Bristol Airport Expansion: Inspectors reveal reasons for approval
The decision to allow Bristol Airport to expand has sparked widespread dismay among opponents
Campaigners’ “major disappointment” at the decision to allow Bristol Airport to expand has been recognised by government officials.
North Somerset Council refused the firm’s bid to boost annual passenger numbers to 12 million following 8,900 public objections, citing the impact on the climate, green belt and residents’ health, but last week was overruled.
Following a 36-day inquiry, inspectors Phillip Ware, Claire Searson and Dominic Young rejected many of the authority’s arguments and found that the “substantial” socioeconomic benefits outweighed the harm.
Bristol Airport has welcomed the ruling as “excellent news” for the region’s economy, allowing it to create thousands of new jobs and deliver sustainable growth.
WATCH: Our video report on the day the inquiry ended
It and North Somerset Council have both applied for the other to pay their costs of the appeal but a decision is yet to be published.
The trio of inspectors said in their ruling: “The panel found that there is a demonstrable need for the proposed development and that, flowing from this, the socio-economic benefits of the scheme would weigh substantially in its favour.
“The panel have found conflict with the development plan in respect of noise effects and the panel recognise the harmful effect this would have on the amenity and health of some local residents.
“Other environmental effects have been assessed, including climate change, highways matters, air quality, as well as character and appearance (and the AONB), and biodiversity. These are considered to be neutral in the balance.
“Very special circumstances cannot exist unless the harm to the green belt, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. There remains a demonstrable need to provide car parking which cannot fully be accommodated outside of the Green Belt.”
They added: “There was, and remains, a significant level of opposition to the proposed scheme. Objections were made at a local, regional, national and international level.
“We realise that our decision will come as a major disappointment to those people who spoke passionately in opposition to the proposal.
“In coming to our decision, the protests of individuals, communities, MPs, action groups, technical experts and others were fully heard and carefully considered by the panel.
“The panel consider that the benefits arising from the proposed development are as such that they would clearly outweigh the harm to green belt and the harm to noise.
“Despite the harms identified and taking account of all other considerations, the panel concludes that the balance falls in favour of the grant of planning permission.”
Here is a breakdown of the arguments
Climate change
The inspectors said although uncertainties like the Covid-19 pandemic had hit demand for flights in the short term, the airport still looks set to reach 12 million annual passengers by 2030.
They said climate change is a “very serious issue” and there was no doubt carbon dioxide emissions would increase but only the government could consider the cumulative impact of different airports’ expansion ambitions.
They judged the issue of climate as “neutral in the planning balance”, finding 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.
Noise
On noise, the inspectors said aircraft will get quieter over time, although they had sympathy with neighbours who will suffer adverse impacts on their amenity, health and quality of life.
In contrast the panel found that improvements to access, electric vehicle provision and off-site roads would likely have a beneficial effect on air quality.
Access
The council argued that the expansion would negatively impact the highway and the airport failed to provide adequate public transport, leaving passengers reliant on their cars.
The inspectors said it was not up to Bristol Airport to resolve existing problems on the roads and its plans to improve the A38 were fundamentally the same as a scheme promoted by the council that would be better for pedestrians and cyclists.
They said it was ambitious but realistic to increase the proportion of passengers arriving by public transport by 2.5 per cent.
Parking
In line with passenger growth, parking at the airport has increased steadily since 2011, and it forecasts that some 22,200 spaces will be needed in 2030 – 4,200 more than in 2019.
The panel found that the assessment was robust.
Green belt
The three inspectors said there could be no doubt that parking up to 6,350 cars on some 13 hectares of green belt land would cause harm.
However they said the existing “Cogloop 1” car park is largely screened from view and over time bunds would conceal the new Cogloop 2.
They said Bristol Airport had made a “clear effort” to maximise parking in the green belt inset, there was “nothing to disprove” its conclusion that no alternative park and ride options elsewhere were realistically achievable, and residents would benefit if their is less unauthorised parking in neighbouring areas.
Socioeconomics
North Somerset Council argued that claims the local economy would be boosted by £50 million a year were significantly overstated.
The panel accepted that the forecasts were fit for purpose.
They said in an unusual position to take, the authority almost seemed to advancing a case that economic development, including jobs for the residents of North Somerset, should be provided in other parts of the country, most notably at Cardiff Airport.
The inspectors did not accept its arguments on outbound tourism, finding that there are social benefits of foreign travel and given the demand passengers would fly whether Bristol Airport expanded or not.