Agenda item

To consider the attached report (AMED-003-2014/15).

The Director of Neighbourhoods presented a report to the Cabinet Committee regarding the main runway at North Weald Airfield. He advised that the report provided up to date details in respect of the condition of the main runway (RW02/20) at North Weald Airfield and set out potential remedial options. The report also considered, in the confidential part of the report, Counsel’s opinion on obligations of the Council in respect of the leases/licences held by aviation tenants.

The Director stated that a number of reports had been commissioned since 1988 on the condition of the main runway. These included Scott Wilson in 1998, Halcrow in 2011 and Deloittes in 2013. The Halcrow report advised that the condition of the runway was suitable for its current use. Scott Wilson tested the runway and identified the pavement strength to have a classification number PCN 6. Tenants were informed of the runway classification number and advised that they would be able to occasionally operate aircraft in excess of a PCN 9 but the Council must be informed beforehand so they could inspect the runway and approve the operation.

The Director advised that RPS, an aviation based consultancy were commissioned to advise the Council on the steps required and probable costs related to bringing the main runway up to a standard of PCN 9.

The main findings of the report from RPS were as follows:

(a)          that the runway 02/20 is currently, in parts, under strength (PCN 6), whereas the licences stipulate PCN 9;

(b)          that the original asphalt section of the runway surface was in a comparatively poor state; however maintenance has maintained a satisfactory runway;

(c)          that based upon the level of traffic at the Airfield and the type of general aviation aircraft that operated from there, the runway surface was considered fit for purpose;

(d)          that the current runway operating distances were larger than required for the “design aircraft” (a Hawker Hunter T7), and its overall length could be reduced; and

(e)          that to achieve a PCN of 9 the asphalt section of the runway required a minimum of a 250mm overlay.

RPS had not undertaken any intrusive testing of the runway, their report was based on the previous Scott Wilson and Halcrow reports and a thorough visual inspection. The report divided the runway into three sections, with distances referenced to runway 02 (i.e. running south to north):

(i)         the flexible (asphalt) section (0m to 840m);

(ii)        the composite section (841m to 1090m); and

(iii)       the rigid (concrete) section (1091m to 1920m)

The Scott Wilson report designated these section lengths as having PCNs of 6, 10 and 9 respectively. RPS had formed the view that overall a PCN of 6 was appropriate.

RPS had provided a number of estimated solutions, again dependent upon what the future use of the Airfield might be, for example, any intention to seek a CAA licence. 

A summary of the options are as follows:

The above costs made a number of assumptions:

(1)        there was no contingency (assume at least 10%);

(2)        normal daytime hours working;

(3)        unfettered access to the runway;

(4)        access elsewhere on site for plant, asphalt production etc; and

(5)        good weather.

Work of this scale could take 6 to 8 weeks to undertake and require a runway closure for that entire period. RPS suggested that once a full technical solution was designed, this time period could be reduce a little. It might also be possible to enable some use of the cross runway RW13/31.

The above costs were significant, especially whilst the future of the Airfield remained subject to deliberation through the Local Plan. RPS were therefore asked to advise what the cost might be if a decision was made to simply overlay the existing asphalt areas, without seeking to achieve a PCN of 9 for the runway as a whole. Although not part of the report, RPS had indicated that in their view a simple 50mm overlay to deal with the immediate issues would cost in the region of £700,000. 

The RPS report did not reach any new conclusions, but did usefully provide support to previous costs estimated for the remediation of the runway provided. There were two main issues to consider:

(1)        the costs of remediation of any type at this point in the Local Plan process; and

(2)        the advice of Counsel and the approach the Council wished to take with regard to those tenants who might demand the Council meet the full conditions of their licences, with respect to PCN’s.

In terms of (1) above, despite the existing Cabinet resolution to retain aviation at the Airfield, it would perhaps be prudent not to do any significant remedial works to the runway at NWA which could be seen as setting a precedent for the future use of the Airfield in the context of the North Weald Bassett Masterplanning exercise as a whole, and until the Local Plan was further advanced. It would be important however, that the existing inspection and maintenance regimes were fully applied during this period.

The Chairman advised that the meeting would now go into private session to discuss the confidential part of this report.