Bristol: Airport Master Plan for next 30 Years - Consultation

[TheLocalYokel]

Today's Cabinet reshuffle could have an effect on the outcome of the BRS appeal.

The previous Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick, had transferred responsibility for deciding the appeal to the three planning inspectors.

Michael Gove is the new S of S and might 'recover' the appeal and determine the outcome himself. If that did happen the three inspectors would submit their recommendations following the planning enquiry which the S of S would take into account but is not bound by them.

There would therefore be a political element in a S of S decision.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Last night the West of England Combined Authority (Weca) voted to oppose the expansion of Bristol Airport.

Weca is made up of an elected mayor and the leaders of three of the four councils in the Greater Bristol area: Bristol, Bath and North East Somerset and South Gloucestershire. North Somerset is the fourth council within this area but voted not to join Weca when it was formed a few years ago. It now wants to join and its leader is a member of the Weca committee and had a vote last night.

The new Weca mayor is a Labour politician (a former Labour MP in fact) who was opposed to BRS expansion in his election campaign. His predecessor was a Conservative who was supportive of airport expansion but he did not stand for re-election.

Some months ago Bristol City Council resolved to oppose the airport's expansion having previously been in favour. That was when Labour controlled the council. At the last election its overall majority was wiped out with the Greens now the joint largest party along with Labour. However, the representative for the city's elected Labour mayor abstained at last night's Weca vote. There is a sub-plot here because the city mayor is trying to have a mass transit system built in the city with the airport his anchor route.

Unsurprisingly, the leader of Lib-Dem-controlled Bath and North East Somerset voted to oppose the expansion as did the leader of North Somerset, a 'rainbow' council that of course refused the airport's planning application which is currently subject of appeal.

More surprising was the leader of Conservative-controlled South Gloucestershire who voted in favour of opposing the expansion. His council had supported the expansion and his support last night for the opposition motion seemed lukewarm. Nevertheless, he joined the others, except the Bristol elected mayor, in opposing the expansion.

Liam Fox, ConservativeMP for the area that includes the airport, changed his mind and opposed the planning application last year. Previously he had supported BRS growth, emphasising how important it was for the health of the region's economy (but important no longer apparently).

Whilst last night's Weca decision is purely symbolic and will have no bearing on the planning inspectors' appeal decision, it does show how politicians are scurrying to get into the environmental line - no doubt with an eye to the next elections.

I've said before that I will be quite content with whatever the planning inspectors decide on the appeal as it will have been made independently by professionals with no axe to grind or local pressures brought to bear which is the complete antithesis to amateur local planning councillors. What I don't want to see is the new secretary of state reversing his predecessor's decision to allow the planning inspectors to decide the appeal themselves. If the s of s 'recovers' the appeal to take the decision himself that would involve a political element with which I would be far less comfortable.

 

[Jono577]

I have recently had a bit of time to watch some of the proceedings.

It's a real game of cat and mouse from each side. Both only ever answer the question to how it fits their view, and it's like pulling teeth with no anesthetic just to get them to give an answer to a simple yes or no question.

I know I may be more in favor of the airport, but some of the anti arguments seem so weak, they seem to rely on what may or may not happen in 10 to 20 years time when it fits for them but dismiss arguments of the same time scale when it does not work for them.

I think we are coming upto the last week so will have to see what happens!!

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I have recently had a bit of time to watch some of the proceedings.

It's a real game of cat and mouse from each side. Both only ever answer the question to how it fits their view, and it's like pulling teeth with no anesthetic just to get them to give an answer to a simple yes or no question.

I know I may be more in favor of the airport, but some of the anti arguments seem so weak, they seem to rely on what may or may not happen in 10 to 20 years time when it fits for them but dismiss arguments of the same time scale when it does not work for them.

I think we are coming upto the last week so will have to see what happens!!

It's very slow going at times. Even with digital technology it can take an age for the relevant section, paragraph, graph or diagram to appear on everyone's screen. I wonder how many hours have been lost with all participants sitting around waiting for everyone to find the piece of information being referred to.

It's also a bit lop-sided with the airport on one side and the council on the other, both with highly-paid eminent planning QCs, but other accredited parties such as Parish Councils Airport Association, XR Elders (the elderly branch of Extinction Rebellion), BAAN (one of the organised opposition groups), BALPA (who still oppose the expansion even though it would bring jobs to their members) are also legally represented (except BALPA) and have the right to introduce expert witnesses and cross-examine those giving evidence for the airport.

Most of the non-expert witnesses many of whom are local residents have said their piece against the expansion but the airport's QC rarely bothers to cross-examine any of them. It's quite obvious that the appeal will be decided mainly by expert testimony.

The lead planning inspector (Phillip Ware) has said more than once that the closing addresses of the parties will be of most help to him and his two colleagues, although he has cautioned against over-long addresses.

The planning enquiry is scheduled to resume next Tuesday 28 September with the final week beginning on Tuesday 5 October when the final addresses are expected to be made.

After that the following week (commencing 12 October) is set aside for the same inspectors to hear evidence regarding the airport's compulsory purchase orders. The secretary of state will make a decision on those and the current plan is for the inspectors to submit their CPO recommendations to the minister after their appeal decision has been announced. The appeal decision might not be known for several weeks, perhaps not even until early next year. Then again, if the new secretary of state alters his predecessor's decision to let the inspectors decide the appeal and decides to make the decision himself that might mean a longer waiting time until the appeal result is made public.

 

[Jono577]

Am I right in thinking that a minister at some point last week said that the government are not opposed to air travel growth at this time.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Am I right in thinking that a minister at some point last week said that the government are not opposed to air travel growth at this time.

I didn't hear that but you might be right. Keir Starmer said this week that he is not against airport expansion as a general principle.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The planning enquiry resumed today for its last full week taking evidence. Next week will be taken up largely by closing addresses.

One thing that surprises me is that the enquiry appears to be taking heed of the law, guidance and related matters as they are now rather than as they were at the time the local authority rejected the planning application.

For example, the lead inspector said this morning that press reports suggested the World Health Organisation had recently put forward a reduction in the recommended levels of air pollution. The lead inspector pointed out that it is not the duty of the inspectors to go in search of evidence but if any of the parties cared to research what the WHO had said evidence could be presented by Thursday. I remember that in the early days of the planning enquiry mention was made of a change in attitude of the UK government to emissions. The lead inspector also noted that the West of England Combined Authority had reversed its previous support for BRS expansion when it took a vote last week.

BALPA still seems intent on pursuing its objection to the airport's appeal, based entirely around inadequate car parking provision for staff. BALPA intends cross-examining an airport expert witness's evidence on the Green Belt. It seems an especially surprising thing to do at this particular time given the damage the pandemic has done to the industry. If the airport is successful in its appeal more flights will eventually operate as the annual passenger cap will be raised. One might think that anything likely to provide more work for its members would be welcomed by BALPA.

 

[MrFenner]

Bristol airport's plans 'unite community' in opposition

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Bristol airport's plans 'unite community' in opposition

Mixed emotions by the people who moved into Felton eight years ago and by the local councillor who proposed the rejection motion at the North Somerset Council planning authority meeting last year.

There are some genuine people who are affected either by noise, other disturbance or worry about the environment. The last aspect seem to be the one that most objectors are latching onto. Many are 'nimbys' using the climate change argument to further their cause. That would be fine until one reads on the various objector group websites, in submissions to the original council planning meeting and at the appeal that nearby under-used airports should be used instead to take the extra flights that would be generated by BRS expansion. One parish council that is worried about climate change suggested putting on bus services from the area to Cardiff Airport.

If these people were genuine environmentalists they would not be suggesting flights be flown from other airports instead because they would emit the same amount of carbon as they would at BRS.

I've said before that I will be quite content with whatever decision the planning inspectors reach. They will have done so from a detached, professional and neutral position unlike local planning councillors who are almost all amateur in status when it comes to planning, have inbuilt prejudices and local pressures. Furthermore, it's wrong that one small council should decide the fate of a major regional facility.

In May 2019 the political colour of the North Somerset Council changed from predominantly Conservative to a 'rainbow' council of Greens, Independents, Lib-Dems with some Labour and a greatly reduced Conservative representation. Many of the new councillors were anti-BRS expansion on the 'hustings' and a number were on the planning committee that decided the planning application. Whatever argument the airport had presented some of these people had already made up their mind how to vote, which was contrary to the advice of their own professional planning officers.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The planning enquiry into Bristol Airport’s appeal against the rejection of its planning application by North Somerset council last year ended at lunchtime today, having begun on 20 July. There have been 36 sitting days. There was a two-week break in August and a week’s break in September and the enquiry has not been sitting on Saturdays, Sundays or Mondays. Furthermore, other enquiry days have been curtailed with this week, that has been given over to closing addresses from the various parties’ legal and other representatives, especially foreshortened (Tuesday and Wednesday had no afternoon sitting and Thursday lasted only until 11am).

The three planning inspectors from the national Planning Inspectorate were empowered by the previous secretary of state (Robert Jenrick) to decide the appeal themselves. There is no indication that his predecessor (Michael Gove) will decide to make the decision himself.

I’ve watched chunks of the enquiry on live and recorded stream since July but nowhere near all of it. Much of the enquiry is technical, full of graphs and figures with interpretations disputed and argued over by experts called by the various parties.

A successful appeal will raise the airport’s planning cap from 10 mppa to 12 mppa with associated expansion infrastructure. Prior to the pandemic the airport projected its current cap being reached by the end of this year and 12 million by 2025/2026. The airport now believes that the pandemic has pushed back both dates by around 4-5 years.

A rejected appeal will see the airport unable to grow beyond 10 mppa. How that would affect the position of its owners, the giant Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP), remains to be seen. It and the preceding private owners have invested a huge amount of money into the airport over the past 25 years which, pre-pandemic, they no doubt considered was justified by the return their investments produced. OTPP would obviously hope that the pandemic recovery will see the airport returning to being a very profitable asset. An inability to grow beyond 10 mppa might restrict profitability in the future, or at least profitability growth.

It was not stated by the inspectors when their decision on the appeal would be announced. The local tv suggested the end of this year which is the sort of timescale I imagined. The lead inspector said today that the planning enquiry was an unusually long one, big and complicated.

The three planning inspectors still have more enquiry work next week in connection with the airport’s compulsory purchase orders (CPO enquiry).

Their recommendations on that to the secretary of state will not be submitted until after they have determined the airport’s planning appeal, although the lead inspector said this week that there were indications that the new minister might delegate the decision on the CPOs to the inspectors.

 

[Jono577]

Like TLY I did watch some of the preceding on youtube, more this last week as having a bit of free time on my hands. Closing was interesting.
It seemed to me that most of the objectors / QC were quite happy for the extra movements / passengers to go to other airports in the area, thus making their case about carbon and all its arguments about it a bit false.
They also tried to make the case that all infrastructure planning should have to meet some carbon target that has not even been set, to this the BAL QC pointed out if this was the new rule that no houses, roads and any infrastructure would ever take place, so how / why was NSC investing in a new junction 21 at WSM.
Also the NSC QC was quite happy to suggest that jobs lost here would be taken up elsewhere, so by that token NSC don't seem to be worried about losing the extra jobs in this area.
We should not be dragging down NS or any other area but encourage deprived areas to build up, but not at a loss to another area.

Anyway that's my little rant over we will just have to wait and see what the outcome is, I for one hope they do get the extra 2 million passengers and can then carry on with putting in the new infrastructure that they want to do,

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The topic of displacement of passengers/flights came up in the very first week of the enquiry. The opponents' arguments were/are that the additional flights that an extra 2 mppa at BRS would generate could be shifted to other nearby 'under-used' airports (CWL was mentioned but I assume EXT was also in mind) was rejected by the airport's side on the grounds that many of these flights would not be viable at other airports in the general area. I was not entirely convinced by that response, although size and make-up of catchments was apparently the prime driver of the BRS stance and historically that has been the case.

You are right though about mixed messages. It wasn't just nimbys masquerading as climate change worriers who suggested movement of flights elsewhere (which would emit the same amount of carbon as they would from BRS); some of the 'Rule 6' opponents' representatives and experts also went down that path at times.

I liked the relative informality of the enquiry, compared with court proceedings, and I thought that both QCs (for the airport and NSC respectively) were excellent in their grasp of their 'briefs'.

Although in the early stages of the enquiry a number of 'ordinary' people had their say as witnesses it was noticeable that the airport's QC cross-examined very few of them. He would be aware that the planning inspectors would 'expect these people to say that' and that the issue will be determined largely through the evidence of the expert witnesses in their interpretation of the law and local and national planning policies.

The lead inspector also made clear the importance of the closing addresses.

There were seven Rule 6 parties - considered to be a main party to the proceedings and allowed to cross-examine witnesses:

Bristol Airport Limited
North Somerset Council
British Airlines Pilots Association (BALPA)
Bristol Airport Action Network (BAAN)
Parish Councils Airport Association
Sutherland Properties and Legal Services
XR Elders

So there were six closing addresses opposing the appeal for one reason or another.

Should the airport win its appeal I would expect opponents to try for a statutory planning review (broadly similar to a judicial review) which doesn't look at the merits of the decision but decides whether the determination process conformed to the law.

In May this year three planning inspectors overturned Stansted Airport's local authority rejection of that airport's planning application. The local authority then sought a statutory planning review of the planning inspectors' decision which the High Court rejected this week, costing the local authority £60,000. The planning inspectors had already awarded planning enquiry costs against the local authority believed to be not far short of £2 million according to the local press.

 

[Coathanger16]

How exactly is the passenger cap imposed on the airport?

In 2019 Bristol handled just under 9 mppa on just under 70,000 movements equating to 129 passengers per movement.

Under the same pax/movement, 10mppa would be achieved with 77,500 movements. With that many movements, Bristol could handle 11mppa simply by increasing the number of passengers per flight to 142 (roughly the same as Stansted).

Is the airport really to be expected to monitor airlines and stop them selling flights when the cap is reached?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

How exactly is the passenger cap imposed on the airport?

In 2019 Bristol handled just under 9 mppa on just under 70,000 movements equating to 129 passengers per movement.

Under the same pax/movement, 10mppa would be achieved with 77,500 movements. With that many movements, Bristol could handle 11mppa simply by increasing the number of passengers per flight to 142 (roughly the same as Stansted).

Is the airport really to be expected to monitor airlines and stop them selling flights when the cap is reached?

The current 10 mppa cap was imposed in 2011 as part of a previous planning consent.

BRS also has night movement and night noise restrictions which it is seeking to rationalise as part of the current planning application - not increase the allowance but have an annual figure irrespective of season. The current seasonal allowances usually see summer near or at its limit and winter comfortably under-subscribed.

To assist with its night movement restrictions BRS successfully applied to the DfT a few years ago to become a level 3 co-ordinated airport but only in the summer (BST) and only between 2300 and 0700 in that season. Prior to the pandemic BRS was in the process of applying for level 3 status year-round 24/7, but with the catastrophic effect on passenger numbers brought about by the pandemic the airport withdrew this application although it will return with it as passenger numbers begin to return to pre-pandemic levels.

Having movements co-ordinated in this way should not only assist with controlling night activity but also be of use in monitoring annual passenger numbers. I suppose a basic method would be to establish the number of seats available in a particular calendar year and estimate the percentage take-up. Looking at the BRS Annual Monitoring Report for 2019 it will be seen that in 2006 there were 84,000 air transport movements for 5.7 million passengers. Atms were reduced each year until 2012 (61,000 atms) with apart from 2009 (the great recession) passenger numbers rising. Atms rose annually after 2012 broadly in line with the significant annual increases in passenger numbers. 2018 saw 77,000 atms but the loss of Thomas Cook and flybmi saw a reduction to 70,000 movements in 2019 even though passenger numbers increased from 8.7 million in 2018 to 8.9 million in 2019.

This sort of statistic would give the airport some idea of the the relationship between available seats and passenger numbers, but I'm guessing there are also more sophisticated ways.

I'm not sure how many UK airports have annual passenger caps imposed by their planning consents. Stansted does as mentioned in my previous post but has a lot of leeway before the limit there is reached. Belfast City used to but it was removed following a planning enquiry and appeal a few years ago, although I believe an annual limit on air transport movements is in force there, but looking at the maximum figure and BHD's pre-pandemic passenger numbers there seems to be plenty of room before the annual atm limit is approached.

 

[Coathanger16]

I guess my point is why is a passenger cap preferred to a movement cap? Surely the latter is easier to monitor?

The only reason I can see for preferring a passenger cap is if the main concern about expansion is in regards to the number of people travelling to and from the airport and its impact on local road and public transport.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I guess my point is why is a passenger cap preferred to a movement cap? Surely the latter is easier to monitor?

The only reason I can see for preferring a passenger cap is if the main concern about expansion is in regards to the number of people travelling to and from the airport and its impact on local road and public transport.

The annual air transport movement numbers have been decreasing as a percentage of annual passenger numbers nearly every year this century as larger aircraft and load factors have steadily increased in that time.

In that sense there is less control over the number of passengers when using a movement cap because it depends on the size of aircraft used.

I understand the point you make which is a valid one. It's particularly apt because with climate change/environment now the major reason used by those objecting to airport expansion (not just at BRS) a movement cap (as at BHD) would set a limit on emissions and also noise disturbance to local residents.

In the BRS case even if there was a movement cap instead of a passenger cap the airport would still need further planning consent to build infrastructure capable of handling more than the current passenger cap of 10 mppa. That would generate a great deal of opposition in itself.

 

[Jerry]

on the grounds that many of these flights would not be viable at other airports in the general area.

Many of the city routes from BRS no doubt wouldn't be viable but many of the holiday destinations shouldn't be a problem especially as many of the people using those routes don't originate in BRS catchment area.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Many of the city routes from BRS no doubt wouldn't be viable but many of the holiday destinations shouldn't be a problem especially as many of the people using those routes don't originate in BRS catchment area.

Yes. In an earlier post I said I wasn't entirely convinced with the response to that particular aspect from the airport's side at the enquiry. I can't remember now, and I might not have seen all of that part of the enquiry anyway, but I suspect the airport produced an expert with figures to back their assertion with the various opposing parties rebutting it with their experts. That was the way much of the enquiry went through the various themes. At times it all became tedious and drawn out.

I was surprised that the Welsh Government and its airport company, or one of them at least, did not seek to be a 'Rule 6' main party at the appeal planning enquiry which would have allowed legal representation and the opportunity to produce evidence and cross-examine witnesses for the other side. Both the WG and its airport company formally objected at the North Somerset Council planning committee hearing, with the availability of space at CWL making expansion at BRS unnecessary one of the points they highlighted.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The CPO enquiry into BRS's compulsory purchase orders issued under the Airports Act 1986 opened today..............and closed today, after less than three hours.

The orders relate to the acquisition of land along the A38 and Downside Road in the vicinity of Lulsgate Bottom in order to improve the road structure to enable the airport to handle 12 million passengers a year should it be successful in its planning appeal. North Somerset Council had originally objected on the grounds that it might cut across a wider scheme to be initiated by NSC and Somerset County Council along a much longer stretch of the A38. It was intimated last week that agreement on the CPO issue was close between the airport and NSC and so it proved with the NSC objection withdrawn.

Although there were in total three statutory objectors and 29 non-statutory objectors none gave evidence today, neither were they represented. It was left to the airport's QC to outline the case for the CPOs. He was supported by two expert witnesses.

The inspectors will send their recommendations to the secretary of state (for Transport this time) after they have announced their decision on the airport's appeal.

 

[Coathanger16]

Many of the city routes from BRS no doubt wouldn't be viable but many of the holiday destinations shouldn't be a problem especially as many of the people using those routes don't originate in BRS catchment area.

The question is how many of the extra 2m passengers would come from adding frequency to popular routes (e.g. Palma, Malaga, Tenerife, etc) vs airlines adding new destinations - likely a mix of both.

Pre pandemic, Cardiff already had Qatar so I can't see any other ME airline or Turkish Airlines launching routes to anywhere in the SW besides Bristol.

easyJet already has a sizeable base at BRS and would seek to add new routes there. If that wasn't possible, I can't see easyJet adding flights to Cardiff, Exeter or any other SW airport, and if they did it wouldn't be at anywhere near the capacity it would have done at BRS.

TUI have bases at Cardiff and Exeter, but if BRS wasn't allowed to expand, the only extra capacity that they would add to those airports would be on routes already served from BRS. The only new routes to the entire SW would likely only be viable at Bristol.

In essence, in order to be able to serve new routes at BRS, airlines would have to lure passengers away to other airports to create room at BRS for any new routes. Thats risky for the airline as there's no guarantee that the passengers would still use the same airline from another airport. Even then, thats only a "solution" for based airlines, and a cap would essentially block any new airlines from launching routes to BRS.