Meeting documents


Document: 2002-11-20 SCRUTINY COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT

 

PRESENT: Councillor Mrs Davies (Chairman);  Councillors Cole, Cooper, Evett, Isham, Jennings, Metherell, Sherwin (in place of Newman) and Mrs Willetts.  Councillors Mrs Glover, Mrs Jamieson and Rowlands attended also.

 

APOLOGIES:  Councillors Mrs Butler, Newman, Mrs Paternoster and Mrs Worgan.

 

1.

MINUTES

 

RESOLVED –

 

That the Minutes of 29th October, 2002 be approved as a correct record.

 

2.

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY STRUCTURE PLAN REVIEW 2006 - 2016

 

The Committee received a report, circulated to all Members of the Council, setting out the latest position on the urban capacity study and the timetable for progressing the plan.  The report also contained a summary of the results of the public consultation exercise.

 

With regard to the public consultation exercise, the Committee was advised that 6,069 responses had been received, of which 96% had been from local residents.  Responses from Aylesbury Vale had formed the largest group at 2,229.  The report summarised the views expressed, with particular reference to the total housing requirement; the need to identify reserve green field sites given the uncertainty surrounding brownfield land supply; protection of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the preservation of green belt land; the need for affordable housing and housing for key workers; and the need to maintain a balance between housing on brownfield sites and maintaining a balanced economy.  In Aylesbury Vale, respondents had favoured Option C (local employment needs led), and had considered Option D (Aylesbury focus) to be the least acceptable.

 

The report outlined the initial results of the Urban Capacity Study (UCS).  Further work was however required with the Districts to consider the assumptions made in the UCS in order to test and add robustness to the initial estimates.

 

Members noted that the County Structure Plan Review Joint Panel was expected to consider the Deposit Draft Plan in January/February, 2003, with the County Council Cabinet agreeing the Plan in February.  The County Council was expected to agree the Plan on 27th February, 2003.  The Plan would then need to be printed and it was anticipated that public consultation would take place between the end of May and early July, 2003.  An Examination in Public was anticipated in late 2003, with adoption in August, 2004

 

Concern was expressed that the housing figures for Aylesbury Vale were not yet available for public debate.  Accordingly, it was felt that the Cabinet Member for Planned Development should address this issue with her County Council counterpart.  Members also felt that provision should be made within the Committee's work programme for an additional meeting in June, 2003.  This would fall within the anticipated period for public consultation.

 

RESOLVED –

 

(1)

That the progress report be noted.

 

(2)

That the Cabinet Member for Planned Development be asked to clarify with the County Council Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation when the housing figures for Aylesbury Vale would be available for open discussion.

 

(3)

That provision be made in the Committee work programme for an additional meeting (to deal with the County Structure Plan Review) in June, 2003.

 

3.

AVDLP – INSPECTOR'S REPORT – NO MODIFICATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL'S PROPOSED CHANGES

 

The Committee considered a report, submitted also to Cabinet on 19th November, 2002, setting out the recommendations of the Inspector where he felt that no modifications should be made to the plan, or those which he felt should be made in accordance with “Proposed Changes” or “Further Proposed Changes” previously agreed by the Council.  The report contained details of the suggested responses which Cabinet had felt could be recommended for approval.

 

RESOLVED –

 

That this Committee concurs with the suggested responses recommended by Cabinet.

 

4.

AVDLP – INSPECTOR'S REPORT – GENERAL POLICIES – WORDING CHANGES

 

Consideration was given to a report containing the Inspector's recommendations regarding changes to the wording of policies and text in Chapter 4 of the Plan.  The report also contained the suggested responses recommended by Cabinet at its meeting on 19th November, 2002.

 

 

 

RESOLVED –

 

That this Committee concurs with the suggested responses recommended by Cabinet.

 

5.

AVDLP – INSPECTOR'S REPORT – CHAPTERS 1 & 2 – SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION

 

The Committee considered a report containing details of the recommendations of the Inspector on how the plan should be modified in response to objections relating to Chapters 1 & 2 – Summary and Introduction.  This report too had been considered by Cabinet on 19th November, 2002.

 

RESOLVED –

 

That this Committee concurs with the suggested responses recommended by Cabinet.

 

6.

LONDON/LUTON AIRPORT:  WESTERN AIRSPACE EXTENSION

 

London/Luton Airport (LLA) advised the Council in December, 1999 of its intention to apply to the Director of Airspace Policy at the Civil Aviation Authority, for an extension to the north-west part of the Luton controlled airspace in the vicinity of Wing.  LLA explained that they wished to change the routes in order to ensure that flight paths did not cross, thereby minimising the risk from in-flight collision, and thus increasing the degree of safety in their operations.  The proposed change would also allow for a “continuous descent approach”, which was best practice in terms of reducing noise levels.  The proposals had been considered by the former Environment and Health Committee and it had been agreed that the Council should object to these proposals as inadequate detail had been provided about the impact of noise on local residents within the Vale.

 

Subsequently, following consultations between the Director of Airspace Policy and LLA, the latter were asked to reconsider their proposals as the route proposed flew directly over densely populated areas of Leighton Buzzard.  It then became apparent that LLA's  preferred proposal would have an even greater impact on local residents than any of the previous proposals.  In April, 2002, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Health had written to LLA objecting to any proposals that would adversely affect local residents.  A copy of that letter was submitted.

 

In July, 2002, LLA initiated consultation in respect of 4 options.  The report submitted contained a description of each option (provided by LLA).  The LLA appraisal could be summarised as follows:-

 

·

Option 1:  would de-conflict the incoming and outgoing flight paths.  However as aircraft would be at a lower altitude to the north of Dunstable they would generate increased noise levels.

 

·

Option 2:  would enable Luton Air Traffic Control to separate flights.  However, there would be an area of conflict to the north of Luton as departure routes would be re-aligned over more densely populated areas and “continuous descent approach” (CDA) could not be used.

 

·

Option 3:  Positioned most arriving aircraft over less densely populated areas (AVDC), de-conflicted arrival and departure routes and allowed CDA to be flown.  However, this required a larger extension to the Luton Control Area and impacted on other airspace users and would have an adverse noise impact on Vale residents not currently overflown.

 

·

Option 4:  required the least amount of airspace and allowed CDA to be flown.  However, it overflew an area of dense population (Leighton Buzzard).

 

The options proposed would increase the number of Vale residents adversely affected by traffic movements.  This was particularly true of option 3 – LLA's preferred option.

 

The Cabinet Member had previously indicated that he would be happy to supplement his initial response if the Scrutiny Committee felt that further comments were necessary.

 

Representatives from LLA and local action groups had been invited to this meeting to comment on the proposals.  The representatives gave a presentation from their own perspective, during which Members of the Committee were able to ask questions and seek clarification of particular issues.  After discussion of the issues raised, the Committee

 

RESOLVED –

 

That in the light of the discussions at this meeting, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Health be asked to make an additional response to the London/Luton Airport Western Airspace Consultation Team indicating that this Council:-

 

(a)

feels that London/Luton Airport has not provided sufficient evidence to justify the safety argument for its proposed Option 3, including a risk assessment of current and all considered options;

 

(b)

feels that London/Luton Airport has not provided an environmental impact assessment of aircraft noise on the communities which would be affected by its preferred Option 3;

 

(c)

had evidence of a substantial number of responses opposing the current proposals;

 

(d)

would wish to clarify with the Airport Authority that its preferred solution is not a pre-requisite to any expansion of Airport operations;

 

(e)

wishes to have further information regarding the Airport Authority's comments regarding night flights;

 

(f)

wishes to understand as precisely as possible the number of residents affected by the preferred option, and in this respect, the Council will provide its own estimation having regard to the information it currently holds;

 

(g)

wishes to make clear that the District will be subject to significant population growth given current local, County and Regional Plan proposals and that the number of communities likely to be affected by the current proposals could increase quite substantially;

 

(h)

wishes to seek clarification that a public local inquiry is not an option for determining the most appropriate solution;

 

(i)

would like clarification regarding the length of the current route and the preferred option, given that the information currently available would suggest that the latter is in fact a longer route;

 

(j)

would like to have confirmation that this Council would be invited to participate in any noise impact studies undertaken either at London/Luton Airport or an alternative location; and

 

(k)

wishes to have clarification of the comments made by the Airport Authority in relation to the “continuous descent approach” (CDA) policies within the context of the preferred option.