PRESENT: Councillors John Lenton (Chairman), George Bathurst, Malcolm Beer, and Gary Muir.

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

Officers: Terry Gould, Chris Nash and Karen Williams.

ITEM 1 - APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Alan Mellins.

ITEM 2 - DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Bathurst declared a Personal and Prejudicial Interest in item 5, due to his involvement with the scheme.

Councillor Lenton declared a Personal Interest in item 5, as Ward Councillor for Horton.

ITEM 3 - MINUTES

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting of the Forum held on 7 February 2012 be approved.

ITEM 4 - MATTERS ARISING

Page vii – The SASIG bill had been paid. The Council’s Membership of the organisation was under discussion as the Royal Borough was no longer a member of the Local Government Association.

Page viii – No response had been received from the Windsor MP in relation to Glide Slopes/ Approach Angles. It was noted that the original letter had been sent in December 2011 with a follow up in April 2012.

In relation to Heathrow Noise Action Plan, it was noted that a review of the first year’s operations had been produced. Councillor Beer agreed to circulate an electronic version. The Head of Public Protection highlighted that timescales, including slippages, would be useful information.

Councillor Beer commented that the Windsor MP had previously been asked to obtain a statement from the relevant Minister. Councillor Beer commented that the reply, direct from the Minister, had been disappointing as it had stated that it was not appropriate to comment on the merits or timing of the application. Councillor Beer had responded on 9 May 2012 stating that the minister had a statutory role in determining the application, but since then a statement had been issued that it was expected that the planning process would be followed up quickly. The Chairman commented that it was understandable that the minister could not comment on the merits of the application, but that information on the planning process should be made available.

Mr Sullivan commented that if the application was not submitted until the end of 2012, it would be difficult for the noise action plan or the Cranford Agreement to be met. The Head of Public Protection agreed to look into the issue of the Cranford Agreement.

ITEM 5 – BRIEFING ON WINDSOR LINK RAILWAY PROPOSITION

The Forum received a presentation on the Windsor Link Railway from Councillor Bathurst. Councillor Bathurst stated that all of the proposals for western access to Heathrow had problems as well as advantages and therefore the Council should consider the best option for Windsor. Three options had been proposed so far:

Ø AirLite (formerly AirTrack) - put forward by Wandsworth Borough Council, which could be of benefit to Windsor as it included an interchange at Staines
Ø WRATH - put forward by Slough Borough Council. The estimated cost was £450m as a result of tunnelling requirements.
Ø North/south schemes costing £0.5bn each.

Uniquely, the aim of the Windsor Link proposal was to have no effect on taxpayers. The proposal was based on the Airtrack scheme with additions including a 300m tunnel underneath Windsor town centre. The Forum noted that a park and ride scheme could potentially be funded by the service. Councillor Bathurst highlighted that any proposal should address both the problem of accessing Heathrow and difficulties of commuting around the region. The Windsor Link proposal would provide benefits locally, as well as improving access to the airport, by making Windsor a hub rather than a town at the end of a branch line. The Forum received details of a business case comparison for the various options.

The Forum expressed concern about the proposed route along Coppermill Road, although they were assured that sufficient space was available on the southern side of the road. Concern was also expressed about the impact on traffic in Windsor town centre despite the proposal for a park and ride, the environmental impact of tunnelling under the town, and the impact on residents in Datchet.

It was confirmed that the estimate of £75m covered civil engineering, train engineering and a buffer. Associated development costs were not included.

At this point, Councillor Bathurst left the meeting as a result of his Prejudicial Interest.

During the ensuing discussion concern was expressed over the political nature of the documents included in the agenda papers, which referred to ‘number of voters’ and timetable ‘before the next election.’
In principle, members supported the idea of rail access to Heathrow and improved commuter linkages for Windsor, however it was felt more detail was needed about the specific proposal in terms of cost and impact on residents and the environment.

Mr Hooper informed members that the DfT had recently published the High Level Specification and Funds Available statement and by the end of July would publish a list of projects that would be included in Control Period 5 for 2014-2019. He expected that in the statement the minister would support western access to Heathrow, but would not specify which proposal was favoured. The Royal Borough would not be able to comment on specific proposals until National Rail produced its draft proposals for Control Period 5. Until this point he suggested the Council should support western access in principle. Councillor Beer suggested the Forum should recommend to Cabinet that a letter be issued stating the Royal Borough’s firm support for western access to relieve congestion and pollution.

It was suggested that the National Rail proposals should be included in a future agenda, following publication.

ITEM 6 – SASIG UPDATE

Regional and Industry Bulletins

Members noted that the SASIG bulletins, which were being issued weekly, included regional news from the industry perspective and political press release summaries. It was suggested that the bulletins should be a standing item on future agenda. The Head of Public Protection would ask his PA to send the weekly bulletins out via email.

SASIG Response to CAA Consultation Environmental Role

Mr Jamieson commented that he was disappointed that this had not been put on hold until the government had pledged to review ANASE. The Head of Public Protection commented that the consultation implied a new noise study was under consideration.

SASIG Annual Report to LGA Leadership Board – April 2012

Members noted the contents of the document.

Government Response to Energy Climate Change Committee’s Recommendation on the EU Emissions Trading Scheme

Members noted the contents of the document.

ITEM 7 – ANASE/ANIS NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

Mr Sullivan provided the Forum with a summary of his report entitled ‘Measuring Disturbance Related to Aircraft Noise’ Mr Sullivan commented that disturbance rather than measure of noise levels was the problem. When noise measurements were first taken in the late 1950s, take-off noise had been the main issue. During the 1960s the Number and Noise Index (NNI) was introduced, which measured the number of movements in excess of 80PndB. By the 1980s this system was deemed inadequate and resulted in the ANIS report and created the current Leq system which measured noise energy levels over a period of time. The main problem with this system was that an average ignored noise levels experienced either side and did not take account of the number of noise movements.

As a result of these concerns, the Fifth Terminal Inquiry recommended that a limit of 480,000 atms be imposed until the issue could be resolved. The subsequent ANASE study was criticised by peer reviewers. The study concluded that there was now a much greater relationship between the number of aircraft movements and the perceived level of disturbance. For a given LAeq the annoyance level was found to be considerably higher during the research conducted for the ANASE report than that at the time of the ANIS report. The new Lden/Lnight measurements afforded some improvements but all current measurements had inherent weaknesses.

Mr Sullivan concluded that a Heathrow-specific noise study was required and he urged Councillors to demand such a study be undertaken. It was noted that, in the recent Plane Speaking report, the GLA had highlighted the need for an updated ANASE.

The Head of Public Protection commented that there had been a number of studies of human response to disturbance from aircraft. The T5 inquiry had been critical of the contour measuring system and the government had therefore had no choice but to comply with the need for a new study. However, the study was discordant with European studies which advocated less movements. This was particularly relevant to Windsor when Heathrow was on easterlies.

The Head of Public Protection commented that he was in contact with Steve Turner, one of the peer reviewers that had not been happy with ANASE. He would contact Mr Turner to ask if he was aware of any future studies to be conducted. An update would be provided to the next meeting.

ITEM 8 – HACC AND LAANC

Councillor Beer explained that the Environmental Health Officer at Hillingdon Borough Council had produced a report comparing ANASE to the latest European Union Environment Committee report which emphasised the strong affinity in the recommendations of both. LAANC was of the view that this proved that ANASE needed reviewing. Councillor Beer agreed to forward the Hillingdon report to Forum attendees.

Councillor Beer reported that a meeting of the Noise and Track Keeping Group (NTK) the previous day had spent a lot of time analysing the approach for setting out data from Phase 2 of the operational freedoms trial. The Phase 1 report was imminent.

In relation to HAAC, it was noted that the post Cranford mitigation proposals were considered at length last autumn. A response form Heathrow was overdue. At the last HAAC meeting a representative from the LGA produced an update on events at Heathrow. Councillor Beer would email the link to this report to all attendees.

It was noted that Theresa Villiers MP was due to address the next meeting of HAAC.

ITEM 9 – OPERATIONAL FREEDOMS

Mr Hooper referred the Forum to a statement made the previous day by Theresa Villiers MP. The decision had been taken to extend Phase 2 for a further 6 months. Certain relaxations were included such as fewer planes between 4am-5am; however this would mean a greater number between 5am-6am.

Mr Jamieson highlighted the last three lines of the statement referred to operational freedoms as a permanent feature.

Councillor Beer commented that the local authorities had felt that a trial period of 4 months was not sufficient because of the number of variables, particularly weather. However, a 10 month trial would be lengthy and expensive for the council to monitor and independently review. He felt that the council should ask for an analysis of flights operating over the Borough during operational freedoms. Councillor Beer suggested that David Reid, who had produced an initial report for Wandsworth, be requested to present to a future meeting of the Panel

Councillor Beer also referred to an analysis by Gareth Harper on the operational take off slots allocated to airlines, which resulted in aircrafts flying at less than 73% capacity. He felt that if such wastage was transferred to other airlines, there would be sufficient capacity.

The Head of Public Protection advised that the council should not wait until a formal consultation took place. The Forum should evaluate with the help of David Reid and respond.

ITEM 10 – ALL PARTY PARLIAMENTARY GROUP – CALL FOR EVIDENCE

The Forum considered a proposed response to the All-Party Parliamentary Groups’ call for evidence which had been drafted by the Chairman. Members made numerous suggested amendments, which the Chairman agreed to incorporate into his draft and circulate the following day.

ITEM 11 – RE-THINKING HEATHROW

The Forum noted the slides presented to the Technical Working Group meeting held on 2 April 2012.

ITEM 12 – PROPOSED GREAT WESTERN RAIL ACCESS TO HEATHROW AND OTHER GROUND ACCESS MATTERS

It was agreed that this issue had been covered during discussions earlier in the meeting.


ITEM 13 – UPDATE ON HMG POLICY: HEATHROW AND OTHER SE AIRPORT DEVELOPMENTS

Members were advised to read the SASIG bulletins previously referred to, alongside the statements by Justine Greening MP and Theresa Villiers MP.

ITEM 14 – ITEM SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS

The following items were proposed:

· ANASE – Steve Turner
· Review of Civil Aviation Bill
· A briefing note on the policy on slot allocation
· Noise mitigation measures post-Cranford
· Update on WRATH after the publication of the Higher Level Output Specification
· Strategic Transport Forum – invitation to the Borough representative to provide an update

MEETING

The meeting, which began at 7.00pm ended at 9.45pm.