Boris Island must never be able to get off the ground

Any new major airport near the Thames Estuary is impractical because of politics and birds

At first the idea of a new airport on, or even in, the Thames Estuary seemed to be just one of the Mayor of London's less amusing flights of fancy, but now the arrival of a proposal by the architect Norman Foster has given it some respectability. The idea of replacing Heathrow and moving east is not new. Forty years ago, Maplin Sands, off Essex, was held up as a possible site, but interest soon dwindled and the present proposals seem just as likely to fade when confronted by the real situation: that a new airport is both impractical and unnecessary.

The cost would, of course, be staggering. Lord Foster – who has designed three splendid terminals, at Stansted, Beijing and on an island off Hong Kong – reckons the total cost of his project would be around £50bn, which would include a new London orbital railway. Rather airily, he assumes the money could be raised internationally. In reality, any new major airport anywhere near the Thames is doubly impractical because of politics and birds.

The idea of replacing Heathrow, which employs 75,000 people, as an international hub and moving it across London boggles the mind, affecting as it would a dozen or more – mostly marginal – constituencies. But the existence of 300,000 permanent resident birds on the banks of the estuary is decisive in itself. They now occupy five Special Protection Areas which makes Lord Foster's claim – that they could be replaced by a man-made bird sanctuary – ridiculous if only because, as the RSPB puts it, "they'd keep coming back".

Even more decisively, the Civil Aviation Authority has a Bird Hazard Management Plan which requires a bird-free zone around any major airport. Low-flying aircraft are particularly susceptible to bird strikes, a hazard simply impossible to control (the miraculous emergency landing of an airliner piloted by Captain Chesley Sullenberger on New York's Hudson River was caused by a flock of birds disabling both its engines).

Both new airport proposals – Boris Johnson wants to create a new island ("Boris Island"), Foster would build his on the Isle of Grain on the estuary's south bank – assume Heathrow is crucial, not only as a final destination, but also for transferring passengers. In reality, over the past 10 years, the number of transit passengers at Heathrow has slumped from 341,000 to a mere 136,000, a tiny fraction of its total of 65 million.

Another delusion is that we need a Very Major Airport to demonstrate that we are a Very Major Player on the world business scene. John Cridland of the CBI gave the game away when he declared that "Britain will be left behind in the premier league of nations if ministers fail to increase runway capacity in or around London". In fact, of course, all we need is the ability for Londoners to take a plane to anywhere in the world. Moreover, once they get over a certain size, airports become decidedly inconvenient for passengers. At Schipol, Amsterdam's rival to Heathrow, many planes land virtually on the North Sea and must taxi for half an hour to get to a massive terminal which itself takes half an hour to walk through.

The case also ignores the fact that London is already served by five airports, two more than New York, for instance, and that the 20 outside South-east England already take millions of passengers from London.

In the last decade, while annual passenger numbers from London's airports have increased by around a fifth to 120 million – mostly at Stansted – those from England's 11 major regional airports have nearly doubled to reach more than 40 million. In some cases the increase has been larger: Liverpool's John Lennon airport has nearly tripled its numbers, and eight airports, including such unlikely ones as Southampton, now handle more than a million passengers each.

And these figures refer exclusively to those on scheduled services to Europe, where these airports take an ever-increasing proportion of long-haul passengers away from Heathrow to foreign alternatives like Paris and Amsterdam. The result of this drift from the capital is that in the past 10 years, the proportion of all UK air traffic using the "London Five" has declined by 10 per cent to little more than a half.

Cridland's declaration was in reply to the announcement by Birmingham Airport that, through a combination of runway extension and terminal construction, it could soon handle nine million more passengers a year – today it has less than seven million. It also has planning permission for expansion to well over 25 million. This would put it in the same league as Gatwick, as well as being able to handle the biggest aircraft on the longest routes from a base which could attract passengers from anywhere between Birmingham and the capital.

But the key to accommodating any increased traffic is not only encouraging expansion outside the capital, it also lies in dividing London's air traffic more sensibly between its five airports. Willie Walsh, now in charge of Air Iberia as well as British Airways, made this clear when he said he was buying the small, loss-making airline BMI for its numerous slots at Heathrow. These will be used for long-haul, rather than existing short-haul services. Basically he was saying there are still lots of short-haul flights from Heathrow – the average plane transports a mere 147 passengers, a number virtually unchanged in 10 years, demonstrating just how many flights are short-haul. The new slots could complete Heathrow's coverage of the globe, which now excludes much of Latin America and inland China. So Heathrow for long-haul, the other four for short-haul.

Of course any attempt to shuffle airports and destinations would be difficult, but could be helped by changing the basis for charging the fees paid by airlines, at Heathrow for instance, to discourage smaller aircraft by charging per aircraft rather than per passenger.

But the biggest opportunity lies in using Gatwick more efficiently, above all as an alternative to Heathrow for long-haul passengers. At the moment, a fifth of its services are by charter flights which could go to Stansted or Luton. This would allow more long-haul services – at present it has relatively few, virtually all to tourist destinations, without any to such major cities as Chicago, Los Angeles or Boston.

I suspect Gatwick's major problem is its inaccessibility by road from central London. This matters because the rich and self-important won't use trains to travel to and from airports even though there are separate, frequent and reliable rail services from Gatwick to the West End and the City taking a mere half an hour – far quicker than the journey by limo from Heathrow. The train could so easily take the strain from our airports and its passengers.

Independent 27th Dec 2011

It's all kicking off at Lydd...

Activists prepare for battle to save countryside from the developers

The fight over Lydd airport's proposed expansion in Kent highlights the conflict awaiting the government's new planning policy framework.

Down in the marshlands of Kent, battle lines are being drawn. In Lydd, a historic gateway town near the headland of Dungeness – a desolate moonscape of gravel dunes, bungalows and tundra – the people are angry. They are angry at proposals to build more homes on the edge of town at a time when younger inhabitants are moving away. They are angry at plans to develop a series of quarries that will have conveyor belts running all night. And they are angry about the airport.

Local heritage and environmental groups warn that plans to expand Lydd's tiny airport – now used by private jets, cargo planes and Lydd Air, which flies to Le Touquet in France – will dramatically alter the haunting atmosphere of the marshlands, designated an area of outstanding natural beauty. The RSPB claims pollution and the use of bird-strike controls to protect passenger planes carrying between 200,000 and two million people a year will be devastating for the area's wildlife.

There are concerns, too, that the flight path poses a security risk to Dungeness nuclear power station and a primary school about 600 metres from where the planes would land. Posters proclaiming "No big jets" are displayed in windows around town. But walk past the houses with their "For Sale" signs, the closed-down ironmongers, the glassless telephone box and the vandalised memorial garden, and it is clear opposition to airport expansion is far from unanimous.

Jean Jones, who runs the Two Bob Shop on the High Street said:

"We really need the airport to be developed. There's no employment here for the youngsters; they're leaving or causing trouble. The bank's closed down and there are fewer shops. People do their shopping in Romney Marsh now. This town is dying."

Shepway council agreed and approved plans to develop the airport, owned by a Saudi businessman, Sheikh Fahad al-Athel, but in the face of opposition the government referred it to the planning inspectorate. The ultimate decision will rest with Eric Pickles, secretary of state for communities and local government.

Those in favour claim Lydd, also known as London Ashford airport, can already take big jets. Two years ago, 23 jumbos bound for Gatwick landed at the airport due to thick fog. In the 1950s the airport, then known as Silver City, flew tens of thousands of passengers and their cars to mainland Europe.

Jean's husband, Bob, a parish councillor and leading light in the Friends of Lydd Airport Group, who believes that the 200 or so jobs it is claimed would be created at the airport would themselves generate hundreds more, said:

"This would create up to 1,000 jobs. The whole marsh is dying. This is the most deprived area in southern England. Folkestone and Ashford are getting money, but there is nothing here. In this economic climate it's got to get the go-ahead."

It's a view shared by local Conservative MP Damian Collins, whose blog champions the government's plan for growth, which he claims will bring "radical changes to the planning system to support job creation". Collins knows which way the wind is blowing. The government is determined that "sustainable growth" takes centre stage in the planning process. Its national planning policy framework, unveiled last month, repeatedly confirms that planning must be seen as a tool of economic growth, an emphasis seized on by developers and housing experts.

David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, which represents England's social housing providers said:

"It's possibly the most useful thing the coalition government has done. For too long the scales have been tipped in favour of those opposed [to development]."

Orr knows the figures better than most. Last year about 100,000 homes were built in Britain, but most experts agree there is a need to build about 250,000 homes a year to cater for the country's burgeoning population.

The government's new framework recognises this shortfall, instructing local authorities to update their five-year house-building plans and to increase their construction targets by 20%. Although only a draft, it is already governing decisions. Planning officers have been told to recognise that it is of "material consideration" when considering applications. Decisions that have been rejected are being reprised as developers anticipate that the coalition's pro-growth development strategy will allow them to override previous objections.

This is the concern of locals in Slad Valley, Gloucestershire – Laurie Lee country – close to where Barratt Homes hopes to build 48 houses, 30% of which will be allocated to affordable housing. Stroud council rejected the plan, but the new framework suggests the development could yet see the green light.

"It's almost certain they will appeal," said Geoffrey Murray, chairman of the Stroud district branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE). "They [the developers] know that the council have got to hit these 20% extra targets."

Crucially, it has been estimated that as few as 5% of councils will have up-to-date development plans by next April when the new framework is due to come into force. This is important. The government has signalled that councils failing to meet the deadline will be assumed to be in favour of a "permissive planning system". Or, as John Howell MP, parliamentary private secretary to Greg Clark, the minister of state for decentralisation, explained in January, developers will be able to build "what they like, where they like and when they like", provided they meet new planning guidelines.

Unsurprisingly, conservation groups have expressed alarm at the "permissive" emphasis, which they believe is driven chiefly by the Treasury. The likes of the National Trust and the CPRE are alarmed that the framework dispenses with guidance stressing development of brownfield sites should come before greenfield, and that it contains no commitment to respect the "intrinsic value" of the countryside. As a result, they warn developers will "cherry-pick" cheaper greenfield sites at the expense of brownfield. Greenery around towns and villages will simply disappear, they say.

But it will not happen without a fight. The National Trust is canvassing its 3.7 million members as it prepares its response. Prominent campaigners, such as comedian Griff Rhys Jones, have joined the fray, warning the new framework will "slash, burn and rampage through current planning laws". There is talk that the escalating row will go the way of the government's attempts to sell off the nation's forests.

So far the government has dismissed the objections, claiming the framework reiterates a commitment to protecting the greenbelt and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Planning minister Bob Neill has gone as far to suggest the objections are the work of a "carefully choreographed smear campaign by leftwingers based in the national headquarters of pressure groups" – a charge rejected by those at whom it was targeted.

"We are not against development," said Shaun Spiers, chief executive of the CPRE, who is critical of Labour for not providing an "adequate response" to the row. "We accept planning needs to be streamlined. But there's no evidence this framework will kickstart the economy. Where is the advantage in introducing the sort of planning system seen in Portugal, Greece and Ireland?"

Orr rejects the concerns: "This will not result in a concreting over of the countryside. Period." But many Tory backbenchers are aware that the row could affect their core support and it is rumoured that the government will seek an NHS-style "listening exercise" in the autumn to try to defuse the situation. The government knows it is not the leftwingers it needs to fear. It is middle England. And it's ready for a fight.

Observer 21st Aug 2011