Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports National Policy Statement

Transcription

1 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports National Policy Statement Date: 25 May 2017 Status: FINAL

2 Contents Executive Summary... 2 Introduction Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Appendix 1: Paragraph by Paragraph Response to the Draft NPS Appendix 2: Detailed comments on Air Quality Appendix 3: Detailed comments on Habitats Regulations Assessment i

3 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS Executive Summary We welcome the publication of the draft Airports National Policy Statement (the draft NPS) as a critical milestone in delivering expansion at Heathrow. We support, of course, the decisive endorsement of a new Northwest Runway at Heathrow as the only genuine option for meeting the UK s hub capacity needs. Heathrow is the trade and tourist gateway to all of the UK and its only hub airport. Expansion will enable more tourists and investors to travel to Britain and ensure Britain s exporters can travel to new markets and sell their goods and expertise to the world. A 50% increase in flights will bring new long-haul, short-haul and domestic routes to Heathrow and allow us to continue to offer best-in-class service and facilities at the airport. Expansion will deliver up to 40 new long-haul routes, 6 new domestic routes and an increase in competition and choice on our existing network. Heathrow, already Britain s biggest port, will double the cargo capacity with expansion, enabling international trade and investment with new markets creating thousands of new jobs in every region and nation of the UK. Only Heathrow expansion can deliver these crucial benefits for the UK. The NPS will represent the culmination of an exhaustive study of options for growth. The quality and depth of the evidence base compiled by the Airports Commission and by the Government s own research has provided a solid platform for the NPS to launch the next phase of activity: the preparation of a Development Consent Order (DCO) application. We propose to develop our plans through close consultation with statutory consultees and the wider Heathrow community. We welcome the rigorous approach to the assessment of the application which is proposed in the draft NPS. We have no fundamental concerns with the draft NPS and our representations are intended to be constructive in order to assist the Government in its drafting of the final NPS, which has such an important role to play in providing a framework for the assessment of our DCO application and in delivering the additional aviation capacity that Britain urgently needs. In summary, our response highlights three issues of principle, as follows: i. The need case could be set out more clearly, drawing out more definitively the link on this matter with the Aviation Policy Framework (APF). We have therefore suggested a restructuring of Chapters 2 and 3 of the NPS to assist the legibility of the Government s principal decision to support the Northwest Runway. In particular, we suggest that Chapter 2 could be more closely structured by reference to national policy in the APF, which identifies the characteristics of the need for additional aviation capacity in the UK. These characteristics are satisfied through an expansion of the UK s hub capacity, as it is the growth of hub capacity which generates the connectivity with existing and growing markets the country urgently needs. Recognising the 2

4 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS ii. iii. nature of that need and the necessary credentials of suitable candidate options would allow Chapter 3 to establish even more robustly that a Northwest Runway at Heathrow is the only suitable option; The scope of the draft NPS could be made clearer, insofar as it relates to Heathrow. The intended scope of the draft NPS should be clear, in particular, on whether this is an NPS just for the Northwest Runway at Heathrow or whether, as we had anticipated and believe to be the case, it is an NPS which sets Government policy for new runway capacity in the South East. This latter approach would be more consistent with the expectation in existing Government policy set out in the APF but, in either event, the scope should be more clearly defined; and The draft NPS is selective in its description of what forms the scheme for the new runway. At the same time, some of the components which are included are also too prescriptive as to their specific nature and location. The NPS could be more precise about the expected scope of the application (e.g. ancillary and associated development) and less prescriptive in other areas (e.g. precise runway length and terminal location). We have also carefully considered the questions posed by the Government as part of this consultation and, in addition to the principal points raised above, a summary of our key comments and recommendations is set out below. It is our view that the NPS should: recognise that, whilst the principle of a Northwest Runway has been accepted, the full scope of the application and the detail of its design and layout should evolve through a full process of engagement, consultation, environmental appraisal and scheme design against the principles established in the NPS; provide a specification for the performance of the Northwest Runway as a new full length runway of sufficient length to enable an increase of at least 260,000 additional air transport movements per annum and be able to accommodate the largest commercial aircraft, without prescribing its precise length; recognise the potential for a DCO application to include ancillary and associated development including development which mitigates the loss of displaced uses where appropriate; acknowledge that proposals for the early release of air traffic movements (ATMs) may be promoted as part of a DCO application but would need to be the subject of full consultation, environmental assessment and mitigation against the principles of the NPS; set out more clearly the relationship between the DCO process and the separate process for airspace change which would follow any DCO approval; explicitly acknowledge the in principle acceptability of the Northwest Runway scheme within the Green Belt in order to confirm that the 3

5 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS planning test of very special circumstances has been met given the truly national significance of the project; adjust its policy requirement requiring the replacement of Green Belt land lost to the development to be consistent with national planning policies; recognise the applicability of affordability considerations throughout the policy development and consenting process, and that such considerations are not just limited to the applicant in developing its scheme; and recognise that it may be necessary to use compulsory acquisition powers as a last resort to achieve the objectives of the NPS. As Sir Howard Davies, the Chair of the Airports Commission, himself said about Heathrow, in our view the airport can get better if it becomes bigger. The emerging policy framework enshrines many of the commitments we have already made including: ambitious mode share targets to limit traffic to existing levels; world class commitments to community compensation; connecting the whole of the UK to international growth opportunities; and wide ranging environmental mitigation in order to ensure a sustainable future for Heathrow and the wider community. We therefore fully support the publication of the draft NPS as a plan that supports Heathrow s expansion with a new Northwest Runway and which provides the policy framework for considering a future DCO application for that runway. 4

6 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS Introduction We are pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the draft NPS. We welcome the support in the draft NPS for the expansion of Heathrow Airport with a new Northwest Runway. The draft provides a strong starting point but, inevitably, there is scope to improve its detailed wording in some areas, to ensure that it provides the clearest framework for the delivery of the additional runway capacity that Britain urgently needs. Our response is intended to assist the Department for Transport (DfT) in optimising the NPS for these purposes. Our response is structured as follows: an Executive Summary responses to the questions set out in the consultation form (this document) a detailed appendix which provides a paragraph by paragraph response to the draft NPS itself (Appendix 1) an appendix on Air Quality (Appendix 2) an appendix on the Habitats Regulations Assessment (Appendix 3) There are a number of matters raised in the individual chapters of the draft NPS to which the nine questions do not specifically refer. Where appropriate, we have set out our views on these matters in our detailed Appendix 1, which either comments directly on issues raised by the draft NPS or suggests alternative wording that may be appropriate for the NPS. 5

7 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS 1. Question 1: The Government believes that there is the need for additional airport capacity in the South East of England by Please tell us your views We agree with the Government s conclusion in the draft NPS that there is clear and strong evidence that there is a need to increase capacity in the South East of England by 2030 by constructing one new runway The Government bases its conclusions on the work of the Airports Commission, on the information received from stakeholders in response to the Airports Commission's work and on the Government s own subsequent assessments. We agree with the Government s conclusion that the Airports Commission's evidence base on the case for Heathrow s expansion is conclusive. However, that case could be even more decisively stated In particular, we consider that the NPS could be more clearly drafted in Chapter 2 to set out the specific nature of the need for new runway capacity (rather than providing a general expression of the need) and that this would then provide a more transparent foundation and structure for the next chapter of the draft NPS, which explains the Government s decision to support the Northwest Runway at Heathrow We are mindful that Chapter 2 of the NPS should have two critically important functions: i. to settle, as a matter of policy, that there is a need for the construction of a new runway in the South East; and ii. to be clear about the nature of that need in order that this can properly inform Chapter 3 of the NPS which (as paragraph 2.32 states) sets out how the Government has identified the most effective and appropriate way to address the identified need Clarity, therefore, is important In reality the need identified by the Airports Commission and endorsed by Government in Chapter 2 is more explicit and exact than merely a need to increase capacity in the South East of England by 2030 by constructing one new runway. Expressing the nature of the need clearly and, in particular, anchoring that need by reference to Government policy, would assist public understanding of the NPS and of its identification of a new Northwest Runway at Heathrow as the only realistic means of meeting that need Whilst the need for a new runway in the South East is emphasised by the Airports Commission, it is important to recognise that the nature of that need, and the solution required to meet the need, is already the subject of up to date Government policy, set out particularly in the APF of March The NPS will represent the completion of a process which was confirmed in the Foreword to the APF a determination to establish up to date national policy for aviation 1 draft NPS, paragraph

8 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS through a combination of the APF itself and through the Government s ultimate response to the work of the independent Airports Commission. It is the APF which provides the policy as paragraph 2 of the APF Executive Summary explains: By defining the Government s objectives and policies on the impacts of aviation, the APF sets out the parameters within which the Airports Commission will work It is important to state and understand, therefore, what it is that existing Government policy considers important about aviation and what objectives it expects any new runway capacity to deliver for aviation. The NPS implements that existing Government policy and should be very obviously guided by the Government s established policy objectives for aviation, so that it forms part of a consistent suite of policy We are aware of the intention to revise the APF but we anticipate that the identification of the need for runway capacity and its benefits, and indeed many aspects of that policy that are inextricably linked to the draft NPS, will not change from the current policy expressed in the APF In this context, the APF is clear that: Aviation needs to grow, delivering the benefits essential to our economic wellbeing In order to achieve this, the objectives which the APF sets for new capacity are clear. In particular, the APF sets out that growth should enable the following to be achieved: i. International connectivity. The APF states that the challenge of maintaining the UK s international connectivity for future generations is crucial to securing our long-term economic growth 4, and that Our long term objective remains to ensure that the UK s air links continue to make it one of the best connected countries in the world. This includes increasing our links to emerging markets so that the UK can compete for economic growth opportunities 5. Thus the APF identifies that there is a need to enhance the UK s connectivity by maintaining and consolidating existing, and providing new, routes to international markets; ii. Direct Economic and Passenger Benefits. The APF states that The Government s primary objective is to achieve long term economic growth 6 and goes on to state that the Government supports competition as an effective way to meet the interests of air passengers and other users 7. 2 Aviation Policy Framework, paragraph 2. 3 Aviation Policy Framework, Foreword. 4 Aviation Policy Framework, paragraph Aviation Policy Framework, paragraph Aviation Policy Framework, paragraph 5. 7 Aviation Policy Framework, paragraph 8. 7

9 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS iii. iv. This indicates that new capacity should maximise the direct economic and passenger benefits available from aviation; Wider Economic Benefits. The APF identifies the myriad of wider economic benefits supported by the enhanced connectivity that capacity expansion can bring. These include enhanced access to markets and new business opportunities through improved connectivity 8, as well as a recognition that excellent connectivity helps sustain clusters of specialised high-value industries in the UK 9, and that expansion of routes will benefit businesses and passengers alike, supporting jobs and growth 10 ; Freight. The APF notes that air freight is particularly important for supporting export-led growth in sectors where the goods are of high value or time critical 11. Capacity growth should support the air freight industry in order to maximise the contribution it can make to the UK economy; v. Domestic Connectivity. The APF states that the Government recognises the very important role airports across the UK play in providing domestic and international connections and the vital contribution they can make to the growth of regional economies 12. Capacity expansion should support enhanced domestic connectivity within the UK; and vi. Family, Friends and Tourism. The APF states that the Government believes continuing to make UK tourism more attractive is a better approach both for residents and attracting new visitors 13 ; it also notes that in an increasingly globalised society visiting friends and relatives is an increasingly important reason for flying 14, demonstrating the importance of UK aviation capacity in supporting tourism and personal connections globally. Again, expansion should maximise these important characteristics of connectivity The runway option that most closely meets these objectives will be the runway option best able to meet Government policy Of all of these objectives, the APF identifies clearly that it is connectivity with existing and growing markets that is the key to unlocking and delivering the other benefits of aviation. For example, paragraph 1.46 of the APF puts the importance of connectivity as highly as this: The UK s continued economic success depends on being able to connect with the countries and locations that are of most benefit to our economy Aviation Policy Framework, paragraph Aviation Policy Framework, paragraph Aviation Policy Framework, paragraph Aviation Policy Framework, paragraph Aviation Policy Framework, paragraph Aviation Policy Framework, paragraph Aviation Policy Framework, paragraph Aviation Policy Framework, paragraph

10 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS Figure 1.1 of the APF is included within the APF to show that Heathrow s service patterns reflect the UK s trade patterns 16 and paragraph 8 of the Executive Summary particularly welcomes the establishment of new routes to developed and emerging markets the example is given here of new routes from the UK to Vietnam and Guangzhou in China as evidence of the potential for UK airports to connect with growing markets and support the UK s economic growth17. Paragraphs 1.36 to 1.39 of the APF are devoted to the importance of connectivity and they set out the following as a matter of Government policy: i. aviation significantly benefits the UK because it provides us with excellent access to the rest of the world and brings us closer within the UK 18 ; ii. the broader the range of destinations served and the higher the frequency of flights to and from those destinations, the better connected an airport, city or country is 19 ; and, as a consequence iii. hub airports play an important role in providing international connectivity, especially to long-haul destinations, including emerging economies It is against this background that the APF sets out the role for the Airports Commission: The Airports Commission was established in September 2012 with the remit of recommending how the UK can maintain its status as a global aviation hub and maintain our excellent international connectivity for generations to come It is unsurprising therefore, that the Airports Commission was established by the Government with very specific Terms of Reference. Its task was not just to examine the case for any airport capacity but specifically: "The Airports Commission will examine the scale and timing of any requirement for additional capacity to maintain the UK's position as Europe's most important aviation hub, and it will identify and evaluate how any additional capacity should be met in the short, medium and long term." 22 (emphasis added) The emphasis in the Airports Commission s work on connectivity being achieved through hub capacity is a direct consequence of existing national aviation policy established for the reasons set out in the APF. 16 Aviation Policy Framework, figure 1.1; paragraph Aviation Policy Framework, paragraph Aviation Policy Framework, paragraph Aviation Policy Framework, paragraph Aviation Policy Framework, paragraph Aviation Policy Framework, paragraph Airports Commission Final Report, paragraph

11 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS The Airports Commission Interim Report identified that there was not a binary choice between providing additional hub capacity or additional point-to-point capacity23. The Final Report then concluded that, whilst there was spare capacity for point-to-point flights in South East England, Heathrow, the UK's sole hub airport, is already full Accordingly, the need is for hub capacity, not simply a need for aviation capacity in the South East. Overall, some capacity still exists within the London airports sector: forecasts suggest London s airports will be at full capacity by and that forecast demand will outstrip the capacity by 13-15% by 2050, even on the lowest demand forecast 26. However, there has been evidence for some time that the lack of hub capacity in the UK is already having significant adverse impacts, including: increasing price competition for slots at Heathrow with consequent pressure on air fares 27 ; a resulting decrease in domestic connectivity as competition for slots encourages airlines to prioritise more profitable routes 28 ; and risks of delays and unnecessary carbon emissions from stacking arising from current runway capacity constraints at the UK s hub airport, Heathrow, which has been operating at 98% runway capacity for more than 10 years (the maximum capacity that is practicably sustainable, and with little or no resilience capacity to allow for adverse weather or operating conditions) This is resulting in challenges to the UK s economy and hub status, as competitors such as Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam and the Middle East each having hub airports with greater capacity are able to attract new flights to growth markets such as China and South America 30. The UK is becoming less competitive as its hub status is increasingly threatened. Recognising all of these factors as characteristics of the need for a particular type of aviation capacity would significantly strengthen the NPS The draft NPS highlights the importance of aviation it contributes 20 billion annually to the UK economy, directly employing around 230,000 people and creating jobs and growth in key sectors such as financial services 31. However, it is the fact that London s airports serve more routes than any other European city that facilitates the trade, tourism and foreign investment that delivers jobs and economic growth. 23 Airports Commission Interim Report, paragraph Airports Commission Final Report, Foreword. 25 Airports Commission Final Report, Foreword. 26 draft NPS, paragraph Airports Commission Final Report, paragraph Ibid. 29 Taking Britain Further, page Airports Commission Final Report, paragraph draft NPS, paragraph

12 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS The UK is in a global competition for trade, jobs, investment and economic growth. Direct air connections support economic growth. Where there is no daily flight from Heathrow, for example, the rate of growth in UK trade is substantially lower. Economic benefits flow from the movement of people (including those directly engaged in generating economic activity) and air freight, all fostered by direct connections Connections to long-haul markets are important to Britain s competitiveness and will become increasingly important as the UK departs from the EU. The fastest growing markets of the next 50 years will be in Asia, Latin America and North America, while traditional markets in Europe face a slower growth future 33. That is why the UK s competitors are investing in their airports, and in one type of airport in particular: the hub Hub airports are proven the world over to be the most effective way to deliver economic connectivity, and particularly long-haul connectivity. They are the only airports that support frequent and direct long-haul flights. By combining direct passengers, transfer passengers and freight they can fill long-haul aircraft and serve destinations that cannot be served by airports which rely on local demand alone. Transfer passengers at a hub airport allow the UK to connect to countries to which it could not otherwise sustain a direct daily flight. Airlines use price sensitive transfer passengers to smooth out the variability of origin-destination demand, enabling high load factors across all hours of the day, all days of the week and all months of the year. Belly-hold cargo typically contributes an important 5-10% of revenue on long-haul passenger flights, reducing the volume of passengers required to make a flight commercially viable. Many routes would not be viable without the transfer passengers and freight that a hub airport provides The UK s European competitors continue to add the capacity necessary to connect to emerging markets by expanding their hub airports. All four of Heathrow s competitor European hub airports Paris, Frankfurt, Madrid and Amsterdam have enough runway capacity to serve around 700,000 flights per year each 35. Heathrow is capped at 480,000 flights. The UK is losing new route growth to other hubs in Europe and beyond, and existing routes risk being squeezed out of Heathrow by commercial incentives for airlines to consolidate growing demand on the most profitable routes. All four of our major European competitors are adding destinations to emerging markets that the UK cannot because Heathrow s runways are at capacity, whilst other UK airports have been unable to establish or sustain routes to new long-haul destinations 36. Ironically, European hubs are often adding routes on the back of the UK market: the UK s regional airports are now better connected to our European 32 Employment impacts from growth at Heathrow, Frontier Economics (May 2014), pages For example, Oxford Economic Forecasting's latest predictions are for European GDP growth averaging just 1.5% per annum over the next 10 years, compared to 1.7% for the US, 2.7% for the world as a whole, and 5.4% for China. To 2050, the furthest that OEF forecast, the growth rates are 1.1% (EU), 1.5% (US), 4.0% (China) and 2.4% world. 34 Taking Britain Further, sections 1.1 to Taking Britain Further, page Taking Britain Further Volume 1, page

13 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS competitors than to Heathrow because of the capacity constraints at the UK s hub 37. The use of overseas hubs by UK passengers decreases the UK s direct connectivity to the world. By off-shoring this connectivity, the UK misses out on economic benefits In 2013 the OECD published a discussion paper on airport capacity expansion strategies, which confirmed that London is under-performing in long-haul connectivity relative to its market 38. The OECD s paper indicates that Heathrow ought to be operating to at least 20 more long-haul destinations 39 and probably many more given London is widely considered to be Europe's most global city. This assessment aligns closely with an assessment undertaken by Frontier Economics on behalf of Heathrow, which found that there are 25 emerging market destinations with daily flights from European hubs that are not served from Heathrow 40. London needs more economically robust long-haul routes to compete in the race for global connectivity and these can only be secured by providing more capacity at a hub airport Building the right type of capacity is therefore critically important. Hub and pointto-point airports do different things; hubs can more readily support both longhaul business destinations and leisure travel, whereas point-to-point airports primarily serve short-haul and leisure destinations. The South East s point-topoint airports will not be full until at least 2040, with capacity still existing at Gatwick and Stansted but there is an urgent need now for hub capacity. That need is pent up in the sense that the UK has no spare hub capacity. The Airports Commission estimated that the UK s hub capacity was exhausted in Meeting that need should be an urgent national priority The Airports Commission also very clearly established the consequences of not meeting the need. From paragraph 3.21 of its report, the Commission systematically established that a failure to meet the need for additional hub capacity would have significant dis-benefits for the UK in relation to: airport resilience; delays; reduced competition and increased fares; declining domestic connectivity as UK destinations are priced out by long-haul flights on high yielding routes; increasing threats to the UK s hub status; and consequent substantial impacts on the wider economy In a carbon constrained world where new runway capacity is being justified on the basis of the economic benefits that it brings to the UK, it is essential that any new capacity delivered optimises the potential to achieve those benefits which can uniquely be provided by the right type of airport capacity. The NPS should be very clear about this Chapter 2 of the draft NPS might helpfully be restructured, therefore, to define more clearly the nationally important need to which it is responding the need demonstrated through the work of the Airports Commission for hub airport 37 Taking Britain Further, page Airport Capacity Expansion Strategies in the era of Airline Multi-hub Networks, ITF/OECD (2013), page 9, footnote Forecasting Airport Demand: Review of UK Airports Commission Forecasts and Scenarios, ITF (2015), Figure 2a. For example, London is considered by AT Kearney to be the world s most global city, and Europe s most global city in terms of outlook. From Global Cities 2016, AT Kearney. 40 Connecting for growth: the role of Britain s hub airport in economic recovery, Frontier Economics (2011), page

14 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS capacity to meet the objectives established by the APF summarised in the headings listed at paragraph above. In responding to draft Chapter 3 (in the response to Question 2 below), we propose to use these headings as the appropriate headings for establishing whether an option can meet Government policy we suggest that the final version of the NPS might do the same. The present draft perhaps misses an opportunity to do this sufficiently clearly whilst the second half of draft Chapter 2 is in fact concerned with matters other than establishing the need for additional capacity. Those latter elements of Chapter 2 may be better placed as an introduction to Chapter 3, so that Chapter 2 serves its primary purpose to settle that there is a need for a new runway in the South East and then to establish beyond any doubt the characteristics of that need (and, therefore, the necessary qualities of the most appropriate solution), so that Chapter 3 can be clear on the characteristics it is seeking from a new runway Any new runway should, of course, in addition address important environmental and community objectives (and these are addressed in Chapter 3 of the draft NPS) but these matters do not define the need for the runway, rather they describe how it should be delivered. There would be no purpose in selecting a runway that did not meet the need which underpins the whole purpose of Government policy In this context, our detailed paragraph by paragraph comments in Appendix 1 respond to the current draft of the NPS and indicate where we consider that change may be appropriate. Our recommendations We recommend that: Chapter 2 of the NPS should be restructured to define more precisely the nationally important need to which the NPS is responding the need established in existing Government policy in the APF and confirmed through the work of the Airports Commission namely the need for hub capacity to achieve the following: i. enhanced international connectivity to ensure that the UK s air links continue to make it one of the best connected countries in the world; ii. iii. iv. maximise the direct economic and passenger benefits available from aviation; secure the wider economic benefits that flow from enhanced connectivity, including enhanced access to markets and new business opportunities; support the air freight industry in order to maximise the contribution it can make to the UK economy; v. support enhanced domestic connectivity in order to connect the UK s nations and regions to growth opportunities; and vi. maximise the ability of UK aviation to support tourism and personal connections globally. 13

15 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS 2. Question 2: Please give us your views on how best to address the issue of airport capacity in the south east of England by We believe that the Northwest Runway is the best and, in fact, the only way of addressing the identified need for airport capacity in the South East of England by 2030, that is to say, hub airport capacity meeting the needs and objectives of the APF, all as expressed in our answer to Question 1 above Chapter 3 of the draft NPS sets out a convincing rationale for the selection of the Northwest Runway at Heathrow as the scheme which: i. provides the biggest boost to connectivity, particularly in terms of long-haul flights 41 ; ii. provides benefits to passengers and to the wider economy sooner than the other schemes 42 ; iii. delivers the greatest support for freight 43 ; iv. secures new domestic routes to the benefit of passengers and businesses across the UK 44, and v. delivers the greatest strategic and economic benefits, and is therefore the most effective and appropriate way of meeting the needs case We respectfully agree and we set out in this part of our response information which reinforces the Government s declared preference. In doing so, we have structured our response by reference to the headings of need we have distilled for Chapter 2 of the draft NPS (listed at paragraph of our response to Question 1). If the NPS could be structured in Chapter 2 (as we suggest) to clearly establish the defining characteristics of the identified need, Chapter 3 could test alternatives more directly against those required characteristics, and even more clearly set out the reasons for selecting the Northwest Runway at Heathrow In this context, we particularly support paragraph 3.11 of the draft NPS where it states that: the Government has concluded that the other shortlisted schemes do not represent true alternatives to the preferred scheme. 41 draft NPS, paragraph draft NPS, Paragraph draft NPS, paragraph draft NPS, paragraph draft NPS paragraph

16 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS We consider that statement would be more easily understood if the specific nature of the need for new capacity has been clearly set out in Chapter We set out our comments below on which runway option would best meet the need identified in Chapter 2 of the draft NPS International Connectivity We set out our comments below on which runway option would best meet the need identified in Chapter 2 of the draft NPS. The Airports Commission found that: "Ensuring that the UK maintains globally competitive international connectivity is crucial to the economic wellbeing of the country. Trade in both goods and services is increasingly dependent upon the ability to access long-haul markets, particularly in Asia. To meet the needs of UK businesses, adequate connections need to be available to attract high skilled workers from other markets." 46 The draft NPS rightly recognises that: "international connectivity, underpinned by strong airports and airlines, is important to the success of the UK economy. It is essential to allow domestic and foreign companies to access existing and new markets, and to help deliver trade and investment, linking us to valuable international markets and ensuring that the UK is open for business. It facilitates trade in goods and services, enables the movement of workers and tourists, and drives business innovation and investment, being particularly important for many of the fastest growing sectors of the economy." Heathrow, as the UK s only hub, accounts for around 20% of all flights from the UK but nearly 75% of long-haul flights. Heathrow is one of only five airports in the world serving more than 80 long-haul destinations on a regular basis. Passengers can fly to 60 destinations from Heathrow that are not served by any other UK airport of the UK s top 300 companies are located within 25 miles of Heathrow. The Thames Valley has 60% more international businesses than the national UK average. It is no coincidence that these companies and business clusters choose to locate close to the country s hub airport Ultimately, providing additional airport capacity will only deliver the increased connectivity and economic benefits that the country requires if airlines choose to operate the additional frequencies and new routes required. There is clear evidence that this is most likely to be achieved at Heathrow. 46 Airports Commission Final Report, paragraph draft NPS, paragraph data from 49 Taking Britain Further, page

17 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS The overwhelming response of airlines to the Airports Commission was to support the expansion of Heathrow, rather than Gatwick. For example, EasyJet submitted a response which stated: Expansion at Heathrow would provide the greatest passenger and economic benefits Heathrow is in the best interests of passengers as it has the greatest demand. It is clear that longhaul airlines want to expand at Heathrow and if they can t, they will do so not at Gatwick but at other airports such as Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt In fact, the majority of airlines operating out of Gatwick argue against its expansion. To demonstrate this, we can look at the demand for slots: Heathrow slots are clearly in greater demand and more valuable than those at Gatwick; the latest slot transaction at Heathrow between Air France/KLM and Oman Air valued slots at around 50m/pair ($75m/pair) 51, compared to the sale of 25 slots for less than 1m/pair by Flybe at Gatwick Evidence of airlines preference is not limited to their consultation responses. Despite spare capacity at Gatwick, it is Heathrow from which airlines choose to operate The reasons for this are clear. Heathrow is the UK s only hub airport, it is highly unlikely that another UK airport such as Gatwick could establish a second hub operation or deliver the long-haul connectivity required without the hub model The Airports Commission created five scenarios, which reflected how the aviation industry and global economy might develop over time, and tested how the three shortlisted schemes would perform against these scenarios 54 : Assessment of need, where future demand is primarily determined by central projections for economic growth and macroeconomic factors; Global growth, which sees higher global growth in demand for air travel in the future, coupled with lower operating costs; Relative decline of Europe, with higher relative growth of passenger demand in emerging economies and stronger Far and Middle Eastern hubs and airlines; Low cost is king, where low cost carriers strengthen their position in the short-haul market and capture a substantial share of the long-haul market; and Global fragmentation, in which protectionist policies, a decline in passenger demand across all world regions and high operating costs are seen. 50 EasyJet response to the Airports Commission consultation. 51 Oman Air Annual Report (2016), page 564, Intangible Assets; page 81, Note Flybe Annual Report ( ) 53 Forecasting Airport Demand: Review of UK Airports Commission Forecasts and Scenarios, ITF (2015) 54 Airports Commission Final Report, page

18 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS Some of the model scenarios speculated that a second hub could be developed in the UK or that, in the future, long-haul connections might be achieved on a point-to-point basis, for instance through new low cost carrier models 55. This helps to explain why some model scenarios suggested that economic benefit could be derived from Gatwick s expansion, albeit at an overall lower level than that predicted in the case of Heathrow s expansion. However, it is important to consider the reality attached to that speculation The Airports Commission appointed the International Transport Forum (ITF) at the OECD to review the robustness of the forecasts and scenarios that the Airports Commission produced 56. The ITF report Forecasting Airport Demand: Review of UK Airports Commission Forecasts and Scenarios concluded that it is unlikely a second hub operation at Gatwick would be viable for the following reasons: studies have found that split hubs result in lower connectivity than strengthening the existing hub 57 ; there are a declining number of hub airports as airline consolidation results in rationalising networks away from smaller airports 58 ; neither BA nor Virgin has an appetite to develop a hub operation at Gatwick 59. BA has stated that it will not operate a split operation as it failed in the past. Virgin is unlikely to attempt to restart a short-haul operation after the experience of Little Red; and it is unlikely that a foreign airline hub network could be commercially viable The ITF report also found little evidence to suggest airlines are willing to locate long-haul point-to-point services at Gatwick: Heathrow s stronger local catchment area makes it more desirable even for point-to-point services 61 ; long-haul operators at Gatwick have moved to Heathrow when slots have become available (such as Vietnam Airlines) 62, although we acknowledge low cost Norwegian Airways has set up its London base (and its long-haul routes) at Gatwick; 55 The Global Growth scenario assumed that a secondary hub operation would be established at Gatwick after expansion, modelled as the Sky Team alliance relocating from Heathrow. The Low cost is King scenario assumed there would be a significant improvement in the viability of long-haul services after Gatwick expansion, modelled as a third of Heathrow s long-haul services also operating at Gatwick. Strategic Fit: Updated Forecasts, Airports Commission (2015). 56 Forecasting Airport Demand: Review of UK Airports Commission Forecasts and Scenarios, ITF (2015). 57 Ibid, page Ibid, page British Airways response to the Airports Commission Public Consultation on new runway capacity in the South East, 3rd February Taken from Ibid, page 5, section Ibid, page Ibid, page Ibid, page

19 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS long-haul demand is more likely to be met by even larger planes at Heathrow or additional routes at other hub airports than by operating routes at Gatwick 63 ; there is a high level of uncertainty around the long-term viability of longhaul low cost carriers A significant proportion of the long-haul routes which currently operate from Gatwick connect to predominantly outbound leisure destinations. In July 2016, Gatwick claimed to serve more than 50 long-haul destinations; of these, 23 were considered predominantly outbound leisure destinations By contrast, a study undertaken for Heathrow by Frontier Economics draws the following conclusions 66 : by 2030, the expansion of Heathrow could facilitate up to 40 new connections for London 67 ; of these 40 new routes, 15 are likely to grow sufficiently quickly to become frequent connections 68 ; in addition, there are 21 routes currently served less frequently that could expand to provide frequent connections by 2030 given sufficient airport capacity. All these routes connect London to emerging economies 69 ; passengers choice of connections is increased to a much greater extent by expanding Heathrow than expanding Gatwick. Heathrow expansion is likely to enable almost six times more direct connections than expansion of Gatwick, while frequent connections would be twice as high 70 ; expanding Heathrow would lead to a much higher level of connectivity to high growth economies than expanding Gatwick Airport Similar conclusions were reached by the Airports Commission. It found that Gatwick expansion would, of course, deliver capacity but that that capacity would be more likely to result in primarily short-haul and European links, with only four new daily long-haul destinations established by By contrast, Heathrow expansion would drive significant connectivity benefits 73 and would deliver up to 12 additional daily long-haul destinations 74 and 14 million extra seats 75. The Commission concluded that: 63 Ibid, page Forecasting Airport Demand: Review of UK Airports Commission Forecasts and Scenarios, ITF (2015), page CAA Passenger survey data. 66 Impact of airport expansion options on competition and choice, Frontier Economics (2014). 67 Ibid, Table 1, page Ibid. 69 Ibid. 70 Impact of airport expansion options on competition and choice, Frontier Economics (2014), page Impact of airport expansion options on competition and choice, Frontier Economics (2014), page Airports Commission Final Report, Table Airports Commission Final Report, paragraph Airports Commission Final Report, Table Airports Commission Final Report, Figure

20 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS The degree of global connectivity and the wider impacts on the UK economy created by expansion at Heathrow could not be delivered by a second runway at Gatwick Heathrow s hub status and resulting transfer passengers means it is much easier for airlines at Heathrow to add and sustain long-haul connections than at Gatwick. This is supported by the data 77 - Gatwick now operates the same number of long-haul connections as it did in Between 2010 and June 2016, Gatwick saw a net loss in long-haul routes despite having available capacity, whereas Heathrow has seen a net gain in a period when it has been capacity constrained The frequency of routes is also key to maintaining trade links. In July 2016, Gatwick was only able to sustain nine daily long-haul routes, compared to Heathrow s 52 (of a total of 83). At that time, the 51 long-haul routes which Gatwick reported as serving included routes such as Phuket and Capetown, with only 18 and 7 services a year respectively The destinations in the USA (which is the most popular long-haul country destination from London) offered from Gatwick are either predominantly leisure destinations (Orlando; Fort Lauderdale; Tampa; Las Vegas) or are primary cities served by a limited number of frequencies per week (New York, Los Angeles, Boston). For each of these primary city routes, Heathrow offers a significantly more frequent service Furthermore, by examining the new destinations to which an expanded Heathrow or Gatwick could connect, the evidence indicates that Heathrow would enable the UK to link to destinations with 10 times higher GDP than an expanded Gatwick. New connections from Heathrow would create direct connections to nearly $3 trillion of additional GDP, compared to just $300 billion at Gatwick. Expansion of Heathrow would connect the UK to the majority of the world s leading cities with a combined GMP of $24 trillion (more than 70% of global city GMP, up from 50% today) It is Heathrow that connects the UK to growth today and it will be an expanded Heathrow that connects the UK to growth in the future Direct economic and passenger benefits The Airports Commission estimated the discounted direct passenger benefits of Heathrow's Northwest Runway expansion scheme to be 49.2bn, compared to 43.9bn for Gatwick's second runway 82. These relatively close conclusions need, however, to be examined. 76 Airports Commission Final Report, paragraph New and lost long-haul routes at Heathrow and Gatwick over the period , Frontier Economics (2016). 78 Extracted from Airport IS Data, Summer 2007 vs. Summer New and lost long-haul routes at Heathrow and Gatwick over the period , Frontier Economics (2016). 80 Frontier Economics research, based on the industry standard Official Airline Guide (OAG) and International Air Transport Association (IATA) data between 2010 and Publicly available airline data. 82 Economy: Transport Economic Efficiency Impacts, Airports Commission (2015), Tables 4.1 and

21 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS As discussed above, Heathrow is where there is the greatest demand and only Heathrow can provide the hub capacity and connectivity that the UK needs. Therefore, it might seem surprising that there was not a wider variance between the direct passenger benefits calculated for Heathrow and Gatwick. The explanation lies in the modelling framework adopted by the DfT and used by the Airports Commission. We have identified a number of areas where the modelling could be improved to better capture the dynamics of the hub, in order to fully demonstrate the benefits of Heathrow expansion, which are underestimated in the existing model. In particular, the existing DfT model: assumes that adding new capacity at either airport will reduce the excess fares at Heathrow (and this is the principal basis on which direct benefits are calculated); assumes hub and point-to-point capacity are interchangeable; does not fully reflect a hub s ability to improve flight viability; does not reflect material changes in the overall UK demand due to different expansion options; and underestimates low cost carriers desire to operate from Heathrow The DfT model adopted by the Airports Commission principally calculates direct economic benefits by expressing these as passenger benefits which would be achieved through an estimated reduction in the cost of flying from Heathrow, wherever the new capacity is provided At present, the inconvenience and congestion coupled with the higher prices flowing from a full Heathrow Airport are calculated as a dis-benefit that would only be removed through the release of new capacity. Critically, the DfT model appears to assume that adding new capacity at either Heathrow or Gatwick would reduce excess fares at Heathrow, since it is assumed simplistically that in the case of Gatwick expansion, new routes would successfully operate from Gatwick just as much as from Heathrow. This ignores the economics of new routes enabled at the hub airport, which would indicate that it is more likely that expansion at Gatwick would only add more point-to-point capacity for which there is currently no shortage and for which, therefore, a much smaller cost reduction (if any) would be achieved. Demand for hub capacity would remain, and would continue to drive excess fares higher at Heathrow. The economic benefits of Gatwick expansion, therefore, have been substantially overestimated The model assumes that hub capacity and point-to-point capacity are interchangeable it uses artificial seeding in some scenarios to incorrectly assume that long-haul routes are equally viable in both hub and point-to-point scenarios. Applying hub characteristics to the Gatwick expansion scenario (i.e. point-to-point) overestimates an increase in passengers and connectivity, thus overestimating the economic benefit The model also does not reflect the benefits of optimising the existing operation as a result of expansion. In the expansion scenario, airlines would be able to re- 20

22 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS schedule their existing flights to the optimum time for local demand and connections, increasing passenger volumes and improving efficiency. Optimising the existing two-runway hub operation at Heathrow would have greater benefits than optimising the one-runway point-to-point operation at Gatwick The Airports Commission did not provide details of the routes assumed to be operated at each airport under the different expansion scenarios. This is important because different routes can generate very different economic benefits. For example, it is only through the provision of increased hub capacity that increased connectivity to emerging markets can be secured. New routes would not be commercially viable without the transfer passengers, premium (business) passengers and cargo provided by the hub operation. The absence of route details, and the application of hub characteristics to the Gatwick expansion scenario, risk over-stating the direct economic benefits of Gatwick expansion Whilst the details of the route viability thresholds used in the model are also not publicly available, the Airports Commission work appears to be based purely on passenger volumes and an assumption that volume would equally be generated at any expanded airport. Even if that was correct, the approach fails to take account of the critical issue of yield, i.e. of the value generated by higher paying premium passengers and of the additional contribution to yield from cargo. The model thus underestimates the number and frequency of routes resulting from Heathrow expansion, given its hub characteristics The Airports Commission s demand forecasts are similar under all considered expansion schemes, meaning that the model does not allow the total UK forecast to vary according to any specific expansion at individual airports. It effectively assumes that, because overall demand is forecast to increase, flights will naturally occur from any expanded airport irrespective of their unique attributes. The model does not therefore consider the fact that different airport expansion schemes will provide different net passenger benefits. The model ignores the critical consideration that only a hub airport could achieve the viability necessary for the routes to be flown. It also ignores the expressed attitude of airlines. This can be demonstrated by examples of where airlines have relocated routes from Gatwick to Heathrow on the basis of seeking superior hub connectivity; Garuda Indonesia and Vietnam Airlines have both switched in order to increase their service frequency from three to five flights per week and from two to three flights per week respectively The modelling of economic benefits also appears to have artificially constrained the operation of low cost carriers at Heathrow, for reasons which are not clear. Evidence commissioned on behalf of the Airports Commission, however, suggested that low cost carriers will support the significant competition benefits arising from a third runway at Heathrow, and, additionally, that low cost carriers may be more cautious about operating out of Gatwick if landing charges 83 Connecting for growth: the role of Britain s hub airport in economic recovery, Frontier Economics (2011). 21

23 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS increase to pay for expansion 84. In practice, Flybe has already started operating from Heathrow as of March 2017 and EasyJet confirmed in its submission to the Airports Commission that its preference is for expansion at Heathrow. Low cost carriers are increasingly targeting business passengers and are already operating from the main European hubs Whilst the Airports Commission s economic model was based on some simplistic assumptions, its written text was more discerning. In particular, the Commission recognised that Gatwick s expansion case was structured heavily around the assumed future needs of low cost carriers. Whilst it was said to be not impossible that the market could change to the extent that low cost carriers would make significant incursions into the long-haul market as demonstrated by the entry of Norwegian Airlines and its establishment of thick routes out of Gatwick 86 -the Commission concluded that: it would be imprudent to base a long-term infrastructure planning decision on uncertain developments of this kind For all of these reasons, the Airports Commission and the draft NPS understate the economic benefits and passenger benefits of expanding Heathrow, whilst risking the significant over-statement of the economic benefit of expansion at Gatwick. To a limited extent this is reflected in the draft NPS at paragraph 3.44 which notes that the Gatwick expansion would have comparatively higher demand risk. That recognition, however, did not translate into the headline economic forecasts for the alternative schemes. If those risks are realised and airlines did not respond in line with the theoretical modelling undertaken by the Airports Commission, virtually no economic benefit would derive from the expansion of Gatwick. Gatwick expansion would fail the APF policy objective to deliver the benefits essential to our economic wellbeing Wider economic benefits According to the DfT 89, Heathrow s expansion is forecast to bring an estimated total of between 59.2 and 61.1 billion in net present value over 60 years (under a carbon traded central scenario) of which 2.0 to 3.9 billion is attributed to wider economic benefits 90. An earlier estimate by the Airports Commission suggested an overall upside of 69.1 billion 91. The disparity between the two figures is attributed to the fact that the two methods used different calculations in valuing the wider economic impacts. The DfT estimate 84 Review of Submissions: Competition Impacts, Airports Commission (2015), page Forecasting Airport Demand: Review of UK Airports Commission Forecasts and Scenarios, ITF (2015), page Gatwick s model relies on the success of low cost long-haul point-to-point services flourishing. When fuel is cheap and the economy is fine, low cost, point-to-point travel flourishes on some thick routes but still unable to connect to emerging market economies, so offer no additional connectivity for the UK. This was the model for Freddie Laker s Skytrain, Braniff, PEOPLExpress, Zoom and FlyGlobeSpan. But when fuel costs rise or the economy slows, the model collapses and those airlines go bankrupt. Gatwick has only just got to the same level of long-haul routes as it had before the last recession. 87 Airports Commission Final Report, paragraph Aviation Policy Framework, Foreword. 89 Airport expansion: further review and sensitivities report, DfT (2016), table 7.1, page Airport expansion: further review and sensitivities report, DfT (2016), figure 5.2, page Airport Commission: Final report (2015), table 7.1, page

24 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS excludes increased productivity driven by trade, apparently for risk of doublecounting benefits. Whilst it can be argued that the first round of benefits for trading companies are already captured in greater passenger flows, the wider benefits from trade generally and from foreign direct investment (FDI) are not captured in the DfT s most recent figures. For the reasons set out below, this is considered unnecessarily cautious. These benefits are recognised and sought by the policy set out in the APF 92. It is important that Heathrow s advantages in this respect are captured and attributed full weight in the NPS In practice, greater connectivity facilitates trade and boosts economic growth. Hub airports demonstrate greater productivity gains from trade. As a hub airport, Heathrow s productivity gains from trade are expected to be greater than those at Gatwick: for example, while Gatwick serves mainly short-haul passengers, Heathrow s expansion is expected to increase long-haul services, which tend to support greater trade benefits in goods and services, including high value business and professional services by connecting firms with their clients As a hub airport, 29% of the UK s non-european Union trade by value 93 is handled at Heathrow. The absence of productivity gains from trade in the DfT s calculations mean that Heathrow s wider economic benefits from expansion are underplayed. Similarly, the productivity benefits of FDI should be reflected in the most recent quantified economic impacts, or at least be qualitatively weighed. The DfT s estimate undervalues the contribution of FDI productivity borne out of Heathrow s expansion. Additional aviation connectivity will enable new connections and reinforce existing ones, facilitating interactions between markets. Direct international flights supported by an expanded hub operation decrease communication costs across borders by reducing travel time and costs, thus encouraging the decision to invest abroad. Greater connectivity also reinforces existing investments. It facilitates knowledge and technology transfers, enables effective management oversight, strengthens supply chains and enables interactions between head office and subsidiaries which are necessary to effectively run an international business. The UK is the number one country for inward FDI in Europe and second in the world after the USA Maintaining the UK s hub status and enhancing international connectivity is key to maintaining this success. Achieving increased FDI would also be directly consistent with the objectives of the APF and wider Government economic policy. The NPS should be clearer in stating the benefits of FDI productivity created by an expanded hub operation at Heathrow The draft NPS also recognises the employment benefits of Heathrow relative to Gatwick expansion. Heathrow expansion will support the UK economy by creating up to 77,650 new jobs by 2030, compared with the Airports Commission s estimate for Gatwick of 6,537 jobs, with the lower number being accounted for by the forecast slower growth at Gatwick 95. Even these estimates 92 Aviation Policy Framework, paragraphs 1.36 to 'What are the top 5 UK/USA imports and exports via Heathrow?' Your Heathrow website, published 27th January UKTI Inward Investment Report , UK Trade and Investment (2014). 95 Local Economy: Impact Assessment Post Consultation Updates, Airports Commission (2015), paragraph 5.2 and

25 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS take no account of the secondary employment benefits of FDI and of the clustering of business which is apparent around Heathrow In light of the UK s decision to leave the EU, it is of course imperative to consider the implications of Brexit for expansion. A principal effect of Brexit is to render it even more important that the UK connects to the rest of the world, particularly long-haul connectivity to new trading partners. As demonstrated, Heathrow is best placed to deliver that connectivity, and this should be reflected in the NPS. The conclusion of the Airports Commission was based on forecasting a range of scenarios, including those which model comparable effects to Brexit. Additionally, Britain s long-term GDP growth prospects remain robust, which means that aviation demand will continue to grow. The UK s commitment to Brexit reinforces the importance of Heathrow s ability to connect with the rest of the world Freight Paragraphs 1.6 to 1.8 of the APF establish the importance of air freight to the UK economy as a matter of fact and national policy. Maximising that benefit should be an important objective in the selection of a new runway Paragraphs 3.23 and 3.36 of the draft NPS identify the exceptional importance of Heathrow to the UK s freight economy. Heathrow s superior international connectivity pays dividends in the freight market, allowing the airport to operate as a freight hub, consolidating loads to and from worldwide markets. Over 100 billion of goods travelled via Heathrow in 2014 more in value than the combined throughput of the UK s two biggest shipping ports, Felixstowe and Southampton. In 2015, 29% of non-eu UK exports by value travelled through the airport. 96 Heathrow s freight operation is around 20 times larger than Gatwick by tonnage and 200 times greater by value 97.In contrast to Heathrow, the prevalence of low cost carriers at Gatwick undermines its ability to achieve freight operations at volumes sufficient to meet the needs of the freight market % of air freight travels in the belly-hold of passenger aircraft at Heathrow and in November 2015 Heathrow announced its cargo blueprint to double cargo capacity at Heathrow with the benefit of a third runway 98. The addition of a third runway at Heathrow Airport was demonstrated by Frontier Economics to ease constraints on the freight operations, and therefore lead to the possibility of lower prices in the event of Heathrow expanding No alternative runway can deliver such benefits there is no realistic alternative if the objective of maximising freight is to be achieved. This conclusion is supported by the Airports Commission, which found that Heathrow is by some distance the most important freight airport in the country, reflecting the criticality 96 Source Calculation and Methodology, per-cent-soure.pdf 97 draft NPS, paragraph Heathrow s Cargo Strategy, Heathrow Airport Ltd (February 2016), pages 2 and Internal Research Paper, HAL 24

26 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS for the sector of a dense route network 100 and, in particular, a broad range of long-haul destinations. These attributes, combined with Heathrow s superior national location and connectivity to the strategic road network, indicate that the forecast freight benefits of Heathrow s expansion are substantially greater than those for Gatwick, whose location and thin route network limit its effectiveness as a national freight hub Domestic connectivity We have committed to a range of measures to support the growth of domestic routes at the nation s hub airport, including a 10m route development fund to provide seed funding for new routes. From January 2017, we introduced a 10 per passenger discount on domestic departing passenger charges 102. We have proposed these measures to support domestic connections to Heathrow This development is in the context of airlines support, where both EasyJet and Flybe have expressed interest in flying from an expanded Heathrow to a variety of regional airports. This would bring the prospect of increased competition on routes currently served, and boost connectivity to regions and nations such as the South West and Northern Ireland, and to cities such as Liverpool and Dundee, which currently rely on overseas rather than the national hub airports for their onward connectivity to the world It is also in the context of Heathrow s resilience in the domestic market. In contrast to Heathrow, Gatwick is not encumbered by slot constraints; however, since 2013, Gatwick has lost its routes to Manchester, Newcastle and Belfast City. It has never sustained a connection to Liverpool, Leeds Bradford or Durham Tees Valley. Today, Gatwick has only six domestic connections to UK mainland airports, and does not serve the north of England. This compares with Heathrow s eight domestic connections, three of which are to the north of England However, as an airport operator, Heathrow has limited control over how slots are used. The NPS fails to adequately reflect this at present. Under the current framework, the only mechanism for securing domestic routes permanently, for the benefit of regional communities and businesses, is for the Government to designate Public Service Obligation routes (PSOs). The designation of PSOs is governed by EU law, The Government currently use PSOs to support new and/or strategically important routes, including the funding of a route between Dundee and Schiphol, bringing vital connectivity to the city region but also supporting growth and route development in Amsterdam. The NPS should recognise this and provide clarity on the leadership role that Government must play in using these PSO powers to secure and protect routes, particularly those 100 A dense route network as opposed to a thin route network is one which connects to a high number of destinations at a high frequency. 101 Airports Commission Final Report, paragraph This discount was cited by Flybe as one of the reasons they are entering Heathrow in March 2017, bringing competition to the Edinburgh and Aberdeen routes. The 10 is made up of the 5 discount applied to all EU destinations, plus an additional 5 domestic discount. 25

27 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS thin or marginal routes which may never be commercially viable. We would support the inclusion of commitments to PSOs in the NPS We support the principle of ring-fencing capacity at Heathrow for domestic use. As EU Regulations on slot allocation are repatriated following the UK's departure from the EU, there presents an opportunity to secure domestic capacity in other ways that are currently prohibited by the EU legal framework. Changes to the PSO designation process could give the Government more control. Heathrow would also be willing to secure domestic capacity through the DCO if permitted by the UK's 'Brexit deal'. How much capacity should be protected, through what mechanism (including whether it is necessary to go beyond use of PSOs to deliver the desired outcome) and how it would be kept under review should be subject to further consultation and discussion with Government, airlines and other national stakeholders to ensure that new capacity at Heathrow is always put to best use. Heathrow hopes that the DfT will engage with these groups as it considers amendments to the post-eu legal framework Please see our response to paragraphs 3.29 to 3.33 in Appendix 1 for further detail Family, Friends and Tourism Connectivity facilitates connections with family and friends overseas. A country which offers such connectivity offers a higher quality of life and enhanced social benefits for an increasingly mobile and international world population. In this context, London is truly a world city. Enhanced international connectivity for family and friends brings clear social benefits, as well as marking the UK as an attractive destination for those living and working away from home. Heathrow s density of connections and its ability to connect through expansion with growing and distant economies provide significant benefits. This greater connectivity enhances the UK s ability to attract and retain international talent for the country s businesses and academic institutions Heathrow plays a crucial role in supporting the national policy objective to grow international tourism through the aviation industry 103. However, as outlined above, Heathrow s trade and investment benefits including the benefits from leisure and tourism have not been incorporated fully into the Airports Commission s work The tourism benefits of hub capacity expansion are clear. The economic benefit of inbound tourists is facilitated largely by Heathrow: data demonstrates that Heathrow serves 89% of all inbound long-haul leisure/tourist passengers that use London s airports including Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and City 104. This is due to the gains brought about by superior connectivity, facilitated by hub capacity. Any increase in international connectivity enabled by this capacity increase, particularly with new markets, offers opportunities for both increased 103 Aviation Policy Framework, paragraphs 1.15 to Passenger Survey, Civil Aviation Authority (2012). 26

28 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS inbound tourism but also an increased number of outbound leisure destinations for UK residents Heathrow delivers a tourism spending surplus for the UK by offering flights to destinations that attract foreign tourists to Britain. In contrast, the majority of airports in the UK are tailored to delivering outbound leisure services for UK residents that create a tourism spending deficit. Looking ahead, capacity expansion at Heathrow is needed to support the anticipated growth of inbound tourism, particularly from the East; the growth of East Asia s urban middle classes will drive demand for new long-haul routes to the UK from the East 106. Heathrow is already ahead in this market: Heathrow provides 56 connections per week to Hong Kong, compared to Gatwick s seven connections, and from summer 2017, Heathrow will provide four routes to the Chinese mainland, compared to Gatwick s two routes Countries and cities with better connected inter-continental hubs have higher levels of trade, foreign investment, tourism and, consequently, secure higher levels of employment and economic benefit. The NPS should reflect the capacity of Heathrow s expansion to further support international tourism and help future-proof the UK s leisure economy Meeting the UK s hub capacity needs The information provided above has been set out to supplement the analysis contained in the current draft Chapter 3 but also to structure a comparison between Heathrow and Gatwick against the appropriate headings of need derived from the APF. We respectfully suggest that the NPS should do the same to provide a clearer and even more conclusive explanation for its support of Heathrow as the appropriate airport to expand. Structured in this way and with the benefit of the information set out here, the conclusion would be emphatic Only Heathrow is able to meet the national need which is identified in current Government policy and which has been confirmed by the Airports Commission The Best Heathrow Option Whilst we agree with the Airports Commission and with the draft NPS that expansion of Heathrow rather than Gatwick is decisively the best option to meet national aviation policy and identified aviation needs, we are aware that a decision also needs to be made between the Northwest Runway at Heathrow and proposals for an Extended Northern Runway (ENR) Again, we considered the decision to be clear cut, principally for the reasons set out at paragraphs 3.53 to 3.57 of the draft NPS (which we endorse and support) and, in more detail, at paragraphs to of the Airports Commission s Final Report. 105 Taking Britain Further, Volume 1, page Urban World: Cities and the rise of the consuming class, McKinsey Global Institute (2012) 27

29 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS In addition to these matters, Heathrow s own assessment of the ENR option highlighted the following: i. the headline capacity deficit of the ENR compared with the capacity of the Northwest Runway (700,000 ATM compared with 740,000 ATM) would in fact be significantly greater. Our estimate is that the capacity of the ENR could not exceed 617,000 ATMs if even only four hours respite is offered through runway alternation. ii. iii. iv. Even in that scenario, respite for communities would only take the form of a period when aircraft land on the extended runway length but approach at higher altitude, i.e. it would not be practical to discontinue operations on either runway and the true quality of respite and alternation would be fundamentally inferior to that offered by a three runway Heathrow; Capacity would be further limited by the length of the ENR at 3075m and by the need for the practical length of the existing northern runway to be reduced to accommodate the ENR. It is likely that there would be resilience and efficiency impacts on the operation of the airport which would further inhibit a confident declaration of capacity. The limited length of the northern runway(s) may also generate capacity constraints for the southern runway; The constrained plan for the extended airport would generate insufficient stand capacity, adding to congestion and inefficiency at the airport and further constraining capacity; v. Whilst the Airports Commission noted that the CAA was open minded on the concept of the ENR, the lack of precedent and the absence of any detailed safety and capacity modelling means that, even if the ENR was practical, it would take an estimated two to three years longer to approve the safety case for the ENR than the compliant approach to which the Northwest Runway has been designed; and vi. It is not apparent that the full cost of the ENR has been accounted for including the full cost of acquiring extensive industrial land at Poyle and the costs inherent in the complexity of the river diversion and flood mitigation works which would be necessary for the ENR. Whilst headline costs are claimed to be less than for the Northwest Runway, this is far from clear. If the costs were related to the value of the additional capacity being created, the Northwest Runway option becomes far more robust These inherent difficulties with the ENR mean that it is unsuitable to be selected as the Government s preferred runway option. 28

30 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS Our recommendations We recommend that the NPS: is structured in Chapter 3 to assess the ability of Heathrow or Gatwick Airport to meet the components of national need established in a revised chapter 2 supplements the information set out in the current draft NPS with that contained in this response to confirm the benefits of Heathrow expansion relative to expansion at Gatwick recognises that only a third runway at Heathrow can achieve the international connectivity to new and expanded markets required by Government policy confirms that it is Heathrow expansion which will optimise direct economic and passenger benefits for the UK and secure the wider economic benefits which greater connectivity brings recognises the significantly greater scale of economic benefits that can be achieved by Heathrow expansion, without explicitly relying upon precise forecasts of economic benefit, which may have been under-estimated by the Airports Commission makes clear that it is only Heathrow expansion that can secure the benefits of increased freight trade required by Government policy confirms the benefits that Heathrow expansion would bring in terms of domestic connectivity, whilst recognising the role of Government in helping to deliver those benefits. The NPS should confirm Government will deliver the necessary PSOs. recognises the importance of increased connectivity brought by a new Northwest Runway for family, friends and tourism and the benefits which these bring to the UK reinforces its conclusions that a Northwest Runway at Heathrow is the only solution to meet these clear objectives of Government policy 29

31 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS 3. Question 3: The Secretary of State will use a range of assessment principles when considering any application for a Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport. Please tell us your views Our comments on the individual paragraphs of Chapter 4 Assessment Principles are set out in the attached Appendix 1. A number of detailed points are made but, in principle, we support the approach in Chapter 4 where it sets out the principal assessments that will be necessary for the DCO application. The overall approach is consistent with other NPSs and will ensure that proposals for a new Northwest Runway will be subject to rigorous examination against a full range of environmental and other considerations Our response to the question, therefore, focuses on one specific aspect of Chapter 4, namely the definition of the scheme for the purposes of the DCO and the approach set out to scheme variation. In doing so, we also pick up references to the same theme in Chapters 1, 3 and Scheme development - specificity It is important to ensure that the Northwest Runway scheme at Heathrow can continue to be developed and refined in response to detailed planning considerations, environmental assessment, engagement and consultation with stakeholders and communities. That is one of the principal purposes of the DCO process and it will be for the Examining Authority to test and report to the Secretary of State on the extent to which the scheme put forward takes into account consultation feedback and whether the scheme proposed in the DCO application is in accordance with the assessment principles set out in the NPS At paragraph of its Final Report, the Airports Commission reported that it had unanimously concluded that the proposal for a new Northwest Runway at Heathrow presents the strongest case of the alternatives considered. The Airports Commission made it clear, however, that the specific scheme to be advanced should evolve through the planning process: It should be noted that any of the plans described below would need to be subject to more detailed design and environmental assessment, and further public consultation, to prepare for planning consent. (paragraph 5.1) In preparation for the planning process, the private sector promoter will want to engage with communities, local authorities and other stakeholders including airlines as it finalises its masterplan, and will want to give due consideration to measures that will mitigate the social and environmental impacts of construction. (paragraph 16.29) We support the references to this continuing process of scheme improvement set out in the draft NPS, including: 30

32 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS The preferred scheme has been subject to further refinement by Heathrow Airport since the conclusion of the work of the Airports Commission. These refinements were not captured within the Airports Commission s appraisals and are not expected to significantly alter the key appraisal findings. The Government expects any applicant to carry out a further and more detailed study and to secure appropriate mitigation measures, ahead of seeking development consent. (paragraph 1.26) While the Government has decided that a Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport is its preferred scheme to deliver additional airport capacity this does not limit variations resulting in the final scheme for which development consent is sought the form of development for which an application is made is a matter for the applicant. The Airports NPS does not prejudice the viability or merits of any particular application, detailed scheme or applicant. (paragraph 4.11) These references helpfully recognise the continued process of scheme refinement anticipated by the Airports Commission a process that is necessarily inherent in the DCO application process, with its emphasis on frontloaded community and stakeholder engagement. Since the Government s announcement in October 2016, we have instructed a substantial team of expert consultants to commence the detailed process of scheme design and environmental assessment to allow us to undertake the important process of pre-application consultation. Whilst all of these matters were considered as part of our submissions to the Airports Commission, the level of detail appropriate for the DCO application itself necessarily involves a much greater level of detailed design, scrutiny, assessment and engagement. The objectives of that process, of course, include optimising the benefits of the proposal and limiting and mitigating its impacts. Public and stakeholder engagement (including with our airline community) is a very important part of the scheme development process and the strategic nature of the Airports Commission s work necessarily meant that it gave less opportunity for schematic masterplans to evolve in response to the views of stakeholders and affected parties From the references cited above, it is understood that this process is fully supported by the Government and encouraged by the draft NPS. There are elements of the current draft NPS, however, which could cause confusion and may lead some to consider that details of the application scheme have been predetermined, thereby limiting the potential for scheme refinement and potentially undermining the efficacy of public consultation. Those elements are as follows: vii. the references to the illustrative scheme boundary map at Annex A and the illustrative masterplan at Annex B and the apparent and potentially 31

33 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS confusing references to the parameters and boundaries of those maps and plans 107. i. the requirement that the runway should have a length of at least 3,500 metres 108 ; ii. the described scope of the scheme for the new runway, which is sometimes overly selective (e.g. the limited nature of the description of airport infrastructure, the lack of any reference to ancillary works and the absence of reference to associated development ) and at other times overly prescriptive (e.g. references to the location of airport related infrastructure such as the reference to the location of terminal capacity and the reference to the reconfiguration of the central terminal area) Whilst both Annexes are said to be illustrative, it is unusual to include scheme boundary plans and scheme layout plans in an NPS. It is particularly important, therefore, that the status of these plans is very clearly expressed as plans provided as part of the Airports Commission process. It should be noted that the boundaries on the two plans are not consistent with each other. It may be intended that Annex A illustrates the potential extent of nationally significant airport infrastructure, whereas Annex B is simply a copy of the scheme submitted by us to the Airports Commission, and includes additional associated development. Nevertheless, their inclusion may cause the public to consider that the precise extent and layout of the schemes set out in Annexes A and B has been predetermined unless the annexes are carefully explained When allowance is made for associated development, including environmental mitigation, road and river diversions and land necessary for construction, it is inevitable that the red line boundary of the DCO application will exceed that shown on the illustrative plans and the NPS should not inadvertently limit the ability to create an application which comprehensively addresses its impacts and requirements The Northwest Runway scheme has, of course, been subject to an Appraisal of Sustainability (AoS) and other assessments and it is important that the NPS is consistent with its evidence base. Examination of the AoS published with the draft NPS identifies that the precise DCO scheme was expected to be refined through the pre-application process. Paragraph of the AoS refers to refinements which were not captured within the Airports Commission s appraisals but have been developed since by Heathrow and also to the expectation that during further stages of detailed design further variations are expected in order to continue to mitigate negative environmental and social effects. The same point is made at paragraph of the AoS which provides: As the design of a preferred scheme progresses subsequent to the draft NPS, further variation (sic) of the scheme design are anticipated. These may seek to avoid, reduce or off-set 107 draft NPS paragraph draft NPS paragraphs 1.13 and draft NPS paragraphs 1.13, 1.15, 1.35, 1.36 and

34 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS negative impacts and enhance positive impacts and would be assessed through the EIA process Appendix D to the AoS reports on variations to the Airports Commission shortlisted schemes which have been considered through the AoS process. In the case of Heathrow these relate to changes to the local and strategic road network and changes to rail assumptions, which had been the subject of further refinement by us since the publication of the Airports Commission Final Report. The AoS notes that these scheme developments would cause no change to the overall conclusions of the AoS. In other words, the conclusions of the AoS are robust against scheme variations, the effects of which would be subject to the full process of environmental assessment and scrutiny through the examination of a DCO application against the tests set by the NPS Against this background, our paragraph by paragraph representations in Appendix 1 suggest changes to the wording of the draft NPS in order to clarify the status of Annexes A and B and to make clear that there has been no predetermination of the precise DCO application scheme. This is so that the ultimate scheme can benefit from a genuine and meaningful process of consultation and from the more detailed knowledge that will emerge through environmental appraisal and scheme design The principle of a Northwest Runway, of course, is fully supported but it is necessary for the NPS to recognise the need for some flexibility in the detail of the scheme s design and the nature of its necessary ancillary and associated development. In accordance with paragraphs 4.28 and 4.35 of the draft NPS, the applicant will be obliged to report on and demonstrate how the design process was conducted and how the proposed design has evolved. Fully enabling this process to take place is necessary if the optimum scheme design is to be achieved These representations apply to every element of the scheme including the precise length of the runway. In this particular respect, we do not consider it necessary for the NPS to specify that the runway must be at least 3,500 metres Paragraph 1.13 of the draft NPS refers to a runway length of at least 3,500m and enabling at least 260,000 additional air transport movements per annum. Footnote 11 to this reference goes on to explain that the reason for this specification is as follows: The Airports NPS stipulates the full length of the new runway to ensure that the new infrastructure can accommodate the largest commercial aircraft, as they operate many of the longhaul flights that support the UK s position as a major aviation hub We support the principle of this specification and recognise the important role which the new runway must serve in achieving greater long-haul connectivity and in providing an equivalent alternative to the existing runways so that communities at Heathrow can benefit from the respite inherent in a scheme of 33

35 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS runway alternation. Rather than specifying a minimum runway length as it currently does, the NPS should instead require that the new runway be of a sufficient length to deliver the specification set out above, i.e. that it should be capable of handling at least 260,000 additional ATMs and accommodating the largest commercial aircraft We are undertaking a robust design evaluation and consultation process in order to establish the optimum runway length to ensure its performance, whilst having regard to land take and environmental effects along with operational, cost and affordability considerations; this is an important element of the DCO process Whilst the AoS makes reference to a runway length of 3,500m for the Northwest Runway scheme a characteristic of the proposed masterplan submitted to the Airports Commission it is clear that the conclusions of its assessment are not reliant upon the precise design parameters of that masterplan, including runway length, and that the AoS assessment is sufficiently flexible to withstand changes to the proposals which are anticipated as part of the DCO process In describing the scope of the scheme for the new runway, the draft NPS is in some places overly prescriptive and in others too selective. For example, the draft describes the location of airport related infrastructure such as the reference to the location of new terminal capacity between the new Northwest Runway and the existing Northern Runway; and the reference to the reconfiguration of the central terminal area 110. This specification is unnecessarily narrow, for the same reasons we have set out above in relation to Annexes A and B: the precise extent and layout of the scheme should not be predetermined by the NPS and should instead benefit from a genuine process of consultation and from the more detailed knowledge that will emerge through environmental appraisal and scheme design On the other hand, the draft NPS is overly selective in its description of the scheme in other respects, such as its narrow description of airport infrastructure and its lack of reference to ancillary works and associated development. Apart from the reference to freight facilities 111, there is no other reference to associated development in chapters 3, 4 or under the Land Use heading in Chapter 5. Associated development, however, forms an important component of almost all DCO applications and can be expected to be particularly important for the expansion of an airport, with its requirement for airport-related development, the mitigation of environmental effects and impacts on land uses, etc The NPS should be more precise about the expected scope of the application and less prescriptive in other areas where the scheme should evolve in response to meaningful consultation and further environmental information. Our views on the land use content of the DCO application are set out in more detail in response to Question draft NPS paragraphs 1.13, 1.15, 1.35, 1.36 and draft NPS paragraph

36 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS 3.3. Scheme development early additional movements As an example of continuing scheme development, in September 2016, Heathrow issued a press release announcing how the airport could contribute to a Brexit Boost. This would involve: adding an extra 25,000 movements on the existing runways in 2021, but only after permission is given for the third runway and subject to mitigation; and working with Government to ring fence or allocate the increased flights to new routes that achieve the most to make Brexit work for everyone across the UK The press release, together with a paper which summarised the economic benefits of the early release of consented capacity, suggested that the new routes could include new domestic connections such as Humberside, Dundee, Newquay or Liverpool along with new long-haul trade routes to growth markets such as Osaka, Kochi, Wuhan and Quito. The early release of capacity was calculated to support up to 5,036 jobs and to result in a 1.5bn boost to the UK s GDP These are significant benefits, directly consistent with Government policy and with the purposes of supporting new runway capacity. They could be achieved by lifting the current cap of 480,000 ATMs as part of our DCO application. The additional movements could be realised following the grant of consent for our DCO and whilst construction of the new runway commences, to coincide with the early days of post-brexit Britain We recognise that the early release of ATMs was not considered by the Airports Commission or factored in to the AoS or other documentation prepared to support the draft NPS. We appreciate that proposals to release early capacity could only be considered following public consultation and with the benefit of full environmental assessment, and that any such decision would need to be closely regulated. Any such proposal would of course need to be accompanied by appropriate mitigation to deal with the potential impacts from the early release of additional capacity. If appropriate, this could include measures already committed to in respect of our Northwest Runway scheme Given the public announcement of our intention to secure early ATMs, we consider that it would be appropriate for the NPS to acknowledge this but to state that, if such a proposal is included in any DCO application, it would need to have been the subject of full public engagement and environmental assessment and that the acceptability of such a proposal would need to be considered against the assessment principles and requirements of the NPS, together with any mitigation proposed. 35

37 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS Our recommendations We recommend that the NPS: clarifies the status of Annex A and Annex B as illustrative to make clear that there has been no predetermination of the precise DCO application scheme recognises that, whilst the principle of a Northwest Runway has been settled, the full scope of the application and the detail of its design and layout should evolve through a full process of engagement, consultation, environmental appraisal and scheme design against the principles established in the NPS provides a specification for the performance of the Northwest Runway as a new full length runway, without prescribing its precise length recognises the potential for a DCO application including development which supports the construction or operation of an expanded airport or which mitigates its impacts, including from the loss of existing land uses where appropriate acknowledges that proposals for the early release of ATMs may be promoted as part of a DCO application but would need to be the subject of full consultation and environmental assessment against the principles of the NPS 36

38 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS 4. Question 4: The Government has set out its approach to surface access for a Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme. Please tell us your views The draft NPS sets out its approach to surface access predominantly in Chapters 3 and 5. It recognises that Heathrow is already better connected to the rest of the UK by road and rail than any other airport in the South East, providing good resilience. We endorse and agree Heathrow is at the centre of several transformational projects which will truly integrate the nation s hub airport into the rail network, including Crossrail, HS2 (via Old Oak Common) and the proposed western and southern rail links. These new links will put Heathrow at the centre of an integrated transport network that reaches across the country. It will improve Heathrow s accessibility, its sustainability, and ensure that the benefits that come with expansion are felt by passengers and businesses across the UK. When coupled with Heathrow s expansion, the opportunities generated by better surface access will increase exponentially: better access to a larger labour market, more employment opportunities, better growth prospects and more investment in transport The draft NPS is clear on the outcomes that any surface access strategy must deliver for expansion. Some limited refinements to the draft, however, would be appropriate Surface access strategy The draft NPS rightly requires Heathrow to develop an airport surface access strategy and requires that strategy as well as the wider application for development consent to set out details of how Heathrow will deliver its stated commitments regarding public and sustainable transport mode share for passengers and airport staff. We support that approach as it is not possible for the NPS to predetermine the precise methodology for the delivery of those commitments. The NPS should also not seek to pre-judge the precise surface access interventions that may be necessary in order to ensure the acceptable development of the Northwest Runway and we agree with its approach of leaving the detail of how that can be delivered to the DCO process Heathrow will work to develop an airport surface access strategy in conjunction with the Airport Transport Forum, which will reflect the needs of the scheme across all phases and take account of the guidance contained in the APF and the policies contained in the NPS. We will also consult with Highways England, Network Rail, Transport for London and other highway and transport authorities in relation to our assessment of the implications of expansion on surface access network capacity and on proposed mitigation measures We agree that it is important that there should be monitoring of our performance against those targets. That has been a key role of our Airport Transport Forum since its inception. 37

39 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS 4.3. Categories of surface access schemes The draft NPS recognises that there are road and rail schemes that relate to the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme. However, the draft NPS in both Chapters 3 and 5 does not recognise sufficiently clearly that these fall into different categories: there are some road schemes that are necessary for the physical construction of the scheme, for example the diversions to the A3044 and A4, and there are other road and rail schemes which are proposed by others and which would benefit the airport but which may not be necessary to mitigate the impacts of the Northwest Runway. Within that latter category there are some schemes that will be in place when the runway becomes operational and others that will not open until the additional capacity becomes fully utilised. It is right, as the draft NPS recognises, that some of the schemes will benefit a wider range of parties than just Heathrow Although this is recognised in the draft NPS, the text tends to conflate these different categories. It is important that the NPS recognises this distinction and its consequences for the funding and delivery of transport infrastructure. See our further comments below on Funding of surface access schemes Delivery of 'wider benefit' surface access schemes Surface access schemes benefitting a wider range of parties than just Heathrow will not necessarily be secured by Heathrow in its DCO. As Heathrow develops its DCO for expansion, other proposals are likely to come forward, such as Network Rail s DCO for the Western Rail Link to Heathrow and further development of proposals for Southern Rail Access. This should be recognised explicitly in the Airports NPS. Co-ordination is clearly important The National Networks NPS will apply (either under the Planning Act 2008 or as a material consideration in a Town and Country Planning Act application) to the consideration of those proposals. Although the draft NPS explains the status of the National Networks NPS in relation to any relevant nationally significant road and rail elements of Heathrow's proposals, it would be useful if this NPS set out explicit policy support (which will not be found in the National Networks NPS) for those schemes being promoted by third parties in so far as they provide surface access infrastructure relevant to Heathrow Funding of surface access schemes In relation to funding, the draft NPS rightly states that Heathrow cannot be expected to pay the full price of schemes benefitting a wider range of parties than just the airport but, rather, Heathrow should pay a contribution. We are committed to paying our fair share of these improvements and it would be helpful if the NPS could more clearly distinguish the appropriate principles to be applied with reference to the APF and its clear position on the funding of surface access schemes where these are needed to support the expanded airport and where there are wider beneficiaries. In the context of any negotiation of such a contribution, the NPS should recognise that these matters are subject to necessary consideration by the airport and relevant stakeholders, including 38

40 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS airlines, and, not least, the application of regulatory control by the CAA in determining the appropriate scale of any such contribution. The guidance in the NPS should also recognise the requirement in paragraph 4.36 of the draft NPS that Heathrow will need to demonstrate that its scheme is cost-efficient and sustainable, seeking to minimise cost to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime. These matters should not be confused with the normal planning principles that apply to other infrastructure which may be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms Road user charging The Airports Commission identified that it may be necessary for a congestion or access charge to be introduced in order to help meet mode share and air quality targets. It is notable, however, that the use of some form of road user charging is not expressly identified as an option in the sections on surface access and air quality mitigation in the draft NPS Our surface access strategy will be based primarily on public transport improvements, behavioural change and making more efficient use of transport modes to deliver necessary mode share and sustainability objectives. Beyond that, further analysis may demonstrate that the introduction of such a mechanism could bring significant benefits in managing airport traffic levels and emissions and supporting more sustainable travel patterns 112. A conditional reference to road user charging in both paragraph 5.17 and 5.38, therefore, would be appropriate Engagement with key stakeholders We welcome the focus in the draft NPS on liaison between Heathrow and relevant stakeholders, including factoring in the details of and target completion dates of external schemes included in our transport plans, so as to ensure that appropriate surface access proposals are brought forward as part of and alongside any scheme for the Northwest Runway Paragraph 5.11 of the NPS suggests that Heathrow will have to demonstrate in its DCO application that relevant highway and transport authorities are "content with the deliverability of any new transport schemes or other changes required to existing links to allow expansion within the timescales required for the preferred scheme as a whole". This could potentially be read to include external surface access schemes, and thereby require Heathrow to procure confirmation from relevant highway and transport authorities that they are content with the deliverability of schemes which we are not promoting It is important to note, as the NPS does 113, that third party surface access schemes will be subject to their own planning, funding and approval processes, over which we have no control. It is for the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State to be satisfied about the deliverability of any transport interventions which are considered necessary for the development of the third 112 An assessment of possible air quality benefits is referenced at Question 7 below and set out in Appendix draft NPS, paragraph

41 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS runway, however, and the NPS should be careful to avoid setting apparent additional tests for the DCO The drafting on the matters set out in the preceding paragraphs could be made a little clearer and we set out some suggested changes in this regard in Appendix 1. Our recommendations We recommend that the NPS: recognises the distinction between surface access interventions which are proposed as part of the DCO and necessary for its implementation and those which may be promoted by others in the vicinity of the airport provides support for relevant surface access infrastructure proposed by others which may improve Heathrow s accessibility recognises that all surface access infrastructure necessary for the construction and operation of the expanded airport may be included in a DCO application as associated development makes clear that any contribution required from Heathrow towards other surface access infrastructure should be determined having regard to policy already set out in the APF and consideration by the airport and relevant stakeholders, including regulatory control by the CAA includes the potential for an emissions or road user charge to be included in a DCO application as an appropriate mitigating measure, if the need for such a charge is demonstrated through further assessment makes clear that it will be for the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State to be satisfied about the deliverability of any necessary transport interventions 40

42 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS 5. Question 5: The draft Airports National Policy Statement sets out a package of supporting measures to mitigate negative impacts of a Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme. Please tell us your views. Are there any other supporting measures that should be set out? We welcome the comprehensive expectations for mitigation of environmental impacts, including air quality, noise and carbon, and for community compensation set out in the draft NPS, which are largely reflective of commitments already made by Heathrow The NPS expects Heathrow to minimise impacts on local people, to consult on the detail of its mitigation and to put the mitigation in place quickly. In addition, the NPS expects consultation on the detail of a community compensation fund, which would be an additional component of ongoing community compensation proportionate to environmental impacts. Coupled with the requirement to establish a Community Engagement Board to enable communities to contribute effectively to the delivery of expansion, the NPS will ensure that supporting measures for local communities in terms of compensation and mitigation will be properly and thoroughly considered and secured through the DCO process Our comments on these elements of the draft are intended to help improve its clarity as a detailed policy framework for the determination of a DCO application Air Quality Supporting Measures We are fully committed to playing our part in improving local air quality. We have a strong track-record in reducing emissions from airport operations - we cut ground-based NOx emissions from airport activity by 16% over 5 years between 2008 and We also have a robust strategy in place already to ensure that we continue to do our part to improve air quality. Our current approach to reducing emissions through our operations both on and off the airport is outlined in a ten-point Blueprint for Action and Heathrow 2.0, our plan for sustainable growth, sets out our goals for continuing to improve air quality and the strategies we are putting in place to achieve them. Whilst we have already established a plan for improving air quality around the airport now, the delivery of a third runway presents a new opportunity to take this further - the redesign of local roads, support for sustainable transport and the opportunity to introduce an airport access or emissions charge if further assessment show this to be necessary, all have the potential to bring significant improvements in air quality Road vehicles rather than aircraft are the principal contributors of local air pollution, i.e. NOX and particulate emissions. This is verified by data gathered by air quality monitors around the airport 114. Over the last 20 years, Heathrow s passenger numbers have risen by almost 80%, but airport related road traffic 114 Taking Britain Further, page 271, figure

43 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS has remained broadly static. It is important we continue that trend. The air quality section of the NPS recognises the contribution that this shift away from cars toward more sustainable transport modes when accessing the airport can make to air quality, expressly referring to mode share targets at paragraph 5.16 of the NPS. We are already working towards achieving these mode share targets as set out in our sustainability strategy, Heathrow 2.0, and the targets will be at the heart of the Surface Access Strategy for a three runway Heathrow In this context, it is important to note that non-airport related road traffic is the dominant source of emissions around Heathrow, and to recognise that national and regional measures will be required to address the background air quality issue across the UK. We are committed to joint working with local authorities and Government to play our part in meeting local objectives and achieving compliance with EU limit values as soon as possible We have always been clear that expansion should only go ahead within strict environmental limits, including meeting all legal requirements relating to air quality. We therefore welcome the draft NPS s requirement that our DCO application must demonstrate that the third runway can be delivered without compromising the UK s ability to comply with legal air quality requirements (Para 5.31) The Airports Commission s analysis concluded that a third runway at Heathrow can be delivered in accordance with the legal requirements of the EU Air Quality Directive. Since then, the Government s Air Quality Plan 2015, updated modelling undertaken on our behalf and TfL s own analysis have all shown that baseline air quality levels around the airport will have significantly improved by the time a new runway is built, as Britain's vehicle fleet gradually becomes cleaner The updated analysis published in October 2016 and February 2017 by DfT and Heathrow s own assessments have also applied sensitivity tests to their conclusions, increasing vehicle emissions factors to account for the fact that newer diesel vehicles may not be as clean as the emission factors previously used by Defra currently predict. Both studies concluded that, even with these sensitivity tests added, a third runway at Heathrow would not delay London s compliance with EU air quality limits Appendix 2 to this response describes the air quality analysis undertaken by us and reviews other recent work by the DfT. As a result of the conclusions summarised in our response to Question 7 and set out in full at Appendix 2, we are confident that we will be able to demonstrate that the Northwest Runway scheme will meet the assessment tests in the draft NPS at paragraphs 5.31 and Following the recent ClientEarth judgments in relation to the Air Quality Plan 2015, the Government published an updated draft proposal for its revised Air Quality Plan for consultation on 12th May This new plan includes a range of further steps to improve air quality and ensure that the UK fulfils its air quality obligations. We are encouraged by the fact that air quality will be required to be improved more quickly than previously planned, which is 42

44 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS reflected by our working in partnership with the Mayor, TfL and local authorities around the airport to develop a West London Air Quality Plan to improve air quality in West London as quickly as possible The draft NPS helpfully recognises a range of mitigation measures that Heathrow can put in place to help meet air quality requirements. Paragraph 5.38 of the NPS sets out a range of operational mitigation measures that could be delivered to help improve air quality around the airport. We are already delivering a number of these measures on a smaller scale today115. Expansion provides the opportunity to expand these initiatives and develop new ones, as well as a chance to bring major change to the surrounding road and public transport network As already set out above in response to Question 4, we consider that there is an important omission from the list of proposed mitigation measures at paragraph 5.38 of the draft NPS that is that it should provide support for the consideration of road user charging (which might take the form of an emissions or access charge for motor vehicles) through the DCO if required. We have suggested some amendments to paragraph 5.38 to reflect this in Appendix We note that at paragraph 3.6 the draft NPS refers to air quality findings 'with mitigation', but it is important to note that the Government's work to date does not take account of the full suite of mitigation measures available to Heathrow to improve air quality, including Heathrow s mode share targets. This means that, although the Government s analysis accurately concludes that, the Northwest Runway can be delivered within legal air quality limits, there are additional mitigation measures which would go even further towards improving air quality. Appendix 2 considers the Government s work in the context of the additional mitigation measures available We understand the need to provide confidence to the local community and other stakeholders that the commitments we make will be delivered, and that performance will continue to be monitored. This is why we are in favour of independent regulation and oversight in respect of air quality, and we continue to support the creation by Government of an independent air quality regulator New legal requirements for ongoing monitoring and mitigation of environmental impacts means that we are obliged to develop and consult on an Air Quality Action Plan as part of our application and will include provision for independent input and review as part of that process, which could be a new independent regulator if established The NPS also recognises the importance of looking to other major construction schemes for best practice construction methods (paragraph 5.39). We have extensive experience of delivering such major projects. During the construction of Terminal 5, and more recently the new Terminal 2, we have successfully deployed a range of practices to deliver reduced emissions during the construction phase. This experience will assist us in minimising adverse effects 115 See Heathrow s Blueprint for Reducing Emissions 2016 and Heathrow 2.0 which together set out the measures that Heathrow is taking to improve air quality in the local area by reducing emissions on and off the airport. 43

45 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS on local air quality while we construct the new runway. We will redeploy successful mitigation alongside developing new solutions to reflect the scale of the construction project that is delivering the third runway Noise Supporting Measures Heathrow is one of the world s leading airports in noise management and has a proven track record in delivering improvements in the noise climate which dates back to the 1970s. Even though the number of flights has increased significantly since then, Heathrow's noise footprint has continually reduced We and the Airports Commission have both been clear that an expanded Heathrow will be a quieter Heathrow. Chapter 9 of the Airports Commission s Final Report summarises the outcome of the extensive work that it undertook in this respect. Its analysis, for instance, supported our own assessment that, with an expanded Heathrow, the overall number of people exposed to noise will be lower than it is today As a result of our experience, research, engagement activities and consultations, we understand that noise can impact people s quality of life, and recognise the importance local people place on predictable periods of relief from noise. With an expanded airport we will continue to offer predictable periods of respite and will work with local groups to put in place the right respite and noise sharing regime. The Airports Commission s work identified the importance which communities attach to periods of predictable respite and the Commission concluded that a third runway would allow periods of predictable respite to be more reliably maintained The draft NPS appropriately requires a full assessment of the noise effects of the expanded airport 119. In this context, the draft NPS should be read together with the draft parallel consultation on UK Airspace Policy, which contains detailed draft policy on aviation noise assessments. There is a case for drawing some of that policy into the NPS itself and developing guidance that is explicit on how the two regimes overlap and is common to both the NPS and Airspace Policy. Our suggestion is that to achieve this paragraph 5.52 should evolve as we have set out in our paragraph by paragraph analysis at Appendix In combination, the documents provide a framework for assessing and mitigating noise effects. The draft UK Airspace Policy helpfully seeks to bring some clarity to matters which have long been the subject of professional debate, such as the appropriate noise metric to use and the point at which noise mitigation should be considered. We welcome that clarity and the role that the proposed Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise (ICCAN) could play in supporting it We consider that it is important that the NPS clearly sets out the relationship between the DCO process and the separate process for airspace change which 116 Managing Aviation Noise CAP1165, Civil Aviation Authority (2014). Figure 2.1 presents the noise reduction since Airports Commission Final Report, paragraph Airports Commission Final Report, Executive Summary, page draft NPS, paragraph

46 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS will follow the approval of the DCO. The principle is alluded to in paragraph 5.49 but more explanation would greatly assist the decision-maker and public understanding Public expectation (and the process of examination) would be assisted, for instance, if the NPS was clearer that it will be for the Airspace Change Process (ACP) to design the ultimate airspace around Heathrow and the wider South East. Whilst we are already working closely with NATS to co-ordinate with and support the future ACP, we recognise that it is not for the DCO process to consult on or design the airspace. It necessarily follows that the noise assessment supporting the DCO will also need to be based on indicative flight paths (like the assessments undertaken by the Airports Commission), in order to establish the likely significant effects of the expanded airport and we anticipate that it will not be for the decision on the DCO to prescribe matters more appropriately settled through the formal ACP. The potential for public uncertainty on these points is sufficiently important that the NPS should establish the position more fully Whilst the Airspace Change Process is one example, it would be appropriate for the NPS to recognise that there are other regulatory controls on the noise environment at Airports and to set out clearly the relationship between the NPS and those controls. Elsewhere, the draft NPS confirms that it is not intended to duplicate controls in other regimes 120. Clarity around these issues in relation to noise would be helpful and appropriate in the NPS and would, no doubt, assist the examination of a DCO application We welcome the requirement at paragraph 5.59 of the draft NPS that the applicant should put forward plans for a Noise Envelope in consultation with the public and the ICCAN. We agree that the envelope should be designed to incentivise further improvements in air noise and the means for achieving that further reduction are already committed in principle in Heathrow s plan for sustainable growth Heathrow It would be helpful for the NPS to recognise that the precise physical geography of the envelope cannot be settled in advance of the ACP and without regard to other associated regulatory controls. We recognise, however, that other mechanisms characteristic of a noise envelope are appropriate matters to be examined and settled through the DCO process, although the implementation of the envelope will require the establishment of a monitoring and governance mechanism The draft NPS contains a clear policy test 122 that development consent should not be granted unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the three aims of national noise policy (set out in the Noise Policy Statement for England NPSE) are met, namely: avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise; 120 draft NPS, paragraph Heathrow 2.0, Heathrow Airport Ltd (2017). 122 draft NPS, paragraph

47 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise; and where possible contribute to improvements to health and quality of life This test is comparable to that set out in other NPSs. However, as noted earlier, Heathrow thinks it important that the policy test in its final form makes clear that a decision should take full account of not just the proposals in the DCO application but also the other noise control regimes that apply With regard to the policy test for noise, the draft NPS at paragraph 5.56 could be clearer, however, that (consistent with Government policy established in the NPSE and NPPG and consistent with Government decisions such as the recent decision on the Cranford Agreement 123 ) significant effects on health and quality of life due to noise can be avoided by the combination of mitigation measures and community compensation (noise insulation) (see paragraph 5.234) The draft NPS recognises that the noise mitigation proposals which we advanced to the Airports Commission exceed statutory requirements 124 and the Government commissioned Global Comparison of Airport Mitigation Measures published with the NPS confirmed that our proposal to provide noise mitigation for all properties subject to noise greater than 55 db Lden was consistent with world class compensation packages outside the UK (section 6) The draft NPS supports and carries forward the Airports Commission s recommendation that a third runway at Heathrow should be accompanied by a ban on scheduled night flights to make expansion more acceptable to the local community and to Londoners generally. The draft NPS is clear that, although the ban should last 6.5 hours between 23:00 and 07:00, the exact timings of the ban should be determined through the DCO process and following consultation (paragraphs 3.51 and 5.61). We are supportive of the DfT s approach to establishing a 6.5 hour scheduled night flight ban, and welcome the opportunity to determine its exact nature through further detailed work and consultation with relevant stakeholders and the local community Heathrow already takes a proactive role in reducing noise from the airport. For example, we have set charges to encourage quieter aircraft and agreed voluntary measures to reduce the impact of night flights, whether that be through promoting the use of continuous descent approaches, working together with airline partners to reduce the number of late runners or not landing aircraft before 04:30. Most recently we have committed to working with the local community, NATS and airline partners to develop a voluntary Quiet Night Charter which will establish well informed, challenging but achievable targets At the same time, it is important to recognise that passenger demand for flying within the night period is high, and unlikely to change given the markets that the flights operate to and from. A high proportion of passengers on these flights connect at Heathrow onto onward flights the timing of these connections is 123 Reference number APP/R5510/A/14/ draft NPS, paragraph

48 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS important for passengers, especially business travellers for whom arriving early in the morning at their destination is important to complete a full day s business Analysis shows that there are a number of hotspots around the globe that may require a pre-06:00 arrival at Heathrow due to either practical factors (such as cruising speed, distance between departure point and Heathrow, time zone variation etc.) or customer preference. These hotspots currently include Hong Kong, Singapore, Shanghai and New York and in future are likely to include Mumbai, New Delhi, Shenzen, Chennai, Bangalore, Manila, Lagos, Jakarta, and Johannesburg. Maintaining early morning arrivals is therefore crucial to serving those destinations In the context of competition with the other European hubs, it is also important to note that the time difference already puts the UK at an hour s disadvantage compared to Europe. An aircraft from South East Asia and landing at 05:00 in Frankfurt is landing at the equivalent of 04:00 in the UK, giving a competitive advantage for onward connections to UK and European destinations For these reasons, we currently believe that 23:00 to 05:30 would be the most appropriate duration for the scheduled night flight ban. Moreover, a 6.5 hour scheduled night flight ban between the hours of 23:00 and 05:30 is fairer for all local communities as it gives benefits to those living under the departure routes as well as those living under the arrivals routes In our DCO application we will set out the evidence to demonstrate why starting operations at 05:30 is key. However, we recognise that the exact window of the ban will need to be established through a process of consultation and tested through the examination process Carbon Emissions Supporting Measures We are clear that expansion should only go ahead within strict environmental limits, including in line with the UK's climate change targets. The Committee on Climate Change's (CCC) review of aviation in 2009 concluded that a 60% increase in UK aviation passenger capacity is compatible with UK climate change targets. The CCC recommended to Government a planning assumption that CO2 emissions from UK aviation in 2050 should be no greater than 37.5Mt (representing 2005 levels) The Airports Commission, having taken advice from the CCC, undertook its own analysis and concluded that a third runway at Heathrow is compatible with the CCC s proposed planning assumption 125. We agree with the Government and the Airports Commission's analysis that an additional runway at Heathrow can be delivered within the UK's obligations under the Climate Change Act , and is compatible with the CCC's planning assumption of 37.5Mt CO2 emissions from UK aviation by Expansion at Heathrow can also help to eliminate unnecessary carbon emissions, allowing British passengers to fly direct to international destinations 125 Airports Commission Final Report, page 273, paragraph draft NPS paragraphs 2.31 and 3.66; Review of the Airports Commission's Final Report by Department for Transport (2015). 47

49 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS rather than via multiple flights. For example, flying from London to Beijing via Dubai is about 40% further and more carbon intensive than it is to fly direct. An expanded Heathrow would also help eliminate stacking and emissions arising from current capacity constraints, such as from unnecessary delays of aircraft whilst taxiing In publishing the draft NPS, the Government undertook further analysis 127 to review the sensitivity tests undertaken by the Airports Commission 128. This additional analysis considered the carbon implications of the Airports Commission s highest assumed growth in passengers (defined as the global growth scenario and from a carbon perspective would be considered a worst case) and concluded that: "Our analysis shows that the level of measures required (for abatement) fall within the mid-range policy level scenario according to the DFT 2011 Study. This provides reassurance that abatement measures could be available to address unlikely, higher demand scenarios." The draft NPS addresses the carbon emission implications of growing UK aviation capacity from paragraph 3.58, whilst paragraph 3.66 confirms the Government's confidence that expansion via a Northwest Runway at Heathrow can be delivered within the UK's carbon obligations, regardless of the future regime put in place to deal with the emissions from international aviation There is, therefore, an authoritative and independent body of work, which consistently demonstrates the compatibility of expansion with the UK's carbon obligations We support the ICAO global agreement on a Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), and believe that this will make an important and positive contribution as part of a basket of measures to reduce levels of CO2 emissions globally We also intend to take the lead in incentivising fuel-efficient and lower carbon flights, by introducing "green slots" as part of our plans for the Northwest Runway, so as to incentivise the use of the cleanest aircraft. We are also committed to supporting the development of sustainable fuels, for example by working with our airline partners and the Sustainable Aviation Fuels working group Against this background, however, it is important that the NPS is clear about the scope for the examination in relation to these matters. We support the proposition that our carbon strategy is examined and tested in the context of the DCO application for the Northwest Runway scheme. However, the NPS should be clearer that the DCO examination is not an examination of the Government s 127 The Carbon Policy Sensitivity Test: Supplementary Analysis, DfT (2017) 128 Economy: Carbon Policy Sensitivity Test, Airport Commission (2015) 129 Sustainable Aviation is a cross industry group of which Heathrow is a member. It is committed to ensuring the sustainable growth of the UK aviation sector. See 48

50 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS carbon and climate change policy or of other matters outside of our control. That policy is explained in paragraphs 5.68 to 5.74 of the draft NPS and the Government has recently confirmed its commitment to that policy 130, as well as confirming its plans to publish an Aviation Strategy (to replace the 2013 APF) that will include a more detailed consideration of available policy measures to address the climate change impacts of aviation for the UK as a whole. We have recommended changes to paragraph 5.81 of the draft NPS in this context in Appendix We recognise that carbon and climate change are important issues in the context of scheme development, construction and operation. The draft NPS requires Heathrow to provide evidence of the carbon impact of the Northwest Runway (including embodied carbon), both from construction and operation, so that the scheme can be assessed against the Government's carbon obligations, including but not limited to carbon budgets We will supplement the environmental assessments published with the NPS by completing our own Environmental Impact Assessment of our scheme proposals. We will consult communities and stakeholders on preliminary environmental information and our DCO application will be accompanied by an environmental statement which will demonstrate how our proposals meet the requirements of the NPS in relation to carbon emissions and climate change This information will also be used to inform our masterplan development and mitigation strategy in relation to carbon impacts. Ongoing monitoring and mitigation will also be built into our proposals in accordance with the requirements of the new Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and best practice for major infrastructure schemes. We will consult on these proposals as part of our DCO application, and the final plans will be secured by the DCO We also recently published our Sustainability Strategy (Heathrow 2.0), in which we set out our goal of operating a zero carbon airport in terms of buildings and other fixed assets by 2050, including clear interim targets and our aspiration to make the growth of carbon emissions from opening the Northwest Runway carbon neutral Compensation for Local Communities In our submission to the Airports Commission - Taking Britain Further - we set out proposals for a new social contract with communities around Heathrow 131. If the airport grows, we are committed to sharing the benefits of that growth locally and we have started work with local stakeholders to explore what a new social contract between the airport and the surrounding area could involve We have taken these commitments further in our publication Heathrow 2.0, our plan for sustainable growth published in February 2017, which includes four Flagship Goals including that the area around Heathrow should be a great place to live. Heathrow 2.0 sets out our commitment to be a good neighbour. 130 Letter from the Secretary of State for the Department for Transport Chris Grayling to Mary Creagh MP, Chair of Environmental Audit Committee, dated 9th January Taking Britain Further, Volume 1, paragraph

51 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS Our goal is that our presence creates many more positive impacts than negative ones in our local area The Statement of Principles 132 confirms our commitment to meet or exceed the measures recommended by the Airports Commission, namely to put in place a balanced approach to expansion. These include the commitments to community compensation already advanced by Heathrow and referenced at paragraph 3.52 of the draft NPS In particular, at paragraph the draft NPS sets out the headlines of our commitments to pay 125% of market value, not only for owner occupied homes within the compulsory acquisition zone but also for owner occupied homes within the additional voluntary purchase/acquisition zone. Paragraph also sets out our proposals for noise insulation of affected residential and community properties. As part of the evidence base for the NPS, a DfT led review of our proposed mitigation endorsed our approach to community compensation and confirmed that our noise insulation proposals were consistent with world class compensation packages outside the UK We recognise, however, that there is an important role for the DCO application process to play and acknowledge the reference at paragraph 5.57 that the Secretary of State will consider whether the mitigation measures put forward by the applicant following consultation are acceptable We are committed to the establishment of a Community Engagement Board (CEB) which will play a key role in delivering world class community engagement as part of the planning and construction of a new runway. The CEB will be led by an independent chair who will work with Heathrow to refine terms of reference, membership and resourcing requirements We also accept the recommendation of the Airports Commission, reflected in the draft NPS, that there should be an additional component of on-going community compensation. We accept the position set out in the draft NPS that this should not take the form of a national noise levy paid for by passengers (as the Airports Commission had recommended) but that it should instead be the subject of consultation through the DCO process in order to ensure that it meets the tests set out in the draft NPS 134 and that the fund should be relevant to planning and proportionate to environmental impacts. We agree with the Airports Commission that this fund could cover a wide range of mitigation and compensation measures and envisage a significant role for this in providing ongoing compensation and mitigation to manage the airports impacts and bringing real benefits to local communities. The detail of this, however, can only be assessed once a full environmental impact assessment is undertaken and examined through the DCO process Our detailed paragraph by paragraph response in Appendix 1 suggests, therefore, that it would not be helpful for the NPS to contain narrative from the 132 Statement of Principles relating to Airport Capacity Programme between the Secretary of State for Transport and Heathrow Airport Ltd (2016) 133 Airports Capacity Programme: Global Comparison of Airport Mitigation Measures, Ernst & Young LLP (2016), Section draft NPS paragraphs 5.54 and

52 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS Airports Commission report about the potential size of such a fund, particularly as the narrative is not completely accurate. Our recommendations We recommend that the NPS: recognises the potential for road user charging at the airport as a possible mitigation measure in relation to both surface access and air quality supports the role of an independent regulator to oversee compliance with the air quality policies set out in the NPS draws policy guidance from the parallel consultation on UK Airspace Policy into the NPS and provides guidance about its implementation sets out more clearly the relationship between the DCO process and the separate process for airspace change, recognising that it will be for the airspace change process to design future airspace for Heathrow and the South East recognises that the precise physical geography of a noise envelope cannot be settled in advance of the airspace change process defines the relationship between the DCO and other regulatory regimes for noise control at airports clarifies the role of noise mitigation and insulation measures in meeting the NPS noise policy requirements makes clear that it is not for the examination of a DCO application to examine Government carbon and climate change policy or other related matters outside the control of the applicant clarifies that the role and scale of a Community Compensation Fund will be determined through the DCO process 51

53 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS 6. Question 6: The Government has set out a number of planning requirements that a Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme must meet in order to operate. Please tell us your views. Are there any other requirements the Government should set out? Our views on Chapter 5 of the draft NPS are predominantly set out in our paragraph by paragraph response at Appendix 1, although issues relating to principal environmental and community topics have been addressed in our response to Question We have three principal observations on Chapter 5, as follows: the Chapter tends to be fairly generic, setting out nationally understood planning principles. It could be more specific in its detailed recognition of the characteristics of the Heathrow Northwest Runway project; as this is the Chapter which sets the tests for decision making, and given the requirement of s.104(3) of the Planning Act 2008 (i.e. for the DCO application to be decided in accordance with the NPS), it is important that the wording used in the NPS is sufficiently precise to provide clarity for anyone involved in the consenting process, including the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State, in relation to the policy requirements the application is expected to meet. This will greatly assist the process of preparing, consulting upon, examining and deciding the application. It will also help to reduce the potential for unnecessary debate and disagreement during the examination of the application about the proper meaning of the relevant policy tests. Our detailed comments are set out in Appendix 1 but we note, for instance, that there is a widespread use of the terms maximise and minimise which taken in a literal sense could drive extreme and/or contradictory outcomes. A more balanced expression of policy requirements would assist the decision maker; and it is important that it is Chapter 5 (and to some lesser extent Chapter 4) which sets out the policy tests within the NPS. Passages of earlier chapters are more narrative in style, which is less appropriate for an NPS but which also generates a risk that they may be read as setting additional or different policy tests. This distinction should be clearly set out The second and third observations set out above are of general application. We set out below, however, more specific concerns in relation to the first observation, namely, that the draft NPS tends to be too generic rather than specific to the nature of the Northwest Runway scheme Generic approach An example of the way in which the draft NPS tends to be generic rather than scheme specific relates to the Land Use section of Chapter 5 (paragraphs onwards). Compared with other project specific NPSs, the draft Airports NPS 52

54 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS contains little recognition of the likely effects of the development which it supports, for example: the Nuclear Generation NPS EN-6 recognises the scale of the likely landscape, traffic and construction impacts of new nuclear power stations and accepts that there may be elements which cannot be fully mitigated; the National Networks NPS recognises the environmental characteristics of strategic rail freight interchanges (SRFI), including their land use requirements and the expectation that sites are unlikely to be found outside the Green Belt; the Waste Water NPS recognises that the construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel will give rise to disturbance and construction impacts, which cannot be fully mitigated In this context, notable features which are not recognised in the draft Airports NPS include the necessary incorporation within the application of associated development and the inevitability that the Northwest Runway at Heathrow can only be constructed in the Green Belt. Similarly, the known consequences of property demolition, community impacts and impacts on heritage assets are not acknowledged in the draft NPS. We entirely accept the importance of policies which seek to limit these impacts and to mitigate and if necessary compensate for them but the NPS would be a more useful tool for the decision maker if it contained a starting recognition of the general scale of impacts likely to arise from the project and which are well known from the work undertaken by the Airports Commission and the Government Recognising land use requirements It would be helpful for public understanding of the NPS if the Land Use section of the NPS contained more recognition of the fact that the Northwest Runway scheme will impact on a range of land uses, in addition to open space, agricultural land, and Green Belt. The NPS should recognise two particular aspects of land use impact that may arise from the project: the need to assess and potentially mitigate the loss of existing land uses, where that loss would otherwise give rise to a planning objection for example, the loss of specific airport-related services, uses or facilities that may need to be replaced as part of the DCO application (as associated development 135 to help address the impacts of the development), or for which the applicant should be expected to work with the land owner and with the local planning authorities to plan their replacement; and the growth in demand for airport-related development such as cargo, offices, hotels etc., which will inevitably be stimulated by the expansion of the airport. 135 According to the DCLG Guidance on Associated Development Applications for Major Infrastructure Projects (April 2013), "The definition of associated development...requires a direct relationship between associated development and the principal development. Associated development should therefore either support the construction or operation of the principal development, or help address its impacts". 53

55 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS The NPS should also be explicit in recognising that the DCO application may include a range of types of associated development and ancillary works, in order to secure the expanded airport and/or mitigate its impacts, including the replacement of some displaced uses. We are considering and assessing a range of associated development uses as we work through the development of our scheme Our response to paragraph 4.7 of the draft NPS in Appendix 1 explains that it would be helpful for the NPS to reference the importance of planning applications that may be made in the short term to assist some affected land uses to relocate in advance of the construction of the runway or for other early or enabling works. Such a reference would signal the importance of such planning applications for the early delivery of the new runway and could assign to any early planning applications for such enabling works the same overriding public interest considerations as the works within the main DCO application The masterplan submitted by Heathrow to the Airports Commission (and which appears at Annex B of the draft NPS) made provision for a number of these displaced or generated uses to be included within our proposals. A similar approach may be appropriate for the DCO application, depending on the outcome of engagement with affected parties and the local planning authorities. The NPS should reflect an expectation that some of these uses may be included in the DCO application and that the applicant will be expected to work with affected parties and the planning authorities to address these impacts of the project That process of engagement has already begun, both with land owners and occupiers but also with the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (the HSPG 137 ) of local authorities that have a particular interest in the Heathrow sub-region The NPS should also recognise the likely necessity for the DCO application boundary to allow for other elements of associated development most notably development that may be necessary for the construction of the project and development which may be necessary to mitigate or offset its environmental effects (such as flood storage, river diversions, ecological enhancement etc.) Our response to paragraph has also flagged up the importance of the NPS making reference to joint working between the nearest planning authorities to co-ordinate a planned response to the growth of the airport, in order to optimise joined-up and sustainable outcomes. The HSPG is intending to work 136 Examples of associated or ancillary development normally associated with an airport which are being considered as part of our scheme include but are not limited to a) airport operational uses and activities e.g. maintenance and engineering; airfield and equipment storage/servicing; passenger and staff vehicle parking; coach and lorry parking; vehicle waiting areas; balancing ponds; sewage/water treatment; energy/cooling/waste infrastructure; substations; transport interchanges; fuel storage and pipelines; cargo warehousing; crew support, de-icing, border control, fire training, etc. b) airport support facilities and uses, e.g. car rental; hotels; freight warehousing; airport/airline offices; flight catering; ancillary retail; petrol stations; industrial/light industrial, retail storage/distribution, etc. and c) necessary construction and mitigation works, e.g. construction logistics; temporary worker s accommodation; park and ride; landscaping, road diversions, junctions works, river diversions, flood storage, environmental enhancement, etc. 137 The HSPG is a forum of local planning authorities and county councils proximate to Heathrow Airport plus other relevant government organisations (such as TfL) and Local Enterprise Partnerships. The purpose of the HSPG is to work together to better plan for the future of the Heathrow sub-region, including working with Heathrow Airport in the preparation of the forthcoming DCO application. 54

56 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS together to procure a joint Spatial Planning Framework for the area to provide a common basis to inform long-term local plan reviews. Reference to that work within the NPS would signal its importance in achieving high quality, planned outcomes Our comments on these and other matters are set out in more detail in the paragraph by paragraph response at Appendix 1 but the policies for Green Belt are a case in point where the NPS could be more scheme-specific Green Belt policy At present, draft paragraph includes the following: The applicant should therefore determine whether the proposal, or any part of it, is within an established Green Belt and, if so, whether the proposal may be considered appropriate development within the meaning of Green Belt policy We suggest that this may be a surprising test for the decision maker if it is confirmed in the NPS given that it has been conclusively established that the Northwest Runway cannot be built without the development of Green Belt land. Equally, the development cannot be claimed to be appropriate development within the meaning of national Green Belt policy. It would be sensible for this to be recognised in the NPS Paragraph of the draft NPS then suggests a decision making test for the Secretary of State, as follows: The Secretary of State will need to assess whether there are very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development We consider that the principle of very special circumstances has already been established in this case and this should be reflected in the NPS. There is probably no single element of Government planning policy which has been more closely studied than a new runway in the South East of England and the publication of the NPS represents the culmination of an exceptional process of policy development, particularly from 2012 when the Airports Commission was established. Designation of the NPS would recognise that the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme is nationally important indeed, that it represents a project of exceptional importance to the UK. No other project is likely to bring the scale of economic benefits to the UK. There can scarcely have been a project with more special circumstances and a fully informed NPS should directly recognise this The same paragraph of the draft NPS then provides: The Secretary of State may require the provision of replacement Green Belt land, which should be secured by the applicant. 55

57 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS This is an unusual policy requirement, without precedent as far as we are aware. Green Belt land cannot be created or replaced. By definition, Green Belt land is open in character open land if required already exists. It only becomes Green Belt if it is designated formally as Green Belt through a statutory Development Plan process. We do not have plan making powers. On this basis, we respectfully suggest that this proposed requirement is removed from the NPS If it is intended to require the applicant to acquire land which is currently not designated as Green Belt (presumably on the edge of the existing Green Belt which would mean several miles away from Heathrow) this should be expressly stated and the NPS should recognise that it may be necessary to use compulsory acquisition powers as part of the DCO to achieve this objective. In practice, however, we suggest that this is an unnecessary policy requirement and that the NPS should be consistent with other national policy (in the NPPF and other NPSs) that development may be approved in the Green Belt in very special circumstances, and that those circumstances exist in principle in this case In addition to very special circumstances, it would be helpful for the NPS to recognise that there is a compelling need in the public interest to acquire land where necessary to enable the delivery of the Northwest Runway scheme, along with the necessary infrastructure and development associated with it. Compulsory acquisition powers, of course, should only be used as a last resort but the AoS is clear that they are likely to be necessary in this case to deliver the new runway project and it would be appropriate for the NPS to establish the principle of their acceptability Our more detailed comments are set out in the paragraph by paragraph response in Appendix 1. Our recommendations We recommend that the NPS: avoids the widespread use of the terms maximise and minimise to take a more balanced approach takes care to limit its narrative style and ensure clarity over what is to be taken as an assessment principle or test for a DCO application develops a less generic and more project specific approach to the recognition of likely environmental and other effects of the Northwest Runway scheme contains recognition that the Northwest Runway will impact on a range of land uses, for which mitigation or re-provision (either within the DCO or separately) may be appropriate and provide support for such an approach recognises the inclusion of ancillary and associated development within the DCO application, together with provisions for the construction of the project and for the mitigation of its environmental and other effects all of which are likely to have an effect on the scope and boundary of a DCO application 56

58 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS identifies the role of the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group in planning a sustainable future for the wider Heathrow sub-region explicitly acknowledges the in principle acceptability of the Northwest Runway scheme within the Green Belt in order to confirm that the very special circumstances test has been met adjusts its policy that refers to the replacement of Green Belt land to be consistent with national planning policies recognises that it may be necessary to use compulsory acquisition powers as a last resort to achieve the objectives of the NPS and to recognise that there is a compelling need in the public interest to acquire land where necessary to enable the delivery of the Northwest Runway at Heathrow 57

59 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS 7. Question 7: the appraisal of sustainability sets out the Government s assessment of the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme, and considers alternatives. Please tell us your views Appraisal of Sustainability The Appraisal of Sustainability (AoS) provides a robust basis for the conclusions set out in the draft NPS Section 5 Development of Alternatives of the AoS clearly sets out the consideration of alternatives and refers to the extensive work undertaken by the Airports Commission in this regard. Consistent with the Terms of Reference of the Airports Commission 138, this work is sensibly incorporated into and relied upon as part of the Government s own assessment. Section 5.2 of the AoS sets out how the hierarchy of alternatives 139 was fully considered during the Airports Commission process, from need or demand options through to mode/process options to location and timing options The Airports Commission considered a total of 58 proposal options in addition to a do nothing scenario. Three sifts of these alternatives were conducted, leading to the identification of three viable schemes in the Airports Commission's Interim Report. The Airports Commission refined the assessment further and unanimously concluded that a new Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport, with the significant package of measures to address its environmental and community impacts, provides the strongest case for delivering increased airport capacity by We are satisfied that the AoS s approach, which does not re-open the consideration of options that were ruled out at an earlier stage by the Airports Commission is appropriate in this case. The AoS sets out the reasons that alternatives were rejected at each sifting stage in Appendix B We note the Government's conclusion in paragraph 3.11 of the draft NPS that the other shortlisted schemes do not represent true alternatives to Northwest Runway as the preferred scheme. We respectfully agree. In response to Questions 1 and 2 above we set out in some detail the characteristics that a new runway proposal requires if it is to satisfy the clear requirements of Government policy. Our response also demonstrates conclusively that proposals at Gatwick or for an Extended Northern Runway at Heathrow lack those essential characteristics they are not alternatives. The AoS (and the NPS) could be drafted even more confidently on this basis. 138 Airports Commission Final Report, page 37 to A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) 140 Airports Commission Final Report, page 9. 58

60 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS 7.2. Monitoring of Significant Health Effects We wish to clarify the role of monitoring in Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) under Article 10 of Directive 2001/42/EC 141 and Regulation 17(1) of the UK SEA Regulations 142. This legislation places the onus on the responsible authority to monitor the significant environmental effects of the plan or programme. This could be taken to contrast with the statement in the AoS Report (paragraph 7.6.2), which states 'It is the applicant's responsibility to monitor significant effects' Whilst the applicant is required to monitor certain environmental effects under the EIA Directive, it is the responsibility of the competent authority to monitor the significant effects identified in the AoS (under the SEA Directive). Whilst there may be an overlap between these requirements we recommend that this distinction is clarified within the final AoS Report Noise In respect of the assessment of potential noise impacts from an expanded Heathrow, we consider the AoS assessment to be fair and reasonable, including in its findings that without mitigation Heathrow expansion (like all three shortlisted schemes) is expected to have a predominantly significant negative effect 143. We welcome, in particular, the sensitivity test carried out in the AoS to consider the effect of a lower exposure threshold to ensure consistency with the draft Airspace Policy (Appendix A04, paragraphs onwards), and the conclusion that assessing noise at this lower level will not alter the overall conclusions of the assessment 144. We also welcome the express recognition that some positive effects may also be expected, due to potential reductions in sleep disturbance compared with the do minimum 145 and that in 2030 there are also some areas that may experience a reduction in both ground and airspace noise 146. The draft NPS should recognise the potential for positive noise effects occurring as a result of expansion, and our comments in Appendix 1 on paragraph 5.46 suggest how this could be done The assessment does not take account of a number of the mitigation measures recommended by the Airports Commission, or planned by Heathrow. While it is reasonable to exclude this level of detail at this strategic assessment stage, a number of these mitigation measures are now required to be delivered as part of the DCO application (including a noise envelope, periods of predictable respite, a 6.5 hour scheduled night flight ban and noise insulation for local communities) and the AoS assessment therefore represents a worst case scenario assessment of the data available. In preparing our detailed 141 European Parliament and Council of the European Union Directive 2001/42/EC of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. 142 Statutory Instrument 2004 No Environmental Protection: The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations AoS Appendix A04, para AoS Appendix A04, para AoS Appendix A04, para AoS Appendix A04, para

61 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS Environmental Impact Assessment Report, we will have more opportunity to demonstrate the benefits that these measures are expected to bring Air Quality Appendix 2 to this response considers the DfT s analysis of the air quality impacts of the Northwest Runway scheme Appendix 2 confirms that: i. A significant amount of assessment work has been undertaken to date to assess the potential air quality effects of the Northwest Runway scheme such that the Government has sufficient information available to it to draw robust conclusions in the draft Airports NPS. The work that has been undertaken is summarised at section 2 of the Appendix. ii. iii. iv. The Northwest Runway scheme can be delivered in accordance with local Air Quality Objectives, even when the under-performance of certain road vehicles relative to emissions standards is considered. This is set out in section 3 of the Appendix. It is reasonable for the Government to conclude in the draft Airports NPS that a mitigated Northwest Runway scheme will not impact on the UK's compliance with EU Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe or with air quality "limit values" for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) which derive from it. This is set out in section 4 of the Appendix. The comprehensive mitigation strategy proposed by Heathrow to reduce the air quality impacts of the Northwest Runway scheme will be effective in reducing concentrations of NO2 at critical locations. The introduction of a form of road-user charging could, if necessary, bring further reductions in concentrations at key locations. This is set out at section 5 of the Appendix. v. Uncertainty regarding the emissions performance of road vehicles, particularly diesel cars, has been well accounted for in recent analysis of the predicted impacts of the Northwest Runway scheme. Any uncertainty will be accounted for in the final 2017 Draft UK Air Quality Plan and will be reflected in the measures that will be required to be introduced across London by local authorities and the Mayor to meet the EU Limit Values before Mitigation options are resilient to these uncertainties and those options targeting most polluting vehicles could be even more effective in a scenario where emissions from those vehicles are worse than expected. As such, uncertainties in relation to vehicle emissions do not undermine the Government's conclusions. These points are addressed at section 6 of the Appendix As a result of the above conclusions set out at Appendix 2, we are confident that we will be able to demonstrate that the Northwest Runway scheme will meet the assessment tests in the draft NPS at paragraphs 5.31 and

62 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS 7.5. Habitats Regulations Assessment Overall we are supportive of the Government's assessment in the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). We make the following comments, and those set out in Appendix 3 (our detailed comments on the HRA), to provide further support for the Government's position as set out in the draft Airports NPS, and to assist in ensuring the highest possible degree of confidence in the process undertaken We agree with the Government s conclusion, as set out in paragraph 3.11 of the draft NPS, that "the other shortlisted schemes do not represent true alternatives to the preferred scheme". Please see our detailed comments on this point in response to Questions 1 and In terms of what this means for the HRA, Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive provides that, where adverse effects on European sites cannot be ruled out, consent can be granted if there are no alternative solutions and there are Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) for the development to proceed As stated in the draft NPS, neither Gatwick Second Runway nor the Extended Northern Runway scheme could meet the need identified by the Government and supported by the work undertaken by the Government and the Airports Commission, and therefore neither represent a true alternative to the Northwest Runway scheme. Accordingly, there is no need to consider the effects on European sites (in particular priority habitats) of those schemes - they would fail on the basis that they cannot represent 'alternatives' On this basis, it is also not necessary to consider either of these schemes from an IROPI perspective, following the sequential test set out in Advice Note 10 (Habitats Regulations Assessment) (January 2016). There is no need, therefore, to speculate at this stage whether the Gatwick scheme would get clearance from the European Commission to take into account socio-economic factors in terms of a priority habitat We consider that it is important that the HRA should be well founded in an assessment of whether the Gatwick Second Runway and the Heathrow Extended Northern Runway proposals are able to meet the identified need (see our response to Questions 1 and 2) and that this should represent an additional robust approach to the assessment undertaken by the Government. This would not change the conclusion that the Northwest Runway scheme should justifiably be identified as the Government's preferred scheme for the purposes of the Airports NPS and, indeed, would further strengthen the rationale for that judgement In addition, we consider that there is additional information which could be taken into account to support a greater differentiation between the Northwest Runway scheme and the Extended Northern Runway scheme. Please see our comments in Appendix 3 in this regard We note the conclusions of the HRA and acknowledge that avoiding a significant effect on any European site is of course a priority in the context of the 61

63 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS development of the Northwest Runway scheme. We think it is important to note that the Northwest Runway scheme will not involve any direct habitat loss from within the South West London Waterbodies SPA We acknowledge that the assessment s conclusions regarding the likely absence of adverse effects on integrity of one or more European sites are, by necessity, drawn on the basis of strategic-level assessment due to the level of information available at the stage the assessment was undertaken For this reason, some of the conclusions in relation to the likely effects of the Northwest Runway scheme on European sites can be characterised as conservative By way of an example, the appropriate assessment identifies the greatest number of potential adverse effects on integrity, for obvious reasons largely related to proximity, for the South West London Waterbodies SPA/Ramsar site. Within the assessment presented is a variety of data on the qualifying features of this European site (namely the species of bird Gadwall and Shoveler), including information on peak numbers and distribution. This information, alongside the geographical position of the existing and proposed runways and associated infrastructure could be used to provide better context to the assessment, with consideration of the proportion of the population that may occupy waterbodies likely to be affected by the proposed development, as opposed to those that will remain unaffected (either because they are already affected by the existing runway operations or are located to the south of the existing airport). By investigating this proposition the potential extent of any effects could be more accurately understood, even if the conclusion of an adverse effect on integrity resulting from Northwest Runway scheme still cannot be ruled out at this stage In addition, Section 8 of the HRA assumes that the waterbodies of the South West London Waterbodies SPA/Ramsar site and supporting habitats (e.g. flooded gravel pits etc.) are hydrologically linked to the rivers that flow through the proposed airport extension. There is no evidence presented to support this, which would appear to be an oversight, given the fact that the known routes of the Wraysbury River, Colne Brook, the River Colne, Duke of Northumberland River and the Longford River (the rivers potentially affected by the Northwest Runway) and their associated flood plains are available from publicly accessible data, including that submitted to the Airports Commission. By providing an understanding of which designated waterbodies and associated functional habitats are off-line, the scale of the potential effect could be better qualified. Again, by investigating this proposition the potential extent of any effects could be more accurately understood, even if the conclusion of an adverse effect on integrity resulting from Northwest Runway scheme still cannot be ruled out at this stage We consider that it is likely that the extent of potential effects expected to result from a Northwest Runway as set out in the HRA would be further lessened through consideration of all of the information available. 62

64 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS We note the Government's conclusion in paragraph 3.11 of the draft NPS that the other shortlisted schemes do not represent true alternatives to the Northwest Runway scheme as the preferred scheme and respectfully agree for the reasons set out above. We, therefore, consider that, even if it were concluded that all of the schemes have the potential to have effects on European sites (but all also have the potential through design and mitigation to avoid these), the Government would still be able to robustly screen other options out for the purposes of the appropriate assessment, as not representing true alternatives to the Northwest Runway scheme We confirm that we will provide with our DCO application such information as is necessary for the Government to make an appropriate assessment of the potential significant impacts of the Northwest Runway scheme on European sites. This will form part of a comprehensive suite of information assessing the potential environmental impacts of the Northwest Runway scheme, which will be submitted with the DCO application. Our recommendations We recommend that the NPS: should more robustly conclude that other proposals for runways in the South East of England cannot be regarded as alternatives to the Northwest Runway scheme as they are unable to meet the need identified in Chapter 2 of the NPS. The AoS and HRA could also more robustly reach these conclusions by reference to the nature of the need (as described in our response to Question 1) and the work undertaken by the Airports Commission and by the Government should clarify (as should the final AoS) the distinction between the obligations of the Government under the SEA Directive and those of the applicant for development consent under the EIA Directive in relation to the monitoring of significant effects should recognise the potential for positive noise effects to result from the Northwest Runway scheme We have recommended some refinements to the evidence base which underpins the NPS, principally to show how its conclusions could be more robustly stated. Please also consider our comments in relation to air quality and HRA in Appendices 2 and 3. 63

65 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS 8. Question 8: do you have any additional comments on the draft Airports National Policy Statement or other supporting documents? Our detailed response to the draft NPS is set out in our paragraph by paragraph response at Appendix 1 or in our answers to the specific questions posed by this consultation. There are, however, matters relating to the scope and application of the NPS which we suggest are important to clarify Scope and application A number of paragraphs of the draft NPS explain its scope and application 147. Whilst its role in relation to a new Northwest Runway at Heathrow is clear, there is some potential for confusion about the role of the NPS in relation to other nationally significant infrastructure aviation projects. The potential confusion arises from the following statements within the draft NPS: the title of the NPS new runway capacity and infrastructure at airports in the South East of England; the NPS covers England (paragraph 1.20); the NPS sets out Government policy on the need for new airport capacity in the South East (paragraph 1.11); the NPS sets out planning policy in relation to any airport NSIP in the South East (paragraph 1.12); the NPS sets out Government policy on expanding airport capacity in the South East of England, in particular by developing a Northwest Runway at Heathrow (paragraph 1.34); the NPS has effect in relation to a Northwest Runway at Heathrow (paragraph 1.35); and the NPS does not have effect in relation to any other application apart from the Heathrow Northwest Runway proposals (paragraph 1.36) We understand the legal significance of the term has effect for a new Northwest Runway at Heathrow this being the specific term of Section 104 of the Planning Act Nevertheless, the current drafting creates clear opportunities at least for confusion and, potentially more importantly, currently fails to provide clarity on Government policy for new runway development in the South East The importance of clarity in aviation policy is recognised, for instance, in the foreword to the Aviation Policy Framework 2013 from the Secretary of State which explained: 147 draft NPS paragraphs 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.20, 1.34, 1.35, 1.36, 4.2 and 4.3 are all relevant in this context 64

66 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS On the question of airport capacity, the Government has now established the independent Airports Commission, led by Sir Howard Davies. The Commission is examining the nature, scale and timing of any requirement for additional capacity to maintain the UK s global hub status. The Aviation Policy Framework is an important piece in the jigsaw, setting out the principles which the Commission will take into account in working up its recommendations as it reports later this year and in History shows that we need an agreed policy everyone can stick to before we try to act. Our aim is to achieve this through the aviation policy framework and the work of the independent Airports Commission Consistent with the conclusions of the Airports Commission, the draft NPS confirms that there is clear and strong evidence that there is a need to increase capacity in the South East of England by constructing one new runway (draft NPS paragraph 2.31). The draft NPS sets out the policy for that runway. It follows that it should also set out the policy for any competing runway proposals The work of the Airports Commission, the DfT and the Committee on Climate Change confirm that, for the foreseeable future, capacity is limited to one new runway. Whilst Heathrow has always supported the growth of other airports, the substantial increase in capacity represented by the first new full length runway in the south of England for 70 years is a decision of such national importance that its unique status should be recognised by policy The current drafting of the NPS is somewhat confusing but it appears to suggest that other runway proposals could be promoted but would have to be considered against the APF a policy framework that was never intended to deal with new runway proposals. Policies for any nationally significant runway proposal in the South East should be contained in this NPS that is its purpose The work of the Airports Commission and the further work undertaken by the Government provide more than a sufficient basis for creating the necessary policy certainty. Chapter 3 of the draft NPS sets out conclusively the reasons why a Northwest Runway at Heathrow is the only effective means of meeting Government objectives. No further evidence base work would be required to establish clearly that it is only a Northwest Runway at Heathrow that would satisfy Government aviation policy Affordability Finally, we support the draft NPS s objective to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners as set out at paragraph 4.36, and welcome its requirement for the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed scheme is costefficient and sustainable. We agree that it is critically important that the new 65

67 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS Northwest Runway is affordable for its users and we are continuing the development of our plans in this context The Government should recognise, however, that it has a role to play in this respect as the cumulative cost of planning policy requirements and contributions may have a significant influence on affordability. We have set out a detailed response to paragraph 4.36 in Appendix 1 with the aim of ensuring that this provision has practical effect not just for the application but also for the examination and determination of the DCO application. Our recommendations We recommend that the NPS: makes it clear that it provides Government policy for any new runway proposal in the South East of England and that it supports only the development of a Northwest Runway at Heathrow recognise the applicability of affordability considerations throughout the policy development and consenting process, and that such considerations are not just limited to the applicant in developing its scheme. 66

68 Heathrow s Response to the Draft Airports NPS 9. Question 9: The Government has a Public Sector Equality Duty to ensure protected groups have the opportunity to respond to consultations. Please tell us your views on how this consultation has achieved this We do not have specific views on this question, it is a matter for Government to ensure the integrity of its consultation. 67

69 Appendix 1 Paragraph by Paragraph Response to the Draft NPS

70 Appendix 1 Para No NPS Text Heathrow Response Background Chapter The UK aviation sector plays an important role in the modern economy, contributing around 20 billion per year and directly supporting approximately 230,000 jobs. The positive impacts of the aviation sector extend beyond its direct contribution to the economy by also enabling activity in other important sectors like business services, financial services, and the creative industries. The UK has the third largest aviation network in the world, and London s airports serve more routes than the airports of any other European city. 1.2 However, London and the South East are now facing longer term capacity problems. Heathrow Airport is operating at capacity today, Gatwick Airport is operating at capacity at peak times, and the whole London airports system is forecast to be full by There is still spare capacity elsewhere in the South East for point to point and especially low cost flights. However, with very limited capability at London s major airports, London is beginning to find that new routes to important long haul destinations are being set up elsewhere in Europe. This is especially the case at Heathrow where the lack of spare hub capacity is restricting the UK s accessibility to and competitiveness in international markets. This is having an adverse impact on the UK economy in terms of lost trade and opportunity, and affecting the country s global competitiveness. 1.3 In September 2012, the Coalition Government established the independent Airports Commission to examine the scale and timing of any requirement for additional capacity to maintain the UK s position as Europe s most important aviation hub, and identify and evaluate how any need for additional capacity should be met in the short, medium and long term. The importance of the aviation sector is accepted. However, we consider that the draft NPS underestimates the economic benefits of Heathrow expansion, whilst over-estimating the benefits of Gatwick expansion. These matters are developed in our response to Questions 1 and 2. Additionally, a number of the wider economic benefits, trade benefits and social benefits of expansion have not been included in the calculations of economic benefits. A full understanding of the benefits of aviation is important when making decisions about planning the nature and location of additional capacity. The draft NPS should attach greater importance to the unique characteristics of hub capacity. The Airports Commission recognised that the UK has not been able to offer spare hub capacity since around 2010, as Heathrow has effectively been full. The consequences in terms of lost trade and opportunity are severe for the UK economy, whilst the excess demand at Heathrow has caused fares to increase. The draft NPS should recognise these dis-benefits and that the urgent need to provide hub capacity exists now, in fact it is overdue. Our response to Question 1 highlights the importance which Government policy in the APF attaches to the international connectivity that can only be achieved through hub capacity. The NPS text should align directly with the APF. This paragraph is supported, although its emphasis on the importance of hub capacity is less apparent in chapters 2 and 3 of the draft NPS. 2

71 Appendix In its Interim Report in December 2013, the independent Airports Commission concluded that there was a need for one additional runway to be in operation in the South East of England by It also confirmed three shortlisted capacity schemes for further analysis: a Second Runway at Gatwick Airport (proposed by Gatwick Airport Ltd.), a Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport (proposed by Heathrow Airport Ltd.), and an Extended Northern Runway at Heathrow Airport (proposed by Heathrow Hub Ltd.). The Airports Commission then consulted further on the three shortlisted schemes, plus proposals for a new airport in the inner Thames Estuary. In September 2014, the Airports Commission concluded not to consider further an inner Thames Estuary scheme. 1.6 On 14 December 2015, the Government accepted the Airports Commission s recommendation for increased capacity in the South East of England, and its shortlisted scheme options. The Government also confirmed that it would begin work on the building blocks of an Airports National Policy Statement ( Airports NPS ), and this is what happened. 1.7 The Government believes that an NPS is the most appropriate method to put in place the planning framework for a new runway in the South East of England. All three shortlisted airport schemes would have been classed as nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008, and the Government s view is that an Airports NPS, and a development consent application made under the Planning Act 2008, is the most appropriate route to deliver the Government s preferred scheme. Purpose and Scope of NPS 1.10 The Airports NPS provides the primary basis for decision making on development consent applications for a Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport, The phrase concluded not to consider further could potentially be rephrased in a more affirmative way e.g. In September 2014, the Airports Commission concluded that, following detailed further study into the proposal s feasibility, the proposal had substantial disadvantages that collectively outweigh its potential benefits; the Airports Commission thus ruled out this proposal for further consideration. This statement could be improved by expanding upon the term building blocks, e.g. The Government also confirmed that it would begin work on the building blocks of an Airports National Policy Statement ( Airports NPS ) by undertaking a package of further assessment, including additional analysis of air quality and other impacts on the environment and communities, and this is what happened. It would also be helpful to recognise that the NPS completes the suite of aviation policy set out in the APF. This paragraph is supported. The DCO process is ideally suited to bringing forward a new runway proposal and providing the powers for its delivery. An NPS is required to settle Government policy on key issues such as need and to provide a framework for the determination of a DCO application in accordance with the Planning Act It follows, however, that the NPS must be clear in its statements of policy and in the framework of assessment which is established for an application. The NPS must also be consistent with aviation policy set out in the APF. We have set out our views on this and related paragraphs in response to Question 8. The NPS should fulfil its role to settle Government policy for any nationally significant infrastructure project in 3

72 Appendix 1 and will be an important and relevant consideration in respect of applications for new runway capacity and other airport infrastructure in London and the South East of England. Other NPSs may also be relevant to decisions on airport capacity in this geographical area The Airports NPS sets out: The Government s policy on the need for new airport capacity in the South East of England; The Government s preferred location and scheme to deliver new capacity; and Particular considerations relevant to a development consent application to which the Airports NPS relates It sets out planning policy in relation to applications for any airport nationally significant infrastructure project in the South East of England, and its policies will be important and relevant for the examination by the Examining Authority, and decisions by the Secretary of State in relation to such applications In particular, the Secretary of State will use the Airports NPS as the primary basis for making decisions on any development consent application for a new Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport, which is the Government s preferred scheme. The policies in the Airports NPS will have effect in relation to the Government s preferred scheme, having a runway length of at least 3,500m and enabling at least 260,000 additional air transport movements per annum. It will also have effect in relation to terminal infrastructure associated with the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme and the reconfiguration of the central terminal area at Heathrow Airport. the South East, which has been the subject of policy uncertainty since at least 2003 and in practice long before that. The evidence base available to the NPS is more than sufficient for it to reach clear cut policies both on a new Northwest Runway for Heathrow and to set out Government policy for any alternative runway which may be proposed. The full scope of the NPS and its policy for any other runway proposal should be clear. The NPS should provide Government policy for one new runway proposal in the South East and be clear which proposal it supports. This paragraph should be amended in the light of our comments in response to Question 8 and our response to paragraph There are a suite of related paragraphs which are picked up in sequence below which relate to the same point. The draft NPS could cause confusion about its status in relation to other aviation NSIPs and it is important that this is resolved clearly in the final NPS. Our response to question 8 sets out the inconsistency and our response to paragraph 1.10 suggests the solution. This paragraph should be amended in the light of the changes proposed to paragraph This paragraph should be amended in the light of the changes proposed to paragraph For reasons elaborated in Heathrow s response to Question 3, it is not necessary for the NPS to be so prescriptive about the precise length of the runway or so selective in its reference to the infrastructure necessary as a consequence of the runway development. It is important not to give the impression that details of the scheme have either been prescribed or unduly limited, so that the NPS allows full effect to be given to the process of scheme development, environmental assessment, detailed design and community engagement. It would instead be a sensible prescription to require the new runway to enable an increase in capacity of at least 260,000 additional air transport movements per annum and be able to 4

73 Appendix 1 accommodate the largest commercial aircraft. This much is directly consistent with the footnote to paragraph 1.13, the Statement of Principles and with the assessment undertaken for the Airports Commission and for the NPS. The Appraisal of Sustainability is not reliant on a precise runway length. Reference in this paragraph to the reconfiguration of the central terminal area should be deleted. Reference to runway length of at least 3,500m should be replaced with full length runway which is sufficient to enable an increase in capacity of at least 260,000 additional air transport movements per annum and be able to accommodate the largest commercial aircraft For a scheme to be compliant with the Airports NPS, the Secretary of State would expect to see these elements comprised in its design, and their implementation and delivery secured, particularly with regard to runway length and increased capacity of air transport movements. Other NPSs may also be relevant to decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects at airports but, if there is conflict between the Airports NPS and other NPSs, the conflict should be resolved in favour of the NPS that has been most recently designated Unlike the regime for the granting of planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, there is no provision in the Planning Act 2008 for the making of an outline application for development consent, followed by reserved matters approval. This does not mean, however, that development Any description of the scheme for the purposes of the DCO application should recognise an expectation that it will include mitigation elements of associated and ancillary development. Please see our response to Question 6. This paragraph needs to be adjusted in the light of the changes proposed to paragraph Reference to these elements introduces uncertainty and apparent prescription and should be avoided. As set out in response to Question 3, if this is a reference to the limited but prescriptive elements referred to in paragraph 1.13, these matters should not be so prescribed as to prevent meaningful engagement and scheme development. For clarity, we recommend that para 1.15 is amended as follows: For the preferred scheme to be compliant with this NPS, the Secretary of State would expect to see a full length runway as referred to in 1.13 to the northwest of Heathrow with the corresponding increase in air transport movements comprised in its design, and their implementation and delivery secured. This paragraph is supported. It has been well established through PINS Advice Notes and through other DCO applications that it may be appropriate to reserve elements of the scheme design for subsequent finalisation or approval, particularly but not exclusively where these relate to later phases of the development or there may be an opportunity to take advantage of future 5

74 Appendix 1 Territorial Extent cannot be phased, so that particular parts are brought forward at different times, or that the details of a proposal cannot be reserved for determination later. Guidance by the Department for Communities and Local Government recognises that development projects advanced through the development consent order process may be phased, but emphasises that every phase of the project contained in a development consent application must be considered in the application for the order and the order itself The Airports NPS covers England only. Some aspects of aviation noise policy are devolved but others are reserved. Appraisal of Sustainability 1.25 The overall conclusions of the Appraisal of Sustainability show that (provided any scheme remains within the parameters and boundaries in this policy), whilst there will be inevitable harm caused by a new Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport in relation to some topics, the need for such a scheme, the obligation to mitigate such harm as far as possible, and the benefits that such a scheme will deliver, outweigh such harm. However, this is subject to the assessment of the effects of the preferred scheme, identification of suitable mitigation, and measures to secure and deliver the relevant mitigation The preferred scheme has been subject to further refinement by Heathrow Airport since the conclusion of the work of the Airports Commission. These refinements were not captured within the Airports Commission s appraisals and are not expected to significantly alter the key appraisal findings. The Government expects any applicant to carry out a further and more detailed study, and to technological solutions. Given the lead in time to deliver the infrastructure necessary to support the full operation of a three runway airport and the quantum of infrastructure required, having sufficient flexibility to allow for phasing and the subsequent determination of details will be particularly important. Although we understand the reasons why this paragraph has been included, it is a little confusing in conjunction with paragraph 1.34 and we suggest the Government explains in this paragraph the different roles of this paragraph and paragraph In view of our suggestion regarding the re-framing of the need case in our response to Question 2 to more clearly draw out the various factors that have been at the forefront of Government's (and the Airports Commission's) consideration of the national need for hub airport capacity in the South East of England, there are implications that should be considered in the context of the Appraisal of Sustainability ("AoS") (including the Strategic Environmental Assessment ("SEA") and its consideration of alternatives). This would not affect the overall conclusions of the Appraisal of Sustainability referred to in this paragraph. Government will want to ensure that the more clearly enunciated needs case is appropriately reflected in the drafting of the AoS (including SEA). Consequently, the AoS can more emphatically state that the other shortlisted schemes do not represent true alternatives to the preferred Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme. We support the recognition that our Northwest Runway scheme has been refined. Development and refinement of our proposed scheme will obviously continue in response to design development, engagement and environmental assessment. The paragraph as drafted, however, could be taken to suggest that mitigation measures should be secured ahead of seeking development consent, which we do not believe is the intended meaning of the paragraph. 6

75 Appendix 1 secure appropriate mitigation measures, ahead of seeking development consent The Habitats Regulations Assessment concluded that it cannot rule out the potential for adverse effects on the integrity of European sites adjacent to or at a distance from the preferred scheme, given that more detailed project design information and detailed proposals for mitigation are not presently available. The Airports NPS has thus been considered in line with the requirements set out in Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive. Consideration has been given to potential alternatives to the preferred scheme, and the conclusion was reached that there were no alternatives that would better respect the integrity of European Sites and deliver the objectives of the Airports NPS in relation to UK airport capacity and meeting the identified needs for additional capacity provision. Accordingly, the Government has presented its case why imperative reasons of overriding public interest exist which provide the rationale for why the Airports NPS should be designated, given the presently uncertain conclusions identified by the Habitats Regulations Assessment. Equality Impact Assessment 1.31 Under the Equality Act 2010, public bodies have a statutory duty to ensure race, disability and equality are considered in the exercise of their functions. The Interim Equality Impact Assessment considered the potential equalities implications of airport expansion, including the effect on persons or groups of persons who share certain characteristics protected by the Equality Act The Interim Equality Impact Assessment concludes that all of the shortlisted schemes will have effects on these groups, but that such effects can be managed and can ultimately be within appropriate limits. The Airports We would therefore recommend revising this paragraph to make it clear that The Government expects the applicant to carry out more detailed development and refinement of its scheme ahead of seeking development consent and to include appropriate mitigation measures as part of its development consent application, along with proposals for how those measures would be secured. Please see Appendix 3 on the HRA for our detailed response. We suggest that it should also be made clear that the Secretary of State's approval referred to in this sentence is within the context of the making of a DCO and not some separate approval process. Please also see our comments in relation to paragraph

76 Appendix 1 NPS requires that final impacts on affected groups should be the subject of a detailed review, carefully designed through engagement with the local community, and approved by the Secretary of State. It should be possible to fully or partially mitigate negative equalities impacts through good design, operations and mitigation plans. Health Impact Assessment 1.33 The Health Impact Assessment identified impacts which would affect the population s health, including noise, air quality and socio-economic impacts. In order to be compliant with the Airports NPS, a further project level Health Impact Assessment is required. The application should include and propose health mitigation, which seeks to maximise the health benefits of the scheme and mitigate any negative health impacts. This paragraph is an example of a number of paragraphs in the draft NPS which use the words maximise and minimise, which are unhelpful terms in the context of a policy document, as is the expectation that any harm will be mitigated. We fully support the principles set out here but the language should be more measured and realistic. Relationship between the Airports NPS and the Aviation Policy Framework 1.34 The Airports NPS sets out Government policy on expanding airport capacity in the South East of England, in particular by developing a Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport. Any application for a new Northwest Runway development at Heathrow will be considered under the Airports NPS. Other Government policy on airport capacity has been set out in the Aviation Policy Framework, published in The Airports NPS does not affect Government policy on wider aviation issues, for which the 2013 Aviation Policy Framework and any subsequent policy statements still apply. Development covered by the Airports NPS 1.35 The Airports NPS has effect in relation to the delivery of additional airport capacity through the provision of a Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport. It also applies to proposals for new terminal capacity located between the new Northwest Runway and the existing Northern Runway at Heathrow Airport, as well as the reconfiguration of Heathrow Airport s central terminal area. Each of these elements is also capable of constituting a nationally significantly infrastructure project. See our comments in relation to paragraph This paragraph needs to be reviewed in the light of our comments on paragraphs 1.10 and It is not necessary for the NPS to prescribe the location of any new terminal capacity or to particularly focus on the potential reconfiguration of the central terminal area. The precise location of new terminal capacity required in association with additional runway capacity will be determined through further scheme refinement, environmental assessment and engagement, as part of the DCO process. We suggest that the second sentence of this paragraph be replaced with It also applies to proposals for additional terminal capacity associated with the new runway. 8

77 Appendix The Airports NPS does not have effect in relation to an application for development consent for an airport development not comprised in an application relating to: the Heathrow Northwest Runway, and proposals for new terminal capacity located between the Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport and the existing Northern Runway and reconfiguration of Heathrow Airport s central terminal area. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State considers that the contents of the Airports NPS will be both important and relevant considerations in the determination of such an application, particularly where it relates to London or the South East of England. Among the considerations that will be important and relevant are the findings in the Airports NPS as to the need for new airport capacity and that the preferred scheme is the most appropriate means of meeting that need. Any description of the scheme for the purposes of the DCO application should recognise an expectation that it will include mitigation elements of associated and ancillary development. Please see our response to Question 6. This paragraph needs to be reviewed in the light of our comments on paragraphs 1.10 and 1.13 and our response to Question 8. The NPS should set out national policy for any new runway project in the South East and effectively protect the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme. The importance of aviation to the UK economy Chapter International connectivity, underpinned by strong airports and airlines, is important to the success of the UK economy. It is essential to allow domestic and foreign companies to access existing and new markets, and to help deliver trade and investment, linking us to valuable international markets and ensuring that the UK is open for business. It facilitates trade in goods and services, enables the movement of workers and tourists, and drives business innovation and investment, being particularly important for many of the fastest growing sectors of the economy. The Need for New Airport Capacity 2.10 However, challenges exist in the UK s aviation sector, stemming in particular from capacity constraints. These constraints are affecting our ability to travel conveniently and to a broader We strongly agree with many of the matters set out in the Chapter but we suggest that it may be sensible to provide an introduction to Chapter 2 which sets out its particular purpose: namely, to identify and settle the nature of the need for any new runway capacity in the South East and to identify the characteristics of a runway project which would most closely meet the identified need. These factors are agreed and the text is supported, although the wider benefits referred to are not reflected in the estimation of economic benefits from the Northwest Runway scheme. We strongly agree with this statement, although it should be even more clearly expressed by reference to the specific shortage of hub capacity established by the Airports Commission and the 9

78 Appendix 1 range of destinations than in the past. They create negative impacts on the UK through increased risk of flight delays and unreliability, restricted scope for competition and lower fares, declining domestic connectivity, erosion of the UK s hub status relative to foreign competitors, and constraining the scope of the aviation sector to deliver wider economic benefits The UK now faces a significant capacity challenge. Heathrow Airport is currently the busiest two-runway airport in the world, while Gatwick Airport is the busiest single runway airport in the world. London s airports are filling up fast, and will all be full by 2040 if we do not take action now Aviation demand is likely to increase significantly between now and All major airports in the South East of England are expected to be full by 2040, and by 2050 demand in the South East of England is expected to outstrip capacity by 13-15%, even on the lowest demand forecasts. There is relatively little scope to redistribute demand away from the region to less heavily utilised capacity elsewhere in the country The UK's hub status, stemming from the convenience and variety of its direct connections across the world, is already being challenged by restricted connectivity. Hub airports at Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam have spare capacity and are able to attract new flights to growth markets in China and South America. These competitors have benefited from the capacity constraints at Heathrow Airport, and have seen faster growth over the past few years. The UK s airports also face growing competition from hubs in the Middle East like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Doha and Istanbul. Heathrow Airport was overtaken by Dubai in 2015 as the world s busiest international passenger airport. particular pressures that exist on Heathrow Airport in the absence of spare capacity. Our response to Question 1 suggests a way in which this part of the NPS should be restructured to more clearly set out the characteristics of the particular need for runway capacity to align more closely with Government policy in the APF and the findings of the Airports Commission. We agree, although the paragraph wrongly conflates general capacity with hub capacity. There is no shortage of point-to-point capacity in the South East runway system but there has been a lack of hub capacity for over a decade. This lack of hub capacity has seen Heathrow overtaken as the World s busiest international airport by Dubai. With competitor hubs adding capacity, Heathrow s status is forecast to further decline without expansion, so that in 2030 Heathrow would fall outside the top 10 international airports in the world. The consequences for the UK economy and for the UK s world status are obvious. Paragraph 2.11 should recognise the distinct shortage of hub capacity and the importance of that shortage. See our comments to paragraph 2.11 it is the absence of hub capacity which is more critical than the absence of general capacity. It is hub capacity that creates the ability to achieve the enhanced connectivity sought by the NPS and the APF. Paragraph 2.13 should note that the four main European hubs against which Heathrow now competes all have consented capacity of 700,000 ATMs, whilst Heathrow is capped at 480,000 ATMs. 10

79 Appendix Operating existing capacity at its limits means there will be little resilience to unforeseen disruptions, leading to delays. Fares are likely to rise as demand outstrips supply, and the lack of available slots makes it more difficult for new competitors to enter the market It is very challenging to put a precise figure on these impacts, but using alternative approaches the Airports Commission estimated these costs to be between 30 billion and 45 billion over 60 years. The Airports Commission urged caution interpreting these figures, which overlap with the direct passenger costs reported above and so are not wholly additional. But they do illustrate that not increasing airport capacity carries real economic costs to the whole economy beyond aviation passengers. Having reviewed this further, the Government accepts this analysis The Government also acknowledges the local and national environmental impacts of airports and aviation, for example noise and emissions, and believes that capacity expansion should take place in a way that satisfactorily mitigates these impacts wherever possible. Expansion must be deliverable within national targets and legal limits for air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. We agree. Our response to Question 2 provides more information on fares which are already inflated as a result of lack of capacity at Heathrow and with a forecast that they are expected to rise further. We agree in principle, although the precise economic disbenefits caused by a lack of capacity are very hard to quantify and it would be more appropriate for the NPS to rely upon the principles established here and evidenced by the Airports Commission rather than specific calculations. Our response to Question 2 suggests that the calculated benefits (which include addressing these costs) are significantly underestimated for a Northwest Runway at Heathrow. We agree with the principle of this paragraph. It should be recognised, however, that there are significant environmental disbenefits arising from the lack of capacity at Heathrow. As Sir Howard Davies, the Chair of the Airports Commission himself said, in our view, the airport can get better if it becomes bigger. We also note that this is one of a number of places in the earlier chapters of the NPS where language is used that could be confused with the assessment tests the application will need to meet, which are contained in Chapter 5. If this paragraph is retained, it should be made consistent with the relevant assessment paragraphs. In particular, in order to ensure consistency and accuracy of language when referring to compliance with the EU Directive (in particular for consistency with the key decision making requirement at paragraph 5.41), this paragraph should be amended as follows: "The Government also acknowledges the local and national environmental impacts of airports and aviation, for example noise and emissions, and believes that capacity expansion should take place in a way that satisfactorily mitigates these impacts wherever possible. Expansion must be deliverable within national targets on greenhouse gas emissions and legal limits in accordance with legal requirements for air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. 11

80 Appendix 1 The Airports Commission 2.19 To address these issues, in September 2012, the Coalition Government established the independent Airports Commission, led by Sir Howard Davies. The Airports Commission had two objectives: This paragraph records the stages of the work of the Airports Commission but it would be more useful to set out its task by reference to its formal Terms of Reference, including the necessary emphasis in its work on the need to maintain the UK s hub status. To produce an Interim Report, setting out the nature, scale and timing of steps needed to maintain the UK s global hub status alongside recommendations for making better use of the UK s existing runway capacity over the next five years; and To produce a Final Report, setting out recommendations on how to meet any need for additional airport capacity in the longer term The Airports Commission was asked to take appropriate account of the national, regional and local implications of any expansion. As well as seven discussion papers and an appraisal framework, the Airports Commission delivered its recommendations to Government in its Interim Report in December 2013 and its Final Report in July It also published a summary and decision paper in September 2014 on whether to add an inner Thames Estuary airport proposal to a shortlist for further appraisal. The Airports Commission's shortlisting process 2.25 The Government has made clear in its announcement of 14 December 2015 that it agrees with the Airports Commission s three shortlisted schemes for expansion, and has taken forward its further work on this basis. As set out at paragraph 1.35 of this document, the Airports NPS will only have effect in relation to a scheme located at Heathrow Airport for the provision of a Northwest Runway, and not the other shortlisted schemes. The Airports Commission's conclusions 2.27 In its Final Report in July 2015, the Airports Commission concluded that the proposed Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport presented the strongest case for expansion and would offer the greatest strategic and We agree; the scale of the Airports Commission s work should not be under-estimated, nor the independent nature of its expert members. It would also be appropriate to identify the unanimous nature of its principal conclusions. The statement might read better as The Government made clear in its announcement of 14 December 2015 that it accepted the Airports Commission s three shortlisted schemes for expansion. The final sentence of this paragraph appears out of place and should, in any event be reviewed alongside the changes proposed to paragraph We suggest it is deleted from this paragraph. Whilst Annex B is introduced here as part of the narrative and is said to be illustrative, its inclusion in the NPS could lead parties to misunderstand its status and purpose. It is particularly important, therefore, that the status of these plans is very clearly expressed as plans provided as part of the 12

81 Appendix 1 economic benefits to the UK. A copy of the illustrative Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme masterplan is included at Annex B. The Airports Commission also made clear that expansion would have to involve a significant package of supporting measures to address the environmental and community impacts of the new runway. The Government's Work 2.30 In coming to these decisions, the Government has fully considered the Airports Commission s Interim and Final Reports, as well as the inner Thames Estuary summary and decision paper. The Government also received a range of information from a variety of stakeholders in response to those reports, which was taken into account by the Government in reaching its preference Having reviewed the work of the Airports Commission and considered the evidence put forward on the issue of airport capacity, the Government believes that there is clear and strong evidence that there is a need to increase capacity in the South East of England by 2030 by constructing one new runway. The Government also agrees with the Airports Commission that this can be delivered within the UK s obligations under the Climate Change Act The next chapter of the Airports NPS sets out how the Government has identified the most effective and appropriate way to address the overall need for increased airport capacity, Airports Commission process. It should also be noted that the boundaries on Annex A and Annex B are not consistent with each other. It may be intended that Annex A illustrates the potential extent of nationally significant airport infrastructure, whereas Annex B is simply a copy of the scheme submitted by us to the Airports Commission, and includes additional associated development? Nevertheless, their inclusion may cause the public to consider that the precise extent and layout of the schemes set out in Annexes A and B has been predetermined unless the annexes are carefully explained. Accordingly, we submit that this paragraph should be revised to clarify the status of Annex A and Annex B as illustrative and to make clear that there has been no predetermination of the precise DCO application scheme. In line with our response to Question 1, the Government should also state that it has had regard to existing policy set out in the Aviation Policy Framework. Further to our comment on paragraph 2.10, the clear statement of need to increase capacity is welcomed but please refer to our response to Question 1 which explains the importance of describing the need more accurately and suggests how that should be done. This Chapter of the NPS would be stronger if it was based on a full understanding of the particular need for hub capacity delivering international connectivity and the other needs and objectives set out in the Aviation Policy Framework. It should also acknowledge that the need is urgent now rather than in The final sentence of this paragraph is important but potentially misplaced here. This should be a stand-alone conclusion. It is suggested that Chapter 2 should more clearly summarise the nature of the need and the characteristics which a new runway would need to achieve in order to meet that need. This would more appropriately introduce Chapter 3. Please 13

82 Appendix 1 while meeting the UK s air quality and carbon obligations. see the full detail set out in our response to Question 1 and our comments on paragraphs 2.10 and Overview 3.1 While the previous chapter of the Airports NPS sets out the Government s underlying policy and evidence on the need to expand airport capacity in the South East of England, this chapter sets out why the Government has stated its preference for the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme. 3.6 The work on air quality, which demonstrated that expansion (with mitigation) is capable of taking place within legal limits, is outlined in the Government s air quality re-analysis and the Appraisal of Sustainability. Both documents contain a worst case scenario. Chapter 3 We suggest that this section is restructured by reference to the specific objectives and characteristics of the need identified in Chapter 2. Our detailed response to Questions 1 and 2 suggest how this could be done. We agree with the conclusion "that expansion (with mitigation) is capable of taking place within legal limits". This conclusion reflects all of the work done by Heathrow to date to assess the likely air quality impacts of the Northwest Runway scheme on ambient air quality. However, to ensure consistency with the assessment requirements at paragraph 5.41 and the findings of the Updated Air Quality Re-Analysis, we suggest that this paragraph should be amended as follows: "The work on air quality, which demonstrated that expansion (with mitigation) is capable of taking place within legal limits in accordance with legal requirements, is outlined in the Government s air quality re-analysis and the Appraisal of Sustainability. Both documents contain a reasonable worst-case scenario for the purposes of the Appraisal of Sustainability." 3.11 On 25 October 2016, the Government announced that its preferred scheme to meet the need for new airport capacity in the South East of England was a Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport. It also confirmed that this would be included in a draft Airports NPS, which would be subject to consultation in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Planning Act The Government believes that the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme, of all the three shortlisted schemes, is the most effective and most appropriate way of meeting the needs case set out in This amendment also recognises that we will assess a range of scenarios as part of our air quality modelling and ensures the worst case should not be artificially constrained by the NPS. As set out above and in our response to Questions 1 and 2, the needs case in the NPS should be more clearly expressed. In relation to that more clearly expressed need, this paragraph should be amended to make clear that the Government concludes that the Heathrow Northwest Runway is the only scheme capable of meeting that need. As such the Government can and should conclude that other shortlisted schemes are not true alternatives. 14

83 Appendix 1 chapter 2. As such, the Government has also concluded that the other shortlisted schemes do not represent true alternatives to the preferred scheme In its considerations on a preferred scheme, the Government has fully taken into account the work of the Airports Commission, information provided by a variety of stakeholders, and the results of the Government s further work outlined in paragraphs above. As set out below, the Government has considered the positive and negative effects from each of the three shortlisted schemes, and reached its conclusion by weighing these expected effects, along with considering how positive effects can be enhanced and negative effects mitigated. Heathrow Northwest Runway and Gatwick Second Runway 3.15 In identifying the preferred scheme, a wide range of factors has been taken into account, including: International connectivity and strategic benefits; Passenger and wider economic benefits; Domestic connectivity and regional impacts; Surface access links; Views of airlines, regional airports and the business community; Financeability; Deliverability; and Local environmental impacts Heathrow Airport is best placed to address this need by providing the biggest boost to the UK s international connectivity. Heathrow Airport is one of the world s major hub airports, serving around 180 destinations worldwide with at least a weekly service, including a diverse network of onward flights across the UK and Europe. Building on this base, expansion at Heathrow Airport will mean it will continue to attract a growing number of transfer passengers, providing the added demand to make more routes viable. In particular, this is expected to lead to more long haul flights and connections to fast-growing economies, helping to secure the UK s status as a global This paragraph should be amended to include: The Government has also reached its conclusion by weighing the schemes in terms of their ability to meet the needs identified. These factors are important but the Chapter would be more clearly structured if it were to follow the nature and structure of the need case identified in Chapter 2 of the NPS. We strongly agree the importance of this in meeting the specific nature of the identified need should be emphasised. 15

84 Appendix 1 aviation hub, and enabling it to play a crucial role in the global economy By contrast, expansion at Gatwick Airport would not enhance, and would consequently threaten, the UK s global aviation hub status. Gatwick Airport would largely remain a point to point airport, attracting very few transfer passengers. Heathrow Airport would continue to be constrained, outcompeted by competitor hubs which lure away transfer passengers, further weakening the range and frequency of viable routes. At the UK level, there would be significantly fewer long haul flights in comparison to the preferred scheme, with long haul destinations served less frequently. Expansion at Heathrow Airport is the better option to ensure the number of services on existing routes increases and allows airlines to offer more frequent new routes to vital emerging markets This is demonstrated by the forecasts produced by the Airports Commission. Compared to no expansion, the Airports Commission estimated that a Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport by 2040 would result in 125,000 additional flights a year across the UK as a whole (including 39,000 long haul), and 27 million additional passengers a year. By way of comparison, the Extended Northern Runway would add 104,000 more flights and 23 million additional passengers Compared to no expansion, the Second Runway scheme at Gatwick would add 54,000 flights and 8.5 million passengers by 2040, across the UK as a whole, increasing to 60,000 and 16 million respectively in The Airports Commission projected that 8,000 of these additional flights would be long haul in 2040, rising to 15,000 in Gatwick Airport has recently been successful in securing a number of long haul routes to the USA and Canada from low cost carriers, a new market segment The aviation sector can also boost the wider economy by providing more opportunities for trade through air freight. The time-sensitive air freight industry, and those industries that use air freight, benefit from greater quantity We agree. Please refer to our response to Question 2 which sets out a more detailed analysis and which suggests that the potential benefits of Gatwick expansion have been over estimated. Our comments in this regard are set out in our response to Question 2. We consider the differential between the Heathrow schemes to be significantly greater. Please see our response to Question 2, which contains a detailed analysis of the forecasts of Gatwick connectivity and benefits. Again, these matters are developed in more detail in our response to Question 2. The scale of freight benefits associated with Heathrow should not be under estimated including the opportunity to double freight throughput at Heathrow. These 16

85 Appendix 1 and frequency of services, especially long haul. By providing more space for cargo, lowering costs, and by the greater frequency of services, this should in turn provide a boost to trade and GDP benefits The Government also recognises the role airports can play in supporting wider economic growth in the local community. Expansion at Heathrow Airport is expected to result in larger benefits to the wider economy than expansion at Gatwick Airport. These additional benefits come from more businesses clustering around the expanded airport as well as the productivity benefits from firms who now enjoy lower aviation transport costs. Heathrow Airport already has a more developed cluster of businesses in its surrounding area, which should enable an even larger economic boost from expansion in the local economy Expansion also brings a wider set of non-monetised benefits such as local job creation, trade, and freight benefits, which indicate a stronger case for a Heathrow scheme than for the Gatwick Second Runway scheme The Government recognises the importance that the nations and regions of the UK attach to domestic connectivity, particularly connections into Heathrow Airport. Airports across the UK provide a vital contribution to the economic wellbeing of the whole of the UK. Without expansion, there is a risk that, as airlines react to limited capacity, they could prioritise routes away from domestic connections. The Government therefore sees expansion at Heathrow Airport as an opportunity to not only protect and strengthen the frequency of existing domestic routes, but to secure new domestic routes to the benefit of passengers and businesses across the UK The Government expects to see expansion at Heathrow Airport driving an increase in the number of UK airports with connections specifically into the airport. Heathrow Airport and Gatwick Airport set out plans on domestic connectivity which they say they would deliver, if successful, by 2030: matters are major benefits which should weigh heavily in favour of the Northwest Runway scheme. We strongly agree. This paragraph is welcomed, but would benefit from recognition of the contribution of not just airports but aviation as a whole. This paragraph could also report and recognise that stability and certainty would also benefit continuity and continued investment. The fact that these benefits are not monetised or included in the headline figures is clearly important, particularly since they have clear differentials between the options considered. To them should be added other non-monetised benefits including productivity and new Foreign Direct Investment. These matters are discussed in detail in our response to Question 2 where we explain that we agree with the principles set out in the draft NPS. We agree that expansion at Heathrow provides an opportunity to strengthen domestic routes, and also to secure them. As set out in our response to Question 2, we consider that the NPS should set out more clearly the Government's role in securing domestic routes. Our position is developed in our response to Question 2 but, in principle, we stand by our forecast of future domestic connectivity with the benefit of expansion. It is important, however, that the NPS recognises the role which Government has to play through Public Service Obligations in order to enable this connectivity to be achieved. Delivery is not entirely within the hands of the airport although, as our response explains, 17

86 Appendix 1 14 domestic routes for Heathrow Airport, compared to the eight routes currently in operation; and 12 domestic routes for Gatwick Airport, compared to the six currently offered. Heathrow stands by the commitments it has made to facilitate improved connectivity. We do not consider it appropriate for the NPS to list out possible or likely domestic routes. These routes are based on indications from airlines and are therefore subject to commercial change. The importance of specific connections may also change over time. See our response to Question 2 where we indicate our support for a commitment to PSOs in the NPS. Unless the Government wishes to state in the NPS that it proposes to provide Public Service Obligations to ring-fence and fund these specific routes, we consider it inappropriate for the NPS to list them, particularly given the wording at paragraph At present, it is not legally possible for Heathrow alone to ring-fence specific routes and, even if it became possible, we do not consider specifying routes in planning policy in this way is appropriate The Government recognises that air routes are in the first instance a commercial decision for airlines and are not in the gift of an airport operator. But the Government is determined that these new routes will be secured, and will hold Heathrow Airport to account on this. The Government requires Heathrow Airport to demonstrate it has worked constructively with its airline customers to protect and strengthen existing domestic routes, and to develop new domestic connections, including to regions currently unserved. The wording of this paragraph sets an expectation that cannot currently be delivered without Government intervention through PSOs. We consider, however, that changes to law post- Brexit could facilitate further intervention that could support the ring-fencing of routes. While there will always be a role for PSOs to support routes which are not commercially viable (recognising that neither Government nor Heathrow can force airlines to fly any particular route), it may be possible in the future for planning to ring-fence domestic capacity more generally in other ways, as Brexit could create opportunities for ring-fencing other than via PSOs). As set out in our response to Question 2, any such approach requires further consideration and engagement with Government and airlines on what changes would be required post-brexit and how best any ring-fencing would be set, introduced, administered and managed. It may be that PSOs remain the only and most effective method. We are open in principle, however, to the ring-fencing of domestic capacity. In respect of this paragraph, it is important that the wording is softened to manage expectations about what Heathrow alone can deliver. 18

87 Appendix The airport scheme promoters have pledged to meet the cost of surface access schemes required to enable a runway to open. For Gatwick Airport, this covers the full cost of the works (including the M23 and A23) needed to support expansion. The two Heathrow schemes would pay for the full cost of M25, A4 and A3044 diversions and local road works. They would make a contribution towards the cost of the proposed Western Rail Access and Southern Rail Access schemes. Improvements which are already underway, such as Thameslink and Crossrail, will be completed, and the Government has not assumed any change to these schemes existing funding The majority of the surface access costs where a split of beneficiaries is expected (for example, where multiple businesses and the public at large benefit from a new road junction or rail scheme) are likely to be borne by Government, as the schemes provide greater benefits for non-airport users. The airport contribution would be subject to a negotiation, and review by regulators Because of the early stages of development, there is some variability of surface access costs, which are subject to more detailed development and, for example, choices over precise routes. The additional public expenditure effects of the options would likely be as follows: For both Heathrow proposals, there is no Government road spend directly linked to expansion; the promoter would pay for changes to the M25, A4 and A3044 and any local roads. The Western and Southern Rail schemes are at different levels of development and, based on current estimates, could cost between 1.4 billion and 2.5 billion together. The Government would expect this cost to be partly offset by airport contributions, which would be negotiated when the schemes reach an appropriate level of development. For the Gatwick proposal, there would be no additional public expenditure It is our interpretation of this paragraph that the rail upgrades referred to for Heathrow are not required to enable the runway to open. Both Crossrail and Western Rail have their own cases for provision irrespective of the new runway. Similarly, Southern Rail has its own strong business case for development regardless of expansion.. With regard to the reference to regulatory review, we recommend that the final sentence of this paragraph is amended as follows to ensure clarity on the framework for considering airport contributions towards surface access projects: The airport contribution would be subject to a negotiation, and review by regulators, taking into account CAA policy on airport contributions towards surface access projects. We recommend that the first bullet of this paragraph is amended to ensure it is consistent with policy on surface access contributions set out in the APF. We would recommend the following wording: The Western and Southern Rail schemes are at different levels of development and, based on current estimates, could cost between 1.4 billion and 2.5 billion together. The Government would expect this cost to be partly offset by airport contributions recognising the range of beneficiaries for such schemes and will consider, along with other relevant stakeholders, the scale of contribution required from the airport. Any contribution would be negotiated when the schemes reach an appropriate level of development. Further to our comments on paragraph 3.37, we consider that it is inconsistent to recognise that Brighton Mail Line improvements would take place regardless of expansion at Gatwick and yet to fail to acknowledge that Western Rail and Southern 19

88 Appendix 1 solely because of expansion, as all road enhancement costs for airport expansion would be met by the scheme promoter. The Government has assumed that any improvements to the Brighton Main Line that may be required would take place regardless of expansion and would be publicly funded The benefits of expansion will be delivered only if airlines and the industry choose to use the new capacity, and pay for it via airport charges. There is much greater airline support for expansion via the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme than the other two schemes, subject to various concerns being met, for example on costs 3.44 The level of debt and equity required for the Gatwick Second Runway scheme would be significantly lower than for the Heathrow schemes, but the Airports Commission noted that the Gatwick Second Runway scheme would have comparatively higher demand risk, which is harder for Government to mitigate compared to the Heathrow schemes. Both Heathrow schemes build on a strong track record of proven demand that has proven resistant to economic downturns. Independent financial advisers have undertaken further work for the Government, and agree that all three schemes are financeable without Government support The three shortlisted schemes involve different levels of delivery risk. Gatwick Airport said its Second Runway scheme is capable of being delivered by 2025, while Heathrow Airport said its Northwest Runway scheme is capable of being delivered by The Gatwick Second Runway scheme would be much simpler to build. The process for delivering powers for the Heathrow schemes will be more complex because the schemes themselves are more complex. The delivery dates for both Heathrow schemes are therefore likely to be more risky than that for the scheme at Gatwick The Airports Commission worked with the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS Rail schemes have their own compelling business case independent from expansion at Heathrow. It is apparent, for instance from the work undertaken by the Airports Commission, that expansion of Heathrow is strongly supported by the airlines relative to expansion at Gatwick. This issue is developed further in our response to Question 2. The Airports Commission were confident that the Northwest Runway would be financeable and deliverable, whilst recognising the greater demand risk profile inherent in the expansion of Gatwick (Airports Commission Final Report paragraph 13.20). One important element of that risk is the lack of confidence or certainty that airlines would respond to enhanced capacity at Gatwick. These matters are addressed in our response to Question 2. If airlines are not relocating away from a two runway Heathrow to a two runway Gatwick, no economic benefits would arise from Gatwick expansion, and the major, more certain benefits achievable at Heathrow would be lost, the need would not be met and very substantial economic benefits of national importance would be denied. These matters were reviewed by the Airports Commission which found that the Northwest Runway scheme reflected well known and understood engineering principles, for which there was ample precedent (Airports Commission Final Report paragraph 11.39). We suggest that the NPS should recognise that the issues and timing of modernisation of airspace is 20

89 Appendix 1 Holdings to review the operational and airspace implications of all three shortlisted schemes, including conducting fast-time simulation modelling of the proposed airspace routes. This work concluded that, while managing the expecting increase in air traffic safely for any scheme will be challenging, it should nevertheless be achievable given modernisation of airspace in the South East of England and taking advantage of new technologies changes which will be necessary with or without expansion. The Airports Commission also asked the Health and Safety Laboratory to review the scale of increase in crash risk associated with each of the schemes. This review concluded that the changes to the background crash rate are minimal, regardless of whether or not expansion takes place at the airports Decisions on airport capacity must rightly balance local, environmental and social considerations against the national and local benefits stemming from expansion. As set out above, in terms of economic and strategic benefits, expansion via the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme best meets the need for additional capacity in the South East of England. However, set against these positive impacts, airport expansion can also have negative impacts. For example, all three schemes will have significant impacts on the environment and local communities The Appraisal of Sustainability presents an assessment of the local environmental impact of all three schemes. It shows that, while all three schemes are expected to have a negative effect on impacts such as air quality, noise and biodiversity, the Gatwick Second Runway scheme has a less adverse impact than either scheme at Heathrow. This is primarily because Gatwick Airport is in a more rural location, with fewer people impacted by the airport. Even so, as set out in the Further Review and Sensitivities Report in monetary terms, the environmental impacts of all three schemes are small when compared to the size of the not a matter for the DCO application or the Examining Authority to consider as it will be addressed elsewhere through a formal Airspace Change Process. We agree with this but, as set out above, we consider that it is only the Heathrow Northwest Runway that meets the need for additional hub capacity and this paragraph should reflect that. Whilst it is right that there must be a close focus on the mitigation of impacts, this issue does not legitimise other options as alternatives, if they cannot meet the need. To ensure consistency with other parts of the NPS (in particular the sections on air quality (note our comments at paragraphs 2.18 and 3.6) and to ensure that the reference covers all areas where mitigation might be needed to meet legal obligations, we consider that the following part of this paragraph should be amended as follows: In addition, the Appraisal of Sustainability also sets out potential measures to mitigate these local impacts to ensure that legal limits requirements will be met. 21

90 Appendix 1 benefits, or considered over the 60 year appraisal period. In addition, the Appraisal of Sustainability also sets out potential measures to mitigate these local impacts to ensure that legal limits will be met. As set out below, the Government believes this demonstrates how the commitment to ensure that local impacts of expansion will be mitigated satisfactorily can be met Heathrow Airport has committed to ensuring its landside airport-related traffic is no greater than today. In addition, the airport will be expected to achieve a public transport mode share of at least 50% by 2030, and at least 55% by 2040, for passengers. In some instances in the draft NPS, criteria of assessment of an application for airport expansion appear to be set out in Chapter 3 (dealing with comparison between the different shortlisted proposals) as opposed to Chapter 5 (which deals with assessment). To avoid confusion and inconsistency, all assessment matters should be in section 5. This paragraph is one of those instances. We request therefore that this paragraph is revised to reflect the wording exactly as set out in paragraphs 5.16 and 5.37, where the wording reflects terms that are more appropriate to planning The Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme will be accompanied by a package of measures to mitigate the impact of airport expansion on the environment and affected communities. The Government agrees with the Airports Commission s conclusion that to make expansion possible a comprehensive package of accompanying measures [should be recommended to] make the airport s expansion more acceptable to its local community, and to Londoners generally. This will include a highly valued night flight ban of six and a half hours between 11pm and 7am (with the exact start and finish times to be determined following consultation), and the offer of a predictable, though reduced, period of respite for local communities. The importance of this distinction is that the DCO would normally be expected to be determined in accordance with the NPS; it is therefore necessary for the NPS to be clear by setting out a single and consistent statement of its requirements or policy tests. The purpose of this Chapter 3 is not to set out requirements that will be imposed upon the scheme. Requirements of the scheme are set out in Chapter 5. As described in our response to Questions 6, mixing the paragraphs in this way risks causing confusion at the examination stage. Given that the night flight ban is dealt with in Chapter 5, we suggest that the whole of the second part of this paragraph is deleted as follows: The Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme will be accompanied by a package of measures to mitigate the impact of airport expansion on the environment and affected communities. The Government agrees with the Airports Commission s conclusion that to make expansion possible a comprehensive package of accompanying measures [should be recommended to] make the airport s expansion more acceptable to its local community, and to Londoners generally. This will include a highly valued night flight ban of six and a half hours between 11pm and 7am (with the exact start and finish times to be determined following consultation), and the offer of a predictable, though reduced, period of respite for local communities. 22

91 Appendix 1 Heathrow Northwest Runway and Heathrow Extended Northern Runway 3.54 However, the Government made a preference for the Heathrow Northwest Runway based on a number of factors: Resilience; Respite from noise for local communities; and Deliverability The Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme would provide respite by altering the pattern of arrivals and departures across the runways over the course of the day to give communities breaks from noise. However, respite would decrease from one half to one third of the day. The Heathrow Extended Northern Runway scheme has much less potential for respite. It would use both runways for arrivals and departures for most of the day, although it may be able to switch off one runway for a short time during nonpeak periods with a corresponding reduction in capacity. Carbon Emissions 3.59 The Airports Commission identified carbon impacts from expansion in four areas: a net increase in air travel; airside ground movements and airport operations; changes in travel patterns as a result of the scheme s surface access arrangements; and construction of new infrastructure. Emissions from air travel, specifically international flights, are by far the largest of these impacts The first was a carbon capped scenario, in which emissions from the UK aviation sector are limited to the If it is not deleted, at the very least the language should be entirely consistent with those requirements in Chapter 5. In particular, the reference to a night flight ban in this paragraph should read highly valued ban on scheduled night flights to properly reflect the requirement set out at paragraph 5.61 of the NPS. Please see our response to Question 2. Heathrow notes that Paragraph 9.34 of the Airports Commission s Final Report explains that both the Northwest Runway and the Extended Northern Runway schemes would result in a reduction in respite, but that the Northwest Runway scheme offers significantly more potential respite than the Extended Northern Runway scheme could. We consider that it would provide better balance if this paragraph were to make clear that the current 1/2 day respite would be reduced in the event that either the Northwest Runway or the Extended Northern Runway scheme was selected to support airport capacity expansion. Please also see our response to Question 2. We note that a different way of describing categories of carbon impact is used in Paragraph 5.73 of the NPS, which states "The carbon impact of the proposed development falls into four areas: increased emissions from air transport movements (both international and domestic) as a result of increased demand, emissions from airport buildings and ground operations, emissions from surface transport accessing the expanded airport, and emissions caused by construction". Although both descriptions appear to cover the same key impacts, it would be helpful for clarity and would minimise the scope for confusion to adopt consistent terminology in referring to such impacts. We consider that the wording at paragraph 5.73 most clearly sets out the categories of carbon impact described and would therefore recommend that this is also adopted in paragraph This paragraph refers to the CCC planning assumption as relating to tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. We note that the CCC planning assumption refers 23

92 Appendix 1 Committee on Climate Change s planning assumption for the sector of 37.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in The second was a carbon traded scenario, in which emissions are traded as part of a global carbon market, allowing reductions to be made where they are most efficient across the global economy. Strategic environmental assessment 3.67 Strategic environmental assessments are required by the law. A strategic environmental assessment is set out in full in the Appraisal of Sustainability. It demonstrates that airport expansion will attract additional air traffic, which impacts upon quality of life and wellbeing, in particular through noise, air quality, housing, community facilities, and access to nature and cultural heritage. Negative impacts upon quality of life were of a greater scale within the two Heathrow schemes and of lower magnitude for the Gatwick Second Runway scheme. However, when assessing against the objective of maximising economic benefits and improving competitiveness and employment, the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme generates the most benefits, as well as producing the highest direct benefits to passengers. Conclusion 3.68 This section summarises the factors the Government considered when evaluating each of the three schemes shortlisted by the Airports Commission against the needs case presented in chapter 2. As part of this, the Government identified where schemes could have negative impacts, for example on the local environment. It considered the predicted beneficial effects of the three schemes, particularly in relation to the needs case and economic considerations. It also assessed how the schemes could conform to wider Government strategic objectives and meet legal obligations, for example on air quality. Bringing these considerations together, the Government s decision on a preferred scheme balances this range of factors, enabling it to determine which scheme, overall, is the most effective and to CO 2 only, and not to other greenhouse gas emissions. On this basis the reference to CO 2 equivalent is erroneous, and we would recommend that it is removed. The AoS sets out a clear assessment. Its conclusions could be even more robustly expressed, however, if the nature of the need for a new runway was more clearly set out. Please also see our responses to Questions 1, 2 and, and our comments against paragraphs 1.25 and 1.28 above. We suggest revising the approach set out in the concluding paragraphs of Chapter 3 in the light of the re-statement of the need and objectives for meeting that need suggested for Chapter 2. It would also be appropriate to introduce here the second part of paragraph 3.11 and to establish the reasons why no other short-listed scheme is capable of meeting the objectives. Please see our responses to Questions 1 and 2, which provide an explanation of these comments. 24

93 Appendix 1 appropriate means of meeting the needs case The Appraisal of Sustainability provides an assessment of the schemes against a number of the factors considered in this chapter. It concludes that the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme is best placed to maximise the economic benefits that the provision of additional airport capacity could deliver, although this scheme is likely to do so with the greatest negative impact on local communities. However, the Appraisal of Sustainability also identifies measures which can help to mitigate these impacts, for example by reducing noise, ensure air quality legal limits are met, show how future carbon targets could be met, and assess future demand scenarios. Building on this assessment, the 3.70 Government has identified a number of attributes in the manner of strategic considerations, which it believes the preferred scheme is particularly likely to deliver. The Government has afforded particular weight to these: Expansion via the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme would provide the biggest boost to connectivity, particularly in terms of long haul flights. This is important to a range of high value sectors across the economy in the UK which depend on air travel, as well as for air freight. Expansion via the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme would provide benefits to passengers and to the wider economy sooner than the other schemes. This is regardless of the technical challenges to its delivery. It would also provide the greatest boost to local jobs. Heathrow Airport is better connected to the rest of the UK by road and rail. Heathrow Airport already has good road links via the M25, M4, M40 and M3, and rail links via the London Underground Piccadilly Line, Heathrow Connect and Heathrow Express. In the future, it will be connected to Crossrail, and linked to HS2 at Old Oak Common. The number of such links provides resilience. The Heathrow Northwest Runway To ensure consistency and accuracy of language when referring to compliance with the EU Directive (in particular for consistency with the key decision making requirement at paragraph 5.41) we consider that the last sentence of this paragraph should be amended as follows: However, the Appraisal of Sustainability also identifies measures which can help to mitigate these impacts, for example by reducing noise, ensuring that the development is in accordance with air quality legal limits requirements on air quality, showing how future carbon targets could be met, and assessing future demand scenarios. Please see our comments against paragraph We agree with the benefits set out here but we believe the relative advantage of Heathrow over Gatwick has been under estimated, particularly in the context of the need for hub capacity, which is essential to achieve the international connectivity required of the new runway. The particular headings used in this paragraph are accurate but they could be more closely aligned with objectives established in the APF which we have suggested for Chapter 2. 25

94 Appendix 1 scheme delivers the greatest support for freight. The plans for the scheme include a doubling of freight capacity at the airport. Heathrow Airport already handles more freight by value than all other UK airports combined, and twice as much as the UK s two largest container ports. General Principles of Assessment 4.1 The statutory framework for deciding applications for development consent under the Planning Act 2008 is set out in the Airports NPS. This chapter of the Airports NPS sets out general policies in accordance with which applications relating to a Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport are to be decided. 4.2 The Airports NPS covering the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme establishes the needs case for that proposed development, provided it adheres to the detailed policies and protections set out in the Airports NPS, and the legal constraints contained within the Planning Act The statutory framework for deciding nationally significant infrastructure project applications where there is a relevant designated NPS is set out in Section 104 of the Planning Act The Airports NPS applies to schemes at Heathrow Airport (in the area shown within the illustrative scheme boundary map at Annex A) that include a runway of at least 3,500m in length and that are capable of delivering additional passenger capacity of at least 260,000 air transport movements per annum, and associated infrastructure and surface access facilities, In particular, it also applies to the reconfiguration of terminal areas of Heathrow Airport shown on the illustrative masterplan at Annex B. The Secretary of State s policy in relation to other airport infrastructure in the South East of England is set out at paragraph 1.36 above. Chapter 4 In line with our comments set out in response to paragraph 1.10 (and relating to several paragraphs throughout the NPS), the NPS should be clearer in setting out its own role and scope. This should be done once at the outset of the document (we suggest in Chapter 1 Introduction) to avoid confusion. The need set out in the NPS is the established need. It is independent of and does not relate to the 'protections' in the NPS. The first sentence is therefore rather confused and should be deleted. We have developed our response to this and related paragraphs in response to Question 3. It is important that the NPS does, and is seen to, anticipate a process of careful scheme development through detailed design, environmental assessment and community engagement. This is the process anticipated both by the Airports Commission and by the Appraisal of Sustainability it is also referenced in draft NPS paragraphs 1.26 and We understand that this is the intention of the NPS but the inclusion of the two Annexes providing illustrative details of the Airports Commission scheme may mislead some to believe that these matters have been predetermined. The illustrative scheme boundary should be flexible enough to incorporate any associated development that may be proposed as part of the application, including, for example, proposals for construction logistics and environmental mitigation. It must be quite clear that the red line boundary of the 26

95 Appendix 1 development consent order application is not predetermined by the boundary shown on Annex A. 4.5 In this context, environmental, safety, social and economic benefits and adverse impacts should be considered at national, regional and local levels. These may be identified in the Airports NPS, or elsewhere. The Secretary of State will also have regard to the manner in which such benefits are secured, and the level of confidence in their delivery. 4.6 The National Networks NPS sets out the Government s policies to deliver development of nationally significant infrastructure projects on the national road and rail networks and strategic rail freight interchanges. It provides planning guidance for promoters of nationally significant infrastructure projects on the road and rail networks, and the basis for the examination by the Examining Authority and decisions by the Secretary of State. 4.7 Where the applicant s proposals in relation to surface access meet the thresholds to qualify as nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008, or as associated development under section 115 of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State will consider those aspects by reference to both the National Networks NPS and the Airports NPS, as appropriate. To the extent that discrete aspects of the surface access proposals do not qualify as nationally significant and cannot be included in a development consent application as associated development (for example), the applicant will be expected to pursue or secure necessary consent(s) through the most appropriate alternative consenting regime. This might include, for example, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Highways Act 1980, or the Transport and Works Act 1992, or a separate development These and related matters are elaborated in our response to Question 3. See also our response to paragraphs 2.7 and This general text establishes principles which are not controversial but it is important that it does not create confusion with the specific policy tests set out in Chapter 5. A literal interpretation of the paragraph may lead some to believe that assessments are required beyond the normal scope of environmental or other assessments. It would be better to revise the paragraph to make it more specific to the tests set out, for instance, in Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008, and to explain that Chapter 5 sets out the detail for assessment. We agree with this paragraph, in general terms, but it would be useful if this NPS set out explicit policy support (which will not be found in the National Networks NPS) for those schemes being promoted by third parties in so far as they provide surface access or other solutions for the Heathrow Northwest Runway. We submit that it is hard to contemplate that any form of surface access works reasonably related to the delivery of the airport infrastructure could not be considered either as associated development to the DCO or as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) in its own right. It is unhelpful for the draft NPS to suggest that 'discrete aspects of the surface access proposals might not be either associated development or a NSIP'. That reference should, we submit, be removed. There is however, the possibility that it may be appropriate nevertheless to apply for some advance enabling works which would then be the subject of a separate appropriate consenting regime such as under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). It may also be that other infrastructure such as any additional rail schemes may come forward as a separate project under the DCO process or possibly under the Transport and Works Act or Hybrid Bill processes. The NPS should note that it will be an important and relevant consideration for such applications under separate consenting routes, providing 27

96 Appendix 1 consent application, promoted by a third party if need be. 4.8 The Secretary of State will consider any relevant nationally significant road and rail elements of the applicant s proposals in accordance with the National Networks NPS and with the Airports NPS. If there is conflict between the Airports NPS and other NPSs, the conflict should be resolved in favour of the NPS that has been most recently designated. The Airports NPS and the National Networks NPS may also be a material consideration in decision making on applications for road and rail schemes associated with or related to the preferred scheme that fall under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Transport and Works Act 1992, or other legislation relating to planning. Whether, and to what extent, the Airports NPS and the National Networks NPS are a material consideration will be judged on a case by case basis by the relevant decision makers. Scheme Variation 4.11 While the Government has decided that a Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport is its preferred scheme to deliver additional airport capacity (an illustrative masterplan is at Annex B of the Airports NPS), this does not limit variations resulting in the final scheme for which development consent is sought. To benefit from the full support of policy within the Airports NPS, any application(s) will have to fall within the positive policy support. This approach will ensure that the widest possible consenting options remain open to facilitate the most appropriate consenting options and timing of those options. Further in this regard, as Heathrow develops its DCO for expansion, other proposals are likely to come forward, such as Network Rail s DCO for the Western Rail Link to Heathrow and further development of proposals for Southern Rail Access. This paragraph notes that the National Networks NPS will apply to the consideration of those proposals but it would be useful if this NPS set out explicit policy support (which will not be found in the National Networks NPS) for those schemes being promoted by third parties in so far as they provide improved accessibility to the airport. This is a helpful statement about the relative status of the different NPSs, although in large parts it repeats the intent of what is set out in paragraph 4.7. We reiterate our comments above in relation to paragraph 4.7. This paragraph contains a helpful recognition that the NPS does not limit scheme variations. As set out in relation to paragraph 4.3, we believe it would be helpful to clarify the status of the annexes containing plans and boundaries of the scheme. Similarly, the phrase boundaries and parameters set out in the NPS is not a standard phrase and could be misinterpreted by some for example, that the red line boundary of the application has been pre-determined prior to community 28

97 Appendix 1 Equalities boundaries and parameters set out in the Airports NPS. However, the form of a development for which an application is made is a matter for the applicant. The Airports NPS does not prejudice the viability or merits of any particular application, detailed scheme or applicant. It governs the location, limits and nature of such schemes. It will be for an Examining Authority, and ultimately the Secretary of State, to determine whether any future application is compliant with the Airports NPS, meets the need for additional capacity, and is of benefit to the UK, whilst minimising any harm caused The Appraisal of Sustainability to the Airports NPS sets out an assessment of equalities impacts, informed by the work of the Airports Commission. The Airports Commission was clear that its assessment was based upon current scheme design, and that a more detailed equalities impact assessment would likely be necessary as design, supporting measures and operational plans were developed The Airports Commission s assessment identified different types of equalities impacts for each of its shortlisted schemes, but no substantial difference in the overall extent of equalities impacts. The Airports Commission s assessment, and the assessment carried out for the Appraisal of Sustainability that informs the Airports NPS, both concluded that negative equalities impacts could be well mitigated through good design and operation, and supporting measures and plans. consultation. It would be more sensible to refer to the assessment principles and policy tests set out in chapters 4 and 5 of the NPS. It would also be appropriate for the NPS to recognise the role of associated development in potentially serving the expanded airport and mitigating its impacts. See our response to Question 6. Illustrative examples of relocated or expanded land uses would be helpful, as long as the NPS was not determinative. This part of the NPS could also recognise our stated intention to apply for the early release of air traffic movements to come in to effect after any DCO approval in the early post-brexit years. Although that proposal was not considered by the Airports Commission or the Government, the NPS should acknowledge it, however, and make clear that, if it is advanced as part of the DCO it will need to be the subject of full consultation, assessment and mitigation, and would fall to be considered against the principles established in Chapter 4 and 5 of the NPS. We note that the Government's duty under the Equalities Act 2010 is ongoing, and would therefore expect that the Government will undertake a comprehensive updated Equalities Impact Assessment based on the final form of the National Policy Statement, after it has been updated following consultation, and prior to it being designated. We consider that the second sentence in this paragraph 4.25 may be better moved to paragraph 4.26 where the AoS is introduced. 29

98 Appendix The Department for Transport has reviewed the Airports Commission s work, informed by the equality impact assessment carried out as part of the Appraisal of Sustainability. The Government is satisfied that the scope of the Airports Commission s work was appropriate at this stage of scheme development, that the Airports Commission s approach was consistent with the Equality Act 2010, and that its conclusion is consistent with the evidence produced For any application to be considered compliant with the Airports NPS, it must be accompanied by a project level equalities impact assessment examining the potential impact of that project on groups of people with protected characteristics. In order to benefit from the support of the Airports NPS, the results of that project level equalities impact assessment must be within the legal limits and parameters of acceptability outlined in the Appraisal of Sustainability that informs the Airports NPS. Alternative Requirements 4.28 The applicant should comply with all legal requirements and any policy requirements set out in the Airports NPS on the assessment of alternatives. In particular: The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive requires projects with significant environmental effects to include a description of the reasonable alternatives studied by the applicant which are relevant to the proposed development and its specific characteristics, and an indication of the main reasons for the option chosen, taking into account the significant effects of the project on the environmental effects; We consider that this paragraph could be amended to make clearer that the Government has undertaken considerable work of its own as part of the Appraisal of Sustainability. It would be helpful if the reference to the "legal limits and parameters of acceptability outlined in the Appraisal of Sustainability" is rephrased to provide clarity on which legal limits and parameters are being referred to in this paragraph. Please see our comments in relation to paragraphs 1.25 and 1.28 in relation to consideration of alternatives in the context of the HRA and AoS. Please also see our comments in relation to paragraphs in relation to the Water Framework Directive, and and in relation to flood risk and the sequential test. There may also be other specific legal requirements for the consideration of alternatives, for example, under the Habitats and Water Framework Directives; and There may also be policy 30

99 Appendix 1 requirements in the Airports NPS, for example the flood risk sequential test. Criteria for 'good design' for airports infrastructure 4.30 Visual appearance should be an important factor in considering the scheme design, as well as functionality, fitness for purpose, sustainability and cost. Applying good design to airports projects should therefore produce sustainable infrastructure sensitive to place, efficient in the use of natural resources and energy used in their construction, and matched by an appearance that demonstrates good aesthetics as far as possible A good design should meet the principal objectives of the scheme by eliminating or substantially mitigating the identified problems by improving operational conditions and simultaneously minimising adverse impacts. It should also mitigate any existing adverse impacts wherever possible, for example in relation to safety or the environment. A good design will also be one that sustains the improvements to operational efficiency for as many years as is practicable, taking into account capital cost, economics and environmental impacts. Cost 4.36 The applicant should demonstrate in its application that its scheme is costefficient and sustainable, and seeks to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime. We consider that paragraph 4.33 adequately deals with what is meant by good design and how it can be judged. The use of 'good aesthetics' in this paragraph creates a subjective test that could be the subject of confusion. We therefore suggest that the words after 'construction' should be deleted and that this paragraph and paragraph 4.33 could be merged. This paragraph should be reviewed as its general terms may not be sufficiently specific for the decision maker, particularly having regard to the principles established in paragraphs 4.9 and We are committed to developing a proposal which limits its environmental impacts, mitigates those which cannot be further limited and which, where appropriate, provides compensation, so long as the approach is relevant to planning and consistent with the principles set out in paragraph 4.9 and It is not practical, however, to eliminate impacts, whilst the use of the word minimising applied literally may be difficult to address. The paragraph should be revised in accordance with standard planning policies. It should also relate to the impacts of the development rather than the general reference to identified problems. Similarly, the expectation that good design would mitigate any existing adverse impacts wherever possible is both vague and inconsistent with normal planning policy. Overall, the paragraph should be revised to develop a more standard approach. We support the objective of this paragraph. We agree that it is critically important that the new Northwest Runway is affordable for its users and we have commenced the preparation of our plans in this context. The Government should recognise, however, that it has a role to play in this respect as the cumulative cost of planning policy requirements and contributions may have a significant influence on affordability. We suggest, therefore, that this paragraph is extended so that it has some practical effect not just for the application but also for the examination and determination of the DCO application. To this effect, and to assist with decision marking, we suggest that the paragraph is revised as follows: 31

100 Appendix 1 Climate Change Adaptation 4.39 Adaptation is therefore necessary to deal with the potential impacts of these changes that are already happening. New development should be planned to avoid increased vulnerability to the range of impacts arising from climate change. When new development is brought forward in areas which are vulnerable, care should be taken to ensure that risks can be managed through suitable adaptation measures, including through the provision of green infrastructure The Government has published a set of UK Climate Projections, and every five years prepares a statutory UK Climate Change Risk Assessment and National Adaptation Programme. In addition, the Climate Change Act 2008 adaptation reporting power has been used by Government to invite reporting authorities (a defined list of public bodies and statutory undertakers, including airports) to consider the impact on them of current and predicted climate change, and to report on progress implementing adaptation actions. Successive strategies for adaptation reporting will be laid alongside five yearly updates to the National Adaptation Programme Where transport infrastructure has safety-critical elements, and the design life of the asset is 60 years or greater, the applicant should apply the UK Climate Projections 2009 high emissions scenario (high impact, low likelihood) against the 2080 projections at the 50% probability level. The applicant should demonstrate in its application that its scheme is cost-efficient, financeable and sustainable, and seeks to minimise capital and operating costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners where practical, having regard to the requirements of this NPS. These matters will also be relevant to the examination and determination of a DCO application for the Northwest Runway and the Secretary of State will take into account the effect of the cumulative cost of any suggested mitigation or compensation requirements on these objectives. Heathrow suggests that the words "including through" are replaced by the words "such as but not limited to". This would make clear that the provision of green infrastructure is only one example of a suitable adaptation measure. We suggest that more clarity is needed here as to the relevance of the reporting procedures of the Climate Change Act 2008 in relation to the matters covered by the NPS or airport expansion. We assume that the operation of the reporting power would be unaffected by the NPS or by any DCO application. Further, the requirements of EIA in relation to climate change adaptation (as set out in this NPS) are independent of these procedures. Similarly, it is assumed that the successive strategies referred to in the final sentence are those of the Government and should not be viewed as imposing any requirement on the applicant for a DCO. Accordingly, we would invite the Government to review the need and relevance of the various points made in this paragraph. We think that it is unclear whether the reference to high impact, low likelihood requires an applicant to cover in its EIA and DCO application (1) just the high emissions scenario for the 2080 projections at the 50% probability level or (2) the high emissions scenario for the 2080 projections at the 90% probability level as well as the 50% probability level or (3) the High Plus Plus (H++) scenarios as well. 32

101 Appendix 1 (H++ scenarios describe extreme climate change scenarios typically those beyond the 10% and 90% probability levels of the UKCP09 projections. Scenarios have been developed for heat waves, cold snaps (referred to as L- - scenarios), low/high rainfall, low/high river flows and wind storms. H++ scenarios present plausible extreme risks but with low associated likelihoods. A report was published in 2015 by the Adaptation Sub-Committee (ASC) of the Committee of Climate Change (CCC) which presents the results of the development of the H++ scenarios. The results are discussed within the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) 2017.) We suggest that the high emissions scenario for the 2080s at the 50% probability level (e.g. scenario (1) above) would represent the most reasonable and proportionate basis for EIA and DCO climate change assessments. This is on the basis that this scenario has been used for the climate change assessments for other major NSIPs (e.g. High Speed 2) The applicant should demonstrate that there are no critical features of infrastructure design which may be seriously affected by more radical changes to the climate beyond those projected in the latest set of UK Climate Projections. Any potential critical features should be assessed, taking account of the latest credible scientific evidence on, for example, sea level rise, and on the basis that necessary action can be taken to ensure the operation of the infrastructure over its estimated lifetime through potential further mitigation or adaptation. However, we confirm that we would in any event intend to take account of the 2080s projections at the 90% probability level and the H++ scenarios as part of a stress test and worst case scenario within the EIA and DCO climate change assessments. We are concerned that this paragraph creates a high level of uncertainty as to what should or should not form part of the DCO application for the Northwest Runway. The paragraph refers to sea level rise as just one example of the type of climate change scientific 'evidence' that should be taken into account, but there is no certainty as to how many, or what, types of scientific evidence will need to be considered. We suggest that this paragraph should be amended to refer only to those variables that are considered by the UK Climate Projections. The reference to "latest credible scientific evidence" is vague and could leave open to question what information should and should not be taken into account in assessment. We note that the 2017 Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (as consulted upon) place particular focus on the need for post open monitoring. We consider that it is through such monitoring in the future that the need for any mitigation measures to be utilised will be identified. We therefore suggest that this paragraph is amended to end with the words ''through potential monitoring, and further mitigation or adaptation which it is determined is required based upon that monitoring". 33

102 Appendix Any adaptation measures should be based on the latest set of UK Climate Projections, the most recent UK Climate Change Risk Assessment, consultation with statutory consultation bodies, and any other appropriate climate projection data. Any adaptation measures must themselves also be assessed as part of any Environmental Impact Assessment and included in the environmental statement, which should set out how and where such measures are proposed to be secured. We also reiterate our response to paragraph 4.43 above regarding stress tests and worst-case scenarios. We interpret the reference in this paragraph to radical changes to the climate beyond those projected in the latest set of UK Climate Projections as potentially referring to the application and use of the High Plus Plus (H++) scenarios, however, greater clarity as to whether that is correct and whether they should be considered as part of the EIA assessment should be provided. We are concerned that it is not clear what legal framework for assessment of adaptation measures is being referred to in this section (other than the Environmental Impact Assessment regime) this concern flows from the use of the word "also" in the second sentence. The Climate Change Act 2008 provides for reporting etc., but neither the Act nor this section of the NPS make clear the criteria against which adaptation measures should be considered outside of (and additional to) the EIA / ES, as this paragraph seems to anticipate. We recommend that the second sentence should instead read: Any adaptation measures must themselves also be included as part of any Environmental Impact Assessment and thus form part of the environmental statement which should set out how and where such measures are proposed to be secured. Pollution Control and other environmental protection regimes 4.49 Issues relating to discharges or emissions from a proposed project which affect air quality, water quality, land quality or the marine environment, or which include noise, may be subject to separate regulation under the pollution control framework or other consenting and licensing regimes. Relevant permissions will need to be obtained for any activities within the development that are regulated under those regimes before the activities can be operated. This will ensure that climate change adaptation measures will form part of the scheme design or additional mitigation measures that are recommended as part of the EIA process. It would be beneficial in this section to refer to the fact that certain consents and licences can be wrapped into the DCO, and to confirm that it should be assumed that in such cases the relevant pollution control regime will be applied and enforced, in the same way as it is assumed in relation to permissions that need to be obtained separately. 34

103 Appendix 1 Common law nuisance and statutory nuisance 4.58 The defence of statutory authority is subject to any contrary provision made by the Secretary of State in any particular case by an order granting development consent. Security considerations 4.61 Where national security implications have been identified, the applicant should consult with relevant security experts from the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure and the Department for Transport to ensure that physical, procedural and personnel security measures have been adequately considered in the design process, and that adequate consideration has been given to the management of security risks. If the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure is satisfied that security issues have been adequately addressed in the project when the application is submitted, it will provide confirmation of this to the Secretary of State, and the Examining Authority should not need to give any further consideration to the details of the security measures during the examination Air transport is one of the safest forms of travel, and the UK is a world leader in aviation safety. Maintaining and improving that record, while ensuring that regulation is proportionate and cost-effective, remains of primary importance to the UK. Since 2003, rules and standards for aviation safety in Europe have increasingly been set by the European Aviation Safety Agency. The UK will continue to work closely with European Aviation Safety Agency to ensure that a high and uniform level of civil aviation safety is maintained across Europe. The preferred scheme at Heathrow must comply with the UK s civil aviation safety regime, regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority. We consider that it would be helpful to provide guidance in the NPS in relation to the defence of statutory authority and the specific circumstances in which this would not be preserved. We consider it important to preserve the defence of statutory authority unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so, and thinks it is important that the NPS is clear on this point. The extent to which the CPNI will approve security plans is under consideration by the DfT and CPNI. On this basis, we are aware that this paragraph is subject to review, and expect the designated NPS to accurately reflect the CPNI s role in the airport s design. We will welcome CPNI advice as the National Technical Authority on Protective Security throughout the life of the project. The policy is set by the EASA, not the Civil Aviation Authority, so the final sentence should read: The preferred scheme at Heathrow must comply with the UK's civil aviation safety regime, overseen by the Civil Aviation Authority. 35

104 Appendix 1 Health 4.66 The construction and use of airports infrastructure has the potential to affect people s health, wellbeing and quality of life. Infrastructure can have direct impacts on health because of traffic, noise, vibration, air quality and emissions, light pollution, community severance, dust, odour, polluting water, hazardous waste and pests. The NPS should acknowledge that the construction and, in particular, the use of airport infrastructure can also have positive health impacts, in addition to the impacts already listed. Introduction 5.1 This chapter focuses on the potential impacts of the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme, the assessments that the applicant will need to carry out, and the specific planning requirements that the applicant will need to meet, in order to gain development consent. Chapter 5 This is a helpful clarification given the potential confusion that could arise from the range of matters which are also referenced in earlier chapters. caused by using assessment style language in the earlier chapters of the NPS. We consider that this paragraph could be further strengthened by making it absolutely clear that it is this Chapter which provides the policies for the assessment of the impacts and effects of the DCO application. For instance, 5.4 The Government announced on 25 October 2016 that its preferred scheme to deliver additional airport capacity in the South East of England was a Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport. Alongside this, it set out a number of supporting measures that any application for development consent will be required to demonstrate and secure in order to mitigate the impacts of expansion on the environment and affected communities. Surface Access 5.5 The Government s objective for surface access is to ensure that access to the airport by road, rail and public transport is high quality, efficient and reliable for both passengers and airport workers who use transport on a daily basis. The Government also wishes to see the number of journeys made to airports by sustainable modes of transport maximised as much as possible. This should be delivered in a way that minimises congestion and This chapter focuses on sets out the potential impacts We consider that paragraphs 5.2 to 5.4 are without a conclusion as to where this work is now reflected. To clarify this, additional text should be added to the end of this paragraph as follows: These supporting measures that any application for development consent will be required to demonstrate are reflected in this Chapter. We agree with the Government's objectives. We note that the phrase "maximised as much as possible" could be interpreted as an obligation of perfection which would not be helpful at Examination. It would be better if this was rephrased as "increased as far as practicable as part of the scheme." This is in line with the approach in the Aviation Policy Framework which requires surface access plans to simply 'increase' these kinds of journeys. 36

105 Appendix 1 environmental impacts, for example on air quality. 5.6 A Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport will have a range of impacts on local and national transport networks serving the airport, during both the construction and operational phases. Passengers and airport workers share the routes to and from the airport with other road and rail users, including commuters, leisure travellers and business users. Without effective mitigation, expansion is likely to increase congestion on existing routes and have environmental impacts such as increased noise and emissions. 5.7 It is important that improvements are made to Heathrow Airport s transport links to be able to support the increased numbers of people who will need to access the expanded airport, should development consent be granted. 5.8 The applicant must prepare an airport surface access strategy in conjunction with its Airport Transport Forum, in accordance with the guidance contained in the Aviation Policy Framework. The airport surface access strategy must reflect the needs of the scheme contained in the application for development consent, over its development, implementation and operational phases. The strategy should reference the role of surface transport in relation to air quality and carbon. The airport surface access strategy must contain specific targets for maximising the proportion of journeys made to the airport by public transport, cycling or walking. The strategy should also contain actions, The paragraph should therefore be amended as follows: "The Government s objective for surface access is to ensure that access to the airport by road, rail and public transport is high quality, efficient and reliable for both passengers and airport workers who use transport on a daily basis. The Government also wishes to see the number of journeys made to airports by sustainable modes of transport maximised as much as possible increase as far as practicable as part of the scheme This should be delivered in a way that minimises congestion and environmental impacts, for example on air quality." We accept that the Northwest Runway could have a range of impacts on transport network serving the airport. Quite what and where those impacts will be of course cannot be fully determined until the transport assessment necessary for the development consent order application is completed. Suitable mitigation can then be identified. As such, we suggest that the reference to "local and national transport networks" be removed as it is a little unclear at this stage instead it should refer just to "networks". I would be useful if it was clarified in this paragraph that the 'improvements' to 'Heathrow Airport's transport links' will comprise those for mitigation to be identified as necessary in the surface access strategy through the process set out in paragraphs 5.8 to 5.15 of the draft NPS and also other improvements of wider benefit, including Southern Rail Access and Western Rail Access, which may be delivered by third parties. Please see further our response to Question 4. We agree with the requirements in this paragraph as to the production of an airport surface access strategy, however, we note again that the Aviation Policy Framework (APF) refers to "increasing" rather than "maximising" journeys made by public transport and this is the better way for the requirement to be expressed. The phrase maximising could put in place a disproportionate obligation. It should be replaced with increasing to ensure consistency with the APF and the changes suggested at paragraph 5.5. Similarly, Heathrow suggests that the goal must be overall sustainability, in line with the APF (and NPPF) and as such other forms of transport which are sustainable but not necessarily public should also be recognised, particularly given technology development in the transport sector. As such, we 37

106 Appendix 1 policies and defined performance indicators for delivering against targets, and should include a mechanism whereby the Airport Transport Forum can oversee implementation of the strategy and monitor progress against targets alongside the implementation and operation of the preferred scheme The applicant will need to demonstrate that Highways England, Network Rail and relevant highway and transport authorities and transport providers have been consulted, and are content with the deliverability of any new transport schemes or other changes required to existing links to allow expansion within the timescales required for the preferred scheme as a whole. This includes changes to the M25 to allow a new runway to cross the motorway, local road diversions, and improvements including the diversion of the A4 and A3044, and on-airport station works and safeguarding The surface access systems and proposed airport infrastructure may have the potential to result in severance in some locations. Where appropriate, the applicant should seek to deliver improvements that reduce community severance and improve accessibility Any application for development consent and accompanying airport surface access strategy must include details of how the applicant will maximise the proportion of journeys made to the airport by public transport, cycling and walking to achieve a public transport mode share of at least 50% by 2030, and at least 55% by 2040 for passengers. The applicant should also include details of how it will achieve a 25% reduction from the current baseline of all staff car trips by 2030, and a reduction of 50% by 2040 from 2017 levels. recommend that reference is made to sustainable transport rather than public transport. In making the above changes, this section of the paragraph should be amended as follows: "The airport surface access strategy must contain specific targets for maximising increasing the proportion of journeys made to the airport by public sustainable transport, cycling or walking." We are already working closely with key transport authorities and providers. However, there is a risk that the wording of this paragraph creates the potential for a relevant body to prevent the delivery of a scheme by not expressly stating that they are 'content' with the deliverability of the scheme. The phrase could inadvertently create a further test of policy beyond the tests set out in this Chapter for the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State. Agreement with key stakeholders will be a priority for us but the test for the decision maker should relate to the acceptability of the outcomes of the proposals, tested against the criteria in Chapter 5. This process is the normal one and operates well for all other major infrastructure schemes where there are significant interfaces. We therefore consider that this paragraph should be re-phrased to require that: The applicant must consult with the relevant bodies and that its proposals must demonstrate that the relevant bodies' responses have been taken into account in developing the application proposals. We suggest that the words 'or mitigation measures' should be added after 'improvements' as the reduction of severance does not necessarily need to be delivered through improving existing surface access. To ensure consistency with suggested changes at paragraph 5.5 and 5.8, and reflect the targets later in the paragraph, the words 'will maximise' should be replaced with 'will increase'. Please refer to our comments in relation to paragraph As set out there, it is appropriate that this matter is dealt with here at paragraph 5.16 and that the wording at paragraph 3.49 should either be deleted or updated to reflect the wording in this paragraph, which is more appropriate to planning. In relation to the wording here on mode share targets: for the reduction in staff car trips, there are 2 differing starting points - there is a 38

107 Appendix 1 reference to "the current baseline" and a reference to "2017". These should be consistent. We note the Statement of Principles (footnoted here at paragraph 5.16) is not specific. We advise that this commitment was first made in 2013 and that 2013 is the baseline year from which our calculations are based; and 5.17 The applicant should commit to annual public reporting on performance against these specific targets. The airport surface access strategy should consider measures and incentives which could help to manage demand by car users travelling to and from the airport, as well as physical infrastructure interventions, having at all times due regard to the effect of its strategy on the surrounding area and transport networks. These measures could be used to help achieve mode share targets and should be considered in conjunction with measures to mitigate air quality impacts as described in the Airports NPS The Government expects the applicant to secure the upgrading or enhancing of road, rail or other transport networks or services which are physically needed to be completed to enable the Northwest Runway to operate. This includes works to the M25, local road diversions and improvements including the diversion of the A4 and A3044, and on-airport station works and safeguarding. Where a surface transport scheme is not solely required to deliver airport capacity and has a wider range of beneficiaries, the Government, along with relevant stakeholders, will consider the need for a public funding contribution alongside an appropriate contribution from the airport on a case by case basis. the reference in the passenger mode share targets should be to a 'sustainable transport mode share' not a 'public transport mode share, for the reasons set out in our response to paragraph 5.8. As per our comments in respect of paragraphs 5.28 and 5.88 below, we consider that reference should be made here to road user charging as a potential mitigation measure given the benefits this could have in reducing emissions and improving mode share, should it be deemed necessary. Paragraph 5.28 specifically references the potential introduction of a congestion or access charge in the context of the Airports Commission's recommendations. We suggest this paragraph is amended as follows: The airport surface access strategy should consider measures and incentives which could help to manage demand by car users travelling to and from the airport, as well as physical infrastructure interventions and potentially some form of road user charging, having at all times due regard to the effect of its strategy on the surrounding area and transport networks. We consider that confusion could arise from this paragraph in that it deals with different concepts and should be clarified in accordance with our comments at paragraph Our detailed comments in this respect are set out in our response to Question 4. 39

108 Appendix The Government recognises that there may be some works which may not be required at the time the additional runway opens, but will be needed as the additional capacity becomes fully utilised. The same principle applies that, where a transport scheme is not solely required to deliver airport capacity, the Government, along with relevant stakeholders, will consider the need for a public funding contribution alongside an appropriate contribution from the airport on a case by case basis Provided the applicant is willing to commit to transport planning obligations to satisfactorily mitigate transport impacts identified in the transport assessment (including environment and social impacts), with costs being considered in accordance with the Department for Transport s policy on the funding of surface access schemes, development consent should not be withheld on surface access grounds. Air quality 5.22 Increases in emissions of pollutants during the construction or operational phases of airport projects consented under the Airports NPS could result in the worsening of local air quality. Increased emissions can contribute to adverse impacts on human health and on the natural environment The European Union has established common, health-based and ecosystem based ambient concentration limit values for the main pollutants in the Ambient Air Quality Directive (2008/50/EU) ( the Air Quality Directive ), which member states are required to meet by specified dates. This paragraph should be dealt with via the restructuring proposed at paragraph 5.18 to above and is also subject to the comments made there and in our response to Question 4. We agree that Development Consent should not be withheld on Surface Access grounds where transport impacts are sufficiently mitigated. However, the reference to the 'Department for Transport's policy on the funding of surface access schemes should be clarified. We assume this is referring to the position set out at paragraph 5.12 of the APF in that the costs for surface access projects will be considered against the need for these to support airport growth and the range of beneficiaries of such projects. If so, we recommend the following is added to this paragraph: The costs for surface access schemes will be considered against the need for these to support airport growth and the range of beneficiaries of such projects in accordance with the Aviation Policy Framework While this statement is clearly true, we understand that the reference to 'airports projects' is really only a reference to the Northwest Runway (in line with the points raised in our response to Question 8). This paragraph may benefit from being clarified on that basis. The reference to the Directive as '2008/50/EU' is technically incorrect and this should be replaced with '2008/50/EC' 40

109 Appendix In November 2016 the High Court ordered the Government to produce a modified air quality plan that delivers compliance in the shortest possible time. The Government will publish and notify to the European Commission a final, modified air quality plan by 31 July The 2015 national air quality plan will remain in force until the modified plan is adopted Air quality impacts are generated by all types of infrastructure development to varying degrees, and the geographical extent and distribution can cover a large area. At Heathrow Airport in 2013, aircraft movements were modelled to have contributed 14.3% on average to local levels of NOx on nearby areas. Road transport, by comparison, accounted for 50.8% of NOx emissions in the same areas. Off-road transport and mobile machinery (a category which would include airside vehicles) contributed 5.2%. This paragraph should be updated following the publication of the final 2017 UK Air Quality Plan for tackling nitrogen dioxide. We accept the general sentiment of this paragraph, which emphasises the role of road transport in the local area, but consider that if figures are being used they should be properly referenced in a corresponding footnote as their source is unclear. In addition, it should be made clear that the road transport contributions set out are those of all road traffic, and not those related to the airport traffic. There is also mixed use of 'levels' and 'emissions' in this paragraph which make direct comparison difficult (as they are different measurements). Overall, we suggest a general statement rather than specific numbers in this paragraph, which at present are not presented with sufficient context and supporting detail. We therefore suggest this paragraph be re-worded as follows: "Air quality impacts are generated by all types of infrastructure development to varying degrees, and the geographical extent and distribution can cover a large area. At Heathrow Airport in 2013, aircraft movements were modelled to have contributed 14.3% on average to local levels of NOx on nearby areas. Road transport, by comparison, accounted for 50.8% of NOx emissions in the same areas. Offroad transport and mobile machinery (a category which would include airside vehicles) contributed 5.2%. The study by the Airports Commission made clear that road traffic is generally the main contributor to nitrogen dioxide concentrations within the local area, with a lesser contribution from aircraft emissions." 5.28 The Airports Commission identified (and in some cases quantified the impact of) a number of measures that would help mitigate any negative impacts on air quality. In addition, for the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme, the Airports Commission recommended the following supporting measures: This general conclusion is also reflected in paragraph of Appendix A-8 (Air Quality) to the Appraisal of Sustainability. As referenced here, the Airports Commission supported consideration of a congestion or access charge as a mitigation measure. We continue to consider this an important option for which the NPS should provide policy support. We have therefore suggested additions to the NPS at paragraphs 5.17 above and 5.38 below to 41

110 Appendix 1 That Heathrow Airport should be held to performance targets to increase the percentage of employees and passengers accessing the airport by public transport; and That the introduction of a congestion or access charge for road vehicles should be considered The Airports Commission undertook extensive analysis on air quality and concluded that expansion could take place within legal requirements (including in a high demand growth scenario). The Department for Transport conducted a study of the implications of the Government s 2015 national air quality plan on the conclusions of the Airports Commission s air quality assessment Since this work was completed in June 2016, updated international evidence on vehicle emission forecasts was published at the end of September The Department for Transport has conducted further analysis to assess the impact that this updated evidence base would have on compliance with EU limit values of expansion options at Heathrow Airport and Gatwick Airport. The work has helped inform the Government s view that, with a suitable package of policy and mitigation measures, including the Government s modified air quality plan, the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme would be capable of being delivered without impacting the UK s compliance with air quality limit values. ensure that the NPS supports the inclusion of this option should it be demonstrated as necessary. We consider that the NPS should use consistent language when referring to compliance with Directive 2008/50/EC. Please see our comments on paragraphs 2.18, 3.6, 3.69, and 5.30 To ensure consistency, we suggest this paragraph should be amended as follows: "The Airports Commission undertook extensive analysis on air quality and concluded that expansion could take place within in accordance with legal requirements (including in a high demand growth scenario). The Department for Transport conducted a study of the implications of the Government s 2015 national air quality plan on the conclusions of the Airports Commission s air quality assessment." Please see our response to Question 5 and our Appendix 2 which sets out why we support this conclusion. We consider that the phrase compliance with EU limit values of expansion options is an overly simplistic representation of what compliance with Directive 2008/50/EC means and the assessment work the Government has undertaken. We therefore suggest this paragraph should be amended as follows: Since this work was completed in June 2016, updated international evidence on vehicle emission forecasts was published at the end of September 2016 [ADD REFERENCE]. The Department for Transport has conducted further analysis to assess the impact that this updated evidence base would have on conclusions relating to the impact compliance with EU limit values of that the expansion options at Heathrow Airport and Gatwick Airport are likely to have on the UK s compliance with Directive 2008/50/EC. The work has helped inform the Government s view that, with a suitable package of policy and mitigation measures, including the Government s modified air quality plan, the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme would be capable of being delivered without impacting the UK s compliance with legal requirements on air quality limit values. 42

111 Appendix The applicant should undertake an assessment of the project, to be included as part of the environmental statement, demonstrating to the Secretary of State that the construction and operation of the Northwest Runway will not affect the UK s ability to comply with legal requirements. Failure to demonstrate this will result in refusal of development consent The environmental statement should assess: Existing air quality levels for all relevant pollutants referred to in the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 and the National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2002; Forecasts of air quality at the time of opening, (a) assuming that the scheme is not built (the future baseline ), and (b) taking account of the impact of the scheme, including when at full capacity; and Any significant air quality effects, their mitigation and any residual effects, distinguishing between those applicable to runway construction and operation stages and taking account of the impact that the project is likely to cause on air quality arising from road and other surface access traffic The Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the mitigation measures put forward by the applicant are acceptable, including at the construction stage. A management / project plan may help record and secure mitigation at this stage While the precise package of mitigations should be subject to consultation with local communities to ensure the most effective measures are taken forward, an extensive range of We agree that compliance with legal requirements is the appropriate way to reflect the need to comply with Directive 2008/50/EC and that other wording (such as the wording currently used at paragraph 5.30) risks causing confusion. This paragraph would be clearer if it was amended as follows: Existing air quality levels for all relevant pollutants referred to in the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 and the National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2002; Forecasts of levels for all relevant air quality pollutants at the time of opening, (a) assuming that the scheme is not built (the future baseline ), and (b) taking account of the impact of the scheme, including when at full capacity; and Any likely significant air quality effects of the proposed development, their mitigation and any residual likely significant effects, distinguishing between those applicable to runway the construction and operation of an expanded Heathrow Airport stages, and taking account of the impacts that the project is likely to cause on air quality arising from road and other surface access traffic. We consider that the last line of the final bullet should be deleted because a) the wording is unclear; and b) it is redundant because a competent assessment of the proposed development would be required to assess impacts from changes to traffic attributable to the scheme. We suggest that this paragraph be amended for clarity as follows: The Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the mitigation measures put forward by the applicant are acceptable, including at the construction stage. A management / project plan may help record and secure measures to be implemented during the mitigation at this the construction stage. We suggest that this paragraph could be amended as follows for clarity: "While the precise package of mitigations should be subject to consultation with local communities to ensure the most effective measures are taken 43

112 Appendix 1 mitigation measures is likely to be required Other mitigation measures could include, but are not limited to: Landing charges structured to reward airlines for operating cleaner flights (for example NOx emissions charging); Zero- or low-emission hybrid or electric vehicle use (ultra-low emission vehicles), charging and fuel facilities; Reduced or single engine taxiing (improved taxiing efficiency); Reducing emissions from aircraft at the gate (for example installation of fixed electrical ground power and preconditioned air to aircraft stands to reduce the use of auxiliary power unit); Modernised heating supplies in airport buildings; Changes to the layout of surface access arrangements; Traffic restrictions and / or traffic relocation around sensitive areas; and Physical means, including barriers to trap or better disperse emissions and speed control on roads Air quality considerations are likely to be particularly relevant where the scheme is proposed: Within or adjacent to Air Quality Management Areas, roads identified as being above limit values, or nature conservation sites (including Natura 2000 sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest); Where changes are sufficient to bring about the need for new Air Quality Management Areas or change the size of an existing Air Quality Management Area, or bring about changes to exceedances of the limit values, or where they may have the potential to impact on nature conservation sites; and Where, after taking into account mitigation, a project would lead to a significant air quality impact in relation to Environmental Impact Assessment and / or where they lead to a deterioration in air quality in a zone or agglomeration. forward in the application, an extensive range of mitigation measures is likely to be required." As noted above at paragraphs 5.17 and 5.28, and set out in our response to Question 4, we believe that the NPS should recognise and provide support for some form of road user charging as a potential mitigation measure. We proposed that this is included as an option in the list of measures provided. For clarity, we consider this paragraph should be amended as follows: "Air quality considerations are likely to be particularly relevant where the scheme is proposed: the scheme is proposed within or adjacent to Air Quality Management Areas, roads identified as being above limit values, or nature conservation sites (including Natura 2000 sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest); Where changes where the scheme s likely impacts are sufficient to bring about the need for new Air Quality Management Areas or change the size of an existing Air Quality Management Area, or bring about changes to exceedances of the limit values, or where they may have the potential to impact on nature conservation sites; and Where, after taking into account mitigation, a project the scheme would lead to a significant air quality impact in relation to Environmental Impact Assessment and / or where they lead to a deterioration in air quality in a zone or agglomeration." 44

113 Appendix 1 Noise 5.44 Aircraft noise is not only determined by the number of aircraft overhead, but also by engine technologies and airframe design, the paths the aircraft take when approaching and departing from the airport, and the way in which the aircraft are flown Over recent decades, there have been reductions in aviation noise due to technological and operational improvements, and this trend is expected to continue. New technology is already making aircraft quieter. Newer generation aircraft coming into service have a noise footprint typically 50% smaller on departure than the ones they are replacing, and at least 30% smaller on arrival. In addition, further opportunities for noise reductions are expected in the next decade as part of the UK airspace modernisation programme. One of the key aims of this programme is to reduce the overall level of noise disturbance by ensuring that fewer aircraft overfly centres of population and airborne holding is at higher altitudes. However, evidence has shown that people s sensitivity to noise has increased in recent years, and there has been growing evidence that exposure to high levels of aircraft noise can adversely affect people s health. Expansion will lead to a rise in the number of flights in the local area compared to a no expansion scenario. Footnotes for The Sustainable Aviation Noise Roadmap, A Blueprint for Managing Noise from Aviation Sources to 2050: ad-maps/ CAP 1164, Aircraft noise, sleep disturbance and health effects: We suggest that the wording be clarified on the basis that the list of factors determining aircraft noise set out is not exhaustive. For example, it could read: Aircraft noise is not only determined by the number of aircraft overhead, but also by a range of other factors including engine technologies and airframe design, the paths the aircraft take when approaching and departing from the airport, and the way in which the aircraft are flown. We think that this paragraph should confirm that the matters set out in this paragraph have been taken into account in developing the policy set out in the NPS. We suggest that the footnote should also reference the recently published SONA study (available here: %20FEB17.pdf) and NORAH (available here: 45

114 Appendix 1 ation.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id= The Government wants to strike a fair balance between the negative impacts of noise (on health, amenity, quality of life and productivity) and the positive economic impacts of flights. There is no European or national legislation which sets legally binding limits on aviation noise emissions. Major airports are, however, under a legal obligation to develop strategic noise maps and produce Noise Action Plans based on those maps, on a five yearly basis. They are also required to review and, if necessary, revise action plans when a major development occurs affecting the existing noise situation. In addition, the Government already expects the noisedesignated airports (Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted) to produce noise exposure maps on an annual basis The Airports Commission s assessment was based on indicative flight path designs, which the Government considers to be a reasonable approach at this stage in the process. Precise flight path designs can only be defined at a later stage after detailed airspace design work has taken place. This work will need to consider the various options available to ensure a safe and efficient airspace which also mitigates the level of noise disturbance. Once the design work has been completed, the airspace proposal will be subject to extensive consultation as part of the separate airspace decision making process established by the Civil Aviation Authority. We suggest that the positive impacts of expansion on health, amenity, quality of life and productivity should also be recognised in this paragraph: the balancing exercise is not one where the positive impacts are only economic. For example, the Appraisal of Sustainability expressly acknowledges that some positive effects may be expected due to potential reductions in sleep disturbance. Increased employment and prosperity can also bring positive health benefits.. It is useful and important that the draft NPS recognises the separate and subsequent role that the airspace change process has in determining precise flight path designs for a third runway at Heathrow. We suggest that the NPS should do more to clarify to the Examining Authority and all stakeholders that final flightpaths will not be available at the DCO stage. We therefore suggest that additional text be added to this paragraph as follows: Precise flight path designs will not be finalised or examined through the DCO process. Precise flight path designs can only be defined at a later stage after detailed airspace design work has taken place, and will be authorised as part of the separate airspace change decision making process established by the Civil Aviation Authority. This subsequent detailed design work will need to consider the various options available to ensure a safe and efficient airspace which also mitigates the level of noise disturbance. Once the design work has been completed, the airspace proposal will be subject to extensive consultation as part of the separate airspace decision making process established by the Civil Aviation Authority. For the Development Consent Order, the applicant will need to provide enough information on likely future flight paths to undertake an environmental 46

115 Appendix 1 impact assessment, which may involve the use of indicative or prototype flight paths to assess the likely significant effects of the three runway airport but which will not fix the final flight path designs The Airports Commission concluded that expansion at Heathrow must be taken forward with a firm guarantee that the airport and its airlines will be held to the very highest standards of noise performance. In addition, the Airports Commission stated that the airport should not be allowed to expand without appropriate conditions being put in place in respect of its noise impacts Pursuant to the terms of the Environmental Impact Regulations, the applicant should undertake a noise assessment for the time of opening, the time the airport is forecast to reach full capacity, and (if applicable, being different to either of the other assessment periods) at a point when the airport s noise impact is forecast to be highest. This should form part of the environmental statement. The noise assessment should include the following: A description of the noise sources; An assessment of the effect of predicted changes in the noise environment on any noise sensitive premises (including schools and hospitals) and noise sensitive areas (including National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty); The characteristics of the existing noise environment, including noise from aircraft, using noise exposure maps, and from surface transport and ground operations associated with the project, the latter during both the construction and operation phases of the project; A prediction on how the noise environment will change with the proposed project; and The Secretary of State will not impose requirements as part of the Development Consent Order which risk undermining subsequent or parallel decisions under other statutory or regulatory noise control regime, such as the airspace change process. It would be appropriate for the Government to set out whether or not it endorses the two points made in the Airports Commission s report and recited here and, if so, to either indicate which of the measures in the following paragraphs are intended to secure those two points or to simply state This has been taken into account with the Airports NPS in the following paragraphs at the end of this paragraph Alternatively, if Government has no particular view on these two points, this paragraph could reasonably be deleted to avoid any confusion. We submit that this paragraph should also recognise that at the time of the assessment, the airspace design work will not have been completed (as recognised in paragraph 5.49) and accordingly the noise assessment of likely significant effects from the proposed development will be on the basis of indicative prototype flight paths. For this reason, and to be compliant with the EIA directive, the paragraph should refer to the likely significant effect of predicted changes. 47

116 Appendix 1 Measures to be employed in mitigating the effects of noise. These should take into account construction and operational noise (including from surface access arrangements) and aircraft noise Operational noise, with respect to human receptors, should be assessed using the principles of the relevant British Standards and other guidance. For the prediction, assessment and management of construction noise, reference should be made to any British Standards and other guidance which give examples of mitigation strategies Noise management at airports where a noise problem has been identified is subject to the concept of a Balanced Approach, referred to above. EU Regulation 598/2014, which adopts the Balanced Approach, also lays down a procedure for the adoption of noiserelated operating restrictions, in particular a requirement for prior consultation. Footnote for 5.53 For the purposes EU Regulation 598/2015, an airport means an airport which has more than civil aircraft movements per calendar year (a movement being a take-off or landing), on the basis of the average number of movements in the last three calendar years before the noise assessment. We have made comments on these issues in response to Question 5. In particular, we welcome the clarity on the approach to noise assessment metrics set out in the draft Airspace Policy but suggest that clarity should also be provided in the NPS. We consider that this paragraph should be amended as follows: Operational noise, with respect to human receptors, should be assessed using the principles of the relevant British Standards and other guidance. In assessing the likely significant impacts of airspace noise, the applicant should use the noise assessment principles set out in the [Government s final Airspace Policy]. For the prediction, assessment and management of construction noise, reference should be made to any British Standards and other guidance which give examples of mitigation strategies. With the final reference in square brackets to be completed once the Airspace Policy has been finalised. Guidance from the Secretary of State would be useful on the interaction between consultation and approval under the DCO and consultation and approval of operating restrictions pursuant to EU Regulation 598/2014. It would be useful here to expressly confirm that the Regulation therefore applies at Heathrow. 48

117 Appendix The Government recognises that aircraft noise is a significant concern to communities affected and that, as a result of additional runway capacity, noise- related action will need to be taken. Such action should strike a fair balance between the negative impacts of noise and positive economic impacts of flights The Government also recognises that predictable periods of relief from aircraft noise (known as respite) are important for communities affected, and that noise at night is widely regarded as the least acceptable aspect of aviation noise for those communities, with the costs on communities of aircraft noise during the night (particularly the health costs associated with sleep disturbance) being higher While the package and detail of noise mitigation measures should be subject to consultation with local communities and other stakeholders to ensure the most appropriate and effective measures are taken forward, the Government expects the applicant to make particular efforts to avoid significant adverse noise impacts and mitigate other adverse noise impacts as a result of the Northwest Runway scheme and Heathrow Airport as a whole The Secretary of State will consider whether the mitigation measures put forward by the applicant following consultation are acceptable. The noise mitigation measures should ensure that the number of people significantly affected by aircraft noise is limited and, where possible, reduced. Mitigation would appear to be a clearer term than action, particularly given the need for clarity in the context of this section of the draft NPS. It is important in this context that the NPS reflects the balanced approach contained in Government policy and endorsed at paragraph In this context, the draft NPS at paragraph 5.56 could be clearer that (consistent with Government policy established in the NPSE and NPPG and consistent with Government decisions such as the recent decision on the Cranford Agreement [Ref No. APP/R5510/A/14/ ]) avoidance for the purposes of the policy can be achieved in part by mitigation measures including noise insulation. We note that the final sentence stating noise mitigation measures should ensure that the number of people significantly affected by aircraft noise is limited and, where possible, reduce reflects wording used in existing noise policy and in particular the Government s draft Airspace Policy. However, the draft Airspace Policy provides context and important caveats to this statement which are not reflected in the NPS but should be for example, please see paragraphs 5.14 and of the draft Airspace Policy. To ensure consistency between the two policies and reduce any potential confusion, we consider that this paragraph of the NPS should more explicitly reflect the detail of the Airspace Policy and its guidance on noise assessment. We therefore suggest this paragraph should be amended as follows: The Secretary of State will consider whether the mitigation measures put forward by the applicant following consultation are acceptable. The noise 49

118 Appendix The applicant should put forward plans for a noise envelope. Such an envelope should be tailored to local priorities and include clear noise performance targets. As such, the design of the envelope should be defined in consultation with local communities and relevant stakeholders, and on the basis of the expert advice of an independent third party. This third party could be the Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise proposed by the Government in its separate consultation on UK airspace policy. The benefits of future technological improvements should be shared between the applicant and its local communities, hence helping to achieve a balance between growth and noise reduction. Suitable review periods should be set in consultation with the parties mentioned above to ensure the noise envelope s framework remains relevant The Government also expects a ban on scheduled night flights for a period of six and a half hours, between the hours of 11pm and 7am, to be implemented. The rules around its operation, including the exact timings of such a ban, should be defined in consultation with local communities and relevant stakeholders, in line with the requirements of EU Regulation 598/ The proposed development must be undertaken in accordance with statutory requirements for noise. Due regard must have been given to national policy on aviation noise, and the relevant sections of the Noise Policy Statement for England, the National Planning Policy Framework, and the Government s associated planning guidance on noise. However, the Airports NPS must be used as the primary policy on noise when considering the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme, and has primacy over other wider noise policy sources. mitigation measures should ensure that the number of people significantly affected by aircraft noise is limited and, where possible, reduced, in accordance with the Government s [Airspace Policy] and its associated Guidance. We support the principle of a noise envelope that shares the benefits of noise reduction between the local community and the industry, as set out in CAA guidance document CAP1129 Noise Envelopes. We comment in more detail in our response to Question 5. We have addressed this matter in our response to Question 5. Reference here should also be made to the Aviation Policy Framework and the NPPG, as well as the finalised version of the Airspace Policy. The NPS should also recognise the role of other regulatory regimes in controlling the noise impacts of airports. 50

119 Appendix Development consent should not be granted unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proposals will meet the following aims for the effective management and control of noise, within the context of Government policy on sustainable development: Carbon Emissions Avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise; Mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise; and Where possible, contribute to improvements to health and quality of life The Government has a number of international and domestic obligations to limit the carbon emitted by both the construction and operation phases of the project The Government has accepted the Committee on Climate Change s recommendations on the first five carbon budgets. The fifth carbon budget, for the period , was set in July 2016 in line with the Committee on Climate Change s advice. In effect, this means that carbon budgets for other sectors of the UK economy have been set at a level which the Committee on Climate Change considers is consistent with meeting the overall 2050 target when international aviation emissions are included Any increase in carbon emissions alone is not a reason to refuse development consent, unless the increase in carbon emissions resulting from the project is so significant that it would have a material impact on the ability of Government to meet its carbon reduction targets, including carbon budgets. The introductory part of the paragraph should acknowledge the role of other regulatory regimes in this context, i.e. that: the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proposals, in conjunction with the statutory and regulatory regimes for controlling noise (and air noise in particular), will We note that the Government's international and domestic obligations in relation to limiting carbon are broad and impact on a wide range of sectors, including aviation. These do not specifically require limits on carbon emitted from the Northwest Runway but from all projects of a certain nature and scale, and also to a number of other sectors of the economy on a business as usual basis. We would therefore recommend amending this paragraph to make clear that the Government's obligations in relation to carbon do not relate specifically to the Northwest Runways scheme, but to all projects of a certain nature and scale, including the new runway. We note the importance of clear and unambiguous policy in providing a robust framework for decisionmaking, and welcome the Government's recent confirmation of its plans to replace the 2013 Aviation Policy Framework with an Aviation Strategy that will include a more detailed consideration of available policy measures to address the climate change impacts of aviation for the UK as a whole. We consider it important in the context of this paragraph to note that (i) carbon emissions are to an extent inherent in development of airport capacity, and (ii) international aviation emissions are not presently within the scope of the Government's carbon reduction targets (see section 3 of the Airports Commission Discussion Paper 03: Aviation and Climate Change, and letter 51

120 Appendix 1 from Chris Grayling MP to the Environmental Audit Committee dated 9 th January 2017). Biodiversity and ecological conservation 5.86 The wide range of legislative provisions at the international and national level that can impact on planning decisions affecting biodiversity and ecological conservation is set out in the Planning Practice Guidance on biodiversity and ecosystems. This includes a description of the potential impacts on internationally, nationally and locally protected sites which may arise through development, and should therefore be considered through further assessment The applicant should ensure that the environmental statement submitted with its application for development consent clearly sets out any likely significant effects on internationally, nationally and locally designated sites of ecological or geological importance, protected species, and habitats and other species identified as being of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity The applicant should show how the project has taken advantage of and maximised opportunities to conserve biodiversity and geological conservation interests. The draft NPS is helpfully clear on the Government s position that a new Northwest Runway scheme can be developed and operated consistently with the UK s climate change obligations. We also note that the Aviation Strategy, when published, will put in place a policy framework to meet the Government's obligations in relation to carbon emissions for the aviation sector. It is important that matters of Government policy in relation to carbon are not reopened as part of a DCO application, particularly as achievement of the UK s obligations is dependent on a number of actions which are outside Heathrow s control. The final sentence in this paragraph could be clarified - the Natural Environment Guidance referred to (footnote 152) does not describe the potential impacts on designated sites. Rather it sets the framework within which developers and Government agencies/local authorities should consider impacts of development within the context of policy. It would be useful to adopt consistent terminology with the NPPF in the context of this paragraph, for instance by using the term "priority species and habitats" in line with the glossary defined term in the NPPF. We note the obligation in this paragraph on the applicant to show how the project has taken advantage of and maximised opportunities to conserve biodiversity and geological conservation interests. We note that whilst there is expected to be a net biodiversity gain in connection with the Northwest Runway, there will necessarily be some loss of habitat and biodiversity in certain areas required to deliver the project. The NPS could usefully recognise that. The reference to maximising opportunities to "conserve" could potentially be seen as cutting across this requirement. 52

121 Appendix Compensation ratios relating to the effects of the preferred scheme should be considered in more detail during the design. The application of 2:1 compensation ratio is considered to represent the minimum requirement. However, there are other mechanisms for establishing compensation ratios, such as Defra s biodiversity offsetting metric. Equally, it is important to note that habitat ratios form only one part of potential compensation which should be considered, and the location and quality of any compensation land is of key importance. In this regard, habitat creation, where required, should be focused on areas where the most ecological and ecosystems services benefits can be realised At this stage, it is not possible for Heathrow Airport as the applicant to rule out adverse effects of its scheme, given that more detailed project design information, and detailed proposals for mitigation, is not presently available. However, Heathrow Airport will need to demonstrate that articles 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive are satisfied in order to gain development consent. Heathrow is also concerned that the reference to "maximising" opportunities in relation to biodiversity and geological conservation interests could be seen as at odds with other aspects of the document as it would suggest that conserving biodiversity at the cost of another receptor should be prioritised. The current wording may make this element difficult to achieve in light of the large scale trade-offs between different types of receptors. As set out elsewhere, using maximise as a policy test is not appropriate. Ratios relating to the effects of the preferred scheme should be considered in more detail during the design of the scheme. The application of an appropriate biodiversity offsetting metric, such as that formulated by Defra, is helpful but not determinative. We are aware that this metric is being used in the context of other major infrastructure projects within the area. Equally, it is important to note that offsetting metrics form only one part of the potential compensation which should be considered. Habitat creation, where required, should be focused on areas where the most ecological and ecosystems services benefits can be realised. We would therefore request that the NPS be amended to refer to a compensation ratio defined by an appropriate biodiversity offsetting metric based on that formulated by Defra, and agreed with Natural England, and that the specific reference to a 2:1 ratio is removed from the NPS. If the Northwest Runway is determined to provide no adverse effect to any European site under an assessment in line with Article 6(3), the need to demonstrate compliance with 6(4) is removed (i.e. there is no need to examine alternatives or IROPI as the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites/network is maintained). It may be helpful to clarify this in the text of the draft NPS. 53

122 Appendix The proposed development comprised in the preferred scheme should provide many opportunities for building in beneficial biodiversity as part of good design. When considering proposals, the Secretary of State will consider whether the applicant has maximised such opportunities in and around developments, and particularly to establishing and enhancing green infrastructure. The Secretary of State may use requirements or planning obligations where appropriate in order to ensure that such beneficial features are delivered. Land use including open space, green infrastructure and Green Belt Access to high quality open spaces and the countryside and opportunities for sport and recreation can be a means of providing necessary mitigation and / or compensation requirements. Green infrastructure can enable developments to provide positive environmental and economic benefits. We note that opportunities to maximise beneficial biodiversity must be considered in light of information and requirements regarding aircraft safety. It could be difficult to demonstrate compliance with the requirement to "maximise" opportunities for green infrastructure, as it is vague and open ended. The use of the word maximise could also be seen as inconsistent with other aspects of the document, as it suggests that opportunities for building in beneficial biodiversity should take precedence over other considerations in the context of good design and enhanced green infrastructure. Generally, in this section of the draft NPS, we are concerned that the draft does not sufficiently recognise the known land use requirement or effects of the Northwest Runway. We have expanded on these concerns at some length in our responses to Questions 3 and 6. By definition, there are no sufficient paragraphs to respond to. The construction and operation of the Northwest Runway scheme will have a wide range of land use impacts, the principles of which are already well known and should be reflected in the NPS. The NPS should also recognise the following land use matters: - The expectation that the application will need to include a wide range of associated and ancillary development including airport-related development; - The potential requirement to include within the application provision for the relocation of displaced uses impacted by the project s footprint; - The need for close working with the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group of local planning authorities and the desire for that Group to generate a wider sub-regional planning framework to plan for the sustainable delivery of the economic potential generated by the new runway. We have no comment in relation to this paragraph 5.105, but in relation to this section generally, see our response to Question 6 the NPS could do more to recognise the inevitable land use impacts of the Northwest Runway. 54

123 Appendix Green Belts, defined in a development plan, are situated around certain cities and built up areas, including London. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Further information on the purposes and protection of Green Belt is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. We are concerned that the terms in which this paragraph are currently drafted raise and leave unresolved a Green Belt policy issue, which, if the paragraph was drafted in different terms, could potentially be settled prior to any application for development consent being submitted. By reference to Green Belt policy as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework ('NPPF') (at paragraphs 79-92), this NPS paragraph imposes the 'very special circumstances' test on the Northwest Runway scheme, notwithstanding the fact that the draft NPS is site specific as to the location of the Government's preferred scheme, the inevitable effect of which is that part of the land required for that scheme will be within the Green Belt. In these circumstances, it would be logical for the NPS paragraph to set out that the scheme does meet the 'very special circumstances' test and to give reasons to explain why that is the case Best and most versatile agricultural land is land which is most flexible, productive and efficient in response to inputs and which can best deliver future crops for food and non-food uses such as biomass, fibres and pharmaceuticals. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out how local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of best and most versatile agricultural land. Planning practice guidance for the natural environment provides additional guidance on best and most versatile agricultural land and soil issues. For instance, the NPS could set out that the scheme would provide nationally significant infrastructure required to address national need and being in the public interest, thereby comprising 'very special circumstances'. Further, the NPS could explain how any potential harm to the Green Belt arising from the scheme would be outweighed by other considerations, such as the economic and societal benefits arising from this nationally significant infrastructure project, the effect of which would be to satisfy the 'very special circumstances' test for development in the Green Belt. The terms in which this paragraph are currently drafted give rise to a lack of clarity in relation to the application to the Northwest Runway scheme of extant planning policy, as referenced in paragraph 112 of the NPPF, on the use of best and most versatile agricultural land for development. This policy requires the application of a sequential test, in which poorer quality agricultural land is required to be used before, and in preference to, higher quality agricultural land, including in particular best and most versatile agricultural land. However, the NPS paragraph does not acknowledge or address the fact that the draft NPS is site specific by reference to the Government's 'preferred scheme'. As a result, the application of the sequential test is necessarily constrained on several levels. For instance, any consideration of 'alternative' sites is precluded, such that the sequential test can only be 55

124 Appendix 1 applied within the context of the preferred scheme. This limited flexibility will likely be further constrained by the need for the promoter to strike a balance between safeguarding the long term potential of best and most versatile agricultural land on the one hand, and, on the other, delivering green infrastructure elements of the scheme, such as community and biodiversity provision, and potentially also other forms of mitigation. If this paragraph was drafted in slightly different terms, the issue could potentially be settled prior to any application for development consent being submitted under the Planning Act For instance, it would be preferable for the NPS: to acknowledge the constraints arising from its site specific nature (in connection with the Northwest Runway scheme) and to state that the development of any agricultural land (including best and most versatile agricultural land) in connection with the delivery of the Northwest Runway scheme is 'necessary', for the reasons identified in sections 2 and 3 of the NPS and in the Airports Commission's Report (July 2015); and to confirm that the use of agricultural land (including where necessary best and most versatile agricultural land) for the purposes of the preferred scheme is acceptable, subject to the application of the sequential test within the context of the Northwest Runway scheme and on a basis which also takes into account the potential need for agricultural land to be adapted for use for other purposes, such as the provision of green infrastructure and other mitigation. In addition, it would be helpful if this NPS paragraph (or a footnote to it) set out the definition of 'best and most versatile agricultural land' (as provided in the NPPF - Annex 2: Glossary). It would also be helpful if a footnote was added to this paragraph, to reference the "Planning practice guidance for the natural environment", i.e. " Paragraph: 026 Reference ID: ; Revision date: ". 56

125 Appendix 1 Footnote for National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 112 See comment above regarding the addition of a footnote ions/contaminated-land-statutoryguidance #163 For example, where a planning application has been submitted Development of land will affect soil resources, including physical loss of and damage to soil resources, through land contamination and structural damage. Indirect impacts may also arise from changes in the local water regime, organic matter content, soil biodiversity and soil process Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land should not be developed unless the land is surplus to requirements or the loss would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location. If the applicant is considering proposals which would involve developing such land, it should have regard to any local authority's assessment of need for such types of land and buildings The general policies controlling development in the countryside apply with equal force in Green Belts but there is, in addition, a general presumption against inappropriate development within them. Such development should not be approved except in very special circumstances which are already the subject of Government guidance. The applicant should therefore determine whether the proposal, or any part of it, is within an established Green Belt and, if so, whether its proposal may be considered inappropriate development within the meaning of Green Belt policy. Metropolitan Open Land and land designated a Local Green Space in a local or neighbourhood plan are subject to the same policies of protection as Green Belt, and inappropriate development should not be approved Footnote for except in very special circumstances The comments set out above in relation to paragraph are also applicable to this paragraph, in terms of the potential effects of development on soil resources and the acceptability of that. Similarly to paragraphs and above, the NPS could do more to recognise inevitable impacts of the new runway, which are already understood, rather than providing standard, generic policy tests. The comments set out above in relation to paragraph are also applicable to this paragraph, which should be revised to confirm that the test for 'very special circumstances' justifying otherwise 'inappropriate development' in the Green Belt is satisfied in principle, on the basis that any potential harm to the Green Belt arising from the scheme scheme would be outweighed by other considerations, such as the economic and societal benefits arising from the Northwest Runway. This footnote contains a reference to a paragraph which appears not to exist. In the relevant online guidance ("Housing and economic land availability assessment") referenced by the link, the paragraph 57

126 Appendix The applicant should take into account the economic and other benefits of best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, the applicant should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality. The applicant should also identify any effects, and seek to minimise impacts, on soil quality, taking into account any mitigation measures proposed. For developments on previously developed land, the applicant should ensure that they have considered the risk posed by land contamination and how it is proposed to address this The applicant should safeguard any mineral resources on the proposed site for the preferred scheme as far as possible. numbers stop at 043. There is no paragraph 044. The reference should therefore be clarified or corrected. The comments set out above in relation to paragraphs are also applicable to this paragraph, in terms of the application of the sequential test for the use of agricultural land for the purpose of delivering new development. It is not clear from paragraph whether the minerals safeguarding policies in the relevant Local Plan or Development Plan for the area should apply, setting the test to be met by the applicant in this regard, or whether the minerals safeguarding policies set out in those documents are effectively superseded by the general requirement in paragraph We note that section 104 of the Planning Act 2008 provides that a decision whether or not to grant a DCO application must be taken in accordance with any relevant NPS. However, it is not clear whether the detail of the policies in the relevant Local Plan or Development Plan are applicable. We think it is important that the NPS is clearer as to what will be required of the applicant in relation to minerals safeguarding. In this context we note that Local Plan policies on minerals safeguarding often set out circumstances in which prior extraction of minerals will not be required, and may set out other exemptions in relation to the safeguarding of mineral resources. These exemptions may be targeted at a community level, allowing the policy to be overridden where the community need for the development outweighs the need to safeguard the minerals in question (such as is the case in the London Borough of Hillingdon Local Plan). We think it is important that the requirements in terms of minerals safeguarding in the NPS reflect the nationally significant nature of the Northwest Runway scheme and the national need for new airport capacity in the South East. As such we would submit that paragraph should make clear precisely what will be required of an applicant in terms of minerals safeguarding, and in particular 58

127 Appendix 1 should make clear whether minerals policies in relevant Local Plans or Development Plans apply in the context of appraisal of the Northwest Runway scheme. If it is considered appropriate to apply such policies, we think it is important that the NPS also sets out appropriate exemptions from the requirement to safeguard mineral resources, recognising the nationally significant nature of the Northwest Runway scheme, and the fact that it should not be prevented from going ahead due to issues associated with minerals safeguarding. The terms in which this paragraph are currently drafted raise and leave unresolved an issue in relation to minerals safeguarding policy, which, if the paragraph was drafted in different terms, could potentially be settled prior to any application for development consent being submitted. As currently drafted, NPS paragraphs and suggest that minerals within the area of the new runway should be safeguarded (although, as set out above, the means by which such safeguarding should occur is not clearly set out in the NPS). We are concerned that the location of the scheme, and the use that will need to be made of land at that location in order to deliver the Government s preferred scheme, will necessarily constrain the ability to safeguard minerals in certain areas at least (e.g. beneath the area proposed to be used for the third runway itself). In these circumstances, it would be logical for the NPS paragraph to set out that minerals in the land required to be used to deliver the Northwest Runway scheme: would not be required to be safeguarded, or to be subject to any otherwise applicable minerals safeguarding policy (either at national or local level), where it was impracticable or not reasonably feasible for them to be subject to such safeguarding for reasons related to the delivery of the new runway scheme. We submit that this would be justified on the basis that the Northwest Runway scheme constitutes nationally significant infrastructure required to address national need and being in the public interest, thereby outweighing the need for the particular minerals affected to be safeguarded. 59

128 Appendix 1 We would therefore propose the following amendment to this paragraph: The applicant can minimise the direct effects of a project on the existing use of the proposed site, or proposed uses near the site, by the application of good design principles, including the layout of the project and the protection of soils during construction The Secretary of State will not grant consent for development on existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, unless an assessment has been undertaken either by the local authority or independently, which has shown the open space or the buildings and land to be surplus to requirements, or the Secretary of State determines that the benefits of the project (including need) outweigh the potential loss of such facilities, taking into account any positive proposals made by the applicant to provide new, improved or compensatory land or facilities Where the preferred scheme has an impact on a mineral safeguarding area, the Secretary of State must ensure that the applicant has put forward appropriate mitigation measures to safeguard mineral resources. The applicant should safeguard any mineral resources on the proposed site for the preferred scheme as far as is reasonably practicable and feasible in the context of the proposed scheme, taking into account relevant constraints in relation to location and layout of key infrastructure. Considerations of whether minerals require to be safeguarded should also take into account the nature of the scheme as nationally significant infrastructure meeting a nationally identified need possible. The reference to minimise should be qualified. We note that the first sentence of this NPS paragraph is drafted in terms which go beyond those set out in previously designated NPSs, such as, for example, the National Networks NPS and the Overarching Energy NPS, which state that the Secretary of State "'should not' grant consent for development on existing open space etc " (emphasis added). To achieve parity with previously designated NPSs, and in the absence of any reasoning to support the more absolute terms in which this NPS paragraph is currently drafted, we suggest that this paragraph is revised slightly, so that: "The Secretary of State will not grant consent for..." (emphasis added) is replaced by, for instance, "In deciding whether or not to grant development consent, the Secretary of State will consider the assessment carried out "; or, alternatively, that it is re-drafted in terms which are equivalent to other designated NPSs (e.g. the NPSs for National Networks and Overarching Energy). Further, this paragraph repeats much of what is set out in paragraph the two paragraphs could usefully be rationalised. We note that the only effective mitigation measures available for safeguarding mineral resources in the context of the Northwest Runway scheme would be: to not develop over them (so as to ensure their continuing availability for use); or 60

129 Appendix 1 to extract them prior to or during construction of the Northwest Runway scheme. In the context of Northwest Runway scheme there are likely to be areas of mineral resources (including, potentially, designated Minerals Safeguarding Areas) over which it will be necessary to develop in order to deliver the Northwest Runway scheme. Unfortunately, it is not expected to be appropriate, practicable or feasible in all such cases to extract the mineral resources in question prior to or during construction of the Northwest Runway scheme, though Heathrow will be looking to maximise such opportunities where appropriate and practicable. In particular, in some cases extracting the minerals in question would result in the creation of a void beneath the proposed site for development, which would then require to be backfilled with similar engineered construction materials prior to construction of the development. This would effectively negate the purpose and value of extracting the minerals in the first place, and would also likely result in significantly increased vehicle movements and increased impacts in terms of noise and air quality during the construction phase, for no net gain, and no discernible benefit in practice. Please see our comments at paragraph 5.115, which apply equally in relation to MSAs, in which we request that: the NPS is clearer as to what will be required of the applicant in relation to providing mitigation to safeguard minerals in MSAs; it is made it clear whether or not MSA policies in relevant Local Plans or Development Plans would apply in the context of this NPS and the NWR scheme; appropriate exemptions are set out from the requirement to safeguard minerals in MSAs. We would therefore propose the following amendment to this paragraph: Where the preferred scheme has an impact on a mineral safeguarding area, the Secretary of State must ensure that the applicant has put forward appropriate such mitigation measures to safeguard mineral resources as are reasonably practicable and feasible in the context of the proposed scheme, taking into account relevant constraints in relation to location and layout of key infrastructure. 61

130 Appendix When located in the Green Belt, projects may comprise inappropriate development. Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and there is a presumption against it except in very special circumstances. The Secretary of State will need to assess whether there are very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In view of the presumption against inappropriate development, the Secretary of State will attach substantial weight to the harm to the Green Belt, when considering any application for such development. The Secretary of State may require the provision of replacement Green Belt land, which should be secured by the applicant Large airport infrastructure projects may generate hazardous and nonhazardous waste during construction and operation. The Environment Agency s environmental permitting regime incorporates operational waste management requirements for certain activities. When the applicant applies to the Environment Agency for an environmental permit, the Environment Agency will require the application to demonstrate that processes are in place to meet all relevant permit requirements The Secretary of State will consider the extent to which the applicant has proposed an effective process that will be followed to ensure effective management of hazardous and nonhazardous waste arising from the all stages of the lifetime of the development. The Secretary of State should be satisfied that the process set out provides assurance that: Waste produced will be properly managed, both onsite and offsite; The waste from the proposed Considerations of whether minerals require to be safeguarded should also take into account the nature of the scheme as nationally significant infrastructure meeting a nationally identified need. The comments set out above in relation to paragraph and are also applicable to this NPS paragraph, in terms of the application of the Green Belt policy test. However, we note that this paragraph also suggests that the Secretary of State may require replacement Green Belt land to be secured by an applicant for development consent, in exchange for any Green Belt land taken for the Northwest Runway scheme. The imposition of a requirement to provide replacement Green Belt land appears incompatible with the Northwest Runway scheme, the location of which effectively precludes the procurement of any such replacement Green Belt land. We address the impracticality of this requirement in our response to Question 6, and respectfully suggest that this proposed requirement is removed from the NPS. We recommend that this paragraph should crossrefer to the Pollution Control section of the NPS (paragraphs ), so that it is clear that section also applies to the permits / consents referred to in this paragraph, and to waste permits more generally. We are committed to responsible waste management in developing and operating the Northwest Runway project, and will provide information in our DCO application to demonstrate that waste will be properly managed both onsite and offsite, and that appropriate steps are taken to minimise both the volume of waste arisings and the volume of waste sent for disposal. In relation to the construction phase of the project, as with any significant development project, there is likely to be a significant volume of material which is generated, a proportion of which is unlikely to be 62

131 Appendix 1 development can be dealt with appropriately by the waste infrastructure which is, or is likely to be, available. Such waste arising should not have an adverse effect on the capacity of existing waste management facilities to deal with other waste arising in the area; and Adequate steps have been taken to minimise the volume of waste arising, and of the volume of waste arising sent to disposal, except where an alternative is the most sustainable outcome overall capable of beneficial reuse or recycling, and as such will require to be disposed of. It is likely that this will consume a volume of landfill void space, which could be said therefore to have an effect on the capacity of existing waste management facilities to deal with other waste arising in the area, in that it necessarily displaces the potential use of that void space for other wastes. It is also important to recognise the nature of the commercial waste market, which can make it difficult to judge the issue of capacity within a specific geographical area at a specific point in time, noting that many facilities within the area of the scheme accept waste from outside the area where commercial considerations and disposal rates make this viable (or even preferable). We will provide assurance in our DCO application that the waste generated during the construction phase of the scheme can be appropriately dealt with by waste management infrastructure which is or which is likely to be available. We are of the opinion that it would be helpful if this section of the NPS expressly recognised that the scale of project (as with all other runway development schemes) has the potential to generate significant volumes of material during the construction phase, some of which may require disposal in off-site facilities, which will inevitably impact on or consume a volume of capacity within the area to some extent, which could be perceived as an adverse effect on the capacity of existing waste management infrastructure. Flood Risk Loss of flood plain storage may increase the overall flood risk for the catchment. The extent of any impact will depend on the ability of the development to manage storage of water on site. We would suggest that the relevant text could be re-phrased as follows: "The project should not result in unreasonable constraints on the ability of other waste generators to dispose of other waste arising within the area." This would better take into account the scale of the project as compared with other projects and the challenge that managing those waste arisings requiring off-site disposal during the construction phase will represent. We recognise the need for flood storage to be provided. However, we consider that this could be done by replacement flood plain storage as well as management of water on site, and that this paragraph could be read as being unduly prescriptive and to prevent replacement storage (off-site) being utilised as an option. We therefore 63

132 Appendix 1 suggest removal of the words 'on site' from this paragraph Mitigation measures will need to be developed as part of the applicant s application for development consent to ensure that it is safe from flooding, and will not increase flood risk elsewhere for the proposed development s lifetime, taking into account climate change In the Airports NPS, the term sustainable drainage systems is used and taken to cover the whole range of sustainable approaches to surface water drainage management including: Source control measures including rainwater recycling and drainage; Infiltration devices to allow water to soak into the ground, that can include individual soakaways and communal facilities; Filter strips and swales, which are vegetated features that hold and drain water downhill mimicking natural drainage patterns; Filter drains and porous pavements to allow rainwater and runoff to infiltrate into permeable material below ground and provide storage if needed; Basins and ponds to hold excess water after rain and allow controlled discharge that avoids flooding; and Flood routes to carry and direct excess water through developments to minimise the impact of severe rainfall flooding The surface water drainage arrangements for any project should be such that the volumes and peak flow rates of surface water leaving the site are no greater than the rates prior to the proposed project, taking into account climate change, unless specific off-site arrangements are made and result in the same net effect Where flood risk is a factor in determining an application for development consent, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that, where relevant: The application is supported by an appropriate flood risk assessment; and The Sequential Test has been applied We suggest that this paragraph or this section of the draft NPS cross-refers to the earlier sections on climate change adaptation, to ensure consistency. We suggest that the words 'but not limited to' are added after 'including', to make clear that this is not an exhaustive list. The most appropriate approach, taking into account all relevant considerations (including environmental considerations), will need to be developed as part of scheme design. It would be helpful for this paragraph to refer to the design life of this scheme to ensure that no concerns are raised at a later stage that an application scheme has not taken this into account. We note that other National Policy Statements have referred to flood zones and how development within each of them will be considered. Heathrow considers that it would be helpful if this was added to the Airports NPS, for clarity. 64

133 Appendix 1 as part of site selection and, if required, the Exception Test When determining an application, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the potential effects of climate change on the development have been considered as part of the design For construction work which has drainage implications, approval for the preferred scheme s overall approach to drainage systems will form part of any development consent issued by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will therefore need to be satisfied that the proposed drainage system complies with any technical standards issued by the Government or to any National Standards issued under Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act In addition, the development consent order, or any associated planning obligations, will need to make provision for the adoption and maintenance of any Sustainable Drainage Systems, including any necessary access rights to property. The Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the most appropriate body would be given the responsibility for maintaining any sustainable drainage systems, taking into account the nature and security of the infrastructure on the proposed site. The responsible body could include, for example, the applicant, the landowner, the relevant local authority, or another body such as the Internal Drainage Board If the Environment Agency continues to have concerns, and therefore objects to the grant of development consent on the grounds of flood risk, the Secretary of State can grant consent, but would need to be satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken by the applicant We agree with this statement in general terms, but note that this principle is already covered in the section of the NPS that deals with Climate Change Adaptation. We therefore suggest that this paragraph could be made more 'flood specific' by adding the words 'drainage and flood control' before 'design'. It could also cross-refer to the section on Climate Change Adaptation in the draft NPS, to ensure consistency. This paragraph deals with a number of different concepts which might be usefully split across more than one paragraph. We agree with the intention of this paragraph. We think that first sentence could be better expressed as follows: If the Environment Agency continues to have has concerns and objects to the grant of development consent on the grounds of flood risk, the Secretary of State can grant consent, but would need to be 65

134 Appendix 1 and the Environment Agency to attempt to resolve the concerns. Similarly, if the lead local flood authority objects to the development consent on the grounds of surface or other local sources of flooding, the Secretary of State can grant consent, but would need to be satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken by the applicant and the lead local flood authority to attempt to resolve the concerns. Water quality and resources The applicant should make sufficiently early contact with the relevant regulators, including the Environment Agency, for abstraction licensing and environmental permitting, and with the water supply company likely to supply the water. Where the proposed development is subject to an environmental impact assessment and the development is likely to have significant adverse effects on the water environment, the applicant should ascertain the existing status of, and carry out an assessment of, the impacts of the proposed project on water quality, water resources and physical characteristics as part of the environmental statement Activities that discharge to the water environment are subject to pollution control, and the considerations set out at paragraphs above covering the interface between planning and environmental permitting therefore apply. These considerations will also apply in an analogous way to the abstraction licensing regime regulating activities that take water from the environment, and to the control regimes relating to works to, and structures in, on, or under, a controlled water. satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken by the applicant and the Environment Agency to attempt to resolve the concerns. "All reasonable steps" is an inappropriately high threshold, instead, the test should be of "reasonable steps". We recommend that this paragraph cross-refers to the Pollution Control section of the NPS (paragraphs ) so that it is clear that section also applies to the permits and consents referred to in this paragraph 5.164, and to water related permits more generally. We are concerned that this paragraph may potentially unintentionally create a distinction between (i) activities that discharge to the water environment, where the considerations in paras apply and (ii) abstraction licensing and other control regimes relating to the water environment, to which it states paras will also apply "in an analogous way" There is no justification or rationale for such a distinction, and this paragraph should simply state that paras apply in relation to all activities requiring a permit controlling environmental impacts. 66

135 Appendix The Secretary of State will need to consider proposals put forward by the applicant to mitigate adverse effects on the water environment, taking into account the likely impact of climate change on water availability, and whether appropriate requirements should be attached to any development consent and / or planning obligations. If the Environment Agency continues to have concerns, and objects to the grant of development consent on the grounds of impacts on water quality / resources, the Secretary of State can grant consent, but will need to be satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken by the applicant and the Environment Agency. Historic environment The construction and operation of airports and associated infrastructure has the potential to result in adverse impacts on the historic environment above and below ground. This could be as a result of the scale, form and function of the development, and the wider impacts it can create in terms of associated infrastructure to connect the airport to existing transport networks, changes in aircraft movement on the ground and in the surrounding airspace, additional noise and light levels, and the need for security and space to ensure the airport s operation Some heritage assets have a level of significance that justifies official designation. Categories of designated heritage assets are: World Heritage Sites; Scheduled Monuments; Listed Buildings; Protected Wreck Sites; Protected Military Remains; Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields; and Conservation Areas. We agree with the intention of this paragraph. We think that the last sentence is a little confused and could be better expressed as follows: If the Environment Agency continues to have has concerns and objects to the grant of development consent on the grounds of impacts on water quality / resources, the Secretary of State can grant consent, but will need to be satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken by the applicant and the Environment Agency to deal with the Environment Agency's concerns and objections. "All reasonable steps" is an inappropriately high threshold, instead, the test should be of "reasonable steps". As a general comment on this section, much of the wording in this section of the Airports NPS is taken from the National Planning Policy Framework and we understand this approach. However, given the specific nature of the Airports NPS, it would be useful if the opportunity for a more tailored approach was taken, particularly in the light of the known characteristics of the development effects. Protected Military Remains are not included within the list of designated heritage assets for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework, and it is inappropriate for the NPS to make reference to them. This is, however, an example of a paragraph that could more transparently recognise that the construction of the new runway and its associated development will inevitably have impacts on heritage assets. 67

136 Appendix Where the proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or the total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, the Secretary of State will refuse consent unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss of significance is necessary in order to deliver substantial public benefits that outweigh that loss or harm, or alternatively that all of the following apply: The nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; No viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; Conservation by grant funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and The harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use Where the proposed development will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use Not all elements of a World Heritage Site or conservation area will necessarily contribute to its significance. The Secretary of State will treat the loss of a building (or other element) that makes a positive contribution to the significance of a World Heritage Site or conservation area s significance either as substantial harm or less than substantial harm, as appropriate, taking into account the relative significance of the elements affected and their contribution to the significance of the World Heritage Site or conservation area as a whole The applicant should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites, and within the setting of heritage assets, to enhance and better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably. Although this paragraph replicates the NPPF, the Airports NPS sets out the need for the Northwest Runway and acknowledges the clear public benefit. As such we would like to see the Airports NPS take the heritage assessment one step further and expressly acknowledge that the substantial public benefit of the scheme the purpose of this test outweighs the likely extent of heritage impacts as identified in the Appraisal of Sustainability. This text could also recognise the inevitably of impacts, the in-principle acceptability of which have already been considered in the preparation of the NPS and the selection of the Northwest Runway scheme. Given the nature of the development to be considered under the Airports NPS, it seems unlikely that any of the 4 bullets set out could arise or that they are the appropriate tests in this case. Please see our comments at para above which should also be reflected here. See comment at para above. Again, this is generic text which does not reflect the known circumstances of the project or the location of its development. More helpful would be policy guidance on the best approach to the mitigation of known impacts. 68

137 Appendix Where appropriate, the Secretary of State will impose requirements to the development consent order to ensure that the work is undertaken in a timely manner, in accordance with a written scheme of investigation that meets the requirements of the Airports NPS and has been agreed in writing with the relevant local authority, and that the completion of the exercise is properly secured. Landscape and visual impacts For airport development, landscape and visual effects also include tranquillity effects, which would affect people s enjoyment of the natural environment and recreational facilities. In this context, references to landscape should be taken as covering local landscape, waterscape and townscape character and quality, where appropriate The assessment should include the visibility and conspicuousness of the preferred scheme during construction and the presence and operation of the preferred scheme and potential impacts on views and visual amenity. This should include any noise and light pollution effects, including on local amenity, tranquillity and nature conservation Adverse landscape and visual effects may be minimised through appropriate design (including choice of materials), and landscaping schemes. Materials and designs for the airport should be given careful consideration. We request clarification over the terminology used in various instances in this paragraph. The reference to the 'work' being undertaken in the second line should be explained in order that it is absolutely clear what that 'work' relates to. Similarly, the reference to 'a written scheme of investigation' should be expanded upon; this is the only time that such an investigation is referred to in the NPS. Currently the drafting requires this investigation to meet the 'requirements of the Airports NPS'. However, there is no detail as to what those requirements may be. Again, we believe that this should be clarified. Finally, the last sentence ('the completion of the exercise is properly secured') should also be re-drafted to remove any uncertainty. It is not obvious what 'the exercise' being referred to is and likewise the reference to it being 'properly secured'. As with other topic headings, the NPS could do more to recognise the likely effects of the project which it supports and for which there is a substantial evidence base. The likelihood of significant effects during construction and long term residual effects should be explicitly stated. We have some concerns about the scope of the matters identified in this NPS paragraph for inclusion in the assessment of landscape and visual impacts. Firstly, noise and light pollution effects are not generally considered to be matters for landscape and visual impact assessment; rather, they would be assessed in relevant chapters of the environmental statement (e.g. noise, ecology, landscape and visual impacts, and cumulative effects, as appropriate). The word any in the last sentence should be qualified as any significant. We suggest that it would be helpful to amend the reference in this NPS paragraph to 'the airport', because the term 'the airport' may be applied to Heathrow Airport as a whole, and could therefore be interpreted as having a much wider meaning than 'the Northwest Runway scheme' (or 'the preferred scheme'). 69

138 Appendix Landscape effects depend on the nature of the existing landscape likely to be changed and nature of the effect likely to occur. Both these factors need to be considered in judging the impact of a project on the landscape. Projects need to be designed carefully, taking account of the potential impact on the landscape. Having regard to siting, operational and other relevant constraints, the development should aim to avoid or minimise harm to the landscape, providing reasonable mitigation where possible and appropriate Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in nationally designated areas. National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. Each of these designated areas has specific statutory purposes which help ensure their continued protection and which the Secretary of State has a statutory duty to have regard to in decisions The Secretary of State should refuse development consent in these areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that it is in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of: The need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of consenting, or not consenting it, upon the local economy; The cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere, outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and Any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated. As drafted, some sections of the draft NPS (especially this section on landscape and visual impact assessment) use terms such as 'projects' / 'a project' and 'the preferred scheme' interchangeably and inconsistently. Given that a key function of the NPS is to provide policy support for the Government's preferred scheme (as opposed to any other potential scheme) it would be preferable for this NPS paragraph to apply a more consistent approach in making reference to 'the preferred scheme' or the DCO application scheme. The generic nature of the text should also be examined to make it more relevant to the preferred scheme. This paragraph is a good example of the generic and less useful nature of parts of the draft NPS. Issues relating to National Parks, for instance, do not arise in this case. Similar points arise the need for the development is established in this NPS, having taken account of its potential landscape and other impacts. 70

139 Appendix The duty to have regard to the purposes of nationally designated areas also applies when considering applications for projects outside the boundaries of these areas which may have impacts within them. The development should aim to avoid compromising the purposes of designation, and such projects should be designed sensitively given the various siting, operational, and other relevant constraints In taking decisions, the Secretary of State will consider whether the preferred scheme has been designed carefully, taking account of environmental effects on the landscape and siting, operational and other relevant constraints, to avoid adverse effects on landscape or to minimise harm to the landscape, including by reasonable mitigation The Secretary of State will judge whether the visual effects on sensitive receptors, such as local residents, and other receptors, such as visitors to the local area, outweigh the benefits of the development. Land instability A preliminary assessment of ground instability should be carried out at the earliest possible stage before a detailed application for development consent is prepared. The applicant should ensure that any necessary investigations are undertaken to confirm that their sites are and will remain stable, or can be made so as part of the development. The site needs to be assessed in the context of surrounding areas where subsidence, landslides and land compression could threaten the development during its anticipated life or damage neighbouring land or property. This could be in the form of a land stability or slope stability risk assessment report. Dust, odour, artificial light, smoke and steam In this NPS paragraph, the reference to 'such projects' appears slightly out of place and we query whether its use arises from the transferring of identical or similar text from other (designated) NPSs into this draft NPS. This issue therefore ties into the point raised above in respect of draft NPS paragraph The expectation of avoiding adverse effects takes insufficient account of the known characteristics of the scheme, whilst the requirement to minimise harm is subject to the same comments as we have made where similar wording is used elsewhere in the draft. Instead, the policy requirements should relate to high standards of design, the limiting of impacts and their mitigation and compensation where practical. With respect this is not the right test, neither is it consistent with section 104 of the Planning Act 2008, which requires all matters to be taken into account. The approach should be that set out in our comment above against paragraph The NPS should recognise that as part of a preliminary assessment of ground instability, sufficient investigations will be undertaken to come to an appropriate view on land stability and/or the ability to make land stable, however, there will be an on-going need for further investigations. 71

140 Appendix If development consent is granted for a project, the Secretary of State should consider whether there is a justification for all of the authorised project (including any associated development) being covered by a defence of statutory authority against nuisance claims. If the Secretary of State cannot conclude that this is justified, then the defence should be disapplied, in whole or in part, through a provision in the development consent order. Community compensation The Secretary of State recognises that, in addition to providing economic growth and employment opportunities, airport expansion will also have negative impacts upon local communities. This will include impacts through land take requiring the compulsory acquisition of houses that fall within the new boundary of the airport, exposure to air quality impacts, and aircraft noise, that is both an annoyance and can have an adverse impact on health and cognitive development A number of statutory protections are provided in these areas, and the applicant must fulfil its statutory duties in a timely and efficient manner. We consider that it would be helpful to provide guidance in the NPS in relation to the defence of statutory authority and the specific circumstances in which this would not be preserved. We consider it important to preserve the defence of statutory authority unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so, and thinks it is important that the NPS is clear on this point. We query the inclusion in this paragraph of a reference to noise having a detrimental impact on 'cognitive development'. The term 'cognitive development' comes within the wider term 'health'. Given that a detrimental impact on 'cognitive development' is not the only detrimental effect on health (as is identified in the Health Impact Analysis) we suggest that it would be preferable to take a more proportionate approach, in which this isolated reference to one particular potential health impact (i.e. the impact of noise on cognitive development) was deleted from this paragraph, on the basis that it - and any other effects or impacts arising in this context, is dealt with under the term, health. We are concerned that the wide/vague terms in which this NPS paragraph (5.230) is drafted could lead to difficulties for a decision maker in determining whether or not an applicant had achieved compliance. We would therefore suggest that the paragraph be deleted. 72

141 Appendix In addition to statutory requirements, Heathrow Airport has publicly committed to a community compensation package comprising a number of more generous offers: To pay 125% of market value, plus taxes and reasonable moving costs, for all owner occupied homes within the compulsory acquisition zone; To pay 125% of market value, plus taxes and reasonable moving costs, for all owner occupied homes within an additional voluntary purchase / acquisition zone incorporating the area known as the Heathrow Villages; Following a third party assessment, to provide full acoustic insulation for residential property within the full 60dB LAeq noise contour of an expanded airport; Following a third party assessment, to provide a contribution of up to 3,000 for acoustic insulation for residential properties within the full single mode easterly and westerly 57dB LAeq (16hr) or the full 55dB Lden noise contours of an expanded airport, whichever is the bigger; and To deliver a programme of noise insulation and ventilation for schools and community buildings within the 60dB LAeq (16 hour) contour. We suggest the following changes to this paragraph: "In addition to statutory requirements, Heathrow Airport has publicly committed to a community compensation package comprising a number of more generous offers: To pay 125% of market value, plus taxes and reasonable moving costs, for all owner occupied homes within the compulsory acquisition zone; To pay 125% of market value, plus taxes and reasonable moving costs, for all owner occupied homes within an additional voluntary purchase / acquisition zone incorporating the area known as the Heathrow Villages; Following a third party assessment, to provide full acoustic insulation for residential property within the full 60dB LAeq200 noise contour of an expanded airport either the full easterly and westerly single mode 60dB LAeq (16hr) 200 noise contour of an expanded airport in 2040; Following a third party assessment, to provide a contribution of up to 3,000 for acoustic insulation for residential properties within the full single mode easterly and westerly 57dB LAeq (16hr) or the full 55dB Lden201 noise contours of an expanded airport, whichever is the bigger either the full easterly and westerly single mode 57dB LAeq (16hr) or the annual average 55dB Lden 201 noise contours of an expanded airport in 2040, whichever is the bigger; and To deliver a programme of noise insulation and ventilation for schools and community buildings within the 60dB LAeq (16 hour) contour within the average 60dB LAeq (16 hour) contour of an expanded airport in " 73

142 Appendix 1 Footnote for Leq is the measure used to describe the average sound level experienced over a period of time (usually sixteen hours for day and eight hours for night) resulting in a single decibel value. Leq is expressed as LAeq when it refers to the A-weighted scale 201 Lden is the 24 hour LAeq calculated for an annual period, but with a five decibel weighting for evening and a ten decibel weighting for night to reflect people s greater sensitivity to noise within these periods ompensation/ In addition to the statutory requirements and the public commitments made by Heathrow Airport, the Government also supports the Airports Commission s recommendation for an additional component of ongoing community compensation proportionate to environmental impacts The Airports Commission suggested this should take the form of a national noise levy paid for by passengers. The Government does not consider a national levy appropriate, but supports the development of a community compensation fund at an expanded Heathrow Airport. The Government expects that the size of the community compensation fund will be proportionate to the environmental harm caused by expansion of the airport. The Government notes that, in its consideration of a noise levy, the Airports Commission considered that a sum of 50 million per annum could be an appropriate amount at an expanded Heathrow Airport, and that, over a 15 year period, a community compensation fund could therefore distribute 750 million to local communities. We suggest the following additions to these footnotes: Footnote 200: Leq is the measure used to describe the average sound level experienced over a period of time (usually sixteen hours for day and eight hours for night) resulting in a single decibel value. Leq is expressed as LAeq when it refers to the A- weighted scale. The measure can be used to represent average operations across all operating directions (average mode) or for specific modes and directions of operation (single mode). Footnote 201: Lden is the 24 hour LAeq calculated for an annual period, but with a five decibel weighting for evening and a ten decibel weighting for night to reflect people s greater sensitivity to noise within these periods. The Lden metric as applied to Heathrow s proposals is for average mode conditions. See our comments in response to paragraphs In order to appropriately manage expectations for any such fund, we suggest that this paragraph more clearly outline the scope of the proposed fund as envisaged by the Airports Commission, i.e. to support a wide range of community mitigation and compensation measures enhanced noise insulation and other schemes, including support for schools measures which help to reduce or avoid negative effects, or redress the harm caused by such effects In respect of the scale of the fund, it should be noted that the Airports Commission referred to 50 million as an illustrative example only, and did not suggest over what period such a fund might be made available. It is therefore potentially inappropriate and misleading to acknowledge this as an appropriate amount when subsequent paragraphs then require the applicant to consult on the scale and duration of the fund through the planning process. The second part of this paragraph should therefore be deleted. 74

143 Appendix The Government expects to see arrangements being made by Heathrow Airport for the community compensation schemes which it has publicly stated would be provided, and for a community compensation fund The applicant should seek to minimise impacts on local people, to consult on the details of its works, and to put them in place quickly. The Government also looks to the applicant to consult on the detail of a community compensation fund The Secretary of State will consider whether and to what extent the applicant has sought to minimise impacts on local people, has consulted on the details of its works, and has put mitigations in place, at least to the level committed to in its public commitments. This includes whether the applicant has set out appropriate eligibility criteria and timescales for delivery, and how delivery will be ensured. It would be clearer if this paragraph was amended as follows: The Government expects to see arrangements being made by Heathrow Airport for the community compensation schemes which it has publicly stated would be provided set out at paragraph 5.234, and for a community compensation fund. Again, the word minimise is inappropriate as a policy test and should be qualified. While we acknowledge that more mitigation and compensation may be identified as required during the consultation and examination phases, the NPS should be clear and specific about which proposed community compensation schemes the Secretary of State has taken into account as a minimum in making his decision to designate the NPS and therefore which schemes the Government expects Heathrow to deliver. Assuming the relevant schemes are those in the list of compensation schemes set out at paragraph of the NPS, we propose that the relevant part of this paragraph (5.240) be amended as follows: ". has put mitigations in place, to include at least to the level committed to in its public commitments those set out at paragraph " The Secretary of State will also consider whether the applicant has consulted on the details of a community compensation fund, including source of revenue, size and duration of fund, eligibility, and how delivery will be ensured The Secretary of State will expect the applicant to demonstrate how these provisions are secured, and how they will be operated. The applicant will also need to show how these measures will be administered to ensure that they are relevant to planning when in operation. The mechanisms for enforcing these provisions should also be demonstrated, along with the appropriateness of any identified The rest of this paragraph should be amended as described above, i.e. to avoid confusion about consultation requirements. Our comments in relation to draft NPS paragraph apply equally to this paragraph, which should be revised to ensure that it clearly reflects the process prescribed by the Planning Act 2008, in which adequacy of consultation is a matter which is required to be dealt when an application is being considered for acceptance, not during the examination of the accepted application. It is expected that the means by which compensation schemes/packages will be secured and delivered will be largely a matter for examination. Equally, it is expected that during the examination of an application for development consent, we will be required to explain how the delivery of any compensation schemes/packages will be secured and administered. 75

144 Appendix 1 enforcing body, which may include the Secretary of State. Community engagement The Government recognises that the planning, construction, and subsequent operation of a Northwest Runway will bring both significant impacts and opportunities to communities living around Heathrow Airport. Communities will wish to participate fully in the development and delivery of expansion, and the Government expects them to be able to do so There will be many opportunities for communities to engage as expansion is taken forward. The Government is required to consult on and publicise the Airports NPS, and the applicant is subject to pre-application consultation requirements. Additional consultations on issues such as airspace change will take place outside of the planning process. Ongoing engagement will also be required as the applicant takes forward its compensation package The Government wishes to maximise local stakeholder engagement with the expansion process, and it wishes to encourage the applicant and local stakeholders to strengthen the way in which they work together to make engagement effective. Local stakeholders, including those representing communities around Heathrow Airport, have the experience and expertise to identify solutions tailored to their specific circumstances. A number of engagement forums already exist at Heathrow Airport. These have developed over time in response to emerging needs and are consistent with the Government s view that, in principle, it encourages collaborative local solutions. Skills Heathrow has a strong track record of engagement with its communities. We set out our commitment and support for these proposals in response to Question 5.4. As explained at paragraph and 5.240, it is important that the NPS does not confuse the Planning Act 2008 process for the assessment of adequacy of consultation and create additional burdens and legal challenge risk for the Secretary of State at the decision making stage. The NPS should therefore clarify that it is at the application acceptance stage of the process that the adequacy of the applicant's consultation is considered. See our comments above at We welcome the acknowledgement that consultation on airspace change will take place outside of the planning process. As set out elsewhere, this concept should be emphasised more strongly and further throughout the NPS to help manage expectations as to when consultation on final flight paths will take place. To further aid community understanding, this paragraph could expressly state that airspace change is the process which determines flight path routes. Please see also our comments previous comments which relate to use of the word 'maximise'. It is important for a smooth examination process that the applicant has achievable aims which can be met and demonstrated. 76

145 Appendix The Government is committed to helping people into jobs and improving the skills of the UK workforce, with a target of three million new apprenticeships being created in the current Parliament Continuing to create jobs and new training opportunities will help to consolidate the national economic recovery, put the UK on the path to full employment and raise the nation s productivity. Apprenticeships have an essential role to play within this work, helping individuals to develop key skills which will benefit both them and employers To help deliver the Government s wider skills agenda, the Department for Transport published Transport Skills Strategy: building sustainable skills in January 2016, setting out its skills strategy for transport, including aviation, and an additional 30,000 apprenticeships by 2020 across the road and rail sectors. Transport Apprenticeship Taskforce has been created to deliver this work The Government notes that Heathrow Airport already makes a significant contribution to local employment and already has a number of skills and employment initiatives designed to support the business requirements of the airport. The Heathrow Academy, established in 2004, supports recruitment and retention of local residents across the retail, construction, aviation and logistics sectors, and includes apprenticeships as a part of the package The Government notes that Heathrow Airport has publicly committed to creating 10,000 apprenticeships before 2030, thereby doubling the number offered at the airport. We suggest that given the long-term role and status of national policy statements under the Planning Act 2008, wording needs to be found which will not date. See above. In addition, it is relevant to note that at present the Government's Transport Apprenticeship Taskforce does not include aviation within its remit, and that the Skills Strategy reflects the private ownership of the aviation sector. The Transport Apprenticeship Taskforce only currently references rail and road, which will be of relevance to any related surface transport infrastructure but will not directly relate to aviation. We would recommend re-wording this paragraph as follows: To help deliver the Government s wider skills agenda, the Department for Transport published Transport Skills Strategy: building sustainable skills in January 2016, setting out its skills strategy for transport, including aviation, and an additional 30,000 apprenticeships by 2020 across the road and rail sectors. Transport Apprenticeship Taskforce has been created to deliver this work in relation to the road and rail sectors. We welcome and support this paragraph but believe it could be more accurately reflective of the evidence provided if it included reference to skills and employment initiative both directly and indirectly, to the reduction of unemployment by aligning training and to business needs and through delivery of pre-employment training and apprenticeships. The referencing in this paragraph is welcomed but it is important to ensure that the paragraph accurately reflects the position with regard to provision of apprenticeships and the fact that this relates to provision across the airport community and infrastructure and not at what may be 77

146 Appendix 1 interpreted as airside or direct Heathrow Airports Limited directly employed apprenticeships The Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme represents an opportunity to grow the number of jobs and apprenticeships supported by the applicant and its supply chain, particularly in neighbouring communities Heathrow Airport should put in place arrangements for the delivery of the 5,000 new apprenticeships which it has publicly stated would be provided. Heathrow Airport should set out its timetable for delivering the apprenticeships, provide information on the areas and skills to be covered by these apprenticeships, the breakdown between opportunities to be created within the core airport and those being offered by companies within its supply chain, and the qualification level and standards which they will need to achieve. Heathrow Airport should also set out how it will publicly report progress against the target The Government expects the applicant to maximise the employment and skills opportunities for local residents, including apprenticeships Heathrow Airport will also need to show how these measures will be administered to ensure that they are relevant to planning when in operation. The mechanisms for enforcing these provisions should also be demonstrated, along with the appropriateness of any identified enforcing body, which may include the Secretary of State. This would then fit and be more consistent with the approach and requirements set out in in paragraph We welcome this paragraph, which would also benefit from referring to airport based businesses to capture the full picture i.e: The Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme represents an opportunity to grow the number of jobs and apprenticeships supported by the applicant and, its supply chain and airport related businesses, particularly in neighbouring communities. In our view this paragraph would benefit from being set in the context of the DCO process and delivery of the scheme. In line with the comments above, the following changes are suggested: Heathrow Airport should put in place arrangements a plan for the delivery of the 5,000 new apprenticeships which it has publicly stated would be provided created. Heathrow Airport should set out it s the timetable for delivering the apprenticeships, provide information on the areas and skills to be covered by these apprenticeships, the breakdown between opportunities to be created within the core airport and those being offered by companies within its supply chain and other airport related businesses, and the qualification level and standards which they will need to achieve. Heathrow Airport should also set out how it will publicly report progress against the target. The reference to "maximising" the employment and skills opportunities for local residents is open to interpretation and does not set out a clear test for the applicant to demonstrate it has met. It could therefore be difficult for an applicant to demonstrate that it has delivered this requirement. We note that there are a number of existing and ongoing Government programmes in terms of delivery of such measures and we suggest that the NPS should take account of such existing and ongoing Government programmes in terms of delivery of such measures, and should propose that these should dovetail with and sit alongside the DCO, rather than duplicating. 78

147 Appendix The Secretary of State will consider whether Heathrow Airport has set out a credible plan to implement its commitment to deliver 10,000 apprenticeships at an expanded airport. We note that this paragraph does not set out a clear test in relation to credibility of Heathrow's plan to implement its commitment in this regard. It could therefore be difficult for an applicant to demonstrate that it has delivered this requirement. It could cross refer to what is required at paragraph The Secretary of State will consider how these provisions are secured, and how they will be operated. It would also help if it reflected the broad nature of the apprenticeships as described at above. The same comments apply as above. Comments on Annex A See our response to Question 3 and our comments in relation to paragraphs 2.27, 4.3 and 4.11 above. Comments on Annex B See our response to Question 3 and our comments in relation to paragraphs 2.27, 4.3 and 4.11 above. 79

148 Appendix 2 Detailed Comments on Air Quality

149 Appendix 2 Contents 1. Executive Summary Summary of assessment work Compliance with Air Quality Objectives Compliance with the EU Directive Comprehensive Mitigation Strategy Uncertainty around future vehicles emissions Conclusion Annex A: Technical Summary of 2016 Heathrow Research i

150 Appendix 2 1. Executive Summary This Appendix considers the air quality analysis that has been undertaken by Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL) and others regarding likely impacts of the delivery of the Northwest Runway at Heathrow (the Northwest Runway scheme). This Appendix reviews the findings of that work, the conclusions in the draft Airports National Policy Statement (draft Airports NPS) and its accompanying Appraisal of Sustainability information The commentary in this Appendix was prepared with input from members of HAL s air quality technical consultants: Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited and Air Quality Consultants Ltd This Appendix concludes that: i. A significant amount of assessment work has been undertaken to date to assess the potential air quality effects of the Northwest Runway scheme such that the Government has sufficient information available to it to draw robust conclusions in the draft Airports NPS. The work that has been undertaken is summarised at section 2 of this Appendix. ii. The Northwest Runway scheme can be delivered in accordance with local Air Quality Objectives, even when the under-performance of certain road vehicles relative to emissions standards is considered. This is set out in section 3 of this Appendix. iii. It is reasonable for the Government to conclude in the draft Airports NPS 1 that a mitigated Northwest Runway scheme will not impact on the UK s compliance with EU Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (the Air Quality Directive) or with air quality limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) (the EU Limit Values) which derive from it. This is set out in section 4 of this Appendix. iv. The comprehensive mitigation strategy proposed by HAL to reduce the air quality impacts of the Northwest Runway scheme will be effective in reducing concentrations of NO2 at critical locations. The introduction of a form of road-user charging could, if necessary, bring further reductions in concentrations at key locations. This is set out in section 5 of this Appendix. v. Uncertainty regarding the emissions performance of road vehicles, particularly diesel cars, has been well accounted for in recent analysis of the predicted impacts of the Northwest Runway scheme. Any uncertainty will be accounted for in the final 2017 UK Air Quality Plan and will be reflected in the measures that will be required to be introduced across London by local authorities and the Mayor to meet the EU Limit Values before Mitigation options are resilient to these uncertainties and 1 Paragraph 3.6 and 5.30 of the draft Airports NPS.

151 Appendix 2 those options targeting the most polluting vehicles could be even more effective in a scenario where emissions from those vehicles are worse than expected. As such, uncertainties in relation to vehicle emissions do not undermine the Government s conclusions. These points are addressed at section 6 of this Appendix As a result of the above conclusions, HAL is confident that it will be able to demonstrate that the Northwest Runway scheme will meet the assessment tests in paragraphs 5.31 and 5.41 of the draft NPS. 3

152 Appendix 2 2. Summary of assessment work A number of assessments on the potential air quality effects of the Northwest Runway scheme have been undertaken since the Airports Commission began its work. This Appendix comments only on the most recent assessments It is important to note that all assessment work undertaken to date has been based on the best available information at the time of the assessment, including traffic modelling and design of the Northwest Runway scheme. The level of detail and certainty of likely impacts set out in the various analyses that have been undertaken is considered entirely appropriate at this stage in the process and sufficient to inform both the Appraisal of Sustainability and the conclusions in the draft Airports NPS. HAL's application for development consent for the Northwest Runway scheme will be accompanied by a full and detailed air quality assessment as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment HAL Research In 2016, HAL commissioned updated research into predictions of future air quality related to the Northwest Runway scheme which included: i. updated Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) dispersion modelling; ii. iii. an assessment of compliance with EU Limit Values; and quantification of the benefits of the mitigation measures included in Heathrow s air quality submissions to the Airports Commission (which had not been reported individually before), and quantification of the benefits of the mitigation measures suggested by the Airports Commission This research was undertaken by Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited, Ricardo Energy & Environment and Air Quality Consultants Ltd. The findings of this research are set out in a document entitled 'Heathrow Airport Limited Air Quality Research in Relation to Third Runway Impacts Summary, May 2016' (referred to in this Appendix as 'the 2016 HAL Research'). They key findings of the 2016 HAL Research are set out in this Appendix. A technical summary of the 2016 HAL Research was provided to the Department for Transport (DfT) as part of the DfT's engagement with all three promoters prior to the October 2016 decision to select the Northwest Runway scheme as the Government's preferred scheme. This technical summary is reproduced at Annex A to this Appendix Recent Government Assessments In October 2016, the Government published a Re-Analysis Study by WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff (referred to in this Appendix as 'the 2016 WSP Re- Analysis). The 2016 WSP Re-Analysis involved a re-analysis of the Airports Commission s air quality modelling to consider the impact of the 2015 UK Air Quality Plan on EU Limit Value compliance with increased airport capacity. 2 2 See paragraph of the 2016 HAL Research at Annex A. 4

153 Appendix The 2016 WSP Re-Analysis took full account of what were, at that time, the most recent set of emission factors that had been published by Defra and incorporated in its Emission Factor Toolkit (EFT) version 7 based on COPERT v emission factors. In September 2016, updated COPERT emission factors were released: v The potential impact of this update to the emission factors was assessed qualitatively in a foreword to the final issue of the October 2016 WSP Re-Analysis In February 2017, the draft Airports NPS was published. It was accompanied by an Appraisal of Sustainability, which included Appendix A-8 on air quality. Also published alongside the draft Airports NPS was an Updated Air Quality Re- Analysis, prepared by WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff to update the 2016 WSP Re- Analysis. This updated work is referred to in this Appendix as 'the 2017 WSP Updated Re-Analysis' As set out below, the conclusions of all of these recent assessments of the Northwest Runway scheme demonstrate that the Government has sufficient information available to reach the conclusions in the draft Airports NPS that the Northwest Runway scheme will not impact compliance with EU Limit Values. 5

154 Appendix 2 3. Compliance with Air Quality Objectives Although the annual mean EU Limit Value and Air Quality Objective (AQO) are the same (in particular, the limit on annual mean NO2 of 40 µg m 3 ), there are some differences between the LAQM approach and Defra's Pollution Climate Mapping (PCM) model, which is the model used to assess and project compliance with the EU Limit Values The LAQM approach gives an indication of the impact of schemes upon health, by considering concentrations at specific health-related receptors. In contrast, the PCM model used to assess and predict compliance with EU Limit Values evaluates concentrations at a uniform distance of 4 m from the kerbsides of major road network links where there is public access For these reasons, the approach commonly taken by promoters when carrying out Environmental Impact Assessments to inform planning applications for infrastructure or development schemes is to assess impacts on local health receptors using standard dispersion modelling based on the LAQM approach, suitable for assessing whether a scheme can take place in line with AQOs All analysis to date of the Northwest Runway scheme's likely air quality effects has concluded that, with mitigation, the Northwest Runway scheme will be able to be delivered comfortably in accordance with AQOs, even when under performance relative to emissions standards is factored in as a risk: i. HAL s submissions to the Airports Commission concluded that the annual mean AQO for NO2 would not be exceeded at any receptor location in With the Northwest Runway scheme in 2030 the maximum predicted annual mean NO2 concentration at a residential receptor was 31.6 μg m -3, an increase of 0.8 μg m -3 from the predicted future baseline. The maximum predicted increase in annual mean NO2 concentrations at a residential receptor in 2030 was 5.3 μg m -3, an increase from 24.2 μg m -3 to 29.5 μg m -3. Modelled concentrations at all residential receptor locations in 2030 were therefore shown to be below the AQO of 40 μg m -3 ; ii. iii. a review of HAL s submission in combination with conclusions of its own assessments, led the Airports Commission to conclude that the Northwest Runway scheme can be delivered without causing exceedance of AQOs even in a plausible worst-case scenario 3 in which the Airports Commission used the highest available forecasts for both aircraft and surface movements; the 2016 HAL Research, which used the most recent emissions factors available at that time, updated Defra background concentrations predictions 4 and best-practice modelling methodology for LAQM purposes, forecast that: 3 Airports Commission Final Report Paragraph For more detail see section 2.1 in the HAL 2016 Research, which is enclosed in the Annex to this Appendix. 6

155 Appendix 2 a. the NO2 annual mean AQO will not be exceeded at any modelled receptor location 5 ; and b. concentrations of under 31 μg m 3 were forecast at all receptor locations. At an additional modelled receptor used for comparison with Defra compliance assessment on the M4 6, a concentration of around 39 μg m 3 was forecast. However, the 2016 HAL Research also indicated that the Northwest Runway scheme is unlikely to have a negative impact on air quality at this location, and changes resulting from expansion could in fact improve NO2 concentrations on the M The 2016 HAL Research also included a sensitivity test to account for concerns that the Defra emissions factors available at that time did not fully take into account the real-world performance of diesel vehicles. The modelling indicated that, even with this sensitivity test applied, the only location which might not meet the 40 μg m 3 annual mean AQO in 2030 was the modelled location along the M4 8, which could record an annual mean concentration of 43.6 μg m 3. However, changes resulting from the Northwest Runway scheme are expected to deliver an improvement in the air quality on the M4, such that any failure of the M4 to meet the 40 μg m 3 annual mean AQO in the sensitivity scenario is not forecast to be caused or exacerbated by the Northwest Runway scheme. Indeed, with mitigation, benefits at this location could be significant: see Table 1 in section 5.3 below The 2017 WSP Updated Re-Analysis did not directly address the effect of changes to emissions factors on the assessment of impacts on AQOs. However: i. the impact of the Northwest Runway scheme as assessed by the Airports Commission confirmed that that concentrations at AQO receptors will be more comfortably below 40 g m -3 in 2030 than PCM receptors, and therefore less sensitive to increases; ii. iii. evidence from the 2016 HAL Research, which did take account of updated factors, came to the same conclusion and confirmed that the Northwest Runway scheme will be compliant with AQOs; and it is likely that the effect of changes to emissions factors will be greater in relation to the EU Limit Values than in relation to the AQOs, as AQOs are expected to be less sensitive to changes in emission factors. This is because assessment of impacts on EU Limit Values is based on impacts 4 m from the kerb, whereas health receptors are generally located further away from the source. 5 See paragraph of the HAL 2016 Research. 6 This location is not a true health receptor location as it is a modelled location 4m from the hard shoulder of the M4. See paragraph of the HAL 2016 Research at Annex A. 7 See section 6 below where the benefits of mitigation are discussed, and paragraph 4.1.8, Table 4.1 and 4.2 of the HAL 2016 Research 8 Note that, using HAL s detailed LAQM model, the M4 shows the highest concentrations in all scenarios. In contrast, the 2015 PCM Projection at the M4 was significantly lower and reports levels well within EU limit values. 7

156 Appendix There is therefore a significant body of evidence available to Government to conclude that, with mitigation, the Northwest Runway scheme will be able to be delivered comfortably in accordance with AQOs, even when under performance relative to vehicle emissions standards is factored in as a risk. 4. Compliance with the EU Directive All of the most recent evidence supports the conclusion that with mitigation the Northwest Runway scheme can be delivered without impacting the UK s compliance with EU Limit Values. This conclusion is reflected in paragraphs 3.6 and 5.30 of the draft Airports NPS Airports Commission The Airports Commission air quality assessment work included an assessment of whether the Northwest Runway scheme would increase the risk of the UK breaching the EU Limit Value at relevant locations on Defra's Pollution Climate Mapping (PCM) model, or delay the UK's overall compliance with the Directive. The Airports Commission concluded that there was a risk of exceedance of the EU Limit Value at the A4 PCM receptor. It is important to note that, in calculating the additional airport contribution from the Northwest Runway scheme (referred to in this document as the AC increments ), the Airports Commission did not include any of the additional mitigation proposed by HAL for the Northwest Runway scheme. The Airports Commission undertook a brief analysis of the likely effects of this mitigation, but this was not factored into its assessments HAL Research Since the Airports Commission concluded its assessments, the 2015 UK Air Quality Plan provided a new assessment of predicted compliance with the EU Limit Values across the UK using the PCM model, including revised predicted background pollutant concentrations (the 2015 PCM Projections) and revised emission factors. The 2015 PCM Projections indicated that NO2 concentrations around Heathrow would be considerably lower in 2030 than the baseline conditions used by the Airports Commission As a result, in May 2016 HAL undertook its own analysis of impacts from the Northwest Runway scheme using the 2015 PCM Projections. This was done in order to update, as far as possible, the conclusions of the Airports Commission in respect of the Northwest Runway scheme s compliance with EU Limit Values. The findings of that work are set out in the 2016 HAL Research, and conclude that it is possible for Heathrow to expand within EU limit values Two different updates were undertaken to inform that conclusion: i. Firstly, the AC increments were added to the 2015 PCM Projections, in an effort to mirror the assessment that had been done by the Airports 9 Please note our suggested amendments to the text of paragraphs 3.6 and 5.30 set out in Appendix 1 to this NPS consultation response. These amendments are designed to better reflect the conclusions of the assessments undertaken. 8

157 Appendix 2 ii. Commission. The findings of that assessment are shown at Table 3.1 of the 2016 HAL Research at Annex A. This showed that the greatest roadside concentration of NO2 at any of the assessed locations with the Northwest Runway scheme would be 37.3 μg m 3. At all locations, the total roadside NO2 concentrations were predicted to be under the EU Limit Value. Note that these total concentrations are entirely unmitigated, because the AC increments did not include any of the additional mitigation proposed by HAL for the Northwest Runway scheme. Secondly, a separate assessment of compliance with limit values at the A4 PCM Receptor and M4 PCM Receptor 10 was also carried out using Northwest Runway scheme increments calculated by HAL to account for the additional airport contribution from the Northwest Runway scheme (the HAL increments). The HAL increments were calculated using the HAL LAQM dispersion model, with data refreshed using updated inputs. 11 The findings of that assessment are shown at Table 3.2 of the 2016 HAL Research at Annex A Both updates from the 2016 HAL Research demonstrated that concentrations at all limit value receptors would be below 40 μg m 3 with the Northwest Runway scheme in , even without additional mitigation. It therefore concluded that there was no risk that the unmitigated Northwest Runway scheme would delay compliance with EU Limit Values and that the concentrations were lower than the Airports Commission had suggested, largely as a result of the 2015 PCM Projections The 2016 WSP Re-Analysis The 2016 WSP Re-Analysis also updated the Airports Commission's conclusions by adding the AC increments to the 2015 PCM Projections. The 2016 WSP Re-Analysis identified that, without mitigation, possible worsened exceedances resulting from the Northwest Runway scheme occurred only in central London where airport impacts are very small 13. In Scenario 1A, the critical link was identified as being the A4206 towards central London, where the impact of the Northwest Runway scheme was only 0.2 μg m 3 which would be considered 'insignificant' under the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) assessment criteria. 14 In Scenario Set 2, which considers early opening in 2025, the critical PCM links were again in central London and the impacts were described as 'largely imperceptible by DMRB criteria'. 15 In Scenario Set 3 (Sensitivity to Increased Vehicle Emissions, 2025), the critical links are again all 10 The A4 PCM Receptor and M4 PCM Receptor are the only PCM receptors that form part of the LAQM dispersion model used by HAL at the time of this assessment, hence why these are the only locations covered by this second assessment using HAL s LAQM model. 11 See section 2.1 of the 2016 HAL Research at Annex A. 12 This is true at the A4 when using either the AC Limit Value Compliance Assessment increments or the 2016 HAL increments, which are reached using different independent assessment methods. The increment at the A4 calculated using the HAL LAQM model is higher than the AC Limit Value Compliance Assessment increment owing to different assumptions embedded within the modelling assessment. The Airports Commission did not assess compliance at the M4 and so no comparison can be drawn. As set out elsewhere, our LAQM modelling indicates that the Northwest Runway Scheme could deliver a benefit along the M4 in any event. 13 October 2016 WSP Re-Analysis, Table October 2016 WSP Re-Analysis, paragraph October 2016 WSP Re-Analysis, paragraph

158 Appendix 2 in central London. The 2016 WSP Re-Analysis makes no comment on the significance of the AC increment in Scenario Set 3 but HAL notes that they are of a similar magnitude to those described for Scenario Sets 1 and The 2016 WSP Re-Analysis concluded that, assuming the measures taken in the 2015 UK Air Quality Plan were delivered, the Northwest Runway scheme would not affect the compliance status of the Greater London Urban Area, even without mitigation, and that this conclusion had a low vulnerability to uncertainties in the future projections The 2017 WSP Updated Re-Analysis The most recent assessment undertaken by Government, the 2017 Updated Re-Analysis, was published alongside the Appraisal of Sustainability. It includes a detailed quantitative analysis of the new COPERT v emission factors. 17 The 2017 WSP Updated Re-Analysis combines these updated emission factors with the streamlined PCM model (SL-PCM) datasets provided by Defra in November The SL-PCM datasets benefitted from a number of updates against the data from the 2015 National Air Quality Plan, including use of the updated COPERT factors. As such, the 2017 WSP Updated Re-Analysis is based on a robust and up-to-date evidence base The 2017 WSP Updated Re-Analysis notes that in the core scenario ('With Measures', Central emissions estimate) in 2030, an unmitigated Northwest Runway scheme has no impact on compliance with EU Limit Values, including not worsening any existing exceedances The 2017 WSP Updated Re-Analysis demonstrates that for 2025 the application of COPERT 5 would lead to higher NO2 concentrations than assessments using COPERT 4v11.0, but for 2030 concentrations would be lower than assessments using COPERT 4v11.0. This conclusion is supported by HAL based on our own work to consider the possible effect of COPERT As a result of the potential for slightly higher emission in 2025, the 2017 WSP Updated Re-analysis suggests that the magnitude of the assumed growth in traffic on roads such as the A4, the A40 Westway and the A312, combined with SL-PCM projections, mean there is a possibility in 2025 that an unmitigated Northwest Runway scheme could cause worsening of an existing exceedance or delay compliance of the zone. The possibility of exceedances reduces by 2030, and with Real Driving Emissions (RDE), a test scenario to determine the emissions of vehicles in a road environment, there are no projected exceedances of the limit values in any 2030 emissions scenario. HAL notes that all of these conclusions are based on an entirely unmitigated proposal, as these assessments did not consider proposed measures that form part of HAL s Airport Surface Access Strategy or other measures. 16 October 2016 WSP Re-Analysis, paragraph New emission factors (COPERT 5.0) were published in October COPERT 5 emission factors are the same as COPERT v emission factors. As such, HAL considers the use of COPERT v (and not COPERT 5.0) in the 2017 Updated Air Quality Re-Analysis to be immaterial, and that it does not undermine the conclusions in any way WSP Updated Re-Analysis, paragraph and Table

159 Appendix The WSP 2017 Updated Re-analysis suggests that an unmitigated Northwest Runway scheme might only delay compliance (described in the updated 2017 WSP Updated Re-analysis as Criteria B ) in two scenarios: 2025, With Measures, Low emissions estimate and 2030, With Measures, High emissions estimate. Both those instances are on the A40 (Westway) which is over 15 km away from the airport in central London. These potential exceedances would result from a very small increment from the Northwest Runway scheme, related entirely to surface access HAL concludes, however, that with mitigation the Northwest Runway will not exacerbate any exceedance or create a new exceedance, even in the central London locations described in the 2017 WSP Updated Re-analysis as critical links. This is because: i. The traffic modelling underpinning the AC increments from the Northwest Runway scheme (as calculated by the Airports Commission and used in the subsequent WSP reports) assumes some traffic growth on the road network between central London and the airport 20 based on an unmitigated scheme. The increments do not account for HAL's proposed surface access strategy or any mitigation. ii. While HAL acknowledges that most of the localised mitigation measures proposed may not affect estimated impacts at such a distance from the airport 21, HAL's surface access strategy will increase the uptake of public transport beyond the levels considered in the compliance assessments, and the mode-share targets in the draft Airports NPS mean that HAL is required to deliver this. These measures are expressly designed to take airport-related traffic off the road, and so will have an effect even at locations further from the airport Based on the shift in mode-share required by the draft Airports NPS, traffic impacts in central London from the scheme will be reduced. The 2017 WSP Updated Re-analysis, which considers an unmitigated Northwest Runway scheme, does not account for HAL s surface access strategy, and therefore presents a more negative picture than is likely Other mitigation measures, such as an emissions charge, could also be employed if shown to be necessary to bring further reductions to ensure that the Northwest Runway scheme does not cause worsening of any exceedances or delay compliance of the zone. Our evidence on mitigation benefits above demonstrates that a number of measures could also be taken to reduce impacts closer to the airport, if it was ultimately those areas where concentrations were higher During the EIA, Heathrow will be fully assessing the impact of its commitments around surface access and in particular its strategy in relation to vehicle WSP Updated Re-Analysis, paragraph WSP Updated Re-Analysis, paragraph October 2016 WSP Re-Analysis, paragraph

160 Appendix 2 movements on specific routes and determining any implications for EU Limit Value compliance Improving baselines Draft 2017 Air Quality Plan The 2017 WSP Updated Re-Analysis describes how the primary driver for risk of impact on compliance is the magnitude of the SL-PCM projection rather than the magnitude of the contribution of the airport to concentrations of NO2 at the relevant location. 22 The 2017 WSP Updated Re-Analysis also describes the 'With Measures' (meaning the 2015 Air Quality Plan measures) as the core scenario, as it takes account of actions to which the Government is already committed Since the draft Airports NPS and documents accompanying it were published, an updated draft UK Air Quality Plan for tackling NO2 was published for consultation by Defra (the draft 2017 Air Quality Plan) on 5 th May The aim of the draft 2017 Air Quality Plan is to achieve the EU Limit Values for the whole of the UK within the shortest possible time. The draft UK Air Quality Plan includes a range of additional measures that could be introduced to improve air quality across the UK, but at this draft stage, there are no estimates provided as to the effectiveness of those measures in reducing concentrations of NO2 in London or specifically around Heathrow The Draft Plan states that the Government will work with the GLA to "ensure compliance is delivered by 2025". As the new draft 2017 Air Quality Plan proposes further measures to ensure this, HAL considers basing the 2017 WSP Updated Re-Analysis on only the 2015 UK Air Quality Plan measures is a robust but conservative assumption. For example, the 2017 WSP Updated Reanalysis makes no allowance for the extension of the ULEZ London-wide for HGVs, buses and coaches and to the North and South Circular roads for all vehicles, which is one of the Mayor's measures set out in the draft 2017 Air Quality Plan. When the 2017 Air Quality Plan delivers the additional measures proposed, future baselines (the PCM projections) will improve As the Government has committed to ensuring compliance with the EU Limit Values is delivered across London by 2025, before a third runway at Heathrow would be operational, the Northwest Runway scheme will not exacerbate existing exceedances of the limit value (which will already have been met). Furthermore, because the Northwest Runway scheme only leads to small incremental increases in NO2 levels and given that extensive mitigation options are available (as described above), releasing new capacity at Heathrow will not lead to a new exceedance of the EU Limit Value Conclusion: Compliance with EU Limit Values The evidence set out in this section 5 demonstrates that the Northwest Runway scheme will not: cause a compliant zone to become non-compliant; delay the WSP Updated Re-Analysis, paragraph Improving air quality in the UK: tackling nitrogen dioxide in our towns and cities, Draft UK Air Quality Plan for tackling nitrogen dioxide, May

161 Appendix 2 compliance of a zone; or worsen any exceedances. HAL therefore considers that the conclusion at paragraph 5.30 of the draft Airports NPS that the Northwest Runway scheme would be capable of being delivered without impacting the UK s compliance with air quality limit values is well evidenced and robust. 13

162 Appendix 2 5. Comprehensive Mitigation Strategy As set out at Question 5 of our Main NPS Response, HAL is committed to mitigating air quality impacts where necessary and HAL has always been clear that expansion should only go ahead within strict environmental limits, including meeting all legal requirements relating to air quality The 2016 WSP Re-Analysis recognises that mitigation measures at Heathrow proposed for the Northwest Runway scheme are expected to significantly reduce concentrations at the most affected receptors and PCM links in the vicinity of the airport 24, resulting in definite air quality benefits 25. The draft Airports NPS recognises at paragraph 3.69 the importance of mitigation measures and states at paragraphs 3.6 and 5.30 that, with mitigation, the Northwest Runway scheme is capable of taking place within legal limits. 26 This conclusion is substantiated by the work done by HAL on potential mitigation benefits as set out in the 2016 HAL Research, which is summarised below. This work demonstrates the range of options available and the benefits they are expected to deliver Mitigation Options Considered Measures to reduce the air quality impact of the proposed third runway are to be included in the design of the Northwest Runway scheme (this approach is known as "mitigation by design"). For example, the location of the new runway, the configuration of stands and taxiways, the road alignments and many other features will be designed to minimise air quality impacts as far as possible, and these will be integral to the Northwest Runway scheme. As the Northwest Runway scheme proceeds, further detailed modelling and analysis of the design options (including of all the new roads) will be carried out. This will enable the most appropriate layout and alignment to be determined from an air quality perspective, delivering an optimum operational design for the Northwest Runway scheme that will also minimise air quality impacts There are certain other mitigation measures (in addition to mitigation by design) that could be implemented, if required, to reduce air quality impacts of the Northwest Runway scheme further. For HAL s submission to the Airports Commission, a number of mitigation options were already accounted for within its modelling assessment. These measures included: i. the Airport Surface Access Strategy; ii. iii. iv. cleaner aircraft technology; cleaner aircraft operations in the sky; cleaner aircraft operations on the ground; and v. cleaner airside vehicles. 24 October 2016 WSP Re-Analysis, paragraph October 2016 WSP Re-Analysis, paragraph Please note our suggested amends to the text of paragraphs 3.6 and 5.30 set out in Appendix 1 to this NPS consultation response. These amends are designed to better reflect the conclusions of the assessments undertaken. 14

163 Appendix The Airports Commission discussed additional mitigation measures and quantified the likely benefits of these measures. The additional measures suggested by the Airports Commission and the associated benefits can be summarised as follows: i. encouraging airlines to shut down an engine during taxiing (potential reduction in NOx emissions from taxiing of 25%); ii. supporting ongoing technological developments and innovation, including industry research into the use of alternative fuels for aircraft 27 ; and iii. the implementation of an Ultra-Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ) As part of the 2016 HAL Research, further assessment was undertaken to quantify the benefits, in terms of NO2 reductions, of each of the individual mitigation measures proposed by HAL and those recommended by the Airports Commission. The measures were quantified individually, followed by an overall summary of the likely reductions in NO2 concentrations that could be achieved by implementing these measures. The purpose of this exercise was to build further confidence in the value of the mitigation HAL has proposed, and to build further confidence in the Airports Commission s assessments of the contribution these mitigation measures could deliver (and therefore the ability of the Northwest Runway scheme to be developed without exceeding EU Limit Values) The findings of this work are presented in full in the technical paper at Annex A to this Appendix 2, but were also summarised in a Briefing Paper submitted to the Department for Transport in May Measures considered include: Increase in public transport share to >50%; NOx emissions charging (aircraft); Steeper glide slopes; Displaced thresholds; Use of pre-conditioned air (PCA) and Fixed Electrical Ground Power (FEGP) and Collaborative Decision Making; Ultra-low emission vehicles (ULEVs) airside; Reduced-engine taxiing; and Ultra-low emissions zone (ULEZ). 27 The Airports Commission considered that it was not possible to quantify what, if any effect, the future uptake of biofuels would have on reducing NOx emissions from aircraft. 28 Allowing only Euro VI Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDVs) and Euro 6 cars into the ULEZ was predicted to reduce NO2 concentrations by 0.2 μg m-3. Allowing only Euro VI HDVs and Euro 6 cars into the ULEZ and making 30% of Light Duty Vehicles (LDVs) zero emission vehicles was predicted to reduce NO2 concentration by up to 0.8 μg m-3). 29 HAL/BP/012/Air Quality 15

164 Appendix Summary of Mitigation Benefits - the 2016 HAL Research Table 1 Change in NO2 concentrations from each mitigation measure (µg m 3 ) Measure ASAS PCM A4 (Airports Commission assessment) A4 (2016 HAL Research) Difference - Airports Commission assessment to this assessment (A4) M4 (2016 HAL Research) Not assessed -0.7 n/a Not 0.0 n/a assessed Not 0.2 n/a assessed Maximum Benefit at Selected Perimeter Receptor (2016 HAL Research) Glide slopes Displaced Threshold CDM + FEGP/PCA ULEVs airside Reduced engine taxi ULEZ Option A ULEZ Option B Total (Including ULEZ Option B) Note: Negative numbers mean the mitigation measure leads to a reduction in NO2 concentrations at the receptor. Positive numbers mean the mitigation measure leads to an increase in NO2 concentrations at the receptor Table 1, shows the change in NO2 concentration from each of the individual mitigation measures described above, compared to a scenario with no mitigation. As shown in this table, the modelling carried out for the 2016 HAL Research produced results that were broadly similar to those produced by the Airports Commission. The full implementation of the mitigation measures was predicted to deliver a reduction in NO2 concentration at the A4 PCM receptor of 3.3 μg m -3, compared to the 2.8 μg m -3 benefit predicted by the Airports Commission. The modelling carried out for the 2016 HAL Research also indicated that NO2 concentrations would be reduced by around 5.4 μg m -3 at the 16

165 Appendix 2 M4 PCM receptor as a result of application of these measures, and by up to 3.2 μg m -3 at receptors around the airport perimeter The numbers in Table 1 were primarily calculated to test and give confidence in the Airports Commission s assessment of the mitigation options using HAL s LAQM model, which is designed specifically to assess impacts at the airport. They are therefore presented in isolation at Table As noted above, the assessment of the benefits these mitigation measures could bring was calculated using the HAL LAQM model. A comparison against the findings of Table 3.2 at Annex A (Assessment of EU compliance using increments calculated using HAL LAQM model & new emission factors), which were calculated using the same model, has therefore been set out at Table This demonstrates that mitigation not already embedded in the HAL LAQM model could reduce concentrations at PCM locations further. Table 2 Assessment of PCM concentrations on key road links near Heathrow using increments calculated using new dispersion modelling and the effects of additional mitigation. Road sector New PCM NO2 concentrations (2030 with Plan) (µg m -3 ) NO2 increment calculated using new emission factors (µg m -3 ) Total NO2 (µg m -3 ) Additional Mitigation Benefit (Including RET,ULEVs airside, ULEZ Option B) (µg m -3 ) Total NO2 (fully mitigated) (µg m -3 ) Bath Road, A4 M All of the analysis undertaken by the Airports Commission, Heathrow Airport Ltd, the DfT and Defra has produced clear and consistent conclusions, that show that with mitigation, a third runway can be delivered at Heathrow within EU Limit Values. 30 Note that, because the HAL LAQM model assumes the majority of the mitigation measures as embedded, only one or other of the ULEZ options can be accounted for as additional mitigation when comparing against the HAL LAQM modelled increments (Table 3.2 of Annex A) to avoid double counting. In contrast, because the Airports Commission increments assumed no mitigation at all, it remains possible to consider the benefit of all of the mitigation measures listed above when calculating a net impact on EU Limit Values at these locations using the Airports Commission's work. 17

166 Appendix 2 6. Uncertainty around future vehicles emissions The impact of real world driving emissions came into focus in 2016 with the VW scandal, although it has long been recognised that the real-world emission performance of diesel vehicles is not consistent with the certified emission standards and tests With respect to these historical errors and their impact on the Northwest Runway scheme, it is important to note that: i. Defra's latest set of emission factors takes account of real-world measurements of Euro 4 and Euro 5 diesel cars and so, for example, higher average emissions are predicted from a Euro 5 diesel car than from a Euro 1 diesel car; ii. there is clear evidence that real-world emissions from current Euro 6 diesel cars are lower than those from Euro 5 diesel cars, and should be lower still from 2019 when the Euro 6 certification testing becomes more stringent; iii. iv. by 2030, Defra predicts that Euro 6 cars will make up 99% of the national diesel car fleet; and it is highly unlikely that vehicles manufactured before the unravelling of the 'emissions scandal', in which these 'cheat devices' were identified, will make up a sizeable proportion of the 2030 vehicle fleet Thus, other than setting a precedent and generating scepticism in many observers, the historic failure to accurately predict emissions from Euro 4 and Euro 5 cars is of limited relevance in terms of predicting concentrations in the future. The key factor for passenger cars is whether the 'Euro 6' standard, which has been mandatory from September 2016, will deliver the improvements predicted, especially for the Euro 6 diesel vehicles on the road after The 2017 WSP Updated Re-Analysis is based on the updated COPERT emissions factors, which take account of real-world emissions from Euro 6 diesel vehicles. As such, HAL considers that the evidence base available to support the conclusions in the draft Airports NPS adequately reflects the risks relating to uncertainty in future vehicle emissions The Government has committed in the draft 2017 Air Quality Plan to ensuring compliance with the EU Limit Values is delivered across London by 2025, which will include the delivery of a range of measures to ensure this is met. In calculating what measures are needed, the Government has used the latest vehicle emissions factors (COPERT 5) which account for real-world emissions from Euro 6 diesel vehicles. The final 2017 Air Quality Plan will therefore reflect 31 One of the key reasons for this is that the European 'Euro 4' and 'Euro 5' type approval standards, which were expected to ensure that emissions from cars sold between 2005 and 2016 emitted significantly less than earlier models, largely failed to deliver. The key reason for this is that the test procedure used by the European Commission did not accurately reflect 'real-world' conditions. Recently, the identification of 'cheat devices' to circumvent the emissions tests, provides another reason why some existing vehicles may emit more than had been expected. 18

167 Appendix 2 the measures required to ensure compliance notwithstanding any uncertainties around future vehicle emissions In the event that compliance does rest on the impact of the Northwest Runway scheme (e.g. where exceedances have persisted and the scheme risks delaying compliance of the zone), HAL is confident that: i. where compliance risks are close to the airport, HAL s operational mitigation measures will have a significant impact, as described in section 4 above; ii. iii. the benefit of those measures as calculated is largely unaffected by uncertainties in vehicle emissions or background levels as they result from operational changes at the airport; and where compliance risks are more remote to the airport, HAL s surface access mitigation measures (as yet unaccounted for in the Department for Transport or Airports Commission assessments) will have an impact, as they are expressly aimed at taking airport-related traffic off the road. Any road user charge/emissions zone is expected to be emissions focussed, and could therefore target those vehicles with the highest emissions As a result, HAL believes that the Government s draft Airports NPS conclusions and the ability of HAL s DCO application to meet the assessment tests at paragraph 5.31 and 5.41 of the draft NPS are resilient to any ongoing uncertainty regarding future emissions from diesel vehicles. 19

168 Appendix 2 7. Conclusion This Appendix demonstrates that: i. the evidence available suggests that, with mitigation, impacts on AQOs and health receptors from the Northwest Runway scheme will be acceptable, and that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate this. This information will be supplemented by the Environmental Impact Assessment accompanying our DCO application for the Northwest Runway scheme; ii. iii. it is reasonable for the Government to conclude, based on all available evidence, that the Northwest Runway scheme is capable of being delivered without impacting the UK s compliance with EU Limit Values and in accordance with all air quality legal requirements, notwithstanding uncertainties regarding future vehicle emissions; and there are a range of mitigation measures available to HAL which have been analysed and could bring significant reductions in NO2 at critical locations. These mitigation measures have not been taken into account in the Government s assessments Based on the evidence available, including our own assessments undertaken using HAL s detailed LAQM model which is designed to model impacts around the airport, HAL is confident that we will be able to demonstrate that the Northwest Runway scheme will meet the assessments tests in the draft NPS at paragraphs 5.31 and

169 Appendix 2 Annex A Technical Summary of 2016 HAL Research 21

170 Heathrow Airport Limited Air Quality Research in Relation to Third Runway Impacts Summary May 2016 Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited

171 2 Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited Amec Foster Wheeler Floor 4 60 London Wall London EC2M 5TQ United Kingdom Tel +44 (0) Doc Ref rr001i3 h:\projects\38277 heathrow aq research\d design\reports\summary report\air quality summary_v3_final.docx Copyright and non-disclosure notice The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Amec Foster Wheeler ( Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited 2016) save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by Amec Foster Wheeler under licence. To the extent that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Amec Foster Wheeler. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below. Third-party disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. Amec Foster Wheeler excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability. Management systems This document has been produced by Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited in full compliance with the management systems, which have been certified to ISO 9001, ISO and OHSAS by LRQA. Document revisions No. Details Date 1 Draft For Client 10/05/ Draft For Client 20/05/ Final For Client 31/05/2016 May 2017 Doc Ref rr001i3

172 3 Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited 1. Introduction This research has been carried out by Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited (Amec Foster Wheeler), Air Quality Consultants Ltd and Ricardo Energy & Environment to determine the impact of the developing technical understanding of Air Quality in the UK on predicted nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) concentrations with the proposed Heathrow North-West Runway (3RNW) in operation In June 2014, an assessment 1 of the potential air quality effects of the 3RNW Scheme was produced on behalf of Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL) for submission to the Airport Commission ( the HAL AC Assessment ) The Airports Commission reviewed this report and undertook its own independent assessments of the 3RNW Scheme. The Airports Commission work included: an assessment based on the Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) approach used by all local authorities to assess compliance with national Air Quality Objectives (AQOs); and an assessment of whether the 3RNW Scheme would increase the risk of the UK breaching the European Union (EU) Limit Value ( Limit Value ) for the annual mean NO 2 concentration specified in the Air Quality Directive The annual mean Limit Value and AQO for NO 2 are the same, at 40 µg m Compliance with the annual mean AQO is considered at locations where members of the public are likely to be regularly exposed for a significant portion of the year (typically residential properties, schools or hospitals), whereas compliance with the EU Limit Value is assessed at locations considered in the Pollution Climate Mapping (PCM) model used by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in its assessment of compliance. In practice, this means that concentrations are assessed using the PCM model at locations 4 m from the kerbsides of major road network links where the public may be exposed. The PCM model is calibrated against actual national monitoring data for past years obtained by the Defra Automatic Urban and Rural Network (AURN) monitoring sites The Airports Commission concluded that the 3RNW Scheme can be delivered without causing exceedance of AQOs even in a plausible worst case scenario 2 where the Commission used the highest available forecasts for both aircraft and surface movements. This was consistent with the findings of the HAL AC Assessment. However, the Airports Commission also concluded that there was a risk that the 3RNW Scheme could extend the time for which an exceedance of the EU Limit Value at the PCM A4 receptor persisted, if mitigation measures were not included, thus delaying compliance of the Greater London Agglomeration with the EU Limit Value Since the Airports Commission published its final report in July 2015, there have been a number of changes in the understanding of emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO X), particularly those from road vehicles, and their impact on ambient concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO 2). These key developments that are addressed in this research are as follows: Defra road traffic Emission Factor Toolkit (EFT) updated from version 5.2 to version with new emission factors and fleet projections; Widespread acceptance since 2010 that ambient concentrations of NO 2 have not reduced in line with predictions; 1 Amec and Ricardo-AEA for Heathrow Airport Limited (2014) Heathrow s North-West Runway Air Quality Assessment. 2 Airports Commission (2015) Airports Commission: Final Report - Paragraph 9.70 May 2017 Doc Ref rr001i3

173 4 Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited A renewed commitment by Government to achieve compliance with the EU Directive as soon as possible, including Defra s development of a revised comprehensive action plan with new measures to deliver this published in December 2015 entitled Tackling nitrogen dioxide in our towns and cities 3 ( the 2015 Air Quality Plan ); Revised projected background pollutant concentrations produced by Defra based on the new PCM modelling which incorporates the effects of measures to be delivered in the 2015 Air Quality Plan; New research into the disparity between real-world vehicle emissions, emission standards and the emissions factors prepared by Defra; and New assessment of future compliance with EU Limit Values produced by Defra using the PCM model As a result, HAL instructed Amec Foster Wheeler and Air Quality Consultants (assisted by Ricardo Energy & Environment) to review the impact of the 2015 Air Quality Plan and the other developments described above on the findings of: the Airports Commission Limit Value Compliance Assessment (to determine impacts of the 3RNW Scheme on compliance with EU limit values); and the HAL AC Assessment (using LAQM dispersion modelling approach to determine impacts of the 3RNW Scheme on compliance with the AQOs). 2. Updated LAQM Dispersion Modelling Assessing 3RNW against Air Quality Objectives 2.1 Method In order to update HAL AC Assessment, further modelling using the method set out below was undertaken The atmospheric dispersion modelling of road traffic emissions used to predict pollutant concentrations that underpinned the HAL AC Assessment has now been updated. The ADMS-Roads Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling System has been used. The modelling for a 2030 future scenario, both without and with the 3RNW Scheme, has been repeated using: updated Defra background concentration projections; and the most recent vehicle NO x emission factors (COPERT 4v10) and vehicle fleet projections used in the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (Emission Factor Toolkit, EFT v6.0.2 (June 2014)) This provides results using the current best practice modelling methodology used for LAQM purposes. NO 2 concentrations were predicted at both specific sensitive receptor locations where relevant exposure for the AQOs has been identified, and at locations relevant for comparison with PCM results, in order to determine the likely increment in concentrations resulting from the 3RNW Scheme It should be noted that the methodology for calculating the road contribution to concentrations along major roads differs between the modelling for LAQM purposes and the PCM model. The following 3 Improving air quality in the UK. Tackling nitrogen dioxide in our towns and cities UK Overview Document, Defra (2015). 4 Defra (2015) 2015 NO 2 projections data (2013 reference year) - projections-from-2013-data May 2017 Doc Ref rr001i3

174 5 Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited key factors explain why PCM modelling gives different concentrations to the LAQM modelling carried out for this assessment: In the PCM model, traffic speed estimates by vehicle category are applied based on categories of UK area type and road type with Department for Transport (DfT) congestion statistics estimating speeds. For example, speeds on urban motorways are assumed to be 95 kph. This blanket assumption does not take account of congestion and queueing that would result in higher emissions at certain times. This can be taken into account in LAQM dispersion modelling; and The PCM model uses an adjustment factor for motorways to account for their more open aspect compared to the urban streets where the majority of AURN road traffic stations used to calibrate the model are situated and because comparison of roadside modelling results predicted by using ADMS-Roads to the previous PCM model output indicated significant increases in the modelled concentrations for roads with high traffic flows. This adjustment means that emissions from a road such as the M4, with Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flows of around 130,000 vehicles have been multiplied by a factor of around 0.4, therefore reducing emissions considerably. Emissions have not been adjusted in the LAQM modelling carried out for this reassessment. ADMS-Roads is specifically developed for detailed simulation of emissions dispersion from roads and motorways at a local and city-wide level. In contrast, the PCM model is utilised for national-scale assessments and reporting Sensitivity testing has also been carried out to account for the emerging understanding of emissions from diesel vehicles, as it is recognised that the real-world emission performance of diesel vehicles does not always meet the certified emission standards and tests. The emission factors provided by Defra take this disparity into account to a certain extent but the analysis of real-world performance indicates that a further uplift could be required to ensure that emissions from diesel vehicles are more accurately accounted for 5. As such, NO 2 concentrations have also been predicted in the revised modelling using a sensitivity test, in which emissions from diesel cars are uplifted following the approach used by Defra in sensitivity tests carried out on the PCM modelling results in association with its plans to improve air detailed in the 2015 Air Quality Plan. This involves applying an uplift factor of 5, so that emissions from Euro 6 cars travelling at 33.6 km per hour are five times higher than the emission standard, and is consistent with the latest Government and Defra understanding of recent research findings. 2.2 Results of the LAQM Modelling As with the original HAL AC Assessment, the updated modelling predicts that the NO 2 annual mean AQO will not be exceeded at any receptor location. Using the new background concentrations produced by Defra and the new road vehicle emission factors to update the LAQM dispersion modelling, NO 2 concentrations near to the A4 Bath Road are predicted to be around 2.3 µg m 3 lower in 2030 than using the superseded data used in the original HAL AC Assessment. This is the net result of a reduction from the new Defra background projections, and an increase from the new road vehicle emission factors. There is a slight increase in predicted concentrations near to the M4 (0.6 µg m -3 ). At other receptors around the airport perimeter, the decrease is in the range µg m 3. NO 2 concentrations at the A4 are predicted to be around 30 µg m -3 with the new data, and concentrations at the closest identified sensitive LAQM receptors 6 to the M4 are also predicted to be up to around 31 µg m -3. The modelled NO 2 concentration at 4 m from the hard shoulder of the M4, where PCM compliance is assessed but there is no likely human exposure, is 39.0 µg m Air Quality Consultants (2016) Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides from Modern Diesel Vehicles - Modern-Diesel-Vehicles pdf.aspx 6 That is, residential properties. May 2017 Doc Ref rr001i3

175 6 Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited Table 2.1 Effects of updating backgrounds and vehicle EFs to new data Receptor Total NO 2: Original Submission to AC (µg m 3 ) Total NO 2: New modelling (new PCM projections, new vehicles EFs) (µg m 3 ) Change (µg m 3 ) A M Perimeter receptors (range) 25.9 to to to -1.6 M4_ Results of the LAQM Modelling with Sensitivity Testing Under the sensitivity test, NO 2 concentrations at the A4 are predicted to be 2 µg m 3 higher than if the emission factors used in the HAL AC Assessment are applied, and 1.6 µg m -3 higher than predicted using the LAQM modelling detailed above. NO 2 concentrations at the M4 receptor are 6 µg m 3 higher than if the emission factors used in the HAL AC Assessment are applied, and 4.5 µg m -3 higher than predicted using the LAQM modelling. NO 2 concentrations are predicted to be below 40 µg m -3 at all identified sensitive receptors, except at the M4. NO 2 concentrations at the A4 is predicted to be up to around 32 µg m -3 and concentrations at the closest identified sensitive receptors to the M4 are predicted to be up to around 33 µg m -3. The modelled NO 2 concentration at 4 m from the hard shoulder of the M4 is predicted to be 43.6 µg m -3. Owing to the strong influence of road traffic emissions on concentrations at the M4, if these assumptions regarding diesel vehicle emissions prove to be accurate, then exceedances of 40 µg m -3 would be widespread across London and other major UK cities. Assessment of mitigation measures (Section 4, below) also indicate that the impact of the 3RNW Scheme at this location is unlikely to be large and mitigation options could have a significant beneficial impact in the area. 3. Assessment of PCM Compliance Assessing 3RNW against EU Limit Value 3.1 Method In order to update the assessment completed by the Airports Commission considering Limit Value compliance the following method was used When the Airports Commission assessed the impact of the proposed 3RNW Scheme on compliance with the NO 2 annual mean EU Limit Value, an increment to the NO 2 concentrations to account for the additional contribution from the 3RNW Scheme (compared to the predicted situation without the scheme) was added to the PCM model results available at that time Since then, new PCM model results have been published by Defra that underpin the 2015 Air Quality Plan. The 2015 Air Quality Plan sets out the UK s approach to meeting the NO 2 Limit Values specified in the Air Quality Directive in the shortest time possible. The 2015 Air Quality Plan is accompanied by a revised Air Quality Plan for the London-wide agglomeration ("the London Wide 2015 Air Quality Plan") 7. The compliance assessment undertaken by the Airports Commission has therefore been repeated in the following two ways: 7 Air quality plan for reducing nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in Greater London urban area (UK0001), Defra, (December 2015) May 2017 Doc Ref rr001i3

176 7 Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited using the new PCM results and increment calculated by the Airports Commission ( Limit Values Update 1 ); and using the new PCM results adding a new increment arising from the 3RNW Scheme that has been calculated using the updated dispersion modelling ( Limit Values Update 2 ). 3.2 Results of PCM Compliance Assessment The new Defra projections contained in the London Wide 2015 Air Quality Plan indicate that NO 2 concentrations around Heathrow will be considerably lower in 2030 than the baseline conditions used by the Airports Commission, which were based on the PCM results available at that time. The Limit Values Update 1 assessment of compliance has been repeated using the NO 2 increment calculated by the Airports Commission and the new PCM projections The results of Limit Values Update 1 are shown in Table 3.1. This shows that the greatest roadside concentration of NO 2 at any of the assessed PCM locations with the 3RNW Scheme is 37.3 µg m -3 on the A4 Bath Road. The total roadside NO 2 concentration complies with the Limit Value at all locations. Note that the increment calculated by the Airports Commission did not include any of the additional mitigation proposed by HAL for the 3RNW Scheme. Table 3.1 Limit Values Update 1 - Assessment of EU compliance using Airports Commission increments and latest PCM data Road sector PCM road link IDs New Defra PCM NO 2 concentrations (2030 with Plan) (µg m 3 ) NO 2 increment for 3RNW calculated by Airports Commission (µg m 3 ) New Total NO 2 (µg m 3 ) with 3RNW Bath Road, A4 (junction A437 to west of Newbury Road) A4 (junction of Fulham Palace Road to Earls Court Road) 16110, 36119, 73567, , 31, 31, A , , A40 Western Avenue (junction A406 to east of A219) 56436, 16404, 36437, 8509, , 32, 33, 32, Junction of Kew Road/Gunnersbury Ave extending east along A4 to Chiswick Lane 26116, , The assessment of compliance has also been repeated for Limit Values Update 2, which used the new PCM results and an NO 2 increment attributable to the 3RNW Scheme calculated using the updated atmospheric dispersion modelling, using the updated emission factors described above. The results are provided in Table 3.2. This shows that the total NO 2 concentration at the PCM A4 receptor is 39.1 µg m 3, as compared with 48.7 µg m 3 in the Airports Commission s assessment. May 2017 Doc Ref rr001i3

177 8 Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited Table 3.2 Limit Values Update 2 - Assessment of EU compliance using increments calculated using new dispersion modelling Road sector PCM road link IDs New PCM NO 2 concentrations (2030 with Plan) (µg m 3 ) NO 2 increment calculated using new emission factors (µg m 3 ) Total NO 2 (µg m 3 ) Bath Road, A M Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 demonstrate that the risk that the unmitigated Heathrow NWR scheme would delay compliance with the Limit Value identified by the Airports Commission is further reduced using the new PCM results, as the concentration at all receptors is likely to be below 40 µg m 3 even with 3RNW and without additional mitigation. 3.3 Comment on PCM Modelled Concentrations It is noteworthy that there is an appreciable difference in the updated PCM projections reported in the 2015 Air Quality Plan between the 2025 with Plan scenario and the 2025 without Plan (See Table 3.3). The implementation of the measures set out in the 2015 Air Quality Plan (i.e. with Plan ) is shown to lead to a reduction of up to 5 µg m 3 in 2025, indicating that the proposed measures will have an appreciable impact on air quality. However, in 2030, there is no difference between the without plan and with Plan scenarios As a result, in the without Plan scenario there is a small decrease in concentrations from 2025 to 2030, but in the with Plan scenario there is a large increase in concentrations from 2025 to This suggests that the 2030 with Plan modelling does not include certain measures that were present in the 2025 with Plan modelling. There is no explanation given in the 2015 Air Quality Plan for this difference between with Plan effects in 2025 and This unexplained reduction in the efficacy of the with Plan measures in 2030 leads to roadside NO 2 concentrations at the PCM A4 receptor being 4 µg m 3 lower in the 2025 Updated PCM projections than in the 2030 Updated PCM projections (32 µg m 3 against 36 µg m 3 ). This suggests that the PCM concentrations with Plan could in fact be reduced by approximately a further 4 µg m 3, to be at least equal to those in Further clarification on this issue is being sought from Defra as this could have a significant impact on mitigation measures required. Table 3.3 Updated PCM Background Projections at the A4 receptor (16112) (µg m -3 ) Without plan With plan Understanding the Impact of individual Mitigation Measures Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited and Air Quality Consultants (assisted by Ricardo Energy & Environment) have also undertaken work for HAL to review the effectiveness May 2017 Doc Ref rr001i3

178 9 Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited of a number of mitigation measures to better understand what impact those measures would have at various AQO receptor and PCM model locations in the area around the airport Many measures to reduce the air quality impact of the 3RNW Scheme are included in the design (this approach is known a "mitigation by design"). For example, the location of the new runway, the configuration of stands and taxiways, the road alignments and many other design features are designed to minimise air quality impacts as far as possible, and these are integral to the proposed 3RNW Scheme. If the Heathrow 3RNW Scheme proceeds, further detailed modelling and analysis on the design options (including of all the new roads) will be carried out. This will enable the most appropriate layout and alignment to be determined from an air quality perspective, delivering an optimum operational design for the 3RNW Scheme that will also minimise air quality impacts There are certain other mitigation measures (in addition to mitigation by design) that HAL is considering implementing to reduce air quality impacts of the 3RNW Scheme further. These could be implemented in order to reduce the predicted air quality impacts. For the HAL AC Assessment, a number of mitigation options were already accounted for in the modelling. These measures included: The Airport Surface Access Strategy (ASAS); Cleaner aircraft technology; Cleaner aircraft operations in the sky; Cleaner aircraft operations on the ground; and Cleaner airside vehicles The Airports Commission also considered additional mitigation measures that were not considered in the HAL AC Assessment and quantified the likely benefits of these measures. The measures suggested by the Airports Commission and their associated benefits are as follows: Encouraging airlines to shut down an engine during taxiing (potential reduction in NOx emissions from taxiing of 25%); Implementation of an Ultra-Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ), either: ULEZ Option A - Allowing only Euro VI HDVs and Euro 6 cars into the ULEZ was predicted to reduce NO 2 concentrations by 0.2 µg m -3 ; or ULEZ Option B - Allowing only Euro VI HDVs and Euro 6 cars into the ULEZ and making 30% of LDVs zero emission vehicles was predicted to reduce NO 2 concentration by up to 0.8 µg m - 3 ). Supporting ongoing technological developments and innovation, including industry research into the use of alternative fuels for aircraft Further assessment has been undertaken to quantify the benefits, in terms of NO 2 reductions, of each of the individual mitigation measures proposed by HAL and those recommended by the Airports Commission. The benefits of the mitigation measures have been quantified using the dispersion modelling approach detailed above in Section 2. The measures have been quantified individually, followed by an overall summary of the likely reductions in NO 2 concentrations that could be achieved by implementing all of these measures. The results are shown in Table As shown in this Table, the modelling carried out for this report has produced results that are broadly similar to those produced by the Airports Commission, giving confidence in the Airports Commission s work to quantify mitigation. 8 The Airports Commission considered that it was not possible to quantify what, if any effect, the future uptake of biofuels would have on reducing NOx emissions from aircraft. May 2017 Doc Ref rr001i3

179 10 Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited The full implementation of the mitigation measures (those which were included in HAL s submission to the Airports Commission, plus additional measures described here) is predicted to deliver a reduction in NO 2 concentration at the A4 of 3.3 µg m -3 compared to the 2.8 µg m -3 benefit predicted by the Airports Commission The modelling carried out for this assessment also indicates that NO 2 concentrations would be reduced by around 5.4 µg m -3 around the M4 as a result of application of these measures, and by up to 3.2 µg m -3 at receptors around the airport perimeter. May 2017 Doc Ref rr001i3

180 11 Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited Table 4.1 Reduction in NO 2 concentrations from each mitigation measure (µg m 3 ) Measure PCM A4 (Airports Commission assessment) A4 (this assessment) Difference - Airports Commission assessment to this assessment (A4) M4 Maximum Benefit at Selected Perimeter Receptor ASAS Not assessed 0.7 n/a Glide slopes Not assessed 0.0 n/a Displaced Threshold CDM + FEGP/PCA Not assessed -0.2 n/a ULEVs airside Reduced engine taxi ULEZ Option A ULEZ Option B Total (Including ULEZ Option B) Note: Positive numbers mean the mitigation measure leads to a reduction in NO 2 concentrations at the receptor. Negative numbers mean the mitigation measure leads to an increase in NO 2 concentrations at the receptor. Note: The first column ( PCM A4 (Airports Commission assessment) ) shows the change calculated by the Airport s Commission. Other columns are calculated using the methodology used for the HAL AC Assessment. Note: The selected perimeter receptor is the location which derives the maximum benefit from the combined mitigation measures. Benefits of individual mitigation measures at other receptors are higher or lower, depending upon the location of the receptors As noted above, the assessment of the benefits these mitigation measures could bring has been calculated using HAL s dispersion modelling. A comparison against the findings of Table 3.2 (Limit Value Update 2 - Assessment of EU compliance using increments calculated using dispersion model and new emission factors), which were calculated using the same model, has therefore been made in Table 4.2. This demonstrates that mitigation not already embedded 9 in the HAL LAQM model could reduce concentrations at PCM locations further. Table 4.2 Assessment of EU compliance using increments calculated using new dispersion modelling Road sector PCM road link IDs New PCM NO 2 concentratio ns (2030 with Plan) (µg m 3 ) NO 2 increment calculated using new emission factors (µg m 3 ) Total NO 2 (µg m 3 ) Additional Mitigation Benefit (Including RET,ULEVs airside, ULEZ Option B) (µg m -3 ) Total NO 2 (fully mitigated) (µg m -3 ) Bath Road, A M , ASAS, glide slopes, displaced threshold and CDM+FEGP/PCA were embedded in the modelling for the HAL AC submission. The other measures in Table 4.1 are additional May 2017 Doc Ref rr001i3

181 12 Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited 5. Conclusions This research shows that the 3RNW Scheme can be delivered in accordance with AQOs and EU Limit Values, even when taking into account potential poor emission performance of diesel vehicles, and that mitigation will have a significant effect in reducing NO 2 concentrations further if required The updated dispersion modelling predicts that the NO2 annual mean AQO will not be exceeded at any receptor location around Heathrow with the 3RNW Scheme in The NO 2 concentration in 2030 is predicted to be below the AQO of 40µg m -3 at all relevant sensitive receptors. Concentrations of around 39 µg m -3 are predicted close to the M4 (4 m from the kerbside), which was modelled to calculate the increment as a result of the 3RNW Scheme, however, the dispersion modelling indicates that the 3RNW Scheme will not have a negative impact on air quality at this location. It should also be emphasised that the dispersion modelling indicates that at the M4 receptors, concentrations are overwhelmingly from non-airport sources: about 60% from non-airport road traffic, 30% from background and just 10% from airport traffic and other airport activity in the 2030 scenario When the sensitivity test is applied to the HAL LAQM modelling to account for possible higher emissions from diesel vehicles than predicted using the Defra EFT, concentrations at sensitive receptor locations are up to around 33 µg m -3. The only modelled location where the annual mean NO 2 concentration is predicted to be above 40 µg m -3 in 2030 when applying the sensitivity test would be close to the M4 (4 m from the kerbside not where there are residential properties) where a concentration of 43.6 µg m -3 is predicted. As set out above, this is overwhelmingly due to non-airport traffic and the 3RNW Scheme will not result in any additional exceedance. In addition, the introduction of additional mitigation could offer a further reduction at the M4 of up to 4.3 µg m -3, bringing concentrations in a sensitivity test scenario down to an annual mean of 39.3 µg m In respect of compliance with EU Limit Values, Defra s Updated PCM projections indicate that concentrations will be considerably lower in 2030 than was assumed by the Airports Commission when it assessed compliance against Defra s previous version of its PCM projections. The concentration at all receptors is now shown to be below 40 µg m -3 with the 3RNW Scheme. This is true at the A4 when using either the increment calculated for the Airports Commission Limit Value Compliance Assessment or the increment calculated using the updated dispersion modelling The Airports Commission did not assess compliance with the EU Limit Values at the M4 and so no direct comparison can be drawn. However, the increment from the 3RNW Scheme calculated using updated dispersion modelling indicates that the Limit Value would not be exceeded along the M4. Dispersion modelling also indicates that mitigation not already embedded in the dispersion model could reduce concentrations at both PCM assessment locations further. May 2017 Doc Ref rr001i3

182 13 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited May 2017 Doc Ref rr001i3