Chapter 9 - The Midlands
Key issues
9.1 The Midlands 1 has two principal passenger airports - Birmingham International and East Midlands Airport. Between them these airports handle virtually all the commercial passenger traffic flowing into or out of the region. East Midlands also serves as the UK base for two of the four major express freight companies and a regional base for a third. There are also two other, smaller airports in the Midlands - Coventry Airport, which serves a niche role catering for air freight and flown mail, and Wolverhampton Business Airport which, like Coventry, has developed a presence in the business aviation market.
9.2 An important feature of the air travel market in the region is that currently less than half the air passengers travelling to or from the Midlands use the region's airports. In 2000, 37 per cent flew from South East Airports. Manchester also attracts a significant share of Midlands passengers. With the overall market for air travel in the Midlands due to grow substantially, offering a wider range and greater frequency of services, an opportunity exists to claw back some of this leaking traffic and reduce the number of long distance journeys currently made - mainly by car. But in the next ten to fifteen years this will bring significant pressures for new runway capacity to be provided somewhere in the region.
9.3 The Midlands consultation document 2 set out the Government's assessment of the likely need for additional runway capacity in the region before 2030. It went on to present options for additional runways at Birmingham and East Midlands Airports, alongside the alternative of a new three-runway airport between Coventry and Rugby. The consultation document also considered the surface access improvements that might be needed to serve different levels of airport growth in different locations.
Main conclusions
9.4 Based on careful consideration of the analysis set out in the consultation document, the large number of consultation responses received, and our conclusions on airport capacity in other regions, we are persuaded that there is a need for additional runway capacity in the Midlands. However, our conclusions regarding new runway capacity in the South East over the period of this White Paper (see Chapter 11) mean that a new airport in the Midlands is unlikely to be economically justified or financially viable. In concluding not to support this option we have also taken account of the almost uniform opposition to this proposal within the region, and a number of important concerns highlighted during the consultation process.
9.5 Our preferred location for a new runway to meet future growth in passenger demand in the Midlands is at Birmingham, where we support the airport operator's variant proposal for a short wide-spaced runway, which is a refinement of the wider spaced option set out in the consultation document. However, it will need to be accompanied by a range of stringent measures to ensure that the number of people exposed to noise from the airport is kept within acceptable limits, that all local air quality standards are met, and by improvements to the road and rail links that provide access to the airport.
9.6 At East Midlands, the most significant driver behind the potential need for new runway capacity is the anticipated growth of express freight aircraft movements. These are forecast to arrive in a concentrated period in the late evening, coinciding with the final inbound journeys of passenger aircraft based at the airport. We are not yet convinced that there is a clearly demonstrable economic case that would justify safeguarding for a new runway. But we recognise the strategically important role that the airport provides for the express freight sector in the UK, and the growing passenger volumes that it is attracting. We therefore propose to keep under review the case for a possible new runway at East Midlands during the period covered by the White Paper.
New airport option
9.7 As conceived in the consultation document, this option would provide the Midlands with a major new hub airport, located between Coventry and Rugby. Such an airport would be able to provide more air services from the Midlands to a greater range of destinations than under any other scenario. In order to be viable, however, it would require the existing Birmingham International Airport to close, its site to be redeveloped, and significant constraints to be imposed on airport capacity in the South East.
9.8 Because the new airport option is located in a much more sparsely populated area than Birmingham International, it would bring about a large net reduction in the number of people affected by aircraft noise. On the other hand, a large airport on a greenfield site would have significant negative environmental and social impacts. These include the potential loss of two villages and 150 properties, damage to a range of heritage resources arising from the need to re-contour significant areas of land to create a platform for the development of the airport, increased flood risk in the Avon river corridor and concerns about potential bird-strike hazard. There would also be the need for major investment in surface access links.
9.9 These issues were just some of the many concerns raised in responses to the consultation, and the general public and stakeholders of all types from across the region were overwhelmingly opposed to the new airport option.
9.10 Taking account of these impacts, the major question marks over the viability of the proposals in the light of decisions about runway capacity elsewhere and the large number of comments received, the Government has come to the view that there are better ways of accommodating likely demand in the Midlands. We therefore do not support the option of a new airport between Coventry and Rugby.
Birmingham International Airport
9.11 Birmingham serves as an important regional base for several airlines. It has a growing charter programme and an emerging long haul market. Passenger volumes have grown by 10 per cent over the last twelve months to around 9mppa and are expected to pass 10 million within the next year or so. Traffic levels are forecast to increase by 2030 to between 32mppa and 40mppa (dependent in part on the level of growth at airports in the South East). The optimal capacity of the existing runway is likely be around 20mppa although this is heavily dependent on the average number of passengers carried per aircraft and the diurnal profile of the traffic using the runway.
9.12 The consultation document put forward two options for a single additional runway at the airport - a close parallel runway around 400m to the west of the existing runway with significant dependency in its operation; or a wide-spaced runway with a separation of around one kilometre, which offers the potential for fully independent operation. The accompanying appraisal indicated that a wide-spaced runway would provide greater capacity and larger economic benefits, but would also have greater environmental impacts, especially in respect of the number of people subject to aircraft noise. Both options included lengthening of the existing runway to allow services to be offered to more distant destinations and larger aircraft types to use the airport.
9.13 In October 2002 the airport operator published its own variant proposal ('The Birmingham Alternative') 3 in response to our consultation. This included a shortened wide-spaced runway option (limited to 2,000 metres) - together with other adjustments, designed to reduce land-take in sensitive locations. This option, which is a refinement of the wide-spaced option in the consultation document, would provide sufficient capacity to handle forecast traffic to 2030 and beyond. It would also give strong economic benefits and, taken together with extension of the existing runway, should be capable of catering adequately for the anticipated future mix of traffic at the airport.
9.14 Only smaller types of aircraft (turboprops, regional and narrow bodied jets) would be able to use the new short runway, and to mitigate potential noise impacts this could be limited further to the quieter types. As a result, the noise impacts would be significantly less than with the full-length wide-spaced option, which could have accommodated much noisier, larger and wide-bodied heavy aircraft. Nonetheless, the impacts could still be large, with possibly 81,000 people living within the 57dBA noise contour in 2020 compared to 34,000 in our 1999 base year under our latest assumptions. The numbers affected could be higher still by 2030 without significant technology improvements beyond 2015.
9.15 In response to the consultation, there was strong support among aviation industry, economic development and business stakeholders in the West Midlands for the development of a second runway at Birmingham International Airport. This was accompanied by recognition among some other stakeholders, including a number of local authorities, of the considerable economic benefits that this would bring to the Midlands and the UK as a whole. However, potential noise impacts were a major area of concern for local people, environmental groups and a number of other stakeholders.
9.16 Of the options proposed, there was strongest support for the 'Birmingham Alternative' proposal (see below). The Government shares the view that this would be the best option. It would require less green belt to be taken and the loss of fewer properties than the full-length option, and avoids the loss of Bickenhill Meadow Site of Special Scientific Interest. It could also be phased more effectively, and would not require a major diversion of the A45. And it would have lower noise impacts than the full-length option.
It must be stressed that this map is only indicative, pending detailed design work and the submission of a planning application by the operator. The map should not therefore be taken to be a formal safeguarding map.
9.17 We consider, however, that noise impacts on the scale that could arise from the new runway must be addressed. We have concluded, therefore, that the growth of Birmingham International Airport should be subject to stringent limits on the area affected by aircraft noise, as an incentive to airlines to introduce the quietest suitable aircraft as quickly as is reasonably practicable. The limits should look at least ten years ahead, and will need to be reviewed at intervals between now and 2030 to take account of emerging developments in aircraft noise performance. We also agree with the airport company that the new runway should be limited to aircraft with a noise quota no greater than 0.5 (typically this means modern variants of aircraft such as the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 families), and should not be used at night. 4
9.18 With a new runway operating, emissions modelling predicts that NO2 levels will be within the EU 40µg/m3 annual limits.
9.19 Subject to these conditions, we have concluded that the option put forward by the operator is on balance acceptable, and are satisfied that it is a significant improvement on the original full-length option. We therefore invite the airport operator to safeguard the land required, to develop a master plan and to consult the interested parties on this, as an input to future revisions of Regional Planning Guidance and the local planning framework prior to the preparation of a planning application.
9.20 Although forecasts suggest the runway may be needed around 2016, it is for the airport operator to judge when the project would be commercially desirable and, accordingly, when it would be appropriate to submit a planning application. In the meantime, the airport operator will also need to put in place a scheme to address the problem of generalised blight resulting from the runway proposal (see paragraphs 12.3 to 12.17).
9.21 The airport operator will also need to work closely with the Strategic Rail Authority, the Highways Agency and regional stakeholders to develop a robust strategy for improving surface access to the airport. The aim should be to improve the public transport mode share significantly, with 25 per cent as a long-term target. Improved rail, bus and coach services will need to contribute to this, alongside the new interchange at Birmingham International Station and new SkyRail connection to the Airport.
9.22 Road access to the airport and future capacity requirements on the M42 between Junctions 3 to 7 will also need to be reviewed. This review will need to ensure that there is adequate capacity for both background and airport traffic growth on this key section of motorway. It will also need to address the complexities associated with designing an acceptable widening scheme for the M42 and new airport access arrangements from the motorway, should these prove to be necessary. These will need to be considered alongside other factors such as the pressures of other potential developments along this corridor and the results of the Advanced Traffic Management scheme currently being piloted by the Highways Agency. The airport operator should initiate such a review with the Highways Agency, in conjunction with regional and local interests, at an early stage.
East Midlands Airport
9.23 East Midlands Airport has seen passenger traffic virtually double in 2002-2003, with two 'no-frills' carriers developing significant bases at the airport. It is now handling around 4.5mppa. Forecasts suggest that by 2030 it could attract between 12mppa and 14mppa.
9.24 East Midlands Airport is also the third largest freight airport in the UK, and is the leading UK airport for freight carried in all-cargo aircraft. It is the main centre of operations in the UK for two of the four major global express freight operators, and an important regional base for another. Forecasts indicate that East Midlands Airport could be handling as much as 2.5 million tonnes of freight a year, possibly more, by 2030.
9.25 East Midlands Airport is situated away from the main centres of population, and a relatively small number of people live in the 57dBA noise contour. However, the projected growth of the airport would increase the size of the contour to include over 10,000 people. Moreover, the nature of the air-cargo operations means that many flights are at night, when background noise levels are lower. There is likely to be a large increase in the number of flights at night; our consultation document forecast that there could be over 60,000 cargo flights a year by 2030, and a substantial proportion of these are likely to be in the late evening or the night.
9.26 The airport owners foresee a need for a second runway at the airport around 2020, regardless of decisions about runways at other airports. They project that there will be a shortage of runway capacity during late evening hours, when the last inbound passenger flights overlap with the peak period of arrivals by cargo aircraft. However, this assessment is based on higher estimates of traffic during these critical hours than we currently forecast for the airport, which impacts on the economic benefits of a second runway.
9.27 On the evidence available to us, and in line with the balanced approach we are taking to new runways across the country, whilst we can support the expansion of passenger operations suggested in the Government's forecasts, we could not at this stage justify approval of, nor safeguarding for, a second runway. However, if growth at the airport in future years proves to be more rapid than we currently expect, this issue will be kept under review.
It must be stressed that this map is only indicative, pending detailed design work and the submission of a planning application by the operator. The map should not therefore be taken to be a formal safeguarding map.
9.28 At the same time, given the particular importance of air freight to the future national and regional economy, and of East Midlands Airport as a centre of these operations, we consider that the projected expansion of air freight operations at East Midlands should be permitted. However, this would need to be accompanied by stringent controls on night noise in particular and increasingly generous noise insulation and other mitigation measures. These measures should build on those applying currently.
Other Midlands airports
9.29 We also consulted on three smaller airports in the Midlands: Wolverhampton Business Airport, Coventry Airport and RAF Cosford.
9.30 Wolverhampton Business Airport should continue its role of serving business and general aviation. The airport could be capable of delivering commercial services on a limited scale, but should do so only in line with regional planning and transport priorities, and the scale of development at the site must take account of the constraints imposed by the lack of strategic road access. With this in mind, any such development should be a matter for decision locally.
9.31 Coventry Airport currently serves a specialist role within the region, catering for business aviation, air mail and some freight, and can continue to perform this role within existing constraints. There is a current planning application for a terminal development at the airport. However, in the light of our conclusions on capacity elsewhere in the Midlands, and having regard to potential surface access, environmental and airspace constraints, we would not envisage any significant further development being appropriate beyond the level of passenger throughput in the current application.
9.32 There could be potential for the commercial use of RAF Cosford, but this is dependent on the RAF's decisions on spare capacity. If the RAF decided to make capacity available, it would be for local and regional planning bodies in the first instance to decide on the appropriate scale of development.
1 For the purposes of this White Paper this constitutes the Government Office Regions for the East and West Midlands.
2 See Bibliography.
3 The Birmingham Alternative - a positive alternative to meet long term runway capacity demand in the Midlands.
4 The period between 11.00pm and 7.00am.
