Issue - meetings

To receive a report by the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport and the Corporate Director, Growth, Environment and Transport on the decision taken by Cabinet that Kent County Council opposes a second runway at Gatwick Airport, opposes the increase in overflights across West Kent as a result of airspace changes, and supports a reduction in the number of night flights.

(1)       The Cabinet Committee received a report of the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport and the Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport which contained information on the Council’s policy on Gatwick Airport.  Paul Crick, Director, Environment, Planning and Enforcement, and Joe Ratcliff, Principal Transport Planner - Strategy, were in attendance to introduce the report and in particular referred to the following:

(2)       Gatwick Airport Ltd had proposed a second runway at Gatwick with proposals for changes to airspace resulting in a concentration of flight paths, a higher level of permitted night flights and an increase in overflight and noise currently experienced in West Kent.  The Airports Commission had undertaken a national public consultation until 3 February 2015 on this option for a second runway at Gatwick; alongside two options for additional runway capacity at Heathrow. The Airports Commission will then make a recommendation to Government in summer 2015 on where to add one additional runway in the South East by 2030. The option of a Thames Estuary Airport was ruled out by the Airports Commission in September 2014.

(3)       Statistics seem to show that over the past decade there has been an eastward shift of flights.  The further out that aircraft join the final approach, the more flights the airport can handle as they can be spaced more effectively and the runway can handle more movements per hour, in other words, maximise the capacity of the runway.  The question of whether this was the case had been formally asked of Gatwick Airport Ltd through the Consultative Committee (GATCOM) and KCC awaited a written response.

(4)       KCC was opposed to the consolidation of flights in the suggested proposed changes to airspace and would prefer a wider approach be maintained. 

(5)       The proposed mixed mode operation for a new runway at Gatwick, (both runways used for departures and arrivals); provides the maximum amount of additional capacity in terms of aircraft movements and passengers. However, it also has the most detrimental environmental and noise impacts with no opportunity for respite from runway alternation (one runway used for arrivals while the other runway is used for departures).  KCC was also opposed to this and, for similar reasons, to the proposed increase in night flights.

(6)       In response to questions raised and comments made the Committee received the following further information from officers:

(7)       In terms of surface access, Gatwick Airport Ltd claimed it would be “road and rail ready for a second runway by 2021” regardless of whether a second runway was delivered or not in the post 2025 period. Gatwick’s surface access strategy for a second runway was heavily reliant on already planned, committed and delivered schemes for strategic road and rail access.  These highway and rail schemes were already being implemented to help alleviate current levels of congestion and delay and to meet background growth, without taking account of the demand that would be generated by more than a doubling of Gatwick’s size, therefore to classify this as road/rail ready  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51

To receive a report setting out a suggested policy position for adoption regarding Gatwick Airport  

(Item 9 – Report of the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, Mr David Brazier and Corporate Director for Growth, Environment and Transport, Barbara Cooper)

Cabinet received a report seeking agreement to the adoption of a position of opposition to a second runway at Gatwick Airport and to any increase in flights over West Kent as a result of airspace changes, and in addition, of support for a reduction in the number of current night flights.

The Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, Mr David Brazier, introduced the item.  He explained that Kent County Council had a policy document describing its aviation position, Facing the Aviation Challenge but that it needed to be refreshed in the light of residents’ concerns to include a position of opposition to a second runway at Gatwick as the government continued to consider how, and where, best to meet increased demand and business need.

In addition, and separately from the issue of a potential second runway, there were issues relating to the number of night flights and trials relating to airspace, both of which caused great concern for residents in West Kent and which Kent County Council wished to recognise in its aviation position, even though it had no statutory powers or duties related to aviation it would respond to government consultations on the matter.

It was important that the aviation position of the Council continued to reflect current issues and the views of residents and therefore the proposed update for agreement at Cabinet would be amalgamated with the current document if agreed.

Joe Ratcliffe, Principal Transport Planner – Strategy, was in attendance to give a presentation on the topic of a potential expansion at Gatwick and on current use. [The presentation is published on line as an appendix to these minutes].

The Cabinet Member for Corporate and Democratic Services, Mr Gary Cooke, spoke to the item.  He considered that questions of capacity were no longer concentrated on airspace issues, because technology had advanced, but now related to managing the disturbance created for some residents.  The noise from flights had the potential to severely adversely affect the quality of life of an individual and any solutions to issues of capacity and business need should also seek to disperse the inconvenience to residents, he therefore supported the adoption of the position as proposed.

It was RESOLVED that

      I.        The creation of a second runway at Gatwick Airport, be opposed

    II.        Any increase in overflights across West Kent as a result of airspace changes, be opposed

   III.        A reduction in the number of night flights be supported.