Successful consultation and appropriate planning arrangements are essential if the airport city is to thrive, write Robert Freestone and Douglas Baker.
A major challenge facing airports and the regions they serve is finding collaborative decision making structures that allow them to move forward together for mutual advantage.
Going it alone is neither an expression of corporate social responsibility on the one hand, nor public interest decision making on the other.
Airports are highly complex and specialised transport zones, their territorial borders are clearly defined with very different governance, logistical and security protocols inside compared to outside the perimeter fence.
But they are not islands and in a myriad functional ways are deeply embedded into the regional fabric. Progressive airport operators and governments recognise these interdependencies and have sought to build collaborative processes to promote synchronisation and balance between airport, local and metropolitan planning needs and policies.
Without effective dialogue, the land based and functional connectivity of the airport into its wider spatial context may be impeded and the economic leverage of coherent patterns of airport-related development compromised.
Mediating the land use and transport challenges thrown up in the airport region is the responsibility of urban planning systems. These are organised in a variety of templates but tend to assume three main forms with implications for airport operations and development: local/municipal, regional/state/provincial, and national ­(the latter relating primarily to air navigation and safety issues).
Planning regulations at different levels of government and even from the same government can sometimes frustratingly contradict each other and be at odds with airport aspirations and the reality of the immediate airport region as a vital economic zone.
Planning authorities - or elected representatives, for they are not one and the same - can be tied into an old-fashioned understanding of airports as solely transport infrastructure.
This perception, often against all the facts, denies the inexorable evolution of major airports into commercially oriented mixed-use enterprises and investment gateways with crucial spin-off and catalytic economic impacts responsive to emerging market opportunities.
Consultation is key
Consultation is crucial on both sides. While comprehensive consensus may not be feasible across all public and private actions because of different priority, resource, and constituency constraints, working cooperatively to determine acceptable timelines and tradeoffs is the way of the world.
Tensions in some jurisdictions are worse than others depending on the interplay of the nature and scale of airport operations, ownership and governance structures, the legislative framework through which coordination can be affected, and the development history of the airport and environs.
Numerous stories about long approval delays for airport projects, failures to upgrade public transit access to the airport, and ad hoc development of the airport periphery all indicate that existing planning arrangements for many airport regions are in need of overhaul.
A more synoptic and integrated approach is necessary. As John Kasarda writes in Global Airport Cities (2010) 'most current airport area planning approaches ... tend to be politically localised, functionally fragmented, and often conflicted'.
Recent academic research has explored the idea of focusing on actors rather than places, replacing traditional land use plans with more dynamic and adaptive regional economic strategies, commissioning of sub-regional structure plans, and generally seeking better collaborative pathways to sustainable development.
There are no singular models to follow.
John Kasarda's aerotropolis concept certainly conveys the importance of visioning the role and function of airports within a broader urban setting.
Suggesting inspiration from gigantic hub airport regions like the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex, the model places the airport as the primary growth pole but highlights the spin-off development generated and the need for a more sustainable approach in dealing with the interdependence of airport and region.
Influenced by the Amsterdam Schiphol situation, Maurits Schaafsma in Airport and City (2008) puts forward the alternative idea of the corridor between centre city and airport as the logical linear zone for consolidating infrastructure provision and urban regeneration initiatives.
Two things are apparent whichever spatial model is chosen. First, the airport city notion is only a partial answer and must be framed within a broader understanding of regional governance.
Second, striving for optimal structures will be a long-term and indeed ongoing challenge. As John Kasarda writes, it will take many decades of 'future planning and coordinated stakeholder efforts' to effect greater alignment of airport and surrounding area planning.
The Australian experience
Australian airport regions have been spaces of conflict in recent years but better collaborative planning arrangements are being established to try and resolve differences.
A 2007 national parliamentary inquiry saw a variety of concerns expressed:
1. Large-scale commercial developments taking place outside normal planning controls
2. Documentation requirements less than for conventional development applications
3. Lack of developer contributions for off-airport infrastructure upgrades
4. The highly flexible and use-inclusive nature of generalised airport master plans
5. Poor community and government consultation
6. Role of airports as both proponents and approval authorities for some development
7. Lack of independent reviews or third party appeals
8. A 'light-handed' regulatory approach by the federal government
9. Lack of urban planning expertise at the Commonwealth level.
The context for sentiments such as these when expressed by local councils, state governments and community interests is the privatisation program of major Australian airports from 1996.
This has been an outstanding success in delivering economic and social benefits through a shifting of the economic burden of airport funding from the public to the private sector.
Tourism and Transport Forum Australia in its report Assessing the Impact of Airport Privatisation (2007) reported major gains in operational efficiency, profitability and investment levels. It argued that Australia led the world in the creation of 'air cities' as 'economic jet engines' for the national and regional economies.
The concerns shadowing this success emanate from two sources. First, there is the separate federal planning system enacted under the Airports Act to deal with both strategic and development approvals planning outside of the existing planning systems which in Australia are generally organised at state and local government levels.
Second, conspicuous new non-aeronautical development such as office buildings and retail centres have been seen by critics as competing unfairly with commercial developments off the airport platform and disturbing the strategic priorities of planning authorities.
Along with many other issues impacting on the uncertainty of the aviation environment from global warming to global terrorism, these planning matters were taken up by the Australian Government in its National Aviation Policy Review, conducted in 2008 and 2009.
Recommendations with reference to planning and infrastructure made in the final report Flight to the Future (December 2009) were predicated on a 'balanced' philosophy of future airport policy. A raft of initiatives was announced, including:
1. Planning coordination forums involving state, local and federal government representatives for major capital city airports
2. Community consultation committees for all airports
3. Strengthening the airport master plan process, through providing more transparency and detail in master plans, and folding in transport impact studies and environmental strategies
4. Broadening the 'triggers' for major development plans to include projects deemed to have a 'significant community impact'
5. Identification of non-compatible land uses which should be prohibited or restricted on airports
6. Conscription of expert advisors to assist government appraisal of land use planning and integration issues
7. Closer scrutiny of non-aeronautical development, with requirements for more detailed precinct plans identifying and mitigating any impacts on and off-airport
8. A national framework to safeguard airports from inappropriate and encroaching development around airport sites, and
9. Better managing impact of aircraft noise on local communities through a multiple stakeholder approach with better noise data.
A signpost for the future
The reforms have been welcomed by most stakeholders, although for airport operators they introduce yet more uncertainty into their decision making environment, on top of larger challenges faced over the past two years, notably the global financial crisis and its brake on both aeronautical and non-aeronautical development.
Recent political instability in Australian national politics has disturbed the smooth implementation of these initiatives through a combination of legislative amendment and new guidelines. However all indications are that a strong cross-party neo-liberal political consensus on airport policy remains intact.
The major drift is to recognise, as the Australian Mayoral Aviation Council stated in a submission to the Review, that 'no airport exists only within the boundary fence' (possible pull quote) and that planning processes need to better coordinate conflicting objectives of airports and surrounding communities.
Although recent debate and pathways to airport planning reform in Australia are a response to a specific national governance regime, they nonetheless respond to problems that have surfaced in many airport regions worldwide. They signpost the kind of strategies which might be explored in different settings.
Picture captions:
Image one: At Melbourne's second airport Essendon, property surplus to aviation needs is being revalorised in a variety of commercial ventures including supermarkets, office premises, call centres, and automotive showrooms. These ventures supply valuable revenue for diversifying risk and generating funds for investment in aviation infrastructure, but have been approved outside of the local planning regime.
Image two: Zone in transition: North of Sydney Airport, Australia's major international gateway, new local planning and urban design controls are guiding the evolution of land use away from small-scale secondary industry to in-demand designer apartment complexes attracted by ready access to the airport. Elsewhere land is being reserved for larger scale logistic and freight forwarding needs.
Image three: At Moorabbin, a general aviation airport on leased federal land also in the Melbourne metropolitan area, a factory outlet mall anchors the commercial offering. Although local and state planning authorities question such developments when outside their retail strategies, the wider community usually welcomes the opportunity for convenient shopping regardless of the location on airport land.
Image four: The Airport Business Park: Guided by national rather than territory planning controls, Canberra Airport in the Australian Capital Territory has evolved over the last few years into a major centre offering five star office buildings meeting strong market demand in the region, especially from national government departments.
[All images by R Freestone]
About the Authors
Rob Freestone is Professor of Planning and Urban Development in the Faculty of the Built Environment, University of New South Wales and Doug Baker is Professor of Planning in the Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering at the Queensland University of Technology. This paper draws on research reported in the Journal of Air Transport Management (September 2010) and is supported by the Australian Research Council Linkage Grant project 'The Airport Metropolis' project (LP0775225).
