Agenda item

ARobinson began by noting corrections to the report as (1) on paragraph 2.4, references to “LOA” should read “LOAOL” and (2) on paragraph 4.12, the reference to 45% of passengers arriving by car. ARobinson should read as 55%. 

ARobinson introduced members to Anthony Aldridge who was present to answer any questions.

ARobinson noted that the report sets out the statutory consultation that runs until 4th April.  The consent order is expected later in the year, and the main issues have been summarised under section 4 of the report.  ARobinson highlighted that Dacorum, by consequence of ownership of a small parcel of land included to the application, is technically considered a host authority.  ARobinson confirmed that their previous response to the 2019 consultation has been included in the report. 

ARobinson stated that officers would like to respond to the consultation as a host authority, working with other host authorities, and the purpose of the report is to capture the committee’s comments and the portfolio holder will be advised of the final response of the report and the committee’s views.

Cllr Timmis commented on the small area of land and asked if they were being grouped under Luton Borough Council, adding that they are now currently a host as it has been projected that the land will be acquired as part of the access road.  ARobinson advised that the application includes Junction 10 and that they are included as a host authority by a small margin, though they do not know if the red line will change by the time the application is formally submitted. 

Cllr Timmis queried what the implications would be on Dacorum being a host authority for a small area of land.  ARobinson stated that there are additional obligations on host authorities to discharge in terms of consultation, but as a neighbouring authority, most additional implications do not go any further than when they were under the neighbouring authority status.  AAldridge added that the implications of being a host authority are similar to being a neighbouring authority, such as consulting with other authorities on how to undertake the consultation, and that Dacorum were consulted with so there is no disadvantage procedurally.  There will be a significant difference in the examination period with both host and neighbouring authorities invited to submit a local impact report by the planning inspectorate.  AAldridge advised that the only real difference between host and neighbouring authorities post-application is that host authorities have an automatic right to appear at any hearings, though if representations are made as a neighbouring authority, this right will be granted.

Cllr Timmis noted that DBC passed a motion 2 weeks ago opposing Luton Airport’s further planned expansion and that it will commit to continue to oppose the expansion.  Cllr Timmis advised that the 2013 planning application was granted by Luton Borough Council based on certain conditions, including mitigation of noise and that this has not occurred, and only the A320 is quieter.  Cllr Timmis commented that, as noise mitigation has not been delivered, she did not see how they could trust that the airport could deliver this in future, particularly as it will require more aircraft to achieve 32m passengers per year.  Cllr Timmis noted that achieving 32m passengers would require the addition of 70% more flights from 11pm-7am and 50% during the day, leaving 3-5am as the only period with no flights.  Cllr Timmis also noted the impact on the environment, stating that building will go over green space and the number of car parks has been considerably increased. 

AAldridge responded to Cllr Timmis’ comments, first stating that he felt there had been a misunderstanding with how they are dealing with issues or propose to do so. AAldridge explained that the issue regarding the A321neo is being taken seriously by the operating company and is being investigated.  AAldridge confirmed that noise readings have been taken and that early modelling suggests the A321neo problem has not been fixed and that Airbus need to resolve this issue.  AAldridge advised that they have modelled the next 10 years on the understanding that this will not be remedied and will be thereafter.  Noise assessments are compared to 2019 as the last full year of operation with 21.5m passengers assessed as the first phase, followed by 27m and then 32m, and noise modelling is showing at each of these development phases that all noise contour areas are smaller than in 2019.  AAldridge confirmed that noise would therefore be quieter than in 2019 even with increased aircraft.  AAldridge added that the Green Control Growth proposals focus on impact and will therefore set hard limits based on the environmental assessments that will become enshrined in law.

Cllr Birnie noted the legal limits and asked who will enforce this.  AAldridge advised that they are proposing to set up a new independent body to monitor how the Green Control Growth works in practice and it is suggested that this body be made up of the professional planning officers of directly affected authorities.  This would mean Luton, North Herts, Hertfordshire and Central Bedfordshire, as well as aviation specialists.  Approvals will then be made in accordance with legal limits set.  Cllr Birnie asked how monitoring will take place.  AAldridge explained that the airport operator has to set out how it intends to grow and stay within environmental limits, which will be approved by the monitoring body, and the monitoring regime will be part of that growth plan. 

AAldridge stated that they have a good news story on noise where proposals are showing that noise is now quieter than it has been and there is a new independent monitoring and enforcement regime that has a statutory function to police this. 

In response to an inaudible question from Cllr Birnie, AAldridge advised that they could produce incentive schemes, but what they are measuring is the noise impact irrespective of the number of aircraft. 

Cllr Birnie asked if freight flights mostly take place at night.  AAldridge confirmed that some night flights are freight flights, though a number also take place during the day. 

AAldridge returned to Cllr Timmis’ earlier comment regarding the 70% increase in night flights, advising that there is a current cap on night flights of 9,650 movements per year, and that they have committed to not changing this and will not seek to increase the Luton night-time cap.  AAldridge explained that the heaviest usage has been 8,700 and there is therefore scope to go beyond this, which could go ahead regardless of the expansion plan. 

Cllr Birnie noted that freight aircraft tend not to be as modern as passenger aircraft and are likely to be noisier and it appears that there is no control on the types of aircraft that can be used by the operators.  AAldridge agreed with these comments.

Cllr Timmis remarked that aircraft noise was still too loud with 19m passengers in 2019 and stated that the airport had not delivered on the noise mitigation measures as part of the 2013 expansion.  Cllr Timmis stated that a further promise on noise mitigation could therefore not be made and that this was the primary concern of those under the flightpath.  AAldridge responded that Green Control Growth takes them away from measuring specific aircraft and will be a legal requirement.  Affected neighbouring local authorities can also take legal action against the airport if there is a breach of limits. 

Cllr Birnie asked how flight corridors have been changed.  AAldridge explained this was a function of the assumed fleet mix in the future.  Cllr Birnie stated that 1 of the 2 aircraft that use the airport most frequently is noisier.  AAldridge advised that it is not noisier but is noisier than people expected, adding that it is quieter than the aircraft it has replaced.

Cllr Birnie asked what measures would be put in place to respond to complaints or if complainants would have to seek retribution in law.  AAldridge explained that it would be difficult for limits to be breached as there are thresholds below the legal limits where an agreed growth plan is required to go beyond each threshold that would need to be approved by the new independent body, where the ultimate sanction would be stopping growth. 

Cllr England commented that there was no quantified expression of the assurance being provided and asked how the current noise being produced relates to the threshold in numbers.  AAldridge confirmed that there would be less noise at all stages of development compared to in 2019.  Cllr England asked how this translates into sound measurement numbers.  AAldridge explained that it is usually above the 57dB contour area, and the area covered is expressed in square kilometres.  AAldridge advised that he did not have the area they were comparing to but provided assurance that they would be smaller at each stage.

Cllr England advised that people would still be annoyed by the amount of noise despite proof that it is quieter.  AAldridge agreed, stating that on the application the accepted metric for measuring noise will be by having average noise contours for both day and night.  In addition to this, they will measure and put out the peaks to ensure this is clearer to people.

Cllr Birnie asked AAldridge to keep the relevant officer abreast of any figures.  AAldridge stated that there are a number of different figures but they are all available as part of the consultation material and website.

Cllr Timmis noted there would be a 60% increase in carbon emissions from flights, adding that the average short haul flight emits between 13 and 20 tons of CO2.  Cllr Timmis stated that she was unconvinced by carbon offsetting measures and that the Climate Change Committee reported to the government in 2020 that there should be no increase in UK airports if they wished to achieve net zero by 2050.  Cllr Timmis added that she therefore saw no evidence for the need to increase to 32m passengers.  Cllr Timmis noted that 65% of passengers would be accessing the airport by car and that the Luton DART only goes from Luton Airport Parkway Station to the airport. 

Cllr Birnie summarised Cllr Timmis’ comments and asked AAldridge what mitigation measures are in place for the pollution that will be produced.  AAldridge acknowledged the climate emergency and noted that the government had rejected the Climate Change Committee’s report but is still committed to achieving net zero by 2050, and that aviation growth is now factored into this target.  AAldridge referred to the Jet Zero Consultation, noting that it states aviation emissions must be included in carbon budgets and that aviation growth is still supported, and that net zero would still be achievable across the country as a whole.  AAldridge explained that the government have described aviation emissions as a global issue and if aviation growth is supported by the government then aviation emissions may increase but the Emissions Trading Scheme allows that to be balanced.

AAldridge noted the internal debate around whether aviation emissions should form part of the Green Control Growth Proposals but that this would restrict growth at Luton and would take place elsewhere. Looking at the 2-hour travel time catchment area at Luton, AAldridge advised that if they move flights to other airports then people will then need to travel further and travel emissions are therefore increased.  This would also result in the loss of other benefits of expansion in Luton.  AAldridge reiterated that they are unable to control aviation growth as this is decided at a government level, and that the proposal is therefore that Luton is the best place to grow it to gain all the other environmental and social benefits that this will provide.

Cllr Birnie noted Cllr Timmis’ comments about the number of people travelling to Luton by car and that this would have a significant effect.  AAldridge advised that within the Green Control Growth Proposals there are hard legal limits and that surface access carbon emissions and air quality are included within this.  Assessments show that the difference in air quality with or without expansion is negligible.  AAldridge noted that whilst Luton DART only travels 1.4 miles, it makes public transport more attractive than a bus service, and when East West Rail and Crossrail are also factored in, someone can easily access the airport from Reading, Oxford or Cambridge via public transport.  AAldridge acknowledged there would be more carparking though there will be fewer spaces per passenger as there are currently. 

Cllr Timmis referred to congestion on the M1 and that this congestion would increase with expansion, adding that they would see up to 40k additional passenger journeys per day on local roads.  AAldridge agreed that the M1 continues to be an issue from Junctions 8-14 even without growth and stated that changes are required to how people access and leave the M1, including change to Junction 10.  AAldridge stated that the M1 issue goes beyond airport expansion and that all authorities need to lobby National Highways, and that it has been agreed by National Highways that these issues could be expected to be resolved by 2035. 

Cllr Foster asked if anything could stop them objecting to the proposals as a host authority.  Cllr Birnie confirmed there was not. 

Cllr Wilkie referred to the letter on page 68 and 69 of ARobinson’s report noting the support of a second terminal and confirmed that this position has changed considerably.  Cllr Wilkie noted the last council meeting on 23rd February and that the motion to oppose it completely had been carried.  ARobinson confirmed that the previous letter had been included as a matter of fact on how they responded to the last consultation but recognised that the Council has now passed a motion setting out a different position. 

Cllr Wilkie commented on the additional dangerous pollution caused by road travel and referred to the case of Ella Kissi-Debrah where a failure to reduce pollution was ruled as a contributing factor in the case.  Cllr Wilkie asked what the mitigation policy would be and how being a host authority would affect DBC’s responsibility regarding any subsequent harm caused.  AAldridge confirmed that being a host authority means that part of the development is within its boundaries but infers no obligation to act in any particular way.  Looking to road traffic movements, AAldridge advised that the actual change in movements would be around 20k per day, as reported within the available documentation, and that significant elements of growth do not happen from 2033 onwards when no diesel or petrol vehicles will be sold and there will be an increase in EVs. 

On congestion, AAldridge noted a general increase in traffic year on year, which will continue regardless of expansion, and the consideration needs to be what will happen to road traffic by 2027, the next assessment period, if no changes are made.  This provides a baseline future traffic condition that is layered with growth in traffic related to airport expansion, which will be limited by 2027.  AAldridge noted that they would put forward proposals on changes that can be made to the highway network to impact the incremental growth that is as a direct result of the expansion proposals, and this is done at each assessment year in 2027, 2039 and 2043. 

Cllr Wilkie stated that she did not agree that host authorities would not be responsible for any issues given the extent of changes. Cllr Wilkie noted AAldridge’s remarks that the M1 would remain an issue for another 10 years and that the expansion proposal does not take this into consideration.  AAldridge clarified that they have to mitigate the growth in traffic created by the growth proposal, but that traffic would continue to grow regardless. 

Cllr Stevens commented on the monitoring body and remarked on the faith put into the effectiveness of it, adding that airline operators will find ways of moving the goalposts of the imposed thresholds unless injunctions are put in place.  AAldridge advised that the independent monitoring body would have powers to approve growth plans and to monitor and state what the monitoring proposal should be. Planning enforcement is not an area they have been able to go as far as they want because, as a statutory body, they will not be allowed to take away Luton Council’s planning enforcement ability, which means the enforcement body will remain Luton Council.  AAldridge stated that they were uncomfortable with this and have therefore introduced that Luton Council must publish their reasoning behind all enforcement actions or decisions, and any dissatisfaction with these will be judicially reviewable.  AAldridge added that legal enforcement avenues are also open to other effected authorities. 

Cllr Birnie noted that AAldridge had stated they could not take away enforcement powers from Luton Council but that Luton would have to agree with the independent body.  Cllr Birnie stated that this was not true and that legal challenges would be particularly expensive.  Cllr Birnie commented that a system that involves outside bodies needing to go to court to challenge any infringement of regulations sets a very high bar for outside authorities and would become a burden on taxpayers.  AAldridge responded that there are other legal avenues available beyond injunctions. 

Cllr Birnie gave an example of a previous S106 agreement with a developer in Dacorum to build a bridge over a road to the development which was not implemented and the cost to take the developer to court to do this was considerable and took around 2 years. 

Cllr Taylor asked how Dacorum residents would access the airport by train.  AA stated this would only be possible by travelling into London first, adding that bus and coach services are also available and that they will commit to working with operators on what improvements can be made in the future.  AAldridge advised that they do not currently know what the requirement would be for these services but provision for ongoing monitoring will be included to establish this need and ensure it is built into requirements. 

Cllr Taylor referred to AAldridge’s earlier comments that Luton expansion would help avoid people north of London travelling to other airports and that the railway network would make it easier to get to Luton from Reading, though they would clearly be better suited to travelling to Heathrow. AAldridge clarified that saving people travelling time is not core to the proposal and that growth elsewhere would require people to travel further.  AAldridge confirmed that the number of people within 2 hours of Luton is greater than most other airports within the country, and that a minimum of 45% of passengers must arrive at the airport by public transport otherwise they will not be able to achieve 32m passengers.  AAldridge advised they would need to prove this was possible to allow this growth to be approved. Cllr Taylor suggested that this be done before applying for expansion, to which AAldridge asked how this would be funded.  Cllr Taylor challenged that the result is often that public transport is not provided.  AAldridge referred to the statutory limit as part of the Green Control Growth Plan and this would not be approved if only 30% of passengers are using public transport. 

Cllr Birnie asked when the DART connection would take place.  AAldridge confirmed that this has been built and is under testing. 

Cllr Birnie apologised to AAldridge if any questioning appeared hostile and thanked AAldridge for making his case in a professional manner.  Cllr Birnie thanked AAldridge for his attendance. 

AAldridge left the meeting.