SSE NEWS ARCHIVE - October to December 2005

It is tempting to see John Prescott's massive housing plan for the so-called M11 corridor as one thing, and the proposed new runway as something separate, but it most be obvious that both emanate from the government and are intimately connected.

They represent nothing less than a radical scenario of social engineering to urbanise North West Essex and East Hertfordshire, opposing one without opposing the other makes no sense at all.

I wish people would stop using the word "will" when writing about second runway madness; the word should be "would" – because it is by no means in the bag. Every week brings some new damning evidence that the second runway scheme is a goner, so don't give up!

In spite of this, behind the scenes, BAA is allowed to buy out the opposition – why is this legal? The rape of Mole Hill Green and the brave defiance of its little old pub should arose the bulldog spirit in the rest of us – it certainly would if it was our village bought up by the cynical BAA, and out listed buildings and ancient monuments being bulldozed!

What Hitler's wartime planes never achieved, the destruction of our heritage and way of life seems OK for the peacetime planes of BAA – why should this be so, particularly when the scheme is not really about an extra runway, it is mostly about shops and cars.

The fact is that all this is proposed in order that this beautiful countryside could be covered with profit making car parks and shopping malls.

We cannot let BAA get away with claiming that its revised plan is actually greener than the last one. This is pure lies. The B in BAA clearly stands for Barbarians.

Let us all resolve that 2006 is the year this greed and madness is finally laid to rest.

A former mayor of Bishop's Stortford has issued a rallying call for townsfolk to unite behind the fight for a second runway at Stansted.

Eric Marshall, an opponent of Stansted expansion for four decades, has highlighted how a promise made in Parliament by the Transport Secretary in 1985 that another landing strip would not be constructed in the future.

It was only on the basis of the "unequivocal declaration" by the government that the 80s inquiry inspector gave planning permission for Stansted to develop to 15mppa, he emphasised.

Mr Marshall, of Cannons Close was in Parliament on June 17th 1985 to hear secretary Nicholas Ridley say it had restricted expansion to the minimum necessary because of local concerns. The minister also stated "We have made it clear that no second runway should be built there".

Said Mr Marshall: "This was a planning application and they are planning conditions. Without those, the airport would not be what it is at the moment. It would not have had the first runway. This government is ignoring that".

The Inspector, Graham Eyre QC said in his decision statement that the recommendation for approval "is wholly contingent upon government making an unequivocal declaration of intention….that a second main runway will not be constructed at Stansted airport in the future. In the absence of such a declaration….I would recommend the application be refused".

MP Mark Prisk took current Transport Secretary to task over that very point when the Aviation White Paper was published in 2002.

Stop Stansted Expansion Director Carol Barbone said this week that the government had consistently refused to give its reasons why the situation had changed.

Mr Marshall, a former town and district councillor, also stressed that public money for associated infrastructure should not be used for the gain of a private company, which is what BAA was.

Uttlesford District Council has warned Stansted airport that any plans to extend the use of the existing runway must be linked to environment and transport needs.

The airport will be submitting a planning application in the spring of next year to make full use of the current runway. This would mean extending the current 25 mppa limit up to around 35 mppa.

Uttlesford District Council has announced that it will be asking BAA to relinquish car parking spaces to demonstrate that the environmental impact on those living nearby will be reduced and to justify that economic and social implications are beneficial.

Council leader Mark Gaylor said: "The Council is making a clear statement to BAA that any planning application for extended use of the runway beyond 25 mppa will not be a walkover. The principles we have laid down address greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft, the impact of local services such as train services so recently hit by the airport, and reduced car use for passengers and workers."

Leader of the conservative group, Councillor Jim Ketteridge said: "The Council is responding to the strong community opposition to more airport growth and has asked BAA to take this opposition seriously."

A spokesman for Stansted Airport said: "Uttlesford District Council's formal response to our public consultation on making better use of the existing single runway was received this week and it will be taken into account in the production of our planning application in the spring of 2006. We have received over 500 responses to the biggest public consultation exercise ever undertaken by BAA Stansted. A full report of the consultation will accompany our planning application."

OUR COMMENT: Why not before?

Pat Dale

Furious rail passengers have launched a petition and formed a pressure group to protest at delays, cancellations and overcrowded trains on the Cambridge to Liverpool Street line. And, at the same time, drivers are locked in a battle with train operators over pay.

Proposed strike action has been suspended while driver's union Aslef considers an improved offer after demanding a 4.5% par rise and an increase in staffing levels.

The problems on the line, which has battled for years with ancient rolling stock and inadequate track capacity, were exacerbated with the introduction of One railway's new timetable on December 11th.

Rail Union Aslef claims the new timetables are relying on drivers doing voluntary overtime. Many have refused and as a result trains have been cancelled on a service that had already been reduced in the new timetable.

Passengers have now reformed SENTA, the Stansted, Elsenham and Newport travellers' Association, and Stansted Parish Council is to meet Mark Evans, the business manager for One, at the village day centre on January 18th.

A condition of the franchise when One took over from WAGN was that it operated four trains an hour from London to Stansted Airport. Local commuters claim the new time table has reduced trains between 7am and 9pm from Stansted Mountfichet to Liverpool Street from eight to four carriages in order to maintain the airport service.

Uttlesford Councillor Geoffrey Sell, who is also vice-chairman of Stansted Parish Council, said: "I am a regular commuter to London and the service provided by One has been truly awful. We have had cancellations, delays, over-crowding, dirty rolling stock and inadequate rolling stock. One has alienated its employees and its passengers and does not have sufficient drivers to implement the new time table."

Mr Sell said a petition would be circulated and SENTA would lobby for action on the service.

Sir Alan Haselhurst, Saffron Walden's MP, who has been campaigning for years to get more rolling stock and improved track capacity on the line, said: "The government can't have it both ways. It wants more trains running but it doesn't want them running on an antiquated track. The government also did not make a condition in the franchise that allowed for new rolling stock. We now have an inadequate track capacity, a mean minded franchise, no new rolling stock and an industrial dispute. I have shared the misery of the commuters and I am doing my very best to get things improved."

A spokesman for Aslef said the ballot for strike action would end on January 19th and added: "The management needs to look at staffing levels. Talks are continuing and there is still time for a solution to be found."

A spokesman for One said: "Some of the train drivers have adopted a policy of non-cooperation in respect of planned overtime working. This has resulted in the cancellation of a number of trains on a daily basis. We are hoping to resolve this issue quickly. We are bringing in additional staff and we have been talking to Aslef for some time regarding the pay review. We are looking to achieve a positive outcome. We believe that when the new time table is fully operational it will deliver better performance."

OUR COMMENT: Never forget that this state of affairs has been set off by the need of the airport to have a train every quarter of an hour to and from London, and this with 21 million passengers a year. The present limit is 25 mppa - what would happen with 35, 40, or even 80 mppa with a second runway? And Dft (Rail) have said - No more public money for track improvements and expressed the view publicly that the level of overcrowding on commuter trains would not reach unacceptable limits even if John Prescott's extra 60,000 houses were built in this part of the M11 corridor as well as 35 mppa at the airport. Someone has not done their sums correctly! Is BAA prepared to pay for their extra services?

Pat Dale

A Stansted asirport worker has been suspended after causing thousands of pounds damage to a Ryanair Boeing 737 aircraft.

Colin Auger, a team leader for Swissport, the airport ground services provider, is due to find tomorrow what disciplinary action he faces. On December 4th, he misjudged his approach while driving passenger steps and hit a plane, causing damage to the wing.

The 33 year-old married father of two from Harlow, a member of the GMB union had a clean record and had never been involved in an accident.

Gary Pearce, GMB organiser said: "It's for Ryanair to look at the 25 minute turn around time required on their contract which causes ground staff to rush and accidents are much more likely. There could even be a case for saying that safety could be compromised in Ryanair's relentless pursuit of profit. Other companies at Stansted retrain staff, not discipline them in the event of accidental damage to aircraft. That, unfortunately, is not the Ryanair way and GMB is very concerned".

A spokeswoman for Ryanair said: "A Swissport employee drove a set of airport steps at speed into the left hand wing of an aircraft. This individual and this set of steps had no business being on the left hand side, nor can driving a set of steps at speed under a wing be described as "misjudgement". We object to the false and pathetic claims by the GMB since this accident, which was due to the breach of Swissport and Ryanair's safety procedures and had nothing to do with Ryanair's safety policies or our turnarounds."

Pat Dale

Outraged commuters from across the Observer district are fighting timetable changes which have prompted chaos on the rail network.

The new timings, which have seen complaints from passengers travelling from Great Chesterford, Audley End, Newport, Elsenham, Stansted Mountfichet and Sawbridgeworth on the Cambridge to Liverpool Street line, were introduced on December 11th.

A passenger action group was established at a meeting in Stansted on Saturday after Sarah Davies, of Chapel Hill, has 112 responses to a poster at the village station asking for passengers' horror stories.

She said: "It is quite clear this week has been chaotic and stressful for every passenger, with huge delays, short trains, overcrowding, inability to board trains due to sheer volume of passengers, excess number of trains cancelled, filthy rolling stock brought in to service, delayed commuter trains held inexplicably at stations for as long as 20 minutes to let late running airport trains pass and plenty more besides."

A petition, which will be distributed among train travellers, is now being launched, allowing people to vent their frustration. It will be presented to rail operator 'one's' business director Mark Evans at a meeting of Stansted Parish Council on January 18th.

The commuters have found an ally in the shape of train drivers' union ASLEF whose members are currently working only their contracted hours after pay talks collapsed.

Andy Reed, ASLEF's national coordinator said: "The new timetable is reliant upon drivers and other staff working on their rest days. The only way it could work is if our members worked overtime. The company hasn't prepared itself. It hasn't recruited sufficient drivers to support this new project."

As well as 'one', the DfT and BAA have both been blamed for the changes, which see an increase in Stansted express services to and from the airport while commuters suffer.

People working in Cambridge, London and Stansted airport as well as parents of children which rely on the train to get to school have all blasted the new timetable.

Anyone who would like to comment on the changes should email newtimetable@hotmail.co.uk

Anyone who has not had the opportunity to sign the petition and would like to should send their name, journey details, complaint, contact number and signature to "ONE" Travellers Petition, c/o Stansted Mountfichet Parish Council, Crafton Green, 72 Chapel Hill, Stansted, Essex, CM24 8AQ.

OUR COMMENT: Those who sent in comments on the original (badly advertised) consultation realised that the changes are for the benefit of travellers to the airport, and the rail infrastructure cannot carry both an improved airport service and still maintain the same commuter services. It certainly should not have to rely on compulsory overtime. What would happen if the passenger numbers increase to 35 mppa? One guess is that the present hourly scheduled Stansted Express stops at Bishop's Stortford and Harlow would soon cease. The new DfT Rail told the preliminary meeting of participants in the East of England Plan Inquiry that they believed that the present rail infrastructure could cope, possibly needing extra carriages, but it was also clear that they did not regard trains as overcrowded until all standing spaces were occupied as well as seats. Why should standing for up to an hour or more during your train journey to work be regarded as an acceptable situation? Are airport passengers also expected to stand? Or are they especially privileged?

Pat Dale

BATTLE lines are being drawn after the shock realisation this week that more than half of the hamlet of Burton End, on the edge of Stansted, would be demolished for new airport car parks if BAA gets the go-ahead for its preferred scheme for the second runway.

Villagers have joined forces with campaigners to oppose the proposed second runway.

Stop Stansted Expansion members and Uttlesford district councillor Alan Dean visited the hamlet on Monday to meet residents and take part in a protest against BAA's plans.

Resident David Harrison said the airport operator's preferred option outlined in its consultation documents earlier this month would result in a car park hundreds of acres wide that would take away 33 Burton End houses, and leave 22.

Although his home would not be one of those affected, he said his neighbours were shocked their hamlet would be affected because they had largely assumed they would avoid the effects of the runway because Burton End had not fiigured in any previous plans.

He said: "The newcomers say we will force BAA to buy us out, whereas those who have been here longer want to stay and fight the proposals."

The hamlet had been largely untouched in previous plans for Stansted's future, but BAA's preferred eastern central parallel runway masterplan had put Burton End in the front line of the campaign against the airport's expansion.

Mr Harrison believed BAA wanted the extra parking because most of its money came from this source and the retail sector, when it should be looking to reduce the number of cars coming to the airport by getting people to use public transport instead.

Cllr Dean highlighted the threat to a nearby nature reserve. "The residents of Burton End are determined it will not become dead end!" he said. "Turner's Spring nature reserve is threatened. Thirty three homes would vanish under a car park. Another 22 outside of the fence would not be worth living in if BAA has its way."

"They might as well wipe out everything east of the M11! No wonder it is being rumoured that this meandering hamlet is being surveyed for security CCTV cameras."

"BAA must be expecting a grassroots revolt. I think that is what they are about to stir up with this outrageous landgrab."

"Who else but BAA would have the audacity to suggest building a car park next to a nature reserve?"

LONDON (Dow Jones) - U.K. low-cost carrier easyJet plc on Thursday said it has exercised options to buy 20 Airbus A319 aircraft at a "substantial" discount to the $900 million list price.

The options stem from a 2002 agreement under which easyJet bought 120 aircraft and acquired the right to buy 120 more. Delivery of the 20 jets is scheduled for 2008 and 2009. To date, Airbus has delivered 59 of the 120 aircraft initially ordered.

The deal suggests easyJet is confident it will continue to post strong traffic growth. Traffic jumped 21% to 26.9 million passengers and the airline added 72 new routes in the fiscal-year ended Sept. 30.

Some analysts, however, are concerned low-cost airlines are biting off more than they can chew.

The three largest European no-frills carriers, Ryanair Holdings (RYAAY) , easyJet and Air Berlin, have a combined 300 medium-haul aircraft on order for delivery by 2010, with options for an additional 350.

Based on the industry calculation that each aircraft needs 250,000 passengers a year to break even, these three airlines will have to find 75 million new passengers just to cover these firm orders.

Airbus is 80% owned by European defense company EADS and 20% owned by the U.K.'s BAE Systems.

Although easyJet finances its fleet through a mix of bank lending and sale-and-lease back transactions, it said it hasn't entered into a financing deal as yet.

"The company intends to retain flexibility in determining the method of financing for these additional aircraft but expects that it will use a number of sources of debt finance and other financial structures in addition to easyJet's internal resources and cashflow," the airline said in a statement.

EasyJet shares were recently up 0.8% in London.

The airports operator BAA will not be allowed to cross-subsidise the cost of a new runway at Stansted by imposing higher charges on airlines using Heathrow and Stansted, the industry regulator said yesterday.

Instead, the Civil Aviation Authority indicated that BAA might be permitted to charge airlines at Stansted more during the construction phase of the project provided the money was repaid in later years.

BAA has cut its estimate of the cost of the project from £4bn to £2.7bn, and says the first phase of the scheme, enabling Stansted to increase capacity from 35 million to 50 million, could be ready by 2013 at a cost of £1.7bn.

Ryanair, the biggest operator at Stansted, accounting for 60 per cent of its traffic, claims this is still too expensive. It says a new runway could be built for £400m, and will fight attempts by BAA to construct "a gold-plated Taj Mahal". Attempts by the CAA to encourage "constructive engagement" between BAA and the users of Stansted on a future pricing formula have failed.

In its initial observations on the airport-charging formula for 2008-2013, the period which will cover the building of the runway, the CAA said each of BAA's three south-east airports would continue to be regulated on a "stand-alone" basis. This means Stansted, Heathrow and Gatwick must each fund their investment needs from the airlines using the airport.

BAA initially said if this were the case then a second runway at Stansted would not be justified until several years after the target date of 2011/12 set out last year in the Government's airport White Paper. It then floated the idea of a "public interest levy" on airlines at Heathrow and Gatwick to help fund the expansion of Stansted, provoking a furious response from carriers such as British Airways, who face an increase in landing charges to pay for Terminal 5.

BAA said it believes the second Stansted runway could be funded on a stand-alone basis in time to open in 2013, provided it gets a "favourable settlement" from the CAA. Harry Bush, at the CAA, said it had been presented with no evidence that a move away from stand-alone regulation would be in the interests of airport users overall, and could put airports which compete with Stansted at an unfair disadvantage.

But the regulator said BAA might be allowed to test the appetite for the precise timing of when to build a runway at Stansted by being given the flexibility to increase landing charges by an extra amount during the 2008-13 period. The more airlines were prepared to pay, the better indication it would give BAA of the demand for a second runway. This could result in BAA bringing forward revenues due to be earned in the following five years, although these would have to be repaid.

Michael O'Leary, the chief executive of Ryanair, has stopped talking to Mike Clasper, his opposite number at BAA, other than to despatch the odd expletive-strewn insult in his direction. The reason for his fury is the "obscene" sums Mr Clasper wants to spend building a second runway at Stansted, which is Ryanair's main base. Even though BAA has slimmed down its cost estimate from an initial £4bn to less than £2bn, at least for the first phase, Mr O'Leary still reckons this amounts to gold-plating of Taj Mahal proportions and is damned if he is going to foot the bill for such profligacy. Stansted's second biggest user, the other low-cost carrier easyJet, thinks much the same but has couched its objections in more diplomatic language.

The airports regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority, had wanted the two sides to enter "constructive engagement" to agree on the level of landing charges necessary to finance the new runway. With any hope of this now out of the window it has fallen on the CAA to act as honest broker and set out how it thinks the new runway could be funded.

Even though Stansted's landing charges are not due to be re-set until 2008, the regulatory wheels grind mighty slow and yesterday the CAA produced its first thoughts on the subject. The regulator has rightly ruled out allowing BAA to finance the runway by levying higher charges on airlines using its other south-east airports. This was BAA's preferred option until it got a foretaste of the fight it would have on its hands with the likes of British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, who are already paying through the nose at Heathrow for Terminal 5.

Instead, Stansted should continue to be self-financing, raising the necessary funds for a new runway on a stand-alone basis. For this to happen, charges will have to rise substantially, potentially putting the economic model of the low-cost airlines which dominate Stansted at risk.

The Government says it wants the runway built by 2011-12. BAA's latest estimate for the first phase of the project, which would lift capacity to 50 million passengers a year, is 2013. The CAA suggests that BAA might be able to fine tune the exact timing of when to open the runway by ratcheting up its prices and seeing what happens to airline demand.

But the fact is the CAA has begun from the wrong premise for the simple reason that Stansted is the wrong place to build another runway. This is hardly the regulator's fault. Its job is to encourage investment in new facilities in order to satisfy anticipated demand, not to decide where new runways should be built - that is a political decision made by the government of the day.

Everyone knows that were it left to the market to decide, then Heathrow would get a third runway before a second one is built at Stansted. Heathrow is already bursting to capacity and, unlike the low-cost carriers at Stansted who seem intent on fighting BAA all the way, its occupants would be only too willing to finance a new capacity. Moreover, the environmental obstacles to building a third runway at Heathrow may not be as insuperable as they first appeared when Tony Blair came down in favour of the politically expedient option of Stansted in the countdown to the last election.

As it is, Heathrow will be left with the second best option of introducing mixed-mode use of its two runways at Heathrow - a plan which threatens just as big an environmental revolt as a third runway - while a potential white elephant gets built in the Essex countryside. There is still time for an outbreak of common sense.

The Civil Aviation Authority yesterday challenged airports operator BAA to sort out with its airline customers when they were prepared to pay for a £2.7billion second runway development at Stansted.

Publishing its first consultation paper on the price caps for BAA's three London airports for the 2008-2013 control period, the CAA proposed introducing some pricing flexibility to test demand for new capacity.

The CAA said it intended to set price caps on a standalone basis, so preventing BAA subsidising projects at Stansted with revenues from Heathrow or Gatwick.

However, if there was genuine demand for extra capacity, the CAA might allow BAA to charge more in the next control period, with "compensating" lower prices thereafter.

Harry Bush, CAA director, economic regulation, said: "It is not for the CAA to say when that runway should be built."

"We should set a price path allowing it to be put in. If people flying from Stansted are not prepared to pay the price, that says something about the timing of that runway."

BAA charged £2.61 per passenger last year at Stansted, which is dominated by low-fare carriers Ryanair and Easyjet.

The CAA noted there had been no "constructive engagement" at Stansted so far between BAA and the airlines.

Mike Powell, an analyst at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein, said BAA would need to "ramp up charges to £7 or £8" to build the runway, which would cause "airlines to bleat very loudly".

BAA shares fell 8 to 636p.

Hundreds of hectares of ancient woodland including the vast and historic 1,000-year-old Hatfield Forest will be affected by controversial plans to expand Stansted Airport, the Woodland Trust warned today.

The three billion pound proposal to build a new runway will pave the way for a three-fold rise in passengers, from 21 million-a-year in 2005 to 76 million-a-year by 2030.

But Ed Pomfret, of the Woodland Trust, warned the plans would have a massive long-term impact destroying ancient woodland – land that has been wooded for centuries – and threaten rare wildlife, flora and fauna.

He says: "At least five irreplaceable ancient woods covering around 19 hectares (45 acres) would be completely destroyed by these proposals. These sites are treasures of the natural world and must be protected from these completely unsustainable plans."

Several other sites including Hatfield Forest would be damaged by increased pollution and subject to further development pressures. These woods are incredibly rich for biodiversity including rare species like great-crested newts, garden warblers, blackcaps, lesser-spotted woodpeckers, woodcock and snipe. Pipistrelle bats. Thousands of oxlip flowers plus early purple, birds' nest and helibore orchids would also be destroyed.

He adds: "The proposals completely disregard recently introduced national protection for ancient woodland, which is our richest habitat for wildlife, it is irreplaceable and we must do all we can to stop its destruction around Stansted. But that's not all - aviation is the fastest growing contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, which causes climate change and is the biggest long-term threat to ancient woodland."

"We only have until 24 March 2006 to register our views on this and we are asking people to take some time out after Christmas to log on and let BAA know that these plans are unacceptable to anyone who believes our natural world should be protected. We would like everyone who can to write in and try to block this destructive scheme."

Directly threatened ancient woods around Stansted Airport include Philipland Wood, Round Coppice, The Wilderness, Pigeon Wood and Priory Wood.

Responses to the airport master plan must be made by 24 March 2006. To find out more and see what you can do log on to www.woodland-trust.org.uk/campaigns/aviation. For a map of the site, please click on www.woodland-trust.org.uk/campaigns/images/stanstedproposal.jpg

INFORMATION ON WOODLAND

Ancient Woodland: Is land continuously wooded for at least 400 years (and often much longer) and is one of the great glories of our natural heritage. Ancient woods are our richest habitat for wildlife, including more rare and threatened species than any other UK habitat. They are places of inordinate beauty, reservoirs of evidence for environmental change, archaeology and economic history, and a source of inspiration for local culture and folklore. Our resource of ancient woodland is finite and cannot increase, so what remains is precious and irreplaceable.

Protection for ancient woodland: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recently introduced new planning guidance which states: "Ancient woodland is a valuable biodiversity resource both for the diversity of species and for its longevity as woodland. Once lost it cannot be recreated. Local planning authorities should identify any areas of ancient woodland in their areas that do not have statutory protection (e.g. as an SSSI). They should not grant planning permission for any developments that would result in its loss or deterioration. Aged or 'veteran' trees found outside ancient woodland are also particularly valuable for biodiversity and their loss should be avoided. Planning authorities should encourage the conservation of such trees as part of development proposals." (ODPM, PPS9, 2005, paragraph 10))

OUR COMMENT: DfT and BAA, please take note.

Pat Dale

Uttlesford district council has set BAA Stansted demanding standards for any planning application for extended use of the existing runway.

At the last full council meeting for 2005, the council voted unanimously to make any increase in the airport's capacity linked to added responsibility in areas such as the environment and transport.

At the 13 December meeting various principles were agreed which in time will evolve into specifics about the needs of the surrounding areas in the district in the long term.

Council leader Mark Gayler said "The council is making a clear statement to BAA that any planning application for extended use of the runway beyond 25 million passengers per annum will not be a walkover."

"The framework of principles agreed on Tuesday is demanding on BAA, and will need to be turned into more detailed criteria in order to address the planning application."

"The principles we have laid down address greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft, the impact of local services such as train services so recently hit by the airport, reduced cars use for passengers and workers."

"BAA is being asked to relinquish car parking spaces."

"BAA is challenged to justify its claim that all economic and social implications of airport growth are beneficial."

"The council has said BAA must demonstrate that the environmental impacts on those living nearby will be reduced and minimised."

Leader of the Conservative group, Cllr Jim Ketteridge added,

"The council is responding to the strong community opposition to more airport growth and has asked BAA to take this opposition seriously."

"Uttlesford is determined to ensure that BAA justifies every aspect of any proposals it chooses to submit next year."

Leader of the Independent group, Cllr Elizabeth Godwin said,

"We are also concerned about the possible impact on people's health in the area and this needs to be looked at in depth."

i.   All the options proposed by BAA for a second runway, while varying in detail, are damaging to the global and regional environment and to the surrounding communities and community life.

ii.   No proposals can be fully assessed without information about developmenys in road and rail infrastructure and the Council calls upon BAA to rectify this omission from their proposals.

iii.   The series of options proposed has the effect of blighting homes that were not previously subject to blight and calls on BAA to extend immediately the provisions of the Home Value Guarantee and Home Owner Support Schemes to those residents who find themselves in this position and to undertake to compensate all who suffer from general blight.

Details of BAA's proposals can be seen on BAA's website www.stanstedairport.com/future or telephone 0800 783 1764

The Council's Resolution of 13 December 2005, which takes full account of the report of community research commissioned by the Council, supersedes the interim views as discussed at the Stansted Airport Advisory Panel on 24 October, which were communicated to BAA to met its 31 October deadline.

The Council:

a)   Maintains its position as set out in its response to the Department for Transport consultation on the Future Development of Air Transport in the UK that growth in air travel is incompatible with the Government's carbon emissions reduction obligations. This has recently been strengthened by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research report "Decarbonising the UK" published September 2005, which stresses that "if the UK Government does not curb aviation growth, all other sectors of the economy will eventually be forced to become carbon neutral". The Council will continue to press the Government to change its policies on air travel so that there is a coherent climate change strategy across all its departments consistent with the Energy White Paper.

b)   Is dedicated to the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change, which commits local authorities to work with central government to contribute, at local level, to the delivery of the UK Climate Change Programme, the Kyoto Protocol and the target for carbon dioxide reduction. This will support the recent agreement at the UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal that member states should work together through the UN to examine the way forward, including the process for fixing targets beyond 2012.  There is increasing acknowledgement of the costs of inaction and the considerable economic, social and environmental benefits of action. The Council will develop plans with our partners and local communities progressively to limit the causes and the impacts of climate change, according to our local priorities. This initiative includes encouraging all sectors of our local community to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions and to make public their commitment to action. The Council considers that Stansted Airport and its associated aviation operations fall within this commitment. The Minister of State (Climate Change and Environment) DEFRA and the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, ODPM are signatories of the Declaration.

c)   Is not convinced that proposals for greenhouse gas emissions trading in aviation in future years will be successful in achieving reductions on emissions associated with Stansted Airport and its aviation operations and therefore expects BAA to come forward with alternative proposals to reduce the current trend for total emissions at Stansted Airport to increase.

d)   Notes the requirements of the 1998 Transport White Paper, The Air Transport White Paper, PPG13 and the draft East of England Plan to reduce dependence on the car as a means of surface access to airports and increase the proportion of passengers using public transport. It expects BAA to introduce a low car strategy at Stansted for existing and any future developments and invites BAA to relinquish some of its existing permitted public car parking provision.

e)   Maintains its opposition to the principle of a second runway at Stansted

f)   Insists that there must be further consultation opportunities for stakeholders and the public throughout the planning process.

g)   Insists that BAA accepts responsibility for the impact of the airport on local services, such as public rail transport, and ensures that local services are not downgraded to accommodate the demands of airport-related growth.

h)   Urges BAA to take very seriously the level of community opposition to its proposals for increased use of the existing runway and to desist from publishing proposals that they claim to be 'green' in their environmental credentials.

i)   Criticises BAA for being unable to provide an opportunity to comment on the nature of the airport in 2015 that BAA is actually planning as the context for its proposals to increase the use of the existing runway and insists that all future plans are merged into a single Master Plan. This was one of the intended purposes of airport master plans. BAA is presenting a description of the Airport in 2015 that it does not expect to be extant in 2015. 

j)   Makes clear that it expects that any application for planning permission to increase use of the existing single runway must demonstrate that the environmental impacts on those living nearby will be reduced and minimised in accordance with the requirement to that effect laid down in the Air Transport White Paper Executive Summary.

k)   Reiterates the need for detailed evidence to back up the assertions as to the effects of 35 mppa with no second runway stated in the Interim Master Plan and pre application consultation document. BAA will need to provide a robust justification.

l)   Warns that it is inappropriate to use impacts predicted at 25 mppa in 2010, based on assumptions made in 2000 or earlier, as a benchmark for effects now predicted at 35 mppa in 2015. Information as to the current position is necessary from the community perspective, but it is also necessary to be able to compare the predicted impact at 35 mppa with revised assessments of impact at 25 mppa.

m)   Requires that any agreement associated with any planning application for growth at the airport is related to airport activity as well as physical facilities.

n)   Informs BAA that in advance of ongoing work from both the Council's consultants and BAA, there is little to say in response to BAA's cursory consultation material. The four Stansted area local authorities are taking a pro-active approach to BAA's proposals and have commissioned consultants to advise on airport economics and forecasting; air noise; and surface access issues. The consultants' findings will enable the authorities both to comment on the material to be supplied by BAA in support of their application for increased use of the existing runway and to advise on the outcomes to which BAA could reasonably be asked to commit before the application could be determined.

o)   Reiterates the importance of the Scoping Opinion issued by the Council, which sets out advice to BAA on the information that the local planning authority considers should be submitted as part of the planning application. Notwithstanding the feedback BAA has provided on this advice, the Scoping Opinion as issued still stands.

p)   Criticises BAA for missing an opportunity to present information to the community as to the effects of increased use of the existing runway, even within the constraints of an Interim Master Plan. BAA has failed to use techniques in addition to or instead of those more appropriate to the technical reports that constitute a formal Environmental Assessment. For example, it could have used other noise metrics besides LAeq to provide more information on air noise effects, as requested in the Scoping Opinion. It is already clear that air noise is one of the issues that most concerns communities over an extensive area and further work on assessing and explaining the impacts is essential.

q)   Notes that there is considerable doubt that a second runway will be built within the East of England Plan horizon to 2021 and therefore requires BAA to provide a capacity projection for maximum use of the existing runway to 2021 together with environmental and health impact assessments, noise and air quality projections, a surface access strategy and proposals for road and rail infrastructure proposals for such level of usage on the existing runway,

r)   Remains sceptical about BAA claims of the economic benefits of airport growth, especially as these claims ignore any downside factors. For example, concern has been identified in a recent report by EEDA about the welfare of immigrant workers in the East of England Region. There is no detailed evidence in West Essex on this subject, yet as a consequence of the prevailing tight local labour market it is known that the airport is reliant on the importation of labour. These and other social and economic impacts of airport growth should be addressed.

At 2 p.m. today Cllr Alan Dean, the local member of Uttlesford District Council for Burton End, is meeting with Burton End residents David Harrison and Michael Belcher to draw up plans for the 'Battle of Burton End'.

"The Burton End community has been blighted. BAA's mean spirited approach condemns residents to months and probably years of uncertainty with no compensation. BAA rapacious demand for endless parking lots must be stopped," said Alan Dean.

At last Tuesday (13 December) evening's full council meeting there was unanimous support for a proposal by Cllr Dean to limit the impact of cars by reducing car park lots at Stansted airport for the existing runway.

Cllr Dean said after the meeting: "The council is making a clear statement to BAA that any planning application for extended use of the runway beyond 25 million passengers per annum will not be a walkover. BAA is being asked to relinquish car parking spaces. The battle has to be won on runway 1first. We are now fighting on two fronts."

"The council is responding to the strong community opposition to more airport growth and has asked BAA to take this opposition seriously. Uttlesford is determined to ensure that BAA justifies every aspect of any proposals it chooses to submit next year."

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has today published its first major consultation paper on its policy for the forthcoming reviews of airport price controls at BAA's Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports, and at Manchester Airport.

Under the Airports Act 1986, the CAA is charged with setting price controls every five years at each of the airports. Today's paper is primarily focused on BAA's London airports, where new price controls from April 2008 to March 2013 are due to be set in early 2008, but also describes regulatory policy which is likely to be relevant to the Manchester Airport review. The CAA is seeking views from stakeholders to help the CAA decide how best to conduct the reviews.

In fulfilling its statutory function to set price controls, the CAA must strike a balance which is best calculated to further the reasonable interests of airport users, to promote efficient, economic and profitable airport operation, to encourage investment in time to satisfy anticipated demand, and to impose the minimum restrictions necessary. Today's paper sets out how the CAA proposes to reach such a balance and the policy principles it is planning to adopt.

The CAA is proposing to retain two important elements of the existing regulatory regime, namely:

* the regulation of each of BAA's airports on a 'stand-alone' basis, i.e. setting price caps by reference to each airport's own air traffic, costs, and assets; and
* continuing to set the next caps on airport charges using a 'single till' approach, i.e. setting caps on airport charges by reference to the costs of the airport as a whole, and taking into account projected commercial revenues.

The CAA is also proposing to undertake a detailed scrutiny of BAA's projected costs and revenues, with a view to ensuring that the caps on airport charges are based on a projection of efficiently incurred costs. This will involve assessment of:

* BAA's airport operating costs (informed by a CAA-led project designed to compare the efficiency of sampled processes carried out by BAA with comparable processes in other organisations, including – but not limited to – other airports);
* BAA's projected commercial revenues; and
* BAA's cost of capital.

This work is designed to complement the output from airline/airport discussions on projected passenger numbers, service quality, capacity requirements and capital expenditure, under a framework the CAA has called constructive engagement established by the CAA in order to inform the price control review.

The CAA document reports on the progress of constructive engagement at the different airports, in line with its previously announced intentions. Progress at Heathrow and Gatwick has been good and the CAA looks forward to the results, due in late Spring 2006. However, at Stansted no substantive progress has been made in the six months to date. Given the risk that there may be no substantive output from discussions between the airport and airlines at Stansted in the next six months, the CAA has decided to proceed with a more standard regulatory scrutiny of Stansted's forecasts and capital plans. However the CAA remains open to receipt of evidence from all parties, and to the possibility that dialogue between Stansted airport and airlines in the first half of 2006 on topics identified for constructive engagement may lead to a more substantive exchange of views, which could deliver evidence, or agreement, which could be taken into account by the CAA.

This review takes place against a background of strong growth in the demand for air travel. As traffic has grown, airport capacity in the South East of England has continued to fill up, with opportunities for incremental increases in capacity progressively being exploited. These circumstances suggest the need for a step-change in investment in new airport infrastructure, but uncertainties in the rates of growth at individual airports mean that the timing of major investment – including investment in a new runway and associated infrastructure – will be a key issue for this review. The need for investment in airport infrastructure in the South East of England was also highlighted by the Government in its 2003 White Paper.

The CAA sets out in the document some options for dealing with uncertainties in the rate of growth of demand, including measures such as stand-alone regulation designed to ensure that the costs of airport investments are kept to a minimum, and that – as far as possible – investment is properly phased to meet demand. The CAA is considering setting price controls that give flexibility so as to enable the strength of demand for new capacity to be assessed (and so better informing the decision on the timing of the investment). If demand for new investment exists, such flexibility would also allow prices to follow a path consistent with the CAA's duty to encourage investment in time to satisfy anticipated demand. In suggesting this approach, the CAA recognises that if it led to prices in 2008 to 2013 that were higher than they otherwise would be, there would need to be compensating adjustments in future price control periods.

Dr Harry Bush, CAA Group Director, Economic Regulation, said: "The CAA's task in the airports review is to set the framework of economic regulation, to the long term benefit of passengers, airlines and airports. Our proposed regulatory approach should help ensure that airlines and passengers, over time, receive the service and capacity at airports that they need, at an efficient cost."

"The CAA's proposals should enable BAA's airports to cope with the changes in demand which they are facing, and should provide incentives to bring forward the right investment at the right time. We look forward to working with airlines, passengers' representatives and airports over 2006 and beyond to develop these initial proposals in the light of feedback and other evidence, so that the CAA's price control proposals reflect the best available information about the development of the UK air transport market and the impact of regulation."

Following the CAA's extension by one year of the current price control, the new price cap for Manchester will be set for the period April 2009 to March 2014.

The document is available on the CAA website. The closing date for consultation responses is Monday, 20 March 2006.

The CAA is responsible for economic regulation of BAA's London airports and Manchester, in accordance with its statutory duties. Maximum charges at designated airports (currently Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick and Manchester) are set by the CAA as the independent economic regulator. The CAA's decisions are made under its duties set out in section 39 of the Airports Act 1986.

A government minister has given the gloomiest official forecast so far on the efforts to cut UK greenhouse gas emissions

Environment minister Eliott Morley told File on 4 that Britain could get only just over half way to hitting its target of cutting carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, by 20% by 2010.

He said current projections were that the figure could be 14% down to as low as 11%.

"That's if we do nothing but that's not going to happen," he said.

"For the last three years [CO2 emissions] have been going the wrong way and we have to reverse that."

CAMPAIGNERS fighting to protect the peace and tranquillity of Constable Country by changing controversial aircraft flight patterns were celebrating last night after winning their battle against aviation bosses.

A legal action brought by the residents of Dedham Vale against the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) over the nuisance caused by over flying aircraft was settled in the High Court yesterday.

The CAA and National Air Traffic Services (NATS), which manages airspace use, agreed that in any future reorganisation of flight paths they will have regard to the potential environmental impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in north Essex and Suffolk, and the rivers Stour and Orwell.

The CAA also agreed the frequency of planes over-flying the Dedham Vale and surrounding area was "significantly greater" than had previously been anticipated.

Last night members of the Dedham Vale Society, which brought the case, said they were delighted with the outcome but were unable to comment further because the court was still deciding on costs.

The residents were headed by barrister Thomas Hill, a specialist in planning and environmental law, who lives with his family at Bentley Manor, Bentley, near Ipswich.

He said: "Unfortunately because the judge in the case is still deciding costs we have been advised that we cannot comment on the case. However we have reached an agreement with the CAA which is acceptable."

Wilfred Tolhurst, chairman of the Dedham Vale Society, echoed Mr Hill's comments saying he was "delighted."

And Christopher Garnett, Colchester Borough Councillor for Dedham and Langham said: "Hopefully they will make a considerable improvement in the summer months for those who want to use their gardens and for people out walking.

"Night-time can be a problem, coming out of church on Sunday evening, you can just see a mass of moving stars accompanied by the droan of the aircraft."

However Lesley Ford-Platt, mayor of Sudbury, said she hoped the decision would not lead to more flights being made over densely populated areas such as Sudbury and Ipswich.

"I have to admit that if the decision means there will be more flights over areas where there is a greater population then I don't agree with it," she said. "Where is it better for there to be a crash - over an area where there is very few people or over larger towns like Sudbury and Ipswich?

"The residents in this area are fed up with the noise caused by aircrafts and if the High Court decision means this will increase then we will be unhappy. It is the case of a minority acting against the majority."

During a three-day hearing in London last week, attended by members of the Dedham Vale Society, residents accused the CAA of ruining the peace and tranquillity of the countryside painted so often by John Constable by allowing "dramatic and unexpected" changes to aircraft flight patterns.

In a legal challenge backed by the 800-strong Dedham Vale Society, Mr Hill said his family and thousands of others became victims of noise and visual intrusion after changes were made to the use of air space over East Anglia by aircraft using Stansted airport.

At the hearing yesterday, John Steel QC, for the residents, told the judge the parties agreed to settle on the basis that CAA and NATS, in any reorganisation of airspace which they were currently considering, would have regard to environmental effects on the two AONBs in terms of aircraft noise and visual intrusions.

Last night a spokesman for the CAA said: "Although the case is not yet fully concluded, the CAA and NATS have reached a settlement with the claimants that ensures that due consideration will be given to the environmental impacts arising from the Clacton Airspace Change when any future proposals for airspace design and use over this part of south-east England are presented to the CAA.

"This consideration will be in line with the CAA's duties as set out in the Transport Act 2000 and the Air Navigation Directions issued by the DfT."

Richard Wright, spokesman for National Air Traffic Services Ltd (NATS), said: "Although NATS is an interested party the High Court action was against the CAA not NATS.

"We are in the very, very early stages of looking at the next generation of airspace developments, which would include East Anglia. We are certainly looking at the aspects over East Anglia but it is early days yet."

THE on-going battle over the future of Stansted Airport has seen business leaders throw their support behind expansion plans.

But as the commerce community praised the benefits of a proposed second runway, the council which will decide whether it gets permission warned airport operator BAA it will not have a "walkover".

Last week the long-awaited designs for the second runway were revealed and if given the green-light as many as 76 million passengers annually could be using the Essex-based within 30 years.

BAA's preferred "greener" design, which take less land than a previous blueprint, was strongly criticised by the Stop Stansted Expansion group.

But Terry Morgan, Stansted's managing director, said he had been delighted with the support received since the plans were made public.

Among those to come out in favour were Sir Digby Jones, director general of the Confederation of British Industry.

He said: "Stansted is now a major employer and driver of economic development within the East of England. The airport will become increasingly more important as the region and its businesses develop further, business needs a world-class gateway to enable the UK to compete in a competitive global market."

And John Clayton, chief executive of the Essex Chamber of Commerce added: "Expansion of Stansted is seen as one of the keys to the future prosperity of the business community in Essex and the East of England."

"Importantly, expansion will assist the international competitiveness of Essex-based businesses, promote increased inward investment and has the potential to provide a major boost for tourism in the county."

But Uttlesford District Council, which will decide if the second runway gets the go-ahead, is determined to make any increase in capacity link in to environmental and transport responsibilities.

Council leader Mark Gayler said: "The council is making a clear statement to BAA that any planning application for extended use of the runway beyond 25 million passengers per annum will not be a walkover."

"The council has said BAA must demonstrate that the environmental impacts on those living nearby will be reduced and minimised."

He added BAA would have to prove all the economic and social implications of the expansion would be beneficial.

There is currently an on-going period of public consultation and it the project goes ahead as BAA hopes it will be submitting a planning application in the summer of 2007, with 2008 as the estimated starting date for a public inquiry.

OUR COMMENT: No one denies that an airport provides jobs and economic benefits to those in the local business community who rely on air transport for freight and general business use. However, like every other economic activity there are limits to these benefits, a point when they are overtaken, not only by environmental problems but also by economic problems such as those arising from traffic congestion, and competition for labour. Both BAA and the supporting business community should present proper evidence to support their claim that more capacity than that needed for the present 25 mppa limit will provide local and regional additional economic benefits to all the community.

Pat Dale

Sir, BAA's attempt to re-launch its plan for a second Stansted runway seems to have backfired spectacularly. The airport operator had no doubt hoped that its new plan, described as "greener and cheaper", would result in the opposition melting away like Xmas snow. However, the reception to BAA's latest plan was decidedly frosty, and rightly so.

The following day's newspaper headlines said it all: "New Stansted runway plan flawed", said The Times, quoting the reaction of Ryanair and EasyJet, who described BAA's plans as "deeply flawed and misleading" and who threatened legal action against BAA.

"Britain's leading airlines yesterday gave a turbo-charged raspberry to BAA's latest proposals for a second runway at Stansted", said The Telegraph.

The Independent said: "No one, other than the government, wants this runway".

The Guardian said that BAA's plans were "opposed by airlines, local authorities, and environmental and local residents groups."

The Financial Times reported that BAA's share price was marked down and that the company's credit rating had been put on review for downgrade… It also reported British Airways' opposition to any form of cross-subsidy for Stansted expansion.

Lord Hanningfield, Leader of Essex County Council, commenting on behalf od all the councils surrounding Stansted, dismissed the plans as "unwanted, unfundable and unnecessary". Poor old BAA must be feeling a bit like Billy No Mates. This being the season of goodwill, we should be sympathetic, but BAA has itself to blame. The old saying "you can fool some of the people some of the time etc." seems to have finally caught up with BAA and its "greener and cheaper" claim was an insult to our intelligence. BAA had simply moved its proposed second runway 200 yards to the west.

A second runway at Stansted, whatever its location, would not only be an environmental catastrophe for the local area, but would result in the equivalent of 23 million tonnes of carbon dioxide being pumped into the global atmosphere every year.

This must surely not be the legacy that this generation leaves to the next one and Xmas is an ideal time to reflect on the things in life that are more important than cheap flights. Perhaps, one Xmas in the not too distant future, we might even be able to look forward to a silent night.

Brian Ross
Birchanger

Black is the New Green?

Sir, just as the international community called the American President George W. Bush's bluff last week over climate change, so the community and the region around Stansted airport needs to call the bluff of BAA chief executive, Mike Clasper. Last week's announcement on extra runways has been described as "cheaper and greener". This is the first time I have heard a marginally lighter shade of black called green.

Mr Clasper was seen on BBC television saying that BAA would buy its way out of a massive escalation of Stansted's planes polluting the planet. He wants to trade permits with those industries that can prosper while creating less carbon dioxide. But weren't we being told from last week's Montreal climate change conference that overall carbon dioxide totals would have to fall dramatically if we are to save the planet for future generations?

Experts have calculated that all the homes in the six counties of the East of England would permanently need to switch off their lights, heating and all household appliances as well as to throw away the keys to their cars simply to offset the emissions that BAA wants to spew from Stansted aeroplanes. Yet this unacceptable sacrifice would do nothing to reduce carbon dioxide totals if BAA gets its way.

BAA says in its latest runway proposal: "climate change was not considered as part of our runway optioneering process". May I respectfully suggest they start to make real CO2 reductions rather than expect the rest of society to bail them out?

Councillor Alan Dean Stansted

BAA ignore Global Impact

Sir, BAA have the unbelievable cheek to say that their proposed second runway at Stansted airport will be "greener" than their original proposals. What a joke! All they have done is slightly to scale back the perimeter of an expanded airport, but the planes that use it will still be causing global warming.

The reality is that if we are to compensate for the global warming impacts caused by full use of two runways at Stansted, then every house in East Anglia will have to stop using their cars, unplug their electricity supply and turn off their central heating.

BAA are, in effect, condemning East Anglia to go back to the Dark Ages. And that's before we start actually reducing the country's impact on global warming. If climate change is the biggest threat faced by society then it is highly irresponsible of BAA to ignore the impact of its proposals.

Peter Riding
Saffron Walden

BAA, the world's leading airports operator, expects to more than double the earnings of Budapest airport in the next 6 years after buying majority control of the Hungarian group for £1.25bn.

Mike Clasper, BAA chief executive, will face investors today on London to justify the high valuation BAA attached to the business, which neat rival bids from Hochtief, the German construction and infrastructure group, and Fraport, the Frankfurt airport concern. The deal, BAA's largest acquisition, is the world's most highly valued airport takeover, representing a multiple of around 30 times Budapest airport's prospective 2005 earnings before interest, tax depreciation and amortisation of £46m.

BAA, which signed a definitive contract yesterday and expects to complete the transaction by Friday, plans to invest a further 261m Euros to develop the airport between 2006 and 2011. It forecast earnings would more than double by 2011, helped by higher retail and property income and rising passenger volumes. BAA is expected to tell investors that the takeover of a 75% stake minus one share, in one of Europe's fastest growing airports along with a 25-year operating concession represents its best chance to reduce its dependence on its regulated London airports business.

Return on capital at its 3 London airports is limited by the price cap regime set by the UK Civil Aviation Authority.

Mr Clasper said the deal would "modestly" dilute earnings per share by approximately 4%, before amortisation, and exceptional items, in the year to March 2007 and would not enhance earnings until 2011.

Recent airport privatisations, where majority stakes were available, have achieved valuations of 15-16 times earnings.

Standard & Poor's and Moody's, the US credit rating agencies, have placed BAA's long-term debt on review for downgrade. BAA said the acquisition would be financed initially by a bank facility, which would be refinanced later in the financial markets. The sale of the airport is the biggest single privatisation transaction made by Hungary. It is also the biggest commitment made by a UK company in Hungary, double the investment of the previous leading UK investor, the supermarket group, Tesco.

BAA believes that by 2020 Budapest airport will be as big as London Stansted today and will be rivalling London Gatwick as the group's biggest profit generator after Heathrow. The Hungarian government was advised by Credit Suisse First Boston and Concorde Securities with Clifford Chance as legal adviser. BAA was advised by Rothschild.

OUR COMMENT: More expenditure! More airport expansion! Where is all the money coming from? All dependent on more loans, more potential passengers and more aircraft in the skies. It seems that BAA's aspiration is to become the world's biggest air pollution promotor. What are the views of those who live round the airport in Budapest?

Pat Dale

Government leaders in Montreal today (Saturday 10th December 2005) reached a historic agreement on future action to tackle climate change. The Montreal Action Plan (MAP) was concluded despite a last minute intervention from Russia which almost resulted in deadlock.

Negotiators worked through Friday night to reach a progressive agreement under the Kyoto Protocol, which will lead to deepe emissions cuts in the next commitment period, which starts in 2013. This Kyoto deal initiates crucial negotiations on legally binding targets for industrialised countries and also sets in motion a wider review of the entire regime involving all countries, due to be discussed at talks next year.

Agreement was also reached under the UN Framework Convention Change (UNFCCC) despite the reluctance of the United States administration, which put forward new text to weaken the deal.

Friends of the Earth International Vice Chair Tony Juniper said: "Despite Russia's attempt to wreck the deal, this meeting has made a historic agreement which will strengthen global resolve with legally-binding targets to take action to tackle climate change under the Kyoto Protocol. It has sent a clear signal that the future lies in cleaner and more sustainable technologies and is good news for people everywhere."

"We expected progress under the Convention, but the US administration effectively forced the rest of the world to bend over backwards to keep them on board. The result is a very weak deal."

Friends of the Earth International Climate Change Campaigner Catherine Pearce said: "Scientific evidence clearly demands urgent action to cut the pollution that is warming our world. The international community has wisely taken these warnings seriously by agreeing to further action. This is a clear signal that the Kyoto agreement is alive and well. Leaders have shown that much-needed progress can be made. The Government of Canada deserves real praise for the role it played in making the Montreal meeting a success."

Late night drama (Thursday) saw the United States delegation leave the talks, in an effort to collapse negotiations under both the UN Framework Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. On Friday further attempts to block progress saw the United States delegation table new draft text, further diluting the meaning of the deal.

But strong leadership from the Canadian President and clear resolve from other countries, including Britain, Japan and major developing countries, particularly Brazil and South Africa, made progress possible.

Countries signed up to the Kyoto Protocol (all major industrialised and developing countries, except the USA and Australia) have agreed to ensure new targets on cuts in greenhouse gas emissions will be in place to immediately follow the first commitment phase in 2012.

Rules governing the Kyoto Protocol's operation (the Marrakesh Accords) were agreed in Montreal, including the legally binding nature of the regime. Countries also agreed to a review of both the Kyoto Protocol and Framework Convention to start next year.

An agreement was also reached on reform of the "Clean Development Mechanism" (the mechanism allowing industrialised countries to claim carbon credits by investing in clean energy projects in the developing world). But concerns remain about what this includes and what will be delivered.

World governments have agreed to continue and strengthen the fight against global warming at the close of two weeks of international negotiations in Montreal, Canada. The conference will be remembered in particular for launching talks on further greenhouse gas reductions after 2012.

Finally grinding to a halt at 6.15am on Saturday, the Montreal talks produced far more progress than seemed possible earlier in the fortnight. A jubilant EU called the outcome a "watershed". The UN called the meeting "one of the most productive ever". Even environmental groups, generally quick to criticise, issued positive assessments.

The conference adopted 40 decisions in all. Its progress and conclusions have been widely reported by the world's media. Environment Daily offers the following brief summary of key outcomes:

* Parties to the Kyoto protocol agreed to set up a group to start discussions on DEEPER EMISSION CUTS BY INDUSTRIALISED COUNTRIES AFTER 2012, when the protocol's current limits expire. The group will first meet next May. It has been asked to ensure continuity between the 2008-12 commitment period and the one that follows.

By signalling that emission reductions will continue after 2012, the agreement reaffirms Kyoto as a central engine of global climate change policy. It also sends a strong signal that carbon emissions will continue to have a market value in future.

* Parties to the protocol's parent climate change convention have, in parallel, agreed to hold a thorough DIALOGUE ON LONG-TERM ACTIONS TO TACKLE CLIMATE CHANGE and to report back to the next conference of parties but one, meaning probably the end of 2007.

The key significance of this second negotiations track is that it will include developing countries and Kyoto-refusnik rich nations the USA and Australia. It keeps open the possibility of a broader global framework involving both these groups.

* The Marrakech accords, or "KYOTO RULE-BOOK", were adopted, strengthening the legal framework for implementing the protocol. Key elements include agreements on a COMPLIANCE REGIME to enforce the protocol's rules; a STRONGER, BETTER FUNDED CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM; and the LAUNCH OF JOINT IMPLEMENTATION.

* Parties agreed to launch a REVIEW OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL, due to kick-off at the next annual conference in late 2006.

* Under the protocol's parent convention parties agreed a five-year work programme on IMPACTS OF AND ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE and launched a one-year process to define how the convention's ADAPTATION FUND will be operated. Parties reaffirmed the importance of TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER, and agreed to start talks on possible SUPPORT FOR FORESTATION AND REFORESTATION.

If avoiding dangerous climate change is the reason for the Montreal talks, the outcome there is hardly a breakthrough for Kyoto or anything else (Montreal deal raises hopes, December 12).
Success is quite falsely claimed, as the very possibility of effective process to avoid dangerous rates of climate change is now vanishing like the ice-sheets. If we are honest about the enormity of our double jeopardy of climate change - asymmetric growth and damages - to claim Montreal as a success, in fact institutionalises our collective willingness to lie about this. For the government and non-government bodies to claim that the US is now "in" the process is risible. The US merely stopped saying that future discussion beyond Kyoto shouldn't happen. On the eve of outcome, the US was hardly going to snatch away this fig-leaf. Probably like all of us, they too find it difficult to deal with the naked truth. So "permission" for apples to fall to the ground and for wolves to howl at the moon is hardly disrobing the US emperor.
    Aubrey Meyer
    London

At times the last late-night session of the Montreal climate talks bore more resemblance to a World Cup penalty shoot-out than a UN conference, with delegates gnawing at their nails before breaking into cheering at the result. An invaluable contribution was made by Margaret Beckett, who ensured the EU remained firm in the face of last-minute Russian threats to block progress. She should be commended on the part she played in bringing about a deal that ensures Kyoto is now stronger than ever.
    Charlie Kronick
    Greenpeace climate campaign

Readers of the Guardian may get the impression that Americans don't care about climate change. In fact surveys show that over three-quarters of the US population favour action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, our current president does not represent the will of the people. Our government's inaction and foot-dragging on the issue is a source of embarrassment. Like our friends in the EU, many in the US are pressing for change.
    Aaron Contorer
    San Diego, California

Every climate-change conference has had a different mood; at Montreal it reflected a positive change in attitudes and a new sense of purpose. Those still in denial about global warming were absent. The G77 developing nations, instead of simply blaming the west for global warming emissions, called for practical help to enable them to avoid carbon-producing technologies. Industry argued that it no longer wanted to be seen as the problem, but as part of the solution. Everyone pointed to examples of real steps forward being taken in the US, despite the Bush administration's lack of enthusiasm.
The key to progress lies in the strengthening of market mechanisms like the EU emissions trading scheme, and in fiscal changes by governments that will penalise bad practice. Margaret Beckett has done a good job negotiating on behalf of Europe. Now it's up to Gordon Brown to match her efforts and put fine words into practice.
    Chris Davies MEP
    Leader, British Liberal Democrat MEPs and environment spokesman

In the run-up to the original 1992 Earth Summit that established the UN framework convention on climate change it was said that people had low expectations, and all of them were met. If nothing else, the recent Montreal climate conference delivered on the opportunity for cultural misunderstanding created by French-speaking North America. What were taken as tears of joy from Margaret Beckett when the conference didn't collapse were actually sobs of relief.

The US commitment to wreck the development of binding targets to reduce international emissions under the Kyoto protocol, coupled with clear signals that Tony Blair mistook appeasement for engagement, reduced expectations to below the water line of a small island state quietly sinking due to global warming. So, when the talks about talks finally agreed that there should be more conversation, delegates rejoiced. But how positive can we be?

Our elected representatives managed to agree that it's still worth meeting to save the planet. Should they be congratulated? In order to do that, they had to allow that future commitments may be voluntary and not binding when the current phase of the protocol ends in 2012. More positively, agreement to review both the protocol and the background convention means, in reverse, that more adequate targets to halt dangerous climate change could be negotiated. Crucially, it also means a forum remains to reconcile the opposite demands of the super-rich in the US and the incredibly poor in the least developed countries.

The problem is that negotiations like these have only one pace, glacially slow. And all the time the real glaciers are melting ever faster. The reality checks are whether countries such as Britain can start reducing emissions by around 3% year on year, and whether rich countries can free up the environmental space that poor countries - whose emissions will rise in the short term - need to develop, and provide the funds they need to adapt to climate change.

Britain is a good case study, as we're supposed to be providing international leadership. Yet our emissions recently rose for the third consecutive year and our track record on funding adaptation is shaky at best. Embarrassingly, in the run-up to the last G8 summit, at which Africa and climate change were top issues, Britain failed to pay anything into the key new funds set up to help the world's poorest countries adapt to global warming. At Montreal government officials still couldn't say whether or how much Britain had paid. There was supposed to be $400m made available annually from all rich countries, starting in 2005, to cover all poor countries' costs of adaptation. Unfortunately it will cost more than 36 times that amount to protect just the populated coastline of Tanzania against sea-level rise. Parts of Africa face even greater problems of increased drought and new climate-borne disease.

The conference proudly announced that $13m would be available for 2006-07 through one initiative, the Clean Development Mechanism. That sounds OK until you recall that George Bush raised $13bn to help fund the US occupation of Iraq at a brief conference in Madrid in 2003.

Yet there was evidence in Montreal that poor countries, usually highly diplomatic because of their relative powerlessness, are getting bolder and angrier. Rafiq Ahmed Khan from Bangladesh, speaking on behalf of the least developed countries, called for "immediate and adequate resources for adaptation", and broke new ground. Suggesting a shift from the politics of aid to one of obligation, or legal rights, he called for "compensation for damages due to unavoidable adverse impacts of climate change", and said "binding commitments", rather than voluntary contributions, would be needed to secure adequate funds.

We're now closer to general recognition that the threat from climate change is so large it threatens all the internationally agreed targets for poverty reduction - the millennium development goals. There's also a growing consensus on the minimum requirements for an effective post-2012 deal. Equal rights to atmosphere and sufficient resources to enable developing countries to adapt to already unavoidable global warming are what the least developed countries need as an invitation to participate.

For any future deal to work, it will also need to agree on greenhouse-gas reduction targets adequate to stop dangerous climate change. That might seem obvious, but we're already on a path within the next 10 years to hit the upper limit of carbon dioxide concentrations deemed safe by Blair's own climate taskforce. The government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, the former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix and the climate scientist Sir John Houghton have all said that global warming is a bigger threat to society than terrorism. That means it needs a stronger international response. As Churchill once said, and it could be applied to the Montreal conference: "It is no use saying, 'We are doing our best.' You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary." Certain economic changes will, in the long term, be unavoidable to meet the challenge.

And it could be that only the kind of focus found under Churchill's war leadership could possibly prepare us, for example, for the ultimate inevitability of fossil-fuel rationing.

BAA unveiled its plans for a £2.7bn expansion of London Stansted airport yesterday. The airports group's scheme aims to triple the present capacity of London's third airport to about 76m passengers a year, more than the current size of Heathrow.

The plans, including the building of a second runway and a second terminal building, are opposed by airlines, local authorities and environmental and local residents' groups.

The main airlines operating at Stansted, led by Ryanair and EasyJet, said the plan was "deeply flawed and misleading" and urged Alistair Darling, the Transport Secretary, to intervene.

David O'Brien, chairman of the Stansted Airline Consultative Committee and Ryanair operations director said the "unveiling of this gold-plated folly, with no supporting business plan, is testament to the failure of the current regulatory regime to restrain this out-of-control monopoly". He warned that BAA would have to triple landing charges to pay for the scheme, which would drastically slow growth.

The Stop Stansted Expansion group said the second runway would be an "environmental catastrophe". It said the plan was opposed by more than 100 Parish and Town Councils, District Councils, the East of England's Regional Assembly and every MP and MEP in the region irrespective of political party.

Lord Hanningfield, Leader of Essex County Council, said that the scheme was "unwanted, unfundable and unnecessary". Friends of the Earth, the environmental group, said air travel was already the fastest growing contributor to climate change and "building a second runway at Stansted will allow this situation to get worse".

The bitter debate over the funding of the so-called Stansted Generation 2 project will intensify later this month. The Civil Aviation Authority, the economic regulator for BAA's three London airports – Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted – is due to issue in two weeks its first policy document on the setting of the next price cap regime for the five years from April 2006.

Mike Clasper, BAA chief executive, said the earliest the first phase of the Stansted scheme could be operational would be the end of 2013. But he warned that this would need a "satisfactory pricing formula" from the CAA to give BAA the incentive to deliver the second runway "as soon as possible". If the regulatory regime was "too tight" BAA said the project would be put back by "some years".

Earlier this year, BAA said early development of Stansted would only be possible with some element of "cross-subsidisation" through airline user charges at Heathrow and Gatwick, a suggestion that airlines at those airports have pledged to fight. CAA policy also favours "stand-alone" pricing at individual airports.

A second runway at Stansted, the first new runway to be built in south-east England since the war, was recommended by the government's white paper, "The Future of Air Transport" in 2003, which called for completion in 2011-2012 as part of the UK's most ambitious programme of airport expansion.

BAA said its preferred "lowest cost" option at Stansted would involve investment of £2.7bn for on-airport developments including a 3,048 metre runway, second terminal building, taxiways,42 aircraft stands and associated piers, car parking, control tower, enhanced bus and railway stations and connection to the M11 motorway.

It claimed that this was £1bn lower than the original government white paper estimates, both at 2005 prices. In addition, it estimated a further £500m for its share of costs to improve road and rail access focussed on widening sections of the M11 and improving the capacity of the Stansted Express railway service.

Mr Clasper defended the cost of BAA's preferred scheme and said it represented a capital cost of £65 per extra passenger compared with £70 for a proposed extension project at Luton airport and the £95 per passenger paid for the second runway at Manchester airport.

Phase one of the Stansted scheme would cost £1.7bn and would raise capacity to 50m passengers a year. Subsequent phases would raise capacity to about 76m by 2030.

The proposals launched a public consultation exercise running to late March. It plans to publish a Master Plan for a two runway airport in summer next year, to be followed by an environmental impact assessment with a planning application due to be submitted in summer 2007, allowing a public inquiry to start in 2008.

Stansted, the most important airport in Europe for low-cost airlines, handled 21.9m passengers in the 12 months to November, compared with 67.7m at Heathrow and 32.6m at Gatwick. BAA forecast traffic growth at Stansted as 24.7m passengers in 2008 and 35m in 2015. The airport has planning permission to handle no more than 25m passengers and 241,000 take-offs and landings.

OUR COMMENT: There are four options selected - BAA prefers option A which is very similar to the original site plan though takes a little less land and therefore fewer properties, 87 as opposed to over 100. Figures given for numbers of people exposed to average noise levels of over 57LAeq dB are only 6,845. This figure would need independent checking as would local air pollution levels. It is probable that BAA is relying on future technical fixes improving aircraft performance that may or may not be forthcoming. The consultation finishes 24th March. There will be exhibitions at Stansted (January 16th), Birchanger (January 20th), Broxted (January 24th), Little Hadham (February 2nd), Bishop's Stortford (February 7th), Great Hallingbury (February 8th), Thaxted (February 14th), Hatfield Heath (February 16th), Takeley (February 17th), Dunmow (March 3rd) and Elsenham (March 6th). Nothing at Saffron Walden or Newport!

Pat Dale

The International civil aviation organisation (ICAO) pledged to do more to reduce the sector's greenhouse gas emissions on Wednesday.

European environmental group T&E also marked international civil aviation day by challenging industry claims of historical energy efficiency gains. Aviation organisations claim that aircraft have become 70% more efficient since the 1960s or 1970s.

In fact they are no more efficient now than the last generation of propeller aircraft, and no more than 55% more efficient than the first jet aircraft, T&E said.

Delegates at a UN climate conference in Canada have reportedly agreed on talks to cut greenhouse gases after 2012, but it is unclear if the US is included.

Just as a comment on the evolving US position in these negotiations (whatever that ends up being), my view always has been that because the Americans don't like being isolated (for various reasons: as a people, they are psychologically uncomfortable with that position; and there are also strong economic/ financial/ commercial reasons why business will not want this) that a 'strategy of isolation' was always our best bet. "Just leave them out, and sooner or later they will crack". Maybe this is now starting to happen as climate change starts to become an issue in internal US politics - witness the intervention of Clinton and others.

I only mention this because it calls into question - surprise, surprise - the judgement of Tony Blair from September onwards in saying that the European side of the argument had to make concessions and move away from a binding target regime in order to seek to entice the US into the negotiations. In fact just the opposite: by maintaining support for that sort of regime - which I think is what has been happening in Montreal - then this has simply increased the pressure on the US.

Yet another reason not to trust the judgement of the Prime Minister; his intervention then is shown up to be a fairly obvious and damaging miscalculation affecting the European position - which he is meant to be leading.

OUR COMMENT: We can also add - how can massive UK airport expansion be contemplated while promoting internationally a policy of reducing greenhouse gases?

Pat Dale

The research team first held a series of 6 focus group discussions. They then interviewed 1208 residents, randomly selected, of whom approximately 35% lived within or around the official noise "annoyance" area of LAeq57dB or under the NPRs. 4% worked at the airport and a further 6% had a member of the family who worked there. 29% had never used the airport for a leisure flight and 82% had never taken a flight for business reasons.

Most (95%) were aware that the airport was in Uttlesford and that Uttlesford District Council is the Local Planning Authority (84%). 91% knew about the proposals for expansion, though on details fewer were certain as to what was involved. 79% mentioned the second runway, 43% said there would be an increase in passenger numbers and 29% more flights. The researchers commented that while it was made clear that this research was only into the proposals for the maximum use of the present runway, the possibility of a second runway was dominant in most people's minds.

Half of all those interviewed (50%) opposed BAA's proposals for the present runway. 26% were fully opposed. 27% supported the proposals, including 10% who were fully supportive. These views were not greatly influenced by where the respondents lived - 55% of those near the airport objected and 47% who lived further away. Support was greatest amongst those who had employment links with the airport (79%).

62% thought that some expansion might bring one or more benefits to the wider community, while 38% could not see any benefits. Benefits mentioned included more employment opportunities, a greater range of travel opportunities and benefits to the local economy.

86% mentioned one or more drawbacks - these included 67% of those who supported the expansion. Drawbacks mentioned included noise pollution (72%), air pollution (54%) and road traffic congestion (48%). The figures for noise pollution included 52% of those who supported expansion.

The researchers conclude that there is great concern amongst a majority of residents about the adverse effects of maximum use of the present runway, in particular noise and air pollution. A minority of residents are prepared to accept these environmental impacts for the economic benefits that they believe expansion might bring.

Pat Dale

This year speakers had been invited from both National Express coaches, One Rail, EEDA and the City of London, and much time was devoted to extolling the virtues of a successful and expanded airport. The Director General of EEDA (East of England Development Agency) gave his views on the economic importance of the airport, which contributed £400m to the regional economy and provided an essential service for the business community both for employees to fly on business, mainly to Europe or within the UK, for freight from and to local firms, as well as encouraging foreign tourists to visit East Anglia and spend money. Extending the airport's range of services would help business expansion. It would also help in the regeneration of Harlow and the Lea Valley.

The Transportation and Projects Director of the City of London Corporation emphasised the desirability of attracting more city businesses to use Stansted, giving his view that most international business could not be carried out through IT technology - personal contact was needed. However, their enthusiasm for Stansted was somewhat impaired by the figures provided both by the speakers and in the latest review of progress of the Stansted Access Strategy.

The number of business passengers is still small, 15.6% in 2004 compared with 82.1% for leisure or visits to friends and families. Most of these passengers are UK residents (64%). Tourism is a loss making "industry" as far as the UK economy is concerned. In relation to Stansted's importance to the Regional economy, its contribution appears from BAA's figures to be only 0.3%. Only 6.1% of the nearly 11,000 Stansted employees live in Harlow, 5.4% from Greater London.

We learnt that 66% of city business travellers use Heathrow, only 6.5% travel to Stansted, although the journey is relatively shorter and the fares are cheaper. The reason is that Stansted's destination airports are not near to the cities most visited by business travellers, so involving a further long coach or taxi journey. (This is an inescapable accompaniment of low cost travel, cheap airports are not near the big cities.)

In spite of all the flag waving, the Airport's Access Strategy is making some progress, though slowly. Coach access has been improved, notably round the clock so that public travel provision for night travel for shift workers and night passengers is easier. Rail use has marginally increased and is expected to improve now that One Rail has adjusted their time tables for the benefit of airport travellers (but to the detriment of local commuters, notably those from Stansted village station). There is also a stopping service from the airport to Stratford, designed to attract employees living along the line and no doubt looking ahead to the development of the Stratford mainline rail station and the Olympics. 28.8% of passengers now use rail for access and 11.4% bus or coach.

Further improvements in rail services to the airport are unlikely according to One Rail Projects Manager. And, according to EEDA, the Region's budget allocation up to 2016 will be nearly £5b short of the amount needed to satisfy the requirements of the level of economic development that they consider to be desirable. At the moment nearly 60% of passengers still use a private car, taxi or hired car. A cycling route is being developed with SUSTRANS which could benefit employees. In addition, employee car sharing is being promoted and the travel card option, which can offer considerable savings, has now been taken up by 14% employees. 78.6% though still drive to work.

The Area Forum has a wide representation from surrounding Councils and transport operators. Progress in reducing the use of the private car has been made, but no airport can have a really satisfactory access strategy without an adequate rail system. The present rail service has no east west element and future provision has been dismissed by the government as "uneconomic". Any further expansion of Stansted will clearly put an intolerable burden on the existing Stansted Express and London commuting services. Who would pay for major rail improvements? That question remains unanswered.

Pat Dale

Service sector businesses and public sector organisations should be forced to limit greenhouse gas emissions, a leading government adviser on climate change and business will propose today.

The government is expected to consider the proposal as part of the review of its climate change programme. The review, which should be completed next year, is designed to find ways to meet Labour's manifesto promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent by 2010.

The government-funded Carbon Trust said that imposing a mandatory emissions trading scheme on services businesses, which tend to have lower emissions than manufacturing companies, was the best way of reducing the rising emissions from the sector.

Energy intensive businesses are required to limit their carbon dioxide output under the European Union's greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme, which began on January 1.

However, manufacturers in less energy intensive sectors and service-based companies face no such obligations. These businesses, along with public sector organisations, make up almost a fifth of the UK's total emissions.

James Wilde, at the Carbon Trust, which yesterday received an extra £35m from the government to provide interest-free loans for energy saving measures to business and the public sector, told the Financial Times: "This is an option the government should definitely consider. We have analysed lots of different alternatives, and this is the simplest."

As proposed, the scheme should not involve any extra cost to companies and could result in cost savings. It would also let off many small companies by covering only sites with an electricity bill of more than £20,000 a year.

The scheme could be imposed at little or no cost by giving the companies a substantial rebate on their climate change levy, paid by businesses at a rate of 0.43p per kilowatt hour of electricity they consume.

At present, the climate change levy brings in about £1bn a year. Emissions from these companies would be calculated based on their energy consumption: companies with electricity bills over £20,000 a year tend to have their consumption metered at half-hour intervals, giving a clear picture of their usage.

There would be significant differences between this scheme and the EU's. Under EU rules, businesses are issued with free credits based on the amount of carbon dioxide they need to emit to carry on their operations.

In future stages of the scheme, this allowance will be cut so that companies are forced to reduce their emissions or pay to buy allowances from other companies that have cut theirs. Under the Carbon Trust's proposals, the government would set an overall emissions limit and companies would have to bid against one another in an auction to buy allowances equal to the number they expect to need.

Mr Wilde said such a scheme could be implemented by 2008 and could save businesses money by encouraging them to implement energy efficiency programmes.

OUR COMMENT: What about aviation?

Pat Dale

Ministers arriving in Montreal for the UN Climate Talks must push ahead for international action and not allow the US administration to hold the world hostage, Friends of the Earth urged today (Wednesday 7th December). The world's biggest polluter has refused to enter in to dialogue on future action on tackling climate change at the talks and has walked away from efforts by other countries to bring it on board.

Friends of the Earth International is urging Minister Dion as president of the talks, and Margaret Beckett, UK Secretary of State for the Environment, negotiating here on behalf of the EU, to strive for concrete outcomes from these talks. It is calling for a commitment to a clear timetable and process for future negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol. This means abandoning the flawed strategy of trying to bring the US on board.

The environmental campaign group also wants to see industrialised countries recognise their responsibilities under the Kyoto Protocol and commit to deepening their emissions cuts as well as providing financial support for the developing countries to embark on a clean development path.

Speaking in Montreal, Friends of the Earth International Vice Chair Tony Juniper said: "Ministers must use the next few days to aim for a historic breakthrough on taking forward action under the Kyoto Protocol. People expect their governments to act – and that means industrialised countries must commit to a clear timeline for developing new targets and action by 2008, ready for implementation in the second phase of the Protocol in 2013.

"By reaching such an agreement, countries negotiating here will be sending a clear signal that low carbon economies are the future. These talks have seen positive moves from developing countries to face up to the challenge of tackling climate change. But the emerging economies must also be given the support and assistance they need to move down a sustainable energy track."

Current funding mechanisms for the least developed countries do not match the level of need and many developed countries have failed to pay in the amounts promised. Assistance is also needed in the form of pilot projects to show that sustainable energy solutions are a practical option for developing economies.

Commenting on the position of the UK Government, which currently holds the presidency of the European Union, Tony Juniper added:

"These talks are a key test of the UK and the EU's commitment to tackling climate change. They have rightly wanted to bring the United States on board – but the sad reality is that the current administration is not interested in addressing the problem. Action is already happening in America, with business and local government moving forward. The world must move ahead in the expectation that future US governments will be more willing to join in."

Commercial aircraft are using as much fuel as the planes of half a century ago, it was claimed today. A generally accepted aviation industry statistic citing a 70% increase in fuel efficiency is false, a Dutch aerospace report says.

The report, published on International Civil Aviation Day, says the apparent massive improvement claimed by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) resulted from comparing early jet aircraft with their modern equivalents. But the early jet engines were notoriously thirsty because of the focus on speed, according to the Dutch National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR).

A fairer comparison, the report says, would have been between modern jet planes and the old propeller aircraft - some of which used no more fuel than today's flights.

The NLR report, published by the European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E), was commissioned to investigate aviation sector environmental claims, including IATA's statement in a review last year that "aircraft entering today's fleets are 70% more fuel-efficient than they were 40 years ago''.

The NLR, an aerospace research institute, said the original source of the figure was a 1999 International Panel on Climate Change, which had only examined jet-era aircraft. "Today's commercial passenger planes are no more fuel-efficient than their equivalents of 50 years ago and aviation industry claims of a 70% improvement in fuel efficiency are false'' said a T&E statement today.

"The (NLR) report shows that the focus on speed that led to the introduction of jet engines in the 1960s caused a massive initial reduction in fuel efficiency that is only now being recovered. For example, the Lockheed Super Constellation of the mid-1950s was at least twice as fuel-efficient as the first jets, and as efficient as today's aircraft.''

The NLR report also warns against aviation industry forecasts of future fuel efficiency improvements, saying that "many studies on predicted gains in the future tend to be rather optimistic". T&E director Jos Tings said: "The industry has deliberately misled the public to cover up its failure to improve efficiency. There is no reason to believe they will prioritise efficiency in the future unless governments step in with serious incentives to cut emissions.''

T&E, which promotes environmentally-friendly transport, published the Dutch report to boost its campaign for a crackdown on aircraft emissions, currently exempt from agreements on engine pollution limits.

The EU recently proposed including such emissions into its laws from 2009, but T&E wants tougher moves, including aircraft fuel taxes, "to bring about meaningful cuts in emissions''.

MORE than a thousand additional airliners a week will fly over London under government plans to tear up a commitment to limit the number of flights at Heathrow. Large areas of West London will be blighted by a proposal to use both runways for landings for much of the day.

Ministers intend to scrap the existing policy of managing Heathrow's two runways to give people under the flight path some respite from aircraft noise for half the day. At present, one runway is used for landings and the other for take-offs, with their roles switching at 3pm each day.

The Department for Transport will issue a consultation paper around Easter proposing the abolition of "runway alternation". It would be replaced by "mixed mode", under which the runways would effectively be treated as separate airports. Planes would land simultaneously from the same direction, with passengers able to see another aircraft on a parallel course only a few hundred metres away.

BAA, which owns Heathrow, believes mixed mode will raise the airport's capacity by between 15 and 20 per cent, or about 80,000 flights a year. It had told the planning inquiry into Terminal 5 that it was "firmly opposed" to mixed mode. But with construction of the new terminal now more than half-complete, the company has changed its position. BAA is also supporting the removal of the cap of 480,000 flights a year, which was imposed by the inquiry inspector as a planning condition for Terminal 5.

This year, Heathrow will handle 470,000 flights and 68 million passengers. Terminal 5 will be able to accommodate a further 30 million passengers, but the extra capacity cannot be fully exploited without lifting the cap on flights.

The Government has proposed a third runway at Heathrow, but this would not open until 2015 at the earliest. BAA believes mixed mode could be introduced by 2010. It said: "Next year's consultation should certainly look at lifting the flights cap. Heathrow is a strategically important national asset and getting more people to use it is good for the British economy."

"But that has to be balanced against the interests of people under the flight path. This has got to be a Government decision, not one made by BAA."

Moving to mixed mode may also require changes to the four stacks in which aircraft circle while waiting for permission to land. National Air Traffic Services, the air traffic control authority, is studying whether the stacks will have to be moved. This could affect tens of thousands of homes on the outskirts of Greater London.

ClearSkies, which represents people living under flight paths, accused BAA of colluding with the Government to scrap the cap on flights at Heathrow. John Stewart, chairman of ClearSkies, said: "We must keep runway alternation because it makes life just about bearable for tens of thousands of people west of Heathrow. Without it, they will face planes every 90 seconds from early morning to late evening."

Next year's consultation is likely to offer several options, including allowing mixed mode only in the early morning and late afternoon when the airport is busiest. But ClearSkies believes it will only be a matter of time before rising demand for flights prompts a further relaxation of the rules to allow mixed mode all day.

Q102 Graham Stringer: Secretary of State, can you tell us what progress is being made on the air quality studies at Heathrow and whether you expect a decision in the near future about a third runway which is dependent on those air quality studies? Also, do you think that the behaviour of BAA is becoming an obstacle to the Department's policies on having a third runway at Heathrow if the air quality allows it?

Mr Darling: On the first point, good progress is being made. I think I am right in saying it will be the second half of next year before conclusions are reached but progress is being made on that and, for the sake of completeness, on mixed mode operation which we also set out in the White Paper. The short answer to your second point is no, but if you care to be more specific, I could try and answer it.

Q103 Graham Stringer: The airlines, Virgin, BA, other users, are complaining bitterly that a lot of investment is being made at Stansted which is being cross-subsidised by Heathrow and Gatwick, they do not believe a second runway at Stansted is viable without cross-subsidy and they are dissatisfied with the way BAA are dealing with their own investment plans to the detriment of a possible third runway at Heathrow.

Mr Darling: In relation to that, the degree to which any cross-subsidy is allowed is a matter for the CAA as the regulator. As you know with all these things, it is not surprising that airlines which are in competition with each other are usually quite critical of measures which they think might help their competitor. For example, when you talk about facilities at Heathrow, you will find all those airlines which are not going into Terminal 5 are busy saying, "Why are BAA building a splendid new terminal like that?" Obviously, British Airways are not saying that because it is going into it. I do not know if you saw it, but BAA last week announced a plan which I think looks quite promising if they can do it, and that is to replace the existing Terminals 1 and 2 with a similar sort of terminal to Terminal 5. I may say that when Terminal 5 is opened in 2008, it will make a significant difference to the quality of services available at Heathrow because it is completely different from the terminal capacity which is there at the moment. If you go back to the Aviation White Paper which we published in December 2003 - and that remains our policy and will remain our policy - we believe that we do need over the next 30 years additional runway capacity in the South East. We believe that Stansted is where the first runway ought to be and BAA are pressing ahead with that, but they are also making improvements with existing infrastructure at Heathrow. You will always get airlines complaining, for reasons which are understandable if not always acceptable.

Q104 Graham Stringer: I accept that reservation about airlines but are you satisfied with the way BAA are constructing their investment programme?

Mr Darling: Yes. Bear in mind that this is a private company and it is for their shareholders ultimately to determine whether or not they are acting properly.

Q105 Graham Stringer: But you must take a close interest.

Mr Darling: I take an extremely close interest in anybody who has anything to do with transport, I can assure you. If you ask me, are they doing what we expect in terms of the implementation of what we set out in the White Paper, yes I think they are. We always made it clear in the White Paper that it was a strategic framework against which the industry could plan but it was for industry to decide the exact progress they made, whether these things were economically viable or whether they should be built, and that is the process they are going through with that second runway at Stansted and which people are working on towards getting planning permission. The decision that BAA make in regard to Terminal 1 and 2 is a commercial decision they have made. It is entirely consistent with what we said in relation to Heathrow when we see Heathrow continuing to be what it is, which is the busiest international airport in the world. It brings an awful lot of benefit to West London as well as to London and the UK itself.

Introduction
As you know, the Government's Aviation Transport White Paper set out a strategic framework for the development of airport capacity over the next 30 years. It not only set directions on environmental issues. It dealt with the growth of the south east airports. And, importantly, it strongly supported the growth of regional airports.

Growing success of regional airports
And that's because the economic benefits they can bring to a region are tremendous. People want to fly from their local airport - rather than travel the length of the country to get a flight. And with ever greater choices of flights these days, regional airports help take pressure off airports in the south east. Indeed, with the advent of low cost carriers, regional airports like Liverpool, Newcastle and Bristol are positively booming. They're actually growing faster than those in the south east. Robin Hood is another huge success story, having gained half a million passengers just six months after opening. And it's no secret that Government has looked carefully at what can be done to assist the growth of regional airport still further.

Core cities
As some of you may know, I along with David Milliband and other ministers, have been attending what are known as the City Summits - organised by the Core Cities Group. For those that don't know, the English Core Cities Group comprises Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle Nottingham and Sheffield. These cities are the backbone of the UK economy. They have the potential to drive regional and national economic growth and create internationally competitive regions. And the message coming from every City is just how important the transport agenda is - and that includes airports which are seen as key gateways to international markets.

Regional fifths
One of the keys to unlock the potential of these cities is the development of new international services via the so-called 'fifth freedom' services. These are services by overseas carriers which can pick up and drop off passengers at UK regional airports en-route to other international destinations. For example an Asian carrier can fly in to Manchester, and then pick up further passengers for an onward flight to New York. In the complex and out-moded system of bilateral treaties which govern international aviation, the rights for airlines to offer such services are often heavily restricted. In September we reaffirmed our preference for removing these restrictions. We announced that in future we will operate a presumption in favour of any requests for new "fifth freedom" rights from regional airports. We invited foreign airlines to submit expressions of interest, and made clear we will look favourably on these, subject to certain conditions. This is specifically designed to help regional airports to market themselves abroad and attract extra business. The introduction of new international services at an airport can only benefit the regional economy. Airlines win because they can develop new routes and avoid the congestion of Heathrow. And passengers outside of the south east will also benefit from a greater choice of flights and destinations from their local