STANSTED AIRPORT GENERATION 1 INQUIRY SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE OF. John Mitchell Director of Development

Transcription

1 Document number: UDC/2/B Appeal ref: STANSTED AIRPORT GENERATION 1 INQUIRY Commencing 30 th May 2007 SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE OF John Mitchell Director of Development

2 Summary and Conclusion Quality of the character of the area SC1 Uttlesford and the surrounding area is rich in its landscape and built heritage. The character of the area s settlements owes much to the survival and juxtaposition of historic buildings of successive periods. SC2 The wealth of such buildings and the preservation of the coherence of the historic pattern of development have created a rich and rewarding townscape. An indication of the quality of the historic environment in the area is gained from the large numbers of conservation areas, of which there are 75 in the districts of Uttlesford and East Herts alone. East Herts has more than 3,000 listed buildings and Uttlesford has over 3,700; very high figures for district authorities in the national context and, in the latter case, second only to the City of Westminster in the greater south east. SC3 In this rural context London s third airport is something of an incongruity. This area has a built and natural heritage that far exceeds mere local significance, and further increases in air traffic are simply not acceptable if that heritage is to be enjoyed by this and future generations. One of the worst affected settlements, Thaxted, is of national significance for its architecture, history and relationship to the landscape. The frequent passing of aircraft in such a setting is unacceptable. SC4 All other major airports are close to and served by a large urban area: By contrast the nearest settlement of any significance close to Stansted Airport is the small market town of Bishops Stortford, physically separated from the airport by the M11 and with a population of only some 35,000. The nearest large settlements are Harlow, Braintree and Chelmsford, all some miles away. This serves to emphasise the remote and rural location of this airport. 2

3 The application process SC5 In handling this planning application the Council went to great lengths to ensure maximum involvement of the community in its decision not just objectors, but also stakeholders and supporters of the application SC6 To ensure openness and transparency of decision making, a number of extraordinary meetings of the Development Control Committee were held to discuss the application. Notably, the meetings on 3 rd -7 th July constituted a week of public engagement to hear oral representations from statutory consultees, other interest groups and stakeholders and the general public. In total, there were over 80 different representations heard that week, both for and against expansion. A significant feature of this approach was to enable the Committee to ask questions or raise points of clarification with the participants, which introduced a significant degree of inclusiveness and a feeling that their views really counted. Moreover, non-participants could see that people were being listened to, and their views, where these coincided, were being given voice. The outcome of the application process SC7 The views expressed as a result of the Council s engagement process so far as they affect quality of life are summarised in my proof. In all some 1400 representations were received, of which about 110 were in support. The breadth and geographical spread of objections is salutary: the airport causes a significant loss of amenity to people as far away as Ware to the south west and the Dedham Vale AONB to the east. Town and Parish Councils representing some 170,000 people have objected. Objections about noise are not confined to the noise contour area nor the flight paths. Of particular note are objections from the National Trust, Natural England 3

4 and the Environment Agency, the latter two being Government Agencies. English Heritage expressed grave considerable reservations about the proposal. SC8 The range of comments is astounding and represents the annoyance and frustrations of people who live with the day to day activity of the airport all the time. A picture emerges of people unable to sit out in their gardens in summer because of noise: similarly, when they go indoors they cannot open the windows. Their sleep is interrupted regularly. Their enjoyment of the tranquillity of their home and village is spoiled. There are smells from aviation fuel and fumes. There is a genuine fear from those close to the flight paths about falling debris and the possibility of another crash. When they leave their homes they find airport passengers on the rail network have priority over local train services, causing overcrowding and worsening the journey experience. The local road network is becoming more congested and rat-running is increasing. Unauthorised airport parking is widespread and hard to control. The rural nature of the area is steadily being eroded and all the time the frequency of flights is increasing. SC9 These are the views of the community and this is how the airport is perceived locally and in the wider area. SC10 Moreover, the Council finds itself with a significant drain on resources resulting from enforcement of unauthorised developments that are entirely caused by the presence of the airport. These include unauthorised airport parking on a major scale, the creation of HMO s without permission, the conversion (and construction) of outbuildings providing apartments for rent to aircrew, unauthorised bed and breakfast uses with parking, fly parking in residential roads and litter deposited by drivers waiting to pick up passengers outside the airport boundary. While we take a vigorous 4

5 approach to enforcement, especially of parking, this is a significant drain on resources for enforcement, planning and legal staff. Other enforcement work suffers as a result, to the detriment of the amenity of the wider community and to the detriment of the effectiveness of the Council s enforcement service. SC11 In the light of these findings the Council carried out further research into the effects of the airport by asking Parish Councils for further information. The replies painted a picture of declining communities, breakdowns in supporting networks, changes in house tenure resulting in short term occupiers with no interest in village life, decline in property maintenance, decline in community activity and ever present noise. SC12 The constant element of all the objections is that these impacts are being felt now, at 24mppa. The effects at 35mppa will be even worse. The quality of life approach SC13 In its scoping opinion and its Regulation 19 request the Council sought a Quality of Life Assessment Approach to the application. BAA refused on both occasions. These are all issues that would have been taken into account at the outset has BAA adopted a Quality of Life Approach to augment its ES. In addition little account seems to have been taken of the opinions and values of potential users and beneficiaries of growth of the airport, relying instead on projections of demand as a determinant of need. To what extent, for example, would people place their desire for a holiday above the quality of life of residents directly affected by their flight? A Quality Of Life assessment, or similar, approach would have brought these issues into the equation. 5

6 SC14 Some of these concerns were actually picked up by BAA in its preapplication consultation exercise, yet it did little to address them in the Environmental Statement. In its scoping opinion the Council asked for a Quality Of Life Assessment so as to bring these elements together. Quality of Life Assessment is a tool for maximising environmental, economic and social benefits as part of any land-use planning or management decision. Promoted by the three agencies (Natural England, English Heritage and the Environment Agency), it reflects the Government's integrated approach to sustainable development. SC15 Environmental and economic issues are covered in the ES but not social elements that bind them together, although these plainly represent an impact upon human beings. I accept that a Quality Of Life approach is not expressly required as part of the Environmental Regulations but without doubt it is a serious omission here. SC17 It is evident that the airport is giving rise to levels of disturbance and annoyance to a wide range of communities that people are finding intolerable now. The area is one with a nationally significant heritage, in which frequent and increasing noise from passing aircraft is an unacceptable intrusion. The Council has refused this application for sound, locally-based, planning reasons. Further expansion would be unacceptable. I realise that the Airport White Paper and its review both commit to making the best use of existing airport infrastructure. But to my mind, the limit that defines best use has already been reached at Stansted, because of the effect on communities and on the environmental heritage. Indeed, in formulating the White Paper the Government took little, if any, account of the views of local communities, leaving this to the planning process. Irrespective of its potential capacity, the airport is already operating at levels which harm local communities. The Inspector is respectfully requested to recommend dismissal of this appeal. 6

7 7