DOCSLIB.ORG

INNER THAMES HUB ESTUARY Feasibility Studies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
INNER THAMES HUB ESTUARY Feasibility Studies INNER THAMES HUB ESTUARY Feasibility Studies May 2014 Inner Thames Estuary Feasibility Studies Contents Contents ................................................................................................................................................. ii Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. iii Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. iv Study 1: Environmental/Natura 2000 impacts ................................................................................. 1-5 1-1 Background........................................................................................................................... 1-5 1-2 The Natura 2000 Legal Tests ............................................................................................... 1-6 1-3 Review of Natura 2000 Habitats and Species Affected ....................................................... 1-8 1-4 Impacts, Issues and Risks to Natura 2000 Features.......................................................... 1-12 1-5 Overall Stability of the Ecosystem ...................................................................................... 1-17 1-6 Case Studies ...................................................................................................................... 1-18 1-7 Compensation..................................................................................................................... 1-26 1-8 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 1-35 1-9 Landscape, Historical and Archaeological Impacts ............................................................ 1-36 Study 2: Operational Feasibility and Attitudes to Moving to a New Airport .............................. 2-40 2-1 Operational Feasibility ........................................................................................................ 2-40 2-2 Attitudes to Moving to a New Airport .................................................................................. 2-52 Study 3: Economic and Social Impacts ......................................................................................... 3-54 3-1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3-54 3-2 National Impacts ................................................................................................................. 3-55 3-3 Regional Impacts ................................................................................................................ 3-59 3-4 Local Socio-economic Impacts ........................................................................................... 3-61 3-5 Preliminary Estimates of Impacts ....................................................................................... 3-62 Study 4: Surface Access Impacts ................................................................................................... 4-63 4-1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4-63 4-2 Operations .......................................................................................................................... 4-63 4-3 Costs ................................................................................................................................... 4-76 4-4 Environment........................................................................................................................ 4-80 Study 5: Master Plan ........................................................................................................................ 5-88 5-1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 5-88 5-2 Airport Concept and Capacity ............................................................................................. 5-89 5-3 Airside Layout ..................................................................................................................... 5-92 5-4 Terminals ............................................................................................................................ 5-96 5-5 Landside Facilities .............................................................................................................. 5-97 5-6 Cargo and Support Facilities .............................................................................................. 5-98 ii Inner Thames Estuary Feasibility Studies Acronyms and Abbreviations AQMA Air Quality Management Area ATC Air Traffic Control ATM Air Traffic Movement BA British Airways BHS Baggage Handling System CAA Civil Aviation Authority CHaMP Coastal Habitat Management Plan CHP Combined Heat and Power dB Decibels DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DfT Department for Transport EU European Union FDI Foreign Direct Investment GSE Ground Support Equipment HS1 High Speed 1 HS2 High Speed 2 HVDC High Voltage Direct Current ICAO International Civil Aviation Authority IROPI Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest LDA Landing Distance Available LNG Liquefied Natural Gas MARS Multi-Aircraft Ramp System MR Managed Realignment MTOW Maximum Take Off Weight NE Natural England ODN Ordnance Datum Newlyn ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister OLS Obstacle Limitation Surface OMREG Online Managed Realignment database PSZ Public Safety Zone Ramsar Wetlands of international importance designated under the Ramsar Convention RESA Runway Extension Safety Area RET Rapid Exit Taxiway RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds RTE Regulated Tidal Exchange SERAS South East of England Regional Air Services Study SPA Special Protection Area SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest STP Severn Tidal Power TE2100 Thames Estuary 2100 Plan TfL Transport for London WeBS Wetland Bird Survey iii Inner Thames Estuary Feasibility Studies Executive Summary Thames Hub response, May 2014 – introduction to technical report Foster + Partners is pleased to submit evidence in response to the Airports Commission’s Terms of Reference for the Inner Thames Estuary Feasibility Studies. We have addressed each of the questions raised in the Terms of Reference and, where appropriate, illustrate how they relate to our proposals. We have also taken the opportunity to further develop our technical proposals for the airport to better illustrate what might be achieved on our proposed site. We welcome the Airports Commission’s recognition of the potential that an inner estuary location could bring, both in terms of noise and risk reduction, and the key role it could play in the growth of London and the South East. As time passes, the noise argument becomes ever more compelling and the challenges to accommodating growth more serious. It is essential to develop an airport proposal that is both a credible answer to London’s needs and national economic requirements. The inevitable timescale for any solution means that there is no hope of a short-term fix. For the immediate future, there are only better ways of managing what we have – adding to what we have is a short-term solution and out of step with our wider needs. There has never been a better time to embrace a new airport and to direct its transformative powers to the benefit of the whole country, not just the South East. It is the only credible solution to longer-term capacity needs, both in aviation and economic development. In the time the Airports Commission has been gathering evidence, a new breed of global hubs has started to emerge – we have seen decisions on Beijing South Airport, accelerated investment in Dubai World Central and the award of the concession for New Istanbul. These, and the recent competition for Mexico City International Airport, show how the stature of hub airports has grown and Britain’s relative status will be measured. If Britain is to maintain its status as an aviation hub, we need to measure our capabilities against our true future competitors. This is not a question of vanity, but one of lasting future ability. Hamstringing our capabilities by under-investing in capacity is a decision that will hinder us for generations to come. As we continue to evolve our development capabilities, we look forward to continuing to work with the Commission and very much appreciate the dialogue and meetings so far. Foster + Partners iv SECTION 1 Study 1: Environmental/Natura 2000 impacts Study 1: Environmental/Natura 2000 impacts 1-1 Background Following consultation by the Airports Commission on the proposed terms of reference1 for the Inner Thames Estuary Feasibility Studies this report has been produced as part of the call for evidence. This report considers Study 1 in the Terms of Reference, Environmental/Natura 2000 impacts, which requires a review of the impacts on the Natura 2000 sites of constructing and operating a new airport in the Inner Thames Estuary location, and the feasibility of meeting the legal test for such development. The Thames Estuary and adjacent areas provide habitats for a diverse range of species, including waterbird populations (overwintering, passage and breeding), fish, aquatic mammals and marine invertebrates as well as the intrinsic value of the habitats; however, this report will only provide a response
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Thames Estuary Airport: AEF Position Paper
    Thames estuary airport: AEF position paper 3rd December 2009 Summary The London Mayor has suggested that the development of an estuary airport may provide an alternative to Heathrow expansion and commissioned Doug Oakervee, the engineer who masterminded Hong Kong’s island airport, to conduct a feasibility study. This briefing takes a historical look at estuary airport proposals and the issues that have arisen, assesses the recent report from Douglas Oakervee, and sets out AEF’s view on the proposal to construct a new airport in the Thames Estuary. AEF considers that all UK aviation expansion plans should be put on hold pending a review of the fundamental evidence underpinning Government policy on airports. We are concerned about the environmental impacts of a new airport in the Thames Estuary in terms of biodiversity loss and likely increases in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of increased aviation activity. Purported environmental benefits of in terms of noise, air pollution and risk, meanwhile, remain uncertain. We are therefore opposed to the building of a new airport in the Thames Estuary, and consider that rather than investing further public money into consideration of new airports, investment should instead focus on provision and promotion of low-carbon alternatives to aviation. Why estuary airport proposals have never got off the ground: some historical examples Maplin Sands A proposal to build a new airport at Maplin Sands was considered as part of the Airports inquiries 1981-83. TCPA – the Town and Country Planning Association – supported it on the grounds that, in terms of both agricultural and noise impacts, it was preferable to the expansion of Stansted.
    [Show full text]
  • Inner Thames Estuary Airport: Review of the Evidence on Socio- Economic Impacts a Report for the Airports Commission
    www.pwc.co.uk Inner Thames Estuary Airport: Review of the evidence on socio- economic impacts A report for the Airports Commission Airports Commission June 2014 Final report www.pwc.co.uk Important notice This final document has been prepared for the Airports Commission in accordance with the terms of the Provision of Consultancy for Commercial, Financial and Economic Option Appraisal and Analysis (DfT) framework and the Contract Reference RM 2750 (650) dated 12th February 2014 and solely for the purpose and on the terms agreed with the Airports Commission. We accept no liability (including for negligence) to anyone else in connection with this document. This document contains information obtained or derived from a variety of third party sources as indicated within the document. PwC has not sought to establish the reliability of those sources or verified the information so provided. Should any person other than the Airports Commission obtain access to and read this document, such persons accepts and agrees to the following terms: 1. The reader of this document understands that the work performed by PwC was performed in accordance with instructions provided by our client, the Airports Commission, and was performed exclusively for their benefit and use. The document may therefore not include all matters relevant to the reader. 2. The reader agrees that PwC accepts no liability (including for negligence) to them in connection with this document. Inner Thames Estuary Airport: Review of the evidence on socio-economic impacts Contents Executive summary 2 1. Introduction 6 2. Rationale for airport closure and commercial considerations 8 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Flying Into the Future Infrastructure for Business 2012 #4 Flying Into the Future
    Infrastructure for Business Flying into the Future Infrastructure for Business 2012 #4 Flying into the Future Flying into the Future têáííÉå=Äó=`çêáå=q~óäçêI=pÉåáçê=bÅçåçãáÅ=^ÇîáëÉê=~í=íÜÉ=fça aÉÅÉãÄÉê=OMNO P Infrastructure for Business 2012 #4 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ________________________________________ 5 1. GRowInG AVIATIon SUSTAInABlY ______________________ 27 2. ThE FoUR CRUnChES ______________________________ 35 3. ThE BUSInESS VIEw oF AIRpoRT CApACITY ______________ 55 4. A lonG-TERM plAn FoR GRowTh ____________________ 69 Q Flying into the Future Executive summary l Aviation provides significant benefits to the economy, and as the high growth markets continue to power ahead, flying will become even more important. “A holistic plan is nearly two thirds of IoD members think that direct flights to the high growth countries will be important to their own business over the next decade. needed to improve l Aviation is bad for the global and local environment, but quieter and cleaner aviation in the UK. ” aircraft and improved operational and ground procedures can allow aviation to grow in a sustainable way. l The UK faces four related crunches – hub capacity now; overall capacity in the South East by 2030; excessive taxation; and an unwelcoming visa and border set-up – reducing the UK’s connectivity and making it more difficult and more expensive to get here. l This report sets out a holistic aviation plan, with 25 recommendations to address six key areas: − Making the best use of existing capacity in the short term; − Making decisions about where new runways should be built as soon as possible, so they can open in the medium term; − Ensuring good surface access and integration with the wider transport network, in particular planning rail services together with airport capacity, not separately; − Dealing with noise and other local environment impacts; − Not raising taxes any further; − Improving the visa regime and operations at the UK border.
    [Show full text]
  • A Monte-Carlo Approach to Estimating the Effects of Selected Airport Capacity Options in London
    A Monte-Carlo approach to estimating the effects of selected airport capacity options in London. Daniel Irvine, Lucy C.S. Budd and David E. Pitfield. Transport Studies Group, School of Civil & Building Engineering Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU U.K. [email protected] Abstract The issue of future airport capacity in London is currently the subject of much political debate in the UK. Through the use of Monte Carlo simulation, the paper quantifies and compares the relative capacity enhancements that may be afforded by the construction of a new hub airport, additional runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and changes to operating practices at Heathrow. The simulations indicate that a new hub airport would be the most effective way to increase capacity, although the reported financial and environmental costs of such a development suggest a comparatively poor rate of return. Proposed new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and the removal of runway alternation at Heathrow provide more modest increases in capacity. Keywords: airport capacity, Monte Carlo simulation, London, UK. 1. Introduction Debates surrounding the provision of future airport capacity in London and the South East have had a long and controversial pedigree with the issue polarised between those who claim connectivity is vital for economic growth and those who believe that 1 airport expansion creates an unjustifiable social and environmental burden. At the time of writing, a UK Government-appointed Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, is evaluating a number of possible options to enhance airport capacity in London and the south east. This paper employs Monte Carlo simulation to provide estimations of the relative effect on airport capacity that five proposals, which are all reportedly under consideration, afford.
    [Show full text]
  • Would a New Hub Airport Be Commercially Viable?
    Would a new hub airport be commercially viable? Prepared for the Transport Committee January 25th 2013 Oxera i Draft for Comment: Strictly Confidential Oxera Consulting Ltd is registered in England No. 2589629 and in Belgium No. 0883.432.547. Registered offices at Park Central, 40/41 Park End Street, Oxford, OX1 1JD, UK, and Stephanie Square Centre, Avenue Louise 65, Box 11, 1050 Brussels, Belgium. Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the material and the integrity of the analysis presented herein, the Company accepts no liability for any actions taken on the basis of its contents. Oxera Consulting Ltd is not licensed in the conduct of investment business as defined in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Anyone considering a specific investment should consult their own broker or other investment adviser. The Company accepts no liability for any specific investment decision, which must be at the investor’s own risk. © Oxera, 2013. All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism or review, no part may be used or reproduced without permission. Executive summary The Transport Committee is conducting an inquiry into the UK’s aviation strategy.1 Commissioned by the Committee and prepared by Oxera, this report assesses the conditions under which a new hub airport is, or is not, likely to be commercially viable. The assessment does not evaluate a specific proposal for a new hub; rather, it includes a range of scenarios covering various airport designs, demand forecasts, cost estimates and assumptions about the level of airport charges.
    [Show full text]
  • Holding Pattern: an Analysis of Heathrow Airport’S Capacity Quandary
    Bridgewater State University Virtual Commons - Bridgewater State University Honors Program Theses and Projects Undergraduate Honors Program 4-30-2018 Holding Pattern: An Analysis of Heathrow Airport’s Capacity Quandary Dudley G. Oscar Bridgewater State University Follow this and additional works at: https://vc.bridgew.edu/honors_proj Part of the Aviation Commons Recommended Citation Oscar, Dudley G.. (2018). Holding Pattern: An Analysis of Heathrow Airport’s Capacity Quandary. In BSU Honors Program Theses and Projects. Item 392. Available at: https://vc.bridgew.edu/honors_proj/392 Copyright © 2018 Dudley G. Oscar This item is available as part of Virtual Commons, the open-access institutional repository of Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, Massachusetts. Running head: HOLDING PATTERN Holding Pattern: An Analysis of Heathrow Airport’s Capacity Quandary Dudley G. Oscar Submitted in Partial Completion of the Requirements for Departmental Honors in Aviation Science Bridgewater State University April 30, 2018 Dr. Michael Welch, Thesis Advisor Prof. Michael Farley, Committee Member HOLDING PATTERN 2 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3 Chapter 1: History ......................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 2: To Expand or Not to Expand? .................................................................................... 11 Chapter
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Watch the Latest on London Real Estate
    CAPITAL WATCH THE LATEST ON LONDON REAL ESTATE The Recipe for Great Places ISSUE 01 • 2019 FEATURE SET • 16 IN CONVERSATION • 30 TRENDING • 34 Twitter: Transport: Joe Borrett Proptech VC @CushwakeLDN What's Next Google Welcome What’s Inside Welcome to our winter edition of COVER STORY THE HOT ISSUE Capital Watch! The Recipe for Great Places Who Will Own London At the time of writing, Brexit stands in 2030? on a knife’s edge; the deliberations over the next weeks and months will have significant impacts on our economy, PAGE 03 PAGE 07 which are as yet obscure. However, the ebb and flow of politics and the economy OPINION ROUND-UP tends to be timebound and quickly How Will London Do Business London at a Glance forgotten. Meanwhile other truths stand in the Future? eternal. One such truth is the recipe for creating great places, and this is the PAGE 10 PAGE 12 subject with which we have chosen to lead this edition. Beyond this we look at SPOTLIGHT ON FEATURES who will own our capital and how will we Bloomberg Building Wins Transport: What's Next do business in it in the future. Someone 2018 RIBA Sterling Prize well qualified to offer a view on the future of offices is Google’s real estate chief, PAGE 13 PAGE 16 Joe Borrett, who takes the time to talk workplace and technology with our own LONDON DNA LONDON IN FIGURES Andy Tyler. Marylebone: A Bustling and Transport in London Our themed spread this edition looks Carefully Curated Village in at another critical factor to London’s the Heart of London success, Transport, in respect of which we chart key interventions, consider global PAGE 23 PAGE 25 innovations and look to what’s next.
    [Show full text]
  • Consultation on Revised Draft Airports National Policy Statement
    Consultation on revised draft Airports National Policy Statement Summary report of consultation responses June 2018 A report to the Department for Transport Prepared by OPM Group OPM Group Consultation on revised draft Airports National Policy Statement – Summary report of consultation responses Client Department for Transport Company OPM Group Title Consultation on revised draft Airports National Policy Statement Subtitle Summary report of consultation responses Status Final Classification Public Project Code DfT2 Quality Assurance by Helen Ashley Main point of contact Ilina Georgieva Email [email protected] If you would like a large text version of this document, please contact us. OPM Group 252B Gray’s Inn Road +44 (0)20 7239 7800 London www.opm.co.uk www.dialoguebydesign.co.uk WC1X 8XG [email protected] [email protected] © OPM Group The contents of this document should not be copied, reproduced or disclosed to any third party without prior written permission from a Director at OPM Group. Public Final Page 2 of 150 OPM Group Consultation on revised draft Airports National Policy Statement – Summary report of consultation responses Contents Executive summary ................................................................................................... 5 List of acronyms ........................................................................................................ 9 Chapter 1: About the consultation ..................................................................... 13 Background ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tfl's REPORT to the MAYOR on CONSULTATION
    Draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy Statutory consultation with the public and stakeholders TfL’S REPORT TO THE MAYOR ON CONSULTATION: Appendices 1, 2 and 3 Annexes B and C March 2010 Contents Appendix 1 - List of Stakeholders consulted .............................................................. 3 Appendix 2 - List of Stakeholders who responded to the consultation ..................... 14 Appendix 3 – List of meetings relevant to the development of the draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy.................................................................................................... 19 Annex B – Summary for each stakeholder response received ................................. 24 Annex C - TfL’s consideration of late responses to the consultation ........................
    [Show full text]
  • Airportwatch Bulletin 66 February 2014 Page 1
    AirportWatch bulletin 66 February 2014 Page 1 Page 7 - From John Stewart, Chair of AirportWatch - Scale of taxpayer contribution needed for - Airports Commission consulting on Thames Heathrow or Gatwick runways shown up in estuary airport options – deadlines 14th Feb KPMG report for Airports Commission and 23rd May. Decision whether to short-list - Heathrow to hold 6 week consultation (starting one by September 3rd Feb) with households on their north-west runway plan Page 2 - TESTRAD questions Commission decision to Page 8 rule out their “London Britannia” estuary - CAA decides on only RPI -1.5% charges at airport Heathrow and more controls on Gatwick. No - Airports Commission interim report further price regulation at Stansted recommends setting up an Independent - London Assembly votes against Heathrow Aviation Noise Authority expansion Page 3 Page 9 - A Revolution in Aircraft Noise Measurement? - Committee on Climate Change to report in July - Airports Commission launches 6 week 2014 on climate implications of Davies runway consultation on “appraisal framework” for proposals short-listed runway schemes - Taxpayers to cover Heathrow‟s £160 million contribution to Crossrail Page 4 Page 10 - RunwaysUK conference shows up the - Campaigners target airport investors to warn Gatwick/Heathrow battle and the them off risky investment in politically hub+spoke/point-to-point future of air travel undeliverable 3rd Heathrow runway - Presentation by Tim Johnson, Director of AEF, - WWF‟s “One in Five” challenge has cut at the RunwaysUK conference
    [Show full text]
  • FLIGHTS of FANCY Getting Real on Aviation
    FLIGHTS OF FANCY Getting Real On Aviation Essex County Council submission to the Davies Commission Sept 2013 Contents Foreword 3 Executive Summary 5 Heathrow Airport 9 Stansted Airport 12 Thames Estuary Airport 17 Conclusion 19 Foreword IT IS TIME TO GET REAL ON AVIATION The need for more airport capacity in the long term – existing size), we do not believe it is viable to build a especially in the South East – is not in doubt. rival super hub airport elsewhere in the south east that would exist in close proximity and competition to it. But some of the solutions being put forward to solve this problem – such as shutting down Heathrow A dispersed approach is therefore a practical approach. and building a giant 4-5 runway super hub airport We are under no illusions that additional runway elsewhere, whether at Stansted or in the Thames capacity at airports across the south east – including Estuary – would be extremely costly, disruptive to Gatwick and Stansted – is likely to be inevitable in the the economy, to the environment and to the aviation long term. We believe an additional runway may be industry, and would take too long to deliver. required at Gatwick in the 2020s and not at Stansted until at least the 2030s. Evidence from major infrastructure projects in the UK and from across the world does not provide any In Stansted and Southend, Greater Essex has two reassurance that the cost will not go in any direction international airports which make a crucial economic other than upwards. contribution, providing thousands of jobs and moving people, goods and services around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal for a Virtual Hub Airport to Meet Airport Capacity Needs
    ANNEX A Bold Steps for Aviation Discussion document May 2012 14 Contents Executive summary 3 1 Introduction 4 2 Background to aviation in the UK 5 3 Background to Bold Steps for Aviation proposals 8 4 Bold Steps for Aviation proposals 10 5 Recommendations 17 2 15 Executive summary In Bold Steps for Aviation Kent County Council discusses how the UK can meet its aviation needs through the connection of Gatwick and Heathrow with a high speed rail link; better use of Manston and Lydd Airports and other regional airports, including London City, Southend, Stansted, Luton, Southampton and Birmingham; and improved connections of these regional airports with London. In doing so it recommends to Government: The construction of a high speed rail link connecting Gatwick and Heathrow. Improved rail connectivity of other regional airports (Manston, Lydd, London City, Southend, Stansted, Luton, Southampton and Birmingham) with London, Gatwick and Heathrow. Further development of Manston Airport, other existing regional airports in the South East (Lydd, London City, Southend, Stansted, Luton and Southampton) and those with good connections to London (Birmingham). Capacity growth at Gatwick through the addition of a second runway after 2019. Any proposals for a Thames Estuary airport are not progressed any further. No action is not an option but action to address capacity issues must been taken quickly; rather than depending on an estuary airport that will take years to develop and may not even succeed, better use of our existing hub and regional airports NOW will ensure that the UK retains its premier position as a hub airport.
    [Show full text]