Issue - meetings

To consider proposals for Heathrow expansion and make recommendations to the Extraordinary Cabinet on 11 September 2019 on the Council’s policy stance.

Attached to this agenda are the Council’s proposed draft responses to the second Consultation setting out the mitigating actions we require Heathrow to address in order to continue to support the expansion. A document summarising the key benefits and issues will follow.

To further assist the Committee’s deliberations it will:

·         Receive a factual presentation on the pros and cons of Heathrow expansion as proposed by Heathrow Airport Limited

·         Receive a presentation on an alternative proposal for Heathrow expansion, by the Arora Group

·         Hear the views of councillors and their residents as presented by the ward councillors

The Committee will consider a number of policy positions including those contained within the two Motions, set out below, which were referred from the Council meeting held on 18 July 2019.

Motion 1.

“That henceforth the formal position of Spelthorne Borough Council will be to oppose any increase in air traffic movements at Heathrow airport.

The Council notes that this new position in principle is based on the impact on local residents and the environment from air traffic, and that the Council now believes that an increase in capacity is unsustainable and damaging to the borough.

The Council’s response to the LHR Expansion Consultation closing on 13th September 2019 will clearly indicate this change in policy and Spelthorne Borough Council’s opposition to the proposals in principle.”

Motion 2.

“In the light of Spelthorne Borough Council's commitment not to allow "any developments in the Borough that are detrimental to air quality" (as per the SBC press release 'Protecting Air quality in Spelthorne' dated 20/6/2019) and bearing in mind the fact that any Heathrow expansion will have serious knock on effects in terms of air quality and reduction of green spaces in the Borough inter alia through the envisaged building of a large car park between Oaks Road and the A3044 in Stanwell which currently acts as an important noise and pollution buffer zone for residents and as a carbon sink, the Council's new position to be reflected in its official response to the London Heathrow expansion consultation will be to oppose any expansion of Heathrow completely.”

Prior to consideration of this matter, it was moved, seconded and agreed to suspending Standing Order 5.1 to continue the meeting to the conclusion of the business on the agenda.

Spelthorne Borough Council officers from the Heathrow Expansion Working Group gave a factual presentation (attached to these minutes) on the ‘pros and cons’ of expansion at the airport and clarified points at the request of members of the Committee.

Carlton Brown, Chief Financial Officer of The Arora Group presented their alternative proposal for a new terminal configuration for an expanded airport, Heathrow West (attached to these minutes). He provided factual clarification on points raised by members.

The Chairman then invited all councillors in turn who wished to speak, to convey their views and those of the residents in their ward on the expansion proposals. Councillors from the following wards took the opportunity to address the meeting: Stanwell North, Ashford North and Stanwell East, Laleham and Shepperton Green, Staines South, Staines, Sunbury Common, Ashford East, Ashford Town, Sunbury East,*Shepperton Town and Ashford Common. and Sunbury Common.

In their comments councillors raised concerns about the current form that the expansion is proposed to take, and the resulting extensive impact on Stanwell Moor, Stanwell and the rest of the borough. Councillors, whilst acknowledging the economic benefits of expansion, called on the Committee to put the needs of residents first.

The Committee was presented with options for each identified key component of the Heathrow expansion proposal for debate.  The Committee proceeded to debate and vote to identify a position on each key component in turn. The options and decisions made are set out in the table attached to these minutes.

Following a short adjournment, the Chairman made the following statement and proposed a recommendation for the Committee's approval:

“Spelthorne has previously supported the third runway in principle but the proposals now before you from HAL for the expansion of the airport do not address our previous concerns and additionally now present significantly greater issues.

The Committee has debated the key issues in detail and it is apparent that we must change our stance. Spelthorne has always put its residents first and must continue to do so. The decision to approve a third runway was made by Government. It is clear and we are mindful that the expansion brings key benefits for Spelthorne’s economy but these are outweighed by the significant issues with HAL’s proposal which we have debated this evening.

I propose that the committee recommends to cabinet that Spelthorne’s policy stance on Heathrow Expansion must indicate that the Borough is unable to support the development consent order in its current form. At the same time we are clear there are potentially more beneficial alternative proposals to HAL’s, specifically the Heathrow West proposal which needs to be explored in greater depth. I further propose the committee recommends to Cabinet that only if the Council’s demands as agreed by the committee this evening and as set out in the officer’s AEC  ...  view the full minutes text for item 225

To receive any motions from Councillors in accordance with Standing Order 19.

The following three Motions were received by the deadline of Monday 8 July 2019:

1.    “That officers investigate whether it is feasible to enter into a reciprocal agreement with Surrey County Council for Spelthorne Borough Council to act on their behalf to remove Traveller encampments when on the highway and append such charges involved to Surrey.”

Proposed by Councillor R.W. Sider BEM

Seconded by Councillor C. Barnard

2.    “That henceforth the formal position of Spelthorne Borough Council will be to oppose any increase in air traffic movements at Heathrow airport.

The Council notes that this new position in principle is based on the impact on local residents and the environment from air traffic, and that the Council now believes that an increase in capacity is unsustainable and damaging to the borough.

The Council’s response to the LHR Expansion Consultation closing on 13th September 2019 will clearly indicate this change in policy and Spelthorne Borough Council’s opposition to the proposals in principle.”

Proposed by Councillor L.E. Nichols

Seconded by Councillor S.M. Doran

3.    “In the light of Spelthorne Borough Council's commitment not to allow "any developments in the Borough that are detrimental to air quality" (as per the SBC press release 'Protecting Air quality in Spelthorne' dated 20/6/2019) and bearing in mind the fact that any Heathrow expansion will have serious knock on effects in terms of air quality and reduction of green spaces in the Borough inter alia through the envisaged building of a large car park between Oaks Road and the A3044 in Stanwell which currently acts as an important noise and pollution buffer zone for residents and as a carbon sink, the Council's new position to be reflected in its official response to the London Heathrow expansion consultation will be to oppose any expansion of Heathrow completely.”

Proposed by Councillor J.H.J. Doerfel

Seconded by Councillor V. Siva

In accordance with Standing Order 17 the Council received three written Notices of Motions.

Councillor R.W. Sider BEM moved and Councillor C. Barnard seconded the following motion:

“That officers investigate whether it is feasible to enter into a reciprocal agreement with Surrey County Council for Spelthorne Borough Council to act on their behalf to remove Traveller encampments when on the highway and append such charges involved to Surrey.”

The Leader, Councillor I.T.E. Harvey gave the following reply to the Motion:

“Thank you Councillor Sider for raising this issue.

I can assure all councillors that Officers will always look to assist the County Council wherever possible to ensure that any unlawful encampments are dealt with quickly and efficiently.   

It seems like a very attractive proposition for us to take more control to respond the travellers on the highway.  I suspect that it’s not a straightforward matter and after initial discussions with Officers we think that it may not prove to be viable in the long run.   

The reason the Borough is able to deal with travellers so swiftly is because of the processes and joint working between the JET team and Legal.  We doubt we can replicate this with County Council staff on whom we would still have to rely on a case by case basis.  The alternative would be for us to take on an agency agreement from the County Council to deal with part of their functions for them.  That may not be something we wish to consider at this time. 

Nevertheless, it is something which I think we can ask Officers to explore and then report back to the Portfolio Holder.  On that basis I will support your motion, and ask all Members to do likewise.”

The Motion was carried.

Resolved that officers investigate whether it is feasible to enter into a reciprocal agreement with Surrey County Council for Spelthorne Borough Council to act on their behalf to remove Traveller encampments when on the highway and append such charges involved to Surrey.

The second Motion was moved by Councillor L.E. Nichols and seconded by Councillor S.M. Doran:

“That henceforth the formal position of Spelthorne Borough Council will be to oppose any increase in air traffic movements at Heathrow airport.

The Council notes that this new position in principle is based on the impact on local residents and the environment from air traffic, and that the Council now believes that an increase in capacity is unsustainable and damaging to the borough.

The Council’s response to the LHR Expansion Consultation closing on 13th September 2019 will clearly indicate this change in policy and Spelthorne Borough Council’s opposition to the proposals in principle.”

The Leader, Councillor I.T.E Harvey proposed the following amendment which was seconded by Councillor A.C. Harman:

“That the matter be referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration.”

Councillor L. E. Nichols requested a recorded vote on the amendment.

The voting on the amendment was as follows: