|
Chairman: Sir Alistair Hunter Secretary:
Mrs Tessa Sherriff
MACC
Manston Airport Consultative Committee
PO Box 168 Broadstairs Kent CT10 2GW
Telephone / Fax 01843 862185
E-mail: 113311.1250@compuserve.com
16 June 2003
All MACC Members:
Papers for the Committee's next meeting, on Tuesday 24 June
at 2 pm in the Airport passenger terminal, are being sent to you with this
letter. I look forward to seeing you all there.
As a result of the local elections in May we have a number of new Committee
members. For this reason, we have incorporated into the agenda for the meeting a
couple of short basic briefings: by me, on the rationale for and operation of
the Committee, and by Paul Tipple of Wiggins on the development of the Airport
so far. Though primarily addressed to new members, I hope these will act as
useful refreshers for established ones.
A fundamental document regarding the operation of the Airport is the
agreement concluded between Wiggins Group as airport owners and Thanet District
Council as planning authority in accordance with Section 106 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 ("the Section 106 Agreement"). It was
promulgated in September 2000, and is due for renegotiation by September 2003,
though for a number of reasons - including the transfer of power on Thanet DC -
I imagine this date may be put back. New members will find it useful to
familiarise themselves with this document. Copies were sent to each member
organisation at the time, but our Committee Secretary, Tessa Sherriff, has a
very few spare copies available, on a first-come-first-served basis, if any of
the existing copies are difficult to trace.
Alistair Hunter
Chairman
--------------------------------
REVISION OF GUIDELINES FOR AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES
A copy of the current Guidelines, issued by the then
Department of Transport in 1988, follows.
The DfT recently decided it was timely to update the guidance
to incorporate successes and difficulties experienced by committees, and to that
end, convened a meeting on 30 May, which the Secretary attended, to assist the
Department in its revision of these Guidelines.
Minutes of that meeting are attached.
GUIDELINES FOR AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES
The guidance set out below is intended to assist those who
have a responsibility to provide facilities for consultation at aerodromes to
which Section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 applies and others who have an
interest in such consultative procedures.
1. The Legislation
Section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (as amended) which
deals with facilities for consultation at certain aerodromes, states:
"(1) This section applies to any aerodrome which is
designated for the purposes of this section by an Order made by the
Secretary of State.
(2) The person having the management of any aerodrome to
which this section applies shall provide:-
(a) for users of the aerodrome,
(b) for any local authority (or, if the person having
the management of the aerodrome is a local authority, for any other local
authority) in whose area the aerodrome or any part thereof is situated or
whose area is in the neighbourhood of the aerodrome, and
(c) for any other organisation representing the
interests of persons concerned with the locality in which the aerodrome is
situated, adequate facilities for consultation with respect to any matter
concerning the management or administration of the aerodrome which affects
their interests."
2. The Purposes of Consultation
Consultation is not intended to detract from the
responsibility of management to manage aerodromes. The aim should be to provide
an effective forum for the discussion of all matters concerning the development
or operation of the aerodrome, which have an impact on the users of the
aerodrome and on people living and working in the surroundings area.
Consultation should be seen as a positive and interactive process through which
the concerns of interested parties can be taken into account - aiming to allow
the efficient operation of an airfield while moderating its impact on local
communities. It should be seen as a means of keeping all interested parties
adequately informed of matters affecting them, of providing an opportunity to
reconcile any differences of view that may arise, and for resolving difficulties
thorough agreed voluntary action.
3. The Form of Consultation
Consultation is best carried out through a committee set up
for this purpose, except where it can be demonstrated that the particular
circumstances call for a different arrangement.
4. Composition of Consultative Committees
4.1 Representation
Section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 specifies the
categories of bodies or organisations which should be consulted: "users of
the aerodrome, any local authority....in whose area the aerodrome or any part
thereof is situated or whose area is in the neighbourhood of the aerodrome, and
any other organisation representing the interests of persons concerned with the
locality in which the aerodrome is situated".
An appropriately representative committee is therefore likely
to include members from all of these groups in balanced proportions. Local
interest may be represented by parish councils and local residents' groups,
community groups or groups formed to represent local interests in the
environment or amenities. Committees should seek to achieve a comprehensive
input to their deliberations by ensuring fair representation of the full range
of local interests and by seeing that members are given an equal opportunity to
express their views. In pursuing this, account may have to be taken of the need
to secure a committee which is not so large that it is unable to function
effectively.
4.2 Officers
To maintain the confidence of the general public in the
independence of the committee, it is highly desirable to appoint a chairman and
secretary who are not closely identified with any sectional interest. Where this
proves to be impossible, rotation of these offices between the main interests
represented should be considered.
5. Administrative Costs
The costs of the administration of consultative committees
should be shared equitably among the participants.
6. Venue
The venue of the meetings should be decided by the
consultative committee. Unless otherwise agreed by the committee, the management
of the aerodrome should provide adequate facilities for meetings.
7. Frequency of Meetings
The consultative committee should meet at least three times a
year, unless the committee is satisfied that fewer meetings would suffice.
8. Matters for Consideration by the Consultative
Committees
8.1 Terms of Reference
The terms of reference of the committee should be
sufficiently widely drawn to enable it to consider any matter the management may
refer to it, as well as issues arising directly or indirectly from the operation
of the aerodrome.
8.2 Complaints
An agreed formal procedure for recording complaints about
aircraft noise and other adverse effects of the aerodrome on the environment
should be instituted. These arrangements, which should be very well publicised,
should provide for complaints to be made to the aerodrome management by
telephone or in writing. Complainants should normally give their name, address,
telephone number and sufficient detail to enable any necessary investigation to
be carried out. The complaints record and individual letters should be made
available to the consultative committee.
9. Organisation of Meetings
9.1 Circulation of Documents
All participants in consultation should make available
through the secretariat to all members the fullest information on matters of
concern to the committee, at as early a date as possible.
9.2 Minutes
Minutes of each meeting should:
- be formally adopted as a full and fair account of
proceedings of the committee;
- be circulated to committee members prior to the meeting
at which they are submitted for adoption.
10. Publicity
In the interests of good relations it is desirable that the
general public should be kept adequately informed of the activities of
consultative committees. This may be done:
- by opening meetings to the local press or members of
the public; or
- by periodic reports or press releases on matters of particular interest.
In selecting the first method of publicity, the committee
should bear in mind the possible need to deal with confidential matters in
private session. All public statements of the committee's view should be
approved at a full session of the committee.
Department of Transport
December 1987
Minutes of Discussion Meeting on Consultative Committee
Guidelines
30 May 03
Those Present: Philip Grindrod DfT (chairman)
Victoria Noakes DfT (minute)
John Adshead London City CC
Jim Bailey SASIG
Peter Bryant GATCOM
Simon Evans AUC
Tim Johnson AEF
Sam Milliken Glasgow Prestwick CC
Tessa Sherriff Manston Airport CC
Roger Wiltshire BATA
David Butcher CAA/DAP
Nic Smith CAA/DAP
- The meeting had been convened to assist the Department in its revision of
the official guidelines for airport consultative committees.
- An apology had been received from David Ogilvy GAAC.
- There are currently 51 aerodromes designated under Section 35 of
the Civil Aviation Act. This requires the aerodrome to provide adequate
facilities for consultation:
"(a) for users of the aerodrome,
"(b) for any local authority … in whose area the aerodrome or any
part thereof is situated or whose area is in the neighbourhood … and
"(c) for any other organisation representing the interests of persons
concerned with the locality in which the aerodrome is situated. "
- The then Department of Transport had issued guidelines for airport
consultative committees in 1988. Since then committees have evolved in
different ways, and it was thought timely to update the guidance to reflect
the successes and difficulties experienced by committees. The Department had
asked in consultation for views, and had circulated a note which also
summarized the detailed suggestions of a task group of the annual liaison
meeting of CCs.
- The group discussed what the role of consultative committees in
relation to the operation of the aerodrome should be. PB reminded the group
that consultative committees were not planning authorities and should not
try to replicate this role. They also were not, and should not seek to
become, decision-making bodies in relation to aerodrome management. JA
expressed concern that committees would not have the expertise to carry
out ‘environmental monitoring’ (paragraph 34 DfT discussion note).
It was agreed that the committee itself should not carry out such work, but
there was consensus that the committee should have input into the monitoring
process. For example, Gatwick Airport Ltd appoints an independent
environmental auditor in consultation with the committee. RW highlighted the
need for committees to understand the legal and regulatory framework within
which aerodromes operate.
- It was also noted that aerodromes might discharge their consultation
duties partly outwith the committee structure. Where this could be codified,
it may be desirable to do so perhaps by a memo. item to the terms of
reference.
- PG asked whether the guidance should be directed to all aerodromes,
whether or not s.35-designated. TJ thought that some sort of consultation
should be very strongly encouraged at all aerodromes; but that a committee
was not always necessary. NS noted that there is a wide spectrum of
aerodromes, from Heathrow to small grass strips, and that the guidance
should recognize the diversity of their circumstances.
- JA suggested that "neighbourhood" might be replaced in
the guidance by "within the sphere of influence of an airport,"
though it was acknowledged that even this term was not unambiguous.
- JB suggested that each organisation might be limited to only one
representative but this was not agreed unanimously: especially at the larger
airports, or where committee business focused particularly on, for example,
local planning matters, it may be suitable to invite more than one member
from the local planning authority and/or from other bodies. JB highlighted
the distinction between an elected member and an officer of a local
authority on the committee but SM said Prestwick CC had no difficulties with
this, each was able to represent the local authority viewpoint in
appropriate contexts.
- In deciding the size of a committee it was agreed that it should not be
too large but there needs to be adequate representation of the groups
referred to in s.35. TJ asked if 'category (a)' members should include the
airport management. TS explained that at Manston the airport owners were
full members of the committee whereas at many committees the airport
management representatives were present as participating observers, and were
not members. It was agreed that the airport management needed to be present
but not necessarily as members of the committee. Neither a maximum nor a
minimum size of the committee should be firmly prescribed, but the general
feeling was that 40 would be about the maximum manageable limit for a large
airport, with smaller numbers indicated moving down the scale of airport
activity — say 30 for a regional airport, 15-20 for a GA aerodrome as
indicative sizes.
- Standing sub-groups to address certain issues (such as passenger services,
or environment) might be suitable depending on the aerodrome. NS considered
that the formation of sub-groups should be at the discretion of the
committee. PB reinforced the importance of providing a forum in which
airports could work in partnership with interested parties on a range of
issues.
- PB highlighted the importance of passenger interests having a voice, in
particular at the larger airports. This could be achieved through a
passenger services sub-committee.
- It was agreed that the Chairman should not be an airport employee
if this could possibly be avoided; but most agreed with PB and JA that arm's
length remuneration by the airport was appropriate. TJ expressed concern
that long tenures would mean that, in extremis, an incompetent
Chairman, or one perceived as partial, could not be removed as quickly as
was desirable. The crucial point was that the Chairman should be accepted by
members as fair and disinterested.
- SM disagreed, his view being that the Chairman should, ideally, not be
appointed by the airport. PB explained that he was appointed by BAA, in
consultation with the committee; and his independence was not compromised.
JA explained that London City voted on the Chair every three years. SE
considered that although the Chair may have influence over the agenda, the
method of appointment should not affect the operation of the committee. It
was agreed that the Chair should not be selected from the committee and that
the committee should have input into the selection. A consensus emerged
that, in practice, committees could be expected to remove unsuccessful
chairmen before expiry of their terms of office, if necessary, so the
preference might well be for a three-year term or so.
- PB highlighted the importance of the secretariat in ensuring
adequate preparation and the flow of information. The guidance should
emphasize the scale of this task and the importance of resource and
continuity.
- Continuity in membership was considered almost as important, and it
was suggested that a minimum term subject to satisfactory conduct could be
recommended. JB thought that it could be difficult to deliver long term
membership, and it was agreed that the guidance should acknowledge the
relevance of local authority election cycles, and the desirability of
allowing appropriate substitutes (with advance notice to the secretariat).
However, it was suggested that a longer-term commitment might attract more
suitable members.
- It was agreed that the number, location and time of meetings should
be at the discretion of the committee. Broadly though, quarterly meetings
(which could link to LA and other committee cycles) appeared suitable for
most (inter/)national and regional airports and possibly for large GA
airfields, while six-monthly meetings may be appropriate for smaller
airfields.
- JA considered that meetings held at the airport enhance understanding of
the airport operation and assists airport employees to attend. On the other
hand, JB thought that 'neutral territory' could help avoid a feeling that
the airport was 'dictating terms' to the committee.
- Generally, the larger airports' committees meet in working hours and those
of smaller aerodromes, in the evening. This was generally regarded as
inevitable, though it was difficult to be prescriptive as to where the
dividing line should fall. The circumstances of members (or prospective
members) should be taken into account, in borderline cases.
- The payment of costs should be decided by the committee, although the
default option should be for the aerodrome to pay.
- JA reported that, at London City, the public could attend and
speak, at the chair's discretion, if they give two days notice, before the
formal start of the meeting; he regarded this sort of arrangement as highly
desirable in general. This was not the general practice, however: some
committees permitted Press, but not general public, attendance. DB suggested
that committees could follow the rules of some parish council whereby the
public can attend and contribute at certain points. TJ explained that
Wycombe have a ten minute session at the beginning of each meeting for the
public to air their concerns. SM thought that public access would be liable
to hinder the flow of information from the airport. PB thought that the Press
should be invited but that there were logistical problems with opening
meetings to the public, especially for the larger airports. All in all, the
meeting was divided on this issue, upon which the Department would reflect
further.
- It was suggested that airports should have notices publicising the
existence of the committee. Some committees placed minutes on websites, in
libraries and/or sent them to the press. DB suggested that committees could
produce regular reports of their activities. SE wondered what the aim of
publicising the committee was and whether it would encourage complaints. It
was agreed that any guidance on publicity should not be too prescriptive in
tone.
- There are currently various arrangements among committees for obtaining technical
advice. Heathrow, for example, retains a specific technical consultant
while Prestwick secured the services of volunteer technical advisers, ad
hoc. TJ considered that the more important point was for members to have
sufficient notice of technical matters, in order to allow them to consult
their own advisers where necessary.
- PG asked whether individual complaints should be made available to
the committee. Currently some airports produce a summary of complaints and
the answers to them, and/or gave the general locations of complainants; but
it was not unknown for bundles of individual complaints to be circulated to
members, with or without anonymity. It was suggested that complainants could
be invited to write to the committee if dissatisfied with the airport's
response. However, there was concern that this could place a
disproportionate burden on the committee and it was agreed that this should
be recommended only to deal with exceptional circumstances.
- PG raised the possibility of 'teach-ins' on specific airport issues,
perhaps along the lines of aviation induction seminars for committee
members. JA thought that members learnt on the job and SM agreed that
arrangements were best kept informal. DB suggested an annual seminar for all
committees, to be aimed particularly at recently-joined members; but there
was concern that interest in such an event would be too low to justify it
(though the only way to be sure would be to invite expressions of interest).
RW stated that each airport is different and generic information would not
be as useful as activities such as airport tours or visits to particular
facilities such as the airport noise office, baggage handling, etc.
TJ suggested that guidance could include a list of various addresses and
published sources of relevant information, as from AOA, AEF, CAA, available
to committees. The airports themselves had an important role in informing
members about their operation and the majority view was that 'teach-ins'
could be better handled at airport level.
- The CAA had suggested that there could be a system of mandatory external audit
of the operation of ACCs. However, the group felt that this was likely to be
resented by committees and would be intrusive, as well as unnecessary in the
great majority of cases. TJ thought committees could usefully be reminded of
DfT powers to intervene in certain areas of aerodrome operation, such as
noise.
- It was agreed that the guidance could usefully include examples of good
practice for different types of airports such as the balance of
representation, sources of technical advice and terms of reference of the
committee. The group agreed to supply any examples of good practice within
the next four weeks [by 27 June].
For information:
SASIG Strategic Aviation Special Interest Group of the Local Government
Association (of which Thanet District and Canterbury City Councils are member
GATCOM Gatwick Airport Consultative Committee
AUC Airport Users Council
AEF Aviation Environment Federation
CAA Civil Aviation Authority
BATA British Air Transport Association
MACC June Data
|