Meeting documents

Aviation Forum
Tuesday 8 February 2011 9.30 am


AVIATION FORUM

8 February 2011

PRESENT: Councillors Bicknell (Chairman), Beer, Lenton, Muir and Thompson.

Also Present: Peter Hooper, Jamie Jamieson and Mike Sullivan.

Officers: Frances Hewitt, Michael Kiely and Philip Turner.
PART I

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Adams.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

MINUTES
    RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings of the Panel held on 23 November 2010 be approved.
MATTERS ARISING

It was noted that an invitation to attend the Forum would be extended to Bureau Veritas once Mr Turner’s replacement had been confirmed.

HEATHROW AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE (HACC)

Phase 1 of a consultation had now been completed. This would look at the most economical way of revising landing plans. The period covered would look as far ahead as 2030. It was suggested that this could be an attempt to cram in as many movements as possible. A priority appeared to be the avoidance of stacks. The draft strategy was available to view on the website at www.caa.co.uk

A representative from the Department for Transport gave a presentation on the direction of the Coalition Government. In mid-March 2011 it was expected that a scoping document would be published. This would be the start of a six-month consultation which would completely review the whole policy framework for UK aviation.
    Issues could include:

    Ø Complete revision of flight paths.
    Ø No further runway or airport in the South-east.
    Ø No increase in the total number of flights (480,000).
    Ø The establishment of an airport action group. Concern had been expressed about this as it appeared that an increase in customer numbers would be its central aim.
    Ø There would be a review of the consultative committees. It was likely these would be asked to take on more passenger issues.
    Ø Significant discussion took place around the issue of snow clearance. An additional £10million had been invested in equipment. A lack of communication appeared to be a common complaint. It was also noted that night flight rules were suspended during the periods of snow.

Brief discussion took place on the benefits of Crossrail and whether or not the Borough would be further benefitted by the scheme if it terminated at Reading.

Discussion also took place on flight paths. It was noted that in the United States they were updating their flight systems technologies. It was likely that the rest of the world would have to follow suit.

Discussion also covered the availability of apprenticeships in the five boroughs bordering Heathrow (i.e. not the Royal Borough), and a Green Space Initiative.

STRATEGIC AVIATION SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP (SASIG)

A query was raised about the administrative support at SASIG, the fees the Borough paid, and the general value the Borough got out of being a member of the group.

It was noted that while there were some overlaps with LAANC, they were separate bodies and SASIG had produced a number of good bulletins, as well as taken a number of cases to court.

It was agreed that the Team Leader – Environmental Protection Team would look into the matter further and report to a future meeting of the Forum.

LOCAL AUTHORITY AIRCRAFT NOISE COUNCIL (LAANC)

During the discussion, the following comments were made:
    Ø Attendance at meetings had been lower in recent months.
    Ø A much needed new leaflet was in production.
    Ø LAANC had responded to a number of consultations.
    Ø The Borough’s membership of LAANC was considered to be good value.
    Ø LAANC’s technical director had recently produced a response to the airspace proposals.
    Ø LAANC recently received HACAN’s report on the case against night flights.
    Ø It was noted that there were four current consultations. These included the new white paper, night flights, BAA on the Cranford Agreement and the metrics of noise.
    Ø The number of flights was down considerably, but the reduction in the number of passengers was much less pronounced.
    Ø London City airport had expressed a wish to change their systems to accommodate 50% more flights. There would be no impact on the Borough.

2M UPDATE

During the discussion, the following comments were made:
    Ø 2M had opted not to become involved in the estuary airport debate. It did not seek to force problems onto other geographical areas.
    Ø A query was raised as to whether membership of 2M was worthwhile to the Borough. It was confirmed that their press team had taken a key role in maintaining the profile of aircraft noise issues and assisted local press teams, who could tailor the generic press releases to their own needs. The current press release was on runway alternation.
    Ø It was explained that the next edition of Around the Royal Borough was due to be published in March 2011, and that this would include a piece supporting & explaining the Borough’s stance on alternation.
    Ø An attendee commented that it was important to be a part of 2M, despite the Borough sometimes having differing priorities from a large body of the membership (many of the London boroughs). The strength of 2M lay where all members agreed and there were many such points of agreement.
    Ø It was agreed that the Team Leader – Environmental Protection Team would look into the costs and benefits associated with membership and report to a future meeting of the Forum.

CONSULTATION ON FUTURE AIRSPACE STRATEGY

During the discussion, the following comments were made:
    Ø If airspace was more accurately mapped and adhered to it was likely that disturbance would be more permanently focused on a smaller group of streets.
    Ø The gaps between aircraft would be shortened, in order to increase capacity.
    Ø Aircraft turning could generate more noise. It was therefore preferable that this be avoided and that landing be achieved by continuous descent. If held in a stack, noise could be limited by maintaining a height of 5,000 feet or higher.
    Ø If more passengers were to use Heathrow, efficient transport links for getting them in and out of the airport would become of even greater importance.
    Ø The economic benefits of living close to an airport had to be borne in mind.

Due to the deadline requirements for the consultation (7th February, the day before the Forum), the Borough’s response had been agreed with the Chairman, sent to the CAA and copied to members of the Forum.

NEW REPORT ON NIGHT FLIGHTS AT HEATHROW COMMISSIONED BY HACAN FROM CE DELFT (CONSULTANTS)

The Team Leader – Environmental Protection Team, explained that this was a very positive report. It had been launched at the House of Commons on the Thursday preceding the Forum by Zac Goldsmith, MP (Richmond Park & North Kingston) and met with widespread support by the local authorities surrounding Heathrow.

In a brief discussion the following comments were made:
    Ø It was impossible to put a price on sleep disturbance.
    Ø The report suggested that there was a true cost to the national economy due to sleep disturbance, illness, learning disadvantage etc., rather than the industry’s perceived view of economic benefit.
    Ø Removal of night flights would place considerable pressure on daytime movements, and so there was an argument for some night flights to continue.
    Ø Early morning arrivals were popular with passengers who wanted to connect with other flights.
    Ø It was hoped that the modern, more quiet aircraft would have a positive impact on noise reduction. It was further suggested that a noise limit should be set for aircraft flying at night, and that this should be based on an actual decibel level, rather than a manufacturer’s certification.
    Ø A Councillor not on the Panel was thought to be in possession of a report on noise disturbance of children and its subsequent impact. The Team Leader – Environmental Protection Team agreed to request the report.

THE DEMISE OF THE CRANFORD AGREEMENT – BAA CONSULTATIONS

Members noted the content of the report which outlined the background to the Cranford agreement, and the work towards the deposit of the planning permission for the facilitation of infrastructure works, and the wider implications emerging.

During the discussion, the following comments were made:
    Ø The Chairman explained that a particular issue was the need to install RATs and RETs (Rapid Access Taxiways and Rapid Exit Taxiways).
    Ø The planning application would be considered by the London Borough of Hillingdon. BAA was running a consultation which would need to be completed in time for consideration of the planning application.
    Ø It was suggested that a Borough response to the consultation would be essential. Individual Forum members were also encouraged to respond.
    Ø The new taxiways would require sophisticated noise baffles. It was noted that such equipment did exist and would work (subject to proper installation).
    Ø At a meeting to consider Cranford, Rupert Thornely-Taylor (BAA’s noise consultant) raised the comparison between ANIS and ANASE. The Forum found this comparison interesting and suggested that if they were comparable, then all data from the ANASE study should be published. The Team Leader (Environmental Protection) will discuss this view with him.

SASIG AND DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT ENGAGEMENT EVENT – 19TH JANUARY 2011

Members received the report which updated them on a recent engagement event.

The details are contained in the paper but members noted the DfT’s proposals for the replacement of the Aviation White Paper (2003), which DfT now appreciated was fundamentally flawed. A replacement would be the subject of a consultation during the spring.

A fear was expressed that if the High Speed Rail Link was not constructed then a third runway at Heathrow would be inevitable. A further view was expressed that even with a rail link, there would be significant pressure for a third runway.

BAA HEATHROW NOISE METRIC FOCUS GROUP MEETING 24TH JANUARY 2011

Councils had not benefited from invitation to these events: the focus had been on community groups.

Michael Sullivan outlined the activities of the meeting:
    Ø The meeting looked at noise contours exceeding 70 dB LAmax. They considered that the threshold should be lowered as there was noise disturbance at a level lower than 70 dB LAmax. The actual number of individual events also had an impact.
    Ø Noise studies helped the public to understand the level of noise that some were enduring.
    Ø It was considered that 2M could be effective on such issues, if they took them up.
    Ø Attendees at the Forum considered that the Borough should support the basic concept of these documents.

NOISE ACTION PLANS

There was nothing to report on this item.

UPDATE ON THE ‘FUTURE OF UK AVIATION’ PAPER BY MICHAEL SULLIVAN

Members received the latest update from Michael Sullivan.
    Ø An attendee commented that it was an excellent paper, and everyone present placed on record their thanks to Mr Sullivan for his work.
    Ø A positive noise reduction would be achieved for most residents if the landing angle was increased from three to four degrees. Changes to the angle would result in the need for improvements to the ILS equipment.
    Ø Suggested issues for future meetings included increasing the use of Gatwick Airport (potentially by moving charter flights to other airports), and the need for a rapid rail link for Gatwick.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING AND AGENDA ITEM SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS

The next meeting was scheduled to take place at 9.30am on Tuesday 29th March 2011, in the Ascot Room, Guildhall.

A suggested item was the British Airways merger with Iberia.

Any further item suggestions were requested to be sent to the Chairman or the Team Leader – Environmental Protection Team.

MEETING

The meeting, which began at 9.30am, ended at 12.11pm.