Great Hallingbury Parish Council
GREAT HALLINGBURY PARISH COUNCIL
IN THE COUNTY OF ESSEX
MRS F.M.R. TOWNSEND 7 THE GROVE
CLERK OF THE COUNCIL GREAT HALLINGBURY
BISHOP’S STORTFORD
TEL: 01279 465790 HERTS. CM22 7TT.
e.mail:
BAA Stansted,
Freepost CL4055,
Chelmsford,
Essex. CM1 3BR. 20th March 2006
Dear Mr. Morgan,
Stansted Airport Limited
Response to Consultation on Proposals for the Location of a Second Runway
My Parish Council is aware of the importance of Stansted Airport to the local and regional economy but wishes to point out that further expansion must not take place without full and proper account being taken of its impact on this area and in particular on this village and its residents. Whilst the interests of airport passengers, although important, are essentially transient, their total effect on our residents and their quality of life occurs minute by minute, hour by hour and day by day.
The following gives details of our village and what is at risk from major airport development:
The Parish of Great Hallingbury with its 529 Registered Electors plus children forms part of the southern area of Uttlesford District. It is immediately to the south of the B1256 and Stansted Airport, with the ancient Forest of Hatfield forming its eastern border. It extends westwards almost to the River Stort and southwards to the neighbouring Parish of Little Hallingbury.
Uttlesford District is rich in important environment features and heritage items and is probably top of the league in these respects when compared with all other districts of Essex. Great Hallingbury has a goodly share of these, for example we have no less than 59 Listed Buildings. It is a wide spread parish covering no less than 5 square miles and comprises a number of distinct communities surrounding Hallingbury Place which itself is an Area of Ancient Parkland. There is a substantial industrial estate to the south of the B1256 and the parish otherwise is mainly agricultural served by four major farms.
The village is administered by active Parish and Parochial Church Councils. It has an attractive Church, a thriving private school, a popular village hall, an hotel, a restaurant and a public house. Activities include a WI branch, a Local History Society, a Bowls Club, Brownies, the Friendship Club for Senior Citizens and four Equestrian Centres.
As to local services, there is merely a bus service to Bishop’s Stortford, some three miles away, on Thursdays. Whilst there is a major sewage treatment works in the village serving Bishop’s Stortford and Stansted Airport, there are no main drainage connections to village properties. Electricity is supplied via overhead lines but no gas is available in the village.
The M11 Motorway runs through the village with Junction 8 just within its north-western boundary. The village lanes, partly covered by a poorly enforced 30mph speed limit, form part of the “rat runs” to and from the south to the motorway junction and to Stansted Airport. Traffic has materially increased in recent years and this together with the lack of paved paths, represents a considerable hazard to the many pedestrians, ramblers, cyclists and horse riders who enjoy our still attractive countryside.
All aircraft landing and taking off from Stansted Airport to and from the south pass over the village, and aircraft noise from the present throughput of some 22 million passengers per annum adversely affects the quality of life of residents, particularly in the summer months. The crash of the Korean Air Jumbo jet in 1999 was, and still is, a grim reminder of the down side of airport activity. The environmental sustainability of the currently approved 25mppa has yet to be proven to the satisfaction of residents and the proposal almost to double the present level of activity with the full use of the existing runway is a matter of the gravest local concern.
Your current consultation on proposed locations for a second runway adds immensely to that concern, particularly when we consider the impact on this village of segregated mode operations. These are stated to be essential for option D and may be seen to be necessary for other options if Takeley and Hatfield Forest are to be given some protection. Any of these would result in the full output of the airport, with a capacity greater than the present throughput of Heathrow, passing over us continuously at a rate of over 40 movements per hour!
We must also point out that your document is seriously deficient in that it fails to provide the detailed information which is necessary to enable people to give properly considered opinions on your proposals. The lack of Environmental and Health Impact Statements are examples of this together with matters such as;
· . The need to show realistic noise contours which are not reduced by being based on the average modal split of operations. This would properly reflect our most serious impact which is from aircraft taking off to the south-west which we suffer for 65% of the year, often for days on end, Noise contours should be shown down to 50dBAleq in line with World Health Organisation recommendations reflecting the onset of intrusive noise.
· The positions of flight paths and stacking areas.
· Proposed road and rail infrastructural changes.
· Water supply and waste management proposals.
· Atmospheric pollution levels.
To name but a few!
My Parish Council is thus at a loss to discern the relevance and purpose of this consultation, knowing that your runway preferences and details of the above matters must be submitted with your ultimate Planning Application and at the Public Inquiry which will follow its inevitable refusal.
As Parish Councillors see the destruction of long established communities already taking place in the Takeley and Broxted areas and other undesirable demographic changes elsewhere, they are determined that it shall not happen here. They are more than ever mindful of their duty to preserve and enhance the amenities of our village and to protect and improve the quality of life of its residents. The concept of an additional runway, or indeed any significant increase in the currently approved 25mppa on the existing runway, is incompatible with these objectives and consideration of your proposals by this Parish Council is thus wholly inappropriate.
If you sincerely wish to win and maintain the confidence of local people, you are urged to withdraw these potentially destructive and ruinous proposals forthwith.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs F. Townsend,
Clerk to the Council.