Vision for a new £30million airport in Plymouth is unveiled
PLYMOUTH'S airport could become a £25-£30million "world class international gateway" under plans being worked on by a group of businesspeople campaigning to save it.
The Viable group has today unveiled a vision for the Derriford site which would see the runway extended, a new terminal built and land turned over for lucrative commercial use.
Viable will discuss the plans with Plymouth City Council next month, but has given The Herald a preview of how it sees the airport potentially developing.
The Sutton Harbour Group (SHG), which operates the airport on a 150-year-lease from Plymouth City Council, is shutting the facility today saying it is not economically sustainable.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Friday, May 31 2013
But Viable, which opposed the closure, disagrees with the suggestion Plymouth can't support a top-class aerodrome.
Basing its design on London City Airport, Viable envisages a facility that could eventually handle up to a million passengers a year.
The phased project would take up to 10 years to fully realise, initially seeing the reopening of the airport with restricted operation and limited services.
But the group said that after about three years the operation could be expanded dramatically.
Its vision is for the runway to be extended from 1,160 metres to its maximum 1,390 metres, so larger aircraft can be welcomed. A runway "loop" would mean aircraft can wait for take-off slots diminishing delays. But ahead of this, a simple initial resurfacing of the runway would only cost £500,000, Viable said, a quarter of the expected cost.
A new, larger terminal could be built, at right angles to the current terminal, which would be demolished.
That, along with using the current car park, would free space to create a commercial hub, which could be turned into a mixed-use scheme containing elements such as a conference centre, shops, offices, a hotel and possibly even a cinema, with short-stay car parking, and bring in about £7million.
A new building could be constructed at the upper end of the site, which would house private aircraft and the Royal Navy's Flag Officer Sea Training (FOST) team.
This building, if constructed first, could be used as the terminal while the main building is under development.
It is envisioned that if the airport goes through such expansion it could accommodate increasingly larger aircraft, starting at 20-seaters, and 100,000 annual passengers, in the first three years, moving to 50-seaters and 115-seaters.
That would mean Plymouth could link to more than 30 international airports, including Paris and Amsterdam, which would give it a worldwide reach.
Viable chairman Raoul Witherall said the cost of expanding the airport proposals would be about £25million to £30million.
However, revenue streams included developing the commercial space, rental from private planes and FOST, income from short- and long-stay car parks, and a possible city-wide Business Improvement District.
He said: "It will give us a world class international gateway and an airport for the next 100 years. This will connect us to the world and put Plymouth back on the map. Not only could this be done, but it should be done.
"We are seeing Plymouth City Council in the new year, explaining how this works."
Mr Witherall said that compared to the colossal cost of building motorways, an airport investment would be "cheap for the long-term value it gives Plymouth".
It would also support Plymouth's economic objectives and become "a symbol of the city's pride and ambitions".
In August, the council's Cabinet backed SHG's plans to shut the airport on December 23, after SHG had produced two consultants' reports which said no one wanted to run the airport or flights, and not enough businesses used the airstrip to make it economically viable.
Mr Witherall said that in addition to presenting its vision for the site, Viable would still continue to work to protect the airport, opposing any planning applications and probing into what happened to millions of pounds received by SHG following the 2007 sale of airport land for housing.
Meanwhile, Moor View's Labour MP Alison Seabeck has written to Minister of State for Transport Theresa Villiers, who recently promised to look at state aid for regional air services, in a last ditch attempt to get Government funding to save the airport.
"I am extremely disappointed no solution could be found to save the airport," said Ms Seabeck. "It will be a great loss to Plymouth, especially the business community."
See Your Say – Pages 10-11






Comments
by sadperson
Monday, June 25 2012, 9:27PM
“Oh look! .... flying pigs. Whatever next!”
by fiest1406
Monday, June 25 2012, 5:13PM
“If the Seaton & Derriford Area Action Plan and Local Development Framework have designated Airport within. The planning department can turn down any application for housing development. I cannot therefore see how SSH can pursue any further claim to the existing site? Leaves one to question how an Armageddon clause entered a contract on another asset that belongs to us ;the tax payers not 57 councillors? Whomever wrote this contract should be fired. The railway argument is a non-starter merely a PR stunt to deflect attention from the airport...however, if we are to try and sustain and encourage industry to return to the same levels of the early 80's a regional airport needs to be maintained.”
by domlanic
Monday, June 25 2012, 3:57PM
“Those 'fling' goggles = FLYING goggles; can't see an edit button on this site...”
by domlanic
Monday, June 25 2012, 3:55PM
“In the late 90's I used Roborough for European travel via Gatwick; in those slow, noisy turboprops one almost needed leather helmets and fling goggles! Cost was outrageous whereas Inter City 125 was fast, comfortable and far cheaper. Taking account of the taxi plus transit time to city, no contest.
PCC has never had the wit or understanding to realise a modern city needs a modern airport for more than just transport- it is a reflection civic status.
HOW is it that NEWQUAY, of all places has a viable(?) airport whilst a city of 240,000 does not??
PS- *** has happened to the IC125, by the way? Now an hour slower than 20 yrs ago!”
by mcspredder
Thursday, January 05 2012, 2:38PM
“If 15 traveller/gypsy pitches cost £790,000 (or £1.1m in Teignbridge) £30m for an airport sounds quite reasonable.”
by Dunthiel
Thursday, January 05 2012, 2:23PM
“1,650m is a fair way off the mark, so I'm afraid they are wrong. According to NATS the physical length of pavement is 1,508m x 30m, Google Earth is a pretty accurate gauging tool as well.”
by anglo_dutch
Thursday, January 05 2012, 2:05PM
“I have just checked again on websites and London City is said to have a length of 1,650 metres.
As with all aircraft the question is at which % of MTOW is required to make it viable and within safety limits.”
by Dunthiel
Thursday, January 05 2012, 12:50AM
“That must be a typo in the Herald article, I believe the runway length would be 1,319m which is exactly the same as London City. It would make sense as airports of that category can't be certified for anything longer and only certified lengths can be used to calculate take off/landing performance, even if the physical runway is longer. If I'm remembering correctly the total tarmac length of this design is about 1500m, so it has a good safety margin.
Check again on Embraer's site because I think you might be looking at MTOW/MLW data, or their older ERJ 135/145 models which use a horrific amount of runway; they even struggle at Bristol. Likewise the smaller Bombardier CRJs have atrocious performance, both types drink fuel too and are being phased out by many airlines. It may seem counter-intuitive, but the newer larger regional aircraft have better performance and efficiency, not to mention being quieter outside and more comfortable inside.”
by anglo_dutch
Wednesday, January 04 2012, 11:48PM
“I would support the idea but worry that 1,390 metres is not a viable proposition for the plans.
Looking at sites for Bombadier and Embraer , even their smaller airliners need more than that for safe operations.
I don't know of any 100 capacity jetliners that could use a 1,390 m strip.Even London city is longer.”
by ceebeeone
Wednesday, January 04 2012, 10:09AM
“Well done VIABLE! At least you have the cojones to continue with your plans despite what the negatives are saying. I look forward to a fabulous airport - just hope I am not too old to fly by the time it's ready!”