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

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

Also Present: Cheryl Laycock (Resident - Ham Island), Daniel Wilson (Slough Borough Council).

Officers: Laura Blumenthal, Terry Gould, Chris Nash and Gordon Oliver.

ITEM 1 - APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Alan Mellins and Ben Smith, Group Leader for Highways and Transport Strategic Management.

ITEM 2 - DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Bathurst declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in item 7, due to his involvement with a competitor, and stated that he would leave the room when the item was discussed.

ITEM 3 - MINUTES

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting of the Forum held on 16 May 2012 be approved subject to the following amendment to page iv: the last line of the second paragraph should read ‘all current measurements are based on averages with inherent weaknesses.’

ITEM 4 – MATTERS ARISING

Councillor Lenton stated that, regarding Cranford, BAA had asked to meet with the Leader of the Council. He stated that the date of the meeting had not been finalised and it would take place once the holiday season was over. The Forum raised concerns that the longer the wait for the meeting the more likely that it would not happen and BAA would not hear their views. It was debated whether BAA would need to apply for planning permission or not. It was confirmed that they did need planning permission and had to comply with environmental impact guidelines. BAA would have to install noise monitors and under an EU directive they would have to organise a public consultation. Councillor Muir stated that before the meeting took place between BAA and the Leader of the Council each party should agree on a mutual agenda. It was further impressed by the Forum that it was important that this meeting took place.


ITEM 7 – SBC PRESENTATION

The Forum received a presentation from Daniel Wilson, Western Rail Access to Heathrow Project Officer, from Slough Borough Council on a proposal for Western Rail Access to Heathrow Airport. It was stated that after the first 100 metres of the proposed route that it would be tunnelled so as not to ruin the aesthetics of the environment. The only requisite for the proposed route would be the electrification of the rail between Slough and Windsor. The benefit cost ratio was reported as 2.5.

The presentation is attached below.

Members of the Forum asked questions about the proposed scheme. Councillor Lenton asked for clarification on the possible interlink with Crossrail. Daniel Wilson stated that the proposed service would share the main line with Crossrail and Heathrow Express may be incorporated into Crossrail. It was noted that Crossrail stopped at many stations and the value of the proposed scheme was speed so it would not be viable for it to stop frequently. Therefore, it would only call at the busiest stations. Councillor Lenton asked whether some of the biggest supporters of the scheme, Plymouth and South Wales, were happy to have to change at Reading Station. Daniel Wilson stated that they were happy as it still justified time savings. He went on to comment that Network Rail had stated that they may, in the future, be able to run a straight train from Heathrow Airport to Cardiff. Peter Hooper suggested that Goodman’s SIFE (Strategic International Freight Exchange) would probably be very interested in the development as they would be near it. It seemed clear that they would be interested in a connection to Heathrow Airport and may contribute towards the project. The question was raised whether the scheme would connect with High Speed Rail 2. Daniel Wilson said that it would not, that the High Speed Rail 2 service was a premium service whereas the proposed scheme was for everyone including Heathrow Airport employees. The aim of the proposed service was to transfer passengers from other routes and modes of transport, such as cars on the roads, taxis from Reading, RailAir, Heathrow Express, and those on trains changing at Hayes and Harlington onto the new proposed route. Councillor Beer asked about how Paddington Station could cope with more trains as it was already congested. Daniel Wilson stated that the scheme was not one that was trying to attract additional passengers onto the trains but to cater for the existing ones. Councillor Lenton said that it inevitably would attract more passengers as it would be a service offering a quicker service. Daniel Wilson stated that the road to rail number was finite and Heathrow train station had only a finite capacity for train carriages.

ITEM 5 – AVIATION UPDATES

The Head of Public Protection, Terry Gould, apologised that the SASIG updates were not in the right order. Mr Jamieson commented that there were now concerns about a potential Runway 4, in addition to a potential Runway 3. Mr Sullivan commented that only Heathrow had the fifth freedom right (the right for a flight to arrive at an airport, pick up additional passengers then go on to the main destination) and that this may mean a lack of need for other airports to expand. Councillor Lenton commented that the Liberal Democrats were opposed to any new runways being built. It was confirmed that the Forum was still a member of SASIG. It was decided that the Forum would like to receive SASIG updates as they were published.

ITEM 6 – DRAFT AVIATION POLICY FRAMEWORK

The Head of Public Protection reminded the Forum that the Draft Aviation Policy Framework was a national strategy for all airports and not just focused on Heathrow Airport. Connectivity was emerging as a key theme. The Forum agreed to the suggestion that a technical working group would be established to form comments to go to Cabinet on 25 October 2012 as well as to a special Overview and Scrutiny Panel meeting. The meeting would take place in late September. It was reported that the Environmental Protection Team Leader, Chris Nash, would be attending a workshop on airport capacity. Mr Sullivan stated that major airports in New York as well as in Paris functioned well despite not having connections. Councillor Kellaway said that the Local Enterprise Partnership was sympathetic to Heathrow’s Runway 3 but RBWM was not and he was trying to persuade them. Councillor Lenton commented that the Aviation Forum accepted that expansion was needed in the South-East but not necessarily at Heathrow Airport. Councillor Bathurst commented that the main concern his residents in Windsor had about flights were night flights. If the third runway was used for civilised flights then that would be better, although there would be a worry that flights banned from leaving before 6am would mark an increase in those from 6-7am. Councillor Lenton stated that he feared that the Aviation Forum had got a reputation as being opposed to all Heathrow development and expansion plans. Councillors Kellaway and Lenton agreed that Councillor Lenton would draft a document on the Aviation Forum’s formal recommendation and would circulate it to everyone. Councillor Beer commented that the technical working group would probably need 3-4 meetings and would need to start meeting as soon as possible, ideally in early September, and that regarding night flights that local authorities should communicate and strengthen together. Mr Jamieson said that Slough Borough Council’s support of Runway 3 was contradictory to this wish. Councillor Beer said that RBWM and the London authorities worked together on LAANC. Slough Borough Council had a representative but they were relatively inactive. Councillor Lenton stated that they had to accept that Spelthorne and Slough Borough Councils would not be as interested. Peter Hooper commented that at the end of the year a report on CO2 emissions from aviation and shipping would be released and that this would be useful to know.

ITEM 8 – OPERATIONAL FREEDOMS UPDATE

Councillor Beer stated that the point of Operational Freedoms was to gather information to help operations run more smoothly and improve the passenger experience. RBWM and London Boroughs had used the monitoring consultants Avgen and they had collected a lot of information on the outcomes of the Operational Freedoms trial. There was an aim to reduce the number of flights before 6am although there had been concern that this would cause more flights between 6-7am as the slot time would be reduced and this may in turn increase taxiing and stacks.

Mrs Laycock raised her concerns that there had recently been an increase in flights over Ham Island. Having lived in her home for 33 years she was concerned about why the flight patterns had recently changed. Mrs Laycock said that she had got in touch with her MP about the matter and she had received a response from Colin Matthews, Chief Executive of BAA, who stated that he had no idea why she was experiencing the increase in flights, even though Operational Freedoms had been in place for three weeks. She reported that there had been an increase of up to 15 flights per day. She was concerned that her neighbours did not know what to do about the additional flights, or did not have the time to find out. She had made 32 complaints to BAA but presently had not received a single reference number. Mrs Laycock had used a smartphone application to record the sound and reported that some of her recordings had registered 96 decibels. She stated that University College London had been doing a trial with the smartphone application in Isleworth but BAA had said that the technology was too new to be trustworthy. University College London was organising a Heathrow Villages Trial with the application which Mrs Laycock would attend. She stated that apparently children’s reading development could be set back by two years if they were exposed to frequent aircraft noise. The Environmental Protection Team Leader commented that the noise monitors at York House had recently stopped working and the Council were currently seeking replacements. The Head of Public Protection advised that the APF has stressed that airports should do more to monitor noise. Mrs Laycock stated that there were three schools in the vicinity and Andrew Davies added that BAA would perhaps have to provide the schools with double glazing and ventilation. Councillor Muir said that it may be fair to share out the flight noise as Datchet had suffered from it for years.

ITEM 9 – WWF WORKSHOP 26/06/12

The Head of Public Protection explained that he had attended an interesting workshop organised by the WWF and stated that the information was provided in the agenda.

ITEM 10 – HACC, LAANC and SASIG

Councillor Beer explained that HACC did not concentrate on noise but more on the Cranford movement. HACAN’s AGM would be in mid September. There would be a Noise Action Plan which would investigate public perceptions through the use of a survey. MPs would be invited and at present only one MP from Richmond had been invited. The London Boroughs of Hillingdon and Hounslow had also been invited as well as the Environmental Protection Team Leader and Councillor Beer himself. Councillor Beer asked Forum members to let him know by the end of the week if they wanted him to report anything back. He stated that LAANC was made up of 12 local authorities who represented 2 million residents. 24 authorities who represented 5 million residents would meet with Ministers. He urged RBWM taking a more active role.

ITEM 11 – SE AVIATION TASK FORCE 3/8/12

The Head of Public Protection stated that he had attended a workshop organised by SASIG proposing to counter the failings of the SE Aviation Forum Task Force. Other local authorities such as Luton, Wandsworth, Kent, Essex authorities and Slough were also engaged over concerns. The outcome was an agreement between all the local authorities to be more proactive in fostering engagement with the local community. Further developments are likely on this issue.

ITEM 12 – MOBILE PHONE NOISE MANAGEMENT

Mrs Laycock commented on how white noise picked up by mobile phone applications had had their reliability questioned. Andrew Davies stated that it was important that recording equipment was at an industry standard otherwise the data could be labelled as inaccurate and irrelevant, making it useless. Mrs Laycock continued by stating that she did not know why BAA had changed flights so they went nearer her house more frequently. It was implied that the planes were being redirected from areas of higher population in Windsor.

ITEM 13 – ITEM SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS

The following items were proposed:

· Night Noise Perceptions
· To continue to monitor and discuss the same items discussed at this meeting.

ITEM 14 – DATE OF NEXT MEETING

Monday 12 November

MEETING

The meeting, which began at 7.03pm ended at 9.15pm.