Manchester is trying to establish itself as a major European city. The expansion of Manchester Airport could hold the key to achieving this aim. Mark Simmons reports.
The sticker on the taxi windscreen is peeling and yellowing. Still legible, just, are the words “Manchester 2000 Olympic Bid”. But, while the sticker may be fading, the aspirations of this city are not. Although Manchester lost out to Sydney for the Olympics and, at an early stage, lost out to Greenwich for the Millennium Exhibition, the burghers of the North West refuse to be downhearted. As – admittedly, unchallenged – host of the 2002 Commonwealth Games, host of some of the 1996 European Championship football matches, and as the location of a new art gallery and leisure complex (see p124), Manchester continues to raise its profile beyond North West England.
Chesterton associate Shawn Ganguly says: “Manchester’s strategic objective is to make sure that it becomes a major European city. That can be achieved only if its currently high international profile can be sustained. To do that, its position as the North West’s regional capital and as the country’s strongest financial centre outside London needs to be strengthened.” John Early, a chairman of AMEC Developments and a board director of Ringway Developments, agrees: “Manchester’s aspirations are to be a major European city. To do that it needs to be well connected to Europe and the rest of the world.”
Ganguly points out that the city has a large population base to draw on: more than 6m people live within an hour’s drive. “To access the potential markets that this level of density must attract and draw inward investment into the region – and logically, therefore, to its capital – will require the most effective infrastructure that can be achieved,” he says.
Manchester airport is often cited as a key part of that infrastructure. Owned by Manchester city council and nine other local authorities, the airport was due to get a second runway (R2). But these plans have been temporarily grounded while a government inspector considers the evidence of a public inquiry which ended earlier this year.
At present, approximately 15m people travel through the airport every year, compared with 77m who use London’s four airports. Of these, the majority – 51m – pass through Heathrow. Although many passengers travelling through are tourists using charter flights, the airport has been keen to add more scheduled trips. The slots that these flights demand are concentrated into particular times of the day. Larger aircraft will help, but proponents of another runway say that is the only way to significantly increase capacity.
Knight Frank partner Robert Shaw, an adviser on behalf of the airport for the R2 inquiry, argues that the airport needs to capitalise on its existing location. “The thing about airports is that they don’t generate demand just because of where they are. Lufthansa flies to Manchester because it can fill its planes there; if it can’t, it’ll fly somewhere else. If you get airlines filling up, others will come there. Once an airport starts attracting people it attracts more airlines and goes into a spiral,” he says.
Knight Frank calculates that, assuming passengers are willing to drive for up to one hour to reach the airport, there are about 20m people within its catchment area, a zone extending well into Yorkshire. One of the most vociferous critics of the R2 plans is Liverpool Speke airport, which sees any expansion of Manchester Airport as a threat. Shaw is quick to explain that it does not follow that greater investment in airports outside Manchester will increase demand from passengers in those areas. He does concede, however – and was at pains to point out during the inquiry – that it is not necessary for airport users to be immediately outside the airport.
“There is a perception among some HQ-type occupiers that they need to be as close to an airport as possible; when you talk to them you find that there are perhaps only half a dozen executives who are frequent flyers. Even then, many travel to and from home rather than work. So, really, a company can be 20 to 30 miles away,” Shaw explains. The downside for Manchester is that companies which agree with this may decide to locate outside the Greater Manchester conurbation altogether. Maryland Bank, which is moving into Chester, is within a 40-minute drive of the airport.
For such occupiers, however, Mark Canning of Grimley argues that other factors also come into play. “If someone is footloose, Manchester is unable to offer the same incentives as elsewhere. [US manufacturer] Bristol-Myers Squibb will probably go to Chester and Maryland Bank has already gone there. What these companies want is hard cash. It’s millions of pounds in grants that make the difference.”
Manchester may not be able to offer generous grant packages, but it can boast low staff costs, according to Mark Pattison of local solicitor Vaudreys. “For most businesses, staff cost is the major factor. As I understand it, staff costs are significantly lower in the North West compared with the South East.” Certainly, average gross weekly earnings for men, compiled by the DOE, are, at £344, less than the UK average of £361, and much lower than the £467 recorded in Greater London.
Wherever businesses choose to locate around Manchester, there is an underlying assumption that the airport acts as a magnet to draw them in. But trying to quantify to what extent the airport affects property decisions and its overall importance to the local economy is more problematic.
Pattison admits: “It is very difficult to define – it doesn’t have a tangible side. But we can’t hope to compete unless we have a first-class airport. The airport is very important to businesses – so it must be important to commercial property. Increased levels of business must have a knock-on effect.”
Shaw estimates that 50% of Manchester take-up is influenced by the presence of the airport. “We traced 360 companies in the region who would not be there if it was not for the airport,” he reports. Early believes that close proximity to flights is particularly attractive for international mobile businesses, for R&D facilities and European bases. “Helping the region to attract that type of mobile occupier is essential,” he asserts. However, preventing migration is just as important as gaining new occupiers. Shaw points out that the region was recently able to hold on to two major employers: Siemens and Fisons.
Supporters of a second runway at Manchester Airport argue that the development is necessary for the long-term economic health of the region. “If you believe there are benefits to go with R2, and I happen to think there are, it is absolutely essential. R2 is for business travel and if it doesn’t go ahead, that will constrain growth,” claims Early. Shaw attempts to quantify the effect that two runways would have on the airport and estimates that, in employment terms, the enlarged airport will be equal to the arrival of 10 or more Toyota-like inward investments. The airport generates approximately one direct job per 1,000 passengers; currently about 15,000 are employed there. “Plus, indirect employment spreads out into the region and consumer spending corresponds,” Shaw adds.
If forecasts commissioned by Manchester airport are correct, by 2005 the airport could have a throughput of about 30m passengers; this could mean a doubling of the existing workforce. But only if the airport gets a second runway. While the economic argument may be substantial, so too is that of objectors who point to the environmental disruption R2 would cause. Shaw believes that many of these objections have been overcome, particularly the argument that a significant increase in demand for space from occupiers attracted by the airport will lead to a corresponding erosion of green belt land. After an exhaustive field survey, Knight Frank found 80km2 (31 sq miles) of vacant – that is, brownfield – employment land within a one-hour drive of the airport. Within a 20-minute drive, the survey revealed 1.07m m2 (11.5m sq ft) of existing commercial premises.
But, even if all occupiers can be persuaded to take space or to move in to developments on brownfield sites, the airport would require extra space to house its operational staff. Again, Shaw believes that the effect of R2 would not be not so great as is perceived: the registered point of employment does not imply that an employee works at the location. Pilots and cabin crew, for example, spend much of their time outside their building, allowing that space to be used more intensively than conventional space. “You can’t overlay a standard sq-ft-per-person like you can in the city centre,” argues Shaw, who believes that existing space within the airport boundaries and vacant premises beyond will absorb additional staff numbers.
Occupiers themselves are very keen on the proposals for a second runway. This year’s EG Occupier Survey found that 63% of existing Manchester firms believe that a second runway is vital for the airport (See Occupier Survey I, p101). But not all observers are convinced. Canning comments: “R2 may upgrade the image of the airport, but I don’t think it is crucial. I don’t know exactly what difference that would make, but I doubt it would be a great deal.” It is now up to the government-appointed planning inspector to decide exactly how substantial that difference will be. His verdict is not expected until the autumn. In the meantime, the stickers on taxi windows will continue to fade.
