Agenda item

(a)  That the draft response (attached at Appendix A to the report) adequately represents the council’s position in responding to the Airports Commission consultation on shortlisted options for a new runway, subject to the addition of further mitigations specified by Commissioners at the Cabinet.

(b)  That the revised response be submitted to the Airports Commission before the 3rd February 2015 closing date.

(c)  That any amendments to the response be delegated to the Assistant Director, Assets, Infrastructure and Regeneration, following consultation with the Commissioner for Social and Economic Inclusion.

The Cabinet considered a draft response to the Airports Commission consultation on the shortlisted options for new runway capacity.  The consultation deadline was 3^rd February 2015 and the options were a second runway at Gatwick; an extended northern runway at Heathrow, known as Heathrow Hub; and a new north west runway proposed by Heathrow Airport Ltd.  Members were asked to confirm that the draft response adequately represented the Council’s position and agree to delegate amendments and submission of the final response.

The draft response, as set out in Appendix A of the supplementary agenda, focused primarily on the two Heathrow options given the impacts they would have on Slough.  Commissioners agreed that the draft adequately reflected the importance of Heathrow to the town and local economy.  It was felt that the consultation and possible expansion provided an opportunity to develop a ‘better Heathrow’ by addressing long standing problems with noise, air pollution and traffic and proposing a series of further mitigations to secure jobs, apprenticeships and infrastructure improvements.

The Cabinet made a number of specific comments and proposed mitigations and it was agreed these would be incorporated into the draft response and taken forward in discussion with scheme promoters.  These are summarised as follows:

• Impact on borough boundary – the response should be strengthened to emphasise that Slough would strongly oppose any proposal to redraw the boundaries which transferred any Slough land to Hillingdon.

• Income –the potential loss of income to the Council via Business Rates and Council Tax was substantial and this was a critical issue in view of the changes to local government finance which made councils more reliant on such funding streams.  The Council would expect to be adequately compensated for lost revenue.

• Apprenticeships and Jobs –scheme promoters should provide job, training or apprenticeship opportunities to all Slough residents who were out of work or education following expansion.  There should also be a commitment to increase the employment of Slough residents at the airport to 6,000 (an increase of circa 25%) within a specific timeframe.

• Partnerships – a properly structured long term partnership, at Leader and Chief Executive level, should be established between the airport and Council to address issues relating to the operation of the airport and allocate a substantial, long term pot of dedicated funds.  Heathrow should also take a more proactive role in other partnerships across the borough including with schools and Aspire.

• Surface access – action should be taken prior to airport expansion to reduce the negative impacts of airport related HGV traffic in communities, particularly Colnbrook, arising from additional freight operations and scheme promoters should ensure that expansion did not result in any net increase in road traffic locally.  Investment from the airport would be required to support to public transport links between Slough and the airport to increase the number of workers using public transport and the Council would seek a commitment to support Phase 2 of SMART and request an expansion of the free travel zone.

• Noise – a package of measures on noise insulation would be required in recognition of the new noise following expansion and a commitment should be sought to reduce noise over and above legal requirements.  Respite should be provided with no flights scheduled for at least a five hour period each night.

• Air quality – a project to improve air quality, primarily caused by surface access including on the M4 and M25 would need to be agreed, with monitoring to ensure improvements were secured.

• Community wellbeing and landscaping – a wide range of specific proposals were made including mature planting and landscaping in Colne Valley Park; wider promotion of the Heathrow Community Fund; new Multi-Use Games Areas and other facilities; and improving community access to Heathrow facilities such as meeting space at business centres.

Commissioners stated that they would not be in a position to support either of the Heathrow options unless an acceptable package of mitigations could be secured.  Speaking under Rule 30, Councillor Smith highlighted a wide range of concerns about the impacts of the airport in terms of its current operation and both options for expansion.  These included housing, traffic and flood risk which would have a detrimental impact on the viability of the community and its public services.  He felt that the potential loss of homes and businesses should be more clearly stated and asked the Cabinet to explicitly oppose the Heathrow Hub option given the loss of 250 homes and at least a third of the Poyle Industrial Estate.  The Cabinet noted the comments, fully recognised the concerns about the Heathrow Hub proposal and asked that further work be done by officers to model the specific impacts.

Councillor Peter Hood, Chair of Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council was also invited to address the Cabinet.  He expressed disappointment that the Cabinet was not supporting Gatwick expansion as he believed that this was the best mitigation against the negative impacts of Heathrow.  Commissioners recognised the specific impacts in Colnbrook with Poyle and would seek measures to directly address them, however, taking all factors into account they stated that their duty as a Cabinet was to secure the best possible outcome for the whole Borough.  This meant capturing the benefits of Heathrow in terms of jobs and business growth as well as securing a firm commitment to a series of mitigations which would address long standing problems associated with proximity to a major airport as well as the specific issues with expansion.

After discussion, the Cabinet agreed that the draft response adequately represented the council’s position, subject to the incorporation of comments made during the meeting and the outcome of the ongoing discussions with scheme promoters.  The Assistant Director, Assets, Infrastructure and Regeneration was given delegated authority to amend and submit the response, following consultation with the Commissioner for Social & Economic Inclusion, prior to the consultation deadline of 3^rd February 2015.

Resolved –

(a)  That the draft response, at Appendix A to the report, adequately represented the council’s position in responding to the Airports Commission consultation on shortlisted options for a new runway, subject to the incorporation of comments and further mitigations specified at the meeting.

(b)  That the revised response be submitted to the Airports Commission before the 3rd February 2015 closing date.

(c)  That any amendments to the response be delegated to the Assistant Director, Assets, Infrastructure and Regeneration, following consultation with the Commissioner for Social and Economic Inclusion.