Agenda item

Please note that the appendices to this report will not be available in paper form at the meeting for members of the public, but can be viewed and downloaded in advance from the Council website.

Report DRR15/097

The special Council meeting had been called to consider a proposal from Biggin Hill Airport Limited (BHAL) to vary the operating hours of the Airport pursuant to the terms of their lease. BHAL’s original proposals had been considered by the Council on 25^th March 2015, following which the Executive had resolved as following - 

“In consideration of proposals from Biggin Hill Airport Limited to vary the operating hours at Biggin Hill Airport it is RESOLVED to:

(1)  agree the following recommendation from Council –

“That subject to agreement from the airport to all concessions, conditions, and obligations which can reasonably be required in consideration for agreeing a variation to the operating criteria in the third schedule to the lease, and subject to the Executive being satisfied with the concessions, conditions and obligations negotiated, the Executive should then agree in principle to the extension of hours and consult again with council before the final decision is made”; and

(2)  the recommendation above is to be taken forward subject to negotiations with Biggin Hill Airport Limited on concessions, conditions and obligations, including a variation to operating hours for Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays based on 8am to 10pm rather than the operating hours proposed by BHAL, namely 6.30am to 11pm on Saturdays and 8am to 11pm on Sundays.”

Extensive negotiations had been conducted by officers and the Council’s technical advisors with BHAL since then, and the modified proposals had been re-presented by BHAL.

The Mayor explained to the meeting that for legal reasons the final decision on this matter would need to be taken by the Executive, which would meet, after a short adjournment, on the rising of the Council meeting.

The Mayor asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Stephen Carr, to speak before the debate was opened up. He stated that executive members would not be speaking or voting on this issue, and that Conservative members had a free vote. He also thanked the public, Members, officers and the Council’s consultants for their contributions. 

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Nicholas Bennett and seconded by Councillor Julian Benington –

“That this Council, noting its resolution at the meeting on March 25th 2015 to the Executive, and the subsequent negotiations; recommends to the Executive that BHAL's proposals for an amendment of the operating schedule of the lease, subject to the concessions, conditions and obligations as detailed in the Council's technical advisor's report and any other matters which the Executive believes are necessary, be approved.”

Members discussed the proposals and the motion. The following points were made in support of the BHAL proposals -

·  The Airport was making a reasonable request and the Council had to consider the request and make a reasonable response.

·  The airport was committed to best practice in agreeing to implement a Noise Action Plan, which would protect residents.

·  There were currently no restrictions on the numbers of movements in the shoulder hours, and the proposals would give greater control.

·  The proposals would reduce noise and introduce a system of sanctions and penalties.

·  Flights over Chislehurst, Petts Wood and Farnborough would be reduced by around a third.

·  The removal of the Heathrow Beacon by 2019 would remove many of the large jets stacked for Heathrow from the area. 

·  The Council had a duty to all of its residents and approving the proposals would be in the overall interests of the whole borough, bringing economic development and training opportunities. 

·  The proposed hours were a very modest extension which could bring up to 2,300 jobs, many of them highly skilled, and a specialist college.

·  Of the 18 recommendations, 8 had been met and 4 needed submission of further details, but if they were not all complied with the Airport would have to revert to the current hours.

The following points were made against the BHAL proposals –

·  The airport was bought by the Council in 1984 to protect the residents of the borough, and this should still be the Council’s priority as a reasonable landlord.

·  The results from the consultations carried out by the Airport and the Council were highly questionable and should be disregarded. Residents under the flightpath were overwhelmingly against the proposals.

·  The Airport had not accepted any reduction in hours since the meetings in March.

·  Changing the height of aircraft arriving and departing might help residents in Sidcup, but would have little impact closer to the airport in Farnborough and Crofton.

·  Residents were having to suffer from bigger, noisier aircraft and this was an opportunity to reduce disturbance at anti-social hours. 

·  Although it was claimed that aircraft were now quieter than in the past, all aircraft were still noisy, especially at night and in the early hours of the morning.

·  The issue of noise nuisance from helicopters needed to be addressed in the Noise Action Plan.

·  The negative impact of the proposals on thousands of residents did not outweigh the limited economic benefits to the borough – these jobs and the new college were not guaranteed.

·  It was unlikely that many of the jobs supposed to be created would actually go to local people, and unemployment was very low in the borough.

·  The complicated noise envelope arrangements and noise averages masked the impact of more aircraft movements early in the morning.

·  Only a few of the 18 recommendations had actually been fully met in the eight months since the meeting in March – residents could not rely on the Airport’s “best endeavours” to fulfil the remaining conditions. 

·  The Airport had received planning permission for a hotel several years ago, but it had not been built. Promises about jobs and a college could not be relied on. 

The motion was put to the vote and CARRIED.

Voting on the motion was as follows –

For the motion: Vanessa Allen, Teresa Ball, Katherine Bance, Julian Benington, Nicholas Bennett JP, Ruth Bennett, Kevin Brooks, Mary Cooke, Peter Dean, Ian Dunn, Nicky Dykes, Judi Ellis, Peter Fookes, Hannah Gray, Ellie Harmer, Will Harmer, William Huntington-Thresher, David Livett, Terence Nathan, Tom Philpott, Neil Reddin, Catherine Rideout, Charles Rideout CVO QPM, Michael Rutherford, Melanie Stevens, Michael Turner, Stephen Wells, Angela Wilkins and Richard Williams (29) 

Against the Motion:

Councillors Douglas Auld, Eric Bosshard, Katy Boughey, Lydia Buttinger, Simon Fawthrop, Samaris Huntington-Thresher, Charles Joel, Russell Mellor, Alexa Michael, Keith Onslow, Tony Owen, Angela Page, Ian Payne, Sarah Phillips, Chris Pierce, Richard Scoates, Diane Smith, Tim Stevens JP and  Michael Tickner (19)

Abstaining from voting:

Councillors Graham Arthur, Kim Botting, Stephen Carr, Alan Collins, Robert Evans, Peter Fortune, Kate Lymer, Peter Morgan, Colin Smith and Pauline Tunnicliffe (10)