FARNHAM PARISH COUNCIL
Chair: Mrs Petronella Humphreys
Clerk: Mr Peter Jarman
Mill Toft
Farnham Green
Bishop’s Stortford
Hertfordshire
CM23 1HP
Telephone: Albury (01279) 771443
Fax: 08701 225787
Mr J Mitchell (Executive Manager)
Uttlesford District Council
Council Offices
London Road
Saffron Walden
Essex.CB11 4ER
26th June 2006 Your ref:UTT/0717/06/FUL
Dear Mr. Mitchell,
In reply to your letter dated 3rd May 2006 regarding the Town and Country planning order at Stansted Airport with regard to the capacity of the current runway at the airport, I have detailed the response from the Farnham Parish Council.
The planning permission sought by BAA would appear to request an increase from the current agreement of 25mppa to an undisclosed limit. Various figures have been intimated (e.g. “about 35mppa” stated in ‘The Non-Technical Summary’) and it would appear that this is merely a figure quoted as a suggestion. The Parish Council opposes any planning application that does not specify parameters of development. If such approval was to be given then BAA would have an open-ended approval.
There is no clear indication of the basis on which this application is made – it would appear that BAA are simply trying to increase the capacity of the airport for financial gain rather than through public demand or need. The future of aircraft/airport expansion is, at best, very debatable, taking into consideration the ever rising fuel costs, the concern over climate change and global warming/CO2 emissions etc.
However, one fact is absolutely certain, and that is, if expansion is allowed for Generation 1, it will change this area, the environment and quality of life for ever.
The variation of condition ATM1 for actual passenger numbers of about 35mppa to air traffic movements of 264,000 is not “purely” a variation of current condition limits. It will result in all probability in passenger numbers exceeding 35 million and approach 40 million or even beyond this number, turning this into the busiest single runway airport in the world. There is no mention of the recent announcements by Boeing in relation to their 787 Dreamliner which is aimed at linking hub airports and thereby potentially reducing long haul flights to regional and other airports.
BAA has stated the increase in passenger numbers/flights will hardly be noticed in the area, and will smooth out the peak movements during the busy period i.e. 06.00 hours to 09.00 hours and 17.00 hours to 19.00 hours. The ERM (Environmental Resources Management) has produced a model that shows virtually all available slots will be full for the period 06.00 hours to 22.00 hours when handling 35 million passengers.
Even with the current aircraft movements, the Parish of Farnham is now experiencing a degree of disturbance and annoyance. This is becoming more evident in the Farnham Green area (parts of which are additionally suffering from engine testing and ground noise), when aircraft are taking off in a South Westerly direction and flying westwards. This area also experiences significant annoyance from aircraft when they are following the landing route and traversing Farnham Parish in a South Westerly direction in order to land at the South Westerly end of the runway. The noise from both of these flight paths has become increasingly annoying and noticeable in the last two years. Any further increase in ATM’s will obviously exacerbate the situation.
The Environmental Statement makes it clear that BAA has based its assessment of air noise on current Government policy, that is on 57dBALeq contours, which iron out peaks. The 57dBLAeq contours published by BAA in connection with the planning application do not extend over Farnham. The 16 hour period over which the 57dBALeq contours are estimated runs from 0700 hours to 2300 hours. This omits two peak periods when Stansted Airport is exceptionally busy and when most residents in Farnham and in surrounding areas are trying to sleep or to get to sleep, that is the shoulder periods from 0600 to 0700 hours and from 2300 to 2330 hours. The 57dBLAeq contours also do not cover the period from 2330 hours to 0600 hours when most people are asleep and when aircraft noise is at its most disruptive. This makes a nonsense of the statistics being used, especially when you consider the fact that Farnham is a rural area and therefore any additional noise represents a disturbance.
In conclusion, the feeling of the elected representatives of this Parish, is that an increase from 25mppa or any variation of the current condition limits, quite apart from the threat of Generation 2, will totally ruin this area, regardless of what BAA intend to do to mitigate the effects of expansion, and we ask you to reject this application.
We have additional concerns over some other aspects of the application.
There are clearly several flight paths in the vicinity of Stansted Airport, several of which are on flight paths to Luton, some flying at a higher level and not landing at Stansted Airport and others nearby in a holding pattern for London (Heathrow) Airport. Clearly the planning application can only be granted if Uttlesford District Council is satisfied that safe flight paths are currently available for the additional flights for which BAA is seeking permission. BAA must produce satisfactory evidence that safe flight paths are available for the proposed increase in flights. We would like to know the view of the NATS on this matter and also ask why NATS has not been consulted on the potential difficulties of such an increase.
The planning application makes it clear that BAA is not seeking permission for any additional physical developments/facilities that do not currently have planning permission. It is clear from the information provided by BAA, and particularly from the map at the back of the Environmental Statement, that BAA has a clear idea of the buildings etc it wishes to construct if the planning application is granted. It is difficult to understand why BAA does not propose to adopt the sensible course of applying now for the necessary permission for the buildings etc. Has BAA in mind that if planning permission is granted, the Council, as the planning authority, will find it hard to refuse permission for the buildings etc which BAA claims are necessary to operate the existing runway at the increased capacity that will have already been authorised?
In conclusion, we request that you take the views of this Parish Council into consideration when making your decision on this planning permission proposal. The residents of Farnham would prefer that BAA's planning application should be rejected. The outcome would presumably be that the matter would be referred to a public enquiry, so that all local residents would have an opportunity to express their views. If the Council finds itself under such pressure that it decides to grant permission, then this should only be done subject to the most stringent conditions, with BAA being required at regular intervals to provide evidence to the Council of compliance with the conditions and financial penalties being imposed on BAA in the event of the conditions being breached.
Yours sincerely,
PETER JARMAN
Clerk to Farnham Parish Council
c.c. Sir Alan Haselhurst – M.P.
Carol Barbone – S.S.E.
Cllr Janice Loughlin - UDC
Farnham Parish Council Page 1 of 2 Email: