The Government has decided that it does not intend to take action to overturn the 1979 agreement. On that basis, a new runway at Gatwick would not be open before about 2024. The Government has concluded that an option for a new runway that could not be available until very late in the 30 year period of the forthcoming White Paper would create unnecessary blight and anxiety.

A new 2000m long runway to the north of the existing airport. It is about half the length of the existing runways and the largest type of aircraft would not be able to use it. It is assumed that the new runway would be continuously used for both landings and take-offs and that the existing runways would continue to operate as they do today with landings and take-offs on different runways.

Current capacity 64 million passengers. Would increase with T5 to 89 million passengers. With new runway would increase to 116 million passengers

Air traffic movements current level of 460,000. Would increase with T5 to 480,000 movements. With new runway would increase to 655,000 movements.

Impacts of 3^rd Runway

• 260 residential properties to be physically taken
• the loss of 228 ha of agricultural land (all Green Belt)
• the loss of one church, a Grade 1 listed building-the Hannondsworth Tithe Barn, and eight Grade II listed buildings
• noise-an increase from 307,000 people who will be affected ( defined by 57 Leq) under T5 regime to 333,000 with a new runway
• air quality- 35,000 people could be exposed to an exceedance of the annual average EU limit for nitrogen dioxide by 2015. The Government could only decide in favour of a third runway at Heathrow if there was a robust strategy for ensuring that the UK could meet its international obligations
•  30,000 additional jobs by 2015. The associated requirements for housing and land for business use will almost certainly require further loss of Green Belt.
              Examples of the public transport improvements that might be necessary include the proposed Airtrack scheme and services using Crossrail. A range of highway improvements would be needed such as to the A4 and M4 spur and a new southern link in tunnel to the M3. Capacity problems on, the M3, M4 and M25 would be brought forward with an additional runway. Separate Government studies are considering long term plans for managing pressure on the motorway network.

Currently has permission to handle 15 mppa. In August 2001, the owners submitted an application to expand to 25 mppa. Government has assumed maximum capacity with one runway might be 35 mppa. There are options for one, two and three new runways.

One new runway would provide capacity for 82 million passengers. Two new runways would provide 102 million and three new runways would provide 129 million passengers.

Air traffic movements would increase from 133,000 currently to 756,000 with three new runways.

• Significant new rail infrastructure would be required to support expansion. In options with two or three new runways, increased frequencies of services to London would require the construction of a new railway south of the airport. A new line to the cast of the airport serving Norwich, Ipswich and Chelmsford might also be required.
• New dual carriageway links would be required to the A120 and M11 with any option. Two or three additional runways would require improvements to sections of the M11 over and above any other works. Separate Government studies are considering this.
• Around 100 (one new runway) or 200 (two/three new runways) residential properties would be physically taken.
• The loss of two Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Waltham Manor site and The Grange-in all options, one Grade II* listed building (in the two/three runway option) and up to 64 Grade II listed buildings (three runways)
• The two or three runway options would result in the loss of about half of the Elsenham Wood SSSI.
• The numbers of people within 57Leq(dBA) would increase from 6,000 in 2000 to 14,000 (1 new runway), 24,000 (2 new runways) and 28,000 (3 new runways) in 2030.
• Just over 300 people exposed to an exceedance of NO2 by 2030.
• Airport employment in 1998 was around 10,000. The runway options could see jobs increase to between 57,000 and 93,000 by 2030.
• By 2030, the labour catchment area of a three or four runway airport is likely to expand to 83,000. The additional housing provision in the wider area projected forward to 2030 is 83,000 additional houses, reinforcing the need for a sectoral shift in employment and the remote sourcing of labour in order to reduce the need for additional housing.

Bedfordshire Structure Plan provides for the airport to seek an increase in capacity of up to 10mppa.

There are two options for maximum use at Luton:

a. A new 3000m runway built 200m to the south of, and parallel to, the present runway. The latter would be retained to form a parallel taxiway. Supporting facilities would be provided to the north or the existing runway.
b. A second single runway option creates a new 3000m runway on an alignment similar to that of Stansted. A parallel taxiway would also be provided.

Supporting facilities would again be provided to the north of the existing runway.

For both options its is assumed that the new runway could be in place by 2011 and would have a runway capacity of 240,000 ATMs supported by a terminal capacity of up to 31 mppa.

• Provision of a Luton North-East by-pass and widening of the A1081 from the M1 to Airport Way are assumed.
• The runway options would require enhancement of junctions 9-13 of the M1 to provide for airport-related traffic beyond that required to cater for "background" demand by 2030.
• Up to 10 residential properties would need to be physically taken.
• Just over 100ha of grade 3 agricultural land would be lost with either option. Both options would result in the loss of around 80ha of Green Belt.
• Two Grade II listed buildings and one locally designated archaeologically sensitive site would be lost with the realigned runway option.
• There is potential groundwater effect. The airport is in the area of a major aquifer and both runway options intersect a source protection zone for a public water supply.
• The number of people exposed to different amounts of aircraft noise depends on the future traffic at the airport. With the Base Case (current land use planning system) 5,000 people will be affected by 57Leq(dBA) compared to 8,000 in 1999. With the new Southern runway 19,000 people will be affected and with the realigned runway 14,000. The results are based on traffic levels assuming no new runway capacity is provided elsewhere in the South East. If new capacity were provided elsewhere, there would be less traffic at Luton in 2030 and therefore a lower noise impact.
• For both runway options total jobs relating to the airport development would be 21,000 in 2030, up from 9,000 in 1998. If the existing runway and alignment were retained total figures in 2030 would be slightly below that at present due to productivity gains.
• It is estimated that by 2015 around 2,600 additional airport related houses, over and above that currently planned for in RPG9.

Provides an opportunity for a radical change in the provision of airport infrastructure in the South East by building a large purpose-built hub airport, although there would be major environmental impacts

Main reasons for selecting it are: the availability of sufficient land, potentially good surface transport links with London and other areas, the relatively low numbers of people affected by aircraft noise, potential for 24-hour operation to meet the needs of air freight and the support the airport could give to regeneration policies in the Thames Gateway.

For Cliffe to be a success, the Government would need to take steps to ensure that airlines would have incentives to move their operations there, given the historic preference for Heathrow.

The option put forward for consultation is for a large airport with two pairs of close parallel runways. A fifth cross-wind runway to reduce night-time noise was also appraised. The airport could handle 113mppa.

The first two runways would be open by about 2011. The third and fourth runways would open later as demand grew. All four are parallel east-west runways.

• Rail links would be provided to the North Kent line and Channel Tunnel Rail Link. A multi-modal lower Thames crossing would provide a rail connection to the Tilbury-Southend line. There could be scope for rail connections through Crossrail.
• Principal road connections to the airport would be a link to the A2 west of Shome Wood and a link from the A2/M2 interchange at Shome Ridgeway via the Lower Thames Crossing to the A13/A128 interchange at Orsett.
• There may be a need for further improvement to the A13 just to the west of the connection to the Lower Thames Crossing.
• 1100 residential properties physically taken
• Around 2000ha of agricultural land would be lost.
• One Grade I listed building-Allhallows church, and one Grade II* and seven Grade II listed buildings
• The Thames estuary and marshes SPA and RAMSAR site of very high ecological value would be affected.
• High Adverse impacts against all water objectives, except groundwater. The topography of the site requires a level platform area to be created on up to 15 metres to fill over the low lying marshes. A number of marshes and creeks would effectively be destroyed. The raised platform is likely to solve any flooding problems in the airport, however it may increase the risk of flooding elsewhere on the peninsula.
• With four runways, the number of people affected by 57Leq (dBA) is 14,000.
• The Thames Gateway is a regional and national priority for regeneration. The forecast of total employment associated with the 4 runway airport is 79,000.
• If the scale of housing development indicated in the Regional Planning Guidance were rolled forward to 2030, this could amount to some 162,000 additional households. Due to this forecast housing growth, the airport's employment needs could be met with fairly limited additional housing development.

London City - retention of the existing 1200m runway with a new runway holding area, apron extension and additional terminal capacity. The terminal capacity of this option is around 5mppa. Land use and airspace interactions are principal impacts. London City would attract 5.1 mppa by 2030 if there were constraints elsewhere in the SE but would retain much of this traffic even if there were significant growth at the main SE airports (forecast of 4.8mppa for 2030).

Southampton - upgrading of current runway to handle medium size planes and providing terminal and support facilities within the existing site boundary. The terminal capacity of this option is around 7mppa. Local highway congestion, aircraft noise and local air quality over and around populated areas are the main impacts. Southampton attracts overspill traffic if the SE is constrained (grows to 7. 1 mppa in 2030) but this is significantly reduced if capacity is provided at the main airports (3.0mppa in 2030).

Norwich - retention of the existing 1800m runway with additional terminal, apron and parking areas. The terminal capacity of this option is around 5mppa. Norwich has limited immediate catchment to core markets and poor surface access links. Norwich attracts overspill traffic if the SE is constrained (grows to 4.4mppa in 2030) but this is significantly reduced if capacity is provided at the main airports (0.7mppa).

An assessment of the scale of possible development, potential capacity and main impacts and constraints were considered and an overall assessment of potential contribution of the airports at 2030.

Redhill and Northolt - considered as satellite runways for Gatwick and Heathrow respectively, but rejected in favour of other development options at those airports.

Biggin Hill - an upper limit of 0.5mppa was assumed. Constraints include poor surface access links and noise impacts on nearby residential properties.

Cambridge - no contribution was assumed as there are considerable noise constraints and the site might be redeveloped for housing.

Farnborough - no contribution was assumed because of significant planning constraints surrounding the type, number and site of aircraft which can operate. Airport operators have plans for the continued development of the airport as a specialist business aviation facility.

Lydd - an upper limit of 125,000 passengers per annum was assumed. The limited immediate catchment population and poor surface access are the key constraints.

Manston - an upper limit of 3mppa was assumed. Manston has a long runway, and has a relatively supportive planning environment. Key constraints are its geographic position in relation to the major sources of demand and noise impacts over the nearby town of Ramsgate.

Shorcham - an upper limit of 500,000 passengers per annum was assumed. The runway length is the key constraint to development.

Southend - a capacity of 2mppa was assumed. Constraints are, the ability to lengthen the existing runway and noise impacts on residential areas of Southend.

Dff has identified the following sites as airports where the forecast demand for business aviation and other General Aviation could be accommodated: Biggin Hill, Blackbushe, Fairoaks, Farnborough, Northholt and Southend.

SERAS identified the potential for development of the former military airfield at Alconbury as a possible site to provide capacity for airfreight, aircraft maintenance and "no frills" passenger operations. It has an existing runway and is close to strategic road and rail infrastructure. If the existing runway constraints in the South East remain, the airport might handle 1.3million tonnes of freight by 2030 and around 5mppa.

a. Base Case (no development)
b. Maximum use of existing runways only
c. Heathrow: one new runway
d. Stansted: one new runway
c. Stansted: two new runways
f. Heathrow and Stansted: one new runway each
g. Heathrow: one new runway and Stansted: two new runways
h. Stansted: three new runways

KIACC INDEX