Airports Commission: Final Report July 2015 The Airports Commission has actively considered the needs of blind and partially sighted people in accessing this document. The text will be made available in full on the Commission’s website. The text may be freely downloaded and translated by individuals or organisations for conversion into other accessible formats. If you have other needs in this regard please contact: Airports Commission 6th Floor Sanctuary Buildings Great Smith Street London SW1P 3BT General email enquiries: [email protected] © Crown copyright 2015 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. You may re-use this information (not including logos or third-party material) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. ISBN: 978-1-84864-158-7 Contents Chair’s Foreword 3 Acknowledgements 6 Short-listed scheme descriptors 7 Executive Summary 9 Chapter 1. Introduction 37 Chapter 2. The global and national aviation context for the Commission’s work 45 Chapter 3. The Case for Change 69 Chapter 4. The Commission’s Appraisal and Consultation Process 89 Chapter 5. The Short-listed Schemes 97 Chapter 6. Strategic Fit Assessment 105 Chapter 7. Economic Impacts Assessment 135 Chapter 8. Surface Access Assessment 151 Chapter 9. Environment Assessment 167 Chapter 10. People Assessment 213 Chapter 11. Commercial Viability and Delivery 221 Chapter 12. Operational Viability Assessment 237 Chapter 13. Recommended Option for Expansion 245 Chapter 14. Respecting the Needs of Local Communities 275 Chapter 15. Supporting Growth and Connectivity Across the UK 311 Chapter 16. Next Steps 319 Annex A – The Commission’s Expert Advisory Panel 341 1 Foreword Foreword The London airport capacity problem has perplexed governments for over fifty years, for reasons that are not hard to find. The considerable benefits of aviation accrue to the many, while the environmental costs are borne by the (relatively) few. For those who live near them airports are noisy neighbours and are greedy for space. In a congested corner of a crowded island it is not easy to find a good home for them. No new full-length runway has been laid down in the South East of England since the 1940s. But other developed and developing countries face similar issues and have nonetheless been better able to provide infrastructure to keep pace with the growing demands of an expanding aviation market. The independent Airports Commission was set up in late 2012 with a brief to find an effective and deliverable solution, and to make recommendations which will allow the UK to maintain its position as Europe’s most important aviation hub. We believe we have now identified a solution which can command widespread support. Over the last two and a half years we have reviewed the evidence afresh, without preconceptions, and consulted widely. The approach we took was inclusive and integrated. So the Final Report covers developments in the aviation sector in some depth, but sets them within a broader economic and environmental context. In assessing the case for expansion in particular locations the Commission has examined its implications across a wide range of factors including noise, surface transport, employment, air quality, housing and local communities. At the end of this extensive work programme our conclusions are clear and unanimous. While London remains a well-connected city its airports are showing unambiguous signs of strain. Heathrow is operating at capacity, and Gatwick is quickly approaching the same point. There is still spare capacity elsewhere in the South East for point-to-point and especially low-cost flights, but with no availability at its main hub airport London is beginning to find that new routes to important long-haul destinations are set up elsewhere in Europe rather than in the UK. Other UK airports are increasingly squeezed out of Heathrow, with passengers from the nations and regions obliged to transfer through other European airports, or Middle Eastern hubs. That costs them time and money, and is off- putting to inward investors. Without action soon the position will continue to deteriorate, and the entire London system will be full by 2040. 3 Airports Commission: Final Report Good aviation connectivity is vital for the UK economy. It promotes trade and inward investment, and is especially crucial for a global city like London. The service sector, whether the City, the media industry or universities, depends heavily on prompt face-to- face contact. There is strong evidence that good transport links, and especially aviation connectivity, make an important contribution to enhancing productivity, which is an important national challenge. So a new runway in the South East is needed by 2030, which means a firm decision is needed soon, as bringing it into operation will take a decade or more. One new runway, even fully utilised, is compatible with continued progress towards reducing carbon emissions, and putting it elsewhere in the country would produce a far less efficient outcome. It will provide the capacity we need until 2040 at least. Beyond that, the position is uncertain, and will be strongly dependent on the international policy approach to climate change. We have concluded that the best answer is to expand Heathrow’s runway capacity. A brand new airport in the Thames Estuary, while appealing in theory, is unfeasibly expensive, highly problematic in environmental terms and would be hugely disruptive for many businesses and communities. Gatwick, by contrast, has presented a plausible case for expansion. It is well placed to cater for growth in intra-European leisure flying, but is unlikely to provide as much of the type of capacity which is most urgently required: long-haul destinations in new markets. Heathrow can provide that capacity most easily and quickly. The benefits are significantly greater, for business passengers, freight operators and the broader economy. All passengers will benefit from enhanced competition. Our choice at Heathrow is in favour of the Northwest Runway proposal by the airport operator. The so-called Heathrow Hub is an imaginative idea, which has usefully opened up thinking about the way the airport operates, but for the reasons we explain is less attractive from a noise perspective. The Northwest Runway scheme is technically feasible and does not involve massive, untested infrastructure. The costs are high, but financeable by the private sector, in our judgement and that of investors. Heathrow expansion has of course been recommended before, and subsequently set aside in the face of local opposition. To make expansion possible the Commission recommends a comprehensive package of accompanying measures which would make the airport’s expansion more acceptable to its local community, and to Londoners generally. The package includes a ban on night flights, more reliable respite for overflown communities, a legally-enforced “noise envelope”, a statutory independent aviation noise authority, and a noise levy to fund a far stronger and more generous set of compensation and mitigation schemes. New measures to ensure acceptable air quality around the airport will also be 4 Foreword needed. All this would be accompanied by a new Community Engagement Board based on the successful model adopted in Amsterdam. Furthermore, as there is no environmental or operational case for a fourth runway at Heathrow, that should be ruled out by government through legislation firmly and finally. Combined with improvements to aircraft technology, which are reducing noise and emissions over time, and new traffic management procedures, all this means that an expanded Heathrow would be a better neighbour for local communities than the airport is today. A bigger Heathrow would not inflict noise nuisance on more people than the airport does today, and the people affected would be far better compensated. Expansion and the mitigation of the airport’s local impacts go hand in hand, as the former can provide the financial resources needed for the latter. The Commission urges the Government to make an early decision on its recommendations. Further delay will be increasingly costly and will be seen, nationally and internationally, as a sign that the UK is unwilling or unable to take the steps needed to maintain its position as a well-connected open trading economy in the twenty first century. I am very grateful to my Commission colleagues John Armitt, Ricky Burdett, Vivienne Cox and Julia King for their support. They have devoted far more time and energy to the project than they expected, and on an entirely voluntary basis. The work has benefited hugely from their different skills and perspectives. I would also like to recognise the contribution made by Geoff Muirhead before his resignation in September 2013. Phil Graham, our excellent Secretary, has led a dedicated and hard-working team with great skill and tact. All those who contributed to the work are listed in the Acknowledgements section: I thank them all. Finally, however, it is also important to thank the many thousands of individuals and organisations who have responded, often on a voluntary