The sheer audacity of the plans under consideration for Stansted are terrifying, not least because the government had always promised that Stansted would remain an airport in the countryside.
At present over 15 million passengers take off or land on Stansted's single runway each year. The consultation, however, proposes the addition of one, two or three extra runways which, at a minimum, would make the airport bigger than Heathrow with capacity for 82 million passengers per year within nine years. At worst, with three extra runways, Stansted would become the world's largest airport, handling 129 million passengers each year by 2030.
It isn't merely the fact that the addition of one or more runways at Stansted would eat up vast amounts of land, homes and heritage in its construction. Or that substantially increased flight movements including hundreds of jumbo jets and double decker airbuses each day would add to the noise and air pollution of a largely unspoilt rural area. It is the fact that the whole character of the region would change.
Urbanisation would rapidly eat up the beautiful open spaces, charming hamlets and market towns which characterise the area, not to mention putting incredible pressure on the infrastructure which would struggle to support such a massive development: airport facilities and related services, hotels and offices would all need to be built, while major road and rail expansion - including an enlarged motorway from the M25 to the airport - plus thousands of new homes would also be essential - to say nothing of airport induced commercial activity.
The statistics - and these are only the tip of the iceberg - are set out in matter of fact terms but the mind becomes numb after a while so it is simplest just to think of Heathrow, double it, and then add some more.
It is almost unthinkable that a consultation could be so irresponsible, not only by paying so little regard to the promises of the past and what will be lost if runway expansion goes ahead, but by giving away the quality of life of so many people to BAA - the existing monopoly provider - which stands to gain so much from expansion. Little wonder that BAA has remained so quiet during the consultation.
Why else would the government be so resistant to applying demand management measures to contain air travel within reasonable limits? When you can buy an air ticket to Europe for less than the cost of a train ticket to London, surely it is time to reconsider the airline subsidies which make fuel tax and VAT free (and a quarter of the price paid by motorists), or which make aircraft and their spare parts VAT free and do not contribute to environmental costs of noise and air pollution reduction.
Stop Stansted Expansion's objective is to quash the consultation process which we believe is fundamentally flawed by not giving proper consideration to all the available options. Gatwick, for example, was omitted from the consultation's options because of a legal agreement between BAA and West Sussex County Council and we are now challenging this through a judicial review.
But in opposing the building of new runways at Stansted, our aim is not to play pass-the-parcel, trying to save our local environment at the expense of some other local community. We certainly don't believe that extra runways at Heathrow or Gatwick or a new airport at Cliffe are the right way forward. We are more interested in asking the government about its narrow vision.
Why, for example, has the government failed to look much more seriously at the opportunity to develop a proper high-speed rail network to offer an efficient alternative to short haul air travel, as the Japanese and French have done?
And, if there really must be more airport capacity in the south east, why haven't offshore options featured in the consultative documents? In Hong Kong and Korea offshore solutions provide economic gain with minimal environmental pain and there are other examples around the world: even Kyoto is served by an offshore airport. Our government seems to have forgotten about this.
If the government is sincere about having a genuine debate, then the Transport Secretary should open his eyes, and stop trying to play one local community against another on the false premise that there is no alternative except to expand existing airports and build more inland airports.
Perhaps Alistair Darling's narrow vision meant that when he began the consultation in July he thought it would be possible to terrify our community with the prospect of three extra runways so that we would all be greatly relieved when he finally announced that only one extra runway would be allowed. Rest assured, we are not so easily fooled or so compliant.
Norman Mead is Chairman of Stop Stansted Expansion. See www.stopstanstedexpansion.com for more information.
Send us your views
Email your views on airport expansion to debate@ observer.co.uk. Email Observer site editor Sunder Katwala at observer@guardianunlimited.co.uk with comments on articles or ideas for future pieces.
You can write to the author of this piece at info@stopstanstedexpansion.com.
About Observer Comment Extra
The Observer website carries additional online commentary each week, with articles responding to recent pieces and offering additional coverage of the major issues.
Please get in touch if you would like to offer a piece and see Observer Comment for this week's pieces. Online commentaries are also trailed in the print pages of the newspaper.
