Bristol airport expansion appeal approved

[Fishnut]

A bit of background. Bristol airport is the main regional airport for the south-west. It is at the top of a hill about 7 miles outside of Bristol on the edge of the mendips. It has a tendency to get covered in low cloud during warm front conditions and the short runway length (because it's at the top of a hill) means it is limited to short-haul flights.

There are no public transport links to the airport. There's a privately-run airport bus that runs between Bristol and the airport but that's it. Even locals can't get to the airport by public transport. You either get a (very expensive) taxis or take a car. And cars are charged to drop-off and pick-up passengers with no grace period at all (they used to give you 5 minutes, but that got scrapped a few years ago) so the vast majority of travellers (70% is the figure I've seen, one of the highest figures in the country) arrive by car, which then needs parking for the duration of their trip.

Passenger numbers were increasing before the pandemic but that increase was slowing, and with both the pandemic and brexit it's unclear how to forecast passenger numbers going forward.

Airport.passenger.numbers.jpg (20.57 KiB) Viewed 892 times

Despite this, the airport applied to expand to permit 12 million passengers per year, meaning an extra 23,800 flights including 4,000 night flights. They want to expand the terminal and parking area, claiming that it would bring economic benefits to the region. These claims are dubious given that the majority of travellers are flying out of the airport to go on holiday, not flying in to visit the region, and the majority of jobs on offer are low-pay shift work. The airport is owned by a Canadian pension fund so all its profits leave the country.

North Somerset Council rejected the application, against the advice of their planning officers, citing the negative local impacts of increased flights and people travelling to the airport as well as the climate implications (the Council having already voted to recognise a climate emergency and take steps to reduce the county's carbon emissions) - the expansion would completely negate any efforts made to bring to the region to carbon neutrality. Bath and North East Somerset Council also rejected the application, as did Bristol City Council and the West of England Combined Authority (WECA). The airport appealed the decision and it went to public enquiry.

Today
The inquiry gave its decision today. They decided to let the airport expand.

Their decision can be found here [PDF]. I've barely even skimmed it but I have to say what I've seen is based on a lot of assumptions that assume that everything will go back to being 'business as usual' after the pandemic, which I doubt. Why on earth would companies pay to fly you to Europe when they know that the vast majority of meetings can be done via Zoom for a fraction of the cost? I also see little reason to think that more people are going to be taking more overseas holidays than they have been pre-pandemic, especially considering the increased living costs we are all experiencing that reduces disposable income.

The most damning part of the report is its section on climate change, which is a bunch of waffle that reads to me like they're saying, 'yeah, we know the climate is changing and we're responsible but if we shift the carbon from this column to that one on the budget sheet we can make the airport's emissions disappear." It's an accounting trick, not a real response to a real crisis. They end the section by saying "Overall, this matter [climate change] must be regarded as neutral in the planning balance." Which is simply a stunning conclusion.

I am devastated by the decision. It shows a complete disregard for democracy - the local communities spoke and rejected the plan and the government has overturned that rejection. And it shows that the government has no intention to do anything about the climate crisis if it means harming profits (even if they're profits made for companies overseas). North Somerset Council is looking to see if there are grounds to contest the decision and I hope they find them.

[Trinucleus]

There's similar plans for Leeds Bradford airport. It was approved locally, but is now under review. Good news though - the airport boasts that the new terminal will be carbon neutral. Not counting the planes, obvs.

[El Pollo Diablo]

The most damning part of the report is its section on climate change, which is a bunch of waffle that reads to me like they're saying, 'yeah, we know the climate is changing and we're responsible but if we shift the carbon from this column to that one on the budget sheet we can make the airport's emissions disappear." It's an accounting trick, not a real response to a real crisis. They end the section by saying "Overall, this matter [climate change] must be regarded as neutral in the planning balance." Which is simply a stunning conclusion.

I agree that this is a damning part of the report, but I think it's even worse than you say. I've only quickly skimmed it but the general sense is, "the Government is supposed to have a plan for reducing aviation carbon emissions, but it doesn't. And even though we know that this scheme will materially negatively impact the fight against climate change, and all parties agree with that, the absence of a national strategy and the refusal of the government to accept a scenario where we ban airports from expanding means that we have to discount this as a reason for refusal".

Edit: In particular paragraph 213:

213. It is self-evident that any increase in CO2 emissions in one location will have consequences elsewhere and that this could make the duty of the SoS under the CCA more difficult. But in this case the comparative magnitude of the increase is limited and it has to be assumed that the SoS will comply with the legal duty under the CCA.

This paragraph is missing the following: "This is despite the fact that the UK is currently failing in its responsibility to reduce its carbon emissions in line with its plan, and we've stated this, and it's inarguable."

[Sciolus]

The Cumbria coal mine case showed that the current local planning regime is simply unable to address carbon emissions properly. I'm not sure if that's inherent in the nature of local planning regime trying to address a national and international issue, or simply because the policy isn't there; I suspect the latter. National policy states that the SoS will fix emissions without specifying how, and there is a policy vacuum on how individual developments should be expected to contribute to that. That means there is nothing a planning inspector* can do except nod every development through.

*Whose job is to decide if the proposal is consistent with policy set by elected local and national government, not decide if policy is good or bad.

[Bird on a Fire]

Obviously there should be no net increase in flights, and therefore airports, anywhere, until carbon emissions are under control. Every proposed airport expansion needs to be postponed indefinitely.

It's nuts that despite being among the 70% of countries that have bothered to come up with Paris NDCs since 2015, the UK hasn't worked out that those stated ambitions need to be mainstreamed in everyday decision-making. (Mind you, barely anyone else has either.)

[IvanV]

The Cumbria coal mine case showed that the current local planning regime is simply unable to address carbon emissions properly. I'm not sure if that's inherent in the nature of local planning regime trying to address a national and international issue, or simply because the policy isn't there; I suspect the latter. National policy states that the SoS will fix emissions without specifying how, and there is a policy vacuum on how individual developments should be expected to contribute to that. That means there is nothing a planning inspector* can do except nod every development through.

*Whose job is to decide if the proposal is consistent with policy set by elected local and national government, not decide if policy is good or bad.

It really isn't the job of local planning to address such matters. It isn't remotely designed to do it. And as you quite correctly say, it is something that needs national and international coordination.

And of course, devolution to Wales and Scotland aside, power has been gradually centralised from Mrs Thatcher onwards, Brexit being the latest power grab. Revenue raising powers were transferred vastly from local authorities to Westminster with the abolition of the rates, which raised far more money than their replacements. Business rates were also transferred to central government control. Meanwhile the Central Govt tries to pass the buck on things it doesn't want to be embarassed about to local govts, while giving very little power to them to do very much. It tells them what to do and then gives them the money.

The new "levelling up" agenda pays lip service to decentralisation by praising the likes of the Manchester Mayor. But these mayors really only have spending powers over transport to any greater extent than local authorities, this being something the govt would like to be disembarrassed of. They have nothing like the powers of the GLC that Maggie abolished.

I wouldn't expect Bristol Airport to be so daft as to actually spend money on expanding until it has seen that the traffic is returning to make that profitable. Heathrow somehow got the supreme court to overthrow the ruling cancelling its permission to build a 3rd runway. But there is no sign of them actually spending much money again on it yet. They are waiting to see.

Bristol, the main airport for the SW. Nearer to London than to Truro. It astonishes me that they managed to get all those people in and out of it given how ill-connected it is to the strategic road network, let alone public transport. Bristol has a surprisingly large hinterland. A former work colleague who lived not far from the Reading West Jct 12 of the M4 preferred to fly from Bristol than from Heathrow, when you took into account the traffic and the time it took to process yourself through the airports. In practice it is also the airport for S Wales, as Cardiff has few flights available.

[Millennie Al]

There are no public transport links to the airport. There's a privately-run airport bus that runs between Bristol and the airport but that's it

How is that not public transport? Isn't the use of it open to anyone? And what has happened to the services listed at https://www.bristolairport.co.uk/to-and ... -and-coach ?

the airport applied to expand to permit 12 million passengers per year, meaning an extra 23,800 flights including 4,000 night flights. They want to expand the terminal and parking area, claiming that it would bring economic benefits to the region. These claims are dubious given that the majority of travellers are flying out of the airport to go on holiday, not flying in to visit the region, and the majority of jobs on offer are low-pay shift work.

People flying out benefit by having a cheaper or more convenient service. And what is the alternative to the jobs on offer? No jobs at all. If the jobs are so undesireable, workers can always quit and get better jobs elsewhere.

The airport is owned by a Canadian pension fund so all its profits leave the country.

What about the tax on profits? And even if the profits go to Canadian pensioners, surely they will use at least some of the money to buy British products?

Why on earth would companies pay to fly you to Europe when they know that the vast majority of meetings can be done via Zoom for a fraction of the cost?

Well, if they don't it's the Canadian pension fund that loses money, so we don't need to worry about that.

I also see little reason to think that more people are going to be taking more overseas holidays than they have been pre-pandemic, especially considering the increased living costs we are all experiencing that reduces disposable income.

Net living costs will not necessarily increase for everyone. If people shift to more working from home they can save on commuting costs and potentially also by making their own lunches at home rather than buying expensive food at work.

The most damning part of the report is its section on climate change, which is a bunch of waffle that reads to me like they're saying, 'yeah, we know the climate is changing and we're responsible but if we shift the carbon from this column to that one on the budget sheet we can make the airport's emissions disappear." It's an accounting trick, not a real response to a real crisis. They end the section by saying "Overall, this matter [climate change] must be regarded as neutral in the planning balance." Which is simply a stunning conclusion.

A more complete quote is:

216. Given current national policy, the approach of APF and MBU, the measures
already in place, along with the potential for further measures in the future, the
conclusion must be that the aviation emissions are not so significant that they
would have a material impact on the Government’s ability to meet its climate
change target and budgets. Ground based emissions can be addressed by the
CCCAP and other measures, and the two development plan policies
summarised above are not considered to directly address aviation emissions.
Overall, this matter must be regarded as neutral in the planning balance.

Do you argue that the aviation emissions are so significant that they would have a material impact on the Government’s ability to meet its climate change target and budgets?

It shows a complete disregard for democracy - the local communities spoke and rejected the plan and the government has overturned that rejection.

National government is as democratic as local government. There's nothing undemocratic about a local community having to do what the national government says.

[El Pollo Diablo]

The point is that the national government hasn't said anything. It's the absence of a policy that is driving the decision wrt climate change, not the presence of one.

[Sciolus]

It shows a complete disregard for democracy - the local communities spoke and rejected the plan and the government has overturned that rejection.

That's not really true. Democratically-elected local and national government set policy. North Somerset's policy sets out what they expect of proposals for the development of Bristol Airport. National government also has a bunch of policy, including some supporting airport growth. The job of the planning inspectors is not to create, challenge or comment on that policy, but to determine whether a particular proposal is consistent with it. It is analogous to parliament setting laws and courts determining compliance. You don't want a criminal trial to be decided by popular vote.

[Fishnut]

From the Guardian, Campaigners fear net zero could be a casualty of Boris Johnson’s weakness.

Jamie Peters, the campaign director at Friends of the Earth, said: “The government are saying one thing and then doing something completely different in a string of recent decisions, and the climate emergency is too important to be treated this way.

“Their approach to net zero demonstrates either a lack of understanding or a lack of interest in how climate breakdown will affect people here in the UK.”...

Peters said of the recent decisions: “No reasonable person can say that this adds up to a government that understands the scale of action needed. The [net zero] strategy should be strengthened, and rewritten if necessary, to recognise the realities of the climate and ecological emergency. That means no new coal, no new roads, no new airports, and this must be the backbone of everything Whitehall does: it’s not an incidental nice-to-have.”