Hijacked planes should no longer be directed to Stansted, say Essex county councillors.
Last month's hijack of an Afghan aircraft, and its subsequent four day stand-off at Stansted Airport, causing inconvenience to thousands, and costing millions, has prompted councillors to say "enough is enough".
There was all-party support at last week's meeting of the county's community safety committee for a move by Conservative councillor Kay Twitchen to seek full council backing for an approach to the Government.
The committee will ask the council to press the Government to reconsider the designation of Stansted as the preferred airport for hijacked aircraft over western Europe.
It also wants an assurance that all costs incurred by the county council will be met in full.
Cllr Twitchen said Essex council taxpayers should not be expected to bear any costs associated with the hijack.
"If you happen to be a French, German, Italian, or Spanish taxpayer then it's jolly nice, isn't it, because they know if there is any trouble it is going to end up at Stansted," she said.
Stansted had proved that it was "singularly well equipped" to deal with such emergencies, thanks to the police and support services, Cllr Twitchen went on.
'But that does not mean we should have to continue to deal with these sort of issues well into the future," she said. "I believe there are moves on foot to consider redesignation and I think this council has an opportunity to make its views known."
Conservative councillor Tony Peel added: "It is right and proper that the designation of Stansted should be looked at again. It was designated in 1975: at that stage Stansted was a very different place."
Labour councillor Fred Card said it was unfair that Essex should have to bear the burden. It seemed to most people that another airport could be found, he said.
Restoration work on the area of Great Hallingbury and Hatfield Forest affected by the Korean cargo plane crash in December will not be complete until August or September, and soil analysis will need to be undertaken on the site for some time afterwards, it was reported to councillors.
Converted for the new archive on 19 November 2001. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article