Written evidence from Marinair, the Airport Company Limited (AS 103)

Thames Estuary Airport

1.0 Preamble

1.1 In all that follows in this submission to the current Parliamentary Transport Committee, the inescapable and indeed overriding fact remains - as it has done for the past 40 years - that for Great Britain to successfully meet future demand for adequate runway capacity in the south- east of England, it is necessary for HM’s Government to both demonstrate leadership by confirming the need for an appropriate and long-term solution to the current inadequacies in the provision of hub-airport facilities to serve the region and also, to support in a timely manner, a clear and positive policy which defines the principles of the solution to such serious problem.

1.2 A continued approach of ‘patch-and-make-good’ has in the past been and remains today, a wholly unacceptable response. This has been demonstrated not only to be not in the best interest of Great Britain but also, damaging to Great Britain’s economy.

1.3 For a period in excess of 20 years, TEACo has identified sources of finance to take forward the Marinair solution to the lack of runway capacity in the south-east of England and which have been reported to successive Parliamentary Transport Committees. However, no financial institution will move matters forward in the absence of support from HM’s Government for a new airport to be created within the Thames Estuary.

1.4 TEACo’s Marinair project is THE ONLY effective and environmentally acceptable long- term solution to the provision of a hub-airport to serve and the south-east of England and it is THE ONLY genuine Thames Estuary island airport submitted to Government.

2.0 General background to Marinair

2.1 The Thames Estuary Airport Company Limited (TEACo) was founded in 1988 by a group of architects, engineers, economists, aviation consultants and other design, engineering and cost consultants, who were aware of predictions by credible authorities that suitable runway capacity in the south-east of England which was at that time provided principally by London (LHR) and London (LGW) would, at a time in the not too distant future, be insufficient to accommodate air traffic movements (ATM’s) to serve the capital city of Great Britain and to maintain London’s position as the pre-eminent first choice of entry to Europe for long-haul travellers.

2.2 TEACo was set up to be the special purpose vehicle (SPV) both to lobby HM’s Government to recognise that ‘piecemeal’ development at LHR and LGW would serve only to delay the time when a new hub-airport would need to be constructed and also, to be the focal point for parties interested in providing funding for both a new hub-airport in the south east of England and the marine and land based infrastructures that would be required to properly serve such a facility.

2.3 The Directors of TEACo were aware that a potential problem of providing suitable runway capacity in the south east of England had been identified as early as 1973 when HM’s Government granted approval for a third London airport to be constructed on Maplin Sands albeit that the project was abandoned following the subsequent global oil crisis. In addition to the provision of a new hub-airport, the Maplin proposal also included a deep-water harbour, a high-speed rail link to London and a new town to accommodate the airport workforce.

2.4 Since the abandonment of Maplin, improvements have been made to both LHR and LGW to increase both the number of ATM’s and the passenger and cargo throughput and, civil aviation operations have commenced in 1987 at the newly constructed (LCY) and in 1991 at the newly converted (STN).

2.5 Customers of airlines – be these passengers or cargo distributors – wishing to gain access to London have many different requirements. However, the two principal requirements are to gain access to London as the destination or, to gain access to London for onward travel to a destination elsewhere in Great Britain or outside of Great Britain. The latter of these is described as ‘hub-and-spoke’ operations whereby long-haul and medium-haul services are supported principally, by other medium-haul or short-haul services to other destinations operating from the same airport. LHR and LGW are both hub-airports from which ‘spoke’ operations operate.

2.6 Although STN has sufficient runway length, it has never gained a position as an airport favoured by long-haul operators. Airlines that have at times in the past attempted to operate long-haul services from STN include Air Asia X, American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Eos Airlines, MAXjet Airways and Sun Country Airlines. All of these long-haul operators have now ceased services from STN with some of them having transferred to LHR and/or LGW.

2.7 Whilst it might seem that it is a good idea to locate airports in different locations around London, the reality of the situation is that such dispersal of facilities fails to provide the airlines with what they really require which is, a multi-runway airport which can operate without restrictions and which can accommodate all long-haul, medium-haul and short-haul ATM’s within one facility so that ‘hub-and-spoke’ operations can be efficiently and cost effectively carried out to the benefit of the airlines and their customers. Transfer between LHR, LGW, STN and LCY is today possible only by surface transport systems and then, only with changes between various modes of such surface transport. For this reason alone – and there are many other good and practical reasons – any future expansion of LHR, LGW and STN so as to try to attract long-haul and medium-haul operators to serve these airports, will be no more than a short-term solution to a long-term problem. For the avoidance of doubt, LCY does not have a runway of sufficient length to accommodate long-haul flights without refuelling stops on the way.

2.8 To state what has become obvious to those involved in the air transport industry, there is no long-term solution to the proper provision of suitable runway capacity in the south-east of England other than the construction of a new hub-airport. If this statement is accepted as factual – and there has not yet been a credible argument offered against the statement – then the only question that needs to be answered is where, within the south-east of England, the new hub-airport should be located.

2.9 The technical parties associated with TEACo, reviewed all previously considered locations for a new hub-airport. These included sites around London and further to the north and west of London and included former and existing military airfields and ‘green field’ sites. To a greater or lesser degree, all of these required the ‘disturbance’ of centres of population and/or the loss of prime agricultural land. Given that a new 4-runway airport suitable for long-haul operations with its attendant on-airport and off-airport facilities must by its operational requirements cover a significant area of such land, TEACo concluded that there was no suitable land based site on which the new hub-airport could be located.

2.10 For the reason given above, TEACo concluded that the most suitable place to locate a new hub-airport would be off-shore. TEACo established that the location of a suitable site off- shore closest to London and capable of being linked to major surface infrastructures is in the relatively shallow water in the Thames Estuary to the north-east of Herne Bay and to the east of the sea forts.

2.11 During the period from 1979-1982, one of the advisors to TEACo had been involved in the selection of the site for and the physical master planning of the new Hong Kong International Airport, the airport island for which, has been created by reclaiming land from the

sea within the Tung Chung Basin to the north of Lantau Island. The airport island was created by demolishing the 460m (1500ft) high island of Chek Lap Kok and using the spoil for reclamation. Hong Kong International Airport and the Kansai International Airport which is also constructed off-shore in Osaka bay, are two off-shore airports constructed on artificial islands. The principle of building and operating civil airports off-shore is therefore well established.

2.12 For reason that the site selected by TEACo for further study and promotion as being a suitable site for an airport was located in a marine environment, the project was given the name ‘Marinair’.

2.13 As stated above, the location proposed for Marinair is in the Thames Estuary to the north-east of Herne Bay. In principle, the project proposes:

2.13.1 The construction of an airport island by way of reclamation; 2.13.2 4No x 4,000m instrument runways and attendant taxiways; 2.13.3 Passenger and cargo terminals and attendant parking aprons; 2.13.4 Aircraft maintenance hangars and attendant parking aprons; 2.13.5 Landside airport surface infrastructure; 2.13.6 New road link from M25-J29 via A127 and M25-J30 via A13 to tunnel to and to the airport island; 2.13.7 New road link link from M20-J7 and M2-J5 via extension of A249 across Isle of Sheppey and tunnel to the airport island; 2.13.8 New HS rail link from north of Maidstone alongside A249 and across Isle of Sheppey and tunnel to the airport island; 2.13.9 New rail link by way of extension to from Abbey Wood and across Isle of Sheppey and tunnel to the airport island; 2.13.10 New industrial parks and housing estates in south and north ; 2.13.11 Electricity generation by way of water driven turbines incorporated into the airport island.

2.14 During the time to date that TEACo has been trading, the company has made many submissions to promote Marinair reference to some of which, are listed below;

• 1990: Submission No1 to RUCATSE; • 1992: Submission No2 to RUCATSE; • 1996: Presentation of evidence to Parliamentary Transport Committee; • 2002: Submission of First Edition response to First Stage Consultation; • 2003: Submission of Second Edition response to First Stage Consultation; • 2003: Presentation to All Party Group of MP’s with copies to The Secretary of State for Transport and the Department for Transport; • 2003: Presentation of evidence to Parliamentary Transport Committee.

3.0 The Advantages of Marinair

3.1 The principal advantage of the proposed location for Marinair over all other locations that have been suggested for a new hub-airport in the south-east of England (RAF Upper Heyford; RAF Lyneham; Cliffe; other locations within the ‘’ and most recently, the expansion of STN to create a 4-runway airport) is that it is in the sea.

3.2 For this reason, the size of the airport island would not be restricted by limitations on land-take and, if and when the airport may at a time in the future require to be enlarged, then this could be easily achieved by reclamation of additional seabed.

3.3 Of equal importance is that the proposed alignment of Marinair is such that all aircraft approach and departure corridors in and out of the location would be along the line of the and therefore over water. In fact, the closest land to the west of the extended centrelines of the proposed runways on the airport island is at a distance from Marinair in

excess of 30 statute miles. Missed approaches and other ‘go-around’ procedures would also be made over water.

3.4 In addition to the safety advantages of approaches and departures being made over water – and unlike approaches from the east into LHR which are at relatively low level over the London conurbation – given that the approaches and departures would not be over built-up areas, there would be no reason for the proposed new airport to have its ATM’s restricted by operating curfews. Marinair could therefore operate 24-hours a day, 7-days a week and 52- weeks a year.

3.5 Other advantages are those of noise pollution and pollution from aircraft engines the latter of which, according to a study published by MIT during October 2012, causes some 50 pollution related deaths each year under the LHR flight path.

3.6 Marinair is the only proposal which provides for all ATM approaches and departures to be over the sea.

4.0 Matters Raised by Objectors to a Thames Estuary Airport

4.1 Access

4.1.1 From the centre of London (traditionally Charing Cross) the ‘straight line’ distances to the three principal international airports serving London are approximately:

• LHR: 15 miles • LGW: 25 miles • STN: 30 miles

4.1.2 All three airports are served by ‘heavy’ railway services – LHR is also served by the London metro service – and are within 3 miles of a motorway junction.

4.1.3 The proposed location for Marinair is approximately 55 miles from Charing Cross.

4.1.4 However, with modern modes of transport, it is time and not distance that is of primary interest. From London St Pancras to Ashford in Kent, the travel time on HS1 trains is 30 to 40 minutes depending upon the service. Given that from St Pancras the proposed location for Marinair is at the end of approximately the same length of railway line as is Ashford from St Pancras, it is not unreasonable to assume that a similar travel time could be expected.

4.1.5 In addition, an extension of Crossrail would provide rail access to Marinair from the west of London from as far west as Maidenhead.

4.1.6 However, it should be remembered that Marinair is intended to be a new hub-airport for the south-east of England and not just an airport to serve London so, the road links proposed from the M25 would provide for access to the airport from the A1(M) M1, M2, M11 and M20.

4.2 Risk

4.2.1 The Isle of Sheppey is surrounded by water in the forms of the River Thames to the north and east, the River Medway to the west and The Swale to the south. The easternmost part of The Swale where it joins the Thames Estuary is approximately 12 miles to the south-east of the site proposed for Marinair. Some 8 miles to the west of this, is the RSPB Elmley Nature Reserve. The nature reserve is approximately 20 miles to the south-west of the proposed location of Marinair. As has been stated above, the westerly flight paths out of Marinair would be in a westerly direction and would pass some 7 miles to the north of the Elmley Nature Reserve.

4.2.2 As has been stated above, there are numerous examples around the world of civil airports located either within the sea or adjacent to the sea.

4.2.3 In fact, some 12 miles to the south-east of the site for Marinair, is Kent International Airport Manston which is some 24 miles to the east of the Elmley nature Reserve. The runway 28 threshold at Manston is less than 1 mile from the water’s edge at Pegwell Bay.

4.2.4 LHR is surrounded by areas of water and bird reserves as follows:

• London Wetlands: 8.5 miles directly east of the centreline of runway 09L/27R; • The Queen mother Reservoir: 2.5 miles directly west of the centreline of runway 09L/27R; • Wraysbury Reservoir: 1.5 miles directly west of the centreline of runway 09R/27L; • King George Vl Reservoir: 0.75 miles south-east of the threshold of runway 09R.

4.2.5 To put the matter of bird strike risk into perspective, it should be noted that Sacramento International Airport in the USA is located some 100 miles east of the California coast and between 1990 and 2007, there were 1,300 bird strikes recorded. That is an average of in excess of 72 per year.

4.2.6 Given the shape of Great Britain, there is nowhere within the Country further from the sea than 70 miles. At a cruising speed of 500 mph, 70 miles will be covered in 8½ minutes. Bird strikes do not always occur at low level and have been recorded at heights between 6,000 metres (19,685 feet) and 9,000 metres (25,528 feet) above mean sea level.

4.2.7 If on the 15th January 2009 after suffering total engine failure following ingestion of Canada geese, US Airways flight 1549 had not had the Hudson River in which to ‘ditch’, the outcome of the forced landing would have been tragic.

4.2.8 It would be wrong of TEACo to disregard the issue of bird strike risk. Preliminary studies have been carried out into the risk relative to Marinair and, if and when Government support for the project is given, bird strike risk and other risk management and risk avoidance studies will be carried out.

4.3 Noise and Air Pollution

4.3.1 Studies have been carried out using noise generation advice for modern civil aeroplanes. Aircraft noise is principally directed along the line of the aeroplane with ‘side spill’ noise being significantly less. The greatest noise generation is produced when aeroplanes are under power during the take-off roll and when climbing and when using ‘reverse thrust’ after touchdown. The studies have suggested that from the centre of the Marinair airport island, significant noise will spread to a distance of some 2 miles laterally (a 4 mile ‘footprint’) north and south and some 6 miles longitudinally (a 12 mile ‘footprint’). By the time aeroplane generated noise reaches the coast, it will have moderated to an acceptable level of background noise.

4.3.2 As has been stated above, all approaches to and departures from Marinair would be over water which has the capacity to absorb carbon dioxide and other pollutants.

4.4 Shipping Channels and Fisheries

4.4.1 The principal shipping lanes into and out of the River Thames from the North Sea are located to the north shoreline of the Thames Estuary. Preliminary studies have demonstrated that the location proposed for Marinair will not interfere with the recognised shipping lanes.

4.4.2 Other preliminary studies have demonstrated that Marinair would not have an adverse effect upon tidal flows or pose a risk to the fishing industries that operate within the Thames Estuary and the waters to the east. Similarly, there is no evidence to suggest that the oyster beds would be adversely affected by the airport or the aviation operations it would generate.

4.5 Airlines would not operate from Marinair.

4.5.1 When in the distant past the idea of a Thames Estuary airport was first promoted by TEACo, it was claimed that ‘The Airlines’ would not relocate to Marinair from LHR and LGW. As is always the case with proposals to change the status quo, various parties with vested interests in maintaining their positions put forward al, manner of reasons why the relocation of hub- airport facilities away from LHR and LGW would never be successful. As time has passed and the reality of the situation relative to ATM’s at LHR having become an issue, such former ‘cannot do’ attitudes have been changing. Although the Director of Dubai International Airport has recently stated that a Thames Estuary airport could never be funded and would become a ‘white elephant’, Willy Walsh has recently stated that even if LHR was granted a third runway, it would only delay the need for a new purpose designed hub-airport to serve the south-east of England and he is only one of a number of people now stating this.

4.5.2 It is difficult to understand why, if the airlines were not provided with a purpose designed four-runway hub-airport with good surface transport access and no curfews, they would not wish to operate their services from such an airport.

5.0 Government Support for a Thames Estuary Airport

5.1 The principal problem that TEACo has faced since the company’s formation is that, whilst a number of credible sources of funding for the construction of a new hub-airport in the Thames Estuary and the necessary infrastructure have been identified, the project can be realised only if HM’s Government is prepared to promote the building of such a new hub- airport in preference to enabling short-term solutions to current problems affecting existing airports in and around London.

5.2 To date, since the abandonment of Maplin, there has been no Government support for a new hub-airport to be built in the south-east of England.

5.3 In addition, for Marinair to be realised, it would be necessary for The Crown to agree to the new airport island being constructed on seabed owned by The Crown as the site selected for Marinair, is to the east of the eastern extremity of the seabed under the control of The Authority.

5.4 However, Marinair does not require the obtaining by Compulsory Order, of seven villages in the north of the as is the case with some of the proposals for sites in or adjacent to the Thames Estuary.

5.5 A new hub-airport located in the Thames Estuary is of national importance. The unavoidable fact is that before TEACO and/or any other party can take matters forward, the principle of such a development requires the unequivocal support of HM’s Government and The Crown. In the absence of such promotion, no investor will be prepared to make a public statement about funding elements of the development.

5.6 To state the obvious, the future of British aviation interests rests with HM’s Government.

6.0 Conclusion – The Advantages of Marinair Outweigh the Disadvantages

6.1 The inadequacy of the three existing principal airports that serve London and the south- east of England and the advantages that Marinair would bring to the region are as follows;

6.1.1 London is currently not served by a ‘world class’ hub-airport; 6.1.2 Proposals for the upgrading of LHR, LGW and STN will not result in the region being served by a ‘world class’ airport; 6.1.3 LHR, LGW and STN do not collectively provide for optimum ‘hub-and-spoke’ ATM’s with an integrated multi-modal transport infrastructure within the region;

6.1.4 There is no technical impediment to the construction and operation of a ‘world class’ hub-and-spoke’ airport in the Thames Estuary; 6.1.5 Airports located in the sea pose no greater risk to ATM’s than do airports located inland. In fact, in certain circumstances, they are advantageous; 6.1.6 The location and alignment of Marinair would allow for all low-level ATM’s to be over water; 6.1.7 Marinair would resolve the issue of heavy aeroplanes over-flying London at relatively low levels; 6.1.8 ATM’s at Marinair would not need to be subject to operating curfews; 6.1.9 Existing surface infrastructure could be upgraded to offer greater capacity; 6.1.10 New high-speed rail links and motorway links could be created mostly along existing ‘corridors’; 6.1.11 Areas of under-developed land in south Essex and north Kent are available for the development of supporting facilities; Marinair could be integrated with proposals for a River Thames Outer Tidal Barrier and power generation.

6.2 Finally, the directors of TEACo respectfully direct the attention of the Parliamentary Transport Committee back to the Preamble at the beginning of this submission.

26 October 2012