Minutes of a Meeting of the Policy, Resources and Performance
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Minutes To: All Members of the From: Legal, Democratic & Statutory Services Environment, Planning and Ask for: Stephanie Tarrant Transport Cabinet Panel, Chief Ext: 25481 Executive, Chief Officers, All officers named for ‘actions’ ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING AND TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL, 1 FEBRUARY 2017 ATTENDANCE MEMBERS OF THE PANEL D Andrews (Vice Chairman), D A Ashley (Chairman), D J Barnard. N Bell, H K Crofton, N A Hollinghurst, M D M Muir, R Sangster, R H Smith, S J Taylor, A S B Walkington Other Members in attendance M Cowan, P A Ruffles Upon consideration of the agenda for the Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel meeting on 7 December 2016 as circulated, copy annexed, conclusions were reached and are recorded below: Note: No Declarations of interest were made. PART I (‘OPEN’) BUSINESS ACTION 1. MINUTES 1.1 The Minutes of the Cabinet Panel meeting held on 7 December 2016 were agreed. 2. PUBLIC PETITIONS 2.1 There were no public petitions. 3. FUTURE PROPOSALS FOR STANSTEAD AIRPORT- BACKGROUND TO PRESENTATION BY MANCHESTER AIRPORT GROUP (STANSTEAD AIRPORT LIMITED Presentation by Manchester Airport Group (MAG) [Officer Contact: Paul Donovan, Team Leader Strategic Land Use, Tel: 01992 556289] 3.1 Members considered a brief report and were given a presentation 1 from the Manchester Airport Group (Stansted Airport Limited) on the recent and ongoing developments at London Stansted Airport. A copy of the report and presentation can be viewed here: London Stansted Airport Presentation 3.2 In response to a Member question on what Stansted Airport were doing for the local community affected by noise and off track flights, Members heard that there was a Committee set up that held the Stansted Community Trust Fund which the airport contributed to. The fund was holding approximately £230,000 to be allocated to local projects. On planning permission for Stansted, until 2015, the airport gave £100,000 to the fund and was on the cusp of creating a new deal. Members heard that there was a Hertfordshire Member on the Committee and that local projects could be awarded up to £2,000. Typically bids were received for sport clubs and church roof repairs. Members were encouraged, especially those for East Herts and Bishop’s Stortford, to support their local community in placing Assistant Director bids for funding. Members requested that consideration was given Transport, to raise the bid limit to £5,000 in line with the Trust Fund at Luton Waste & Airport. Information of how to request funding was to be provided Environmental Management from the Manchester Airport Group (MAG). 3.3 Members commented on the prices and level of rail service and connectivity to Stansted Airport. It was acknowledged that despite all other rail prices increasing in January 2017, the costs of the Stansted Express dropped. 3.4 Members heard that 50% of traffic to Stansted Airport was via bus, coach and rail and that the MAG provided £300,000 to bus operators to subsidise new routes until they had reached a commercial level. It was also acknowledged that staff members were able to apply for a staff travel card to help attract workers to the Airport. Members suggested that Local District Councils and the County Council could help promote staff vacancies at the airport. 3.5 In response to a Member question on climate change and getting Stansted Airport on the ground to the point of being carbon neutral, Members head that the MAG took this area very seriously. It was advised that Manchester Airport had been able to achieve a carbon neutral position and that the MAG had been working at achieving the same with Stansted Airport since it was purchased. Members heard that LED lighting had been installed and an increased use of hybrid diesel busses. It was noted that solar panels caused a glare risk and wind turbines were an obstacle and that the biggest issue the Airport faced was the effectiveness of the cooling system. It was acknowledged that Hertfordshire County Council had 3.7 recently approved solar panels adjacent to Luton Airport with the assurance that they were antiglare. Members heard that at this time the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in the UK did not have an agreed mechanism to measure glare but in the USA the Panel had been found to be non-compliant. 2 3.6 Members noted the refined departure corridor as presented but acknowledged the corridor to the West, which covered East Hertfordshire and Ware and tended to have slow and low flying traffic. Members were advised that these aircrafts were suppressed to a height below other aircraft traffic and heard that Heathrow routes were given priority. Members were informed that the dispersal concentration was taken from Government Policy and advised that members of the public were welcome to help bring the issues to light at a National level. 3.7 During further discussion on the growth of Stansted and the surrounding transport networks, Members heard that initially to take pressure off of commitment routes, Stansted Express were looking to have 12 car trains instead of 8. It was acknowledged that there was a lack of infrastructure that needed to be addressed and that the MAG were trying to address the issue with the Government via the London Stansted Cambridge Consortium (LSCC). 3.8 The passenger experience through the airport was discussed and Members heard that there was a directorate that looked at improving the experience for customers. In relation to key areas raised, Members heard that security measures were in line with National rules and could not be changed and that the high airport drop-off charges were under review; with an opposing view point being that the charges could be increased to generate further income to support local infrastructure. With regards to car parking drop-off charges, Members acknowledged that drop-offs and pick- ups were the most damaging journeys to the road network as they required four individual journeys. 3.9 Members heard that more travellators were to be introduced to help speed up the journey to the satellites and the MAG were working with the airlines to improve the passenger experience. 3.10 In terms of airport revenue, Members heard that approximately 45% came from aeronautical contracts and that 55% was from retail and car parking and that this revenue was then reinvested in local infrastructure. 3.11 Members raised concerns whether the local infrastructure would be able to accommodate the increase in passage numbers planned for the airport and the additional traffic. Members heard that the airports were heavily involved in the A120 campaign group and that they were in discussion with the Local Authority on how to improve Junction 8 of the M11. It was noted that the airport made a fair and reasonable contribution to the road network but that a combined effort was required, with clarity from Highways England on investment. 3.12 It was acknowledged that a second runway was not on the agenda despite the planned increase to passenger numbers, as the increases would make best use of the single runway and not necessarily mean an increase in flights but running them more 3 effectively. 3.13 During discussion around night time flights, it was acknowledged that night flights were under Government consultation. Members heard that Stansted was the third biggest freight airport and that customers expect next day deliveries, so night flights were crucial. The measures against which night flights were rated was under review, this could mean that newer aircrafts which were quieter would not count in the airports absolute movement quota. 3.14 The MAG representatives were thanked for their attendance. It was Assistant Director agreed that a similar session would be organised with Luton Airport Transport, representatives. Waste & Environmental Management Conclusions: 3.15 The Cabinet Panel noted the report and presentation. 4. INTEGRATED PLAN 2017/18 - 201 9/20 (ENVIRONMENT PLANNING ANDTRANSPORT) [Officer Contact: Mike Collier, Assistant Director, Strategic Finance & Performance Tel: 01992 555792] 4.1 The Panel was invited to comment and identify any issues on the areas of the Integrated plan which related to Environment, Planning and Transport. 4.2 Members noted that figures were based on the assumption that the proposed capital programme regarding the Croxley rail interchange was going ahead. 4.3 It was noted that there were a number of apparent policy contradictions with environmental and transport issues and available budgets but agreed that although unfortunate this was unavoidable. Members discussed the retention and recruitment issues of staff which was an ongoing issue but noted that intense work was being undertaken to improve upon this. 4.4 A proposal was raised and seconded that a recommendation be made that Cabinet reconsider the apparent contradiction between Hertfordshire County Council policies on sustainable transport and the removal of subsidies to bus services. A vote was taken and was LOST. 4.5 A two part proposal was raised by the Chairman as follows: i. that the Cabinet Panel accepted the Integrated Plan in respect of Environment Planning & Transport. 4.6 A vote was taken and was CARRIED by 6 votes with 4 abstentions from the Liberal Democrat and Labour Members. 4 ii. that it is recognised that there are policy challenges related to sustainable Transport Policy. A vote was taken and was unanimously CARRIED. Conclusion: 4.7 The Panel commented as above to Cabinet on the proposals relating to the Integrated Plan in respect of Environment, Planning & Transport. 5. MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN AUTHORITY’S MONITORING REPORT [Officer Contact: Emma Chapman, Apprentice Planner Spatial Planning and Economy. (Tel: 01992 556275)] 5.1 Members considered the Authority’s Monitoring Report (AMR) for the period 1 April 2015 until 31 March 2016, which assessed whether the policies within the County Council’s minerals and waste Local Plans were being effectively implemented.