Originally Posted by
destinationsky
I am for the expansion before anyone tries to shoot me down. However, if you read the objectors comments, a majority of them make some very good points, particularly in relation to noise and environmental issues. The airport has put together a fairly poor submission which does not do anything to appease these issues. Noise wise, the increase in use of Airbus/Boeing variants will change the noise environment and increase the noise contours, pushing them further out, particularly to the North. The locations selected to do baseline monitoring were poorly thought through and serve no relevance to people who are/will be affected by noise owing to increase of traffic. The consultation events were inadequate and there should have been more of them and over a longer period. Away from this planning application, the noise action plan does nothing to address the future noise environment which would at least show a commitment to address any noise concerns as the airport grows.
The airport (and all people who have submitted positive comments) seem to rely on one positive environmental metric - the fact that the lengthening of the runway will stop cars travelling to LGW or LHR. Will it really?! Unless I have missed it there is no quantifiable study done on this? That claim will rely on a range of operators coming in and increasing the route options so much so that you get a good timetable with good flight times, along with airline competition which will drive prices down. Lets not forget that the airport MD travelled to LHR for onward travel to Scotland owing to poor flight times from SOU. This growth will take years to achieve. Coupled with the fact that stand capacity for larger aircraft is restricted, increased use of A319/320 family aircraft will not provide an increase in routes until this issue is addressed. As for the NEO, the aircraft has restrictions on engine stabilisation and warm up times. In essence, after start up, you have to wait a period of time before power can be applied. This alone will impact on capacity so wouldn't pin hopes on that aircraft being the saviour - as a lot of people on here think.
The starter strip will only provide a demonstrable benefit for certain modes of operation - namely 20 deps and 02 arrivals. What about the other directions? All being said, there are better things that the airport could be doing to increase movements and improve their environmental metrics - improve stands, improve the airspace, implement SIDS/STARS earlier than gvmt mandate and a whole lot more. Instead of saying that cars will be taken off the road, try doing something that will provide a more obvious benefit.
I do hope that the airport will expand, but not enough has been done to address the environmental concerns. And these concerns will stop expansion.
Before I face the inevitable attacks, I live very close to the airport, I do get overflown by both arrivals and departures and the noise doesn't bother me. BUT I have experience of how this type of application should be managed.
At last a realistic and factual analysis of the planning application, and not a rose tinted appraisal that some contributors( and we know who they are) have on the SOU blog.
There will be a whole host of objections to the planning application,what will happen if the extension doesn't happen?
There is very little the airport can or more to the point will do! Its difficult to see any substantial growth happening over the next few years with the runway and airside structure currently in place.