Airports update: Stansted action, Bristol little win and Cheltenham MP on Staverton

The BAA Stansted Airport Planning Application to treble the capacity of the airport to become larger than Heathrow is now with Uttlesford District Council in Essex. Details below of how to take action, but first our win re Bristol Airport and frustration re Lib Dem MP over Staverton Airport.

Picture: image from Green party campaign video

Bristol Airport latest

On Wednesday North Somerset Council met to decide upon an application for permitted development at Bristol International Airport. This application was for a "walkway" (see more here) - which sounds like a path with a roof, but in fact would be a major building 450m long 8m high and 8m wide with 2000m^2 of queuing space in 8 pre-boarding zones. The airport argued that this was only a "pier", and would not increase capacity. By claiming this as a "pier" they expected to take advantage of a loophole in the law that means the floorspace in a pier is not counted as either a separate building or as adding to the original terminal.

Like many campaigners I sent a formal letter to the Planning Department there arguing that this was way outside what could be considered "permitted development". The airport has already exceeded the extra floorspace for the terminal under permitted development relative to its original planning permission, and we argued that this building would significantly add to the capacity of the airport in terms of passengers that could be held at one time, gates, stands, time to turnaround a plane, etc., and thus it also could not be permitted development. In addition, because it increases capacity it should require an Environmental Impact Assessment.

I understand that the councillors in turn (even those in favour of airport expansion) stated that this was a huge building, was bound to increase capacity, was in effect a terminal extension and hence went beyond the limits for permitted development. They even stated that this was a major PR blunder and was rubbing both the public and the council up the wrong way out of arrogance. Despite the officers strongly recommending that the application be allowed, the councillors then unanimously passed two motions, which are roughly:
- "BIA is told that this is not permitted development and must submit a full planning application"
- "The council will reexamine the issue of whether an EIA is required"

Of course this delighted us and infuriated the airport. We're not quite sure what the airport's next move will be, but it shows that at least minor victories are possible!

Staverton Airport latest

Cheltenhams' Lib Dem Martin Horwood MP has let us know that he supports the 'Runway Safety Project' but not expansion. As anyone who has been following this blog will know to call the proposals a 'Safety' project is complete nonsense. Kevin Lister, a local campaigner responded to the news with a letter to the MP. Here is some of it:

I am disappointed that you do not see it appropriate to oppose the airport, especially for someone who has in the past spoken so eloquently about the problems of climate change that we face. You need to be aware of the following the facts before you accept the safety argument:

1. The changes that are proposed will significantly enhance of the operating length of the runway. This is the important objective that the airport are trying to achieve. In addition, the introduction of instrument landing will allow scheduled service introduction.

2. While it is true that the airport will not able to operate larger jets from runway, the enhancement will be mean that they can now operate the turbo props in the 70-90 seat range at full take off weights. This will allow them introduce a range of additional services that they are not able to do today. This is clearly expansion. As past statements have shown, they intend to compete with Bristol and Birmingham in these markets.

3. Mott MacDonald's business assessment clearly stated that an increase in dividends would come about from this enhancement to pay for the investment. An increase in dividends can only come about from an increase in flights.

4. A key market segment for the airport is private jets. This is pandering to those people who are sticking fingers up to those people who are trying to reduce their emissions and raise awareness of the concerns of climate change. Only recently a letter in the Echo talked of watching George Davies's plane being prepared to take him for a weekends skiing.

5. As you have said on many occasions, we need to keep our CO2 emissions below 450 ppm to avoid runaway climate change. The latest version of the IPCC report (see notes on table 5.1) warns that CO2 equivalent (when taking into account the warming from other greenhouse gases such as NOx, CFC, etc) is now above 455 ppm. We need to be doing everything we can to reduce our emissions, not burying our head in the sand and accepting the lies of safety when the real intention is expansion and short term profits. If we are unable to take action to stop a trival airport such as this, then we have little chance in tacking the bigger and more complex issues associated with climate change.

As you are aware, David Drew has come out against the airport expansion, I trust that you will see it correct to follow his lead and also publically oppose the airport in line with the climate change policies that your party advocates.

I would add to this that the airport had to admit to Cheltenham Borough Council's Cabinet that the airport's plans go-ahead it would actually mean up to 12,000 more flights a year. It would be great if others emailed Martin with their views (I've just sent mine!): martin@martinhorwood.net

Stansted Airport latest

Please join me and write to object before the deadline of 26th June. A mass of objections will guarentee a planning inquiry (subject to any Government moving of goalposts). You can e-mail reponses to planning@uttlesford.gov.uk or write to UDC (Planning), London Road, Saffron Walden, Essex, CB11 4ER.

Here are some bullet point facts about the application:

To expand Stansted Airport by building a second operational runway and associated buildings;
A land grab of 2 1/2 square miles of countryside to accomodate the above plus vast floodlit car parks;
The demoliton of hamlets and houses; 73 in total including listed buildings;
Severe environmental stress on the ancient royal forest of Hatfield which is right at the end of the runway (The National Trust are objecting);
A huge increase in road traffic and consequent pressure to widen and build more major roads;
Increased air pollution, light pollution and noise;
Increased energy and water demands and increased waste (BAA Stansted has a very poor record as evidenced in its own annual "Corporate Responsibility" reports);
Further development pressures (on top of the current rapid expansion) on housing, commercial development, hotels, warehouses, etc - all in what is now open rolling countryside;
AND ... A predicted additional 11 million tonnes per annum CO2 emissions - thats more than the total emissions from all the households in Eastern Region.

Further info can be obtained at
www.stopstanstedexpansion.com