The Department for Transport (quotes in italics are extracts from the Government's Consultation document) sets out clearly the potential critical nature of consequences which would adversely affect the UK if the problem of insufficient suitable runway capacity in the south-east of England is not addressed effectively and soon.
"Airports and airlines are crucial to our national prosperity".
The Need
The DfT confirms belief held by many respected and knowledgeable representatives of the air transport and associated industries, that the hitherto absence of positive Government policy relative to projected UK runway capacity demand, together with a reliance on the historical approach of short-term stop gap methods for meeting the predicted capacity demand by the processing of even more air traffic movements through the four existing London airports, is not a viable option, if the interests of the UK are to be properly served in the future.
"But Heathrow's position is not guaranteed. Its two runways are full most of the day. Many airlines cannot get the runway slots they want to operate new services. It is already at its limit.
Gatwick's single runway is also full for much of the day; and Stansted's single runway is rapidly filling up especially at peak hours.
Compare this with the new infrastructure at Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam. If we do nothing, the UK will lose out, not just in terms of flights, but also jobs."
The principle of an overwhelming need for additional runway capacity in the south-east is well documented.
"Over the next 30 years, demand for air travel in the UK is expected to triple from 180 million passengers a year now to 500 million in 2030.
In the south east, demand is expected to reach 300 million passengers per annum (mppa). With this demand the current airport infrastructure will not be enough, even with more use of regional airports, which the Government wants to encourage."
It has been established for some time now that further runway capacity will prove necessary by the year 2015. If the United Kingdom is to accommodate future growth in the air transport industry, additional runways will have to be provided. The site of these runways must be identified in good time to provide the opportunity to plan logically and long term, for their provision.
The Considerations
The DfT asks:
"Is there a case for having at least one major hub airport in the UK? If so, where should this be? At Heathrow, which would mean an additional runway? At another existing airport? Or a new airport?
Where should new capacity be located?
What measures would be needed to control and mitigate the environmental impacts on airport growth?
This is an open consultation. The Government has not taken any decision on these issues. We want to study the responses to this consultation before we decide, and will then set out our conclusions in an air transport white paper."
TEACO provides the answer to these questions.
The operation of such a new airport will be free from the majority of the constraints which are necessarily imposed on land-based airports, including 24-hour operation, with a minimum of disturbance to the population.
The site proposed for the location of MARINAIR is within the estuarial waters of the River Thames, north-north-east of the Isle of Sheppey. It is within an area of shallow water in the Thames Estuary and away from primary lines of currents and shipping lanes.
The principal advantages of the proposed site are:
There are other advantages of a Thames Estuary Airport, notably:
The essence of the MARINAIR proposal is the provision of an off-shore runway island. The runways will be located where they cause the minimum of noise nuisance; built-up areas will benefit from the principal flight paths being over water. This addresses and resolves many location and environmental problems. The new airport will be served respectively (through dedicated tunnels where necessary) by road links to the M25 London Orbital Motorway and by a rail link to the CTRL through to Central London and continental Europe.
The runway-island will be constructed on a new land mass to be created in the shallow waters of the Thames Estuary.
The nature and proposed location of the Thames Estuary airport provides for future expansion to an extent and with flexibility not achievable in any other location so far identified for the construction of additional runways to serve the south-east of England.
The principle of siting and constructing airports on off-shore artificial islands is not a new concept. Successful examples currently serve Hong Kong and Kansai, with another projected to serve Singapore.
With reference to the runway island location map shown, the following features should be noted:
The MARINAIR proposal provides for air traffic movements through 24 hours a day and 365 (366) days a year, free from "curfews" and other imposed operational constraints.
Other Planning and Environmental Advantages
It is recognised that current DfT consideration is primarily concerned with increasing capacities of existing UK airports. Planning and environmental considerations place a real and direct constraint on those existing airports, both in the planning process and consequent airport operation. These constraints are as material a factor as any other constraint, if not more so, and will have an important effect on achievable capacities.
The Thames Estuary Airport will be an integral part of the Thames Gateway land use and development strategy. It will generate employment for the boroughs of east London, towns of north Kent and south Essex, as well as proposed new townships. Whilst the runway island will modify the sedimentation patterns and tidal flows of the Estuary, preliminary engineering studies have demonstrated that such changes will be minimal and will not adversely affect fishing or tourism activities.
The main shipping channels of the Thames Estuary lie towards the north-east of the proposed MARINAIR site and contain the principal flood and ebb tidal flows.
Under-island turbines harnessing tidal current could be incorporated to provide ancillary power sufficient to support the island complex and local communities of south Essex and north Kent, as could wind turbines located off-shore to the airport island and outside of the approach and departure safety zones.
Planning Gain
Any major project is expected to provide environmental improvements or mitigation. In the case of MARINAIR, one such improvement will be the creation of a Thames Estuary park to conserve and manage rare and valued estuary ecosystems; a proposal that closely connects with the London Rivers Association's proposal for the Thames to be designated as an Urban National Park to ensure that waterfront development within the Thames Gateway takes place within a strategic framework. The Thames Estuary Airport Company will support the creation of such a Thames Estuary park. In contrast, the alternative options at Heathrow, Gatwick, and Stansted do not provide the opportunity for such environmental benefits. Indeed the converse is the case. TEACO's support for an urban national park would enhance and protect the important RAMSAR marsh sites for the three international bird migration routes, (and other sensitive sites) rather than cause them to be destroyed.
Previous Investigations
The views of those members of RUCATSE (Runway Capacity in the South East) representing environmental groups were unequivocal. The RUCATSE report recorded:
Paragraph 32: "The members of our group representing environmental groups (FHANG, GACC, NWEEHPA and AEF) have stressed that more weight should be given to environmental matters; and that the environmental and social costs of building a new airport at Heathrow, or at Gatwick, or at Stansted, would be so severe that all three locations should be ruled out from further consideration. They feel that this conclusion would be in line with the undertakings given by the Government and set out in Chapter 2 of the report. As the Development and Environment Sub Group reported, there has been no material change in the environmental considerations which led the Government to give those undertakings, ...They are concerned that continued consideration of development of these airports could cause serious and long term problems of blight, hardship and continuing uncertainty for many people around the main London airports."
Paragraph 33: "The possibility that in the long term, if forecast demand is met, not just one, but two or three more runways may be required in the south east would cause even greater environmental and social damage. They feel that an estuarial site, such as MARINAIR, has the potential to provide room for future expansion; and feel that a full constructive assessment should now be made."
Following a year long enquiry, the House of Commons Parliamentary Transport Committee, in June 1996, included in their recommendations that consideration should be given to the concept of a new estuarial airport serving the south east of England. This would meet the demonstrated need for additional runway capacity which will arise at the time of the fast approaching air transport movements saturation point at all existing London airports.
No new airport avoids planning impact. MARINAIR allows the creation of a new major airport with modern infrastructure, whilst having the least environmental damaging effect of all the new additional runway considerations. MARINAIR alone permits a planned long term large scale expansion. It will accommodate the predicted growth demands whilst removing development threats from the surrounds of existing airports.
Thames Estuary Airport Company is aware of huge public support for MARINAIR. The number and strength of the approaches they receive from all interested environmental groups and concerned protest organisations from around Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, all point to MARINAIR as the logical solution to the problem of providing the needed runway capacity in the south east.
The SASIG Response to DfT's latest Consultation Document advises "It will be essential for the Government to re-visit the site search and evaluation process so as to test whether or not another site around the Thames Estuary would have benefits and fewer adverse impacts".
It also advises "On the understanding that the Government's technical work has shown that Cliffe is the best new airport option, then the Government be encouraged to undertake further studies on that site and other sites to ensure that, at whatever site is finally chosen, the impact on both land take and nature conservation is minimised".
Some people make things happen,
Some watch things happen,
While others wonder what has happened.
