I was puzzled and concerned by an interview on BBC TV’s Look East evening bulletin last week. The interview was between the BBC’s Stewart White and Cllr John Lodge, the Leader of Uttlesford District Council. The news item reported on the district council’s planning committee’s refusal on January 24th of Stansted Airport’s application to raise passenger and flight numbers about the present cap.

A transcript of Look East’s item can be read here.

I have requested some answers from Cllr Lodge in an OPEN LETTER:

31^st January 2020

Cllr John Lodge, Leader, Uttlesford District Council

Dear John

BBC “LOOK EAST” INTERVIEW, STANSTED AIRPORT AND “GROWING TOGETHER HARMINIOUSLY”

When I spoke to Uttlesford’s planning committee on January 24^th about aviation carbon emissions and the climate emergency, I quoted the Prince of Wales’s plea in Switzerland two days earlier: “Do we want to go down in history as the people who did nothing when we could have?”

Uttlesford’s planning committee decided to do something. It refused Stansted Airport permission to raise both the passenger cap and flight numbers. The votes of Conservative, Independent, Liberal Democrat and Residents for Uttlesford (R4U) councillors were ten to nil.

The following week, you spoke on BBC Look East with Stewart White. You claimed that the vote was a party-political initiative by Residents for Uttlesford, despite the planning committee’s requirement of freedom from party political interference.

You claimed a one-party success story by R4U, based on your group’s councillors being “in the forefront of change” to “not have directions from Westminster to the local parties”. You then contradicted yourself by saying that long-term airport planning “has got to be part of a national infrastructure consideration” that comes from central government.

Sadly, you made no mention of climate changing aviation emissions, or aircraft noise and air quality impacts on health; the reasons why planning committee members refused the application. The planning committee made no reference to wanting more money from the airport, whilst you said “…money, money is important”.

I am afraid that your interview, John, seemed like an attempt to hijack the non-partisan planning committee’s decision for opportunistic party-political advantage. I hope you are able to reassure me that this is not the case.

Yours sincerely

Alan Dean