G1 Statement of Common Ground Version 1 FINAL 30.4.07

BAA/20Case reference:

2032278

Statement of Common GroundStansted Generation 1

April 2007

Page 1

BAA Limited and StanstedAirport Limited

Uttlesford District Council

Stansted Generation 1

Statement of CommonGround

VERSION 1

Without Prejudice

April 2007


April 2007

Page 2

BAA Limited and Stansted Airport Limited

Uttlesford District Council

Stansted Generation 1

Statement of Common Ground

Version 1

Without Prejudice

April 2007


April 2007

Page 3

CONTENTSPage

CONTENTS 3

1 INTRODUCTION 71.1 Purpose of the Statement of Common Ground 71.2 The planning application to which this statement relates 71.3 The reasons for refusal and issues not contested 71.4 Location of the proposed development 10

2 PICTURE OF THE AIRPORT 112.1 Existing airport operation and facilities 112.2 Planning History 122.3 Stansted Airport Master Plan 132.4 Explanation of permitted development rights 142.5 Regulation of Air Noise 142.6 Air Noise Contours 15

3 APPLICATION PROPOSALS 163.1 Description of development 163.2 List of application plans, drawings and documents 20

4 National Planning Policy Guidance 224.1 The Government’s White Paper on Aviation ‘The Future of Air Transport,’ December 2003 224.2 The Future of Air Transport White Paper Progress Report (December 2006) (ATPR) 234.3 The Government’s policy approach to climate change and aviation 234.4 National Planning Policy 23

5 Development Plan 255.1 The Statutory Development Plan 255.2 Regional Spatial Strategy – RPG9 & RTS 255.3 Draft East of England Plan – RSS14 265.4 Essex and Southend-on-Sea Structure Plan, April 2001 305.5 Uttlesford District Local Plan, January 2005 325.6 Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan, September 2001 355.7 Essex Minerals Local Plan, 1997 35

6 G1 Forecasts 36

7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 377.1 Air Noise 377.2 Air Quality Issues 397.3 Construction Issues 427.4 Cultural Heritage Issues 437.5 Economic Issues 447.6 Employment Issues 457.7 Energy Issues 477.8 Ground Noise Issues 487.9 Health Issues 51


April 2007

Page 4

7.10 Landscape and Visual Issues 527.11 Nature Conservation Issues 537.12 Surface Access Issues – Road and Rail 547.13 Third Party Risk Issues 557.14 Waste Issues 567.15 Water Issues 57

8 PLANNING CONDITIONS AND LEGAL AGREEMENT 59

9 SIGNATORIES TO THIS STATEMENT OF COMMON GROUND 60

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 Site Location Plan drawing no. STN/PSA/1078/K/001/P1Planning application boundary Plan drawing no. STN/PSA/1078/K/005/P1

APPENDIX 2 Existing airport layout drawing no. STN/PSA/1078/K/002/P1

APPENDIX 3 A plan showing the Noise Preferential Routes at Stansted Airport

APPENDIX 4 Diagrams of the 2004 and 2005 Stansted Leq contours overlaid on Ordnance Survey maps

APPENDIX 5 Developments assumed to serve 25mppa in 2014 and 35mppa in 2014 drawing no.STN/PSA/1078/K/004 P1

APPENDIX 6 Stansted Airport Inset Map, Uttlesford District Local Plan, January 2005

APPENDIX 7 Resolution of the UDC Development Control Committee 4th April 2007 in response to BAA’s offer ofa 35mppa restriction on passenger throughput plus BAA’s offer letter dated 20th March 2007


April 2007

Page 5

Glossary and Abbreviations

APU Auxiliary Power UnitAQC Air Quality Consultants LtdATM Air Transport MovementsATWP The Future of Air Transport White PaperATPR Air Transport White Paper Progress ReportBAA BAA LimitedBAP Biodiversity Action PlanCAA Civil Aviation AuthorityCATM Cargo Air Transport MovementsCO2 Carbon DioxidedB DecibelDETR Department for the Environment, Transport and the RegionsDfT Department for TransportEA The Environment AgencyEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentERCD Environmental Research and Consultancy DepartmentES Environmental StatementG1 Stansted Generation 1 Planning ApplicationG2 Stansted Generation 2 Planning ApplicationGB Great BritainGDP Gross Domestic ProductGPDO General Permitted Development OrderGPU Ground Power UnitGVA Gross Value AddedHa HectaresHA Highways AgencyHGV Heavy Goods VehiclesHIA Health Impact AssessmentKM KilometreLden As LAeq, except that it is defined over an annual average 24-hr period with sub-periods

defined as: day (07:00-19:00), evening (19:00-23:00) and night (23:00-07:00). Eachmovement in the evening period is weighted by 5 dB and in the night period by 10 dBrespectively

Lnight As LAeq, but defined for the annual average 8-hr night period between 23:00-07:00LAeq The Equivalent Continuous Sound Level (LAeq) is the level of a notional steady sound,

which at a given position and over a defined period of time would have the sameAweighted acoustic energy as the fluctuating noise. 16-hr LAeq, for the 16-hour period0700 to 2300 (Local Time) and for an average summer day, is used as the UK index ofexposure to aircraft noise. In this volume, LAeq is used to denote the 16-hour LAeq.

LAmax The maximum A-weighted sound pressure level (in dBA) recorded using a slow timeweighting during a single aircraft flyover

LDD Local Development DocumentNATS National Air Traffic Services LimitedNO2 Nitrogen DioxideNOx Nitrogen OxidesNPR Noise Preferential RoutePATM Passenger Air Transport MovementsPax PassengersPPG Planning Policy GuidancePPS Planning Policy StatementPSZ Public Safety ZonePTI Public Transport InterchangeR05 RET Runway 05 Runway Exit TaxiwayR23 RAT3 Runway 23 Runway Access Taxiway 3R23 RAT4 Runway 23 Runway Access Taxiway 4R23 RAT5 Runway 23 Runway Access Taxiway 5RES Regional Economic Strategy for the East of England 2004RPG Regional Policy GuidanceRSS Regional Spatial StrategyRTS Regional Transport StrategyS106 Section 106 agreement


April 2007

Page 6

SABF Stansted Airport Buisness ForumSAEF Stansted Airport Employment ForumSoS Secretary of StateSO2 Sulphur DioxideSTAL Stansted Airport LimitedTA Transport AssessmentTVW Three Valleys WaterTWUL Thames Water Utilities LimitedUDC Uttlesford District CouncilUK United Kingdom


April 2007

Page 7

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of the Statement of Common Ground

1.1.1 This document is a Statement of Common Ground between BAA Limited and Stansted Airport Limited(STAL) (jointly referred to as BAA) and Uttlesford District Council (UDC); hereinafter referred to as theParties to this statement.

1.1.2 The statement has been signed by representatives from BAA and UDC and sets out those matterswhich are agreed between the parties in respect of the proposals identified in Section 1.2 below. Italso makes clear where information has been agreed by other principal parties and statutoryconsultees.

1.1.3 This document is Version 1 of the Statement of Common Ground and is dated April 2007. The Partieswill continue discussions and seek to agree further matters. If appropriate, updated versions of theStatement of Common Ground will be provided.

1.2 The planning application to which this statement relates

1.2.1 On 26th April 2006, BAA submitted an application for planning permission to UDC pursuant to Section73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”) to enable further utilisation to bemade of the capacity of the existing runway at Stansted Airport. The precise nature of the applicationis described in Section 3 below. The application is called the ‘Stansted Generation 1 planningapplication’ (hereinafter referred to as “G1.”) The application was validated by UDC on 26th April 2006and given planning application reference number UTT/0717/06/FUL.

1.2.2 The G1 application was considered at UDC’s Development Control Committee on 29th November2006 where Members voted to refuse planning permission on nine grounds as confirmed in the noticeof decision dated 30th November 2006.

1.2.3 An appeal against UDC’s decision to refuse planning permission for the G1 application was submittedby BAA to the Planning Inspectorate on 30th November 2006. The appeal has been accepted and willbe considered at a Public Inquiry scheduled to commence on 30th May 2007.

1.3 The reasons for refusal and issues not contested

1.3.1 The nine reasons for refusal as confirmed on the Decision Notice dated 30th November 2006 are asfollows:

Reason R.90A - Noise

1. Inadequate mitigation measures are proposed to address the effects of noise on the localcommunity, to the detriment of the amenity of the occupiers of buildings in the vicinity of theairport, and the cognitive development of primary school children, contrary to policies BIW9 of theEssex and Southend-on-Sea Structure Plan and GEN2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan.

2. The absence of a Quality Of Life assessment means that inadequate consideration has beengiven to the impact of air noise on the culture and leisure activities of nearby communities,although evidence from consultees suggest these impacts are significant. As a result the effect ofthe development on local communities is uncertain, and no proportionate mitigation measurescan be put forward, to the detriment of amenity and contrary to policies BIW9 of the Essex andSouthend-on-Sea Structure Plan and GEN2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan.


April 2007

Page 8

Reason R.90B - Quality of Life

3. The absence of a Quality of Life Assessment means that the effects on the cohesion of localcommunities caused by the pressures on the nature and character of residential accommodationarising from the presence of a rapidly-growing airport has not been given due consideration. As aresult the effect on local communities is uncertain, and no proportionate mitigation measures canbe put forward, to the detriment of amenity and contrary to policies BIW9 of the Essex andSouthend-on-Sea Structure Plan and GEN2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan.

Reason R.90C - Air Quality

4. Increased pollution arising from the consequences of the proposed development could give riseto an increased risk of vegetation damage in Hatfield Forest and East End Wood. Insufficient realdata is available to ensure an accurate assessment. As a consequence inadequate contingencymeasures for mitigation and/or compensation measures have been made, to the detriment ofbiodiversity and contrary to policies NR5, NR6, NR7 and BIW9 of the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Structure Plan and ENV7 of the Uttlesford Local Plan.

Reason R.90D - Water conservation

5. Inadequate provision is made for increased efficiency in the use of water, to the detriment ofwater conservation strategies and contrary to policy EG4 of the Essex and Southend-on-SeaStructure Plan and GEN1 of the Uttlesford Local Plan.

Reason R.90E - Surface Access – Road

6. With the exception of the requirements of the Highways Agency the proposed obligations andconditions do not satisfy the requirements of the highway authorities. Without adequatemitigation measures there could be congestion on the local highway network to the detriment ofthe free flow of traffic and highway safety, contrary to policies T1 of the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Structure Plan and GEN1 of the Uttlesford Local Plan.

Reason R.90F - Surface Access - Rail

7. The mechanisms and measures proposed for rail access improvements are insufficiently clear toenable the local planning authority to have reasonable certainty that they will take place in aproportionate and timely manner, and as a result there could be increased reliance on the use ofthe private car to the detriment of national and local transport policies and the principles ofsustainable development, contrary to policies T1 of the Essex and Southend-on-Sea StructurePlan and GEN1 of the Uttlesford Local Plan.

Reason R.90G - Climate Change

8. In the light of the Stern Review, the proposed Climate Change Bill put forward in the Queen’sSpeech and the increasing evidence of the adverse effects of climate change it would bepremature to grant planning permission in advance of clarification by the Government as towhether its response to the Stern Review and other recent research will include directimplications for the aviation industry beyond the provisions of the Air Transport White Paper.


April 2007

Page 9

Reason R.90H - Economic Benefits

9. The forecast economic benefits of the proposed development, particularly in the light of thecosting of economic consequences of climate change set out in the Stern Report, have not beendemonstrated strongly enough for them to be so over riding as to outweigh all other factors, withor without mitigation, to the detriment of the principles of sustainable development and contrary topolicy BIW9 of the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Structure Plan.

1.3.2 Since UDC’s Development Control Committee determined the G1 application on 29th November 2006,the Government has published the ATPR. The Council’s Development Control Committee of the 4th

April 2007 considered the Council’s case for the Planning Inquiry and agreed that updating wasrequired to take account of the ATPR which was accepted as being a new material consideration.Members voted in favour of substituting the reasons for refusal on climate change and economicbenefit as follows:

Revised Climate Change Reason for Refusal:

“It would be premature to grant planning permission in advance of the Government carrying out anEmissions Cost Assessment. An Assessment is required to ensure that this major decision on airportcapacity takes account the wider context of aviation’s climate impact as well as local environmentaleffects. This is in accordance with the Government’s policy as set out the Future of Air TransportProgress Report, December 2006.”

This is substituted for the reason in the decision dated 30 November, 2006: “In the light of the SternReview, the proposed Climate Change Bill put forward in the Queen’s Speech and the increasingevidence of the adverse effects of climate change it would be premature to grant planning permissionin advance of clarification by the Government as to whether its response to the Stern Review andother recent research will include direct implications for the aviation industry beyond the provisions ofthe Air Transport White Paper”;

Revised Economic Benefit Reason for Refusal :

“The forecast economic benefits of the proposed development have not been demonstrated stronglyenough for them to be so over riding as to outweigh all other factors, with or without mitigation, to thedetriment of the principles of sustainable development and contrary to policy BIW9 of the Essex andSouthend-on-Sea Structure Plan.”

This is substituted for the reason in the decision dated 30 November, 2006: “The forecast economicbenefits of the proposed development, particularly in the light of the costing of economicconsequences of climate change set out in the Stern Report, have not been demonstrated stronglyenough for them to be so over riding as to outweigh all other factors, with or without mitigation, to thedetriment of the principles of sustainable development and contrary to policy BIW9 of the Essex andSouthend-on-Sea Structure Plan.”

1.3.3 The Parties agree that the various other effects of the G1 development, as assessed in theEnvironmental Statement (ES) and the Health Impact Assessment (HIA) would not give rise toconcerns justifying rejection of the application provided appropriate and necessary conditions andobligations are in place. These include:

• The effects on archaeological resources

• The additional requirements for energy

• The effects of ground noise

• The landscape and visual impacts

• The direct impacts on nature conservation interests within the airport boundary

• The risk to third parties


April 2007

Page 10

• The additional waste generated

• The impacts of increased foul water drainage and surface water drainage including onreceiving water courses

• The health effects of the proposed development

1.4 Location of the proposed development

1.4.1 The application site is wholly within the local authority administrative district of Uttlesford in the countyof Essex. The National Grid reference for the approximate centre of the site is TL 567 239. Landcomprising the application site is wholly within the existing boundary of Stansted Airport.

1.4.2 Stansted Airport is located in north-west Essex approximately 3.5km east of the centre of Bishop’sStortford (located in East Hertfordshire administrative district) and 8 km west of Great Dunmow.Stansted Mountfitchet is located approximately 3.5km to the north-west.

1.4.3 The airport lies to the north-east of the M11/A120 junction (Junction 8), from which a dedicated spurfrom the roundabout leads to the airport road network and the terminal building. Slip roads also givedirect access to the airport road network from the M11 northbound and to the M11 southbound atJunction 8 via an overbridge at Priory Wood roundabout. Access to the airport from the east is gainedvia east facing on and off slips along the A120 at South Gate/Mid-Stay Car Park. Local access to theairport is provided via Parsonage Road at the Coopers End roundabout. Access to the airport’snorthside facilities is via First Avenue along Bury Lodge Lane opposite the Long Stay Car Park.

1.4.4 The airport is connected by rail by a rail spur which travels west/north west via an airside single boretunnel to join the London – Cambridge line just north-east of Stansted Mountfitchet.

1.4.5 A site location plan (drawing no. STN/PSA/1078/K/001/P1) and a plan showing the planningapplication boundary (drawing no. STN/PSA/1078/K/005/P1) are provided as Appendix 1.

APPENDIX 1


April 2007

Page 11

2 PICTURE OF THE AIRPORT

2.1 Existing airport operation and facilities

2.1.1 A plan showing the existing airport layout (drawing no. STN/PSA/1078/K/002/P1) is provided asAppendix 2.

APPENDIX 2

2.1.2 Stansted Airport has a single main runway 3,048m long on a south-west/north-east alignment. A twinparallel taxiway system to the south of the runway provides access to the passenger terminal, cargoarea and principal aircraft maintenance area. A single parallel taxiway to the north of the runwayprovides access to the Business Aviation terminal, further aircraft maintenance facilities and remoteaircraft parking.

2.1.3 The passenger terminal contains passenger processing facilities for domestic and internationalpassengers. The passenger processing facilities are on a single concourse with baggage handling,plant and support facilities at mezzanine and undercroft levels below the passenger concourse level.

2.1.4 Three airside satellites provide access to aircraft stands located to the north and west of the terminal.International passengers gain access to and from Satellites 1 and 2 by an automated, undergroundtracked transit system. Bridge links from the terminal provide direct access to and from Satellite 3 forinternational passengers, and to and from Satellite 2 for domestic passengers. In addition, a coachinggate on the airside frontage of the terminal provides access to remote stands.

2.1.5 Direct links from the M11 and the A120 connect with the Airport’s landside road system whichprovides access to the passenger terminal and cargo, aircraft maintenance and ancillary developmentareas.

2.1.6 The passenger terminal has a single level forecourt, primarily for the set-down of departingpassengers.

2.1.7 Short-stay public parking is situated within the red and orange parking zones to the south-east of theterminal. There is also a short-stay car park area to the east of the terminal – the green parking zone.Long-stay parking is provided on the northside of the Airport, to the west of Bury Lodge Lane. Mid-stay car parking is catered for in Bassingbourn Car Park on the southside of the Airport adjacent tothe southern A120 entrance (South Gate). The total number of passenger car parking spacescurrently provided on-airport is some 26,800 split as follows:

• Short-stay – 2,700 spaces

• Mid-stay – 5,300 spaces

• Long-stay – 18,800 spaces

2.1.8 The Public Transport Interchange (PTI) comprises a rail terminal and bus and coach station, bothinterlinked providing direct access to the terminal building. The bus and coach station is locatedimmediately to the south-east of the forecourt in a central location in front of the terminal. Works toimprove the passenger waiting and interchange facilities are currently in progress and are due to becompleted by Spring 2007. Directly beneath the landside face of the passenger terminal is a railstation (with three platforms) with access into the terminal building by escalators, ramps, walkwaysand lifts.


April 2007

Page 12

2.1.9 The cargo area is located to the south-west of the terminal area. It comprises a line of transit shedswith an airside frontage on to the main terminal apron and a parallel transit shed a little further to thesouth-west operated by Federal Express. In addition to the main apron in front of the passengerterminal, further aircraft stands to the south-west of the Federal Express development provide parkingfor primarily cargo aircraft. The cargo area has an independent junction from the landside road systemwith associated staff and lorry parking.

2.1.10 The Airport fire station is located immediately to the north of the cargo transit sheds. There is a firetraining ground on the northside of the Airport.

2.1.11 The principal aircraft maintenance facility to the south of the runway is operated by SR Technics andincludes a hangar capable of accommodating two B747 aircraft, two ground run pens, supportingaccommodation and car parking.

2.1.12 Other landside accommodation to the south of the runway includes two landside support offices, thecontrol tower, car rental bases for four operators (currently under construction), flight catering andground handling agents’ accommodation.

2.1.13 Facilities for General Aviation as well as some further maintenance facilities are provided to the northof the runway. These include the Harrods Aviation and operations and aircraft maintenance facilitiesoperated by Inflite and Titan Airways.

2.1.14 The Airport aviation fuel farm is located in the northside area along with other ancillary facilitiesincluding Airport vehicle maintenance accommodation.

2.1.15 There are three hotels on the Airport:

• Radisson SAS Hotel adjacent to the passenger terminal (500 bedrooms);

• Hilton Hotel located north of the runway (238 bedrooms); and

• Express by Holiday Inn located at South Gate (detailed planning permission for 256 rooms but only173 currently constructed – remaining 83 rooms to be completed by June 2007)

2.1.16 The Hilton and Express by Holiday Inn operate shuttle bus services to and from the passengerterminal.

2.1.17 A petrol filling station is located on the South Gate site.

2.1.18 Balancing ponds are provided to regulate and clean the flow of surface water runoff to the rivercourses. The principal balancing pond is located to the south of the Airport

2.2 Planning History

The 1985 Planning Permission

2.2.1 On 5th June 1985, the Secretaries of State for Environment and for Transport granted outline planningpermission for:

“The expansion of Stansted Airport by the provision of a new passenger terminalcomplex with a capacity of about 15 mppa east of the existing runway, cargohandling and general aviation facilities, hotel accommodation, taxiways(including the widening of a proposed taxiway to be used as an emergencyrunway), associated facilities (including infrastructure for aircraft maintenanceand other tenants’ developments) and related road access.” (‘The 1985permission’ – planning reference number UTT/1150/80/SA)


April 2007

Page 13

2.2.2 The conditions attached to the 1985 permission required that the development be phased. Reservedmatters in relation to the first and second phases were approved in 1987 (Phase 1 approval) and 1999(Phase 2 approval). The general layout plan upon which the allocations of land within the airportboundary in both the former Uttlesford District Plan and the current Uttlesford Local Plan haveevolved, was approved as part of the Phase 1 approval.

2.2.3 A Landscape Masterplan for the first phase of the airport development (under the 1985 planningpermission) was approved by UDC in 1986. It included approximately 56ha of woodland and copseplanting. Planting commenced in 1987 and continued until the terminal was opened in 1991

The 2003 Planning Permission

2.2.4 In August 2001, BAA submitted an application for the next phase of the Airport’s development,providing for an increase in passenger throughput. It was anticipated that this development wouldallow the increase in passenger throughput to about 25 million passengers per annum (mppa) in2010. Planning permission was granted by UDC on 16th May 2003 for:

“Extension to the passenger terminal; provision of additional aircraft stands andtaxiways, aircraft maintenance facilities, offices, cargo handling facilities, aviationfuel storage, passenger and staff car parking and other operational and industrialsupport accommodation; alterations to airport roads, terminal forecourt and theStansted rail, coach and bus station; together with associated landscaping andinfrastructure.” (‘The 2003 planning permission’ – planning referenceUTT/1000/01/OP)

2.2.5 169 planning conditions and obligations were attached to the 2003 permission, timed to be triggeredby various stages of the approved development. The conditions include ‘MPPA1’ and ‘ATM1’ whichlimit the number of passengers and ATMs per annum to 25 million and 241,000 ATMs.

2.2.6 The 2003 planning permission was implemented through commencement of development which tookplace on 22nd May 2006 via terminal forecourt improvement works. There is an 8-year time limit for thesubmission of reserved matters pursuant to the outline planning permission.

2.2.7 The development of Stansted Airport has been taking place within land use zones. These zones arecurrently incorporated into the adopted Uttlesford Local Plan (January 2005).

2.2.8 Further details of the planning history associated with Stansted Airport has been provided by theCouncil with the appeal questionnaire (see response to Question 21bi).

2.3 Stansted Airport Master Plan

2.3.1 The White Paper ‘The Future of Air Transport’ Department for Transport, December 2003 (ATWP)asked airport operators to prepare a master plan in bringing forward plans for increased airportcapacity in the future (ATWP, Executive Summary page 14). Stansted’s master plan is beingpublished in two stages as agreed with the Department for Transport.

2.3.2 First, in May 2006, Stansted Airport published its Interim Master Plan that deals with growth onStansted's existing runway (the draft Interim Master Plan was published in July 2005 and thiscoincided with an extensive pre-application public consultation on the planning application.) Thepurpose of the Interim Master Plan is to set out the overall scale of the airport and the effects in 2015.The Interim Master Plan focussed primarily on making better use of the existing runway and the likelysocial, environmental and economic impacts that this will have. It considers and describes what asingle runway airport could look like in 2015 and gives some indications of its character in 2030. TheInterim Master Plan was prepared on the basis that current planning conditions restricting passengerthroughput and ATMs (as described later in Section 3.1.2) will be lifted and modified respectively.


April 2007

Page 14

2.3.3 The second stage is the Final Master Plan that outlines BAA’s strategy for growth on a two-runwayairport up to 2030. This will accompany the planning application for the development of a two runwayairport, known as G2.

2.4 Explanation of permitted development rights

2.4.1 Airports have permitted development rights under the Town and Country Planning (General PermittedDevelopment) Order 1995 (Schedule 2 – Part 18), which means that some types of development onoperational land in connection with provision of services and facilities at the airport have deemedplanning consent, although the Local Planning Authority must be consulted.

2.4.2 Developments including the construction or extension of a runway, the construction of a newpassenger terminal above a floorspace of 500m², or the extension of a passenger terminal by morethan 15% of the existing building do not benefit from the permitted development rights.

2.5 Regulation of Air Noise

2.5.1 While at other airports flying restrictions are at the discretion of the airport operator, Heathrow,Gatwick and Stansted are designated airports where noise is regulated by the Secretary of State(SoS) under Section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. This statutory position is not affected by theCivil Aviation Act 2006.

2.5.2 Using his powers the SoS has introduced night flying restrictions (the current regime runs to October2012), noise limits and noise preferential routes (NPRs) for departing aircraft. Through its Conditionsof Use, BAA penalises operators who fail to comply with the latter two regulations. The NPRs andother Noise Abatement Procedures for Stansted are published accordingly in statutory notices in theUK Aeronautical Information Package, published by the CAA Aeronautical Information Service.Appendix A6 of Volume 2 of the G1 ES (Air Noise) includes the full text of the noise abatementprocedures that apply at Stansted Airport. Section 9 of Volume 2 of the G1ES provides a précis of themain requirements.

2.5.3 Specifically in relation to NPRs, they are designed to avoid over-flight of built up areas where possible.They lead from the take-off runway to the main UK air traffic routes. Six NPRs for departing aircrafthave been established at Stansted Airport following public consultation by the DfT in 1988. There arethree NPRs diverging from each end of the runway. The centerline of the NPR, if directly flown over,routes aircraft as far as possible away from the areas of population concentration. A plan showing theNPRs at Stansted Airport is provided as Appendix 3.

APPENDIX 3

2.5.4 Although not appearing specifically in the UK-AIP noise abatement procedures notice, it has becomeaccepted practice at Stansted Airport to measure track keeping performance by reference to a‘swathe’ placed around each NPR (marked yellow on the plan provided in Appendix 3). To be classed‘on-track’ aircraft are required to remain within the NPR swathe until 3000 of 4000ft above mean sealevel depending upon the NPR. Upon reaching this altitude they may be given more direct headingsso as to integrate safely and efficiently with other traffic operating in London airspace.

2.5.5 Under the 2003 planning permission, BAA has sought to enhance the SoS’s regulations by voluntaryagreements with aircraft operators and air traffic control. Details of these voluntary measures areprovided in Section 9.2 of Volume 2 of the G1 ES (Air Noise) and include measures such as NoiseInsulation Schemes, Landing Charges, Noise and Track Keeping Fines, Night Noise Mitigation andinstallation of Mobile Noise Monitors.


April 2007

Page 15

2.6 Air Noise Contours

2.6.1 Every year, the Environmental Research and Consultancy Department (ERCD) of the Civil AviationAuthority (CAA) estimates the noise exposures around Stansted Airport on behalf of the Departmentfor Transport (DfT). The magnitude and extent of the aircraft noise around these airports are depictedon maps by contours of constant aircraft noise index (Leq) values. The contours are generated by acomputer model validated with noise measurements which calculates the emissions and propagationof noise from arriving and departing air traffic. Diagrams of the 2004 and 2005 Stansted Leq contoursoverlaid on Ordnance Survey maps are provided at Appendix 4.

APPENDIX 4

2.6.2 The ERCD Report 0603 ‘Noise Exposure Contours for Stansted Airport 2005’ (prepared by the CivilAviation Authority on behalf of the DfT, December 2006) states that the total annual movement figureat Stansted for 2005 was 0.7% higher than that for 2004. Despite the slight increase in traffic in 2005,the area within the 57 dBA Leq contour decreased relative to 2004.


April 2007

Page 16

3 APPLICATION PROPOSALS

3.1 Description of development

3.1.1 In 2003, BAA was granted planning permission by UDC for development comprising:

“Extension to the passenger terminal; provision of additional aircraft stands andtaxiways, aircraft maintenance facilities, offices, cargo handling facilities, aviationfuel storage, passenger and staff car parking and other operational and industrialsupport accommodation; alterations to airport roads, terminal forecourt and theStansted rail, coach and bus station; together with associated landscaping andinfrastructure.” (‘The 2003 planning permission’)

3.1.2 This permission was granted subject to a number of conditions. In particular, UDC imposedconditions on passenger throughput and ATMs in the following terms:

• “The passenger throughput at Stansted Airport shall not exceed 25 million passengers in anytwelve calendar month period.” (Condition ‘MPPA1’)

• “….there shall be at Stansted Airport a limit on the number of occasions on which aircraft maytake-off or land at Stansted Airport of 241,000 ATMs during any period of one year of whichno more than 22,500 shall be CATMs.” (Condition ‘ATM1’)

3.1.3 The planning application, the subject of this appeal, was submitted on 29th April 2006 under Section73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and seeks to increase the limit of Condition ATM1 andremove Condition MPPA1, thereby allowing the Airport to grow beyond 25 mppa and 241,000 ATMs,and make better use of the existing runway. It is proposed that Condition ATM1 is increased to a newlevel of 264,000 ATMs with limits of 243,000 PATMs and 20,500 CATMs.

3.1.4 BAA forecast that the current 25mppa throughput limit will be reached in 2008.

3.1.5 The proposed development is, therefore, that which was granted planning permission in 2003 subjectto the same conditions, save in respect of MPPA1 and ATM1.

3.1.6 The proposed development would enable the Airport to grow to serve about 35 mppa from the existingrunway. BAA forecast that these levels will be reached in 2014/15. 264,000 ATMs (with a further10,000 non-commercial movements) represents the maximum likely effective use of the single runwayin 2014/15. The Environmental Statement (ES) submitted with the planning application includes a40mppa sensitivity test and considers what the impacts could be in the event that the 264,000 ATMsactually enabled a throughput of 40mppa rather than the 35mppa forecast.

3.1.7 This application does not seek planning permission for any additional physical developments/facilitiesthat do not currently have planning permission. It is possible that further additional facilities which donot have planning permission may be brought forward in due course as the Airport continues to grow.These potential facilities include:

• Extension to the Green car park.

• Northside Long Stay Car Park Infill - to the west of Bury Lodge Lane.

• Extension to the southern portion of the Northside Long Stay Car Parking Phase 5 - to the east ofBury Lodge Lane.

• Car Rental Sites 5 & 6 on Coopers End.

• Enterprise House Staff Car Park Extension - in the vicinity of the control tower.


April 2007

Page 17

• South Gate Hotels West and East and South Gate Restaurant1

• Stansted Rail Station Extension.

3.1.8 Some of the above facilities would require planning permission (such as any proposed hotel orrestaurant facilities at the South Gate site). Some facilities would benefit from permitted developmentrights (eg. the addition of further car rental facilities). The potential development of these facilities hasbeen anticipated in the ES that is submitted with the G1 application and their effects have beenassessed. However, they are not included in the planning application and will fall to be considered bythe Council on their own merits if and when planning applications or General Permitted DevelopmentOrder (GDPO) consultations are made for them.

3.1.9 The proposed airport layout for the 25mppa and 35mppa cases in 2014 (drawing no.STN/PSA/1078/K/004/P1) is provided as Appendix 5. This plan shows existing principal buildings andthose developments that are assumed would be in place to serve 25mppa in 2014 (ie. if planningpermission was refused) and 35mppa in 2014 (if planning permission is granted). A summary of theplanning status of all the proposals shown on drawing no. STN/PSA/1078/K/004/P1 is provided below:

APPENDIX 5

25mppa case in 2014

Echo Stands NorthDetailed planning permission granted as part of 15mppa Phase 2. (Works underway).

Terminal Arrivals extension (Bay 8)Detailed planning permission granted as part of 15mppa Phase 2. (BAA anticipate works tocommence in 2007)

Terminal forecourt improvementsWorks commenced on 22 May 2006 and were completed in November 2006

Enterprise House 2Outline planning permission granted as part of 25mppa. Details still to be submitted. (BAA anticipateworks to commence in 2009 if approved).

Zulu stands SouthDetailed planning permission granted as part of 15mppa Phase 2. (BAA anticipate Phase 1 works tocommence in 2008; Phase 2 in 2010).

Endeavour House 2Outline planning permission granted as part of 25mppa. Details still to be submitted. (BAA anticipateworks to commence in 2013 if approved).

Taylors End ancillary developmentPhase 2 approved as part of 15mppa Phase 2. (BAA anticipate works to commence soon). Outlineplanning permission for western end granted as part of 25mppa. Details still to be submitted. (BAAanticipate works to commence in 2009 if approved).

1 An outline planning application for hotel development comprising approximately 250 bedrooms was submitted to UDC on 21st

February 2007 in respect of the South Gate Hotel West site (LPA reference UTT/0308/07/OP). An outline planning application forhotel development comprising approximately 100 bedrooms was submitted to UDC on 21st February 2007 in respect of the SouthGate Hotel East site LPA reference UTT0310/07/OP).


April 2007

Page 18

Maintenance hangarOutline planning permission granted as part of 25mppa. Details still to be submitted. (BAA anticipateworks to commence in 2013 if approved).

M11 Junction 8 slip roadOpened for use by 31 December 2006 as required in the S106/S278 Agreement.

Priory Wood roundabout slip roadOpened for use by 31 December 2006 as required in the S106/S278 Agreement.

Fuel tanks 4,5 and 6Outline planning permission for one tank granted as part of 25mppa. Details still to be submitted.(BAA intends to construct the other 2 as permitted development under its GPDO powers in associationwith the second fuel pipeline. Planning permission for the off-airport section of that pipeline still hasnot been granted – the on airport section would be permitted development).

Northside long stay car parking Phase 4Outline planning permission granted as part of 25mppa. Details still to be submitted. (Approx 12,200extra spaces with Phase 5 North). (BAA anticipate works to commence in 2007 if approved).

Yankee stands NorthDetailed planning permission granted as part of expansion to 25mppa. (BAA anticipate works tocommence in 2010).

Cargo shed 3Outline planning permission granted as part of 25mppa. Details still to be submitted. (BAA anticipateworks to commence in 2011 if approved).

Runway 05 Runway Exit Taxiway (R05 RET)Runway 23 Runway Access Taxiway 5 (R23 RAT5)BAA intends to construct these as permitted development under its GPDO powers in 2007.

35mppa case in 2014

Satellite 4Detailed planning permission granted as part of 15mppa Phase 2. Subsequent revised schemeapproved in 2005. (BAA anticipate works to commence in 2008).

Echo Stands SouthDetailed planning permission granted as part of 15mppa Phase 2. (Works underway).

Green car parkTemporary planning permission refused in 2004. Not otherwise approved as part of expansion toeither 15 or 25mppa. (Partly on land identified for ground handling facilities and ancillary developmentin 25mppa, but which BAA considers are not now likely to be required. (BAA anticipate works tocommence in 2009 if approved).

Station extensionLand safeguarded under S106/S278 Agreement. (BAA anticipate works to commence in 2010).


April 2007

Page 19

Terminal Departures extension (Bays 9 and 10)Detailed planning permission granted as part of 25mppa. (BAA anticipate works to commence in2010).

Layered short stay car parkDetailed planning permission granted as part of 15mppa Phase 2. (The plan indicates that BAA onlyintends to build one of the two decked structures for which planning permission was granted. There isno indication that BAA is currently intending to proceed with plans to deck the remaining areas to thenorth as proposed under the 2003 25mppa permission. BAA anticipate works to commence in 2014).

Enterprise House staff car park extensionNot approved as part of expansion to either 15 or 25mppa. (BAA anticipate works to commence in2008 if approved).

Basingbourn Road dual carriagewayOutline planning permission granted as part of 25mppa. Details still to be submitted. (Originallysuggested as being required for 15mppa Phase 2). (BAA anticipate works to commence in 2010 ifapproved).

Car rental sites 5 and 6Not approved as part of either 15 or 25 mppa. (BAA anticipate works to commence in 2008 ifapproved).

Thremhall Avenue dual carriagewayOutline planning permission granted as part of 25mppa. Details still to be submitted. (Originallysuggested as being required for 15mppa Phase 2). (BAA anticipate works to commence in 2010 ifapproved).

Bassingbourn roundabout grade separationOutline planning permission granted as part of 25mppa. Details still to be submitted. (Worksanticipated to commence in 2010 if approved).

South Gate site restaurant2

Not approved as part of either 15 or 25mppa. (BAA anticipate works to commence in 2008 ifapproved).

South Gate Hotel Phase 2Works have commenced and are due for completion in 2007.

South Gate Hotel EastNot approved as part of either 15 or 25mppa. An outline application for planning permission wassubmitted in February 2007. (BAA anticipate works to commence in 2009 if approved).

South Gate Hotel WestNot approved as part of either 15 or 25mppa. An outline application for planning permission wassubmitted in February 2007. (BAA anticipate works to commence in 2009 if approved).

South west taxiway extensionDetailed planning permission granted as part of 15mppa Phase 2. (BAA anticipate works tocommence in 2012).

2 An application for full planning permission was submitted for a McDonalds restaurant on this site on 24th April 2007


April 2007

Page 20

Northside Long Stay car park infillNot approved as part of either 15 or 25mppa. (BAA anticipate works to commence in 2008 ifapproved).

Northside long stay car parking Phase 5 (North)Outline planning permission granted as part of 25mppa. Details still to be submitted. (Approximately12,200 extra spaces with Phase 4). (BAA anticipate works to commence in 2013 if approved).

Northside long stay car parking Phase 5 (South)Not approved as part of either 15 or 25mppa. (BAA anticipate works to commence in 2015 ifapproved).

Northside staff car parkingOutline planning permission granted as part of 25mppa. Details still to be submitted. (BAA anticipateworks to commence in 2011 if approved).

Yankee stands SouthDetailed planning permission granted as part of expansion to 25mppa. (BAA anticipate works tocommence in 2014).

Runway 23 Runway Access Taxiway 3 (R23 RAT3)Runway 23 Runway Access Taxiway 4 (R23 RAT4)Detailed planning permission granted as part of 15mppa Phase 2. (BAA anticipate works tocommence in 2012 and 2010 respectively).

3.1.10 The impact assessment contained in the G1 ES takes account of the collective effect of all of theassumed 25 and 35mppa developments.

3.2 List of application plans, drawings and documents

3.2.1 The agreed list of application plans, drawings and documents to be considered at the Inquiry is asfollows:

Documents formally submitted for approval as part of the planning application

• Completed Planning Application Forms (Parts TP1 and TP2)

• Certificate of Land Ownership ‘B’ under Section 66 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

• The following plans:

i) Drawing no. STN/PSA/1078/K/001/P1 Site location plan

ii) Drawing no. STN/PSA/1078/K/005/P1 Planning Application Boundary and adjacent

land within BAA’s ownership or control

Documents that support the planning application but do not form part of the application

• Drawing no. STN/PSA/1078/K/004/P1 : Proposed airport layout for 25mppa and 35mppa cases in2014

• Stansted Generation 1 Planning Statement

• Stansted Generation 1 Environmental Statement comprising:


April 2007

Page 21

- Volume 1: Master Volume and summary of the environmental effects

- Technical Volumes 2 – 16:

Volume 2 Air Noise

Volume 3 Air Quality

Volume 4 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

Volume 5 Economic Effects

Volume 6 Employment and Housing Effects

Volume 7 Energy

Volume 8 Ground Noise

Volume 9 Landscape and Visual Impact

Volume 10 Nature Conservation

Volume 11 Surface Access

Volume 12. Third Party Risk

Volume 13. Waste

Volume 14. Water

Volume 15 Construction

Volume 16 Air Traffic Data

- Non-technical summary

- Stansted Generation 1 Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (September 2006)

• Stansted Generation 1 Report of Consultation

• Stansted Generation 1 Health Impact Assessment

• Stansted Generation 1 Sustainability Appraisal

• Stansted Airport Interim Master Plan (May 2006)

• Growing Stansted on the Existing Runway Public Consultation Report (July to October 2005)


April 2007

Page 22

4 National Planning Policy Guidance

4.1 The Government’s White Paper on Aviation ‘The Future of AirTransport,’ December 2003

4.1.1 The ATWP sets government policy for providing a strategic framework for the development of airtravel over the next 30 years. The Parties agree that significant weight can be attached to policiescontained in the ATWP.

4.1.2 The ATWP was subject to a legal challenge by the County Councils of Essex and Hertfordshire andthe District Councils of Uttlesford, East Hertfordshire and North Hertfordshire. The Judgement wasdelivered in February, 2005. The consequence of the challenge was effectively to strike out thespecific reference to a wide spaced second runway at Stansted.

a) Taking forward development at Stansted

4.1.3 Specifically in terms of Stansted Airport, the ATWP recognises that it has grown very rapidly in recentyears and that at current rates of growth, Stansted’s runway capacity could be used within a fewyears. However, with more terminal capacity, the ATWP recognises that passenger numbers wouldcontinue to grow to up to 35mppa (paragraph 11.24).

4.1.4 There are two priorities for Stansted Airport in the ATWP (paragraph 11.11):

• To make full use of the existing runway; and

• To bring forward as soon as possible (around 2011/2012) a wide-spaced second runway atStansted as the first new runway to be built in the South-East for over 30 years.

4.1.5 The parties agree that the application is, in principle, in accordance with the Government’s policy inthe ATWP.

b) White Paper Response on Environmental Impacts of Air Transport and AirportDevelopment

4.1.6 The ATWP sets environmental conditions which developers will need to meet to take proposalsforward and further includes other proposals to limit and mitigate against the impact that air transporthas on the environment, including its impact on global warming (Foreword, page 8). The ATWPappreciates that in order to deliver a balanced strategy for growing airport development in the UK,more needs to be done to reduce and mitigate the environmental impacts (paragraph 3.1).

- At a local level, the ATWP stresses the importance of properly reflecting environmental concernswhen making decisions about the amount and location of future airport capacity.

4.1.7 Chapter 3 of the ATWP sets out in more detail, the Government’s policies to address noise, local airquality and climate change and the Government advises that these policies will be supplemented byspecific environmental controls at individual airports and accompanied by stronger mitigation andcompensation measures (paragraph 3.9).


April 2007

Page 23

4.2 The Future of Air Transport White Paper Progress Report (December2006) (ATPR)

4.2.1 The ATPR demonstrates the progress made by the Government in delivering a sustainable future foraviation and fulfils a commitment to report on progress generally on the policies and proposals set outin the ATWP (Chapter 12 ‘Programme of Action’). It considers the ATWP in light of the ‘The SternReview on the Economics of Climate Change’ (October 2006); Oxford Economic Forecasting ‘TheEconomic Contribution of the Aviation Industry in the UK’ (October 2006); Department for Transport‘Focus on Freight’ (2006 edition); ‘Climate Change : The UK Programme 2006’ (March 2006); ‘TheEddlington Transport Study – The Case for Action : Sir Rod Eddlington’s advice to Government’(December 2006); the Civil Aviation Act 2006; the Government’s intention to introduce legislation toaddress climate change and the most recent statistics on aviation in the UK. It confirms that theGovernment remains committed to the strategy set out in the ATWP which it considers strikes theright balance between economic, social and environmental goals (paragraph 1.2).

4.3 The Government’s policy approach to climate change and aviation

4.3.1 The ATWP sets out the Government’s policies to address aviation’s effect on climate change (ATWPparagraph 3.9).

4.3.2 The ATPR acknowledges that the aviation sector must meet its environmental costs (Foreword toATPR).

4.3.3 Paragraph 1.5 of the ATPR concludes that the Stern Review supports the policy set out in the ATWPto tackle aviation carbon emissions namely by ensuring that the price of air travel should, over time,reflects its environmental and social impacts. To ensure that this happens, the ATPR states that theGovernment will, amongst other measures (paragraph 1.6):

• Continue to pursue the inclusion of aviation emissions in the European Union (EU) emissionstrading scheme (ETS) as soon as practicable. The trading scheme ensures that carbon emissionsfrom all sectors of the economy that are included in the scheme are properly priced. TheGovernment recognises that its focus on the EU ETS should not preclude examining othereconomic instruments to ensure that aviation reflects its environmental costs;

• Consult on the development of a new emissions cost assessment to inform Ministers’ decisionson major increases in aviation capacity. This assessment would consider whether the aviationsector is meeting its external climate change costs;

• Soon bring forward proposals which will make is simpler for air passengers to offset the carbonemissions arising from the flights they take. This will help people to take responsibility for tacklingtheir contribution to climate change.

4.4 National Planning Policy

4.4.1 National Planning Policy is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) and Planning PolicyStatements (PPSs) that cover a range of development and land use issues.

4.4.2 The Parties agree that there is no specific national planning policy which concerns development atStansted Airport apart from the ATWP. National policy most relevant to G1 is considered to includethe following:

• Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development

• Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

• Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

• Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Development Frameworks

• Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport


April 2007

Page 24

• Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment

• Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and Planning

• Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation

• Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy

• Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control

• Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and noise

• Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and flood risk

4.4.3 Also, it is considered the following Government policy documents are relevant to G1:

‘Sustainable Communities in the East of England : Building for the Future’ (2003)

‘UK Sustainable Development Strategy : Securing the Future’ (March 2005)


April 2007

Page 25

5 Development Plan

5.1 The Statutory Development Plan

5.1.1 Part 1 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) strengthened the role and importance ofregional planning. It replaces Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) with statutory Regional SpatialStrategy (RSS). As at commencement of Part 1 of this Act, all existing RPGs, with a few exceptions,became RSSs and thereby part of the statutory development plan.

5.1.2 The Statutory Development Plan for the area in which Stansted Airport is located comprises thefollowing:

• Regional Planning Policy Guidance for the South-East (RPG9)

• Essex and Southend-on-Sea Structure Plan adopted in April 2001

• Uttlesford District Local Plan adopted in January 2005

• Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan adopted in September 2001

• Essex Minerals Local Plan 1997

5.2 Regional Spatial Strategy – RPG9 & RTS

5.2.1 Stansted Airport is located within the County of Essex where Regional Planning Guidance Note 9(RPG9) applies. RPG9 – Regional Planning Guidance for the South-East, was adopted in March2001, covering the period up to 2016. In addition to Essex, RPG9 also covers the counties ofBedfordshire and Hertfordshire which, together with Essex now form part of the East of Englandregion (see below). The primary purpose of the plan is to provide a regional framework for theproduction of development plans by Local Planning Authorities.

5.2.2 A revised Chapter 9 of RPG9 was published in July 2004, forming the Regional Transport Strategy(RTS) for the South-East. The RTS notes the conclusions of the ATWP (paragraph 9.35). Theconclusions are to be addressed in the review of regional guidance (The RSS).

5.2.3 The RTS and full RPG9 remain the statutory Regional Planning documents for the South East.However, there is an emerging policy framework in the form of the draft East of England RegionalSpatial Strategy (RSS14) prepared under the provision of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act2004. The East of England Panel Report was issued in June 2006. The Government issued itsrecommendations for changes in December 2006. Final adoption is expected mid-Summer 2007.Upon adoption, RRS14 will replace RPG9.

5.2.4 There are no policies contained in RPG9 and the RTS which relate specifically to development atStansted Airport.


April 2007

Page 26

5.3 Draft East of England Plan – RSS14

5.3.1 On 19 December 2006, the Government Office for the East of England published the Secretary ofState's Proposed Changes to the Draft Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East ofEngland and Statement of Reasons ("the RSS Proposed Changes"). Consultation commenced on theRSS Proposed Changes, and the deadline for responses was 9 March 2007. The final version of theRSS is anticipated to be published in mid-2007. The Parties agree that significant weight must beattached to the policies contained in the RSS Proposed Changes in light of the stage that has beenreached in the process towards adoption. In due course, UDC's Local Development Framework willneed to be generally consistent with the RSS.

5.3.2 The RSS Proposed Changes recognise national policy on the future of aviation as set out in theATWP (page 72, paragraph 1.3). It is made clear that for airports the national policy framework is setby the ATWP, and there is no role for the RSS in determining the rate of air traffic growth or runwayprovision at the region's airports (page 146, paragraph 7.39). The RSS Proposed Changes thereforeadopt the strategy expressed in the ATWP, and seek to give effect to the consequence of thatstrategy in terms of spatial land use planning.

5.3.3 The RSS Proposed Changes identify Stansted Airport is a Regional Transport Node and in thisregard, recognises that its role extends beyond that of a gateway to the rest of the world, oftenproviding important interchanges for movement within the region (page 146, paragraph 7.42).

5.3.4 The RSS Proposed Changes identify a number of key regional policy drivers to which it responds(pages 75-76, paragraph 1.14). These include fostering and developing European and inter-regionallinks, and taking account of the ATWP, notably the implications of continuing expansion of StanstedAirport .

5.3.5 A key strand of the RSS is to ensure that the region's relatively strong economy continues to grow(page 101, paragraph 4.1). The RSS is intended to assist the implementation of the RegionalEconomic Strategy for the East of England (2004) (The RES), and the RES and the RSS should becomplementary to each other (page 101, paragraph 4.2) . In order to achieve the RES objectives,employment growth must be well above a `business as usual' forecast (page 102, paragraph 4.4).

5.3.6 Indicative targets for net growth in jobs in the period 2001-2021 are identified in the RSS ProposedChanges (Policy El, pages 102-104), which include thousands of new jobs to be created as a result ofthe expansion of Stansted Airport up to 2021 (page 69, paragraph 13).

5.3.7 Policy E8: The Region's Airports (pages 114-115), refers to and reflects the policy in the ATWP.Paragraph 4 .32 of the supporting text explains that new capacity at Stansted Airport is supported withthe first priority to make maximum use of the current facilities (page 115). Paragraph 4.35 (page 116)explains that :

“Studies have highlighted the important role that airports perform in their localarea and in the regional economy. They provide a range of employmentopportunities with a significant proportion of jobs that do not rely on high skill andeducational attainment levels, and can attract firms that value proximity to airportservices . Airport growth will provide a useful catalyst for economic regenerationof nearby towns, notably at Harlow, Luton, Norwich and Southend. Localplanning authorities will need to make appropriate provision to meet the directand indirect employment generation arising from airports operating in their areaor nearby.”

5.3.8 The RSS Proposed Changes also address the impact of the expansion of Stansted on housing in thesurrounding area . Paragraph 4.36 (page 116) explains that :


April 2007

Page 27

“The sum of housing allocations for Harlow, East Herts and Uttlesford Districtsshould be sufficient for both airport related and all other housing needs, thoughthis will need to be kept under review as the airport develops. The substantialgrowth in housing at Harlow should provide for a growing number of Stanstedemployees to live there, from where they can reach the Airport conveniently bypublic transport. LDDs for Uttlesford and East Herts Districts should takeaccount of the sustainability benefits in enabling a growing number of otherairport employees to live at towns close to the Airport. "

5.3.9 The following policies are also relevant as material considerations:

Policy ENG1: (Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Energy Policy)

Working with regional partners, EERA should through its monitoring framework consider theperformance of the spatial strategy on mitigating climate change and in doing so develop regionaltrajectories for the expected carbon performance of new residential and commercial development.Trajectories should be incorporated in the RSS through its review and should inform the preparation ofDevelopment Plan Documents.

To meet regional and national targets for reducing climate change emissions, new developmentshould be located and designed to optimise its carbon performance. Local authorities should:

• maximise opportunities, particularly in major growth locations and Key Centres for Developmentand Change, for developments to set new yardsticks of performance in the use of energy from onsite renewable and / or decentralised renewable or low carbon energy sources, and for reducingemissions;

• promote innovation through incentivisation, master planning and development briefs; and

• encourage the supply of energy from on site renewable and / or decentralised renewable of lowcarbon energy sources and through DPDs set ambitious but viable proportions of the energysupply of substantial new development (as defined in the Planning Policy Statement on Planningand Climate Change) from these sources. In the interim as a minimum, 10% of the energyconsumed in new development should come from such sources. To help realise higher levels ofambition local authorities should encourage energy service companies (ESCOs) and similarenergy saving initiatives.

Policy ENV1: (Green Infrastructure)

Areas and networks of green infrastructure should be identified, created, protected and managed toensure that an improved and healthy environment is available for the benefit of present and futurecommunities. This will be particularly important in those areas identified to accommodate the largestamounts of growth. Local development documents should:

• define a multiple hierarchy of green infrastructure, in terms of location, function, size and levels ofuse, at every spatial scale and across all areas of the region based on analysis of existingnatural, historic, cultural and landscape assets, including the identification of new assets requiredto deliver green infrastructure;

• identify and require the retention and provision of substantial connected networks of green space,in urban, urban fringe and adjacent countryside areas to serve the new communities in the sub-region by 2021; and

• ensure that policies have regard to the economic and social as well as environmental benefits ofgreen infrastructure assets.

Opportunities should be taken to develop green infrastructure so that, as part of a package ofmeasures, it contributes to achieving carbon neutral development. Assets of particular regionalsignificance for the retention, provision and enhancement of green infrastructure include:

• the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads; the Norfolk Coast, Suffolk Coast & Heaths, Dedham Vale andChilterns Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty; and the Heritage Coasts (shown on the KeyDiagram);


April 2007

Page 28

• other areas of landscape, ecological and recreational importance, notably the Community Forests(Thames, Marston Vale and Watling Chase), the Brecks, Epping Forest, Hatfield Forest, the LeeValley Regional Park and areas around the Stour Estuary, and

• strategically significant green infrastructure projects and proposals, such as the Great FenProject, Wicken Fen Vision, the Milton Keynes to Bedford Waterway Park, and greeninfrastructure projects around the fringes of Greater London.

Policy ENV2: (Landscape Conservation)

Planning authorities and other agencies in their plans, policies, programmes and proposals will, inaccordance with statutory requirements, afford the highest level of protection to the East of England'snationally designated landscapes (see Figure 3) - the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads and the Chilterns,Norfolk Coast, Dedham Vale, and Suffolk Coast and Heaths Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty(AONBs), and the North Norfolk and Suffolk Heritage Coasts. Within the Broads priority will be givento conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area, promoting public enjoyment andprotecting the interests of navigation. Within the AONBs priority over other considerations will be givento conserving the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of each area.

Throughout the East of England planning authorities and other agencies in their plans, policies,programmes and proposals should recognise, and aim to protect and enhance, the diversity and localdistinctiveness of the nationally defined countryside character areas indicated on Figure 4 by:

• developing area-wide strategies, based on landscape character assessments, setting longtermgoals for landscape change, targeting planning and land management tools and resources toinfluence that change, and giving priority to those areas subject to most growth and change;

• developing criteria-based policies, informed by the area-wide strategies and landscape characterassessments, to ensure that all development respects and enhances local landscape character;and

• securing appropriate mitigation measures where avoidance of damage to local landscapecharacter is unavoidable.

Policy ENV3: (Biodiversity and Earth Heritage)

In their plans, policies, programmes and proposals planning authorities and other agencies shouldensure that internationally and nationally designated sites in the region are given the strongest level ofprotection, and that development does not have adverse effects on the integrity of sites of Europeanor international importance for nature conservation. Proper consideration should be given to thepotential effects of development on the conservation of habitats and species outside designated sites,and on species protected by law.

Planning authorities and other agencies should ensure that the region’s wider biodiversity, earthheritage and natural resources are protected and enriched through the conservation, restoration andre-establishment of key resources by:

• ensuring that new development minimises damage to biodiversity and the earth heritage resourceby avoiding harm to county wildlife sites, and wherever possible on development sites, achievingnet environmental gains through the retention of existing assets, enhancement measures andnew habitat creation;

• promoting the conservation, enhancement, restoration, re-establishment and good managementof habitats and species populations in accordance with East of England regional biodiversitytargets (see Appendix B), and the priorities established in the East of England RegionalBiodiversity Network Map (see Figure 5);

• identifying and safeguarding areas for habitat restoration and re-establishment, in particular large-scale (greater than 200 ha) habitat restoration areas which will deliver human and wildlife benefit;

• identifying, safeguarding, conserving, and restoring regionally important geological and/orgeomorphological sites and promoting their good management;

• ensuring the appropriate management and further expansion of wildlife corridors that areimportant for the migration and dispersal of wildlife; and


April 2007

Page 29

• establishing networks of semi-natural green spaces in built up areas, as provided for under policyENV1.

The East of England Regional Assembly, with regional partners, will liaise with authorities fromneighbouring regions on strategic cross-border biodiversity issues, such as the Chilterns ManagementStrategy, the Wash and Thames Estuary.

Policy ENV5: (Woodlands)

In their plans, policies, programmes and proposals local planning authorities and other agenciesshould seek to achieve an increase in woodland cover both by protecting and achieving bettermanagement of existing woodland and promoting new planting where it would be consistent withlandscape character.

Ancient semi-natural woodland and other woodlands of acknowledged national or regional importanceshould be identified in local development documents with a strong presumption against developmentthat would result in their loss or deterioration. Aged or veteran trees should be conserved. The natureconservation value of all woodlands is recognised and conversion of any woodland to other land usesshould be resisted unless there are overriding public and ecological benefits. Woodland unavoidablylost to development should be replaced with new woodland of at least equivalent area andcomposition, preferably in the same landscape unit.

New woodland creation should be targeted specifically at:

• schemes for the restoration of derelict or contaminated land and sites formerly used for mineral-extraction or industry;

• green infrastructure projects associated with areas planned for significant growth;

• the Thames Chase, Watling Chase and Forest of Marston Vale Community Forests, with the aimof increasing their woodland cover to 30% by 2030;

• planting schemes along transport corridors; and

• schemes to expand and link areas of native woodland and create new wet woodland (which is apriority in this region), to meet regional and local BAP targets.

Policy T12: (Access to Airports)

Access to the region’s airports will be managed and enhanced to support development, as and whenit is approved, and to enable the airports to contribute to national and regional objectives in relation toeconomic growth and regeneration. A key priority will be to ensure that airport surface access facilitiesreinforce the shift to more sustainable travel sought by the RTS.

Policy WAT1: (Water Efficiency)

The Government will work with the Environment Agency, water companies, OFWAT, and regionalstakeholders to ensure that development provided for in the Spatial Strategy is matched withimprovements in water efficiency, which will be delivered through a progressive, year on year,reduction in per capita consumption rates. Savings should be monitored against a per capita per dayconsumption target which EERA should set out in its monitoring framework.

Policy WM1: (Waste Management Objectives)

In implementing the overall vision and objectives of the Regional Spatial Strategy waste managementpolicies should be based on the following objectives:

• to ensure timely and adequate provision of the facilities required for the recovery and disposal ofthe region’s waste and for a reducing quantum of wastes imported into the region;

• to minimise the impact of new development, particularly in the Key Centres of Development andChange, on regional waste management requirements;


April 2007

Page 30

• to minimise the environmental impact of waste management, including impacts arising from themovement of waste, and help secure the recovery and disposal of waste without endangeringhuman health;

• to seek community support and participation in promoting responsible waste behaviour andapproaches to management, viewing waste as a resource and maximising re-use, recycling andcomposting, while responding positively to the need to manage the remainder; and

• to recognise the particular locational needs of some types of waste management facility indetermining planning applications and defining green belt boundaries, and that these locationalneeds, together with the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable wastemanagement, should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should begiven planning permission.

Policy WM2: (Waste Management Targets)

Challenging but achievable targets should be adopted by all authorities and commercial wasteproducers to minimise waste and provide the basis for implementing the overall aim of recycling,composting and recovering value from waste. The objectives are to secure at least the followingminimum levels of recovery:

• municipal waste – recovery of 50% at 2010 and 70% at 2015

• commercial and industrial waste – recovery of 72% at 2010 and 75% at 2015 and to eliminate thelandfilling of untreated municipal and commercial waste in the region by 2021.

The targets should be kept under review and extended to the end of the current plan period andbeyond, if appropriate, through the review of the RSS.

5.3.10 The Parties agree that the Stansted G1 Application is in accordance with the policies contained in thedraft East of England Plan.

5.4 Essex and Southend-on-Sea Structure Plan, April 2001

5.4.1 The policy which is directly relevant to the proposed development is BIW9. Policies NR5, NR6, NR7and NR12 and T1 are also relevant.

5.4.2 Policy BIW9: (Airport Development)

This policy states that proposals for new development relating to any existing operational airport orairfield, or proposals to establish a new flying site, will be considered having regard to the need for anappropriate hierarchy of aerodrome and aviation sites and determined in relation to the followingcriteria:

1. General planning policies for the area.

2. Air travel needs of residents, business and airport users.

3. Economic benefits to local and regional businesses.

4. Impact upon public health and safety, noise pollution levels, environmental conditions, visualamenity, and residential and urban areas affected by the proposal.

5. Requirement for new housing, commercial development, and associated community facilitiesarising from the proposal.

6. Demand for airport-related facilities outside of the airport itself, to serve both it and its users

7. Adequacy of the arrangements for surface access to the site by all means of transport.


April 2007

Page 31

5.4.3 Policy NR5: (Historic Landscape Features)

This policy states that development will not be permitted which would have a materially adverseimpact upon the historic and archaeological importance, existing landscape character, and physicalappearance of Ancient Landscapes, Ancient Woodlands, Registered Parks and Gardens, RegisteredBattlefields and Protected Lanes. Conservation, enhancement and management measures will beencouraged and implemented within these defined areas so as to retain and promote their historic andlandscape interest. Any proposals which would give rise to a material increase in the amount of trafficusing Protected Lanes will not be permitted.

5.4.4 Policy NR6: (Nature Conservation Sites)

This policy states that wildlife and other natural features will be protected from inappropriatedevelopment, conserved and enhanced as follows:

1. Development or land use change, not directly connected with or necessary to the management ofthe site, which would adversely affect either designated or candidate sites of international orEuropean significance, will not be permitted unless there is no alternative solution and thedevelopment is necessary for imperative reasons of overriding public interest. These sites includeRamsar Sites, Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation and Marine Special Areasof Conservation;

2. Development which would have an adverse effect, either directly or indirectly on a Site of SpecialScientific Interest or National Nature Reserve, will not be permitted unless the need for thedevelopment clearly outweighs the national nature conservation importance of the site. If there isa risk of damage to a designated site from development, local authorities may seek to enter into aplanning obligation with developers to secure future site management or to make compensatoryprovision elsewhere for any losses expected when development occurs in accordance with PolicyBE5;

3. Local Nature Reserves, Wildlife Sites, Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological Sites,other habitats and natural features of local value will be protected from material adverse effects ofdevelopment, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the reasons for the proposal outweighthe need to safeguard the nature conservation value of the site and appropriate compensatorymeasures can be provided;

4. Development will not be permitted which may harm or adversely affect animals and plantsprotected by law, together with their habitats. Appropriate management of all sites and features ofthe landscape that are of defined importance for nature conservation will be encouraged.

5.4.5 Policy NR7: (Promoting Biodiversity)

This policy states that the Local Authorities will work in partnership with statutory and voluntaryconservation groups and landowners to increase the number, size, quality and diversity of naturalhabitats to be safeguarded and managed for their nature conservation importance, having regard tothe Essex Biodiversity Action Plan, and by identifying new sites in adopted local plans and during theconsideration of development proposals.

5.4.6 Policy NR12: (Protecting Water Resources)

This policy states that development will only be permitted where:-

1. Adequate water resources can be provided within the plan period without a materially adverseeffect on the environment;

2. There would not be a risk to existing water resources, including the flow and water quality ofunderground or surface water, or existing abstraction;

3. Such development would not be at direct risk from tidal or fluvial flooding or likely to increase therisk of flooding elsewhere;

4. There would be no materially adverse effect upon fisheries, nature conservation, archaeologicalremains, landscape and recreation in river and canal corridors, coastal margins and otherwaterside areas.


April 2007

Page 32

In addition, provision will be sought, where appropriate, for water conservation measures in newbuildings, conversions or re-use of existing sites and buildings.

5.4.7 Policy T1: (Sustainable Transport Strategy)

The Policy states that in accordance with Policy CS5, a sustainable transport strategy will continue tobe developed and implemented based on managing the demand for travel and distribution, which isintegrated with land use planning, and which aims to:-

1. Reduce the need to travel;

2. Reduce the growth in the length, duration and number of motorised journeys;

3. Encourage alternative means of travel which have less environmental impact; and

4. Reduce reliance on the private car and road haulage.

Transport proposals and investment will be prioritised to accord with the provisions of PolicyT2.

5.4.8 Essex County Council (and Southend-on-Sea Borough Council as the joint structure plan authority)has recently confirmed to the East of England Regional Assembly (in their letter dated 14th March2007) that it is not necessary to save any of the above Structure Plan policies beyond 28th September2007.

5.4.9 The Parties agree that the content of those policies that are not saved will be addressed by policiescontained in the RSS Proposed Changes and National Planning Policy Guidance.

5.5 Uttlesford District Local Plan, January 2005

5.5.1 The Local Plan defines the boundary of Stansted Airport on the Stansted Airport Inset Map. This mapis provided as Appendix 6.

APPENDIX 6

5.5.2 Policy S4: Stansted Airport Boundary sets out the limits to the physical extent of the airport site andclarifies that development permitted within this boundary should be related to the airport use itself. Itstates:

“The boundary of Stansted Airport is defined on the Proposals Map. Provision ismade for development directly related to or associated with Stansted Airport tobe located within the boundaries of the airport. Industrial and commercialdevelopment unrelated to the airport will not be permitted on the site.”

5.5.3 The development proposed as part of this application is located entirely within the airport boundary.

5.5.4 The Local Plan identifies six separate development zones within the airport boundary that are toaccommodate a variety of land uses as follows:

Policy AIR1: Development in the Terminal Support Area

Policy AIR2: Cargo Handling/Aircraft Maintenance Area

Policy AIR3: Development in the Southern Ancillary Area

Policy AIR4: Development in the Northern Ancillary Area

Policy AIR5 : The Long Term Car Park

Policy AIR6: Strategic Landscape Areas

Policy AIR7: Public Safety Zones


April 2007

Page 33

5.5.5 The physical development approved by the 2003 permission and the further developmentcontemplated and previously described in paragraph 3.1.9 above is distributed in accordance withthese development zones.

5.5.6 Five County Wildlife Sites are located within the Airport Boundary plus two areas of Ancient Woodland(Policy ENV7). Policy ENV7 states that development proposals which are likely to affect these siteswill not be permitted unless the need for the development outweighs the local significance of the siteto the biodiversity of the District. No consented or contemplated development (paragraph 3.1.9)impacts physically on these designations.

5.5.7 A Countryside Protection Zone surrounds the airport to protect from inappropriate development toavoid coalescence between the airport and surrounding areas (Policy S8).

5.5.8 Land is safeguarded under Policy T1 for transport schemes for the new A120 Stansted to Braintreeand M11 airport slips at Junction 8 Birchanger Roundabout.

5.5.9 Other policies that are relevant to the consideration of the proposed development are GEN1, GEN2,GEN4, GEN7, ENV7 and ENV11.

5.5.10 Policy GEN1: (Access)

This Policy states that development will only be permitted if it meets all of the following criteria:

a) Access to the main road network must be capable of carrying the traffic generated by thedevelopment safely.

b) The traffic generated by the development must be capable of being accommodated on thesurrounding transport network.

c) The design of the site must not compromise road safety and must take account of the needs ofcyclists, pedestrians, public transport users, horse riders and people whose mobility is impaired.

d) It must be designed to meet the needs of people with disabilities if it is development to which thegeneral public expect to have access.

e) The development encourages movement by means other than driving a car.

5.5.11 Policy GEN2: (Design)

This Policy states that development will not be permitted unless its design meets all the followingcriteria and has regard to adopted Supplementary Design Guidance and Supplementary PlanningDocuments:

a) It is compatible with the scale, form, layout, appearance and materials of surrounding buildings;

b) It safeguards important environmental features in its setting, enabling their retention and helpingto reduce the visual impact of new buildings or structures where appropriate;

c) It provides an environment, which meets the reasonable needs of all potential users.

d) It helps to reduce the potential for crime;

e) It helps to minimise water and energy consumption;

f) It has regard to guidance on layout and design adopted as supplementary planning guidance tothe development plan.


April 2007

Page 34

g) It helps to reduce waste production and encourages recycling and reuse.

h) It minimises the environmental impact on neighbouring properties by appropriate mitigatingmeasures.

i) It would not have a materially adverse effect on the reasonable occupation and enjoyment of aresidential or other sensitive property, as a result of loss of privacy, loss of daylight, overbearingimpact or overshadowing.

5.5.12 Policy GEN4: (Good Neighbourliness)

This Policy states that development and uses, whether they involve the installation of plant ormachinery or not, will not be permitted where:

a) noise or vibrations generated, or

b) smell, dust, light, fumes, electro magnetic radiation, exposure to other pollutants;

would cause material disturbance or nuisance to occupiers of surrounding properties

5.5.13 Policy GEN7: (Nature Conservation)

This Policy states that development that would have a harmful effect on wildlife or geological featureswill not be permitted unless the need for the development outweighs the importance of the feature tonature conservation. Where the site includes protected species or habitats suitable for protectedspecies, a nature conservation survey will be required. Measures to mitigate and/or compensate forthe potential impacts of development, secured by planning obligation or condition, will be required.The enhancement of biodiversity through the creation of appropriate new habitats will be sought.

5.5.14 Policy ENV7: (Protection of the Natural Environment)

This Policy states that development proposals that adversely affect areas of nationally importantnature conservation concern, such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National NatureReserves, will not be permitted unless the need for the development outweighs the particularimportance of the nature conservation value of site or reserve.

Development proposals likely to affect local areas of nature conservation significance, such as CountyWildlife sites, ancient woodlands, wildlife habitats, sites of ecological interest and Regionally ImportantGeological/ Geomorphological Sites, will not be permitted unless the need for the developmentoutweighs the local significance of the site to the biodiversity of the District. Where development ispermitted the authority will consider the use of conditions or planning obligations to ensure theprotection and enhancement of the site’s conservation interest.

5.5.15 Policy ENV11: (Noise Generators)

This Policy states that noise generating development will not be permitted if it would be liable to affectadversely the reasonable occupation of existing or proposed noise sensitive development nearby,unless the need for the development outweighs the degree of noise generated.

5.5.16 Other general planning policies contained within the adopted Uttlesford District Plan 2005 such asthose dealing with topics specifically considered in this statement, for example, archaeology, ecology,noise and transportation are referenced in Section 7 below (where relevant) in the context of the likelyenvironmental consequences of the development.

5.5.17 As the adopted Uttlesford Local Plan was not adopted until 2005, its policies are saved until January2008.


April 2007

Page 35

5.6 Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan, September 2001

5.6.1 Paragraph 10.28 deals with Airport Safeguarding. It reaffirms that Stansted is a passenger andcommercial airport. Development within the safeguarding areas of major airports is subject tomandatory consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority or Ministry of Defence otherwise the applicantis required to consult the airport management for development within a 2 km radius of the airport. Theradius for bird control consultation should be 13 km. Public Safety Zones have been identified in somelocal plans where development will be resisted if likely to increase the number of people residing,working or congregating within that area.

5.6.2 The relevant policy is Policy W10H which states:

“Proposals for waste management facilities within the safeguarding areas ofairports and aerodromes and, where appropriate, close to other airports will beresisted unless it can be demonstrated that the development and the nature ofthe waste materials involved would not constitute a hazard to air traffic.”

5.7 Essex Minerals Local Plan, 1997

5.7.1 This Plan does not contain any policies relating directly to the proposed development at StanstedAirport.


April 2007

Page 36

6 G1 Forecasts

6.1.1 The air traffic forecasts on which the G1 planning application have been assessed are set out inVolume 16 of the G1 ES (Air Traffic Data).

6.1.2 UDC’s specialist forecasting advisors, SH&E, have reviewed the forecasts.

6.1.3 UDC agree that the air traffic forecasts set out in Volume 16 of the G1 ES are a reasonable set offorecasts, save for:

• The mix of long haul passengers

• The zonal pattern of passenger origins / destinations

6.1.4 BAA has carried out sensitivity studies, (‘Fleet Mix Sensitivity’) and ‘SH&E Sensitivity’, based on theviews expressed by UDC and SH&E.

6.1.5 UDC accept that the air traffic forecasts produced in the sensitivity tests are a reasonable set offorecasts.

6.1.6 BAA’s latest forecasts as set out in their Capital Investment Programme 2007 shows their growth islikely to be slightly slower than forecast in the G1 ES with 35mppa being reached some 12-18 monthsafter the 2014/15 date quoted in the ES. The figure for 2014/15 would be about 33mppa.


April 2007

Page 37

7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

7.1 Air Noise

Methodology

7.1.1 The Parties agree that the numerical Air Noise-related data given in the following documents is valid.

• CD/5 Stansted G1 ES Volume 2 – Air Noise

• CD/21 Health Impact Assessment

• CD/22 Regulation 19 Response

• CD/139 Bureau Veritas Review of ES Report for UDC on Noise Issues

• CD/140 Bureau Veritas Supplementary note on the Regulation 19 Response regarding Noise

• CD/149 Bureau Veritas Supplementary note on the noise related elements of the HIA

Health Impact Assessment

7.1.2 The Parties agree that the reliance on the results from the RANCH study to support a proposition thatthere is a material effect on the cognitive development on primary school children from aircraft noise isnot appropriate at Stansted.

7.1.3 The Parties agree that, on the basis of all the currently available information, there is no evidence of amaterial effect on the cognitive development on primary school children due to current or forecast airnoise around Stansted Airport.

7.1.4 The Parties note that the most pertinent advice on noise and schools is given in Building Bulletin 93,and accept that this applies to new schools. It is agreed that BB93 should be made a core document.

Mitigation

7.1.5 The Parties agree that the principal mitigation measure is the provision of enhanced sound insulationto domestic properties.

7.1.6 Where Reason for Refusal R90A 1 refers to ‘inadequate mitigation measures’, UDC means thatmitigation measures should also include measures taken to control noise.

7.1.7 The Parties agree that existing noise controls could be supplemented and that BAA could consider:

• An amendment to Planning Condition AN1 to reflect the forecast extent of the daytime noisecontour.

• A new Planning Condition to place a control on the eight-hour night noise period, 23.00 to 07.00hours (and it was noted that the Government’s night flying contour objective relates only to the sixand a half night noise period, 23.30 to 06.00 hours).

• The control on the number of arrival passengers be modified from 25 mppa to 35 mppa; BAA hasalready offered this Condition.

7.1.8 The Parties discussed whether some benefit would arise from a programme of noise monitoring at thelocal schools that are most exposed to aircraft noise. It was agreed that one approach would be tocarry out a programme of monitoring and the results would be assessed by reference to the designstandards given in BB93. The Parties note that if the monitoring indicated any material effect due tothe airport’s expansion, agreement would be required between BAA and the relevant Local EducationAuthorities as to what improvements to school buildings may be necessary. BAA agreed to consider


April 2007

Page 38

whether an appropriate planning obligation could properly be offered to mitigate the effects that maybe shown up by such monitoring.

7.1.9 The Parties agree that the main technical noise disagreements arise in relation to:

• Whether aircraft noise impact can be adequately assessed by LAeq,16h noise levels as the noiseclimate is also influenced by the number of events, their duration and maximum noise levels.

• Whether a change in noise level (dB LAeq,T) of 1 dB is material with respect to aircraft noiseimpact.

• The two control measures in 7.1.7 above being reasonable and necessary.

7.1.10 The Parties agree that a further meeting should be held after exchange of noise evidence in order toseek any further additions to this Statement.


April 2007

Page 39

7.2 Air Quality Issues

7.2.1 The Parties agree that the main issue for air quality is whether the proposed development wouldcause a breach of statutory and non-statutory air quality objectives for the protection of human health,vegetation and ecosystems. The effect on air quality should not breach statutory health basedobjectives

7.2.2 The issue regarding the impact of the development on air quality is limited to a concern that that therecould be an incremental risk of vegetation damage in Hatfield Forest and Eastend Wood

Existing Management and Mitigation

7.2.3 The existing management and mitigation is described in Section 9 Volume 3 of the G1 ES.

7.2.4 One of the airport’s objectives towards protecting local air quality is to develop a transport strategy tohelp reduce emissions from road traffic. To this end, the Transport Assessment submitted with the G1application includes a number of measures to reduce the reliance on private cars for travel to theairport. The magnitude of this emission reduction was not quantified or included in the air qualityassessment given in Volume 3 of the G1 ES.

Methodology

7.2.5 The Parties agree that the assessment of the Air Quality effects provided in the G1 ES (Volume 3)and the supplementary information provided in the G1 ES Regulation 19 Response (Section 2.6) isbased upon a standard approach and, in general terms, is adequate to describe the air quality effectsof the proposed development when read in conjunction with other supporting documents.

7.2.6 The emission calculation and modelling process used to assess the air quality effects of the proposeddevelopment has been used for a number of different airport studies. The details of the modellingprocess and its verification are described briefly in Section 5 (Volume 3) of the G1 ES. The Partiesagree that an appropriate emission calculation and modelling process was adopted for theassessment of the proposed development. The Parties also agree that the performance of the modelwas tested against monitoring data albeit over a shorter period than had been used in a number ofother similar studies. Although there was broad acceptance of the modelling process, UDC requestedfurther information on model verification, near road concentration verification and calculation ofnitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations. Each of these points was addressed in the G1 ES Regulation19 Response (Section 2.6).

7.2.7 On receipt of this additional information, UDC consider that the verification of the emissions dispersionmodelling remains uncertain because of a lack of adequate and robust monitoring data.

Baseline position

7.2.8 The baseline for air quality assessment is described in Section 8 of Volume 3 of the G1 ES. AlthoughUDC would have liked to have seen more baseline monitoring data, for the purpose of modelverification (see paragraph 7.2.5), the Parties agree that air quality around Stansted is generally good.There are a few locations in built-up areas (Sawbridgeworth, Bishop’s Stortford and Saffron Walden)and close to the M11 (Burton End) and A120 (Start Hill) where air quality does approach or possiblyexceed health based objective concentrations (based on nitrogen dioxide diffusion tubemeasurements) due to the influence of road traffic. The Parties also agree that the statutory reviewand assessment process demonstrates that the health based air quality objectives will continue to beobserved within Utllesford and East Hertfordshire Districts except at a few isolated near road locationsin built-up areas. Subsequent to the publication of the ES and earlier this year, a small Air QualityManagement Area was declared in the London Road area of Bishop’s Stortford.


April 2007

Page 40

7.2.9 The Parties agree that there are complaints of odour and oily deposits from locations around theairport.

Effects

7.2.10 The agreed objectives and limit values for the protection of human health, vegetation and ecosystemsare set out in Table 3 (Volume 3) of the G1. The agreed position between the Parties in respect of theimpacts of the proposed development when measured against these objectives is as follows:

Statutory Objectives – Protection of Human Health

7.2.11 The Parties agree that the proposed development would not breach statutory objectives for theprotection of human health.

Statutory limit value3 – Protection of ecosystems (SO2)

7.2.12 The Parties agree that the proposed development would not breach statutory limit value for theprotection of ecosystems.

Statutory limit value – Protection of vegetation (NOx)

7.2.13 UDC do not agree that the proposed development would not breach the statutory limit for theprotection of vegetation.

Nitrogen Deposition

7.2.14 The Parties agree that there is no statutory standard or objective relating to the deposition of nitrogen(N).

7.2.15 The Parties agree that nitrogen deposition rates in Hatfield Forest and other sites in the region andelsewhere in the country exceed critical loads which are generally accepted to be between 10 and15kgN/ha/y for deciduous forests. Above these loads, the Parties agree that there is an increasingrisk that the adverse effects of nitrogen deposition will be seen within ecosystems including:

• affects on the biological and nutrient cycling of soils;

• changes to the ability of trees to tolerate stresses such as frost or drought;

• changes to ground flora to more nutrient demanding ones;

• increased proneness of leaves to insect damage;

• increases tree bark pH value (due specifically ammonia) which affects lichens and bryophytes.

7.2.16 The Parties agree that nitrogen deposition rates in the area are estimated at between 37 and39kgN/ha/y.

Odours

7.2.17 The Parties agree that evidence from other major UK airports suggests that there appears to be littlecorrelation between the number of aircraft movements and the number of complaints about this(section 8.2; Volume 3). The Parties also agree that it is not possible to conclude with any certaintythe effects that the proposed development may have on the number of odour occurrences.

7.2.18 With the agreement of UDC, a study has been conducted at Stansted. The results were submitted toUDC in June 2006.

3 The limit value for the protection of ecosystems and vegetation also appear in the Air Quality Strategy as

objectives. The objectives however are not statutory for the purpose of review and assessment as they donot appear in the Air Quality (2000) regulations SI No 0928


April 2007

Page 41

Oily Deposits and jettisoning

7.2.19 Birmingham, Manchester and Gatwick airports have undertaken sampling and analysis of oily dropletswhere these have been reported, as set out in section 8.3 (Volume 3) of the G1 ES. The analysis inall cases does not indicate aviation fuel to be the source of oily deposits. The Parties agree that it isdifficult to demonstrate that oily deposits are related to aircraft operation. Moreover the Parties agreethat it is not possible to identify with any certainty the effects that the proposed development may haveon the number of oily droplet events but that the effects are unlikely to be significant.

7.2.20 The Parties note that there is a perception that oily deposits are caused by aviation during fueljettisoning. The Parties agree that fuel jettisoning is a rare event that takes place under emergencysituations only. When it is necessary to jettison fuel this is normally undertaken over the sea onguidance from the National Air Traffic Service (section 8.4 Volume 3 of the G1 ES).

Mitigation

7.2.21 The Parties agree that the G1 proposals would not give rise to any breach of statutory health basedair quality objectives. However, UDC does not accept that the effects of the changes in air quality atnear airport receptors are similar in both the 25mppa and 35mppa cases.

7.2.22 UDC considers that there is more significant issue with regard to nature conservation issues. UDCconsiders that increased pollution arising from the proposed development could give rise to anincreased risk of vegetation damage in Hatfield Forest and East End Wood and that insufficient realdata is available to ensure an accurate assessment. UDC considers that inadequate contingencyarrangements for mitigation and/or compensation measures have been made to the detriment ofbiodiversity.

7.2.23 In the context of NOx, the Parties note that the consultation document on further improvements to theair quality indicates that no new policy measures are required to achieve the vegetation objective forthis pollutant.

7.2.24 BAA has agreed to continue to seek ways to improve the quantification of emissions under its controleg. through air quality monitoring and biological survey work.

Residual effects

7.2.25 The G1 ES concluded in Section 13 of Volume 3 that in the absence of additional mitigation theresidual effects remain as described in Section 10.3 of Volume 3 of the G1 ES.

7.2.26 The Parties agree that the proposed development will not cause the exceedence of any health basedobjectives. This position is reflected in the Health Protection Agency’s opinion4 that “impacts on healthdue to changes in the levels of air pollution are likely to be very small indeed”. The Parties also agreethat, while there is some uncertainty over the likely change in odour and oily droplet complaints, theeffect will not be significant.

7.2.27 The Parties agree that nitrogen deposition rates are currently in excess of critical load for deciduousforests - a position that is likely to continue for some time. The parties are in dispute over thesignificance of the contribution likely to arise as a result of the increase in throughput at the Airportfrom 25mppa to 35mppa. There is also a dispute over the significance of the position on the 30µg/m3

NOx contour and whether this constitutes a breach of the EU limit value and UK air quality objective.

4 UDC (2006) Officers report to the Development Control Committee Agenda Item 3 29th November 2006


April 2007

Page 42

7.3 Construction Issues

7.3.1 The Parties agree that the effects arising from the construction of facilities assumed in the G1development would be of a temporary nature and encompass a range of possible effects. Whilst theseeffects have been addressed in Volume 15 of the G1 ES, the G1 application does not seek permissionfor any new physical development beyond that already granted permission.

7.3.2 The Parties agree that the assessment provided in the G1 ES Volume 15 is thorough and sufficient toassess the construction effects of the proposed development.

7.3.3 The Parties agree that there are no residual unacceptable impacts as a result of the proposeddevelopment.


April 2007

Page 43

7.4 Cultural Heritage Issues

7.4.1 The Parties and English Heritage agree that the principal issues in relation to cultural heritage are thedirect and indirect effect of the proposed development on cultural heritage resources which consist ofbelow ground archaeology, historic buildings and the historic landscape. Whilst the effects of thisassumed development have been considered, the G1 application does not seek permission for anynew physical development beyond that already granted permission.

7.4.2 The Parties agree that the assessment of the effects of the development on below groundarchaeology provided in the G1 ES Volume 4 is thorough and sufficient to assess effects of theproposed development.

7.4.3 With the existing archaeological mitigation imposed on the 2003 planning permission carried forwardthe Parties agree that the proposed development would not give rise to unacceptable effects on thearchaeological heritage.


April 2007

Page 44

7.5 Economic Issues

7.5.1 The Parties agree that the principal issues in relation to the economic impact of the proposeddevelopment concern its role in facilitating economic activity.

7.5.2 The Parties agree that the assessment of the effects of the development on the economy provided inVolume 5 of the G1 ES is thorough and sufficient.

7.5.3 UDC however, believes that the economic benefits have not been demonstrated strongly enough soas to override all other environmental and social effects.


April 2007

Page 45

7.6 Employment Issues

7.6.1 The Parties agree that the principal issues in relation to employment is the impact of future forecastsof employment at the airport in 2014 on the local labour market.

7.6.2 The parties agree that the assessment of the effects of the proposed development on securingemployment required by the airport provided in Volume 6 of the G1 ES is thorough and sufficient toassess the effects of the proposed development.

Existing Management and Mitigation

7.6.3 Under the Section 106 Agreement signed as part of the 2003 permission, BAA has joined withUttlesford, East Herts, Braintree and Harlow District Councils and two Registered Social Landlords –Moat and Anglia to form the Stansted Area Housing Partnership (SAHP) to provide affordable homesfor key workers.

7.6.4 Further in accordance with the requirements of the Section 106 Agreement, BAA also :

- Maintains and support s the Stansted Airport Employment Forum (SAEF);

- Following a first review of the Stansted Training Employment Strategy in 2006, reviews it everyfour years thereafter and presents a report on progress to the SAEF;

- Undertakes employment surveys of on-airport employment and presents the results to UDC, theSAEF and the Stansted Airport Business Forum (SABF).

7.6.5 The Parties agree that those measures outlined in paragraph 7.6.5 above are still appropriate in thecontext of the proposed development and the obligations will be rolled forward into any G1agreement.

Methodology

7.6.6 The Parties agree that the analysis contained in the G1 ES was correct to follow these main steps:

• Define the study area in which the impact will be felt;

• Estimate the current and future levels of airport related employment;

• Estimate current and future labour demand and supply in the study area; and

• Assess the impact of the forecast level of airport related employment against the widerforecasts of labour demand and supply in the study area.

Baseline position

7.6.7 An employment study area comprising of 10 local authorities was agreed by the Parties as definingthe area from which the majority of the Airport’s labour force is drawn. The makeup of the study areatogether with the other baseline criteria and conditions are described in Section 8 (Volume 6) of theG1 ES.

Effects

7.6.8 The Parties agree that the G1 development will increase total Stansted related employment in thestudy area by 3,800 relative to the 25mppa case, representing 0.5% of forecast labour demand in2014 in a labour market which has either excess supply or is in balance.


April 2007

Page 46

Mitigation

7.6.9 The employment impact is considered by BAA to be a moderate beneficial effect. As a result, BAAconsiders additional mitigation is not required.

Residual effects

7.6.10 The Parties agree that the employment effect of 35mppa in 2014 can be accommodated within thestudy area labour market where there is forecast to be either a surplus of labour over jobs in theStansted study area or a broad balance between labour supply and demand.


April 2007

Page 47

7.7 Energy Issues

7.7.1 The Parties agree that the principal issues in relation to energy usage at the airport are the increasedlevels of energy required for the proposed development, the importance of maximising energyefficiency and minimising energy demand and the ability of supply networks to meet demand.

7.7.2 The assessment of the effects of the development is provided in the G1 ES Volume 7. The Partiesagree that the G1 assessment is sufficient to assess the significance of the effects of the proposeddevelopment.

7.7.3 The Parties agree that the predicted increase in levels of energy use associated with the proposeddevelopment, assuming continued implementation of the Energy Management Strategy and measuresto minimise use and maximise energy efficiency where possible, would not give rise to unacceptableimpacts.


April 2007

Page 48

7.8 Ground Noise Issues

7.8.1 The Parties agree that the principal issues in relation to ground noise are airport noise impacts otherthan those generated by aircraft in flight or taking off or landing with the main sources being aircrafttaxiing, aircraft mounted auxillary power units (APUs), testing of aircraft engines, mobile equipmentsuch as ground power units (GPUs), fixed plant and machinery, road vehicles and rail noise. Existingground noise sources are described in Sections 5.2.1 to 5.2.12 in Volume 8 of the G1 ES.

Existing management and mitigation

7.8.2 The measures currently in place to mitigate against operational ground noise are described in Section9 of Volume 8 of the G1 ES. These measures include the Molehill Green noise bund and a number ofsmaller landscape bunds around the existing terminal site; specific regulations and instructionsimposed by the Airport Operations Director (in Director's Notices) intended to minimise ground noise;an air noise insulation scheme which also mitigates against ground noise at the same time; and acontinuous programme of monitoring and review.

7.8.3 A Ground Noise Management Strategy was published by the Airport in September 2005 inaccordance with Part 2 of the Fourth Schedule of the existing S106 Agreement with UDC, airlines andthose representing local communities adjoining the airport boundary to identify measures to minimisethe effects of ground noise. The key overall objective for the strategy is to mitigate where possible thenoise impacts of on-airport activities. A summary of key points set out in the Strategy is provided inSections 9.3.6 and 9.3.7 of Volume 8 of the G1 ES. The requirement to produce the strategyoriginated from the Section 106 agreement secured as part of the 2003 planning permission whichalso requires the Strategy to be updated at least once every five years. The next review is due in2010.

7.8.4 BAA has also provided a ground noise insulation scheme for domestic dwellings within its voluntarynoise insulation scheme.

7.8.5 Conditions attached to the 2003 planning permission also place restrictions on aircraft operations andusing certain equipment on Echo Apron between the hours of 23.30 and 05.59.

Methodology

7.8.6 The Parties agree that the assessment of the effects of the development on ground noise issuesprovided in Volume 8 of the G1 ES is thorough and sufficient to assess the effects of thedevelopment.

7.8.7 Baseline background sound levels were measured at representative locations around the airport in1999 and in 2004. The results are summarised in Table 2 of Volume 8 of the G1 ES, and described inSections 8.1.3 to 8.1.6 of Volume 8 of the G1 ES. The method of calculating aircraft ground noisesound levels is described in Sections 5.3.1 to 5.3.9 of Volume 8 of the G1 ES. The significancecriteria used for the assessment are described in Sections 5.3.11 to 5.3.31 of Volume 8 of the G1 ES.The Parties agree that the noise prediction methodology is sound and that the assessment method isappropriate.


April 2007

Page 49

Baseline position

7.8.8 Taxiing noise is generally only a secondary noise source compared to air noise and road traffic noisebut may still be audible during time periods in between separate events associated with aircraft take-offs and landings or with road vehicles passing by on nearby roads. APU noise is secondary to taxiingnoise but may still be audible when the airport and surrounding roads are otherwise quiet, particularlyat night. Excessively noisy GPUs and other mobile equipment are prohibited by a Director's Noticeand are not therefore assessed in the ES. A limited amount of Engine Ground Running is necessaryfor test and maintenance purposes but it is not assessed in the ES because it is regulated under aDirector's Notice to the extent that it does not make any significant contribution to overall ambientsound levels. There is no assessment of airport related rail noise in the ES because there are nochanges proposed to the rail infrastructure. The proportional change in the amount of airport relatedroad traffic noise from the 25 mppa case to the 35 mppa case is however assessed in the ES.

7.8.9 The Parties agree with the description of the baseline conditions.

Effects

Taxiing and APU

7.8.10 Tables 3, 4 and 5 of Volume 8 of the G1 ES show calculated aircraft taxiing and APU sound levels forthe 25 mppa case, the 35 mppa case and the differences between them respectively. The resultsshow that combined aircraft taxiing and APU noise can exceed baseline background sound levels atmany receiver locations around the airport under both cases. Both parties agree that the predicteddifferences between the 25 mppa and 35 mppa cases are mostly small and when compared againstsound level benchmarks, minor adverse impacts are predicted at Molehill Green (easterly daytime andevening) and moderate adverse impacts are predicted at Tye Green (westerly daytime), Gaunts End(westerly daytime and evening and easterly night-time) and Molehill Green (westerly and easterlynight-time). The Parties agree that there is no noise impact at all other areas. A fleet mix sensitivitytest for 37.5 mppa is described in Section 10.3 of Volume 8 of the G1 ES. This sensitivity test showsadditional moderate adverse impacts at Coopers Villas (westerly and easterly night-time) resultingfrom an increased proportion of larger long-haul aircraft than assessed under the 35 mppa case.

7.8.11 Additional data was provided as part of the G1 ES Regulation 19 Response to consider likely groundnoise impact if non-neutral conditions were taken into account ie. when the tonality and downwindconditions are taken into account. It is BAA’s view, as acknowledged in the G1 ES Regulation 19Response, that some variation above and below calculated aircraft ground noise sound levels wouldoccur under different weather conditions, but that this would not result in any major differences inimpacts from the original assessment which was reported in Volume 8 of the G1 ES. UDC do notconcur with this view and consider that more adverse impacts may occur under worst case conditions.

Mitigation

7.8.12 While no mitigation or controls additional to that already in place under the 2003 planning permissionare required, BAA is prepared to review its existing ground noise management strategy and groundnoise insulation scheme to ensure they continue to be fit for purpose.


April 2007

Page 50

Residual effects

7.8.13 The Parties are not in agreement on the residual effects of the proposed development. It is BAA’sview that there are no significant residual unacceptable impacts additional to those already describedin Sections 10 and 11 of Volume 8 of the ES. It is UDC’s view that there are additional residual effectswhen taking into account noise levels that occur under non-favourable weather conditions. BAA’s viewon this is that more weight should be placed on typical or average conditions (as assessed in Volume8 of the G1 ES) than on less frequently arising worst case conditions.


April 2007

Page 51

7.9 Health Issues

7.9.1 The Parties agree that the principal issues are those relating to the health effects of the proposeddevelopment on communities influenced by the Airport. The Parties agree that the implications forhealth as a result of the proposed development are principally those related to increased levels of airpollution, aircraft noise, transport accidents (from road traffic and aircraft) and effects from communitydisruption including increased workforce sizes and changes in social dynamics due to inward andoutward migration of communities.

7.9.2 The Parties agree that the assessment of health impacts in the ERM Health Impact Assessment ofStansted Generation 1 (June 2005) is thorough and sufficient to assess the health effects of theproposed development.

7.9.3 The Parties agree that the proposed development would not give rise to unacceptable health impacts.


April 2007

Page 52

7.10 Landscape and Visual Issues

7.10.1 The Parties agree that the principal issues are those relating to the potential of the proposeddevelopment to generate landscape and visual impacts. Landscape impacts fall into two categories –effects on physical features such as landform, copses, hedgerows etc. and changes to landscapecharacter within the airport arising from buildings and other infrastructure. Visual impacts arisethrough changes in views by people within and in areas surrounding the airport.

7.10.2 The Parties agree that the assessment of the Landscape and Visual Impacts provided in Volume 9 ofthe G1 ES is thorough and sufficient to assess the landscape and visual effects of the proposeddevelopment.

7.10.3 In rolling forward the appropriate conditions already attached on the 25mppa permission, BAAconsiders that the proposed development would not give rise to unacceptable landscape, visual ornight-time lighting impacts. It is UDC's view, that revised and/or additional conditions or obligations arerequired to address, in particular, light pollution issues. This will need to be the subject of furtherdiscussion between the Parties.


April 2007

Page 53

7.11 Nature Conservation Issues

7.11.1 The Parties agree that the principle issues are those relating to the nature conservation resourcesconsisting principally of the ecological resources including plants and habitats, breeding birds,badgers, water voles, bats, brown hares, deer, reptiles, amphibians and aquatic and terrestrialinvertebrates. The wider indirect effects of air pollution on habitats such as ancient woodlands and inparticular, the woodland at Eastend Wood and Hatfield Forest, are discussed in section 7.2 above.

7.11.2 The Parties agree that the assessment of the Nature Conservation Impacts provided in Volume 10 ofthe G1 ES is thorough and sufficient to assess the direct nature conservation effects of the proposeddevelopment.

7.11.3 The Parties agree that the direct effects of the 35mppa case would be similar in nature to the 25mppadirect effects if all the assumed developments were implemented. The same types of airside andtemporary grassland habitats and BAP species of birds and brown hares would be affected. TheParties agree that these habitats are largely re-creatable and with suitable mitigation andcompensation, the significance of the potential effects would generally be negligible.


April 2007

Page 54

7.12 Surface Access Issues – Road and Rail

7.12.1 A separate Statement of Common Ground on Surface Access Issues (road and rail) has beenprovided. This is referenced as separate document BAA/21.


April 2007

Page 55

7.13 Third Party Risk Issues

7.13.1 The Parties agree that the principal issues in relation to third party risk are the increased risk of fatalityto people on the ground as a result of an aircraft crash; and damage to buildings under flight pathscaused by aircraft wake vortices. The number, type and operation of air transport movements are thedetermining factor of these risks.

7.13.2 The Parties agree that assessment of the risks to third parties as a result of the proposeddevelopment as set out in Volume 12 of the G1 ES, is thorough and sufficient to assess the effects ofthe proposed development.

7.13.3 With the existing Public Safety Zone (PSZ) policy and proposed Wake Vortex Management Scheme,the Parties agree that the proposed development would not give rise to unacceptable effects on thirdparty risk.


April 2007

Page 56

7.14 Waste Issues

7.14.1 The Parties agree that the principal issues in relation to waste are the nature and quantities of wastelikely to be generated as a result of the proposed development and the significance of theenvironmental effects relative to local and regional waste management infrastructure andarrangements.

7.14.2 The Parties agree that the waste impact assessment provided in Volume 13 of the G1 ES is sufficientto assess the significance of the effects of the proposed development and that the levels of wasteforecast to be generated would not give rise to unacceptable impacts.

7.14.3 The Parties agree that with the continued management of airport waste streams and ongoingimplementation of proposals in accordance with the Stansted Airport Waste Management Strategy,the waste impacts of the proposed development would not be unacceptable.


April 2007

Page 57

7.15 Water Issues

7.15.1 The Parties agree that the principal issues in relation to water are the impacts of the proposeddevelopment on the region’s water resources, supply and efficiency of use; foul water infrastructureand discharges to Bishop's Stortford Wastewater Treatment Works (BSWwTW) operated by ThamesWater utilities Ltd (TWUL); surface water drainage systems including discharges to surfacewatercourses and the pollution control systems that ultimately discharge to Rye Meads WastewaterTreatment Works (RMWwTW) also operated by TWUL; and the impact upon the water environmentlocal to the airport including aquifers and receiving watercourses.

7.15.2 The Parties agree that the water assessment provided in Volume 14 of the G1 ES is sufficient toassess the significance of the effects of the proposed development on water issues, subject to thecontent of paragraph 7.15.3 below:

7.15.3 The Parties agree that the impacts of the proposed development on the region’s water resources,supply and efficiency of use; foul water infrastructure and discharges to BSWwTW and surface waterdrainage systems including discharges to surface watercourses would not be unacceptable, subject tothe imposition of the following conditions and assurances which have been agreed by theEnvironment Agency:

Condition WAT2

Surface water drainage works shall be carried out in accordance with details which shall have beensubmitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding. Surface water run-off should be controlled asnear to its source as possible through a sustainable drainage approach to surface watermanagement (SUDS), if ground conditions allow).

Condition WAT4

No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until the Local Planning Authority issatisfied that adequate sewerage infrastructure will be in place to receive foul water discharges fromthe site. No buildings (or uses) hereby permitted shall be occupied (or commenced) until suchinfrastructure is in place.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.

Condition WAT6

A plan for the de-silting and general maintenance of the attenuation ponds shall be submitted to andapproved in writing by the local planning authority before development commences. Works shall thenproceed in accordance with the details submitted.

Reason: To ensure that the maximum capacity of each pond is utilised to mitigate against flood riskcaused by rapid runoff form the airport hardstanding.

Condition WAT7

During construction, no solid matter shall be stored within 10m of the banks of local watercourses (TyeGreen and Pincey Brook).

Reason: To prevent solid materials from entering the local watercourses and causing pollution.


April 2007

Page 58

Condition WAT8

No development hereby permitted within Sites A,C,E,K,L and N shall take place until the developerhas submitted and gained approval from the local planning authority (in consultation with theEnvironment Agency) of a written statement providing details of water efficiency measures that will beincorporated into the relevant development. The water efficiency measures set out in the approvedstatement shall thereafter be provided and retained.

Reason: To reduce water demand and promote efficiency in the use of water.

Condition WAT9

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority no development hereby permittedwithin sites A,C,E,K,L and N shall be brought into use until a water meter has been fitted within therelevant development.


Condition WAT10

A flow monitoring survey of water usage and metering across the airport water supply network shall becarried out and the results submitted to the local Planning Authority and Environment Agency within 6months of the airport’s passenger throughput reaching 25mppa on a moving annual total basis.


Condition WAT11

The results of the flow monitoring survey approved pursuant to condition WAT10 shall be used todevelop a Water Management Strategy that shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the localplanning authority (in consultation with the EA) within 6 months of the completion of the flowmonitoring survey. The Strategy shall include details of, and appropriate performance measures for:

(a) a rolling metering programme for the installation of water meters on the airport’s existingun-metered buildings;

(b) proposals for bringing forward of water efficiency measures for the airport’s existingbuildings; and

(c) a rolling water leakage detection programme to provide for identification and managementof network leaks.


7.15.4 BAA will provide a Unilateral Obligation under s.106 of the Planning Act 1990 to use all reasonableendeavours to reach agreement with the Environment Agency of details of water efficiency measuresto be incorporated into the development of Satellite 4.

7.15.5 BAA has also provided assurances to the Environment Agency that BAA will build on its existingrelationship with the EA in terms of joint working and sharing of information.

7.15.6 The Parties and the Environment Agency have agreed the measures presented in paragraph 7.15.3and agree that with the aforementioned measures in place, adequate provision is made for increasedefficiency in water use.


April 2007

Page 59

8 PLANNING CONDITIONS AND LEGAL AGREEMENT

8.1.1 Prior to determination of the G1 application by UDC, BAA submitted a table identifying the contents ofa possible Section 106 Agreement to accompany the grant of planning permission for G1. BAA alsoput forward conditions that were considered necessary to make the proposals acceptable. UDC didnot provide BAA with a response on either matter prior to determination of the application.

8.1.2 Since the application was determined, the Parties have been discussing this matter in detail with aview to agreeing the Section 106 obligations and conditions that would be considered necessary inthe event that planning permission were to be granted for the Generation 1 proposal. Thesediscussions have taken into account the recommendations from those statutory consultees whoprovided representations on the application and where necessary, meetings have taken place withthese organisations to agree matters.

8.1.3 All parties agree that the correct approach is to start with the Section 106 agreement and conditionssecured as part of the 2003 permission and where the requirements remain relevant, they should berolled forward. Where necessary, changes should be incorporated as appropriate to take account ofobligations/conditions that have since been discharged, or those no longer considered relevant due tochanging circumstances and to take account of the findings of the G1 application assessment studies.Additionally, the need for new obligations and conditions has been considered.

8.1.4 At the time of submitting this statement, the Parties were yet to reach final agreement on theconditions and Section 106 requirements that would be deemed necessary to make the developmentacceptable. The Parties will continue to negotiate on these items and seek to agree a draft list ofconditions and mitigation package. This will be presented to the Inspector as soon as possible beforethe start of the Inquiry.

8.1.5 BAA wrote to the Programme Officer on 20th March 2007 advising that it will offer the Inquiry aplanning condition controlling the use of the airport to about 35mppa. UDC Development ControlCommittee considered this offer in its meeting on the 4th April 2007 and resolved to advise theInspector (as detailed in their letter to the Programme Officer dated 5th April 2007) that the Council’sview remains that 25mppa should not be exceeded. The full resolution of the Council is recorded intheir letter which is provided as Appendix 7 along with BAA’s letter of 20th March 2007.

APPENDIX 7

8.1.6 However, in the event that the Inspector is minded to grant planning permission subject to a conditionrestricting passenger throughput at the airport to 35mppa, the Parties will provide agreed wording forthis condition. This wording will follow with the other draft conditions.


April 2007

Page 60

9 SIGNATORIES TO THIS STATEMENT OF COMMONGROUND

The following persons hereby confirm that they agree with the information contained within thisdocument:

Signed on behalf of Uttlesford District Council ……………………………………………………………….

Print name ……………………………………………………………….

Position held ………………………………………………………………

Date ………………………………………………………………

Signed on behalf of BAA Limited and Stansted Airport Limited ………………………………………….

Print name ………………………………………….

Position held ………………………………………….

Date ………………………………………….


April 2007

Page 61

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 Site Location Plan drawing no. STN/PSA/1078/K/001/P1Planning application boundary Plan drawing no. STN/PSA/1078/K/005/P1

APPENDIX 2 Existing airport layout drawing no. STN/PSA/1078/K/002/P1

APPENDIX 3 A plan showing the Noise Preferential Routes at Stansted Airport

APPENDIX 4 Diagrams of the 2004 and 2005 Stansted Leq contours overlaid onOrdnance Survey maps

APPENDIX 5 Developments assumed to serve 25mppa in 2014 and 35mppa in 2014drawing no. STN/PSA/1078/K/004 P1

APPENDIX 6 Stansted Airport Inset Map, Uttlesford District Local Plan, January 2005

APPENDIX 7 Resolution of the UDC Development Control Committee 4th April 2007 inresponse to BAA’s offer of a 35mppa restriction on passenger throughputplus BAA’s offer letter dated 20th March 2007


April 2007

Page 62

APPENDIX 1

Site Location Plan drawing no. STN/PSA/1078/K/001/P1

Planning application boundary Plan drawing no. STN/PSA/1078/K/005/P1


April 2007

Page 63

APPENDIX 2

Existing airport layout drawing no. STN/PSA/1078/K/002/P1


April 2007

Page 64

APPENDIX 3

A plan showing the Noise Preferential Routes at Stansted Airport


April 2007

Page 65

APPENDIX 4

Diagrams of the 2004 and 2005 Stansted Leq contours overlaid on Ordnance Survey maps


April 2007

Page 66

APPENDIX 5

Developments assumed to serve 25mppa in 2014 and 35mppa in 2014 drawing no.STN/PSA/1078/K/004 P1


April 2007

Page 67

APPENDIX 6

Stansted Airport Inset Map, Uttlesford District Local Plan, January 2005


April 2007

Page 68

APPENDIX 7

Resolution of the UDC Development Control Committee 4th April 2007 in response to BAA’s offerof a 35mppa restriction on passenger throughput plus BAA’s offer letter dated 20th March 2007