Last updated 12:32, Thursday, 27 March 2008

Carlisle Airport has been bedevilled by false starts – the last attempt to launch scheduled flights flopped in 1994.

• View more pictures...

Andrew Tinkler: It’s now up to the people in Carlisle to decide if they want an airport or not’

But tomorrow could be the beginning of a new era.

Carlisle City Council’s development control committee is due to consider plans for a £35m revamp.

Airport owner Andrew Tinkler wants to build a new runway, passenger terminal, air traffic control centre, hangars, warehousing and offices.

The runway would pave the way, he says, for scheduled flights to London and other destinations.

And the airport would double as an HQ for haulage business Eddie Stobart and for Mr Tinkler’s WA Developments, both currently at Kingstown.

He said: “This is the last chance for Carlisle Airport.

“I’ve set my stall out from day one. I’ve done what I’ve said I would and brought the planning application.

“It’s now up to the rest of the people in Carlisle to decide if they want an airport or not.”

The planning application, from Mr Tinkler’s company Stobart Air, is probably the most complex ever considered by the city council.

More than 230 individuals, businesses and other organisations have commented.

Of these, 111 object, 105 support the plans while 18 merely make observations.

The supporters point to economic benefits.

They say flights will bring tourists, boost inward investment and help dispel the idea that Cumbria is isolated.

In particular, they warn that if Eddie Stobart is not allowed to move its HQ and warehouse operation to the airport when its lease at Kingstown runs out early next year, 175 jobs will be lost. On the other hand, if airport expansion goes ahead, 377 people could be employed on the site by 2016.

Objectors include nearby residents concerned about noise, traffic and light pollution from landing lights.

Environmentalists point to the loss of woodland and wildlife habitats, the increase in CO2 emissions caused by flights, and the impact on Hadrian’s Wall.

There are concerns too that de-icers used on the runway could get into the river system and harm fish – an issue planning officers’ say “must be resolved”.

Councillors will have to weigh up all these arguments.

Planning officers are expected to table a recommendation one way or the other at tomorrow’s meeting.

But before councillors make a decision, they must be satisfied the development will “facilitate an improved commercial operation” and not harm “nature conservation, heritage and other interests”.

This last phrase, plucked from the planning officers’ report, is crucial.

The airport is close not only to Hadrian’s Wall but nature conservation sites of European significance.

The Eden, North Pennine Moors, Solway Firth, Walton Moss and Kielder-Butterburn are all designated as “special areas of conservation”.

Planning officers have received legal advice that it would be unlawful to grant planning permission without evidence that these areas will be unharmed.

Stobart Air faces a race against time to provide that evidence at tomorrow’s meeting.

The planning officers’ report says: “There are a number of outstanding, but highly critical, aspects of the proposals, that must be reconciled.”

Councillors should also hear tomorrow if Stobart Air has thrashed out an agreement with United Utilities to deal with foul drainage, another major hurdle.

Planning officers raise the concern that passenger flights might never materialise and the airport would become, in effect, offices and a HGV depot.

Their report says: “There are no named commercial passenger or cargo operators identified although the applicants have stated they are in discussions.”

It adds: “The design of the terminal building appears to be overwhelmingly aimed at relocating the existing businesses and providing associated warehousing and offices.

“In terms of handling passengers, the submitted plans lack detail.”

However, planning officers dismiss objectors’ claims that there is a “hidden agenda” to create an air-freight hub handling Boeing 737 or 767 jets.

Their report says that “substantially greater runway lengths” are normally required for such aircraft.

The sheer size of the airport building – housing a terminal, hangars, warehousing and offices – is controversial.

At 290m long, 180m wide and 19m high its floorspace would be half as big again as the Lanes shopping centre.

Planning officers say it would dominate the local landscape and more could be done by using different colours and materials to make it more attractive.

There are concerns that too many parking spaces are being provided – 180 short stay and 310 long stay, plus 357 for Eddie Stobart and WA Developments staff – so acting as a disincentive to arrive by bike or public transport.

Stobart Air predicts that the revamped airport will handle 200,000 passengers a year by 2016 and a daily average of four freight flights.

Consultants brought in by the council back Stobart Air’s claim that, based on these figures, aircraft noise will not be an issue and the impact on air quality will be “negligible”.

However, they do suggest the council places a limit on the number of flights.

If the scheme gets the go ahead tomorrow, it could still be “called in” by the Government Office Northwest for a public inquiry.

This is because the proposals to create office space and warehousing for Eddie Stobart are non-airport activities.

Allowing them would breach the local plan.

Tomorrow’s meeting was to have taken place in February but was delayed to allow planning officers to gather more information.

Mr Tinkler has warned that any further delays could mean Eddie Stobart goes elsewhere and that would undermine the viability of the whole project.

Planning officers describe the airport as “little changed from when it was first built in 1941 and began operations as RAF Crosby-on-Eden”.

If these plans fail, that is probably how it will stay.