PRESENT: Councillors John Lenton (Chairman), Malcolm Beer, Sayonara Luxton (sub for Alan Mellins) and Gary Muir.

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

Also Present: Councillor Lynne Jones, Parish Councillor Phil Jackson (sub for Parish Councillor Andrew Davies) and Cheryl Laycock (Resident - Ham Island).

Officers: Terry Gould, Tanya Leftwich and Chris Nash.

ITEM 1 - APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor George Bathurst, Councillor Alan Mellins, Parish Councillor Andrew Davies and Stephen Turner (Defra).

ITEM 2 - DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

None were received.

ITEM 3 - MINUTES

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting of the Forum held on 21 August 2012 be approved.

ITEM 4 – MATTERS ARISING

Airports Commission – Councillor Beer provided Members with a six-page document entitled ‘Written Ministerial Statement Announcing the Membership and Terms of Reference of the Airports Commission’, which covered areas such as membership, timescales and the commissions operating protocol. The Chairman stated that whilst he understood why Councillor Beer had been invited to the meeting and had received the statement he was unsure why the Royal Borough had not been invited to the meeting nor been provided directly with the statement.

The Forum was informed that in the statement it confirmed that the Airports Commission meetings were due to be public meetings. The Head of Public Protection suggested to Members that they might like to get involved with the External Advisory Panel (page 4 of the statement). Councillor Beer stated his fear that not all local authorities would be represented at these meetings.

The Chairman requested an initial report, the Royal Boroughs submission, be written and submitted to the Airports Commission after a detailed discussion had taken place, at the next scheduled meeting. The Chairman and Head of Public Protection agreed to draft a framework that would be distributed to the Forum before the next meeting, if possible.

ITEM 5 – ANASE UPDATE

The Forum received apologies from Stephen Turner, Head of the Technical & Evidence Team, Noise and Nuisance, Defra on ANASE. The Head of Public Protection, Terry Gould, informed Members that Stephen would attend a future meeting. Members were given a brief update on the current situation with regard to ANASE by the Head of Public Protection.

It was agreed that the Head of Public Protection would circulate to Members the 2007/08 report that had been commissioned by CAA.

Members were informed that the Head of Public Protection had met with Stephen Turner two to three weeks ago and had been informed that nothing was in the pipeline with regard to a replacement study. Members noted that if the ANASE study was to be dismissed then it needed to be challenged early on.

It was requested that the Head of Public Protection sought clarification from Stephen Turner, on behalf of the Royal Borough, with regard to any proposed changes to the study, which was understood to have cost £1.4 million to undertake. It was agreed that the Head of Public Protection would ask Stephen Turner what he was doing to retrace steps, otherwise how could he measure the impact of aircraft noise. The Head of Public Protection was asked to quote the DFT in his letter to Stephen Turner.

The Chairman requested that Stephen Turner be invited to attend the February meeting and agreed that the date of the meeting could be moved to accommodate his availability if needed.

ITEM 6 – AVIATION POLICY FRAMEWORK

Councillor Beer informed Members that the Aviation Policy Framework had been unanimously agreed at the Highways, Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Panel on the 15 October 2012. The Chairman added that he believed the framework had also been agreed by Cabinet.

The Head of Public Protection, Terry Gould, confirmed that the Aviation Policy Framework had been presented to both the Overview and Scrutiny Panel and Cabinet and had been unanimously agreed. Members were informed that both the report and appendices, which included the ‘Call for Evidence’ and the formal collective response, submitted on the 29 October 2012 had been included in the agenda.

Jamie Jamieson thanked the Head of Public Protection for all his work on this subject, which the Forum echoed.
ITEM 7 – SASIG NEWS BULLETINS AND PARTY CONFERENCE SUMMARIES

The Head of Public Protection referred Members to the SASIG news bulletins and party conference summaries in the agenda and explained that more had arrived on Friday. It was agreed that the policy framework document gave Members a wide perspective and assisted them with their responses.

Councillor Beer informed the Forum that he had raised the subject of the Cranford Agreement with the Chief Executive of Heathrow. Councillor Beer had been informed that the southern runway would be completed first followed by the northern runway. Councillor Beer informed Members that he had responded by informing the Chief Executive of Heathrow that he believed the runways were to be dealt with in the wrong order. It was noted that this subject was on the HACC agenda for December.

Councillor Beer informed Members that an external audit was due to take place each year and that the audit could be the Forum’s opportunity to get their views heard.

The Chairman informed Members that the Head of Public Protection, Councillor Beer and himself had been invited to attend the next HACC meeting in December.

ITEM 8 – BRITISH AIRWAYS’ INVITATION TO ATTEND THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL DEBATE – 30 NOVEMBER 2012

The Head of Public Protection informed the Forum that there was still time to submit questions to British Airways with regard to their Environmental Debate on the 30 November 2012 as the deadline was not until the 23 November.

It was agreed that the following questions would be submitted by the Head of Public Protection on behalf of the Forum:

1. Following the previous Government’s decision to abandon the Cranford Agreement in 2009 and subsequently reaffirmed by the Coalition government in 2010, by what specific date can the good citizens of RB of Windsor and Maidenhead expect to finally get some respite from aircraft noise through the implementation of easterly alternation?

2. In 1999 the then Aviation Minister rejected calls for the imposition of operational noise infringement limits for arriving aircraft. Given technological advances and the fact that arrivals noise now has a greater impact on communities living around an airport than departures, is it not time for the government to revisit this decision as part of its APF?

3. When is the government, CAA or aviation industry intending to commission a fresh community noise study in order to establish credible baseline noise thresholds; or alternatively, adopt World Health organisation (WHO) Community Noise criteria as the basis of properly assessing the impact of aircraft noise upon local communities?

ITEM 9 – HACC UPDATE

Councillor Beer informed Members that he had attended various HACC meetings since the last Aviation Forum and that he was the only regular Royal Borough Councillor who attended the HACC meetings. It was noted that the last HACC meeting had concentrated on runway work, a presentation by the Civil Engineering Authority with regard to the Phase 2 approach and Operational Freedoms. Councillor Beer informed the Forum that the Operational Freedoms working group, which the Head of Public Protection and the Team Leader for Environmental Protection, Chris Nash, attended, was made up of a group of technical experts from CAA, NATs and DEFRA. At the last working group it had been explained that whilst there was no report available to date it had been agreed that the results / benefits would be made available at the next HACC meeting.

ITEM 10 – LAANC UPDATE

Councillor Beer explained that he had been re-elected as Chairman of LAANC, which he had found very unexpected however, he was pleased to state that it did help retain a balance at the meetings.

Members were informed that the Head of Public Protection had attended the LAANC meeting in October where they had discussed Operational Freedoms at great length along with the Widenoise mobile phone application. It was noted that the mobile phone application allowed aircraft noise to be recorded which LAANC were trying to promote in order to put together a comprehensive database.

ITEM 11 – SASIG UPDATE

The Head of Public Protection informed Members that he had not attended a SASIG meeting since the last Aviation Forum.

Councillor Beer explained that he had been invited to attend the London Airspace Policy meeting, which had been promoted by NATs. Members were informed that flight management operations over London were about to be reviewed and consulted on over the next few years. Councillor Beer had been informed that new technology in the form of more advanced planes that could fly much higher was in the pipeline. Members noted that Councillor Beer had viewed a presentation on the draft Aviation Policy Framework surrounded by a lot of new people, which he had found to be a big concern.

Members were given an update on 2M, which was a Council Leader Forum headed up by Wandsworth. The Head of Public Protection informed Members that the Royal Borough was still a member of 2M but that to date whilst the Leaders occasionally met, structured Forum meetings, like LAANC and HACC, were not the usual style and format of working. Councillor Beer explained that the 2M Forum was made up of 25 local authorities, which now represented 5 million people as apposed to the original 2 million people and was very London based. Councillor Beer informed the Forum that 2M were essentially a local authority sourced political lobbying group, with excellent coordination and PR skills and were, he believed, getting very active again in light of recent and imminent developments.

ITEM 12 – OPERATIONAL FREEDOMS UPDATE

Councillor Beer informed Members that whilst a vast amount of information on operational freedom was being collected no one seemed to know what to do with it. Members noted that an integral part of operational freedoms was operating the late morning and early afternoon take off and landings and that the threshold had reduced from a twenty-minute delay to a ten-minute delay. Councillor Beer went onto explain that NATs were the decider on the regime and that takeoffs on simultaneous runways was not really being used due to conflicts in the air.

Councillor Beer informed Members that the draft report on Phase 1 had not been finalised / produced yet. It was noted that by bringing in planes on the southern runway it reduced taxi time by ten minutes and also cut fuel costs. Members were informed that Phase 2 was about to start and ideas were starting to be generated, including ways to improve passenger experiences and reduce time spent waiting to land.

Councillor Beer stated that the Royal Borough would need to monitor results as actions would no doubt be replicated here in the borough.

Councillor Jones stated that there had been an increase in complaints about noise from locally affected residents. Peter Hooper informed the Forum that an article in a local newspaper had stated it had been ‘the wrong type of wind’.

ITEM 13 – LOCAL COMMUNITY ‘WIDE NOISE’ STUDY

The Head of Public Protection informed Members that Mrs Laycock, at the last meeting, had raised a number of issues that had since been further investigated and acted upon. Mrs Laycock had stated that Ham Island had seen an increase in flights of up to 15 flights per day and a change to flight patterns, even though Operational Freedoms had been in place for a few weeks now.

The Head of Public Protection explained that a capital bid for replacement terminals with regard to the noise monitoring kit had been submitted. Members noted that in the interim period two bids were to be submitted for mobile BAA terminals and that a third mobile terminal had just been secured for Ham Island.

The Head of Public Protection explained that the Widenoise mobile phone application had been raised at the last LAANC meeting in order to seek agreement on exploring the viability of a coordinated initiative by local authorities around Heathrow to help raise awareness and encourage local community engagement.

The Head of Public Protection explained that he was having some difficulties in contacting the people on the University College London (UCL) ‘Heathrow Villages Trial’, by phone or email, in order to learn from their experiences, as there was a concern with regard to the technical precision of the application. It was suggested that John Stewart (HacanClearskies) could try contacting them.

The Team Leader for Environmental Protection informed Members that the mobile phone application had been demonstrated several times during October on three different types of phone. The Team Leader for Environmental Protection explained that he wanted to see what UCL were doing with the data they had collected and then decide the best course of action.

Mrs Laycock explained that in July Windsor had experienced far less air traffic as it had moved over Old Windsor. The Forum noted that Mrs Laycock had created a leaflet informing people how they could complain to BAA, which Ward Councillors had kindly distributed to approximately 2000 Old Windsor households. It was noted that 2100 complaints in total had been submitted to BAA over a three-day period in July as apposed to the average 50 complaints BAA usually received on a daily basis. Mrs Laycock explained that she and fellow residents were getting as little as four hours sleep, sometimes less, a night that was considered completely unacceptable. Mrs Laycock provided the Chairman with a copy of her October leaflet and explained that she planned to produce another leaflet in two weeks time and then another one at Christmas. Mrs Laycock read out to the Forum extracts from the Environmental Standards November article, explained that an additional 100,000 movements were expected and that the additional movements would not just affect Old Windsor.

Mrs Laycock informed Councillor Muir that she had first noticed the increase in flights on the 13 July.

The Chairman explained that there was unfortunately very little they could do at present until the Forum were made aware of the results of Operational Freedom but that they would invite Andrew Milton and Rick Norman to attend future meetings.

Councillor Beer informed everyone present that the Heathrow website (under the noise section) showed where the noise monitors within the Royal Borough were located.

Councillor Jones agreed that it was important to be able to collect a balance of data regarding noise levels in each area of the borough in the form of actual movements.

ITEM 14 – ITEM SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS

The following items were proposed:

· Airports Commission.
· A basic understanding of a hub operation (advantages and disadvantages).
· To continue to monitor and discuss the same items discussed at this meeting.

ITEM 15 – DATE OF NEXT MEETING

Thursday 28 February 2013.


MEETING

The meeting, which began at 7.00pm ended at 9.30pm.