Agenda item

Summaries of Public Statements

Mr Day

Mr Day said this meeting was an opportunity to make amends for the decision to approve the Stansted Airport application on 14 November. He urged Members to ignore the party whip and to listen to the public whom they represented. Public trust had been damaged and there was an urgent need to rebuild the relationship between the public and Council.

Mr Beer

Mr Beer said the decision to approve the Stansted Airport application had left residents feeling totally disenchanted with the democratic process in Uttlesford. He said the officer reports were biased and not adequately challenged by Members. The S106 terms had not been discussed at the meeting on14 November and therefore should be reviewed by the Planning Committee before the decision notice was issued. He said it would be shameful if Council did not refer the S106 agreement back to the Planning Committee.

Mr Woodcock

Mr Woodcock asked why the Council were not enforcing previous planning conditions on Stansted Airport, with particular regard paid to the 35 million people per annum (35 mppa) limit that had already been imposed. He said if conditions were enforced there would be 6000 fewer flights per year. He also asked why commercial operations were allowed to operate within the Airport’s boundaries without the intervention of the Council’s enforcement team. He said this was Council’s last chance to get this decision right.

Mr Reeve

Mr Reeve said it would not be a ‘unique’ event for this S106 agreement to be sent back to the Planning Committee for consideration, and cited the case of the Hatfield Broad Oak application at Great Chalks, as well as the previous Airport application in 2002, to demonstrate this action had a precedent. He asked Members to support the motion.

Mr Haynes

Mr Haynes said he was disappointed by the lack of ambition behind the draft S106 agreement, as the current draft would not mitigate against the environmental harm caused by an increase in passenger numbers at Stansted Airport. He said the Airport had previously avoided paying out compensation to local residents by intentionally stalling works on granted development but this was later overturned by a tribunal and the Airport were ordered to pay out.  He said the Airport was a very poor neighbour to residents.

Ms Jones

Ms Jones spoke on recent evidence that suggested noise pollution was as damaging to physical health as air pollution. She dismissed the claim that aircrafts were becoming ‘quieter’ and asked what noise mitigation measures were really being put in place. She said the aviation industry was the worst polluter and climate change had not been addressed in the draft S106 agreement. She asked Members to support the motion in front of them.

Ms Sutton 

Ms Sutton said Members had been elected to make decisions on behalf of the community and yet they seemed to be working with the Airport, rather than for local residents. She said the mitigation package was wholly inadequate and if the S106 agreement did not include all of the items listed at the 14 November Planning meeting, it should be refused. She said if the decision was approved it would be a gross betrayal of local people.

Mr Ross – Deputy Chairman of Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE)

Mr Ross said the draft S106 agreement had a number of major omissions compared to what was agreed at the Planning Committee on 14 November. He said he was disappointed that the Council continued to refuse to engage with SSE, which was a non-political organisation with 7,500 members, and by the threat of legal proceedings. He urged Members to support the motion in front of them.

Mr Twigg – Planning Director, Manchester Airport Group (MAG)

Mr Twigg said the draft S106 agreement and planning conditions were a comprehensive list that had been determined by public consultation, environmental assessments, independent advisors and consultees. He said the draft S106 agreement was led by the Heads of Terms document that had been agreed by the Planning Committee and stressed that the correct process had been followed, as demonstrated by the fact that the Secretary of State had not seen it necessary to call-in the application 36 days ago. He said the Airport had complied with air movement limits and there would be no removal of a previous planning condition that prevented the Airport from lobbying over night-time flights.