Meeting documents

To receive the minutes of the meetings of the PAG held on 22 January 2014 and 21 February 2014 (virtual).

The minutes of the meetings held on 22 January 2014 and 21 February 2014 (virtual) were received.

To receive presentations by:

1)    Matt Gorman, Heathrow Airport’s Sustainability Director

2)    Captain Jock Lowe, Heathrow Hub

The PAG received two PowerPoint presentations on the two options for the possible expansion of Heathrow Airport.

1)    Matt Gorman (Heathrow Airport’s Sustainability Director) gave a presentation on Heathrow Airport’s preferred option namely to build a new runway to the northwest of the existing airport. The presentation covered several areas including the following:

·         The case for growth

·         Details on the third runway north west proposal (including maps)

·         The cost and benefits of this option

·         Public consultation events taking place

·         Information on whether the option will be politically deliverable

2)    Captain Jock Lowe gave a presentation on the Heathrow Hub option which involves extending the existing northern runway to approximately 6,600 metres, enabling it to operate as two separate runways. The presentation covered several areas including the following:

·         Why expansion is required

·         Details of the Heathrow Hub proposal (including maps)

·         Benefits of this option

·         Steps which can be taken to improve the noise climate

Following the presentations, a question and answer session took place during which Captain Lowe confirmed that no village communities would be destroyed with the Heathrow Hub option and that Iver and Richings Park would in fact benefit in the noise reduction which would result from the changes being proposed.  In response to a question, Captain Lowe also confirmed that whilst there was no proposal to build a terminal in Iver, there was a proposal to create a gateway reception.

In response to a query regarding the changing of flight paths, Matt Gorman explained that Heathrow Airport had yet to look at flight paths in any detail and so was unable to comment. Captain Lowe stated that at this stage Heathrow Hub had no intentions to change flight paths significantly.  

In response to a concern regarding the potential increase in the number of the staff who would drive to work, Matt Gorman explained that Heathrow Airport was predicting that a significant number of staff would use public transport to get to the Airport.

The PAG received an information report which provided an update on the Airports Commission’s Interim Report, published in December 2013.  The report set out the main conclusions of the Interim Report and the Commission’s next steps.

The overall recommendation in the Interim Report was that one net additional runway would need to be in operation in the south east by 2040 with the likelihood for the need for a second additional runway to be operational by 2050.  

The Airports Commission intend to carry out a detailed study on their current proposed locations for the first runway, covering three options at Heathrow and Gatwick airports.  The PAG noted that the maps, illustrating the Heathrow Hub option and Heathrow Airport’s own proposal for a second north runway, were attached as Appendix A.

The comments received via email from Members of the Sustainable Development PAG on the Council’s response to the Appraisal Framework were submitted to Full Council, which approved the response on 25 February 2014. 

The final report by the Airports Commission was due to be published in the summer of 2015 and a public consultation on the shortlisted options would commence towards the end of 2014.

The PAG expressed concern regarding the detrimental impact that an expansion of Heathrow Airport would have on the residents of South Bucks, especially for the residents of Iver and Richings Park.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

The PAG received a report which asked Members to advise the Portfolio Holder as to whether to recommend to Cabinet that the Development Management Guidance Note for Burnham Beeches be approved.

The PAG noted that South Bucks, City of London (owners of the publically accessible part of the Beeches), Natural England and Environment Agency have been working together to produce evidence based planning policy to be included in the forthcoming Development Management Local Plan (DMLP).  The City of London and South Bucks have jointly funded two evidence based studies: a visitors’ survey and hydrology. This development guidance note stems directly from the hydrology report and should be treated as interim guidance until the DMLP is adopted.

In the discussion which followed, clarity was provided on the 10 metre built exclusion zone and how this would be enforced. The PAG supported the proposal to approve the new Guidance Note for Development Management purposes.

The PAG received a report on the Duty to Cooperate and Planning for Strategic Cross Boundary Matters.

The duty to co-operate was created in the Localism Act 2011, and amends the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. It places a legal duty on local planning authorities, county councils and specified public bodies to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis to maximise the effectiveness of local plan preparation relating to strategic cross-boundary matters. The report set out a number of recommendations in relation to this new duty, which the PAG were in support of.

Furthermore, the Portfolio Holder AGREED that the Sustainable Development PAG will now receive regular updates on the duty to co-operate together with suggestions for action where appropriate

The PAG received a report which asked Members to advise the Portfolio Holder on whether the Issues and Options and Call for Sites paper on the accommodation needs of the travelling community should be published as a basis for public consultation.

The Issues and Options and Call for Sites paper is the first stage in the preparation of the Gypsy and Traveller Plan. It sets out to provide an understanding of Gypsy and Traveller communities and the accommodation needs of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople in the ten year period from 2013 to 2023. The paper explores a series of options of how the Council could accommodate the future growth of the Gypsy and Traveller population and seeks comments on such options.

The Portfolio Holder, referring to the table in paragraph 3.11, was concerned to note that the requirement for the number of additional pitches of 31 appeared disproportionate compared with the requirements identified for the other local authorities particularly bearing in mind their geographical size. He undertook to have discussions with the other districts on this matter under the duty to cooperate.  

The PAG asked that the wording for the criteria for location, in appendix 1 of the paper, be made less ambiguous. The PAG were of the opinion that the paper should be published as a basis for public consultation.