LTNman
16th Dec 2003, 22:38
London Luton Airport
11.84 Luton currently handles about seven million passengers per annum, and is growing steadily towards its current planning limit of 10mppa. Forecasts suggest that there would be sufficient demand to justify expansion of Luton to the full potential of a single runway - say about 30mppa and 240,000 ATMs - in the period up to 2030, even with two new runways at other South East airports.
11.85 Luton/Dunstable is identified in Regional Planning Guidance as a Priority Area for Economic Regeneration and, along with Bedford, is designated as a Growth Area in the Communities Plan. The continued expansion of Luton Airport has the potential to play a key role in delivering employment-led growth in this area.
11.86 The M1 is the principal access road for traffic to and from Luton airport. Improvements to the M1 and M25 and provision of bypasses for Dunstable and Luton were announced in July 2003. Growth of the airport could contribute to pressures on the road network beyond 2015, depending on the rate of build up. The Strategic Rail Authority's view is that, with improvements to links from the airport to Luton Airport Parkway station, for example through a new tracked transit system, the rail capacity enhancement projects underway or planned for Thameslink and Midland Main Line should be sufficient to support expansion to maximum use of one runway.
11.87 The consultation document included two options for a replacement runway at Luton. One of these involved moving the runway to a NNE-SSW alignment and extending it. The other option that was put forward was for a replacement full-length runway to the south of the existing runway and on the same alignment, with the latter to be used as a taxiway. There would be no advantage in a realigned runway in terms of economic benefits, and the environmental impacts would be similar to a runway on the existing orientation except that the total number of people within the 57dBA noise contour in 2030 is estimated to be lower (14,000 rather than 19,000). There appears to be no disagreement with the conclusions of the Civil Aviation Authority and National Air Traffic Services that the realignment of the Luton runway would require major changes in airspace for very little overall gain in capacity. On balance there does not appear to be a compelling argument for this option and we do not support it.
11.88 There is a stronger case for the southern replacement runway option. The airport operator does not favour that option and proposes instead to lengthen the existing runway and taxiway. The second edition of the South East consultation document acknowledged the possibility of such an alternative.
11.89 The Government supports the growth of Luton up to the maximum use of a single full-length runway based broadly on the current alignment, on condition that the overall environmental impacts of such development will be carefully controlled and adequate mitigation provided. We believe that growth should be subject to stringent limits on the area affected by aircraft noise, with the objective of incentivising airlines to introduce the quietest suitable aircraft as quickly as is reasonably practicable. The limits should look at least ten years ahead, and will need to be reviewed at intervals between now and 2030 to take account of emerging developments in aircraft noise performance. We note that the airport operator's proposed single-runway solution may be a more cost-effective approach than the consultation option, and that less land outside the current boundary might be required.
11.90 The two maps below reproduce that shown in the consultation document for the option of a replacement runway to the south of the existing runway as well as the airport operator's alternative proposal.
11.91 The airport operator will need to put in place a scheme to address the problem of generalised blight resulting from the runway proposal (see paragraphs 12.13 to 12.17).
11.92 The airport operator also included in its consultation response a proposal for a second, close parallel runway at Luton that would provide a total capacity of about 62mppa. Our analysis suggests that the proposed second runway at Luton would attract fewer passengers and generate lower economic benefits than the equivalent-size (close parallel) option at Gatwick. We also believe that a second runway at Luton would be unlikely to come to fruition for many years, given the remaining spare capacity on the existing runway. It is uncertain at this stage how much additional transport infrastructure might be needed to support a second runway at Luton, but our judgement is that it could be extensive. We accept the airport operator's assessment that the noise impacts of the second runway might be smaller than for similar scale options in the consultation. On balance, we do not support a second runway at Luton.
It must be stressed that these maps are only indicative, pending detailed design work and the submission of a planning application by the operator. They should not therefore be taken to be formal safeguarding maps.
11.84 Luton currently handles about seven million passengers per annum, and is growing steadily towards its current planning limit of 10mppa. Forecasts suggest that there would be sufficient demand to justify expansion of Luton to the full potential of a single runway - say about 30mppa and 240,000 ATMs - in the period up to 2030, even with two new runways at other South East airports.
11.85 Luton/Dunstable is identified in Regional Planning Guidance as a Priority Area for Economic Regeneration and, along with Bedford, is designated as a Growth Area in the Communities Plan. The continued expansion of Luton Airport has the potential to play a key role in delivering employment-led growth in this area.
11.86 The M1 is the principal access road for traffic to and from Luton airport. Improvements to the M1 and M25 and provision of bypasses for Dunstable and Luton were announced in July 2003. Growth of the airport could contribute to pressures on the road network beyond 2015, depending on the rate of build up. The Strategic Rail Authority's view is that, with improvements to links from the airport to Luton Airport Parkway station, for example through a new tracked transit system, the rail capacity enhancement projects underway or planned for Thameslink and Midland Main Line should be sufficient to support expansion to maximum use of one runway.
11.87 The consultation document included two options for a replacement runway at Luton. One of these involved moving the runway to a NNE-SSW alignment and extending it. The other option that was put forward was for a replacement full-length runway to the south of the existing runway and on the same alignment, with the latter to be used as a taxiway. There would be no advantage in a realigned runway in terms of economic benefits, and the environmental impacts would be similar to a runway on the existing orientation except that the total number of people within the 57dBA noise contour in 2030 is estimated to be lower (14,000 rather than 19,000). There appears to be no disagreement with the conclusions of the Civil Aviation Authority and National Air Traffic Services that the realignment of the Luton runway would require major changes in airspace for very little overall gain in capacity. On balance there does not appear to be a compelling argument for this option and we do not support it.
11.88 There is a stronger case for the southern replacement runway option. The airport operator does not favour that option and proposes instead to lengthen the existing runway and taxiway. The second edition of the South East consultation document acknowledged the possibility of such an alternative.
11.89 The Government supports the growth of Luton up to the maximum use of a single full-length runway based broadly on the current alignment, on condition that the overall environmental impacts of such development will be carefully controlled and adequate mitigation provided. We believe that growth should be subject to stringent limits on the area affected by aircraft noise, with the objective of incentivising airlines to introduce the quietest suitable aircraft as quickly as is reasonably practicable. The limits should look at least ten years ahead, and will need to be reviewed at intervals between now and 2030 to take account of emerging developments in aircraft noise performance. We note that the airport operator's proposed single-runway solution may be a more cost-effective approach than the consultation option, and that less land outside the current boundary might be required.
11.90 The two maps below reproduce that shown in the consultation document for the option of a replacement runway to the south of the existing runway as well as the airport operator's alternative proposal.
11.91 The airport operator will need to put in place a scheme to address the problem of generalised blight resulting from the runway proposal (see paragraphs 12.13 to 12.17).
11.92 The airport operator also included in its consultation response a proposal for a second, close parallel runway at Luton that would provide a total capacity of about 62mppa. Our analysis suggests that the proposed second runway at Luton would attract fewer passengers and generate lower economic benefits than the equivalent-size (close parallel) option at Gatwick. We also believe that a second runway at Luton would be unlikely to come to fruition for many years, given the remaining spare capacity on the existing runway. It is uncertain at this stage how much additional transport infrastructure might be needed to support a second runway at Luton, but our judgement is that it could be extensive. We accept the airport operator's assessment that the noise impacts of the second runway might be smaller than for similar scale options in the consultation. On balance, we do not support a second runway at Luton.
It must be stressed that these maps are only indicative, pending detailed design work and the submission of a planning application by the operator. They should not therefore be taken to be formal safeguarding maps.