Contact: Nikki Dunne, Democratic Services Officer, 02380 688298 Email: email@example.com
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors are invited to declare interests in relation to the item of business on the agenda. Any interests declared will be recorded in the minutes.
Councillor Bicknell declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 3 on the agenda as he is a member of the Southampton Airport Consultative Committee and holds a nominal number of shares in IAG, the parent group of British Airways.
Councillor Asman declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 3 on the agenda as she is Vice Chair of the Southampton Airport Consultative Committee.
Councillor Airey declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 3 on the agenda as he is Chair of the Southampton Airport Consultative Committee.
Councillor Pretty declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 3 on the agenda as he is a member of the Southampton Airport Consultative Committee.
Councillor Grajewski declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 3 on the agenda as she is a Local Authority Director on the Solent Local Enterprise Board and a Hampshire County Council Cabinet Member and Executive Member for Public Health.
Councillor Tidridge put forward the following emergency motion, which was moved and seconded:
· That the Council meeting to determine Southampton International Airport’s planning application no F/19/86707 be deferred to a later date but not before 12 July 2021.
A recorded vote for the emergency motion occurred:
FOR: Councillors – Allingham; Bearder; Campbell; Clarke; Dean; Doguie, Duguid; Irish; Jurd; Marsh; Parker-Jones; Tidridge; Tyson-Payne.
AGAINST: Councillors – Airey; Asman; Atkinson; Bicknell; Bourne; Broadhurst; Corben; Couldrey; Craig; Cross; Garton; Gomer; Grajewski; Groves; Holes; House; Kyrle; Mann; Manning; Pragnell; Pretty; Rich; and Trace.
(FOR: 13; AGAINST: 23)
The emergency motion was NOT permitted.
(Note: Councillor Tennent lost connection and did not take part in the debate or the vote for the emergency motion.)
The Head of Housing and Development gave a short presentation on guidelines that had to be taken into account when determining planning applications; in particular the issues that could, and could not, be taken into account. This was set against the broader policy framework.
Construction of a 164 metre runway extension at the northern end of the existing runway, associated blast scree to the north of the proposed runway extension, removal of existing bund and the reconfiguration and extension of existing long stay car parking to the east and west of Mitchell Way to provide additional long stay spaces (F/19/86797).
Councillors have access to and been asked to view the public participation that took place during the Eastleigh Local Area Committee meeting on 25 March 2021. Therefore, we ask members of the public to consider whether they wish to participate AGAIN at Council OR to make new or fresh comments.
Public participation at Council on 8 April will be in line with the process followed for speaking at a Local Area Committee and will be limited to 3 minutes per person.
If you wish to participate please notify Democratic Services (firstname.lastname@example.org) by 23:59 on Monday 5th April 2021.
Debate will be in line with the rules of debate at Council contained within the Constitution paragraph 11.3 onwards (4-9).
The outline path for discussing this item is –
· Head of Housing and Development’s presentation
· Any initial clarification of the Head of Housing and Development from Councillors
· Public participation – those in objection will go first; followed by supporters and the applicant,
· Final clarification and final questions of the Head of Housing and Development
· Debate (limited to 5 minutes per Councillor in line with the rules for debate at full Council contained in the Constitution (4-9))
The Council considered the report of the Head of Housing and Development (Agenda item 3) concerning a planning application at Southampton International Airport, Mitchell Way, Eastleigh, Southampton, SO18 2HG for construction of a 164 metre runway extension at the northern end of the existing runway, associated blast screen to the north of the proposed runway extension, removal of existing bund and the reconfiguration and extension of existing long stay car parking to the east and west of Mitchell Way to provide additional long stay spaces. (Ref: F/19/86707).
Updates presented to Full Council:
· All ELAC updates are included within the Full Council report
· Community Health Fund –
o £100,000 one of upfront payment on commencement of development
o £2/additional ATM over baseline (2020) every year thereafter
o Improved Governance – a committee with reps from SIA, EBC, SCC, HCC
o Research and target investment of funds.
· Twyford Parish Council – maintain objection on grounds of noise, low flying aircraft, adverse environmental impacts
· If resolved to approve, to delegate the decision in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of Eastleigh LAC.
· Condition 3b – should read “The construction of the car park shall take place…”
Updates agreed at Full Council:
· The S106 Legal Agreement to cap the increase in passenger numbers as follows: no more than 2.4 million passengers by 2024, no more than 2.6 million passengers by 2028 and no more than 3.0 million passengers by 2034
· To include a representative from the Airport Consultative Committee on the Community Health and Well Being Board
After 10 hours 45 minutes, the Council adjourned the meeting at 00.45am on Friday 9 April 2021 until 6pm when it recommenced and ran until 02.30am on Saturday 10 April 2021.
A recorded vote occurred:
FOR: Councillors - Airey; Allingham; Asman; Atkinson; Bicknell; Bourne; Broadhurst; Corben; Craig; Cross; Duguid; Garton; Grajewski; Holes; House; Mann; Manning; Pragnell; Pretty; Rich; Tennent and Trace.
AGAINST: Councillors – Bearder; Campbell; Clarke; Couldrey; Dean; Doguie, Gomer; Irish; Jurd; Kyrle; Marsh; Parker-Jones; Tyson-Payne
ABSTAIN: Councillors - Tidridge
(FOR: 22; AGAINST: 13; ABSTAIN: 1)
(1) the conditions set out below with delegated authority to make minor amendments to the conditions to ensure they dovetail with, and do not duplicate the section 106 agreement; and
(2) completion of a Section 106 agreement securing the following:
- A Vehicle Cap on Traffic Movements to restrict vehicle movements to the airport to 2.45 million;
- Bi-annual review of the Airport Surface Access Strategy and Staff Green Travel Plan;
- A Noise Insulation Policy and Noise Action Plan for residential and sensitive non-residential buildings;
- Noise monitoring, noise contours and noise contour cap with annual report to the Council demonstrating compliance with the noise contour;
- Air Quality Strategy;
- Health Strategy including Community Health Fund;
- Carbon Strategy;
- Ecological Management and Mitigation to include Air Quality monitoring;
- Construction Employment and Skills Plan;
- Operational Employment and Skills Plan;
- Safeguarding of the route of the proposed Chickenhall Lane Link Road;
- Revoking of previous S106 Agreements and inclusion of previous restrictive obligations within a new agreement including restrictions on night time flying, engine testing, 20 ATMs within 0600 – 0700, reverse thrust, noise cap contour.
- A S106 monitoring contribution
In consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Eastleigh Local Area Committee to delegate to the Head of Housing and Development to PERMIT.
(NOTES: Councillors had a lengthy question and debate citing concerns including, but not limited to, the environmental impact, climate change, noise pollution, increased traffic, the climate change and environmental emergency declaration, along with benefits including employment, impact on the economy, viability of the airport and officer recommendation.
Approximately 96 people spoke in objection to the application, citing concerns including – but not limited to – lack of a cap on noise and size of planes, health and wellbeing of local people, lack of compensation for garden use, house price decreases, noise disruption, mental health wellbeing, climate change, noise of flights in local schools, environmental costs, air quality and pollution, increase in air traffic, impact on outdoor spaces, tourism encouraging money to be spent abroad instead of in the UK, existing runway is long enough already, increased demand on flights, effect on health and development of children, CO2 emissions, road traffic increases, pollution on the roads, felling of trees, and the effect on Bournemouth Airport.
Approximately 84 people spoke in support of the application, citing benefits including – but not limited to - the future of the airport needing security, business growth, runway would be safer and more viable, international business viability, increase in road emissions with people travelling to further airports, vital to Alderney and the Channel Isles, public support, recovery after Covid 19, benefit to local businesses, increased transport links, fuel efficiency increase of planes already using the airport, modern jets can be quieter than propellor planes, local infrastructure, concerns around loss of airport if it cannot be financially viable, conjunction with Freeport, disabled and autism friendly airport, employment opportunities, mitigation package to improve noise in houses under the flight path, environmental benefits of using local airports, increased travel destinations and that planes will still fly – just from other airports.)