Agenda item

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 for Gatwick airport was effectively double counting.  There was also no direct rail link from West Kent.

(8)       Opposition to a second runway at Gatwick was not an endorsement of an additional runway at Heathrow.  Members were very clear that this should be clarified in KCC’s response to the consultation.

(9)       Complaints and correspondence about noise and disturbance were numerous but statistics could be provided.  Changes to the flight path would mean continuous disturbance and disruption.  In quiet rural areas aviation noise would sound much louder than in built up city areas.  Noise perception was often as disturbing as the real thing and no one could argue against this.  Aviation noise was disturbing and had a negative impact.  The human body’s response to aviation noise was different to other noise, often sending the body into a fight or flight state.  Noise reporting is currently based on 1950/60s limits and the Airports Commission had suggested a separate Noise Recording Committee be set up to look at this. 

(10)    One alternative to flying, especially to Europe, was rail however this was expensive.  The cost of a flight often meant that it was cheaper to fly than take a train, even if the rail journey would be of a similar duration.  Improving and utilising Ashford International Station as a gateway to Europe could increase the appeal of rail travel.  This improved connection with Europe was something that Cabinet had endorsed in April 2011 in the Rail Action Plan for Kent.

(11)    2014 had been Gatwick’s busiest to date.  Although the illustrations were based on July/August, when flights were at the maximum, the figures within the report were for a whole year.  In regard to the number of aircraft movements in July 2014 compared with July 2013 as well as the increase in the number of movements, the prevalence of westerly winds in July 2014 was closer to its average at 69%, whereas in July the year before westerly winds occurred only 51% of the time.  This had therefore exaggerated the number of arrivals over West Kent this summer, an approximate 39% increase in arriving aircraft compared to the previous year which equated to an aircraft passing overhead on average 12 to 16 times per hour, compared to 8 to 11 aircraft per hour the year before in the peak summer season. 

(12)    In terms of the number of flights at night, these were very frequent at Gatwick due to a lower quota set by the Department for Transport (DfT) compared to Heathrow.  Gatwick’s night time air transport movement limits (between 23:30 and 06:00) remained set until 2017, at 3,250 in winter and 11,200 in summer. This was a contrast with far tighter night time movement controls at Heathrow (2,550 in winter and 3,250 in summer); therefore Gatwick’s air traffic movement limit exceeds Heathrow by 27% in winter and is almost 3.5 times greater than Heathrow in summer.

(13)    The Chairman put the recommendation to the vote when the voting was as follows:

For (12):             Mrs Stockell, Mr Baldock, Mr Balfour, Mr Caller, Mr Chittenden, Dr Eddy, Mrs Hohler, Mr Ozog, Mr Pearman, Mr Simkins, Mr Whybrow, Mr Wickham

Against (1):        Mr MacDowall

Carried

(14)    RESOLVED that the decision by Cabinet that Kent County Council opposed a second runway at Gatwick Airport, opposed the increase in overflights across West Kent as a result of airspace changes and supported a reduction in the number of night flights be noted.