Aviation Strategy

Written evidence from Dr. Peter W. Skelton (AS 21)

Executive Summary

Construction of a new airport in the Thames Estuary would pose three unacceptable risks: (1) major impact on an internationally important area for wildlife conservation, particularly for birds; (2) increasing likelihood of surge tide flooding due to geological subsidence of the area combined with global sea-level rise; and (3) necessity for expensive and widely disruptive transport infrastructure development to facilitate access for the majority of potential UK users. Any proposal for such an airport should thus be rejected on both environmental and economic grounds.

Details of submitter

Retired academic geologist (currently Visiting Reader) from The Open University, Faculty of Science (Department of Earth, Environment and Ecosystems), with forty years experience of geological research and teaching, including Earth System Science and the geological record of climate change.

Arguments against proposals for a new Thames estuary Airport

The Committee’s Issue 4(a) asks if there is a case for a new hub airport and where it might be sited. One proposal widely discussed in the media is for the construction of a completely new airport in the Thames Estuary (the so-called ‘Boris Island’). This proposal should be rejected on the grounds of posing at least three unacceptable risks:

1. Wildlife conservation. According to the RSPB, the area is "a vital migration hub for hundreds of thousands of wildfowl and wading birds", its global significance being "recognised by its status as a Special Protection Area (SPA)". Construction of an airport there would pose a major threat to this internationally important area for wildlife conservation, which would be further exacerbated by the ongoing need to prevent the risk of bird-strikes over a wide area. The proposal thus flies in the face of the National Ecosystem Assessment recommendation that "Sustainable management of Coastal Margin habitats must be holistic, taking into account physical, chemical and biological processes, spatial and temporal scales, drivers of change, and cultural elements. Most large Coastal Margin sites are designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) under the Habitats Directive, or are Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs); therefore, the protection and maintenance of the biodiversity, natural processes and geomorphological interest remain primary objectives" (UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011) The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the Key Findings. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, p. 76). Moreover, as the NEA synthesis notes (p. 25) in relation to wetland and coastal hydrology "The breakdown of waste and detoxification of freshwater runoff … is locally problematic in estuaries and coastal waters". The widespread environmental disruption caused by development of such an airport and the extensive drainage of approach areas would thus be likely to have a profound impact upon the hydrological and ecological 'services' provided by this major estuary, eventually requiring costly remediation.

2. Flooding. Geologically, the estuary area is subsiding (Shennan, I. & Horton, B., 2002, Journal of Quaternary Science, 17, 511–526), in places currently at a rate of up to 2.1 mm/year, based on satellite measurements over the period 1997-2005 conducted for a DEFRA/Environment Agency-funded case study investigation of flood risks (Land vs sea level rise case study: London, ‘Terrafirma’, ESA Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) Initiative). With the current global rise in sea-level estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at 3.1 mm/year, the relative rise in sea level in the Thames Estuary area should thus reach over 5 mm/year. Over several decades, a significantly increased risk of damaging surge tides could therefore be expected in the area, against which costly defensive systems would be required.

3. Access. The majority of UK travellers using the proposed airport would have to pass through or around London to reach it, necessitating considerable additional expenditure on transport infrastructure for access, not to mention the associated widespread disruption that it would cause. In the event of sharply increased air travel costs resulting from a combination of rising fuel costs and "the proper incorporation of environmental costs in the market pricing of air transportation" (Seely, A., 2012, ‘Taxing Aviation Fuel’. House of Commons Library, Business and Transport Section, Standard Note SN00523), many travellers might opt instead for alternative, more convenient and ‘greener’ modes of travel to the continent, such as high-speed rail, such that the proposed airport would ending up becoming a massively expensive white elephant.

In short, the Thames Estuary is both environmentally and economically a most unsuitable place for a new airport – if, indeed, any such expansion of aviation capacity can be considered desirable given the increasingly pressing need to curb carbon emissions, particularly by aircraft.

15 October 2012