News: Stansted expansion plans rejected
Flights > News > # 1096 (30/11/2006)
Stansted airport’s ambitious expansion plans have been halted at the first hurdle.
Uttlesford District Council has rejected the British Airport Authority’s (BAA) planning application to increase its passenger capacity from 25 million a year to 35 million. BAA said it will appeal the district council’s decision.
Uttlesford planning officers' reasons for recommending refusal included the impact it would have on noise levels, air quality, road and rail networks and local quality of life. They said the potential economic benefits had not been demonstrated to be strong enough to outweigh possible negative factors.
BAA has also faced fierce criticism over plans to build a second runway and new terminal at Stansted from a host of leading airlines who fear the cost of such a project will be passed on to them in the form of higher handling charges.
Add to:
Related Airlines:
Related Airports:
Comment:
With the parochial Uttlesford District Council voting unanimously to reject the lifting of restrictions at Stansted, and airport operator BAA promising an instant appeal, this matter will inevitably end up being resolved by a hugely expensive public enquiry. Last year, Warwick District Council squandered millions of pounds on an enforcement enquiry over Coventry airport’s usage of temporary terminal facilities. Now taxpayers can expect to be burdened by what will undoubtedly be an even more expensive investigation into increasing passenger numbers from the current cap of 25 million per year up to a potential maximum of 35 million per year.
Why will this process be so ridiculous? Of course, there are many legitimate local concerns about the future expansion of Stansted, but the most significant impacts would come from the possible construction of a second runway, rather than from incremental increases in usage of the existing facility. We already think that Stansted’s existing terminal is stretched to bursting point, so any major leap in capacity can only be accommodated by the construction of a second terminal, which itself will to have to go through the planning process.
It is typically revealing of the narrow minded attitude of local council officials that no mention was made about overcrowding in the terminal itself, because they were all far too busy worrying about the external details to consider the welfare of the passengers who ultimately provide so much employment within the Stansted area.
The new terminal and new runway proposals will have to go through their own scrutiny, however much it might be argued that the government has already prejudiced the outcome of this by expressing its support for Stansted to take the majority of the projected growth in aviation traffic in the London area.
Uttlesford District Council's planning committee might be giving themselves a tremendous pat on the back for clubbing together and acting unanimously on this issue, but the situation at Coventry has highlighted that unanimity can lead to a cult like detachment from being able to give an objective view of the situation. The Coventry airport debate has involved ridiculously large fees been handed out to lawyers so they could argue about a temporary building, whilst missing the real point about the long-term impact of the permanent airport terminal. We can only envisage a future public enquiry about Stansted's capacity limits resulting in millions of pounds being spent to discuss a proposal which will not involve moving a single lump of earth, mowing down a single blade of grass, or laying a single brick. Meanwhile, when it comes to discussing the real issues about the future of Stansted, the various parties will become so stuck in their ways that the prospects of a reasonable compromise, if there ever could be such a thing, will be remote.
