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

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

Also Present: Councillor Carwyn Cox, Sally Hayes (Windsor Resident), Robert Hayes (Windsor Resident), Parish Councillor Phil Jackson (Wraysbury Parish Council) and Catherine Smith (White Waltham resident).

Officers: Wayne Coles, Chris Nash and Simon Wright

ITEM 1 - APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Terry Gould.

ITEM 2 - DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

None were received.

ITEM 3 – MR NIGEL MILTON

Mr Nigel Milton, Director of Policy & Political Relations, Heathrow Airport gave the Forum an update on key aviation issues relevant to the local area. Arrangements for a public meeting at Windsor Boys School on 28 March 2013 at 7.30pm were also outlined.

Nigel Milton reported that an application was to be made to Hillingdon BC to end the Cranford Agreement and local residents would be advised when the application was submitted and mitigation measures would be offered. The potential impact on Old Windsor and Ham Island were outlined. It was indicated that Hillingdon BC would be opposing the application and it was suggested that areas that would benefit from the ending of the agreement should also make their views known. The relevant government policies and call-in procedures were explained.

In response to a question it was confirmed that the target date of 2015 was still relevant and some runway works were being undertaken under Permitted Development rights although some would need to be the subject of planning applications. Peter Hooper asked about land ownership issues in the area and it was confirmed that negotiations were ongoing. Michael Sullivan referred to supporting documents and whether an environmental assessment would be required. Nigel Milton confirmed that a full impact assessment would be submitted with the application.

It was noted that details should be provided on the Hillingdon BC website although the documentation was very large. It was agreed Nigel Milton would forward details of the application to RBWM when it was ready. It was explained that runway resurfacing works would be undertaken at night and this would mean all early morning flights would use the northern runway. Nigel Milton asked for any feedback regarding the impact of early morning flights.

Councillor Bathurst referred to the need for better sound insulation particularly on listed buildings. Nigel Milton gave details of the Quieter Homes initiative and Ham Island had been a pilot area for the scheme. Feedback had been that the current scheme was insufficient. As a consequence it was proposed to introduce a system offering a wider range of products and choice of suppliers for homeowners. It was noted that properties would be assessed and recommendations made on the best solution for noise mitigation. Grants of 100%, 50% and 25% were available and this was calculated on a geographical basis and the noise levels. It was clarified that delineation of zones was based, as far as possible, on boundaries such as roads and fields but the position in Windsor would be confirmed. Councillor Lenton emphasised the need for the assessment not to be too rigid and that a degree of flexibility should be exercised where possible.

Councillor Beer expressed concern that following the consultation period the results of the review had not been fed back. Nigel Milton acknowledged the comment and advised that the scheme was constantly evolving. It was emphasised that, until the long term future of the airport was secured, it was impossible to provide a permanent scheme as investors would be unwilling to commit funding. It was acknowledged that communication could have been better. Councillor Beer highlighted the importance of technical officers to assess the proposals.

In response to a query from Councillor Lenton it was confirmed that the operational freedom trials had ceased a month early as one aspect relating to early morning flights had not proved feasible. Nigel Milton then outlined that the report together with one from the CAA would be submitted to the DfT who would then consult on the outcomes. Chris Nash asked if the report would break down each operational freedom. Nigel Milton confirmed that an assessment of each would be included. It was emphasised that it was sometimes difficult to audit complaints. Phil Jackson sought more detail regarding the detrimental impact on Ham Island. Nigel Milton advised that it was partly the location of the site and it was acknowledged that normal operations could impact. Councillor Bathurst suggested that the situation in Windsor had improved in the late summer. Nigel Milton indicated that this may have been due to the unusually predominant westerly winds and there had been increased complaints from the Hounslow area.

Councillor Beer suggested that it would be useful to have footpath maps available for display at the public meeting on 28 March. Nigel Milton agreed and also advised that full details would be made available on the website. In respect of the operational freedoms report it was confirmed, in response to Councillor Beer, that executive summaries would be available as the full report was very detailed. Discussion ensued in respect of key themes such as the impact at specific times of the day. Nigel Milton also advised that air traffic control tried to get planes on the ILS as early as possible. As a consequence complaints were being received from further afield as planes were lining up. Michael Sullivan asked if there were problems with planes late joining on their descent. It was indicated that this was happening a lot less.

Nigel Milton confirmed that Heathrow was actively participating in the Davies’ Commission and also referred to the ‘One Hub or None’ consultation which was to be considered in more detail later in the meeting. It was explained that it was not possible to have two hubs and that other major hubs in Europe were based at Amsterdam and Frankfurt.

Michael Sullivan referred to air freedom rights and clarification was given in respect of sixth freedom rights. Nigel Milton reported that options would be looked at and submitted in July. Confirmation was given, in response to Councillor Cox, that the Davies Commission would report in Summer 2015 with a preliminary report being published this year. There was discussion around options and Nigel Milton indicated that increased numbers of A380 aircraft would be an issue.

Nigel Milton outlined the increased capacity of 80-90 million passengers once the redevelopment of Terminal 2 was completed. Peter Hooper questioned the accuracy as levels of 90-95 million had been previously quoted. Nigel Milton advised that government decisions would dictate which projects were pursued.

Michael Sullivan referred to the ‘One Hub or None’ consultation and sought confirmation of the definition of a 60 minute transfer. Nigel Milton advised that this was the time to transfer between terminals and gave examples of the times it was hoped to achieve such as T5 to T3 in 45 minutes and T5 to T4 in 60 minutes. It was confirmed that transfer time was currently up to 90 minutes.

Councillor Lenton asked about the location of any additional runways if they were implemented. Nigel Milton advised that this would be dependant on the outcome of the options being assessed. Councillor Lenton asked about financing and it was confirmed that it would be private sector funding at Heathrow although some of the wider projects could be jointly funded.

ITEM 4 - MINUTES

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting of the Forum held on 12 November 2012 be approved.

ITEM 5 – MATTERS ARISING

ANASE UPDATE

It was advised that the report commissioned by Hillingdon BC was to be submitted to the Davies’ Commission. It was reiterated that if it was to be dismissed then it needed to be challenged as early as possible.

Councillor Beer reported that he had attended the Heathrow environmental debate and it had been a very interesting meeting.

ITEM 6 – NIGHT FLYING RESTRICTIONS AT HEATHROW, GATWICK AND STANSTED – STAGE 1 CONSULTATION

Consideration was given to the DfT’s recent consultation document and issues for inclusion in a response from the Borough. Chris Nash introduced the report and outlined the key issues within the report that needed a response.

Councillor Lenton suggested that as a detailed response was required it would be difficult to fully discuss the consultation and therefore it may be better to hold a special meeting. Councillor Beer suggested that the technical working group could undertake the work and formulate a response.

Michael Sullivan indicated that the noise implications on certain landings were a key concern. Peter Hooper referred to the differing glide slopes and the importance of an equitable east/west split. Nigel Milton outlined some of the political pressure that was expected in respect of the consultation.

After further discussion it agreed that the matter be referred to the technical working group for consideration.

ITEM 7 – LOCAL COMMUNITY WIDENOISE INITIATIVE

The Forum received an update on progress with the Widenoise initiative. A copy of the report and minute from the Cabinet meeting held on 24 January 2013 was considered. The Chairman introduced the report and explained that Widenoise was a mobile phone application that could be used to assess aircraft noise.

Chris Nash advised that the project had received Cabinet approval and a draft strategy was in place to roll the scheme out in April 2013. It was indicated that officers were looking for support and people to champion the initiative. The outcomes would be monitored and the data provided to UCC for assessment. It was emphasised that as many people as possible were needed to ‘champion’ the scheme.

The Forum undertook to promote the Widenoise initiative as widely as possible and it was noted that there were several meetings and events coming up where it could be promoted.

ITEM 8 – ONE HUB OR NONE – THE CASE FOR A SINGLE UK HUB AIRPORT

A briefing paper regarding a single UK hub airport was received. Chris Nash introduced the report and the criteria for submitting a response to the consultation. The Chairman suggested that it was a detailed document and it would be appropriate to refer the document to the technical working group.

The Forum considered that capacity would be a key factor in any considerations and the links between Heathrow and other regional airports would need to be borne in mind. Phil Jackson highlighted that contrary views could be expected from Gatwick and Stansted airports. Michael Sullivan asked about using other airports where demand was lower. It was indicated that connectivity was important and needed to be assessed. Peter Hooper suggested that there were a lot of unknown variables in the process.

ITEM 9 – DAVIES’ COMMISSION

Chris Nash gave a verbal update and reported that a HACAN meeting had been held earlier in the day and confirmed that the interim report would be on a topic by topic basis and would appear on the Davies Commission website. Councillor Beer highlighted the programme that was in place and that an initial response was needed before the end of the year.

It was confirmed that there was a deadline of 28^th February for organisations/individuals that wished to submit an ‘expression of intent’ to submit a proposal to address aviation capacity. This was partly so that gaps in the process or issues that had been missed could be identified. Councillor Beer indicated that the position could be clearer following the SASIG meeting the following day.

ITEM 10 – SASIG NEWS BULLETINS AND PARTY CONFERENCE SUMMARIES

The Forum received and noted a number of SASIG updates and thanked Terry Gould for providing the detailed information.

Peter Hooper raised an issue regarding lower than expected passenger numbers at Heathrow and the knock on effect for development of Terminal 2 and increased passenger charges. Nigel Milton clarified the situation and explained the calculation process for predicting passenger numbers. It was acknowledged that passenger numbers were lower than predicted and the figure would be recalculated for the next period. It was reiterated that development plans were dependant on the future of the airport being confirmed.

ITEM 11 – HACC UPDATE

Councillor Beer gave a verbal update. It was explained that the Noise and Track Keeping Group had been busy and highlighted that early vectoring had been causing problems at Ham Island. Councillor Beer advised that a review of the Noise Action Plan was ongoing and ten items had been chosen from the plan for a more detailed audit.

There had also been discussion regarding rail connections following a presentation by GLA members and there was support for the western access proposals. Nigel Milton gave clarification that whilst funding had been withdrawn for Airtrack the finance was still in place for the western proposals. It was advised that support remained for Airtrack and the GLA were opposing the proposals of the London Mayor for airport provision elsewhere to serve London.

Councillor Beer reported that Simon Burns MP had addressed HACC in respect of the government approach to issues such as environment and transport connections. It was advised that a report entitled ‘Flying to the Future’ supporting Heathrow expansion would be submitted to the Davies’ Commission. It was also explained that changes to planning policy had also been highlighted.

Discussion ensued on rail connections and it was indicated that Spelthorne BC had made recommendations regarding the extension of Heathrow Express to Staines but not much of a business case had been put forward. Peter Hooper referred to HS2 and other options for serving the terminals. Nigel Milton concurred that it was frustrating that Heathrow was not to be served by HS2 and that separate schemes were being developed close to each other. It was emphasised that none of the rail projects were the responsibility of Heathrow Airport.

Councillor Beer indicated that the early morning respite trial was to be expanded and it was emphasised that noise on glide routes did not impact much in this area. Catherine Smith reiterated concerns about the late joining of aircraft as a particular concern. Nigel Milton confirmed that the respite trials were not promoted and hopefully it was clear where complaints should be addressed if residents had concerns.

ITEM 12 – LAANC UPDATE

Councillor Beer advised that the discussions at LAANC broadly mirrored those at the Forum in that there were a number of technical issues discussed. It was acknowledged that a number of similar issues were being discussed at a variety of forums but this was at different levels.
ITEM 13 – ANY OTHER BUSINESS

It was noted that reports by consultants employed by local authorities to monitor operational freedom data would be submitted in due course.

Peter Hooper advised that there was to be an Aviation Policy framework update in March. It was agreed that this would need consideration.

ITEM 14 – DATE OF NEXT MEETING

It was noted that the next meeting was scheduled for Thursday 16 May 2013.

MEETING

The meeting, which began at 7.00pm ended at 9.00pm.