A ‘masterplan’ has been produced detailing plans to massively expand passenger numbers at Southampton Airport despite the fact that aviation is the fastest growing emitter of greenhouse gases. You can get a copy of the masterplan sent to you by phoning 02380 627141. No formal planning application has been put in yet, but it is worth noting out that the decision on any planning application will be with Eastleigh Borough Council, not Southampton.
The plan makes forecasts as follows:
2004 - 1.5 million passegers and 37,400 flights per year
2015 - 3 million / 62,000
2030 - 6 miilion / 96,000
BAA (British Airports Authority) think they can provide for 2015 within their current site, with a bit of tweaking of internal facilities (read more in the plan). But, for the larger figures forecast for 2030, they are likely to need a second terminal to the north east of the airport. It provides little evidence of economic benefits; more passangers would generate more economic activity, but then the same could be said of smoking cigarettes, slavery or carpeting 10 Downing Street with tiger pelts. It’s an argument used for every unnecessary development and means nothing. It claims 400,000 tourists fly in every year but gives no figures given for numbers of tourists flying out of the UK.
Grounds for objection
On page 6, the document outlines, briefly plans for an increase in parking spaces from 2,820 to 5,020, 'taking into account increased usage of public transport.' This seems rather contradictory. In any case, we all know that mnore parking spaces = more use of the car. The resulting congestion will adversely affect those who use local public transport. A whole section is devoted to environmental impacts, and this even acknowledged the need to align with national sustainability objectives. However, this section focussed disproportionately on side issues, such as waste generated at the airport, transport of fuel into the airport, and so on. On noise, the document talks mostly about noise at the airport, which it then says is negligible in the context of surrounding roads. No mention of Bitterne Park, or indeed noise as a health issue.
On emissions, it was remarkably honest about CO2 and NOX emissions. However, it only proposed that aircraft may become more efficient, and failing that, there's always emission trading. Hardly reassuring, given that the expected passenger revenue will allow them to pollute as much as they like, and they can simply buy permits off all of the sectors that have worked hard to reduce their emissions. Incidentally, one little mentioned issue here is that aircraft manufacture is one of the most energy intensive industrial processes going. This is because they are mostly made of Titanium with a melting temperature of 3'000 Celsius.
Suggested grounds for objection are:
- noise
- CO2 and NOX emissions
- the increased congestion on the local road network.
If you want to suggest an alternative course of action, how about:
- better use of existing capacity (fewer half-empty flights)
- transferring short haul passengers onto the railways (better for letters to Eastleigh Borough Council; BAA are unlikely to be convinced by that one, given that they don't run any trains).
Also, check out
http://www.southamptonairport.com
So, where should you send objections?
Send local objections to Master Plan Consultation, Planning Department, Southampton Airport, Wide Lane, Southampton, SO18 2NL. E-mail:
southampton_masterplan@baa.com
Also to;
Your local councillors at the Civic Centre, Southampton, SO14 7LY.
Your MP, House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA.
Eastleigh Borough Council, Civic Offices, Leigh Road, Eastleigh, SO50 9YN.
E-mail: direct@eastleigh.gov.uk
Local councils are often very conservative (even if not actually Conservative…), but might be pushed into being more radical if they are constantly pestered on the subject.
2004 - 1.5 million passegers and 37,400 flights per year
2015 - 3 million / 62,000
2030 - 6 miilion / 96,000
BAA (British Airports Authority) think they can provide for 2015 within their current site, with a bit of tweaking of internal facilities (read more in the plan). But, for the larger figures forecast for 2030, they are likely to need a second terminal to the north east of the airport. It provides little evidence of economic benefits; more passangers would generate more economic activity, but then the same could be said of smoking cigarettes, slavery or carpeting 10 Downing Street with tiger pelts. It’s an argument used for every unnecessary development and means nothing. It claims 400,000 tourists fly in every year but gives no figures given for numbers of tourists flying out of the UK.
Grounds for objection
On page 6, the document outlines, briefly plans for an increase in parking spaces from 2,820 to 5,020, 'taking into account increased usage of public transport.' This seems rather contradictory. In any case, we all know that mnore parking spaces = more use of the car. The resulting congestion will adversely affect those who use local public transport. A whole section is devoted to environmental impacts, and this even acknowledged the need to align with national sustainability objectives. However, this section focussed disproportionately on side issues, such as waste generated at the airport, transport of fuel into the airport, and so on. On noise, the document talks mostly about noise at the airport, which it then says is negligible in the context of surrounding roads. No mention of Bitterne Park, or indeed noise as a health issue.
On emissions, it was remarkably honest about CO2 and NOX emissions. However, it only proposed that aircraft may become more efficient, and failing that, there's always emission trading. Hardly reassuring, given that the expected passenger revenue will allow them to pollute as much as they like, and they can simply buy permits off all of the sectors that have worked hard to reduce their emissions. Incidentally, one little mentioned issue here is that aircraft manufacture is one of the most energy intensive industrial processes going. This is because they are mostly made of Titanium with a melting temperature of 3'000 Celsius.
Suggested grounds for objection are:
- noise
- CO2 and NOX emissions
- the increased congestion on the local road network.
If you want to suggest an alternative course of action, how about:
- better use of existing capacity (fewer half-empty flights)
- transferring short haul passengers onto the railways (better for letters to Eastleigh Borough Council; BAA are unlikely to be convinced by that one, given that they don't run any trains).
Also, check out
http://www.southamptonairport.com So, where should you send objections?
Send local objections to Master Plan Consultation, Planning Department, Southampton Airport, Wide Lane, Southampton, SO18 2NL. E-mail:
southampton_masterplan@baa.com Also to;
Your local councillors at the Civic Centre, Southampton, SO14 7LY.
Your MP, House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA.
Eastleigh Borough Council, Civic Offices, Leigh Road, Eastleigh, SO50 9YN.
E-mail:
direct@eastleigh.gov.uk Local councils are often very conservative (even if not actually Conservative…), but might be pushed into being more radical if they are constantly pestered on the subject.
Comments
Display the following 2 comments