Mr. Terry Morgan21 March 2006
BAA Stansted
Enterprise House
StanstedAirport
Essex CM24 1QW
Dear Mr Morgan,
Re: StanstedAirport Generation 2 Proposals
Tilty Parish Meeting wishes to respond to your December 2005 Consultation document detailing BAA’s proposals for a second runway at StanstedAirport.
From the outset we should state that Tilty Parish Meeting totally opposes any of the locations for further expansion to the airport. However we would comment on the proposal document as follows:
You state that your proposals for a second runway“cheaper and greener” than that originally proposed for a wide spaced runway as outlined in the White Paper. Whilst cost is of great importance, particularly to BAA and its shareholders, members of this parish are more concerned about the environmental issues and the impact that the planning, construction and subsequent operation will have on its residents’ quality of life. We would state, however, that whilst the proposed cost might appear to be marginally cheaper than those outlined as per the original proposals, the current costing for preferred option “A” of £2.7bn does not include the cost for the road and rail network and its infrastructure, nor does it contain any estimates of the unpredictable cost of surface access. Also, whilst you include some contingencies, the likelihood of such a large and complex infrastructure project coming in within budget must be questioned. Tilty Parish Meeting would therefore conclude that your assertions that the proposal is cheaper are valueless, certainly as far as the local community is concerned.
You state that your proposal is greener. The proposal for your preferred option “A” runway is slightly shorter and the positioning 175 metres further to the West. It is still a wide spaced runway with a massive land grab which will still affect the residents of this Parish just as much as the original position as detailed in the white paper.
The series of options proposed now has the effect of blighting more homes and will now include more homes located within the area affected by option “D”. We note that you have not included a 66dBleq contour line in the noise maps which forms the basis for eligibility under the Home Owner Support Scheme and would question why this was not included. You have repeatedly stated that you want to be fair and be good neighbours and have no wish to split communities, but that is exactly what you have achieved with this woefully inadequate compensation scheme.
Tilty Parish Meeting would request that for any of proposed options A to C, BAA ensures that the HOSS compensation eligibility line encompasses ALL of Tilty’s residences. Not to do so will be to render those parts of the community outside of the line beleaguered and isolated, whilst the community within the line will wither and die.
The Consultation document is not complete. It does not, for example, contain information about development of road and rail infrastructure. Nor does it provide information about increases in NOx, PM and unregulated hydrocarbons, many of which are carcinogenic.
You quote in your consultation document that “we passionately believe in the role and responsibility of aviation in supporting global, national and regional strategies for sustainable development”. There is no sustainable option for air transport. There are no technologies available currently or on the horizon which will allow aircraft to be sustainable from a carbon emissions perspective. Carbon trading has no credibility as it will require all other forms of transport to become carbon neutral - an impossibility.
Tilty Parish Meeting’s reply to that statement therefore is that all the options proposed by BAA for a second runway, while varying slightly in detail, are damaging to the global and regional environment and to the surrounding communities and country life.
The only conclusion that Tilty Parish Meeting can make from the consultation document is that BAA was required by law to consult with the local community on the position for a second runway. BAA can now state that it has fulfilled that requirement. However, the consultation is effectively worthless to the community.
Tilty Parish Meeting therefore wished to inform BAA that all proposed options for a second runway at StanstedAirport are totally unacceptable
Yours sincerely,
S.Bell (Acting Clerk)
cc. Alasdair Bovaird – Chief Executive, Uttlesford District Council
Sir Alan Hazelhurst M.P.
Carol Barbone – Campaign Director, SSE Takeley
1 of 2