Southampton-3
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely if the full council approve it, that's it unless the government calls it in, which seems unlikely for a minor extension, or someone can convince the Law that there have been irregularities in the process in a judicial review.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 43
Posts: 766
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately not. The green loony toons will almost certainly appeal. Amazing how all these morons are always no where to be seen when the port expands like they are currently with the fifth cruise terminal being built. Even more amazing how the port doesn't have to even obtain planning for such a huge structure yet a bit of extra tarmac within SOUs own land has to. Lets not forget Southampton Council pilling on support for the cruise terminal but objecting to the runway extension. What's the lesson? If you want something done don't leave it up to local authorities. This is a planning decision and the council's own planning department have recommended it for approval. Support from respondents to the planning permission was predominantly in favor of the extension. There is nothing to discuss but of course these eco mentalists like to get on social media and attend all the meetings and not surprisingly intimidate the spineless councilors. Meanwhile the silent majority who back the extension seem to not surprisingly be to busy to give up two days of their lives to say their piece. God knows how these eco mentalists put food on their tables, can't imagine anyone is paying them to climb trees and stand outside parliament every other week. I bet all of them would look at you blankly if you asked them what an A320Neo was which just about sums up the validity of their argument. It will be approved by the government so lets wait until then.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The law must be different in England. Here, while the applicant can appeal against refusal, there is no right of appeal by objectors if permission is granted. Causes great anger in communities.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southampton
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ironic but it sounds like the most likely complaint and one to appeal if the airport wins is actually Bournemouth airport on the grounds of unfair ability if having the extension for Southampton to take business away from Bournemouth. Didn’t seem to stop hurn letting EasyJet in to fly Edinburgh and Belfast which could arguably be core routes for Southampton and Southampton’s core business without a runway extension. Case of we have the longer runway which I don’t believe Sou argued against at the time but how dare you try and make airbus a320’s become viable from your runway! Can see this getting ugly between the two airports.
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In England there is no third party right of appeal against a planning decision of a local authority.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...fings/sn06790/
Those aggrieved can apply for a Judicial Review which is a challenge to the way in which a decision was made, not the decision itself.
https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the...dicial-review/
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...fings/sn06790/
Those aggrieved can apply for a Judicial Review which is a challenge to the way in which a decision was made, not the decision itself.
https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the...dicial-review/
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a point that nobody in any of the meetings or on the forums seems to have touched upon. How long is Southampton's runway? How long is London City's runway? How many pax did SOU have prior to the pandemic and Flybe's demise? How many pax did London City have prior to the pandemic? SOU is a regional business airport, always has been always will be. BOH is the holiday airport, always has been always will be. The argument that SOU cannot continue to thrive as a regional business airport with the odd longer flights to Spain etc without a 164M runway extension is utter rubbish. The claim that 2500 jobs will be at risk? Why? The difference between SOU and LCY is that one is in the City of London and the other the City of Southampton. If the business needs of SOU only justify a throughput of up to 2 million pax a year then so be it. It doesn't stop the occasional charter flights to Palma, Alicante, Malaga and Faro etc going ahead as they were when Flybe operated them before and BA City Flyer / Volatea have said they will operate in future with the current runway length. The longer charter flights and low cost airlines will stay at BOH. Why does this "status quo" have to change? Will someone please give us a convincing case why an extra 164M of tarmac is required to continue with a business that was already thriving before? Businessmen don't need business flights from SOU to Spain and beyond - FULL STOP. Not going ahead isn't going to destroy the business SOU already had - FULL STOP! The list of summer 2021 airlines and destinations posted on here on the 28th March suggests to me that a very healthy state of affairs is already in the planning with no runway changes whatsoever. That's seven airlines operating to nearly 30 routes all over Europe as far as Gibraltar and Mykonos. Please correct me if I'm wrong or I might have missed something glaringly obvious?
Last edited by mrshubigbus; 9th Apr 2021 at 22:11.
approval
To expand on that -
The application to extend the runway at Southampton Airport has been approved by EastleighBC
Full Council voted 22 to 13 with one abstention.
Southampton Airport have been given permission to extend its runway by 164m. However, passenger numbers will be capped at 3m per year and noise implications.
EBC states -
The decision to permit the application is subject to a range of conditions and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement addressing important issues arising during the construction and operational phases of the development, including environmental air quality and noise issues, health, transport and ecological issues, together with a Carbon Strategy to reduce emissions from the airport’s own operations, and a plan to encourage employment of local residents.
The application to extend the runway at Southampton Airport has been approved by EastleighBC
Full Council voted 22 to 13 with one abstention.
Southampton Airport have been given permission to extend its runway by 164m. However, passenger numbers will be capped at 3m per year and noise implications.
EBC states -
The decision to permit the application is subject to a range of conditions and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement addressing important issues arising during the construction and operational phases of the development, including environmental air quality and noise issues, health, transport and ecological issues, together with a Carbon Strategy to reduce emissions from the airport’s own operations, and a plan to encourage employment of local residents.
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: London
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am genuinely happy this got approved as it will benefit the entire region and not just SOU or it’s immediate surrounds.
My question for people in the know is: 1) when is this likely to be built? And how long would construction take? Most airlines are at a fraction of their size at the moment. 2) does 164m allow unrestricted A320 ops to Cyprus/Greece/Canaries? If so this is the death of BOH since the catchment is larger at SOU and finally 3) Given prevailing winds/weather, what % of time will aircraft have to offload luggage or restrict payload if they have to operate from the other end (without the starter strip)?
My question for people in the know is: 1) when is this likely to be built? And how long would construction take? Most airlines are at a fraction of their size at the moment. 2) does 164m allow unrestricted A320 ops to Cyprus/Greece/Canaries? If so this is the death of BOH since the catchment is larger at SOU and finally 3) Given prevailing winds/weather, what % of time will aircraft have to offload luggage or restrict payload if they have to operate from the other end (without the starter strip)?
mrshubigbus sums it up nicely, as far as I am concerned. There has been a lot of overkill attached to this process & decision by both sides. I can’t see how it will be the death knell of Bournemouth, either.
It’s only 164m at one end, after all !
It’s only 164m at one end, after all !
Last edited by kcockayne; 10th Apr 2021 at 07:21. Reason: Spelling mistake
I do not think ''unrestricted'' Ops or payloads can ever be expected from SOU even using 180 seat A320NEO types.
There will always be occasions and routes where payloads will be limited.
This is not an 7 or 8000' runway!
Easy Jet were flying from SEN to the Canaries with a 10-15 seat loss.
I do not think BOH has anything to worry about.
SOU will not overnight expect to be able to fill 180 seat aircraft yet.
That type of new business has to build -
Once Covid allows Business to re-start and Travellers to act more normally then we will should see the rewards of more choice.
The new BACF Summer program was a great start albeit now likely further delayed to most or many of their leisure routes.
These flights use a 98 seat EMB Jet.
CDG/AMS and DUB are all crucial Feeder Hubs for onward travel - I would like to see those back in strength.
Plus the UK feeder network restored which SOU was famous for.
There will always be occasions and routes where payloads will be limited.
This is not an 7 or 8000' runway!
Easy Jet were flying from SEN to the Canaries with a 10-15 seat loss.
I do not think BOH has anything to worry about.
SOU will not overnight expect to be able to fill 180 seat aircraft yet.
That type of new business has to build -
Once Covid allows Business to re-start and Travellers to act more normally then we will should see the rewards of more choice.
The new BACF Summer program was a great start albeit now likely further delayed to most or many of their leisure routes.
These flights use a 98 seat EMB Jet.
CDG/AMS and DUB are all crucial Feeder Hubs for onward travel - I would like to see those back in strength.
Plus the UK feeder network restored which SOU was famous for.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what’s the cost of providing the extra 164m? It then comes down to extra revenue generated per year that needed that new length vs the cost of the build and the interest charges on the loans.
Will there be a parallel taxiway as in increased length will decrease the existing flow rate?
Will there be a parallel taxiway as in increased length will decrease the existing flow rate?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 43
Posts: 766
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As another poster has said, get the spades in the ground ASAP!
There is no parallel taxiway planned for this stage of works. There was in the previous master plan. In the new plan they indicated that the runway would be linked to end of the stands at some point which would cut the backtracking time a bit. I guess the volume is not there to proceed with that yet but it seems silly not to put that bit down whilst all the machinery is there for the extension works.
Also lets not bring the SOU v BOH debate back on this thread as it is irrelevant. They are very different businesses and FR and BY are very unlikely to ever operate at SOU given their preference for a 1960s derived plane in the 737. Also BOH's sun routes are well established and will always be served. If I was BOH I would be focusing on growing the new cargo ops which have a lot of potential that SOU will never be able to serve. would like to think it would be much more productive for us to discuss what airlines could be possible candidates to open routes at SOU. It does not just have to be a low cost operator. Maybe the extension will enable ops for other CRJ, ERJ, A220 etc ops? I know some of the variants of those regional jets cannot operate at SOU at the moment.
There is no parallel taxiway planned for this stage of works. There was in the previous master plan. In the new plan they indicated that the runway would be linked to end of the stands at some point which would cut the backtracking time a bit. I guess the volume is not there to proceed with that yet but it seems silly not to put that bit down whilst all the machinery is there for the extension works.
Also lets not bring the SOU v BOH debate back on this thread as it is irrelevant. They are very different businesses and FR and BY are very unlikely to ever operate at SOU given their preference for a 1960s derived plane in the 737. Also BOH's sun routes are well established and will always be served. If I was BOH I would be focusing on growing the new cargo ops which have a lot of potential that SOU will never be able to serve. would like to think it would be much more productive for us to discuss what airlines could be possible candidates to open routes at SOU. It does not just have to be a low cost operator. Maybe the extension will enable ops for other CRJ, ERJ, A220 etc ops? I know some of the variants of those regional jets cannot operate at SOU at the moment.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the here and now, the Loganair E145's should benefit, and I think the larger CRJ's are a sub optimal choice on the current runway. There is a fairly considerable number of CRJ900's operated by Lufthansa and SAS in Europe, so being able to operate their smallest jets at Southampton more feasibly would be no bad thing...
On the topic of a parallel taxiway, a full length one would presumably be very costly, but surely a short one running from the stand 13/14 area to the runway could be a useful addition. Takes nearly 50% off the backtracking distance for an aircraft departing runway 20, and should allow the majority of flights arriving on runway 02 to not need to backtrack. See my crude drawing on Google Earth...
On the topic of a parallel taxiway, a full length one would presumably be very costly, but surely a short one running from the stand 13/14 area to the runway could be a useful addition. Takes nearly 50% off the backtracking distance for an aircraft departing runway 20, and should allow the majority of flights arriving on runway 02 to not need to backtrack. See my crude drawing on Google Earth...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 884
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sharklet_321
1/ At present, concrete will start to be poured this winter with construction taking 34 weeks
2/ not sure although imagine any routes of this length will still be load limited (aka SEN to TFS with EZY), if SOU can attract a few sun routes with EZY/Wizz etc, there could be some dilution with BOU. BE operating to the Med always had a very loyal customer base from SOU so you could see some leakage of pax from the New Forest and beyond to SOU if the airline offering and pricing is attractive and there are route duplications, vice versa local catchment will continue to use BOU for other destinations not served from SOU
3/ take off from 02 is circa 25% of all departures and the starter strip will not be useable for TORA, therefore issue could be with weight restrictions during these times
1/ At present, concrete will start to be poured this winter with construction taking 34 weeks
2/ not sure although imagine any routes of this length will still be load limited (aka SEN to TFS with EZY), if SOU can attract a few sun routes with EZY/Wizz etc, there could be some dilution with BOU. BE operating to the Med always had a very loyal customer base from SOU so you could see some leakage of pax from the New Forest and beyond to SOU if the airline offering and pricing is attractive and there are route duplications, vice versa local catchment will continue to use BOU for other destinations not served from SOU
3/ take off from 02 is circa 25% of all departures and the starter strip will not be useable for TORA, therefore issue could be with weight restrictions during these times