BIGGIN HILL AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE Minutes of Meeting held on Thursday, 16 July 2015 at 3.30pm. Present: Organisation: Chairman Deputy Chairman Secretary Biggin Hill Airport Limited (BHAL) Private Owners London B. of Bromley Residents Federation (LBRF) Tatsfield Parish Council London Borough of Croydon London Borough of Bromley (Officer) Downe Residents Association LBRF Kent County Council South London Business London Borough of Bromley (LBB) Tandridge District Council Biggin Hill & District Residents Association Biggin Hill Residents Association Representative: Mr J. Bowden Mr N. Kemp Mr G. Crowe Mr A.R. Walters (Chairman) Mr P. Mirams Mr D. Field Dr R. Hadley* Mr N. Kells* Councillor T. Letts Mrs M. Manuel Rev. J. Musson Mr P. Osborne Councillor R. Parry Mr D. Ponnoosami Councillor Mrs M. Stevens Councillor D. Weightman Mr B. Wingate Mr P. Martin (Observer) *substitute member 1. Welcome and Chairman s introductory remarks 1.01 The Chairman welcomed members to the meeting and, in particular, Councillor Weightman who was attending his first meeting of the Committee. He also welcomed Dr Hadley, Mr Martin and Reverend Musson. 2. Apologies for absence 2.01 Apologies for absence were received from Mr A. Bamrah (Flying Clubs and Schools), Mr J. Cleverley MP (Greater London Authority (GLA)), Councillor S. O Connell (GLA, substitute), Mr V. Endacott (LBRF), Councillor D. Hodge (Surrey County Council), Councillor R. Hogarth (Sevenoaks District Council), Mr D. Hook (LBRF)( substituted by Dr R. Hadley), Councillor I. Mitchell )(substituted by Councillor Niall Kells), Councillor R. Scoates (LBB), Mr J. Willis (Private Owners) and Mr W. Curtis (Airport Managing Director). 3. Membership 3.01 Members noted that: o Councillor David Weightman had been appointed as the representative of Tandridge District Councillor replacing Councillor Mrs Sally Marks who had been appointed as the Chairman of Surrey County Council; 1
o Councillor Julian Benington had replaced Councillor Alexa Michael as a representative of the London Borough of Bromley. 4. Minutes of the previous meeting 4.01 The minutes of the meeting held on 23 April 2015 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. 5. Matters arising from the minutes 5.01 Consultative Committee and the role of residents association representatives (minute 11 refers) - members noted that following the last meeting, applications for membership had been received from Warlingham and Woldingham parish councils (singly or jointly) and the Downe Residents Association (Reverend John Musson would be its representative). 5.02 The Chairman referred to section 6(d) of the Committee s Constitution which provided for LBRF to have 3 representatives. He suggested that it made sense for LBRF to sort out its own representation. 5.03 Peter Osborne said that the problem with allocating seats to particular associations was that it would prevent other associations from attending as substitutes and so enabling more associations to be involved. The effects of noise, etc., relating to the Airport were more widespread than the immediate area. In response to questions, he advised that he reports back to meetings of the Federation (which he would be doing at its meeting to be held later that day). He does not publish a report on the Federation s website because it does not have one. Robert Hadley said that the inclusion of Downe Residents Association would reduce the effectiveness of the Federation which has the opportunity to spread the news about the Airport accurately to all affiliated associations. 5.04 Councillor Parry proposed that the applications from Downe Residents Association and the two parish councils should be refused because the community was already wellrepresented and approving them would, in all likelihood, lead to further applications from other associations and parish councils. 5.05 Andrew Walters said that airports are encouraged by the Government to consult with local representatives. The proposed changes to the approach to runway 03 would be likely to increase movements to the south of the Airport (see paragraphs 6.10 6.14 below). This would suggest that wider representation from Bromley would be needed. The consultation on the Airport s opening hours showed that there were pockets of opposition to it but a large support overall. Peter Mirams added that the runway 03 approach was still subject to public and stakeholder consultation and the final design had not yet been agreed. 5.06 The Chairman said it was open to the Committee to consider the applications from Warlingham and Woldingham parish councils and added that he assumed that representatives on the Committee from district councils would ensure that parish councils in their area would have information disseminated to them. Councillor Weightman asked that the application from Warlingham and Woldingham parish councils be approved because there was not much representation on the south side of the Airport which would be impacted by the runway 03 proposals. Brian Wingate suggested that, because this was a period of change, changes of representation should be deferred for the time being. 5.08 The Committee agreed that it would not accede to the application for membership from Downe Residents Association. It also agreed that the Warlingham and Woldingham parish councils application should not be approved and indicated that it would be open to the possibility of reviewing the issue in due course in the light of the final decision on the route of the approach path to runway 03. 2
6. Airport Managing Director s report 6.01 Peter Mirams presented Will Curtis s report which had been previously circulated. It provided information on various issues. 6.02 Market conditions the report gave the Committee details of market conditions in Europe and it was noted that business aviation flight departures in Europe in June were up 1.8% on the same month last year. The growth was driven by activity in western Europe which had icreased by 6%. However, it was noted that in the first half of 2015 the European market s flight activity was 1.1% behind the same period last year. Both charter and private activity were up in June and of ten aircraft segments monitored, six showed growth. Further details were provided. 6.03 Biggin Hill movement summary - the second quarter of 2015 produced an overall increase of 1,666 movements over the same period of 2014, an increase of 12.5%. June was especially good for most categories of aircraft movement with the general aviation sector being particularly busy. The combined corporate and executive operations rose by 208 movements compared to 2014 mainly within the air taxi sub-category. The slight depression in the wholly company-owned business jets sector was minor when compared to the increases in all other areas. The year to date was currently showing an increase of 1,854 movements. The increased military data in June reflected their appearance at the Festival of Flight. 6.04 The operational movements during the second quarter of 2015 were: Club Club Private ATM ATM Corp. Twin Helis. Military Total Circuit Other Owner Schld. Charter Jet Corp. April 1,509 672 909 0 575 248 57 212 4 4,186 May 1,819 746 1,091 0 713 315 77 274 6 5,041 June 2,228 790 1,196 0 684 364 61 358 22 5,703 Total 5,556 2,208 3,196 0 1,972 927 195 844 32 1,4930 Change +484 +100 +632 0 +192-19 +35 +250-8 +1,666 Year to date 1,509 672 909 0 575 248 57 212 4 4,186 6.05 During the same quarter of 2014 they had been: Club Club Private ATM ATM Corp. Corp. Helis. Military Total Circuit Other Owner Schld Charter Jet Twin April 1,728 613 760 0 496 261 45 135 4 4,042 May 1,276 633 804 0 610 351 67 207 8 3,956 June 2,068 862 1,000 0 674 334 48 252 28 5,266 Total 5,072 2,108 2,564 0 1,780 946 160 594 40 13,264 Year to Date 8,492 3,456 4,024 0 3,251 1,726 314 1,006 58 22,327 6.05 RAF Northolt - in early June 2015, BHAL had met with senior officers of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to discuss safety shortfalls at RAF Northolt. As a result, BHAL was invited to make submissions as to how safety shortfalls at RAF Northolt might be addressed without impinging upon military operations. It was noted that BHAL had subsequently submitted its suggestions and the CAA response was awaited. 6.06 In answer to a question, Andrew Walters advised that Northolt had wanted 12,000, then 17,500 business movements to replace military movements. Currently the limit was being retained at 12,000 and these were absorbing most of London s business growth. BHAL s contention was that all business movements at Northolt should be stopped and BHAL would continue to lobby to that end. 6.07 Andrew Walters answered further questions by advising that: o application for a formal unfair competition investigation had been made to the European Union on the basis that state aid was being provided; 3
o Northolt paid no taxes or National Non-Domestic Rates; o some charges at Northolt were higher than at Biggin Hill and some lower; o Northolt s equipment was paid for by the Ministry of Defence; o Northolt Airport is operated by the Royal Air Force and the passenger handing by London City Airport. 6.08 Airport facilities referring to paragraph 6,08 of the minutes of the 23 April 2015 meeting, members were advised that the cafeteria and viewing area for the public had opened on 15 July 2015. 6.09 It was proposed that additional taxiway and runway lighting would be installed at the threshold of runway 03 following output from the Aerodrome Safety Management System which had identified where improvements might be made. The lights would be installed and operational before the autumn. Some work at night may be required. 6.10 The Airspace Change Proposal for the new runway 03 Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP) had progressed to Serial 5 Preparation for Stakeholder Consultation. Peter Mirams advised that five focus groups had been set up and that the timescale for completion of the project had not yet been finalised. Preparations were being made for stakeholder consultation which would last for 12 weeks from around the second half of August. 6.11 Andrew Walters advised that 25% to 30% of movements had been using a route to the south. In future it was likely that 35% of movements would be on the same track on the same day. Pilots like to use instruments for landings and the new Instrument Landing System (ILS) would allow aircraft to stay higher for longer. One option would have been to overfly Gatwick Airport but aircraft were being required to keep away. Andrew Walters added that control of landings would be the responsibility of the Airport at 2.5 miles distance from it. The final decision on the approach would be made by the National Air Traffic Services. 6.12 Councillor Weightman commented that the increase to 35% of movements on the same track would be noticed by residents under the flight path especially as the Airport s ambition was to increase the number of movements. The Chairman responded that the percentages should not be too different from the current ones because runway 03 was weather dependent. Movements would be 500 feet higher than at present albeit that they would be more concentrated. 6.13 Andrew Walters commented that communication will be very important so that residents will understand the true situation. He added that he lives under the flight path for Farnborough Airport and there are only one or 2 movements an hour on 35% of occasions. 6.14 In answer to a question Councillor Weightman was informed by Peter Mirams that noise contours will be available for the finalised route. 6.15 Economic Development/LoCATE@BigginHill the report advised that a new LoCATE newsletter would be published shortly. 6.16 Health & Safety/security - the Airport Safety Management System (SMS) continued to deliver valuable information to Airport management and the output had resulted in actions to improve some areas of on-airport infrastructure. There had been no significant safety reports or incidents. 7. Airport opening hours - progress 7.01 Referring to paragraphs 6.07 and 6.08 (23 April 2015), the AMD s report provided members with information on progress with the revised opening hours. They were reminded that the BHAL proposals were approved in principle and subject to noise controls being agreed. The matter then went before LBB s Executive who approved the proposals but added limits to the proposed hours as follows: 4
Current Airport Council Monday to Friday 0630-2200 0630-2300 0630-2300 Saturdays 0900-2000 0630-2300 0800-2200 Sundays and Bank Holidays 0900-2000 0800-2300 0800-2200 7.02 It was noted that protracted negotiations continued with LBB which had no formal timetable for consideration of the matter, whilst for BHAL, the matter was very urgent. Despite 9 months having passed since the application was submitted, there is currently no forecast of when LBB might reach a final determination. Andrew Walters reminded members that BHAL had carried out a public consultation on the proposals following which LBB decided it wanted to do its own. 7.03 In response to a question about whether LBB had been filibustering, Mary Manuel reported that the issue would be considered by the Executive on 8 or 9 September. Councillor Mrs Stevens said that negotiations were continuing. 7.04 A question from Councillor Weightman was answered by Peter Mirams who confirmed that Tandridge had been involved in the consultation. A question from Peter Osborne received the answer from Andrew Walters that BHAL accepted the decision of LBB to limit the extension of the opening hours. 7.05 Councillor Mrs Letts referred to a question to be posed to her at the Croydon Council meeting to be held on Monday, 20 July about the extension of hours and said that she congratulated the Airport on its progress on this issue. 8. Noise Action Plan (NAP) progress 8.01 The AMD s report advised that BHAL continued to work with LBB to complete and agree a revised NAP incorporating the recommendations of LBB s noise consultants, Cole Jarman. The revised Plan includes revised noise limits for the Airport. The installation of a new, state of the art Noise Monitoring and Track Keeping System would permit the Airport and local residents to satisfy themselves that aircraft using it were maintaining the correct tracks and altitudes. The system would automatically identify any anomalies and present them for resolution. The Airport Safety and Noise Abatement Review Board (SANARB) would then impose sanctions on those pilots failing to maintain the correct flight profiles and in extreme cases or where repeat offences occur, the pilot concerned could be excluded from using the Airport. The revised NAP which had been designed primarily as a response to the request for modified operating hours may prove financially prohibitive in their absence. 8.02 Andrew Walters confirmed that the NAP had now been submitted to LBB. He referred to the new noise and tracking system which had cost 150k and 50k to set up and will cost 30k per annum to operate. Andrew Walters explained that it was linked to the radar and he described how it works. The Committee noted that, with reservations, members of the public would be able to see the information provided by the system. 9. Airports Commission 9.01 The AMD s report advised that the Airports Commission had published its final report. The Commission had not veered from its interim report and the following extracts summed up its thinking with regard to business aviation and future policy: Several submissions drew the Commission s attention to the concept of reliever airports, with particular reference to its application within the New York airport system. Under this system, smaller airports and airfields in the vicinity of congested airports are designated to 5
handle specific types of traffic, with a particular emphasis on business and general aviation, as well as smaller aircraft flying scheduled services. The private, competitive nature of UK airports ownership means that a strict application of the New York system would not be possible in the London and South East area. Government would not be able to mandate the distribution of traffic to other airfields without running a high risk of creating an illegal distortion of competition. However, a growth in scheduled traffic at airports with a large share of the current business jet market (Luton and Stansted in particular) may create pressures over time for business jet users, who depend upon access to airports being available at short notice, which is difficult at a congested airport. The Commission does not recommend mandating changes to the operation of the business aviation market (which generally appears to be functioning well), but it does note the need for flexibility within the system. Government policy should promote the benefits of smaller airports in the London and South East system for accommodating business and general aviation. Furthermore, while the opening hours and other conditions of use of these airports are often matters that should properly be dealt with between the airport and its local authority, the local authorities should support the development of smaller local airports and, alongside consideration of their environmental impacts, also give due consideration to the positive benefits they can bring to the local and regional economy. 9.02 The Airport Managing Director had commented in his report that the Commission joins the Transport Select Committee in suggesting that Government policy should better support smaller regional airports and that BHAL welcomed this. 10. Developments at other airports 10.01 Rochester Airport - it was noted that planning permission had been granted for a short paved runway. Andrew Walters commented that he was surprised that the economic case supports the investment. The Chairman referred to it being proposed that development would take place on released land. 10.02 Farnborough Airport - Andrew Walters said that Farnborough Airport was receiving 200m from the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). He commented that Biggin Hill Airport had received no such funding. He added that he had met with several people from the Coast to Capital LEP and that the possibility of funding was still being pursued. Councillor Letts advised that she is a member of the Board of the Coast to Capital LEP and suggested that its Chairman, Tim Wates, should be approached. 11. Planning issues 11.01 Local Plan - Mary Manuel reported that the Local Plan would be put out for public consultation in early September for a period of 6 weeks. She advised that she would be happy to provide a presentation on the Plan at the next Consultative Committee meeting or at a LoCATE meeting. She would be attending a meeting of the LBRF in September and the consultation would include residents associations. The Committee was also advised that the Plan recognised the need for flexibility in Biggin Hill. 11.02 Andrew Walters said that the whole of Biggin Hill Airport was situated in the Green Belt whereas many airports have been taken out of it. He expressed regret that the Airport still had many difficulties to overcome and that planning restrictions had not been reduced. Mary Manuel replied that the Green Belt can only be amended in exceptional circumstances through the Local Plan process. A consultant working for LBB was looking 6
at impact and the most sensitive areas, such as East Camp, were not being recommended for release for development. 11.03 Peter Osborne asked about the residual piece of land at East Camp where the proposed Heritage Centre was to be sited and was advised that the issue had not yet been considered by the appropriate committee of LBB. 12. Report by the Chairman of the Noise and Safety Sub-Committee 12.01 The report of the Flight Evaluation Unit for the second quarter of 2015 was tabled together with a map that plotted the areas from which the comments had emanated. 12.02 Councillor Parry, the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, advised that the total number of complaints made in the quarter had been 47 of which 37 were related to movements to or from Biggin Hill Airport. As usual, they had all been handled professionally and well. The circumstances of some of the complaints were outlined. 12.03 Councillor Parry said that many of the complaints related to larger aircraft which, because of their size, appeared to be closer to the ground than that they actually are. These aircraft tend to be quieter than the smaller ones. The increased number of complaints may also be a response to the higher profile of the Airport at present following the public consultation exercise on its opening hours. 12.04 6 of the movements complained about arose due to pilot error and warnings or sanctions had been applied. 2 of the pilots were being required to have more training. 12.05 Some of the complaints related to movements when the Airport was closed and some to occasions when that the police helicopter had been hovering. Councillor Parry also referred to an occasion when 6 aircraft had their engines running but had not been allowed by Eurocontrol to depart the Airport for 38 minutes due to a storm. 12.06 In answer to a question, Councillor Parry confirmed that some of the complainants could be regarded as vexatious. 12.07 Referring to paragraph 8.05 of the minutes of the meeting held on 23 April 2015, Peter Osborne said that he was still being asked where telephone number of the complaints line was advertised. He added that he had looked for it, unsuccessfully, on the Airport s website and that people would like there to be a dedicated line (which used to be published in the News Shopper) or email address for complaints. Peter Mirams said that there is a dedicated line and that the number is published in the Biggin Hill News. He undertook to investigate where else it was advertised and ensure that it is prominently displayed on the website. The Chairman commented that it was clear that the number needs to be advertised more prominently. Action: Peter Mirams 13. Community Relations 13.01 Press cuttings - The press cuttings for the last quarter had been circulated with the agenda for the meeting. 14. Any other business Milking Lane Farm 14.01 When presenting his apologies for absence, Councillor Scoates had asked that BHAL be asked why Regional Airports Ltd had purchased Milking Lane Farm and what its plans for it were. Andrew Walters replied that it had been sensible for it to be purchased to prevent 7
it being bought by an alternative purchaser. There were no plans for the use of the farm at present and it would continue to be let to the farmer for use as a farm. 14.02 Peter Osborne mentioned that the gate into the farm from Milking Hall Lane had been forced open. 15. Dates of next meetings 15.01 The Committee was reminded that it had been agreed that the next two meetings would be held as follows: o Thursday, 8 October (formerly Thursday, 15 October 2015); o Thursday, 21 January 2016 (with AGM). The meeting closed at 5.10pm. 8