Today's entry reports on the publication of the interim report of the Airports Commission.
Yesterday, Sir Howard Davies published the long-awaited (but on time) interim report on airport capacity in the south east of England. The report can be found here. The report principally deals with short-term proposals to increase capacity, but also announced a shortlist of new runways to be built by 2030, among which one would be chosen by the time of the final report in mid-2015. A second runway might be needed by 2050.
Earlier in the year, more than 50 options had been suggested to Sir Howard, but the shortlist he announced for further consideration yesterday involved just two airports, Heathrow and Gatwick, although he also threw a lifeline to the possibility of an airport on the Isle of Grain (actually part of the mainland) in Kent.
At Heathrow, he has allowed two options to be considered further: a third runway to the north west of the existing airport, as proposed by the airport itself, and extending one of the existing runways to allow two planes to use it at the same time, as proposed by Heathrow Hub Ltd. At Gatwick, the airport's proposal of a second runway to the south is to go forward.
With a blog headline worthy of the apparently mythical Aberdeen Press and Journal's report of the sinking of the Titanic, would the three runway options be nationally significant infrastructure projects? You bet. The threshold for an extension to an airport is that it would increase capacity by at least 10 million passengers per year. A third runway at Heathrow would increase capacity by 50 million passengers, an extended runway by 43 million passengers and a second runway at Gatwick would increase capacity there by 45 million passengers.
Somewhat cryptically, after mentioning the Planning Act 2008, Sir Howard says 'the Commission will publish as part of its final report its recommendations on the appropriate legal and planning processes that should be used to expedite the delivery of new airport infrastructure.' Does that mean he is not necessarily accepting the status quo of having to use the Planning Act 2008? Time will tell.
Although Sir Howard says that the work of the Airports Commission is 'a game of two halves' - it now being half time - supporters of an airport in the Thames Estuary such as Boris Johnson have gained some extra time. While not making it to the original shortlist, it could still do so in a year's time. Sir Howard said that more work would be done on assessing this option over the next year, but his commission has estimated its cost at £82-112bn, five times the cost of a new runway at Heathrow, rather more than the proposers of that option.
While the announcement of short-term options to increase capacity is welcome, on the longer term we are further behind than we were five years ago, when there was just one option - a third runway at Heathrow - which was supported by the Government. Now that is one of three options, and the Government is neutral on them. Indeed, Secretary of State for Transport Patrick McLoughlin MP said in Parliament yesterday: 'The Government will not therefore be commenting, either today or in responding to the interim report, on the respective merits of the options that have and have not been shortlisted'.
I suppose that is a change from the Conservative Party manifesto of 2010, which said 'We will stop the third runway and instead link Heathrow directly to our high speed rail network, providing an alternative to thousands of flights. In addition, we will block plans for second runways at Stansted and Gatwick' (I'd forgotten that connecting Heathrow to HS2 was a manfesto commitment, also in the long grass), and the Liberal Democrat manifesto, which said 'We will cancel plans for a third runway at Heathrow and other airport expansion in the South East'.
There is no guarantee that whatever party, or combination of parties, is in power after the 2015 election it or they will adopt Sir Howard's final recommendation, but the need for additional capacity has never been greater.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
