Increase in permitted capacity to 35 million passengers per annum.

Permission was granted by the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government and for Transport for the Stansted G1 development (increase of capacity on the existing runway from 25 million passengers per annum (mppa) to 35 mppa on 8 October 2008.

The decision, made nearly a year after the Public Inquiry closed, closely followed the advice of the Inquiry Inspector in his 700 page report.

The environmental factors weighing against the proposal, such as noise and community impacts, were considered but were found to be outweighed by the policies of the 2003 Air Transport White Paper on the need and the large direct economic benefits expected to result from the development.

Uttlesford District Council had refused the application on 9 grounds and Hertfordshire and Essex, while not objecting, had been party to the appeal requiring better mitigation, contributions to road infrastructure and certainty as to the provision of rail capacity.  In the event the authorities got little of what they required and partial costs have been awarded against Uttlesford (and Hertfordshire in relation to Little Hadham Bypass.

The Inspector's Conclusions

The Inspector puts great emphasis on the "considerable weight" ("significant weight") which must be attached to the 2003 White Paper.  This is an up to date statement of Government policy which identifies an urgent need for new runway capacity in the South East and, as a first element, the full use of the existing runway at Stansted.

The Inspector did recognise that the BAA forecasts could be challenged and that the level of economic benefit referred to in the White Paper could be queried (though not the Government's methodology for that calculation).  However he is of the view that climate change and the role that aviation plays in contributing to it is a matter of Government policy and that a Planning Inquiry is not a suitable forum for debating policy.

The Inspector did confirm that noise from the increased number of flights (264,000 ATMS pa from 202,000) would be harmful to the living conditions and health of residents and that not all this harm could be mitigated.  He shares the view "expressed by many" that the Leq metric has limitations in the representation of aircraft noise (and this was before the publication of the Government's ANASE study on aircraft noise) and that there has been over-reliance on the 57 Leq contour.

His overall conclusion on noise however was that noise impacts should not outweigh the need identified in the White Paper.  Forecast noise levels are less than anticipated in the White Paper and in the Inspector's view it seems a case that argues noise outweighs need "amounts to a challenge to Government Policy".  This statement though seems at odds with other sections of the report which recognise (and seemingly recognise that the Government accepts) that "impacts from a particular development might frustrate the policy in the White Paper"

The Inspector did recommend a new planning condition to limit noise in the 8 hour night similar to the existing condition limiting the Leq contour area for the 16 hour day.  The principle of this condition was accepted by BAA but rejected by the Secretaries of State for various reasons including that no such condition applies to Heathrow and Gatwick.  The result is that there is no limit to flights and potential noise in the night "shoulder periods" (06.00 - 7.00 and 23.00 - 23.30).

The impact of noise and air quality on Hatfield Forest as an important environmental and recreational area was a major element of the Inquiry.  There remains doubt as to whether Government's air quality limits for vegetation are relevant (because of the Forest's location near the motorway) while the additional noise, though recognised, was not considered to deter visitors.

Hertfordshire and Essex appeared at the inquiry to give evidence on transport issues.  BAA made an offer of £2 mil contribution to road schemes west of the M11 but this was the same money that had already been secured with the previous permission (and now applies to the new permission).

BAA are to pay a contribution of £2 mil towards bus and coach operations.  This is an increase of £1 mil from the previous permission.

Passenger transport for G1 relies on longer (12 car) trains being introduced on the Stansted Express.  Provision of this necessary capacity is a matter for the Department of Transport and the authorities requested a planning condition (a Grampian condition) to ensure development does not take place until provision of those trains is assured.  The Inspector rejected this leaving the responsibility with the Secretary of State.

Stansted Second Runway  Proposal known as Stansted G2

Essex County Council has opposed the principle of a second runway at Stansted over a long period of time.  It challenged the Government's view identifying a second runway at Stansted emanating from the 2003 Airports White Paper.

BAA submitted its Planning Application for a second runway at Stansted Airport on 14 March 2008.  The Secretaries of State called in the Planning Applications for Public Inquiry in July 2008 and the Inquiry is now scheduled to commence on the 15 April 2009.

Essex County Council is working with is partner authorities in Uttlesford District Council, Hertfordshire County Council and East Herts District Council to represent a joint case seeking the refusal of the second runway proposal.

Essex County Council considered its position at Cabinet on the 14th October 2008 - Stansted Airport Second Runway Proposal: Response to Planning Application.

The four Councils submitted its Outline Statement of Case to the Inquiry on 20 October 2008 and are due to submit the Statement of Case on the 22nd December 2008.