Govt denies ‘collusion’ over Stansted second runway
The government and BAA have been accused of surging ahead with plans to expand Stansted airport, despite local objections and concerns about the environmental impact.
Airport owner BBA has submitted its planning application for a second runway at the Essex airport.
It wants to open a two-runway, two-terminal airport in 2015, in what would be the first new runway in the south-east for 50 years.
But the campaign to Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) has condemned the timing, with the application launched before a public inquiry into expanding capacity on the airport’s existing runway is completed.
SSE has accused the government of “collusion and connivance” with BBA while the Conservatives have said they are trying to slip through the Stansted expansion while attention is focused on separate expansion plans at Heathrow.
In 2002 the Department for Transport (DfT) flouted the possibility of four runways at Stansted and in 2003 a government white paper reversed the longstanding commitment not to expand passenger capacity at the airport.
Despite implicit government support Uttlesford District Council rejected BAA’s application to remove the annual limit of 25 million passengers. BAA’s subsequent appeal prompted a public inquiry and the DfT was due to respond this spring.
SSE argued today’s planning application makes the assumption the government supports expanding the airport.
The DfT denied the allegation of collusion. A spokesman told politics.co.uk that the application from BAA and its precise timing was up to the operator. He confirmed that a government response to the inquiry was still pending.
Nevertheless, SSE’s Peter Sanders accused the government of hypocrisy.
“They cannot claim to be taking climate change seriously and at the same time promote a doubling of air travel and the biggest expansion in airport capacity that the UK has ever seen,” he said.
Alastair McDermid, BAA’s director of the project, said it was not pushing for growth at any cost.
“The global issue of climate change is one which we take very seriously and is recognised as requiring international action,” he said.
BAA supports a global emissions trading scheme and is calling for the aviation industry to take part.
It further claims the environmental impact of the airport has been lessoned, claiming emissions from energy and water use can be frozen at 2006 levels by 2030.
BAA also argues the local impact will be less than previously thought, with 13 listed buildings now at threat rather than 29. It further claims fewer than 5,000 people will be affected by additional airport noise, 11,000 less than originally estimated.
But the Liberal Democrats have condemned the proposed expansion, claiming it reveals the government’s climate change policy as “full of hot air”.
Lib Dem transport spokesman Norman Baker said: “The government’s air travel strategy needs to be determined by the needs of the environment, passengers and affected local communities, not the needs of BAA’s shareholders.”
The Conservatives have also called on the transport secretary to drop the plans, with her shadow Theresa Villiers arguing there is no credible economic case for a second runway.
“Ruth Kelly should open her eyes and look at the local and environmental impact of a new runway at Stansted and drop her support for BAA’s flawed proposals,” Ms Villiers said.
