The coalition Government suggests that a third runway at Heathrow, or indeed expansion of Gatwick or Stansted, are off the aviation policy menu. David Cameron acknowledges that he’s not blind to the need for airport expansion in the South East. Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith states that he will not run in the next election if the Tories support a third runway at Heathrow. Boris Johnson says the third runway is back on the menu of options; and advocates the creation of a new airport in the Thames Estuary. Environmental campaigners say the economic and environmental case for either the third runway, or a new airport, are non-existent.

It is no wonder that the public politics of aviation are so confused. The debate on aviation policy has long been bitter and polarised. It is time for the Government to make some tough decisions.

The previous Labour Government produced the White Paper “The Future of Air Transport” (2003). This recognised the significant pressures in service delivery faced by the south-east’s existing airports, and advocated a staged expansion to address said pressures.

That White Paper has, however, been roundly criticised by the coalition Government, who have, so far, only produced a document entitled “Developing a Sustainable Framework for UK Aviation: Scoping Document” (2011). This suggests that expansion of the aforementioned existing airports will not be appropriate until and unless airport operators can demonstrate how the provision of passenger aircraft services can be rendered compliant with the sustainability agenda. A formal aviation strategy is supposed to be published later this year.

The stance outlined in the Scoping Document poses a number of fundamental problems though. At the fore is that the operation of aircraft, by the very nature of what is involved, could be said to contravene the Government’s sustainability aspirations – aircraft utilise fossil fuels, and they generate noise. Nevertheless, demand for aircraft use continues to grow, and the financial benefits of meeting those growth demands (through tourism and investment) are potentially vast.

Heathrow already operates at 99% capacity, with demand forecast to double in coming decades. Gatwick operates at 95% capacity, and is the busiest single runway airport in the world. These capacity constraints are already beginning to have an impact upon the services that these airports can provide. By way of example, in 1990 Heathrow provided services to 227 destinations. Today it provides services to 180. This is forecast to fall to 147.

If the Government will genuinely not support growth of Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted then maybe it is time to look elsewhere to accommodate the growth in demand that is forecast. In this respect, only certain airports are permitted to levy charges for passenger use (by virtue of the Airports Act 1986). The list of eligible airports, however, includes Biggin Hill, Cambridge, Farnborough, Wycombe Air Park, Southend, Manston and Lydd. All are relatively close to London, and do not appear to have existing capacity issues. The obvious question, therefore, is why the use of existing infrastructure at these already eligible airports is not being encouraged? Would it not be wise to utilise such existing capacity before seriously discussing the prospect of an entirely new airport in the Thames Estuary?