Bristol Airport today handles some 8 million passengers per annum (mppa). It has submitted a planning application to North Somerset Council to expand to 12 million passengers. This will increase to 20 million by 2030.
For comparison London Luton Airport carried 15.8 million passengers in 2017. Luton Airport has good railway connections, multiple coach services, easy motorway access and sustainable parking provided by authorised operators. Bristol Airport has none of these.
The airport is owned by investment funds based in Canada and Australia. The plan to grow passenger numbers by 50% is symptomatic of a predatory drive for profits regardless of the cost to health and well-being of local communities in distant North Somerset.
Read more …
Despite the inflated claims made by the Airport and shamefully echoed by many local politicians, expansion will bring little economic benefit to the region. Airport jobs are low paid and / or temporary contracts, business users a small minority (16%) of passengers, and holiday makers funnel money out of the region.
Read more …
The Airport started life as a small flying club, deep in the Green Belt. Existing road and transport links are minimal and now overburdened. A 50%, increase in passengers, mostly from outside the region, will ramp up the noise pollution and emissions that already damage health and well-being across the region.
Read more …
The Airport has minimal public transport, with only a single dedicated bus service. No trains, no mass transit. So more passengers arrive by car (69%) than any other UK airport. For 20 years North Somerset Council has failed to take effective action to regulate Airport parking or prosecute the many illegal parking sites that service the Airport operation.
Read more …
Bristol Airport’s application is for growth to 12 million passengers per annum (mppa), a 50% increase from 2017 when it serviced 8 million passengers. The first phase of the airport’s expansion plans would translate to around 270 flights across a 24-hour day. Yet we are at a tipping point. Climate change will create physical, social and economic disruption on an unprecedented scale. With roughly 1°C of global warming already driven by human activity, the physical impacts of climate change are being felt now.
Read more …
To date, 83% of the respondents to North Somerset Council strongly oppose the Airport planning application to expand by 50%. The Council must respect the this overwhelming majority.
This is a massive, complex planning application and North Somerset Council must provide independent evidence of benefits that it claims outweigh the serious harm to the health and well-being of North Somerset communities.
Read more …
Bristol Airport is majority owned by a Canadian investment fund, the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund (OTPP) together with two Australian investment funds, Sunsuper and NSW TCorp. These overseas owners expect up to 15% p.a. return on their investments.
OTPP is a hands-on investor dedicated to ‘active management’. In its own words:
‘Active management’ means finding investments that we believe are undervalued and then using various business strategies to get the best possible returns‘
In other words find a vulnerable target and ramp up the value with little regard for collateral damage to local communities …
The financial accounts for 2016 show that the Airport made a loss on its core aviation operation and is accumulating extensive debts. So in 2017 the owners instructed the Airport to develop a predatory Master Plan leading to the current planning application. Their aim is to:
So the overseas investors have decided on a cynical and opportunistic strategy to ‘add value’ and get ‘the best possible returns’ by exploiting the piss-poor access to the Airport. Lack of rail or mass-transit links force around 70% of passengers to travel by car – more than any other airport in the UK. Increasing passenger numbers by 50% will suck in more private cars and massively increase profits from parking – as long as North Somerset Council gives them permission to add nearly 5,000 car park spaces to the Green Belt site. The ‘Airport’ will become a retail and parking business with a landing strip attached.
The Airport’s complex financial structure is such that it pays very little tax in the UK. Despite the Airport’s inflated claims, expansion will not significantly benefit the regional or national economy.
Bristol Airport already has the capacity to increase business usage and service regional demand for leisure travel without further expansion.
Otherwise the Airport plays a modest part in the regional economy offering a useful regional leisure service (over 80% of passengers) and good travel options for business. However, despite the extravagant claims that it is a ‘major driver’ for the South-West economy there is little independent evidence that increased capacity will provide increased economic benefits for the region. In fact the majority of leisure passengers make return journeys from the UK, exporting their spending power elsewhere. Business passenger movements remain a small and fairly static number at 16% of passenger traffic.
Expansion is unlikely to create increased job opportunities for local people over an above those already in employment. The Airport already imports employees from Wales, Gloucestershire and Devon. The jobs it does offer are mostly contracts and / or low-skilled, low-paid and temporary.
For an authoritative rebuttal of the claims that Bristol Airport expansion benefits the regional economy please see the report prepared by Professor John Whitelegg and available from the Aviation Environment Federation
The report was originally published in October 2005 and demonstrated that aviation tourism represents a net drain on the regional economy. Residents leaving the region spend far more abroad than incoming tourists. In addition there are significant costs in public subsidy and for council tax payers who foot the bill for significant additional infrastructure costs (e.g. road building to facilitate airport access). Its analysis of the faulty methodology underpinning the Airport claim to bring regional benefits is still valid today.
The Airport is located in Green Belt landscape amongst good quality farmland on the small, historic Broadown plateau beside the Mendip Hills, an Area of Outstanding National Beauty. The site was originally a private flying club before being chosen by the RAF as a bad-weather training strip for pilots in World War II. As the highest airport in the UK, located on a small plateau and exposed to the vagaries of the Atlantic weather, it has inherent limitations as a commercial site.
For geo-economical reasons the site has extremely poor access and transport links. When planning consent was granted to the Airport (by North Somerset Council) in 2011, passenger numbers were capped at 10 mppa due to these limitations. Even the Airport’s own trade association, the Airport Operators Association, takes a sceptical view of the expansion plan:
‘Bristol Airport needs to have improved surface access if it is to grow beyond 10 million passengers per annum. Currently it lacks a direct rail link and has one of the lowest modal shares of public transport among major airports (14%). Road links are currently under developed and there is not a direct route to the airport from the North, West or East, meaning travellers have to drive through Bristol and then onwards via the congested A38′.
The only dedicated public transport top the Airport is single, expensive coach service. There are no rail links or other mass transit service so around 70% of passengers arrive by car. The Airport wants to sprawl across the Green Belt to maximise income and profit from parking.
Along with Leeds/Bradford, Bristol Airport has the shortest runway of any regional airport in the UK with no prospect of an extended runway or second runway. The flying club legacy lives on. The natural capacity of the site, taking account of the many limitations, is around 5 million passengers per annum.
With public transport largely comprising a single coach service, the vast majority of passengers arrive at the Airport by private car (70%). The owners of Bristol Airport see this as an opportunity to generate 50% more passengers with their cars into the airport’s orbit. Their parking plan will bury swathes of the Green Belt under concrete, create congestion and gridlock on the roads, increase traffic pollution and other hazards. The parking problems started in the 1990s: for 20 years North Somerset Council has failed to exercise effective control over the many forms of Airport parking, both legal and illegal, and now looks set to take further incompetent and ill-informed decisions.
Unless we, the communities of North Somerset, make our voices heard.
In 2016 the Airport successfully lobbied North Somerset Council to reverse the planning conditions requiring a multi-storey car park (MSCP) before expansion onto the Green belt.
The Airport now wants to create parking for nearly 5,000 additional cars with the majority (2700 cars) parking on current Green Belt land. An additional multi-storey car park is promised in the application but there is no commitment to complete the current MSCP before taking the cheap option of expanding onto the Green Belt.
Further expansion will increase the Airport’s near-monopoly on parking. The Civil Aviation Authority has now warned the Airport that increased on-site might well lead to an enquiry by the Competition and Markets Authority.
Even if leisure and business passengers prefer a low-cost parking offer at the Airport’s ‘Silver Zone’, increased parking facilities go against the grain of North Somerset Council policies which prioritise the development of public transport.
Since the Airport has a near-monopoly on legitimate parking there has long been a compelling case for official parking to be open to regulated competition using park-and-ride sites. Increased parking capacity must start with Airport investment in off-site parking away from the Green Belt. Such options are now being proposed by independent operators.
The Airport should use on-site space to provide a public transport interchange serving the regional communities, not just passengers.
Unauthorised and illegal parking sites, often on agricultural land, demonstrate a very visible contempt for planning laws and procedures. There is further abuse of traffic control measures through illegal entrances and exits, 24-hr noise and light pollution. Cars frequently shuttled between sites and dangerous vehicle manoeuvres cause further serious road hazards.
These sites area trash the landscape. The influx of passenger cars into small country lanes creates much litter and other anti-social nuisances.
Unauthorised operators satisfy a public demand for a cheaper holiday parking, although travellers using the illegal sites frequently report bad experiences.
The highly profitable illegal ‘businesses’, driven by web-based technology and a willingness to abuse legislation, provide a green light to others with similar ambitions.
Up to 30% of airport passenger cars currently use unauthorised and illegal sites. Numbers will only increase with Airport expansion.
Further parking hazards are caused by the widespread use of lay-bys and country lanes as private car and taxi waiting areas in contravention of by-laws.
Since existing on-site parking provision does not meet peak demand North Somerset Council, Bristol Airport and the operators of illegal sites in effect collude to provide flexible parking capacity in the Green Belt.
If additional parking is necessary at current passenger levels this must provided through completion of the first multi-storey car park then on sites away from the Green Belt. There is a compelling case for off-site parking, including park-and-ride facilities, to be open to regulated competition.
In sum North Somerset must adopt a parking strategy that joins up every aspect of the many parking problems caused by the Airport operation. An integrated strategy has been proposed by the Bristol Airport Parking Communities Association (BAPCoG) and already endorsed by a number of Parish Councils. It is now trying to persuade North Somerset Council to integrate this strategy into its Core Plan.
Increased carbon emissions from Bristol Airport expansion will outweigh the savings made by the region’s carbon-reduction policies. The Airport claim to sustainability cannot be reconciled with local, regional or national policies for reduction in carbon emissions.
The Airport want to increase night flights. Noise pollution causes serious health problems from sleep deprivation from night flights will make life impossible for most people living under the flight paths.
Light pollution with lighting from 24-hour aviation and parking has already obscured the Northern night sky and casts a halo over the Broadown plateau.
Building blight from unsuitable buildings, constructed without regard for the landscape and skyline around the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty of the Mendips. The arrogance and disregard for local sentiment is embodied in the new administration building currently under construction under ‘permitted development’. What new ‘permissions’ will be given to the Airport in a Section 106 agreement slipped beneath the radar of public consultation?
Loss of biodiversity such as the nearby habitat for Horseshoe bats.
In more detail …
1. AIRPORT GROWTH and AVIATION CARBONEMISSIONS: impossible to reconcileemissions with local, regional or national targets
Theimpact on local communities and the wider region will be enormous, withaircraft touching down or taking off every few minutes, day and night. As a planet, we have 12 years to avert climatecatastrophe by reducing carbon emissions. Yet if the expansion plans areapproved, carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft using BristolAirport will increase by at least 59% over the next seven years. Thiswill far outweigh savings made bythe region’s carbon-reduction policies.
Fact File: Emissions
*2017, aviation carbon emissions at Bristol Airport were 746.77 (ktCO2/yr)and in 2026 will be 1,183.87 (ktCO2/yr) an increase of 59%. This figure couldwell be higher if the newer, less-polluting fleet of aircraft does notmaterialise. (Note 2) LINK
*The West of England Combined Authorities(Bristol,South Gloucestershire & Bath and North East Somerset) have adoptedtargets in line with the national targets in the Climate Change Act. Taken intotal, these targets require carbon emissions in the West of England to bereduced by 50% by 2035 and by 83% by 2050 on a 2014 baseline.
*An authoritative report showsthat the proposed development affects the wider area of the West of England andwill have cross-boundary impacts in relation to air quality and carbon emissionreduction that will make it impossible to reach these targets. (Note 1) LINK
* BristolAirport has a stated ambition to be carbon neutral by 2030 but hasn’t explainedhow it plans to achieve this. In any event this only applies to the Airportsite since, in law, aircraft flights areexcluded from the calculation.
* Aircraft fuel deliveries to Bristol Airport by road transport willalso increase significantly if the expansion is to go ahead, furthercontributing to traffic volume and air pollution in the local environment. [any figure on gallons delivered?]
* Recognising that itneeds to do something to reduce emissions the Airport is going to provide sixcharging points for electric vehicles across the airport site…
2. VEHICLE TRAFFIC: yet more traffic congestion and pollution
A successfulplanning application would see twelve million passengers going to and from theairport each year, with more than 85% of passengers arriving by car since public transport accessis minimal – no railway access and a single coach service from Bristol, 10miles distant. Rural roads, already congested, will have to cope with more than10 million airport-related car journeys every year. The extra traffic will be pumping 16% more harmfulemissions into the atmosphere – and that’s a conservative estimate.
Increased airport traffic will lead to yet more problemson the single country road (A38) that provides access to the Airport from Northand South. This and other small roads around the airport are already congested,with gridlock in the high season if traffic is diverted from the M4 or M5because of accidents – a regular occurrence.
Fact File: Vehicle Traffic
* The Airport planning application predicts an increase of 16% inthe annual level of vehicle emissions by 2026. The number assumes that futurecars will be cleaner and more efficient.
* The planned growth to 12 mppa will generate an average of9,500 additional vehicle movements per day and at peak periods around 13,000extra per day: that’s 28,000 private vehicle journeys per day or 10.2 millioncar journeys a year through North Somerset to and from the airport. Some 3.5million extra ‘movements’ will be taking place on roads that are alreadyheavily congested.
*TheAirport argues that increased flight offers will reduce the overall number ofcar journeys because more local people will be able to fly from Bristol ratherthan travelling to alternative airports. In fact, 1.5 million of the passengerswho fly from Bristol already drive here from South Wales alone – a figure whichis due to increase not least since the Severn bridge toll has been removed andthe Government refuses to let the Welsh Assembly support growth at CardiffAirport [LINK]. TheAirport’s own planning statement says: ‘the largest increase in demand for Bristol Airport from 2015 to 2026 isforecast to be in North Devon and Cornwall and South Wales regions.’ A sustainable national policywould see Bristol working as part of a regional network with Cardiff andExeter, linked with investment in the rail network for national travel.
* Italso argues that a larger airport at Bristol will reduce travel to the Londonairports. There is no evidence for this wild assertion nor any justificationfor growth led by tourist demand that funnels wealth out of the region (see ourarticle on xxx) LINK]
* Airport expansion is in direct conflict with local,national and international policies to reduce traffic.
3. AVIATIONNOISE: inescapable attrition
Furtherintrusions from low-flying planes will bring yet greater disturbance to all wholive and work in the region,including schools (already seriously affected). The majority offlights are planned for the summer months when residents are likely to beoutdoors. Night flights will be permitted during thesummer, sometimes at ten minute intervals.
The Airport has failed to evaluate the impacts of noise onmental health. The effect of night noise on school attainment and other factorshas not been fully quantified. There will be noise insulation grants to local residentsalong a very narrow band.
Fact File: Noise
Noise measurement is a complex issue. The facts that interest us herecentre on the life impact of those affected rather than the technicalities ofevaluation.
* The first phase of the airport’s expansion plans would translate toaround 270 flights a day, with more flights in the summer, many of which wouldbe night flights. The Airport has failed to assess the impact of noise under7,000 feet from the additional 23,800 flights required to service 12 millionpassengers per annum.
* The Airport application assumes that newer, quieter aircraft will soonbe in service, but that depends on the airlines. Nobody currently knows howmany new aircraft will be brought into service, by which airlines, or when…
* Ground noise (before, during and after landing and take off) isdesperately disturbing for communities under the flight path and within aradius of several kilometres around the Airport. However noise is currently calculatedvery narrowly along the line of the runway.
* Night noise is already one of the most significantcomplaints from communities across a large area. If the Airport’s plans areapproved, there could be night flights every ten minutes at peak times.
* Noise impacts on the natural environment, altering birdbreeding patterns, disturbing wildlife and damaging sensitive local ecosystems.Taking time out to find comparative tranquillity willrequire journeys further afield, mostly by car (with increased road traffic andemissions).
4. GREEN BELT EROSION: there are no‘exceptional circumstances’
BristolAirport admits that the proposed development will have significant effectson the environment yet is demanding that all airport operational and related land to be ‘released from the GreenBelt designation’. In law breaches ofthe Green Belt should only be allowed by local authorities ‘in exceptionalcircumstances’. Predatory expansion insearch of increased profit doesn’t meet this criterion!
5. LIGHT POLLUTION.
The Airport is looking to extend the Silver Zone carpark to add approximately 2,700 additional spaces on land that’s currently indesignated Green Belt, which the law states should only be breached ‘inexceptional circumstances’. Lighting from24-hour aviation and parking operations already obscure the night sky and castsa glow visible for miles around.This will increasesignificantly with expansion of the Silver Zone car park.
Fact File: light pollution
Again a highly technical area to evaluate but the humanimpact is only too evident
* The lighting at Bristol Airport is extensive: the lightgenerated is comparable to the middle of Bristol (reference CPRE Dark Skies).
* Considerable light spill comes from the car parking facilitiesboth the north and south side of the airport. Some lighting columns are 8metres tall and the floodlighting masts in certain areas of the airfield are 30metres high.
* The Eastern apron of the airfield is only just coming intooperation and night light from aircraft will exacerbate light pollution. Themeasures put forward to reduce light pollution are inadequate.
* There is a significant visual impact from the Mendips Areaof Outstanding Natural Beauty. Not only the glow but the airport lightsthemselves are clearly visible from the Mendip Ridge. The Chew ValleyNeighbourhood Plan highlights Policy HDE15 ‘Dark Skies Policy’ which states thatlighting design should ‘minimisethe risk of light spillage beyond the development site boundary and into thewider countryside’.
6. Biodiversity: the impact on wildlife.
Species dependenton the grassland and open corridors of Broadown Plateau, the site of theAirport, will suffer badly. The Airport has said it will provide new habitat butit takes many years for sustainable new habitats to be established. Speciesrich grassland and ancient hedgerows will disappear, altering the localeco-system and putting further strain on wildlife. Increased light, noise, roadand air traffic will result in loss of habitat, the obliteration of greencorridors, with further impact on breeding and plant systems. The effects will reachfar beyond the Airport’s boundaries.
Fact File: Biodiversity
* The Silver Zone car park extensionplans are less than 2 km from the Special Area of Conservation for theprotected species of Greater and Lesser Horseshoe Bat.
* The new lighting in theSilver Zone repelled insects resulting in less available food for the bats, alreadychallenged by a decline in insects through loss of pasture land. There will bea net loss of almost 4 hectares of suitable foraging habitat for theseendangered bats. The bat populationsmay drop to a level that is unviable if the foraging areas are decimated by theairport development and any mitigation measures have not reached sufficientmaturity to provide viable foraging.
* The Silver Zone car park extension will result in a lossof biodiversity due to the change of land use from agricultural rough pasture.Air quality will diminish further due to the removal of hedgerows and trees,which also help absorb carbon and storm water.
* The Airport has not taken into account the risk fromclimate change, or how hotter summers, such as the summer of 2018, might impactwildlife. Creatures dependent on delicate ecosystems that have already beenfragmented by airport development will be at risk of being unable to adapt.
North Somerset Council cannot muster the expertise and resources required to evaluate this massive, complex planning application and may well accept highly questionable ‘evidence’ provided by the Airport itself to justify 50% expansion. Government aviation policy broadly supports regional airport growth at around 5% subject to local agreement.
The Airport cites passenger demand and economic benefit as the main reason to support the Very Special Circumstances case required to over-ride Green Belt regulations. This case for demand-led growth flimsy and speculative at a time when low-cost airlines are struggling for customers. It is certainly not a ‘very special circumstance’. Nor have any economic benefits of expansion been independently demonstrated. A predatory desire to pump up profits is not a ‘special circumstance’.
Nor have the economic benefits of expansion been independently demonstrated. A predatory desire to pump up profits is not a ‘special circumstance’.
North Somerset Council’s impotence in the face of Airport ambition is demonstrated by recent building developments such as the eye-sore administration block on the Silver Zone entrance from the A38.
This was erected under ‘permitted development’ granted by the Council with minimal publicity. Would you or your business have been allowed to create a similar structure in the Green Belt? North Somerset Council is giving the Airport a free hand to develop a private fiefdom.
The Airport subsidises the low-cost airlines and North Somerset Council in turn subsidises the Airport by providing infrastructure at public expense. In return for … what? The Council needs to publish hard evidence of benefits to the region and not simply reproduce the Airport’s highly questionable ‘research’.
The world beyond the North Somerset Council bubble has become aware of the social and environmental costs of a 50% increase in passenger numbers. The marginal benefits of expansion are trivial by comparison to the damage it will inflict on the residents and communities of the region. North Somerset Council must wake up, catch up, and take back control of Bristol Airport – the avaricious, insatiable cuckoo squatting in the North Somerset nest.
The Council must require publication and consultation of the Airport’s ‘Carbon and Climate Change Action Plan’ before considering the application for expansion. Bristol Airport states it will be carbon neutral for 2030. This only applies to the buildings and infrastructure not the carbon and other emissions from flights! The government anticipates that emission-free aircraft could be in service by 2035.