An update will be provided at the meeting.
Minutes:
Councillor Timmis gave the committee an update on Luton Airport based on her attendance as a representative Councillor for Dacorum Borough Council (DBC) at the London Luton Airport Consultative Committee (LLACC, see www.llacc.com) and its Noise and Tracks Sub-Committee (NTSC).
Background
The Airport has been expanding far faster than anticipated when planning permission was granted in 2013 for a doubling of passenger capacity from 9m to 18m per annum by 2025. In 2017 the airport expects to have carried more than 14m passengers, and to reach its permitted 18m some 7 years earlier than expected. Annual flights will have risen to 140,000 by end 2017, up 40% on 2013, within 4 years rather than 10. This making Luton the 5th busiest and one of the fastest growing airports in the UK.
From their point of view this is a very positive increase in finance, business and they would argue, in the local (Luton) and national economy. The holding company LLAL, which owns the infrastructure on behalf of Luton Borough Council (LBC) in Bedfordshire, receives £34m per annum for the operating concession from the Airport Operators LLAOL, and dividends a large part of this to LBC as well as investing in a strategic land portfolio.
Environmental impact
Currently the airspace around Luton Airport is used for Luton Airport take offs and landings, stacking areas for Heathrow, and flights to or from Stansted, Northolt and City Airports, in three tiers. Luton airport has been assigned the lower of these tiers meaning that planes have to keep on a lower trajectory on take-off, so they are closer to the population on the ground and therefore noisier.
The major downside of increased LLAOL activity falls on Hertfordshire and in particular the Westerly flight path out of the Airport which accounts for 70% of flights (98,000) and affects disproportionately Markyate and Flamstead (which Councillor Timmis represents) as well as Redbourn and north Hemel Hempstead. Harpenden and St Albans residents have mounted fierce opposition to the noise and impact on their residents since it has been worsened by the introduction of a narrowed flight path using GPS-based navigation (RNAV).
This system is due to be extended onto all routes from Luton over the next 4-5 years, as part of an initiative to ensure Air Traffic Control safety of the ever more crowded skies.
Community groups have pointed out that government policy tends to favour concentration rather than dispersal of flights, which may be expedient in terms of using GPS navigation to control the ever-more crowded skies, but it does not necessarily guarantee that the objective of minimising the numbers of people affected by aircraft noise is met in a fair way: some people can face a great and increasingly concentrated environmental burden which more dispersed flight paths could even out.
Night flights have also been increased, as Luton has a 24-hour operating license, and the planning restraints set an upper movements limit designed to restrict growth, past the expected maximum.
Mitigating the impact
As a result of the significantly increased complaints since RNAV was introduced, the Airport is looking at a number of mitigations including getting planes to altitude sooner, designing local respite routes and possibly a new route out to the West which then turns North. Faster climbs may help we hope, but increased throttle settings may well make things worse for our area.
Of slower benefit will be the introduction of quieter aircraft, with just one A320neo now based in Luton (offset by the introduction of many more A321 aircraft). However, new airlines such as Vueling have actually increased the proportion of the largest and noisier types of planes at Luton, taking the fleet mix towards the louder rather than the quieter end of the spectrum.
Mean time passenger numbers and aircraft numbers continue to grow, and because the numbers have overtaken the introduction of quieter aircraft, LLAOL are discussing with LBC the possible need to relax another of the planning controls - the night noise contour limit.
Holding to account
The LADACAN campaign group (www.ladacan.org), SADC and myself have challenged the growing impact of airport operations within the context of the LLACC and NTSC Committees mentioned above. There is a level of frustration however, that despite clear Government Guidelines designed to encourage meaningful engagement with Consultative Committees (albeit with no backup powers,) community representatives are often “fobbed off” by the Airport Operators, and attendance by LBC and by airline representatives has been allowed to lapse. Partly as a result, St Albans recently held a very well attended (100+ residents) public meeting of its Scrutiny Committee specifically to hear community presentations and the response from LLAOL, with some useful outcomes by way of new information about moves to increase altitude and use respite routes – however these will take years to materialise.
National policy consultations
The Department for Transport (DfT) has recently run a public consultation on UK Airspace Policy and the CAA ran a consultation on Airspace Design which closed at the end of June.
I have submitted consultation responses to the DfT on aviation policy and the CAA on airspace change, as a representative councillor of DBC, as have LADACAN and LLAOL.
Conclusion
Given
the dynamics of all that is happening both locally and nationally
– increased air traffic, systems which concentrate flights,
the likelihood of new route designs and changes to the climb rates,
and the changing mix of the aircraft fleet, it seems imperative
that Dacorum should be well-engaged with what is going on at Luton
Airport, given that many of its residents live close to the
airfield and are severely impacted by the noise and
pollution.
Councillor Hicks asked if the consultative committees had
lobbied organisations and MPs to deal with the issues.
Councillor Timmis said the MP had been involved and the Chairman
had a letter from the MP.
Councillor Anderson explained that he wrote to Mike Penning MP to
make him aware of the committee’s discussions about the
airport. Mike Penning MP wrote to the airport after the general
election on 19th June to express his concerns about the
number of flights over Markyate after numerous complaints from his
constituents. He received a response from Neil Thompson the
Operations Director on 26th June. Councillor Anderson
asked Councillor Timmis to her knowledge how much work Mike Penning
MP had been doing on this issue.
Councillor Timmis said she wasn’t aware of any further work. She said the airport will always refute claims and will refer back to the measures it has already put in place. However, the airport does fine airlines that do not follow the prescribed flight paths but the fine is so small it doesn’t really act as a deterrent. The noise is now concentrated along one flight path and is distressing as there are flights every few minutes. Councillor Timmis said that she had a noise monitor in her garden and the constant, regular noise has a greater impact than on a more dispersed flight path. The airport is not offering real solutions and the economic arguments always wins.
Councillor Birnie asked if the flights can be accurately plotted.
Councillor Timmis said yes. They have new navigation equipment
Councillor Birnie said a more proactive approach might be to lobby for an increase in fines for not following flight paths.
Councillor Anderson said that was a very specific solution to ask for. He asked Councillor Timmis what role she thought Dacorum Borough Council should have.
Councillor Timmis said there should be a higher profile of holding the airport to account. The economic benefits are felt in Bedfordshire but the detrimental impact is felt in Hertfordshire as the flights do not fly over Luton. St Albans District Council have had a much bigger impact and have sent letters to the airport committee and have made their case forcibly. There has been a huge increase in complaints in the last two years.
Councillor S Hearn asked about the future of the airport and if an extension of the runway has been discussed.
Councillor Timmis said it hasn’t been discussed but a second runway was previously turned down. The runway is currently long enough for larger aircraft and there is a large number of private aircraft at Luton. Budget airlines operate the majority of flights and there is an increase in the number of flights to Eastern Europe which fly over the flight path.
Councillor S Hearn said he was aware of concerns from residents in villages surrounding the runway that their homes might not exist in ten years.
Councillor Timmis said she was not aware of any immediate expansion plans.
Councillor Hicks asked if MPs could push to make Luton airport fall under the same regulations as Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.
Councillor Timmis said it was under the same airport regulations but it is a privately owned airport so they have self-imposed regulations on night flights. Heathrow has mandatory hours it must close the runway overnight. Luton airport has a large number of transport flights flying overnight. MPs are conflicted as national policy encourages airport expansion. Mike Penning MP has indicated that he is supportive of the cause but hasn’t been as involved as he could be.
Councillor Anderson said he felt there were a few options open to the committee. He asked the officers if Luton airport had invited members to visit.
J Doe said the airport was invited to attend the committee meeting in January but turned it down. Instead they offered to host a visit from committee members.
Councillor Anderson said there were two options – to contact the airport and arrange a visit or send a letter on behalf of the committee setting out the concerns.
Councillor Birnie questioned why the committee couldn’t do both. It might be useful to visit the airport to gain the facts and then follow up with a letter if answers are unsatisfactory.
Councillor Timmis said there are lots of documents on the airport’s website which will set out the facts. The problem with a visit is that they will show off what a wonderful success the airport has been and wouldn’t adequately address the concerns.
Councillor Anderson invited the Portfolio Holder to comment.
Councillor G Sutton said he felt it would be better to invite airport representatives to the committee and invite the local MPs to give it a higher profile. Questions need to be answered about rumours circulating about the future of the airport. However, he felt that in the future, aircraft would get quieter and he has witnessed this at Heathrow which he regularly passes.
Councillor Anderson said there might be a greater chance of success if the meeting is held in private.
Outcome
That the Strategic Planning and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee alongside the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration write to the airport and the MPs for Hemel Hempstead and South West Hertfordshire to ask if they will attend a private meeting to discuss the future of the airport, noise concerns and nights flights.