Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
Tuesday 6 July 1999
[Mr. Bill Olner in the Chair]
Draft Stansted Airport Aircraft Movement Limit (Amendment) Order 1999
4.30 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford): On a point of order, Mr. Olner. I wish to ask two questions before the Minister speaks. First, when was this draft statutory instrument put down on the Order Paper of the House? I sense that it has been introduced with undue haste. Secondly, I want to know when the Committee was appointed. Although I applied to serve on the Committee, I was not able to do so because I was not notified that the Committee was to be appointed until after it had been selected.
The Chairman: That is not a point of order with which the Chair can adequately deal. The hon. Gentleman knows that such Committees are appointed through the usual channels.
Mr. Wells: Further to that point of order, Mr. Olner. Surely it is possible to ascertain when this draft order was put down.
The Chairman: I think that the answer will be given when the Minister speaks.
4.31 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Stansted Airport Aircraft Movement Limit (Amendment) Order 1999.
Mr. Olner, may I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your civilised chairmanship? I trust that it will help the Committee if I detail why Stansted, alone among United Kingdom airports, is subject to a limit on passenger air transport movements. Following public inquiries into proposals for development at Heathrow and Stansted, the then Government produced in 1985 a White Paper--"Airports Policy"--which set out their response to the inspector's report within a national policy context.
The then Government accepted the inspector's recommendation that Stansted airport be granted planning permission to develop to cater for about 15 million passengers, but recognised local concerns about the rate of expansion. The airport was then handling about 500,000 passengers a year. It therefore sought powers enabling a limit to be set on the number of air transport movements in order to control the pace of development at Stansted and to give added assurance to local residents that a balance would be struck between aviation and local interests in the use of airport.
The powers were taken in the Airports Act 1986 to ensure that airport development did not outpace the ability of local road and rail links, housing and commercial development to cope with it. A proposal that use of the proposed power should be linked to environmental concerns was rejected by the House, as it had been by the inquiry inspector, on the ground that there were other more appropriate tools for that purpose.
Planning permission was granted in June 1985 with a number of conditions attached. One required phased construction with the first phase restricting the size of the terminal to cater for 7 million to 8 million passengers a year. In 1987, an order came into force accommodating that phase by setting a limit of 78,000 passenger air transport movements.
In 1995, BAA plc applied for an increase in the limit to reflect the fact that 78,000 movements could no longer cater for the passenger throughput envisaged in the first phase of development. In July 1996, the House approved an increase to 120,000 movements.
The growth of Stansted means that passenger numbers are approaching the 8 million provided for in phase 1 and air transport movements are close to the current limit. Given the long lead time that major development requires, BAA applied last October for detailed planning permission for phase 2 to develop the airport terminal for about 15 million passengers. At the same time, an application to increase air passenger movements was made. Permission for the phase 2 expansion of the airport was granted in April by Uttlesford district council, leaving the movement limit to be decided.
As required by the Airports Act 1986, the Government issued a consultation paper seeking comments on BAA's application in January 1999. More than 130 responses were received from a wide variety of interests. The Government considered those, together with BAA's case for an increase, and decided to recommend to the House an amending order setting the limit at 185,000 movements.
As on previous occasions, central to the Government's considerations was the local infrastructure's capacity to cope with the airport's expansion. Work is continuing to improve road access around the airport. The Highways Agency has recently signed a cost-sharing agreement with BAA for the provision at junction 8 of the M11 of slip roads serving the airport, which should be open by 2003. Improvements will be made this year to junction 8 to help ease existing congestion; they will be jointly funded by the Highways Agency and Stansted airport.
The A120 Stansted to Braintree road is part of the targeted programme of improvements, and so now has a clear timetable after being in limbo for so long.
The Government wish to see an increase in the proportion of passengers travelling to airports by public transport. Rail links to Stansted airport have been progressively enhanced. In 1998, hourly rail services were reintroduced to the midlands and all stations to London in addition to the half-hourly dedicated Stansted Skytrain service.
5 6
There is now sufficient capacity to cope with increased passenger numbers. However, the general agreement is that more needs to be done. BAA and Railtrack are developing a business case for the west anglia route modernisation, including the option of running four dedicated trains per hour to Stansted during much of the day, without detriment to local stopping services. Both organisations are confident that a satisfactory business case can be produced by the end of the year.
Of course, it is important that the impact of the airport development on local residents should be minimised. Work has been undertaken to that end, and it will continue. There will be a new noise insulation programme to support the new limit; a new night noise regime for Stansted was announced on 10 June.
The environmental effects of the airport's expansion were considered in detail during the public inquiry of the early 1980s, before planning permission was granted. The current phasing out of chapter 2 aircraft means that when Stansted is operating at a passenger throughput level of 15 million, noise contours should be smaller in area than those considered at the time of the inquiry.
The draft amendment order contains two articles. The first determines when the order will come into effect. The second substitutes, from 1 March 2000, the figure of 185,000 movements in article 2 of the Stansted Airport Aircraft Movement Limit Order 1987, as amended in 1996. Article 2 sets an interim limit of 120,000 movements from the time at which the order comes into force until 29 February 2000.
The new movement limit will provide BAA with sufficient assurance to proceed with the necessary investments in the airport, facilitating investment by airlines and other service providers--including bus and rail companies--and helping the local and regional economy. It is estimated that 6,400 jobs will be created at the airport and 4,000 in the surrounding area.
BAA's plans to bring in workers from areas of high unemployment, such as Harlow, Tottenham and other parts of north-east and east London, are establishing close links with employment-orientated self-help groups and jobcentres. BAA is negotiating with public transport providers to pump-prime the establishment of local bus services for commuters and to keep bus and rail fares down for employees.
Raising the air transport movement limit to enable the airport to reach the capacity envisaged in its planning permission will help Stansted to establish itself as a major centre for travel between London and domestic and short-haul European destinations. The Government are satisfied that that can be done without overburdening the local infrastructure.
I trust that it will be in order for me to respond to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for--I regret to say that his constituency escapes me.
Mr. Wells: Hertford and Stortford.
Ms Glenda Jackson: Yes; let me tell the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) that the order was laid on 16 June.
In light of what I have said, I commend the order to the Committee.
4.39 pm
Mr. Shaun Woodward (Witney): May I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Olner?
As the Minister said, the White Paper entitled "Airports Policy" set out a policy of phased expansion for Stansted. It stated that the rate of expansion should be controlled for two crucial reasons: first, because there should be a proper correlation with supporting infrastructure and, secondly, because there should be an appropriate balance between aviation and local interests. It is interesting that some of the representations sent to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions expressed strong concern about the apparent dramatic jump in the volume of movements.
The original permission of 1985 constrained the imposition of additional planning conditions for growth beyond phase 1 up to 15 million passengers per annum. Essex county council stated in its representation that it was desirable that the passenger aircraft movement limit be maintained at a lower level: the council would have preferred a limit of 150,000, to maintain the balance. The Minister has not made it clear why this dramatic shift should take place in one go. Why does she think that that would be the right step to take?
BAA plc made a number of assumptions when making its case. What was the basis for them? Crucial among them was the aviation industry's assumption about the forecast growth during the coming eight years. Most important, is the Minister entirely confident that it will not exceed 15 million passengers per annum? If it does, what steps will the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions take to reduce the figure to 15 million or fewer?
The aviation industry's forecast proposal for 185,000 PATMs is of course related to certain growth rates. It is interesting that the growth rate in the past five years has been 2.5 per cent. each year, although the projected growth is only 1.5 per cent. each year. May we be told the basis of those assumptions for the downgrading of growth?
It also seems relevant that other assumptions have been made about aircraft that use Stansted airport. Can the Minister say how many Boeing 737 200s, 600s and 800s are currently used at Stansted, and how many will be used in the coming five years? The relevance of my question is clear. At present, the airport uses smaller capacity aircraft. Crucially, the movement to these other planes, which we expect to increase at Stansted, will change the numbers dramatically, according to a press release issued only last week.
What led the Minister to conclude that BAA's forecasts are correct? What steps or consultation has she taken independently of BAA to check her assumptions?
The Minister rightly raised the issue of public passenger transport to and from the airport. She will know that approximately 33 per cent. of passengers currently use passenger transport to get to and from the 7 8 [Mr. Shaun Woodward]
airport. However, she has not told us whether she has asked, or intends to ask, BAA to specify modal split targets for either passengers or employees travelling to and from the airport. If that has been done, will she say what those targets will be for the coming 10 years?
Similarly, what efforts is the Minister making to draw up and agree to short and long term targets for increasing the proportion of journeys to the airport on public transport? Is it the Minister's intention to link them with the PATM limit? Will the Government demand that BAA say whether the rail services' additional capacity will be reflected in the proportion of air passengers travelling to and from the airport? The Minister says that more needs to be done, and that a business plan is being prepared, but we are being asked to agree to the measure when that business plan is not in the Minister's hands and before she knows the targets.
The Minister mentioned the problem of surface access roads; structure plan policy T24(iv) requires proposals for any further development of Stansted, which should be judged against the adequacy of those roads. Is the Minister entirely confident that the road access will not worsen short-term traffic congestion? The Minister said that the new slip road from the M11 would be open in about four years' time. Can she give a guarantee to the people using that road that the measure will not create problems in the next four years? The same applies to the improvements to the A120, and to the interim improvements to the Birchanger roundabout at junction 8.
The Minister also mentioned the noise insulation programme. We are all rightly concerned about the crucial issue of noise insulation and environmental damage. Is the Minister happy about BAA's intention to develop a new noise insulation programme? Is she confident that there is an effective noise mitigation scheme, which is separate from the noise insulation programme? The Minister said that people in the area should experience less noise than at the time of the inquiry. The crucial question is whether there is an adequate noise mitigation scheme and, if the order is agreed to, and if the noise level increases, what steps people can take to redress their grievances.
The order leaves many unanswered questions. Essex county council said that it would have preferred a slower move to such a dramatic increase, and a review of the relevant issues. The questions would thus have been answered before the order was introduced. There is a great deal of merit in what the council said. The application to increase the PATM limit to 185,000 in line with the full phase of expansion to cater for passengers through to 15 million per annum will seem too dramatic and too quick unless the Minister can satisfy the Committee by answering my questions.
4.48 pm
| 
