PRESENT: Councillors Lenton (Chairman), Bathurst, Beer, Mellins and Muir.

Regular Attendees: Andrew Davies, Peter Hooper, Jamie Jamieson and Mike Sullivan.

Officers: Terry Gould, Frances Hewitt, Michael Kiely and Philip Turner.

ITEM 1 - APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

There were no apologies for absence.

ITEM 2 - DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

ITEM 3 - MINUTES

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 8 February 2011 be approved, subject to the following corrections.

Page v, Update on the Future of UK Aviation, second bullet point amended to read “A positive noise reduction would may be achieved 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.”

MATTERS ARISING

Page i, Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee, stated that Phase 1 of a consultation had been completed. It was confirmed that this was a consultation on the Airspace Strategy.

Page iii, 2M Update, final bullet point costs and benefits of membership of 2M to be reviewed. The actual cost was not confirmed to the Forum but it was explained that where 2M and the Royal Borough agreed on issues, membership had proved to be very valuable and that membership costs were low and represented very good value for money.

Page iv, Demise of Cranford Agreement, the bullet point stated that the ANASE study should be published. The Forum expressed a hope that the study would be updated and published, and requested that Officers continue to push for this to happen.

ITEM 4 – CONSULTATION ON FUTURE AIRSPACE STRATEGY

This was the Department for Transport attempt to rearrange the use of airspace in the UK to ensure more efficient use. A submission had been made by the Borough but no formal response from the Department for Transport had been received, by the date of this meeting.

ITEM 5 – REVIEW OF HEATHROW’S NOISE MITIGATION SCHEMES

Members noted the content of the report which had been considered by Cabinet on 28 July 2011. They also noted the comprehensive response which had been sent via email by the Head of Public Protection, at the request of Cabinet.

There had yet to be a response to the email. A reminder would be sent, if necessary.

The Head of Public Protection explained the need to get the boundary drawings removed. He also outlined his concerns at the modelling used and the standards applied.

During the discussion the following points were made:

Ø Councillor Bathurst explained that he had emailed Nigel Milton at BAA. He had indicated that someone from BAA might consider attendance at a future meeting of the Forum. Cheryl Monk was also mentioned in the discussion. However, it was concluded that the best course of action would be to contact Rick Norman, who is the person with overall responsibility for the matter. The Chairman and the Environmental Protection Team Leader agreed to prepare a written invitation to Mr Norman.
Ø There was agreement that a 55 decibel contour should be set and adhered to. It was suggested that for community buildings the level should be set at 61 decibels. Councillor Beer confirmed that all local authorities in the area were agreed on the 55 decibel level for residential properties. The London Borough of Hillingdon had been preparing a paper and their data was based on recommendations made by the European Environment Committee.
Ø A suggestion was made that a passenger levy should be raised to help pay for the noise mitigation in residential properties.
Ø A query was raised that the noise contours might have moved due to the operation of quieter aircraft. It was confirmed that this was the case, and that the contours shown as part of the consultation exercise were based on projections for 2014.
Ø Councillor Beer noted that several London Boroughs had jointly commissioned respected consultants to carry out noise studies and forecast likely changes post Cranford. This was similar to the one commissioned by the Borough several years previously. One monitoring station had been located in Old Windsor and this resulted in a forecasted increase in noise level of 13 decibels, which is in conflict with the ‘less than 1 decibel increase’ indicated in the Heathrow consultation documents.
Ø If BAA were invited to the meeting they should be asked to bring documentary evidence to the Forum.
Ø The Chairman observed that the contour lines produced for Heathrow were too rigid. There needed to be more lines in the contours to properly reflect the noise trends.
Ø The Forum agreed that noise monitors which were more permanent should be installed in the local area. It was also noted that mobile noise and track keeping devices were available on loan. These had to be located in secure spaces.

The Forum placed on record its thanks to the Head of Public Protection for all of his efforts on noise mitigation schemes.

ITEM 6 – BAA HEATHROW NOISE METRIC FOCUS GROUP – VERBAL UPDATE BY MICHAEL SULLIVAN

This item was not considered by the Forum as it had been discussed at the previous meeting.

ITEM 7 - HEATHROW AIRPORT NOISE ACTION PLAN

The Forum noted Heathrow’s Noise Action Plan 2010-2015. It had recently been adopted and had included many of the suggestions made by the Royal Borough.

Councillor Beer indicated that LAANC and most individual local authorities had responded. It was noted that it was a ‘living document’ and could be amended as necessary.

ITEM 8 - DEVELOPING A SUSTAINABLE FRAMEWORK FOR UK AVIATION: SCOPING DOCUMENT

The Forum noted the content of the report which explained that the new consultation set out the Government’s priorities for aviation in both short and long terms, aimed at developing a sustainable and balanced framework for UK aviation (including effects on the economy, climate change and the local environment), and to integrate aviation policy within wider Government objectives, including sustainable economic growth.

The Environmental Protection Team Leader advised that he would welcome comments at the meeting or via email philip.turner@rbwm.gov.uk

The three key areas to be considered for the Forum and contained in the consultation were air quality, noise and surface access.

The report would be considered by the Highways, Transport and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel on 12^th September and by Cabinet on 29^th September.

During the discussion the following comments were made:

Ø The height of the approach should be considered. An increase in the angle from three degrees to four degrees would reduce noise disturbance. It was noted that there were also disadvantages to this proposal. It was therefore suggested that this be something considered in the future, particularly as the change in angle was being trialled.
Ø Changes in taxation policy should also be considered. Transfer passengers should be taxed to benefit the local community.
Ø It was stated that reductions in noise of aircraft could often result in increases in pollution. Conversely reductions in pollution by aircraft could often result in increases in noise.
Ø The consultation referred to a ‘noise envelope’ but did not explain what this was.
Ø Statistical averages were not always sensible. These could hide ‘events’ such as a single night landing at 4am which could wake thousands in Windsor.
Ø The date in paragraph 3.2.2 was confirmed as 2005.
Ø Surveys at Heathrow had revealed that 5% of the workforce lived in Windsor and Maidenhead.
Ø The consultation response would be a corporate one. There would be input from colleagues in Planning etc.

ITEM 9 – EIA SCOPING REPORT JUNE 2011 ENABLING WORKS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FULL RUNWAY ALTERNATION (ENDING THE CRANFORD AGREEMENT) BAA HEATHROW

The Forum noted the report which outlined the planning application which was to be submitted by Heathrow Airport Ltd to complete works to facilitate the abolition of the Cranford Agreement. The scoping document was an advance document prior to the completion of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to provide an Environmental Statement to accompany the planning application.

The Forum expressed their support for the report and requested that the report be sent to the two Borough MP’s to highlight the tardiness of the airport in seeking to implement the abolition of the Cranford Agreement.

ITEM 10 – AIR PASSENGER DUTY – DfT CONSULTATION

Members noted the content of the report which described a consultation on the Reform of Air Passenger Duty.

LAANC had received the consultation and a response had been submitted on behalf of the local authorities surrounding Heathrow. This had been circulated by email to all Forum members on 8 August 2011.

ITEM 11 – SOUTH EAST AIRPORTS TASKFORCE REPORT

The Chairman of the Forum advised that he had been invited to an event at the House of Commons. Unfortunately he was unable to attend but was grateful to Councillor Bathurst and the Environmental Protection Team Leader for their attendance.

During the discussion the following comments were made:

Ø There would be a trial of some “operational freedoms” for a maximum of 15 days per year. These freedoms had been devised in response to events such as the heavy snow.
Ø The trial would commence in November 2011 and would be monitored independently by the Civil Aviation Authority.
Ø The taskforce, which was largely industry based, was due to re-convene in 12 months time.
Ø Deep concern was expressed that “operational freedoms” basically meant mixed mode, but it was also stated that ministers were very clear that it was not mixed mode. It was intended to allow landings only between 6am and 7am on both runways. Members restated their concerns that it was mixed mode and that the need for it arose from a lack of airport capacity in the south east of England.
Ø It was argued that changes to the flightpath could result in more noise as aircraft would be required to make turns.
Ø A regular attendee expressed concern that the taskforce appeared reluctant to involve the community. An example was the availability of certain sets of minutes. A further example was the lack of publicity about the proposal to trial “operational freedoms”.
Ø Although many in attendance were concerned about the “operational freedoms”, it was noted that many of the other proposals by the taskforce were very positive, and to be welcomed.

The Chairman agreed that the Forum should respond with the following points:

Ø Concern about the lack of community involvement.
Ø The introduction of “operational freedoms” reduced the benefits of runway alternation.
Ø There was a need to review the capacity of airports as it was considered that the solution was to build more capacity in the south east of England.
Ø There was an implicit agreement (confirmed by the Minister), that the 480,000 movements at Heathrow would be adhered to.

ITEM 12 – ITEM SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE FORUM MEETINGS

The following items were suggested for future meetings:

Ø Terms of Reference for the Forum.
Ø Utilisation of capacity at other Airfields in the South East of England, by Mr Sullivan and Mr Jamieson. It was suggested that Gareth Harper could be invited to assist on this matter.
Ø Invitation to Rick Norman for him or Nigel Milton at attend the next meeting.
Ø Public Transport Access to Heathrow Airport, by Peter Hooper.
Ø Mobile Noise Monitoring, by Terry Gould.
Ø Update reports from LAANC, HACC and 2M.

ITEM 13 – PRESS RELATIONS

There were three key matters arising from the meeting:

Ø Response to the Taskforce – the lack of community involvement.
Ø Noise monitoring issues.
Ø That the Forum and the Borough continued to press for the end of the Cranford Agreement.

MEETING

The meeting, which began at 9.30am, ended at 12 noon.