Stansted: Airport 'has lost debate' over growth
From the SUFFOLK FREE PRESS:Campaigners against the expansion of Stansted Airport are confident the Government will throw out plans, after a five-month planning inquiry came to an end.
Airport owner BAA wants to raise the limit on the number of passengers using the airport from 25million to 35m a year and increase the number of flights from 241,000 to 264,000.
Uttlesford District Council turned down the planning application in November, sparking a public inquiry.
Dick Histed, of the South Suffolk Air Transport Action Group, said he was optimistic evidence given by BAA was not strong enough for the Government inspector to recommend overturn ing Uttlesford's unanimous decision.
Mr Histed, of Milden, said: "The weight of the evidence BAA has put forward is not enough to see the Government uphold their appeal.
"Suffolk currently suffers from much aircraft noise. To increase the number of flights is only going to make matters worse."
Among those who gave evidence at the inquiry were Suffolk councils and Halstead and north Essex MP Sir Alan Haselhurst.
The inspector spent a day at Sudbury town hall to hear local views.
Peter Sanders, chairman of Stop Stansted Expansion, said BAA had been "wholly unconvincing" in its efforts to persuade the inquiry that the development would have no material effects on the community or environment.
There was no evidence that backed BAA's claim that more passengers would boost the economy.
Nick Barton, Stansted's business development and planning director, said: "We now await the outcome of the inspector's report and the decision of the Government, but we remain very confident of the strong and compelling case we have made."
BAA believe that 3,800 additional jobs would be created and that tens of millions of pounds will be pumped into the local economy.
Inspector Alan Boyland will submit his recommendations to the Government by Christmas.
A final decision is expected early next year.
www.thinkbeforeyoufly.com
www.thinkbeforeyoufly.com is a new, simple and extremely to the point, way of understanding the amount of energy consumed or CO2 created when an individual takes a flight.
It's a great way to create awareness so pass it on to all regular flyers . . it clearly illustrates that we do not pay for the environmental costs of flying.
Register your complaint
Dear Member,I just wanted to send a quick update re The Planning Inquiry into the increase in Air Passengers numbers from the current maximum of 25 million passengers per annum to an unlimited number on the single runway at Stansted. This could effectively mean a doubling of the aircraft in the skies above our heads.
Uttlesford District Council rejected the original application and now BAA have forced a Public Inquiry. We as SSATAG made a presentation to UDC, along with many others, during their deliberations. We believe that they were greatly influenced by the impact that any expansion would have not only within Uttlesford but also in communities that lay beyond their boundaries.
IMPORTANT
If you did not make direct representation to UDC during the application stage you should do so now. It is important for you to register your objections as individuals or parish councils. This must be done by the 30th January ( a strict deadline).
You need to send your objections in triplicate to
The Planning Inspectorate, Room 4/04 Kite, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS2 6PN
Quoting planning reference APP/C1570/A/06/2032278/NWF
By doing this not only will you be adding to the weight of objections but it also gives you the right to register to speak at the Public Inquiry which is currently scheduled to start on the 15th May and run for 4-6 weeks.
Also, it would be useful for us to know if you have written to the Planning Inspectorate, just drop me an email
Best Wishes
Alan Line
Have you signed the Downing Street e-petition against the expansion of Stansted Airport? Sign up now at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Stansted/
__._,_.___
MORE DELAY BY BAA OVER SECOND RUNWAY PROPOSALS
BAA announced yesterday that it is to delay for a third time the announcement of proposals for a second runway at Stansted is a further mark of the company’s incompetence and disregard for the local community which now faces another uncertain Christmas as a result.
At the start of the consultation into the proposed siting for a second runway (December 2005) BAA stated that it would announce the outcome of the consultation in 'Summer 2006'.
On 6 July 2006, BAA issued a press statement saying that the announcement would be delayed until the autumn.
On 25 October 2006, BAA advised the Stansted Airport Consultative Committee that the announcement would be made within four to five weeks – i.e. by the end of November.
On 15 November 2006, BAA issued a press statement confirming that the announcement would be made in January 2007.
The public consultation ended in March. How long does it take BAA to digest the fact that 89 percent of local people are opposed outright to its plans for a second runway – whatever BAA’s preferred location?
This latest delay also suggests that BAA is still trying to work out which corners to cut in order to satisfy its new Spanish owners and persuade the very sceptical Ryanair and Easyjet to fund its proposals.
The BAA announcement is accessible on line at
http://www.baa.com/portal/controller/dispatcher.jsp?CiID=1afec669f3cee010VgnVCM10000036821c0a____&CtID=a22889d8759a0010VgnVCM200000357e120a____&Ct=B2C_CT_PRESS_RELEASE&ChPath=Corporate^Media%20Centre^News%20releases^Results
The contribution of UK aviation to climate change
Aviation is the fastest growing contributor to Climate Change yet is not subject to VAT or fuel tax.
Following the Stern Report published this week we thought many would find this article interesting.
Click on the link below to download.
Public Meeting with BAA in Sudbury
Meeting at Sudbury Town Hall Thursday 2nd November
Just a quick update to inform you that the BAA Flight Evaluation Unit will be holding
a forum at the Sudbury Town Hall on Thursday 2nd November between 3pm and 8pm.
Just a few ideas for questions you may wish to ask in addition to your own:
What will BAA be recommending to mitigate the noise pollution over Suffolk when
the Consultation on Airspace changes takes place next year?
What happened to the results from the monitoring exercise that took place in Little
Cornard 18 months ago?
Why don't aircraft use Continuous Descent Approach ( CDA) overland to reduce the whine from
aircraft engines?
Can the evaluation unit track the height and descent profiles of aircraft over our region?
We would be most interested in hearing from as to any responses you get from BAA on
these or any other questions
Hope you can make it on Thursday and please inform friends and neighbours.
'Open skies' air treaty threat
· Draft pact curbs UK power to fight global warming
· Restricting night flights would need US approval
Andrew Clark, transport correspondent
Monday February 20, 2006
The Guardian
Britain could lose its ability to impose environmental taxes, restrictions and safeguards on airlines under a draft treaty between the EU and US which curtails the power of national governments. The draft treaty, meant to liberalise aviation, includes a little noticed clause requiring EU states to reach agreement with each other and with the US before taking measures to tackle noise or pollution from airlines.
The text of the draft "open skies" treaty, obtained by the Guardian, is likely to alarm environmental activists who argue that the seemingly unstoppable growth in air travel is among the main contributory factors to global warming. Aviation emissions rose by 12% last year and now account for about 11% of Britain's total greenhouse gas emissions - the fastest growing sector. The government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, has described global warming as a bigger threat to the world than global terrorism.
The revelations come amid campaigns by environmental protesters to halt expansion plans at several British airports, including Heathrow and Stansted. Yesterday a convoy of more than 100 cars toured some of the villages that would be affected if proposals to build a £2.7bn second runway at Stansted, in Essex, are approved.
Article 14 of the draft treaty encompasses any environmental measures which could have "possible adverse effects" on the free traffic of aircraft. It says that signatories to the treaty must "recognise that the costs and benefits of measures to protect the environment must be carefully weighed". The clause states that any disagreement between countries must be referred to a committee comprising governments, airports and airlines. If this fails to produce consensus, the issue is referred to a three-person international arbitration panel.
Industry sources say US negotiators insisted on the clause's inclusion. America has vigorously opposed taxes on aviation fuel, or a proposed emissions trading scheme, because of fears that any extra expense will cost jobs and push several of its airlines - already under bankruptcy protection - out of business. Whitehall insiders say the transport secretary, Alistair Darling, wants the environmental article changed. A spokesman for the Department for Transport said: "We wouldn't sign anything that meant we couldn't implement an emissions trading scheme."
The treaty, however, will be subject to a vote by EU member states requiring 65% of countries to approve it. Britain will have no veto, although a senior EU official offered a cautious response yesterday: "This is a draft. There is a lot that is not yet satisfactory to the European commission and there is plenty of time to amend it."
The phenomenal success of budget airlines such as Ryanair, easyJet and bmibaby has seen the number of people passing through Britain's airports soaring by 76% over a decade, to 215 million in 2004. Critics of the aviation industry argue that it is effectively subsidised because, unlike road or rail operators, airlines are not required to pay tax on fuel. Some activists have suggested levying a fee on every airline ticket, which would be tailored according to the emissions of the flight. The proposed treaty would make any such levy impossible without transatlantic agreement. The wording of the text is so broad that even future restrictions on night flights at Britain's airports could become difficult for the government to implement without US permission, because of the impact on incoming flights from America.
Steve Hounsham, a spokesman for the green campaign group Transport 2000, said: "If this goes through, we'll have sold out to America's airlines."
A senior executive at one leading airline said: "The environment was one of the big, big issues that the two sides discussed. The European commission are much more concerned about it, much more in favour of measures to mitigate the impact, than the Americans are."
Talks towards "open skies" have been motivated by a desire to throw open routes in America and Europe to foreign airlines. Under the proposed deal, any American carrier would be allowed to operate flights between European cities. Any operator would be able to fly from Heathrow to the US - a privilege presently reserved for four carriers: British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, United and American Airlines. In return, Europe wants the US to drop a law preventing foreigners from owning more than a 25% share in any of its airlines.
Tom Brake, the Liberal Democrat transport spokesman, said: "This could be a recipe for almost the permanent stalling of any environmental advances on aviation.
