Councillors cautious about plans to expand Stansted Airport
Herts County Councillors are worried about extra pressure on local transport links
Plans to expand Stansted Airport are being treated with caution by Herts County Councillors – with concerns over whether local transport links can handle extra demand.
In early June, the airport submitted a planning application to Uttlesford District Council to increase passenger numbers from 43 million passengers per year to 51 million. It follows the previous planning permission granted in June 2021, which boosted the airport’s capacity from 35 million people per year.
The latest application stated there would be “no increase in aircraft movements”, with further capacity being achieved by a future fleet of aircraft having extra seating.
A report into the proposed expansion was prepared by Paul Donovan, Herts County Council’s director of strategic land use, and presented to members of the environment, transport and growth cabinet panel.
The report stated: “Initial indications by the applicant would suggest that there would be positive socio-economic and employment benefits, while environmental impacts are not significant and can be contained within existing permitted limits…officers are testing these assertions.”
The report said that a “full assessment has been undertaken” by the applicant of the potential effects of the proposed development on transport.
This assessment claimed that the largest traffic increase associated with growth to 51 million passengers per annum will be on the roads nearest to the airport, adding that “none of the predicted future year daily flows exceed the capacity of the individual links”, while rail services to Stansted Airport would continue to operate within capacity.
The report noted: “At this stage, officers are somewhat sceptical that the proposal would not generate more significant impacts on surface access networks.
“Officers are also aware that other relevant stakeholders have questioned whether the rail network will be able to cope beyond the currently permitted 43 million passengers per annum.
“To achieve the public transport mode share assumptions stated by the applicant, it seems likely that additional capacity will be required, and the development would likely rely on schemes such as the Hertfordshire-Essex Rapid Transit (HERT), which are currently unfunded to meet the stated levels.”
The report added that extra demand for coach and bus services was expected by the applicant to “be met by operators on a commercial basis”, with a prediction that by 2041, public transport will make up 54% of the overall mode share of transport.
But these estimates were questioned in the council chamber. Cllr Alistair Willoughby said: “The assumption made by the applicant on public transport usage raises quite a lot of concerns. The projected mode share depends on infrastructure that doesn’t exist as of yet and is uncosted.”
Cllr Willoughby said there was “no funding” for the Hertfordshire Essex Rapid Transit, adding: “I’m not sure how you can move forward when you just don’t have that access.”
Council officer Paul Donovan said the transport modelling covered a spatial area as far as Little Hadham, but more modelling would need to be undertaken.
Committee chairman Cllr Paul Zukowskyj said: “I’m very keen to push, as widely as possible, the impact and implications of developments. One of the things that I did notice was that the east-west rail corridor that goes from Cambridge to Oxford, they didn’t appear to consider in any meaningful way, any linkages to either Luton or Stansted Airports, which, for me, is completely bonkers.
“If you’re developing a major rail network, you need to be thinking about people on that route wanting to get to destinations like the airport, but we are where we are.”
Cllr Nigel Taylor said: “The first point, which I’m not going to dwell on, but I would remind us that we have declared a climate emergency, so we should really be questioning whether the solution is just to expand the airport relentlessly.
“There is a more serious question, which we’ve all been touching upon today, about the surface transport to service the airport now.
“There are a number of aspects to this… we have yet another development of a commercial organisation which is going to dump a hell of a load of transport demands on the community around it. It’s saying to local authorities, ‘That’s your problem’.
“We have to sort out the mess. I have often seen with housing estates built in the wrong place, applicants will say, ‘It won’t put any traffic on the roads,’ and I’m sorry, but that’s a load of rubbish.”
Cllr Taylor’s points were “echoed” by Cllr Ruth Brown, vice-chair of the committee, who said: “I fundamentally disagree with expanding short-haul flights, we should be going by rail. But that’s not within our gift.
“Regarding asking the Secretary of State to look at it, I absolutely support that.
“They’ve had two increases of eight million, which fall just under the requirement for a DCO development consent order – ruled upon by the Planning Inspectorate, therefore we should be asking the Secretary of State to look at it and think of it as a strategic infrastructure concern, and it needs that strategic overview.”
The panel voted for its comments to be reflected by officers in the council’s draft response to Uttlesford District Council.