THE THREAT - AND THE OPPOSITION

BAA submitted a planning application in April 2006 asking the local planning authority, Uttlesford District Council, to allow these changes but this was refused in November 2006 after deliberations lasting seven months and drawing an overwhelming number of objections from the community at large. BAA appealed the decision and a public inquiry was held during the summer of 2007. Our Public Inquiry page gives more details of the process for this and the principal arguments against the proposals, set out in the Statements of Case by SSE.

While BAA continues to pursue its second runway plans it is telling investors that the intention is to secure 'an option to build' and is not a commitment to build, prolonging blight and uncertainty. See SSE Press Release. Campaigning will continue until the threat is overturned once and for all.

Locally, the environmental impacts of a second runway would be devastating. It would result in the destruction of communities that have developed over centuries as well as vast swathes of unspoilt countryside and ancient woodlands and the loss of homes. BAA's proposed c1,000 hectare land grab for a second runway would create an airport site bigger than Heathrow. Click here to find out what it's like living near Heathrow.

Click here for more on the second runway application.

* Noise from more and more aircraft flying overhead would affect vast swathes of the region.
* Night flights would inevitably increase.
* Children at school would suffer even more interruption to their learning, with ever more frequent interruptions - 'jet pauses' - as planes passed overhead.
* Even those who are currently unaffected by noise could soon find they are suffering as a result of new flight paths which are at present being developed just to cope with the existing aircraft using Stansted - never mind any expansion if it were to be allowed.
* The pressure on the road and rail network from millions of extra passengers travelling to and from the airport each year would make our roads and trains increasingly congested, not least because of BAA's unwillingness to fund the improvements that would be needed.
* Air quality would suffer, both from additional aircraft and from road traffic, with implications for human health and ancient woodlands such as Hatfield Forest.
* Development pressures to serve an airport bigger than today's Heathrow would radically alter the character of the region and put pressure on the infrastructure, including water supplies.
* The cumulative effect of all these impacts would be a dramatic deterioration in the quality of life for tens of thousands of local people.

The present threat emerged in July 2002 when the Department of Transport published proposals for consultation which included building three new runways at Stansted - later modified to give policy support to the construction of one extra runway in the Air Transport White Paper in late 2003.

Stop Stansted Expansion was formed within a matter of days following the publication of the 2002 consultation and since that time has mounted a relentless campaign with support from thousands of individuals, hundreds of councils and a score of UK and European Parliamentarians all recognising the devastating impacts which expansion would have. Environmental groups including the National Trust, Woodland Trust, Essex Wildlife Trust, RSPB, Friends of the Earth, the Society for the Preservation of Ancient Buildings and Campaign to Protect Rural England and others are also vehemently opposed to the plans.

This is because the impacts of a two-runway airport handling up to 68 million passengers a year in its inital phase (more than Heathrow today) and with the capacity to eventually handle more than 90 million passengers a year would be enormous - across the region and beyond.

Even plans for expansion on the existing runway - the subject of a Public Inquiry in 2007 - could lead to a doubling of current passenger numbers (currently at 24 million passengers a year - compared with less than 4 million in 1996): SSE and the airlines who use Stansted agree that a forecast of c50 million passengers a year by 2030 is entirely feasible, going well beyond the 'illustrative' figure of 'about 35 million by 2014' which BAA claims.

It is worth noting that even Ryanair and Easyjet - which together currently account for more than 85% of Stansted's passengers - have strong reservations about BAA's proposals for expansion on the existing runway and presently oppose a second runway on cost grounds.

"I would not be debasing the currency if I express my judgement that the development of an airport at Stansted, with a capacity in excess of 25mppa and requiring the construction and operation of a second runway and all the structural and operational paraphernalia of a modern international airport as we know the animal in 1984, would constitute nothing less than a catastrophe in environmental terms."