Agenda item

(Director of Planning and Economic Development) To consider the attached report. Attached is the minutes from the Cabinet meeting of 30 June 2011 regarding The Future Development of Air Transport in the South East – Second Edition.

The Panel received a report regarding a Department for Transport (DfT) consultation document entitled “Developing a Sustainable Framework for UK Aviation – Scoping Document.”

The DoT was consulting on this document because the previous Government’s 2003 White Paper entitled “The Future of Air Transport” was considered out of date as it failed to give sufficient weight to the challenge of climate change. The consultation document before the panel was more a synthesis of points that the Government wished to make, the aim of the document was to define the debate as the Government developed their long term policy for UK aviation.

The consultation had a list of 49 questions, however attention was drawn to question 44:

Is it better to minimise the total number of people affected by aircraft noise or to share the burden more evenly so that a greater number of people are affected by noise less frequently?

The point raised was before landing aircraft circle and descend in stages, this dispersal has caused noise pollution for residents at different locations, times and days or nights. Although it was possible to seek a more concentrated and direct descent path, a consequence of such concentration would be that a location such as Nazeing would be under the flight descent on a regular basis rather than an occasional basis. It was noted that the District Council received very few noise complaints directly about aircraft noise.

The Government suggested that part of its philosophy was to make existing airports better rather than bigger. However it was difficult to envisage how they could eke out more capacity by doing things better at Stansted.

There were vague statements in the document relating to sustainability, without indicating which definition of sustainability was being used. The Government was separately consulting upon a new National Planning framework, which was intended to be a brief document. The document indicated an intention that the final aviation framework document would fulfil the role of a national planning policy for aviation. Quite how sympathetic to growth of aviation it would be, set against environmental concerns, and the views of local communities who get benefits when they flew, but who suffered the effects of aviation, remained to be seen.

The major expansion of Stansted was always locally considered to be a possible future threat to North Weald. However, the document provided no guidance in understanding a Government view of a particular further development.

RECOMMENDED:

(1)        That the District Council welcomes sustainability considerations being given greater prominence in future aviation policy;

(2)        That the District Council welcomes the decision rejecting further runways at Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted;

(3)        That the potential for a new owner and operator to take over at Stansted Airport be noted, and that dialogue with them should take place;

(4)        That the District Council should remain vigilant in responding to details in the new National Planning Framework particularly regarding aviation and the impact of night time flight restrictions for Stansted, North Weald and Stapleford Tawney;

(5)        That the District Council supports wider dispersal of aircraft descent paths, and answers Question 44 accordingly; and

(6)        That the procedure agreed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 24 January 2011, (Minute Item 70), be utilised, to ensure that there responses are made to the Department for Transport by the deadline.