Throughout the discussions it was also accepted that wherever possible data from the Parish Plan should be included in the response.

1) Should BIA be allowed unrestricted growth?

From the Parish Plan date 89% opposed to unlimited growth. It was suggested that a CAP should be sought. Also any growth should be restricted until infrastructure dealt with- this is currently at capacity and any increase would overload.

2) Should intrusion of the green belt be allowed?

From the Parish Plan 80% opposed to an intrusion into the green belt- the survey was undertaken over 12 months ago and it was the general consensus that this percentage may be higher now. The Council was adamant that any expansion should only be allowed within the existing operational area of the airfield. The operational area is bounded by the OLD course of the A38. All the major proposed developments (hotel, fuel storage, car parking, passenger drop-off facilities, terminal expansion, new office block etc) to be on the north side so as not to impinge on the view from the south and the Mendip AONB.

At this juncture Cllr. Glynn returned with Cllr. Clements and the latter took the Chair.

3) Should changes to the night flying quota be accepted?

From the Parish Plan 55% of respondents saw no need for night flights. The Parish survey results show that this is a major cause of concern at current levels. The 2004 results meant that there was a plane movement every 24 minutes between the hours of 11.30pm and 6.00 am which is too much. The maximum number of movements per night should be capped at its present level. Coupled with this the ground noise issue needs to be addressed. The exhibition staff explained that this can be achieved by changing to off-aircraft auxiliary units and by having a barrier erected alongside the aircraft parking areas. This would help both day and night time noise levels for local residents.

4) Are road improvements needed to cope with the expansion?

The Council was of the opinion that there was little problem with traffic approaching from the south. However there is a need for improvement from the north which could be helped by the completion of the Bristol ring road to the A38 from Keynsham and an upgrading of the A38 from Bedminster Down to the Airport. There should be a weight limit on Downside Road and the freight entrance should be moved to the A38, in order to ease the present problems along that road.

5) How is the additional parking to be provided, and where?

The general consensus is that all parking should be contained within the existing permitted general development area. Multi-storey parking on the north side as the contour of the land lends itself to this type of development. The current proposal for a 100-bed hotel should be held in abeyance although a north-side location is still preferable. The thought that the cost of multi-storey car parking would be prohibitive should not be a consideration. Any move to develop the south side for both car parking and an additional terminal should be opposed on environmental grounds and the visual impact on the Mendips AONB. There is also the potential for remote park and ride sites. A more robust staff travelling scheme could also reduce car parking needs.

6) Is public transport access adequate?

The current sub 5% usage figure reflects that the service is not advertised sufficiently. If the Flyers were not only linked to Rail & Bus stations but also to remote park and ride facilities, including Bristol Parkway, this could ease infrastructure issues. Being in a rural location and a limited public transport service available to outlying villages a link-up with those areas could be incorporated in any extension of the Flyer service.

7) Should the runway extension be accepted?

Whilst not in the current list of things this can only be achieved by encroachment on the green belt and is to be resisted. Development to be contained within the current permitted development area.

At this juncture the Meeting moved to the John Locke Room.

8) Air pollution.

There is a need for this to continue but for it to be monitored by the unitary authority and not by BIA.

Other Points.

1) At the NSC Executive Committee Meeting the response to the Master Plan was that there was insufficient information to substantiate expansion.

2) Government White Paper on “Future of Air Transport” comes up for review next year.

3) Local Development Framework. The Master Plan will be a working document within the terms of the new planning procedures to be implemented. Cllr. Bigg questioned whether this meant that future planning would be held in abeyance until the Master Plan adopted.

4) It was agreed that a copy of the Council’s response to the Master Plan would be sent to NSC and the local MP’s

Public Participation.

A member of the public voiced the view that the Parish Council had not made NSC aware of its concerns in deliberating the Master Plan for the Airport as it could have influenced their thinking. The Chairman responded to the effect that as a Parish an independent view was being taken as the Council was representing parishioners whereas NSC taking a more global view.

There being no other business the meeting was declared closed at 19.45 hours.

Mr. T R Clements

Chairman