Designs for a floating Thames Estuary airport designed by architects Gensler

by Alan McGuinness

A Thames Estuary airport would not be commercially viable and would require a substantial public subsidy.

A report prepared for the House of Commons Transport Select Committee deals a huge blow to the project, claiming it would be a “risky investment”.

It says that because the value of the investment is “significantly negative” an investor would be likely not to touch the project.

A public subsidy of £10-£30 billion would be needed to get the airport built, the report by economics consultancy Oxera suggests.

The government could have to provide funds in an effort to encourage investors to put their hands in their pockets, the organisation claims.

But, the document adds, politicians might decide to fork up the cash if it concludes that the social and economic benefits outweigh the costs.

A cross-section of Lord Foster's plans for a new Thames Estuary airport

The report’s authors have calculated the value of a new airport at £15.6 billion by calculating revenues from passenger charges and taking out operating costs.

In today’s money it would have costs of £43.7 billion, leaving a significant gap that would need to be made up.

If Heathrow were to close as the result of a Thames Estuary airport being built, the final compensation bill could be as high as £20 billion.

Decision on aviation needs to be made before election: Survey

The news comes as many of the people behind plans for an airport prepare to give evidence to the committee on Monday.

Huw Thomas of Foster + Partners, the architects behind plans for the world’s biggest airport on the Isle of Grain, will answer questions on the proposal, which has an estimated cost of £50 billion.

John Olsen, who is leading a consortium eyeing up Cliffe as the site of a three-runway airport, is also due to face MPs.

Medway Council’s communities chief Robin Cooper and Paul Outhwaite from the RSPB will make the case against the idea shortly afterwards.

Kent is at the heart of plans for the future of aviation, with key schemes put forward by architect Lord Foster for Grain; London Mayor Boris Johnson for an island in the Thames Estuary; John Olsen for Cliffe; a tethered island off Sheppey put forward by London Britannia and a scheme for Goodwin Sands by architects Beckett Rankine.

Anti-airport campaigner George Crozer welcomed the report’s findings.

He said: “It’s somebody else agreeing with what we’re saying. We’ve always said it’s too expensive.”

Clive Lawrence from Demand Regeneration in North Kent, which believes politicians have been too quick to come out against an airport, said he was “astonished” upon hearing the contents.

He said: “There are seven or eight groups, most of which claim to be backed by investors, saying it’s viable.

"I would look at the evidence with great caution; people can always find reasons for not doing things.”