Issue - meetings

To receive a report from the Operational Manager (People) outlining the current consultation exercise being undertaken by the National Air Traffic Service (NATS) in respect of proposed changes to the incoming flightpaths to Luton Airport and the associated holding zone.

Executive Councillor: K Prentice.

Cabinet has determined that a formal response from the Council to the NATS consultation is appropriate and has delegated authority to the Chief Operating Officer, in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Leisure and Regulatory Services, to make a formal response to the consultation on behalf of the Council.

(Councillor D M Tysoe, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Customers and Partnerships) was in attendance for this item).

With the aid of a report prepared by the Operational Manager (People) the Cabinet received an outline of the current consultation exercise being undertaken by the National Air Traffic Service (NATS) in respect of proposed changes to the incoming flightpaths to Luton Airport and the associated holding zone.

In introducing the report, the Executive Councillor for Leisure and Regulatory Services reported that the consultation would seek to create a dedicated holding zone for Luton’s air traffic, replacing the current holding zones shared with Stansted traffic. The proposed holding zone for Luton’s air traffic zone would be to the south of Huntingdonshire broadly affecting the line of the A1 road from St Neots to Alconbury. He then went on to express his view that a full detailed response from the Council should be submitted outlining the local impact, particularly around noise. The Operational Manager (People) then went on to report that numerous consultation responses had been copied to the District Council by interested parties, including the Town and Parish Councils which would be taken into account if the Cabinet agreed to submit its own response to the consultation.

Councillor D M Tysoe, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Customers and Partnerships) reported that a presentation had been delivered by the NATS consultation team at its meeting on 7th January 2021 and drew attention to the comments outlined in section 3 of the report. The Panel had expressed their dissatisfaction over a number of aspects including the absence of data to demonstrate the impact of the holding area upon alternative location options, the lack of transparency around the need for the proposals and the omission of information surrounding noise levels associated with aircraft flying at different altitudes. In concurring with the comments made by the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Customers and Partnerships) and following a brief discussion on the stacking of holding zones, the Cabinet

RESOLVED

(a)  that a formal response from the Council to the NATS consultation is appropriate; and

(b)  that the Chief Operating Officer, in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Leisure and Regulatory Services, be approved to make a formal response to the consultation on behalf of the Council.

The Panel are to receive a report on the National Air Traffic Service consultation on changes to the London Luton Airport Flightpaths.

Consideration was given to a report by the Operational Manager (People) (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) on the consultation by the National Air Traffic Service (NATS) on the London Luton Airport (LLA) Flightpaths. Also in attendance to answer the Panel’s questions were Nicole Morris, Colin Wyatt and Adrian Ryman from the NATS/LLA Consultation Team.

In addition to the report, Mr Wyatt gave Members a brief presentation on the proposal but focused on the section which most affected Huntingdonshire. Mr Wyatt informed Members that a final decision had yet to be made and that NATS are legally required to respond to all comments they received during the consultation.

Councillor Banks asked whether the holding zone could be moved away from St Neots because it was a highly populated area. Councillor Giles agreed with the suggestion and commented that the holding zone did not need to move far. In responding to the comments, Mr Wyatt stated that due to the north-south flightpaths, the east-west flightpaths and the military airspace, the holding zone would be better located where it was proposed. He added that NATS did model other options but for the reasons already referred to, they were not considered to be feasible. However, the Panel was informed that it might be possible to move the holding zone slightly.

Following a query from Councillor Criswell about the necessity for a holding zone, Members were informed that NATS did consider whether it was required as part of its assessment of the available options, but this was rejected by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) on the grounds of safety. In terms of flight numbers, Ms Morris stated that it was expected flight numbers would return to pre-pandemic levels in time and that the holding zone was required.

In response to a question from Councillor Alban regarding the effect pollution levels would have upon residents, the Panel was informed that it would be minimal as the mixing that occurred at altitude meant that pollution from the planes would be dispersed. Councillor Alban then raised the suggestion that the holding zone could be located over the North Sea. However, the Panel was informed that due to the distance from the LLA and the timings involved in bringing planes to land, a holding zone located over the North Sea could not be justified.

Councillor Gardener stated that his residents’ main concern was that the noise from a plane at 8000ft would be approximately 55db (according to NATS documentation) and the ambient background noise within parts of the countryside would be 29db. At these levels noise from planes would be intrusive for residents living in rural areas of the District. If the holding zone could not be moved, he suggested that the minimum flying height within the holding zone should be raised to 9000ft. This would reduce the potential for noise from planes within the holding zone to cause nuisance at ground level.

Following a question from Councillor Giles, Ms Morris confirmed that there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34