StanstedAirport G1 Inquiry Notes following the Pre-Inquiry Meeting

StanstedAirport Generation 1 Inquiry

NOTES FOLLOWING THE PRE-INQUIRY MEETING

Held on 5 March 2007 at Uttlesford District Council Offices, Saffron Walden

  1. Introduction

2.1The Inspector is Alan Boyland, a Chartered Civil Engineer and Chartered Town Planner. He has been appointed by the Secretaries of State for Communities & Local Government and for Transport to hold a Public Local Inquiry regarding proposals at StanstedAirport (see section 2 below) and to report with recommendations to them. He will be assisted in this by Terry Phillimore, a Chartered Town Planner.

2.2Simon Osborn is the Programme Officer (PO). He has been appointed by Uttlesford District Council specifically for the purpose, having had no previous involvement in the matters that are to be the subject of the Inquiry. In his role he will be an officer of the Inquiry, responsible to the Inspector.

2.3His main roles, under the Inspector’s direction will be:

  • keeping records of those attending the Pre-Inquiry Meeting and Inquiry;
  • organising and keeping under review the Inquiry programme;
  • organising practical arrangements for the Inquiry, including co-ordinating and advising on appearances;
  • acting as a contact between participants and the Inspector;
  • co-ordinating the receipt & distribution of documents;
  • holding a master set of all documents as an Inquiry library and maintaining document lists; and
  • planning site visits.

2.4Contact details for the PO are as follows:

Address: / 1 Lower Farm Cottages, Yeldham Road, Belchamp Walter, Sudbury, Suffolk, CO10 7BA
Tel. / 07710 969411
Email: /
  1. Scope of Inquiry

2.1The Inquiry will be into an appeal made by BAA plc and Stansted Airport Ltd against the decision by Uttlesford District Council to refuse an application for:

‘Development permitted under UTT/1000/01/OP without complying with condition MPPA1 and varying condition ATM1’.

2.2That permission, granted by the Council in May 2001, provided for:

‘Extension to the passenger terminal; provision of additional aircraft stands and taxiways, aircraft maintenance facilities, offices, cargo handling facilities, aviation fuel storage, passenger and staff car parking and other operational and industrial support accommodation, alterations to airport roads, terminal forecourt and the Stansted rail, coach and bus station; together with associated landscaping and infrastructure’.

2.3Condition MPPA1 sets an annual limit of 25 million passenger throughput; BAA seeks removal of this limit. Condition MPA1 limits air transport movements (ATMs) to 241,000 in any year. BAA seeks variation to a limit of 264,000 ATMs per year.

2.4The Inquiry will be concerned solely with those matters and others arising directly from them. It will not address any other proposals, such as for a second runway. These would be the subjects of separate proceedings.

  1. Purpose of the Pre-Inquiry Meeting

3.1The meeting was held to discuss procedural matters relating to the Inquiry in order to make best and most effective use of Inquiry time. There was no discussion of the merits of the proposals or of the cases for any party.

  1. Appearances at the Inquiry

4.1The statutory (‘Rule 6’) parties indicated their anticipated, provisional, intentions as to advocates and witnesses, as follows:

Party / Advocate(s) / Witnesses
Uttlesford District Council (UDC)
Hertfordshire County Council
Essex County Council (subject to confirmation)
(Joint presentation) / Thomas Hill & Lisa Busch, both of Counsel / Approx 12, dealing with planning policy & history, noise impacts, air quality, ecology, quality of life (2), water conservation, climate change, economic impacts, road access in Essex, road access in Herts, rail access.
BAA plc & Stansted Airport Ltd / Michael HumphriesQC
assisted by Hereward Phillpot, of Counsel / Approx 6, dealing with planning, aircraft noise, surface access, forecasts, air quality, ecology & water (further witnesses as necessary to rebut evidence by other parties).
Much Hadham Parish Council / Martin Dillon, Chairman of the Council / 2 or 3 re. noise.
National Trust / John Popham, Planning & Environmental Consultant / Approx 4, dealing with Trust policy, air quality, noise and effects of climate change on HatfieldForest.
Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) / Sarah Hannett, of Counsel / Approx 17, dealing with planning policy, air traffic forecasts, air noise, air quality, economics/employment/housing (2), ground noise, surface access (3), water demand, quality of life, community cohesion, health impacts, sustainability, climate change, light pollution.
Stansted Airlines Consultative Committee (SACC) / David Holgate QC / 2 or 3 – a representative of the Committee, others dealing with aviation/transport and surface access.
Saffron Walden & District Friends of the Earth / Dr Patricia Elliot / Herself + 1, dealing with the main issues identified by the Inspector.

4.2Others wishing to appear were identified orally or through completion of a register provided by the Council. The Inspector stressed that the fact that people may not have been present at the Pre-Inquiry Meeting, or had not yet asked to speak at the Inquiry, would not preclude them coming forward to do so later. However, those wishing to appear were urged to make this known to the Programme Officer as soon as possible so that they can be included in the Inquiry programme.

  1. Inquiry venue

5.1It is currently proposed that the Inquiry will be held at Endeavour House at the Airport (Coopers End Road, Stansted, CM24 1AL). Although some concern was expressed about it being held on ‘BAA territory’, the Inspector assured parties that this would not influence the conduct or outcome of the Inquiry in any way. The Inspector indicated his willingness to consider holding a limited number of evening sessions at other venues in the area (see below).

5.2In the Inspector’s view this location is likely to be the most convenient and suitable one for the majority of participants, and is readily accessible by car and by public transport (being within the Airport free travel zone and passed by many bus routes).

5.3However, there remain some doubts about the availability of suitable accommodation within Endeavour House. This will be resolved as soon as possible and any change will be notified.

  1. Inquiry dates and times

6.1The Inquiry will open at 10:00 on Wednesday 30 May 2007. It is provisionally estimated that it will last for 6 weeks, but this may change when a detailed programme is drawn up. It would not normally sit for more than 3 or 4 weeks at a stretch, with a 1-week break between. Such breaks provide valuable time for preparation and discussions between parties, the Inspector would put the time to good use in commencing his report.

6.2The Inquiry will sit on Tuesdays to Fridays, generally between 10:00 (earlier if necessary to keep up with programme) and around 17:00 (around 15:00 on Fridays). There will be a 1-hour break for lunch at around 13:00 each day, and short breaks at convenient points mid-morning and mid-afternoon.

6.3If evening sessions are held, these will replace morning or afternoon sessions on those days.

  1. Main issues and areas of agreement

Main issues

7.1The Inspector had circulated a list of the main issues that he had identified on the basis of the information available to him so far. It would help the Inspector if particular attention would be paid to these matters, and to the scope for mitigating any harm, in the presentation of evidence. He stressed that these were what he saw as the main issues and were not intended to be an exhaustive list of matters to be considered. Identifying them at this stage will not preclude other relevant issues being raised at the Inquiry.

7.2A number of further issues and amendments were suggested from the floor. The Inspector has taken on board some of these points in a revised list that is appended to these notes. However, that is not intended to imply that the other points raised are not relevant, that they may not be discussed at the Inquiry or that they will not be taken into account in the report to the Secretaries of State.

Government policy

7.3The Inspector recognises that many people hold strong and sincere views on issues concerning climate change and the part that development here and aviation generally may play in that. There is likely to continue to be public debate on how Government policy should respond to such issues. However, this Inquiry is not the appropriate forum for challenging the merits of current Government policy or for debate on the direction of future policy – these are matters for Parliament and public consultation/ debate outside the scope of the present appeal.

7.4Therefore the Inquiry will proceed on the basis of Government and other relevant policy as it stands. Evidence and views on the implications of policy for the proposals before the Inquiry will be welcome, but there will be no discussion of the merits of current policy or of how it should change. It will be for the Secretaries of State to decide whether, and to what extent, to take wider or future policy considerations into account in their decision.

7.5UDC indicated that its reason for refusal regarding climate change had been given before publication of the Government’s update to the Air Transport White Paper[1] in the light of the Stern Review[2].

7.6SSE pointed out that the economic cost of carbon emissions is pertinent to many of the issues identified. UDC provided a copy of a letter from the Department for Transport indicating that it is intended to consult on proposals for the operation of the emissions cost assessment in the first half of 2007, subject to Ministerial agreement, with the consultation running for a minimum of 12 weeks. In the event of that consultation document being issued before or during the Inquiry it will be open to participants to refer to its implications for the current proposals at StanstedAirport (and to the weight that should be attached to its contents). However, again, the Inquiry is not the appropriate forum for any debate on the merits of such draft proposals.

Statement of Common Ground (SOCG)

7.7BAA indicated that it had prepared a draft SOCG covering a wide range of factual matters. The chapters covering all matters except surface access had recently been sent to UDC, but there had not yet been any discussions on them. On surface access matters agreement would be sought with the Highways Agency and Essex and Hertfordshire County Councils as highway authorities.

7.8BAA and UDC expressed a willingness to progress this matter as expeditiously as possible and to agree as much as possible between them. The Inspector stressed the importance of the SOCG for minimising Inquiry time. It was acknowledged that it was impractical to involve other parties fully in the process, but the Inspector welcomed BAA’s suggestion that they be sent copies when the statement had been agreed between the Council and BAA, and invited to indicate those elements of the statement with which they also concur. The SOCG should be submitted no later than the date specified for proofs of evidence (see below).

7.9The Inspector pointed out that much factual material is included in the Environmental Statement. He urged the parties to cross-refer to such matters there that are agreed rather than simply repeating them in the statement of common ground.

  1. Inquiry procedure

8.1The Inspector will generally follow the normal Inquiry procedure as set out in the Rules[3] and Circular[4]. However, these give him wide discretion to determine the procedure.

8.2The opening day of the Inquiry is likely to attract significant public interest. Therefore the Inspector will aim to keep formalities to a minimum on that day, deferring them as necessary. He will invite each of the statutory parties to make a short opening statement to set the scene and to help those who may not be familiar with their cases. He suggested a maximum of 30 minutes each for UDC and BAA, and 15 minutes for others. These statements will not preclude the making of full opening submissions if parties wish (but they should avoid repetition as far as possible).

Presentation of evidence

8.3The Inspector sought views of participants on the subsequent order and structure of presentation of evidence. Firstly, on whether parties’ cases should be presented as a whole or the Inquiry should proceed on a topic-by-topic basis, views were mixed. BAA advocated presentation as a whole, UDC was neutral and most other statutory parties favoured a topic basis. Having carefully considered the various points raised, including the suggestion of a hybrid approach, the Inspector is of the view that there are advantages and disadvantages to any method but, on balance, presentation of each party’s full case would generally be most expeditious. However, he does not rule out the possibility of some departures from this as necessary for programming reasons.

8.4Secondly, on the order of presentation of evidence, again there were divergent views. The conventional sequence is the local planning authority first (as indicated in the Rules) followed by the appellant then any other parties. BAA suggested that this would be unfair as it would effectively be sandwiched between objectors, and that it would be more appropriate for it to be heard last. It pointed out that the Rules provide for the appellant to have the right of final reply. A number of other statutory parties objected to this and felt that BAA should present its evidence first.

8.5The general wish of parties to hear the evidence of opposing parties before presenting their own is understandable, but clearly this is impossible for all. The pre-Inquiry statements and the prior exchange of proofs of evidence are intended to ensure that the nature of parties’ cases and the scope and nature of their evidence will be known to all parties before the Inquiry. Moreover, the provision for submission of rebuttal proofs will provide an opportunity to adduce additional evidence in response to matters raised in the evidence of others. The right of final reply referred to in Rule 15(4) is generally taken to refer to the appellant’s closing submissions, not to its evidence. In any event, the same rule gives the Inspector the power to determine a different order of proceedings.

8.6Accordingly the Inspector considers that there is no overriding justification for departure from the normal order of presentation of evidence (local planning authority – appellant – others) in this instance. However, again, there may be departures from this general sequence if necessary to make best use of Inquiry time or to overcome constraints.

8.7The evidence of each witness called by a party will be open to cross-examination (questions) by opposing parties who are themselves calling evidence. Those cross-examining are urged to avoid as far as possible repetition of questions already asked by others. There may be re-examination by the witness’s own advocate to clarify matters raised in cross-examination, and the Inspector and/or Assistant Inspector may put any questions they have.

8.8At the end of the evidence there will be a session to discuss planning conditions and/or obligations. This does not, and will not, mean that the Inspector is minded to recommend that permission be granted, and discussing such matters will not weaken or prejudice anyone’s case.

Closing submissions

8.9The Inspector will then hear closing submissions from the main parties (unless they have made these at the end of their evidence) in reverse order of their appearances, save that BAA will make its submissions last.

Evening sessions

8.10The purpose of any evening sessions would be to hear the views of local people who are unable to attend the main Inquiry sessions. There would be no opportunity there to put questions to witnesses for BAA etc. Such sessions would still be formal Inquiry sessions, under the Inspector’s control. They would be held in public and open to all, but would not be public meetings in the usual sense. Suggestions of venues for such meetings should be made as soon as possible to the Programme Officer and all will be considered but in the context that there will only be a limited number of evening sessions.

Repetition

8.11The Inspector stressed that it is important to avoid repetition as far as possible. If a point is a good one it needs to be made only once to be given due weight. Repetition will not add to that weight – it will simply waste Inquiry time and indeed may also cloud issues. The sole purpose of the Inquiry is to enable the Inspector to gain the information he needs to report to the Secretaries of State. It is not a forum for statements intended for a wider audience.

Site visits

8.12The Inspector and Assistant Inspector will familiarise themselves with the area around the airport prior to the Inquiry (unaccompanied), and may make further such visits during or after the Inquiry. It was agreed that they also need to tour the airport itself beforehand, particularly to see the facilities etc to which reference is likely to be made at the Inquiry. In this they would have to be accompanied by representatives of BAA and UDC. The Programme Officer will liaise with them regarding the arrangements.

8.13The Inspectors will make accompanied visits to relevant places during or after the Inquiry; the arrangements for these will be made later. The parties are asked to convey to the Programme Officer suggestions for places that should be included in site visits.