STOP STANSTED EXPANSION

[CHRIS]

A new website has been started by BAA to monitor noise for local residents, seems strange to me but we will see if it works. So if you are also local please get online and moan about the 3am FEDEX flight and lets not be sheep anymore for the fat cats to kick us about.

http://www.stanstedairport.com/portal/controller/dispatcher.jsp?ChPath=XYZStanstedNoise

Also the public consultation starts today so if you feel like it is important to you please have a look.

http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/r1_public_inquiry.html

http://www.uttlesford.gov.uk/stansted+airport/default.htm

 

[NT]

Youre optimistic.

 

[Nemesis]

The SSE team have worked so hard to bring it to this inquiry, let's wish them luck.

 

[Flyfisher]

If the sentiments expressed here are representative it seems there is considerable public support for expansion. Of course, I doubt many of them live nearby so it could be their way of keeping such things distant from their own areas, but there's no doubting the popularity of flying these days.

There are a few interesting comments about the old Maplin Sands proposal as a site for a new south east airport, before Stansted was originally developed. As I recall, this was turned down because of the wildlife impact. It does make you wonder about our priorities.

I don't generally hold with conspiracy theories but one has to wonder about the government's stance on proposing increased aviation taxes (for 'green' reasons, of course) on one hand while pushing ahead with airport expansion on the other.

 

[Nemesis]

Just arrived in my Inbox:

PRESS RELEASE

ISSUED BY STOP STANSTED EXPANSION Wednesday 30 May 2007



OPENING SALVOS FIRED AS STANSTED PUBLIC INQUIRY OPENS



The opening salvos were fired today (30 May) at the Public Inquiry into BAA’s proposals for an extra 75,000 flights a year and the complete removal of the annual 25 million limit on the number of passengers Stansted Airport is allowed to handle.



National environmental organisations joined the local community and representatives from other airport communities around the UK in a show of unity against BAA’s plans, turning out in force to hear the opening statements from the major parties to the Inquiry, including Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) which is spearheading opposition.



As well as examining the local environmental impacts of BAA’s proposals, the Inquiry will be a test case of the Government’s commitment to tackling the wider issue of climate change. Information finally provided by BAA last month revealed that the additional carbon dioxide emissions arising from expansion would be even higher that SSE had previously estimated and would be equivalent to wiping out the savings that would be achieved if every home in the UK changed all their conventional lightbulbs to energy efficient ones.



Paul Stinchcombe, Counsel for SSE, told the Inquiry Inspector Alan Boyland that it was imperative that this Inquiry takes fully on board the most recent statements of Government policy on sustainability in general and on climate change.



Economics will be another major battleground for the Inquiry. In the past, BAA has been able to claim that airport expansion brings major benefits to the UK economy. However, the boom in cheap overseas leisure flights has changed the economics dramatically such that expansion at Stansted would be a net drain on the UK economy, rather than a benefit.



Paul Stinchcombe made clear to the Inquiry that BAA’s generalised claims of economic benefits were not backed up by any direct evidence specifically relevant to Stansted. In the absence of economic benefits, the environmental harm that would result from expansion could not be justified.



Over the course of the next five months, SSE will be presenting evidence to the Inquiry to demonstrate that BAA has systematically understated the local environmental impacts of its application in almost all the key areas such as additional aircraft noise, impacts upon local air quality, landscape and visual impacts, light pollution, road traffic and community health. Expansion to full use of the existing runway would make Stansted the UK's second biggest airport but BAA is trying to pretend that this would make no real difference to the local environment or to people’s daily lives.



Since submitting its planning application in April 2006, BAA has always tried to suggest that its expansion proposal 'only' amounts to an increase from the present limit of 25 million passengers a year (25mppa) to 35mppa. SSE – like the Stansted Airlines Consultative Committee which is also fighting BAA’s plans at the Inquiry – believes it could mean up to 50mppa and in March 2007 BAA finally acknowledged that 35mppa would not be the upper limit.



Summing up SSE’s position, Carol Barbone, Campaign Director, said: “If Stansted were permitted to expand to maximum use of the existing runway, the local environment would suffer, the national economy would suffer and we would have taken a giant step backwards in the battle to combat climate change. The Inquiry will need to decide whether it is more important to start combating climate change or to provide more cheap flights to Prague.”



ENDS



NOTE



A copy of the opening submission for SSE is available at http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/documents/SSE_Opening_Submission.doc.



We encourage you to attend the Inquiry over the coming months and will keep you up to date with key dates. See also SSE’s Public Inquiry page at http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/r1_public_inquiry.html for the provisional timetable which will be regularly updated during the course of the Inquiry.



FURTHER INFORMATION



SSE Campaign Office 01279 870558, info@stopstanstedexpansion.com, http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com


“Our Community – Our Responsibility”

 

[Gareth Hughes]

http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=News&itemid=IPED28%20May%202007%2023%3A43%3A49%3A353

Though not in favour of airport expansion (I last flew in 2000 and might do again this year), I'm also not in favour of rent-a-mouth single-issue fanatics with too much time on their hands (before you jump in with pot and kettle comparisons, I don't have enough time on my hands...)

 

[Nemesis]

SPAB is of course majorly against the destruction which expansion at Stansted will wreak.

 

[Nemesis]

Here's a short news report:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6704387.stm

 

[lindy]

I have to say Im not an expert in this area, but I used to work for a company where we used to fly to Europe at least twice a month for meetings. These flights were completely unnecessary and could have happened via video conferencing, the telephone or email!

I think the government needs to wonder why expansion is necessary and then look at other things it can do to deter people from flying (the tax is not enough) so that expansion is not required. Im not suggesting people should not fly at all, just be sensible about it and look for alternatives wherever possible. Unfortunately, unless there are easy alternatives many people wont consider them and so our lovely countryside and
climate will be ruined.

 

[Flyfisher]

Here's one alternative to flying: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6706401.stm

 

[Nemesis]

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-hatfieldforest/w-hatfieldforest-save.htm#involved

 

[Pford75]

I have very little sympathy for the SSE crowd....I used to live very close to Stansted myself....decided we wanted a quieter area, so we moved.

I'm sure most of them will quite happily use flights from Heathrow and/or Gatwick, yet object to people flying from Stansted.

As someone who attended one of the early public meetings on the subject, I can say that the vast majority of people present were in favour...with a very vocal minority seeking to dominate the platform and present their views

 

[Nemesis]

I think it a little larger an issue than a local spat really, the issue of expanding air ports and encouraging more and more people to fly.

And there are many historic buildings to be destroyed in the process, as well as the swathe of new infrastructure required.

Not sure that moving is the answer for all.

 

[Toby Newell]

It is not cynical to be realistic.

I haven't flown for seven years.

My parents live in Gosfield.

The A120 bypass cost 120 million pounds to build.

The M11 from the North circular to junction 9 has been totally resurfaced since my parents moved less than ten years ago.

Governments don't spend all that money on roads for a laugh.

Look what is happening around Luton.

Stanstead expansion is going ahead. Luton expansion will go ahead. The public debate is puppet theatre. The new planning legislation proposed after the T5 debacle should curtail any such future debates.

If you want to stop expansion. Stop flying. Stop the government subsidising cheap air travel. Stop the government encouraging mass immigration into this country to plug the economic gap the changing demographic has caused and be prepared to pay more for your pension and a lot more taxes.

Fact is people love flying. People don't like paying more taxes. And governments don't listen to minority groups when so much money is at stake.

If they didn't listen to 2 million marching people against an unjust war that would lead to the killing of hundreds of thousands of human beings what makes you think they are going to listen to a few thousand well meaning people worried about a beautiful and historic piece of countryside?

I am not saying we should not protest, but we should be under no illusion that airport expansion is going ahead. At Stanstead. Sorry.

Toby

 

[biffvernon]

You're assuming a business-as-usual future. Ha!

 

[Nemesis]

SSE supporters may be interested in checking out a website launched this week by one of our members, Peter Riding from Saffron Walden. The site is at: http://www.ThinkBeforeYouFly.com and has already been welcomed by AirportWatch, HACAN ClearSkies, OXFAM and Transport 2000.



Peter is keen to receive feedback, particularly suggestions for more Useful Links. You can also make use of the “Tell a Friend” option.



“Our Community – Our Responsibility”

Stop Stansted Expansion

info@stopstanstedexpansion.com

http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com

01279 870558

 

[Toby Newell]

Well...

Texas went under a few feet of water, Bush didn't stop prospecting on pristine Alaskan soil. The cultural epicentre of America was all but destroyed, nobody flinched, they just made scapegoats. Until no 10, the White house and all the other homes of power are under water not much will be done.

Infact even then little will be done as we are all going to be eager to chase China and China, who will become the pre emptive superpower in the next generation if not sooner, will lead the agenda. And let's face it, however greedy and irresponsible the US and Europe are a government that still tortures and executes its citizens with little remorse and who's population culturally see nothing wrong in letting female babies die or killing every last tiger to satisfy their cultural belief in "herbal" medicine whilst being hell bent on economic expansion is hardly going to help when they take over the economic (and ipso facto) political control of the planet.

We are all doomed. Man is far too greedy to change. We are tinkering at the edges.

The real thing that upset me is not the politicians and the media who conspire to trick us into thinking that if we spend a few minutes each week washing out our plastic containers that we are making a real difference to the planet. The thing that bothers me is that there are not very many people telling the truth. There are not many people educated enough or interested enough to realise that recycling, solar power and a few windfarms are going to make less than a 1% difference in the global outcome. Rather they are all designed to keep our consciences satiated and allow us to continue to consume The environmental question comes down to a basic ideology, that of a form of shared community and a form of apolitical socialism where every one of us makes a sacrifice for the good of others.

The fact is the adage that capitalism isn't perfect but it's the best system we've got no longer holds true in this century. The fact is we need to produce and consume less, this would involve a gargantuan siesmic shift in the way humans currently socialise, interact and think at a profound level. Basically we need to be less greedy. Unfortunately humans are getting more and more greedy and infact even if western europe does marginally reduce its carbon footprint over the next century what right if any have we, the originators of the industrial revolution to tell the developing economies they should slow their growth? And would they listen? No.

It is likely that a preiod of instability and disaster (where millions will die) followed by political turmoil will eventually impact so directly on the world financial markets that some form of collapse will become inevitable. Then and only then, belatedly will the governments of the world make any real change, if any.

People sometimes forget in this land of plenty that countless thousands of honest, innocent well meaning human beings, men, women, children and babies die EVERY DAY from preventable disease, from hunger, lack of shelter and man's inhumanity to man. What real hope do you have that this same species of animal is suddenly going to come together and "save the planet?"

I am an optimist, but am pragmatic as well. I live in a small two bedroom flat, have not flown for at least five years and have one car which I use as a family vehicle AND a work vehicle. I try and use my electrical appliances until they conk out but many people love buying things and people love selling us things. Until we live more modestly in smaller homes, eat more local produce, buy locally made goods and use locally provided (expensive) services, keep cars and luxury goods for longer, take less overseas holidays, buy less clothes, jewelry and electrical goods we will not make hardly any real difference to the planet, only trick our conscience.

My family and I have a very modest carbon footprint becuase we are not particularly well off. If we were I dare say say our footprint would be much higher even though we may still wash out those yoghurt pots. How much more difficult would it be for my family and I to reduce our environmental impact when we have more money? Quite a lot more I expect because you just cannot help wanting more. Unfortunately it is human nature. Until we break that cycle we are all just having a very nice chat trying to make ourselves feel better and worst of all, playing into the hands of the suited cigar smoking executives or polititians trying to come up with the latest conscience saving gimmick.

Toby Newell

 

[Nemesis]

PRESS RELEASE

ISSUED BY STOP STANSTED EXPANSION



WILL SELF TO LEAD PROTEST WALK AGAINST STANSTED EXPANSION



* * * As usual at the Runway Ramble we’ll need volunteers to help with marshalling between 9.30- 1.00 pm. If you can help, please contact Stewart Walker on 01279 850862 or stewartwalker@keme.co.uk * * *



Author and columnist Will Self will lead a five mile protest walk through Hatfield Forest on Saturday 15 September to highlight the threat to the 1000-year old National Trust property from airport expansion plans which would make Stansted’s “airport in the countryside” bigger than Heathrow today.



The five mile Runway Ramble through the ancient woodland is being coordinated by campaign group Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) to coincide with the planning application for a second runway, expected in September from airport operator BAA. Hundreds are expected to attend the morning walk which sets off just after 10.00am.



Will Self agreed to take part in the event when he toured Hatfield Forest and other ancient woodland threatened by BAA’s plans last December with SSE Campaign Director, Carol Barbone.



Airport expansion would jeopardise the tranquillity of the forest, while there are grave concerns over the impact that such massive expansion would have on its ecosystems as a result of changes in air quality. There are also fears that climate change impacts would render the woodland vulnerable to extreme weather conditions which would further compromise its survival. Aviation is the fastest growing source of the emissions which contribute to climate change.



Beyond the perimeter of the forest, the massive landgrab being sought for the airport’s development would see nearly 500 hectares of land (much of which is of special landscape value) and up to 27 hectares of woodland destroyed. A total of 73 homes including 18 listed buildings would also be demolished if the plans were ever allowed to go ahead.



Proposals for expansion on Stansted’s single runway are already being considered at a public inquiry this summer following the local council’s refusal to give permission to lift the cap on current throughput at the airport. A further public inquiry to consider the second runway application is expected to begin in 2008 although it will be 2010 before the outcome is likely to be known.



Hatfield Forest is located at Bush End on the B1256, just off Junction 8 of the M11. Entry is free with a suggested donation to the Stop Stansted Expansion fighting fund. Car parking fees apply to non-members of the National Trust. Refreshments available. Further information: http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com (‘Coming Events’) or from SSE on 01279 870558.



NOTES TO EDITORS



1. Will Self’s article on Stansted expansion proposals produced following his visit last December is accessible online at http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/will_self/article2092744.ece.



2. The Hatfield Forest website is at

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-hatfieldforest/



· Further information is available from the SSE Campaign Office on 01279 870558, info@stopstanstedexpansion.com and http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com





“OUR COMMUNITY – OUR RESPONSIBILITY”

 

[Nemesis]

Latest on the Public Inquiry:

DIARY DATES for Tuesday 17 July – Friday 27 July 2007
ISSUED BY STOP STANSTED EXPANSION



STOP STANSTED EXPANSION BEGINS EVIDENCE AT PUBLIC INQUIRY



Location: Endeavour House, Coopers End Road, Stansted Airport CM24 1SJ

(from M11 junction 8, follow airport terminal signs then yellow ‘Public Inquiry’ signs; shuttle bus available from airport terminal if travelling by public transport. Further details and map at http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/images/maps/Endeavour_House_BAA_Map.pdf. Free parking is available on site.



Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) will begin giving evidence on Tuesday 17 July at the Public Inquiry into plans to expand the capacity of Stansted’s single runway. Copies of all proofs of evidence are accessible online at http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/r1_public_inquiry4.html.



The order of appearances for the eight days of evidence is as follows (correct at the time of writing):



Tuesday 17 July:

- Opening statement (Counsel – Paul Stinchcombe) (details will be issued to the media on 17 July)

- Peter Sanders (historical background)

- Geoff Gardner (planning considerations)

- Riki Therivel (strategic environmental issues)



Wednesday 18 July:

- Riki Therivel [if overrun]]

- Paul Garland/Peter Sanders (sustainability appraisal)

- Brian Ross (forecasts)



Thursday 19 July and Friday 20 July

- Martin Peachey [air and ground noise]

- Pat Elliott (air quality)

- Ian Bruce (water)

- Suzanne Walker/John Drake (quality of life)

- Maggie Sutton (community cohesion)



Tuesday 24 July, Wednesday 25 July, Thursday 26 July

- Jangu Banatvala (health)

- Ken McDonald (housing impacts

- Brian Ross (economics, employment and housing)



Friday 27 July

- Roger Levett (climate change)

- Aqqaluk Lynge (climate change impacts



NB Surface Access evidence is programmed for 5-7 days from 25 September but details of timings and appearances are still to be confirmed.



The Inquiry Programme Officer, Simon Osborn has asked that anyone/any organizations who wish to make oral representations to the Inquiry make contact with him urgently as there is very little space left in the programme. Alternatively, you should be aware that it is still possible to make written representations to the inquiry which will carry an equal amount of weight as representations given orally. Simon Osborn can be contacted on Tel 07710 969411 http://www.poservices.co.uk.



BACKGROUND TO THE PUBLIC INQUIRY



BAA is seeking unlimited passenger use of the airport’s single runway, currently capped at 25 million passengers per annum, which could result in the eventual doubling passenger throughput and an increase in the number of flights from 192,000 (latest 12 months total) to 264,000 annually. Permission for the application was refused by Uttlesford District Council in November last year and the Public Inquiry will hear BAA’s appeal against that decision.



The opposition that Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) has mounted to BAA’s plans represents the culmination of more than a year's work by a dedicated team of volunteers and external consultants, widely supported by the campaign’s 6500 members and beyond. With the Inquiry set to last into 19 October, evidence exposing the true scale of environmental damage that would be caused by BAA's proposals and their negative impact upon the UK economy will be heard from scores of organisations and individuals, from parish, district and town councils, conservation and community groups to those fighting airport expansion elsewhere in the UK.



As a principal participant in the Public Inquiry, SSE will present evidence covering a range of issues from economics and employment, climate change and community cohesion to noise and health, road and rail impacts, air quality, water and air traffic forecasts. This will form the basis of the presentations which will be made between 17-27 July, and was the platform from which SSE’s barristers – Paul Stinchcombe and Sarah Hannett of 4-5 Grays Inn Square – cross-examined BAA’s witnesses earlier in proceedings. Transcripts of most Inquiry sessions to date appear online at http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/r1_public_inquiry.html. The latest version of the Inquiry timetable (still subject to change) can be accessed online at: http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/documents/Stansted_Inquiry%20Programme_30%20April.doc.



Apart from the local planning authority Uttlesford District Council and Herts and Essex County Councils, other key parties in the Inquiry giving evidence against BAA’s proposals are the Stansted Airlines Consultative Committee, National Trust, Friends of the Earth and Much Hadham Parish Council.



Following the Public Inquiry, the Inspector will submit his report and recommendation to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Secretary of State for Transport for decision and an announcement is expected in Spring 2008.



FURTHER INFORMATION



Stop Stansted Expansion Campaign Office: T 01279 870558
http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com (see especially the Public Inquiry page at http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/r1_public_inquiry.html

 

[ilikecobwebs]

We have similar problems with Bristol airport wanting to expand, though I have to be sensible here and say that I've never been to Stanstead so can't make comparisons.
80% of Bristol flights are just tourism. We have people taking business flights to Edinburgh and Aberdeen. Why? Because it costs less than going on the train, which is regarded as being a lesser source of pollution. Until the necessity for business flights is re-considered, people will just carry on hopping on planes. As for holidays, well.......I havent been out of the country for seven years. Plenty to see in the UK. And I don't much like flying.
Also (quote from earlier post):
I try and use my electrical appliances until they conk out but many people love buying things and people love selling us things. Until we live more modestly in smaller homes, eat more local produce, buy locally made goods and use locally provided (expensive) services, keep cars and luxury goods for longer, take less overseas holidays, buy less clothes, jewelry and electrical goods we will not make hardly any real difference to the planet, only trick our conscience.
My household already does these things; skinflints at heart, hate buying clothes, keep cars until they fail the MOT.......trouble is, our efforts are negated by those others who won't do it.
Oh yes...what happens to aeroplanes when there's no more aviation fuel?[/quote]