Airport taxiway works at London Stansted Airport Bassingbourn Road Stansted

The airport site

The physical works would be taxiways within the airport curtilage, with limited wider urban design impact and no structures visible beyond the site boundary.

“The physical elements of the proposals would be taxiways and these would be within the curtilage of the airport, which is a special and unique area within Uttlesford. As such, the potential impacts of the proposals to the wider area from an urban design perspective would be minimal.”

“The potential impact on the local environment from built-form associated with these proposals has been assessed through the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. This forms part of the EIA and confirms that no structures would be visible beyond the site boundary. Any physical and visible works would be screened from view by extensive landscaping to the site perimeter.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Councillors spoke against the application or sought stronger conditions, while a representative of Manchester Airport Group spoke in support.

What members debated

Members discussed public transport, highways, noise, air quality, wastewater, biodiversity, climate change, fly-parking and whether the matter should go to a public inquiry.

“Noise: Concerns expressed that penalising the airlines was not effective. New aircraft should be quieter. Officers highlighted Condition 16 that addressed noise considerations and the use of Noise Contours; the noise from aircraft landing was being monitored. It was stated that night flight arrangements were under the control of Central Government (Department of Transport).”

“Other significant points: • The Chair stated that there were no statutory consultees objecting to the application. • One Member said that she echoed some of the points made about climate change by Councillor Fiddy (public speaker) and that it would be very difficult to refuse the application. • The issue of fly-parking was raised as a serious problem. This could be addressed through the Sustainable Transport Fund.”

Minutes

The committee’s vote

Councillor Emanuel proposed approval and Councillor Freeman seconded the proposal.

“Councillor Emanuel proposed approval of the application. This was seconded by Councillor Freeman.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee authorised permission subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement, with refusal authorised if the agreement was not completed within six months.

“RESOLVED that the Strategic Director of Planning be authorised to grant permission for the development(s) subject to those items set out in section 18 and 19 (plus the conditions set out in the Addendum) of the report- A) Conditions B) S106 Agreement…”

“And if the freehold owner and all those with a legal interest shall fail to enter into a S106 agreement approved by the Council, the Strategic Director of Planning shall be authorised to refuse permission following the expiration of a 6-month period from the date of Planning Committee.”

Minutes