Councillors debated a motion to approve the proposals at a special full council meeting on Wednesday (November 25) at 7pm before a final decision was made by the executive in front of a packed public gallery.
The Tory executive met in the Great Hall to take the decision immediately after the full council debate with four votes in favour to three against.
Tempers flared throughout the meeting with the members of the public gallery heckling councillors, who spoke in favour of the plans – you can read our live blog of the meeting here.
The airport has bold development plans to extend its operating hours, create 2,300 jobs, open an aviation college, and cut its noise footprint in half.
‘A small successful and prosperous airport’
Will Curtis, airport managing director, said today (November 26): “Our aspiration is to create a small, successful and prosperous airport, one that generates jobs and training whilst protecting the amenity of our neighbouring residents.
“This decision is an important step in that direction – but there is still lots to do.
“Not least, we must now get on with the job of putting in place our noise mitigation measures and attracting more businesses to the airport.
“We shall continue to update the community with our progress.”
‘A farce’
But Orpington resident Celia Clode, 68, of St Leonards Rise, described the meeting as a “farce”.
The 68-year-old said: “They may just as well have had the vote at the beginning of the evening because obviously the councillors had already decided how they were going to vote – despite all the opposition from the residents.”
Twenty-nine councillors voted in favour of the motion recommending the council grant Biggin Hill Airport extended hours and an amendment to its lease, before the executive made the final decision.
Nineteen councillors voted against and 10 abstained, meaning the motion was passed.
Leader Councillor Stephen Carr, Councillor Peter Morgan, Council Peter Fortune and Council Graham Arthur voted in favour of the extended hours.
Council Kate Lymer, Councillor Robert Evans and Councillor Colin Smith voted against.
‘Illogical decision making’
Nicholas Mulholland, of Wood Ride, Petts Wood, told News Shopper: “When one witnesses such obvious illogical decision making and dogmatic adherence to a cause despite reasonable objection, I suspect dishonesty is at play.
“I consider that Councillor Carr is not listening, that he has sought to steam roller this policy change and that causes me to question his integrity.
“We must launch a judicial review and we must see this decision overturned.”
Public consultation concerns
During question time from members of the public, Orpington MP Jo Johnson repeated concerns raised by community groups in recent weeks that the council’s public consultation into plans for extended operating hours at the airport was manipulated.
Councillor Tim Stevens, who represents Petts Wood and Knoll ward, also questioned the public consultation results as he urged councillors to vote against the extended hours.
He said: “We have now become aware that the council’s Biggin Hill surveys are frankly marginally questionable and should be ignored.”
A report into the business airport’s plans published ahead of the meeting said concerns had been raised about the accuracy of the consultation, including that its outcome was influenced by canvassing.
It read: “These concerns have been investigated and officers have not identified any significant inconsistencies or errors in either the consultation process or reported outcomes.
“The response rates were influenced by “canvassing” but it has not been suggested that actual views were misrepresented.”
![Pageflex Persona [document: PRS0000038_00070]](https://bigginhill.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Beyond-1.jpg)
Why are you consulting ALL of Bromley, many will have NO contact with Biggin Hill. You havnt consulted me. I live in Bexleyheath, under the flight path to Biggin Hill.
You could have replied to the consultation. It was widely advertised and open to all not just Bromley residents.
Yes, but as I recall the consultation document was heavily skewed. Tick here if you’re a go-ahead sensible person who’d like this to happen. Or tick here if you’re a halfwit who’d like to throw away all those nice jobs and silent running planes.
I hate to tell you this…… but told ya so.
Money talks… bull$hit walks.
So Dear Stephen, having shot his mouth off a couple of months ago by saying that he thinks that Wibil’s plan is “very exciting”, and admitting at this meeting that he does “……not have first hand knowledge” now gives his casting vote in favour. Oh WHAT a surprise.
No casting vote was used, by Cllr Carr or anyone. Don’t deceive
If votes are tied, the Chairman gives the casting vote. That is what happened here.
Of course the long standing convention in this country is that if there is no majority for change, the Chair votes in favour of the status quo, but the man who does not wear protective headgear on a building site broke with convention & voted in favour of change instead.
Now you lie. There was no tied vote and no casting vote was needed or used. You must be a clear anti because many of them are liars and it’s clearly infective.
Bad decision, but great rolling news coverage from NS. So the majority who aren’t under the flight paths heap more misery on those who are – nice.
Great decision. Good news for the Borough, for the economy, for Britian and most importantly for all residents including those under the flight path. The deal involves less noise, better flight routings, less overall flights, quieter ground running and much better monitoring. It’s Win Win Win. What’s more disturbing is that 25 Councillors (all Conservative) choose to vote against (22) or abstain(3). Do they not want the borough to prosper?
Perhaps they don’t want the borough bricked over & polluted with noise?
PS What is “Britian”?
A flawed survey, bussed in rent-a-mob by BHAL, and no doubt money changing hands somewhere. Bromley Council up to their usual tricks that will no doubt be repeated with the current review of Library provision.
The old brown envelope trick, it works every time. You could of bet your bollix this was always going to pass.
As a resident of Biggin Hill who has lived within 400 yds of the end of the runway for over 30 years I am quite happy with the new proposals. When I moved here I did notice the airport and expected some noise. In practice I rarely hear aircraft so I don’t see the odd aircraft movement earlier or later making any difference. The possibility of extra jobs ensuring a future thriving community probably will be noticed though.
Last edited: 4:36pm Thu 26 Nov 15
Erm, this may come as a shock to you, but aircraft don’t just fly over places near the runway, they fly over other peoples homes several miles away as well.
You chose to live near the airport, the rest of us did not.
Thank goodness this is over.
Now residents can get some long-overdue improvements and safeguards.
For too long Flightpath has stirred up residents into shouting a noisy “NO” to any Lease changes – even when it became clear that the Lease was failing to protect residents and that ONLY a re-negotiated Lease could provide residents with better protection.
The new Lease is supposed to have at least 18 new clauses dealing with things like:
– Actual flightpath
– Limiting noisy and large jets
– Installing noise-monitoring equipment
– Managing passenger numbers
– Differential fees/penalties for larger or noisier aircraft
And, as reported by the NS, Councillors debated the level of fines for breaches such as arriving late.
Currently there is nothing worse than a stern letter from the Council !!!
As long as the new controls are applied, then hopefully fewer people will “notice” the Airport at all.
Last edited: 1:17pm Fri 27 Nov 15