Before consideration of the report, the Chairman welcomed Charles Kirwan-Taylor Corporate Affairs & Sustainability Director, and Hannah Staunton Head of Community Engagement representing Gatwick Airport.  Mr. Kirwan-Taylor gave a presentation to the Committee.  During the presentation he advised that Kent provided the second largest number of passengers for the airport, after London,  8% above the third, equating to 2.2 million passengers. Since 2009 over a billion pounds had been spent on improving the Airport, including better security, and improvements to the entrance, disembarkation and immigration systems.  Arguments for a new second runway at Gatwick rather than extending the existing one at Heathrow included: lower cost and risk; construction had less detrimental impact on the surrounding area; it was a lower cost airport which would result in lower cost flights; less detrimental environmental impact; a more progressive noise mitigation and compensation scheme; and excellent transport links. 

Members raised questions concerning train links, noise and infrastructure.  In response to questions he advised that there were no committed schemes for rail links East to West, and the issue was not critical to their proposal but if they were successful they would be in a better position to raise it with the central government along with  any other local ancillary requirements.  It was clarified that Members were referring to the rail route that had been from Tonbridge, Edenbridge and Redhill to Gatwick but now terminated at Redhill.  Ms. Staunton undertook to feedback this comment to Network Rail and report back.

Members queried why there was no offer of night time respite hours like at Heathrow, or higher and steeper approaches and also raised the issue of the more recent increase in flights and resultant noise in the south of the district for which residents lived too far away to qualify for mitigating measures such as double glazing and Council Tax rebates.  Mr. Kirwan-Taylor  explained that a second runway would provide night time respite as rotation could be increased and they had already said they would freeze the number of night flights.  They were always looking for ways to improve performance with regards to noise including continuous descent and steeper where possible, along with monetary benefits to operators who used more modern and quieter planes.  As it was already a continuous effort it was not a proposal.  Introducing steeper descents was a complex process as different technical expertise of pilots was required and new flight paths had to be agreed.  Work had not been taken any further forward as it was felt it may need to be revisited in light of the recent change in departures causing unforeseen noise issues and public reaction. 

With reference to membership of the Gatwick Airport Consultative Committee (GATCOM) being refused to Sevenoaks District and Tunbridge Wells Borough Councils, Mr. Kirwan-Taylor  advised that Gatwick was a member but had no say on membership and encouraged the Council to reapply.

Mr Richard Streatfeild, Chairman of Chiddingstone Parish Council and the High Weald Parish Councils Aviation Action Group was allowed to address the Committee. The High Weald Parish Councils Aviation Action Group had been  formed in 2013 due to the common need to campaign against excessive aircraft noise, low flying aircraft, night flights and the threat of a second runway at Gatwick Airport.   The group consisted of local residents and representatives from Chiddingstone, Hever, Leigh and Penshurst Parish Councils.  He reported that Gatwick provided less than 1% of jobs within the whole of Kent so the economic benefit argument was limited.  He understood that Hever Castle, a heritage site, tourist attraction and employer, were considering closing their doors to the public due to the excessive noise which according to their noise data was averaging at 64 decibels.  The World Health Organisation advised that severe illness started from above 45 decibels.  Causing ill health was not the act of a good neighbour.  Mitigating measures such as no night flights, steeper ascents and more dispersal were urgently needed.  There had been an increase in flights and intensity which had become intolerable.  In relation to national benefit Heathrow would give more. 

In response to a question concerning the effect on infrastructure, not just roads but housing and schools etc.  Mr Kirwan-Taylor advised that not enough exploration of secondary consequences had been carried out and this was something to be raised with central government.

On behalf of the Committee the Chairman thanked Mr Kirwan-Taylor and Ms Staunton for attending the meeting.

Following the presentation Members considered the report which provided a summary of the Airports Commission’s ‘Preferred Options for public consultation’ which was released in early November 2014 following its Interim Report in December 2013.  The report also provided the comments that the Council had submitted in response to aviation related consultations in the past, and an outline response for Members to consider. 

Public Sector Equality Duty

Members noted that consideration had been given to impacts under the Public Sector Equality Duty.

Resolved:  That the outline response be recommended to the Portfolio Holder as the approach the Council should take in responding to the Airport Commission’s consultation.