Bristol: Airport Master Plan for next 30 Years - Consultation

[TheLocalYokel]

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.

Your final paragraph strikes a chord with me.

For many years the BRS management has said that their preferred option is to grow using existing partner airlines although that took a significant turn when Jet2 announced its arrival.

They also say that they still want a US scheduled route and a ME route, as well as wishing to attract more of the 5-8 million annual passenger journeys (estimates vary) from/to the South West that use LHR. At present these would be short-haul passengers because there is no scheduled long-haul from BRS and, anyway, the airport’s master plan (published in 2006 - the new one has been delayed because of the planning issues) acknowledges that scope for long-haul scheduled services is limited. In the master plan they quote the ME and three US routes as the only ones with potential viability. Continental did operate a daily Newark between 2005 and 2010 until a combination of the recession and being able to use LHR, which they weren’t able to do when they began the BRS route, saw its demise.

The annual passenger projections made in the 2006 master plan have been remarkably accurate until the pandemic struck. In the late ‘noughties’ they did fall behind their projections because of the recession but within a few years were back on track. There is every reason to suppose that, in the absence of the pandemic, the 10 mppa figure would have been achieved at the end of this year and 12 mppa (assuming they had planning consent) by 2025/2026.

In the longer term the airport said that 20 mppa would be feasible by the 2040s but that would depend on being allowed to expand beyond the current boundaries. Climate change and all that goes with it would probably now present an even more formidable barrier to 20 mppa but that’s for future speculation.

Pre-pandemic BRS was a profitable and well-run airport and probably will be in the future. It’s primarily a short-haul facility, apart from TUI TATL. With LHR in relatively close proximity, and therefore the ‘go to’ airport for the majority of the South West’s long-haul passengers, I wonder why the BRS owners and management don’t stick to what they are good at.

Considering its small size coupled with a myriad of operational challenges it's remarkable how successful the airport has been as it doesn't serve a major metropolitan region, and there are five other regional airports* (one of which is BHX) within 100 miles of it, with the UK's largest airport only around 100 miles to the east along the M4 motorway. There are those who cite this as a reason for arguing that there is no need for BRS to grow further.

* BHX, SOU, CWL, EXT and BOH

 

[Jerry]

They also say that they still want a US scheduled route and a ME route, as well as wishing to attract more of the 5-8 million annual passenger journeys (estimates vary) from/to the South West that use LHR. At present these would be short-haul passengers because there is no scheduled long-haul from BRS and, anyway, the airport’s master plan (published in 2006 - the new one has been delayed because of the planning issues) acknowledges that scope for long-haul scheduled services is limited. In the master plan they quote the ME and three US routes as the only ones with potential viability. Continental did operate a daily Newark between 2005 and 2010 until a combination of the recession and being able to use LHR, which they weren’t able to do when they began the BRS route, saw its demise.

I'd expect that BRS strategy now would be to look to build up it's european hubs especially with Star Alliance airlines to provide the alternative for people to not go down the M4 to Heathrow. So i wonder if the cap of 10 million could harm that potential ambition?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I'd expect that BRS strategy now would be to look to build up it's european hubs especially with Star Alliance airlines to provide the alternative for people to not go down the M4 to Heathrow. So i wonder if the cap of 10 million could harm that potential ambition?

A permanent 10 mppa cap would harm many future plans that the airport owners and management might want to implement. The BRU route that was lost amidst the pandemic disruption had been operating for probably 30 years and perhaps more. That must be a key route that the airport would want back.

If there is not an element of downsizing by one or more of the current main airline players including the new arrival Jet2 there might already be enough capacity to reach and possibly exceed 10 mppa when things get back to normal. The airport's 12-monthly running total had gone past 9 mppa at the end of February 2020 before the pandemic kicked in. That was without Jet2.

I would not like to hazard even a guess as to the appeal result. 18 months ago when the local authority rejected the planing application I was more confident that an appeal would succeed. Since then climate change and its ramifications have become more and more to the fore with aviation characterised (often unfairly) as the worst offender and hence the villain of the peace.

There are mixed messages from government. On the one hand the secretary of state was content to permit planning inspectors decide Stansted Airport's appeal (which they did in the airport's favour earlier this year) over a refusal by the local authority to agree to an increase in its annual passenger cap from 35 million to 43 million, and as far as I'm aware there has been no government interference in Southampton Airport's local authority approval, again earlier this year, for a short runway extension.

On the other hand Leeds-Bradford Airport's local authority permission for a new state-of-the art terminal found itself subject of a block by the secretary of state whilst the minister considered the situation. That was six months ago and still the airport waits on the minister's decision.

 

[Jerry]

I would not like to hazard even a guess as to the appeal result

I doubt anyone could predict it. If you look at the current climate with environmental issues at the forefront you'd say that any airport expansion would be a no no but i wouldn't be surprised if this government actually said Yes and allowed the Bristol's expansion.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I doubt anyone could predict it. If you look at the current climate with environmental issues at the forefront you'd say that any airport expansion would be a no no but i wouldn't be surprised if this government actually said Yes and allowed the Bristol's expansion.

At the moment the government won't be involved in the appeal decision. The secretary of state has delegated its determination to the three planning inspectors who conducted the planning enquiry, as was the case with Stansted earlier this year when the inspectors found in favour of the airport.

I don't know if the sec of state could still 'recover' the appeal and make the decision himself but the 36-day planning enquiry was based on the inspectors making the decision.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I was looking at recent minutes of Wrington Parish Council meetings and found an intriguing comment in the minutes of the meeting held on 15 September this year. Wrington is the large village in whose parish the airport is sited and whose parish council objected to the airport's expansion planning application.

In the minutes of that meeting is the following extract, "Cllr Steinbach* provided an update on the appeal hearing and informed councillors that a judicial review was likely. It was agreed that a Zoom meeting would be set up in the near future."

Quite how the councillor came to that view is impossible to judge, especially as the planning enquiry part of the appeal still had several weeks to run at that time. Nevertheless, it apparently prompted the council to set up a Zoom meeting, presumably involving the parish councillors.

* Cllr Steinbach has responsibility for parish council airport matters and is also a member of the airport's consultative council.

 

[Coathanger16]

appeal hearing and informed councillors that a judicial review was likely

Presumably if they felt like a judicial review was likely, that meant they felt that the appeal would go in the airports favour?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Presumably if they felt like a judicial review was likely, that meant they felt that the appeal would go in the airports favour?

It could be although I don't know if the airport could also seek a judicial review* if it lost its appeal. Obviously that would mean, as it would with opponents in the event of the airport winning its appeal, that they believed that somehow the appeal process had fallen foul of the law, rather than the merits of the application.

I really can't see how a parish councillor would have any idea how this appeal was likely to turn out, especially part way through the planning enquiry, unless he believed that the local authority's original planning application rejection was not sustainable. Even if that was the case it would the opinion of one person although the parish council seemed spooked enough to set up a Zoom meeting.

I've not heard any 'informed' whispers as to how the appeal is likely to be decided. I'm pleased that the matter will be decided by the three professional planning inspectors rather than a politician. I shall be confident that whichever way they decide it will be the correct decision in terms of the law and national and local guidelines.

About one in three planning appeals are successful according to the Planning Inspectorate so in gambling terms the odds are not in favour of the airport. The figure is not broken down into categories of development as far as I can tell.

* I think that with planning appeals it would be a statutory planning review which seems to be broadly similar to a judicial review. It still goes to the High Court. Opponents of Stansted Airport's successful planning appeal sought a statutory planning review but the application was rejected by a High Court judge.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

It was three years ago this month that the airport submitted its planning application to North Somerset Council.

The council did not determine the application until nearly 14 months later in February 2020 when it was rejected. Because the rejection was contrary to the recommendations of the council's own planning officers its standing orders stated the decision had to be confirmed at a subsequent council planning committee meeting which was done a month later in March 2020.

In August 2020 the airport announced that it was to appeal.

The appeal process opened in January 2021 and the main part - the public planning enquiry - began on 20 July 2021 and finished on 8 October 2021 and involved a total of 36 sitting days.

A further week was allocated for a Compulsory Purchase Order Enquiry but North Somerset Council withdrew its objections and as a consequence the proceedings lasted for only one morning on 12 October 2021.

The three planning inspectors will decide the outcome of the appeal on behalf of the secretary of state. Press speculation now seems to think that their decision might not now be announced until early in 2022.

Following their appeal decision the inspectors will send their recommendations on the airport's compulsory purchase orders to the secretary of state.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

It's now over three months since the planning enquiry into the BRS planning appeal ended with a decision by the three planning inspectors still awaited.

Last year Stansted Airport appealed the refusal of its local authority to permit it to raise its annual passenger cap from 35,000 to 43,000. The three planning inspectors in that case announced their decision, which was to allow the appeal, two and a half months after the planning enquiry ended.

The BRS planning enquiry was more drawn out and took longer (36 sitting days) than the one for STN so it might well be that there is more for the inspectors to consider. The Christmas/New Year holiday also intervened.

If the airport is successful in its appeal it's likely that opponents will petition the secretary of state to intervene as they did unsuccessfully after STN's appeal was allowed. An attempt was also made in that case for a statutory planning review (similar to a judicial review) of the planning inspectors' decision but a High Court judge rejected that.

So if the airport did win it could be several further months before all legal avenues that opponents might explore were finally exhausted.

If the airport loses the appeal it's difficult to see what further action its owners might take. I suppose a statutory planning review application might be open to them but they might decide that it would be of little effect.

The pandemic has given the airport more time to review its options. Had it not occurred the current cap of 10 mppa would probably have been reached by now. The original planning application was submitted to the local authority over three years ago.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The secretary of state announced today that he is to 'call in' the planning approval given last year by Leeds City Council for a state-of-the art environmentally-friendly terminal at Leeds-Bradford Airport. Michael Gove' predecessor, Robert Jenrick, blocked the council's planning approval nine months ago and since then he then Gove have sat on their hands doing nothing about the matter.

Calling in means that the secretary of state will take the decision himself and this will involve a planning enquiry by Planning Inspectorate inspectors as was done in connection with the BRS appeal against North Somerset Councils' rejection of its planning application.

In the BRS case the Planning Inspectors have been delegated by the secretary of state to make the decision.

I wonder if today's LBA announcement is coincidental in its timing or whether Gove is aware of the planning inspectors' BRS decision which is expected to be announced publicly early this year.

If so a rejection of the BRS appeal could mean that Gove wanted to ensure that he has covered his back with LBA by setting up a planning inspector-led enquiry behind whose recommendation he could hide.

If the BRS appeal is allowed the same considerations apply because if the planning inspectors recommended an approval of the LBA application GOVE could agree and say he was acting on professional planning advice.

With the LBA case, that airport already has planning approval for a new less environmentally friendly terminal and could press on with that instead.

 

[Easy289]

Just to clarify, the planning approval already secured relates not to a new terminal but an extension to the eastern end of the current building, effectively facilitating the handling of up to 7m pax pa

 

[MrFenner]

What this probably means in real terms is “we’re filling the already empty units with other things”

Bristol Airport to commence a major redevelopment of its departure lounge

£2.6million investment enhancing customer facilities

www.bristolairport.co.uk

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Just to clarify, the planning approval already secured relates not to a new terminal but an extension to the eastern end of the current building, effectively facilitating the handling of up to 7m pax pa

Thank you for that. The LBA application also differs from BRS which has an annual passenger planning cap (10 mppa) which it is seeking to raise to 12 mppa. As I understand it LBA does not have a planning cap per se, but rather it depends on how many passengers could be accommodated through the proposed new terminal or the extension to the current building.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

What this probably means in real terms is “we’re filling the already empty units with other things”

Bristol Airport to commence a major redevelopment of its departure lounge

£2.6million investment enhancing customer facilities

www.bristolairport.co.uk

It might be the case that some retail operators have pulled out during the pandemic - I don't know. There is no doubt that the pandemic has played havoc with all aspects of airport life everywhere, including retail outlets, and many at BRS and other airports remained closed for long periods over the past 22 months.

Since the current terminal opened in 2000 and subsequently as the terminal was extended at various times the range and number of retail outlets have grown exponentially. Some outlets have closed to be replaced by others during the past 20 years but I can't remember a time when units were left vacant for a long period.

This announcement and the one early in the pandemic about pushing ahead with the public transport interchange when many airports said that they would spend money on essential matters only because of pandemic effects suggest the BRS owners are looking to the future with some confidence.

Until the pandemic arrived it had been an extremely profitable airport since it shook off the constraints of its public sector ownership days. It's very good at what it does, ie a short-haul airport with major hub connections. It has undoubtedly played its part in the success of the city region's economy, one of the most vibrant in the UK, although for much of its long-haul needs the region's business has to look east along the M4. The current master plan which still awaits the much-delayed updated version believes that demand for scheduled long-haul routes is limited. With LHR just along the road that's not a surprise.

So it seems that the airport owners are looking to the future optimistically although a rejection of their planning appeal would mean that growth was halted for external reasons unconnected with the health of the business which is not ideal for any company.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Interesting discussion between a member of the public and the airport CEO as recorded in the draft minutes for the Airport Consultative Committee meeting on 20 October last year.

The questioner asked why the airport was claiming costs against the local authority in its planning appeal given that the local authority would be impacted negatively in its duties towards the poorest and most marginalised in the local community. Would the airport reconsider if it wins its appeal?

The CEO replied that the airport believes the local authority acted unreasonably in reaching its decision to reject the planning application and as a result the airport has incurred unnecessary expense in appealing the decision. The local authority has applied for costs against the airport. In the end the matter of costs is one for the three planning inspectors involved in adjudicating the appeal.

The questioner persisted and asked the CEO to speak to the airport owners to request them to reconsider the question of costs.

The CEO said he had no further comment to make on the answer already provided.

Still not giving up, the questioner said the airport was a commercial enterprise and 'surely could speak to the owners about the airport absorbing the cost' rather than it falling on the local authority and having a negative impact on North Somerset.

The CEO confirmed that the airport would not be speaking to the owners on the matter.

Airport Consultative Committee: Papers

Learn more about how we engage with stakeholders in the local community and beyond through the Airport Consultative Committee. View meeting agendas and minutes, Government guidance and related group information.

www.bristolairport.co.uk

 

[Coathanger16]

If a local council decides to go against the recommendation of its planning inspectors and the applicant appeals, and wins said appeal, of course the council should pay for the costs of the appeal.

If locals don't agree with that then perhaps they should vote for councillors who actually follow the recommendation of their planning officers and not ones that think they know better...

 

[Red Flyer]

I hear some positive news regarding planning application with more details to follow shortly

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I prepared this post in response to Coathanger but, from Red Flyer's post a few minutes ago, it might be a bit out of date.

When the local authority rejected the airport's planning application - it was two years ago this month - they were told by their own senior planning officer that an award of costs against them was a possibility if the airport appealed successfully. One of the handful of councillors who supported the application told his colleagues in no uncertain terms - he became quite vocal and animated - that they were risking a lot of local tax payers' money. The planning hearing like the appeal was streamed live on Youtube.

The planning councillors are supposed to take into account a number of matters including local and national planning plan and guidance, planning law, the government's commitment to climate change and any treaties they have ratified and so on.

Oddly though it appears that if the government alters its planning guidance after the local authority has rejected an application but before an appeal is decided the new guidance can be taken into consideration by the inspector(s) conducting the appeal.

This actually happened during the BRS appeal. I forget what it was although I'm pretty sure it was something to do with climate change, and prompted the local authority's barrister to raise it with the three planning inspectors who said they were aware or words to that effect.

Even in the two years since the rejection the subjects of climate change and the environment have played an increasingly central part with hearts and minds being won over. Two authorities - Bristol City Council and the West of England Combined Authority - have changed their stance from support to opposition in that time. I think the only authority in the Greater Bristol area still supporting the airport's proposed expansion is the South Gloucestershire unitary authority.

BALPA objects and was one of the parties recognised at the appeal with a right of address to the planning enquiry. Their concern is the location of the car park used by their members, although that was part of a previous successful planning application.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Planning decision on the Planning Inspectorate website. First paragraph.

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.