|
Column Number: 3
Second Standing Committee
on Delegated Legislation
Tuesday 29 June 2004
[Mr. Nigel Beard in the Chair]
Draft Stansted Airport Aircraft Movement Limit (Revocation) Order 2004
9.55 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Stansted Airport Aircraft Movement Limit (Revocation) Order 2004.
The order was laid was laid before Parliament in draft on 8 June. It will remove the current statutory limit on the number of take-offs and landings of passenger aircraft at Stansted airport each year.
The 1985 airports policy White Paper supported a passenger air traffic movement limit
''to provide a means of controlling the rate of expansion at Stansted in the light of developments in the London system as a whole''.
The first PATM limit for Stansted was set in 1987 and the second in 1996, both by order. The current limit of 185,000 PATMs was set in 1999.
Stansted is unique among UK airports in having a PATM limit imposed and regulated by Parliament. However, as last year's White Paper confirms, we believe that it is preferable for controls of that kind to be agreed locally. By revoking the parliamentary limit, we would place Stansted airport's air traffic movement limits under local control, bringing them in line with those of other UK airports.
Hon. Members will know that in May 2003 Uttlesford district council granted planning permission for the expansion of the airport's capacity to 25 million passengers per annum. As a condition of the planning permission, Uttlesford imposed an ATM limit of 241,000. The limit covers cargo as well as passenger movement.
It is important that the order is revoked now, as Stansted is already operating near the limit of 185,000 ATMs. It handled about 160,000 ATMs in 2003. To avoid unnecessary constraint of the airport's agreed growth to 25 million passengers per annum, quick and decisive action is essential.
On 28 May, we completed six weeks of public consultation on the proposal to revoke the parliamentary limit. We sought the views of about 100 interested parties, including the Civil Aviation Authority, the airport operator, operators of aircraft likely to be affected by the order, organisations representing operators of aircraft, local authorities around the airport and other interested parties. From the responses received, support for revoking the limit was nearly unanimous—30 out of 33 responses.
Column Number: 4
Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab): I have seen some coverage in the press in the past few days about local opposition. Can the Minister give us any information about the views of the people who live around the airport?
Mr. McNulty: The opposition is to the expansion plans for a second runway at Stansted. It has nothing to do with revocation of the order, or whether the limit is set—
Mr. Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con): Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McNulty: I will finish the point first, if I may. It has nothing to do with revocation of the order, or whether the limit is set by Parliament or, as is usual for every other airport in the country, by the local planning authority—in this case, Uttlesford district council.
Mr. Prisk: I suspect that the Minister may not have wished to do so, but his remarks in response to the right hon. Lady suggest that there is no local opposition. In fact, that is not the case. Would he care to correct his statement? It is clear that people are concerned about the matter. Indeed, I brought letters with me today.
Mr. McNulty: I have simply reflected the consultation responses to this parliamentary device. I freely admit that there is opposition to the plans in the White Paper, but that is outwith the scope of the order that we are debating today. I remind the Committee that Uttlesford district council has agreed the limitations set out in the White Paper. For it to set the limit, we must revoke the parliamentary order, unless anyone is suggesting that it is for Parliament rather than the local authority—uniquely in this case—to determine ATM limits. I have not yet heard such a suggestion.
Mr. Heald: There is local opposition to the order. Many of the problems associated with Stansted airport—noise, pollution and traffic—fall on the Hertfordshire side of the border. District councils such as East Hertfordshire and North Hertfordshire are just as concerned about the issue as Uttlesford on the Essex side of the border. It is far better for the matter to be dealt with in Parliament, where we can all express our views and concerns in this way, than to have it dealt with by one council that deals with one part of the problem.
Mr. McNulty: As is common in any local planning decision-making process, when Uttlesford district council agreed the current limitations for the extant planning permission for expansion, I am sure that it did its job properly and duly consulted East Hertfordshire district council, along with other councils. East Hertfordshire would have made its views known then.
Column Number: 5
I do not understand why it is more appropriate for Parliament to set limits on growth than for the local authority to do so. The guiding principle underpinning planning law and all other aspects of planning in this country is that the local authority should determine matters in the first instance.
Hertfordshire county council responded to the order and said:
''The four authorities most affected by the Airport, Hertfordshire, Essex, East Hertfordshire and Uttlesford are all in general agreement that the limit imposed by Parliament should be removed''.
Therefore, East Hertfordshire has had its say on the order and that say does not reflect what the hon. Gentleman said. Three consultees were in favour of raising the statutory limit to match the limit in the planning approval, but there was no support for retaining the current limit.
Clare Short: I am not trying to be difficult but I asked about an issue that arises in relation to various questions in Birmingham: has there been any survey of local opinion? It is one thing to square a local authority, as many of the people voting are not affected by a local issue. It is another to find out what local people want. I have argued that in my own city. Do we know what people who live near the airport have to say? Have they been surveyed?
Mr. McNulty: As I understand it, they have not been consulted in the specific context of the revocation of the parliamentary limit on air traffic movements. As Opposition Members will attest, there have been significant attempts to gauge local opinion on the broader issues about whither the future of Stansted, with mixed or negative views. That is entirely proper. Local authorities and other organisations seek to secure those views, and that was the protest that my right hon. Friend referred to earlier. In this context, those consulted, principally local authorities, did not raise an issue about whether the limits should be set locally rather than by Parliament.
The consultation did reveal a particular issue concerning the conditions attached to Uttlesford's planning consent to make the capacity 25 million passengers per annum. One of the conditions in the planning agreement for that application states that the new ATM limit of 241,000 will not come into force until the completion of the extension to the existing terminal. I understand that BAA plc has not begun work on that extension. Therefore, some consultees reflected concern that, at least temporarily, there could be no limit in place.
To avoid that, BAA has agreed to enter into a unilateral undertaking under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The conditions of that agreement are that air transport movements at Stansted will be limited to 241,000 ATMs per annum; that the agreement will take effect immediately after the parliamentary PATM limit is revoked; and that the
Column Number: 6
agreement will continue until the ATM conditions in the Uttlesford planning consent have been effected by the opening of the terminal extension, or if further planning permission has been granted for air transport movements in excess of 241,000. Those conditions will apply unless the local planning authority and the airport operator reach a different agreement later.
People are rightly concerned that there would be a hiatus or gap between the parliamentary limits being revoked and the implementation of local limits such as those operating in every other airport. Through that section 106 agreement, BAA has restored the position to what is effectively the status quo—the limit imposed by the extant planning consent. That limit is not to be reached until the new terminal buildings that are part of that planning consent are built.
Mr. Prisk: The Minister referred to the local limit of 241,000 ATMs. Given that that figure now includes cargo as well as the passengers, will he inform the Committee how much increase that allows in passenger growth in terms of PATMs?
Mr. McNulty: It allows a level of increase agreed by Uttlesford district council. As I said, about 160,000 ATMs were carried out at Stansted last year. It will taken up to 241,000 in the context of the extant planning permission, when the terminal and all the assorted elements of the planning permission are completed. Quite when that is done is a matter for BAA and its ongoing negotiations with others about the application.
BAA has finalised its unilateral section 106 undertaking. Uttlesford district council received it on 25 June and the council is preparing to place it—as it must—on its local planning register.
Mr. Paul Marsden (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (LD): On present trends, when does the Minister expect the 241,000 ATMs to be exceeded?
Mr. McNulty: I have absolutely no idea. I do not have a crystal ball and I am not privy to the date when BAA will begin building its terminal. As I have said clearly and as the agreement for extant permission between Uttlesford district council and BAA states clearly, BAA will not be able to reach 241,000 ATMs until the terminal is built. If we simply removed the parliamentary limit and did not have section 106 filling the hiatus, BAA could in theory move to 241,000 without any further terminal construction.
Section 106 restores the prevailing position, save for the revocation of a parliamentary limit on air traffic movements. Any subsequent expansion and any subsequent limitation of that expansion will rightly be a matter in the first instance for Uttlesford as the local planning authority.
Column Number: 7
The unilateral undertaking will ensure that, once the statutory limit set by Parliament has been revoked, there will be no regulatory gap between it and the move to local regulation of the new limit of 241,000 ATMs. The draft order will revoke all three orders that have been made for Stansted PATM limits since 1987.
We consulted local community and environmental groups including Stop Stansted Expansion, which did not respond to the letter. There was and is no requirement to consult local people directly, although they have been consulted widely on Stansted expansion.
I would have thought that it was in everybody's interest to ensure that such important decisions, of which I do not make light, are in the first instance determined locally. The notion that Parliament should continue to dictate passenger limits at that one airport and at none of the others is inappropriate. Uttlesford, in line with our other consultations, should in the first instance be the body to set those limits, as is right and proper across the piece with all other airports and their relationships with local planning authorities, and as is in line with the planning framework. I commend the order to the Committee.
10.8 am
| 
