Agenda item

The purpose of the report is to:

(i)         respond to the motion submitted to the Council meeting on 2nd July 2019 relating to the expansion of Heathrow Airport, and

(ii)       set out a draft response to the current consultation on Heathrow expansion which is open from 18th June to 13th September 2019.

(Councillor Keith Woodhams left the chamber during the discussion on this item)

(Councillor Gareth  Hurley declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda item 14 by virtue of the fact that he worked for Network Rail. As his interest was prejudicial he determined to leave the meeting and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter).

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 14) which set out a response to the motion submitted to the Council meeting on 2nd July 2019 relating to the expansion of Heathrow Airport and included a draft response to the current consultation on Heathrow expansion which was open from 18th June to 13th September 2019.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Richard Somner and seconded by Councillor Lynne Doherty:

That the Council:

“(i)       reject the motion submitted to the Council meeting held on 2nd July 2019 relating to the expansion of Heathrow Airport,

(ii)       updates its position statement as set out in section 4.1 of Appendix C to reflect relevant local and national changes that have occurred and new information now available since 2014 (when the Executive agreed the previous position statement).

(iii)      agrees the set of responses to the questions posed in the Heathrow expansion consultation as detailed in Appendix D for submission by the 13th September consultation deadline.”

Councillor Richard Somner in introducing the item stated that the report set out a response to the Motion proposed by Councillor David Marsh at the 02 July 2019 Council meeting which had been discussed at the Transport Advisory Group. It also set out a proposed response to the Heathrow expansion consultation which would close the following day. In addition it also addressed the issues raised in the petition submitted by Jackie Paynter to the Executive on the 05 September 2019 which was broadly in line with the motion presented at the previous Council meeting.

Councillor Somner thanked Officers for the effort they had put into preparing the report. He outlined a range of economic benefits for the  West Berkshire and the Thames Valley region that would be derived from the expansion including job creation, assisting supply chains, improvements to infrastructure and that it would be a platform for the development of new technology. The negative environmental impacts including air quality and noise would not directly affect the District’s residents. The Council would include comments on the need to reduce carbon emissions in its response to the consultation.

Councillor Somner noted that in 2014 and again in 2017 the Council had voted unanimously to support the expansion. In July 2018 the former Leader of the Council had written to the three local MPs to highlight the Council’s support. He also noted that in July 2019 the Council had declared a Climate Emergency and had committed to being carbon neutral by 2030. He recognised that the proposal would not find universal support in the chamber at this meeting. He however urged members to support the recommendations which he believed would improve the lives of the District’s residents.

Councillor Carolyne Culver reminded Members that they had declared a Climate Emergency at the 02 July 2019 meeting and they had committed to creating a strategic plan to deliver carbon neutral by 2030. Supporting the expansion of Heathrow contradicted that position and meant that in her opinion the Council had failed at the first hurdle. She reminded Members that over 800 residents had signed the petition submitted to the executive the previous week. She reported that the Green Party would submit their own response to the consultation.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon noted that the expansion of Heathrow would be a major driver for prosperity in the region and would create and support significant levels of employment for neighbouring residents. He noted that the airport had made statements about mitigating carbon emissions and that they had to have a basis for those claims.

Councillor Alan Macro commented that the number of flights would increase by 54%. In addition part of the proposal included the construction of the largest car park in the world which would increase the number of traffic movements significantly. He highlighted that 761 homes, two schools and some hotels would be removed in order to accommodate the expansion. He also noted that some of the flight paths would cover West Berkshire which would generate noise pollution and carbon emissions which would affect its residents. He therefore believed that supporting the recommendations set out in the report would not be compatible with the declaration of a climate emergency. He could therefore not support the recommendations. He noted that the Liberal Democrat Members would also be submitting their own response to the consultation.

Councillor Owen Jeffery commented that in his opinion this was the wrong thing in the wrong place.

Councillor James Cole explained that he and Councillor Dennis Benneyworth had recently visited a company located in their ward which was working on technology in relation to fuel cells. He felt that the expansion was an opportunity to rework the whole airport and deliver technology that would reduce reliance on fossil fuels which would in turn assist with improvement to air quality. It should therefore be seen as an opportunity.

Councillor Jeff Brooks commented that while he had previously supported expansion since then there had been a considerable raising of awareness of the plight the world was facing and he had now revised his position. He accepted that the ability to travel helped to expand people’s minds and he would not like them not to have that opportunity. However 80% of passenger travel was undertaken for business purposes and he felt that this was an area that should be looked at. Technology existed already which negated the need to make as many business trips.

Councillor Lee Dillon disputed that the expansion would have a positive impact for West Berkshire residents. It was likely to result in increased house prices, more congested roads and more air pollution. It would have a negative impact on the quality of the lives of residents living closer to the airport and would result in the removal of a large number of homes. The new car park would result in more private car journeys, freight transport would increase and the concrete that would be needed to build it would all generate significant carbon emissions. He also noted that the emissions generated by air travel were more damaging than those created by cars as they were already in the atmosphere. He felt that there was existing capacity in the regional airports which should be used rather than expanding Heathrow.

Councillor Martha Vickers stated that as the Council’s Green Champion she could not support the recommendations as they were contrary to the declaration of a climate emergency.

Councillor David Marsh stated that he was disappointed to hear that some Members were highlighting the benefits of the expansion but were not concerned about the negative impact on residents in other authorities.

Councillor Tony Vickers also supported making greater use of regional airports which would generate less carbon emissions, would cost less and would cause less disruption.

Councillor Steve Masters stated that the petition demonstrated the depth of feeling of local residents and that he hoped Members were listening to the concerns raised by the public. He urged Members to think about the future and that more use should be made of existing facilities such as train journeys instead of short haul flights and the existing capacity on transatlantic flights.

Councillor Tony Linden drew Members’ attention to a number of environmental processes that were being put in place by the airport to mitigate the impact of the expansion.

Councillor Benneyworth noted that paragraph 2.19 of Appendix C dealt with transportation of racehorses. He explained that he was employed as an international horse transported and had therefore had a lot of experience in this area. The horse racing industry in West Berkshire benefitted from its close proximity to Heathrow. It was one of only two airports that could be used to transport horses in the UK. He often had to travel to Europe on roads and then fly out of a European Airport.

Councillor Nassar Kessell queried if this use of the airport by Councillor Benneyworth constituted an interest that should preclude him from taking part in the discussion. The Monitoring Officer commented that the declaration of any interest was always a matter for the individual member. Councillor Benneyworth had determined that he did not have an interest that needed to be declared. Councillor Benneyworth informed Council that his employment was a matter of public record as it was included on his Register of Interest form. Councillor Claire Rowles commented that many members would make use of the airport for business travel.

Councillor Steve Ardagh-Walter challenged the assertion that supporting the expansion of Heathrow was incompatible with the declaration of a climate emergency in West Berkshire. He was of the opinion that the issue should be considered in a local, national and global context. The airport was located around 50 miles away and the District would not be affected by the noise or air pollution. He accepted that other boroughs would be and therefore it was understandable that they would object to the expansion.

Councillor Ardagh-Walter stated that in terms of a national level it had been established by the  Airports Commission that Heathrow was the best place to provide the capacity. It was Heathrow’s long term aspiration to make growth from its new runway carbon neutral. They had also made a commitment to operate zero carbon infrastructure, including buildings and other fixed assets by 2050. Central Government would be responsible for achieving its challenging target of carbon neutrality by 2050. In terms of the global picture aviation contributed about half of the carbon emissions that were generated by internet and telephones. He therefore urged Members to support the recommendations set out in the report.

Councillor Hilary Cole stated that recent figures showed that economy was expanding as services returned to growth and the expansion would have a positive impact on the local economy of West Berkshire.The third runway would double the freight capacity at Heathrow. There were a relatively high, and growing, number of logistics firms in the District as well as a large Amazon depot at Theale. Their growth, had the potential benefits of more jobs, more money spent locally and more business rate receipts. BREXIT could result in changes in trading partners, for example a new trade agreement with the United States , which might well increase Heathrow’s strategic importance. Councillor Cole reiterated that 70% of international firms looking to set up in the UK would do so within an hour’s drive of Heathrow. With increased capacity for both passengers and freight, this could open up the door for more of these firms to establish themselves in the District.

Councillor Garth Simpson noted that Heathrow currently had two runways but were competing with other airports for example Schiphol which had six. Customers would be driven by choice based on the options available. He also noted that the aerospace industry had contributed to a 1% annual reduction in carbon emissions. He noted however that there was currently no bus service between Newbury and Heathrow and he felt that this was something that should be lobbied for.

Councillor Jeremy Cottam stated that more use should be made of technological advances in order to reduce the amount of business air travel that was undertaken.

Councillor Doherty thanked Members for the debate. She stated that there was sound economic reasoning to support the expansion of Heathrow. She believed that the expansion would encourage innovation and technological advancement.  She did not believe that supporting it was in conflict with the Council’s declaration of a climate emergency. Since 1990 the UK had been able to cut its emissions while Gross Domestic Products (GDP) continued to grow.

Councillor Somner stated that he had nothing to add to the arguments put forward to support the recommendations. He would continue to work with stakeholders where possible to deliver infrastructure changes such as the rail links and a bus service. In addition he supported the declaration of the climate change emergency and would continue to work with colleagues across the chamber to support it.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

Prior to the vote being taken Councillor Steve Masters requested that, in accordance with paragraph 4.17.3, the vote be recorded. The requested number of Members supported the motion by standing in their place.

For the Motion

Steve Ardagh-Walter, Peter Argyle, Jeff Beck, Dennis Benneyworth, Dominic Boeck, Graham Bridgman, Jeff Cant, Hilary Cole, James Cole, Lynne Doherty, Clive Hooker, Rick Jones, Tony Linden, Tom Marino, Ross Mackinnon, Graham Pask, Claire Rowles, Garth Simpson, Richard Somner, Jo Stewart, Andy Williamson, Howard Woollaston (22)

Against the Motion

Adrian Abbs, Phil Barnett, Jeff Brooks, Jeremy Cottam, Carolyne Culver, Lee Dillon, Billy Drummond, Owen Jeffery, Nassar Kessell, Royce Longton, Alan Macro, David Marsh, Steve Masters, Geoff Mayes, Andy Moore, Erik Pattenden, Martha Vickers, Tony Vickers (18)

 (Councillors Gareth Hurley and Keith Woodhams did not vote on this item and returned to the chamber after the vote on this item).