Stansted expansion goes ahead

[Nostalgia]

So despite the fact that it is believed that aviation accounts for up to 2% of all greenhouse gas emissions, the government still gives the go ahead for Stanstead Airport to be expanded.
Do you ever get the idea that we, joe public are being shafted when it comes to global warming?


A protest sign against the Stansted expansion.


Ten million more passengers a year will go through Stansted airport and 23,000 more flights after the government today approved its expansion, defying environmental critics.

The transport secretary, Geoff Hoon, granted permission for the airport to increase flights from 241,000 to 264,000 and raise the number of passengers from 25 million to 35 million.

He announced the changes to Stansted's planning conditions in a written statement to parliament.

Permission was originally refused by Uttlesford district council in November 2006 on grounds of noise and environmental concerns.

The government overruled the council, as forecast in today's Guardian, after an appeal by the airports operator BAA and a lengthy public inquiry.

Stansted's managing director, Stewart Wingate, said the decision, taken by Hoon and the communities and local government secretary, Hazel Blears, was "great news" for passengers.

"We are naturally delighted that the secretaries of state have granted permission for the next phase of growth at Stansted," Wingate said.

"This secures our future up to 35 million passengers a year.

"We will now be studying the full detail of the decision, including the independent planning inspector's report before commenting further.

"What we can say today though is that this is clearly great news for passengers and for businesses located in the local community or across the wider region."

A letter to BAA's laywers from the departments of transport, communities and local government says the proposal complies with local and national polices including the air transport white paper.

"There is no evidence that the proposal would breach relevant local and national policies relating to nitrogen depositions on vegetation; there would be adequate provision of water resources, including that sewerage and drainage capacity would be adequate; the road network and rail and coach access would be adequate; and … there would be large direct economic benefits."

The departments acknowledge there may be "some negative health effects due to changes in levels of air pollution" but say these would be "small". Other possible negative effects include "further erosion of traditional social linkages in smaller settlements and increased unauthorised activity and some adverse effects with regard to impact on residential areas".

The letter acknowledges that nitrogen levels are "a cause for concern" in terms of their impact on Hatfield forest and nearby protected woodland.

But the secretaries of state conclude there are not "any material considerations of sufficient weight which would justify refusing planning permission".

The letter says the decision should not be taken as "an expression of a view on the need for or acceptability of" a second runway at Stansted - which is part of BAA's long-term plan.

Graham Thompson, an activist with campaign group Plane Stupid and one of those who occupied the roof of parliament to protest against airport expansion, said: "Whether it's Ruth Kelly or Geoff Hoon, it's quite clear that the minister for BAA is not working in the interests of Britain. Our democratic checks and balances are failing and escalating direct action is now inevitable."

Green groups had described the Stansted inquiry as the sternest test of government aviation policy since climate change became a major political issue.

The Liberal Democrats transport spokesman, Norman Baker, said: "This is further evidence that the government is in the pocket of the aviation industry. It shows the gaping void between its environmental rhetoric and reality. Ministers like to talk green, but their actions show they are only too willing to increase carbon emissions.

"This is particularly bad news for people living near Stansted, who seemingly do not count in the government's reckoning. This is the first major decision by Geoff Hoon as transport secretary and it clearly shows that he is no friend of the environment."

Uttlesford district council, which is based in Saffron Walden, Essex, has six weeks to appeal against the government's decision. A council spokesman said no decision had yet been taken about such action.

The council leader, Jim Ketteridge, said the decision was a blow to the community. "Residents already find the level of aircraft noise extremely disturbing and allowing BAA to increase the amount of air traffic marks a further erosion of our quality of life, particularly for all those living near Stansted airport.

"We are very disappointed that the appeal has been allowed but are redoubling our efforts to fight the second runway proposals."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...irlineindustry

[Thinking Man's Idiot]

Greens see red over Stansted expansion

(Thursday 09 October 2008)

by DANIEL COYSH




DIRECT ACTION: Plane Stupid protesters demonstrating at Parliament.

HAPLESS Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon angered green campaigners and transport workers on Thursday when he gave the green light to the expansion of Stansted Airport.


In a written statement to Parliament, Mr Hoon gave his permission for the Essex airport to increase the number of flights from 241,000 to 264,000 and raise the number of passengers from 25 million to 35 million.

Planning permission for the expansion was originally refused on grounds of noise and environmental concerns by Uttlesford District Council in November 2006.

But the government overruled the council on Thursday following an appeal and intensive lobbying by private airport operator BAA.

Stansted managing director Stewart Wingate called the decision by Mr Hoon and Communities and Local Government Secretary Hazel Blears "great news for passengers and for businesses," but campaigners pointed out that the opposite was true for the environment and local communities.

Plane Stupid activist Graham Thompson, who has occupied the roof of Parliament to protest against airport expansion, said: "Whether it's Ruth Kelly or Geoff Hoon, it's quite clear that the minister for BAA is not working in the interests of Britain.

"Our democratic checks and balances are failing and escalating direct action is now inevitable," he added.

Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) chairman Peter Sanders branded the decision "entirely predictable, cynical and unjustified" and said that it was considering an appeal.

"Given the government's gung-ho approach to airport expansion, we always knew that the dice were loaded in favour of BAA, not least since the government wouldn't want to see the policies set down in its air transport white paper fall at the first hurdle," he said.

"Nevertheless, it beggars belief that there has been such a cynical disregard for the evidence presented to last year's inquiry. BAA failed to bring forward any direct evidence even to support an economic case for its application. Today's decision is wholly unjustified on the basis of the evidence."

Mr Sanders suggested that "the government's determination to approve this application could prove be its undoing, however.

"The flaws in the process and the rationale given by the government in reaching its decision may well provide scope for challenge."

Uttlesford council leader Jim Ketteridge accused ministers of ignoring the concerns of people near the airport, adding: "Residents already find the level of aircraft noise extremely disturbing and allowing BAA to increase the amount of air traffic marks a further erosion of our quality of life.

"We are very disappointed that the appeal has been allowed but are redoubling our efforts to fight the second runway proposals."

Transport union RMT has been at the forefront of calls for high-speed rail links to provide environmentally friendly alternatives to short-haul flights within Britain which make up a massive proportion of flights from London.

In July, it published a report with the Campaign for Better Transport which showed that, where high-speed rail links have been opened, there has been a significant switch from air to rail and warned that Britain is in danger of being left behind as countries such as Spain reap the benefits of proper investment.

RMT general secretary Bob Crow said: "Our report shows that high-speed rail can provide a win-win solution for the economy and the environment."

[Thinking Man's Idiot]

So that's all right then

(Thursday 09 October 2008)

ONE can only imagine that new Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon is starting as he means to go on.


And he is going on in the cack-handed manner which saw his career decline from defence secretary, during which he earned the unflattering nickname "Buff," to his current job as Transport Secretary, following the thinly disguised defection of arch-Blairite Ruth Kelly.

This may well have been a reward for Mr Hoon's switching sides and helping Mr Brown's successful bid for prime ministership.

And Mr Hoon has responded in his usual fashion, by putting his bloody great big concrete boots straight back in it again.

Almost the first action of the transport department under his tutelage has been to allow Stansted airport to increase its passenger throughput capacity by 40 per cent, up to 35 million passengers a year, jacking up the number of flights by some 23,000 a year.

Forget the concerns of the National Trust in the east of England, which says that the announcement is a major blow to Hatfield forest, a fragile remnant of Britain's history.

But it's only old trees and endangered species of wildlife, so that's all right then.

As pressure group Stop Stansted Expansion has pointed out, BAA failed to bring forward any direct evidence to support an economic case for this expansion at the recent inquiry.

But there is not only this expansion on the table. There is also the prospect of a new runway in the offing.

And this is without considering the proposed forced splitting up of BAA.
The company has bowed to pressure from the Competition Commission to split up its near monopoly of the major airports and has recently announced the proposed sale of Gatwick airport.

It is difficult to dismiss the idea that this plan is merely designed to preserve the market share of BAA by expanding Stansted as a response to the loss of Gatwick, thus preserving the BAA market dominance as far as possible.

And it could succeed, but only at a high and as yet apparently unconsidered cost both to the environment of the Stansted area and to existing employment elsewhere.

Airport industry unions would do well to consider carefully their support for this expansion, since, in the process of the BAA sell-off, any proposed new jobs in Stansted could well come at the cost of existing jobs at Gatwick.

In the present economic climate, an expansion of high-priced foreign holidays for the newly affluent is hardly a bet to put your shirt on.