Three hours before the launch of the Department for Transport's aviation policy consultation document on July 23 2002, I took an unexpected telephone call from a senior Government source. What the mole had to say seemed almost unbelievable. One of the options to be set out by the DfT, he suggested, would involve the construction of a £7 billion airport, larger than Heathrow, in the Warwickshire green belt near Rugby. An entire village - Church Lawford - would be obliterated along with surrounding farms and properties. And if that wasn't enough, the second part of the DfT's vision for the Midlands was even more extraordinary. If Rugby airport was deemed necessary to cope with growing demand for air travel, Birmingham International Airport would have to close on the grounds that it would be uneconomic to have two major airports within 20 miles of each other. The scenario as unfolded by Transport Secretary Alistair Darling was described by Warwick-shire County Council as a "bombshell". Within days vociferous anti-Rugby airport groups had been set up, petitions were being collected and local MPs lobbied as property prices in Church Lawford and surrounding villages took a dive. The initial reaction from local authority leaders tended towards the view that the Rugby airport plan was so absurd that it had been included in the consultation document simply to draw fire away from the intention to expand existing airports. This school of thought was reinforced by one of the DfT's other proposals which envisaged building a second runway at BIA, if Rugby airport was ruled out. Further examination of the consultation document uncovered an important caveat. Rugby airport would only have to be built if the Government ruled out providing an additional runway at either Stansted, Hea-throw or Gatwick airports. In other words, many of the 64 million passenger movements a year at Rugby airport would come from London and South-east England - putting yet more strain on the motorway network and the West Coast Main Line. As a Warwickshire County Council briefing paper noted: "What is particularly irksome for Warwickshire people is that the proposed Rugby airport has not been put forward as a project to advance the economy, let alone any wider interests, of the Midlands at all." The suggestion of a second runway at BIA took officials at the airport by surprise. Expansion of the existing runway, which had long been anticipated, was certain to provoke opposition from local protest groups. Construction of an additional runway was envisaged as highly controversial and, in any case, the economic case for doing so was thought to be many years away. Within weeks of Mr Darling's announcement political leaders across the West Midlands managed to thrash out an agreed line - no mean feat given the mutual suspicion between rural shire counties and the Birmingham metropolis. Securing outright opposition to Rugby airport proved to be easy. No local authority in the Midlands, it emerged, would countenance what was seen as an environ-mentally damaging and unnecessary scheme. Reaching a position with regard to BIA behind which all sides could unite proved more troublesome. Talks among the major local authorities sought to reach agreement, preferably devising a policy that would get the backing of Solihull Council, the planning authority for the airport. Although views on the desirability of a second runway differed, most councils were united in a belief that the closure of BIA would represent economic disaster for Birmingham and the West Midlands. A statement by the leaders of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups on Warwickshire County Council suggested the impact of losing BIA could not be overstated: "We firmly believe that the economic viability of the West Midlands is best served by retaining BIA - an existing, thriving, successful airport, generating almost £200 million income to the region, and supporting 40,000 jobs - rather than allowing it to be closed and another airport being developed at Rugby." Eventually, a form of wording was hammered out in support of BIA's alternative proposal for a shorter second runway that would impact on fewer villages. A report, commissioned by Warwickshire County Council, by consultants Jacobs, called into question the need in the short term for a second runway at BIA, saying the DfT had severely over-estimated the likely future demand for air transport. While the DfT predicted 64 million passenger movements per year in the Midlands by 2030, the consultants predicted 33 million, which in itself represents a 200 per cent increase on existing levels. | 
Article
