in Gloucestershire have to make even deeper cuts in emissions to accommodate these expansion plans?"
Cllr Ricky Knight said: "I am disappointed by the Scrutiny process as the business case also has not been examined properly. The case for 'expansion' is marginal at best and may in fact be value-destructive. The airport already complies with CAA requirements (ii). This is despite claims by the Airport to the contrary: there is no threat to the airport's status and no evidence that jobs are threatened if the expansion doesn't go-ahead (iii).
Ricky Knight added: "The environmental and business arguments against expansion are full-proof. Gloucestershire has a proud aviation heritage, but we now need the County to lead in common sense and put an end to these plans for Airport expansion."
The matter is now likely to go to the next meeting of the full Council on the 15th Jan 2009 for a final decision.
Notes:
(i) See letter below:
Dear Councillor,
Re: the four airport applications are 06/01668/FUL, 06/01669/FUL, 06/01670/FUL, 06/01671/FUL
The Government’s environmental watchdog, the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), recently released a report recommending to put airport decisions on hold. I hope this will mean a reassessment of local planning and other issues in particularly relating to the above planning applications.
The report entitled "Contested Evidence: The case for an independent review of aviation policy” follows up on its May 2008 Report "Breaking the Holding Pattern" and puts the Government under increased pressure to review its plans for airport expansion around the country (a). The report’s authors believe that currently the risks of decisions in favour of expansion outweigh the possible benefits.
Since then we have also seen the UK government's Climate Change Bill which mandates an 80% cut in CO2 emissions. Barack Obama has also stated that this will be his position. A cut of this size in emissions is not compatible with any significant aviation industry, much less any attempt to make further investments in airports.
Gloucestershire Airport has repeatedly attempted to hold the line that their 'project is about safety, not expansion'. However the evidence is clear that this is not the whole story.
The Joint Airport Scrutiny Working Group, along with the Airport's previous Business Plans, clearly show that there is planned growth in flights and particularly more of the largest aircrafts currently using Staverton. The business traffic at the airport is already expanding exponentially, even without the 160m extension to the main runway and the ILS. From just 69 movements in 2002, then 293, 257 274, 449 and 797 in years 2003/4/5/6/7 according to the figures published by the CAA.
Indeed in a recent job for the airport they write: "Significant operational developments are also planned, including removing obstacles from the runway ends and installing ILS, further enhancing commercial capabilities." The Airport even took to calling themselves ‘Gloucestershire International Airport’ for a while.
Yet the Airport's plans to increase flights is incompatible with tackling climate change. We must reduce CO2 emissions by 80% at least if we are to tackle climate change. Indeed we have no alternative. However, even if we set aside that crucial argument, the rest of the business case for expansion just does not stack up.
You will no doubt be aware that the South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) has withdrawn support for airport expansion because there is not enough proof of the economic benefits from airport expansion.
We have always been told that the economic benefits of airport expansion outweigh the considerable environmental impacts of noise, traffic and climate changing emissions. Now even the local development agency does not believe this and have have said they will not be putting any further funding into expanding the region’s airports.The SWRDA’s report states that “air travel may not necessarily be a pre-requisite for economic growth,” and "the relationship between high growth sectors in the region and air travel appears to be weak."
Airport campaigners have previously pointed out that on the basis of the Staverton Airports Business Plan, it will take over 20 years for the investment to be paid off, during which time, the council tax payers of Gloucestershire will be liable for any default on the loans. Given the Credit Crunch, it makes no sense to impose further financial risk on the tax payer, especially for such a large investment which will benefit so few people.
There is also a claim that feedback received from local businesses has been supportive to expanding the airport. Yet this does not tally with other evidence. The main employers of the region such as GCHQ make no use of the airport. In fact WWF research shows that progressive businesses are already beginning to turn away from flying in favour of green alternatives such as train travel and videoconferencing.
Furthermore the report is based on out-of-date oil prices and a failure to accept that, while oil prices have come down recently, virtually all forecasts indicate oil price rises. Goldman Sachs have even suggested that oil could reach $200 a barrel next year.
Gloucestershire has a proud aviation heritage, let us hope the County can now take a lead in common sense.
Cllr Ricky Knight, Green party lead Euro candidate 2009,
Bishops Tawton
North Devon
Notes:
(a) The report concludes: "The context itself has changed markedly since the 2003 Air Transport White Paper was produced. Climate change science has advanced significantly, and the Stern Review has framed the debate on the economic case for early action...The Climate Change Act will set carbon budgets... If the 2050 target is increased to a reduction of 80% compared to 1990 levels then, on the basis of those projections, aviation would account for over 70% of UK emissions...The economic downturn and soaring fuel prices have hit the number of business and leisure flights, and public attitudes to flying are more ambivalent..."
(ii) The 'Runway Safety Project' (RSP) is designed to address the Airport's concerns that some business could be lost if the CAA withdraws license variations that allow them to operate their main runway in its current configuration. In his report (RMD200818, section 14) the City Councils's Chief Executive has now clarified the position of the CAA. They have stated that they are "currently satisfied", "that in the absence of significant changes to the operations at, or any developments of, the airport, they are likely to remain satisfied" and that there is "no immediate time imperative" to remove the variations. Additionally, the other issues addressed by the RSP, such as the Instrument Landing System and extended Runway End Safety Areas (RESA), have never been the subject of license variations The clarification by the CAA directly contradicts statements made by the Airport; The Airport business plan states that "the CAA will inevitably require the declared landing distance available to be reduced" without the variations (p.17 of 5-year plan dated 11/12/2006). The same document then goes on to justify the RSP by exploring the consequences of the reduction of the landing distances, concluding that the Airport would have to adapt to remain profitable. In the light of the clarification from the CAA I believe that there is no longer a case for implementing the RSP on safety grounds. The conclusions of both the Mott MacDonald report and the JASWG would undoubtedly have been influenced had the likelihood of loss of the variation not been so exaggerated.
(iii) Reference to the 'airport cluster' is misleading, and no jobs are at risk. The report by the Chief executive explains that 3,600 people are employed by companies based at or near the Airport, but with no operational links to the Airport. The report also explains that an additional 340 jobs at the Airport are directly related to aviation. In total these 3,940 jobs contribute 1.9% of the Gloucestershire economy. This means that the aviation related jobs contribute (pro-rata) a far smaller 0.16% of the economy. However the report produces no evidence that any of these jobs would be threatened if the RSP is not implemented. Indeed, I would suggest that even if the runway length were to be reduced none of the 3,600 jobs and a tiny proportion of the 340 jobs would be threatened. For example the flying schools, helicopter companies and by far the majority of the other aviation related businesses would not be effected. The airport 'cluster', and the 3600 non-aviation related jobs it contains, is of course significant to the Gloucestershire economy. However, those 3,600 jobs are not dependent the Airport, and cannot be effected by the lack of the RSP. Indeed, if securing additional jobs is a priority the money required for the RSP could be better invested in expanding the Airport trading estates where the non-aviation businesses already account for more than ten times the number of jobs provided by aviation related businesses.
Home 
News 
20th December 2008
Green New Deal Report 