Consultation Portal

Alternative Options put forward during the Issues and Options Consultation, December 2007 to February 2008

 

AO 1 Alternative Option submitted by Manchester Resident

I would prefer to see a third option which breaks out of the narrow thinking of the other options and looks at how Manchester would address the challenges which the 21st century will really provide.  There is a growing movement of transition towns; returning to my earlier comment about the world’s first industrial city; it would be a real achievement for the City to become the world’s first transition city.

(NB Quote from Transition Town Network website: A Transition Initiative is a community working together to look Peak Oil and Climate Change squarely in the eye and address this BIG question: "for all those aspects of life that this community needs in order to sustain itself and thrive, how do we significantly increase resilience (to mitigate the effects of Peak Oil) and drastically reduce carbon emissions (to mitigate the effects of Climate Change)?" )

Response:

The suggestion of a transition city does not necessarily constitute a separate option to A and B. Options A and B both underpin the aspirations and targets of Manchester’s Green City in particular addressing the issues of climate change mitigation and adaptation. The Core Strategy will be in accordance with and underpin Manchester’s Climate Change Call to Action, which is’ specifically aimed at reducing carbon emissions and adapting the City to climate change. The ‘Call to Action’ is grounded in the values and the three spines of the Community Strategy and as such is consistent with the vision for Manchester that the Council and its partners have agreed to. Transition city status is not explicitly mentioned but some of the values and principles of the approach will be clear in the Call to Action, in particular the need to establish Manchester as a “low carbon city by 2020” which includes encouraging neighbourhood or community groups to identify opportunities across the city in which to pilot transformational Low Carbon Communities.

 

AO 2 Alternative Option submitted by Manchester Resident

The kind of “C” that we would propose would recognise the impact of the congestion charge, and allow for some of the developments which you envisage in the City Centre/Regional Centre area to take place outside the ring.  If you want this to be in Manchester this implies Wythenshawe / Airport area, at one of the nodes of the regional transport system. 

“C” should contain a firmer affirmation of Greenbelt land, including that around the Airport, than appears to be the case in your B. 

“C” should recognise that many wards within the City are already overcrowded, in that the land which is free for development is already well developed (the rest being flood relief areas, public parkland or the like) It should not therefore be seen as a failure if planning applications and completions of housing are not spread equally between wards.

And scheme “C” should refer down to the local Site Specific, or at least Ward Specific, documents yet to be prepared, requiring detailed local consultation.  This would give some greater force to local opportunities, needs and priorities.

Response:

Options A and B are based on the focus for development agreed in the Regional Spatial Strategy. The distribution of development in Option B in particular, has been refined further for discussion in this consultation. It is based on the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and Open Space audit. Further refinement will take place once the Employment Land Assessment and the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment are complete. Option B, therefore, does take into account where the capacity for new development is in the City and does not advocate an even distribution of development across wards. Option B will include strategic allocations for employment in Wythenshawe and in close proximity to the airport but would not support large scale employment development outside these areas.

The suggestion that policy should be set at ward and site specific level is an alternative option. The changes to PPS12 now allow strategic allocations to be included in Core Strategies which would go some way to providing the more local detail requested as these must all be accompanied by a detailed infrastructure plan. However strategic sites are not identified in all wards and at this stage the City does not intend to allocate any further sites. Setting policy at ward level would require a complex document that allows very little flexibility into the future. Setting policy for regeneration areas allows the various issues and characters of the different areas to be considered but also allows for some flexibility into the future.

 

AO 3 Alternative Option submitted by GM SERA, the Labour Environment Campaign.

Rather than the limited choice between Option A or B, I wish to the following adaptation of Option B.  A “sustainable communities” led approach which takes account of actions needed to reduce carbon emissions, with regeneration initiatives that are consistent with national and regional policy yet retaining a detailed local focus relating to type, phasing and distribution of development.

Response:

This suggestion is a variation on B and is similar to the suggestion of Manchester as a Transition City which is also a community led initiative to reducing dependency on oil including focussing on providing goods, jobs and services locally. The Core Strategy will be in accordance with and underpin Manchester’s Climate Change Call to Action which has been produced in recognition of the challenge of dramatically reducing citywide carbon emissions. The Call to Action states that the Council will encourage neighbourhood or community groups to identify opportunities across the city in which to pilot transformational Low Carbon Communities. This will demonstrate how existing neighbourhoods can combat climate change, improve their local environment, increase social cohesion and cut energy costs and fuel poverty through a comprehensive but affordable package of action to reduce their carbon footprint.

 

AO4 Alternative Option submitted by Manchester Friends of the Earth

The Core Strategy Issues and Options paper describes two options, both of which appear to assume the same level of economic growth, and an expansion of the airport's existing boundaries to accommodate a doubling of passenger numbers from 22 million today to 50 million in 2030.

We would like to propose an alternative option which differs from the options proposed in the Issues and Options paper in that it is based on a reduced rate of economic growth (in line with the recent downturn in the global economy), and a constraint on the growth of the airport by not permitting any further extension of its boundaries. 

Evidence base

Since the development of the two options in the Issues and Options Paper, there have been two notable developments which lead us to question the validity of certain aspects of the evidence base that has been used to prepare the options in the Issues and Option paper:

Climate change

The Government has reinforced the requirement for local development plans to contribute to national targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Planning Policy Statement on Climate Change1 (published December 2007) states:

To deliver sustainable development, and in doing so a full and appropriate response on climate change, regional planning bodies and all planning authorities should prepare, and manage the delivery of, spatial strategies that make a full contribution to delivering the Government’s Climate Change Programme and energy policies, and in doing so contribute to global sustainability.

And section 147 of the draft Planning Bill2 (published November 2007) states:

Development plan documents must (taken as a whole) include policies designed to secure that the development and use of land in the local planning authority's area contributes to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.

There have also been statements from the Government indicating that the emissions reductions targets in the draft Climate Change Bill are not ambitious and will need to be increased from 60% to 80% by 2050.  In his speech on climate change on 19 November 2007, the Prime Minister said:

“But the evidence now suggests that as part of an international agreement developed countries may have to reduce their emissions by up to 80%. So we will put this evidence to the Committee on Climate Change, ask it to advise us as it considers the first three five-year budgets on whether our own domestic target should be tightened up to 80%.”

And Manchester's Climate Change Strategy, the first incarnation of which is due to be published shortly, is likely to include an ambitious target for reducing Manchester's greenhouse gas emissions.

Global economy

Over the past year, there has been a significant downturn in the global economy.  For example, in December 2007, the CBI cut their growth forecast for 2008 to 2%, the third consecutive cut in this forecast.

Impact of the Alternative Option on Manchester Airport

Manchester Airport's Master Plan4 currently anticipates:

• A growth in passenger numbers from 22 million today to 50 million in 2030.
• A growth in operational area from 625 hectares in 2007 to 750 ha in 2030.
• An increase in efficiency from 36,388 passengers per hectare today to 62,500 ppha in 2030.

The Department for Transport's UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2 Forecasts predicts:

• A growth in passenger numbers from 22 million in 2005 to 46 million in 2030.
• An increase in CO2 emissions from 2.7 million tonnes per annum in 2005 to 5 million tonnes per annum in 2030.

Manchester's current CO2 emissions are 3.4 million tonnes per annum.  If we assume the Climate Change Bill will require cuts of 40% by 2030 (in line with a 2050 target of 80%), this means Manchester's emissions will need to be reduced by 1.4 million tonnes per annum to 2 million tonnes per annum by 2030.  A growth in emissions of 2.3 million tonnes per annum at the airport is clearly incompatible with this target, which makes it inevitable that policies will need to be introduced to constrain the growth of the airport.  

The global economic downturn will also lead to reduction in demand for air travel, which means that passenger number forecasts may be revised downwards.  Nevertheless, constraining the boundaries of the airport to the current 625 ha will still allow growth in passenger number to 39 million by 2030, assuming the airport meets its target to increase efficiency to 62,500 ppha.

References

1. Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change, December 2007:  http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/614742

2. Draft Planning Bill, November 2007: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmbills/011/2008011.pdf

3. PM's speech on climate change, 19 November 2007: http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page13791.asp

4. Manchester Airport Master Plan to 2030: http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/alldocs/0000A132708A606680257393003BBAA3/$File/Masterplan.pdf

5. UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2 Forecasts, November 2007: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/aviation/environmentalissues/ukairdemandandco2forecasts/airpassdemandfullreport.pdf

6. Gill. 2006. Climate Change and Green Infrastructure. University of Manchester PhD thesis.

Response:

The Government produced The Future of Air Transport White Paper in 2003 which sets out a strategic framework for the development of the industry for the next 25 years and encourages the growth of regional airports. Manchester is recognised as being of national and regional significance. In 2004, the Government then required airport operators to produce Master Plans. The Master Plans do not have any statutory status but must be taken into consideration when drafting LDF policy.

Manchester Airport is one of the principal components of economic growth in Manchester. The City Council agrees that global rates of air traffic growth are unsustainable in the long term but believes that it is not a realistic option for individual airports or cities to suppress their growth unilaterally ahead of  international agreements that lead to orderly, market-based reductions in overall emissions and the contraction in air travel that they may bring about. For this reason, the City Council will continue to support the Airport’s growth plans while strongly advocating the inclusion of aviation and shipping emissions within the scope of a comprehensive international carbon cap-and trade mechanism. The City Council will also press for the increased investment in major rail capacity that is likely to be an essential, practical substitute for reduced levels of air travel within the UK and northern Europe. There are a number of important avenues for the City Council to lobby for more concerted debate and action which includes Local Government Association Special Aviation Interest Group, Sustainable Aviation Coalition and Flying Matters –a lobbying group involving a cross sector from the industry and includes trade unions and businesses

Manchester Airport has committed to becoming carbon neutral in its site energy use and vehicle fuel – including major improvements in the way people access the Airport from the surrounding area. The City Council will do everything it can to help the Airport achieve this aim.

The Friends of the Earth (FOE) alternative option is a low growth scenario but with particular emphasis on restricting growth at the Airport. When considering options for the Core Strategy the validity of a low growth scenario was considered but discounted for the following reasons:-

• Without economic growth the target to reduce CO2 emissions could not be reached. Growth is essential to fund critical infrastructure e.g. renewable energy networks and to ensure innovation and progress in technology together with retrofitting to achieve carbon reduction in existing development.

• Without growth, neighbourhoods remain static and regeneration is slow or non-existent.

• All forecasts predicted high growth (GMFM, Cambridge Econometrics)

The most recent forecasts from GMFM have shown a fall in GVA and a slower growth than was originally predicted. However, the long term predictions show a recovery in growth.

In addition to low growth FOE argue that the airport should not be extended beyond its current boundaries. They suggest that growth could still take place if the Airport achieves its efficiency targets. Manchester Airport plc argues that the efficiency targets can only be reached if expansion takes place.

Manchester is currently proposing two possible approaches. Both propose that the current built-up area of the Airport be removed from the Green Belt. The first  will also support the expansion of the Airport in accordance with RSS and the Airport Masterplan where it can be shown to be essential to delivering the Government’s Framework and can be fully justified in terms of the need for specific areas of land and its impact on traffic, public transport and the environment including Green Belt.  This first approach would also propose an Area Action Plan if the need arises to provide the policy framework for large scale extension. The second approach would propose the extension of he operational areas in line with the Airport Masterplan and the removal of the operational areas (planned for built-up uses) from Green Belt based on a justified evidence base put forward by  Manchester Airport plc.