DCO or hybrid bill for next runway

This entry reports on the current state of proposals for the next runway in the UK.

At a conference last week run by Runways UK, a group headed by Baroness (Brenda) Dean of which I had hitherto been unware, the promoters of the three and a half runway projects shortlisted by the Airports Commission last month set out their stalls. I say three and a half because three made it to the shortlist and a fourth might still do so but needs more work.

Before they did so, the Commission head Sir Howard Davies gave an entertaining speech about the shortlist and next steps. One of these, he intriguingly said, was that after the publication of the commission's preferred proposal in the summer of next year, if the government endorsed the proposal it would either produce a National Policy Statement or a hybrid Bill.

In other words he is leaving the possibility open that the runway would not use the Planning Act 2008, which it was arguably created to authorise, but could use the same method as is currently being used for HS2 phase 1, a stand-alone Act of Parliament. Despite that, my money is still on the former route being used. I think it unlikely that the government would promote the runway, and a private company is unlikely to be able to do so while the Planning Act remains available.

He launched two new consultations that day: one on an appraisal framework, i.e. how the shortlisted options should be presented and appraised, finishing on 28 February, and one calling for evidence on the feasibility of an 'Inner Thames Estuary Airport', closing on 23 May.

Sir Howard was then followed by Baroness Valentine, Chair of London First, and Daniel Moylan, spokesman for Mayor of London Boris Johnson. The latter speech grabbed the headlines because not only was it sprinkled with soundbites, with reference to the Baftas, Simon Cowell and Rubik's cubes, but disparaged the work of the Commission to date (Heathrow expansion would be the 'worst possible outcome' for London) because it hadn't engaged with Boris enough.

The three and a half options were then presented by:

• Huw Thomas of Foster and Parters for a new airport on the Isle of Grain in north Kent (not actually an island, or made of grain for that matter);
• Stewart Wingate of Gatwick Airport for a second runway there to the south of the existing one;
• Colin Matthews of Heathrow Airport for a third runway there to the north west of the existing one; and
• wildcard Jock Lowe of Heathrow Hub for a third runway at Heathrow that effectively involved doubling the length of the existing northern one.

The Heathrow versus Gatwick debate centred around whether hub capacity should be increased (i.e. where passengers could change between short to medium haul and long haul on the same airline at the same airport) or the future lay in 'point to point' as well (i.e. lots of short and medium haul flights from different airlines and a few long haul ones). There was some disagreement about how many cities around the world followed each model. Noise and surface access (i.e. how you get to and from the airport) were the two other main issues.

Althought an estuary airport could still make it to the shortlist by the end of this year, I got the vibe that Sir Howard was pretty sceptical that it would do so, principally given its cost and the environmental implications. On the latter he said that it had to be shown that there was no alternative before the damage to protected nature sites could be sanctioned, which might be difficult. He didn't express the difficulty but it is surely the existence of the other three options.

I got the chance to ask Colin Matthews the question that must have been in many people's minds - would he endorse the Heathrow Hub option if it was chosen by the Commission? Not surprisingly he said that he was focusing his energy on Heathrow Airport's own option and declined to answer. Moderator Kirsty Wark, obviously better at these things than me, got the reverse, though - Jock Lowe would be happy to endorse the official Heathrow option if it were chosen (and would 'leave the country' if Gatwick were chosen).

Many of the sessions were accompanied by live 'mind mapping' on a screen on the stage where a summary of what was being said in a hierarchy of boxes was created as the speakers were speaking, something I hadn't seen before. It was entertaining, if a little distracting, but they should really have been able to spell 'Stansted' correctly.

There is no doubt that an application under the Planning Act 2008 for a new runway would be a huge one, but it would probably be no larger than, say, the Thames Tideway Tunnel or Hinkley Point C. Also, because the one stop shop nature of the regime was modelled on speeding up consenting with Heathrow Terminal 5 as a case study, it is in many ways designed to streamline this particular form of infrastructure. Bring it on!