To receive a verbal update from Chris Nash on representation made to the Environmental Audit Committee.

Chris Nash, Team Leader - Environmental Protection and Councillor Dudley, both attended the House of Commons meeting. Members from 2M and Richmond, Hillingdon and Wandsworth representatives were also present. The top ten points discussed included:

1.    AEF (Aviation Environment Federation) highlighted that there is a trade-off between engine performance and carbon emissions – put simply Heathrow cannot claim (under existing technology) to be able to achieve both reduction targets.

2.    AEF continued to state that is was an unacceptable interpretation of air quality (AQ) guidance – for Heathrow to state that with a new runway AQ “will be no worse than locations in the Greater London Zone”.

3.    Lord True (who spoke on behalf of ‘like minded 2M authorities’: RBWM, Hillingdon, Richmond & Wandsworth) stated that HAL’s assessment area for AQ was restrictive with key areas omitted – including the AQMA we declared at J13 of M25.

4.    The environmental impact of upwards of 72,000 extra staff cannot be overlooked.

5.    A noise envelope needs to be properly defined so that impact and mitigation can be properly assessed.

6.    Any noise envelope should be based on a sound study into community annoyance (similar to ANASE study)

7.    The Chief Executive of HAL (John Holland-Kaye [JHK]) stated in the second session on 04/11/15 that he was not prepared at this stage to comment on the Airport Commission’s (AC) recommendation regarding night flights

8.    JHK continued to state that HALs contribution to infrastructure should be closer to £1bn – rather than the £6bn “wish list” put forward by Gov/TFL

9.    JHK stated that HAL was able to achieve their modal share target of 50%, thus reducing the AQ risk associated with surface access / car travel.

10.  JHK stated that AQ would be a part of a ‘triple lock’ – whereby new slots would only be released upon HAL hitting defined AQ targets.

Other points discussed included:

·         Ongoing trade off of noise and air quality/carbon emissions.

·         Runway 4 not ruled out.

·         Infrastructure closer to £1 billion not £20million.

·         Labour councils working with BAA, including Slough, Ealing and Hounslow. Very clear separation from Conservative councils.

·         Colnbrook was against the Slough decision.

·         Councillor Hilton asked about the submissions that had been made and if any feedback had been received. It was explained the format was very similar to the Aviation Forum, mainly Q and A session on the key messages.

·         Zac Goldsmith was representing the local community.

·         True cost not calculated, overall will not benefit the community as no real assessment carried out. Highly congested area, enormous housing problem and infrastructure overloaded as no further ground to expand.

·         Commission changing their story hat there will be 70,000 extra housing. The workforce will be able to travel in on public transport, the extension of route 702 bus service, Southern Rail, but this cannot be expanded because of level crossings and closure would cause chaos on roads, Heathrow’s argument is that CrossRail will be functioning, sheer disruption on M25 and M4 and some functions will be moved offsite.

·         Four local authorities have to now make the decision of what to do next, after Christmas and decide the next appropriate actions.

ACTION: The transcript of the meeting to be sent to everyone present at Aviation Forum.