Stansted Airport

More and more of us want to travel, whilst economic growth itself generates an increase in the movement of freight, consequently there are more aircraft in the skies. Stansted and Luton airports exist, and we have to recognise this fact, however we can try to ensure that the air traffic in and out of these airports intrudes as little as is possible. To this end your Association is committed to join with others to stop the building of a second runway at Stansted, and as far as is possible, to keep pressure on the authorities, to ensure that the noise from existing and future planes is kept to the minimum.

The second runway

On the question of the second runway, there is perhaps some encouraging news, The East of England Assembly has specifically excluded from the Plan. The second runway at Stansted, on the basis that the economic argument for a second runway has not been proven. The Stop Stansted Expansion group (SSE) is keeping the pressure up on a number of fronts. One is that a group of BAA shareholders who were successful last year in forcing the company to abandon its arrangement of free parking for MP’s, this year want to force the company to adopt a resolution at it’s AGM, that it must seek approval from its shareholders, before it proceeds with the building of a second runway at Stansted.

Another is the Judicial Review process, which is currently underway, and through which the muddled thinking by the authorities is being exposed. Allied to this is the question, of how BAA would finance a second runway, because currently the CAA has ruled the BAA cannot subsidise the construction and use of a second runway at Stansted, through utilising the higher landing fees it charges at it’s other airports, such as Heathrow and Gatwick. The SSE is also using the planning process itself to fight the proposal, and even Takeley Parish Council is taking BAA to court over its proposed compensation plans, for to those whose land and property would either be required or directly affected by the construction of the runway.

There are also reports in the press, that some of the low cost airlines are beginning to come under financial pressure; that some would like to operate solely out of another airport, such as Luton. Some regional airports are clamouring for further development, and the new generation of much larger planes is nearly upon us. So it is certainly not inevitable, and we have every reason for cautious optimism, but we must not let up on the fight for a minute.

Current aircraft noise

The multiple in-bound flights to Luton and Stansted, go over the Colne and Stour rivers area in slightly altered patterns from those prior to March 2004. The flight paths are not roads in the sky, but rather guidelines, which can to all intents be randomly ignored, thus benefiting the airline, if its aircraft can save

expensive fuel by selecting a shorter route. This is particularly evident in the period between 22.00hrs and 23.30hrs when there is a rush of flights going straight into Stansted. The flights moved to the North are principally those from Scandinavia and out-bounds from the North to Europe and the East. We must expect increased activity particularly in the summer months at both airports. Night flights will not reduce, freight being cited as being of particular economic importance.

It is obvious that the planes must have stacking facilities and at some point they have to get themselves on to the glide path and finally line up with the runway. We must ensure, however that whilst they are doing this the planes obey the rules of the minimum height allowed, so keeping the noise level to as low a level as is possible. We do not want to push this problem into someone else’s back yard, but wish to be treated fairly. We need to liase with other organisations, so that we all work together on this problem, which is likely to get worse.

There is not much good news therefore, but there may be a ray of hope. Tom Hill, a barrister who lives near East Bergholt has been granted a judicial review, on the basis that the planes currently flying over the Dedham Vale (an area of Natural and Outstanding beauty), are not sticking to the agreed flight path, and are many more in number (rather than less), contrary to what the The National Air Traffic Service had agreed with the Dedham Vale Society. We shall have to wait and see the result of this action, before drawing any conclusion.

Please do come and hear Peter Sanders (Chairman of the SSE) speak at our AGM on April 28th.

Simon Ward