The 1985 decision that Stansted would become the third London Airport led to the introduction of strategic planning policies mainly based on the predicted increase in the number of employees needed on the airport for a throughput of 15 million passengers per annum (mppa). It is now evident that the original prediction was a gross overestimate.
The prediction was for a mean increase in the workforce on the Airport of 19,800, above the 3,000 deemed necessary for the airport’s pre-expansion capacity of 2 mppa, making a total of 22,800 (mean) at a throughput of 15 mppa.
Early
in 1999 it became apparent (from the DETR consultation document
on increasing the passenger air transport movement limitation
at Stansted Airport) that the numbers produced at the Airports
Inquiry were very considerable overestimates. Latest predictions
from BAA (in the October 2000 Consultation Report on raising the
activity level at Stansted Airport to 25 mppa) are that the number
of employees on the Airport will rise to only 11,100 at 15 mppa
and 16,000 at 25 mppa. The increase in employee numbers at 15
mppa has therefore reduced to 8,100, 41% of the original figure.
It is apparent that for the 25 mppa level of activity the increase
in employee numbers will only be 13,000, under 66% of the 1985
prediction for 15 mppa! BAA state (October 2000 Consultation Report)
that no special housing allocations will be required for expansion
to about 25 mppa.
The allocation of airport-related housing to Hertfordshire was 3,000, of which 500 would be dispersed throughout East Hertfordshire (within 30 minutes drive time to the Airport) and 2,500 in Bishop’s Stortford. By the end of financial year 2000/01, all but 692 of the Bishop’s Stortford allocation had been built.
CAUSE is convinced that enough housing has already been provided to cater for Airport expansion to 25 mppa. Also it is considered that, having received no requirement for housing post 15 mppa, the decision by the District Council to make such provision in the Local Plan is overstepping its authority. All reference to such housing must be deleted from the Deposit version of the Plan, in particular the 692 so-called “residual housing need”, as this flows from a planning hypothesis which has now been demolished. This being the case, the 692 should be redesignated as general housing requirement for the district and distributed accordingly.
