Tim Hardy, Director of Airside and Cheryl Monk, Head of Community Engagement will attend the meeting on behalf of BAA to answer questions from Members of the Committee and the public in respect of Phase 2 of the Operational Freedoms Trial at Heathrow Airport.
Minutes:
Representatives of BAA attended the meeting to provide a presentation on the progress of Phase 2 of the Operational Freedoms Trial at Heathrow Airport and answer questions on the topic from Members of the Committee and the public.
Simon Baugh, BAA Director of Public Affairs, Tim Hardy, Director of Airside, and Cheryl Monk, Head of Community Engagement, set out the background to the trial, the changes in operating arrangements at the airport, the way in which Hammersmith & Fulham was affected and the public response to date.
Members noted that the trial, developed in consultation with the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), was designed to gather data to establish whether a series of new departures and arrivals procedures could be applied to help reduce delays and disruption to flights and to assess the impact of the changes on the airport, passengers, the environment and the local community. Phase 1 of the trial had taken place between 1st November 2011 and 29 February 2012. Phase 2 had commenced at the beginning of July 2012 and would continue until 31 March 2013, at which point a final report would be submitted to the DfT and CAA. The CAA and DfT would assess the results and any permanent changes to operating procedures arising from the trial would be the subject of full consultation.
The Committee was informed that the trial broadened the circumstances in which Heathrow was able to operate with arrivals on both runways. A system of runway alternation had been in use since the 1970’s with the airport’s arrivals and departures runways being switched in the middle of each day. This ensured that people living under the respective flight paths for the two runways had predictable daily periods of respite from aircraft noise. The trial, however, permitted the use of both runways for arrivals if operational problems occurred such as aircraft being held in stacks for 10 minutes or more or schedules were running late due to bad weather. In the first three months of the trial an average of 38 flights per day landed on the designated departure runway out of the alternation arrangements, thereby intruding on the respite periods. This represented an increase of around 16 on the pre trial figures. Total arrivals at the airport were unchanged, numbering around 650 daily. BAA suggested that of the 16 additional out of alternation arrivals the numbers that affected Hammersmith & Fulham were in the low single figures. They concluded that the impact on the borough was marginal.
Despite this conclusion there had been a very significant increase in complaints received from members of the public, with around 1,800 recorded in August 2012 compared with 400 a year earlier. One of the explanations for the surge in resident dissatisfaction was the coincidence of an increase in westerly operations with the start of the trial. Aircraft normally landed and took off into the wind for safety reasons and the prevailing winds in the South East meant that they generally made their final approach to Heathrow from a westerly direction, which took flights across the borough. An unusually high proportion of westerly winds during the summer meant that this western approach had been used for 89% of flights against a more typical figure of 60%. Changes to operating procedures due to the unusual wind direction rather than the freedoms trial were therefore considered to be responsible for the increased disturbance to Hammersmith and Fulham residents. This was borne out by the fact that there was no correlation between the days when the complaints spiked and those when the freedom measures were in operation.
Members noted that other planned features of the trial, including the use of both runways for departing aircraft and changes to the management of inbound flights between 4.30-6am were not now going to be implemented during this phase. A further trial would need to be arranged if they were to be taken forward.
The Committee and members of the public took the opportunity to ask BAA a series of questions about the trial and related matters.
Members and the public emphasised that noise levels from aircraft had increased significantly in recent months and posed a number of questions in respect of the noise monitoring arrangements. It was noted that noise contours were measured by the CAA at a series of fixed and mobile locations. Members were of the view that noise monitoring units should be installed in the borough in order to collect local data which could then be published on the Council’s website. BAA was happy to support such a request to the CAA.
The meeting addressed the issue of the height of incoming aircraft and continuous descent arrangements. There was a perception that planes were now flying over the borough at lower altitudes. BAA confirmed that there had been no change in the height of arrivals. Continuous descent was part of the arrivals code of practice and attained high levels of compliance with more than 80% of incoming flights using the technique. Members enquired whether there was an alternative to the continuous descent which might mitigate the noise nuisance. The Committee was informed that steeper descent angles were being explored but it was a complex issue and greater height would not necessarily reduce noise.
Members also urged BAA to press airlines to use quieter aircraft. BAA responded that it could not ban certain types of aircraft but it had some of the toughest noise regulations in the world. The use of quieter planes were incentivised through differential landing fees and league tables of airlines would be published to ‘name and shame’ those with the worst noise performance. Arrivals and departures codes of practice were also in place. In response to further questions it was explained that differential charging applied only to noisy aircraft and not landing times. The noisiest flights were, however, prohibited between 11pm and 7am and quotas applied to total flight numbers between 11.30pm and 6am.
The adverse impact of night flights on residents’ health and wellbeing was highlighted by members of the audience. BAA’s representatives acknowledged that it aroused strong emotions and emphasised that one of the purposes of the trial was to try to minimise the disruption by improving punctuality and reducing the number of late flights caused by delays. A separate consultation on the night flight arrangements for the next five years was due to commence in 2013.
The differences in public perception of the number and height of flights and the data recorded by BAA was noted and the robustness of the BAA figures challenged. BAA defended the accuracy of its flight data and observed that it was difficult to judge the precise location of a flight from the ground. There was an acknowledgment, however, of a public lack of trust in BAA and it was attempting to address the issue through open and transparent dialogue with the local community.
BAA’s representatives were asked about the arrangements for the assessment of the impact of the trial on residents and the weighting that would be applied to community dissatisfaction. It was noted that the community was to be engaged in a series of focus groups with representatives from local authorities and complaints and polling data would also be evaluated. The decision on whether to implement the trial arrangements on a permanent basis would be made by the DfT following consultation and not by BAA. In the event of the issue going to consultation the Committee would consider the matter again and stage another public meeting to enable the views of the local community to be properly heard.
BAA acknowledged that the CAA’s noise measurement techniques would not be capable of properly recording the intensity of a short term increase in flights over a particular flight path. If all of the additional out of alternation arrivals were concentrated in a short period of time the statistical impact would be largely minimised in daily average figures.
There was concern expressed that the prevalence of westerly winds during the trial period, and the consequential need for increased use of westerly operations, would make meaningful evaluation of the trial impossible. It was suggested that it would not be possible to statistically differentiate between the impact of the two aspects. Further, it was suggested that BAA should take account of the possibility of 90% westerly winds in its evaluation and future modelling since the effect on the local community was so detrimental.
By way of response, the Committee heard that experts from Cambridge University were auditing the trial data, including focus group and resident responses and BAA was confident that the evaluation safeguards were robust. The DfT would not give approval to the permanent implementation of any aspects of the trial if the data presented was insufficient. BAA felt that it was not possible to predict future wind patterns.
Responding to questions on the independence of the evaluation arrangements, BAA reported that it was funding the Cambridge University studies but emphasised that the process was completely independent.
Concern was expressed at the adequacy of BAA’s engagement exercise. It was suggested that they were not adequately reaching local communities and the public did not know how to make complaints. BAA emphasised that formal consultation would not commence until after the trial, and then only if the DfT was minded to proceed with any changes. Feedback from the Phase 1 trial suggested that leaflet drops were ineffective so it had relied upon local medial advertising to deliver its key messages.
Finally, in response to public comments on the issue of a third runway, the Chairman emphasised that the Council opposed expansion of Heathrow and would be responding firmly to any consultation proposals that might be developed by the Commission on the matter. The Committee would play a role in assisting the Council to develop its response.
RESOLVED that –
i) the Civil Aviation Authority be requested to install aircraft noise recording devices at various locations throughout Hammersmith and Fulham in order to be able to generate accurate data on the noise levels experienced in the borough and make such data available to the Council for publication; and
ii) in the event of a formal consultation on the implementation of operational changes at Heathrow Airport as a consequence of the Freedoms Trial, a further report be presented to the Committee.