Aviation Forum
Thursday 27 May 2010
Web Agenda/Minutes Summary Document
Meeting Name:
Aviation Forum
Meeting Date:
05/27/2010 Pick
Meeting Time:
Location:
Sub Committee / User Forum etc (if required):
Members Present:
Non-Members Present:
Confidentiality: Part I
Document Type: Agenda
Document Status: Final
O F
M E E T I N G
AVIATION FORUM
will meet on
At 09.30 AM
in the
WINDSOR
TO: ALL MEMBERS OF THE FORUM:
COUNCILLORS BICKNELL (CHAIRMAN), ADAMS, BEER, LENTON, MUIR and THOMPSON.
Agenda issued: Wednesday 19th May 2010
The Agenda is also available on the Council’s web site at www.rbwm.gov.uk
Members of the Press and Public are welcome to attend this meeting.
In the event of the fire alarm sounding or other emergency, please leave the building quickly and calmly by the nearest exit. Do not stop to collect personal belongings. Congregate on the cobbled area, outside Hamptons Estate Agents and do not re-enter the building until told to do so by a member of staff.
AGENDA
| ITEM | SUBJECT | PAGE NO |
 | 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE | - |
| 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST | - |
| 3. MINUTES To receive the minutes of the last meeting of the Forum held on 16 February 2010. | i-vii |
| 4. ITEMS
ii) Strategic Aviation Special Interest Group (SASIG) – Verbal update iii) Local Authority Aircraft Noise Council (LAANC) – Verbal update iv) 2M Update v) Judicial Review Outcome - Verbal Update and Press Releases (attached) vi) The new Government’s Announcement on Runways for London’s Airports (report and press releases attached) vii) The Impact on Local Air Quality of the Closure of London’s Airports (report attached) viii) New ISO Standard for Aviation Noise Monitoring (report attached) ix) Update on the ‘Future of UK Aviation’ paper by Michael Sullivan x) Aviation Passenger Duty xi) Correspondence with the Head of Aviation Noise Policy xii) Press Relations | - - - - 1 4 6 10 - - - - |
| 5. ITEM SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE FORUM MEETINGS The Forum is invited to make suggestions for items to be considered at future Forum Meetings. | |
| 6. DATES OF FUTURE FORUM MEETINGS Dates of future meetings are confirmed as follows: 10th August 23rd November 8th February 2011 3rd May 2011 | |
News Release
For immediate use
21.4.10 14/10
- Legal costs victory for runway challenge
In making the order Lord Justice Carnwath said the claimants – a coalition of environmental groups and local councils including the Royal Borough and other members of the 2M group – had achieved a "substantial success" in the case and that an undertaking given by the Transport Secretary Lord Adonis was a "major concession."
The undertaking compels the government to reconsider all relevant policy issues regarding expansion at Heathrow before any future applications can be considered.
This would involve reviewing the climate change implications of Heathrow expansion, the economic case for a third runway, and the issue of how additional passengers would get to a bigger airport.
The undertaking ensures that the Government's 2003 Air Transport White Paper, which underpins airport expansion plans across the UK, cannot simply be cut and pasted into
the Aviation National Policy Statement due in 2011.
Cllr Phill Bicknell, chairman of the borough's aviation forum, said: "This is very welcome news indeed for everyone who is opposed to expansion at Heathrow. A great many people worked extremely hard to bring this appeal to the High Court last month on behalf of our residents – and the news that the government is going to bear 60% of our costs as well as their own is extremely good.
"Now we must continue the fight against expansion and establish exactly what the High court ruling means for our residents."
One of the judge's key findings at the High Court ruled that the White Paper is inconsistent with the Climate Change Act 2008 and that it was "untenable in law and common sense" for the Government to treat the issue of Heathrow expansion as settled by a policy statement from seven years ago.
As a result ministers will now have to go back to the drawing board and take into account the implications of the Climate Change Act 2008 when drawing up new aviation policy.
- ends
Cllr Phill Bicknell, chairman of the Royal Borough's aviation forum – t tel: 01753 840307
Terry Gould, head of public protection – t tel: 01628 683501
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
News Release
For immediate use
26.3.10 265/09
- Third runway "effectively dead" after High Court ruling
The judge dismissed the government's claims to the contrary as "untenable in law and common sense".
The challenge to the government's proposals was brought by the Royal Borough and five other members of the 2M group opposed to Heathrow expansion and a number of other residents groups and aircraft noise campaigners.
The court ruled that if the government wants to pursue its plans for Heathrow expansion it must now go back to square one and reconsider the entire case for the runway.
The implications of today's ruling are profound, not just for Heathrow but for airport expansion plans across the UK. Lord Justice Carnwath ruled that the 2003 Air Transport White Paper – the foundation of expansion plans across the country – is obsolete because it is inconsistent with the Climate Change Act 2008.
Speaking after ruling was announced, Cllr Phill Bicknell, chairman of the borough's aviation forum who attended this morning's hearing, said: "This is great news for Royal Borough residents and all those people in areas around the airport who would be even more affected by any future expansion at Heathrow.
"Too many of our residents already suffer from massive noise and pollution caused by the activities at the airport. We have worked long and hard on behalf of those residents to reach this stage and we are absolutely delighted with today's ruling."
The judge expressed real concern over the "hardship caused to the local community by uncertainty" over the third runway. The coalition which brought the successful legal challenge is now calling on the Government to end the uncertainty and scrap the runway plans once and for all.
The judge ruled that:
- · If the Government decides to push ahead with the runway project it must now review the climate change implications of Heathrow expansion, the economic case for a third runway, and the issue of how additional passengers would get to a bigger airport
· The Government's entire aviation policy must now be reviewed to take into account the implications of the 2008 Climate Change Act. The judge found that "the claimants' submissions add up, in my view, to a powerful demonstration of the potential significance of developments in climate change policy since the 2003 Air Transport White Paper. They are clearly matters which will need to be taken into account under the new Airports National Policy Statement."(1)
· On the economic case for Heathrow expansion he would be 'surprised' if the recent tripling of the estimated cost to society of emitting carbon did not have 'a significant effect' on the economic case for the runway. The judge also said that "it makes no sense to treat the economic case as settled in 2003".
- · On the issue of surface access he said the claimants' case – there is no credible plan in place to transport millions of extra passengers to an expanded Heathrow – was 'justified'. Significantly, he noted that the government was "unable to provide a convincing answer" in court when it was pressed about overcrowding on the Piccadilly underground line that would result from construction of a third runway.
The judge is now inviting the government to sign a legally-binding undertaking that it will not base future aviation policy solely on its 2003 White Paper. A further court hearing is expected to take place next month to examine the government's response to the judge's request. At the same hearing the coalition will seek costs and fully expects to recover those costs from the government.
Cllr David Burbage, leader of the council and the borough's representative on the 2M Group, said: "This is a spectacular victory for our residents. The government had been trying to close down debate on the true economic impact of a third runway by presenting it as a done deal.
Today’s ruling has blown that position apart. The Government just did not want to have to take on board the real consequences of new climate change laws. The judge made it clear the figures just did not add up.
“If after this ministers are still intent on pressing ahead with expansion they will have to go back to the beginning and justify the whole economic case in public. Knowing what we now know about rising carbon costs this is an argument they cannot win.
“The third runway is effectively dead because it cannot survive the proper economic and environmental scrutiny which the Government tried to avoid. As local councils we call on the Prime Minister to do to the decent thing and bury this discredited policy.”
The challenge was brought by the Royal Borough together with Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow, Hillingdon, Richmond upon Thames and Wandsworth councils with support from Kensington and Chelsea, Transport for London and the Mayor of London.
The councils were joined by the local residents group (Notrag), aircraft noise campaigners HACAN, World Wildlife Fund UK, Campaign to Protect Rural England and Greenpeace. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds was an expert witness.
The local authorities are all members of the 2M Group which comprises 24 local councils opposed to Heathrow expansion with a combined population of 5 million.
For further information on the challenge visit www.2MGroup.org.uk
- ends
Contacts:
Cllr Phill Bicknell, chairman of the Royal Borough aviation forum – tel: 01753 840307
Cllr David Burbage, council leader and the Royal Borogh's representative on the 2M group – tel: 01628 796565
Terry Gould, head of public protection and sustainability – tel: 01628 683501
4
REPORT TO AVIATION FORUM
Title: ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE NEW GOVERNMENT ABOUT A THIRD RUNWAY
Date: 27th May 2010
Member Reporting: Phillip Bicknell, Lead Member for Public Protection, Chairman, Aviation Forum.
Contact Officer(s): Philip Turner, Team Leader – Environmental Protection.
Tel: 01628 683645
Wards affected:
All Wards of the Borough are potentially by any aviation related issues but especially the towns and Parishes of Windsor, Eton, Wraysbury, Horton, Datchet and Old Windsor, Maidenhead and surrounding areas.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 The subject is reported for member’s interest: and for members of the forum to address & debate the implications of the announcement.
1.2 One of the first decisions made by the incoming administration was to announce one of the key policies of the coalition - the abolition of the third runway proposals the associated sixth terminal will now not bee required.
1.3 Whilst this is, overall, good news, there are some hazards inherent in this policy change.
2. IMPLICATIONS
2.1 Whilst this is good news, it is inherent in this decision that BAA will seek to maximise use of such present facilities as are available to it, particularly in the light of a similar decision not to proceed with a second runway at |Gatwick Airport.
2.2 Matters which could become of increasing significance are:
l Night flying: times, exemptions etc. Theses are sensitive matters which have exercised residents concerns for many years and return to consideration;
l Full Alternation: the present decision could well lead to a change in the former Secretary of State’s decision to implement full alternation.
l Mixed Mode:
l Variations in the routeing arrangement proposals contained in Terminal Control North consultation. Whilst this consultation took no account of traffic accessing any third runway, it was widely seen (in respect of Heathrow) as one tool for clearing airspace in preparation for the (then) proposed third runway.
RECOMMENDATION
Members of the Forum are recommended to debate the possible hazards to the Borough resulting from the announcement, including those above with a view to determining a course of action designed to protect residents.
Background Papers. None.
Published information only.
6
REPORT TO AVIATION FORUM
Title: IMPACT ON LOCAL AIR QUALITY OF THE CLOSURE OF LONDON’S AIRPORTS
Date: 27th May 2010
Member Reporting: Phillip Bicknell, Lead Member for Public Protection, Chairman, Aviation Forum.
Contact Officer(s): Philip Turner, Team Leader – Environmental Protection.
Tel;: 01628 683645
Wards affected:
All Wards of the Borough are potentially by any aviation related issues but especially the towns and Parishes of Windsor, Eton, Wraysbury, Horton, Datchet and Old Windsor, Maidenhead and surrounding areas.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 The subject is reported for members interest: it concerns monitoring by airport operators.
2. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF AIRPORT CLOSURE ON LOCAL AIR QUALITY
by Ben Barratt and Gary Fuller of King’s College London Environmental Research Group
We have received many enquiries asking what the effects of the closure of UK airspace has had on air quality surrounding major airports. In response we have made an initial analysis of NOX and NO2 concentrations surrounding Gatwick and Heathrow airports during the first three days of closure – Thursday 15th to Saturday 17th April 2010. This period was chosen due to the stable weather conditions with light north easterly winds, allowing a cross‐sectional analysis upwind and downwind of the airports.
This period of unprecedented closure during unexceptional weather conditions has allowed us to demonstrate that the airports have a clear measurable effect on NO2 concentrations and that this effect disappeared entirely during the period of closure, leading to a temporary but significant fall in pollutant concentrations adjacent to the airport perimeters.
Concentrations recorded by a monitoring site arise from a mix of pollution sources both local and distant affecting that specific location. In order to separate and quantify the affects of a particular local source, such as emissions from an airport, a control dataset is required. In this case pairs of monitoring sites were used located either side of each airport. The upwind monitors provided the control data. By subtracting hourly mean concentrations recorded by the upwind site from those recorded by the downwind site, an estimation of emissions from the airport could be made – termed ‘airport’ concentrations.
Gatwick Airport
Reigate and Banstead Borough Council operate three continuous monitoring sites close to the perimeter of Gatwick airport, two of which were well placed to make such a cross‐sectional assessment. Poles Lane (‘RG3’) is situated in a suburban location approximately 0.5 km to the south west of the runway. This site provided downwind concentrations during north easterly winds. Horley (‘RG1’) is in a suburban location approximately 2.5 km to the north east of the runway and therefore provided upwind concentrations. Both sites continuously monitor NOX and have been in operation since 2005 and 2000 respectively.
In order to assess the impact of the airport closure on NOX and NO2 concentrations, hourly mean ‘airport’ NOX and NO2 concentrations at RG3 were calculated from April 2005 up to the date of closure (15th April 2010 12:00) using the method described above. This process was then repeated for the closure days (15th April 2010 12:00 to 19th April 2010 00:00). Local wind data were taken from the RG1 and RG3 monitoring sites. This dataset was then filtered to only include data recorded during wind directions between 0 and 90 degrees when emissions arising within the airport had been shown to have an impact.
Figure 1 shows filtered daily diurnal mean ‘airport’ NOX concentrations for the ‘open’ and ‘closed’ periods. The yellow shaded areas indicate hours where filtered data were available during the closure period, i.e., winds were from the north or north east. This chart shows that during normal operating conditions ‘airport’ NOX concentrations increase during the day peaking at around 22 to 25 μg m‐3 on average. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals, i.e., concentrations over the five year period fell between these error bars approximately 95% of the time. During the period of closure (15th to 17th April 2010) mean ‘airport’ NOX concentrations were zero most of the time, with a short peak of 4 μg m‐3 on Saturday at 10am. All concentrations were well below the lower 95% confidence interval indicating that the difference from ‘normal’ operation was statistically significant.
The analysis was repeated for NO2, with similar results. ‘Airport’ NO2 concentrations dropped from a mean of 8 μg m‐3(peak of 13 μg m‐3) during normal operation (06:00 to 22:00) to zero during most hours of closure (maximum of 1 μg m‐3 on Friday at 01:00). The annual mean NO2 concentration measured at RG3, to the south west of the airport, during 2009 would decrease from 18 μg m‐3 to approximately 16 μg m‐3 in the absence of airport emissions. The impact of the airport is likely to be greater in the populated areas to the north east of the airport (Horley) due to prevailing winds from the south west.
Figure 1: Comparison of diurnal variation in filtered 'airport' NOX concentrations during normal
operation and airport closure.
Heathrow Airport
A similar analysis was carried out using a NE/SW cross‐section pair of monitoring sites surrounding Heathrow airport. The downwind site, Oaks Road (‘LH7’) is located approximately 0.6 km south of Heathrow’s southern runway. Due to data not being available from closer sites to the north east of the airport, a site in Southall (‘EA7’) approximately 4.5 km from the airport was used as the upwind site. The data periods and filtered wind directions were the same as the Gatwick analysis. Due to slightly different wind patterns and an earlier change in wind direction, the analysis could only be carried out on Thursday and Friday 15th and 16th April.
During normal operating conditions the LH7 site recorded mean ‘airport’ NOX concentrations of 64 μg m‐3 (06:00 to 22:00), far higher than those recorded at the Gatwick site. This dropped to 10 μg m‐3 during the closure period. ‘Airport’ NO2 concentrations, which were also higher than those at Gatwick, dropped from 27 μg m‐3 to 8 μg m‐3. In the absence of airport emissions, the annual mean NO2 concentration recorded at LH7 during 2009 would decrease from as 33 μg m‐3 to approximately 30 μg m‐3. As with Gatwick, the impact of airport emissions is likely be greater to the north east of the airport over a full year.
This exceptional closure has allowed us to demonstrate the impacts of airport emissions on their immediate neighbourhood. The evidence from this preliminary analysis can be extended to quantify the impacts of Gatwick and Heathrow airport on their neighbourhoods during normal operation. This preliminary study did not consider the impact of decreased traffic flows on airport feeder roads. Decreased flows are likely to have a significant effect on concentrations of vehicle‐related pollutants close to such roads. Unfortunately, we do not have sufficient traffic data to carry out this analysis at this time.
FOOTNOTE ON AIR QUALITY
Air targets missed
The European Environment Agency has warned that around half of Europe’s member states will miss one or more of their legal emission limits for 2010,.
Of the four pollutants covered in the directive nitrogen oxides from road transport is proving the most difficult target to meet with only 16 states expected to legally comply. Road transport was responsible for 40 per cent of EU NOx emissions in 2008. Although NOx emissions have fallen since 1990 the drop has not been as great as expected due to vehicle emission standards not delivering the level of cuts anticipated.
Several member states such as Sweden, Slovenia and the UK are expected to exceed their emission limits by margins of less than 5 per cent. In contrast Austria, Belgium and Ireland are all expected to exceed targets by over 40 per cent.
The targets set by the National Emission Ceilings Directive cover the four main air pollutants sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, non-methane volatile organic compounds and ammonia.
These pollutants harm both human health and the environment by helping form ozone and particulates. A revision of the directive is expected to impose even stricter targets by 2020. The revised directive may for the first time include a ceiling for fine particulates (PM2.5).
RECOMMENDATION
Members of the Forum are recommended to note the contents of the Kings College ERG report
Background Papers.
Report from University of London, Kings College, Environmental Research Group.
Footnote: News Release from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health 14th May 2010.
10
Title: NEW ISO STANDARD FOR AVIATION NOISE MONITORING
Date: 27th May 2010
Member Reporting: Phillip Bicknell, Lead Member for Public Protection, Chairman, Aviation Forum.
Contact Officer(s): Philip Turner, Team Leader – Environmental Protection.
Tel;: 01628 683645
Wards affected:
All Wards of the Borough are potentially by any aviation related issues but especially the towns and Parishes of Windsor, Eton, Wraysbury, Horton, Datchet and Old Windsor, Maidenhead and surrounding areas.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 The subject is reported for members interest: it concerns monitoring by airport operators.
2. THE NEW ISO[1] STANDARD
[1] International Standards Organisation. These standards are inevitably, eventually incorporated into
the UK ‘s British Standards.
The aim of the new ISO standard is written with a view to helping to reduce noise in the neighbourhood of airports.
The new standard ISO 20906:2009, Acoustics – Unattended monitoring of aircraft sound in the vicinity of airports, will help regulators, professionals and researchers in their effort to reduce noise in the vicinity of airports.
This International Standard gives requirements for reliable measurement of aircraft sound. It describes a threshold system of sound event recognition in a complex sound environment with multiple aircraft and other sound sources. ISO 20906:2009 specifies the typical application for a permanently installed sound-monitoring system around an airport
§ Performance specifications for instruments and requirements for their unattended installation and operation, in order to determine continuously monitored sound pressure levels of aircraft sound at selected locations
§ Requirements for monitoring the sound of aircraft operations at an airport
§ Requirements for the quantities to be determined in order to describe the sound of aircraft operations
§ Requirements for data to be reported and frequency of publication of reports
§ A procedure for determining the expanded uncertainty of the reported data in accordance with ISO/IEC Guide 98-3, Uncertainty of measurement – Part 3: Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM: 1995).
The press release by ISO refers to: ‘Exposure to intense noise or noise over long periods can lead to hearing damage and other physiological impairments. Those impacts are recognized both for those working on the site of an airport and for those who live near the runways’, and continues:
Mr. Berthold Vogelsang, Project leader and convenor of ISO Working group which prepared the standard, comments: "the environmental concerns of people living near airports is increasingly taken into account by governments, airport authorities and aviation companies. Manufacturers are developing quieter aircraft, governments are committing themselves to reduce noise around airports and plans to fight against noise pollution are being adopted. To achieve the objectives of such initiatives, regulators and aviation professionals need internationally agreed measuring tools and reference documents, ISO 20906 is a practical answer to this need."
RECOMMENDATION
Members of the Forum are recommended to note the existence of the new standard & receive a verbal update of potential implications at the meeting.
Background Papers.
ISO 20906:2009, Acoustics – Unattended monitoring of aircraft sound in the vicinity of airports was prepared by ISO technical committee ISO/TC 43, Acoustics, subcommittee SC 1, Noise, WG 52, Noise from aircraft at civil airports. ISO 2010
ISO Press Release: New ISO Standard for Reducing Noise in the Neighbourhood of Airports, 26th February 2010