WHAT WE ARE CAMPAIGNING FOR

Specific objectives are:

*	Stansted shall remain an "airport in the countryside"
*	No expansion beyond 25 mppa but, if such expansion is authorised, there must be stringent environmental constraints and adequate supporting infrastructure in place and operational
*	No expansion outside the existing boundary and no more runways in any circumstances

Wider objectives are:

*	To question government forecasts for air travel up to 2030
*	To demonstrate that SERAS has failed to give adequate consideration to measures to reduce demand ('demand management')
*	To demonstrate that it would be irresponsible to make provision to meet these forecasts because of the irreversible environmental damage that this would inflict
*	To ensure that the extra time created by demand management is used to give serious consideration to long term alternative solutions

WE SHALL USE ALL NECESSARY MEASURES TO CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT THAT THEIR PROPOSALS ARE SERIOUSLY FLAWED AND ARE AGAINST THE WISHES AND WELL-BEING OF MANY THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTS

Summary

This Campaign was re-started on 1st August 2002 in direct response to the Government's SERAS report which proposes building three more runways at Stansted - thus making it twice the size of the present Heathrow.

This would mean around NINE times the number of aircraft passengers currently using Stansted and much more air freight.

A very large area around Stansted would suffer from the greatly increased aircraft noise, road traffic, housing and other urbanisation. There would also be increased levels of air pollution, disturbed sleep at night and risk of air accidents.

This is a largely rural area with low unemployment. We believe that more runways would bring no benefits - only a degraded environment.

The Beginning of the Campaign

Stansted airport came into being after a series of inquiries between 1963 and 1979, culminating in a 2 year public inquiry in 1981 that consumed 38 tonnes of paper. The issue was, where should London's third airport be built? The original site selected was in Maplin Sands, on the East coast, where few people would have been affected. Development was abandoned on economic grounds (after an oil crisis) as the costs would have been much higher than those for an inland site.

Finally, Stansted was selected. The Public Inquiry ruled that Stansted would be a suitable place for a major airport. However it was made clear by the Inspector that the special rural character of this part of Essex should be preserved as far as possible. He ruled that the airport must develop by stages, up to the permitted level of 15 million passengers each year, and possibly up to the full capacity of a single runway at about 25 million passengers a year. He said that further development, such as a second runway, "would have so detrimental effect on the environment, would so affect the character of the local communities and the ecology of the area, and would have such implications beyond its immediate neighbourhood as to be wholly unacceptable".

After further committees and arguments it was finally decided not to include plans for a second runway and Stansted airport has been contained within a clearly defined boundary within which is contained all activities directly related to the airport and to the needs of the airlines and passengers. BAA have honoured their undertaking to landscape the area and the District Council has succeeded in preventing any industrial development in the countryside around the airport. After further battles additional airport related housing amounting to 2,400 houses has been allowed, but only on suitable brownfield sites in the four largest villages, Birchanger, Takeley, Great Dunmow and Felsted, all of which lie along the old A120 road to Colchester and thence to Harwich, a road that is shortly to be replaced between Stansted and Braintree by a new dualled trunk road which will leave the M11 and pass directly through the airport itself.

Stansted has become known as the 'Airport in the Country', and many arriving passengers have been surprised to find themselves looking out onto fields and trees, apparently unspoilt by creeping urbanisation as at Gatwick. During the last few years business at the airport has increased dramatically and the limit of 15 million passengers every year is expected to be reached next year. Unfortunately for the residents the bulk of the air traffic has been short haul, flights to Europe and within the UK, a lot of tourist traffic and also a developing cargo only flight service. This has meant that the expected permitted total of passenger flights was in danger of being exceeded and, against local opposition, permission was given by the Minister to allow extra passenger flights (up to 185,000 per annum). In addition, extra terminal, satellite and car parking space has also had to be built, and has not yet been finished.

BAA have established the airport as a major integrated travel centre with a bus terminal, a direct rail service to London (though as yet no rail link to the east), with long distance coach, and local bus services interconnecting. The use of public transport by passengers has been reasonably good, 33%, but 93% of the work force use a private car. The increase in road traffic in the area has led to massive hold ups on occasion and the local roads and the present A120 are very congested at peak times.

Noise from aircraft both landing and taking off has made life very difficult for those living under and near the flight paths, as has ground noise in the adjoining villages. Air pollution has already damaged the nearby Hatfield Forest, an internationally recognised area of ancient forest. There has already been a serious accident, fortunately for the local people the plane crashed into the edge of the forest, but it highlighted how vulnerable the surrounding villages are.

In our view the situation foretold by the Inspector at the 1981 inquiry has already been reached, even before the 15 million passenger limit. With the coming restrictions on the noisier aircraft and the improvements in vehicle emission controls as well as tougher European Directives on noise and air quality we might have expected some relief. Instead, along comes another application for a further expansion, before the present building work has been completed, an application designed to accommodate another 10 million passengers and 80,000 extra airflights. This development, if allowed, will lead to a permanent change in the character of this part of England and Stansted will become another Gatwick.

Most of the consequences of 10 million more passengers are obvious, more households and people affected by noise, a larger area of air pollution, and more traffic on the approach roads. No amount of mitigation measures can change those effects.

The arguments put forward to justify placing further burdens on the local community are:

* The need to accommodate the demand for more air transport, both holiday, tourist visitors and business.
* The special needs of the Eastern Region to have their own major airport for the enhancement of economic activities and tourism in the area.
* The need to provide more employment opportunities for the unemployed in north London.

Further points made by BAA:

There is a special study of the effects on the 'Rural Character' of the area. This includes only the 6 electoral wards round the airport. Predictably the effects are considered only to be a small increase in aircraft noise over Molehill Green and a couple of houses in Takeley receiving more Nitrogen oxides in the local air.

There will be no development outside the present boundary, no extra houses will be required as the additional employees will be recruited from Harlow and North London (because of the new travel card offering discounted train and bus fares). There will not be a traffic problem as there will be the new A120 to absorb the extra vehicles.

There are no comments on two of our main concerns:

* How can increased air traffic be justified in the light of climate change and the need to reduce engine emissions? Air transport produces the greatest volume of greenhouse gases per passenger Km.

* What about air safety? Stansted is already very near two Heathrow stacking areas and a main air 'Highway' across the UK. It also shares a stack with Luton . No real answer is given in the application, only that it is the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority.

Now we find that events have overtaken us. The SERAS Report has made proposals that would create a 2, 3, or 4 runway airport intended to serve twice the number of passengers that at present pass through Heathrow.

Such a huge airport would destroy not only 3000 acres of good farmland but also 200 houses including over 60 listed buildings and an ancient wood. Hatfield Forest would be severely damaged. A new access road off the M11 would cut through north of Stansted and a new rail line would be needed into London as well as a second tunnel.

The increased number of flights would create an intolerable noise burden over Bishop's Stortford, Sawbridgeworth and parts of Harlow as well as the whole of Uttlesford, Dedham Vale and probably North Herts as well. Air pollution and deposition of fuel oil would spread well outside the airport area.

Traffic would increase ninefold. Employees would have to travel from far away and inevitably the pressure for more houses would become irresistible. New schools, hospitals, shops and services would all be required. Urban growth would extend from London as far as Cambridge with a few islands of green space preserved as monuments to the past.

Any politician or businessman who thinks this is a price worth paying to provide an unlimited "Freedom to Fly" facility should be prepared to come and live in the area.

Our Campaign therefore has to intensify. We shall demonstrate in our Roadshow exactly what these changes would mean.