Agenda and minutes

To elect a Chairman for the meeting.

The Chairmanship of this Special Standing Committee will rotate between the majority and minority group representatives.

Councillor Morris was appointed as Chairman for this meeting.

To note any apologies for absence received.

No apologies were received.

Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

No declarations were made.

To note the Terms of Reference for this meeting as agreed by Council on 23 November 2010. Attached.

The Terms of Reference were noted.

To consider a response to the Government’s consultation entitled “Developing a sustainable framework for UK aviation: Scoping document”, as outlined in the attached report of the Special Projects Manager. 

As part of the framework scoping, the government have asked for the Council’s views on night flights as they need to consult on the issue in the spring of 2102, for the new regime to run from 2012 – 2018. 

The report was presented by John Coates, Special Projects Manager, who updated the Committee on the Council’s proposed response to the government’s framework scoping consultation. The response would highlight the fact that Heathrow airport operations affected the whole of the borough and the Council would also be requesting that a ban on night flights was enforced. Other proposed issues to be raised in response to the consultation included Heathrow’s effect on air quality and the problem of rail connectivity. The Council was concerned with Heathrow’s wider effect on quality of life in South West London.

The Committee heard a representation from Mr Peter Willan, a member of the Richmond Heathrow Campaign. He outlined the work of the Campaign and stated that in his opinion:

·         The benefits of technological advances in aviation should be shared with the community and not used solely for the advantage of the industry.

·         The social benefit of curtailing night flights would exceed the financial cost.

Mr Willan added that the campaign’s research indicated there was spare ground facility capacity at Heathrow which could be better used during daytime hours.  In response to questions, Mr Willan explained that he believed airlines were not currently amalgamating flights despite not reaching capacity due to a desire to safeguard flight slots.

A representation was heard from Mr Gareth Harper, also a member of Richmond Heathrow Campaign. He highlighted the following points:

·         The government appeared to be approaching the topic of aviation policy without any preconceptions. This represented a real opportunity for the Council and for residents to make their views count.

·         Progress on reducing noise at Heathrow was slow, despite the introduction of noise improvement regimes and the development of less noisy aircraft. It was important for the government to play a leading role in noise level improvement.

The Committee heard a representation from Mr John Stewart, Chairman of the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (HACAN). He highlighted the importance of continued lobbying from residents and local groups regarding future airport expansion. He informed the Committee that:

·         HACAN had commissioned a report which examined the economics of night flights and could be referred to in the Council’s consultation response.

·         HACAN would not be submitting specific comments on the possibility of creating a new airport in the London region as this proposal was not being actively considered by the government at the present time.

The Committee considered the comments made by speakers and welcomed the offer of support in submitting evidence as part of the consultation.

It was RESOLVED:

1. That the draft response attached at the appendix be noted.

2. That the Council’s response to the government’s consultation be finalised by the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning, Parks and Highways, where possible incorporating further comments received from members of the public, residents’ groups and members of the Committee.

3. That the final version of the response be circulated to all Committee members before being submitted.

To receive an update on the situation in relation to insulation grants.

Attached is the Council’s response to the BAA consultation on the review of its mitigation schemes.

The Special Projects Manager provided information to the Committee about the areas of the borough which were currently offered noise insulation grants and detailed the changes that were expected with the end of the Cranford Agreement. He advised the Committee that:

·         Those who resided within the relevant night flight zones would receive an offer by the end of the year.

·         Only those residents whose noise level would worsen with the ending of the Cranford agreement had been consulted on the new grant proposals, meaning that many residents were not aware of the new grants.

·         The Council had responded to BAA’s consultation in highlighting the fact that noise concerns were experienced throughout the borough and that therefore the grant scheme should be extended over much more of the borough.

In response to questions about the provision of installation grants, it was noted that PVC windows could not be installed in listed buildings. However, the Council had requested that BAA offer an alternative package for listed buildings.

It was RESOLVED:

1. That the Council’s response to the BAA consultation on the review of its mitigation schemes be noted.

To inform the Committee of a government announcement on 14 July 2011 in which it is proposed to increase the use of Tactically Enhanced Arrivals Measures (TEAM) and Tactically Enhanced Departures Measures (TEDM). The measures will permit an increase in the use of both runways simultaneously, instead of the current practice of just one at a time.

The measure is outlined in the attached report of the Special Projects Manager. 

The Committee received an update on the government’s proposals to increase the use of Tactically Enhanced Arrivals Mode (TEAM) and Tactically Enhanced Departures Mode (TEDM). The Special Projects Manager explained that this would effectively be a mixed mode use of the runways: when necessary the same runway would be used for take off and arrival, to address the problem of stacking. The first trial period would begin in November with a second trial period scheduled to coincide with the Olympics in 2012. The details of the trial and the associated consultation process were not yet available. The Special Projects Manager provided a presentation on the context of the trial and in response to Members’ questions, explained that additional flights were not expected to be scheduled at Heathrow during the Olympic period.

The Committee heard a representation from Professor Ian Bruce, a member of Richmond Heathrow Campaign. He encouraged the Council to respond to the Minister of State by requesting further details of the trial and by raising residents’ concerns about the use of mixed mode. In response to questions he added that:

·         He believed the problem of stacking could be addressed more effectively via better management and sharing of capacity at the airport.

·         He considered that it was difficult to measure the impact of noise in the borough; in his experience the use of double-glazing did not completely mitigate noise problems.

A representation was heard from Mr Gareth Harper of the Richmond Heathrow Campaign. He stated that BAA appeared to be reneging on a commitment to maintain runway alternation which had been agreed when permission for Terminal Five was granted. He outlined his concerns that:

·         If capacity were reached at Heathrow then it was arguably more likely that TEAM and TEDM would be used more frequently.

·         In his opinion, airlines should concentrate on making better use of existing flight slots and aircraft rather than introducing the trial or introducing larger aircraft.

The Committee heard a representation from Ms Anne Cochrane, a resident of Barnes and member of the Barnes Community Association. She expressed concerns that:

·         Residents of Barnes and Kew would be affected significantly by the proposals as they lived between two flight paths, meaning the noise gaps between flights would decrease.

·         The trial could lead to an increase in pollution levels in south west London.

·         The introduction of TEAM and TEDM could lead to permanent use of mixed mode at the airport and an increase in the number of flights.

Ms Cochrane also enquired whether the Council could reinstate the Aircraft Noiseline to ensure that complaints were captured.

The Committee heard a representation from Mr John Stewart, Chairman of HACAN. He suggested that it would be useful if Richmond and Hounslow Councils could be involved in monitoring the TEAM and TEDM trials and in examining the official data. Such a request could be included in a representation to the Minister of State.

The Committee considered the concerns about the trial which had been raised within the report and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

This report gives details of the proposed future items to be considered by the Special Standing Committee on Heathrow.

The Committee discussed its future work programme in light of the items discussed during the meeting and considered the timing and frequency of future meetings.

It was RESOLVED:

1. That the proposed work programme as detailed at paragraph 3.2 of the report be noted.

2. That the following items be added to the work programme as potential future topics:

(i)         Night Flights (to coincide with the consultation proposed for Spring 2012)

(ii)        Review of TEAM and TEDM trial (when further details become available)

3. That future meetings of the Special Standing Committee on Heathrow should be held on an ad-hoc basis.

4. That where appropriate a ten minute public presentation item could be included within the agenda of future meetings.