TRANSFORMING

35+ PLANNING APPLICATION

Appendix 2.3

Summary of

Representations

on Scoping

Report

APPENDIX 2.3 – SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS ON SCOPING REPORT

Stansted Airport Environmental Statement – Volume 2 JCG 22596 February 2018 Consultation Request for EIA Scoping Opinion (UDC ref: UTT/17/1640/SO) Summary Stansted Airport 35+ Project

# From Contact Date Position Topics Summary

Statutory Consultees • Building heights - no new buildings proposed. Any lighting schemes to carefully consider aircraft piloting. STAL Aerodrome John Farrow, • Birdstrike risk - this may require management during construction. 1.01 Safeguarding 22/06/2017 Comment Major accidents Operations Director • Cranes - should any be required for construction, a separate assessment will be required. Authority • ES to include consideration of aerodrome safeguarding and impacts on aircraft safety.

David Green, City Director of 1.02 30/06/2017 Comment Surface access TA to include consideration of the B1008 (key route from Chelmsford to the airport). Council, Transport Sustainable Communities

Air quality ES to include: • Existing air quality levels for all relevant pollutants referred to in the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 and National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2002. • Forecasts of air quality at the time of the commencement of the proposed increases, (a) assuming that the scheme is not started (the 'future baseline'), and (b) taking account of the impact of the scheme, including when at full capacity. • Any significant air quality effects, their mitigation and any residual effects. Water resources • An assessment should fully quantify the increased demand and how and from where it will be resourced (details in Appendix 1 of the letter). Air quality Water quality Water resources Mr Graham Steel, • Further details of the improvements that have been completed at the balancing ponds should be described in the EIA. Environment Water quality 1.03 Sustainable Places 26/06/2017 Comment • Confirmation that the improvements can accommodate the increased drainage should be given and if not, further actions should be described and discussed. Agency Ecology Planning Advisor • The current or proposed improvements should be such that the capacity of the balancing ponds have been future proofed for climate change. Construction • The applicant is expected to approach TWUL to discuss the anticipated increased volumes of foul water. waste Ecology • The potential impacts on the Pincey Brook should be identified to ensure no negative impact on the Water Framework Directive classification for this waterbody which is currently "good". • The developer should carry out a screening exercise in order to determine if the development could lead to a deterioration in water quality. • The increases in traffic volumes taken with the cumulative impact of local housing growth indicates that the cumulative impact may cover a wider area than currently assessed. • Cumulative impacts with local housing growth on the nearby SSSIs should be considered: within 5km of the airport (, and High Wood Dunmow) and within 10km (Thorley Flood Pound, Garnetts Wood/Barnston Lays and ). Construction waste • Reference to the exportation of spoil or the importation of fill should be made in a site waste management plan.

Essex County Richard Havis, Council, Requirement for an assessment of the potential archaeological deposits surviving within the areas of development to accompany application. This will need to comprise a programme of trial trenching with 1.04 Principal Historic 08/06/2017 Comment Archaeology Archaeological potential excavation of archaeological deposits identified. Environment Advisor Advice

• An assessment of the impacts to air quality will have to include a focus on sensitive ecological receptors including the neighbouring Hatfield Forest SSSI and NNR and Elsenham Woods SSSI. • We recommend the inclusion of an ecology chapter because survey and assessment will still be required of Priority habitats and both protected and Priority species. • Should the LPA decide not to require an ecology chapter, the planning application will still need to be supported by adequate ecological survey & assessment. County Emma Simmonds, • A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) is also required to support this application, the results of which will determine whether further species surveys and/ or an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) will be 1.05 Council, Ecological Ecological 22/06/2017 Comment Ecology required. Advice Consultant • As this development is classed as a major development, the Essex Biodiversity Validation Checklist must be submitted with the application. • If the potential ecological impacts have been identified, a summary of the intended mitigation must be provided prior to determination. • Where European Protected Species (EPS) are concerned, UDC needs to be satisfied that the development will meet the three tests of the Habitats Directive.

Essex County Pre-application advice from the Essex Highway Authority must be sought before submitting a transport assessment (TA) in order agree the study area, scope and methodology of the TA as well in advance of 1.06 Council, Highway Katherine Wilkinson 23/06/2017 Comment Surface access the proposed EIA and planning application. Authority The scope of any FRA and Drainage Strategy should be in line with the following documents: Melissa Brushett, • Non-statutory technical standards for SuDS; Essex County Flood risk 1.07 Development & 07/07/2017 Comment • ECC’s adopted SuDS Design Guide; Council, SuDS Drainage Flood Risk Officer • CIRIA SuDS Manual (C753); and • BS8582 Code of Practice for Surface Water Management for Development Sites. Consultation Request for EIA Scoping Opinion (UDC ref: UTT/17/1640/SO) Summary Stansted Airport 35+ Project

# From Contact Date Position Topics Summary

• EIA to consider the cumulative impact of the proposal with other proposals associated with the airport. • Very limited reference is made to the 2015 SDP. • Planning context - no reference is made to the East Local Plan. Surface access • TA - to be prepared in accordance with the Roads in Hertfordshire Highway Design Guide 3rd Edition. • Trip generation - the profile profile should consider all elements of the development and justification for why peak periods are selected. • Trip distribution - required. To be justified as part of the TA. Consideration should also be given to traffic related to the construction phases. • Junction Assessments - consider committed developments. To be undertaken for the following scenarios: - 2016 - Base Conditions; - Forecast year - Base Conditions; - Forecast year - Base + Committed Development; - Forecast year - Base + Committed Development + Proposed Development; - Forecast year + 5 years - Base Conditions; Hertfordshire Cumulative Paul Donovan, - Forecast year + 5 years - Base + Committed Development; and, County Council, Planning 1.08 Spatial Planning and 26/06/2017 Comment - Forecast year + 5 years - Base + Committed Development + Proposed Development. Environment Surface access Economy • Highway safety - need to provide detailed collision data for the past 5 years as part of the TA. Department Ecology • Accessibility - new, diverted or extensions of existing public transport routes should be considered in consultation with HCC's Network and Travel Planning Team. • Stage 1 Road Safety Audit required. • Framework Travel Plan required - presumably incorporated in the TA. • CTMP (Construction Traffic Management Plan) likely to be required. • Contact HCC as adjacent Local Highway Authority to scope out in more detail the TA. Ecology • Unlikely that protected and priority habitats or protected and priority species within Hertfordshire will be directly affected. • Any increase in indirect effects (e.g. air quality or noise) should be extrapolated to cover Hertfordshire - e.g. increases in VOCs and NO2 in Wood (ancient woodland). Air Noise • The Scoping Report gives no indication of the likely implications of the London Airspace Management Programme and assumptions with regard to the progressive introduction of Performance Based Navigation • No reference is made to the 2015 SDP, particularly the following: "Our analysis shows that noise impacts will remain well below the limits previously established as part of the planning permission for Stansted to grow to 35mppa [...] The modelling shows the future noise footprint well below our permitted levels and lower than has been experienced in recent years."

Please and encouraged to see the commitment to undertake a HIA. Hertfordshire Professor Jim Recommendations: 1.09 County Council, McManus, Director 23/06/2017 Comment Public health • That the applicant offers assurance that the HIA will be fully inclusive of Hertfordshire's residents and communities. Public Health of Public Health • That the HIA study area and spatial scope of health pathways is confirmed with the Hertfordshire Public Health team. • That any data, evidence and intelligence needs in relation to Hertfordshire are communicated to HCC at the earliest opportunity.

Sarah Poppy, Assistant Inspector 1.10 Historic England 19/06/2017 Comment Archaeology Satisfied that this topic is scoped out. However, HE concurs with Richard Havis at ECC that an appropriate level if archaeological assessment is required to inform the planning application. of Ancient Monuments Consultation Request for EIA Scoping Opinion (UDC ref: UTT/17/1640/SO) Summary Stansted Airport 35+ Project

# From Contact Date Position Topics Summary

Ecology • The site is near Hatfield Forest SSSI, NNR, Elsenham Woods SSSI, Quendon Wood SSSI, High Wood Dunmow SSSI and, acting in combination with other plans or projects, may have an impact on SSSI and a likely significantly effect on Epping Forest SAC. • The ES should include a full assessment of the direct and indirect effects of the development on the features of special interest within these sites and should identify such mitigation measures as may be required in order to avoid, minimise or reduce any adverse significant effects. •The plan could have a likely significant effect on the internationally designated features of Epping Forest SAC and therefore will require assessment under the Habitats Regulations. We recommend that there should be a separate section of the ES to address impacts upon European and Ramsar sites entitled 'Information for Habitats Regulations Assessment'. • The scope of the EIA is currently too narrow and a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) is required to adequately assess the plan for likely significant effects on Epping Forest SAC, either alone and/or in combination with other plans or projects. • The scope of the EIA needs to adequately address concerns about the potential impacts (including direct, indirect and cumulative etc.) on the special features of Hatfield Forest SSSI, Elsenham Woods SSSI, Epping Forest SSSI, Quendon Wood SSSI, High Wood Dunmow SSSI. • The EIA will need to consider any impacts upon local wildlife and geological sites. The ES should therefore include an assessment of the likely impacts on the wildlife and geodiversity interests of such sites, including proposals for mitigation of any impacts and if appropriate, compensation measures. • A habitat survey (equivalent to Phase 2) is to be carried out on the site, in order to identify any important habitats present. In addition, ornithological, botanical and invertebrate surveys should be carried out at appropriate times in the year, to establish whether any scarce or priority species are present. The ES should include details of this. Ecology • Contacts for Local Records - Natural England does not hold local information on local sites, local landscape character and local or national biodiversity priority habitats and species; recommends that further Jamie Melvin, Lead Surface access information is sought from the appropriate bodies. 1.11 Natural England Adviser West Anglia 07/07/2017 Comment Air quality • Natural England would wish to see details of local landscape character areas mapped at a scale appropriate to the development site as well as any relevant management plans or strategies pertaining to the Team area. The EIA should include assessments of visual effects on the surrounding area and landscape together with any physical effects of the development, The EIA should include a full assessment of the potential impacts of the development on local landscape character using landscape assessment methodologies. Encourages the use of Landscape Character Assessment (LCA). • The EIA process should detail the measures to be taken to ensure the building design will be of a high standard, as well as detail of layout alternatives together with justification of the selected option in terms of landscape impact and benefit. • Recommends that soils should be considered under a more general heading of sustainable use of land and the ecosystem services they provide as a natural resource. • Ancient woodland is an irreplaceable resource. Surface access • The EIA should consider potential impacts on access land, public open land, rights of way and coastal access routes in the vicinity of the development. Consideration should also be given to the potential impacts on nearby National Trails. Air Quality • A key issue for the SSSls is the likely effect on Air Quality from construction, operations enabled and increased road traffic movements. The Air Quality monitoring and assessment needs to be sufficiently broad in scope and robust in methodology to enable a rigorous assessment, alone and in combination with other plans and projects. This may require collaboration with other respective authorities including Natural England. Other • Contribution to local environmental initiatives and priorities - due to the function of Stansted Airport, this development has the capacity to influence a wide geographical area and this is reflected to some degree within the scope of the necessary EIA. The iterative EIA process should allow for a full consideration of robust sustainable development solutions.

Wasil Khan, Town 1.12 Network Rail 14/06/2017 Comment Surface access TA to quantify in detail the likely impact on the rail network. Contact the NR's Asset Protection East Anglia Team in advance of works. Planning Technician

General • EIA should be based on existing conditions - more representative of overall impact. • The cumulative schemes to be considered must be agreed with UDC. Noise • An assessment of quantified noise impact detailed at the time will be of an advantage when undertaking comparison studies using current measured baseline data. The EIA must be clear about the uncertainties in the assessment methodology. • Information must be provided justifying the locations, times & dates of additional monitoring. Comprehensive details of site monitoring locations chosen for the baseline assessment required. It is recommended that a wider range of locations are chosen, together with longer monitoring locations. • Clarity about the overall impact from the new generation of aircraft is required. • It should be noted that when considering N60s, it is assumed that internally levels will be 45dB LAmax with windows partially open. The reduction afforded by partially opened windows is approx. 10 -15dB. Therefore consideration should also be given to N55 criteria. • It is recommended that the night noise levels are also presented in hourly LAeq measurements based on current trends over peak months. • Managers of Environmental Health Services at Braintree and Epping Forrest are unaware of the scoping consultation. District Marcus Watts, Noise • It is concerning that this application is being sought at a time of uncertainty over the implications of UK airspace policy. Consultation with the CAA and the Department for Transport on the proposed scoping Council, Principal EHO & Ann 1.13 10/07/2017 Comment Air quality report is recommended. In addition, the scoping report fails to have reference to Appendix B of the draft Airspace design guidance CAP 1520. Environmental Lee Moore, Public health Air quality Health Specialist EHO • Detail required for the air quality assessment: - release dates for the various sources of data for emission inventory - version of the Defra Emission Factor Toolkit used in the model - rationale for determining the ratio of NOx to NO2 - when setting out baseline conditions , the meteorological data must be for the same year as emission, background and monitoring data • A list and map of human and ecological receptors must be provided and agreed with UDC. • A comparison of the modelled results against measured data at more than one monitoring location will be necessary to identify discrepancies with the modelling output. • Construction phase - the impact of NO2 and PM10 emissions from construction related vehicles on access routes and on site must be addressed. The assessment must take account of traffic from committed development. • A statement on potential impact on PM 2.5 should be included. • A statement on the potential for an increase in odour and oily droplet complaints should be included. Public health • RPS should liaise with the WHO to obtain relevant published research evidence that it likely to include within the new WHO publication that is anticipated on the impacts of aviation noise.

Stop Stansted Brian Ross, Deputy 1.14 14/07/2017 Objection All See separate tab. Expansion Chairman Consultation Request for EIA Scoping Opinion (UDC ref: UTT/17/1640/SO) Summary Stansted Airport 35+ Project

# From Contact Date Position Topics Summary

• Agrees with Natural England's response dated 7th July 2017 in regards to concerns over Hatfield Forest. • The Forest has both ecological and historical importance due to its designations, scheduled monuments and listed buildings. • Requests that the EIA considers the impact on Hatfield Forest for during both the construction and operational stages, "for the direct, indirect, cumulative, short, medium and long term, permanent and Ecology temporary, positive and negative effects." Heritage 1.15 National Trust Nina Crabb 03/08/2017 Comment • There are particular concerns regarding the emissions of pollutants and the potential impact of increased tourism on the forest, with fears that the forest could reach 'Unfavourable Declining condition' should Air quality tourist numbers increase further and issues are not addressed. Socio-economic • Have requested that a baseline of the current environment be undertaken; that forecasting methods used and evidence used to predict likely effects is detailed; that for Hatfield Forest, impacts on biodiversity, air quality, cultural heritage and landscape are taken into account, particularly from the emission of pollutants, noise, vibration and visitors; and that mitigation measures are detailed. • Would also like the risks of major accidents and/or disasters deriving from the environmental vulnerability of the development to be considered.

• The EIA should assess and include the impacts on and its residents throughout. Air quality • The Council's Environmental Health team have found the air quality and noise methodologies to be "generally acceptable." Impact on Harlow's airspace should be minimised and air traffic directed away from Noise Harlow with a minimum height for overflights agreed if possible. 1.16 Harlow Council Mark Philpott 11/08/2017 Comment Surface access • Air quality and noise findings should be considered within the HIA. Climate change • Methodologies for transport and climate change are considered acceptable, as well as for the whole scope of the EIA. Public health • There are no significant developments in Harlow that could have significant cumulative effects.

• "Proposals should include measures to ensure that opportunities for access to and employment within the airport from East Herts are maximised, without impacting unduly on the local environment." • The assessment needs to be based on the difference between current passenger levels and the 44.5mppa case rather than the difference between 35mppa and 44.5mppa. Both sets of figures therefore need to be used as the baseline in comparison to the proposed levels in order to: "provide transparency; demonstrate the true scale of impact; and, allay concerns of residents." • Request that the policies from the emerging East Herts District Plan are included in future assessments. • The developer should seek pre-application advice from Essex Highway Authority and Hertfordshire County Council before submitting a TA in order to agree the study area, scope and methodology. Highways England should also be consulted on the implications to the M11. • Transport should look to extend opportunities for travel to the airport for residents and potential workers in East Herts e.g. by providing bus services to the 5 market towns at times that would enable Socio-economic employees to travel to the airport to accord with employee working hours. Surface access 1.17 East Herts Council N/A 11/08/2017 Comment • A commitment should be made to encourage rail travel and to the upgrade of the network and services. Noise • Infrastructure should be improved to enable "sustainable and emission free modes of transport" such as the improvement of cycling links to neighbouring areas such as Bishops Stortford. Air quality • The HIA should take into account East Herts residents and communities that may be affected by the proposal. • East Herts supports the comments made by UDC in regards to environmental health concerns and wish these areas to also be considered for East Herts. • Request that noise data be gathered and monitored in East Herts for sites affected by the flight paths e.g. Buzzard West and . • They would like to see air quality mitigation measures for any impacts from construction and use of new facilities that encompass the areas of East Herts affected in line with the East Herts Air Quality Action Plan. • The Council would like the cumulative effects to also be assessed for East Herts in regards to aircraft departures and arrivals. • They wish that UDC would notify them of airport consultations in the future.

• It is recommended that consideration be given to whether having a single combined movement limit may affect the analysis of impacts associated with this planning application. • ECC questions whether there is a need to provide businesses with certainty regarding the use of General Aviation and Cargo Air Traffic Movements, and not the approach advocated where the planning application is seeking a single movement limit. • Make reference to neighbouring authority Local Plans: Council; Harlow Council; Council; Chelmsford City Council; East Hertfordshire District Council; South Cambridgeshire District Council; Hertfordshire County Council; and Cambridge County Council. Furthermore it is important to note that ECC produces a range of polices, plans, programmes and strategies that may assist in shaping planning context. • Consideration to be given to the phasing and construction of the permitted development and existing planning application developments that are essential for the delivery of the best use of the existing runway (e.g. changing demand for new car parking facilities and/or how the bus terminal will adequately accommodate future growth at the airport). • List of consultees is out of date. Surface access: • TA to analyse the existing and predicted traffic. Surface access • Firm commitment to further reduce the ratio of car trips per passenger should be set out. Socio-economic • Further consideration be given to how growth at the airport may facilitate and support the role of the airport as a multi modal transportation interchange. Essex County Zhanine Smith, Public health 1.18 07/09/2017 Comment • It is recommended that the EIA considers the DfT Transport Investment Strategy – Moving Britain Ahead (July 2017). Impacts should be reviewed in light of the objectives set out within. Council Principal Planner Air noise • ECC does not consider that the range and scale of the roads to be assessed as part of the EIA is sufficient. Water • In the summary table of impacts (Table 7.1 of the Scoping Report) there are no references to cycle ways, car parking, or public transportation. • Baseline conditions that will inform the TA should be agreed by ECC and Highways England. Public health • ECC would welcome a meeting to discuss the EIA and HIA assessments with the local Directors of Public Health or their representatives as per the report. • ECC recommend that both the construction and operational phases on the proposed expansion be assessed by the EIA/HIA. • ECC wish to draw attention to the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) work which is part of Public Health England. ECC advise that very early engagement with Public Health England occurs. ECC also recommends that the invitation to the meeting with Department for Public Health is extended to them as described above. • ECC further recommends early engagement with NHS England and local relevant Clinical Commissioning Groups. Air noise • ECC recommend that the EIA assesses the implications of increased aircraft noise arising from the proposal on existing and future communities within Essex. Water • ECC recommend that consideration be given to surface water flooding and sustainable urban drainage.

Parish Councils Birchanger Parish Mr Alexander 2.01 06/07/2017 Objection Surface access In light of the large increase in local road traffic due to the current and planned residential development in the area, the application must be fiercely opposed. Council Stewart

Cressing Parish 2.02 Mrs Anna Tame 28/06/2017 Objection General Supports SSE for a "comprehensive, honest and thorough assessment of all environmental impacts". Council Consultation Request for EIA Scoping Opinion (UDC ref: UTT/17/1640/SO) Summary Stansted Airport 35+ Project

# From Contact Date Position Topics Summary

High Easter Parish Mrs Marilyn 2.03 06/07/2017 Objection Noise Regard should be taken of the nature of the intrusion and pollution of aircraft overflying. Council Darlington

• Noise - 70% of flights take off from Runway 22 and fly over at low altitudes; the proposed increases would be unbearable. A meeting with Nigel Brown confirmed that the noise limits in the village are over the WHO recommendations. Great Hallingbury Noise 2.04 Mrs Freda Townsend 03/07/2017 Objection • Surface access - M11 and J8 already heavily congested. Parish Council Surface access • 9.5mppa figure is to avoid government consultation. • ES to contain a "comprehensive, honest and thorough assessment of all environmental impacts".

Ickleton Parish • Consultation period not adequate - 12 weeks required. 2.05 Mr Terry Sadler 05/07/2017 Objection General Council • Supports SSE for a "comprehensive, honest and thorough assessment of all environmental impacts".

Reasons why the application should not be allowed: Noise • Noise - increasing number of flights flying at lower altitude than in previous years. Little Hadham Air quality 2.06 Mr Antony Hoodless 26/06/2017 Objection • Air quality and carbon - environmental pollution. Parish Council Carbon • Surface access - traffic and infrastructure around the airport are already a problem and any increase in numbers would cause major issues. Surface access • "Stansted has failed to deal with matters from previous expansion and numerous residents are suffering due to this while the airport makes huge profits for the few".

Noise • Noise and air quality - 70% of flights take off from Runway 22 and fly over Little Hallingbury; the proposed increases would be detrimental. Little Hallingbury 2.07 Mrs Freda Townsend 03/07/2017 Objection Air quality • Surface access - M11 and J8 already heavily congested. Parish Council Surface access • ES to contain a "comprehensive, honest and thorough assessment of all environmental impacts".

Stansted Parish 2.08 Mrs Emma Philbrick 19/06/2017 Comment General "The Parish Council will respond more fully in due course." Council • Concern over adverse environmental effects of the development. Parish Noise • One flight every 85 seconds. 2.09 Dena Ludford 23/06/2017 Objection Council Socio-economic • Socio-economic - strain on local housing need and increased employment. • Noise - need for reverberation survey within smaller rural towns and the noise vibration which is significantly higher when ricocheting off of buildings and residential development.

Noise Air quality • Air quality and carbon - increases in CO2, nitrous and nitic oxide, particulates, Blue Ice due to flights and supporting infrastructure. Increased CO2 from concrete production. Carbon • Noise - increased noise pollution. Wendens Ambo 2.10 Mrs Amanda Lindsell 10/07/2017 Objection Surface access • Surface access - increased traffic, wear and tear requiring road repairs, extra burden on railway. Parish Council Ecology • Other - rubber from tires containing toxic metals and other chemicals entering rivers and streams, adversely affecting wildlife. Increased water consumption and sewage output, resulting in increased nitrogen Water resources in rivers and streams. Water quality

• Unhelpful comparison between Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios, as the scenarios approved in 2008 have not occurred yet. • Application is premature: projections are unrealistic (demand for holiday flights and therefore passenger numbers likely to decrease); Ryanair's concerns over Brexit; Aviation NPS expected 2018. • 9.5 instead of 10mppa to avoid National Infrastructure Commission. • Noise - planes flying off their track and over Much Hadham affect residents; noise monitoring is not proposed to be undertaken in East Herts, however flights pass over here; Leq contours are not an Much Hadham Noise 2.11 Mrs P A Taylor 05/07/2017 Comments adequate measurement as they take into account periods of silence; N65 and N60 should measure noise at 55dB and 45dB instead; noise monitoring should also continue for the medium term (above 7,000ft); Parish Council Public health noise should be monitored at Green Tye (like it was before) as well; calculation should be made on both 274k and 285k ATM scenarios; modern aircraft are only 1-3dB quieter; ongoing redesign of aircraft space to be taken into consideration; no explanation for not providing forecasts beyond 2029; in 2023 the forecasts show an increase of 39k ATMs per annum; Parish Councils should be consulted on flight paths. • Public health - relation between noise and heart/blood pressure problems (study on Athens International Airport).

• EIA to be fully inclusive of all communities affected by noise, not just those surrounding the airport. • Applicant should recognise the deleterious impact of aircraft noise on the loss of tranquillity in overflown communities. Great Wratting Noise • EIA underestimates to the real environmental impacts affecting people by comparing the proposals to the levels which have yet to be attained. 2.12 Keith M Turner 07/07/2017 Objection Parish Council Public health • HIA to include Suffolk County Council as resident in the Stour Valley are overflown by aircraft from both Stansted and Luton. • 12 weeks should be allowed for comments, not 5. • The application should not be considered without the Airports NPS expected 2018.

• Requested more time to review the document. • Proposal is premature (current cap not used yet and a number of key airspace consultations underway). Parish • 10 fold increase in noise complaints due to increase in flightpath usage introduced in February 2016. 2.13 Mr Peter Watson 11/07/2017 Objection Noise Council • True lack of appreciation and understanding on the part of the airport for the levels of pollution, both noise and environmental, which would be generated by the additional 100,000 flights a year. • A full resolution to the increased noise disruption inflicted on those under the Clacton flightpaths as a result of the February 2016 flightpath usage changes should, in collaboration with communities, be agreed and instigated.

• The real increase is 104,000 flights per annum, in relation to current situation. Great Easton and 2.14 John Lewis 17/07/2017 Objection General • 83% increase in passenger numbers and 58% increase in flights will have a serious impact on the local community, especially exasperated by the local housing development currently under review. Parish Council • Hidden agenda to reopened second runway negotiations?

Thorley Parish 2.15 Russell Cox 18/07/2017 Objection General Fully supports SSE's submission and information requirements, which would add value to the ES. Council Consultation Request for EIA Scoping Opinion (UDC ref: UTT/17/1640/SO) Summary Stansted Airport 35+ Project

# From Contact Date Position Topics Summary • Permitted pax cap not reached yet. Widdington Parish Surface access • 11,000 ATMs corresponds to half a million car movements. The infrastructure in place cannot cope with this. 2.16 Mr Kevin Latham 19/07/2017 Objection Council Public health • Additional congestion and health impacts caused by increase in staff working at the airport and movement of lorries supplying goods and services. • The airport has to be responsible for the health impact of both additional flights and car movements.

• The comparison between the maximum currently permitted number of passengers (35mppa) and the higher proposed figure is inadequate. An additional comparison of the new proposal with the situation today is required. • Application is premature. Proposals need to be delayed until the government's proposals for air transport are clearer? By 2024 you'll be more informed about: 1 – The state of the economy as Brexit approaches/passes 2 – The reaction of your customers, including Ryanair, to the prevailing situation 3 – The labour market post-Brexit, for the construction and operation of an enlarged airport 4 – The impact of the Government’s air quality proposals (effects on car travel to the airport, requirements for charging points and possibly electricity in bulk, impact on aviation) 5 – Critically, the Government’s long overdue policy on air transport Birchanger Parish 2.17 28/07/2017 Comment • The 14,000 new homes proposed to built in Uttlesford require consultation. Increased traffic on both the A120 and sections of the M11 is inevitable. Council • Wishes that "individual aircraft flyovers are monitored, and wish to see a metric based on the number and noisiness of flights (something similar to the night flights scheme) prominently featured in the EIA." Should be included as a self-contained part of the analysis. • "The EIA should consider a worst-case scenario in which the new traffic is predominantly low-cost long-haul operators using elderly wide-body aircraft. You might also consider the effect of Ryanair reducing their operations because of Brexit, as they have threatened, and their routes being taken up by somebody with noisier aircraft." • Suggestions needed for independently enforced noise penalties •Believes that the assertion of 'no increase in rail capacity will be needed' is not credible • "When considering wider economic benefits, then the balance of trade should be included, as Stansted operations have tended to be negative so far. How can any assessment on employment be carried out until the issue of EU workers have been resolved?"

• Application is premature and speculative Braughing Parish General Surface • Major concerns surrounding highway capacity, specifically around Bishops Stortford, Stanstead, Harlow, M11 and A120. 2.18 Belinda Irons 06/08/2017 Objection Council access • Fully supports SSE's submission

• Fully supports SSE's submission Parish Congestion • Requires additional congestion and pollution assessment at each of the level crossings between Stanstead Airport and Liverpool Street, and Stanstead Airport and Cambridge. 2.19 Roger Clark 26/07/2017 Objection Council Air Pollution • Desires feasibility study of a direct link from the A120 westbound to the M11 northbound as a method of congestion relief.

• "It seems to many people outrageous that MAG/STAL should be seeking further increases whilst it seems to have absolutely no intention of fulfilling its legal obligation under the previously granted Broxted Parish permissions." "Show good faith and process these applications for compensation in a timely manner. In an ideal world we would expect UDC to make any further development at the airport conditional on them 2.20 Roger Clark 28/07/2017 Objection Compensation Council doing so."

• Fully supports SSE's submission Emphasises the importance of: • The Application being premature 2.21 Caroline Fuller 28/07/2017 Objection Surface access Town Council • The cumulative effects of proposed housing, particularly in Great Dunmow • Car parking influencing Great Dunmow • Traffic assessments for A120, B1256 and M11 Noise - Requires a full noise impact survey if full planning application is submitted Great Notley Parish Surface access 2.22 Suzanne Walker 25/07/2017 Comment Surface access - A120 traffic Council Noise

Hatfield Broad Oak 2.23 Ernie Fenwick 25/07/2017 Objection General Fully supports SSE's submission Parish Council

• Fully supports SSE's submission Surface access • Increased noise complaints following the move of the Dover flight path onto the Clacton route 2.24 Ernie Fenwick 24/07/2017 Objection Noise • Currently insufficient addressing of traffic and noise and air pollution concerns Parish Council Air quality • Surface access - traffic and infrastructure around the airport are already a problem and any increase in numbers would cause major issues. • Insufficient detail concerning water supply and sewerage • Fully supports SSE's submission • Baseline assessment should be based on current impact, not future theoretical levels • "The Parish Council also endorses a requirement to assess noise impacts over a wider area, extending 4 miles either side of the extended centre line for a distance of at least 12 miles from the threshold of Hempstead Parish Surface access 2.25 Martyn Long 27/07/2017 Objection each runway. The recognised significant noise generated when aircraft turn to join the extended centre line (due to increased engine thrust and banking) is not recognised or measured in the existing Council Noise assessment." • Surface access - "local traffic impacts on the B1051 from Broxted to Thaxted, the B1383 from Bishop Stortford to Newport and the B184 from Great Dunmow to Thaxted should be included in the road traffic impact assessment" Parish 2.26 N. J. Baker 27/07/2017 Objection General Fully supports SSE's submission Council Consultation Request for EIA Scoping Opinion (UDC ref: UTT/17/1640/SO) Summary Stansted Airport 35+ Project

# From Contact Date Position Topics Summary • Fully supports SSE's submission • Angered by Stansted Airport's scoping report statement of "no significant adverse environmental effects are predicted as a consequence of the proposed development" • Requires the future of Heathrow and Gatwick airports to be clarified before planning permission is granted. • Scoping study should not be based on the hypothetical differential between 35 and 44.5 mppa, but rather from the current 24 mppa. • Requires inclusion of further sensitivity to all flight paths. • Requires proof that "with the 44.5 mppa and 285,000 ATMs that there will be noise reduction associated with improved aircraft design" General • The EIA and ES must take into account the cumulative effects of the UDC local plan. "Particularly covering the cumulative effects on roads and other infrastructure." High Easter Parish 2.27 Allison Ward 27/07/2017 Objection Noise • "High Easter Parish Council specifically insist that the routes between Barnston (to the north) via High Easter to Chelmsford (south east) and (south west) are analysed for increased traffic Council Surface access resulting from potential combination of UDC Local Plan and Stansted impacts." • The Parish Council insists that the spatial scoping regarding noise pollution "is at least 25km from the midpoint, but sufficient distance to cover all aircraft up to 7,000ft which is the level at which the Governments considers that aircraft will no longer cause annoyance" due to a lack of recognition in the scoping report. • The changes in 2016 to Stansted departure routes have directly resulted in an increase in noise complaints from High Easter and therefore requires its inclusion for noise monitoring. • Background noise analysis was omitted from the High Easter noise monitoring report (2016). Overall this report is considered to be substandard compared to other noise consultants. • High Easter Parish Council encourage UDC to "urgently engage the necessary, independent, impartial, and competent technical Consultants to advice the Council on this Scoping Report and the expected planning application. If necessary UDC should hold back responses/approvals until such consultants are engaged."

• Application is premature. Still not operating anywhere near full capacity. • Noise complaints have increased as a result of flightpath change. Stebbing Parish Noise 2.28 Greg King 28/07/2017 Objection • Strongly disagrees with " no significant adverse environmental effects are predicted as a consequence of the proposed development" Council Air Quality • Increased levels of noise, light and environmental pollution

• Application is premature and speculative. Objects due to the fact that Stansted is already operating below capacity (35mppa). • Standon Parish Council has grave concerns surrounding current highway capacity which is already unable to service the existing demand. Particular congestion surrounding A120 which will be accentuated after commencement of Little Hadham bypass • The amount of housing development particularly around Bishops Stortford and Harlow will exacerbate this situation. Standon Parish 2.29 Belinda Irons 26/07/2017 Objection Surface access • The lack of public transport including rail means that travel to and from the airport tends to be by private car or taxi, which all add to the congestion on the local highway system. Council • Standon Parish Council would request that should any permission be granted for increase in air traffic at Stansted Airport, that Section 106 funds should be allocated to Herts County Council specifically for highway mitigation work in and around Standon parish both to the A120 and surrounding roads. • Fully supports SSE's submission.

Takeley Parish 2.30 Julia Peachey 27/07/2017 Objection General Endorses SSE's comments Council • The runway is operating below the capacity which was granted in 2008. Premature and speculative. • "Thundridge Parish Council has particular concerns surrounding current highway capacity which is already unable to service the existing demand. Significant issues around Bishops Stortford, Stansted, Harlow, M11, and A120 with a ‘knock on’ effect on the A505, A10, A14. The level of housing development particularly around Bishops Stortford and Harlow will exacerbate this already difficult situation. Adding Thundridge Parish 2.31 Belinda Irons 26/07/2017 Objection Surface access further airport traffic will make travel by road virtually impossible." Council • "The lack of public transport including rail means that travel to and from the airport tends to be by private car or taxi, which all add to the congestion on the local highway system. There is little hope of this situation being reversed in the near future." • Fully supports SSE's submission • Fully endorses SSE's submission • Requires consideration of the impact to highway network. Particularly M11, junction 8 and the A120 & B1256 from Stansted to Dunmow. The planned increase in housing development and increase in 2.32 Allison Ward 27/07/2017 Objection Surface access passenger numbers from existing levels will result in the highway network not being able to cope. Parish Council • The traffic flow baseline suggested is from 2015. Traffic has increased since. • "The Parish Council suggests consideration based on draft Uttlesford Plan. Impact of garden communities must be considered 2.33 Allison Ward 27/07/2017 Objection General Fully endorses SSE's submission Parish Council • Application is premature. Proposed increase is speculative Surface access • "Noise pollution on local populations has not been addressed. Night flights are particularly disruptive." Chrishall Parish 2.34 Belinda Irons 26/07/2017 Objection Carbon • "Climate change must be a major focus going forward." "Airports must mitigate the full carbon costs of their operations." Council Noise • Major concerns surrounding highway capacity, specifically around Bishops Stortford, Stanstead, Harlow, M11 and A120. • Fully supports SSE's submission

• Believe that the methodology of assessing the 'Do Minimum' and 'Do Something' scenarios for 2023 are not in accordance with convention and best practice standards. • The methodology of using 11 year old environmental data from assessments undertaken in 2006 should be rejected unless recognised by a competent authority. • Believe that the Planning Application is being rushed due to the short timescales and any decision from UDC would be based on inadequate data and consultation. • Should wait for the Government White Paper on Aviation Policy to be released so this can be assessed. • The Council recognises the importance of the airport but is insistent that people living locally need full protection in terms of health and infrastructure. Methodology • They believe the key topics for inclusion are air noise, ground noise, air quality, road and traffic, demand for housing, public transport; other issues such as 'water usage and the proper assessment of ecology, Noise biodiversity and archaeological impacts.'; and socio-economic effects, including those on tourism. Air quality Stansted • Noise monitoring that took place in 2015 is inadequate and does not allow for natural variations in climatic conditions. Helicopter flights are also not considered. Surface access 2.35 Mountfitchet Parish Ruth Clifford 03/08/2017 Comment • The noise effect of reverse thrust when aircraft are slowing down should be added to the scope of the EIA. Socio-economic Council • Believe the 'likely' deterioration of air quality may potentially lead to serious health impacts. State that up to date, long term modelling covering NOx, Sox, PM10 and PM2.5 is essential to allow measures to be Water implemented to protect vulnerable people and protected ancient woodlands. Ecology • State that increased traffic caused by more passengers would likely cause gridlock on major and minor roads, especially when considering cumulative traffic impacts with other developments. • • • The Archaeology methodology for assessing traffic flows should be based on current traffic volumes rather than those forecast for 2023 under the 'Do Minimum' Scenario. Public transport use should be encouraged to address this. • Depreciation of housing values needs to be considered in the socio-economic chapter, in addition to the net tourism deficit. • The 5 week consultation period is too short. • Without the above changes taking place and based on the details in the Scoping Report, the ES would be deeply flawed and not fit for purpose.

Galleywood Parish 2.36 Nicola Caton 02/08/2017 Comment General No comment - link not accessed due to "flagged up hacking problems on the public access portal" Council Consultation Request for EIA Scoping Opinion (UDC ref: UTT/17/1640/SO) Summary Stansted Airport 35+ Project

# From Contact Date Position Topics Summary • Vigorously oppose the increase in aircraft stacking at low altitudes over Helions Bumpstead in dense air with frequent turns. • The temperature, density of the air and the turns make the planes inefficient and exacerbate carbon dioxide emissions and chemical, particulate, aural and microwave pollution. • Critical of the insouciance that the commercial aircraft industry displays towards global warming and toxic air pollution which is exemplified by aircraft flying in pointless circles around an airfield waiting for a Noise Helions Bumpstead landing slot. 2.37 Cathryn Carlisle 01/12/2017 Comment Air Quality Parish Council • Increasing rate of pollution and CO2 production. Carbon • Stacking aircraft is a wasteful and pollutiong contributor to global warming. • Stacking could easily be avoided. • Pollution damage to health and environment.

General Public 9 Meadowlands, 3.001 Mr Jeff Barnes 25/06/2017 Objection General A wholly comprehensive and thorough assessment will surely disprove the claim that the proposed development will have no significant adverse environmental impacts. Bishops Stortford • resident for 17 years. 59 Stanley Road, • Development needed to help support the capacity in London as Gatwick and Heathrow are pretty much full. 3.002 Mr Marco Passfield Great Chesterford, 10/06/2017 Support General • Brilliant for economy and local jobs. • Should have 2nd runway - fewer homes affected than by Heathrow 3rd runway. • Represents the views of 100s of local residents that have signed a petition with regard to illegal noise. • Number of complaints has increased over time, which is unacceptable. 2 Rectory Field, • Up to date environmental noise impact surveys to be carried out at Harlow and surrounding villages. 3.003 Mr Lee Munden Harlow, Essex, 12/06/2017 Objection Noise • Latest technological advancements necessary (e.g. runway 04 does not have CDA). CM19 4HD • Mr Wiggan (Head of External Affairs at London Stansted Airport) agrees that aircraft flying over Harlow Town should be at a higher altitude than is currently the case but they cannot do so because of constraints. • Any expansion must include a revision of the operational framework which is significantly outdated. • Permitted cap not fully utilised yet. • It is "completely illogical, frankly mad" to claim that an increase of 11,000 flight would not impact the local environment. Winterleigh, Langley, Noise • M11, M11 intersection and service station already congested. 3.004 Mr Andrew Gates Upper Green, 20/06/2017 Objection Surface access • Litter problem around the airport. Saffron Walden • "A flight every 85 seconds? This is horrible." • Noise issues starting at 6am. Moorswood, 330 • Elderly neighbours who last received homeowner compensation 20 years ago. Still awaiting compensation for increases to 15mppa and 25mppa. Mr Hilary and Birchanger Lane, 3.005 23/06/2017 Objection General • Considering returning to the courts. Elizabeth Godwin Birchanger, Bishops • Unnecessary expansion at this time. Stortford

Flat 1, Glebe House, • This huge increase in flights will have environmental impacts. 3.006 Mr Peter Lemer Gt. Hallingbury, 23/06/2017 Objection Noise • Cracking secondary glazing system installed 20 years ago does not even cover the attic flat. Bishops Stortford • No benefit from expansion. Seeking peace and quiet.

Crumble Cottage, • Extra 2,000 flights a week. 3.007 Mrs Carolyn Legg 24/06/2017 Objection General Thaxted, Essex • 5 week decision period not enough, need at least 3 months.

12 Yeoman's Close, 3.008 Mr Jeremy Manton 24/06/2017 Comment General Requires "comprehensive, honest and thorough assessment of all environmental impacts". Bishops Stortford

Oak House Noise • Noise and air quality - increased flights mean increased noise and air pollution. Assessments to cover a much wider area. 3.009 Mrs Sarah Price Bumpstead Road, 24/06/2017 Objection Air quality • CDA should be encouraged. Hempstead

Hornbeam Cottage, 3.010 Mr Paul Chater 25/06/2017 Objection General Requires "comprehensive, honest and thorough assessment of all environmental impacts". Starr Road, Henham

28 Bush End, • Application is premature and opportunistic. 3.011 Ms Claudie Nedelec , Bishops 25/06/2017 Objection General • Requires "comprehensive, honest and thorough assessment of all environmental impacts". Stortford Beam End, Duck 3.012 Mr Geoffrey Rusby Street, Saffron 25/06/2017 Objection General Application is premature and the environmental impacts could be enormous. Walden South Cottage, • Timescale and manner of presentation suggest that the company is putting itself in a position to ignore the concerns of the local population. 3.013 Mr R John Scott Union Lane, 26/06/2017 Objection General • Previous concerns raised by the SSE campaign should be dealt with first. Wortham Diss

• Requires "comprehensive, honest and thorough assessment of all environmental impacts". 13 Barkers Mead, Noise • Noise - already very noisy and will increase. 3.014 Mr Andrew Trim Little Hallingbury, 26/06/2017 Objection Air quality • Additional employees will need houses, schools, doctors, etc. Bishops Stortford Socio-economic • Surface access and air quality - extra congestion and pollution from cars, trains and buses as well as aircraft.

• Application is premature. 55 Woodfields, Noise • 104,000 extra flights resulting in corresponding increase of road user. 3.015 Mr Jonathan Fox Stansted, Essex 27/06/2017 Objection Surface access • Interval between aircraft reduced form 2 minutes to 85 seconds. CM24 8AL Carbon • Reference to Climate Change Act and Paris Agreement with regard to increasing carbon emissions. Consultation Request for EIA Scoping Opinion (UDC ref: UTT/17/1640/SO) Summary Stansted Airport 35+ Project

# From Contact Date Position Topics Summary • Noise - already several complaints placed with regard to overflying and noise. Wyndham House, • "Increase of 83% in passenger throughput and 58% uplift in flight numbers against 2016 figures". Noise Wicken Road, • Surface access - M11 and other local routes already struggling. 3.016 Mr Jeremy Veitch 27/06/2017 Objection Air quality Clavering, Saffron • Noise - a flight every 85 seconds. Surface access Walden • Air quality - impacts on Hatfield Forest. • Requires "comprehensive, honest and thorough assessment of all environmental impacts".

• Stansted is yet to use the capacity granted in 2008. Thorough and independent assessment required for: 65 Cuckoo Way, Noise • Noise - flight frequency, height and noise impacts on residents. 3.017 Miss Debra Blundell Great Notley, 28/06/2017 Objection Air quality • Air quality - impacts of pollution on health and the environment. Braintree Surface access • Surface access - impacts on local network and services, including amenities.

• "MAG have no moral conscience or consideration for the local community". • 5 weeks for Scoping Opinion not enough for a "comprehensive, honest and thorough assessment of environmental impacts, which will be severe and widespread". S Cottage, Leaden, 3.018 Ms J Buckingham 28/06/2017 Objection General • 35mppa cap is years away. Roding • MAG should pay long overdue compensation to neighbours for property devaluation. • "Beautiful rural Uttlesford does not need any more development". 6 West Hayes, Noise 3.019 Mr Richard Connor Hatfield Heath, 28/06/2017 Objection Requires "comprehensive, honest and thorough assessment of all environmental impacts". Air quality Bishops Stortford • 35mppa cap far away. Rose Barn, The Noise • Heathrow and Southend expansions make this development superfluous. 3.020 Dr Paul Davies Street, Little 28/06/2017 Objection Air quality • EIA to be a thorough assessment of the utmost probity. Dunmow Surface access • Increased public concern about road congestion and air and noise pollution. • Concerned by the proximity of the A120 to the aircraft landing. • Overflying and noise worsened since June 2016. Mrs Samantha Appleby, Cradle End, 3.021 28/06/2017 Objection Noise • No explanation provided to complaints. Hoodless Little Hadham, Ware • Significant noise disturbance in otherwise peaceful rural countryside. Mr Antony 3 The Maypole, 3.022 28/06/2017 Objection General Supports the response of Thaxted Parish Council. Wordsworth Thaxted Noise Air quality 3.023 Mrs Hazel Taylor 61 Ladyshot, Harlow 29/06/2017 Objection All these topics will be impacted by the proposals. Surface access Major accidents Noise Upland Road, • Area affected by traffic gridlock and quality of life affected by night noise pollution. 3.024 Ms L Eastwood 30/06/2017 Objection Air quality Thornwood • No reason why Stansted should be allowed more flights and expansion. Surface access 63 Abbey Street, 3.025 Mrs Rachel Radford Ickleton, Saffron 01/07/2017 Objection General Requires "comprehensive, honest and thorough assessment of all environmental impacts". Walden • "Local residents lives have already been devastated due to Stansted's recent forced changes to outbound flightpaths". Noise Glaven House, The • Independent aviation experts have told Stansted that there are more suitable alternatives. 3.026 Mr John Gamby 02/07/2017 Objection Air quality Street, High Easter • Adverse effects such as flight frequency, sleep deprivation caused by flight times, flight height, noise levels and increased pollution levels. Public health • Permitted cap not reached yet. The Old Post Office, • Extra 20mppa and 180,000 flights. 3.027 Mr Mike Parnell High Easter, 02/07/2017 Objection General • Thorough assessment required, especially with regard to noise. Chelmsford • Application should wait until publication of new national policy for UK airports. Lower Maisonette, Mr Harry Boggis- 3.028 72 Mildmay Grove, 03/07/2017 Objection General A comprehensive and realistic EIA is certain to demonstrate very substantial adverse impacts in Essex. Rolfe South London Maylillys, The Street, • This is an application to pave the way for a second runway. 3.029 Mr Sidney Brand High Easter, 03/07/2017 Objection General • 105,000 extra flights. Chelmsford • The proposal has few positives, other than profits for the airport owners and airline operators, "who class local people as collateral damage". Kelele Cottage, Mr Richard Norman Noise • A120 already at capacity at certain times of the day. 3.030 Braintree Road, 03/07/2017 Objection (Councillor) Surface access • Flown over communities will be affected by increase in flights. Shalford

The Bowling Green, Noise • The rates of increase of Stansted Airport expansion and housing development within Great Dunmow are frightening. 3.031 Mr Bruce Drew 8 The Downs, Great 06/07/2017 Objection Air quality • Uttlesford has no need to further enhance its current economic development - other parts of Britain do. Dunmow

• approx. 13miles from Stansted, however flights are noticeable especially in the evening. Northcroft, 42 North Noise 3.032 Mr Richard Turner 07/07/2017 Objection • Noise levels would become objectionable Street, Nazeing Surface access • Surface access - the Broxbourne rail connection to London would become overloaded. What will be done about car parking? How much money is being supplied towards road and rail improvements?

• A plane every 80 seconds instead of current 150 seconds will affect those under the flight paths. 4 Benton Street, Noise 3.033 Mr Mark Dawson 07/07/2017 Objection • M11 is not wide enough for extra traffic and A120 from Braintree to Marks Tye is inadequate and already used as a car park. Hadleigh Surface access • Railway already inadequate with full trains at peak times. Consultation Request for EIA Scoping Opinion (UDC ref: UTT/17/1640/SO) Summary Stansted Airport 35+ Project

# From Contact Date Position Topics Summary • Harlow does not have operating restrictions regarding the number and height of flights (Bishops Stortford, Sawbridgeworth and do). Harlow residents are being treated as second class 37 Brynghams 3.034 Mrs Jane Griffiths 07/07/2017 Objection Noise citizens with regard to aircraft noise. The proposal will exacerbate the problem, especially night noise. Harlow • The relocation of PHE to an area under the flight path should also be considered (dangerous pathogens stored there). Walnut Tree House, Noise • Noise unacceptable. 3.035 Mrs M Morris Acorn Street, 07/07/2017 Objection Surface access • Increasing air pollution is affecting health. Hunsdon Public health • M11 congested already - inadequate infrastructure. 40 Butlers Way, 3.036 Mrs Anne Barber Great Yeldham, 08/07/2017 Objection Noise Noise affecting sleep, especially during hot days and when aircraft "go into reverse gear!!"

White House, High Noise • Noise - increasing the number of flights will worsen noise pollution, especially at night. 3.037 Mr Anthony Hudson Street, Debden, 08/07/2017 Objection Air quality • Air quality - air pollution will also worsen. Saffron Walden Surface access • Surface access - the road through Debden has already got busier as it is used to avoid traffic on the main routes.

Flat 1, Glebe House, 3.038 Mr Peter Lemer Gt. Hallingbury, 08/07/2017 Objection Surface access Surrounding roads, especially A120, incredibly congested; an improved traffic management system should be included in the proposals. Bishops Stortford

"This is a manipulation of process": 2 Greenfields, • Airport has already got capacity to grow by 40%. Submission takes advantage of UDC struggling with the District Plan. 3.039 Mrs J McDonald Stansted 09/07/2017 Objection General • 9.5 instead of 10mppa to avoid more in-depth investigation by a higher authority. Mountfitchet • Statement "no significant adverse environmental effects" is "crass, dishonest and totally untrue". • Capacity granted in 2008 not used yet. • Airport parking is an issue. Noise • Off-duty airport staff party until the early hours. 18 Millcroft, Bishops 3.040 Mrs Debbs Munro 09/07/2017 Objection Air quality • Recent consultations have been "fraught with inaccurate information". Stortford, CM23 2BP Surface access • All information needs to be assessed independently and be an honest view of impact. • The impact of Gilston Park Estate should be factored in (10,000 homes). • Pollution at Hockerill Crossroads one of the highest measurements in the country. 48 Tyler Avenue, 3.041 Mr Andy Smith Flitch Green, 10/07/2017 Objection Noise Impacts of additional 10,000 flights are unacceptable. Dunmow Noise • Increased air pollution. Tyler Avenue, Flitch 3.042 Mrs Sharina Smith 10/07/2017 Objection Air quality • Increased noise. Green, Dunmow Surface access • Increased traffic on M11 J8.

1 Park Cottages, • Increased noise pollution. New Common, Little Noise 3.043 Mr Paul Newman 11/07/2017 Objection • One aircraft every 85 instead of 135 seconds. Hallingbury, Bishops Surface access • Inadequate capacity of local roads. Stortford

Willow Cottage, • Aircraft do not seem to be getting quieter. 3.044 Mr Martin Bedwell Cage End, Hatfield 12/07/2017 Objection Noise • Uncomfortable noise levels. Broad Oak 74 Broadleaf 3.045 Mr Paul Askew Avenue, Bishops 12/07/2017 Objection General Requires "comprehensive, honest and thorough assessment of all environmental impacts". Stortford (On behalf of the five Wallbury Dells - Iron Age Hilltop Fort, residents) • "The track record of BAA and now MAG, continues to show that with carefully worded legal innuendo, delaying tactics and disinformation, they have a complete disregard for OUR communities in the areas surrounding the airport". Wallbury Dells • "As usual, another carefully worded document, prepared by their legal team"... "leaving their lawyers plenty of scope to defend this idiotic claim". Mr Raymond Cottage, Dell Lane, 3.046 12/07/2017 Objection General • An aircraft every 85 seconds. Beverley Little Hallingbury, • Tells the story of his life in the area. Invites the board of Stansted Airport to Sunday lunch at his house. Bishops Stortford • Glazing installed by BAA unsuitable. • Many problems with compensation over the years. • This new application will be cause of concern for property values in the area. • "This application would be a 'backdoor' way by which MAG could place themselves in a position whereby a future application for a 2nd runway would be much more likely to succeed". • Noise - night flights (which should be banned) would probably increase and worsen the already intolerable noise pollution; cannot enjoy the gardens during summer months. Hilltop, Hempstead Noise 3.047 Mr Nick Callaghan 12/07/2017 Objection • Air quality - inevitable increase in air pollution from increased flights and associated increase in vehicle traffic. Road, Radwinter Air quality • "Emphasis should be on a fairer distribution of non-local holiday flights to the regional airports more local to the passenger". • There should be a scaling back of passenger numbers at Stansted over time, particularly night flights, rather than an increase. 8 Chichester Drive, 3.048 Mrs Marina Wood Springfield, 13/07/2017 Objection General Supports SSE for a "comprehensive, honest and thorough assessment of all environmental impacts". Chelmsford Thyme Cottage, Bartholomew Green, • Vacuum between Stansted airport and their awareness of the true impact they have on local communities. 3.049 Mr Andrew Bennett 13/07/2017 Objection Noise Gt Leighs, • Noise complaints to the airport have increased 10 fold since NATS changed routings for planes in February 2016. Chelmsford Consultation Request for EIA Scoping Opinion (UDC ref: UTT/17/1640/SO) Summary Stansted Airport 35+ Project

# From Contact Date Position Topics Summary Rose Cottage, New Mrs Robyn "I am vehemently opposed to the increase of flights from Stansted and believe that the environmental assessment has been rushed and hasn't comprehensively considered the impact on local wildlife or the 3.050 Green, Bardfield 14/07/2017 Objection General Cornelius potential impact of those living under or near the flight path. I find this proposal to be ill conceived and under researched". Saling, Braintree

10 Hall Farm Green, 3.051 Mr Richard Gleed 14/07/2017 Objection General Having read SSE's materials, required extension of consultation to 12 weeks. Great Saling

Rose Cottage, Half • The airport still has a capacity to increase passenger numbers by around 10 mppa. 3.052 Mr Peter Rodgers Acre Lane, Great 14/07/2017 Objection Noise • Living under the flight path is bad enough now but more planes would simply bring further misery to residents. Hormead Mr & Mrs G R 14 Vine Way, CM14 3.053 11/07/2017 Support General "Fully supports the arrivals building application at Stansted Airport". Creighton 4UU • Requires appropriate timescale - 5 week consultation not enough. • Requires "comprehensive, honest and thorough assessment of all environmental impacts". Rose Cottage, Noise • Stansted only has 1 artery motorway, the M11 which is already full to capacity - the possibility of an 80% increase in traffic in preposterous. 3.054 Mrs Carol Foulser , 15/07/2017 Objection Surface access • There are no plans in place in the coming Epping Forest District Plan to upgrade any of the infrastructure in this area for the next 17 years. Harlow • To increase the current amount of domestic flights by 58% would be unbearable, equating to an airplane going over our heads at almost 1 every minute. • This EIA Scoping Report has got to be conducted properly. Cosy Cottage, 2 The Noise • Already too many noisy jets overhead. 3.055 Mr Colin Mason Chase, Church End, 16/07/2017 Objection Air quality • Extra 2,000 flights a week; from current average of a plane every 2.25 minutes to one every 85 seconds; Stebbing Surface access • Noise, air quality and especially road and rail transport impacts. Holly Cottage, John and Coral 3.056 Stebbing Green, 17/07/2017 Objection General Endorses SSE's submission. Glancey Dunmow, CM6 3TE • Suffers from sleep deprivation. The Street, High Noise • Impossible to enjoy gardens because of noise, vibration and pollution. 3.057 John Gamby Easter, Chelmsford, 17/07/2017 Objection Air quality • Life intolerable since the change of the outbound flight path. Essex, CM1 4QS Public health • "Stansted Airport are ignoring their social, ethical and moral responsibilities and are releasing false propaganda over their application and are bullying and intimidating all local villages and residents which are under Uttlesford area of responsibility". Livery Cottage, High Derek & Gillian 3.058 Street, Stebbing, 17/07/2017 Objection General Endorses SSE's submission. Towler CM6 3SQ • 44.5mppa is 78% increase. The potential increased in air pollution as a result of this is too high. 31 Harvey Way, • Luton improving links to London, and Gatwick and Heathrow looking to increase capacity - will affect Stansted. 3.059 Ms S A Evans Saffron Walden, 17/07/2017 Objection Air quality • Premature application ahead of publication of Airports NTS. Essex, CB10 2AP • 5 weeks consultation not enough. Previous application allowed for 4 months. • Requires "comprehensive, honest and thorough assessment of all environmental impacts".

3.060 Ms Kathleen Abbott Crouches 26/07/2017 Objection General Endorses SSE's submission.

71 Stortford Road, • Endorses SSE's submission 3.061 Mr David Aldridge Great Dunmow, 28/07/2017 Objection General • They should "evaluate and mitigate the dramatic impact which their proposals will have on the environment" Essex, CM6 1DL • Overnight noise affects sleep. Noise levels are sometimes obtrusive. "Can someone confirm this won't get worse if numbers increase?" 17 Bond Street, • Worried about value and saleability of their house Noise 3.062 Ms Sarah Ball Chelmsford, Essex, 27/07/2017 Objection • Increase stress of local Infrastructure including train links to London and the area surrounding A120 Surface access CM6 1LE • Environmental worries for location such as Hatfield Forest & Elsenham Woods • "Shouldn't we be investing in things that protect nature and the environment, rather than destroying them." Sheldrakes, Green 3.063 Mr Christopher Ball Street, Great 27/07/2017 Objection General Endorses SSE's submission. Canfield, CM6 1LE Sheldrakes, Green 3.064 Mrs Susan Ball Street, Great 27/07/2017 Objection General Endorses SSE's submission. Canfield, CM6 1LE Woodside, Smith's 3.065 P A Barber Green, Takeley, 30/07/2017 Objection General Endorses SSE's submission. "44mppa is premature and unnecessary given that it already has permission to increase to 35mppa and its current throughput is, I believe, some 25-26mppa." CM22 6NX 24 Chantry Close, • "Stanstead is a noisy and dirty neighbour" "Failure to provide timely and adequate compensation for homeowners affected noise level increases by earlier air traffic growth" Noise 3.066 Mr Richard Barnett Bishop's Stortford, 28/07/2017 Objection • Requires independent surveying of current air and noise pollution levels in nearby areas. Namely Hallingbury, the Hadham, Hatfield Heath, Takeley and Broxted. Air quality CM23 2SN • Requires establishment of baseline to "provide real and objective standards against which MAG could be judged" • Endorses and supports SSE's submission Mr Robert Beer 1 Parsonage Farm • Endorses and supports the UDC's submission 'Environmental Health Comments for EIA Scoping Opinion Application' (Chair of EARAG - Barns, High Easter, • In particular the comment that "The Scoping document appears to assess impact from the permitted total ATMs are 274,000, (Generation One application - 2006) to 285,000. The EIA should be based on the 3.067 Easters and 28/07/2017 Objection General Chelmsford, CM1 existing ATMs of approximately 181,000 and therefore representative of the net increase of 104,000 ATM (36%) by 2029. This equates to an increase of approx.8500 additional flights each year. It is the opinion Rodings Action 4QZ of this service that using the existing conditions for the baseline model will be more representative of overall impact." Group) • "Baseline data should reflect the current situation and not some 'wish' target. This underlines our comment on the poor approach to data forecasting and lack of scenarios in the application.

Burton Bury, Burton 3.068 Mr Michael Belcher 27/07/2017 Objection General Endorses SSE's submission End, Stansted Consultation Request for EIA Scoping Opinion (UDC ref: UTT/17/1640/SO) Summary Stansted Airport 35+ Project

# From Contact Date Position Topics Summary

• Objects to comment that "increased flights would have no significant environmental impact" • "Stanstead has done nothing to address residents concerns" around noise burden. "In a quiet rural area, an outward-bound plane is audible for between 45 and 55 seconds, depending on type, and adds up to 30dB to the normal ambient noise levels as it flies directly overhead. 11,000 extra flights is over 150 hours of extra noise: and, as it is 'waves' of intermittent noise rather than continuous noise, it is extremely tiring and debilitating to those of us overflown • Endorses SSE's submission Many issues need to be addressed better including: Thyme Cottage, • What Stansted plan to do to solve the existing hugely increased aircraft noise problems for many local rural communities that it has created since February 2016, Noise Bartholomew Green, • The effects of Brexit on the numbers of passengers that will actually be wanting to fly from Stansted in future 3.069 Mrs K Bennett 28/07/2017 Objection Air quality Gt Leighs, • Whether Ryanair will continue to operate from Stansted post-Brexit Surface access Chelmsford • Whether other airlines will wish to operate from Stansted, given that the Heathrow 3rd runway has now been agreed • The effect on air quality - many beekeepers who live under the flightpaths have already noticed otherwise unexplained and concerning declines in colonies. • Nitrous oxide emissions and how these relate to the recent government pronouncements to drastically cut them over the next 30 years • What NATS'/CAA's plans are with regard to changing flight routings to mitigate current noise nuisance • The capacity of the local road and rail networks to cope with increased passenger numbers - particularly in the light of the many many thousands of extra houses that UDC and Braintree and Chelmsford DCs are also planning for the local area in the same period • What Stansted plan to do to regain the confidence of local communities by properly listening and actively responding to their concerns as and when they arise

The following items must be included in the scoping opinion: • Societal risk Noise • Public safety zones Ernst Melchior Air quality Better compliance with 3.070 Miss Deborah Bryce Gasse 11/3/24 28/07/2017 Comment Ecology • Air Quality Directive Vienna Major accidents • Noise Directive - use of WHO guidelines instead of basic Leq Cumulative • Habitats Directive - better assessment of interconnection between SSSIs and habitat • NERC Biodiversity Duty Consider the impacts of flight paths from all London airports

Woodside, Stebbing Green, Stebbing, 3.071 Mr L Christie 28/07/2017 Objection General Endorses SSE's submission. Dunmow, Essex, CM6 3TE

Woodside, Stebbing • Endorses SSE's submission. Green, Stebbing, 3.072 Ros Christie 28/07/2017 Objection Noise • Concerned about noise pollution during both day and night Dunmow, Essex, CM6 3TE

• Increased discarding of rubbish from drivers in cars 3.073 W J Clarkson 117 The Thatchers 26/07/2017 Objection General • Endorses SSE's submission. Pantiles, Bedlars • Supports SSE's submission Green, Great Mrs Christine J Noise • Concerned with increased level and frequency of noise 3.074 Hallingbury, Bishop's 27/07/2017 Objection Coultrop Surface access • Congestion on A120, B1256 and M11 junction 8 roundabout Stortford, Herts, • Inadequate compensation. Requires specific provisos for future compensation to residents. CM22 7TL Oakmeads, Brick Sarah and Andrew End Broxted, 3.075 28/07/2017 Objection General Endorses SSE's submission Cousins Dunmow, Essex, CM6 2BJ Springfield, 49 Noise 3.076 Mr David Osgood Bardfield Road, 26/07/2017 Objection Added noise due to overflying at Thaxted. Pressure on local roads. Surface access Thaxted, Dunmow Kingston Barn, High Marilyn and Maurice • Endorses SSE's submission 3.077 Easter, Essex, CM1 28/07/2017 Objection Noise Darlington • "The continuous noise of aircraft in our normally quiet rural area is already untenable." 4QL • Endorses SSE's submission Noise 27 Brocks Mead, • "The noise and disturbance on my village of Great Easton would be significant and the pressure on the whole road network is not being fully taken into account by the airport or by UDC. It would ruin my Surface access 3.078 Mrs Jackie Deane Great Easton, 28/07/2017 Objection family's quality of life." Public health Dunmow • Financial contributions towards road junction improvements do not solve the congestion problems recreated. Socio-economic • Airport jobs promised to Epping and Harlow are now available to residents of the new housing developments in Uttlesford.

13 Trinity Road, 3.079 E. J. Dixon 27/07/2017 Objection General "The Scoping Report must take much more seriously the damaging environmental and social costs of any expansion in air traffic." , CM11 2RT

• Scoping report needs to include the transport impacts of the emerging local plans for Uttlesford, East Hertfordshire, Harlow, Braintree, Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire. "In particular, account should be taken of the impact from several proposed new garden towns close to the M11 and A120 and proposed major expansions of Bishop's Stortford and Harlow." Surface access 3.080 Ms Clare Driver Tadpole Hall 26/07/2017 Objection • Clogged roads and littering throughout South Cambridgeshire as a result of people using Stanstead Public health • Noticed increase in Asthma and summer breathing difficulties in the area

26 Brook Road, • Premature Application 3.081 Mr Roger Gibbs , Essex, 18/07/2017 Objection General • Wider Environmental and Climate change concerns IG10 1BP Consultation Request for EIA Scoping Opinion (UDC ref: UTT/17/1640/SO) Summary Stansted Airport 35+ Project

# From Contact Date Position Topics Summary Church End, • Fully endorses SSE's submission 3.082 Mr Patrick Going 23/07/2017 Objection Surface access Stebbing, CM6 3SW • Future congestion concerns. M11 & A120

Stoneley Park • Premature application Noise 3.083 Mr Martin Gould House, Shalford, 28/07/2017 Objection • Aircraft fly too low for too long. Overnight noise affects sleep Air quality Essex, CM7 5HH • Increased number of flights will generate more pollution , Chapel 3.084 Mrs Sally Gramlick Lane, Little Hadham 26/07/2017 Objection Noise Aircraft noise has increased and can be heard through the night. Concerned this will worsen Ware Noise "I wish to add my objections to the above because of inevitably increased traffic to and from the airport and the resulting noise and congestion on the main roads and the surrounding area. The additional flight 3.085 N. Grant Woodside 27/07/2017 Objection Surface access noises will also have an impact on residents." 37 Bynghams, 3.086 Ms Jane Griffiths Harlow, Essex, 28/07/2017 Objection General Endorses SSE's submission. CM19 5NS Barleycroft, Little London, , Suffers sleep disturbance nearly every night. Noise disturbance is so great that "I have given up using the noise complaint system because all complaints seem to be ignored" Endorses SSE's 3.087 Mr William Hampton 26/07/2017 Objection Noise Bishop's Stortford, submission. Herts, CM23 1BE Kinsmoor, Cannons Lane, Hatfield Broad 3.088 Mr Eric Hayman 28/07/2017 Objection General "There are enough flights over our bungalow already, & so I do not want any more" Oak, Bishop's Stortford Kinsmoor, Cannons Lane, Hatfield Broad 3.089 Mrs Joan Hayman 28/07/2017 Objection Noise "When the new airport first opened, we were told that although planes would get bigger, they would become more quite, but the reverse has happened. We are unable to enjoy sitting in our garden" Oak, Bishop's Stortford Stansted House, 3.090 Mr Patrick Hearne Elsenham Road, 26/07/2017 Objection General Application is premature. Stansted • Endorses SSE's submission Chase House, Tilty, Noise 3.091 Dr Simon Jackson 26/07/2017 Objection • "affected personally by current levels of aircraft noise and overloading of transport infrastructure" Dunmow, CM6 2HW Air quality • Concerned with further population growth Little Fosters 105, Cambridge Road, 3.092 Mrs Janet Hollis 27/07/2017 Objection General Endorses SSE's submission. Stansted Mountfitchet • Noise - Significantly increased, having no respite day or night Noise • Increased air pollution 3 Oxney Villas, 3.093 Mrs S Hosford 28/07/2017 Objection Air quality • "Traffic increase on the M11 junction 8 already struggles with the current infrastructure. More traffic Felsted Surface access travelling to and from the airport will add to the congestion for local residents"

14 Harrisons, Birchanger, Bishop's 3.094 Ms Julie Hugo 26/07/2017 Objection General Endorses SSE's submission. Stortford, Herts, CM23 5QT 2 Abbess Cottage, 3.095 K. Hunt The Heath, Hatfield 28/07/2017 Objection General Application is premature. Heath

Heathfield, Dunmow • Endorses SSE's submission. Noise Road, Hatfield • Application is premature. 3.096 Mr Robert Jones 29/07/2017 Objection Air quality Heath, Bishop's • Noise, air quality and especially road transport impacts. Surface access Stortford, CM22 7EE • Water supply and sewerage concerns

2 Greenfields, 3.097 Mr Ken McDonald Stansted 26/07/2017 Objection General Endorses SSE's submission. Mountfitchet

25-27 Church Street, 3.098 Mr Douglas D Kent Saffron Walden, 31/07/2017 Objection General Endorses SSE's submission. Essex, CB10 1JW

The Outspan Farm, • Endorses SSE's submission Wendens Ambo, Noise 3.099 Mr David W Kent 28/07/2017 Objection • Severe lack of environmental and traffic assessment Saffron Walden, Surface access • Noise and transport impacts from the airport already affect local residents. Essex, CB11 4JL

12A Maple Avenue, 3.100 Ms Angela Khalil Bishop's Stortford, 26/07/2017 Objection General Endorses SSE's submission. CM23 2RR Consultation Request for EIA Scoping Opinion (UDC ref: UTT/17/1640/SO) Summary Stansted Airport 35+ Project

# From Contact Date Position Topics Summary • Traffic concerns, particularly Bishop's Stortford and A120. Magnified by local housing developments. Friarton, Chatter • Requires further air quality monitoring and modelling Ms Catherine A End, Farnham, Surface access 3.101 27/07/2017 Comment • The effects upon rail links need assessment King Bishop's Stortford, Air quality • Application is premature CM23 1HL • Short consultation period - Application seems rushed • Fully supports SSE's submission The Haven, Green • "Only last week NATS stated unequivocally that the current system of air traffic control can no longer cope with additional flights." 3.102 Ms Sue Landon End, Braughing, 28/07/2017 Objection General • Environmental impacts Herts, SG11 2PG • Short consultation period - Application seems rushed

Little Warricks, Noise • Noise levels are intrusive and extend far into the night Church Lane, Little 3.103 Mr George Marriage 27/07/2017 Objection Surface access • Surface access concerns Leighs, Chelmsford, Carbon • Airport expansion conflicts with recent government efforts. The 2040 ban on manufacturing internal combustion engine cars. CM3 1PG

Ms Francesca 11 Peter's Wood Hill, • Fully endorses SSE's submission 3.104 28/07/2017 Objection General Micheli Ware, SG12 9NR • Short consultation period, taken place over summer. Application seems rushed/ pushed.

• Noise - seriously impacts golfing experience (Chairman of Noise • Public safety - As a result players cannot hear warning calls (fore) for stray shots 3.105 Mr Frank Morse Bishop's Stortford 28/07/2017 Objection Air quality • Air quality - "strong smell of aviation fuel is experienced when take-off is in the northerly direction" Golf Club) • "We would strongly recommend that UDC consider the consequences of the increase in air traffic on our golf course in their evaluation of the environmental impact on the local community."

RCCE House, Ms Tricia Moxey Threshelfords Park, 3.106 (Vice Chairman to Road, 28/07/2017 Objection General Fully endorses SSE's submission CPRE) Feering, , CO5 9SE

Elmbridge Barn, Mr Warwick 3.107 , CM6 26/07/2017 Objection Surface access Experienced congestion on A120 when travelling to airport. Requires further assessment of the impacts of expansion Newbury 2HZ

Bulls Cottage, • Application is premature and is based around artificial demand to increase share prices. "build it and they will come". Nadia and Paul Ducklett Lane, Green Surface access • Surface access - "overburdening the infrastructure and utilities and inherent road congestion" 3.108 24/07/2017 Objection Osgood Tye, Much Hadham, Socio-economic • Recruitment for low paid jobs will require local population influx Herts, SG10 6JN • Heritage loss concerns "beautiful rural area"

Bulls Cottage, • Requires appropriate timescale - 5 week consultation not enough for a "comprehensive, honest and thorough assessment of all the environmental impacts". Surface access Ducklett Lane, Green • Stansted only has 1 artery motorway, the M11 which is already full to capacity - the possibility of an 80% increase in traffic in preposterous. 3.109 Nadia Osgood 24/07/2017 Objection Noise Tye, Much Hadham, • "Increasing domestic flights by 58% would be unbearable" Air quality Herts, SG10 6JN • Further noise and air pollution

Fully endorses SSE's submission. Comment as follows: • "The serious adverse impact of noise and pollution has never been better understood or given more cause for concern." General • "It is NOT Uttlesford District Councils prerogative or responsibility to make assessments in relation to air traffic strategy or capacity, but to represent the residents" 5 Gepps Close, High 3.110 Mr William Patient 27/07/2017 Objection Noise • Application is unwarranted - "It is absolutely clear that there is no demand for the number of passengers applied for" Easter, Essex Air quality • "MAG and their foreign backers have demonstrated an unswerving desire to 'sweat' this Stansted Airport asset to make money for their shareholders" Case studies include, 'pickup set down' area which now charges £3.50 and the duty free 'parade' which takes up so much space that the seating area is reduced and people have to sit on the floor. • The convention of 'fanned out' routing shows a strong disregard for the community, ruining lives in High Easter. • Implores UDC planners to "refuse this ridiculous application". • Endorses the SSE's submission Hall Close, Henham, • Believes it to be a premature application considering Mr O'Leary's threats regarding Ryanair if no Brexit deal is agreed early enough. 3.111 Ms Linda Peake 26/07/2017 Objection General CM22 6AU • Disagrees with claim that increased flights would have no environmental impact. "seems to me to be a complete lie".

• "The volume of air traffic and noise is already considerable… with no peace and quiet to be found already" The thought of more is untenable. 21 Ravens Crescent, Noise 3.112 Mr Brad Pearman 28/07/2017 Objection • "The proposed increase is simply too much, the burden expected to be taken up by residents is too great." Felsted Dunmow Carbon • Carbon - Airports have a responsibility to the environment. "Do not rely on plane and engine manufacturers to produce more efficient engines at some point in the future"

• Application is premature 30 Castle Street, Surface access • Surface access -" proposal would give rise to an 80% increase in airport-related traffic" 3.113 Mr Peter Riding Saffron Walden, 27/07/2017 Objection Carbon • Carbon - "Climate impacts need to be assessed to 2050 in line with the objectives set down in the Climate Change Act and the cap on UK aviation carbon emissions set down by the Government." Essex, CB10 1BJ Noise • Noise - "Aircraft overflying during daytime hours from the current average of a plane every 2¼ minutes to a plane every 85 seconds will be a quality of life disaster for the many directly affected".

53 Vernon's Close, Henham, Bishop's 3.114 Frances Roberts 27/07/2017 Objection General Endorses SSE's submission Stortford, Herts, CM22 6AF Bishops Garden, Mill 3.115 A Robinson Lane, Stebbing, CM6 27/07/2017 Objection General Application is premature and unnecessary. "There is plenty of capacity at the airport for expansion for many years already." 3SI Consultation Request for EIA Scoping Opinion (UDC ref: UTT/17/1640/SO) Summary Stansted Airport 35+ Project

# From Contact Date Position Topics Summary 7 The Maltings, 3.116 Ms Sue Roderick 27/07/2017 Objection General Endorses SSE's submission. Worried that current average of a plane every 2.25 minutes reduced to one every 85 seconds Thaxted, CM6 2NB • Angry at UDC for the way it has treated its residents Noise • Loud and prolonged night flights 4 Edens Close, Surface access Linda and Roger Decreasing quality of life measured in air traffic forecasts, night flight frequency & number, local road congestion, commuter increases, fly parking, air quality, noise, climate change and health & well being does 3.117 Bishop's Stortford, 28/07/2017 Objection Air quality Rooke not seem to feature in the report with any real truth or compassion from MAG. CM23 5AT Carbon • Fully supports the SSE's submission Socio-economic

• Disagrees with claim that increased flights would have no environmental impact. Greenyards, Noise • Rerouted flights creating intrusive noise early morning and late evening 3.118 Mr Alasdair Ross Chelmsford Road, 29/07/2017 Objection Surface access • Traffic concerns Felsted Carbon • Future restrictions on carbon emissions will limit long-term viability of the project • Supports SSE's submission Bob and Janice The Drift, Catmere 3.119 27/07/2017 Objection Noise • Increased frequency and volume of noise pollution Rust End, CB11 4XG • Visual pollution - Aeroplane lights in the nights sky • Application is premature - fails to consider Brexit and governments recent anti air pollution measures • Surface access - road network and current parking is inadequate 20 New Road, Mrs Heather • Supports the SSE's submission 3.120 Elsenham, Bishop's 28/07/2017 Objection Surface access Salvidge • "I notice that in the land use brochure available at the recent round of consultation meetings, the map on page 7 fails to mark either Elsenham or Broxted. Curious that, given that about one third of the airport Stortford, CM22 6HA is in the parish of Elsenham & that incoming flights from the east are very low over Broxted. I realise that Thaxted is a little way away from the airport but the inbound flights from that direction overfly both it & the Essex Wildlife Trust Nature Reserve , West Wood which is an SSSI. This is in addition to the other important wildlife sites within the scope." South Cottage, 3.121 Mr RJ Scott (John) Union Lane, 27/07/2017 Objection General Supports SSE's submission. Wortham Diss • Supports SSE's submission. 50 Musley Hill, Ware, 3.122 Mr Philip Shock 26/07/2017 Objection Noise • Suffers regularly from noise pollution. Herts, SG12 7NB • Requires further assessment of the environmental and road traffic impacts. 4 Dunmow Road, • Increasingly suffering from noise pollution. Diminution of the quality of life , Noise • Surface access - Without major rail infrastructure improvements, road network will experience more congestion. Hatfield Broad Oak and the B183 already greatly overused. 3.123 Mr David M Smith 28/07/2017 Comment Bishop's Stortford, Surface access • Application is premature. Awaiting results of air space survey and possible Ryanair withdrawal post Brexit CM22 7JJ • Requires thorough EIA. • This proposal needs a comprehensive, thorough and realistic view of the detrimental impacts. 4 Dunmow Road, • Noise, air quality, traffic and infrastructure would all be significantly greater. Hatfield Broad Oak has already been adversely affected. Noise Hatfield Broad Oak, • Surface access - B183 is already greatly overused. Without rail investment, congestion on the roads will worsen. - danger to pedestrians. 3.124 Ms Susan Smith 28/07/2017 Comment Air quality Bishop's Stortford, • "Cost of any infrastructure improvements should be met by the airport and not by the local taxpayers who only suffer." Surface access CM22 7JJ • An extra 20million passengers and 104,000 flights has not been justified and a case has not been made • Endorses SSE's submission.

45 Bishops Avenue, Bishop's Stortford, Noise • "Noise, air quality and road and rail transport impacts would all be significantly worsened. " 3.125 Ms Linda Storey 26/07/2017 Objection Hertfordshire, CM23 Air quality • "Air quality and the noise created by aircraft should be made better than it is right now, not worse." 3EJ

• "I object in the strongest possible terms to Stansted Airport’s application to increase passenger and flight numbers beyond the numbers for which they already have planning permission" • "The noise disturbance, pollution and congestion already suffered by local people already makes lives miserable, and the lack of sleep suffered by many of us since the number 4 runway was put into operation Noise makes it very difficult to lead a normal life, go to work etc. Furthermore, the airport shows a blatant disregard for local people and has still not worked with NATS to reduce aircraft blight over Felsted and other 9 Bury Fields, 3.126 Ms Rosalind Sudlow 27/07/2017 Objection Air quality villages. " Felsted, CM6 3HA Surface access • "How will the M11 and A120 cope with an extra 20 million passengers travelling to the airport every year?" • 104,000 extra flights. A flight every 85 seconds. How is this sustainable? • "MAG must not be allowed to put its massive profits ahead of the health and welfare of the people who live and work in the area". • Endorses SSE's submission • The infrastructure presently in place is unable to cope with the present numbers of planes, vehicles and people. The roads are already seriously heavily congested. Tilty Hill Farm, Duton Mr and Mrs Steven Surface access • "The railway line into London is single track and is unable to cope with present numbers - if it had any further numbers it would grind to a halt". 3.127 Hill, Dunmow, Essex, 27/07/2017 Objection Sussman Ecology • Stansted are trying to create a smoke screen to justify their changes and make money. CM6 2EE • It will change nearby villages designated as areas of natural beauty • Compensation has not been given to everyone effected in years gone past

53 Riverview, 3.128 Mr Roger Townsend Melton, Woodbridge, 26/07/2017 Objection General Endorses SSE's submission Suffolk, IP12 1QU

Weasel Cottage, 3.129 Mr Peter Tritton Brent Pelham, SG9 26/07/2017 Objection General Endorses SSE's submission 0HH

59 Haymeads Lane, 3.130 Ms Jill Wade Bishop's Stortford, 27/07/2017 Objection General Endorses SSE's submission CM23 5JJ Consultation Request for EIA Scoping Opinion (UDC ref: UTT/17/1640/SO) Summary Stansted Airport 35+ Project

# From Contact Date Position Topics Summary

• Application is premature - Stansted is currently 10mppa under capacity. Uncertainty concerning Ryanair during Brexit. 14 The Bourne, Socio-economic • The quality of life for local residents will be affected. Stansted Road, 3.131 Ms Madeline Willis 26/07/2017 Comment Surface access • Our roads are already gridlocked. No plans for increased parking will lead to increase fly-parking. Bishop's Stortford, Carbon • Passengers wont use public transport they will continue to use own cars. Herts, CM23 2HZ • " Serious thought must be given to the impact on climate change as increased carbon emissions may well fall outside the agreement made in the Climate Change Act and the recent Paris Agreement".

• Endorses SSE's submission • Stansted doesn't benefit the countries financial well-being. It encourages spending in the EU, creating a deficit in the UK tourism balance of payments. Socio-economic High Trees, 64 • The actual number of jobs predicted to arise from the expansion is unlikely. Historically, the actual number from 2015 is thousands less than the predicted number Noise Mr Raymond Chapel Hill, Stansted • The aircraft noise issue must be honestly addressed by Stansted airport. 3.132 26/07/2017 Objection Surface access Woodcock Mountfitchet, Essex, • The 'B' roads surrounding Stansted are used by thousands of vehicles during a 16 hour weekday (Essex Highways 2008). Road traffic is still increasing. Air quality CM24 8AQ • The number of road vehicles which travel to and from the airport pollute the air. Carbon • Anyone who approaches an airport can smell burned aviation fuel. People working at airports are subject to health issues due to air quality particularly those who work outside.. • Health and wellbeing is an issue which needs to be honestly addressed by Stansted 3 Queen Street, 3.133 Ms Ann Woods Withersfield, Suffolk, 28/07/2017 Objection General Endorses SSE's submission CB9 7RU Aldridges Farm, Maple Lane, 3.134 Mr Michael Young 27/07/2017 Objection General Endorses SSE's submission Wimbish, Saffron Walden

• Objects to the proposal coming forward, with the short length of the consultation period, and STAL holding the consultation in the summer when people are away. • It is "deeply insulting for STAL to claim publicly that there will be no adverse environmental effects of this proposal" • "The approach to noise, health and air quality issues is inadequate". 1 Parsonage Farm Noise • Questioning the choice of noise consultants due to their lack of credibility in the community Barns, High Easter, 3.135 Mr Robert Beer 06/07/2017 Objection Public health • 2 of 6 noise preferential flight paths removed last year, wants these to be replaced and considered in the application. Chelmsford, CM1 Air quality • The alternatives assessment of 'Do Nothing' and 'Do Something' are not adequate and a range of other options should be considered based on "a sophisticated analysis of realistic forecasts". 4QZ • Feels the application is being brought forward now to avoid the Government White Paper on Aviation as this could impact the airport and provide reasoning to reduce the cap rather than increase. • Feels that it is unlikely STAL would achieve current caps any time soon and that the application is immature. • A better case needs to be made for raising the cap as managing environmental issues is not the same as reducing them, frequency of flights is the key issue for noise.

1 Parsonage Farm • Application is premature and completely unjustifiable at this time Barns, High Easter, 3.136 Dr Margaret Beer 06/07/2017 Objection General • "The time frame allowed for making comments is absurd (given the length of the document) and needs extending to the end of August" Chelmsford, CM1 • Statement made by STAL claiming 'no adverse environmental effects' are ridiculous and condescending 4QZ 6 Barnfield, • Surface access - "Isn't the infrastructure to cope with the increase in passengers" Ms Christine Hatfield, Surface access 3.137 06/07/2017 Objection • Public Safety - " We haven't even got a hospital that could handle the amount of people now if there was an emergency" Chester-Helyar Broad Oak, Risk of accidents • "There needs to be a comprehensive, honest and thorough assessment of all the environmental impacts of this by an independent body" Bishops Stortford The Granary, Mallows Green, • "This report requires a full comprehensive, honest and thorough assessment of all the environmental impacts" 3.138 Mrs Sally Moser 06/07/2017 Objection Noise Manuden, • Noise of aircraft impacts daily life and can only get worse. Bishops Stortford Hillyley, High Easter, • "I am not yet in a position to judge the request or impact of the EIA scoping report or your scoping opinion". 3.139 Mr Neil Reeve 06/07/2017 Comment General Chelmsford • Wishes to extend time period of review to the end of September 2017. • Was encouraged to write to the airport by SSE because he was unable to attend the consultation meetings. • Has been a long term (62 years) resident at his current address in Broxted under the Stansted flight path. 9 Cranham Road, Noise • Believes his throat cancer and deafness, and wife's asthma, are due to the pollution from the airplanes and feels due compensation. 3.140 Mr P W Stock Broxted, Essex, CM6 09/08/2017 Objection Air quality • States that he has to live with noise and pollution 24/7, and is unable to open windows at night because the noise is so loud and because of the smell from aviation fuel. 2BT Public health • Vibrations from the engines are cracking brickwork on his house. • Unsure the airport expansion will actually create more jobs. • Wants the passenger cap to be reduced to 15 million and that he is paid compensation.

• Application is being submitted now to pressure UDC and avoid the Government White Paper on Airports. • Impact of Brexit has not been considered and forecast of 35mppa by 2023 is therefore optimistic and uncertain. Application should be refused until a clear view of the impact of Brexit is available. Air quality • A full appraisal of noise and air quality have not been completed. Mr John O'Brien 47 Gilbey Crescent, Noise 3.141 02/08/2017 Objection • Discernible odour of aviation fuel when the wind direction veers NE-SE, despite improvements to aero engine emissions. A 60% increase in ATMs would nullify past improvements. (Parish Cllr) Stansted Surface access • Reverse thrust operations on landing and helicopter movements cause the greatest noise pollution, concerned about the impact this will have on local schools. Public health • Specifies the need to comply with Local plan Policy SP11 as this is currently not the case, specifically in relation to points 5 and 6 (noise), 7 (reducing the impact on and improved amenity of local residents), 8 (incorporating sustainable transport methods), and 9 (the incorporation suitable road access).

The Bowling Green, Noise 3.142 Mr Bruce Drew 8 The Downs, Great 27/08/2017 Objection Surface access Application will increase airport related noise, road congestion and atmospheric pollution. Dunmow Air quality

Old Chickney Hall, Noise • Concerns about the environmental impacts, noise levels and increase in traffic congestion. 3.143 Mrs Kay Crayston 24/08/2017 Objection Chickney, Dunmow Surface access • Hard copies of the information provided are requested for non-computer users. South View, Park 3.144 Mr Jeremy Drake Road, Elsenham, 20/08/2017 Objection General Requires "comprehensive, honest and thorough assessment of all environmental impacts". Bishop's Stortford Consultation Request for EIA Scoping Opinion (UDC ref: UTT/17/1640/SO) Summary Stansted Airport 35+ Project

# From Contact Date Position Topics Summary Noise 77 Loompits Way, • Any increase in flights means more air pollution and more noise pollution, which will destroy the quality of life in Saffron Walden. 3.145 Mr Peter Gomm 08/09/2017 Objection Air quality Saffron Walden • "The proposal can only be a ploy to justify a second runway". Public health 23 Bourne End, • "The airport overshadows the whole daily life of everyone living in its neighbourhood". 3.146 Mrs JKA Atkins Hornchurch, Essex 27/09/2017 Objection General • Requires "comprehensive, honest and thorough assessment of all environmental impacts". RM11 3AH

27 Victoria Avenue, • "Hope that UDC may start to act in the interest of democracy for once". 3.147 Mr Gary Brown 30/09/2017 Objection General Saffron Walden • Application not needed seen lack of demand for flights due to Brexit.

Farm Cottage, Noise • All villages and open countryside areas will be adversely effected by noise from an increase in numbers of aeroplanes. 3.148 Mrs Candida Gibbs Camps End, 19/10/2017 Objection Surface Access • The transport system is already overstretched both the railway into Liverpool Street and the frequent traffic jams on the M11. Cambridge Stop Stansted Expansion Representations 14/07/2017

#Topic Information required in the Environmental Statement Reason GENERAL

To enable assessment of impacts in intervening years and longer term assessment of economic, employment and environmental effects of the development. Issues which need to be considered in In view of the volatility of Stansted Airport’s business over the past 20 years, it will not be sufficient to rely upon STAL’s intervening years and longer term include: assessment of impacts alone, which are based solely on STAL’s own forecasts for 2029, noting that STAL’s forecasts are The DfT convention for aviation forecasts, is to provide projections materially different from the Airports Commission and most recent Department for Transport (DfT) forecasts. for at least 20 years ahead, at 5-10 year intervals. STAL has Longer term impacts need to be assessed and 2040 is an appropriate milestone for longer term assessment of the impacts followed this convention in the past, for example, the G1 and G2 of the proposed development, other than for climate change impacts (see below). applications provided projections to 2030. The ES should follow Impacts in intervening years need to be assessed, because of the known volatility of Stansted’s business, because of this convention. Basis for 1 uncertainty with regard to the delivery of improvements to surface access infrastructure and other planned mitigation, and The timing of the road improvement schemes to support the assessment because of the major (traffic-generating) housing developments which would take place in parallel. The most appropriate development, noting the projection (by interpolation) of 38.5mppa intervening assessment years are considered to be 2025 and 2033 (the latter to coincide with local plans). by 2025; Climate impacts need to be assessed to 2050 in line with the objectives set down in the Climate Change Act and the cap The timing of the mitigation measures; on UK aviation carbon emissions set down by the Government (< 37.5m tonnes CO2 by 2050). Post-Brexit effects; In each case (and throughout the ES) the forecasts and projected impacts should be shown in comparison to the base implications of new capacity at Heathrow and possibly elsewhere year - which should be 2016 wherever possible, and otherwise 2015 - and the base case (see below). over the next 15-20 years; to enable comparison with local plans; to enable comparison with Airports Commission and DfT forecasts and previous STAL forecasts.

The ES should include an explanation, showing the main assumptions and calculations as to why 44.5mppa and 285,000 The applicant’s 2006 planning application for 35mppa was 2 ‘Best use’ ATMs constitutes best use of the existing runway. described as making best use of the existing runway.

The Scoping Report (SR) seems to suggest that the main comparison to be made is between the limit of the existing permissions and the proposed development. The existing permission granted in October 2008 has still not yet been implemented (as at 30 June 2017). It was based on an Environmental Statement (ES) which relied upon projections, Conditions have materially changed over the last 14 years, not modelling and other data mostly from 2004/05 but which in some instances (including much of the surface access data) least in relation to local road traffic congestion. The local dated back to 2003. The SR states (at para 1.8) “The existing (or baseline) environmental conditions at the Airport will be community and others need to know 'what would be the impacts of collated as part of the EIA process and presented in the ES. This information will be used in the modelling and the proposed development compared to the current level of extrapolation of data to inform the impact assessment work, or otherwise be presented for the purpose of context. activity'. The Baseline Year for different topics will be either 2015 or 2016, depending on the availability of full calendar datasets.” There needs to be clarity regarding the scale of the proposed Greater clarification is required as to the basis for the ES. Simply put, STAL intends to submit a planning application to development compared to the current level of activity at the airport. UDC which STAL believes will enable it to make best use of the existing runway. This will include amending the current Effective comparisons are best made against real situations rather 3 Base case passenger cap of 35mppa and the current annual aircraft movements cap of 274,000. The proposed development would than imaginary or theoretical ones. The ES should avoid making increase those caps to 44.5mppa and 285,000 respectively. Current actual levels (2016) are 24.3mppa and 180,400 misleading comparisons against outdated and untested aircraft movements which represent the ‘baseline’ for comparison. Thus, the increases on current numbers are 83% assumptions about the impacts of Stansted Airport when handling (mppa) and 58% (aircraft movements). 35mppa and 274,000 aircraft movements per annum. It will be for the Planning Statement, which will accompany the application, to make the case for the increased levels and Insofar as the 2008 planning permission has not yet been triggered justify the claim that they represent ‘making the best use of the existing single runway’. However, STAL’s case will need to and Stansted Airport is still operating below 25mppa (as at 30 June be based on an unbiased assessment provided by the EIA/ES which will, for each topic, assess and compare the existing, 2017) the 12-14 year old assessment of the impacts of Stansted permitted and proposed impacts. It will not be acceptable for the EA to rely upon assessments carried out, and handling 35mppa and 274,000 aircraft movements are a matter of assumptions made, up to 14 years ago for the G1 planning application. In many cases the reality has turned out to be conjecture. significantly different from the assumptions made at that time. Many of the assumed improvements and mitigation factors in the 2006 ES, and implicit in the 2008 permission, have simply not materialised.

Implementation of With reference to para 3.1 of the Scoping Report, the ES should list the elements of the October 2008 planning permission 4 the 2008 which the applicant considers to have been implemented and the conditions attached to the October 2008 planning For the avoidance of doubt with regard to the base case. permission permission which the applicant considers to have been discharged.

The ES should show the number and types of passengers and aircraft movements handled by Stansted in 2016, compared Reliability of STAL to the forecasts submitted by STAL in support of its 2006 G1 application. As with the G1 forecasts, this should sub-divide 5 To assist in assessing the reliability of STAL forecasts. forecasts passengers between UK and foreign, business and leisure, transfer/non-transfer, domestic, short haul and long haul, using CAA classifications. It should sub-divide aircraft movements by passenger ATMs, cargo ATMs and General Aviation (GA).

So far as passenger traffic is concerned the base case should be 24.3mppa (as achieved in 2016) rising to 35mppa, in line Definition of the with the 2008 permission. So far as aircraft movements are concerned, the base case should be 180,400 rising not to 6 For the avoidance of doubt with regard to the base case. base case 274,000 but to 247,000 which is the number shown in the Scoping Report (Table 2.2) at the time the airport reaches its 35mppa cap. At 52 aircraft movements per hour the theoretical capacity of the Stansted runway is at least 20% more than 285,000 annual movements* based on a 17.5 hour a day and the potential for 7 Sensitivity test The ES should include a 50mppa sensitivity test. 13,700 night flights. Even allowing for growth in CATMs and GA, 50mppa appears within reach by 2030. [*52 x 17.5 x 365 = 332,150 + 13,700 night flights = 345,850 theoretical annual movements.]

The Scoping Report recognises the need to take account of cumulative effects and lists (Table 4.1) a number of housing and other developments which will be taken account of in the ES. This list needs to be expanded to take account of further developments set down in the latest draft Local Plans which are both significant new drivers of local traffic growth to be included in the transport assessment and major residential areas on which an expanded Stansted Airport will impact. These include the emerging new local plans for Uttlesford, East Hertfordshire, Harlow, Braintree, Cambridge and South To enable cumulative impacts to be assessed, particularly with 8 Cumulative Effects Cambridgeshire. In particular, account should be taken of the impact from several proposed new garden towns or garden regard to the road traffic implications at key junctions and on communities close to the M11 and A120 and proposed major expansions of Bishop’s Stortford and Harlow. sensitive local roads, and also with regard to air quality modelling. All of these developments will impact on Stansted Airport and vice versa. Whilst principally a matter for the Planning Statement, it should be noted that the UDC Draft Local Plan does not support the growth proposed, but provides the basic planning context as “utilising the permitted capacity of the existing runway” (Section 2 Objective 2C)

AIR TRAFFIC FORECASTS

The main forecasting assumptions should be explained and any significant variances in the STAL forecasts compared to Basis for the the most recent forecasts published by the DfT and the Airports Commission should also be explained. Sources of data To assist in assessing the robustness and reliability of the 9 forecasts should be stated and how the data have been interpreted and applied should be clearly explained. Any computer forecasts. modelling should be capable of review and verification, and all calculations should be clear and auditable.

In the DfT air traffic forecasting model the key sensitivities are GDP growth (UK & foreign), growth in UK consumer Over the past decade, Stansted has shown itself to be more Forecasting expenditure and oil prices. STAL should advise what assumptions it has made in each of these areas over the forecasting vulnerable to an economic downturn than any other major UK 10 sensitivities period, if different from the official projections made by HM Treasury and Department for Business, Energy and Industrial airport. It is therefore important to assess the reliability and Strategy. The ES should include sensitivity analysis for different market capacity scenarios over the period to 2040. robustness of the forecasts and to consider the key sensitivities.

The ES should include an explanation of the extent to which STAL’s growth projections for Stansted are sensitive to the development and utilisation of capacity, including new capacity, at other airports serving London and the south east, Competitor To be able to assess the reliability and robustness of the forecasts 11 including the Government’s intention that there should be a third Heathrow runway by the late 2020s. airports and to consider the key sensitivities. The ES should state the passenger throughput assumptions made for the other main London airports for the assessment years 2025, 2033 and 2040. In a written statement to Parliament on 13 July 2017 the Secretary The Town & Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2017 (s.18(3)(d) and Schedule 4) require reasonable alternatives to the of State for Transport re- confirmed the Government’s support for a Reasonable proposed development to be assessed, and an indication to be given of the main reasons for the option chosen, taking into 12 third Heathrow runway and notified Parliament that the alternatives account the effects of the development on the environment. The Government’s clear support for the development of Government expects to lay a final NPS in Parliament in the first Heathrow requires that a third Heathrow runway be factored in to the consideration of ‘reasonable alternatives’. half of 2018 for a vote in the House of Commons.

Confidence levels should be provided for the air traffic forecasts, noting that: Reliability of i. the Department for Transport provides a range of + or – 20% for its UK air traffic forecasts) together with a range To enable assessment of the reliability of the STAL forecasts and 13 forecasts which equates to a 95% confidence level for each of the forecasts; and to provide a sound basis for sensitivity analysis. ii. STAL’s past forecasts have been highly unreliable.

Stansted has the highest dependency on EU air travel of any major The ES should also include a BREXIT sensitivity test taking account of the warnings given by its two major airline UK airport. In 2016, 86% of all Stansted passengers were flying 14 Brexit customers and having regard to the popularity of Stansted amongst EU migrants whose home visits – together with friends to/from EU destinations, 9% to other UK destinations and only 5% and relations travelling to the UK to visit them – constitute a significant proportion of Stansted’s passengers. to destinations outside the EU. This compares to just 34.5% of Heathrow passengers travelling to/from EU destinations in 2016.

The term ‘General Aviation’ appears to be used in the Scoping Report to describe all aircraft movements except passenger air transport movements (PATMs) and cargo air transport movements (CATMs). However, the term ‘General Aviation is often used to describe private recreational flying. The ES needs to make it clear that the term ‘General Aviation’ means all non-ATMs including but not limited to: • Air taxis • Helicopter flights • Aircraft repositioning 15 Terminology • Training and testing flights To avoid any ambiguity or misunderstanding. • Local movements • Aero club flights • Private flights; • Business aviation • Military, official and diplomatic flights. It should also be made clear that ‘Aircraft Movements’ means the combined total of all passenger and cargo ATMs and General Aviation (GA).

For the base year, the base case and each of the assessment years, the air traffic forecasts should provide the following information: • ATM forecasts should be sub-divided to show the split between domestic, international short haul, and long haul – separately for PATMs and CATMs. • The passenger forecasts should be sub-divided to show the split between domestic, international short haul, and long haul. • The forecasts for ‘general aviation’ should specifically identify helicopter traffic in view of its very different noise For clarity, and to assist in the assessment of economic, characteristics and different flight paths. employment and environmental impacts, and potential risks and • Cargo tonnage should be sub-divided to show the split between domestic, international short haul, and long haul, in each benefits to the local economy and employment market. Constituent case split between belly-hold and freighter. Mail should be included in the cargo forecasts, both in respect of ATMs and Stansted Airport is said to be “the biggest single- site employer in 16 elements of tonnage. the East of England, providing over 12,000 jobs”, even before the forecasts • Passenger forecasts should be sub-divided to show the number of passengers in each of the following five (CAA) additional jobs arising from the expansion of the airport beyond categories: UK Business and UK Leisure, Foreign Business and Foreign Leisure, and Transfer passengers. 44.5mppa. It is therefore important to consider the resilience of the • The market share of Stansted passengers should be provided for: airport to potential changes in its airline customers’ business • the largest airline; plans/priorities, and to wider strategic challenges which may arise. • the combined share of the largest two airlines; • the combined share of the largest three airlines. • Average load factors should be provided for PATMs, shown separately for domestic, international short haul, and long haul. • Aircraft types should be provided, in each case showing seating capacity. • Aircraft types should be provided, classified by noise category.

17 Long Haul The CAA definition of ‘long haul’ should be used throughout. For the purposes of consistency and comparison. For clarity and as evidence of the need for this element of the proposed development. An explanation should be provided for the need for nine additional aircraft stands, and the additional Rapid Exit Taxiway Airside Also, it is noted that in the past STAL has refused to consider local 18 (RET) and Rapid Access Taxiway (RAT), when the requested increase in the aircraft movements limit is claimed to be just Infrastructure residents’ compensation claims under the Land Compensation Act 3.9%. 1973 until every element of the permitted development has been completed. The ES should state the maximum number of aircraft movements per annum that could be handled, assuming no change in the permitted number of night flights: 19 Runway capacity (a) when all of the taxiway, aprons, stands and runway-related developments that have already been approved are For clarity with regard to the potential future capacity of the airport. completed; and (b) when the nine additional stands and the additional RET and RAT are completed.

It is noted that no increase is being sought for approved car parking spaces, whereas STAL previously assessed that the Landside For clarity and for reassurance that additional car parking spaces 20 current permitted number of car parking spaces was needed for a throughput of 35mppa. The ES should include an Infrastructure will not be the subject of a subsequent planning application. explanation as to what now enables a throughput of 44.5mppa without any further car parking spaces. SURFACE ACCESS

In accordance with the Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA) Guidelines, the ES should identify the worst environmental impacts that can reasonably be expected, in addition to the average or typical impacts. The Transport 21 Modelling To improve the quality of the ES & the TA. Assessment (TA) should follow this principle. The surface access impacts should be assessed for the assessment years and presented, for ease of comparison, against the standard yardsticks of the base year and the base case.

The SR makes no reference to the basis for converting passenger numbers and employee numbers into vehicle movements. The assumptions, methods and workings for calculating, e.g. average vehicle occupancy for different types of vehicle at different times of year and different times of day will need to be clearly explained. The threshold for detailed To provide evidence and transparency for the assumptions and 22 Methodology assessment should at most be a 10% increase in traffic flows, inclusive of the impact of housing and other traffic- calculations in the ES & the TA. generating development under construction and planned. A zero percent threshold will be appropriate where a junction or stretch of road has already reached capacity, or will have reached capacity in any assessment year.

For the base year, the base case and each of the assessment years, the surface access mode share should be provided, showing the percentage of air passengers travelling to/from the airport by: • Rail Passenger travel • Bus/Coach 23 To inform the assessment of surface access impacts. to/from airport • Kiss & Fly • Park & Fly • Taxi/Minicab • Rental car

For the base year, the base case and each of the assessment years, the employee mode share should be provided for travel to/from work by: • Car Driver • Car Passenger • Motorcycle • Public bus or coach 24 Employee travel To inform the assessment of surface access impacts. • Rail • Taxi/minicab • Works bus/other company transport • Walk, bicycle, other The above breakdown should be applied to the average number of employees on site to show the resultant number of employee road journeys, other than by public transport.

The ES should include an assessment of the impact of cargo-related road traffic for the base year, the base case and each 25 Cargo traffic To inform the assessment of surface access impacts. of the assessment years. The ES should include an assessment of the impact of contractors’ vehicles in the base year, the base case and each of 26 Contractors To inform the assessment of surface access impacts. the assessment years. As part of the G1 application in 2006/07, STAL made a range of projections for reduced car use by airport passengers and Progress in past 27 employees. The ES should show the results that have been achieved between 2006 and 2016, compared to the G1 To inform the assessment of surface access impacts. 10 years projections.

Para 7.8 of the Scoping Report refers to “more sensitive local roads”, which are to be subject to detailed assessment of traffic flows. In addition to the M11, as a minimum the following local roads and their main junctions and roundabouts should be included: • The A120 from the A10 to Colchester • the B1256 from J8 of the M11 to Gt Dunmow • the A1250 from its junction with the A120 at the Birchanger roundabout 300 yards west of J8 to its western junction with the A120 • the A1184 and B1383 from Bishop's Stortford to Sawbridgeworth • the B1383 from Bishop’s Stortford to its junction with High Lane, Stansted Mountfitchet • Church Road, Grove Hill, Forest Hall Road and Chapel Hill, Stansted Mountfitchet • the B1051 from Stansted Mountfitchet to Elsenham 28 Local roads • Parsonage Road, between the airport and Takeley • Church Road, from Start Hill through Gt Hallingbury to the A1060 • Birchanger Lane • Bury Lodge Lane • Hall Road from the Cooper’s End Roundabout to Elsenham When reporting actual and forecast traffic movements at key junctions and on highways, distinction should be made between airport-related traffic and other traffic. Airport-related movements should be split between passenger-related movements, cargo-related movements and employee/contractor related movements. HGV and PSV movements should be separately identified. Reporting should be for the morning and evening peaks (as defined below) for busy days of the week, at busy weeks of the year. Increases in traffic flows should be expressed numerically and as a percentage of the available capacity at the baseline date so that the key impacts at the margin can be properly assessed.

The TA needs to examine the traffic impact and consequential air quality impact on Hockerill junction, Bishop's Stortford, In view of the sensitivity of this AQMA to any increase in road 29 Hockerill AQMA noting that this is a designated Air Quality Management Area. traffic emissions.

Lead and lag In the modelling of surface access impacts the ES should state the assumptions made on lead times for departing To assist in the assessment of surface access impacts and to 30 times passengers and lag times for arriving passengers. enable verification of the modelling.

For the base year, the base case and the assessment years the ES should include the following information on hourly aircraft and passenger movements for the 17½ hour day. (This information need not be provided for the controlled night period.): i. The average number of aircraft arrivals and aircraft departures for each hour between 0600 and 2300 and for the ½ Hourly aircraft hour from 2300 to 2330. To assist in the assessment of surface access impacts and to 31 movements and ii. The ‘busy summer weekday’ (i.e. analogous to noise impact assessment methodology) number of aircraft arrivals and enable verification of the modelling. passenger flows aircraft departures for each hour between 0600 and 2300 and for the ½ hour from 2300 to 2330. iii. The average number of passenger arrivals and passenger departures for each hour between 0600 and 2300 and for the ½ hour from 2300 to 2330. iv. The ‘busy summer weekday’ number of passenger arrivals and passenger departures for each hour between 0600 and 2300 and for the ½ hour from 2300 to 2330.

In addition to projecting average daily traffic flows by type of vehicle, the road traffic modelling should cover the 3-hour Daily & peak traffic To enable more thorough assessment of peak hour impacts on key 32 morning peak (7am – 10am) and the 3-hour evening peak (4pm–7pm) for a busy summer weekday. In accordance with flows local roads and junctions. DfT guidelines for TA, The counts should be conducted at 15 minute intervals.

Queue length surveys should be carried out on both the eastern and western approaches to J8 of the M11, at the (four) Queue length To enable more thorough assessment of the impacts on sensitive 33 approaches to the inter-section of the A120 and the B1383, and on the A120 eastbound and westbound at Little Hadham surveys junctions. traffic lights, at its junction with Albury Road and Hadham Road.

Where a junction is already approaching its full capacity the scale of the potential change (referred to in para 7.15 of the Scoping Report) should be stated numerically and as a percentage of the available capacity of the junction at the baseline date. The Scoping Report refers to the airport having “direct access available from the M11 and A120” (7.5). The M11/A120 junction (J8) is already under stress for much of the day and so the ES should set out what mitigation measures – and the 34 Key road junctions So that the key impacts at the margin can be properly assessed. timing thereof – are relied upon to deal with the capacity problems on J8 of the M11 noting that there will be substantial increase in airport road traffic if the ‘44.5mppa’ application were to be approved. Account needs to be taken of traffic growth arising from all significant housing developments in the pipeline (referred to above), not only the Uttlesford developments listed in the Scoping Report, and of the general increase in traffic flows predicted for the East of England over the assessment period. Analysis of traffic The ES should include an analysis of passenger UK origins & UK destinations in the same format as in the CAA 35 To inform the assessment of surface access impacts. flows Passenger Survey Reports, for the base year, base case and the assessment years.

With a view to mitigating traffic impacts the ES should include feasibility studies of: • Off-site strategic park and ride Potential • Freedom for licensed taxis dropping off passengers at the airport, to be able to pick up passengers for the outward To ensure proper consideration of alternative approaches to 36 mitigation journey (as per Heathrow etc.) rather than the present exclusivity arrangement which allows only one taxi firm to operate mitigating the growth in airport- related road traffic. measures from the airport terminal and forecourt, creating unnecessary ‘empty running’; • Providing free public transport passes for airport employees and simultaneously introducing significant monthly car parking charges for airport employees (as per the surface access strategy at other European airports, e.g. Frankfurt.)

The ES should address the issue of fly parking by airport users in local towns and villages setting out any mitigation Fly parking is already a serious problem for local residents and any 37 Fly Parking measures proposed. increase in passenger numbers is likely to worsen the problem.

The Scoping Report asserts that “Public transport services will inevitably increase as a result of additional demand, which will in turn support currently marginal or uneconomic services. Other services will be extended or enhanced and predicted future services will be outlined in the TA and ES. The future intensification of use of the airport site will provide even greater opportunities for effective travel planning.” Public transport For the purposes of the TA and ES, this assertion needs to be supported with specific explanations as to how rail and To assess the adequacy of public transport services to support 38 services bus/coach services will increase to meet additional demand, over and above the requirements that were deemed 44.5mppa throughput at Stansted Airport. necessary to support the G1 permission. Network Rail is currently preparing its funding bid for CP6 (2019-24). The TA and the ES should make clear the assumptions that have been made with regard to the capacity improvements relevant to Stansted Airport rail services, in particular which improvements have been assumed will be included in the CP6 programme.

The ES and TA should specifically deal with the following questions: • What extra rail services are expected to be provided to cater for the increase in passenger throughput at the airport? • In order to meet the additional demand for rail services, to what extent will reliance be placed on train lengthening, to what extent on increased frequency of services and to what extent on increased infrastructure capacity? The assumed To assess the implications for rail services and any risks 39 Rail services timing of these expected capacity increases should be stated. associated with timing or funding. • In the case of rail infrastructure, it will be important for the ES and the TA not only to identify the specific schemes relied upon, for example, a second airport rail tunnel and increases in platform capacity at the airport to enable more frequent services, but also to state how and when they are expected to be funded, including by the applicant.

Transport for London (TfL) need to be consulted with regard to the increase in air passenger usage of Tottenham Hale To ensure that adequate capacity exists at Tottenham Hale, which 40 Tottenham Hale mainline rail station and its interchange with London Underground that would arise from the proposed development, and is already at or close to capacity at peaks. the capacity of Tottenham Hale to accommodate this.

The ES and TA should describe the additional local bus and long distance coach services (destinations and frequencies) Bus/coach 41 that would be provided to cater for the increase in passenger throughput at the airport and state what alterations, if any, To assess the implications for bus/coach services. services would need to be made to the bus/coach terminal facilities at the airport to cater for them. AIR NOISE

In addition to the list of documents at para 8.3 of the Scoping Report, the ES should also have regard to: • Aviation Policy Framework (‘APF’), March 2013; • UK Airspace Policy Consultation, February 2017; • Directive 2002/49/EC, 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise; and • The Professional Practice Guidance on Planning and Noise, May 2017. To ensure comprehensive and thorough assessment of the Assessment Importantly, the 2013 APF, which post-dates the 2008 permission by some five years, states: 42 impacts of aircraft noise, in the light of current Government policy framework “The Government recognises that noise is the primary concern of local communities near airports and we take its impact and guidance. seriously. As a general principle, the Government therefore expects that future growth in aviation should ensure that benefits are shared between the aviation industry and local communities. This means that the industry must continue to reduce and mitigate noise as airport capacity grows”. The ES should also attach due weight to the draft UK Airspace Policy, February 2017, which has proposed lowering the limits for adverse effect levels of aircraft noise for both day and night.

In view of the significant change in Government policy on aircraft noise that has taken place since 2008, a 2013 baseline should be included in the ES for all noise impacts so that adherence to the principle of sharing the benefits (as above) can 43 Air noise baseline To assess compliance with the 2013 APF. be assessed, noting that in 2013 the 57dB LAeq 16hr contour at Stansted enclosed 20.0 kms2 and included an estimated 1250 people (CAA data). Complaints 44 The ES should include mitigation proposals aimed at reducing the number of noise complaints. So that mitigation options are explored. analysis

The locations proposed in Table 8.2 for additional noise monitoring are insufficient to adequately establish the baseline noise survey for the area. The ES will also need to assess the impact on locations further away from the airport where people are living under flight paths, particularly under the Clacton and Buzzard departure routes and the arrival routes to runway 04 which does not have Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) implemented. Representative locations under these To enable proper assessment of the noise impacts, including 45 Noise monitoring flight paths should be added to the proposed list in Table 8.2. The analysis of complaints should be used to inform the cumulative impacts. selection of the additional locations. Special attention should be paid to vulnerable groups of the population in sensitive buildings, for instance in schools and hospitals close to the airport and under flight paths. Noise assessments should be undertaken on a 24-hour basis so that cumulative impacts can be assessed.

The Scoping Report (para 8.14) indicates that consideration will be given to measuring ambient noise levels. The rural 46 Ambient noise location of Stansted means that each aircraft overflight is clearly heard against low background noise levels. The ES will To ensure that noise impacts are properly assessed. therefore need to include measurements of ambient noise. In this regard LA90 indices should be used.

As proposed in the 2017 UK Airspace Policy consultation, the EA should include the 51dB LAeq.16hr as the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (‘LOAEL’) for daytime noise and 45 dB Lnight as the LOAEL for night time noise. LAmax 47 Noise Indices indices for individual noise events should also be included in the assessment. To ensure that noise impacts are properly assessed. Sound Exposure Level (SEL) noise footprint indices for a selection of the most commonly operated aircraft (passenger and cargo) should be provided.

Having regard to the known impacts, including the evidence from noise complaints, the air noise studies should consider To ensure that noise impacts are assessed across the relevant 48 Spatial Scope an area of not less than 25 miles x 25 miles centred on the midpoint of runway 04–22. geographical area.

The EA should include a specific assessment of helicopter noise, recognising (as does the DfT) that helicopters have Helicopter noise 49 different noise and vibration characteristics compared to fixed wing aircraft. Moreover the impact of low flying helicopters To ensure that helicopter noise impacts are properly assessed. impacts is currently concentrated on communities to the west of Stansted Airport. GROUND NOISE The ES should include ground noise contours for on-airport activity including aircraft taxiing, revving up engines before take-off, engine and braking noise on landing (including use of reverse thrust), use of APUs and GPUs, vehicular movement inside airport boundary, including from freight, and increased surface access movements on local roads. The General 50 cumulative impact of all of the foregoing needs to be assessed from the perspective of key receptors, namely local To ensure that noise impacts are properly assessed. methodology residents close to the airport, e.g. Molehill Green and Burton End, and there should be separate assessment of ground noise impacts for the day, evening and night periods. Again, the ES should show impacts for the base year, the base case and for 2025, 2033 and 2040.

51 Noise Indices LAmax indices for individual noise events should also be included in the assessment. To ensure that noise impacts are properly assessed.

While the Scoping Report implies that consideration will be given to measuring ambient noise levels, this is not specifically stated. The rural location of Stansted means that each aircraft ground movement is clearly heard against low background 52 Ambient noise To ensure that noise impacts are properly assessed. noise levels. The ES will therefore need to include measurements of ambient noise. In this regard LA90 indices should be used.

The airport is situated on high ground (348ft above average mean sea level) relative to the surrounding area. Having To ensure that noise impacts are assessed across the relevant 53 Spatial Scope regard to the known impacts, including the evidence from noise complaints, the ground noise studies should consider an geographical area. area of not less than 5 miles x 5 miles centred on the midpoint of runway 04–22. AIR QUALITY

Nitrogen oxides in particular can not only cause irritation but can have adverse long term effects on those suffering from chronic lung conditions, high blood pressure and/or cardiac disease, as well as on infants and young children. In view of the potentially serious health impacts on the local population and potential damage to local ecosystems, the AQ Even at relatively low levels, NOx and SOx have damaging effects 54 General assessment needs to thoroughly assess levels of NOx, SOx, PM10, PM2.5 and other harmful emissions. It will not be on vegetation growth, notably the ancient trees in protected ancient sufficient to rely upon G1 monitoring results and modelling, undertaken 10 or more years ago. woodland, such as Hatfield Forest and Elsenham Woods, both of which are (in part) adjacent to the airport and under the flight path. Particulates are known to cause long term damage to the respiratory system. They need to be routinely monitored and any potential increase needs to be assessed.

The ES should include an assessment of the combined impact of aircraft and vehicular emissions of NOx, SOx, PM10, PM2.5 and other emissions which can cause eutrophication at Hatfield Forest SSSI and NNR and Elsenham Woods SSSI, Monitoring undertaken for the G1 application highlighted NOx for the base year, and modelling predictions for the base case and the assessment years (2025, 2033 and 2040). impacts at these SSIs both of which are (in part) adjacent to the The EIA of AQ impacts should include: airport. Impact on the • Monitoring at three sites: (i) to the north west of Hatfield Forest; (ii) near Shell House in the centre of Hatfield Forest; 55 Modelling undertaken for the G1 application needs to be updated, adjacent SSSIs and (iii) near the centre of East End Wood (which is part of Elsenham Woods); not least because the anticipated reductions in vehicle emissions • Assessment of cores from Hatfield Forest lake to establish emission trends; are unlikely to have met the reasonable expectations at that time, • Survey of lichens and bryophytes in Hatfield Forest and Elsenham Woods; particularly with regard to diesel emissions. • Tree health surveys in Hatfield Forest and Elsenham Woods to assess die back and other effects on ancient trees as a result of eutrophication by NOx and SOx.

In accordance with the advice provided to UDC by Natural England on 7 July 2017, a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) is required to adequately assess the plan for likely significant effects upon Epping Forest SSSI. In addition, Natural Impacts on other 56 England have specifically identified Quendon Wood SSSI and High Wood Dunmow SSSI as designated nature To comply with the expert advice of Natural England. nearby SSIs conservation sites where assessment is needed to determine the degree to which additional air pollution arising from the proposed expansion of the airport could cause damage to ecosystems.

As well as specifically studying the local SSSIs referred to above, the general study area should be no less than a 5km 57 Study area radial sweep from both ends of the runway, i.e. to include Bishop’s Stortford and all local villages and other settlements To provide an adequate assessment of AQ impacts. within 5km of either end of the runway, and local access roads. The ES should provide the details of the AQ monitoring carried out to the south and south west of the airport, for example at Thremhall Priory, Start Hill and Hatfield Forest, stating the duration of the monitoring, the type of analyser(s) used and the results of the monitoring. To enable proper assessment of the air quality impacts and the 58 AQ monitoring Similarly, the ES should provide the details of the AQ the monitoring carried out to the north east of the airport, for example reliability of the baseline data. at East End Wood, Philipland Wood and Tilty, stating the duration of the monitoring, the type of analyser(s) used and the results of the monitoring.

59 Hockerill AQMA As stated under ‘Road Traffic’ heading above, the TA needs to examine the AQ impact on Hockerill AGMA In view of its sensitivity to any increase in road traffic emissions. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS

The ES should set out the actual number of airport related jobs for the base year, and the forecast number for the base case and for 2025, 2033 and 2040. The total number of jobs should be subdivided in the following 4 ways: By Category • Direct on-airport • Direct off-airport • Indirect • Induced By Geography • The estimated net additional jobs in each district in the Study Area. • The impact on the level of regional employment (i.e. Essex, Herts, Beds, Cambs, Norfolk & Suffolk combined). • The impact on the level of national employment (UK). By Post-holder nationality • UK nationals To provide the requisite database for proper assessment of the 60 Employment data • Other EU employment impacts. • Non EU By Type of Job • By SOC2000 major groups (9), as per ONS. • By STAL Employment Survey categories (8) – i.e. - Airlines & Handling Agents - Government Services - STAL/MAG - Catering & Retail - Other Public Passenger Services - Cargo, Freight/Courier Services - Building & Maintenance Contactors - Other Companies ** The ES should show average annual earnings for each category.

Potential adverse employment impacts should be considered, e.g. on rival airports and on local, regional or national 61 Opportunity costs To enable proper assessment of the employment impacts. employment in the tourism and leisure industries. Unemployment The ES should show unemployment numbers, the unemployment rate (%) and claimant count data for each of the LA 62 To enable proper assessment of the employment impacts. data areas in the employment study area. Having regard to the minimal unemployment in Uttlesford and East Herts, the ES should include an assessment of the Impact on local 63 impact of the additional airport jobs on the local jobs market, addressing the supply side and potential inflationary To enable proper assessment of the employment impacts. labour markets pressures. Available local The ES should show supply side projections of the skills/qualifications of the workforce in each of the LA areas in the study To consider the suitability of airport jobs to meet the 64 skills and area for 2025, 2033 and 2040, as well as for the base year and base case. needs/aspirations of the local working population. qualifications To enable full and proper assessment of the overall employment 65 EU employees The ES should include an assessment of the stricter immigration controls which will apply post Brexit. impacts. For the base year, the ES should provide the average employee retention rate1 for UK nationals, other EU and non-EU, by To assist in assessing the impact of stricter immigration controls, Employee STAL Employment Survey categories. 66 post Brexit, on the airport’s ability to recruit staff and on the local retention 1The number of employees who left during the previous calendar year as a percentage of the number employed at the end employment market. of the calendar year. The impact on the local labour supply and rates of pay in Uttlesford and East Herts should be assessed, particularly in Local employment To consider the impact of the proposed development on the local 67 relation to those types of jobs where the airport would be active in the recruitment market, competing directly for market economy. employees with local firms and the public sector.

One EU airline accounts for 4 out of 5 Stansted passengers and so Noting that Stansted Airport claims to be the biggest single site employer in the East of England and 86% of its passengers the loss of that airline, or a significant part of its business, is a risk Security of are flying to and from the EU (2016), the employment impact of a ‘hard’ Brexit and a ‘no deal’ Brexit should be assessed at which must be assessed, especially since the airline in question 68 employment a sub-regional level (i.e. the Employment Study Area) whereby EU airlines lost some, or even all, of their freedoms to has shown itself to be footloose in the past, on at least three operate from UK airports, and vice versa. occasions removing all its aircraft from an established operating base, almost overnight. HOUSING The ES should include an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the demand for housing, including 69 Impact on demand the rented sector in Uttlesford and East Herts districts, analysed between different types of housing, for example To inform the overall assessment and to assist in planning. ‘affordable’, flats, 1-2 bedroom houses, and 3+ bedroom houses. Cost of housing To consider the impact of the proposed development on the local 70 The impact on the housing market in Uttlesford and East Herts should be assessed, including the rented sector. impact economy. ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Stansted mainly caters for UK residents taking leisure trips abroad and its 2015 throughput of 22.5mppa gave rise to an estimated trade deficit of £1.4 billion on the UK balance of payments current The EIA should assess potential negative as well as positive effects, including: account. • At a national level, the impact of the proposed development on the UK balance of payments current account; Doubling Stansted’s throughput is likely to have a significant Regional and • At a regional level, the opportunity costs of the proposed development in relation to alternative economic activities 71 adverse impact on the UK trade deficit. It is also likely to adversely national impacts foregone or displaced. impact the domestic UK tourism industry since an increase in • Displacement effects on other London airports and other airports in the East of England. airport capacity will, ceteris paribus, result in cheaper air travel. • The displacement impact on the UK domestic tourism industry. Conversely, if there is no net increase in UK airport capacity this will mean that there has been a displacement effect, i.e. an opportunity cost for the development.

The impacts could be very significant since: • Stansted’s main airline, accounting for 4 out of every 5 Economic In addition to assessing the employment impacts of a ‘hard’ Brexit and a ‘no deal’ Brexit (item 67 above), the wider passengers, is an EU airline; 72 resilience economic impacts will also need to be assessed, in the event that EU airlines lost some, or even all, of their freedoms to • Stansted has the highest dependency on EU air travel of any & sensitivity operate from UK airports, and vice versa. major UK airport with 86% of its passengers flying to/from the EU in 2016. CLIMATE CHANGE The ES should provide a breakdown of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the base year and predictions for CO2 and GHG emissions in the base case and for 2025, 2033 and 2040. For reasons explained below, the assessment of carbon emissions should also be carried out for 2050. In addition to aircraft emissions the Impact on CO2 assessment should include CO2 emissions from: 73 and other - vehicular traffic on site and airport surface access traffic; To inform the assessment of CO2 and other GHG emissions. emissions - total energy use on the airport site; - energy use in rail access; - water supply, and sewage disposal; and - energy use in construction, including manufacture and transport of materials to site.

The ES should include an explanation as to how the proposed development can be reconciled with: • The recommendations of the Climate Change Committee that UK aviation carbon emissions should be no higher in 2050 than they were in 2005 (i.e. 37.5mtCO2), “without the use of international credits”. To examine the proposed development in the context of UK 74 Government policy • The legally binding commitment under the Climate Change Act to reduce overall UK carbon emissions by 80% by 2050, Government policy on tackling climate change. compared to the 1990 baseline. • The 2016 Paris Agreement on tackling climate change which the UK Government has signed and now also ratified.

Framework for UK The ES should state the assumptions that have been made about carbon emissions to 2050 at other UK airports, with To examine the proposed development in the context of UK 75 aviation emissions reference to the UK aviation emissions forecasts to 2050 produced by the DfT and the Airports Commission. Government policy on tackling climate change.

The ES will need to provide the estimated split between flights covered by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and 76 ETS those not covered. The details should include numbers of movements, distances travelled and forecast carbon emissions. To inform the assessment of climate impacts. Again, this will need to be assessed for 2050 as well as the other assessment years.

77 Post-Brexit ETS The ES should state the assumptions made with regard to the applicability of the EU ETS, post Brexit. To inform the assessment of climate impacts. The ES should state the assumptions made concerning the operation of the ICAO Carbon Offsetting and Reduction 78 CORSIA Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) which is due to begin in 2021 on a voluntary basis and on a mandatory basis To inform the assessment of climate impacts. from 2027. HEALTH & WELLBEING In considering the adverse health impacts of aircraft noise, the HIA must address the extensive body of academic evidence that people who are repeatedly disturbed by aircraft noise suffer sleep loss, fatigue and accidents from concentration Health impacts of 79 failure, particularly when undertaking complex tasks, as well as a reduction in productivity. More recently, peer reviewed To inform the assessment of health and wellbeing impacts. aircraft noise publications have shown that noise can adversely affect the cardiovascular system, inducing hypertension and vascular disease. Peer reviewed multinational studies show an adverse impact of aircraft noise upon cognitive development among primary school children living near airports, including the effects of ‘jet pause’. Noise impacts on individual local primary and Children’s 80 secondary schools should be identified and an assessment undertaken, which should include interviews with school staff, To inform the assessment of health and wellbeing impacts. education to establish the degree to which aircraft noise impacts may be impairing their teaching work and what mitigation may be possible.

Health impacts of The HIA should consider all of the evidence regarding the impact of particulate and other emissions that result from aircraft 81 To inform the assessment of health and wellbeing impacts. aircraft pollution and airport-related road traffic in the vicinity of airports and assess the impact on cardiorespiratory morbidity and mortality.

The HIA should include profiling of local communities and should identify vulnerable groups and individuals. The views of Local impacts local residents and other stakeholders should be sought and taken into account. For those living close to the airport and 82 including stress To inform the assessment of health and wellbeing impacts. under flight paths, there should be specific assessment of the stress and anxiety impacts arising from the very presence of, and anxiety as well as all the activities of, a large, busy airport.

St Elizabeth As part of the assessment of impacts upon vulnerable groups, there should be specific assessment of the effect upon the It is known that, over the years, aircraft noise impacts have been 83 Centre residents of the St Elizabeth Centre, Perry Green, Much Hadham. problematic for residents of St Elizabeth’s centre.

84 Mitigation The HIA should identifying and recommend potential mitigation measures for each of the above aspects. To examine the scope for mitigation. QUALITY OF LIFE The SR is dismissive of the value of a Quality of Life Assessment (QLA), but the Airports Commission considered this a valuable tool and the DfT has endorsed this approach. It is to misunderstand the nature of a QLA for RPS to claim that the QLA is a valuable assessment tool and is particularly relevant in 85 Assessment EIA and HIA will cover all the same points. A QLA should therefore be carried out for the proposed development in line this case where there is a proposal for major airport development with the principles developed jointly by the Countryside Agency, English Nature, Historic England and the Environment in a largely rural location. Agency. PUBLIC SAFETY & RISK Updated third party risk contours should be produced to show the 1 in 10,000 (10- PSZs and vortex So that the risks to local residents are clear, having regard to past 86 4) and 1 in 100,000 (10-5) public safety zones (PSZs). Incidence of vortices and associated vortex strikes also needs to risks events at Stansted. be assessed. The ES should state whether STAL would offer to purchase properties from homeowners within the new 1 in 100,000 risk 87 Home purchase For clarification. contour and, if so, on what terms. WATER & SEWAGE

The ES should provide details of potable water consumption on the airport site for the base year, the base case and each To enable the strategic water consumption implications of the Water of the assessment years. Monthly demand projections should be provided. The ES should also include estimates of the proposed development to be assessed, taking account of the wider 88 consumption indirect and induced effects of the proposed development on water consumption and of cumulative impacts across the demands that will be placed upon scarce water resources across region, having regard to the scale of housing development currently underway and planned. the region over the period to 2040.

Peak water To ensure adequate potable water supply arrangements are in 89 The ES should show peak day and peak week demand for potable water demand place. The ES should provide evidence that any increase in the need for potable water at the airport can be supplied without To ensure adequate potable water supply arrangements are in 90 Water availability detriment to other users. place. Efficient use of The ES should set out the measures that will be introduced to improve water efficiency (litres per passenger) across the 91 To encourage efficient use of a scarce regional resource. water airport site. The ES should explain the measures that STAL would introduce to improve water efficiency not only within its own 92 Airport tenants operations but also in relation to the operations of airport businesses such as hotels, offices, cargo warehouses, To encourage efficient use of a scarce regional resource. maintenance hangers etc.

Climate change - The EIA should consider the forecast impacts of Climate Change on rainfall patterns across the region, having regard to To ensure that the longer term outlook for regional water resources 93 rainfall effects the modelling studies carried out by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. is taken into account in the EIA.

The ES should provide evidence that adequate capacity exists, or will be put in place, to deal with any increase in sewage 94 Waste water To ensure adequate waste water capacity is in place. and waste water discharges arising from the proposed development. Confirmation should be sought from Thames Water Utilities Ltd and Veolia UK Ltd that they have the capacity to support To have confirmation that adequate potable water and waste water 95 Consultees the proposed development and are content to support it, subject to any conditions they would wish to attach (with any such capacity is in place. conditions to be stated). ENERGY & WASTE Efficient use of The ES should include an assessment of energy usage and of the implications for waste. The ES should state what 96 To encourage efficient use of resources. resources measures are intended to improve energy efficiency and to improve on waste recycling. The ES should explain the measures that STAL would introduce to improve energy efficiency and reduce waste not only 97 Airport tenants within its own operations but also in relation to the operations of airport businesses such as hotels, offices, cargo To encourage efficient use of resources. warehouses, maintenance hangers etc. Waste from The ES should set out what proportion of waste left by passengers on aircraft is currently recycled and what new measures 98 To encourage increased waste recycling. aircraft are planned to improve the rate of recycling of waste left by passengers on aircraft. ARCHAEOLOGY The recommendations of the Principal Historic Environment Advisor, Essex County Council, in his letter of 8 June 2017, To ensure appropriate archaeological investigation of the sites for 99 Investigation should be followed. the RET, RAT and new apron and stand developments. NATURE CONSERVATION – see also items 55 & 56 under the AIR QUALITY heading (above).

In line with the ecology advice provided by Essex County Council and to comply with the local authority’s statutory duty to Duty to protect protect biodiversity under s.40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, a survey and assessment To comply with the local authority’s statutory duty to protect 100 biodiversity must be carried out of priority habitats and both protected and priority species. The assessment needs to include not only biodiversity under s.40 of the NERC. the land area within the airport boundary but also Hatfield Forest SSSI and NNR and Elsenham Woods SSSI.

Important habitats inside the airport boundary, which will need to form part of the assessment, include: - an eight-acre ‘Wildlife Area’ established as a mitigation measure some 30 years ago; - a small area of ancient woodland; Important habitats - more recent woodlands and copses; To comply with the local authority’s statutory duty to protect 101 inside the airport - ancient and other hedges; biodiversity under s.40 of the NERC. boundary - a small fen; - several ponds, some of which support great crested newts; and - a small area of long established grassland. In line with earlier surveys carried out on behalf of Stansted Airport Ltd by Penny Anderson Associates (PAA) the features and species which need to be surveyed should include: - breeding birds; - badgers; - water voles; Scope of the - bats; To comply with the local authority’s statutory duty to protect 102 ecology survey - brown hares; biodiversity under s.40 of the NERC. - deer; - reptiles; - amphibians; - aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates; and - plants, including mosses and lichens. The ecological habitat audit for the airport, previously carried out for STAL by PAA should be updated and included in the To ensure that all likely ecological issues are included in the survey 103 Audit ES. and assessment. The ES should include mitigation measures to minimise the impacts as well as identify compensation and offsetting 104 Mitigation To mitigate the ecological impacts and seek to protect biodiversity. measures, including the establishment of new habitats outside of the present airport boundary. LANDSCAPE & VISUAL IMPACT The ES should include an assessment of the visual impact of the new works associated with the application, including the To ensure that the landscape and visual impacts are clearly 105 Visual impact construction of the new RAT, RET and aircraft stands. As a minimum this should show north, south, east and west understood. viewpoints. Any loss of landscape features should be identified. The ES should include an assessment of the night-time visual impact of the new works associated with the application, To ensure that the landscape and visual impacts are clearly 106 Impacts at night again for a minimum of north, south, east and west viewpoints. understood. To understand the impact on light pollution and to seek to mitigate 107 Light pollution The ES should include an assessment of light pollution and set out any proposed mitigation this. Cumulative The assessment of landscape and visual impacts should also include the impacts of the new airport arrivals building, which 108 So that the cumulative impact is assessed. impacts STAL intends to build over the next three years. The ES should set out all the intended measures to mitigate the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed To assess the extent to which landscape and visual impacts can 109 Mitigation development. be mitigated.