Principles for Surface Access at Gatwick · specifically mentioned in this consultation, Gatwick Airport has a high profile environmental responsibility. B 3 APH accepts the broad

1

Principles for Surface Access at Gatwick Date of issue: 9 November 2016

Summary of responses

Introduction

This document provides a summary of the responses received to the consultation on draft

principles for surface access Gatwick undertook during April – June 2016. The consultation

focused on the principles governing the terms of access to the Gatwick forecourt.

GAL has updated its principles for surface access in light of consultation feedback. The revised

principles are included at the end of this document, with changes to the original text highlighted.

Responses

The consultation was issued to all users of forecourt, including coach operators, courtesy bus

operators, guest houses and operators of off airport car parks. In total three responses were

received:

Holiday Extras Limited and Airparks Services Limited

Airport Parking & Hotels Limited

Springwood Guest House

General Gatwick comments

We thank the respondents for taking the time to review, reflect and provide comments on our

consultation. We do note that in some cases the respondents seek to address issues outside the

scope of this consultation (such as the nature of surface access facilities at Gatwick or local

planning policy), and which are addressed elsewhere (i.e. the Gatwick masterplan, car park

strategy, Capital Investment Plan or Crawley Local Plan). We also note that in some cases

respondents would prefer the principles to contain a level of detail we consider to be more

appropriate for the consultation on the charges rather than the higher level guiding principles.

2

A General Comments

Question

number

Respondent Detail of response Gatwick Comment

A 1 APH APH applauds the introduction of the three passenger commitments: a. “We’ll treat you as our guest”

b. “We hate queues”

c. “We love to be on time”

We welcome the continued support for

these principles, which have been a key

part of how Gatwick has delivered its

strategy since we were separated from

BAA in 2009.

A 2 HEL & ASL

c)(ii)

The final paragraph of the GAL Consultation Document indicates that following receipt of stakeholder submissions GAL will evaluate its current charging structure and “if necessary propose changes”. We suggest that GAL’s Principles Statement include a commitment that it will consult with stakeholders on any proposed change or increase in charges.

This was the intent of the included

language. We have amended the text to

make it clear that we will consult ahead of

making changes to the charges.

A 3 HEL & ASL

c)(ii)

As commercial organisations generally budget on an annual basis such contribution should commence no later than 12 months prior to the intended date for introduction of the proposed change or increase in charges.

Gatwick recognise that changes to our

charging levels and structures can affect

users. We do not consider that the

suggested 12 months’ notice of a change

is proportionate, nor standard practice

.However, where appropriate, we will

propose steps to help mitigate impacts. We

would encourage parties to highlight

potential transition issues in response to

3

Question

number


our charges consultations. Steps we might

adopt could for example include:

- Defer a change for a period;

- Introduce a charge gradually;

- Agree to evaluate a charge after a

set period of time.

B Pricing principle

Question

number


B 1 Springwood

Guest

Houses

Given that many of the transport providers are doing

very short journeys which are compatible with electric

vehicles, I would have thought that in view of the

airport's aim to reduce emissions that such vehicles

would be looked upon more favourably in charging

structures

We welcome this interesting suggestion.

While we consider, on balance, that the

forecourt congestion is the primary driver

for charges, and therefore vehicle size is

the primary basis for charges, a

mechanism to encourage the use of

greener vehicles to be appropriate and in

line with our commitments under the

decade of change. We will explore this

further in the next consultation on charges.

B 2 APH APH suggests that rather than bus/coach size, any variation in vehicle pricing should be based on emissions and/or fuel consumption – although not

[see B1]

4

Question

number


specifically mentioned in this consultation, Gatwick Airport has a high profile environmental responsibility.

B 3 APH APH accepts the broad principle that the basis for any charges for facilities used should be the cost of these facilities. Transparency and reasonableness of charges is key.

We welcome the support for this principle.

B 4 APH APH also accepts that it may be appropriate for facilities pricing to be used as a tool to try to improve the passenger experience as per the three passenger commitments

We welcome the support for this principle.

B 5 APH APH would like to highlight the contribution of the off-airport park and ride car parks, which perform a similar role to that of park and ride car parks for congested town and city centres, in reducing vehicle congestion, in this case, around the airport terminals

Town centre park and ride courtesy buses are generally treated as local scheduled buses

Therefore, APH believes that off-airport park and ride car park courtesy buses should be treated the same as local scheduled buses

In the event that off-airport park and ride courtesy buses are not treated the same as local scheduled buses, they should not be treated any less favourably than hotel courtesy buses.

Our proposed treatment of local scheduled

buses affects only North Terminal (as in

South Terminal the stop is on the A23).

Without this treatment these services

would otherwise not operate to North

Terminal. Continued services by local

busses to both terminals are desirable as

this helps reduce local traffic and therefore

congestion.

This situation is different from off airport

park and ride services which in view of

their profitability do not require subsidy to

operate. It would run contrary to local plan

policies if Gatwick was to encourage the

growth of off airport car parks by subsidy.

5

Question

number


B 6 HEL & ASL

a)(ii)

One of the principles GAL proposes in setting prices is that its own Forecourt Access Services will be priced on the same basis as other similar users. This is only appropriate if GAL and off-airport operators with which GAL competes are allocated Forecourt Access Services in the same location or in equally convenient locations. Without prejudice to the overriding principle that Forecourt Access Services are to be allocated on a non-discriminatory basis, if GAL uses services which are located closer to the airport terminal building or which in other respects are more convenient than the facilities allocated for off-airport operators the facilities used by off-airport operators should be priced below those used by GAL.

One of the design considerations in

designing our forecourt access

arrangements is to provide reasonably

commodious access for all users and we

do not believe the differences within the

current facilities are sufficient to merit the

introduction of a premium charge.

Given this we do not consider that

differential pricing to be either appropriate

or proportionate.

B 7 HEL & ASL

c)(iii) [bullet

1]

Charter coaches use coach stands for parking and waiting as well as for loading and unloading and accordingly have longer dwell times than coaches used by airport parking operators which only use coach stands for loading and unloading.

This is not correct. Charter coaches use

the coach park and only approach the

forecourt once called by marshals. We

therefore consider that their use of the

forecourts is comparable. We note that as

a result of this practice we propose to

allocate the cost of the coach park

primarily to charter coach users.

B 8 HEL & ASL Apart from an increased dwell time justifying an increased charge the purpose for which the coach stand is used is also a factor which could be taken into account in apportioning costs. Charter coaches,

See B7

6

Question

number


c)(iii) [bullet

2]

unlike coaches used by airport parking operators, use stands for parking. Frequently charges are made for parking whereas they are not made for loading and unloading. For example, it is usually the case that parking restrictions/prohibitions on highways allow for loading and unloading. Similarly GAL allows free drop-offs on its forecourts.

B 9 HEL & ASL

c)(iii) [bullet

3]

Apportionment of costs needs to have regard to the convenience of the allocated coach stand. A stand more proximate to the terminal building should in principle generate a higher charge than one which is more remote.

Please see response to B6

B 10 HEL & ASL

c)(iii) [bullet

4]

A factor which is linked to dwell times is whether coach operators (such as airport parking operators) which make a large number of visits to the airport each day should pay the same charge for each visit as other coach operators (for example chartered coach operators) which only make a few visits to the airport each day. Coach operators who run very frequent services to the airport should either be able to negotiate a wholesale charge for use of surface access facilities or should have their lower dwell times into account in determining charges.

Please see response to B6. Charter

coaches do not use the forecourt for

“parking” as suggested as they are

required to await the arrival of their parties

at the coach park facility (the cost of which

we are proposing to mainly recover from

the users of that facility).

Given this, we do not believe the variations

in dwell times of other users are of such a

differential as to justify charging based on

dwell time which would furthermore require

investment in technological solutions to

enable such charging.

7

Question

number


B 11 HEL & ASL

c)(iii) [bullet

5]

Certain coach operators, including public transport operators, obtain their business on-airport. Often passengers for a public coach service can pay when boarding the coach. Other coach operators, including off-airport parking operators, only transport passengers who have pre-booked parking off-airport. It would be appropriate for a significantly higher proportion of costs to be allocated to operators who derive all or part of their bookings by touting for business on the airport.

Unless it affects the use of the constrained

forecourt we do not believe the sales

channel is a relevant factor for setting

prices on a fair, reasonable and non-

discriminatory basis.

B 12 HEL & ASL

c)(iv)

Airport parking operators both on- and off-airport compete with hotels and guest houses which sell a package of accommodation and airport parking. Charges to hotel and guest house owners and for hotel hopper services should not be set at levels which provide them with a competitive advantage to operators which provide airport parking services only or to hotels/guest houses which arrange parking for guests at off-site airport car parks.

We agree that it is important that wherever

possible our scheme does not distort

competition.

Our pricing consultation will contain further

information on the proposed treatment of

smaller local guest houses and hotels.

B 13 HEL & ASL

c)(v)

As well as suggesting that charges for local hotels, guest houses and hotel hopper services may be set at lower levels the GAL Consultation Document also suggests that no charge will be levied for local transport facilities. When allocating costs of surface access facilities a fair non-discriminatory charge should be allocated to

The treatment of subsidies for public

transport and others will be considered as

part of the charges consultation.

8

Question

number


all users of surface access facilities in order to ensure that GAL pays for any subsidy which it decides to provide to different categories of surface access users

B 14 HEL & ASL

d)(i)

The Consultation Document indicates that GAL will consult on charges for surface access facilities from time to time. This does not satisfy the CAA’s expectation that GAL’s Statement of Principles will explain how it will consult on general charging principles and structures and how it will provide relevant information on costs of providing such services.

See comment A3 clarifying that we will

consult ahead of making changes to

charges. We have set out the general

principles in the consultation document.

B 15 HEL & ASL

d)(i) A

A) To consult with users of surface access facilities prior to increasing charges for surface access facilities.

See comment A3

B 16 HEL & ASL

d)(i) B

B) As part of any consultation on increased charges for surface access facilities to provide to users of surface access facilities:

A cost and income transparency statement in respect of the relevant surface access facilities.

es to allocate to the different users of the relevant surface access facilities and the costs which it proposes to recover in relation thereto.

access users who compete with each other in the same market will be on a non-discriminatory basis.

We would expect our charges consultation

to include information along the lines

indicated.

9

Question

number


B 17 HEL & ASL

d)(i) B

In order to avoid time consuming and potentially costly negotiations for increased charges on an annual basis we suggest that GAL should also adopt the following principles:

The use of surface access facilities will generally be provided by GAL by licence agreements to be entered into for terms of not less than five years.

Charges for use of surface access facilities under licence agreements will increase no more frequently than annually with increases not exceeding inflation calculated in accordance with the Consumer Price Index.

Similar to current practice we will consult

on changes to the charges from time to

time as expedient.

We may choose to offer longer agreements

However, some users may not wish to

enter into agreements for as long as 5

years and we will not force them to do so.

We do however intend to continue the

existing practice for charges to increase in

line with RPI unless there is either a

change to the structure, or a revision to the

charges base (for example through

investment in the assets).

C Comments on facilities

Question

number


C 1 APH APH would like to remind Gatwick Airport that at the time of the major forecourt changes in 2010, while the bus stops at the South Terminal for off-airport park and ride operators remained in a position largely acceptable to our mutual customers, this was not the case at the North Terminal. Here the move to Furlong Way and the resulting long walk for customers, created a huge wave of complaints which was well-documented in our representations

The forecourt facilities are simply not

sufficient for all to operate on the forecourt

immediately adjacent to the terminal due to

congestion, and are therefore allocated to

our car parking operation as the largest

user. Since 2010 the facilities along nearby

Furlong way have been improved

significantly in response to feedback,

10

Question

number


at the time. There is little doubt that the off-airport park and ride operators suffered a significant loss of repeat business as a result of this change and our mutual customers using the North Terminal certainly did not at the time, and many of those remaining still do not feel, treated ”as our guest”. It has been suggested that a revision of North Terminal forecourt use, namely putting off airport operators drop-off and pick-up points closer to the terminal could correct this. APH would strongly recommend this correction.

including the installation of covered

walkways.

One of the design considerations in

designing our forecourt access

arrangements is to provide reasonably

commodious access for all users and we

believe the previous differences within the

facilities have been addressed through

investment.

In addition to this we also note that the

Capital Investment Programme for 2016

includes £39.9m for surface access and

road projects (over the 5 year period). This

will include investment in North Terminal.

C 2 HEL & ASL

a)(i)

We suggest that GAL’s Principles Statement contains a principle that where surface access facilities are allocated in connection with surface access products (including airport parking) which are provided by both GAL and off-airport operators those facilities will be allocated on a non-discriminatory basis. Where practicable the same surface access facilities should be allocated for use by both GAL and off-airport operators. Where this is not practicable the facilities allocated to GAL and off-airport operators should:

See response to C1 and B6

There is not space for all on our forecourts

and as a result GAL has taken a rational

approach to (rather than rationing or

tendering access) allocating space on or

providing suitable alternative facilities if

needed for others.

11

Question

number


be located as close as practicable to each other; -airport operators

should not be materially more distant from the airport terminal building than the facilities used by GAL;

-airport operators should not in other respects (eg lighting, availability of luggage trolleys, availability of PRM facilities, shelter at the location and en-route to and from the terminal building and convenience of route to and from the terminal building) be materially less convenient for customers than the facilities used by GAL.

C 3 HEL & ASL

a)(iii)

GAL indicates that the development of facilities outside the airport perimeter is for the local planning authority to consider and that GAL participates transparently in the development of local planning policy through the local plan and surface access strategy. This does not explain GAL’s “attitude to the development of facilities outside the airport perimeter” which the CAA expects to be covered in GAL’s Principles Statement. A critical off-airport facility which GAL’s Principles Statement needs to deal with is off-airport parking.

We believe it does.

Currently local planning policy indicates a

preference for future parking facilities to be

located on airport.

As explained in C5 our car park investment

has been broadly in line with growth in

demand and further investment is outline

as part of the 2016 CIP.

C 4 HEL & ASL Delivering the best passenger experience includes ensuring that there is an adequate supply of good

See response C3 and C5.

12

Question

number


a)(iii) A

(paragraph 4)

quality authorised airport parking for those passengers who decide to drive to or near the airport and park. An undersupply of airport parking is not consistent with GAL’s strategic priorities or passenger commitments.

C 5 HEL & ASL

a)(iii) A

(paragraphs

16-17)

It is now more than three years since the CPS was published and we are not aware that GAL have prepared detailed plans and a programme for implementing proposals for additional on-airport long stay car parking. Given that GAL accepts that airport parking is “an essential function of the airport operation” and its strategic priority to deliver the best passenger experience we suggest that GAL’s attitude to development of off-airport parking should be to support this where there is a shortfall in airport parking supply which, as is the case at present, is not being met on-airport.

This is factually incorrect, We do not

believe this is relevant to this consultation

and note HEL has raised these issues both

in its current Judicial Review and in the

planning applications to which it refers.

GAL has provided a witness statement in

response setting out how it meets and will

meet future parking demand.

C 6 HEL & ASL

a)(iii) B

(paragraph 2)

We suggest that GAL adopts a principle of encouraging the development of off airport parking both to satisfy airport parking demand where it is not being met on airport

and, as importantly, to promote effective competition

in the airport parking market for Gatwick.

Please see response to C5, no change

needed.

13

Question

number


C 7 HEL & ASL

a)(iii) B

(paragraph 5)

GAL should update local planning authorities with regard to the implementation of the CPS. This will involve:

Estimating current and future airport parking demand having regard to current and predicted passenger numbers; and

ent and future plans, including dates of delivery, of additional on-airport long stay parking.

GAL is satisfied that it will be able to meet

demand on airport and will be reviewing its

car parking strategy in due course.

C 8 HEL & ASL

a)(iii) B

(paragraph 6)

We suggest that when revising the Masterplan and ASAS; when submitting an application for additional on-airport parking; or, when requested in connection with an application for off-airport parking, GAL should commit in its Principles Statement to providing:

suggested above, a statement of the then current demand for and supply of airport parking and details of GAL’s proposals for satisfying any supply shortfall; and

long-stay airport parking including details of GAL's share of authorised airport parking spaces, its estimate of how its share of airport parking will change with planned additional on- and off-airport parking and its assessment of how effective

Please see response to C5 and C7.

14

Question

number


competition is in the long-stay airport parking

market.

C 9 HEL & ASL

a)(iv)

We have referred above to the current undersupply of airport parking which is a direct result of GAL influencing planning policy to prevent any off-airport parking provision and then failing to make adequate long stay airport parking provision on-airport. In order to satisfy HEL’s customers’ demand for an adequate supply of authorised good quality airport parking, HEL has submitted the Planning Application for off-airport parking at Lowfield Heath, which GAL have objected to. It is worth noting that Gatwick Airport are the only commercial, professional or political organisation to have objected to the application.

We do not believe this is relevant to this

consultation and note HEL has raise these

issues both in its current Judicial Review

and in the planning applications to which it

refers.

C 10 HEL & ASL

g)

At paragraph 3.23 the CAA referred to drop-off and pick-up fees being one way of encouraging passengers to move to more environmentally friendly modes of accessing the airport such as public transport and car-parking. We are not convinced that charging when introduced at other Airports has necessarily driven a change in behaviour. We suggest that another option to achieve this desirable result is for GAL to include in its Principles Statement a principle that drop-offs and pick-ups for coaches operated by airport parking operators (both on and off airport) and for

We disagree with this assessment. We

note in particular that the direction of pick

up activity to the short term car parks was

very effective in reducing congestion in the

traffic system around the airport.

15

Question

number


car collections and returns for meet and greet operators should be located

closer to the terminal than public drop-off and pick-

up locations.

D Agreements with distributions channels

Question

number


D 1 HEL & ASL

e)

The GAL Consultation Document does not deal with

this CAA Topic. [extent of any agreements with other

surface access operators and with distributors]

We consider the main risk of competition

concerns in relation to aggregators to be

due to concentration in the aggregator

market rather than arising from the

airport’s activities, and from the potential

use of information held by aggregators in

coordinating prices.

D 2 HEL & ASL

e)

We suggest that GAL's Principles Statement contain the following provisions in relation to distribution agreements:

own airport parking products or enter into an exclusive distribution agreement with a third party, as a matter of principle and subject to agreement of terms, GAL will agree to established and reputable consolidators distributing its airport parking products.

We thank the respondent for these

suggestions which are clearly motivated by

self-interest. We see no commercial

service related or competition law reason

for GAL to adopt this suggestion.

16

Question

number


period of five years. id to different distributors will be

non-discriminatory (this would not prevent GAL paying high commissions to distributors selling greater volumes of GAL’s airport parking products).

D 3 HEL & ASL

e)

The CAA ask how GAL will ensure that the sharing of pricing and other information with other surface access operators and distributors does not allow undue coordination among competitors. We suggest that GAL’s Principles Statement provides that licence agreements with other surface access operators contain no provisions requiring the surface access operator to provide pricing and cost information to GAL.

See comment D2

We will be guided by competition law in

making any such arrangements and see

no need to provide such guidance.

We furthermore note that some of the

suggested information (i.e. price) is

publically available information and as

such would be readily available.

D 4 HEL & ASL

e)

In relation to agency agreements the agent will have a fiduciary duty to GAL not to use pricing and cost information it receives for any purpose which would be damaging to GAL. We suggest that GAL's Principles Statement expressly provide that agency agreements contain confidentiality provisions regarding costs, pricing and other commercially sensitive information which the distributor receives from GAL. Where distribution agreements are entered into with a distributor with whom GAL competes in the downstream airport parking market GAL’s Principles Statement could provide that

See comment D2

With respect these are not issues for this

consultation.

17

Question

number


unless GAL has the ability itself to change the prices for its products on the distributors website(s) by using an application programme interface (“API”) GAL will provide the distributor with the minimum notice required for changes in its prices to airport parking products.

E Information provision

Question

number


E 1 HEL & ASL

f) (paragraphs

1-3)

The CAA asks airport operators to include in their Principles Statements their efforts to ensure that consumers have access to information about all options to get to and from the airport. GAL only confirms in the GAL Consultation Document that it will provide onward travel information. The commitment in GAL’s Principles Statement should be to provide unbiased information about options to get to and from Gatwick by all travel mode options.

Gatwick already provides extensive

onward travel information on its website

and in kiosks at the airport.

Due to the history of poor behaviour and

service delivery of the off airport parking

industry around Gatwick we also include

information as to which parking operators

participate in the approved operator

scheme to help inform customers.

18

Question

number


E 2 HEL & ASL

f) (paragraphs

4-5)

In relation to the drive and park option, GAL as the operator of the airport should provide information relating to both on- and off-airport parking options. If GAL did not compete in the downstream airport parking market there would be no commercial reason for it not to provide details of off-airport parking options. GAL should provide such information in its capacity as the operator of the airport which is an important part of the UK’s transport infrastructure We suggest that the off-airport operators in respect of which GAL provides information should be those park and ride operators with which GAL has entered into licence agreements and meet and greet operators registered under the Approved Operator Scheme.

Gatwick already provides information on its

website as to which parking operators

participate in the approved operator

scheme and links to their websites.

E 3 HEL & ASL

f) (paragraphs

7)

Information concerning options to get to and from the airport should be available on a public service information website. This would not limit GAL’s ability to advertise its own airport parking products on other websites. GAL should ensure that its public service information websites appear on the first page of any Google search related to parking at Gatwick.

We will not adopt this suggestion, but note

that we already provide information on car

park operators participating in our

approved operator scheme.

We do however note that if another party

wish to establish and promote such a site

there is nothing stopping them from doing

so.

19

Principles for Surface Access at Gatwick UPDATED IN LIGHT OF CONSULTATION

Date of issue:

Introduction

Surface transport is of key importance to the success of Gatwick in its ambition to compete and grow

and become London’s airport of choice. In support of this ambition we have been undertaking an

exercise to review how we set charges for accessing our forecourt.

In February 2013 Gatwick consulted on its approach to setting bus and coach Charges. In August

2013, GAL wrote to operators informing them that, given the wide range of views expressed, it would

undertake a more detailed review of costs and charges for bus and coach services.

In January 2016 the Civil Aviation Authority issued a consultation on surface access at UK airports1.

As part of this review they requested that airports develop and publish a set of good practice

principles for surface access. In light of this Gatwick has used the comments received to our 2013

consultation to develop a set of draft principles. We consulted on these principles in May/June 2016.

The principles outlined in this document will be used in future revisions of charges, which will be

consulted upon.

Importance of surface access at Gatwick

Gatwick airport’s ambition is to ‘compete and grow and become London’s airport of choice’. In order

to achieve this we have a set of strategic priorities by which we run the business (figure below).

These priorities cascade through to everything we do and this includes surface access.

1 See CAP1364, available on www.caa.co.uk

20

Surface access to and from the airport is the heartbeat of our airport – we need it to operate efficiently

and effectively to achieve our ambition to grow and become London’s airport of choice. It is also

fundamental to attracting, new airlines and is one of the three most important factors affecting an

airline’s choice of airport, as well as to our passengers.

To help us deliver our ambition, we have developed three passenger commitments:

We’ll treat you as our guest

We hate queues

We love to be on time.

Our aim is that surface transport at the airport, and to and from the airport, will deliver the outcomes

to achieve our passenger commitments and our overall ambition. However, delivering this ambition

requires engagement with a large number of partners.

Gatwick Airport’s surface Access strategy for 2012 – 30 sets out the following vision for surface

access at Gatwick:

To be the best connected and accessible UK airport, delivering integrated surface transport

Contribute to the sustainable economic growth of the local community and of the UK

economy

Lead the way for best practice in Surface Access Strategies, with innovation at its core.

21

The remainder of this document sets out a draft set of principles derived from this vision upon which

we propose forecourt access at Gatwick airport should be based going forward.

Forecourt access at Gatwick

Gatwick Airport Limited (“GAL”) provides access to the airport to a wide range of vehicles including

private vehicles, taxis, scheduled buses and coaches, and car park and hotel courtesy buses.

We recognise that our surface access facilities are used by a range of different operators, including

ourselves. It is therefore important that the charges to third parties using our facilities are based on

transparent, fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory principles.

Gatwick Airport plays an important role in the local, regional and national economy and therefore our

approach and policies associated with surface access cannot exist in isolation. Our overall approach

to surface access is set out in our surface access strategy, which was last updated in 20122. This

provides an overview of the facilities available, as well the types of users.

Previous consultation

The current approach to setting charges has developed over many years and resulted in a number

of different tariffs for different types of user. We have previously instigated an initial consultation on

changes to the structure of the charges to provide a simpler more consistent structure which is fair,

reasonable and non-discriminatory.

GAL considers that charges for Forecourt Access Services should be based on the costs of providing

them. GAL has therefore undertaken a detailed review of the costs incurred in providing Forecourt

Access Services to bus and coach operators, which it has used as the basis for setting charges.

In February 2013 GAL consulted on its approach to setting bus and coach charges and received a

wide range of comments including:

Request to keep current structure

Suggestion that charges should vary according to vehicle size

Requests for reductions for larger buses

Requests for reductions for smaller & more frequent buses

Requests for charging to be based on passengers carried

Requests for discounts for bulk carrying of passengers

Requests to support and encourage the growth and development of new services

2 http://www.gatwickairport.com/business-community/corporate-responsibility/sustainability-strategy/surface-access/

22

Suggestion that charges to be based on cost recovery plus reasonable return.

Requests for no more than inflationary increases

Requests for protection of cost increases on smaller businesses

Requests to charge taxis for picking up on GAL’s forecourts

Requests to charge based on proximity to terminal

In August 2013, GAL wrote to operators informing them that, given the wide range of views

expressed, it would undertake a more detailed review of costs and charges for bus and coach

services. That review was later delayed and postponed to take account of the recommendations of

the CAA’s study.

Proposed principles for consultation

[UPDATED TEXT, FOLLOWING CONSULTATION, HIGHLIGHTED]

In setting prices, GAL is proposing the following:

Subject to the management of wider issues such as congestion. GAL will seek to recover the full costs of these facilities from users except to the extent that there are either broader objectives and/or phasing in provisions in which case, some costs will be met by GAL. Should the forecourt facilities become significantly congested, then we may consider pricing as a tool to ensure a good passenger experience.

GAL’s own use of Forecourt Access Services will be priced on the same basis as other similar users.

Prices for bus and coach operators will be mainly based on sizes with different prices for different vehicle sizes where appropriate. We may also adopt additional schemes to encourage the use of greener vehicles in line with our decade of change undertakings.

One of the major drivers of the cost of accessing the forecourt is the coach park. Use of this facility, particularly by charter coaches, is necessary to manage congestion on the forecourt itself. We propose the costs of the coach park should continue to be allocated based on use of the Coach Park. This will mean that, as the principal users, Chartered coaches and express coaches will be responsible for the majority of the costs of the coach park.

Gatwick plays an important part in the local economy. To support local hotel and guest house owners, prices for courtesy buses operated by local hotels and guest houses and hotel hopper services (“Hotel Courtesy Buses”) may be set at lower levels.

To support local transport facilities, GAL will not charge operators of local buses (“Local Scheduled Buses”) that use Forecourt Access Services;

Gatwick, in cooperation with West Sussex Country Council, ParkMark and Trading

Standards operates an Approved Operator Scheme for meet and greet operators. The

23

scheme helps ensure that passengers receive an acceptable level of professionalism and

service by, for example, requiring suppliers to demonstrate that their facilities meet planning

and security requirements. We provide information as to which operators participate in the

Approved Operator Scheme on our website.

Pick up: For security reasons and to manage congestion, pick up by cars, taxis and

minicabs is not allowed in the drop off area on the forecourt and parties are directed to the

short term car parks. We will, however, continue to operate a free alternative to this in the

Long Term Car parks.

Drop off: Drop off is currently free in the forecourts. If this should change in the future then

we will arrange for a free alternative to be available in a similar way as for pick up.

We will provide unbiased onward travel information to passengers through our website and

onward travel kiosks.

Gatwick will consult with users ahead of making changes to the level or structure of charges.

Such consultation will be undertaken from time to time as appropriate. Such consultation

will contain sufficient content to help inform users of how charges are derived, the basis for

their calculation and the costs to which they relate.

Gatwick may choose to make our products available on so called aggregator websites. If

we choose to do so any arrangement will comply with normal competition law.

The development of facilities outside the airport perimeter is for the local planning authority

to consider. Gatwick participates transparently in the local planning policy through the local

plan and surface access strategy.

We seek further comments from stakeholders on these principles. Following the receipt of further

comments we will evaluate our current charging structure against these principles and if necessary

propose changes. This could for example include an assessment of the cost base (to align with the

principle of charging ourselves for our own use). We would propose that any material changes

identified would be phased to limit the potential impact on the community.

Documents

Principles for Surface Access at Gatwick · specifically mentioned in this consultation, Gatwick Airport has a high profile environmental responsibility. B 3 APH accepts the broad