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

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

Also Present: Dave Reid (Avgen Ltd)

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

ITEM 1 - APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mellins.

ITEM 2 - DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Bathurst declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in item 13, Public Transport Access to Heathrow, due to his involvement in the promotion of the Windsor Link Rail plan. He left the room during the discussion of this item.

ITEM 3 - MINUTES

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 9 August 2011 be approved, subject to the following correction.

Page ii, first bullet point, Councillor Bathurst confirmed that Nigel Milton from BAA had contacted him, whereas the minutes stated that it was Councillor Bathurst who made the contact. The Forum also considered that the minutes suggested that only Rick Norman should be invited to a future meeting. It was confirmed that representation by any member of BAA would be welcomed.

MATTERS ARISING

Page ii, the Forum requested that the minutes confirmed the role of each of the BAA staff named in the first bullet point.

Nigel Milton – Director of Policy and Political Relations
Cheryl Monk – Senior Communications Manager
Rick Norman – Head of Noise and Air Quality

It was agreed that the Head of Public Protection, in consultation with the Chairman, would make the appropriate invitations. In relation to this Councillor Beer indicated that he was due to attend a Noise and Track Keeping meeting later in the day and would discuss BAA representation with attendees at that meeting.

Page iv, mention was made of reductions in pollution often leading to increases in noise. It was observed that one manufacturer had made a press release which suggested that they had solved this.

ITEM 4 – HEATHROW AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE (HACC), STRATEGIC AVIATION SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP (SASIG), AND 2M UPDATE

It was noted that SASIG had issued a long response to the consultation paper, “Towards a Sustainable Future for UK Aviation: Department for Transport Scoping Consultation”.

In relation to HACC, their meeting had noted that there was a new Managing Director at Heathrow airport. He had previously worked at Montreal airport. There appeared to be renewed ambitions to assist the aviation community. It was hoped that this would not be at the expense of local communities.

In relation to 2M it was noted that the Leader of the Council was the Borough’s nominated attendee. 2M was serviced by London Borough of Wandsworth. It was agreed that the Head of Public Protection would inform the Chairman how much the Royal Borough contributed toward its running costs.

ITEM 5 – LOCAL AUTHORITY AIRCRAFT NOISE COUNCIL

Members received an update from Councillor Beer.

During the discussion the following comments were made:

Ø LAANC had been extremely busy to prepare its response to the consultation ‘Towards a Sustainable Future for UK Aviation’. The final document was nearing completion.
Ø It was noted that the Noise and Track Keeping group was a sub-group of mainly technical officers.
Ø Several mobile monitoring boxes had been placed across the region. One was in Holyport. A detailed analysis report was expected in the New Year 2012. It was agreed that Councillor Beer would obtain information on the precise location of each of the monitoring boxes.
Ø The Head of Public Protection agreed to investigate potential sites in the Borough which could be nominated as new sites. They would have to be secure and located away from areas which were already noisy.

ITEM 6 – TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FOR UK AVIATION – PROGRESS REPORT AND RESPONSE TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT

The Borough had elected to respond to the consultation, “Towards a Sustainable Future for UK Aviation: Department for Transport Scoping Consultation”. The report set out the Borough’s response, as agreed by Cabinet on 29^th September 2011, together with subsequent amendments and further representations from the Aviation Forum and Cabinet Lead Member for Highways, Transport and Environment.

The content of the report was noted.

ITEM 7 – BUSINESS CONNECTIVITY REPORT

The report summarised the key points arising from a recent report entitled Business Connectivity Report published by AirportWatch in August 2011. The AirportWatch report had been compiled by John Stewart of Hacan Clearskies with research funded by WWF-UK. It was explained that the report had no formal standing or recognition by the Department for Transport. It was presented for background information given its relevance to recent matters discussed by members of the Aviation Forum.

It was considered that there was too much capacity to the USA and too little to South America and China.

ITEM 8 – UK AVIATION FORECASTS – DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT REPORTS

The report introduced the Department for Transport’s updated forecasts of the UK air passengers and UK Aviation CO2 emissions to the year 2050. The report was published in late August 2011 as a supporting document for the scoping consultation and not as a consultation in itself. Its contents were taken into consideration in the Council’s response to that consultation. Several points made in the report were considered to be of particular interest to Forum Members and regular attendees.

During the discussion the following comments were made:

Ø The previous and current governments had done little to address the issue of Air Passenger Duty (APD).
Ø It was likely that APD would be increased in the Autumn 2011 budget statement.
Ø The Forum agreed that APD should also be applied to transfer passengers. 40% of all passengers were transfers, so there would be a significant income from this.
Ø It was noted that LAANC’s stance on APD was that it should be applied to each flight, rather than on each passenger.
Ø It was considered that the forecast growth at UK airports of 2% was far too low. The Forum considered that this should be around 4% to reflect the growth of the emerging economies.

ITEM 9 – RESEARCH INTO GLIDE SLOPE / APPROACH ANGLES – PROJECT PROPOSAL FROM THE USA

The Forum noted the report which discussed a proposed research project in the USA originated by Boeing engineers to investigate the effects of steeper approach angles than 3 degrees now common at airports. It was considered that the research could result in a proposal for aircraft to use steeper approach angles with consequent noise reduction for residents living under the approach flightpath, but it was also acknowledged that there could be disbenefits.

In the ensuing discussion the following comments were made:

Ø A steeper approach angle could be beneficial to Borough residents.
Ø Councillor Beer agreed to raise the matter at the next Noise and Track Keeping meeting.
Ø It was agreed that the Head of Public Protection would draft a letter to the Department for Transport. It was also agreed that he would draft a request for the Chairman to send to the Windsor MP to ask a written Parliamentary question on the matter.
Ø Changes to the glide slope angle could not be done unilaterally. It would need to be agreed worldwide.

ITEM 10 – TERMS OF REFERENCE

Members reviewed the Forum’s Terms of Reference which had been agreed by Council at its meeting in September 2011.

Ø It was noted that the Forum was to submit an annual work programme to the Sustainability Panel for the purposes of agreement and performance reporting and monitoring. It was suggested that part of the report could include as an appendix the agenda index pages and the minutes of the previous four Forum meetings.
Ø Members expressed a wish to amend the Terms of Reference (ToR) to make them more reflective of their work.
Ø The Democratic Services Officer agreed to enquire of the Democratic Services Manager, to check the ToR could actually be reviewed, and advise the Chairman accordingly.
Ø If the ToR could be amended by the Forum, the Chairman advised that he, Councillor Bathurst and the Head of Public Protection would redraft the ToR and bring their proposals to the next meeting of the Forum.

ITEM 11 – OPERATIONAL FREEDOMS TRIAL PRESENTATION

The report summarised the details of the Operational Freedoms Trial; a meeting attended by the Chairman of the Aviation Forum and the Head of Public Protection on 17^th October 2011; and recent developments in connection with the trial.

The Forum also welcomed Dave Reid from Avgen Ltd. Mr Reid explained that Avgen had been monitoring the Heathrow flightpaths. Avgen carried out work for airlines, safety agencies and airports. A very high level of detail was recorded. A trial had commenced on Tuesday 1^st November 2011 and was expected to last four months.

During the presentation the following comments were made:

Ø Data was gathered on the use of Tactical Enhanced Arrival Measures (TEAM) and Tactical Enhanced Departures (TED). There appeared to be a lack of clarity on what Heathrow’s precise definition of TEAM was.
Ø BAA statistics were published on their website, but the figures could be confusing. Avgen was attempting to present the data to the local community in a much clearer way.
Ø Mr Reid explained that Avgen would welcome comments from the Forum on what they would like to see in the data set.
Ø Avgen was also seeking funding to carry on the data collection. It was hoped that local authorities, LAANC, and other stakeholders would contribute towards the cost of the service. It was agreed that funding issues should be discussed outside of the meeting.

In the ensuing discussion the following comments were made:

Ø It was suggested that BAA did not appear to accept that TEAM was mixed mode, but by another name. This data would demonstrate that it was mixed mode.
Ø It was noted that an increase in capacity would build resilience to delays etc. Such resilience could also reduce the need for night flights, but members queried how true this was.
Ø It was noted that TEAM could not be used when visibility was restricted as it was important for pilots to be able to see other planes.
Ø The new data could be directly compared with data the Borough already obtains. This could establish a clear link between movements and noise.
Ø It was suggested that the number of movements would be increased during the Olympic Games. The Forum expected BAA to introduce measures to increase capacity during that period as they would not want to be blamed if there were delays etc.
Ø It was suggested that the Head of Public Protection should invite Nigel Milton, Cheryl Monk and/or Rick Norman to the next meeting. They should be asked to clarify their definition of mixed mode.
Ø The Head of Public Protection concluded the discussion by stating that this issue needed to be debated fully by the local authority Air Noise Working Group, so the feasibility and mechanisms for sharing data, distribution of workload and costs could be reviewed, agreed and possibly shared. He suggested that it might be useful if the issue was also discussed as a LAANC agenda item. He also asked members to send any further comments directly to him at terry.gould@rbwm.gov.uk

Members thanked Mr Reid for his contribution to the Forum.

ITEM 12 – UTILISATION OF CAPACITY AT OTHER AIRFIELDS IN THE SOUTH EAST OF ENGLAND

The Forum received the report which had been prepared by Mr Sullivan and Mr Jamieson. The report reflected upon the fact that the Forum had not properly considered the many obstacles that stood in the way of making better use of airport facilities, and the fact that they considered the Forum to be more reactive, rather than proactive.

During the presentation the following comments were made:

Ø There was plenty of airport capacity within the South-East of England.
Ø A difficulty was that none of the major airlines wished to move out of Heathrow.
Ø It was considered that talking about a new airport in Kent or the Thames Estuary was a little too advanced. The allocation of slots and ‘grandfather’ rights required more immediate attention.
Ø If alternative capacity was not developed then the only alternatives were to have full mixed mode and construct a third runway at Heathrow.

In the ensuing discussion the following comments were made:

Ø It was observed that air travel was growing that that movements at Heathrow were capped. It was therefore logical to plan development elsewhere.
Ø Alternative airport provision would have to be matched with good infrastructure to make it attractive to customers and airlines.
Ø If existing airlines did not want to take up capacity at alternative sites then the capacity should be offered to competitors who were currently unable to obtain flight slots to and from the UK.
Ø The European Commission studied airport capacity but did not appear to have published its findings.
Ø The Chairman observed that this was a complex area, which was outside of the Forum’s main role.

ITEM 13 – PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACCESS TO HEATHROW AIRPORT

The Forum received the report which had been prepared by Peter Hooper. The report explained that as passenger numbers continued to grow at Heathrow, no new roads were proposed, and that over the next 10-20 years it was anticipated that a series of electric rail improvements would transform surface access to Heathrow and help reduce pollution and congestion around the airport. The report also summarised key findings of the Transport Committee’s findings on High Speed Rail which were published on the 8^th November 2011.

During the presentation the following comments were made:

Ø The Government was expected to publish its report into High Speed Two Rail before Christmas 2011.
Ø Other issues included the possible expansion of the Piccadilly line to Slough, the Windsor Rail Link proposals and the expansion of Crossrail.
Ø The Forum welcomed any measures which would lead to a reduction in congestion of local roads.

ITEM 14 – PRESS RELATIONS

It was suggested that a press release could be derived from the letter on glide slopes, to be written to the Department for Transport.

In relation to operational freedoms it was considered too early to engage with the press at this stage. This matter would be reviewed at the next Forum meeting.

ITEM 15 – ITEM SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE FORUM MEETINGS

The next Forum meeting was scheduled to take place on 7^th February 2012. Item suggestions could be sent to michael.kiely@rbwm.gov.uk

MEETING

The meeting, which began at 9.30am, ended at 12.10pm.