The proposal to build Chennai’s second airport at Parandur has received an in-principle approval at a recent meeting attended by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), the NITI Aayog, AAI, AERA, the India Meteorological Department, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Defence. The total project cost is estimated at Rs. 27,500 crores, with the first phase alone commanding a budget of Rs. 11,445.54 crores. The Parandur airport will reportedly have three midfield terminals and two parallel runways and is expected to commence operations in 2028-29. With the potential to support 100 million passengers a year, the new facility is expected to improve the city’s capacity to serve a greater volume of flight traffic. It is not intended to replace the existing facility at Meenambakkam, which will continue to function.
The announcement has, by and large, been afforded a warm welcome. Though the current Chennai airport is the fifth busiest in the country, it is perceived as lacking in convenience and is often rued for its poor maintenance. It is said to compare poorly with the airports at Bengaluru and Hyderabad, which have upgraded their infrastructure over the years and now handle a much larger volume of passenger traffic. There is an urgent requirement for the city to develop a second airport given the anticipated growth in air traffic, as failing to do so will blunt its competitive edge. The proposed Parandur facility is expected to not only boost the city’s capacity to serve more air passengers, but also promote trade, commerce and tourism in the region. It will also provide employment opportunities to local skills, both during the construction and operation phases.
However, the Parandur airport faces pushback on account of environmental and social concerns. An airport in an area with a significant portion of wetlands may lead to increased flood risks in Chennai, say environmentalists. The Parandur airport is also opposed by civic activists and locals, as 1,005 families stand to be displaced by the project. Media reports say that the community plans to challenge the proposal in court.
A piece in The Hindu quotes G. Sundarrajan of Poovulagu Nanbargal thus – “Displacing thousands and destroying a fragile ecosystem is not the solution to Chennai’s infrastructure problems. There are alternatives. The OTA land, if acquired from the Defence Ministry, could resolve the existing constraints. A satellite terminal could enhance capacity without causing any environmental damage.” He also points out that a crucial hydrogeological report has not been made public yet, the contents of which he feels will shift perspectives on the project’s feasibility. It is to be noted that the approval meeting saw the DGCA highlight the need to address obstructions, including waterbodies; it is reported that waterlogging emerged as a major point of concern in the discussion, as the region was accepted to be flood prone. TIDCO (Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited) is said to have agreed to implement mitigation measures. Also, the pre-feasibility report published by the administration states that there is no Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ), biosphere or critically polluted area within ten kilometres from the proposed site. It also says that forest clearance is not required as no forest land is involved.
While some political leaders are calling for another feasibility study, it must be noted that the current report has also published the reasons why there were no viable alternatives in place of Parandur. According to it, the Padalam site falls under the restricted Tambaram Local Flying Area which is under the control of the Indian Air Force and the resulting restrictions on flight operations would have shrunk the capacity of the new airport. Thiruporur is adjacent to the restricted area as well. This, as well as additional reasons such as the proximity of the Kalpakkam Nuclear Plant, preclude these sites from consideration. As for Pannur, though it is on par with Parandur with regard to connectivity and adequate land availability, it is said to have several Extra High Tension Towers (EHTs) as well as seven active industries. The report indicates that the social cost of establishing an airport in Pannur will be higher – it would displace 1,546 families.
To navigate these issues, some have mooted the idea of building regional airports in cities like Trichy, Coimbatore and Madurai instead. But there’s no question that Chennai city needs a new airport. The current facility is struggling with congestion as it is, and passenger volumes have remained largely stagnant compared to other Indian metros. Other key cities such as Mumbai and Delhi have more than one airport; in fact, Telangana is reportedly building an airport at Mamnoor to decongest its facility at Shamshabad. The need of the hour, then, is to engage all stakeholders – including environmentalists and the local communities – in open discussions to identify and address legitimate concerns against the Parandur project plan. A transparent, inclusive and humane approach to implementation will help the State balance much-needed development and social fairness.