The Stansted Inquiry

[Moo]

Oh, dear. Here we go again.
Nemesis starts a thread, championing a good cause and providing lots of information for us. Then a couple of people point out that there are arguments on both sides and the thread begins to turn into a really interesting debate that is stopped dead in its tracks by the clinching argument: you are a troll.

It's so predictable, and such a shame.

 

[Nemesis]

Moo - possibly you should keep up with the forum more.

I'm not all prepared to waste my time (and I don't think I'm alone) on spurious arguments with Flyfisher.

It's a form of trolling - obviously escaped you. Not at all interesting to me.

 

[Moo]

I'm not all prepared to waste my time ... on spurious arguments with Flyfisher.

Absolutely. I take your point. But calling Flyfisher names is indulging in spurious arguments. It would be much more dignified simply to ignore the posts in question.

 

[Nemesis]

No. I think it's better to keep pointing out (for the unwary) that basically Mike trolls. He raises spurious 'arguments'.

Those who are regular readers will realise that - some may not. As for dignity... oh do me a favour!

 

[Nemesis]

An update on the allegations regarding PPS:

PRESS RELEASE
ISSUED BY STOP STANSTED EXPANSION 3 August 2007



“TRICKERY, DECEIT AND MANIPULATION”



On 30 July 2007 the London Evening Standard published a two page article on PPS, a PR agency used by BAA at Stansted Airport, under the headline "Trickery, Deceit and Manipulation". The story was also broadcast by the Channel 4 Dispatches programme on the same evening and there was follow-up coverage in other media including the Financial Times.



The Evening Standard also reported that the Managing Director of PPS, Stephen Byfield, was "heavily involved in BAA's hugely controversial project to expand Stansted Airport".



SSE issued a press release on 31 July referring to the Evening Standard article and the Channel 4 programme and also to our experience at Stansted in the time since BAA hired PPS in 2004. This was shortly after the appointment of Mark Pendlington as the new Communications Director at Stansted, himself a former Managing Director of PPS.



We note that PPS has since issued a rebuttal of the allegations contained in the Evening Standard article and the Channel 4 Dispatches programme and we are happy to publish PPS's rebuttal in full, as follows:



"The article in the Evening Standard by Andrew Gilligan and subsequent Dispatches programme on Channel 4, both on the 30th July, concerning allegations that are nearly ten years old, makes a number of statements about PPS practices that are totally unfounded, and which we utterly refute. We have put this matter into the hands of our lawyers, Carter-Ruck, and will vigorously contest these accusations.

PPS has not and would never forge letters, has not and would never bug meetings and has not and would never infiltrate campaign groups. PPS would dismiss any staff or consultant who undertook such activities as depicted in the article.

PPS engages in professional work to the highest standards at all times and the allegations described in the Evening Standard article bear no relation to the truth. We seek to engage with communities in a positive manner to make the case for new development on behalf of our clients."

It is in the light of PPS's rebuttal that SSE has issued this amended press release.

SSE has discussed this matter both with Channel 4 and the Evening Standard and is aware that, in accordance with OFCOM's guidance, PPS was pre-notified of the content of the Channel 4 Dispatches programme and the related Evening Standard article two weeks before their broadcast/publication on 30 July 2007 but did not seek an injunction. SSE is also aware that the ACPP, the body responsible for upholding ethical standards in public affairs, has called an emergency meeting to discuss what action to take over the media allegations about PPS.

SSE awaits the outcome of events with interest and in the meantime reserves its legal position.

ENDS



FURTHER INFORMATION



§ Carol Barbone, SSE Campaign Director: M 0777 552 3091 or cbarbone@mxc.co.uk

§ http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com

 

[Flyfisher]

No. I think it's better to keep pointing out (for the unwary) that basically Mike trolls. He raises spurious 'arguments'.

. . . . although it's not trolling, apparently, when Pford75 raises precisely the same arguments. Oh well.

 

[skier-hughes]

and the relevancy to period buildings for that post Evelyn is?

Whether or not they are knocking down period buildings to make the stanstead expansion is nothing to do with ethical practises or not.

Just a waste of peoples time and bandwidth including such tripe.


As you say, if people regularly read the forum they'll find that people who disagree with you are left facing allegations of trolling, being motherless, have no idea what they are talking about, that they don't know anything about you and that you don't care what they think, well if you don't, please show it by not caring and not posting such utter rubbish.

I know what will come next as well. as you are so utterly predictable..............................

Why don't you just get a life Nemesis, preferably away from this forum so the rest of us can enjoy it for a change.

No matter what you post, I won't be replying to you on this thread.

Keep up the good work Flyfisher, Moo, Pford75 let's expand Stanstead.

Graham

 

[Nemesis]

Graham - that is about one of the silliest posts you have made in a long while. And by golly you have made some corkers in the past. Quite astonishing (yes I get PM's and e-mails too... ). I think you may actually find it is against forum rules too!

And I think if Mike is serious about so much of the 'dissent' he posts following a number of issues I post information about it doesn't come over as that to me. However. I think a number of people now simply aren't posting here as they see these tedious 'arguments' as not worth a candle. If the cap fits with regard to other posters then let it fit too.

The relevance of Stansted to period buildings and their settings I suggest that you look again at. The SPAB is very much involved in the fight against the proposals, as is the National Trust. I merely post the latest information as I receive it as I know that some people are interested in heritage issues.

This might interest you:

http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/documents/SPAB_R2_Letter.doc



I could point to large number of posts here which could be deemed 'tripe' Graham and wasting bandwidth....

I do know how aggressive and at times unethical developers can be when trying to destroy our heritage. That interests me. Maybe you've missed out on that aspect.

I posted it as an update to the earlier post. I think the issue is connected with the airport expansion. i think the airport expansion is connected with the destruction of historic buildings and areas.

'Get a life'? Oh dear Graham. That's about the pits! And you say i'm predictable!

 

[Nemesis]

In fact it's possibly worth posting the text of the SPAB document I linked to above in full.


THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANCIENT BUILDINGS
ESSEX REGIONAL GROUP

Mr T Morgan
Managing Director
BAA Stansted
FREEPOST CL4055
Chelmsford
Essex CM1 3BR

22nd March 2006


Dear Mr Morgan

CONSULTATION ON PROPOSED EXPANSION OF STANSTED AIRPORT (‘STANSTED GENERATION 2’)

Thank you for your letter of 9th December 2005, inviting the views of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) on your ‘Stansted Generation 2’ plans. Having studied your latest document, however, we can find nothing new and, in addition, the extra information you promised to provide us on your intentions regarding historic buildings (20th February) has failed to materialise. Our concerns remain, therefore, that any expansion of the existing facilities at Stansted Airport would be as ruinous for the historic built environment as we have always maintained.

Introduction

The SPAB, started by William Morris in 1877, is the founding father of the building conservation movement in the United Kingdom. The Society played an important role in developing historic building legislation. Perhaps more significantly its ‘philosophy’ of repair has helped fundamentally shape the UK approach as practised by local authorities, English Heritage, bodies like the National Trust, and building professionals.

Today the Society is an educational, advisory and campaigning voluntary organisation. The largest of the national amenity societies, it is notified of listed building applications for demolition in England and Wales. The Society has a unique record on conservation training, provides a free technical advice line and issues advisory publications.

The Society has just under 9 000 members including those who belong to the separate Mills Section. They comprise leading historic building professionals, whose cumulative expertise is given voluntarily to the Society; as well as homeowners; and those who support the cause. The SPAB Technical Panel, made up of highly experienced architects, surveyors, engineers, builders and others, oversees the Society's technical activities.

1 The proposals for a second runway at Stansted Airport are the greatest threat to historic buildings since the Second World War

The enormity of the damage that would be visited upon historic buildings, monuments, sites and landscapes cannot be overestimated. It is not just about a few extra flights and a new strip of tarmac. Any additional runway would effectively be the equivalent of another airport when all the accompanying services and infrastructure are taken into account. The scale of harm would be maximized by the exceptionally large land-take being sought by BAA in order to generate additional income from its retail activities to help subsidise other, less profitable aspects of its business. The area around Stansted is not a blank canvas but a landscape wonderfully rich in history – in terms of the number and variety of distinctive communities and villages, as well as individual buildings of note. It is particularly ill-suited to further airport expansion.

2 Just as significant as the immediate and direct threat is the dramatic degradation of the ancient and intricate web of villages, hamlets and isolated buildings that characterize the countryside beyond the perimeter of the new runway at Stansted

This largely falls outside the planning system but over time this insidious process can be as destructive as the damage more readily acknowledged by BAA. For example, at Tilty is a church of monastic origin and outstanding architectural quality that would survive outright destruction but be left with its setting irretrievably compromised. At Chickney, a similar fate would befall the tiny church dating from Saxon times. Noise and pollution would jeopardize the continued use and care of many more historic buildings outside the area of immediate land-grab. Additionally, their special interest would be vastly diminished by the new housing, warehousing and transport infrastructure associated with airport expansion, and their historic setting transformed by the desecration of ancient woodlands, gracious parkland, medieval boundary banks, broad byways and narrow enclosed high-banked lanes that are inseparable elements of the landscape in north-west Essex and east Hertfordshire.

3 Development will not only encroach on the historic atmosphere within close sight of Stansted Airport but will erode the character of ancient buildings, hamlets and settlements much further afield

There would be a devastating ripple effect on the heritage much further afield as construction work takes place to accommodate an Essex Heathrow. Massive increases in carbon emissions from aircraft would further threaten centuries-old coastal communities on the frontline of global warming in areas such as North Norfolk. At the same time vast swathes of Essex, Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Suffolk would be blighted forever by progressive urbanisation and airport-induced development. This corner of England would become part of an amorphous, straggling urban-industrial complex.

4 Dozens of older buildings and structures that are in danger from the expansion of Stansted Airport are unlisted but nonetheless from an invaluable part of the overall historic environment

Under the current proposals these would be razed to the ground as whole settlements are literally wiped off the map and swallowed up within the boundary of the sprawling airport. The loss of these buildings, too, will debase the quality of our lives.

5 Under planning law, proposals for the demolition of listed buildings or those seriously affecting scheduled sites are normally only granted consent in cases where the buildings are exceptionally or severely devalued, for example by having become so decayed that they have lost everything of historic interest; and almost never when the building is in sound condition as is the case with the vast majority, if not all, of those identified as at risk near Stansted

The historic environment is a finite resource that cannot be replaced once it is lost. It is incredulous that we have arrived at a situation whereby the destruction of such a rich and storeyed architectural legacy has become a question of ‘the least worst option’ rather than fundamental principles. We know of no case, including the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, where the potential impact on the historic environment has been so drastic. The sheer scale of the possible damage to sound historic buildings in the vicinity of Stansted should be wholly unacceptable, as it would be under any other commercial or private development.

6 It is not possible to expand airport capacity while minimising environmental damage; in particular, the scope for ameliorating the effect on the historic environment by re-erecting a small proportion of the most important buildings is extremely limited, and will always be both technically and philosophically highly problematical

Relocation can take two forms – the most technically difficult, expensive and least common is by undermining the building and lifting it whole to a new site. What is much more usually meant is dismantling the building and re-erecting a replica using a proportion of the materials salvaged from the original. On the face of it this may seem easier with timber-framed buildings, but the loss of historic fabric and identity is inevitable however carefully it is done. Equally important is the removal of the structure from its historic context and setting, inevitably destroying the link between it and its historic site, and in the process seriously detracting from its value and interest. Not only has BAA struggled to tell us how the historic buildings it plans to relocate would be moved, it is also for some reason unable to tell us whether its costings allow for relocating all or only a proportion of the listed buildings it has totalled up under each option, and, if it is only a proportion, how these would be selected (given that they seem to all have the same listing value – Grade II). Additionally, it appears that sites have still not been found for all the buildings dismantled previously to make way for the current terminal complex.

7 The whole basis of the proposals is misconceived – uncontrolled expansion of the Stansted monster simply to allow more unsustainable, low-cost flights

The SPAB believes that there is an extremely poor case for further expansion at Stansted or that this somehow represents ‘progress’. England’s heritage is not some kind of minority interest: more people visit historic buildings in this country each year than attend football matches. Given stable economic conditions, it is quality of life issues and our environment that are of increasing importance in the 21st century. People wish to enjoy our heritage here, at home, rather than have to fly abroad to escape the downward spiral of social and environmental damage. We are very concerned that the value of our architectural heritage to inhabitants and tourists alike is being played down in favour of narrow commercial interests. The much-loved historic structures around Stansted provide a real sense of local identity, as well as homes to many families who have lived in and cherished them for generations. Our historic inheritance should be celebrated and protected, not obliterated. Not only do the plans for a second runway at Stansted Airport constitute the biggest threat to our architectural heritage since the War, entire sub-regions would suffer increased congestion (Stansted trains are already taking up valuable space on our over-clogged railways), rising crime and steep increases in pollution. Aircraft pollution is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. The whole tax regime allowing artificially cheap flights is increasingly being called into question. It has been the primary driver behind the rapid growth in holiday flights at Stansted, yet even with this unfair advantage recent figures show signs of a dramatic leveling off. Although the buildings around Stansted have withstood the vicissitudes of war, the worst excesses of 19th- and 20th-century industrialisation, BAA is advocating they be sacrificed for uncertain short-term aviation trends.

8 We believe many of the economic arguments put forward for a second argument at Stansted are weak yet, as the Government has acknowledges, our heritage is ‘England’s greatest asset’

Scores of historic buildings are threatened by the possible expansion of Stansted Airport yet there is little evidence that more aviation will be good for the economy. Research shows that aviation encourages companies and tourists to spend more abroad, and present proposals would exacerbate regional economic imbalance across the UK. North-west Essex already has one of the best employment rates in the country and we take a dim view of the ‘more jobs’ argument continuously parroted by BAA Stansted. Furthermore, a recent State of the Historic Environment Report reveals that 37% of overseas visitors in 1996 specifically mentioned visiting historic sites as an important reason for coming here. We should not, therefore, tolerate such appalling destruction simply to prevent the UK slipping slightly down the international pecking order, or to allow the airport at Stansted to expand as best suits it.

9 We are not ‘anti-aviation’ but believe that this area has made enough sacrifices to its heritage over the past 15 to 20 years to accommodate expansion at Stansted Airport

Compromises have already been made and a line must now be drawn to contain the size of Stansted Airport within tight limits that are truly sustainable. We need only look at the example of Heathrow to see a despairing glimpse of what could result otherwise over the next few decades. ‘To be in Heathrow is to be in the historic bosom of the British Isles, with its pure sweet air of tranquility…in interest it is unapproachable in the land,’ wrote a Mr J Pendle in the 1930’s. The further expansion now planned at Heathrow could soon complete its metamorphosis into a total environmental imbroglio.

10 The historic environment is a finite resource that cannot be replaced once it is lost and three separate public inquiries since the War have concluded that a second runway should never be built at Stansted

The cost of the Stansted proposals to our heritage is extreme and should certainly not be portrayed as an acceptable compromise that somehow balances heritage concerns with aviation. The unthinkable devastation enlargement at Stansted would inflict on our old buildings and landscape is hard to take seriously if our commitment to sustainable development is to have any meaning. It is clearly unsustainable to destroy the architectural heritage that represents centuries of evolution of our communities and cannot be replaced. The most recent public inquiry described the prospect of a two-runway airport at Stansted as ‘an unprecedented and wholly unacceptable major environmental and visual disaster’. The latest proposals by BAA are potentially much more serious for the built and natural environment and should also be rejected. Instead of rehashing old ideas, the airport authority should be thinking more radically about long-term solutions that do not depend on destroying our precious heritage.

Conclusion

The latest consultation document on the possible expansion of Stansted Airport contains nothing new. The plans continue to represent the greatest single threat to historic buildings since the Second World War and fall seriously short of our of real aspirations and expectations for quality of life and the environment in the Third Millennium. Were this level of heritage destruction for profit to be proposed for a country in the Developing World there would be a clamour for our Government’s intervention in order to restrain the unscrupulous regime concerned. That this is not the case at Stansted is perhaps not surprising given the highly inappropriate links that have come to light between BAA, the DfT and some ministers. Too much of our heritage has already been sacrificed to feed the Stansted monster. With the end of the era of unfettered growth in cheap, unsustainable flights now in sight, we look forward with realism and relish to these outdated expansion proposals for Stansted being abandoned once and for all.


Yours sincerely



Douglas Kent BSc(Hons), BSc, MSc, MRICS
Technical Secretary


National Trust:

Brighter outlook for Hatfield Forest

29 November 2006

The National Trust is delighted with today’s decision by Uttlesford District Council to reject an application for the continued expansion of Stansted airport.

Peter Griffiths, the Trust's Regional Director, said:

'We applaud the council for taking this bold step to protect local people’s quality of life and the natural environment. The council has taken on board our evidence showing the damaging impact of airport expansion and the British Airports Authority (BAA) has failed to justify its plans adequately.'

The decision will help to prevent further damage to Hatfield Forest, an ancient woodland adjacent to the airport that is a vital green space for local people and for nature conservation. BAA has consistently failed to assess the impact on people's quality of life and to address the increase in noise and air pollution.

The council’s decision will also help to prevent increases in greenhouse gas emissions, reflecting recent warnings about the urgent need to tackle climate change.

'The council has recognised how much the climate change agenda has progressed recently. Their decision highlights the contradictions in government policy. If the government is really serious about reducing carbon emissions, it cannot continue to support the expansion of Stansted airport', said Peter Griffiths.

The National Trust believes that the government's air transport policy, published in 2003, must be reconsidered in the light of our current understanding of climate change and its impact

 

[Pford75]

Forum rules

Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users. Flaming or abusing users in any way will not be tolerated and will lead to a warning.

Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated and will lead to a warning.

I appreciate that others have a different point of view to myself.....but I have never (and will never) resorted to personal insults and foul language. I complained about the language and racist overtones of a previous thread and it was deleted - I love this site and the helpful people on here (I've had some valuable advice from yourself Nemesis as well)...but I abhor the language....perhaps I'm old fashioned?

Back on the subject of the Stansted expansion....the vast majority of residents moved to the area with Stansted already there.....so although I moved away....they had the possibility of living elsewhere...noone forced them to live close to an airport and I find it surprising that they didn't consider the possible expansion of the airport. I live in a rural area, but I'm well aware that it could change.

On the subject of 'trolling' I think it is entirely possible that two people, from different backgrounds and with different views could find that they disagree often. I have a colleague at work with whom my views are diametrically opposed.

I think those opposed to the expansion need to decide on what grounds. If it is the destruction of period properties...then I do sympathise....but perhaps they could suggest some alternatives rather than simply saying NIMBY....Heathrow is at maximum capacity, Luton as well....some of us have to work for a living and for some of us, this involves air travel.....I'm not clever enough to come up with another solution for providing the air transport capacity without building or expanding airports

 

[Nemesis]

Pity Grimmers and Brunhilde have gone from the site. They would have made your hair curl. But they did make some of us laugh.

Bill Bryson is rather fond of rude words too, and he sells millions...

I also think your allegations of racism etc were so far off the mark re the person concerned that it was a mountain out of a molehill. Spurious arguments were raised regarding people's supposed intelligence, following a lightly throwaway remark, which seemed to be designed not to deal with the serious issue but to sidetrack the thread.

If this isn't deliberate then it certainly seems it at times - a type of trolling.

As for the rest - I will continue to post the press releases, and indeed anything else I deem fit. It's up to Rob to remove what he thinks isn't suitable - he rarely does.

As with Biff I think and global warming, I have better things to do than waste time here arguing with those whom I perceive as misguided.

The site is, however, for those who love period properties. The issues of Stansted encompass that, and those who wish to see their destruction (Graham?) I suggest maybe aren't posting in the right forum?

 

[biffvernon]

let's expand Stanstead.

Doh :roll:

 

[Nemesis]

Yup.

 

[Pford75]

Where would you propose to provide the required additional air travel capacity?

If the answer is 'nowhere'....then that's fine...but people will have to realise that like any scarce resource...prices will be driven up by the market. Most likely meaning that air travel becomes the exclusive mode of transport for the rich and only higher rate taxpayers will holiday abroad. It will also significantly impact the price of goods in the shops.

Personally, I think this might be a good thing.....fewer chavs and shell-suited northerners on the euro routes would make my commute so much more pleasant and with any luck, delays would reduce as the skies become less busy. :wink:

 

[Nemesis]

We don't wear shell suits where I come from. Barbours and green Hunter wellingtons are far more our thing, especially in Hampstead on Tyne aka Corbridge. I have no idea what a shell suit is, actually,dahling, but clearly you do. I have never seen one at Glyndebourne I don't think?

Yes, people could fly less. They could even change jobs so that they don't have to fly all over the place. That's a choice open to them.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

We don't wear shell suits where I come from. Barbours and green Hunter wellingtons are far more our thing, especially in Hampstead on Tyne aka Corbridge. I have no idea what a shell suit is, actually,dahling, but clearly you do. I have never seen one at Glyndebourne I don't think?

I think a shell suit is something the labourers wear when they're decorating your grotto...

 

[Pford75]

Stansted is usually infested with shell suits and Burberry...it seems to afflict those in their late teens and early twenties.

On the subject of job change....some people may have to examine this. But the reality is more likely to be that those of us who have their travel paid for by employers will continue to fly....whilst those on lower incomes will have to stop. Taxation on road and air travel is socially regressive...as evidenced by the Congestion Charge...it hasn't stopped the Mercs & BMW's, but it has stopped the teachers and nurses.

As i've previously said, my company has committed to a drastic reduction in it's air travel within the next 2 months and is a sponsor of the Clinton Global initiative. We have also developed a video-conferencing solution (Telepresence) which should help reduce air travel.http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps7060/products_category_business_benefits.html

In fact, I think many large companies are doing far more than individuals to reduce their impact on the environment (not least because it makes good business sense).

I don't have a problem with reduced capacity per se....but we all have to acknowledge the likely impacts ie. foreign travel becoming the preserve of business and the rich

 

[Pford75]

Interesting document at http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/documents/ria/pdf/Stansted.pdf

It's the full impact assessment of the proposal to remove the limit on passenger numbers at Stansted (which is separate to the building of the 2nd runway...but clearly closely linked - without removing the limit..there is no need for a 2nd runway).

Some interesting points...

1. Failure to build a new runway has a economic cost (in NPV terms) of apx. £9bn

2. When this matter was put to consultation....only 33 of contacted respondents actually bothered to reply (this included airlines and local authorities)...rather strange given the furore now. Wonder why the response rate wasn't higher and would be very interested to see if it is possible to obtain a list of who was contacted and who actually responded

 

[Nemesis]

If we don't reduce our air travel there may be fewer places left to which we are able to travel.

It may even be that the rich recognise that frequent flying may not be a good thing. They could consider staying here and spending cash in our economy.

I suspect the poor don't actually hop on a plane more often anyhow.
Teachers - I always wonder why teachers are lumped in with nurses... and I haven't noticed too many BMW's and Mercs in London to the exclusion of everything else.

I do have a Burberry. In my younger days they were considered sensible wear. Given the age of mine and how long it has lasted (in the days before everything was made abroad) I'd recommend you consider seeking one out. Excellent. Vintage ones are to be had at reasonable cost in Greenwich Market.

When I die I hope to pass mine on.

With regard to responses - many organisations are swamped with documents seeking responses. At times they simply are unable to deal with them all within the time schedule demanded.

 

[Nemesis]

We don't wear shell suits where I come from. Barbours and green Hunter wellingtons are far more our thing, especially in Hampstead on Tyne aka Corbridge. I have no idea what a shell suit is, actually,dahling, but clearly you do. I have never seen one at Glyndebourne I don't think?

I think a shell suit is something the labourers wear when they're decorating your grotto...

Oh I see. We tend not to do that orften, the hermit complains he is being disturbed.