To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Cllr Bowden.

To receive any declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

To consider the report and make recommendations to Cabinet.

This report was previously restricted as a Part II item but on April 11^th it was agreed to make it publicly available as a Part I item.

The Community Protection Principal informed Members that Officers were seeking clarification on the impact Purdah would have on the DfT consultations, in light of the announcement a General Election was to be held on June 8^th. He stated that it was likely the consultations would either be postponed until a future date, or have their deadlines extended until after the General Election. Members were reminded that the deadline for consultation responses is May 25^th, with Purdah due to take effect from May 6^th. However it had not yet been confirmed that Purdah would take effect, so it was felt necessary to proceed with the meeting and present a recommendation on the Council’s responses to the consultations to Cabinet.

The Community Protection Principal stated that the Council had written to the DfT requesting that the consultation be postponed, but had yet to hear a response. The Community Protection Principal also stated that the Leader had been due to attend an evidence session of the Transport Select Committee on April 24^th; however, this had been postponed due to the General Election announcement.

Members were then asked to consider the Council’s draft response to the Airports National Policy Statement. The Community Protection Principal reminded Members that a technical session had taken place the previous week, where ideas for amendments to the draft response had been proposed. In relation to answers to question 1, the Community Protection Principal said it had been suggested that reference to connectivity to other airports should be made. He stated that the spare capacity at Birmingham and Manchester airports should be mentioned in connectivity terms to HS2. He also suggested that a comment should be made raising concerns over whether Heathrow had included socioeconomic and environmental factors in their assessment of sustainability, and that Heathrow should demonstrate they had done this.

Responding to comments from Members, the Community Protection Principal stated that the legitimate expectations argument mentioned in point 1.1 was a key angle that was explored during the Council’s High Court hearing. It was therefore agreed that the reference to legitimate expectations should remain in the Council’s response.

It was agreed to re-word point 1.5 to reflect the fact that the DfT was being seen to have not explored any other options in relation to airport capacity and was only giving material planning consideration to increasing capacity at Heathrow. Members were reminded that it was the Council’s position to support an increase in capacity at Gatwick, on economic grounds rather than in totality.

Members agreed that clarity needed to be sought as to how the proposed Heathrow ‘Hub’ would be set up and guaranteed to have improved connectivity.

The Chairman asked if there would be separate responses sent from the Council and the 2M group, and whether it was essential that the responses are worded differently. The Community Protection Principal confirmed that separate responses would be sent, and that Legal had been advised to look at submissions from 2M and each  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.