Bristol Airport expansion plans get the green light
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
Is the three year long battle of Lulsgate over? Are Bristol Airport's expansion plans about to be cleared for take off? Here's your answer.
"They would be very brave to reject it now."
Not the words of an airport boss, or a supporter. Tom Leimdorfer is a fearless, tenacious Green Party Councillor who has carefully opposed this expansion proposal every step of the way.
"On Congresbury Parish Council we have one pilot's licence and three aviation engineers," he told the planning meeting in Weston last night. "They don't object to the airport in principle. But they voted against these proposals."
Why? Because of encroachments on the green belt, because the surrounding villages can't take any more noise, because encouraging more spontaneous flying is cooking the planet. Arguments that have been well rehearsed, not least on this blog.
But those arguments have been lost, as of 9pm last night. The South Area Planning Committee voted to back the airport proposals, six votes to three. It's not a final decision, that must be taken by the senior 'Planning and Regulatory Committee', known as the P&R. But Cllr Leimdorfer can see the way the wind is blowing.
"It's not a political decision," he tells me, "but all the Conservatives backed the plans. The P&R has a Conservative majority, and is known for going with the officers' recommendations. They would be very brave to reject it now."
Campaigners haven't given up the fight, of course. An election might prolong things a bit, the White Paper on Aviation might be scrapped, who knows what might happen.
And airport executives are the very pictures of diplomacy, counting no chickens yet. They extol the considerable virtues of North Somerset's procedures. But the smiles say it all. This deal is done.
So what? Well first, Bristol Airport gets, eventually, its new five-story car park and enlarged terminal. Space to grow. More flights.
But it is wider than that. There is a new battle raging on Planet Planning, over how far councillors should look. The Mendips or the Maldives? Bristol or Borneo?
Last week Bristol's Lib Dems threw out a controversial Biofuel Power Station, because of concerns about the fuel. Claims that palm oil plantations in South East Asia were causing massive deforestation carried the day. Bristol planners considered Borneo in their decision-making.
Well, North Somerset's Tories were having none of that last night.
"Climate change and international emissions are for government," said Cllr Tim Marter, chair of the committee. "We saw in Copenhagen that they can't even agree what to do, so we should just concern ourselves with our own district."
Tom Leimdorfer disagrees. His party's motto, after all, is 'Think Global, Act Local', but he didn't cite that in the council. No, he had chapter and verse of North Somerset's own Core Strategy Document, which is littered with claims on Sustainability. What use are they, he argues, if we approve global supercooking schemes like this airport expansion?
Should councillors, often in small district authorities, be expected to police global problems like climate change? Or should they keep their eyes down, and just consider the potholes in Winsford? It's an intriguing dilemma, and it's coming to a town hall near you soon.
Hello, I’m Dave Harvey – the BBC’s Business Correspondent in the West. If you’re making hay in the markets or combine harvesting; scratting cider apples or crunching tricky numbers – this is your blog too. 
Comment number 1.
At 18:48 4th Mar 2010, steve wrote:Why do people moan and complain about issues such as the expansion of the airport, when we all know that if an inquiry takes place, far more money will be spent, the costs for the airport will spiral, and we all end up paying way too much
Give it rest and let progress take place
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 18:49 4th Mar 2010, Ruth Harper wrote:I think it would be a real shame if they reject the expansion plans. We need a decent sized airport in the west country think of the job oportunities it would bring and the money that would come into the area from people traveling to the area. As I work for Celebrity Cruises I always have to travel to London twice a year in order to get flights to accomadate me it would be nice if I could come back locally!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 13:20 5th Mar 2010, graculus wrote:"Let progress take place" sums up the short-sighted attitudes prevalent amongst those who make these decisions. What price progress? There are far bigger costs than money spent on inquiries, ask those in sea-flood affected parts of the world.
Unfortunately it takes courage to take the long term view and try and lead changes, courage our planners appear to lack.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 22:06 5th Mar 2010, FromTheYocality wrote:I support strongly the expansion of the airport, thought not at any price, and I feel the application is measured and balanced.
The expansion would go ahead in stages as traffic builds - it wouldn't be done all at once. On current thinking it will be another ten years before the 10 million passengers per year throughput is reached.
What's needed much sooner are improvements to ease the lot of the current passenger numbers. In some ways the airport is the victim of its own success and has outgrown the terminal that is only ten years' old.
I don't think this is a done deal by any shape of the imagination. A change of national government could throw the whole thing back into the melting pot.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)