Report on Public Consultation

Regeneration Vision, Public and Stakeholder Consultation findings

31st March 2004

1. Background

Shoreham Airport Joint Authority Member Task Group commissioned Drivers Jonas in March 2003 to develop and secure agreement to a regeneration vision and plan for Shoreham Airport.

The core principles of the regeneration vision were to:

• Retain the operation of an airport at Shoreham whilst protecting and enhancing the existing "strategic gap" with environmental protection
• Maximise the opportunities for the site to be a multi-modal transport hub (including park and ride and a parkway)
• Expand and safeguard existing employment opportunities at the Airport
• Develop an agreed development brief and design standards to support local planning policy for the regeneration vision
• Ensure there is thorough community and stakeholder consultation

Six options for the development and regeneration of the airport were presented to the Joint Authority Member Task Group. These were analysed with a SWOT assessment and were subject to an economic appraisal examining the costs of development and the subsequent potential to generate income.

The Joint Authority Member Task Group agreed to select the two regeneration options for further detailed analysis and to present as part of the public and stakeholder consultation. These were:

• Option A - Not to build any new runways but allowing an increase in the number of aircraft traffic movements from 75,000 per annum to up to 100,000 per annum.
• Option B - Build a new runway that has the least impact on existing housing areas and increases the number of aircraft traffic movements from 75,000 per annum to up to 100,000 per annum.

2. Public and Stakeholder Consultation

The Options were to be consulted to receive public and stakeholder feedback.

The consultation process was originally planned to run from 17th November 2003 to 19th December 2003. However, the Owning Authorities received a number of requests to lengthen the consultation period and the Chair of the Joint Authority Member Task Group agreed to extend the consultation timetable to 16th January 2004. In total and including the Christmas break, the consultation period lasted nine weeks. The consultation included:

• A detailed briefing presentation to elected members from Brighton & Hove City Council, Worthing Borough Council, Adur District Council, West Sussex County Council and Lancing Parish Council.
• Press briefings, articles and interviews published with local daily and weekly newspapers, local and regional radio and television stations during the consultation period.
• Leaflet distribution to 4,000 homes in the immediate vicinity of the Airport publicising dates and locations for the public exhibition and public meetings.
• Dedicated web pages designed and installed on the Shoreham Airport Website publicising the information contained in the public exhibition materials and enabled individuals and stakeholders to participate remotely and provide electronic responses.
• Stakeholder consultation with local and regional organisations.
• Meetings were held with staff, businesses and tenants at Shoreham Airport to keep them informed of the consultation process and the regeneration options being considered.
• Public exhibitions detailing the regeneration options being considered was held at the following venues - Shoreham Airport between 28th and 30th November 2003, Adur Civic Centre between 1st December 2003 to 12 December 2003 and between 5th January 2004 to 16th January 2004 and Lancing Parish Hall 15th December 2003 to 5th January 2004.
• Two public meetings were conducted and independently chaired, one at Adur Civic Centre on 9th December 2003 and the second at Lancing Parish Hall on 16th December 2003.
• A Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) information sheet was produced which provided responses to a range of questions/issues on topics such as the Strategic Gap, environment, noise pollution, job creation and investment and transport.

Responses to the proposals were sought at every stage from the public and key stakeholders and during the consultation process:

• Over 200 people attended the public exhibition at Shoreham Airport and many hundreds more will have viewed the proposals at the other venues.
• Over 6,500 hits on these web pages were recorded on the Airport’s website pages during the consultation period.
• Over 350 people attended the public meetings.
• 12 regional and local stakeholders were interviewed or provided their views.
• The Owning Authorities received 440 individual responses during the consultation by email, fax or letter.

3. Consultation Findings

3.1 Stakeholder Responses

There were 12 key stakeholders that contributed directly to the consultation. Their comments have been summarised below:

• Lancing College - raised concern over future noise and traffic congestion and asked to be kept informed of progress of the proposals.
• Shoreham Airport Consultative Committee - welcomed consideration of future development as maximum flight numbers were being reached. A sustainable development strategy would be required to cover all aspects of development. No favoured option reported at this time until full environmental, traffic and other relevant assessments are prepared. The Committee reported the need to balance impact on local people as well as wider economic benefits.
• West Sussex County Council - Shoreham Airport is an important facility providing jobs and encouraging inward investment into the local area. The Council reported the need for a balance to be struck between the environment and economy and a review that the proposed development might have with regard to aircraft over the surrounding community and the floodplain. The Council wishes to see a detailed sustainability study before any plans for development come forward.
• Sussex Downs Conservation Board - reported concern over Option B (due to noise, light and re-alignment over Devil’s Dyke but would comment more fully after publication of a full environmental Impact Assessment EIA. The Board reported that Option A did not provide a threat to the enjoyment of the Downs provided any new development is developed with sensitivity.
• Adur & District Chamber of Commerce - reported that the project needs to balance economic development and environmental impacts and that wider support will be required to make further progress but without further information they were unable to comment further.
• Brighton and Hove Friends of the Earth - Concern over the government’s "predict and provide" policy for aviation. They would prefer to see the airport remain at its existing operational level. However, if proposals were to be progressed, they would like to ensure clear environmental limits in respect of noise and air quality, firm agreements with public transport providers to ensure bus and rail links area in place before expansion and compensation for local residents adversely affected by reductions in property prices and damage to health and or quality of life.
• English Heritage - reported that they would prefer to see the airport remain at its existing operational level. Concern was raised as to the existing terminal building and its setting to ensure they were protected as part of any future proposal for the airport.
• Sussex Enterprise - welcomed the possibility of commercial flights and the forecast increase in employment opportunities. They reported that either option will improve Shoreham’s standing and could support the need to regenerate Sussex coastal towns. Impacts on quality of life must be carefully considered alongside the traffic solutions for the already stretched A27.
• Environment Agency - raised concerns over flood risk and conservation issues (effects on existing habitats and drainage). The site of regional importance and mitigation package would be required. The Agency would currently object to Option B without the publication of the detailed sustainability, environmental and traffic impact assessments.
• Brighton and Hove Economic Partnership - endorses option B as providing the wider economic and regenerative benefits for the sub-region. The partnership would like to see a full investigation into the park and ride or rail and ride in conjunction with improvements to the A27 access road for the site.
• West Sussex County Council (Highway department) - recommended another all purpose road access to the site for emergency purposes.
• Adur Economic Partnership - broadly supports the proposals but subject to a full sustainability study.
• Adur District Council - are providing a formal response to the proposals following a report to Adur Members on 23rd March 2004.

3.2 Individual Responses

Of the 440 responses submitted by the public, some 70% were Adur District residents, 7% were residents of Brighton & Hove, 3% were residents of Worthing and 20% were residents from outside these area or their address details withheld. A summary of the issues raised by all respondents is summarised in the pie chart below:

Overview of responses:

• The largest concern raised was regarding the effects of aircraft. This comprised issues over noise and emissions from aircraft together with concerns about safety. As reported later in this report, these issues were mainly raised regarding the development proposed under Option B.
• Twenty three per cent of respondents reported that local transport was an issue. A large part of this group raised issues regarding the existing local road congestion and additional development demands could mean the situation would deteriorate if appropriate solutions were not implemented. However, this section included those that viewed future development at the airport as a catalyst for improvements to either the road network or public transport offerings such as rail.
• Nineteen per cent of respondents felt it would have an economic impact on the area. The bulk of these responses felt the proposals would have a positive effect on the economy, whilst a minority were concerned that they would damage local business and leisure activities.
• Six per cent felt that there would be an environmental impact on the local area, particularly that the proposed flight route would affect peoples’ enjoyment of the South Downs and that emissions would damage the conservation of the area. Again, as will be identified later this issue was mainly raised for the Option B proposals.
• Compared with other significant or contentious applications in the nearby area, the consultation did not receive a substantial number of responses relative to the local population. 440 responses were received (70% from Adur residents) from a population of the Adur District of 59,180 - of these 31,875 are residents of Shoreham and Southwick and 27,265 are residents of Lancing and Sompting).

Option A

The respondents who commented on Option A were broadly in favour. Of the 221 of respondents who expressed an opinion 116 (52%) of the respondents were in favour whilst 105 (48%) respondents were opposed to it. A number of those who voted in favour reported that would prefer Option A as being the lesser of the two options presented.

The main issues raised amongst the respondents who supported Option A was the threat to leisure activities in the area. This group included hang-gliders and paragliders who expressed concern that their site at Devil’s Dyke might be adversely affected by Option B as well as those who were concerned over the adverse effect on the South Downs - including walkers and horse-riders.

The second most significant issue raised was over noise - this group only supported Option A assuming that sufficient controls were placed to minimise noise emissions.

The main issue raised by respondents against Option A was that aircraft noise would impact on the standard of living, in particular upon local residents. Other concerns reported were that existing local road congestion could not support future development and that aircraft emissions would damage the local environment. Respondents were also concerned that their houses would depreciate in value or considered that the airport would be better used for alternative development or community uses.

Option B

The respondents who commented on Option B were broadly against this option. Of the 409 of respondents who expressed an opinion on this option, 87 (21%) were in support and 322 (79%) were against.

Of 87 respondents that were in favour of Option B the main issue raised was the benefit to the local area from a commercial airport. The second most important issue, 18% of the issues raised, was to ensure the airport remained open and that Option B would secure its financial future.

However, noise, improved public transport and local road networks were raised as by a number of these respondents (9%, 8% and 7% of this group respectfully) on barriers that had to be overcome before development.

Those against Option B raised a wide variety of reasons. The most significant issue was noise impact. This reflects that should this option be delivered, the noise contours would change so that they would affect a part of south Lancing that was previously not overflown by aircraft from the Airport.

Another significant issue raised by these respondents was congestion in that they believed that the additional traffic caused by the introduction of commercial flights would place additional pressure on the road network, particularly the A27 which is already approaching operational capacity.

The third major issue raised was environmental, in particular respondents reported concern over the effects to the airfield, the adverse effect of pollution and lighting from a re-aligned runway.

In addition, some 11% of the issues raised in opposition to Option B were concerned over the effect of their future leisure activity. This group comprises hang-gliders and paragliders from Devil’s Dyke and walkers and horse riders who use the Downs for leisure activities.

4. Conclusions

In considering the results and findings from all three stages completed by Drivas Jonas on the regeneration vision and future for Shoreham Airport, the Joint Authority Member Task Group considered five options for the Airport’s future.

1. To progress Option A
2. To progress Option B
3. Do nothing
4. Close the Airport as an operational aviation facility but retain the management of the land for business, leisure and retail uses
5. Market test the Airport as a going concern, seek a private sector partner to further progress the regeneration of the airport.

In reviewing the study’s findings and in an attempt to keep to the original principles of the project and not to further blight the Airport and its environs by delaying any decision, the Joint Authority Member Task Group recommend that the Owning Authorities market test the Airport as a going concern and seek a private sector partner to further progress the regeneration of the Airport.

This option recognises the public and stakeholder views provided (for example that Option B cannot be progressed at this stage without the completion of detailed sustainability, traffic and environmental impact assessments) whilst retaining an operational Airport at Shoreham with a view to safeguarding its financial future.

It will seek the market’s views on the Airport and its future potential to act as a catalyst for the continued regeneration of this coastal sub-region.

In essence, should the market indicate that there is sufficient demand for the delivery of a regeneration option (which could be Options A or B, one between Option A and B or indeed a further option not actively considered to date) then the Owning Authorities could seek a private sector partner to share or front the financial risk.

The Owning Authorities fully recognise that Adur District Council is the local planning authority and West Sussex County Council the strategic planning authority for any further development or regeneration activity at the Airport.

Any future masterplanning will need to fit with the emerging Local Development Framework for the Adur area and will include appropriate consultation with stakeholders and residents.

Previous page    Next page