News

Estuary hub rejected by Davies as “not the right answer” for London airport capacity

Airports Commisson reports: £100bn cost and “speculative” benefit claims sink plans for island airport; and commission questions whether a hub could be sole solution.

Foster and Partners - new hub layout

The Airports Commission has comprehensively rejected a £100bn plus investment in a four runway inner Thames Estuary hub airport as the solution to the UK’s requirement for an extra runway by 2030.

The estuary airport will not be included on the shortlist of alternatives for providing new south east airport capacity, it said. The focus of the commission’s work will be on proposals for an extra runway at Gatwick or, at Heathrow, an option of a new runway or a runway extension. The commission will make its final recommendation next year.

“While we recognise the need for a hub airport, we believe this should be part of an effective system of competing airports to meet the needs of a widely spread and diverse market like London’s.” Howard Davies.

Commission chair Sir Howard Davies in his introduction to the decision report politely but firmly rejected the plan that has been pursued by London Mayor Boris Johnson. The commission, he said, “had not been persuaded that a very large airport in the Thames Estuary is the right answer to London’s and the UK’s connectivity needs”.

He also questioned whether a single hub option was an acceptable solution. “While we recognise the need for a hub airport, we believe this should be part of an effective system of competing airports to meet the needs of a widely spread and diverse market like London’s,” he said.

The commission recognised that an estuary airport would remove aviation noise nuisance from many west London residents but said other benefits of its construction were “more speculative”. These included claims that the new airport could allow 24 hour operations and reduce over-flying of central London, would be easily expandable as demand grows and would shift London’s economy eastwards.           

“Perhaps surprisingly, in view of the promised benefits, the commission has found in its enquiries that few people outside the direct advocacy groups support the idea,” the report said. “The aviation industry doubts the viability of the plan, local councils are opposed and business groups are similarly unenthusiastic.”

Nevertheless the commission had spent 18 months assessing the option and had commissioned a number of studies to assess its feasibility, impact and risks in more detail.

“At the end of this lengthy process, we have concluded that in view of the obstacles to delivery, high costs and uncertain benefits we will not shortlist the scheme for further consideration.           

The commission highlighted particular risks of an estuary airport as:

  • the scheme’s very significant impacts on protected habitats which as well as being a substantial disbenefit in themselves would present, under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, a very high legal hurdle to be overcome.
  • the scale of provision of new habitat to compensate would be unprecedented in the UK and Europe and deliverability remains uncertain
  • the challenges of transferring aviation services and associated activities from Heathrow to the new airport would be greater than for any previous transition of this kind
  • uncertainties as to the scope of the new airport to co-exist with the nearby Liquid Natural Gas storage facility, with no alternative site for such a facility having been so far identified; and
  • the surface access improvements, which would represent a significant end expensive package of multi modal investment, would need to be delivered in parallel with other schemes of national importance such as HS2.

The commission estimated cost of a three runway estuary airport would be between £67 and £88bn rising to £97 to £120bn for a four runway airport.

“The agglomeration clusters that have grown up around Heathrow over many years could not simply be ‘dragged and dropped’ into the new location – it could take many years for economic activity around the new airport to grow to equivalent levels, if at all.” Davies Commission

The assumption behind the estuary proposals was that Heathrow would close. But in terms of surface access, journey time for passengers would be up to 26% longer compared to Heathrow based on current distribution of Heathrow passengers, the report concluded.

Costs to provide transport were put at between £9.8bn and £26.9bn for rail costs and £10.1bn - £17.2bn for road costs including risk and optimism bias. This would include a new high speed rail link, 88km of M25 widening and almost 100km of widening of A roads in Kent and Essex.

In terms of socio economic impacts, strongly positive effects in the east would be tempered by significant negative impacts in the Heathrow area. And eastward shift of population and economic activity would be incremental rather than transformational. “The agglomeration clusters that have grown up around Heathrow over many years could not simply be ‘dragged and dropped’ into the new location – it could take many years for economic activity around the new airport to grow to equivalent levels, if at all.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inner-thames-estuary-airport-...

If you would like to contact Jackie Whitelaw about this, or any other story, please email jackie.whitelaw@infrastructure-intelligence.com.