Staverton Airport: Shameful report from Cheltenham's Scrutiny panel

Hey campaigning can be great fun - when it is done in the warmth of a pub - last night I was in Cheltenham anyway for other business so I was able to set up a meeting of a few Staverton Airport campaigners from across the County.

Photo: Dobells pub, Cheltenham last night

There was lots to discuss but the big issue was the recent Scrutiny report see below for that - but other issues discussed included:
- Gloucestershire Greenpeace's campaign in Stroud against the 3rd runway proposal for Heathrow
- the airport's planning applications - still no date - and it is possible that the Airport may complain of non-determination but in my view unlikely as they will only attract even more unwanted attention to themselves.
- how best to continue to highlight the airport's absurd plans: lots of ideas and plans suggested: more on that soon - some exciting stuff so stay tuned!!
- support for a peaceful action from other groups
- setting up a meeting with Philip Taylor, Independent cabinet member for the environment in Gloucester who had expressed opposition to the development - since disciovered that after only several weeks in the job he has resigned for personal reasons.
- the Petition will be given to councils in Tewkesbury, Cheltenham and Gloucester ideally coinciding with full council meetings. Currently Richard has gathered over 60 signatures. Others have not yet started collecting signatures. Download petition here if you are interested in collecting signatures.
- Scrutiny/Cabinet/Council meetings - Scrutiny meetings at Cheltenham and Gloucester are now concluded. The JASWG report will now be forwarded to the Cabinets of each council. We will be working on a report to counter the claims of the JASWG which will include a review of the so-called 'green policy' and flight capping proposals as well as strong arguments against the expansion plan. We also hope to present options on alternative uses of the site but will not commit to a particular option, advocating instead that a more thorough scrutiny of the proposal is necessary - see more below.

Photo: Some of us waiting for others to arrive

Cheltenham Borough's Scrutiny report on the Airport

See the Airport Working Group report here - and see here one campaigner pull it apart here. The scrutiny committee has taken an appallingly ridiculous position and their document is so poorly put together it beggars belief - last week campaigners went to their long-winded Scrutiny meeting to ask a series of questions - we reviewed some of those at our meeting.

One has to ask what are they thinking about when they say that they want the airport to operate with a 'green policy' to reduce its carbon foot print? By how much and in what ways do the council think that the airport can reduce its emissions after this investment of taxpayers monies? Every other airport in the world that has allowed development ends up with more planes operating and more carbon emissions.

If a 'green policy' is really implemented, the only way the airport will reduce its carbon foot print in any significant way is to fly less planes. Given this irrefutable logic how can the report argue that this investment represents value for money?

The Airport's report has just a paragraph on noise yet this is a huge issue - one campaigner reported pedestrians in Cheltenham recently stopping to look up when a loud noisy plane heading for Staverton went overhead. The report also fails to consider any of the negative consequences of the airport.

Ten questions were asked by the public at the Scrutiny meeting (Q&A available on request to me in a pdf). Two representative from Mott MacDonald (Chris Chalk and Graham Ruddock) were present at the meeting, sitting around the table with the Councillors. During the debate there were three dissenting voices on the committee, Cllr Andrew Wall (who was not present, but submitted a written list of objections to the report), Cllr Paul McLain and Cllr Robin McDonald (all three Conservative).

Cllr Steve Jordan (LD), the author of the report, reiterated that the project was about improving safety not expansion (nonsense!). Several point were clarified during the discussions like:

1. The Council providing a loan to the Airport is not likely to count as state aid. This is firstly because the airport is classified by the EU as a regional airport (less than 1 million passengers per year), and is not likely to affect trade between states. Secondly, the loan is being made via the Council to prevent the airport falling into the hands of the banks in the event of the business failing.
2. The airport expansion is funded by a load from the Public Works Board (PWB) via the Council, the approval will have to come from the full Council (not just the Cabinet). [For info, The last time the full Council voted on a motion to support the Airports plans, in October 2006, the motion was passed by 18 votes to 15. With more evidence to support the dissenters another vote could be tighter.]

Voting

1. Cllr McLain firstly proposed the main vote be a recorded vote. This was accepted by the Chairman. He then proposed that the report be amended to state that the EBI committee did not support the airport's business plan. This amendment was rejected.
2. Cllr John Webster (LD) proposed that a cap on the number of flights be imposed on the airport. He suggested that this be set at a level that matched the numbers given in the business plan and would show the public that the safety improvements were not a way of expanding the airport by stealth. After some debate it was decided that the report should be amended to include a flight cap in the 'Green Policy'. This amendment was passed unanimously.
3. The main vote, which was recorded, was passed with two votes against (McLain and MacDonald).

Minority Report

Cllr McLain wanted to submit a 'Minority Report' to the Cabinet to state the position of the Councillors who did not agree with the JASWG report. Legal advice was requested by the chair. The council lawyer indicated that if a minority report was to be produced it would have to present an alternative plan - it could not just state that the objectors did not agree with the report. Although Cllrs Wall & McLean will produce a report, I was not clear whether it will be an official minority report, or just an unofficial report by committee members (which would carry less weight) - it seems from talking to others now that it is not a Minority Report. Cllr Jordan did agree to incorporate the points made by Wall & McLain into the official JASWG report.

Anyhow good on the two councillors who voted against the main Scrutiny report and are planning this alternative - unlike the other official Working group they appear prepared to hear views from people opposed to the Airport growth and take those into account.

See Green party letter here from one campaigner who was at the meeting and below one campaigners letter to the Echo that sums up the situation:

Madam - You have recently published yet more special pleading by supporters of Gloucestershire Airport (January 7 and 8). They talk of "change" and "safety measures", to describe the airport's expansion, and they describe people who point out the bigger picture as anti-progress, Nimbys or dumb for living near an airport. Such lobbying from narrow interest groups is inevitable, as they cling on to what they've got, regardless of its impacts on the world around.

Councillors need to think why so many people now oppose "change" at the airport. The airport shows daily that it has little interest in people's concerns about noise, as jets, planes and helicopters repeatedly invade our lives and disrupt our work. It is inevitable that with an Instrument Landing System and longer runway, the airport will only move one way - bigger and noisier (and more carbon- intensive). People know that the stakes are high and that the brakes must now be put on the airport.

Given this picture, how can it be that the Joint Airport Scrutiny Working Group (of Gloucester and Cheltenham councillors), that has just reported on the airport's plans, seems to have only considered the airport's advice and views of consultants from the aviation world? It is these sources that are quoted.

Yes, the committee's report also suggests a "green policy" for the airport to moderate the undesirable impacts. But what can this possibly amount to? The airport will take every opportunity, year on year, to seek new opportunities, and this will amount to expansion in anyone's book. And just as it does now, the airport will only care about its own clientele.

We should not tolerate such biased and partial work from a committee, working on our behalf on something which affects so many.

Alison Parfitt, Cheltenham.