To receive a verbal update from Chris Nash.

Chris Nash updated members on the above titled item. He explained that the Airport Expansion Consultation closed on Friday 13th September 2019 and RBWM provided a response in line with the key points previously set out to the forum.  This also provided input to the overall HSPG response.

RBWM have had three bilateral meetings with Heathrow to discuss surface access, economic development and noise impacts.  There was concern at the lack of available detail and limited commitment to mitigating the impacts on local communities. Heathrow was continuing to work towards the submission of the DCO in summer 2020, although officers were sceptical with this given the volume of work whether this would be achieved. They were currently engaging with local authorities and other technical stakeholders on the scope and methodology of the assessments that would form part of their submission.  Officers were expecting initial outputs of the transport assessment and EIA work to be released in February/March 2020.  Through HSPG, all local authorities continued to urge Heathrow to undertake further consultation on these outputs ahead of their DCO submission.

Perhaps the most pertinent of these to the Aviation Forum was the work of the Noise Envelope Design Group (CN circulated graphic setting out the principle behind this work stream) – which was responding to the aim of the airport (as eluded to in the ANPS) to remove the cap set at the T5 enquiry. In its place would be a binding limit set within the DCO. Under this limit was a ‘tradable floor’ in which residential benefits/capacity release (through environmentally managed growth) could be traded.

The current idea was to link these to the five year noise action plans; to be overseen by an Independent Scrutiny Panel (ISP). This process was dependent on the detail that would come forward from both EMG and the ability of the ISP to hold the 5 year noise action plans to account.

HSPG were also co-ordinating some joint work looking at the role of local authorities in future monitoring and enforcement framework that could be granted through the DCO.  It was also considering how the various income streams such as increased business rates and the vehicle access charge could be ring-fenced through the DCO to be invested in local communities.

Councillor Clark commented that Cookham was a common flight path for helicopters and this was not taken into account in terms of the impact that it was having on residents. Chris Nash agreed and said that all cumulative noise should be considered.

Areas with high ambient noise meant that the impact could be less, which was important in rural communities where the noise would have a greater impact.

Councillor Hilton clarified that Heathrow’s expanded limit could be as high as 900 and, was unsure if targets were met, if they would be able to expand this limit. He also said that the Noise Action Plan was created by Heathrow and therefore it would likely be designed to benefit them. Chris Nash said that the Independent Scrutiny Panel should hold Heathrow to account on this limit. The Noise Action Plan was not from one source and was held to the principles of the DCO.

In response, Councillor Hilton said that any process that would allow Heathrow to expand without delivering benefits would be a disservice to local communities.

A member of the public asked if Heathrow took into account World Health Organisation (WHO) figures, which was agreed by Councillor Hilton who pointed out that he was aware of airports that used WHO figures. He also believed that the noise envelope should include a ‘measure of nuisance’ which would recognise the interests of those moving into the borough.

Councillor Hilton further asked when residents would be sure of where flights paths would be, and how often the Strategic Planning Group meets. Chris Nash said the remit of the NEDG was not to set out where the flight paths would be, just the framework under which they would be assessed. Currently, the group meets every three weeks.

A question was asked about the position of local MPs, the Forum was told that they were against the expansion plans.

A member of the public commented that in Vienna, nothing got built if communities said no and that the compensation package for those affected would be significantly more than what was received here.