MANCHESTER - 9

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

On 'Geographical NIMBYism at its very best' ...

Stoneybridge -

Permit me to address the point you raise, as I suspect that I may be amongst those you note as being supportive of some airport development projects and opposed to others (well, one other). In a nutshell, this is a consequence of assessing each project on its own merits. There is no "one size fits all" formula for evaluating the very varied developments which Manchester Airport wishes to pursue. And it is not a matter of inconsistency or disloyalty to take a different stance when evaluating multiple individual developments which are very varied in nature.

Firstly, let me explain my own position with respect to 'Runway 2' [23L/05R]. Those who know me could confirm that I am very directly affected by aircraft movements using this runway, arguably at least as much as anybody anywhere in the vicinity of the airport. I knew well that this would be the case when I joined and actively supported campaigning by the 'Runway 2 Support Group'. And if I had my time over again, I wouldn't change a thing. Even recalling the night when a landing aircraft on 23L (during 23R maintenance) whipped a bunch of tiles off my roof!

The reason that I supported the R2 development is because the economic case for it was compelling. Whilst the project to this day remains widely misunderstood by the public (and some on here) because it is not fully utilised 24/7, the fact is that R2 has brought huge economic benefits to the region. Airlines primarily require scarce peak time slots to enable services which dovetail with the 9 to 5 standard business day. And companies which base aircraft at the airport - for all market segments - require access to runway capacity at peak times as well as during the shoulder and off-peak periods. R2 has enabled this demand to be satisfied, and the effects in terms of employment and economic value to the North West is clearly evident. Confident that this would be the dividend of the R2 investment, I strongly supported it from the outset despite personally being very directly affected by aircraft using it. So perhaps you would have to call me an 'OKIMBY' on this one because R2 is certainly 'IMBY'! Well, 'IMFY' anyway!

Furthermore, I have strongly supported terminal expansions as required during all the years of my residency in this area. Yes, they are 'IMBY', and yes, they add to congestion on the roads hereabouts etc, etc. But the economic payoff to the region vastly outweighs the downside in each of these cases. If MAG can secure funding to extend T2 and T3, and / or rebuild / modernise T1, they will have my full support in their endeavours. (Whether they would actually prefer to throw their investment kitty at STN is another matter). These terminals are very much 'IMBY', especially the long-term proposals for extending T3. So I guess this makes me an 'OKIMBY' on terminal expansion as well.

The Metrolink extension also runs nearby and the current works are a short distance from my property. However, I have supported this project because construction works are temporary and the long-term benefits of this amenity will be a big positive for years to come. I support increased use of public transport, and initiatives to persuade users of Manchester Airport to avail themselves of it. I myself expect to become a regular user of the airport tram route, as indeed I am a regular user of several of the existing lines. So I'm an 'OKIMBY' on this development too.

A major by-pass [SEMMMS] which will link Manchester Airport with points east is also working its way through the planning process. As the project passes very close to my property, I have received solicitations from law firms to sign up for a compensation suit against the developers. I have not taken them up on their offer, as I believe that the by-pass will be a huge enhancement to the area once completed. The disruption of the construction phase will be worthwhile in the long run. The economic benefits to the wider region are again clearly evident. Believing this, I consider it disingenuous to profiteer from compensation which may become available because of the project's 'detrimental effects'. So you'd better put me down on the 'OKIMBY' list for this one as well.

I am also fully supportive of developments including Airport City (major economic boost for the region) which is just about close enough to pass as 'IMBY'. Extensions to the cargo village are perhaps a little distant to qualify as 'IMBY', but I support this expansion also. Taxiway upgrade initiatives are fine by me too. Oh, and I regard HS2 as a good thing as well!

So what is the big difference when it comes down to the 9000 space car park development on working farmland? Well, firstly, there is a very viable and significantly preferable alternative which would achieve the same outcome. I refer to the proposal for 'Deep 'n High' multi-storey car parking provision constructed in association with the 'Airport City' project. Will the farmland car park proposal create more employment than centrally located multi-storey(s)? Will it be more beneficial to passengers? Will it deliver a huge economic benefit to the North West region? Will whatever benefits the project does deliver enhance the NW over and above the multi-storey alternative? I put it to you that the answer to all these questions is a resounding 'NO'.

The negative aspects of the car park proposal have been widely discussed in earlier posts here, but they can be summarised in terms of environmental damage, significant loss of local amenity, loss of 'green lung' land, erosion of safety margins, loss of trust and historic cooperation with the airport's neighbouring residential community.

Broadly speaking, the communities at the Heald Green / Wythenshawe end of the runways have been supportive of the airport on their doorstep. There are exceptions of course, as there would be in any community, but it is fair to say that many around here are fine with aircraft activity and its essential supporting infrastructure. Many airport workers and aircraft enthusiasts live locally. However, it is quite unfair to expect this community to meekly welcome just any development the airport wants to pursue, regardless of the specifics of the application. The 9000 space car park plan fails the 'good sense test' on so many levels (apologies for the pun). The economic case for it as opposed to a central multi-storey alternative is not only not compelling ... it just isn't there at all!

So it is quite unfair to accuse the airport's neighbours of "geographical NIMBYism at its very best". The opposite is true. This is very selective and very well reasoned NIMBYism against a specific project which spectacularly fails the smell test. Manchester Airport is in fact very fortunate to have enjoyed such a supportive community to the east of its boundary. I wonder if the airport's current management team have any appreciation of the long-term goodwill they have written off with this recent decision? I suppose not, but they may find they have prodded a hornets' nest this time. The local community has vocal and angry opponents prepared to organise now. They feel betrayed. Every development the airport pursues from this point on will face much tougher opposition going forward.

And that saddens me. It didn't have to be like this. The residents have lost all confidence in the management team now running Manchester Airport. The goodwill - taken for granted for so long - is exhausted.

By the way Stoneybridge, you're another one calling out our "manky" sheep. Are you a vet? Is there a whole bunch of vets reading this board? Those sheep are perfectly healthy. Nowt wrong with 'em. I bet they'd taste great with a nice dash of mint sauce.

SHED.