EAST OF ENGLAND PLAN

What the plan says about Stansted expansion
The draft East of England Plan, drawn up by the East of England Regional Assembly (EERA), included a proposal to increase the use of the existing runway (R1) at Stansted Airport, subject to strict environmental conditions and proper provision for surface access, but rejected the proposal that a second runway (R2) should be built.

The Panel which conducted the Examination in Public recommended that these passages should be omitted from the draft Plan on the ground that the provision of extra capacity at Stansted was not a matter to be spelt out in the Plan but should be left to the airport operator/owner working within the planning process. The Secretary of State has accepted this recommendation.

At the same time, however, the Secretary of State has agreed that the Plan will need to be informed by the Air Transport White Paper (ATWP) and other policies of this Regional Spatial Strategy, i.e. the draft East of England Plan. SSE has pointed out that this does not mean that planning authorities are bound by the ATWP on every issue. On the contrary, the Secretary of State for Transport has explicitly recognised that it will be open to a planning authority to refuse a planning application on the ground of an adverse environmental impact assessment ‘even if such a refusal would frustrate Government policy’.

SSE's concerns
SSE is concerned that, while the Plan includes no specific provision for the expansion of Stansted Airport, at several points it makes reference to the alleged need to make provision for the implications of such expansion in, for example, employment, housing and surface access. SSE has argued that insofar as such provision is made it should be clearly stated that it is conditional upon the outcome of the planning process, and it is improper for these outcomes to be anticipated.

In the course of our submission we have pointed out that any expansion at Stansted would be unsustainable and that in any event it is commercially uncertain.

In brief, our conclusions are as follows:
• The proposed expansion of Stansted, whether through the increased use of R1 or the development of R2, is unsustainable and should not be included in the RSS;
• The commercial uncertainties are such that it would be reckless to predicate the Plan on the assumption of a second Stansted runway being developed during the Plan period;
• The implications of expansion should not therefore be included in the RSS; and
• If these arguments are not accepted then, insofar as the implications of expansion are included in the RSS, it should be made clear that they are conditional upon the outcome of the planning process.