filton airfield aviation options report bae systems ... · filton airfield aviation options report...

filton airfield aviation options reportbae systemsseptember 2011


© terence O’rourke Ltd 2011. all rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced in any form or stored in a retrieval system without the prior written consent of the copyright holder.

all figures (unless otherwise stated) © terence O’rourke Ltd 2011.based upon the 2011 Ordnance survey mapping with the permission of the Ordnance survey on behalf of Her majesty’s stationery Office © Crown Copyright terence O’rourke Ltd Licence number aL100017826.


Contents

1 NON-teCHNiCaL summary

2 iNtrOduCtiON

3 tHe West Of eNgLaNd aerOspaCe iNdustry

4 CurreNt use

5 reasONs fOr revieW

6 aLterNative aviatiON OptiONs evaLuated

7 future prOspeCts Of tHe West Of eNgLaNd aerOspaCe iNdustry aNd redeveLOpmeNt OppOrtuNities

8 CONCLusiON

4


5


in april 2011, bae systems issued 1.1 a statement on the forthcoming closure of the runway at filton airfield. the decision by bae systems to close the airfield has not been made lightly, but has been taken following a comprehensive review over a five plus year period and in consultation with leading members of the aerospace industry at filton. in reaching its decision bae systems has continued to examine the need for runway retention and other aviation based options that could provide the necessary level of income to keep the runway operational. it has robustly explored all options, sought the advice of professional consultants and acted in a responsible manner in reaching its decision.

filton airfield is privately owned 1.2 and operated by bae systems. With the exception of the listed hangars the airfield is not protected in any way. there are no legal covenants in place that prevent the airfield from closing, neither is an act of parliament required. the airfield is a private land asset.

planning Context

the planning framework for future 1.3 development in south gloucestershire is currently being established by the council through the emerging core strategy. the core strategy is an important document as it sets out the council’s spatial vision and objectives, core planning policies and proposals up to 2026. this document is at an advanced stage and was submitted to the secretary of state on the 24 march 2011 for independent examination.

Whilst the unfortunate timing of the 1.4 closure announcement is acknowledged, the future of the airfield site is a matter that the core strategy will need to address. the council produced a position statement

on filton airfield in June 2011 and held a public consultation event inviting comment on how it proposed to handle the airfield within the core strategy. the core strategy has been delayed to allow the council to undertake further work on green belt review, housing land requirements and filton airfield in line with the examination in public (eip) inspector’s comments. bae systems is currently working to provide an evidence base to the council to inform its decision making process and the progress of the core strategy. public consultation on the core strategy changes will be held in december 2011 – January 2012.

What has prompted Bae systems to revieW the operation of the airfield?

a. the airfield is unviable – because of a decrease in users, maintenance flights, and other aircraft movements

Over the past decade, aircraft 1.5 movements at filton have decreased by over 27%. this has largely been driven by a reduction in demand, maintenance flights and a simultaneous decrease in the number of airfield users.

the maintenance sector, which 1.6 previously generated good income from landing fees, is no longer operational at filton because of a lack of demand. Historically bae systems operated a maintenance business which included vC10’s and conversion of a300 aircraft to freighters. this finished in 2002. by 2009 aircraft movements relating to the maintenance businesses of mK airlines and air Livery had significantly reduced. mK airlines went into liquidation in 2010 and air Livery left filton in 2009 based on an independent commercial decision. the benefits of basing their business at a commercial airfield (manchester airport),

01 non-teChniCal summary

6


eliminating the need for ‘dead leg’ flights, was a significant factor in air Livery’s decision to leave the airfield and has been a key constraint in attracting new users.

rolls-royce has through 1.7 independent review and because of changes in its own business operation, made decisions to cease all use of the airfield. With the exception of the heritage trust centre, rolls-royce has not used the airfield for commercial operations since the early 1990s. the runway no longer forms an integral part of its business operations, and its current and future business plans do not require the use of the runway to successfully operate and grow. in addition, privatair, eastern airways, mNg, titan, Highland airways and universal have all ceased aircraft movements at filton.

royal mail has never used the 1.8 runway on a permanent basis. it was accommodated on a temporary basis at filton for a number of months in 1994/1995 and again in 2007/2008 whilst runway maintenance was ongoing at bristol airport. Operations were returned to bristol airport. royal mail flights from bristol airport have since ceased. the filton runway has never formed a integral part of its business operation, and its current and future business plans do not require the use of the runway.

Whilst the aviation school and club 1.9 based at the runway continue to use the airfield for training / private flights and there are some limited private business flights, their contribution through landing fees and lease agreements to the operational costs of the airfield is minimal.

airbus is now the only significant 1.10 industrial user of the airfield. aircraft movements by airbus have decreased over the last decade and its business operation has changed, meaning

the runway is no longer an essential requirement. airbus currently only operates a limited number of staff and equipment movements associated with its existing business operations. the staff movements are chiefly limited to an air bridge service to transport airbus employees between filton, Chester (broughton) and toulouse. Currently these flights are as shown in the table. flights from filton to:

Broughton toulouse

monday 1 3tuesday 2 2Wednesday 3 2thursday 3 2friday 1 1

bae systems also currently 1.11 operates a shuttle from filton to barrow comprising two flights a day on monday and Wednesday, three flights on tuesday and thursday and one on a friday. the additional bae systems corporate air travel shuttle ceased in 2009.

the annual operating costs of 1.12 filton airfield are primarily fixed costs. users of the airfield contribute, through landing fees and lease agreements, although their contribution is minimal compared to that of airbus. together these income streams do not cover the total operating costs of the runway and the airfield has been making a significant loss over the last 10 years.

bae systems is a public limited 1.13 company accountable to its shareholders and sustaining this poor financial position is unviable and unacceptable to the company.

7


B. the runway no longer occupies an essential role in the business operations of its key users

bae systems fully supports 1.14 the filton aerospace cluster as a world centre of excellence for the aerospace industry, supporting high value, skilled engineering and manufacturing jobs. airbus is a recognised world leader within the aerospace cluster and bae systems has given assurances that no decision regarding the runway would impact significantly on the airbus business.

both companies have regularly 1.15 discussed the future of the runway in recent years and, having agreed that it was not financially viable to continue operating the airfield, announced in april 2011 that the runway will close. this was a mutual decision by the owner/landlord bae systems and the prime user and customer airbus.

sufficient time has been allowed 1.16 for airbus to prepare for the closure, ensuring a smooth transition as it puts in place a range of mitigation measures to ensure its business is not affected in any significant way.

airbus has repeatedly re-stated this 1.17 position publicly. this is reiterated again in its statement below:

“BAE Systems, as the landlord of Filton site, decided together with Airbus, as a key customer, that the continued operation of Filton Airfield was unsustainable. It was agreed that it was not financially viable to continue operating the Airfield. A decision was reached to close the Airfield at the end 2012, thus giving Airbus more than one and a half years to prepare for closure. Various scenarios are now

being worked on for alternative ways to move Airbus people and parts. The future of the Airfield beyond 2012 is entirely at the discretion of the freehold owner, BAE Systems. Airbus is fully committed to Filton – this is the case now and will remain the case as clearly demonstrated by the recent decision to build a multi million pound business park at Filton and the continued investment in state of the art facilities such as the A350XWB Landing Gear Test Facility. Airbus is putting into place a range of mitigation measures to ensure that the closure of the airfield does not affect its business in any significant way.”

C. inability to attract sufficient new business

in the face of continued decline in 1.18 airfield business (i.e. aircraft movements) from existing customers and users, bae systems has spent 10 years working to stem this decline by generating more business from existing users and seeking to attract new customers to offset a greater proportion of airfield operating costs and increase its viability.

bae systems has been in 1.19 conversation with a variety of operators, particularly aircraft maintenance/conversion operators to try to attract business to filton. However the marketing of the airfield has been significantly constrained by the airfield’s planning use restrictions, which striclty limit airfield operations.

a variety of marketing measures 1.20 have been employed, together with the introduction of incentives, and the implementation of an airfield modernisation and refurbishment programme. Contrary to some public claims, bae systems has

8


continued to invest in the airfield and has not left it to decline.

a comparison of landing and 1.21 navigation and parking charges at filton with those at similar local and regional airports including bristol airport, Kemble, Cardiff and gloucestershire airport (staverton) demonstrates that filton offers competitive rates to customers. it is therefore not the case that bae systems has priced filton airfield out of the market.

these marketing activities have 1.22 had only limited success failing to stem the decline in usage and users and failing to attract sufficient new business, leading to the airfield becoming an unviable operation.

Whilst bae systems has not 1.23 actively marketed filton runway as available for sale the aviation industry is clearly defined by trade bodies, networks and specialist media and the wider industry is aware of the airfield’s impending closure. there has been little commercial interest from other operators or potential users in either its acquisition or operation. the nature of the aviation business is such that had commercial interest existed this would have been brought to bae systems’ attention.

Consequently, for a considerable 1.24 period of time, bae systems has, both independently and in discussion with airbus, been examining the future of the runway.

d. alternative aviation options explored

alongside its efforts to attract 1.25 new users, the decline in airfield use has required bae systems to explore a range of alternative aviation and non-aviation options for the runway area of the filton site.

in 2006, in recognition of the 1.26

magnitude of the decision and to ensure no realistic option was left unexplored, bae systems sought independent professional advice from aviation specialist mott macdonald in order to inform its decision making. as a leading authority in this type of aviation research and evaluation, mott macdonald examined the opportunities for a range of aviation-related development at the airfield site and provided detailed assessments; advising the company on its future options so that bae systems could be confident of approaching decisions on the future of filton airfield in an exacting and responsible manner.

the mott macdonald work 1.27 examined six options including a low cost airport, air freight integrators, ad hoc air freight, maintenance and training, continued use to support the aerospace industry and a high cost passenger operation (business aviation). this work has been reviewed and updated in 2011 to confirm that the findings remain sound and review additional options including helicopter services.

both the 2006-2007 work and 1.28 the 2011 update concluded that, from a planning and environmental perspective, the establishment of a commercial airport at filton is not achievable. this is a result of the planning history of the site and the precedent of the 1996 dismissed appeal for a commercial airport, together with the level of residential development that has taken place close to the site in the last 15 years. this makes the establishment of a commercial airport unachievable, given the airfield’s proximity to residential dwellings and implications with respect to noise, local amenity, environmental and transport impacts. in addition the Future of Air Transport White Paper indicates a clear preference for bristol airport to provide for future airport growth in bristol.

ad hoc air freight, air freight 1.29

9


integrators and business aviation (in the form of a high cost passenger operation) have been discounted as a result of economic viability and planning constraints. the noise and disturbance to residential properties from aircraft and Hgv activity would also be unacceptable in terms of a freight operation.

from review of all the aviation 1.30 options mott macdonald has been unable to generate a substantive case for keeping the runway in operation.

Why the Closure of the runWay Will not Be detrimental to the existing and future prosperity of the Bristol aerospaCe seCtor

throughout the past decade, the 1.31 runway has been available for the use of the local, regional and international aerospace industry. the aerospace sector in the bristol area and the wider sub-region is strong and has continued to grow and develop. However, the use of the airfield has consistently declined, with airbus having now also confirmed the runway is not a critical element as part of its future operation and potential growth.

bae systems has been in 1.32 discussions with other aerospace industry leaders in the local area and there is no evidence to suggest that the availability of the runway at filton is required for their continuing success, nor that the closure will have a negative impact on the prospects for ongoing aviation-related employment in the area. With the exception of airbus there is no other aerospace business that commercially uses the runway as part of its business operation.

filton airfield is no longer an 1.33 integral and strategic part of the success

of the aerospace industry in the region. the closure of the airfield is unopposed by the aerospace industry and industry representatives have confirmed that the closure will neither impact jobs nor prejudice the ability of the aerospace sector to attract new manufacturing, engineering research and design business to the cluster in the future.

this claim is supported by change 1.34 and developments within the aerospace industry which have meant there is no longer a functional requirement for the runway as a centre for aviation testing, a function it has historically held. as confirmed by the actions of airbus and rolls-royce the airfield is now essentially surplus to business operations.

rolls-royce supported the 1.35 closure of the airfield in its response to the council’s filton airfield position statement. it has highlighted the benefits that the relaxation of aviation constraints will have on widening the development potential of the employment cluster and acknowledged the contribution to regeneration which can be made through the redevelopment of the airfield.

summary

the reasons for review of the 1.36 airfield and the subsequent decision to close the airfield can be summarised as follows:

the airfield has been loss-making over •

the last decade

the number of aircraft movements and •

users has decreased over the last ten years, such that it is no longer viable

there is no demand for the existing •

use of the runway – the intentions of the existing runway users have been explored

10


there has been little commercial interest •

from other operators despite the best marketing efforts of bae systems over the last decade. marketing of the airfield has been significantly constrained by the airfield’s planning use restrictions

alternative aviation options have been •

explored – no clear evidence of demand to make the ongoing operation of the airfield viable, taking into consideration commercial, environmental (including planning), and practical considerations

opportunities offered By redevelopment

redevelopment offers the 1.37 opportunity to enhance the world leading aerospace cluster at filton and in doing so will support and complement the existing high value, skilled, engineering and manufacturing jobs through the provision of employment land to support and enhance the existing cluster. bae systems is in discussion with aerospace industry leaders in the local area, including airbus and rolls-royce and there is no evidence that the presence of the runway at filton is a requirement for the infrastructure supporting the sector.

bae systems is reviewing future 1.38 employment uses and potential economic and training activities at the airfield site, in collaboration with key stakeholders including representatives of the aerospace and aviation industry sector, south gloucestershire Council, bristol City Council, uWe, the West of england Local enterprise partnership, the science park and other stakeholders with an interest in the emerging enterprise area. the enterprise area would include the existing aerospace and employment cluster at filton and could include a significant proportion of the airfield site focusing on employment uses. bae systems is committed to working

with the Lep to develop a strong vision and strategic objectives for the enterprise area to encourage further engineering and manufacturing jobs to filton and strengthen this world-leading sector.

bae systems, together with 1.39 airbus, is committed to the strong economic performance of the filton area in the future. it is confident that working with these partners will identify employment proposals that will be significantly more valuable to the filton area than the continued operation of the runway.

the then secretaries of state for 1.40 environment and transport in dismissing bae systems’ appeal in 1996 for a commercial airport at filton noted that:

“In terms of likely job creation, the Secretaries of State have had regard to the past success of the local planning authority in securing inward investment in their district and to their continuing aspirations for further job creation through the development plan process. On the basis of the evidence before them, the Secretaries of State do not consider that the likely employment gains arising from the proposed development (Filton Commercial Airport), whether direct or indirect, would be significant in comparison with the far greater number of jobs that would arise from commercial/business use of the appeal site...”

extracted from correspondence dated 22 march 1996 from peter girling, deputy director, government Office of the south West, bristol to the legal representatives of bae systems. (items 29, page 10).

any future proposals for the site 1.41 will be accompanied by an economic impact report to ensure the economic impact of the runway closure is fully understood together with the economic

11


and employment impact of the proposed development. any master plan would also ensure no conflict of interest between industry and residents.

Bae systems is committed to a proper strategic approach and joint working arrangements

bae systems has a considerable 1.42 track record in regenerating and bringing back into economic use redundant or surplus land holdings. these case studies include a range of previous uses from large manufacturing facilities, airfields, agricultural land holdings and residential houses. each case is unique but bae systems recognises in all cases the need to engage with the local planning authorities, residents and local interest groups to ensure that the proposed development represents the best position for all stakeholders and ensures a sustainable future for the communities in which they exist.

the ongoing redevelopment of 1.43 the former rOF Chorley in Lancashire highlights a recent example of this. there are currently in the order of 3,000 jobs on the site, more than at any time since the 1960, and another 4,000 jobs are anticipated once the development is complete. this is something which has been achieved within the context of a mixed use scheme which will also deliver real amenity benefit to existing and future residents as a part of a mixed use, sustainable community.

bae systems, assisted by its 1.44 consultants, is currently undertaking appropriate analysis and research to gain a thorough understanding of the constraints and opportunities of the site to inform an emerging master plan. bae systems seeks to take a proper strategic approach

to the site, working jointly with local stakeholders to determine the balance between delivering significant high quality, high value investment opportunities and an appropriate level of housing, including affordable housing, to deliver a sustainable mix of land uses.

preserving aviation heritage

bae systems is committed to 1.45 supporting the proud aviation heritage of Filton and Concorde. Discussions are ongoing with the Concorde trust regarding support and onsite provision. protecting the interests of the great western air amBulance and western counties air operation (police).

bae systems recognises the 1.46 importance of the Great Western air ambulance to Filton, and the critical role it plays in supporting emergency services to the region. bae systems is working with the Great Western air ambulance service and the police to understand their future needs. Whilst in a redevelopment scenario it is unlikely helicopter operations could remain at their existing location, bae systems is committed to working with these organisations to enable them to continue to operate from within the current airfield boundary.

12


in april 2011, bae systems issued 2.1 a statement on the forthcoming closure of the runway at filton airfield. this read:

“BAE SYSTEMS ANNOUNCES CLOSURE OF FILTON AIRFIELD

Following discussions with the main airfield user and the local authorities, BAE Systems has announced today that Filton airfield will close on 31 December 2012. Andrew Cheesman, Director, BAE Systems (Aviation Services) Ltd said: “This decision has been taken following a long review of the airfield’s commercial and economic viability. We regret the impact that this will have on our 19 employees and we will work with them to explore employment opportunities. We recognise the importance of Filton airfield to the local residential and business community and understand the concerns its closure may have. We remain in discussion with South Gloucestershire District Council to agree future plans. BAE Systems has informed all airfield users of the decision and will continue to discuss how users’ requirements can be met in preparation for the closure of the airfield.”

this report explains in detail the 2.2 background to this statement. bae systems appreciates that there is understandable concern, particularly in the bristol area, that the closure will be to the detriment of the local economy and, in particular, local jobs in the aerospace industry.

this is not the case, but bae 2.3 systems recognises the importance of explaining, in some detail, the quite lengthy and comprehensive consideration that has been given to this over a number of years. it also understands the need to explain the reasons for the decision and provide information and evidence to justify these assertions.

this report summarises options for 2.4 the airfield which have been investigated over recent years and have led bae systems to conclude that the runway is no longer economically viable or required for the future well-being of the aerospace sector at filton.

it also seeks to address key 2.5 questions and issues which have been raised since the decision to close the airfield was announced.

it looks strategically at the 2.6 aerospace industry in bristol and the wider region, demonstrating that closure of the airfield will not adversely affect this industry and conversely, how the proposed redevelopment of the airfield site for mixed use development will offer opportunities to enhance the aerospace cluster at filton and the wider economy of the area. it explains the scale and nature of the current activities at filton, and the reasons for bae systems needing to review the future of the runway.

bae systems and airbus endorse 2.7 the view that the filton-patchway area is a world centre of excellence for the aerospace industry, supporting high value, skilled, engineering jobs. However, the airfield is no longer an integral and strategic part of the success of the aerospace industry in the area. this report demonstrates why this is the case, why there is no operational future for the runway, and why the closure will not

02 introduCtion

13


have a detrimental impact on the future prosperity of the cluster and its capacity for future growth and development.

terence O’rourke Ltd has 2.8 prepared this report on behalf of bae systems, with inputs from peter brett associates and mott macdonald. bae systems has consulted with airbus on the detailed content of the report. in addition the views of other interested parties within the aerospace industry have also been included. mott macdonald has undertaken a development Options appraisal which forms a technical appendix to this report.

14


in september 2010, the West 3.1 of england Local enterprise partnership (Lep) submitted its successful bid for Lep status to the secretaries of state for business, innovation and skills (bis) and Communities and Local government (CLg). the submission (which closely echoes The aerospace industry in the South West of England prepared by the south West regional development agency (rda)) sets out the scale and scope of the industry in the area and states:

“The South West and the West of England, in particular, is home to one of the most diverse and capable aerospace regions in the world. It contains the largest cluster group of aerospace and defence companies in the UK, with 10 of the top 12 world aerospace companies having a headquarters or major research and manufacturing facilities within the South West region. The South West and West of England in particular has an important role to play in the development of national strategy towards aerospace. It is estimated that aerospace and defence companies in the South West employ around a third of the total national aerospace employees and they contributed 15% of national aerospace GVQ in 2008 . Around 10,000 people are employed by the sector in the Filton area of South Gloucestershire alone. The aerospace activity undertaken in the South West is divided equally between civil and defence business, with many companies serving both markets. The breadth of capability includes aircraft structures, aero-engines, rotorcraft, unmanned air systems, avionics, landing gear and a wide variety of systems and components. Companies in the region are involved in major global aircraft programmes including – Airbus A350 XWB, A400M, Boeing 787, Joint Strike Fighter, Eurofighter Typhoon and

the AW101 helicopter. Also located in the West of England is the Ministry of Defence’s Defence Equipment and Support Organisation which will soon be hosting over 10,000 staff in the Filton area.”

source: West of england Local economic partnership, proposal to secretaries of state for bis and CLg, september 2010

Bae systems operations at filton

bae systems is a global defence 3.2 and security company with approximately 100,000 employees worldwide. the company delivers a full range of products and services for air, land and naval forces, as well as advanced electronics, security, information technology solutions and support services.

in filton bae systems is 3.3 represented by a number of direct group companies, together with joint venture shareholdings in for example mbda. total job numbers on the 20 site are currently over 1,500. mbda has approximately 700 people on site at filton and is involved in the development of missile system in the defence industry, bae systems also has a number of group subsidiaries represented on site. surface ships bases its type 26 programme office at filton. the uK programme to develop the type 26 variant of gCs for royal Navy will replace the capabilities of the uK’s type 23 frigates, with the first type 26 set to enter service in 2021 and the last to remain in service until 2064.

the advanced technology Centre 3.4 (atC) delivers the frontline in technology innovation, acquisition, development and insertion for bae systems and its joint venture organisations. the service offering

03 the West of england aerospaCe industry

15


of the atC provides for the development and creation of future technology capability over a broad spectrum of disciplines. in addition to supporting bae systems and its joint venture organisations, the atC has a vast network of relationships with external organisations including the uK ministry of defence, us department of defense, european space agency, universities and other research and product organisations.

bae systems defence 3.5 information solutions and services (diss) employs over 70 people at filton working in management and military information systems and command, control, communication and intelligence systems; and readiness and sustainment applications. projects include the bowman, flacon and theseus Communication projects.

bae systems is fully supportive of 3.6 all measures which can further enhance and develop the aerospace and defence industry in the West of england.

airBus operations at filton

for 35 years bae systems (and 3.7 its predecessor companies) was a 20 per cent partner in the four nation airbus consortium. in the late 1990s bae systems led the drive to increase efficiency and improve decision-making by forming airbus into a single corporate entity to position it for the launch of the double-decker a380 aircraft. Work to complete the transfer of the partners’ airbus assets into an airbus integrated Company was completed in July 2001 with eads and bae systems as shareholders. bae systems continued as a 20 per cent partner in the global airbus business for a further five years before exercising its

option to offer its shares to eads, which today wholly owns airbus. airbus designs, develops, manufactures and supports the most modern and comprehensive aircraft family on the international market.

airbus in the uK operates from 3.8 two sites, filton and broughton in North Wales. filton is the uK headquarters and is also the Centre of excellence for design and technology within the group. airbus uK employs around 10,000 people of which approximately 4,000 are employed at filton where the company can trace its proud heritage back via Concorde to the britannia, the brabazon, the blenheim and the boxkite, and to filton’s “founding father”, tram builder and aviation pioneer, sir george White.

airbus’ success is also the result 3.9 of close co-operation and effective partnerships with major companies around the world, including some 1,500 suppliers in 30 countries. this includes the filton-based component and sub-assembly manufacturing unit which transferred from the ownership of airbus to gKN in 2009. this employs around 1,500 people at its filton factory.

16


airfield and surroundings

filton airfield is situated in the north 4.1 of the urban area of bristol, approximately 8 km to the north of bristol city centre. the site adjoins the residential area of patchway and comprises some 141 ha of land, lying within the administrative area of south gloucestershire Council.

the site currently comprises an 4.2 operational runway of 2,467m in length and associated infrastructure including aircraft parking aprons and an operations building housing air traffic control, a passenger terminal facility and ancillary offices. the capacity of the aircraft parking aprons and taxiways is very limited. there are three hangars on the northern boundary. across the site is

essential airfield infrastructure including masts, windsocks and aerodrome ground lighting and navigation equipment including instrumental Landing system and distance measuring equipment. to the south of the runway and railway, is the brabazon hangar which is no longer in active use and is not needed in connection with the bae systems or airbus activities at filton.

access to the site is from the a38, 4.3 which forms its eastern boundary and connects north of patchway with J16 of the m5. the m5 connects with the m4 at J15. in addition, a number of emergency egress points are located at intervals around the airfield boundary.

04Current use

site boundary

17


levels of aCtivity

in the period from 2000 to 2010, 4.4 annual aircraft movements at filton airfield peaked at 33,000 movements in 2001 and have since declined by nearly 30% to around 24,000 movements in 2010. the number of aircraft movements in intervening years has fluctuated, shown in the figure above:

in 2010, 66% of aircraft 4.5 movements at filton airfield were general aviation (ga), with 20% corporate / business aviation, and the remaining flights attributed to helicopter movements, aircraft diversions and a small percentage of military landings. the general aviation category includes training and private flights for leisure or business purposes.

total helicopter movements in 4.6 2010 were 2,640, encompassing police and air ambulance, military movements and private general aviation and business. the majority of these movements relate to the activities of the police and air ambulance.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

34,000

32,000

30,000

28,000

26,000

24,000

22,000

20,000

28

33

32

29

31 31

2827

25

27

24

annual aircraft movements at filton airfield 2000 to 2010. source: bae systems

aircraft movements by activity at filton airfield 2007 to 2010. source: bae systems

2007 2009 2010

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

18,090

5,130

15,840

2,640

4,800

17,010

6,210

general aviation

Corporate

Helicopter

Other

2,700 2,970

1,080 810

720

18,090

18


existing airfield users

airbus

airbus currently operates a 4.7 limited number of staff and equipment movements associated with its existing business operations. the staff movements are chiefly limited to an air bridge service to transport airbus employees between filton, North Wales (broughton) and toulouse. the service is operated on weekdays by bmi regional using a 49-seat embraer regional jet. Currently these flights are as shown in the table:

flights from filton to:

Broughton toulouse

monday 1 3tuesday 2 2Wednesday 3 2thursday 3 2friday 1 1

the air bridge is due to finish at the 4.8 time of the planned closure of the airfield in december 2012. airbus has confirmed its services could move to bristol airport after that date without disruption to its business.

Bae systems

bae systems’ use of the runway 4.9 is restricted to the use of an air bridge service shuttling staff between filton and barrow, utilising a 7-seater plane. the service generally comprises two flights a day on monday and Wednesday, three flights on tuesday and thursday and one on a friday. the additional bae systems corporate air travel shuttle ceased in 2009.

great Western air ambulance and Western Counties air operation unit (police)

Western Counties air Operations 4.10 unit is a consortium formed between the avon and somerset and gloucestershire constabularies. the unit operates an eC135 helicopter to serve the geographical area of the consortium and is available to assist neighbouring forces. bae systems is in discussion with both the avon and somerset/ gloucestershire police Helicopter service with respect to their needs for the future.

the great Western air ambulance 4.11 operates from filton airfield occupying Hangar 16m. bae systems recognises the importance of the great Western air ambulance to filton, and the critical role it plays in providing emergency services to the region.

bae systems is committed 4.12 to working with the great Western air ambulance service to understand its future needs. Whilst in a redevelopment scenario it is unlikely helicopter operations could be continued from their existing locations, bae systems is committed to working with the organisation to enable continued operations from within the current airfield boundary.

aeros

aeros is a commercial flight training 4.13 school operating from filton on a leasehold basis offering private pilot Licence (ppL), NppL, imC, night rating and aOpa aerobatics courses and self-fly hire.

19


Bristol aero Club

the bristol aero Club offers private 4.14 flight training and recreational aircraft hire on a non-profit basis for aerospace employees. the club owns one piper pa-28 Warrior and one pa-28 Cherokee aircraft. both aircraft are low wing, 4-seat and single-engine suitable for training and private hire to members. each aircraft is equipped with dual controls and maintained under Caa regulations for training.

professional training is provided 4.15 from qualified instructors on a part time basis. this includes trial lessons, ppL training and more advanced training such as imC and the night ratings.

operating costs

the annual operating costs of 4.16 filton airfield are primarily fixed costs. the air traffic control and fire and rescue functions, for example, require a minimum number of staff and cannot be scaled down when aircraft movement numbers reduce. airport operations also involve a diversity of activities (for example air traffic control, fire and rescue, security, customer support, mechanical and electrical engineering relating to lighting and communications, maintenance and support, site management including grass cutting, pavement and building maintenance). this therefore involves a large number of different skills with limited opportunity for multi-tasking.

the annual operating costs 4.17 of filton airfield are met in part by airbus. Other users of the airfield also contribute, through landing fees, and lease

agreements although their contribution is minor compared to that of airbus. together these income streams do not cover the total operating costs of the runway and the airfield has been making a significant loss over the last ten years.

bae systems is a public limited 4.18 company accountable to its shareholders and sustaining this poor financial position is clearly unviable and unacceptable.

Complaints and issues relating to the operation of the airfield

all complaints received by the 4.19 airfield are recorded in a complaints log. Complaints received relate to aviation noise, fumes, level of traffic, low flying and/or time of flight and are received from residents living in proximity to the airfield. unsurprisingly they are focused on the two main runway approaches with clusterings around Little stoke and stoke gifford.

between fifteen and fifty 4.20 complaints have been received each year for the last ten years. these numbers were significantly higher in the 1990s when the level of flying activity was higher and rose dramatically during the mid 1990s when bae systems was seeking to increase the use of the airfield and the number of operational flights by promoting a commercial airport at filton. at this time the local community set up a Campaign against filton Commercial airport with a membership of 13,000 people.

since the joint announcement by 4.21 bae systems and airbus that the runway will close at the end of 2012 the airfield has received only a single complaint to date.

20


covenants and restrictions on closure

Filton airfield is privately owned by 4.22 bae systems. Historically a ministry of Defence covenant existed preventing the commercial development of the airfield for a period without prior ministry of Defence consent. this covenant has since been released and there is no legal item that would prevent bae systems from closing the airfield. No act of parliament is required as has been suggested recently in the press.

the ministry of Defence has also 4.23 used the site in the past, but military movements are now very limited and not essential.

the airfield is not now a strategic 4.24 national asset. If the airfield were of national interest then the government would have come forward to safeguard the site. this has not occurred.

aviation heritage

bae systems is committed to 4.25 supporting the preservation of heritage assets at Filton airfield and is currently actively engaging with stakeholders in order to help management of these assets.

21


Bae systems’ approaCh

bae systems is the uK’s leading 5.1 aerospace company, formed through a series of amalgamations and the rationalisation of a large and diverse number of companies over the last 100 years. the changes in the structure of the industry have facilitated its ongoing strength and development.

the aerospace industry is at the 5.2 forefront of technological change and the advances made in this sector since the first days of aviation in the early 1900s have been staggering. this is a highly dynamic sector of the economy which embraces and effectively manages change to ensure its success. all decisions are taken in a measured way taking account of all relevant facts and following lengthy evaluation and analysis. the survival of the filton site for the last century has relied upon changing patterns of available work and the ability of the cluster to adapt to this and remain competitive.

the filton site has always adapted 5.3 in order to meet the changes in technology and infrastructure requirements of the aviation and aerospace activities taking place.

deCline in use of the runWay By the aerospaCe seCtor

as noted above, the number of 5.4 movements on the airfield has declined significantly over the past decade. this has largely been driven by a decrease in use and demand by the maintenance sector, from airbus and its former subsidiary bae aviation services, together with a reduction in activity by other users of the airfield. added to this, the number of bae systems movements has also decreased as the requirements of its business have changed.

Historically the airfield generated 5.5 a good level of income from landing fees from the maintenance sector; the loss of this income stream without replacement has had a significant impact on the airfield’s viability. Historically bae systems operated a maintenance business which included vC10s and conversion of a300 aircraft to freighters. this finished in 2002.by 2009 aircraft movements relating to the maintenance businesses of mK airlines and air Livery (airfield users since 2003) had significantly reduced. mK airlines went into liquidation in 2010 and air Livery left filton in 2009 based on an independent commercial decision. the benefits of basing their business at a commercial airfield (manchester airport) eliminating the need for ‘dead leg’ flights was a significant factor in air Livery’s decision to leave the airfield and has been a key constraint in attracting new users.

since 2007 a number of tenants 5.6 and users have ceased operations at the airfield, including privatair, eastern airways, mNg, titan, Highland airways and universal.

Historically the airfield has been 5.7 used for flight testing of new aircraft types and rolls-royce engines. this is no longer the case today as the process of manufacturing and testing aircraft and components has changed.

rolls-royce has through 5.8 independent review and because of changes in its own business operation, made decisions to cease all commercial use of the airfield. the runway no longer forms an integral part of its business operations, and its current and future business plans do not require the use of the runway to successfully operate and grow.

05reasons for revieW

22


the decline in the use of the 5.9 runway by rolls-royce in the 1990s and its subsequent decision to cease activity on the airfield effectively doubled the burden of overheads being carried by bae systems.

royal mail has never used filton 5.10 runway on a permanent basis. royal mail night flights were accommodated for a number of months in 1994/1995 and again in 2007/2008 whilst runway maintenance was ongoing at bristol airport. there are no longer any night mail flights operated from bristol airport. it is understood from industry sources that royal mail ceased airmail operations at Lulsgate due to a business decision to consolidate uK operations (primarily at east midlands airport), and economic and environmental concerns which made road operations more viable than air transport from bristol. the filton runway has never formed a integral part of its business operation, and its current and future business plans do not require the use of the runway.

it is worth noting that historically, 5.11 apart from use by bae systems, airbus and rolls-royce, there has been no significant level of use of the runway by other local companies. Neither have major operators historically been attracted to the site. some discussions have been held with potential operators in the past, but, aside from those identified above no large operations have ever had a serious interest in the site.

no demand for the existing use of the runWay

bae systems fully supports the 5.12 filton aerospace cluster as a world centre of excellence for the aerospace industry, supporting high value, skilled engineering jobs. the intentions of the existing users

have been explored and there is no longer a demand for the existing use of the runway. the airfield is no longer an integral and strategic part of the success of the aerospace industry in the area.

the primary use of filton airfield 5.13 has historically been for developing and testing hundreds of new aircraft, initially primarily military aircraft then, after the second World War, moving to primarily civil aircraft. However, massive changes have taken place both in the uK aerospace industry and around the world. Cost, competition, technical complexity and restructuring means that in the uK, aircraft manufacturers no longer tend to build whole aircraft, but focus on highly specialized parts and the extensive research and development required to remain at the forefront of this fast moving industry. this is demonstrated clearly by the changes that have taken place and are now taking place at filton.

in addition, aircraft research and 5.14 development methods have changed with the introduction of highly sophisticated computerised modelling and simulation which have significantly reduced the traditional need for numerous test flights from filton.

Whilst, clearly, some aircraft testing 5.15 is still required this is concentrated at fewer sites. for example, the original ministry of defence test sites at farnborough and bedford were closed and flight test operations concentrated at boscombe down. in addition, a rural area in west Wales has recently been designated by the Caa as a danger area for the testing of unmanned air vehicles (uav)

the loss of activity on the airfield, 5.16 particularly over the last decade, has led to a significant loss of income for bae systems and reduced the airfield to an

23


unviable operation. it has meant that for a considerable period of time bae systems has had to examine the need to retain the runway. it has done this both independently and in discussions with airbus and other operators. simultaneously bae systems has also been examining the potential of other aviation based options which could return the airfield to profitability.

airBus position

the decision to cease airfield 5.17 operations was mutually agreed with airbus following considered discussion.

airbus has stated publicly that 5.18 it will have alternative and economic solutions in place for the transportation of its people and products post closure and that the requirement for use of an airfield no longer forms a part of its future business operation at filton.

airbus has also confirmed its 5.19 commitment to filton, as reinforced by its current site redevelopment and investment programme. this will create a state of the art research and development and manufacturing facility, which will be completed for occupation in 2013 and will ensure the business is properly placed to remain competitive in the future.

Bae systems position

as part of the airfield review 5.20 process, bae systems undertook a full consultation internally, including with the submarines business that uses the flight from filton to barrow. all parties are comfortable that the loss of this flight will not detrimentally impact business operations.

24


CommerCial interest from other operators

in the face of declining aircraft 5.21 movements from existing users bae systems has continued and increased efforts to market the airfield to existing and new potential users.

the potential opportunities are 5.22 to some extent limited by the existing planning policy position. the south gloucestershire Local plan states that proposals for commercial air passenger services or commercial air freight services will not be permitted. this follows the

rejected planning appeal fought by british aerospace in the mid 1990s to expand the airfield into a commercial airport. bae systems has therefore been promoting the use of filton within these constraints over subsequent years.

However, over the last decade bae 5.23 systems has continued to invest in the airfield despite it remaining operationally unviable. the refurbishment programme to improve the airport facilities and ground equipment alone represents an investment of approximately £7 million. the airfield has not been left to run down. the table below demonstrates the significant activity and

year marketing activities and investment in the airfield2005 extended passenger lounge within flight Operations building•

2006 significant extension and improvements to car parking facilities•

2007 airport brochure produced and sent to business aviation operators both •

in the uK and abroad

Website (www.bristolfilton.co.uk) set up for ease of contact and advertising •

services available2007-2008 accommodated royal mail operations for c. 9 months (out of normal •

hours) whilst the runway was resurfaced at bristol airport2008-2009 Commenced a refurbishment programme of the airport facilities and •

ground equipment. this included: - New apron - New air traffic control radio system - radar system upgrade - New distance measuring equipment (dme) navigational aid

2010 introduced incentives for use of the airfield for landing and training with •

based operators, military and business aviation users

increased management focus through further incentives to reduce costs •

and increase revenue

Continued investment in airport facilities and ground equipment including•

upgrade to approach lighting at the eastern end of the runway•

2011 Worked with a business aviation company to provide a fixed based •

aviation operation at filton

Worked with avon fire service to provide a helicopter service from filton •

attended the World business aviation trade fair to promote the use of the •

airport and air traffic services

refurbishment of the terminal building. (refurbishment programme halted •

mid project)marketing measures and investment in the airfield since 2005.

25


variety of measures that bae systems has employed to try to increase business at filton.

these measures have had limited 5.24 success. royal mail was accommodated for a temporary period in 1994-1995 and in 2007-2008. mK airlines and air Livery were both attracted to base their aviation maintenance operations at the airfield, before mK airlines went into liquidation in 2010 and air Livery moved to manchester airport in 2009. the Western Counties air Operations unit (police) and the great Western air ambulance have also been accommodated on site. However, none of these measures has turned around the loss making situation.

a comparison of landing and 5.25 navigation and parking charges at filton with those at similar local and regional airports including bristol airport, Kemble, Cardiff and gloucestershire airport (staverton) demonstrates that filton offers competitive rates to customers. it is therefore not the case that bae systems has priced filton airfield out of the market. full details of pricing are included within the appended mott macdonald report.

throughout the past decade the 5.26 runway has been available for the use of the local and regional aerospace industry. Whilst bae systems has not actively marketed the runway as being available for sale, the aviation industry is small and there has been little commercial interest from other operators or users.

the aerospace sector in the bristol 5.27 area and the wider sub-region is strong and has continued to grow and develop, but the use of the airfield has consistently declined, with airbus now also confirming the runway is no longer required as part of its future operation.

summary

the reasons for review of the 5.28 airfield and the subsequent decision to close the airfield can be summarised as follows:

the airfield has been loss-making over •

the last decade

the number of aircraft movements and •

users has decreased over the last ten years, such that it is no longer viable

there is no demand for the existing •

use of the runway – the intentions of the existing runway users have been explored

there has been little commercial interest •

from other operators despite best marketing efforts of bae systems over the last decade. marketing of the airfield has been significantly constrained by the airfield’s planning use restrictions

alternative aviation options have been •

explored (see chapter 6) – no clear evidence of demand to make the ongoing operation of the airfield viable, taking into consideration commercial, environmental (including planning), and practical considerations.

26


as explained above the decline 6.1 in the use of the airfield led bae systems to further evaluate the need to retain the runway and to assess a range of alternative aviation and non-aviation options on the site.

planning status

the planning status of the site is of 6.2 relevance to the consideration of potential alternative aviation options.

filton has been used for aviation 6.3 purposes since 1910, when sir george White founded the british and Colonial aeroplane Company Ltd and started flying at filton. as such there is no planning permission relating to the use of the airfield.

the filton site, like all sites within 6.4 the dynamic aviation and aerospace sector has been subject to change since it was established in 1910.

the early planning history of filton 6.5 airfield can be summarised as follows:

the main runway was extended in 1946 •

for the brabazon project – Charlton village was demolished and the pre-war filton bypass severed

the runway was extended further in 1954•

a minor addition to the runway was •

made in the late 1960s for Concorde

the ground running base (for engine •

testing) was permitted in 1967

a temporary permission was given for •

the yorkon building in 1986, and an extension in 1989

the growth and development 6.6 of filton airfield has been an ongoing process and planning applications have been submitted to south gloucestershire

Council on a regular basis over the years. these related largely to small scale development required to meet the operational needs of the airfield and associated airbus activities. they include applications for a meteorological mast and telecommunications antennae, a customs and excise building, offices and industrial buildings, a car park, portacabins, telephone exchange, extensions and refurbishments.

the most relevant planning 6.7 decision is the secretary of state’s letter and the inspector’s report from the 1996 appeal by british aerospace plc (acting through british aerospace airbus Ltd) for a proposed commercial airport at filton airfield (app/g0120/a/94/238017).

this proposal was for limited 6.8 commercial scheduled flights from filton including 20 freight flights per night. british aerospace believed that it had permitted development rights for this activity, but this was challenged by Northavon district Council and a planning application was subsequently submitted.

the appeal was then lodged 6.9 against the failure of Northavon district Council to determine, within the prescribed period, the application for planning permission (number p93/2321 dated 29 september 1993) for a commercial airport on 211 ha of land at filton, bristol.

under the provisions of section 6.10 266 of the 1990 town & Country planning act the appeal was called in and dealt with jointly by the secretaries of state for the environment and transport. the appeal was determined in accordance with planning policy and advice and was dismissed by the secretaries of state on 22 march 1996 for the following reasons:

06alternative aviation options evaluated

27


“The Secretaries of State concluded that the proposed development would cause significant harm, arising from the inappropriateness of its location in the context of the surrounding settlement pattern and the consequent disturbance and loss of residential amenity and the potential effects of traffic congestion. By virtue of this harm, the proposed development fails to accord with the objectives of national guidance in PPG 13 (Transport) as well as the objectives of the development plan and the emerging district-wide local plan. In their view, these factors amount to demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance set out in PPG1, which they do not consider to be adequately mitigated by the use of conditions or planning obligations.” “On the grounds of need and the wider benefits for the local economy in terms of enhanced competitiveness and employment … these factors are outweighed by the significant disadvantages identified.”

the secretaries of state judged 6.11 that the key material considerations in determining the appeal were:

the need for the development•

the likely benefits arising from allowing •

the proposed development

the locational and physical suitability of •

the site

the likely impact of the proposed •

development on the environment of the surrounding area, having regard to the following factors:

i. residential amenity ii. Noise iii. Local traffic conditions iv. pollution and health v. ecology vi. safety aspects

a High Court challenge was made 6.12 against the appeal decision but this was dismissed.

these decisions set a clear 6.13 precedent for any future applications. filton is not seen as a suitable location for a commercial airport and no circumstances have changed to suggest that a new application now would receive a different result.

the outcome of these decisions is 6.14 underlined by the evaluation undertaken in connection with the Future of Air Transport White Paper (2003). this states:

“10.16 The option of building a new airport north of Bristol was set out in the South West consultation document if development of the existing Bristol (Lulsgate) Airport needed to be constrained, or in the event that new capacity was not provided at South East airports. Based on the decisions set out above, and our conclusions on capacity in the South East, neither of these circumstances arise. The appraisal set out in the consultation document indicates that a new airport north of Bristol would therefore be neither economically beneficial nor commercially viable. 10.17 In addition, respondents to the consultation identified a number of problems with the new airport proposal, including the proximity of major industrial complexes and settlements nearby, flood risk, and congestion on key motorway links. These concerns, combined with the cost of building a new airport and the negative impact from closing the existing airport on the economy of south Bristol, resulted in strong opposition to a new airport north of Bristol from a number of important stakeholders in the region. 10.18 Taking all of these factors into account, we have concluded that there is

28


no case for supporting a new airport to the north of Bristol in the period of this White Paper.”

the development of Lulsgate 6.15 is now taking place. an airport master plan has been prepared and planning permission was granted in may 2010 for major works which will allow the airport to handle 10mppa by 2019/2020.

since these decisions, which 6.16 demonstrate that an intensified level of use of the airfield for commercial and freight use would not be acceptable, bae systems has released land north of the airfield for residential development. planning permission was gained via appeal in 2006 for a mixed use scheme including 2,200 homes.

revieW of alternative aviation options

in 2006, bae systems asked 6.17 mott macdonald, terence O’rourke Ltd and peter brett associates to examine the opportunities for a range of aviation and non-aviation developments at the site. this work was undertaken to advise bae systems about its future options. it was completed in 2007. the evaluation of those options is summarised here in order to show that bae systems has:

firstly, been giving this matter •

consideration over a number of years

sought independent, professional advice •

to inform its decision making

approached the future of filton in a •

highly responsible manner

further work has been undertaken 6.18 by the team in 2011 to review the issues and conclusions arrived at in 2007. mott macdonald’s 2011 report is a technical appendix to this report.

the 2006 - 2007 work examined 6.19 five alternative aviation options on the basis of mott macdonald’s detailed understanding of the economics and capacity of the aviation sector at the time. in addition the work looked at a ‘do nothing’ scenario and also at redevelopment possibilities.

the options were evaluated 6.20 in terms of the facilities that would be required to support them, and the current availability of such facilities. a range of physical works would be associated with the aviation options including modification and upgrading of the runway, aircraft parking aprons, terminal facilities (scale dependent on the level of activity), a new air traffic control tower, additional navigation aids, car parking space etc.

to enable a comparable and 6.21 consistent review of development options a matrix approach was utilised. this allowed each of the options to be assessed against the same criteria, and, in effect, tested the options against each other. to ensure the assessment was robust a wide range of criteria was employed, covering operational, planning, environmental, political and strategic issues. each criterion was defined and sites were assessed on the basis of whether the development option would meet, partially meet (medium) or not meet the criterion. a question mark was used where insufficient data was available or where the uncertainty of time made a judgement inappropriate.

29


the following is a summary 6.22 of the approach and conclusions of the 2007 and 2011 studies. in this summary, each option is explained and the evaluation summarised in respect of practical, commercial and environmental considerations.

option 1: do nothing

this scenario would continue the 6.23 current types and levels of activity at filton.

option 1: practical considerations

physically, this option could 6.24 obviously be accommodated.

option 1: Commercial considerations

Ongoing use in connection with 6.25 aircraft manufacturing and maintenance remains a practical use, but clearly the existing owners and past users no longer have such a requirement. any new use would require additional hangar and related building space (as the brabazon hangar is poorly located and not suitable for many operations and other buildings on the site are small and in poor condition).

in addition, no demand has been 6.26 identified and it would still have to be commercially viable to keep the runway (or part thereof) in operation.

Commercially therefore this option 6.27 is not viable as it is loss making and losses would continue to rise. although not immediately required, it would also be difficult or impossible to demonstrate a robust business case for investment should any capital investment be needed (for example runway resurfacing).

option 1: environmental considerations

the current operations have 6.28 attracted complaints about noise, fumes, levels of traffic, low flying and/or time of flight.

option 2: Commercial low cost operations

this option examined the physical 6.29 feasibility of locating a low cost commercial airport operation on the filton site.


the filton airfield has little land 6.30 outside of that which would be required for the runway strip if it were to be upgraded, hence any commercial aviation would require land outside of the operational airfield boundaries, either to the south (around the brabazon hangar), to the north west corner of the airfield (part of Cribbs Causeway) or at the south west corner of the airfield (the land controlled by persimmon, redrow and ashfield Land).

the railway creates a barrier which 6.31 would make land to the south difficult and also expensive to use. the other options would require land acquisition which would also be highly costly (because of the value of the land) and very high risk.

access to the site is not suitable 6.32 for high levels of activity which would require substantial expenditure on highway improvements. the transport implications of commercial aviation development at filton would be significant and would require major investment in strategic and local public transport and highway infrastructure to secure a long term sustainable surface access strategy capable of supporting modal split of 50% car, 50% non car.

30



it was evident from the demand 6.33 statistics produced by mott macdonald that a clear regional strategic need existed for aviation growth in the south West and this was supported by the aviation White paper The Future of Air Transport and the expansion proposed in the bristol international airport masterplan 2006 to 2030. there were substantial positive arguments to note too in terms of regional employment generation and long term revenue gain.


bae systems was advised it 6.34 would be necessary to show that a commercial aviation proposal would not have unacceptable environmental implications. the impact in terms of noise, air quality, climate change, public health, landscape and visual effects would need to be assessed and terence O’rourke Ltd and peter brett associates were of the view that the impacts would be significant. mitigation measures were considered unlikely to be able to resolve all the adverse impacts.

Noise effects were examined and 6.35 it was considered that the extent of these was significant and would be unacceptable in planning terms.

it was shown that the site was 6.36 already constrained by the proximity of residential development and experienced complaints as a result of aviation activity. it was considered that a proposal for a commercial airport at filton would significantly prejudice the amenity of local residents, given the proximity of residential development to the airfield boundary. this impact on local amenity was considered unacceptable in planning terms. this assessment accords with

the inspector’s assessment of the 1996 planning appeal. it was also noted that the south gloucestershire Local plan proposed further residential development at the North field, in close proximity to the airfield, and that other windfall sites were likely to come forward.

option 3: air freight integrator

this option was examined briefly. 6.37 Companies such as dHL, fedex and ups operate ‘consolidation hubs’ at a small number of airports which serve a network of collection and distribution points. it is a 24-hour operation with large quantities of road freight accessing the site.


Current highway access is poor 6.38 and would need significant upgrade.

air cargo would require less apron 6.39 space than passenger operations, but the runway length would not be suitable for long-haul freighters, it would still require space for cargo terminal(s) and freight forwarder facilities and suitable road connections to the motorway network. Operations would have to take place every day of the week and most short-haul cargo operations also generate night movements, which would be a contentious environmental issue.


by 2006/7, the networks of these 6.40 major integrators had been established. bae systems has held talks in the past with a freight operator but this operator had made other decisions.

air freight demand for general 6.41 cargo in the south west region is largely met by the London airports, notably

31


Heathrow airport, where there is a significant amount of capacity offered to a wide range of destinations. demand for express air services from the region is mainly met at Nottingham east midlands airport, from which integrated air services are offered, for example by dHL, to both short-haul and long haul destinations.

mott macdonald concluded there 6.42 is no evident demand, especially as the site could not operate on a 24-hour basis.


Noise and disturbance to 6.43 residential properties from aircraft and Hgv activity would be at an unacceptable level.

option 4: ad hoc air freight

this option was examined briefly. 6.44 this type of operation serves companies in a city with substantial demand for the movement of high value freight.


Current highway access is poor 6.45 and would need significant upgrade


it was mott macdonald’s view 6.46 that bristol is unlikely to support sufficient manufacturing firms to generate sufficient demand. On this basis it was unlikely that there would be sufficient demand for local air cargo or air express demand to justify services from filton.


Noise and disturbance to 6.47 residential properties from aircraft and Hgv activity would be at an unacceptable level.

option 5: maintenance and training

this would be an extension of 6.48 existing activities, potentially with the need for new buildings for any substantial maintenance activity.


planning policy is supportive at 6.49 national, regional and local levels, as this would fall under a continuation of the existing authorised operations.


the demand for maintenance, 6.50 repair and overhaul (mrO) services is global and the uK is at some competitive disadvantage in terms of, for example, labour costs with other world regions. there are a number of well-established mrO suppliers in the uK market and it is difficult to envisage how filton could competitively market its product. bae systems has been attempting to attract clients but without success, apart from air Livery which based its operations at filton for a short period of time and mK airlines which based its maintenance operations at the airfield for around four years before going into liquidation.


it was noted in 2007 that aviation 6.51 training generated 65% of the noise complaints received by the airfield, and therefore any expansion of this would have environmental implications arising from this noise. High frequency movements by small trainers are often considered a particular nuisance by residents.

32


option 6: high cost passenger operation

the project team has investigated 6.52 in detail the possibility of developing a high cost passenger operation at filton. in 2007, it was envisaged this would be similar to the silverjet operation at London Luton airport. However, this has now closed which in itself is an indication of the risky nature of this business.

in the 2011 review, a number of 6.53 types of operation were examined, from the uK flagship site at farnborough to more basic facilities at gloucestershire (staverton) airport.

mott macdonald explored this 6.54 option to establish if a demand existed for a high cost passenger service in the bristol region, and to understand what the infrastructure requirements would be of pursuing this development option.


buildings and access are not 6.55 attractive for a high cost operation and would need upgrading with relatively high initial cost. in particular, a new terminal building would be required.

business aviation use would 6.56 require less apron and terminal space than air passenger services and a shorter runway might also be acceptable. it would, however, require seven day services over a longer operating day than is provided at present.


a range of business type 6.57 operations were examined. in 2006/7 mott macdonald looked at a bespoke service to New york. it was concluded that the potential demand from the filton

catchment area for a service to New york would be around 36,000 passengers per annum. this would only produce two or three flights per day and would not be sufficient to enable the operation of a viable high cost passenger venture.

there is significant competition 6.58 for this market offered at other airfields in the region, notably from gloucestershire airport (staverton), bristol airport, exeter and farnborough. mott macdonald concluded it is unlikely that the demand for this type of activity would generate sufficient revenue to cover the cost of maintaining such operations. there is also a question mark over the quality and quantity of hangar space available to attract operators to base their aircraft at filton.


environmental implications were 6.59 considered acceptable.

additional options

Helicopter operations on their own 6.60 were not examined in 2006/7, but have now been reviewed.

Helicopter operations alone would 6.61 require a much reduced area and could be developed if there is sufficient demand or, given the existing public service uses, as part of a corporate responsibility programme. the environmental implications are likely to be considered acceptable.

kemble airfield

Kemble airfield is a leisure airfield 6.62 specifically targeting ‘enthusiasts’ within the general aviation community by offering a mix of competitive charges and excellent facilities, including a restaurant. as well

33


as catering for leisure flying, events are organised year-round for the community.

in contrast filton is an airfield 6.63 designed to cater for a number of segments within the aviation market. this includes the general aviation / leisure market but this only ranks as a secondary activity to provide an additional limited revenue stream. the size and nature of filton airfield prevents it being able to offer the same atttractions to private flyers as those currently provided at Kemble. a general aviation use alone would not be a viable commercial operation at filton.

Conclusions on options

Options 1 (do nothing) and 5 6.64 (maintenance and training) were dismissed as there was no evidence they represented viable business options.

Option 2 (low cost commercial 6.65 airport) was dismissed on the grounds that there was no support in the Future of Air Transport White Paper, the South West Regional Spatial Strategy, the Joint Replacement Structure Plan and the South Gloucestershire Local Plan. the appeal decision also created a strong planning constraint. in addition, the lack of suitable available land and the environmental constraints outweighed the evident demand. the limited size of the existing site and the proximity of existing and new residential areas rule out any major development of the aerodrome for air passenger services. Key development control decisions also support this. bristol airport also serves the bristol area well.

Options 3 and 4 (freight) 6.66 were dismissed on commercial and environmental grounds.

in respect of Option 6 (high cost 6.67 passenger operations), fundamentally planning policy was opposed to the development of a civilian airport at filton. Whilst a high cost operation would be on a much smaller scale than a local or regional commercial operation, it would still fall into this category and therefore the current planning framework did not offer support for this development option. However, there is also no evidence of demand sufficient to support this type of operation so on the basis of economic viability the project team discounted this development option.

summary

there is insufficient space to 6.68 develop a commercial passenger airport at filton and only limited space for cargo, maintenance or manufacturing operations, even if these generated an otherwise commercially viable development option and were acceptable on environmental grounds and in planning terms. use by smaller general and business aviation aircraft may fit on the site, but this option may not generate sufficient income to purchase the site (or part of the site) and meet the development and operating costs. all operations would increase the number of aircraft movements and thus the noise generated by those operations, which in most instances would also require an increase in the operating hours.

mott macdonald also considered 6.69 the facilities offered at filton in comparison with those offered at the other aerodromes in the region. apart from its excellent location in relation to the motorway and rail network and its proximity to the centre of bristol, the runway at filton does not offer any particular benefits and most of the potential air traffic uses are already accommodated elsewhere in the region.

34


mott macdonald concluded:6.70

“If the existing owners no longer have sufficient need to keep it in operation and are not anticipating a similar future need, then the only option to closure would be a modest business and general aviation use, possibly combined with helicopter operations. Such a use requires a promoter with sufficient capital who believes they have a viable business case. Even then, it remains for BAE Systems, as owner, to consider if such a development is in its best interest and that of its shareholders. The site has been marketed for this and other uses for some time, but no real interest has emerged.” “Closure does not appear to have a negative impact on the prospects for ongoing aviation-related employment in the area and so Mott MacDonald have been unable to generate a substantive case for keeping the runway in operation.”

35


future prospeCts

the Lep submission states:7.1

“Over the next 10 years there will be significant changes in the aerospace sector pushed by new technologies such as carbon composite materials, more electric aircraft concepts, component health monitoring and carbon reduction. The primes will need to undertake significant levels of R&D to compete in the global environment and take advantage of future market opportunities. If this R&D cannot be undertaken in the UK, there is a danger that it will migrate overseas.”

the r&d being undertaken is 7.2 identified in the document and shows the nature and activities of the technologies related to the modern aerospace industry:

“Universities: Bath (LIMA Business Technology Centre [BTC] – metrology), Bristol (Advanced Composites Centre for Innovation and Science, Exeter (CALM BTC - additive layer manufacturing) and UWE (Continuous Professional Development in Aerospace Programme). National Composites Centre: will be an open access research facility for the design and rapid manufacture of high quality composite products opening in 2011 at the Bristol and Bath Science Park (SPark) . CFMS ASRC: Part of the national AxRC network this is an advanced simulation research facility being established in Bristol Business Park which will comprise Capability Lab, IT Lab, and High Performance Computer. Environmentally Friendly Engine: a large, national collaborative R&D project aimed at the next generation of aero engines with significant reduction in CO2 and NOx

emissions and noise reductions. Integrated Wing/Next Generation Composite Wing: national collaborative R&D projects to investigate and develop technologies for analysis, design, simulation, manufacturing, assembly and system integration related to advanced composite wing structures to meet the ever more stringent environmental and cost requirements of regulators, and of airlines and their passengers. ASTRAEA 2: a national collaborative R&D programme aimed at developing the technologies required for the civil application of unmanned autonomous vehicles and systems.”

the Lep has now been confirmed 7.3 and has made commitments to work with the industry to (in summary):

foster links between industry, academia •

and government to identify and address opportunities

work with other Leps to articulate •

aerospace and defence issues at a national level

work with trade associations to ensure •

the supply chain benefits from major r&d activity and facility

develop proposals for the regional •

growth fund (rgf)

work to secure technical and financial •

support, maximize private sector investment in r&d and ensure greater collaboration both within and across sectors

attract inward investment•

articulate skills requirements •

07 future prospeCts of the West of england aerospaCe industry and redevelopment opportunities

36


the aerospace sector in the bristol 7.4 area and the wider sub-region is strong and dynamic. it has and will continue to change and develop. r&d in the sector is diverse and well developed. there is no evidence that the presence of the runway at filton is a major part of the infrastructure supporting the sector. in fact, the redevelopment of the site offers greater opportunity to strengthen the aerospace cluster through new investment and employment opportunities.

the industrial area south and 7.5 adjacent to the airfield has seen a number of prestigious new developments by airbus over the last decade, including new high tech engineering centres for wing design and landing gear testing. further developments are planned by airbus, including a site redevelopment and investment programme that will create a state of the art research and development and manufacturing facility, which will be completed for occupation in 2013. these improvements, informed by comprehensive review, will help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the airbus operation and ensure the business is properly placed to remain competitive in the future.

Other companies at filton, 7.6 including rolls-royce and bae systems itself are continually implementing changes to enhance their business operations. it is the resources of highly skilled personnel and high technology equipment that now drives the filton aerospace cluster, not access to a runway.

it has been suggested that a 7.7 successful aerospace cluster must have a runway associated with it. reference has been made to farnborough as an example. However, both the history and the nature of current activities at farnborough are relevant in demonstrating that this is not necessarily the case.

farnborough was used historically by the royal aircraft establishment (which became dera and now Qinetiq) for research and development relating to both military and civil aircraft – including Concorde. military test flying relocated to boscombe down in the early 1990s as a part of the ministry of defence’s rationalisation of its operations and the changing nature of aircraft development. the site was then declared surplus to requirements and has now been developed as a dedicated business aviation airport. the major important aerospace cluster at farnborough has not been harmed by the loss of the runway to commercial use.

However, the key difference with 7.8 filton is that farnborough’s proximity to London has made it viable as a business airport and it already had a number of flourishing businesses and available hangarage, apron space and terminals providing a sound foundation to underpin new investment. as explained above, this option has been examined for filton but would not be viable.

airBus

airbus has stated: 7.9

“Airbus is fully committed to Filton – this is the case now and will remain the case as clearly demonstrated by the recent decision to build a multi million pound business park at Filton and the continued investment in state of the art facilities such as the A350XWB Landing Gear Test Facility.”

a decision was reached to close 7.10 the airfield at the end 2012, thus giving airbus more than one and a half years to prepare for closure. various scenarios are now being worked on for alternative ways to move airbus people and parts.

37


in a follow-on statement released 7.11 in august 2011, airbus again confirmed its position:

“As previously stated, together with our Landlord BAE Systems, it was mutually agreed to cease Airfield operations at Filton from the end of 2012. We reiterate alternative and economic solutions for the transportation of our people and products will be in place. Secondly, Airbus confirms its commitment to the Filton Facility as reinforced by our recent announcement regarding the development of Airbus Aerospace Park and the refurbishment of Pegasus House and 2 new purpose built 2500 people Office Development. This represents an investment of up to €70m.”

meanwhile in its response to the 7.12 south gloucestershire Core strategy – filton airfield position statement consultation paper dated June 2011, bristol airport, wrote on 19 July 2011:

“…with respect to the potential impact of the closure on local employers, Rolls-Royce, I would like to take this opportunity to reassure you that we are confident that any services that hitherto operated in support of these employers from Filton, will be able to operate post-closure from Bristol Airport, the south west region’s largest airport. Our aim will be to ensure that Bristol Airport continues to provide the support needed by the local aerospace industry to enable it to maintain its efficiency and competitiveness.”

opportunities offered By redevelopment

bae systems is reviewing 7.13 future employment uses and potential economic and training activities at the

site in collaboration with key stakeholders including uWe, the West of england Lep, south gloucestershire Council, bristol City Council, the science park and others with an interest in the emerging enterprise area. With airbus, bae systems is committed to the strong economic performance of the filton area in the future. it is confident that working with these partners will identify proposals that will be significantly more valuable to the filton area than the continued operation of the runway.

bae systems together with its 7.14 consultants is currently undertaking appropriate analysis and research to gain a thorough understanding of the constraints and opportunities of the site to inform an emerging master plan. bae systems seeks to take a proper strategic approach to the site, working jointly with local stakeholders to determine the balance between delivering significant high quality, high value investment opportunities and an appropriate level of housing to deliver a sustainable mix of land uses.

bae systems has a considerable 7.15 track record in regenerating and bringing back into economic use redundant or surplus land holdings. these case studies include a range of previous uses from large manufacturing facilities, airfields, agricultural land holdings and residential houses. each case is unique but bae systems recognises in all cases the need to engage with the local planning authorities and residents to ensure that the proposed development represents the best position for all stakeholders and ensures a sustainable future for the communities in which they exist. rOf Chorley in Lancashire highlights a recent example of this where job creation on the final development is expected to be significantly greater at any time since the 1960s, something which has been achieved within the context of a mixed use scheme which

38


will also deliver real amenity benefit to existing a future residents as a part of a mixed use, sustainable community.

a future vision for the airfield site 7.16 could embrace the opportunity to:

safeguard and support the aerospace •

industry and create a new enterprise area to drive investment into the cluster

deliver high value local employment and •

job creation opportunities, providing far greater economic benefits than continued airfield operations

include measures to ensure no conflict •

of interest between industry and residents

address the current imbalance between •

homes and jobs – providing more homes, including affordable homes

provide a more integrated and cohesive •

structure to development within the North fringe of bristol

enhance public transport and improve •

linkages between areas of the North fringe

break down physical barriers and •

provide an improved green infrastructure network

the closure of the airfield and the 7.17 opportunity offered by redevelopment is acknowledged by rolls-royce, which does not object to closure of the runway. gerald eve, on behalf of rolls-royce, acknowledges the contribution to regeneration which can be made through redevelopment in his response to the filton airfield position statement:

“Indeed the closure of the Airfield is likely to widen the development potential of East Works with, for example, the relaxation of constraints on development imposed by flights safety requirements (height restrictions).”

“The FAPS acknowledges the current imbalance between homes and jobs in the area. This creates unsustainable commuting patterns and congestion. The release of further land for development needs to address this situation and create a more appropriate and sustainable balance of land uses. The inevitably requires the provision of additional housing development on the FAPS area. Such development needs to be in scale with the need for housing, in particular that created by employment uses in the area.” “The option of both commercial and residential use for the land is ‘the only credible option”

the opportunity offered by 7.18 redevelopment is also supported by peter Jackson, Chairman of the West of england Lep, who welcomes the inclusion of the land at filton airfield in the Core strategy, as a major development opportunity to support economic growth

“The LEP would support a mixed-use development that includes a substantial proportion of the site to be devoted to employment uses that provides high quality jobs and consolidates the aerospace cluster around the A38. The LEP recognises that this option builds upon the strengths of the established aerospace sector in the West of England.”

39


this report summarises the review 8.1 that bae systems has undertaken of the future of filton airfield. it has explained the nature of the cluster of aerospace activity at filton and how this successful and critically important component of the local and sub-regional economy is flourishing.

it has set out the facts of the 8.2 current use of the runway, which has been declining over time and is becoming increasingly costly to operate. as a commercial company, bae systems is obliged to operate in the best interests of its shareholders and cannot continue to subsidise this loss making operation.

However, bae systems has acted 8.3 properly by working with its main user, airbus, and only coming to the public conclusion that the airfield must close after lengthy discussion with airbus and after being satisfied that the arrangements in place will ensure that closure will not adversely affect jobs at airbus or elsewhere in the filton cluster. airbus is continuing to invest in new modern facilities at filton with the clear understanding that the airfield will close. airbus has made consistent public statements that closure will not harm its business.

in coming to its conclusion on 8.4 the future of filton airfield, bae systems has also examined other potential aviation uses for the site. some of the options examined would be contrary to policy or would create unacceptable environmental impacts. they are, however, underlined by there being no clear evidence of demand to make the ongoing operation of the airfield viable, even setting aside the need for any new capital investment. there is also no indication of demand or any new income streams which would change the position.

the existence of bristol airport 8.5 at Lulsgate is also a material factor. Not only does the proximity of this facility offer the opportunity for alternative means to transport staff but also there is a clear policy position which supports the growth of Lulsgate and opposes the growth of filton airfield for commercial aviation purposes.

redevelopment offers the 8.6 opportunity to enhance the world leading aerospace cluster at filton and in doing so will support and complement the existing high value, skilled, engineering and manufacturing jobs through the provision of employment land to support and enhance the existing cluster. bae systems is committed to working with the Lep to develop a strong vision and strategic objectives for the enterprise area to encourage further engineering and manufacturing jobs to filton and strengthen this world-leading sector.

08ConClusion

40


teChniCal appendixfilton airfield aviation options reportmOtt maCdONaLdseptember 2011

Filton Airfield AviationOptions Appraisal

Report

September 2011

BAE Systems

298031 ITD ITA 01 E

C:\DOCUME~1\col30911\OTLocal\PIMSLIVE\Workbin\586684F3.0\Development Options Appraisal Report

30 September 2011

Filton Airfield AviationOptions Appraisal

Report

September 2011

BAE Systems

Mott MacDonald, Mott MacDonald House, 8-10 Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EE, United KingdomT +44(0) 20 8774 2000 F +44 (0) 20 8681 5706, W www.mottmac.com

Building 330, Westcott Venture Park, Westcott, Bucks HP18 0NP

Filton Airfield Aviation Options Appraisal

Mott MacDonald, Mott MacDonald House, 8-10 Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EE, United KingdomT +44(0) 20 8774 2000 F +44 (0) 20 8681 5706, W www.mottmac.com

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description

A 02 Sep 2011 CJC, CW, GDR PK CW UNCHECKED First Draft

B 05 Sep 2011 CJC, CW, GDR GDR CW Incomplete First Draft

C 13 Sep 2011 CJC, CW, GDR GDR PK Final Report

D 16 Sep 2011 CJC, CW, GDR GDR PK Final Report

E 30 Sep 2011 CJC, CW, GDR GDR PK Final Report

Issue and Revision Record

This document is issued for the party which commissioned itand for specific purposes connected with the above-captionedproject only. It should not be relied upon by any other party orused for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of thisdocument being relied upon by any other party, or being usedfor any other purpose, or containing any error or omissionwhich is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us byother parties

This document contains confidential information and proprietaryintellectual property. It should not be shown to other partieswithout consent from us and from the party whichcommissioned it.

298031/ITD/ITA/01/E 30 September 2011C:\DOCUME~1\col30911\OTLocal \PIMS LIVE\Workbin\586684F3.0\Development Options Appraisal Report Ev1.doc


Chapter Title Page

Executive Summary i

1. Introduction 1

2. Airfield Location 22.1 Site Location_______________________________________________________________________ 2

2.2 Changes to the Airfield Layout since 2007________________________________________________ 4

3. Review of 2007 Report 6

4. Existing Airport Facilities 74.1 Brief Description____________________________________________________________________ 74.2 Runway __________________________________________________________________________ 94.3 Taxiways ________________________________________________________________________ 13

4.4 Aprons __________________________________________________________________________ 134.5 Terminal _________________________________________________________________________ 144.6 Hangars _________________________________________________________________________ 144.7 Air Traffic Control (ATC)_____________________________________________________________ 144.8 Rescue Fire Fighting (RFF) __________________________________________________________ 15

5. Aviation Activity at Filton 165.1 Introduction_______________________________________________________________________ 16

5.2 Existing Airfield Users_______________________________________________________________ 165.3 Aviation Activity 2000 to 2010 ________________________________________________________ 175.4 Aviation Activity by Type_____________________________________________________________ 185.5 Marketing initiatives ________________________________________________________________ 19

6. Demand for Air Passenger Services 216.1 Introduction_______________________________________________________________________ 216.2 Air Passenger Demand in the Filton Catchment Area ______________________________________ 21

6.3 Capacity and Airports in the Southwest Region ___________________________________________ 226.4 Bristol International Airport (Lulsgate) __________________________________________________ 22

7. Demand for Business Aviation Services 277.1 Introduction_______________________________________________________________________ 277.2 Demand for Business Aviation________________________________________________________ 277.3 Key Attributes of a Business Aviation Airfield_____________________________________________ 297.4 Business Aircraft Types _____________________________________________________________ 30

8. Demand for General Aviation Facilities 338.1 Introduction_______________________________________________________________________ 33

Content

298031/ITD/ITA/01/E 30 September 2011C:\DOCUME~1\col30911\OTLocal \PIMS LIVE\Workbin\586684F3.0\Development Options Appraisal Report Ev1.doc


8.2 Gloucestershire Airport (Staverton) ____________________________________________________ 338.3 Cotswold (formerly Kemble) Airfield ____________________________________________________ 35

9. Maintenance, Repair & Overhaul Sector 369.1 Introduction_______________________________________________________________________ 369.2 The MRO Market in the UK __________________________________________________________ 36

9.3 Analysis of MRO Suppliers___________________________________________________________ 36

10. Demand for Cargo Services 3810.1 Introduction_______________________________________________________________________ 3810.2 Air Express Operations______________________________________________________________ 3810.3 Air Mail Operations_________________________________________________________________ 4010.4 Conclusions – Air Mail Hub __________________________________________________________ 42

11. Runway Based Development Options 4311.1 Comparisons with other Airport Runways________________________________________________ 43

11.2 Proposed Runway Length ___________________________________________________________ 5011.3 Runway Width ____________________________________________________________________ 5211.4 Other Runway Considerations ________________________________________________________ 5311.5 Taxiways ________________________________________________________________________ 5311.6 Aprons __________________________________________________________________________ 5311.7 Terminal Facilities__________________________________________________________________ 54

11.8 Technically Viable Options___________________________________________________________ 5411.9 Commercial Viability________________________________________________________________ 5511.10 Other Aviation-Related Uses _________________________________________________________ 5511.11 Strategic Importance _______________________________________________________________ 56

12. Options Matrix 5712.1 Runway Based Options _____________________________________________________________ 57

i298031/ITD/ITA/01/E 30 September 2011C:\DOCUME~1\col30911\OTLocal\PIMS LIVE\Workbin\586684F3.0\Development Options Appraisal Report Ev1.doc


Runway Options Appraisal

This report provides an overview of the potential uses for the Filton Aerodromerunway and is primarily a study of the demand and technical issues. TerenceO’Rourke is undertaking a parallel Planning appraisal.

Demand for Runway Related Uses

In this appraisal, we have considered the potential for aviation demand in theregion and the proportion that might be met at Filton for:-

Commercial air passenger Services;

Commercial air cargo Services;

Business Aviation Facilities

General Aviation Facilities;

Helicopter Facilities; and

MRO Facilities

The demand for commercial air passenger services is primarily being met atBristol International Airport (Bristol Lulsgate) with some passengers in thecatchment area also using Cardiff, Exeter, Birmingham, Bournemouth or theLondon Airports. Bristol Lulsgate is undertaking a programme of capacityexpansion that should enable it to accommodate future demand. Thus, while theproximity of Filton to the City of Bristol itself, the M4 and M5 and Bristol Parkwayrail station are valuable attributes, the need to use Filton to meet some of thisdemand is not compelling.

Air freight demand for general cargo in the Southwest region is largely met by theLondon airports, notably Heathrow airport, where there is a significant amount ofcapacity offered to a wide range of destinations. Demand for express air servicesfrom the region is mainly met at Nottingham East Midlands Airport, from whichintegrated air services are offered, by operators including DHL, to both short-hauland long haul destinations. There is insufficient local air cargo or air expressdemand to justify services from Filton.

Executive Summary

ii298031/ITD/ITA/01/E 30 September 2011C:\DOCUME~1\col30911\OTLocal\PIMS LIVE\Workbin\586684F3.0\Development Options Appraisal Report Ev1.doc


Demand for flown air mail services from Filton has effectively disappeared with thedecision by the Royal Mail to cancel air mail flights at Bristol Lulsgate Airport.

Business aviation flights (including the Airbus staff ‘air bridge’ shuttles to Toulouseand Chester) are currently operated at Filton and, if kept open, would probablycontinue. However, there is significant competition for this market offered at otherairfields in the region, notably from Gloucestershire Airport, Bristol Lulsgate, andfurther away, Bournemouth, Exeter and Farnborough. It is unlikely that thedemand for this type of activity would generate sufficient revenue to cover the costof maintaining such operations. There is also a question mark over the quality andquantity of hangar space available to attract operators to base their aircraft atFilton.

General aviation (GA) flights are currently operated at Filton and again, if keptopen, will continue. However, there is significant competition for this marketoffered at other airfields in the region, notably from Gloucestershire Airport andCotswold Airport. It is very unlikely that the demand for this type of activity wouldgenerate sufficient revenue to cover the cost of maintaining such operations.There is also a question mark over the quality and quantity of hangar spaceavailable to attract operators to park and maintain their aircraft at Filton.

There are already helicopter operators based at Filton, notably the Police andGreat Western Air Ambulance Service. There is also some demand for privateand corporate helicopter operations.

The demand for MRO services is global and the UK is at a competitivedisadvantage in terms of, for example, labour costs with other world regions.There are a number of well-established MRO suppliers in the UK market and it isdifficult to envisage how Filton could competitively market its product. BAESystems has been attempting to attract clients but without success, apart from MKAirlines who undertook maintenance operations at the Airfield for around 7 yearsbefore going into liquidation.

The use of the runway in support of aircraft manufacturing is also clearly anotherpotential use and one that would be acceptable in planning terms. However,Airbus no longer has such a need and no other enquiries have been made frominterested parties.

iii298031/ITD/ITA/01/E 30 September 2011C:\DOCUME~1\col30911\OTLocal\PIMS LIVE\Workbin\586684F3.0\Development Options Appraisal Report Ev1.doc


Runway Based Development Options

The existing runway at Filton has precision instrument approaches from bothrunway directions and is of sufficient length (2,300 m) to serve most aircraft typesexcept wide-bodied aircraft on long-haul routes. At 91 m, it is approximately twicethe minimum required width, but this only offers marginal operational benefits andincreases its maintenance cost.

Filton is located close to the M4, M5 and M32 motorways with connections via theA38 and A4174 and it is also close to Bristol Parkway Station on the main Londonto South Wales rail line. For this reason, it has better surface access than BristolLulsgate Airport.

Current operations at Filton are daytime, Monday to Friday only. The flight path tothe west is over largely undeveloped land, the industrial developments atAvonmouth and, after 6 km, over the Bristol Channel. The exceptions are a smallnumber of houses starting 400 m northwest of the runway in Catbrain Hill and alarger group about 1 km to the west on Passage Road. To the east, there are anumber of residential areas starting about 2 km from the airport (the “Stokes”) andsome 5 km to 7 km east, near the extended runway centreline (the“Winterbournes” and Coalpit Heath). Further east the flightpath is largely overrural areas.

The runway has been used in support of aircraft manufacturing and developmentalong with a small amount of general and business aviation. The capacity of theaircraft parking aprons and taxiways is very limited. Excluding the aircraft industryfacilities to the southeast of the runway, the site is very limited in size. In addition,the North Field area to the north of the east end of the runway has been sold onand is now being developed for housing.

We have briefly considered the full range of potential runway based developmentoptions in this report. These include commercial passenger services, cargo,aircraft maintenance and manufacture to business and general aviation andhelicopters. We have also considered the runway lengths and associated spatialclearances required in order to indicate what additional areas, if any, within thesite might become available in support of such uses or for non-aviation uses.

iv298031/ITD/ITA/01/E 30 September 2011C:\DOCUME~1\col30911\OTLocal\PIMS LIVE\Workbin\586684F3.0\Development Options Appraisal Report Ev1.doc


Technical Appraisal

The limited size of the existing site, and the proximity of existing and newresidential areas rules out any major development of the aerodrome forcommercial air passenger services. Key development control decisions alsosupport this.

Air cargo would require less apron space, but the runway length would not besuitable for long-haul freighter aircraft. Sufficient space will be required for cargoterminal(s) and freight forwarder facilities and suitable road connections to theMotorway network. Operations are likely to require a minimum of a daily serviceand most short-haul cargo operations would generate night movements, whichwould be a contentious environmental issue.

Business aviation use would require less apron and terminal space than airpassenger services and a shorter runway may also be acceptable. Additionalsuitable storage hangar space would be required. It would require 7 day a weekservices over a longer operating day than is available at present. This is atechnical possibility, but there needs to be sufficient demand and space for aviable development.

Other forms of general aviation are also technically possible and if it were notintended to also serve the larger business aviation aircraft, would require a muchshorter runway. Operating hours may not need to be quite as long, but GAusually also includes flying training and any high frequency movements by smalltrainers are often considered a particular nuisance by residents, particularly atweekends.

Helicopter operations alone would require a much reduced area and could bedeveloped if there is sufficient demand or, given the existing public service uses,as part of a corporate responsibility programme.

Ongoing use in connection with aircraft manufacturing and maintenance remainsa practical use, but clearly the existing owners and past users no longer havesuch a requirement. In addition, they are not planning to relinquish theirassociated buildings on the site and so any new use would require related building

v298031/ITD/ITA/01/E 30 September 2011C:\DOCUME~1\col30911\OTLocal\PIMS LIVE\Workbin\586684F3.0\Development Options Appraisal Report Ev1.doc


space. Apart from in relation to the manufacture or maintenance of small aircraft,no such space exists.

The Brabazon Hangar is the largest building that is not required by Airbus or BAESystems for their ongoing use of the Filton site. Its nature, size, condition andrestricted access across the rail line to and from the runway combine to restrict itspotential use in support of ongoing runway-based development. It remainssuitable for past uses in support of aircraft manufacturing and maintenance. Itwould also be suitable for conversion as a cargo terminal with appropriate surfaceaccess. However, in its present condition, it does not meet the requirements forthe storage of high value business aviation aircraft and would be too large andexpensive to maintain as a storage hangar for small general aviation aircraft. Therestricted access across the rail line means that the site is also unsuitable for anyuse involving high volumes of movements to and from the runway, which alsomakes it an unsuitable location for a passenger terminal.

In addition, no demand for such uses has been identified and it would still have tobe commercially viable to keep the runway (or part thereof) in operation.

Closure is one thing - redevelopment of the site for other purposes is a separatematter, as this would prevent bringing the runway back into use. It is understoodthat the runway-related facilities have only ceased to be needed in the past yearor so. Various investments have been made in the site in the period prior toBAE’s decision, demonstrating the speed of change.

Summary

There is now insufficient space to develop a commercial passenger airport andonly limited space for cargo, maintenance or manufacturing operations, even ifthese generated an otherwise commercially viable development option and wereacceptable on environmental grounds. Use by smaller general and businessaviation aircraft may fit on the site, but this option may not generate sufficientincome to purchase the site (or part of the site) and meet the development andoperating costs.

vi298031/ITD/ITA/01/E 30 September 2011C:\DOCUME~1\col30911\OTLocal\PIMS LIVE\Workbin\586684F3.0\Development Options Appraisal Report Ev1.doc


All operations would increase the number of aircraft movements and thus thenoise generated by those operations, which in most instances would also requirean increase to the current operating hours.

We have also considered the facilities offers at Filton in comparison with thoseoffered at the other aerodromes serving the region. Apart from its excellentlocation in relation to the Motorway and rail network and its proximity to the centreof Bristol, the runway at Filton does not offer any particular benefits and most ofthe potential traffic uses can be accommodated elsewhere in the region.

The existing owners no longer have sufficient need to keep the airfield inoperation and are not anticipating a similar future need given the absence of anyapproach from interested parties before or since the announcement to close. Weunderstand that the site has been marketed as a business and general aviationuse for some time, but no interest has emerged.

Closure does not appear to have a negative impact on the prospects for ongoingaviation-related employment in the area and so we have been unable to generatea substantive case for keeping the runway in operation.

1

298031/ITD/ITA/01/E 30 September 2011C:\DOCUME~1\col30911\OTLocal \PIMS LIVE\Workbin\586684F3.0\Development OptionsAppraisal Report Ev1.doc


This report reviews the various aerospace and aviation options whichhave informed the decision to close Filton Airfield. The report coversthe following points:

1. Why is the runway and airfield to be closed?

2. What aviation alternatives have been considered?

3. What will be the impact of closure of the Airfield on the aerospaceindustry in Bristol and the South West?

BAE Systems is known to be actively seeking an allocation in the SouthGloucestershire Core Strategy for redevelopment of the Filton site for amix of uses (primarily residential and employment). SouthGloucestershire Council has also confirmed that in principle thisredevelopment is acceptable.

The report examines the proposition that BAE has acted properly interms of assessing the likely demands from the various sectors withinthe air transport industry to use the facilities located at Filton Airfield,and that BAE has investigated all options and concluded after dueconsideration to close the airfield.

It is understood that this report will be inserted as a Technical Appendixin a report to be produced by Terence O’Rourke.

1. Introduction

2



2.1 Site Location

Filton Airfield is located approximately 4½ miles due north of Bristol citycentre. The centre of the airfield is located one mile from junction 17 ofthe M5 motorway. The M4/M5 interchange is located a further threemiles north along the M5. This confirms the Airfield has an importantstrategic location with regard to the national road network.

The London to South Wales and Bristol main-line railway passes within1½ miles of the centre of the airfield. Bristol Parkway Station, locatedapproximately 2½ miles from the centre of the airfield, is located on themainline from London, just before a branch in the line to Bristol and toSouth Wales. The line branches southeast of the airfield, with the lineto South Wales heading north-west under the Severn Estuary; the lineto Bristol heading south and a freight line continues to the west,immediately south of the airfield, heading towards the industrial area ofAvonmouth.

The location of Filton Airfield in relation to the city and surroundingtransport infrastructure is shown below. The location of Bristol Lulsgateis also shown for information.

Location of Filton Airfield and Bristol International Airport

Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey® on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery

Office. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Licence number 100026791

2. Airfield Location

3



Filton Airfield is located within close proximity to a number of residentialareas, including Brentry and Southmead to the south and west, Filton tothe south-east, Little Stoke and Stoke Gifford to the east and Patchwayto the north-east.

The area also contains a large number of light and heavy industrialareas. The site around the airfield has a long association with theaviation industry. The Aztec West Business Park is located a shortdistance north of the airfield, close to the M4/M5 interchange.

Immediately north of the western part of the airfield is Cribbs CausewayRegional Shopping Centre. This is a large retail development coveringan area of approximately 600,000 m2 (150 acres). A number of otherretail and commercial outlets are located in the vicinity.

Immediately north east of the airfield is the Charlton Hayesdevelopment.

2.1.1 Regional Context

Filton Airfield exists along with several major commercial, military andprivate aviation facilities in the Southwest region of England.

Other Airports / Airfields in the Vicinity of Filton

4



2.2 Changes to the Airfield Layout since 2007

In 2007, Filton Airfield was configured with a different site boundarythan the current boundary. Comparing airfield AIPs of 2007 and 2011highlights the changes. These are primarily the reduction in theoperating area and loss of Apron 4 to the northeast.

Filton Airfield Aerodrome Chart 2007

Source: UK AIP

The principle change has been the grant of planning permission for2,200 homes and 14 hectares of employment/commercial space onland immediately to the north east of the airfield, now known as‘Charlton Hayes’.

5



Filton Airfield Aerodrome Chart 2011

Source: UK AIP

6



A report produced for BAE Systems by Terence O’Rourke in July 2007was accompanied by a similar review by Mott MacDonald of theaviation development options as evaluated at that time. The reportconcluded that large scale commercial aviation at Filton Airfield was notachievable given the airfield’s proximity to residential dwellings andimplications with respect to noise, local amenity, environmental andtransport impacts1.

The following aviation options were also explored and dismissed on thebasis of being economically unviable:

Ad hoc air freight;

Air freight integrator (a restriction on night flying also limits thisoption); and,

A high cost passenger operation.

It was recognised that there was potential for an increase inmaintenance and training facilities on site and the growth of theaerospace industry was noted. However both options would requirefurther exploration and issues remained in relation to noise for trainingactivities and the level of potential demand for an increase in aerospaceemployment.

The report concluded that offering Filton Airfield for mixed useredevelopment represented the most feasible of options given dueconsideration. Whilst there is risk associated with this option andtimescales will be long, both the planning and transport policyframework offers support.

It was stressed however that land promotion should commence in theshort term to enable an allocation to be achieved in relevant planningpolicy.

_________________________1 Mott MacDonald contributed on aviation issues and options to the Terence O’Rourke

report.

3. Review of 2007 Report

7



4.1 Brief Description

The runway, hangars and related aviation design, development andtesting facilities are the principal assets at Filton. The red line shownbelow shows the approximate boundary, totalling c. 350 acres.

FIlton Airfield site plan

Source: Terence O’Rourke Ltd

The main hangar to the south of the runway has three bays and wasbuilt in 1948. It is known as the Brabazon Hangar and has aninteresting history, being first built to enable the manufacture of theabortive Brabazon aircraft with its 8 piston engines and 70 m wingspan.Consequently, the three-part hangar and its doors are of exceptionalsize for its age. More recently, the site has been used in support of theproduction of various Airbus types including the A300, A320, A380 andA400M. We have been informed that the condition of the hangar hasdeteriorated and areas of the roof leak. Concorde was also developed

4. Existing Airport Facilities

8



here and an example “Alfa Foxtrott” is now exhibited on a site south ofthe runway and to the west of these hangars.

The Filton to Avonmouth rail line passes between the runway and theBrabazon Hangar and uniquely, crosses the taxiway link to the hangarapron, which is on the south side of the hangars, via a level crossing.Although the rail line is only lightly used for freight traffic, this does limitmovement between the Brabazon Hangar and the runway.

The Transitional Obstacle Limitation Surface (TOLS) associated withthe existing runway limits the location and height of any developmentsalong both sides of the runway. At present it commences at theelevation of the runway centreline at a horizontal distance of 150 mfrom the centreline and rises at a gradient of 1 in 7. However, theexisting TOLS is penetrated by about 14 m by the Brabazon Hangar.

To the southeast of the site is the main industrial area containing thevarious aircraft design, manufacturing and testing facilities. Airbus isthe principal occupant of this area. Broughton in North Wales is thelocation of the Airbus Wing Centre of Excellence, but Airbus alsodesignates Filton as one of its Centres of Excellence, responsible forthe design, engineering and support duties for wings, fuel systems andfor landing gear testing and integration. Currently Filton has specificresponsibility for wing design, assembly and equipping for the A400Mmilitary transport aircraft. These are exported to the assembly lines inFrance or Germany using a Beluga aircraft. Post-closure, the keychange is that assembled wings will be exported via a short road trip toAvonmouth and then by sea using a specially designed vessel.

To the south of the Brabazon Hangar and apron is a golf course.

The south end of the industrial area has access via Golf Course Lane tothe A38 and the M4 via the A4174. There is a secondary road access(Charlton Road) to the west of the golf course that passes through thePen Park housing estate and over a tunnel on the Filton to Avonmouthline. This provides access to the Concorde display and the west end ofthe Brabazon Hangar.

To the southwest there is a large area of land that is mostlyundeveloped. It is owned by a housing developer and is generally at alower elevation than the runway. This is the largest area ofundeveloped land that is adjacent to the runway and thereforepotentially available to support any airport development. It is boundedto the south by the Filton to Avonmouth rail line and a substantialexisting area of housing immediately to the south of that, so it is of finite

9



size. However, we have been informed that the owner is nowproposing to bring this area forward for housing development, whichmeans any aviation related use on this site would need to be promotedwith the agreement of that owner in the very near future or theopportunity would be lost.

To the west is a single street of houses and a small number ofcommercial developments running along the east side of the A4018(Cribbs Causeway).

To the north and west are another single street of houses, a number ofmotor retailers and a cinema, all south of Lysander Road. To the eastof these is the “Cribbs Causeway” retail development.

To the east of the Cribbs Causeway retail development is the NorthField site, which has been sold for housing development and ispresently under construction and known as ‘Charlton Hayes’. This areais set back further to the north and a number of hangars, Apron 2, therecently relocated Apron 3 and the visual control tower are all located tothe south of North Field, between it and the runway. Again, the positionand height of the TOLS associated with the existing runway limits thelocation and height of any developments along this side.

Finally, to the east is the Royal Mail facility and the Fire Station, whichare just north of the runway’s east end and Apron 1 and the existingOperations Building, which are slightly to the south.

There is the road access onto the A38 at this point and some surfacevehicle parking. Access to Apron 2 and Apron 3 is across the operatingarea, which is unsuitable as a landside access route for the variousdevelopment options that would retain operations north of the runway.

4.2 Runway

4.2.1 Runway Length

The usable paved length of runway is 2,467 m (there are additionalunused paved areas at each end making the total length nearer2,790 m). The thresholds are inset and the respective lengths used forlanding and take-off in each direction do not include all the pavedlength. The declared distances for Runway 09 (west to east) are:

10



TORA2: 2,300 m, TODA3: 2,467 m, ASDA4: 2.300 m, LDA5: 2,125 mThreshold: Elevation 199 ft, Inset 175 m

The declared distances for Runway 27 (east to west) are:

TORA: 2,300 m, TODA: 2,467 m, ASDA: 2.300 m, LDA: 2,060 mThreshold Elevation 185 ft, Inset 315 m

This length is classified by the CAA in CAP 168 as a Code 46 runway.It is a good useable length for nearly all operations by narrow-bodied7

(Code C8) aircraft and suitable in its location for operations by somewide-bodied (Code D or E9) types. It would be considered too short forcommercial operations by Code F10 wide-bodied aircraft.

Take off weights and, of less significance, landing weights will belimited for many Code E wide-bodied passenger or cargo aircraft typesusing this runway. However, aircraft visiting for maintenance generallyhave a light payload and this length is thus suitable for many suchpotential movements.

4.2.2 Runway Width

The minimum width for a Code 4C runway is 45 m and for a Code 4Erunway is 45 m plus two 7.5 m wide shoulders (or a total width of 60 m).The minimum for a Code 4F runway is 60 m plus two 7.5 m wideshoulders (or a total width of 75 m).

At Filton, the paved width is 91 m, which is much wider than theminimum required. This width offers some benefit when considering

_________________________

2 TORA: Take-off Run Available, which the maximum distance available on the groundfor a departure. Due to other safety factors, most aircraft only use only 60% of this.

3 TODA: Tale-off Distance Available, which is the maximum distance to climb to a heightof 35ft above the runway. TODA = TORA + Clearway

4 ASDA: Accelerate and Stop Distance Available, which is the distance to the decisionspeed to take-off, abort and come to an emergency halt on the ground. ASDA = TORA+ Stopway.

5 LDA: Landing Distance Available, which is the distance from the Threshold to the end ofthe length of runway available for landing

6 The CAA classifies runway length by the greater of TO DA or ASDA. Code 1 < 800 m,Code 2 >= 800 m and <1,200 m, Code 3 >=1,200 m and <1,800 m and Code 4 >=1,800 m

7 Narrow-bodied aircraft has a single aisle, wide-bodied aircraft have two aisles.

8 Code C: ICAO & CAA classification for aircraft with a wingspan of <36 m

9 Code E: ICAO & CAA classification for aircraft with a wingspan of <65 m

10 Code F: ICAO & CAA classification for aircraft with a wingspan of <80 m

11



runway operations during periods of high cross-winds, but is nototherwise necessary.

A wide runway has no other operational advantages, but can be visuallyconfusing to pilots and is more expensive to maintain and much moreexpensive to resurface than one constructed to, or nearer to theminimum width. Most development options would consider reducingthe usable runway width.

For example, the useable width of the original and exceptionally widepavement (228m) at Manston in Kent has been reduced to 61m forthese reasons.

Reducing the operational runway width at Filton would require re-marking the pavement and re-locating the runway edge lights and someother navigational aids.

4.2.3 Vertical Profile

There is a rise in the central part of the runway’s vertical profile suchthat it does not provide the recommended 1,200 m forward visibilityfrom a 3 m eye height. This also impacts on the extent of the runwayvisible to air traffic controllers in the visual control room. The westernend and threshold are not visible.

The CAA could require this to be corrected prior to this runway beingused for certain types of commercial operations.

We do not have details of this vertical profile to assess how it mightinfluence which end of the runway were to be retained in the event thatthe length used were reduced. Forward visibility requirements reducefor smaller aircraft, but so does the required eye-height.

4.2.4 Comparison with other Runways serving the Region

The runway at Filton can be compared with the following dimensions ofthe other runways at commercial airports in the area.

Selected Runway Lengths at Other Airfields

Aerodrome NrRwys

Runway PavedLength

PavedWidth

TORA LDA ILS

Filton 1 Rwy 27 2,467 m 91 m 2,300 m 2,060 m Cat I

Bristol(Lulsgate)

1 Rwy 27 2,011 m 45 m 2,011 m 1,881 m Cat III

Cardiff 1 Rwy 30 2,392 m 46 m 2,354 m 2,301 m Cat I

12



Aerodrome NrRwys

Runway PavedLength

PavedWidth

TORA LDA ILS

Kemble 1 Rwy 26 2,009 m 45 m 1,724 m 1,574 m none

Rwy 27 1,419 m 37 m 1,317 m 997 m none

Rwy 22 988 m 34 m 988 m 900 m none

Gloucester(Staverton)

4

Rwy 18 799 m 18 m 799 m 799 m none

Exeter 1 Rwy 26 2,083 m 46 m 2,071 m 2,037 m Cat I

Bournemouth(Hurn)

Rwy 26 2,271 m 46 m 2,026 m 1,970 m Cat III

Source: Mott MacDonald

From this table it can be seen that the length of the runway at Filton,while being a useful and comparable length to those at several othercommercial airports in the area, is not exceptional and does not offer aunique facility for the region.

The width is exceptional, but as already discussed, is only of limitedbenefit and has the disadvantage that it increases maintenance costs.

4.2.5 Navaids

The runway has a standard 3 degree glideslope and is equipped with aCategory I Instrument Landing System (ILS) at both ends. Theseapproaches are supported by an NDB and DME. Runway 09 has a470 m long, High Intensity approach light array with a single cross bar.Runway 27 has a 915 m long, HI approach light array with four crossbars.

These facilities are important for commercial aviation and the upper endof business aviation.

PAPI lights are provided on the left side of the runway for bothdirections of approach.

4.2.6 Runway Strip and Safety Areas

The instrument approach to a Code 4 runway requires a runway stripthat generally extends 150 m each side of the runway centreline and60 m beyond the end of TORA/ASDA and before and beyond the endof the LDA in each direction. The minimum runway end safety areas(RESAs) extend 90 m beyond this with a minimum width of twice therunway width, but the recommended RESAs for a Code 4C runwayextend 240 m beyond the strip, with a width of 75 m each side of theextended runway centreline.

13



At Filton, the runway strip extends 150 m each side of the centreline asrequired for a Code 4 instrument approach runway. There is however,only a relatively small area of land to the north and south of this stripand inside the site boundary, except for the area containing the hangarsand industrial buildings to the southeast.

We have mentioned above that the Brabazon Hangar penetrates thetransitional surface along the south side of the strip by approximately14 m. Development along the either side of the runway would have aheight limit determined by the transitional surface (TOLS) for a width ofat least another 50 m. The current positions of the north and south sideTOLS are related to the existing position and alignment of the runwaycentreline and the strip width. It might be possible to change these withsome development options.

For Runway 09, the overrun Runway End Safety Area (RESA) is 65 mshort of the 240 m recommended length.

4.3 Taxiways

There is no full length parallel taxiway, which would be aligned outsidethe runway strip. Short lengths of taxiway located towards the easternend of the runway connect it to the existing aprons. These only havethe capacity for a low frequency of aircraft movements. In addition,aircraft have to turn and backtrack along the runway prior to take-off orafter landing. This also limits the runway’s movement capacity.

The site boundary limits the ability to improve the taxiway arrangement,particularly for Code C and larger aircraft types

4.4 Aprons

The existing aprons are limited in extent and size. Apron 1 is locatedjust to the south at the east end of the runway and is adjacent to theFlight Operations Building and is the most active of the aprons used byvisiting aircraft. It is also conveniently located for the south-easternindustrial enclave. Aprons 2 and 3 are located to the north of therunway, again towards its eastern end. Apron 2 is limited in size andnot suitable to support any operations apart from those by relativelysmall numbers of small business or general aviation aircraft. Apron 3has been recently reconstructed with reduced dimensions in front of thelargest hangar in that area and has 4 aircraft parking positions.

14



The limited ability to provide additional apron space within the existingsite prevents most possible forms of airport development within theexisting site boundary.

4.5 Terminal

The Flight Operations Building is a two-storey building, located at theeast end of the airfield. It houses the passenger processing facilities(check-in, security, immigration, customs, etc.) along with the offices ofthe airfield management staff.

It can only support a low frequency operation and a low throughput ofpassengers. It may be possible to provide a suitable site for a newterminal supporting business and/or general aviation, but within theexisting site, space does not appear available to provide the apron,terminal and landside facilities to support anything other than theoccasional scheduled passenger service.

4.6 Hangars

Three hangars exist north of the runway. All are listed buildings. Hangar1 (SGSMR 14601) and Hangar 2 (SGSMR 14602) at Filton Airfield dateback to World War 1 and are statutory listed at Grade II, included in theList of Buildings of National Importance. Hangar 3, named in “TheLocal List for South Gloucestershire” as General Service Shed No.1, islocally listed. These hangars are old and in various states of disrepair.These hangars were listed due to their distinctive form of construction,being representative of their era.

As described earlier, the Brabazon Hangar located south of the runwaywas built during the 1940’s to enable the construction of the BristolBrabazon aircraft, which was Britain’s first attempt at a non-stop trans-Atlantic airliner.

4.7 Air Traffic Control (ATC)

The Control Tower is located north of the runway, close to theintersection between taxiways Alpha and Bravo. Due to the limitedheight of the tower and the topography of the airfield, ATC personnel donot have a view of the whole length of the runway. The area west ofapproximately the runway mid-point is only visible by CCTV.

Any significant increase in air passenger services, or any developmentthat shortened the runway and retained the western portion would neednew ATC facilities.

15



4.8 Rescue Fire Fighting (RFF)

The Fire Station is located north of the extreme east end of the runway.Fire coverage is provided up to RFF Category 6 during the weekdaydaytime operational hours, but reduces to RFF Category 1 duringweekday evenings.

Due to the travel distance involved, any development that shortened therunway and retained the western portion may need a new fire station.

A Fire Training Ground is located north of the extreme west end of therunway and adjacent to this, an engine running bay has been provided.Retention of the facilities in this location could be inconsistent with anynew development proposed for this area as a consequence ofshortening the runway from its eastern end.

16



5.1 Introduction

Potential aviation activity at Filton Airfield has not been constrained byany further decisions made on land use on and adjacent to the airportsite since the publication of the Terence O’Rourke report in July 2007.

5.2 Existing Airfield Users

5.2.1 Airbus / BAE Systems

There are some regular staff and occasional equipment movementsassociated with the existing business operations of Airbus and BAESystems and some staff and public relations uses. Airbus aircraft wingassembly and export continues with the Beluga aircraft.

An ‘air bridge’ service is currently operated to transport Airbusemployees between Filton, Chester and Toulouse. Generally there aretwo flights each weekday in each direction between these (i.e. 8 runwaymovements at Filton). The service is operated on weekdays by bmiregional using a 49-seat Embraer EMB145 regional jet. A smallBeechcraft Kingair 200 aircraft with 7 seats also provides an air link withBAE Systems facilities at Barrow-in-Furness using Walney IslandAirport. This generally operates two round trips each weekday (i.e 4runway movements at Filton) and may also provide a service toFarnborough. The air bridge is due to finish from Filton at the time ofthe planned closure of the Airfield in December 2012. These serviceswill probably transfer to Bristol Lulsgate after that date.

5.2.2 Aeros

According to their website, Aeros at Filton operates between 8am-8pmMonday to Friday offering Private Pilot License (PPL), NPPL, IMC,Night Rating and AOPA Aerobatics Courses and self-fly hire. Thisgives members access to the company's 30 strong fleet, including PiperSenecas, Piper Arrows, Warriors and Cherokees as well as Cessna152s, Robin 200's, 400's and a 2160i plus a Zlin242 and a GrummanTiger, which is dispersed over a number of UK airfields.

5.2.3 Police and Air Ambulance

Western Counties Air Operations Unit is a consortium formed betweenthe Avon and Somerset and Gloucestershire Constabularies. The unitoperates an EC135 helicopter to serve the geographical area of theconsortium and is available to assist neighbouring forces.

5. Aviation Activity at Filton

17



The Great Western Air Ambulance is based in this area and through therecent consultation process expressed a wish to stay operating fromthis site, supported by a commitment from BAE to examine options toallow GWAA to maintain operations post-closure.

According to BAE, there were 2,640 helicopter movements attributableto the Police and Air Ambulance in 2010.

5.2.4 Bristol Aero Club

The Club offers private flight training and recreational aircraft hire on anon-profit basis. According to their website the Club owns one PiperPA-28 Warrior and one PA-28 Cherokee aircraft. Both aircraft are lowwing, 4 seat and single-engine suitable for training and private hire tomembers. Each aircraft is equipped with dual controls and maintainedunder CAA regulations for training.

Professional training is provided from qualified instructors on a part timebasis. This includes Trial Lessons, PPL training and more advancedtraining such as IMC and the Night ratings.

5.3 Aviation Activity 2000 to 2010

In the period from 2000 to 2010 the number of annual aircraftmovements at Filton Airfield peaked at 33,000 movements in 2001 andhas since declined to around 24,000 movements in 2010. The numberof aircraft movements in intervening years has fluctuated, shown in thefigure overleaf.

18



Annual Aircraft Movements at Filton Airfield 2000 to 2010

28

33

32

29

31 31

28

27

25

27

24

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Airc

raft

Mo

vem

ents

(000

s)

Source: BAE Systems

5.4 Aviation Activity by Type

In 2010, some two thirds of aircraft movements at Filton Airfield wereGeneral Aviation (GA), with one fifth Corporate/Business aviation.

Aircraft Movements by Activity at Filton Airfield 2007 to 2010

18,090 17,010 15,840

5,130 6,210

4,800

2,700 2,970

2,640

720

8101,080

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2007 2009 2010

Airc

raft

Mov

emen

ts

General Aviation Corporate Helicopter Other

Source: BAE Systems

Note: 2008 not included as breakdown by category unknown

19



The largest aircraft that use the airfield on an ad hoc basis are theAirbus A400M, Airbus Beluga and Airbus A380. The Filton AirfieldManager stated that these aircraft rarely operate. The Airbus A380 hasvisited Filton on one occasion during 2011 year-to-date, not forcommercial activity.

The number of aircraft movements in the period from January to June2011 was considerably less than the same period in 2010.

5.5 Marketing initiatives

5.5.1 Promotion and advertising

The South Gloucestershire local plan states that proposals forcommercial air passenger services and commercial air freight serviceswill not be permitted. This follows the rejected planning appeal foughtby BAE in the mid 1990’s to expand the airfield into a commercialairport. BAE have been promoting the use of Filton within theseconstraints over recent years. Marketing activity to try to increasebusiness at Filton includes:

2007

o Airport brochure produced and sent to Business Aviationoperators both in the UK and abroad

o Website (www.bristolfilton.co.uk) set up for ease of contactand advertising services available

2008/2009

o Filton accommodated Royal Mail operations forapproximately 9 months (out of normal hours) whilst theycould not operate from Bristol Lulsgate

2010

o Incentivised use of airfield for landing and training withbased operators, military and business aviation users

o Increased management focus through further incentivisationto reduce costs and increase revenue

o Commenced a refurbishment programme of the airportfacilities and ground equipment

20



2011

o Worked with a business aviation company to provide a fixedbased aviation operation at Filton

o Avon Fire Service to provide a helicopter service from Filtonwith trial carried out in May

o Attended the World Business Aviation trade Fair to promotethe use of the airport and air traffic services

5.5.2 Pricing

A brief comparison of Landing & Navigation and Parking charges atsimilar and regional airports demonstrates that Filton offers competitiverates to customers.

Current (2011) Aeronautical Charges at selected airports

Charges

Airport Landing & Navigation Parking (after free period)

< 2.5 tonne: £26.00 per tn < 3.0 tonne: £15.50Filton

> 2.5 tonne: £22.00 per tn

< 3.0 tonne: £45.10 per tn < 30 tonnes: £15.00 + £1 per tnBristol Lulsgate

> 3.0 tonne: £17.65 per tn

2.0 - 2.5 tonne: £30.50 per tn < 5.0 tonne: £16.00Cardiff

2.5 - 3.0 tonne: £35.50 per tn

1.75 - 2.99 tonne: £36.75 < 3.0 tonne: £7.99Staverton

3.00 - 7.99 tonne: £21.00 per tn (Weekend rate: £15.00)

1.65 - 2.75 tonne: £24.50 per tn 1.65 - 2.75 tonne: £10.00 per nightKemble

> 2.75 tonne: £19.20 per tn

Source: Airport websites

21



6.1 Introduction

This section of the report reviews current and future developments atBristol (Lulsgate) Airport that are examined to assess the extent towhich it can continue to meet the demand for air transport services fromBristol and the surrounding region, in the light of planning permissionsgranted.

In their response to the Public Consultation the Airport Manager ofBristol Lulsgate has offered the airport to Airbus as an alternative basefor the corporate operations they currently maintain at Filton.

6.2 Air Passenger Demand in the Filton Catchment Area

To determine whether the demand for commercial air passengerservices in Filton’s catchment area is being met, it was necessary toexamine the origin/destination of terminating passengers (oncommercial services) at other airports. To do this required analysis ofCAA Passenger Survey data for the main airports in southwestEngland, together with London Heathrow Airport, to determine whereterminating passengers are originating from and destined for.

Demand for Commercial Air Passenger Services for Airports in Southwest England

(000s)

BRISTOL

LULSGATE

% oftotal CWL

% oftotal EXT

% oftotal BOH

% oftotal BHX

% oftotal LHR

% oftotal

Total6

Airports

PassengerSurveyYear 2008 2008 2008 2005 2006 2008

Avon 2,973 81% 35 1% 12 0% 5 0% 40 1% 608 17% 3,673

Cornwall 173 38% 4 1% 110 24% 1 0% 4 1% 167 36% 459

Devon 540 30% 16 1% 718 40% 9 0% 15 1% 519 29% 1,817

Dorset 87 10% 2 0% 26 3% 269 31% 3 0% 471 55% 858

Gloucestershire 313 32% 25 3% 1 0% 2 0% 289 30% 345 35% 975

Somerset 716 71% 11 1% 46 5% 7 1% 7 1% 215 21% 1,002

Source: Latest available CAA Origin-Destination Passenger Survey

In Filton’s immediate catchment area, a high proportion of terminatingpassengers originating in or destined for Avon and Somerset use BristolLulsgate, with a third of passengers from/to Gloucestershire also usingthis airport. In what can be described as Filton’s secondary catchmentarea – much further afield – around one third of passengers from/toDevon and Cornwall also use Bristol Lulsgate.

6. Demand for Air Passenger Services

22



6.3 Capacity and Airports in the Southwest Region

The main commercial aviation facility proximate to Filton Airfield isBristol Lulsgate, located south of the Bristol conurbation.Gloucestershire Airport (Staverton) is a major General Aviation andBusiness Aviation facility in the area, located some 40 minutes away 11

up the M5 Motorway.

6.4 Bristol International Airport (Lulsgate)

6.4.1 Aircraft movements at Bristol

According to CAA airport statistics reported in the public domain, thenumber of annual commercial air transport movements (ATMs) atBristol Lulsgate peaked in 2006 at almost 66,000 ATMs. In 2010, thisnumber had declined to just below 54,000 ATMs, symptomatic of theeconomic and financial downturn that affected UK aviation activity frommid-2008 onwards, and mirroring the trend in total UK airport traffic.

Aircraft Movements at Bristol Airport

Total aircraftmovements

CommercialATMs

Business& Air Taxi

Aeroclub& Private

Other

1997 59,547 29,739 1,807 24,698 3,303

1998 61,582 31,780 1,865 24,136 3,801

1999 62,072 32,966 2,020 22,159 4,927

2000 63,252 34,842 1,343 23,312 3,755

2001 69,854 40,947 1,849 23,218 3,840

2002 72,152 45,829 1,980 21,473 2,870

2003 74,635 49,548 2,032 20,236 2,819

2004 77,956 54,793 1,286 18,702 3,175

2005 84,289 61,311 2,701 17,630 2,647

2006 84,583 65,825 114 16,307 2,337

2007 76,428 58,741 59 16,244 1,384

2008 76,517 60,068 134 15,079 1,236

2009 70,245 53,796 40 14,925 1,484

2010 69,134 53,788 35 13,527 1,784

Source: UK CAA

The number of annual terminal passengers peaked in 2008 at 6.2m. In2010, this number had declined to just above 5.7m passengers, again

_________________________11 Calculated from AA Route Planner

23



the decline due to the economic and financial downturn that affectedUK aviation activity from mid-2008 onwards.

Terminal Passengers at Bristol Airport

Scheduled Charter Total

1997 709,451 876,969 1,586,420

1998 812,414 1,001,823 1,814,237

1999 864,542 1,101,227 1,965,769

2000 985,264 1,140,250 2,125,514

2001 1,457,108 1,216,121 2,673,229

2002 2,116,433 1,298,920 3,415,353

2003 2,577,267 1,309,473 3,886,740

2004 3,311,595 1,291,511 4,603,106

2005 3,886,817 1,312,403 5,199,220

2006 4,335,941 1,374,281 5,710,222

2007 4,529,227 1,354,629 5,883,856

2008 5,033,055 1,195,601 6,228,656

2009 4,687,008 928,192 5,615,200

2010 4,822,437 900,745 5,723,182

Source: UK CAA

Bristol Lulsgate currently has some transatlantic services, albeit few.The airport predominantly serves domestic and European destinations,with 98% of its network comprised of short-haul routes. Thisdominance of short-haul routes is reflected in the mix of aircraft typesusing the airport.

Aircraft Types Using Bristol Lulsgate

Source: Air Transport Intelligence (week 10 to 16 August 2011)

All of the aircraft types listed in the table above are narrow-bodied andtypically used for short and medium haul operations.

Aircraft Type Percentage Share

Airbus A319 38.7%

Boeing 737-800 17.3%

Boeing 757 11.3%

Airbus A320 10.6%

24



6.4.2 Forecast Demand at Bristol Lulsgate

The Bristol Lulsgate Master Plan 2006 to 2030 produced in November2006 included high level forecasts of air traffic demand for passengersand air transport movements to inform the airport’s short- and long-termdevelopment plans.

A summary of the demand forecast is as follows:

Table 6.1: Bristol Lulsgate Passenger Forecast

Passengers(000’s)

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Domestic 1,401 1,638 1,851 2,156 2,497 2,809

International 3,798 5,057 6,225 7,115 8,315 9,668

Total 5,199 6,695 8,076 9,271 10,812 12,476

Source: Bristol International Airport Master Plan 2006 to 2030

Commercial passenger throughput at Bristol Lulsgate is predicted toincrease at an average annual rate of 3.2% between 2010 and 2030.The predicted throughput of 6.7m passengers in 2010 can be comparedto the actual throughput in that year of 5.7m passengers. In theDepartment for Transport’s latest Air Passenger & CO2 forecasts,passenger traffic at all UK airports is forecast to grow at an averageannual rate of 2.6% between 2010 and 2030.

Table 6.2: Bristol Lulsgate Air Transport Movement Forecast

Aircraft Type 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Turboprop 11,666 9,888 11,433 13,596 6,695 3,399

Small Regional Jet 11,864 12,978 11,948 12,978 15,759 9,888

Large Regional Jet 4,725 7,210 8,652 10,815 12,566 25,338

Small Jet 27,858 37,286 43,363 42,436 46,041 46,659

Medium Jet 4,175 5,047 4,120 6,592 12,978 17,407

Widebody Jet 0 824 3,090 3,399 4,532 5,665

Total 60,288 73,233 82,606 89,816 98,571 108,356

Source: Bristol International Airport Master Plan 2006 to 2030

Large Regional Jets, Small Jets and Medium Jets are expected toprovide the majority of growth in commercial aircraft movements up to2030, with an expected decline in turboprops and small regional jets.

25



6.4.3 Proposed Short-term Developments

With the forecast in mind, a planning application for the developmentand expansion of Bristol Lulsgate was accepted by North SomersetCouncil in May 2010. The enhancements will allow BRISTOLLULSGATE to handle 10 million passengers per annum by 2019/20.

The core developments12 are summarised below:

Expansion of the existing terminal building to just over double itscurrent overall floor area, including an increase in check-in desks(48 to 67) and an increase in security machines (7 to 12).

A two level extension to the Western Apron Walkway, serving sixaircraft stands.

A two level Eastern Apron Walkway, serving eight aircraft stands.

A two level Eastern Apron Pier serving four aircraft stands.

Expansion of the aircraft parking apron to provide a total of 33aircraft stands.

Two multi-storey short-term car parks, one with four levels and onewith five levels. Together these will have a capacity forapproximately 3,850 cars.

Long stay car parking for approximately 12,000 cars.

The uppermost floor of one of the car parks will accommodate apublic transport interchange for buses and taxis.

A new three-storey administration building, with a floor space of4,800 square metres, will be constructed.

A new underground fuel storage depot will be constructed withinthe vicinity of the western perimeter of the north side car park.

_________________________

12 Source: Bristol International Airport website:

http://www.bristolairport.co.uk/about-us/our-future/development-plans/development-summary.aspx

26



Various and miscellaneous improvements and amendments tointernal access road layouts, drainage systems, landscaping,runway ends and taxiways.

The planned developments will be phased according to demand andwill occur incrementally over time.

With these short-term developments Bristol Lulsgate is well equipped toaccommodate forecast increase in demand for commercial passengersand aircraft movements.

6.4.4 Proposed Long-term Developments

The Master Plan identifies no necessity for any runway extensions inthe period up to 2030, as it is considered that future use of the airport interms of aircraft types can be supported by the existing runway length,although consideration is given to the potential expansion of certaintaxiways to accommodate future aircraft types such as the Boeing 787.

Furthermore, future developments in aircraft and engine performanceand design will lead to less onerous runway length requirements forlonger-range aircraft types such as the B787 and Airbus A350,potentially allowing a greater network of longhaul destinations to beserved from Lulsgate, and thus accommodating any likely growth indemand for international longhaul operations in the catchment area.

Also under consideration for future development is a second passengerterminal facility and increased apron capacity.

27



7.1 Introduction

Filton Airfield currently handles Business (Corporate) Aviation activityand has the physical potential to develop this business segment,subject to future demand.

7.2 Demand for Business Aviation

Business aircraft are used by individuals and companies, from peopleflying single-engine, piston-powered airplanes, to personnel from thelargest multinational corporations, many of which own or lease in fleetsof multi-engine, turbine-powered jet aircraft and some employing theirown flight crews, maintenance technicians and other aviation supportpersonnel.

Many large companies use business aircraft to transport personnel andpriority cargo to a variety of company or customer locations. Oftenbusiness aircraft are used to bring customers to company facilities forfactory tours and product demonstrations. While the overwhelmingmajority of business aircraft flights are conducted on demand, somecompanies operate corporate shuttles, which essentially are in-houseairlines. As previously mentioned, a corporate air bridge shuttle serviceis operated at Filton to transport Airbus employees to sites in Chesterand Toulouse. The Airport Manager at Bristol Lulsgate has indicatedthat the airport can accommodate the air bridge service from 2012.

Although the majority of business aircraft are owned by individuals orcompanies, corporate enterprises also use business aviation througharrangements such as chartering, leasing, fractional ownership, time-sharing agreements, interchange agreements, partnerships and aircraftmanagement contracts. Increasingly business aircraft are becoming"lifestyle" aircraft, at the core of the way that some high net worthindividuals run their businesses and lifestyles.

The most important benefit of business aviation is the increasedproductivity of personnel. Companies that fly general aviation aircraftfor business purposes can control virtually all aspects of their travelplans. Schedules can be flexible, and business aircraft can be flown tomore destinations than are served by the scheduled airlines.

Business aircraft are productivity multipliers that allow passengers toconduct business en route in complete privacy while reducing the stresssometimes associated with travelling on commercial airlines. Businessaircraft have an impressive safety record that is comparable to that ofthe major airlines.

7. Demand for Business Aviation Services

28



The main benefits of business aircraft include:

Saving employee time: Business aircraft can be flown non-stopbetween airports close to where people want to go without thedelays of main airport hubs.

Increasing productivity en-route: Rather than writing offtravelling time as lost, studies have shown productivity onbusiness aircraft is higher than in the office.

Efficient, reliable scheduling: The almost total flexibility inherentin operating business aircraft is a powerful asset. It is businessthat determines the schedule rather than the airlines.

Personal safety: Turbine powered business aircraft flown byprofessional crews have a safety record comparable to that ofthe largest scheduled airlines. There is increasing evidencethat this has become an increasingly important factor post theterrorist attacks in the US in 2001.

Increasing enterprise: Business aircraft allow opportunitiesespecially those in remote regions to be more readilyconsidered and acted upon. Studies have put access tobusiness aviation in the top three drivers for businessrelocation decisions.

Projecting a positive corporate image: Using a business aircraftshows a company to be progressive with a keen interest inefficient time management and high levels of productivity.

Most business aviation activity in the UK is concentrated on airportsand airfields in London and the South East. This is due to London’srole as a major global commercial and financial centre. Also, accordingto an edition of National Statistics publication, Regional Trends –

“The gross value added (GVA) per head of population for theUK as a whole was £20,357 in 2009. London had the highestregional GVA per head of population at £34,200; followed bythe South East with £20,923. (Source: Regional EconomicActivity Statistical Release December 2010.)

London and the South East contributed around 35% of the total UKGVA in 2009. By contrast, the South West contributed around 8% ofUK GVA.

29



Therefore Bristol and the West of England are less important attractorsfor general and business aviation than London and the South East.There are, apart from Bristol, a number of other important financial andcommercial centres in the West of England, including Gloucester,Cheltenham and Exeter that would lead to a dispersal of businessaviation demand around the West of England region.

There are a number of airports and airfields in the West of England thatare relatively uncongested and which would compete with Filton for thegeneral and business aviation segment, most notably Bristol Lulsgate,Gloucestershire Airport and Exeter. However, none are as well locatedas Filton to serve Bristol, which is the economic centre of the West ofEngland.

7.3 Key Attributes of a Business Aviation Airfield

The key attributes of a business aviation airfield are:

A main runway of at least 1,300 m with around 2,200 m beingnecessary for the full range of business jet types in operation inthe UK (See paragraph 11.1.2.9 below);

An Air Traffic Management facility either ATC, FISO or AirGround Radio according to the scale and type of usageenvisaged;

Navigation aids such as a non-directional beacon or a VOR /DME, preferably Category 1 ILS and radar;

Fire and rescue cover;

A flight briefing facility for pilots to access weather, NOTAMS,AIS information etc.;

Access to customs and immigration and special branch cover;

Appropriate airfield lighting to meet the operationalrequirements for night operations and, in the case ofoperations under low visibility approaches including InstrumentMeteorological Conditions (IMC) approach lighting;

A reception building;

Well presented, maintained and suitably equipped hangars;

30

298031/ITD/ITA/01/E 30 September 2011C:\DOCUME~1\col30911\OTLocal\PIMS LIVE\Workbin\586684F3.0\Development OptionsAppraisal Report Ev1.doc


Maintenance facilities;

A secure, fenced off operational area with appropriate signage;

Specialist ground handling agent;

Local hotel, restaurant and taxi services;

In addition, the most successful business aviation airfields work withtheir local communities to establish good relations through identifyingnoise minimising routes, switching the direction of circuit traffic fortraining purposes and holding regular consultation on key issues.

7.4 Business Aircraft Types

Most corporations that operate business aircraft use modern, multi-engine, turbine-powered jets, turboprops or turbine helicopters that arecertified to the highest applicable transport-category standards. Aircraftbuilt specifically for business use vary from four-seat, short-range,piston-powered aircraft to two- and three-engine corporate jets that cancarry up to 19 passengers nearly 7,000 miles non-stop. Somecompanies use airline-type jets, such as regional jets, the Boeing BBJand the Airbus A319CJ. Helicopters are also often used for businesstransportation. A new class of business aircraft, called very light jets(VLJ) has recently entered into service.

The British Business and General Aviation Association (BBGA)13

estimates that there are over 8,000 GA aircraft in the UK representingmore than 90% of the civil aircraft registered in the country. This figureincludes 390 UK based business aircraft, of which 261 are jet aircraftand 129 turbo prop aircraft. In addition, there are around 400 aircraftbased in the UK engaged on air taxi work.

Most of the demand for general and business aviation in the UK is metby airfields in London and the South East. Analysis of CAA data showsthat the most important airports / airfields in the UK in 2010 were:

_________________________13

The British Business and General Aviation Association represents the interests ofmember companies and overseas affiliates at local, national, European andinternational levels; supporting and promoting the growth and well-being of Businessand General Aviation in the United Kingdom.

31



UK Airports Business Aviationmovements in 2010

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Farnbo

rough

Luton

BigginHill

London Cit y

Northolt

E ast Midland

s

A berde

en

B ourne

mouth

Manc

hester

Filto

n

Edinburgh

Inverne

ss

Norwich

Gl asgo

w

B irmingha

m

S tansted

I sle ofM

an

Ox ford

Bus

ines

sA

viat

ion

Mo

vem

ents

Source: UK CAA (airport websites for Farnborough and Northolt figures)

The government decided in February 2011 to allow Farnborough Airportto cater for up to 50,000 flights each year, almost twice the currentannual limit of 28,000 flights. The decision was predicated on the factthat the economic benefits would outweigh the harm from pollution,noise and risk of an accident.

7.4.1 Growth Prospects

The UK Department for Transport’s central forecast of growth ininternational business travel to and from the UK is around 5.4% perannum. However, the demand for business aviation is susceptible tothe vagaries of the global financial and economic situation.

A number of factors are causing the growth in demand for businessaviation. These include the growth of fractional ownership schemes astypified by NetJets, the fractional ownership arm of the BarclayHathaway Group. In addition, there is evidence of a growth in the useof business aviation both in terms of "lifestyle" and the number andvariety of specialist aircraft available, particularly Very Light BusinessJets (VLJ) that are opening up a significant market to new customers.

32



7.4.2 Conclusions – Business Aviation

Most Business aviation activity in the UK is concentrated onairports and airfields in London and the South East. This ismainly because of London’s role as a major global commercialand financial centre.

Access to the airports and airfields serving London is becomingmore difficult due to conflicting uses and planning restrictionson activity levels, but a significant ATM cap increase atFarnborough in 2010 will relieve capacity pressure in the shortterm.

The South West of England is not as economically importantas London in terms of attracting business aviation. It has asmaller market and the region has several available airportswith capacity and appropriate facilities to accommodatebusiness aviation.

The other important financial and commercial centres in SouthWest England, e.g. Gloucester, Exeter and Bournemouth tendto disperse business aviation demand to other airports andairfields in South West England. Most of these airports arerelatively uncongested and can compete with Filton for thisbusiness segment, meaning in reality that Filton Airfield wouldserve Bristol and possibly Bath only.

Filton meets most of the operational criteria for becoming abusiness aviation centre of excellence. However, there wouldbe a requirement to provide an enhanced Business AviationTerminal, which could be created from an existing building onthe Filton site. Filton currently has adequate apron parking, butlimited appropriate hangar space or the facilities to support theneeds of the corporate aviation market. The condition of theexisting hangars at Filton is likely to be of concern given therequirement for the owners of business aircraft for modern,well-equipped facilities.

The current corporate shuttle operated on behalf of Airbus islikely to move to Bristol Lulsgate after the closure of FiltonAirfield in December 2012.

33



8.1 Introduction

General Aviation activities encompass private flying, aerial work andrecreational flying involving all types of aircraft.

There are a number of General Aviation facilities located close to FiltonAirfield, the most important of these being Gloucestershire (Staverton)Airport and Bristol International Airport (Lulsgate).

8.2 Gloucestershire Airport (Staverton)

8.2.1 Current activity

Aircraft Movements at Gloucestershire Airport in 2010

Movements Total Aircraft Aero club Private Test &Training

Business &Air Taxi

CommercialATMs

Gloucestershire 67,788 39,535 13,400 9,969 1,085 1,701

Source: UK CAA Airport Statistics

8.2.2 Historical activity

Total Aircraft Movements at Gloucestershire Airport 1990 to 2010


8. Demand for General Aviation Facilities

34



Since peaking in 2005 at 90,000, aircraft movements have declinedeach year to the current level of around 67,000 in 2010.

The reduction in demand at Staverton since 2000 mirrors the overalldecline in General Aviation activity at all UK airports in this time period.

General Aviation Movements at All reporting UK Airports 2000-2010

927 921

821

892

834 830

771741

670628

524

-

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Gen

eral

Avi

atio

nM

ove

men

ts(0

00's

)


Note: General Aviation includes Aeroclub and Private Flight movements

8.2.3 Operations

Scheduled services are operated from the airport by regional carrierManx2.com to Belfast, the Isle of Man and a seasonal service toJersey. (Source: Manx2.com timetable as of August 30th 2011)

8.2.4 Developments

Recent developments at Gloucestershire Airport include planningpermission to proceed with an extension/enhancement of its RunwayEnd Safety Areas (RESA) allowing the airport to comply with safetyregulations, and equipping the main runway with Instrument LandingSystem (ILS) to enable operations in adverse weather conditions.

The airport is operational 7 days a week, but is closed at night.

35



8.3 Cotswold (formerly Kemble) Airfield

This airfield is also relatively close, being located around 6 milessouthwest of Cirencester and was purchased from the MOD in March2001 by a private individual. Cotswold Airport is a CAA licensed airfieldwith a number of flying clubs. The Airport also offers hangarage andmaintenance facilities and would compete for part of the potentialcatchment demand.

Cotswold is a leisure airfield specifically targeting 'enthusiasts' withinthe GA community by offering a mix of competitive charges andexcellent facilities, including a restaurant. The airfield was recentlyvoted 'Airport of the Year' in Flyer Magazine. As well as catering forleisure flying, events are organised year-round for the local community.These include the annual Kemble Air Day, the Mobility Road Show andthe Great Vintage Flying Weekend.

In contrast, Filton is an airfield designed to cater for a number ofsegments within the aviation market. This includes the GA / leisuremarket but this only ranks as a secondary activity to provide additionalrevenue streams. The size and nature of Filton Airfield mitigatesagainst it being able to offer the same attractions to private flyers asthose currently provided at Cotswold.

Cotswold does not report to the CAA and thus passenger and aircraftmovement data is not available in the public domain.

36



9.1 Introduction

In the global MRO market North America has the largest regionalmarket share with the highest growth area being Asia. The MROindustry is expected to be principally dominated by emerging markets,so for example Latin America is growing rapidly with labour rates some25% below those of North America. The Middle East continues to growfaster than many other regions in both commercial and businessaviation.

Global spending on MRO in Europe was estimated to be around $12bnin 2008, which is forecast to increase to $12.8bn in 2013.14

9.2 The MRO Market in the UK

According to a report by ADS, maintenance, repair and overhaul salesin the UK were worth around £6bn in 2010.

9.3 Analysis of MRO Suppliers

A key consideration for Filton is the current competitive environment ofthe MRO supply market. In determining competitor activity it isimportant to consider the trends relevant to Filton which will affect futuredemand for MRO services.

With a cost structure of 70% labour, airframe heavy maintenance costsare very sensitive to labour rate differentials. Aircraft can be maintainedglobally and this work is tending to move to low-cost labour regions. Forthe European heavy maintenance market, this means a growingmigration to Eastern Europe and the Middle East. The scale and scopeof MRO suppliers will become increasingly important as establishedthird party providers (such as Lufthansa Technik) begin to leverage low-cost sources for heavy maintenance, adding further momentum to thetrend of globalisation.

Low cost carriers typically outsource their maintenance requirements,but at the same time are beginning to design maintenance programmesthat achieve high aircraft utilisation and minimise the time spent on theground. This is leading to the growth of the available maintenancemarket. However, they will expect that more maintenance work will be

_________________________14 Source: Frost & Sullivan: MRO Global Outlook, May 2009

9. Maintenance, Repair & Overhaul Sector

37



conducted at their bases of operation, where access to hangars at keyairports will be required.

Europe & Middle East Region -Top Ten MRO Suppliers 2007with UK Locations

Source: Mott MacDonald analysis

38



10.1 Introduction

An air freight / express facility will need to operate 24 hours a day andsix or seven days a week, with most of the activity performed at night,i.e. after 11pm. Therefore the key requirements for an express /integrator / air freight / air mail hub are the ability to handle aircraftmovements during the night, with the need for road feeder vehicles toaccess the site throughout the night.

The other key attributes are: -

Strategic location – the hub should be within a 2 hour drive ofmajor industrial, commercial and business centres;

Enabling air express operators to provide the shortest door todoor delivery transit times in Europe;

Excellent road access facilities;

Extensive aircraft take-off and landing capacities;

Sufficient apron parking;

Availability of local labour.

It will also be necessary for an organisation to make the initialinvestment. An express sorting & operating facility will require state-of-the-art radio frequency devices, automatic freight sorting systemsprovided by conveyors, and a storage area for cargo loading devicesand unit load devices.

10.2 Air Express Operations

The UK air express industry provides an increasingly important service.This is demonstrated from the review of air freight traffic growth at UK“express airports”, defined as Nottingham East Midlands, London-Stansted, London-Luton, Belfast International and Edinburgh airportscompared with other “non-express” airports such as London-Heathrow,London-Gatwick, Manchester and Glasgow-Prestwick.

There is no established air express operating base in South WestEngland, due to its peripheral location within the UK. Much of the airexpress demand from the South West is likely to be met fromNottingham East Midlands Airport, given the motorway links from SouthWest England to the Airport. The travelling time by road from Bristol to

10. Demand for Cargo Services

39



Nottingham East Midlands Airport is just over 2 hours. The Figurebelow compares the growth of air freight traffic at the express airportsbetween 2000 and 2010 compared with non-express airports:

Air Freight Traffic at UK Airports 2000 to 2010

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

AirF

reig

ht(0

00's

tonn

es)

Non Integrator 1,899,627 1,724,287 1,731,004 1,715,234 1,815,672 1,777,475 1,734,769 1,759,583 1,742,418 1,535,040 1,775,877

Integrator 425,797 432,038 474,866 502,856 564,511 594,195 589,414 574,315 548,295 520,169 554,724

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Source: UK CAA

The figure above confirms that air freight traffic at integrator airports hasgrown at an AAGR of 2.7% between 2000 and 2010 while non-integrator airports have seen an AAGR of -0.7%. Overall, the averageannual growth of air freight traffic at all UK airports was flat at 0%between 2000 and 2010.

In 2000, air freight handled at express airports accounted for 18.3% ofair freight traffic handled at all UK airports; in 2010, the market share ofair freight handled at express airports had increased to 23.8%, albeitreduced from a peak of 25.1% in 2005.

As part of the UK consultations leading to the production of the “Futureof Air Transport” White Paper in December 2003, air freight forecastswere produced for both express and standard air freight. In the August

40



2011 freight forecasts the DfT stated that: It is assumed that total airfreight tonnage (driven by GDP) will grow again from its 2010 level inline with the forecasts produced for the 2003 White Paper.

Table 10.1: UK Unconstrained Freight tonnage Growth Rates (% per annum)

1998-2000

2000-05

2005-10

2010-15

2015-20

2020-25

2025-30

Express 20.0 17.4 13.8 11.0 8.7 6.9 5.5

Standard 6.0 5.6 5.0 4.4 4.0 3.5 3.1

Total 8.9 8.9 8.4 7.5 6.3 5.5 4.6

Source: UK Air Freight Study: MDS Transmodal for DETR (May 2001)

Table 10.1 clearly demonstrates that at the time of the production of theforecast express freight was viewed as, by far, the main driver for trafficgrowth through to 2030.

Although the absolute forecast growth rates now appear optimistic forboth express and standard air freight, the relationship between therespective growth rates can still be regarded as realistic, i.e. expressgrowth was forecast to be 3.1 times greater than standard air freightgrowth between 2000 and 2005, reducing to 2.5 times greater between2010 and 2015 and 1.8 times greater between 2025 and 2030.

10.2.1 Conclusions – Air Express Hub

There is no established air express hub in South West England and it isdifficult to justify the need given that the UK air express industry hasdeveloped successfully to date without one;

Filton would need to accommodate both night flights and supportingservices by road feeder vehicles. On environmental grounds alone thiswould arouse considerable public debate and opposition. The difficultyin such a debate would be to prove the need.

10.3 Air Mail Operations

UK air mail operations are based at the Royal Mail International buildingat London Heathrow. Heathrow, together with Gatwick and Manchesterare the main airports handling international air mail traffic.

The Post Office’s domestic air network, Skynet operates to ensure thatmillions of letters reach their destination the day after posting. Skynet isa network of flights at night operated through Royal Mail "hub" airportsMonday through Friday, with a smaller Sunday operation. These hubairports are (from North to South): -

41



Inverness

Aberdeen

Edinburgh

Newcastle

Belfast International

Liverpool

Nottingham East Midlands

Stansted

Bristol (services ceased in January 2011)

Exeter

Bournemouth

Trunk routes, including Stansted to Edinburgh, Nottingham EastMidlands to Belfast International; Newcastle to Stansted andNottingham East Midlands to Edinburgh are operated using acontainerised operation which enables a quick turnaround time for theaircraft. Many of the trunk routes are timed to feed into a network ofsmaller aircraft. Some routes are operated in their own rights as standalone with no connecting traffic with others operating as a feederservice.

Air Mail Traffic (tonnes) at UK Airports

Airport 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

HEATHROW 83,612 79,517 82,256 85,608 71,264 78,320

NOTTINGHAM EAST MIDLANDS 25,580 25,980 27,951 30,866 31,508 30,470

STANSTED 17,767 17,018 21,568 32,325 30,574 27,851

EDINBURGH 24,699 14,550 26,608 36,714 28,219 23,726

BELFAST INTERNATIONAL 13,451 11,982 11,457 11,970 13,192 14,162

BOURNEMOUTH 5,199 5,496 10,328 9,702 9,977 9,384

NEWCASTLE 7,820 7,885 8,483 10,901 9,758 9,062

GATWICK 9,306 8,019 5,588 4,663 4,530 4,555

EXETER 5,295 5,546 4,991 4,213 3,854 3,745

BRISTOL (services ceased January 2011) 4,931 2,788 2,904 4,496 3,979 3,498

42



Airport 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

GUERNSEY 2,606 2,718 2,799 2,924 2,906 3,234

ISLE OF MAN 2,499 2,296 2,279 2,251 2,295 2,557

JERSEY 439 1,328 1,865 1,843 1,746 1,944

MANCHESTER 2,483 1,309 765 813 523 636

Source: CAA UK Annual Airports Report 2010

The Royal Mail has located its South West (SW) Regional Centre atPatchway, adjacent to Filton Airfield. The sorting office - the biggest inthe South West - processes some 6 million items of post a day andemploys around 1,200 workers.

10.4 Conclusions – Air Mail Hub

The Royal Mail has located its SW Regional Centre inPatchway, adjacent to Filton Airfield.

The location of Filton close to motorway junctions, provide itwith the ideal location to handle air express and air mail traffic.

Filton has previous experience of operating mail flights at nightwhen the runway at Bristol Lulsgate was closed. There is nolonger any night mail flights operated from Bristol Lulsgate. Weunderstand from industry sources that Royal Mail ceased airmail operations at Lulsgate due to consolidation of UKoperations (at East Midlands Airport, primarily), and economicand environmental concerns which made trucking operationsmore viable than air transport from Bristol.

Filton would need to accommodate both night flights andsupporting services by road feeder vehicles. On environmentalgrounds alone this would arouse considerable public debateand opposition.

43



In this chapter, we briefly examine a wide range of options fordeveloping the site that include continuing aircraft operations from therunway, albeit that the runway is reduced in length in some instances.

We have not examined any options that increase the runway length inthis appraisal. Those that shorten the runway will release some land foruse in support of those aviation operations and/or for non-aviation uses.Full permanent closure would release all the land.

11.1 Comparisons with other Airport Runways

We have looked at runway provision at selected other UK airports inrelation to the nature of their operations. The chosen airport runwayshave limited, or specific types of air traffic operations. These give anindication as to the runway requirements for Filton, were it to bedeveloped to provide for similar types of traffic.

11.1.1 Short-haul Commercial Traffic

The demand for facilities to serve this market has been consideredabove in Chapter 6 above. This section just considers the runwayrequirements and we quote the declared TORA of the main runway forcomparison purposes.

11.1.1.1 Bristol (Lulsgate)

TORA 2,011 m

Its runway length is suitable for Code C short haul commercial jet andturboprop operations. The principal narrow-bodied aircraft types fromthe Airbus A320 family and the Boeing B737 family can operate here onroutes into the UK and Europe. This means that this runway is suitablefor short-haul routes operated by full service airlines, charter operatorsand low cost carriers. The airport has also historically had scheduledoperations by Boeing 757 aircraft to New York. Currently charter flightsare flown to Orlando and Cancun.

Some payload restrictions may apply for some aircraft types and/or onhot days.

11. Runway Based Development Options

44



11.1.1.2 Jersey

TORA 1,645 / 1,706 m

Its runway length is suitable for Code C regional commercial turbopropand jet operations. Payload/range may be limited for some larger jettypes. However, long range is generally not a requirement forcommercial passenger services from Jersey because most routes areinto the UK, France or Holland.

11.1.1.3 Guernsey

TORA 1,463 m

Its runway length is suitable for Code C regional commercial turbopropoperations. Bombardier Q300 and Q400 types and ATR 42 and ATR72are the most common passenger types presently in operation. TheBAE 146 jet also operated here in the past, but this type is no longerconsidered sufficiently economic to operate by many airlines and it isalso no longer in production.

The principal narrow-bodied aircraft types from the Airbus A320 familyand the Boeing B737 family cannot operate here on routes into the UKand Europe without a significant payload limitation. In addition there isinsufficient demand for low cost carriers, or for other airlines withaircraft of this seating capacity, to operate into Guernsey.

The runway has also been assessed by flybe as unsuitable for itsEmbraer 195 type, but is suitable for its recently introduced EMB 175aircraft.

This gives an indication as to the commercial and technical operatinglimits of this particular runway length.

11.1.1.4 Southampton

TORA 1,723 m

This is a Code 3C runway and its runway length is considered less thanrequired by the owners and some operators, but any extension islimited by the available site dimensions.

45



It is principally used by flybe using Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 turbopropsand Embraer 195 jets. Boeing 737 series, BAE Jetstream 41 andATR42 turboprops also operate from this runway.

Operations by Boeing 737 series and Airbus A320s aircraft would stillbe payload limited and generally to an unacceptable extent oncommercial grounds.

11.1.1.5 London City

TORA 1,319 m

This is designed as a Code 2C runway, although it does not meet theCAA’s current definition of that classification. It is used for Code Cshort-haul commercial jet and turboprop operations. It has a steep 5.5degree glide slope on the approach at both ends of the runway and thenumerous tall office buildings of Canary Wharf are located relativelyclose to the west end of the runway.

Aircraft types operating at London City currently include the EmbraerEMB170, EMB190, Fokker 50 and Airbus A318 but the runway length islimiting for some aircraft types that use the airport.

The principal narrow-bodied aircraft types from the Airbus A320 familyand the Boeing B737 family cannot operate here apart from the A318,which has been certified for use.

Due to its proximity to the financial district and centre of London, it iswell used and airlines operating into LCY can charge a premium fare.This means that they can tolerate any payload restrictions that apply,particularly on hot days.

LCY also has a significant business aviation operation, but as with thecommercial pilots, special training is required to handle the steepapproaches.

At Filton, a similar Code 2 runway with a TORA of around 1,400 mwould have reduced spatial requirements, lower capital costs andslightly lower operating costs. It would also release land for operationaland non-operational purposes. However, as discussed elsewhere inthis chapter, a runway with TORA of <1200 m would not be capable ofhandling the same range of aircraft as those handled at LCY. It is notconsidered likely that the CAA would be prepared to license such anoperation at Filton, unless the TORA was <1200 m, even if the steepglide slope at LCY was not adopted at this site.

46



Air services at Filton are also unlikely to attract sufficient numbers ofpassengers prepared to pay similar premium fares to make such aspecialised operation commercially viable in London.

11.1.1.6 Plymouth

TORA 1,108 m

This is also a Code 2C runway and has been principally used just byone airline, Air Southwest, operating Bombardier Q300 turbopropsspecifically purchased for the purpose.

This airline was recently sold to Eastern Airlines who have just ceasedoperations at Plymouth. As a consequence, the aerodrome itself is nowunder notice of closure.

The runway length is constrained by the dimension of the site. Anextension would require acquisition of several commercial properties atthe runway end and a business case could not be developed to fundthe total cost.

This demonstrates that passenger operations from a runway of thislength are unlikely to be commercially viable – particularly if there islimited demand and no high-end traffic to support the proportionatelyhigher operating costs.

Sutton Harbour Group, the airport's operator, announced its intention toclose the airport earlier this year. It is understood that the closure of theAirport will go ahead in December 2011, after councillors accepted itwas no longer viable. Air Southwest, the airport's sole airline stoppedflights in July 2011, saying Plymouth routes were no longer financiallyviable.

11.1.1.7 Conclusions

A runway length of at least 1,800 to 2,200m would be needed for thefull range of short-haul commercial passenger and cargo operations.This is sufficiently close to the existing runway length to also concludethat it would be inappropriate to reduce its length unless necessary toprovide supporting facilities. If that is a requirement, we would suggestthat any length less than 1,700 m (and preferably not less than1,800 m) would be unacceptable in terms of the aircraft types that couldoperate in this market.

47



A Code 2C runway (limited to 1,199 m by current CAA requirements) isnot likely to be viable for this use, due to the limited number of aircrafttypes that could operate from a runway with such a length. The failureof Plymouth Airport is particular evidence of this.

However, all such options would still require adequate taxiway, apronand support facilities, which as discussed elsewhere, may not bepossible within the existing sire boundary. Instrument approacheswould be necessary for air passenger and commercial cargooperations.

In addition there are the previous planning decisions that would notpermit the development of such operations unless the case for doing sowas a very strong one and in the local and national interest.

Commercial air passenger services are therefore not considered aviable option at Filton, even though the runway is long enough.

11.1.2 Business and General Aviation

The demand for facilities to serve this market has been consideredabove in Chapter 7. The following aerodromes have paved runwaysand are known for serving the business aviation or light general aviationmarkets (or both).

11.1.2.1 Farnborough

TORA: 2,000m / 2,063 m

This is the main business aviation operation in the South of England.Many of the other airports with paved runways in the region are heavilyutilised by commercial aviation and business and general aviationoperations are either very restricted, or even prohibited at thoseairports.

The full paved length is 2,440 m long, which includes recent runwayextension and starter strips. It has significantly inset thresholds inresponse to the obstacle limitation surface restrictions. Temporarythresholds are utilised for the biennial Airshow operations (unlicensed)to increase landing distances.

The runway length just meets the needs of operators of large and long-range business jets.

48



11.1.2.2 Biggin Hill

TORA: 1,778 m / 1,670 m and 792 m / 792 m

This is the third largest business aviation operation in the South ofEngland, which also serves a significant GA presence. It has a Code 1cross-wind runway for this reason.

NB: Luton is the second largest UK airport in the business aviationsector, but its runway length (TORA: 2,160 m) is determined to servethe short and medium-haul LCC and charter passenger markets.

11.1.2.3 Gloucester (Staverton)

TORA: 1,271 m / 1,317 m, 988 m / 988 m and 799 m / 799 m

The nature of the operations at Gloucester has been discussed inSection 8.2 above. It primarily serves the general and businessaviation markets. These include flight training and air taxi operations.

Gloucester has three short paved runways and a grass runway. Theexisting main runway is a Code 2 runway with associated clearances. Ithas recently improved its Runway End Safety Areas and been allowedto retain a TORA, TODA and ASDA > 1,199 m. Even then, its length isknown to limit operations by many types of business jets.

Cessna 500/550 series are the most common jets operating. Only thesmaller types of business jets (bizjets) can take-off with an unrestrictedpayload.

Manx2 operate a small number of regional passenger services intoGloucester. They use specialised STOL turboprop aircraft (such as the17/19 seat Dornier 228 or Let 410) that carry a small number ofpassengers.

11.1.2.4 Kemble (Cotswold)

TORA: 1,724 m

The airfield is used for General Aviation and Corporate activity. Kembleis home to several flying clubs and training schools. Hangarage andmaintenance facilities are available on site.

Lack of Navaid provision means operating hours are restricted.

49



11.1.2.5 Blackbushe

TORA: 1,237 m

This is used by a mixture of business and general aviation operations.

Again, only the smaller business jets can operate here, but nearbyFarnborough serves the larger end of the business aviation market.

There are no scheduled air services.

11.1.2.6 Shoreham

TORA: 960 m / 916 m, 877 m / 877 m and 408 m / 534 m

This is predominantly a busy general aviation aerodrome.

Some scheduled services operate in small aircraft to nearby airports inFrance and the have operated to the Channel Islands (CI) but these arelimited in size and numbers and the CI services have ceased.

The runway length restricts commercial and business aviationoperations.

11.1.2.7 Fairoaks

TORA: 813 m

This is predominantly a general aviation aerodrome with nearbyFarnborough and Blackbushe serving the business aviation market.

11.1.2.8 Denham

TORA: 686 m / 728 m

Although the main runway is paved, this is also predominantly a generalaviation aerodrome.

11.1.2.9 Conclusions

We conclude from these comparisons that a runway length of at least1,700 to 2,100m would be needed for the full range of business aviationoperations. This is sufficiently close to the existing runway length toconclude that it would not be desirable to reduce its length unlessnecessary to provide supporting facilities or enhance the business

50



case. If that is a requirement, we conclude that any length less than1,300 m (and preferably not less than 1,500 m) would be unacceptablein terms of the business aviation aircraft types that could operate.

A Code 1B runway (limited to 799 m by current CAA requirements)would be suitable for general aviation use by private pilots and theirtraining, although a Code 2B runway of 900 m in length might bepreferable for some light aircraft types.

The upper end of the Code 2 range (1,199 m) would be longer thanrequired for most private owners and flying training, but too short formany business aviation operations.

An instrument approach would be very desirable if it is intended toserve the upper end of business aviation. Instrument approaches arenot generally provided at airports serving private flying, but often, ifpaved, the main runway will be lit.

11.2 Proposed Runway Length

We have not considered any options that would require the length ofthe paved runway to be increased, so as to increase the range ofcommercial wide-bodied operations that could take place. This isbecause the land is not available for the necessary supportinginfrastructure and we anticipate that such options would not beacceptable on planning grounds.

Uses that retain the existing runway length or only require a shorterlength have been considered. A shorter runway will release some ofthe site for aviation and/or non-aviation uses.

The runway length required entirely depends on the intended ongoinguse or uses.

The existing runway length is perfectly suitable for operations bynarrow-bodied commercial passenger or cargo jets and turboprops. Itis insufficient for most commercial wide-bodied operations, although asits past history proves, it is suitable for positioning movements by lightlyloaded wide-bodied aircraft. The instrument approaches are also avaluable provision.

It follows that its existing length is also suitable for business andgeneral aviation movements and the existing ILS equally useful.

51



There are many options that could reduce the length of the runway inuse. However, these would also require significant investment toreplace the markings, signage, ground lighting and the ILS, if the lattercapability is to be retained.

If shortened, the length of runway retained would almost certainly belocated at either at the east or west end and not be a central portion ofthe existing runway. That selection would depend on a combination ofmeeting the land requirements for the airfield operations intended,minimising the capital development costs and maximising the use andvalue of the non-aviation development opportunities for the remainingland. The vertical profile of the runway may also be a determiningfactor.

Shorter runway lengths would be adequate for business aviation andgeneral aviation purposes. The length provided depends on the typesof aircraft that are intended to be served, with the largest business jetsstill requiring lengths in the 1,800 m to 2,100 m range. This wouldremain a Code 4 runway requiring a 300 m wide strip for instrumentapproaches and approach and take-off obstacle limitation surfaces(OLS) with a 2% gradient.

Runways with take-off lengths of between 1,300 m and 1,700m remainuseful in serving the bizjet market and can also be used by some typesof commercial regional jets and turboprops on short haul passengerroutes. The shorter the runway, the shorter is the list of aircraft typesthat can operate. These lengths would be classified as Code 3runways and if provided with instrument approaches, have the samerunway strip width and obstacle limitation surfaces as those required forthe longer Code 4 instrument approach classification. This categorytherefore requires the same strip width and similar clearances aroundthe runway and would not release much land for airport or otherdevelopment uses.

Reverting to a visual approach runway would reduce the required stripwidth from 300 m overall to 150 m overall. While this would deal withpenetrations of the obstacle limitation surfaces, the runway would nolonger be considered suitable for commercial services, or the morevaluable business aviation operations.

There is a substantial step change in the required strip width and theapproach and take-off climb obstacle limitation surfaces betweenCode 2 and Code 3 runways. The strip width for a Code 2 instrumentrunway halves to 150 m overall and the approach and take-off OLShave respective gradients of 3.33% and 4%. Consequently, a reduction

52



to a Code 2 classification would release land within the aerodrome forairport or other development uses. It may even be appropriate torelocate the runway centreline to enhance the developable area.

In CAP 168, the CAA classifies a runway by the greater of TODA andASDA with the dividing line between Code 2 and Code 3 at 1,199m.Therefore, the disadvantage of a Code 2 runway is that it would only besuitable for private GA, initial pilot training and commercial operationsby the smaller end of the business/executive jet aviation market.

As discussed above, Gloucester’s main runway is classified as Code 2for legacy reasons yet it has a TODA of 1,319 m. Even at this length itstill struggles to meet the needs of business jet operations.

A shorter Code 1 runway (<800 m long) would only be suitable for lightgeneral aviation aircraft, a few specialised STOL turboprops andhelicopters. Multiple runways are also a common requirement at suchairports due to the sensitivity of light aircraft to cross-winds.

In the absence of fixed-wing operations, helicopter operations onlyrequire one or more short Final Approach and Take Off (FATO) areasand the dimensions of the operating part of the airfield would reduceconsiderably. Just a short length (150 m to 300 m) of retained or newrunway would be more than adequate for this. A cross-wind FATO mayalso be beneficial.

11.3 Runway Width

There are no options that require the existing 91 m runway width. Wewould assume that that this width would be retained for all developmentoptions that retained the existing runway length, but only until therunway needed to be resurfaced or the ground lighting replaced. Atthat time its width would almost certainly be reduced to the minimumrequired and the edge lighting brought in within the existing paved area.

However, regardless of its condition, the runway width may have to bereduced from the outset for development options that shorten therunway, particularly the shorter of those options, where the existing91 m width would be inappropriate, with the potential to confuse pilotson the approach and touch down phases of flight.

Because of the existing width, there is an opportunity to displace therunway centreline to the north or south if that permitted a more usefuldevelopment of the site. However, this would probably result in adrainage cross-fall and the strip width required must still be achievable

53



within the site boundary. The transitional obstacle limitation surfacesalong each side of the runway would also move. Unless the strip widthwas reduced, this may result in new or increased penetrations and thusbe unacceptable. In addition, such a move would also requireconsiderable investment to replace the markings, signage, groundlighting and the ILS localiser.

11.4 Other Runway Considerations

The vertical profile is sub-standard and the view from the VCR islimited, the Brabazon Hangar penetrates the existing transitional OLSon the south side. The ILS equipment might require replacing orimproving. In licensing the aerodrome for any more frequent airpassenger operations, the CAA might require all or some of theseissues to be corrected. This would require considerable investment.

In addition, the runway is constructed from 6 m square concrete slabsand offers a “bumpy” ride, particularly for small aircraft.

11.5 Taxiways

High frequency services would require enhanced taxiway provision todeliver and collect aircraft from the runway ends. This is usuallyachieved by providing a full length parallel taxiway, although partialtaxiways and end loops can increase the available runway movementrate. Providing sufficient space at Filton within the existing site for suchtaxiway enhancements is not possible, which rules out options thatneed this.

Taxiway development would be restricted to that required to connectany new aprons to the runway length remaining in use. This limitsviable runway-based development options to those with fairly low peakmovement and throughput rates.

11.6 Aprons

Commercially viable options require sufficient aircraft parking apronspace. This is essential to park and service passenger and freighteraircraft. Again only limited space is available for apron developmentwithin the existing site and this again will rule out options that have ahigh stand demand and/or the need to park large aircraft.

The only land definitely available for apron development is on the northside at the east end of the runway. That is restricted in area, but itwould be increased if the overall runway strip width was reduced from

54



300 m to 150 m and the runway centreline displaced to the south. Sucha change may also allow some apron development to take place on thenorth side towards the west end (i.e. between the runway and thedevelopments south of Lysander Road).

11.7 Terminal Facilities

Providing for commercially viable air passenger or cargo operationsrequires sufficient space for terminals, vehicle parking and othersurface access facilities. With the limited space available on theexisting site such requirements may rule out such options.

Business aviation requires a small terminal facility and private lightaviation would still require some supporting accommodation. Asdiscussed above, a shorter runway with reduced strip width, possiblywith a displaced runway centreline, could allow for a small apron andterminal facility to be developed at various points on the north side.The existing terminal is unlikely to be in a suitable location, or of asuitable size or quality.

Redevelopment of The Brabazon Hangar site would provide somespace for the smaller development options, but access across therailway line is limited. Otherwise the only locations are the areasaround Aprons 2 and 3, a narrow strip to the northwest or acquiring theundeveloped land to the southwest.

11.8 Technically Viable Options

Due primarily to the restricted site, surrounding developments andplanning history, the following are considered the only technically viableoperations, either separately or in any combination:-

1. Uses similar to the existing support for aircraft manufacture andmaintenance

2. Business Aviation

3. Private General Aviation

4. Helicopter Operations

Options 1 and 2 above would retain the existing runway length or beshortened to no less than 1,700 m. The width would be maintaineduntil it became necessary to re-surface the runway, when it would bereduced in width, probably to 45 m.

55



Option 3 would reduce the runway length to 800 m to 900 m. Ifcombined with business aviation, then this would attract more use andincome, but this combination would need an absolute minimum lengthof 1,300 m and preferably a retained runway length in the range1,500 m to 1,700m. The width would be reduced in all these cases.

Helicopters on their own would only require a short FATO of between150 m and 300 m, but if combined with the above Options 2 or 3 woulduse the runway so provided.

A combination of all of the above would generate the most income.

11.9 Commercial Viability

It is beyond the scope of this short study to undertake a full analysis ofthe potential commercial viability of the runway-based developmentoptions we have identified. The location and extent of eachdevelopment option would also have to be devised before costs couldbe estimated. However, we can use our experience in the industry togive an indication of how each option might fare, given the need forcapital works, the operating requirements and required operating hours.

In addition, there are some potential uses where the needs of users arein support of other commercial operations such as aircraft maintenance,in which case the viability of the business as a whole has to beconsidered and not just the airfield operation. This again is outside thescope of this study.

11.10 Other Aviation-Related Uses

Given the aviation heritage associated with the Filton site and theexistence of a Concorde on static display, an aviation museum mighthave support. Bristol also has a good track record in this general areain developing its Historic Docks, including the SS Great Britain and itsHarbour Festival.

We see these as a possible complementary additional use and revenuegenerator, but not one that could sustain the airport on its own. We arealso mindful that current financial constraints would make such aproject difficult to successfully promote at this time. It has recently beenannounced that resources supporting the Harbour Festival have beencut, exemplifying this problem.

56



11.11 Strategic Importance

We are not aware of any issues of strategic importance that would bepart of a case to keep the runway in operation.

The primary local benefit is in the employment the aviationmanufacturing sector has brought to the area and the local planningauthorities would wish to see those high value jobs continue. If aviationemployment on the adjacent site(s) is to continue and the tasks nolonger require the provision of the runway, then this too would not bepart of a case to keep the runway open.

Obviously some existing users will have to be displaced, but these aresmall in number and on their own could not support the cost ofcontinuing operation.

57



12.1 Runway Based Options

In conclusion, we have briefly examined a wide range of runway-baseddevelopment options for the Filton aerodrome from a commercialairport, such as Lulsgate down in scale to just a heliport.

These may be grouped together as follows:-

12.1.1 Commercial Passenger Airport

The runway is of adequate length (except for long-haul services), butthe size of the surrounding land is inadequate to accommodate therequired taxiway, apron, terminal and other support facilities, there isinsufficient demand and it would be unacceptable on planning grounds,

12.1.2 Commercial Cargo Airport

The runway length is only suitable for short-haul services, there isinsufficient demand and it would be unacceptable on planning grounds,

12.1.3 Aircraft Manufacturing or Maintenance

The runway length is suitable and it would be acceptable on planninggrounds, but there is no identified demand,

12.1.4 Business and General Aviation Airport

The runway length could be shortened and it may be acceptable onplanning grounds, but there is insufficient demand,

The following table outlines all the various aviation options that retain arunway in one form or another. This matrix outlines each concept andthe relative merits of each of those options.

The descriptions in the table are necessarily brief. See relevantparagraphs for fuller explanation.

12. Options Matrix

58



Runway-based Development Option Matrix

Opt Description RunwayLengths

RunwayWidth

AircraftType

DevRequired

Demand Technical Planning Dev/OpCosts

ViableOpt?

1 Long HaulPassengerAir Services

As Existing

TORA:2,300ASDA:2,300

LDA:2,060

(PreferablyLonger)

Pref: 60m

Existing 91mnot required

Code E

WideBody

TaxiwaysApronTerminalLandside

Low Site boundarylimits taxiway,apron andfacilitiesdevelopmentand hence isimpractical

Rejected inthe past

Unlikely to beaccepted

7 day, 16hrOps required

High/High

Twys,aprons,terminal

andaccess

NO

2 Short HaulPassengerAir Services

As Existing


LDA:2,060

Min: 45m


Code C

NarrowBody

TaxiwaysApronTerminalLandside

LowHandled

atLulsgateand otherairports

Site boundarylimits taxiway,apron andfacilitiesdevelopmentand hencecapacity

Rejected inthe past



V High/High


andaccess

NO

3 RegionalPassengerAir Services

As Existing


LDA:2,060

Min: 45m


Code C

NarrowBody

TaxiwaysApronTerminalLandside(smallerthan Opt 2above)

Low

Handledat

Lulsgateand otherairports

Site boundarylimits taxiway,apron andfacilitiesdevelopmentand hencecapacity

Rejected inthe past

Unlikely to beaccepted7 day, 16hrOps required

High/High


andaccess

NO

4 Long HaulCargoAir Services

As Existing


LDA:2,060

Pref: 60m


Code E

WideBody

ApronTerminal(BrabazonHangar, butpoorlandsideaccess)

Very Low Rwy lengthlimits payloadSite boundarylimitsdevelopmentarea and thuscapacity


7 day Ops &Night flyingrequired

Med/Low

Aprons,terminal

andaccess

NO

5 Short HaulCargoAir Services

As Existing


LDA:2,060

Pref: 45m


Code E

NarrowBody

ApronTerminal(BrabazonHangar, butpoorlandsideaccess)

Low,but goodMotorway

access

Site boundarylimitsdevelopmentare and thuscapacity


7 day Ops &Night flyingrequired

Low/Low

Aprons,terminal

andaccess

Maybe ifdemandexists

6 AircraftMaintenanceorManufacturg

As Existing


LDA:2,060

Pref: 45m


Code Cor E

Narrowor WideBody

ApronsHangars(re-useBrabazon)

Landside

Previoususe byAirbus,but no

known altuser

Site boundarylimitsdevelopmentare and thuscapacity

Acceptable

Limited Ophours

Low/Low

YES, ifnewuser

exists

7 Business/ExecutiveAviation

As Existing


LDA:2,060

Min: 45m


Code C

NarrowBody

ApronsTerminalHangarsLandside

Low Site boundarylimitsdevelopmentarea and thuscapacity

May beacceptable


Med toHigh/Med


59



Opt Description RunwayLengths

RunwayWidth

AircraftType

DevRequired

Demand Technical Planning Dev/OpCosts

ViableOpt?



LDA:1,300

Min: 30m

Existing 91mwidth notacceptable

Code Bor C

NarrowBody

RunwayApronsTerminalHangarsLandside

Low Rwy lengthOK for mosttypes

Site boundarylimits capacity

May be moreacceptable


Med/Low to

Med




LDA:1,300

Min: 30m


Code Bor C

NarrowBody


Low Rwy lengthlimits types

Site boundarylimits capacity



Med/Low

Prob-ably Not



LDA:1,199

Min: 23 m


Instrumentstrip width150 m

Code B

NarrowBody


Low Rwy lengthlimits mostBizjets

Limited otheraircraft typesNarrower stripoffers moresupport space



Low toMed/Low

NO

11 GeneralAviation

With PilotTraining

TORA: 799

ASDA: 799

LDA: 799

(No ILS)

Min: 18m


Visual stripwidth 60 m

Code Aor B

ApronTerminalClassroomsHangarsLandside

Low

Stavertonoffersgood

facilities45 mins

away

Rwy lengthexcludesBizjets

Variouspossiblelocations onsite

Flight trainingcircuit noiseunpopular


(training canexcludeweekends)

Low/Low


12 GeneralAviationWithout PilotTraining

TORA: 799

ASDA: 799

LDA:799

(No ILS)

Min: 18 m


Visual stripwidth 60 m

Code Aor B

ApronTerminalHangarsLandside

Low

Stavertonoffersgood

facilities

Rwy lengthexcludesBizjets

Use withouttraining will bevery low



Low/Low

Prob-ably Not

13 Helicopter

Operations

FATO only

required

ApronTerminalHangarsLandside

ProbablyLow

No difficulties

Variouspossiblelocations onsite

Likely to beacceptable

7 day, 12hrOps, but24hr Opsmay berequired foremergencyservices

Low/Low

Maybe

Source: Mott MacDonald

01202 421142 [email protected] www.torltd.co.uk

planning design environment

everdene House deansleigh road bournemouth bH7 7du

filton airfield aviation options report bae systems ... · filton airfield aviation options report...

Documents