PLANS for a second runway at Stansted Airport are facing a renewed battle, after the expansion of air travel in the UK was thrown into doubt.

The High Court has ruled the Government’s 2003 Air Transport White Paper, which supported airport expansion, needs to be rewritten, to take account of climate change targets.

Proposals for a third runway at Heathrow Airport will now have to go back to the drawing board, while at Stansted, there are also issues over ownership of the aiport.

BAA, which owns Stansted, had been ordered to sell it by the Competition Commission, but it won an appeal against the move.

The commission is fighting the ruling and the issue is set to hit the law courts again.

When the ownership issue is settled, BAA says it will take 12 to 18 months to prepare its case for the second runway, which means a public inquiry is unlikely to start much before early 2013, or get a result before 2015.

We spoke to those for and those against the plans for their thoughts on Stansted’s future.

Nick Barton, commercial and development director, Stansted Airport, puts the case for expansion:

Stansted has two plans, he says. The first, which it was granted permission for in October 2008, is to cater for up to 35 million passengers a year.

An extra 3,000 jobs could be created if that number is achieved.

The airport’s second major plan, which is currently on hold while legal wrangles are resolved ahead of a public inquiry, is the second runway.

It has the support of central Government, in its 2003 Air Transport White Paper, which made the case for making the best use of airport infrastructure.

It would be the first new, full-length runway in south-east England for over 60 years, creating more than 13,000 new jobs by 2030.

The airport rapidly grew from about 1995 and headed towards its then passenger limit of 25 million a year, at quite a rate of knots, through 2005 to 2007.

But the recession led to passenger numbers dropping to its current rate of around 20 million.

We have seen our passenger volumes decline, year-on-year, but in aviation we have to take a long-term view. We are not unduly concerned about the short-term changes in growth.

It is very difficult to predict how long it will take to get to 35 million passengers per annum. You could argue over how that will be achieved.

What we need is to have the permission, so when it does arrive, we can provide it in a sustainable way.

You generally get average growth of 3 to 4 per cent per annum.

War, oil crises, disease and pestilence have all affected passenger numbers at airports in the past, and if you had taken the short-term view of Stop Stansted Expansion, you would have killed the infrastructure at that point by deciding not to expand.

Stansted doesn’t want to be a new Heathrow, which deals with transfer flights.

Only 10 to 15 per cent of flights at Stansted are long-haul.

The Essex terminal mainly caters for passengers who fly from Stansted to their destination, or fly from abroad to the terminal.

BAA remains committed to a second runway, detailed in a 26,000-page planning application, which took three-and-half years to produce.

We still believe in the long-term demand for a second runway and so does the Government.

In February this year, the Government published further comment saying, while passenger growth has struggled in the south-east and particularly at Stansted, it has reiterated its view there is a strong growth at Stansted up to 2030.

But what if there is a new party in charge of the country after the general election?

At the moment, the White Paper is the only policy we have. It is the policy we go by. If that changes, we will have to deal with the changes that follow.

The initial phase of the development, including a new runway and second terminal, will cost between £1.6bn and £1.8bn.

No one disagrees there will be an environmental impact.

We believe the economic impact massively outweighs the environmental harm. We wouldn’t do it if it didn’t.

The full details of the economic aspect have not yet been discussed at the inquiry, but there would be billions of pounds worth of benefits.

Stansted currently employs between 10,800 and 11,200 staff and is the biggest single-site employer in the east of England.

We are acutely aware the impact an airport has on local people.

We want to make that point and also make people aware we want to do what we can to reduce that impact.

Carol Barbone, campaign director, Stop Stansted Expansion, argues:

There's a distinct irony in the fact the end of the public inquiry into BAA’s plans to expand Stansted’s single runway capacity, in October 2007, coincided with a peak in passenger numbers, at 24.1 million people annually, before beginning a major decline.

Not least since BAA’s application to increase capacity, from 25 to 35 million passengers a year, was approved.

The irony is even greater now passenger numbers have fallen consistently since then, and now, at 19.8 million, are at their lowest since the time of the Government White Paper in 2003, which proclaimed the need for major airport expansion.

This downward trend shows no sign of being reversed any time soon.

So why, then, instead of facing the facts and withdrawing its application, does BAA continue to argue in favour of its second runway plans, lodged in 2008?

It’s not as if there isn’t plenty of capacity on the existing runway, which could easily handle more than double the current number of passengers, or a host of new destinations, in the period to 2030.

It’s not as if the demand, if it were there, couldn’t be met.

No, this is more about BAA’s bravado and nest feathering, not least so it can get a better price for the airport when the Competition Commission’s axe finally falls and the airport’s sell-off becomes inevitable.

BAA is hedging its bets, watching out for its own interests, without any respect for those in the community in which it operates, or those whose lives and livelihoods are so seriously blighted as a result of ill-founded plans.

Yet were the airport operator, or any new owner, to be successful in making Stansted bigger than Heathrow today, the impact would be enormous for those living in Essex.

The character and shape of the landscape in the immediate vicinity of the airport would be radically altered.

With overflying and visual intrusion the main concerns, the sense of tranquility that is known and loved by so many who live, work and enjoy leisure in these parts, would be shattered – something we’ve already had a hint of in the past decade from noise complaints up to 40 miles away.

This would be worsened by road traffic issues across the county. Plans for the airport include a significant rise in parking provision – to around 85,000 spaces – twice the number at Heathrow, attracting ever more vehicles to the roads.

There’s worse. A second Stansted runway would be a major setback to efforts to combat climate change, increasing the airport’s emissions by the equivalent of 11 million tonnes of CO2 a year.

And to what end? An airport which, having wreaked its destruction on the landscape and precious heritage of north-west Essex, would be ultimately capable of handling half-a-million flights and 68 million passengers a year, if demand ever materialised, but which probably won’t?

It’s a sacrifice few would tolerate, and most, not least Stop Stansted Expansion, will fight as long as it takes.