Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed those present and stated that in order to comply with the Council’s duty of care to its staff and Members the meeting would take place over two non-consecutive days. Day One would be devoted to public speakers and anyone with a pre-prepared text was requested to deposit a copy with the Democratic Services Officer. The meeting would adjourn at approximately 4.00PM and would reconvene on 24^th January 2020.

It was further stated that planning permission had been granted on 14^th November 2018 subject to conditions and to the entering into of a legally compliant S106 agreement. There was no lawful reason to revisit that decision and the purpose of the present meeting was to consider the adequacy of the mitigation package contained within the S106 agreement the text of which was included in the documents pack. The Council’s officers and external legal advisers all considered that it complied with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 as amended. This is a mandatory requirement and anything more than that Regulation permitted would be void.

The Chair stated that the purpose of the Two Day meeting, as stated in the agenda, was to consider whether, having regard to the facts, circumstances and policies now applicable and to the earlier resolution in favour of the application, the information that has been so far supplied in support of the application UTT/18/0460/FUL is sufficient to convince the Council that it should authorise the grant of planning permission for that development application or whether than information falls short of doing so.

The Chair also referred to the resolution of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 28 June 2019.

Officers confirmed that the draft S106 agreement as it stood complied with Regulation 122 Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 as amended  This is a mandatory requirement and anything more than the Regulation permitted would be illegitimate and could be struck down by a Court.

To receive any apologies for absence and declarations of interest.

Councillor Fairhurst said he sat on the Planning Committee when this application was considered in November 2018. He entered the meeting with an open mind.

Councillor Reeve said he was a ward member for Broad Oak and the Hallingburys and entered the meeting with an open mind.

Councillor Freeman said he sat on the Planning Committee when this application was considered in November 2018. He entered the meeting with an open mind.

Councillor Loughlin said she sat on the Planning Committee when this application was considered in November 2018. She entered the meeting with an open mind.

Councillor Sutton said she was a member of Stop Stansted Expansion. She entered the meeting with an open mind and did not pre-determine.

Councillor Bagnall said he was a ward member for Takeley.

Councillor Lemon said he was the ward member for Hatfield Heath and sat on the Planning Committee when this application was considered in November 2018. He entered the meeting with an open mind.

Members of the public who had registered their intention to speak gave statements to the Committee. A full list of those that supported, objected and commented on the application is included in the table below.

The meeting adjourned at 3.50pm until 11.00am 24^th January 2020.

The meeting reconvened at 11.00am on 24 January 2020.

The Chair welcomed people to the meeting and confirmed the procedure that would be followed. The Chair clarified that the purpose of the meeting stemmed from the resolution of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 28 June 2019 and read as follows:

 .

RESOLVED that:

In accordance with Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 143(2) of the Localism Act 2011 to instruct the Chief Executive and fellow officers not to issue a Planning Decision Notice for planning application UTT/18/0460/FUL unless and until the Council's Planning Committee have had a sufficient opportunity to consider in detail, as timely as possible: (i)the adequacy of the proposed Section 106 Agreement between UDC and Stansted Airport Ltd, having regard to the Heads of Terms contained in the resolution approved by the Council's Planning Committee on 14th November 2018; (ii) any new material considerations and/or changes in circumstances since 14 November 2018 to which weight may now be given in striking the planning balance or which would reasonably justify attaching a different weight to relevant factors previously considered; And thereafter ask the Planning Committee to determine the authorisation of the issue of a Planning Decision Notice.

Those Members who making declarations of interest on 17 January confirmed their declarations.

Additionally, Councillor Sell said he was a ward member for Stansted North. He entered the meeting with an open mind.

Councillors Gregory, Light, Dean, Caton, Day, Gerard and Foley made statements to the Committee.

The Solicitor read out a statement from Robert Jones of Hatfield Heath, which had been unavailable at the session on 17 January 2020.

Brian Ross and Paul Stinchcombe gave a Powerpoint presentation on behalf of Stop Stansted Expansion. A copy of this presentation is annexed hereto.

Ken O’Toole and John Twigg made a statement on behalf of Manchester Airports Group, the Applicant in this matter. A copy of this statement is annexed hereto.

Break for lunch 1305 to 1405

To consider whether to approve the issue of the decision notice for UTT/18/0460/FUL – Stansted Airport.

The Director – Public Services distributed a new paper titled ‘speaking notes’.

A point of order was raised by Cllr Fairhurst. He stated that it was not normal practice for the case officer to give a second written report in response to matters arising out of public speaking to the Committee.

In response the Development Manager stated that it was standard practice for any necessary clarification to be provided to Members following the close of public participation and that normally this was supplied by himself. The Solicitor confirmed this and stated that the Director – Public Service would provide that clarification but that in this case a written note had been provided to assist Members in their deliberations.

The Director – Public Services gave a verbal report to the Committee. He said there needed to be a very good planning reason for the Committee to change its mind about publishing the decision notice granting planning permission. He noted the following points raised in public speaking and correspondence:

• World Health Organisation guidelines on community noise were referred to, however this is a matter which the government has reserved to itself and will address in its forthcoming updated  Aviation Strategy. The level difference between the Do Minimum and the Development cases in both 2023 and 2028 was less than 1dB and therefore the difference had been assessed as negligible.
• Dispersion modelling of fine particles had been carried out and concluded that the airport expansion would have no significant effects on the concentration of such particles. The highest predicted annual mean concentrations of PM2.5 were set out before the Committee in November 2018.
• There were no alternative fleet mix assumptions upon which to rebase the environmental statement, now that the Boeing 737MAX was grounded until at least summer 2020.
• In November 2018, the government believed there was a case for airports making best use of their existing runways and that this could be achieved within the statutory greenhouse gas emissions target. The emissions target had since shifted from 80% reduction to net zero output, but the Making Best Use of Existing Runways policy had not been withdrawn and remained current policy.
• Some representations had indicated that the Making Best Use of Existing Runways policy only supported planning applications to remove aircraft movements and passenger number caps, and not those where additional infrastructure other than an additional runway would be provided. However the policy did not include this caveat.
• The need for the current development had been raised via representations regarding a short term softening and dip in growth, as well as the existence of proposals for growth at Gatwick, Heathrow and London Luton. However the Making Best Use of Existing Runways Policy supported all applications to make best use of existing runways and did not require need to be demonstrated.
• It was not government policy that a balance of imports and exports should be achieved in each sector of the economy.
• The Council had not yet responded to Inspectors advising how it wished  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.