Residents begin fightback against World Logistics Hub

Click here to sign the petition against the World Logistics Hub

On Wednesday 5^th September Ringway Parish Council members were joined by members of the A556 Lobby Group, campaigners from SEMA and over 80 local residents to voice their opposition to the recent planning application submitted by Manchester Airports Group (MAG) which, if successful "would see 90 acres of former greenbelt land wiped out in favour of 43 cargo warehouses and almost 1,500 car parking spaces".

For many residents in attendance, who felt that they had not been involved in the consultation process, the meeting was their first opportunity to learn about the Airport’s plans. It was also an opportunity to debunk the Airport’s claim that the expansion would create employment in the area.

Audrey O'Donovan, Chairman of Ringway Parish Council said:
 "The Airport claim new jobs will be created. However, many of these jobs will not be 'new' but simply 'displaced' as existing firms re-locate from other areas of Greater Manchester to take advantage of the cheap business rates on offer."

Members of the A556 Lobby Group explained that the recent planning application has shed light on how the Airport’s plans fit in to a broader picture of development in the area.

Matt Parkinson, who attended the meeting, said "We have long suspected that the proposed A556 bypass has more to do with facilitating Government plans for the massive expansion of Manchester Airport, than to provide an "environmental improvement" to the people living alongside the current A556.

"We expressed our concerns that the developments around Manchester Airport are being brought to the public's attention piecemeal, these will affect a much wider surrounding area ultimately engulfing significant parts of Cheshire into the planned "Airport City" and supporting infrastructure”.

The meeting was an opportunity for different groups to come together in their opposition, and there was a strong feeling that the struggles of local residents and campaigners must be united.

"We feel the time has come for all local groups fighting to save their villages, countryside and way of life to join together, to realise the bigger picture and to oppose the notion of 'growth' at any cost. We believe the vast majority of people would prefer to see targeted investment in sustainability in order to create jobs which genuinely benefit society, human well-being and our environment rather than local MP, George Osborne's obsession with growth for growths sake."

There was even a message of solidarity from across the channel, from campaigners at the ZAD, (Zone A Defendre, meaning ‘Zone to Defend’), near Nantes in France, who have been opposing a massive airport project for over 40 years:

"We want to send a message of solidarity to those standing up to airport expansion in Manchester and let you know that there are many communities worldwide involved in the same struggle. Together, we can learn from each others experiences and be part of a movement  fighting not just against useless and destructive projects but for a world where we're not ruled by profit and where communties are able to take control of their lives".

Click here to sign the petition against the World Logistics Hub

Virgin criticised by environmental groups for introducing Heathrow to Manchester flights

As Virgin apply for a judicial review against their loss of the West Coast rail franchise, environmental groups unanimously criticised the company's green credentials last week for launching a new Manchester to London air route.

From Business Green,  21 Aug 2012

Virgin Atlantic’s plans to start commercial flights from London to Manchester have today been sharply criticised by green groups who claim the service will push up emissions.

The airline announced its first foray into domestic services this morning, just days after Virgin Trains lost out on its valuable West Coast rail franchise to First Group.

The company said it plans to offer three daily return flights between Heathrow and Manchester from March 2013, while flights from the capital to Edinburgh and Aberdeen could also be up and running by the summer.

However, green campaigners said such short flights are hugely fuel inefficient, given most fuel is burnt during the frequent take-offs and landings on short shuttle flights.

They also questioned how the service squares with Richard Branson’s stated aim to make Virgin the world’s most sustainable airline by 2020, and argued that the new service called into question the case for expansion at Heathrow.

A spokeswoman for the Green Party told BusinessGreen that replacing the almost 100,000 annual flights to destinations such as Edinburgh, Manchester, and Paris with rail journeys would not only reduce emissions but also free up capacity at Heathrow for new connections to emerging markets, removing the need for a new hub airport or expanded capacity.  “We are very disappointed Richard Branson doesn’t understand flying inter-city within the same country doesn’t do anything to help [reduce] CO2 emissions,” she said. “We should be reducing short-haul flights not encouraging people to take more.”

Jean Leston, senior transport policy officer at WWF UK, added: “Virgin’s new route to Manchester shows yet again how the airlines are creating a rod for their own backs by adding new domestic routes that clog up capacity that’s better used for new long haul routes… [and] not adding carbon needlessly to our skies.”

Meanwhile, Jane Thomas, a senior campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said the proposed £32bn high-speed rail link to Birmingham, Manchester and the North, known as HS2, would make internal flights redundant.  “Encouraging people to use trains is environmentally sensible and it also makes good sense when you have good existing networks,” she toldBusinessGreen. “HS2 would increase connectivity further and negate any case for short haul flights.”

Her thoughts were echoed by Richard Hebditch, campaign director at the Campaign for Better Transport.  “We should be making sure that rail is the mode of choice for all journeys between Manchester and London, not contemplating more flights for such a short distance,” he said. “Whoever runs the west coast mainline, travelling by rail has to make more sense.”

Click here for the rest of the story.

Government consultation on new Aviation Policy Framework

In July 2012, the government launched its consultation on the draft Aviation Policy Framework.  This is intended to replace the 2003 Air Transport White Paper.

Its second paper, asking for evidence on whether more airport capacity, particularly hub capacity, is needed in London and the South East has been postponed until the Autumn.

AirportWatch have posted the following initial response: 

"The consultation is still a document which envisages a lot of growth in air travel.  Whether that level of growth is compatible with climate change and noise concerns is highly debatable. But the consultation document is more honest than we have seen from previous governments.  It recognises that there is a tourism deficit, due to air travel, and that the UK is already about the best connected country in the world, contrary to the aviation industry’s spin.  It also recognises that landing slots need to be sorted out, as they are a major hindrance to efficient use of airport capacity. However, the document is weak on climate."

For an initial assessment on the draft Framework in terms of climate, noise and other issues see John Stewart's comment on the AirportWatch website.  

The deadline for responses to this consultation is 31 October 2012.  Response forms are available on the Department for Transport (DfT) website.  

The following quotes are taken from the draft Aviation Policy Framework:

On aviation and the Climate Change Act.....
"3.20 The Climate Change Act (2008) commits the UK to reducing its net GHG emissions by at least 80 per cent below the 1990 baseline by 2050 (the target), and requires the Government to set five-yearly carbon budgets, establishing a path towards meeting that target.   Emissions from international aviation (and shipping) are currently not included in the Act's definition of "emissions" and therefore do not form part of the target. However, the Government is required to set out the circumstances and extent to which emissions from international aviation should be included before the end of 2012, or explain to Parliament why it has not done so."

"3.21 In April 2012, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) published its advice to the Government that the UK's national carbon budgets and targets should include aviation (and shipping) emissions. Given the practical complexities, the Government is carefully analysing the evidence and options presented. The Government intends to make clear its position later this year."

On possible plans to link High Speed 2 to Manchester Airport......
"2.92 HS2 Ltd has also now submitted to the Government detailed route options for a spur from the main HS2 line to serve Heathrow Airport. This would provide improved links from the Midlands and the North, and enable HS2 passengers to travel directly to Heathrow without having to change trains. HS2 Ltd is also assessing the options and case for serving Manchester airport by high speed rail."

"2.93 The Government will publish its initial preferred route and station options for Phase 2 in autumn 2012, and launch a consultation in 2013/14."

Manchester Airport unveils plans to concrete former greenbelt land with 'World Logistics Hub'

Manchester Airport has announced plans to concrete over former greenbelt land around Sunbank Lane to make way for a 'World Logistics Hub'.  The area is currently home to residential houses and greenfields and also borders onto Cotterill Clough - a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

Proposals to build on former greenbelt land

The plans involve the construction of around 43 warehouses and office units of various sizes on land adjacent to the A538, as well as 1,473 carparking spaces, 134 bike parking spaces and a re-landscaped green zone.   The plans form part of the wider Airport City Enterprise Zone.  More details can be found here: http://www.airportcity.co.uk/master-plan/world-logistics-hub/#

The Airport 'anticipate' that 1800 jobs will be created over a 15 year period.  However, a report on the wider Airport City proposals in Autumn 2011 by the Campaign to Protect Rural England found that many of these job creation projections actually involved displacing pre-existing jobs from elsewhere in Manchester, as firms relocate to take advantage of the cheap business rates on offer.

The land around Sunbank Lane was recently taken out of the Greenbelt in Manchester City Council's 'Core Strategy' which was approved in July 2012.  Many residents say they were not informed or consulted of these plans.  Audrey O'Donovan said,  "As a resident and chairman of Ringway Parish Council I am appalled at the lack of consultation by Manchester Airport when removing Oak Farm and surrounding area out of the green belt and changing the planning status enabling them to once again encroach on our countryside. All in the name of so called progress. What concerns me is the World Logistics Hub as they have called this latest expansion will expand to the other side of the A538 spreading their operations still further into our very small Parish of Ringway."

Plans for a World Logistics Hub to the south west of Manchester Airport

The Airport have published an 'informal' consultation document with images of the plans.   They say they intend to submit a formal planning application to Manchester City Council at some point in August 2012.  Objectors will have 21 days of formal consultation period to submit their views upon registration of the application.

A view of the area as it is now

Stop Expansion at Manchester Airport organised a 'Biodiversity Walk' around the affected site in May 2010.  Shortly after local activists blockaded the current World Freight Centre and staged an airside protest around the wheel of Monarch Airline jet against plans to expand the airport and demolish local homes. 

Osborne delays launch of government aviation consultation to “summer” 2012

(Adapted from Airport Watch:)

The aviation consultation that had been intended to start sometime between the Budget and the end of March 2012 appears now to have been postponed, to an unspecified date – probably some time after May.


In his Budget speech, George Osborne said: "I also believe this country must confront the lack of airport capacity in the South East of England – we cannot cut ourselves off from the fastest growing cities in the world. The Transport Secretary will set out Government thinking later this summer.”  
This appears to have taken the DfT themselves by surprise.  It is speculated that the reason may have been disagreement between George Osborne and the Lib Dems, on the desirability of future aviation expansion.  


So it appears that the DfT’s  Aviation Framework Policy consultation will now take place some time after May this year.


It is thought that there will be two consultation documents and the consultations will run in parallel. 
The first consultation is focused on the policy framework and is likely to run for 4 months; the second consultation is a call for evidence on UK hub connectivity which will run for 4-6 months. 


Based on Osborne’s budget commitment to ensure the UK remains well connected, it will seek general views on connectivity and the role of a UK hub(s) while inviting any specific proposals on how hub connectivity can be improved (e.g. detailed submissions on Heathrow or alternative proposals such as Thames estuary – they want evidence and specific plans with locations, how it ties in to surface access network etc, not concept designs).  Any proposal must also meet the criteria set out in the general framework consultation document.


One reason for the delay over the consultation may be that ministers want to combine the issue of an airport hub,  with giving consideration to aircraft emissions policies.


DfT expect the final policy document would appear in March 2013 although it could be published earlier if Ministers wish.


In his Budget speech, George Osborne said:


“We’re the first British government to set out in a National Infrastructure Plan the projects we are going to prioritise in the coming decade."


“The roads, railways, clean energy and water, and broadband networks we need are all identified."


“I also believe this country must confront the lack of airport capacity in the South East of England – we cannot cut ourselves off from the fastest growing cities in the world."


“The Transport Secretary will set out Government thinking later this summer.”

Airport City - against and for

From Manchester Climate Monthly:

http://manchesterclimatemonthly.net/2012/01/20/airport-city-against-and-for/

Last week, accompanied by a certain amount of civic boosterism (always in short supply in Manchester), the £659 million “Airport City” project got the go-ahead. It will, in essence, be a whole wodge of offices, call centres, logistics centres and the like around t’Airport. Will it suck money and businesses from elsewhere in a beggar-thy-neighbour manner, or generate ‘new revenue streams’? That’s for the economists to discuss. We at Manchester Climate Monthly were more interested in what various “green” groups thought of it – and, crucially – what they wanted their members and supporters to do about it. And, for the sake of some new-fangled thing called “journalistic balance,” we’ve also asked the Liberal Democrats, the Airport and Manchester City Council (55% owners thereof) for statements on how a whopping big business park predicated on flying is consistent with a ‘low-carbon Manchester’. Read on!!

First, we asked various green groups “Is the proposed development of “Airport City” consistent with a low carbon Manchester?” You will be shocked, shocked to find that they thought “no.” Stop Expansion at Manchester Airport (the clue is in the name) told us “the scheme plans to attract businesses that will ‘serve the growing demand at the Airport’ – thus coupling economic growth with rising carbon emissions from flights. It is mistake to tie prosperity creation to high carbon industries like aviation.
Secondly, 80% of trips to the Airport today are made by car – so creating more activity at the Airport will lead to an increase in car emissions. The major transport addition in the plans is the controversial SEMMMS road link (South East Manchester Multi Modal Study) – which will cause a rise in road emissions.
Thirdly, the Airport City scheme plans to build on Green Belt areas – which is not consistent with a low carbon, green vision of Manchester.”

The Manchester Green Party told us “Anything which increases the role of the Airport and which encourages air travel will make it much harder for Manchester council to achieve its carbon reduction target” and pointed us to their website article posted after we contacted them.

Second up, we asked them, if they didn’t think it was consistent, then “what actions is your organisation taking/encouraging its members to take?”

SEMA said “The Airport City scheme has already been approved from on-high by the Chancellor George Osbourne. Within this scenario we need to limit the damage the scheme will cause as it goes ahead. Along with other groups, we have urged the Council that the scheme is carried forward in a way that doesn’t compete with other economic areas in the Manchester region – and that the SEMMMS road is not given planning permission. People should voice their disapproval of the SEMMMS road to the Manchester and Stockport Councils directly. “

The Green Party said “I think it’s safe to say that Manchester Green Party will never support this Zone by opening an office there, in spite of the low taxes. More seriously we will campaign against this and similar proposals in our role as a political Party within and alongside electoral politics.”

The Manchester Liberal Demcrats favour the project. Councillor Marc Ramsbottom, leader of the Opposition stated that his party “fully welcomed Airport City and are delighted that the Coalition Government have made the project possible. Airport City could create 13,000 jobs and help the regeneration of Wythenshawe; making Wythenshawe and Manchester more economically sustainable. The project is aiming to attract global businesses, and particularly those connected with the Aviation industry.”
He continued “I hope that this will encourage R&D to make aviation more environmentally friendly and Manchester Airport more sustainable. I also believe that the project is consistent with Manchester Airports objectives to cut down on Domestic flights, which I believe are unnecessary and one the major reasons the aviation industry can be so damaging.”

And here’s where their opponents will doubtless say they are wanting to have their cake and eat it: “Whilst Manchester Liberal Democrats support Manchester Airport as a key player in employment and growth in the North West, we believe it’s expansion (which Airport City is a part of) must be sustainable. We believe that there is an inconsistency between the government’s policy on CO2 emissions, and the government’s policy of airport expansion. These inconsistencies need resolving. We believe that the Council and Airport should set Carbon Reduction Targets based on 2005 levels. We believe a full cost benefit analysis should be done before any significant infrastructure development at the Airport.”

So, what do they think should be done?
* local people to benefit from the jobs created at Airport City.
* Council and developers to encourage R and D investment.
* Manchester Airport to continue to reduce the number of Domestic Flights.
* the Council to invest revenue generated from Airport City into schemes to reduce carbon and promote sustainability.
* The Council to include Airport City and Manchester Airport in the City Council’s Climate Change Action Plan so they can be part of a low carbon Manchester.
* the Council and Airport to set Carbon Reduction Targets based on 2005 levels.
* a full cost benefit analysis to be carried out.
* Airport City and Manchester Airport to be included in the City Council’s Biodiversity Action Plan

And now for the organisations who are usually quoted at the top of these sorts of opinion-scanning pieces.

Manchester City Council supplied the following;
Councillor Nigel Murphy, Manchester City Council’s executive member for the environment, said: “Airport City, which will create an estimated 20,000 jobs in a wide variety of sectors, will be designed to the highest environmental standards possible and will be built with a series of green bridges ensuring that every part of its northern zone is within an eight minute walk from the airport’s bus and rail hub.
“Airport City will also be one of the best connected sites for public transport anywhere in the country, with a new Metrolink line currently being built to complement existing rail connections and planned and committed improvements to the road system.”

and the Airport press office gave us this;
John Atkins, Airport City Director for the Manchester Airports Group, said: “Airport City will be a central project for the Group over the next ten years and we will look to construct buildings that are low carbon in design. It’s a project that will have social cohesion and the local community of Wythenshawe at its heart. Alongside existing community initiatives, we will continue to support schemes that improve levels of skills, education and attainment while reducing unemployment locally and equipping local people to compete for new jobs on-site. The new Metrolink extension to the airport will also assist in the delivery of that objective.”

Other groups we asked
Manchester Campaign against Climate Change didn’t reply to two email requests.
Manchester Friends of the Earth were unable to provide a statement by our deadline.

Editorial: Who wants to be an Enemy of the People?
To understand what’s going on here, we need to turn to a 19^th century Norwegian playwright [Ed: er is this right?] Henrik Ibsen wrote a play called “An Enemy of the People.” Its main character is a beloved town doctor who has brought people into the world, treated their illnesses, reduced their pain as they die. Everyone loves him. Then he makes a mistake: he analyses the actual quality of the water at the town’s famous spa, which earns huge revenues from visitors coming from all over Europe. Worse, he lacks the common sense and decency to keep schtum about the fact that the water is quite the opposite of healthy…

For over 100 years Manchester was about export and innovation. After the decline of the 70s and 80s, a ‘renaissance’ has taken place (for some) around inward investment, of which the Airport is perceived to be a crucial component. And woe betide anyone who says the waters aren’t healthy. But then again, also woe betide anyone who grumps about the waters without doing work on what else people are going to drink…