Discussions got underway last week on rebuilding bridges with the airport and commenting critically on the coalition’s consultation on the future of aviation in the UK. I had reported a meeting of the council’s advisory panel for July, but this was postponed owing to the absence of members from the adminstration group.

It was a good meeting, well chaired by Jackie Cheetham. There was a clear view that, with the binning of the second runway planning application, normal relations with airport management should be resumed. They will again be invited to attend panel meetings. The same goes for Stop Stansted Expansion, our highly effective local pressure group on all things airport. 

No one is under any illusion that, despite coalition government statements against extra runways, the spectre of major expansion will rear its head again if the economy recovers. How the council calls on the government to promise a moratorium on Stansted expansion beyond present permissions remains unresolved.

We are still waiting for the government to issue its conclusions on aviation and climate change and its traffic forecasts. This is holding up our ability to respond by the consultation deadline of end September. An extension will be requested.

What was clear was the need to ensure that the government evaluates the economic benefits of aviation fairly. This is crucial, given the recent government drive to place economy before environment and society in all planning matters and hence the weighting it gives to aviation. The industry does like to count the positives, but ignore the negatives and civil servants and minsters have been known to swallow that line!!

What does Localism mean for airport scrutiny? Should the night noise regime be administered locally rather in Whitehall? Does the airport’s consultative committee need to be freed from the perception of being a tool of the airport owner rather than an arm of the community around the airport?