STANSTED AIRPORT PLANNING APPLICATION UTT/18/0460/FUL SECTION 106 CONDITIONS TO BE REQUIRED IF PLANNING APPLICATION IS APPROVED

Transcription

1 STANSTED MOUNTFITCHET PARISH COUNCIL STANSTED AIRPORT PLANNING APPLICATION UTT/18/0460/FUL SECTION 106 S TO BE REQUIRED IF PLANNING APPLICATION IS APPROVED 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Stansted Mountfitchet Parish Council has earlier submitted its comments on this application in which it opposes the granting of permission. However, if the Planning Committee decides to approve the application, this should only occur if conditions are attached which would protect the health and welfare of residents and the character of what is still a rural area. The Parish Council has identified 19 conditions which should be required and closely monitored with action taken if the agreed conditions are not adhered to. The issues causing concern are listed together with the conditions considered necessary to mitigate the adverse impacts. 2 FUTURE EXPANSION 2.1 Any permissions to increase the number of passengers must be restricted to the capacity of the existing runway and existing taxiways. A second runway would change the rural nature of this attractive area. Approval of this planning application should be accompanied by a legal commitment that a moratorium will be imposed prohibiting the construction of a second runway for at least fifty years. 3 PARKING The issues: two concerns need to be addressed fly-parking and off-airport parking. 3.1 Fly-parking this behaviour causes irritation and disruption. The major reason for this anti-social action is to avoid airport parking charges and thus save money. Provided such parking is legal, there is little that can be done. However, the inclusion of the following conditions would help to reduce the problem. Require a reduction in on-airport parking charges thus reducing the incentive to park on the road. Require STAL or MAG to contribute to the costs of implementing and enforcing parking restrictions in areas where fly-parking is shown to be prevalent. Require STAL or MAG to contribute additional funding for public transport to encourage both passengers and staff to avoid car journeys especially given the unsocial hours required by early flights. 3.2 Off-airport parking Uttlesford District Council has, over several decades, insisted that airport parking should be confined to land within the control of the airport. This has prevented the ad hoc spread of unsightly parking lots in a rural area with attractive countryside and small settlements. As an Inspector once summarised, it is an airport in the countryside. Every effort should be made to maintain this tight control on off-airport parking and thus prevent the problems associated with Heathrow and Gatwick Airports.

2 No designated airport parking should be permitted other than on land within the control of Stansted Airport. Enforcement should be strict on operators running airport parking under another label. 4 IMPROVING LOCAL ROAD NETWORK Based on STAL s/mag s own forecasts of local traffic movements, the local area will see a substantial increase in traffic flows in the period leading up to 35mppa. Although miraculously this seems to cease for the period covered by this planning application, SMPC would argue that further increases in local traffic flows will, without remedial action, have severe repercussions on the communities in the south of the district even ignoring the impact of an expanding Bishop s Stortford. Quantifying the contribution of a growing airport to local road traffic movements is difficult but, given the limited routes from the north of the district and the propensity of people to take the shortest journey to their destination, there can be no doubt that the rise in the number of passengers, employees and other commercial activity will increase the flow of local traffic movements. Any approval for this planning application must be accompanied by adequate funding from STAL/MAG to enable sufficient improvements to be made to the local road system so as to limit the adverse impacts of traffic growth. A detailed study of possible relief roads should be undertaken with funding provided by STAL/MAG. The timing should be immediate with a commitment to undertake and fund any new roads prior to the airport growing beyond 35mppa. Smaller improvements including the widening of the railway bridge in Church Road and improving traffic flows along Lower Street (B1051) and Cambridge Road (B1383) should be funded by STAL/MAG at the beginning of the period covered by the application or, ideally, sooner. 5 LIMITING, REDUCING AND MEASURING NOISE 5.1 Government policy is to limit and wherever possible reduce aviation noise over time. AN1 The area enclosed by the 57dB(A) Leq16hr ( ) contour, when calculated and measured by the Civil Aviation Authority's Aircraft Noise Contour Model 2.3 or as may be amended, shall not exceed 33.9 sq km using the standardised average mode from the date of grant of his permission. Any necessary account shall be taken of this requirement in declaring the capacity of Stansted Airport for the purpose of Council Regulation (EEC) No/95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports. Forecast aircraft movements and consequential noise contours for the forthcoming year shall be reported to the Local Planning Authority annually on the 31st January each year. That the limit be reduced to 28 sq km with immediate effect and be subject to 5 yearly review thereafter. The logic for this reduction is that according to CAA statistics for the past 15 years, the current limit already provides too much headroom and STAL's planning application claims that older, noisier aircraft will be replaced by new quieter aircraft which should offset the effects of expected increases in aircraft movements.

3 A timetable should be agreed to replace the 57dB(A) Leq contour with a 54dB(A) Leq contour in line with emerging government policy and a new limit set for the area within this contour. 5.2 Airports do not buy or fly planes. There is therefore little point in setting targets for the airport for replacing the existing aircraft fleet or for introducing better operating procedures in order to reduce noise. Airports do however have the ability to structure landing charges to incentivise airlines to introduce quieter, cleaner aircraft and to avoid scheduling flights at more sensitive times of the day, such as early morning or late evening/night time, when there is more likelihood of causing sleep disturbance for local communities. A working group should be established with independent expert advice to develop proposals for a landing charge structure that would create appropriate incentives for reducing noise. This would be in line with one of the key recommendations in the CAA report Managing Aviation Noise (CAP 1165). A proportion of the higher landing charges relating to noisier aircraft and flights scheduled at more sensitive times of day should be hypothecated for noise mitigation measures to benefit local communities. 5.3 The Aviation Policy Framework 2013 states: "The Government recognises that people do not experience noise in an averaged manner and the value of the Leq indicator does not necessarily reflect all aspects of perception of aircraft noise. For this reason we recommend that average noise contours should not be the only measure used when airports seek to explain how locations under flight paths are affected by aircraft noise. Instead the Government encourages airport operators to develop measures which better reflect how aircraft noise is experienced in different localities. Developing these measures in consultation with their consultative committees and local communities. The objective shall be to ensure a better understanding of noise and to inform the development of targeted noise mitigation measures." A working group should be established between the airport, local planning authority and local communities with advice from independent experts to develop the measures referred to above, leading to proposals for targeted noise mitigation measures that can be incorporated within future S106 Agreements. 6 AIR QUALITY CONTROLLING EMISSIONS There are a number of air pollution generators which affect the quality of the air we breathe. It is well known that poor air quality, pollution, has harmful effects on human health, particularly the younger and older members of our community. These health impacts also affect our quality of life and wellbeing. Poor air quality is an unseen hazard, the harmful effects of which are often not experienced until subjected to them for long periods. One of the main contributors to air pollution in Stansted Mountfitchet is the airport. That a review of all data monitoring locations in Stansted Mountfitchet should be undertaken by Uttlesford District Council, in liaison with Stansted Mountfitchet Parish Council. Any additional monitors should be funded by STAL/MAG.

4 There must be a five-yearly review of all monitoring sites and consideration given to whether any new sites are required. When levels are approaching the threshold of acceptable limits set by the World Health Organisation, then mitigation measures must be implemented. These would be identified by the Uttlesford Air Quality Management Review and implemented with an appropriate financial contribution from STAL/MAG. That air quality monitors should be installed in close proximity to each school in our parish. Should results indicate increases, then mitigation measures must be implemented. These would be identified by the Uttlesford Air Quality Management Review and implemented with an appropriate financial contribution from STAL/MAG. 7 FUNDING TO MITIGATE ADVERSE IMPACTS Local authority expenditure is under severe pressure given the reduction in grant funding by central government and the limitation on raising council tax. Apart from this constraint, it would appear reasonable that the body causing, or at least adding to, the problems (STAL/MAG) should provide the funding to mitigate adverse impacts. To meet this funding need, SMPC would propose two conditions. Levies on the use of public car parks by passengers or employees should start from the base level already set in the financial year 2001/02 at 21p per transaction. This charge should be amended by RPI annually to establish the new base of 32p and this figure then should be adjusted each year during the period by the rate of change in RPI. The annual contribution from this levy should be paid to Uttlesford District Council and used only to fund improvements - within the local area in air quality, noise, traffic flows, local parking and any other changes considered to be beneficial to Uttlesford residents. The annual contribution to the Stansted Airport Community Trust should be set at no less than those at Gatwick and Luton Airports (0.9p per passenger) but more generously in line with London Heathrow (1.3p). The proceeds will, in a small but valuable way, help to fund local community initiatives. 8 LAND COMPENSATION The CAA report Managing Aviation Noise states: "A successful noise strategy would not only focus on actively reducing the numbers of people affected by noise, but would also seek to compensate those who are still affected in full reflection of the disturbance they suffer". No further physical development of the airfield infrastructure should be permitted until the majority of land compensation claims (ca. 300 on latest figures) relating to the works carried out between 1999 and 2007 have been agreed. The reason for this is that works currently in course of completion and the works proposed in the current planning application will give rise to further compensation claims in the future, and the applicant should demonstrate that it has fulfilled its long outstanding legal obligations under the Land Compensation Act 1973 ("the Act") in respect of historic works.

5 In light of the failure of Stansted Airport Limited over many years to meet its legal obligations to deal with compensation claims, because it maintained (incorrectly) that a 'Relevant Date' as defined in the Act had not occurred, the applicant should enter into an undertaking to notify the local planning authority and local communities as soon as the airfield works described in the application are brought into use. This will enable claimants to ascertain the correct 'Relevant Date' and consequently the opening of the claims period under the Act a year later. SMPC 1 October 2018