All the other options that were rejected either:
- I. Retained the present limits on aircraft operations and/or
- II. Considered other alignments for a replacement main runway that had operational advantages, but, if adopted, would result in the overflying of a much larger built-up area
Retaining the existing restrictions on the number of movements, size of aircraft and operating hours would mean that the airport’s operations and income would remain virtually capped at existing levels.
While this remains an option, it is not a development option and therefore not one that would require public consultation or planning approval. Clearly such an option does nothing to secure the financial future of the airport and would be completely unattractive to investors.
What became clear from the technical studies was that construction of a new main runway is a prerequisite for the development of commercial air services and that a Code 2C 1,199m is the longest runway (within existing CAA rules) that could be built on the undeveloped land.
The construction and operating costs for such a replacement main runway would be much the same for all of the three possible alignments and this would also be true, irrespective of any limit on the number of movements.
Therefore, the retention of the 75,000 limit on the total number of annual runway movements would also mean that any commercial aircraft movements would have to displace existing general aviation traffic, which would result in significantly less income than if total numbers of movements were allowed to grow.
In considering the commercial viability of each of the options, the consultants advised the Councils that retaining the existing cap on the number of movements would be less likely to secure the financial viability of the airport or attract any private sector investment. In addition, retaining the existing Section 52 Agreement restrictions on aircraft size and operating hours would so limit the development of commercial air services, that this would also represent a "do nothing" option that could never financially support the cost of runway and terminal improvements.
All the options that included a new main runway also require the purchase of the undeveloped land to the west of the existing airfield, east of North Lancing and north of the railway. Even then, there is no prospect of building an 1,800m long Code 3C runway (as per SERAS), which is the minimum requirement for B737 and A320 jet operations. Thus short haul services by full-service, charter or no-frills carriers cannot develop at Shoreham. Reducing the length in stages down to 1,200m did not produce a solution, as the CAA now requires the application of all the clearances and obstacle surfaces for a new Code 3 runway down to that length.
Consequently, the only options considered further were for a Code 2 runway 1,199m long, as there is sufficient space on the extended site for such a runway and all the required clearance and safety areas.
Extending the existing surfaced runway to this length, or aligning a new runway through the relatively undeveloped gap immediately east of South Lancing (i.e. over the Happy Days Caravan Park) also proved impossible due to insufficient space and high ground to the north.
The alignments considered were 05/23 with a 4 degree approach, 06/24 with a 3.5 degree approach and 07/25 with a standard 3.0 degree approach. Even though it required the steepest angle of approach, the 05/23 alignment was selected as the preferred alignment as it resulted in the over-flying of the smallest built-up area.
|
