2008/22/s birmingham international airport ltd birmingham international airport

200 Pages·2013·0.88 MB·English

th
Planning Sub-Committee – 15 December 2008
2008/22/S BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Application No: 2008/22/S

Ward/Area: BICKENHILL

Location: BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SOLIHULL

Date Registered: 04/01/2008

Applicant: BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD

Proposal: EXTENSION OF MAIN RUNWAY AND ASSOCIATED
INFRASTRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE REALIGNMENT AND
TUNNELLING OF A SECTION OF THE A45 COVENTRY ROAD;
A NEW AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER; REVISIONS TO THE
EXISTING FUEL FARM; A NEW EXIT TAXIWAY; THE
TREATMENT OF OBSTACLES; AND THE DIVERSION OF
SERVICES AND WATERCOURSES.

The report on the planning application is provided in the following format:

Volume 1 This volume contains the officer’s report, schedules to the section 106
agreement and conditions.

Volume 2 An A3 volume that includes the most relevant drawings from the
application submission.

Volume 3 A volume of technical appendices which are referred to in this report.

Volume 4 A volume containing the consultation responses and representations
made on the application.

All of the plans and documentation submitted with the application have been published on
the Council’s web site at http://www.solihull.gov.uk/planning/dc/viewapp.asp under the
above application number.

- 1 -
th
Planning Sub-Committee – 15 December 2008
REPORT CONTENTS

Page

1. Proposal ................................................................................................................... 5
2. Consultation responses ........................................................................................... 8
3. Representations ..................................................................................................... 15
4. Planning & brief site history ................................................................................... 20
5. Site description ...................................................................................................... 21
6. Main issues ............................................................................................................ 22
7. Policy considerations ............................................................................................. 23
8. Pre-application consultation ................................................................................... 39
9. Need for the proposed runway extension .............................................................. 41
10. Air traffic forecasts ................................................................................................. 43
11. Economic impact.................................................................................................... 52
12. Socio-economic impact .......................................................................................... 59
13. Change in departure routes ................................................................................... 62
14. Noise ...................................................................................................................... 65
15. Air quality ............................................................................................................... 73
16. Odours ................................................................................................................... 76
17. Landscape ............................................................................................................. 77
18. Ecology ................................................................................................................ 108
19. Water resources .................................................................................................. 115
20. Ground conditions ................................................................................................ 117
21. Built heritage ........................................................................................................ 118
22. Transport and highway considerations ................................................................ 122
23. Climate change .................................................................................................... 129
24. Impact of the air traffic control tower .................................................................... 135
25. Health impact assessment ................................................................................... 137
26. Green belt ............................................................................................................ 140
27. Loss of playing pitches/sports facilities ................................................................ 144
28. Commentary on potential planning conditions/s106 agreement .......................... 145
29. Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 151
30. Recommendation ................................................................................................. 159
31. Recommended conditions ................................................................................... 160
32. Schedules to section 106 agreement ................................................................... 168

- 2 -
th
Planning Sub-Committee – 15 December 2008
ABBREVIATIONS ETC USED IN THIS REPORT

ACI-E – Airports Council International - Europe
AEG – Access to Employment Group
ANCON – Airport Noise Contour Model
ANITA – Airport and NEC Integrated Transport Assessment
AOI – Airport Operational Instruction
AONB – Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
ATC – Air Traffic Control
ATM – Air Transport Movement
ATWP – Air Transport White Paper
BIA – Birmingham International Airport
BIAL – Birmingham International Airport Limited
CAA – Civil Aviation Authority
CAP – Civil Aviation Publication
CO – Carbon Monoxide
DEFRA – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
DFT – Department for Transport
EGR – Engine Ground Running
EMWG – Environment Monitoring Working Group
ES – Environmental Statement
EVETS – European Union Emissions Trading System
FDI – Foreign Direct Investment
FOE – Friends Of The Earth
FTE – Full Time Employment
GDP – Gross Domestic Product
HIA – Health Impact Assessment
HIS – Inner Horizon Surface
IFR – Instrument Flight Rules
ILS – Instrument Landing System
LBAP – Local Biodiversity Action Plan
LCA – Local Character Area
MG4 – Marshy Grassland 4
MG5 – Marshy Grassland 5
MUA – Major Urban Area
NATS – National Air Traffic Service
NE – Natural England
NEC – Noise Exposure Category
NO² – Nitrogen Dioxide
NOX – Nitrous Oxides
O³ – Ozone
OLS – Obstacle Limitation Surfaces
PAH – Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Pb – Lead
PM10 – Particular Matter 10
P-RNAV – Precision Area Navigation
PPG – Planning Policy Guidance
PPS – Planning Policy Statement
PSZ – Public Section Zone
RES – Regional Economic Strategy
RESA – Runway End Safety Area
- 3 -
th
Planning Sub-Committee – 15 December 2008
RPG – Regional Planning Guidance
RSS – Regional Spatial Strategy
RUFC – Rugby Union Football Club
S106 – Section 106 Agreement
SEL – Single Exposure Level
SID – Standard Instrument Departure
SINC – Site of Importance for Nature Conservation
SO² – Sulphur Dioxide
SPG – Supplementary Planning Guidance
STA – Supplementary Transport Assessment
TA – Transport Assessment
TOCS – Take Off and Climb Surface
TOFP – Take off Flight Path
UDP – Unitary Development Plan
UKBAP – United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan
VEM – Visual Envelope Map
VCR – Vertical Control Response
WHO – World Health Organisation
WMRSS – West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy
WWT – Warwickshire Wildlife Trust
- 4 -
th
Planning Sub-Committee – 15 December 2008
1. PROPOSAL

The planning application seeks consent for the extension of the main runway and
associated infrastructure, including the realignment of a section of the Coventry Road, a
new air traffic control tower, revisions to the existing fuel farm, a new exit taxiway,
diversion of services/watercourse and treatment of obstacles.

As part of the submission the following documentation has been submitted: -

• Environmental Statement and Non-technical summary;
• Proposed Runway Extension Forecasts Report 2007;
• Flood Risk Assessment;
• Transport Assessment
• Travel Plan;
• Economic Impact Assessment;
• Planning Statement;
• Design and Access Statement;
• Pre-application Consultation report;
• Health Impact Assessment;
• Birmingham International Airport Master Plan 2007; and
• Birmingham International Airport Surface Access Strategy 2007-2012.

The main components of the proposal can be broken down into 7 components, which are
as follows: -

1.1. Main Runway Extension

The proposal includes the addition of 555 metres pavement to the south-east of the
existing Main Runway 15/33. Of this, 405 metres will be full width i.e. 46 metre wide
pavement with 7 metre wide shoulders to match the existing runway. 150 metres will be a
paved starter extension for aircraft.

At the northwest end of the Main Runway, the Runway 15 threshold is to remain in its
current position, but the Runway 33 end is to be relocated 150 metres back from the
current paved end of the runway in order to provide the full 240 metre long Runway End
Safety Area. Take-offs on Runway 15 would continue to commence at the paved end.

At the south eastern end, the Runway 33 threshold is to moved 420 metres from its
current position on to the extended pavement, facilitating the retention of some of the
existing touchdown lighting within the existing runway pavement. The Runway 15 end is
located approximately 200 metres from the end of the paved extension, which is
determined by the Take-Off Climb Surface not being penetrated. Take-offs on Runway 33
will commence at the end of the paved extension. A full length Runway End Safety Area is
provided beyond the full width pavement extension at the south-east end.

The overall length of the Main Runway will, therefore, be extended from 2599 metres to
3004 metres. The addition of a 150 metre starter extension will provide greater flexibility
on Runway 33 for northbound take-offs.

- 5 -
th
Planning Sub-Committee – 15 December 2008
The applicant advises that the proposed extended runway has been developed in
accordance with Civil Aviation Guidance CAP 168: Licensing of Aerodromes (Civil
Aviation Authority, CAA).

New pavement markings will be applied and aeronautical ground lighting will be installed
in accordance with CAA guidance. New markings will be required on the existing runway
pavement where the thresholds have been relocated. In addition, all associated lighting
and navigational equipment will be relocated in relation to the extended runway.

1.2. Exit Taxiway

A new exit taxiway from Runway 33 is proposed and will be 161 metres long and a
minimum of 29 metres wide, widening at either end to enable aircraft to turn off the
runway onto the existing parallel taxiway.

1.3. Air Traffic Control Tower

In order to provide a satisfactory unobstructed view of the extended Runway ends and
their approaches, a new Air Traffic Control Tower (ATC) is proposed as part of the
proposal. The existing ATC Tower is mounted on the original 1939 Passenger Terminal
Building at the Elmdon Terminal Site. Due to the limited internal space and height of the
existing Control Room being only 20 metres, it does not provide the necessary views
required by the CAA.

The various options for the location and height of the proposed new tower have been
examined. The ATC Tower proposed is approximately 37 metres above ground level
giving the improvement to the overall perspective of the airfield. The design of the building
takes the form of a contemporary iconic building at Elmdon Terminal Site.

1.4. A45 Coventry Road Re-alignment and Tunnel

The proposal includes the re-alignment of a 1.6 kilometre section of the A45 partly
through a tunnel under the proposed Runway End Safety Area. The tunnel section of the
re-alignment will be 250 metres in length and would comply with Aerodrome Safety
requirements. At its furthest point the re-aligned highway would be some 330 metres
south of the existing line.

Various options for the road and tunnel arrangements have been considered in the
Environmental Statement. The tunnel will be a 4 bay tunnel option to include the diverted
A45, perimeter road for the Airport and Midland Metro. Owing to road noise, ventilation
and its curved alignment, the tunnel will only used by vehicles and the potential Midland
Metro. A surface access route is therefore, proposed around the extended airfield to allow
pedestrians, cyclists and equestrian users to maintain access to the A45 corridor.

The combined footway/cycle is proposed to be 4 metres wide and has a 3 metre wide
unpaved bridle/verge adjacent. An additional link is proposed to Clock Lane/Catherine-de-
Barnes Lane to allow cyclists and pedestrians to access the Clock Junction and thus the
Airport and Birmingham International Interchange without using the west-facing slip road.

Existing utilities that presently run along the A45 will be diverted, but a corridor of services
is identified alongside the proposed paved footway/cycleway.
- 6 -
th
Planning Sub-Committee – 15 December 2008

The design and re-alignment have been developed in accordance with Highway Agency
Standards and the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.

1.5. Revisions to the Fuel Farm

To accommodate the proposed parallel taxiway, the existing disused Aviation Gas facility
will be removed, along with an area currently used for car parking and part of an existing
office building. The airside perimeter road, which currently fronts the west side if the Fuel
Farm will be re-aligned on the east side. A new vehicular access will be provided into the
southern end of the Fuel Farm from the perimeter road.

1.6. Diversion of Watercourses

To facilitate the development it is also necessary to divert the Low Brook, Bickenhill Brook
and small un-named watercourse upstream of Birmingham International Airport.

1.7. Obstacle Limitation Surfaces

Natural and man-made features both inside and outside of the Airport Boundary have
considerable influence on the effective utilisation of the runway, whether extended or not.
Such features have the effect of limiting the distance available for take-off and landing
that can be undertaken. The proposed development therefore, involves the treatment of
obstacles, including trees, hedgerows and shrubs which penetrate Runway 15 Departures
and Runway 33 Arrivals. The proposal, therefore, seeks to treat these obstacles to enable
optimum operation of the extended runway.

1.8. Assessment of Proposals

In assessing the application it is important that attention is focussed on the impacts that
will occur as a direct result of the proposals. In relation to the physical effects of the
operational development itself (e.g. appearance of the air traffic control tower) this will be
clear. However with some other aspects (e.g. effects as a result of an increase in
passengers and air traffic movements) it will be important to distinguish between the
effects caused by the development itself and background growth that can occur whether
or not the application were to be approved.

- 7 -
th
Planning Sub-Committee – 15 December 2008
2. CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Highway Engineers : No objection subject to conditions and S106
Agreement.

Environmental Protection : No objection subject to S106 Agreement.

Landscape Architect : No objection subject to conditions and S106
Agreement.

Ecologist : No objection subject to conditions and S106
Agreement.

Economic Development : No objection, re-affirm the economic benefits
of the scheme to the Region.

Conservation Consultant Architect : Whilst, there would not be any direct physical
changes to the Conservation Area, the effect
on it character and setting would be
overwhelming. The ES notes that in visual
terms, the proposal would have significant
adverse effects on Bickenhill Conservation
Area. It also notes that the cultural heritage
importance of the Conservation Area is
significant.

I appreciate that there are advances in the
assessment and safeguarding of trees
compared to the scorched earth approach.
There is scope in respect o the historic
environment for further mitigation.

Airport Working Party : The AWP scrutinised the proposals in a
structured manner over the course of three
meetings. The process included assessing
whether sufficient information had been
provided to Members to enable an informed
decision to be made on the application. The
AWP agreed that, subject to a number of
references, that sufficient information had
been tabled. Additional information has now
been provided in this report to address the
references identified by the AWP.

Conservation Advisory Committee : No objection. Noted the impacts on the
Conservation Area and setting of Listed
Buildings, and the proposed mitigation
measures.

- 8 -
th
Planning Sub-Committee – 15 December 2008
West Midlands Regional Assembly : The planning application is in general
conformity with the RSS. The Council should
be satisfied that the more detailed criteria
within Policy T11, regarding surface access
and environmental effects, be considered and
where necessary controlled, mitigated and
compensated for by means of planning
conditions or legal agreement.

Solihull Care Trust : Support the conclusions and recommendations
within the HIA report.

Advantage West Midlands : The sustainable economic development case
in favour of the runway extension at
Birmingham International Airport is in the
Agency’s opinion, compelling. The
development will enhance the region’s global
connectivity to ensure West Midlands business
can compete successfully in the global market
place, access international markets, improve
access to growing markets in the Far East and
around the globe.

In light of these comments the application is
considered as a positive use of land in
economic terms and in the context of the
delivery of the West Midlands Economic
Strategy. The Agency therefore, supports the
proposal.

Highways Agency : In general, supportive of this regionally
significant development and are content that
the supporting information demonstrates that
the proposal will not have an adverse impact
on the continued effective performance of the
Strategic Road Network. This will, however, be
dependant upon the delivery of the proposed
highway works and the drafting,
implementation and robust
monitoring/enforcement of an effective Travel
Plan setting out measures to ensure that
modal share targets set out in BIA’s revised
Surface Access Strategy can be achieved.

- 9 -
th
Planning Sub-Committee – 15 December 2008
Centro : Support the application. Need for detailed
condition and/or legal agreement to ensure: -
that public transport modal share targets are
met with a suitable mechanism;
Provision of the A45 tunnel structure
incorporating a segregated section for the
proposed midland metro route alignment and
corridor is fully protected; and
Contributions towards improvements to bus
and rail provision in order to meet increased
public transport demand.

Environment Agency : No objection subject to conditions.

Severn Trent Water : No objection subject to conditions.

Natural England : There is no question that the proposal will
have significant environmental impacts. Now
satisfied that Natural England can give full
consideration of the environmental impacts
and are encouraged that the significant
environmental impacts can be mitigated.

Habitat mitigation relies on early intervention
and forward planning and the Natural England
are encouraged that the Airport Company will
engage with all stakeholders.

- 10 -