Cabinet AGREED to respond to Uttlesford District Council as follows:
(a) The South Cambridgeshire District Council retains its position set out in March 2006 of not supporting a second runway at Stansted, which would create serous environmental damage to the surrounding area and contribute to global warming.
(b) Without prejudice to that policy position the Council has assessed the current proposal and wishes to comment as follows-
(c) The second runway – The Council welcome the decision by BAA to opt for a segregated mode runway since this has a reduced environmental impact.
(d) Air movements – The Council is concerned that the capacity of the new runway is being designed to allow the use of large aircraft. With the need for NATS to consider further changes to aircraft movements as a result of the second runway this could result in larger aircraft as well as larger numbers of aircraft flying over this district.
(e) In considering the current consultation by NATS this Council is concerned that the intermittent noise pattern of aircraft using the West Stansted hold will disturb the communities living and working below the West Stansted hold and the implication of greater numbers of aircraft associated with a second runway will add to the disturbance.
(f) Increased capacity –Noise implications - The G2 project does not provide sufficient information for this Council to be able to fully assess the noise impact of the proposals. In 2006 additional information was requested of BAA and this has not been included in the current application. The Council would request that the wider noise implications of the second runway should be considered as part of the current application and that Uttlesford District Council should request that further information be obtained from BAA particularly the noise contour lines for 54 dB Leq and 50 dB Leq. In the absence of this information South Cambridgeshire has no option but to object to the proposed new runway.
(g) Infrastructure implications - The Council supports the improvements proposed to the M11 but recommends that further improvements are needed north to junction 14 since there will be significant additional traffic growth as a result of further development in the London / Stansted / Cambridge / Peterborough corridor as well as from the airport expansion. This should be included in the G2 proposals.
(h) The Council does not support the scale of the increase in car parking provision made in the G2 project. The Council request that additional facilities for coaches and buses be planned for as part of the G2 project and there should be more encouragement for passengers to have the choice to use coach services to get to and from the airport.
(i) The Council support the increase in rail capacity proposed but BAA should also include in their proposals additional track capacity to be provided north of Stansted to serve the growth corridor and passengers from the north.
(j) The Council request that until such time as vital improvements have been made to both road and rail facilities to serve the airport the proposed second runway should not be permitted.