CONSULTATION ONE
CONSULTATION FEEDBACK REPORT
VOLUME 1 OF 3
HEATHROW JUNE 2019
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
2 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 6
1.1 Purpose of the Report 6
1.2 Reporting on consultation feedback 6
1.3 Project Context 8
1.4 Structure of the Report 8
2. BACKGROUND 9
2.1 Background to the Project 9 Airports Commission 9
2.2 The Project 10
2.3 Heathrow’s approach to consultation 11
3. CONSULTATION OVERVIEW 13
3.1 Purpose of the consultation 13
3.2 When did the consultation take place? 13
3.3 Where did the consultation take place? 14 Consultation zone 14
3.4 Who was consulted? 14 Prescribed Consultees 14 Local Authorities 15 Local Communities 16 Wider/Other Consultees 16
3.5 Consultation method 16 Consultation materials 16
3.6 Channels of Communication 19 Website 19 Consultation phoneline 19 Information email address 20 Public Exhibitions 20 Document Inspection Locations 22
3.7 Notification of Consultees 23 Letters and Leaflets 23 Advertising and Publicity 23
3.8 Hard to Reach Groups 25
4. FEEDBACK MECHANISMS 26
4.1 How could consultees respond 26
4.2 Approach to Analysing and Reporting Consultation Feedback 26 Consultation Analysis 26 Quality Assurance 27
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
3 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
4.3 Heathrow’s Responses 28
5. FEEDBACK RECEIVED 30
6. PRINCIPLE OF EXPANSION 32
6.1 Introduction 32
6.2 Prescribed Consultees 32 Local Authorities 32 Statutory Consultees 37 Other prescribed bodies 38
6.3 Local Communities 40 Members of the public 40 Businesses 42 Community Groups 46
6.4 Wider/other Consultees 50
6.5 Issues Raised and Heathrow’s Responses 54
7. RUNWAY 134
7.1 Introduction 134
7.2 Prescribed Consultees 134 Local Authorities 134 Statutory Consultees 137 Other prescribed bodies 138
7.3 Local Communities 139 Members of the public 139 Businesses 141 Community groups 143
7.4 Wider/other Consultees 145
7.5 Issues Raised and Heathrow’s Responses 147
8. TERMINALS SATELLITES AND APRONS 206
8.1 Introduction 206
8.2 Prescribed Consultees 206 Local Authorities 206 Statutory Consultees 208 Other prescribed bodies 208
8.3 Local Communities 209 Members of the public 209 Businesses 209 Community groups 212
8.4 Wider/other Consultees 213
8.5 Issues Raised and Heathrow’s Responses 215
9. TAXIWAYS 260
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
4 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
9.1 Introduction 260
9.2 Prescribed Consultees 260 Local Authorities 260 Statutory Consultees 262 Other prescribed bodies 262
9.3 Local Communities 263 Members of the public 263 Businesses 264 Community groups 265
9.4 Wider/other Consultees 266
9.5 Issues Raised and Heathrow’s Responses 268
10. M25 ALIGNMENT AND JUNCTIONS 301
10.1 Introduction 301
10.2 Prescribed Consultees 302 Local Authorities 302 Statutory Consultees 305 Other prescribed bodies 307
10.3 Local Communities 309 Members of the public 309 Businesses 311 Community Groups 315
10.4 Wider/other consultees 318
10.5 Issues Raised and Heathrow’s Responses 321
11. LOCAL ROADS 418
11.1 Introduction 418
11.2 Prescribed Consultees 419 Local Authorities 419 Statutory Consultees 422 Other prescribed bodies 424
11.3 Local Communities 427 Members of the public 427 Businesses 433 Community Groups 438
11.4 Wider/other consultees 441
11.5 Issues Raised and Heathrow’s Responses 445
12. RIVER DIVERSIONS AND FLOOD STORAGE 556
12.1 Introduction 556
12.2 Prescribed Consultees 556 Local Authorities 556 Statutory Consultees 559 Other prescribed bodies 562
12.3 Local Communities 564
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
5 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
Members of the public 564 Businesses 566 Community groups 567
12.4 Wider/other consultees 569
12.5 Issues Raised and Heathrow’s Responses 572
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
6 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of the Report
1.1.1 This Consultation Feedback Report (Consultation One CFR) has been produced
by Heathrow and presents the results of the Stage One non-statutory pre-
application consultation1 that took place on the Heathrow Expansion Project
(hereafter referred to as the Project) between 17 January and 28 March 2018 (the
Airport Expansion Consultation One).
1.1.2 This Consultation One CFR builds upon the previously published Interim
Consultation Feedback Report (ICFR)2 and sets out details of the consultation
undertaken, and a summary of the feedback received in relation to the Project
from prescribed consultees, local communities and wider/other consultees. It
presents Heathrow’s updated responses to the consultation feedback received,
explaining how Heathrow have had regard to the feedback in preparing the
Preferred Masterplan.
1.1.3 This Consultation One CFR will inform the Consultation Report that is required to
accompany the DCO application. The document is provided for information only
and we are not seeking views on its content as part of the consultation.
1.2 Reporting on consultation feedback
1.2.1 As further detailed in Section 2.3 of this report, Heathrow has undertaken an
iterative, phased consultation. Following each stage of consultation, a
Consultation Feedback Report has been produced which summarises the
feedback received and explains how, in developing the Project Heathrow has had
regard to that feedback. Details of the reports published is set out in Table 1.1.
below.
1 An early stage of pre-application consultation not undertaken pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act 2008. 2 Consultation One Interim Consultation Feedback Report, January 2019.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
7 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
Table 1.1 Summary of Published Consultation Feedback Reports
Name of document
Consultation
on which it
reports
Status of reporting Publication
date
Interim
Consultation
Feedback Report
(ICFR)
Airport
Expansion
Consultation
One (January
– March 2018)
Interim – provides responses
to matters directly related to
the proposals on which
Heathrow sought feedback as
part of the Airspace and
Future Operations
Consultation and interim
responses (summarising how
the matters will be considered
as part of the preparation of
the detailed proposals) to
other aspects of the Project
not included in the Airspace
and Future Operations
Consultation,
January 2019
Consultation One
Consultation
Feedback Report
(Con One CFR)
Airport
Expansion
Consultation
One (January
– March 2018)
Final – provides updated full
responses to the feedback
received where that was not
possible in the ICFR and
explains how, in preparing our
preferred masterplan for the
Project, we have had regard
to that feedback.
June 2019
Future Operations
Consultation
Feedback Report
(FO CFR)
Airspace and
Future
Operations
Consultation
(January –
March 2019)
Final – provides responses to
the matters raised and
explains how, in preparing our
preferred proposals for the
Project, we have had regard
to that feedback.
June 2019
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
8 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
1.3 Project Context
1.3.1 Heathrow has developed proposals to expand the airport and increase the number
of flights to at least 740,000 per year. The Project is classified as a nationally
significant infrastructure project (NSIP) that will need to be authorised by a
Development Consent Order (DCO) under the Planning Act 2008. Heathrow
propose to apply to the Secretary of State for Transport for a DCOwhich, if
granted, would give Heathrow the powers to build, maintain and operate the
expanded airport.
1.3.2 The expansion of the airport is not just about the physical changes required on the
ground. The construction of a third runway would also require changes to the way
airspace is used around Heathrow. Changes to airspace and flight paths are
determined under a separate consenting process by the Civil Aviation Authority
(CAA) and do not form part of the DCO process. In parallel to the Airport
Expansion Consultation One, Heathrow also undertook a consultation on the
design principles that could be used as the basis for developing Heathrow’s future
airspace design for the expansion (the Airspace Principles Consultation). The
feedback received in relation to the Airspace Principles Consultation is not detailed
in this report. A separate report detailing the feedback received in relation to the
Airspace consultation was published on 19 September 20183.
1.4 Structure of the Report
1.4.1 This Consultation One CFR is structured as follows:
1. Section 2 – presents the background to the Project and sets out Heathrow’s
approach to the Airport Expansion Consultation One.
2. Section 3 – presents details of what was consulted on. The section also explains
who was consulted and the methods used during the consultation.
(the above sections are unchanged from that presented in the ICFR [save as
indicated by footnote])
3. Section 4 – presents details of the feedback mechanisms used and describes how
the quantitative and qualitative analyses of feedback was managed.
4. Section 5 – presents an introduction to the type and number of responses received4.
5. Sections 6 to 26 – present a summary of the feedback received by theme together
with Heathrow’s updated response.
6. Section 27 – summarises the ongoing engagement that has taken place since
Airport Expansion Consultation One and sets out the next steps in the consultation
and engagement process.
3 https://www.heathrowexpansion.com/documents-resources/heathrow-airspace-design-principles-submission/ 4 This section is unchanged from that presented in the ICFR.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
9 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Background to the Project
Airports Commission
2.1.1 In September 2012, the then Coalition Government established an independent
Airports Commission to examine the scale and timing of any requirement for
additional airport capacity in the South East of England and to identify and
recommend options to maintain the UK’s position as Europe’s most important
aviation hub.
2.1.2 In its Interim Report dated December 2013, the Airports Commission concluded
that at least one additional runway was needed in the South East of England
before 2030 and shortlisted three options for further consideration. These were a
new runway at Gatwick, an extended northern runway at Heathrow (Heathrow
Hub) and Heathrow’s proposals for a northwest runway. Between November 2014
and February 2015, the Airports Commission carried out a national consultation on
these three options.
2.1.3 The Airports Commission published its final report in July 2015, concluding that
the proposal for a northwest runway at Heathrow Airport, combined with a
significant package of measures to address community and environmental effects,
presented the strongest case for securing the UK’s status as an international
aviation hub. In December 2015, the Government confirmed that it would begin
work on the building blocks of an Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS). It
considered that an ANPS was the most appropriate method to put in place the
planning framework for a new runway in the South East of England.
2.1.4 In October 2016, the Government accepted the Airports Commission’s
recommendation and announced that a northwest runway at Heathrow was its
preferred scheme to deliver additional airport capacity in the South East of
England. In February 2017 the Government published the Draft ANPS for
consultation. A revised Draft ANPS was published in October 2017 for further
consultation.
2.1.5 Following a parliamentary vote, the ANPS was formally designated by government
in June 2018 and this provides the principal policy framework against which the
DCO application for the Project will be examined and decided.
2.1.6 Airport Expansion Consultation One took place in January 2018 ahead of the
designation of the ANPS and at the time the revised Draft ANPS was available.
The differences between the Draft and designated ANPS are limited and minor in
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
10 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
nature. The Government published a change log that lists the amendments to the
document5.
2.2 The Project
2.2.1 The Project comprises the construction of a new north-west runway and the
associated expansion of Heathrow Airport to serve at least 740,000 air transport
movements (ATMs) per annum and at least 130 million passengers per annum
(mppa). Today the airport operates at 476,000 ATMs per annum (within a cap of
480,000 ATMs) and serves 80 mppa.
2.2.2 The Project encompasses new developments that would lie within and beyond the
expanded airport boundary, including those which are associated with or ancillary
to the airport’s expansion. This includes:
1. a new 3,500 metre long runway to the north-west of the existing airport and
supporting aircraft taxiway network;
2. new terminal and related apron capacity to enable processing of the additional
flights and passengers associated with expansion of the airport;
3. provision and relocation of critical airport related infrastructure such as fuel depots
and pipelines and security control posts;
4. re-alignment of the M25 and alterations to the Junctions 14 and 14a of the M25;
5. diversion of local roads including the A4, the A3044 and Southern Perimeter Road
including works to existing junctions;
6. diversion of local rivers, works to existing water courses, provision of flood storage
areas and ecological mitigation around the airport;
7. provision of new hotels, offices, cargo sheds, car parking, flight catering facilities,
and other ancillary facilities (e.g. aircraft maintenance) to enable the expanded
airport to operate;
8. measures for avoiding, minimising and/or mitigating adverse environmental effects
likely to arise in connection with the construction and operation of the Project;
9. other associated works, for example, temporary access roads, highway works,
temporary works compounds, work sites and ancillary works;
10. compulsory acquisition of land, including interests in land, and rights over land, over-
riding easements and other rights and the temporary use of land; and
11. the discontinuance of existing restraints on air transport movements at Heathrow set
by planning permissions; and
12. changes to the existing operational regime at Heathrow Airport including: changes to
the runway alternation arrangements; changes to the directional preference for
aircraft landing and taking off from Heathrow; and the introduction of new and
5https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/713391/airports-nps-new-runway-capacity-and-infrastructure-at-airports-in-the-south-east-of-england-change-log.pdf
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
11 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
revised operating restrictions, including a ban on scheduled flights at Heathrow for
part of the night period.
2.2.3 The Project is classified as ‘environmental impact assessment (EIA) development’
as defined by the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)
Regulations 2017 (the ‘2017 EIA Regs’). A request for an EIA scoping opinion was
submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) on 21 May 2018 and a scoping
opinion was received on 29 June 2018. An EIA is being undertaken to ensure the
likely significant effects of the Project are understood and that appropriate
mitigation of those effects is put in place where necessary. The results of the EIA
will be set out in an Environmental Statement (ES) that will accompany the DCO
application.
2.2.4 In accordance with the requirements in Regulation 12 of the 2017 EIA Regs, the
preliminary results of the EIA are presented in a ‘Preliminary Environmental
Information Report’ (PEIR) as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation (June
2019).
2.3 Heathrow’s approach to consultation
2.3.1 Heathrow see pre-application consultation as not just a key requirement of the
Planning Act 2008 but as a crucial method in raising awareness and
understanding about the Project. It also helps to develop a two-way dialogue with
our local communities and consultees to understand the issues that are important
to them. It will inform how the proposals develop and how the potential effects of
the Project are mitigated before a DCO application is submitted.
2.3.2 Taking into account the scale and complexity of the Project, Heathrow is
undertaking an iterative, phased consultation. This comprises two stages of non-
statutory consultation at a stage when options are still being considered, followed
by a statutory consultation on Heathrow’s preferred masterplan. The proposed
stages of consultation are set out below6:
2.3.3 Stage One Consultation (Airport Expansion Consultation One) (January to March
2018): a non-statutory consultation undertaken at a sufficiently early stage to
provide consultees with an opportunity to influence the selection of masterplan
components and the approach to minimising and mitigating effects. This also
included a separate but parallel consultation on the design principles that could be
used as the basis for developing Heathrow’s future airspace design (the Airspace
Principles Consultation);
6 See the way in which Heathrow is reporting on consultation feedback set out at para 1.1.4
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
12 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
2.3.4 Airspace and Future Operations Consultation (January to March 2019): a non-
statutory consultation undertaken at a sufficiently early stage to allow consultees
an opportunity to influence the selection of the future operating procedures for an
expanded airport. This also includes consultation on Heathrow’s future airspace
design.
2.3.5 Airport Expansion Consultation (June to September 2019): statutory consultation
on Heathrow’s proposed application carried out fully in accordance with the
requirements of sections 42 to 49 of the Planning Act 2008.
2.3.6 Consultation is an important part of how Heathrow is developing its proposals. Our
multi-stage, iterative approach complies with paragraph 70 of the DCLG
Guidance7 which refers to the need to manage the tension between consulting
early and having proposals that are firm enough to enable consultees to comment.
The approach will allow Heathrow to refine the Project at each stage through a
design, evaluation and assessment process that takes into account consultee
feedback.
7 Department for Communities and Local Government Planning Act 2008: Guidance on the pre-application process March 2015.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
13 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
3. CONSULTATION OVERVIEW
3.1 Purpose of the consultation
3.1.1 The overarching aim of the Airport Expansion Consultation One was to gather
views from the local community, statutory consultees, the wider public and all
those with an interest in Heathrow’s expansion about its emerging plans, options
for the components of the scheme and approaches to key issues such as noise,
air quality, surface access and climate change.
3.1.2 Views were specifically sought on:
1. the position and location of the north west runway;
2. the options for locating new terminal and apron space;
3. the location of new taxiways;
4. the options for re-positioning the M25 and altering the M25 junctions;
5. options for diverting and reconnecting local roads;
6. options for the diversion of rivers and the approaches to replacement flood storage;
7. the locations and sites identified for airport supporting facilities and airport related
development;
8. the sites identified for the relocation of land uses affected by expansion (e.g. the
Immigration Removal Centres);
9. the sites identified as potential construction sites and the approaches to managing
the effects of construction; and,
10. approaches to managing the effects of expansion – property, noise, surface access,
air quality and emissions, carbon and climate change, natural environment, historic
environment.
3.1.3 In parallel to the Airport Expansion Consultation One, Heathrow also undertook a
consultation on the design principles that could be used as the basis for
developing Heathrow’s future airspace design for expansion (the Airspace
Principles Consultation). The feedback received in relation to the Airspace
Principles Consultation is not detailed in this report. A separate report detailing the
feedback received in relation to this consultation was published on 19 September
20188.
3.2 When did the consultation take place?
3.2.1 The Airport Expansion Consultation One took place for a period of ten weeks
between 17 January and 28 March 2018.
8 https://www.heathrowexpansion.com/documents-resources/heathrow-airspace-design-principles-submission/
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
14 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
3.3 Where did the consultation take place?
3.3.1 The consultation was undertaken within an identified consultation zone (as set out
in paragraph 1.3.2 of this report) around the area of the proposals but was not
geographically restricted to respondents in this area and feedback was received
from respondents across the UK. Information was made available online for
electronic download and by request in hard copy via the consultation information
phone line.
Consultation zone
3.3.2 A Consultation Zone with two distinct areas was defined with the objective of
seeking the views of local communities and other parties interested in Heathrow’s
expansion and future airspace. These areas are described below.
1. Potentially Affected Zone (PAZ) – this zone comprised all properties within the
potential lowest observable adverse effect level (LOAEL) noise area. As the
proposals were still evolving a buffer around the maximum extents of the potential
LOAEL was included to provide flexibility for future changes in the way that aircraft
arrive to and depart from the airport. This ensured that all those potentially affected
by the Project had the opportunity to comment on the proposals from the outset.
2. 7,000ft Zone - This covers the area beyond the PAZ within which aircraft arriving to
and departing from the airport will be travelling at 7,000ft or less.
3.4 Who was consulted?
Prescribed Consultees
3.4.1 Although the Airport Expansion Consultation One was non-statutory, a wide range
of consultees drawn from the list in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning
(Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (the APFP
Regulations) were contacted. This included statutory bodies such as Natural
England, Historic England and the Environment Agency as well as the parish
councils.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
15 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
Local Authorities
3.4.2 The following local authorities were notified of the consultation:
1. Bracknell Forest Council;
2. Buckinghamshire County Council;
3. Central Bedfordshire Council;
4. Chiltern District Council;
5. East Sussex County Council;
6. Elmbridge Borough Council;
7. Hampshire County Council;
8. Hertfordshire County Council;
9. Kent County Council;
10. London Borough of Bromley;
11. London Borough of Croydon;
12. London Borough of Ealing;
13. London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham;
14. London Borough of Harrow;
15. London Borough of Hounslow;
16. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames;
17. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames;
18. London Borough of Sutton;
19. Milton Keynes Council;
20. Northants County Council;
21. Oxfordshire County Council;
22. Runnymede Borough Council;
23. Slough Borough Council;
24. South Buckinghamshire District Council;
25. Spelthorne Borough Council;
26. Surrey County Council;
27. The Greater London Authority;
28. The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames;
29. The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead;
30. Three Rivers District Council;
31. West Sussex County Council;
32. Wokingham Council; and
33. Wycombe District Council.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
16 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
Local Communities
3.4.3 Local community consultees were defined as:
1. Individuals, owners/occupiers, businesses and groups based or living in the vicinity
of the Project (the PAZ as defined at paragraph 1.3.2);
2. Individuals who are users of the area or visitors to it (e.g. workers);
3. Airlines;
4. Voluntary organisations (including residents’ associations);
5. Schools and colleges in the vicinity; and
6. Local hospitals, care homes and private healthcare organisations in the vicinity.
Wider/Other Consultees
3.4.4 In addition to prescribed consultees and the local community, Heathrow consulted
several other local bodies and individuals who are not identified as prescribed
bodies in Schedule 1 of the APFP Regulations 2009. These included:
1. Local bodies, faith organisations and technical consultees such as local Wildlife
Trusts, the National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB);
and
2. Ward Councillors and MPs in relevant areas.
3.5 Consultation method
3.5.1 In accordance with the DCLG Guidance, a range of methods and techniques were
used to ensure that the various consultees identified above and all sections of the
community that could be affected by the Project could be involved in the process.
Consultation materials
Written materials
3.5.2 The following information (set out in Table 3.1) was provided during the
consultation electronically via the consultation website, in hard copy at the deposit
locations set out within Table 3.3, at the events set out within Table 3.2 and also
through hard copies on request either at the events or via the telephone
information line. To ensure accessibility of the information a number of overview
documents were produced written in plain English and in a style intended to
enable people to access information at a non-technical level. These were
accompanied by more detailed technical information which was clearly signposted
within the relevant parts of the overview documents.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
17 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
Table 3.1: Written Information
Document Content
Overview documents
Airport Expansion Consultation
Document
Summarised the work done to identify the options to
expand Heathrow and manage the effects of expansion.
It also explained how to take part in the consultation, the
questions on which feedback was being sought and
where more information could be found.
Development Consent Order
Process Information Paper
Provided an overview of the DCO process.
Environmental Impact Assessment
Process
Provided an overview of the EIA process
Property Policies Information
Paper
Provided an overview of the various property policies,
who may be eligible for compensation and where the
policies apply as a result of the construction and
operation of the Project.
Community Information Booklet –
North
Community Information Booklet –
East
Community Information Booklet –
South West
Community Information Booklet –
West
Provided an overview of the expansion proposals
specific to the communities north, east, south west and
west of the airport.
Technical documents
Our Emerging Plans
Explained the process Heathrow is following and the
progress made developing options for the components
of an expanded airport and its supporting facilities
Scheme Development Report
Provided further detail on the progress made in
developing options for the components of an expanded
airport and its supporting facilities
Interim Property Hardship Scheme
Panel Guidance
Contained the Panel Guidance for the Interim Property
Hardship Scheme
Interim Property Hardship Scheme
Policy Terms
Set out the terms of the Interim Property Hardship
Scheme. It informs interested parties, including
applicants, regarding the principles and process of the
Property Hardship Scheme
Fees and Costs Policy
Gave guidance on the circumstances in which owners of
land and property which may be affected by the Project
can expect to recover reasonable costs and fees that
are incurred as a consequence of issues which arise
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
18 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
Document Content
Commercial Property Policy
Set out Heathrow's policy in relation to the acquisition of
commercial properties required in connection with the
development of the Project.
Agricultural Land and Property
Policy
Set out Heathrow's policy in relation to the acquisition of
agricultural land and properties required in connection
with the development of the Project.
Residential Property Policy Set out Heathrow's policy in relation to the acquisition of
residential properties required in connection with the
development of the Project.
Our Approach to Developing a
Surface Access Strategy
Set out the context for surface access at the airport,
what Heathrow thinks its priorities and targets should be
and provides a broad range of options to achieve those
targets.
Our Design Approach to the
Natural Environment
Described Heathrow’s approach to the natural
environment, explained what ‘green infrastructure’ is, the
potential benefits of the Project for the natural
environment, the policy framework and the regional and
local context
Our Approach to Historic
Environment
Explained the proposed approach to understanding the
historic environment and identified the proposed
approaches which may be adopted in the design and
delivery of the Project.
Our Approach to Noise
Set outs Heathrow’s approach to managing and
mitigating noise and covers aircraft noise, ground noise,
road traffic noise and construction noise as it relates to
the DCO
Our Approach to Air Quality
Explained the context for air quality at Heathrow and
outlined potential options and approaches that would
help to reduce or mitigate the potential local air quality
effects that may arise because of the Project.
Our Approach to Carbon and
Climate Change
Provided background context on the issues of climate
change and emissions of carbon dioxide and outlined
potential approaches that could be used to manage the
carbon and climate change effects which could arise
because of the Project.
Feedback form
3.5.3 A feedback form was provided for anyone wishing to respond to the consultation.
The feedback form contained 35 questions structured under the following six main
headings:
1. Expanding Heathrow;
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
19 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
2. Runway, Terminals and Aprons;
3. Roads and Rivers;
4. Additional Land;
5. Managing the effects of Expansion; and
6. Other Considerations.
3.5.4 The form was capable of being completed on-line via the website or in writing by
hard copy.
Videos
3.5.5 A series of short videos were produced to provide background information on the
Project and explain the proposals. These were available to view on the Project
website and at consultation events.
3.6 Channels of Communication
3.6.1 To ensure the Airport Expansion Consultation One was inclusive and open to all a
number of communication channels were utilised to allow consultees to access
project information and members of the team. These include the channels set out
below.
Website
3.6.2 At the start of the consultation, a dedicated website
(www.heathrowconsultation.com) was launched. This remained live for the
duration of the consultation period. It contained the information described above
as well as short videos explaining the proposals a frequently asked questions
section, details of the public exhibition events, contact information and details of
how to respond to the consultations.
3.6.3 During the consultation the website received 140,000 unique visitors.
Consultation phoneline
3.6.4 At the start of the consultation Heathrow launched a freephone helpline (0800 307
7996) which was available Monday to Friday 9am – 6pm. The phoneline was
available to consultees to deal with questions relating to the Project. Members of
the public were able to call this to discuss any questions and concerns they had
about the Project.
3.6.5 During the consultation Heathrow received 882 calls to the phoneline most of
which requested copies of documents or sought clarity on aspects of the project or
the public exhibitions.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
20 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
Information email address
3.6.6 In addition to a Project specific email address for providing feedback to the
consultation an information email address was also set up at the outset of the
consultation. This operated alongside the consultation phoneline and was
available for consultees to request further information or ask questions in relation
to the proposals.
3.6.7 During the consultation Heathrow received 936 emails to this address. Most of
these requested copies of the materials or sought clarity on aspects of the project
or the public exhibitions. A small number of consultation responses were also
received by this email address and these were all included and considered in the
same way as consultation feedback received through other channels.
Public Exhibitions
3.6.8 In total 40 public exhibitions took place during the consultation at venues within the
PAZ (see paragraph 1.3.2). These were open exhibitions where members of the
public could view the proposals, talk to project team representatives and get
guidance on completing feedback forms. Venues were primarily chosen on the
basis of their suitability as a community facility, their proximity to potentially
affected communities, disabled access and availability.
3.6.9 Details of the public exhibitions were provided on the Project website, by direct
communications, locally displayed posters, press and radio advertising and
social media. In total 5,332 people attended the exhibitions. Table 3.2 below
provides details of venue locations, dates, time and the number of attendees at
each exhibition.
3.6.10 Heathrow colleagues and representatives from a variety of technical disciplines
as well as a Heathrow director and community team representative were on
hand to answer questions from members of the public attending the events.
Exhibition boards explaining the background to the Project were displayed at all
venues. Copies of the exhibition materials are provided in Appendix A. As well as
reference copies of the information listed in Table 3.1 above, hard copy feedback
forms were also available for completion at the exhibition or to be taken away and
completed later.
Table 3.2: Public Exhibition Events
Date Times Venue Attendance
30 January 12:00 to 20:00 Hounslow Civic Centre 141
31 January 12:00 to 20:00 Ascot Racecourse 174
1 February 12:00 to 20:00 Grange Bracknell Hotel, Bracknell 153
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
21 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
Date Times Venue Attendance
1 February 12:00 to 20:00 The Hythe Centre, Staines 218
2 February 12:00 to 20:00 Windsor Youth & Community Centre 171
2 February 12:00 to 20:00 Novotel London Heathrow, West Drayton 120
3 February 10:00 to 16:00 Barnet Multicultural Community Centre, Hendon 36
3 February 10:00 to 16:00 Burnham Park Hall, Burnham 149
6 February 12:00 to 20:00 St Giles Hotel Heathrow, Feltham 96
7 February 12:00 to 20:00 Colnbrook Village Hall 172
8 February 12:00 to 20:00 York House, Twickenham 168
8 February 12:00 to 20:00 Sports Able, Braywick Sports Ground,
Maidenhead
226
9 February 12:00 to 20:00 Ealing Town Hall 192
9 February 12:00 to 20:00 Imber Court, East Molesey 230
10 February 10:00 to 16:00 The Weybridge Centre, Weybridge 122
10 February 10:00 to 16:00 Heathrow Academy, Hayes 46
13 February 12:00 to 20:00 Thistle Hotel Heathrow, Longford 56
13 February 12:00 to 20:00 Stanwell Village Hall 120
14 February 12:00 to 20:00 The Village Centre, Englefield Green 136
15 February 12:00 to 20:00 Richmond Adult Community College 219
16 February 12:00 to 20:00 Wheatsheaf Community Hall, Lambeth 136
16 February 12:00 to 20:00 Community Church, Putney 148
17 February 10:00 to 16:00 Hayes End Community Centre, Hayes 45
17 February 10:00 to 16:00 Heathrow Academy, Hayes 48
19 February 12:00 to 20:00 Bourne Hall, Ewell 283
20 February 12:00 to 20:00 Hammersmith Town Hall 186
21 February 12:00 to 20:00 Arlington Conference Centre, Camden 67
22 February 12:00 to 20:00 Antoinette Hotel, Wimbledon 158
24 February 10:00 to 16:00 Heathrow Academy, Hayes 32
27 February 12:00 to 20:00 Holiday Inn Brentford Lock, Brentford 132
28 February 12:00 to 20:00 The Curve, Slough 101
2 March 12:00 to 20:00 Richings Park Sports Hall, Iver 106
3 March 10:00 to 16:00 Wraysbury Village Hall 123
7 March 12:00 to 20:00 H. G. Wells Conference Centre, Woking 132
8 March 12:00 to 20:00 Harrow Leisure Centre 160
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
22 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
Date Times Venue Attendance
9 March 12:00 to 20:00 The Centre Banqueting, Southall 26
9 March 12:00 to 20:00 St Mary’s Church, Harmondsworth 118
10 March 10:00 to 16:00 Tringham Hall, Woking 123
10 March 10:00 to 16:00 Heathrow Academy, Hayes 58
12 March 12:00 to 20:00 The Cecil Hepworth Playhouse, Walton on
Thames
205
3.6.11 An exhibition was also set up for Heathrow colleagues at its offices in the
Compass Centre at the start of Airport Expansion Consultation One.
Document Inspection Locations
3.6.12 Inspection copies of the consultation documents listed in Table 3.1 above were
made available to view free of charge from the start of the consultation at 34
locations across London and the south of England. The list of locations is provided
in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3: Document Inspection Locations
Brent: Civic Centre Hertsmere: Civic Offices South Bucks: Council Offices
Bromley: Civic Centre Hounslow: Civic Centre Spelthorne: Council Offices
Buckinghamshire: County
Hall Aylesbury
Islington: Council Offices Surrey Heath: Council Offices
Camden: Swiss Cottage
Library
Kensington and Chelsea: Town
Hall
Three Rivers: Council Offices
Chiltern: District Council
office, Amersham
Kingston upon Thames: Kingston
Library
Tower Hamlets: Town Hall
City of London: Barbican
Library
Merton: Civic Centre Waltham Forest: Walthamstow
Library
Croydon: Council Offices
Mole Valley: Council Offices Wandsworth: Town Hall
Ealing: Council Offices Reigate and Banstead: Town Hall Watford: Town Hall
Elmbridge: Civic Centre Runnymede: Civic Centre Westminster: Charring Cross
Library
Hackney: Service Centre Rushmoor: Council Offices Windsor and Maidenhead:
Town Hall
Hammersmith and
Fulham: Town Hall
St Albans: Civic Centre Woking: Civic Offices
Harrow: Civic Centre
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
23 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
3.7 Notification of Consultees
Letters and Leaflets
3.7.1 At the start of the consultation all properties and businesses within the PAZ (see
paragraph 1.3.2) were sent a consultation information leaflet. The leaflet provided
an overview of the consultation, details of the public exhibitions and explained
where the project information could be viewed and how feedback could be
provided.
3.7.2 Over 2.2 million copies of the consultation information leaflet were sent. A copy of
the community information leaflet is presented in Appendix B.
3.7.3 A letter notifying prescribed consultees and local authorities about the consultation
was also issued at the start of the consultation. This provided recipients with the
dates of consultation, details of where more information could be found and how
feedback could be provided.
3.7.4 Wider/other consultees were also sent a letter notifying them of the consultation at
the start of the consultation period.
Advertising and Publicity
Advertisements
3.7.5 Advertisements were placed in local newspapers circulating across the
Consultation Zone. The London Metro and London Evening Standard, as the most
read newspapers in London, were also used.
3.7.6 The first phase of advertising took place during the week commencing 15 January
2018 – the first week of the consultation. This advertised the consultation dates
and directed people to where they could find out about the events and other
information.
3.7.7 The second phase of advertising took place approximately half way through the
consultation period during the week commencing 19 February 2018. This
advertised the later events and included a reminder to provide feedback before the
consultation deadline. A list of newspapers and the dates that advertisements
appeared in the papers together with a copy of the advertisements is presented in
Appendix C.
3.7.8 Notification of the consultation was also placed in the Guardian and the London
Gazette during the week commencing 15 January 2018.
3.7.9 The newspaper adverts were supplemented by:
1. adverts on local news media websites across the Consultation Zone;
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
24 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
2. an eight-week campaign of poster advertising in community hubs within the
Consultation Zone, for example libraries, town halls, leisure centres, community
centres and large supermarkets;
3. an eight-week advertising campaign in London underground and surface rail
stations across the Consultation Zone;
4. an eight-week campaign of billboard advertising at Heathrow Terminal 5; and
5. an eight-week campaign of advertising on popular London radio stations (Heart
London, Smooth London and Capital London) that provided coverage across the
Consultation Zone.
3.7.10 These campaigns commenced at the start of the consultation so that they would
run during the period of public exhibitions. Copies of the posters and photos of the
billboard advertisements in situ are presented in Appendix D.
Press Releases
3.7.11 Throughout Airport Expansion Consultation One there was extensive coverage in
the local media concerning the Project. At the start of the consultation Heathrow
issued a press release to all local media, including TV, radio and newspapers and
invited them to a media briefing.
Social Media
3.7.12 A social media strategy using Facebook, Twitter and website banner adverts was
implemented across the Consultation Zone to raise awareness of the consultation
and direct stakeholders to where they could find out more information and provide
feedback. The social media approach was to encourage local residents to attend
consultation events. Location-targeted adverts were shared on the day of each
event (as per the events schedule identified within Table 3.2).
3.7.13 On Facebook, adverts were targeted towards two groups: 18-35 and 35+. This
ensured that adverts reached a full spread of people beyond those already
engaged through action groups and other channels. The total number of Facebook
impressions during the consultation period was 4,408,497.
3.7.14 Alongside using the Twitter account to advertise events, Heathrow also responded
to tweets from users regarding the events and the consultation process as a
whole. This included monitoring tweets directed to @HeathrowAirport and
@yourHeathrow, as well as the wider Heathrow conversation on Twitter. The total
number of Twitter impressions during the consultation period was 3,611,114.
3.7.15 The combined number of social media impressions during the consultation
reached 8,019,611.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
25 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
3.8 Hard to Reach Groups
3.8.1 In addition to the methods outlined in preceding sections, to ensure that all
stakeholders were able to engage in and respond to the consultation Heathrow
offered a range of solutions for people requiring additional assistance. At the
consultation events videos were made available on technical aspects of the
Project, the community information leaflet and the consultation documents
included information on how to obtain a large text or alternative format of the
documents. A translation service to provide documents in alternative languages,
braille and audio formats was made available on request. A translator was also
provided at a consultation event following a request from a member of the public.
3.8.2 To support requests for hard copy documents and/or alternative document
formats, a consultation phone line and information email address was provided
throughout the period of the consultation.
3.8.3 A health and safety audit was undertaken of the exhibition venues to strike a
suitable balance between accessibility of the buildings and proximity to the
residents wishing to attend. All the exhibition locations used were Disability
Discrimination Act (DDA) compliant. Members of the Project team were in
attendance to facilitate access and assist the public.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
26 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
4. FEEDBACK MECHANISMS
4.1 How could consultees respond
4.1.1 Arrangements were made to facilitate consultation feedback. The consultation
leaflet and booklet also highlighted the following ways to send feedback.
1. Online feedback through the website - An electronic feedback form was available on
the Project website and was prompted on the homepage. This could either be
completed and submitted online or could be downloaded from the website and
emailed via the Project email or posted via the freepost address.
2. Hard copy feedback forms - Hard copy feedback forms were available at
consultation drop-in events and on request. These could either be handed in at the
events or returned by post using the freepost address. Printed feedback forms and
freepost envelopes were also available to take away from briefing events. A copy of
the feedback form can be found at Appendix E.
3. Other ways to provide feedback - There were a number of other ways people could
provide their feedback:
a. by writing to the freepost address at Freepost LHR EXPANSION
CONSULTATION;
b. by sending an email to
4.1.2 Verbal feedback was not accepted, with the exception of where necessary to
recognise an individual’s circumstances which would otherwise stop their view
from being taken into account. Assistance with completing feedback forms was
provided at exhibitions for those who requested it.
4.2 Approach to Analysing and Reporting Consultation Feedback
Consultation Analysis
4.2.1 All responses received (whether received online or offline) were logged with a
unique 10-digit identification number before being uploaded or transcribed
verbatim into an integrated coding programme to allow analysis.
4.2.2 The purpose of the coding programme is to create a ‘coding framework’ which
provides a list of themes and topics (codes) raised by the consultation feedback,
from which the feedback can be organised. For example, noise is a prevailing
theme identified and within this there are several topics such as, “concerns with
potential noise impacts” and “requests for further information on noise mitigation
proposals”. The coding framework was regularly updated to reflect any new
themes and topics that were identified and reviewed to ensure there was no
duplication or fraudulent feedback.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
27 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
4.2.3 The coding framework was applied by analysts to all feedback received, in order to
capture the issues raised in a systematic way to ease interrogation and analysis.
4.2.4 Once the coding framework had been applied to the feedback received, Heathrow
grouped similar themes together and organised them into categories. Summaries
of the feedback by theme and topic were provided to technical specialists within
the Project team together with the full consultation responses to enable them to
consider feedback and take it into account in the design and evaluation process.
4.2.5 All personal data received as part of the consultation was processed in
accordance with relevant confidentially standards and legislation, including the
Data Protection Act 1998.
4.2.6 A record of the collated feedback received in response to Airport Expansion
Consultation One was provided in sections 6 to 28 of the ICFR published in
January 2019. It was divided into 23 topics (which broadly follow the structure of
the Airport Expansion Consultation One Document published in January 2018)
and summarised the issues raised by consultees, grouped by consultee type.
These summaries provided a clear and objective precis of the views expressed by
consultees.
Quality Assurance
4.2.7 Quality assurance measures were put into place at different stages of the data
entry and analysis stages to ensure that responses were accurately captured and
analysed.
4.2.8 At the data entry stage, a system was implemented which involved 5% of the work
of trained data entry staff being reviewed by a senior member of staff. In the event
that errors were identified they were corrected, and an increased proportion (up to
100%) of the work was reviewed.
4.2.9 At the collation and analysis stage a minimum of 10% of each coders coding was
quality checked or verified. This was undertaken through a back-checking exercise
which required double-coding each coders outputs to ensure consistency in
approach. In the event of errors being found within this 10% quality sample a full
review of the coders work was undertaken by a senior member of staff.
4.2.10 Weekly team meetings and updates to discuss the process and compare working
notes were held to ensure a consistent and accurate approach was taken by each
analyst. The Heathrow project team also reviewed the summary and raw data
reports and provided feedback to analysts on their content.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
28 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
4.3 Heathrow’s Responses
4.3.1 Following the identification and categorisation of the feedback received, Heathrow
reviewed the feedback as part of its ongoing design, assessment and evaluation
process for the Project. This has involved a multi-disciplinary review of feedback
from the following disciplines; Operations and Service (including surface access),
Delivery, Business Case, Sustainability, Community, Planning and Property.
4.3.2 In Sections 6 to 28 of the ICFR tables were included which set out a list of the
matters raised in the feedback.
4.3.3 The Issues column in the tables presented Heathrow’s summary of the feedback
received on that particular topic. In presenting these issues we have sought to
summarise all the issues raised and eliminate duplication. However, some of the
issues raised relate to more than one topic or are repeated in relation to more than
one topic. We did not attempt to edit these, but rather to accurately reflect the
responses received. The tables in the ICFR provided Heathrow’s responses to the
matters raised and an indication of how the feedback had influenced the
development of the Project at that time. Under each topic chapter, they were
divided into two groups:
1. Table A: This included the issues identified as being related to Heathrow’s future
operational procedures (e.g. runway alternation, directional preference and night
flights) and provided Heathrow’s responses and of the way in which the feedback
has influenced the development of the proposals that were put forward as part of the
Airspace and Future Operations Consultation (January 2019).
2. Table B: This included all other issues which relate to the Project components,
masterplan and the approaches to managing the effects of the Project. In relation to
these issues, Heathrow was still undertaking an ongoing process of evaluation and
assessment (including engagement with consultees to help refine and shape the
preferred masterplan). It was not therefore possible to provide full responses in the
ICFR but rather an interim response was included for information which outlines
Heathrow’s thinking at that time (January 2019) or explained how feedback will
continue to be considered in developing the preferred options on which Heathrow
proposed would form part of its Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019, and it
was noted that full responses would be provided at that time
4.3.4 This Consultation One CFR utilises the same topic sections from the ICFR,
however the topic chapters relating to the Airspace and Future Operations
Consultation have not been included on the basis that all issues raised were
contained in a Table A for which full responses were provided in the ICFR. For the
remaining topic chapters (sections 6 to 26 of this Consultation One CFR), the
original summaries of consultation feedback have been included for ease of
reference and then the original Table B is provided with Heathrow’s updated full
response including how Heathrow has had regard to the feedback in preparing the
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
29 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
preferred masterplan which is presented as part of Airport Expansion Consultation
(June 2019).
4.3.5 Heathrow’s response to consultation feedback, contained in this report, signposts
to a range of documents that are published as part of the Airport Expansion
Consultation (June 2019). This includes the Preliminary Environmental Information
Report (PEIR), the Updated Scheme Development Report, the Future Runway
Operations document, and the Preferred Masterplan document. These documents
provide further information that demonstrates how Heathrow have had regard to
consultation feedback.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
30 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
5. FEEDBACK RECEIVED
5.1.1 A total of 4,578 pieces of feedback were received to the Airport Expansion
Consultation One9. A small number of these were received either shortly before
the commencement of the consultation (80 responses) or shortly after the close of
the consultation period (120 responses). All were coded and analysed in the same
way as the responses received during the consultation period and are reported on
as valid consultation responses.
5.1.2 Responses were received from local authorities, national, regional and local
organisations, businesses and the local community. A full list of respondents is
provided at Appendix G. The feedback received comprised:
1. Hard copy feedback forms - 396
2. Online feedback forms - 3,186
3. Emails - 898
4. Letters - 98
5.1.3 The following chart provides a breakdown of the age group indicated by
respondents to the consultation using the online or paper feedback form10. A
number of consultees did not provide this information and this proportion is not
included in the chart.
9 At the close of consultation, a number of consultees had answered at least one question on the online feedback form but had not clicked the “submit” button at the end of the form. These responses to the consultation were considered through a case-by-case review. Where the response contained valid feedback to one or more of the consultation questions and another response was not received from that consultee these were coded and analysed in the same way as the responses received during the consultation period. The website has been updated so this is no longer necessary. 10 3,106 consultees who completed this part of the feedback form
9%
69%
20%
2%
RESPONSE TYPES
Hard copy feedback forms Online feedback forms Emails Letters
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
31 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
75%
18%
7%
CONSULTEES OVERFLOWN
Yes No Don’t know
5.1.4 The chart below provides a breakdown of the consultees who indicated whether
they were overflown (by planes either taking off or landing at Heathrow Airport)
using the online or paper feedback form11. A number of consultees did not provide
this information and this proportion is not included in the chart.
11 3,119 consultees who completed this part of the feedback form.
12%
34%
33%
21%
AGE GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS
16-34 35-50 51-65 65+
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
32 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
6. PRINCIPLE OF EXPANSION
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 In response to Airport Expansion Consultation One, Heathrow sought feedback in
relation to the principle of the Heathrow Expansion Project (the Project). A total of
4,295 consultees made comments relating to this topic.
6.1.2 Heathrow provided the following material directly related to the principle of the
Project:
1. Airport Expansion Consultation Document;
2. Our Emerging Plans;
3. Scheme Development Report; and
4. The Case for Heathrow Expansion.
6.1.3 Heathrow asked the following question regarding the principle of the Project at
Airport Expansion Consultation One:
1. Please tell us what you think about Heathrow’s plans to expand the airport.
6.1.4 This chapter provides a summary of the relevant consultation feedback received
from prescribed consultees, local communities and wider/other consultees. The
issues raised by respondents have also been grouped in table form at the end of
this chapter, which includes Heathrow’s response to these issues.
6.2 Prescribed Consultees
Local Authorities
Principle of Expansion – support
6.2.1 Bracknell Forest Council and Elmbridge Borough Council expressed support for
the Project on the condition that southern rail access to Heathrow is provided and
a satisfactory resolution to several employment and environmental issues is
agreed. General support was also received from the London Borough of Brent.
6.2.2 Buckinghamshire County Council commented that it was one of the first Councils
to publicly support the growth of the airport but that this was on the condition that
adverse economic, community and environmental impacts including noise, air
quality and traffic are appropriately mitigated.
6.2.3 Essex County Council recognised the role that Heathrow plays in the UK’s airport
network and expressed support for the Project. They considered that the third
runway would enable Heathrow to retain its hub status, which is vital for future UK
economic growth and productivity. They also stated that the Project should be
complementary to the expansion of both London Stansted and Southend Airports.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
33 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
6.2.4 The London Borough of Harrow expressed support for the Project but commented
that this was entirely dependent upon Heathrow ensuring that the Project
comprehensively and effectively mitigates noise, traffic and air quality impacts, as
well as impacts on the wider environment, infrastructure and local road networks.
6.2.5 Kent County Council said it agreed with the Airports Commission (and
subsequently the government’s) conclusion that expansion via a third runway at
Heathrow was the right choice. They also agreed that it would deliver substantial
benefits over and above those which had been identified for Gatwick.
6.2.6 Slough Borough Council cited economic benefits in their support for the Project.
They stated that their broad support is factored into the review of the Local Plan
which establishes several planning principles relative to the Project. They also
noted that this includes mitigation measures that are in direct conflict with the
information provided during consultation.
6.2.7 Spelthorne Borough Council acknowledged the case for a third runway at
Heathrow. They stated that they had supported the Project to date and recognised
the need for the airport to maintain its hub status. The Council considered that this
was critical to the strength of the UK aviation industry and the number of
international businesses who choose to locate near the airport.
6.2.8 Waverley and Wokingham Borough Councils both indicated general support for
the Project. Wokingham cited the importance of the Project to economic activity in
the Thames Valley Cluster and stated that as Heathrow expands consideration will
need to be given to the pressure for housing and associated infrastructure in the
Borough and the importance of good surface access.
6.2.9 Waverley Borough Council’s support was caveated with requests for measures to
manage and mitigate congestion on the M25 and a new southern rail access to
Heathrow to improve accessibility by more sustainable modes of transport. They
expressed concern that there is no commitment from Heathrow to fund the new
southern rail access and that the proposals do not directly link to Woking. They
stated that a more direct southern access link from Woking to the Airport would
provide the greatest accessibility improvement for residents and employees within
this area of Surrey and Hampshire and would provide a realistic alternative to the
use of the private car which will assist with the surface access commitments that
have been given.
6.2.10 Principle of Expansion – objection
6.2.11 The London Boroughs of Hillingdon, Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and
the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead jointly objected to the Project
based on air quality impacts. The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
expressed support for the expansion of Gatwick.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
34 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
6.2.12 The London Borough of Islington objected to the Project and advised that if a
minor increase in capacity was required (in the South East) this could be
accommodated at London Stansted.
6.2.13 The London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham stated that it was opposed to the
Project whilst the London Borough of Hounslow stated that it wanted Heathrow to
be ‘better not bigger’.
6.2.14 The London Borough of Lambeth while supportive of the overall objective of
providing good transport infrastructure to support economic growth, considered
that the Project would have negative impacts on far more people than expansion
at Gatwick. They said Gatwick would provide improved domestic connectivity and
as it is in a much less densely inhabited area would reduce the issues of noise, air
pollution, the demolition of homes and the removal of green open space in
comparison to Heathrow.
6.2.15 Runnymede Borough Council objected to the Project and stated that further
consideration should be given to the harmful impacts that could arise beyond the
development boundary. The Council recognised the significant national benefits
for the economy but expressed concern about the impact on its local community.
They also stated that the harmful impacts will reach a far wider area than any
redline boundary for the Development Consent Order (DCO) application and
considered that if the benefits of the Project beyond the redline boundary are to be
highly regarded then so must the harmful impacts.
6.2.16 The London Borough of Sutton stated that it has been opposed to the Project
since 2009. They considered the impact of the proposals on local boroughs and
the wider environment to be unacceptable and requested alternatives be
considered.
Comments on matters raised regarding the principle of expansion
6.2.17 Buckinghamshire County Council identified that the scale of future growth being
planned by local authorities is significant and that a realistic picture of growth in
the sub-region should be agreed to allow impacts to be assessed and mitigation
measures identified. They also noted that its communities (particularly Iver) would
be potentially affected by a number of nationally significant infrastructure schemes
including HS2. They called for the Department for Transport (DfT) to co-ordinate
these schemes, align outcomes, timescales and integrate delivery while engaging
with the local community.
6.2.18 Ealing Council recognised the importance of Heathrow to the South East and its
economic benefits. They also recognised that a third runway would cause more
noise, pollution and traffic that would damage the quality of life of local people.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
35 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
6.2.19 They commented that they were seeking a £105 million package of measures to
maximise the economic benefits of the Project, mitigate the environmental impacts
and compensate those affected. It stated that such measures should include a
range of projects and initiatives including economic regeneration, housing,
transport, the environment and employment and skills. Ealing Council also stated it
had joined with other local authorities and relevant organisations in membership of
the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) to enable a joined-up and sub-
regional conversation about the future of Heathrow Airport and to constructively
engage with Heathrow.
6.2.20 The London Borough of Harrow highlighted that insufficient consideration had
been given to the wider cumulative impact of an expanded airport beyond the area
directly adjacent to it. They considered that the wider sub-regional impacts arising
from an expanded airport should also be established and mitigated and expected
further details to be provided.
6.2.21 Hertfordshire County Council commented on the assumptions of planned growth
within the sub-region and identified that the information presented only appears to
have taken into consideration sites with the benefit of planning consent. They
highlighted that the scale of future growth being planned by local authorities is
significant and stated that a realistic picture of growth in the sub-region should be
agreed to allow impacts to be assessed and mitigation measures identified.
6.2.22 The London Borough of Hounslow acknowledged that a successful airport was
important to its economic success but said a concerted effort must be made to
mitigate the direct negative effects of airport operations on local communities -
particularly in relation to noise, poor air quality, congestion on the transport
network and a loss or degradation of green space and biodiversity. They also
noted that the consultation suggested some options for reducing impacts but
reiterated their request for a ‘quality of life’ fund to be established to help mitigate
the negative impact of Heathrow Airport on local communities citing examples as
summarised below.
1. Investment in local infrastructure that helps improve transport or facilitate uptake of
sustainable modes - including the expansion of the public transport free fare zone
and other potential ‘trip-offsetting schemes’.
2. Greenspace amenity improvements and biodiversity enhancements, including
access, ecological improvements, tree planting.
3. Funding and direct support for training and apprenticeships and other schemes that
raise the skills of the local community and assist local SMEs to access the Heathrow
supply chain.
6.2.23 They also expressed concern relating to surface access, air quality, night flights,
noise and biodiversity and highlighted the potential incompatibility between
Heathrow’s plans for airport related development (e.g. hotels and offices) with
those set out in its emerging Local Plan review for housing and employment.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
36 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
6.2.24 Reigate and Banstead Borough Council did not explicitly express a position on the
principle of the Project but did raise potential effects upon the M25 as an issue.
6.2.25 Slough Borough Council’s broad support for the Project referred to several
relevant planning principles contained within its Emerging Preferred Spatial
Strategy for the Local Plan for Slough. They stated that these are to be applied to
any development at Heathrow ensuring that there are good public transport links
into Heathrow from Slough to protecting Colnbrook and Poyle villages in a “Green
Envelope12”.
6.2.26 South Bucks District Council stated that their Core Strategy contained proposals
for the Iver Relief Road and that Heathrow should make a significant contribution
to its cost if the proposals put forward as part of the Project generate HGV traffic in
the area.
6.2.27 The South East England Councils13 indicated that its members were for and
against plans for expansion at Heathrow or Gatwick and raised the need to
address air and noise pollution and to improve road and rail access. They also
asked that air and noise performance targets be independently enforced.
6.2.28 Spelthorne Borough Council considered that insufficient weight had been given to
the consideration of cumulative effects on local communities. The Council’s
support for the Project was caveated on ten requirements as set out below:
1. The Wider Property Offer Zone (WPOZ) must be expanded to cover the whole of
Stanwell Moor and large parts of Stanwell.
2. Parking controls must be put in place in Stanwell Moor and large parts of Stanwell.
3. Heathrow must provide an enhanced multi-purpose community hall for Stanwell
Moor and Stanwell Village and a new leisure facility in the locality, improved facilities
in local recreation grounds, perimeter paths round open spaces and fishing facilities
in advance of any development work.
4. No Immigration Removal Centres should be located in the Borough.
5. The Surface access/public transport approach should commit to help fund the
capital cost of implementing Spelthorne’s Southern Light Rail proposal; introduce
regular and quick bus routes into Heathrow; include Spelthorne within the London
Transport Oyster Card Zone 6 operating area; minimise unnecessary vehicle
movements; include a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP); and
include a commitment to pay the Council for any enforcement that has to be
undertaken.
12 A network of green spaces protected from development 13 South East England Councils is a voluntary association of council leaders from the 74 local authorities in the South East region of England. It is a regional grouping of the Local Government Association.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
37 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
6. Air quality must be no worse for Spelthorne’s residents than it is now, and there
should be measures in place to ensure continuous improvement in the local air
quality.
7. There should be continuous improvement in the noise experienced by residents.
8. Night flights should be banned, and strict penalties must be imposed for any
breaches, with all the monies put back into the affected communities.
9. No changes to the Borough boundary.
10. Staines Moor should remain undisturbed. Work on redirecting the River Colne must
not alter the flow or character of the river on the Moor.
6.2.29 The London Borough of Sutton requested alternative plans to the Project, which
would result in the demolition of approximately 1,000 homes. They also stated that
regardless of whether the expansion of Heathrow goes ahead a surface access
strategy must be implemented as a priority with key elements escalated in
partnership with proposals from other partners.
6.2.30 Surrey County Council requested more information regarding the surface access
strategy, the sourcing of minerals required to build the development and the
disposal of waste arisings. They stated that any proposal to increase the cap on
Air Transport Movements should be subject to proper planning processes with full
consultation and appropriate measures in place to mitigate and compensate for
noise and air quality impacts before any new capacity is released.
6.2.31 Wycombe District Council did not state explicitly whether or not they were in favour
of the Project but said their main concern was in relation to public transport access
to Heathrow. They highlighted residents’ dependence upon the private car to
access Heathrow and said there is only a day-time hourly direct bus service from
High Wycombe with limited other direct public transport services in
Buckinghamshire. They called for a commitment to deliver projects that enable
passengers, workers, commuters and freight to move to more sustainable and
accessible modes of travel.
Statutory Consultees
Principle of expansion – support
6.2.32 The Ministry of Defence stated that they had no objection to the Project subject to
being able to comment on future plans which set out the location and design of
any new water body created for flood storage together with any information
regarding new or relocated wildlife habitats.
Comments on matters raised regarding the principle of expansion
6.2.33 Highways England noted that the Project could have a significant impact on the
strategic road network during construction and operation and could impose
constraints on its future development. They referenced the Memorandum of
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
38 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
Understanding signed between Highways England and Heathrow in January 2018
to ensure that this impact is appropriately mitigated.
6.2.34 Natural England and the Environment Agency requested Heathrow work with
partner organisations to realise opportunities. Natural England advised that the
government’s Environment Plan, (A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve
the Environment) published in January 2018 sets out the government’s aims to
improve the environment. They advised that this document should be used to
shape the Project. They also advised upon the need for a project-level Habitats
Regulations Assessment.
6.2.35 The Environment Agency referred to the need for a detailed Water Framework
Directive compliance assessment and made detailed comments on the proposals
to culvert watercourses and the issue of flood risk. They highlighted that there
should be no increase in flood risk because of the Project and requested that new
development be designed to be resilient to flood risk and climate change. They
also highlighted the expectation that the Project should not result in the
deterioration of any of the relevant waterbodies.
6.2.36 Historic England stated that a new northwest runway would be the most damaging
in terms of the historic environment. They referred to the predicted loss of 21
designated heritage assets because of the land required for the new runway,
including the loss of the Longford village conservation area and a substantial part
of the Harmondsworth conservation area. They said a further 220 designated
heritage assets would experience effects upon their setting and that all harm to the
historic environment as a result of any new runway and associated development
must be minimised and where it cannot be avoided, must be robustly justified.
Other prescribed bodies
Principle of expansion – support
6.2.37 Chobham Parish Council supported the provision of a public transport led scheme
for an expanded Heathrow.
Principle of Expansion - objection
6.2.38 Bray Parish Council stated that they did not consider Heathrow is the best location
for another runway in the South of England.
6.2.39 Denham and Horton Parish Councils objected to the Project. Denham cited
impacts on the Colne Valley Regional Park and Horton and the scale of the
development proposed in an area where environmental quality has already been
significantly eroded. Horton Parish Council indicated that they would support the
construction of a second runway at Gatwick.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
39 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
6.2.40 Iver Parish Council expressed opposition to the construction of a third runway and
the associated developments in the region.
Comments on matters raised regarding the principle of expansion
6.2.41 Albury Parish Council requested an overall strategy for all airports in the south-
east of England to minimise their combined impact upon the parish and the Surrey
Hills Area of Natural Beauty (AONB). They stated a preference for a new runway
in the North of England to spread the economic benefits nationally.
6.2.42 Bray Parish Council said there was too little information with regard to flight paths.
They commented that Surrey is the most overflown county in the UK and
suggested that Heathrow would not be a good place for any airport expansion and
that expansion should perhaps be moved to the north of England.
6.2.43 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council considered that the Project represented a
‘land grab’ by Heathrow. They noted that the plans did not take account of other
development proposals such as the Heathrow Express Depot at Langley, the
Smart Motorway widening of the M4 and the Western Rail Link to Heathrow. They
also highlighted the need to re-provide the Lakeside Energy-from-Waste plant.
6.2.44 Windlesham Parish Council expressed concerns with the following elements of the
proposals: air-quality, noise, community displacement and traffic. They did not
specify a preferred option but wished to see further detail as soon as possible in
order to do so. They also expressed concerns about air pollution and the potential
for increased development pressure in Surrey Heath.
6.2.45 The HSPG did not adopt a position for or against the Project but indicated that
they would like to continue to work constructively with Heathrow, the government
and stakeholders for the best form of enhancement and expansion at Heathrow.
They said the Project brings huge challenges in terms of impacts on communities,
the environment, land use, infrastructure and the highway network. They
considered that by working with Heathrow they are best able to positively influence
design, mitigation, compensation and enhancements to support the wider
economy, community and the environment.
6.2.46 Network Rail Infrastructure Limited recognised the relationship between
infrastructure investment and economic growth and the benefits this brings to
Great Britain. They said that they would like to work with Heathrow to develop a
joint plan that supports growth in airline and railway passengers and considered
that investment in the airport and the railway must go hand in hand in order to
support growth.
6.2.47 Thames Water Utilities Limited stated that they were working with Heathrow to
understand the demands for increased water supply associated with an expanded
airport. They strongly encouraged Heathrow to maximise the potential for water
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
40 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
conservation and water efficiency and where possible the use of sustainable
drainage methods and a sequential approach to surface water run-off.
6.2.48 Iver Parish Council sought more information on how the Project could be delivered
without an increase in airport related traffic
6.3 Local Communities
Members of the public
Principle of expansion – support
6.3.1 Members of the public commented positively about the benefits of the Project
indicating that it would improve airport capacity, would address long term needs
and would reduce waiting times for passengers. Other positive comments
suggested that the Project would improve connections and accessibility for arriving
and departing aircraft, increase the number of air travel destinations and make it
generally more convenient for travellers.
6.3.2 Respondents considered that the Project was necessary or long overdue with
some commenting that the process should be sped up as there was a need for a
quick decision and faster planning and implementation of proposals. Comments
were also received which indicated that Heathrow was the most suitable or right
place for expansion and that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Other
positive comments indicated that the Project would provide economic benefits and
would benefit local people and communities.
6.3.3 Some support for the principle of expansion was given conditionally. In these
instances, respondents indicated that further infrastructure improvements such as
road and rail were needed, further runways would need to be ruled out, fair
compensation for the affected communities must be provided or that Heathrow
must keep their promises to mitigate effects and provide employment
opportunities.
Principle of Expansion - objection
6.3.4 Out of the members of the public who commented on the principle of the
expansion of Heathrow most made comments against the Project. The main
negative comments received were in relation to concerns about the inevitable
increase in the number of flights and night flights. Feedback was also received
which shared concerns that the Project proposals may not be future proof and may
not meet the needs of Heathrow Airport in the longer term. Other responses
suggested that there was not sufficient land or space to expand or that the airport
was already too large.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
41 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
6.3.5 Further negative comments indicated:
1. expansion would not be sustainable;
2. the airport is unsuitable for expansion;
3. concerns about the disruption it will cause;
4. concerns about the number of flights over residential areas including central
London;
5. concern that Heathrow had broken promises regarding other proposals in the past,
suggesting a lack of confidence; and
6. the proposals are flawed or badly thought through.
6.3.6 Some respondents expressed concern that the existing infrastructure will not cope
with the Project whilst others considered that there isn’t sufficient public transport
capacity or that the local road network in general could not support additional
airport related traffic. Responses were also received relating to the impact of the
Project on traffic flow and congestion, specifically on the M25.
6.3.7 Others who provided negative comments made suggestions that expansion should
either take place either elsewhere, a new runway at both Heathrow and Gatwick,
or alternatively at other airports within the UK rather than Heathrow. Other
respondents proposed that expansion should not take place near populated or
residential areas.
6.3.8 Comments on matters raised regarding the principle of expansion
6.3.9 Members of the public indicated that the Project would create local, regional and
national jobs for businesses and benefit the economy, allowing the UK to remain
competitive. Respondents also considered the Project would allow Heathrow to
continue to compete with other airports for business.
6.3.10 Other comments suggested there would be benefits for passengers and tourists,
allowing airlines and fares to remain competitive.
6.3.11 Members of the public also suggested that the cost of the Project was too high or
that it was generally a waste of money with some saying that the Project would be
a waste of tax-payers’ money and a waste or misuse of public funds.
6.3.12 Other negative or critical comments said the Project may not benefit business, the
economy or jobs and that instead there could be a negative impact on business
and the economy. They said the economic advantages do not outweigh
disadvantages and had concerns about what would happen if government do not
fund transport infrastructure.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
42 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
Businesses
Principle of expansion – support
6.3.13 Businesses were generally supportive of the Project. Responses were received
from both national and local companies with the majority saying there would be
economic benefits from the Project. Support was also received from other airports
and from airlines.
6.3.14 The airports that expressed support were London Biggin Hill and London Luton
Airport Operations Limited. London Biggin Hill said additional runway capacity was
vital to the UK economy. They noted that in addition to the north-west runway
option consideration should be given to the extension of an existing runway as this
would be a viable and provide a contingency should undue delays affect the new
runway being built.
6.3.15 EasyJet and Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited (Virgin) also supported the plans for
the Project and considered it would also bring significantly increased competition
at the airport which is currently limited.
6.3.16 Virgin said the Project would deliver greater benefits in terms of long-haul
connectivity. They also noted that it would lead to an increase in the mix of
passengers (business and leisure) and in cargo operations. Their support was
qualified with concerns over the lack of maturity of the development proposals and
the lack of detail on costs. They also provided comments on the means by which
the operation of the future airport could be improved to increase competition
between airlines to reduce costs and requested a Passenger Cost Guarantee14
which would set out the total budget for delivering the expansion programme.
6.3.17 The call for a Passenger Cost Guarantee was also supported by Delta Airlines
who said they were critical that the Project does not lead to an increase in
passenger charges. They stated that to move ahead without a realistic
understanding of costs could lead to an untenable situation where the risk of
expansion would transfer to airlines and customers, ultimately undermining the
goals of the Project.
6.3.18 Airpets Limited expressed support for the proposals but raised concerns about
ensuring that its business can be protected and relocated close to the airport if its
property is to be acquired for alternative development.
6.3.19 The Airport Industrial Property Unit Trust considered the Northwest runway vital to
local and national economies and stated that it will provide future capacity to
14 a guarantee that passenger fees will not increase in order to fund the development of an expanded Heathrow.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
43 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
ensure investment takes place in the many companies that depend upon the
international connectivity that the Airport provides.
6.3.20 The Arora Group expressed support for the principle of expansion and the
principle of the northwest runway but said the scheme could be delivered in a
more cost-efficient manner. They put forward their own scheme for expansion as a
better alternative to the one being promoted by Heathrow.
6.3.21 The Hillingdon and the Surrey Chambers of Commerce supported the plans for the
Project recognising the need to boost trade links, help local businesses spread
their products around the globe and grow international trade. The Staffordshire
and Hampshire Chambers of Commerce also recognised the economic benefits
that the Project would bring. Hampshire Chamber of Commerce also referenced
the importance of supporting local skills development, local businesses and supply
chains and the necessity for the Project not to be delayed.
6.3.22 Business South stated that a feature of the regional economy is access to two
international airports that allow international travel and a means for exporting
goods across the globe. To maintain the region's strengths, the Project is required
and welcomed.
6.3.23 Segro stated that they have long supported the vision of a world class Heathrow
Airport and recognised the role it would play in helping Britain to continue to
compete in a global market. They stated that from a survey undertaken by them in
2015 many of their customers who are located close to Heathrow are either part of
the airport’s supply chain or benefit from its hub status to import or export goods
and services. As a result, they considered that a third runway will have a positive
economic impact.
6.3.24 Speedbird Securities Limited expressed support for the principle of expansion
recognising the economic benefits to the UK. They suggested that the Project will
allow new global connections to be established to drive investment, maintain and
improve the UK’s international competitiveness and indicated that this is made
more important by the UK's decision to leave the European Union. They said that
all of the economic benefits will need to be delivered alongside a package of
mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts on local communities and
businesses affected by the proposals.
6.3.25 Town Centre Securities PLC expressed a similar view stating that the Project is
essential to maintain Heathrow’s hub status and serve the economy, especially
with the prospect of Brexit.
6.3.26 Sunvil Holidays stated that the Project is much needed and should happen as
soon as possible to avoid the UK lagging behind the rest of Europe. They
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
44 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
suggested that Heathrow should be mindful of the cost of the proposals and
ensure that passenger charges are not affected.
6.3.27 The Lanz Group expressed broad support for the Project provided the impacts on
its landholdings and operations are appropriate and proportionate. They indicated
they would like to work with Heathrow to reduce the impacts and agree mitigation.
UCH Logistics and Premier Inn Hotels Limited were concerned about their
properties as a result of the Project and requested further discussion on the
proposals.
6.3.28 DHL Group expressed support for the overall principle of expansion and the
provision of a third runway but noted that they have two significant properties in
the immediate vicinity of the airport which are likely to be affected.
6.3.29 Electron Bean Processes Limited stated that they considered the Project overdue
but considered congestion on the M25 would be a future concern.
6.3.30 The Fuel Trading Company considered it a necessity that Heathrow expands the
airport and the best way this can be done is by providing a new runway. They also
said Heathrow’s plans address many issues but raised the concern that Heathrow
will only tackle local emissions and not tackle the wide issue of greenhouse gases.
6.3.31 Heathrow Airport Fuel Company and Heathrow Hydrant Operating Company
Limited provided conditional support to a third runway given the requirements that
they identified for additional aviation fuel infrastructure and storage.
6.3.32 Lapithus Hotels management UK Limited (LHMUK) supported the principle of
expansion subject to the condition that Heathrow is prepared to work with them to
ensure that development is supportive of LHMUK’s existing hotel businesses and
that any potential negative effects that might arise from that development are
mitigated as far as is possible.
6.3.33 The London Airline Consultative Committee and the Board of Airline
Representatives in the UK expressed support for the Project subject to
confirmation of its viability, affordability, mitigation, phasing and delivery. They
stated that only when the airline community has seen a high degree of maturity on
the preferred scheme, including costs, scope and benefits, will unconditional
support be provided.
6.3.34 Hatton Farm Estates Limited expressed support for the Project as they considered
the airport is already operating at a capacity level which is unsustainable and does
not allow for disruption arising from adverse conditions.
6.3.35 Mace Group said that the Project is critical to the UK’s continued success,
particularly due to continued uncertainty around negotiations for the UK’s exit from
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
45 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
the European Union. They considered the Project to be the best option for global
business growth.
6.3.36 Poyle Manor Farm/Wiggins Building Supplies Limited agreed that the north-west
runway scheme offers the greatest strategic benefits when compared with the
alternative proposals. They stated that the proposals will consolidate Heathrow’s
hub status, offer a greater number and variety of long haul connections in the short
term and deliver passenger growth and economic benefits which would not be
realised without the Project.
6.3.37 Suez UK, the Copas Partnership, Sapcote Developments, Viva xpress, Jayflex
Aggregates Limited, Logistics UK Limited, Goodman, Cappagh Companies,
Greengauge 21 and WeMoved Limited all also expressed general support for the
Project.
Principle of Expansion - objection
6.3.38 Support across the business community was not universal and objections to the
Project were received from Annie’s Nest Nursey which stated that it considered
the cost of the Project, in terms of the environment and well-being to be too high.
They suggested that a new hub airport should be created elsewhere.
6.3.39 Landchain objected to the Project as a site identified for potential development is
within their client’s ownership and conflicted with their own ambitions. Esso also
objected to the Fuels Tankage Farm proposal and its potential impact on their
operations.
6.3.40 Petchey Industrial Properties expressed opposition to the Project due to the
potential increase in road traffic and the implications for congestion in the area.
6.3.41 T and CG Limited considered the proposals too expensive and the environmental
impacts on air quality across London unacceptably high.
6.3.42 Global Grange did not object to the Project but expressed concern that the plans
could conflict with approved and proposed uses of their land. Ingrebourne Valley
Limited expressed similar reservations with regard to three mineral sites
considered suitable for extraction.
6.3.43 GlaxoSmithKline did not express a preference for or against the Project but
highlighted the implications to its business resulting from the proposals.
6.3.44 BMO Real Estate Partners asked that decisions on land-use requirements be
made as soon as possible to prevent losses that may otherwise be incurred as a
result of uncertainty. They requested that if their property remains, adequate
access is provided to serve current and future operations.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
46 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
6.3.45 The Emerson Group on behalf of Orbit Developments Limited did not object to
airport growth within and surrounding the Greater London area but were not
convinced that that the Project is the correct decision.
6.3.46 MRH (GB) Limited did not support or oppose the Project but raised concern that
the proposals will affect the retail operation of their property on the Great South-
West Road. Passiflora also did not support or oppose the proposals and raised
concern about future development affecting their business.
6.3.47 Heathrow Hub Limited/Runway Innovations Limited said the consultation
presented multiple and often mutually incompatible options and called for revised
proposals to address the recommendations made by the Transport Committee in
its report of March 2018 reviewing the proposals to the government for the Airports
National Policy Statement (NPS).
Community Groups
Principle of expansion – support
6.3.48 Only Local Conversation in Stanwell and the Pavilion Association Stanwell and
Stanwell Moor (Pavilion Association) expressed support for the Project.
6.3.49 Local Conversation in Stanwell said this was due to the potential economic
benefits and opportunities expected in the local area. They stated that this support
was entirely dependent on ensuring that any scheme mitigates impacts on noise,
traffic, air quality, the wider environment, infrastructure and local road networks.
6.3.50 The Pavilion Association stated that the Project would be excellent for both the
local and national economies. They suggested that the UK could not support an
additional hub beyond Heathrow as it would not be feasible operationally or
financially.
Principle of Expansion - objection
6.3.51 The majority of community groups expressed general opposition to the Project.
The nature of the responses ranged from objection in principle to comments on
aspects of the proposals.
6.3.52 Aircraft Noise Three Villages expressed opposition to the Project as they
considered Heathrow would breach legal air quality limits. They also expressed
concern about a lack of detailed costs in relation to surface access improvements,
noise effects and overstated economic benefits.
6.3.53 The Colnbrook Community Association said that they could not support the Project
as the proposals fail on all grounds according to the recent report produced by the
New Economics Foundation.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
47 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
6.3.54 The Colnbrook Community Partnership expressed opposition to the third runway
proposals and cited the significant impacts on the Green Belt, negative impacts on
residents’ well-being, their ability to access footpaths for healthy exercise, as well
as loss of wildlife and adverse impacts upon air quality.
6.3.55 They suggested that related developments such as the relocation of the Grundon
Power Station, Immigration Removal Centre and hotels have not been considered
in detail. They also said that other major proposed/approved developments should
be taken into account to help address cumulative adverse impacts on the
environment and the health of the local community.
6.3.56 The Ealing Aircraft Noise Action Group expressed opposition to the Project. They
specifically identified the residents of Ealing who will be affected by easterly take-
offs15 from a third runway who have not previously been affected by noise from
Heathrow operations. Englefield Green Action Group expressed a similar view
stating that London is overflown by aircraft three times more than any other
European city and to add to this is unacceptable.
6.3.57 Ealing Fields Residents Association suggested there is no justification to expand
an airport that already adversely affects many residents. They suggested that if
Heathrow remains operational at its current level there would be a reduction in
noise levels in the next 10 years with the introduction of quieter planes. They also
expressed concern about existing and future air pollution and how funding will be
raised for the proposed road infrastructure projects being proposed as part of the
Project.
6.3.58 Eastcote Conservation Panel said they do not agree with the Project and
considered that expanding Gatwick would be less costly and less disruptive. This
view was shared by Eastcote Residents Association, Egham Residents’
Association, the Richmond Environmental Information Centre, SCR residents for a
fair consideration of Heathrow expansion and Wentworth Residents Association.
6.3.59 The Fulham Society expressed opposition to any further growth at the airport and
raised concerns about increased risk from additional aircraft flying overhead. They
stated that whether or not permission for a new runway is given, new measures
are needed that reduce the number of arriving flights.
6.3.60 The Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Nosie (HACAN) said they
remain opposed to a third runway at Heathrow and that their ongoing discussion
on conditions should not be perceived as support for a third runway. They stated
that they continue to make the case for: 15 For safety and performance reasons aircraft typically take off and land into the wind. This is because in order to create lift, an aircraft’s wing relies on the speed of the air moving over it (airspeed). In the UK, the wind is mostly from the south west. That means the majority of aircraft (approximately 70% a year) arrive from the east and take off towards the west. This is known as ‘westerly operations’.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
48 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
1. an eight-hour night flight ban;
2. guaranteed respite for all communities within 25 miles of Heathrow;
3. a noise envelope that sets firm limits on noise;
4. world class compensation; and
5. a Community Engagement Board.
6.3.61 They went on to suggest that that these conditions should be become part of
primary legislation agreed by Parliament in order to provide the firmest possible
guarantee.
6.3.62 Harmondsworth and Sipson Residents Association expressed opposition to the
proposals stating that there continues to be a failure to address the needs of
affected households. They suggested Heathrow has not presented any credible
plans relating to their proposals and that the benefits of the Project have been
overestimated, specifically the employment opportunities.
6.3.63 Harrow U3A Sustainability Group said Heathrow has one of the worst records in
Europe for overflying populated areas and that the Project will only lead to this
increasing. They suggest there is much to be gained by spreading commercial
activity across the whole of the country and airport expansion outside south east
England would achieve this. They said Heathrow’s effects on air quality is bad and
that the Project cannot improve this situation and will only make it worse.
6.3.64 The Deaf Rambling Group considered that the Project had been well explained
with clear plans but had concerns about environmental issues.
6.3.65 John Ruskin Street Residents expressed opposition to the Project and considered
that they would not benefit from the proposals. They said that the costs of
expanding Heathrow have either not been accurately calculated or will result large
inputs from the tax payer and council tax payer.
6.3.66 The Local Authorities Aircraft Noise Council (LAANC) stated that it opposed the
Project, in part because they would give rise to an increase in existing levels of
noise even with the proposed noise mitigation package in place. They referred to
the effects of noise on communities located some 20 miles or more from the
airport and raised the issue of air pollution.
6.3.67 Richmond Heathrow Campaign stated that Heathrow’s plans to expand the airport
are inadequate to make an objective response. They considered the strategic case
for the Project fails as Heathrow is not full and therefore there is no need for
expansion. They said the north-west runway would have a negative effect at a UK
level and Heathrow's hub status and passengers provide little economic value to
the country.
6.3.68 Slough and District Against Runway 3 stated they cannot support a third runway at
Heathrow under any circumstances. Stanwell Green Lungs expressed a similar
view.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
49 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
6.3.69 Spring Grove Residents’ Association stated that the case for the Project is
underpinned by too many assumptions that are over-optimistic and that none of
the expansion options are achievable without significant adverse impacts.
6.3.70 Stop Heathrow stated that the Project would destroy a vast area and blight the
lives of many thousands of people. They considered that there should be no third
runway and no further expansion of the airport.
6.3.71 Teddington Action Group opposed the Project suggesting that it cannot work for
reasons of cost, damage to the environment, surface access, excessive and
unbearable noise and climate change. They suggested that the Project will impose
unacceptable constraints on future development of regional airports and that
expansion is not legally possible if air quality standards are to be brought within
the legal limits. Residents Association HVG CA expressed a similar view about air
quality standards whilst also stating that the Project will cause more distress to
residents, increase sleeplessness and increase feelings of isolation.
6.3.72 The Old Chiswick Protection Society expressed opposition to the plans for a third
runway primarily due to an increase of traffic on roads that are already heavily
congested. They suggested more traffic will only make the situation even worse
and raised concern about an increase in pollution where levels are already
unacceptably high.
6.3.73 Cheyne Walk Trust suggested the airport is in the wrong place and that it should
be relocated to the Thames Estuary rather than be expanded. They considered
flights over London to be a major potential hazard and the present noise profile is
totally unacceptable.
6.3.74 West Windsor Residents Association expressed opposition to the Project as they
did not consider a third runway is necessary. They also expressed concern that
the airport is poorly sited, that residents of Windsor will be situated between the
flight paths of two runways, that air pollution cannot be adequately addressed and
that there is no indication of any reduction in the number of night flights.
Comments on matters raised regarding the principle of expansion
6.3.75 Some community groups did not explicitly object to the plans for the Project but
requested consideration be given to specific details as the project develops.
Ashford and Staines Community Centre requested that disruption to service users
and neighbours is kept to an absolute minimum during construction.
6.3.76 Camberley Society stated that the Project is essential for the economy but said
significant upgrades to transport links (bus and rail) to Heathrow from the south,
south west and west will be required.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
50 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
6.3.77 Chertsey Society said it recognised the need to expand runway capacity in the
south east but expected that eventually both Heathrow and Gatwick will have
additional runways.
6.3.78 Mortlake with East Sheen Society stated that the Project cannot proceed without a
commitment to implement both the Southern and Western Rail Links. They said
that rail trips to Heathrow from south west London involve a detour to central
London and then outwards to Heathrow. As a result, most trips are made by car or
taxi, thereby contributing to poor air quality. They suggested that the cost of a
solution to this must be factored into the total cost of the Project.
6.3.79 St Albans Quieter Skies expressed disappointment that the scheme does not take
account of significant effects felt by the communities to the north of London.
6.3.80 Rivermead Court Limited stated that a well-planned and executed project,
respectful of the wider area will establish trust for the future enlargement of
Heathrow Airport.
6.4 Wider/other Consultees
Principle of expansion – support
6.4.1 Support for the Project was received from Association of British Travel Agents
(ABTA), The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT), the Chartered
Institute of Highways and Transportation, Enterprise M3 LEP, England’s Economic
Heartland, London First and the Road Haulage Association. Support was often
qualified, with some consultees stating that the Project should be affordable and
not lead to increases in costs to airlines or passengers and others calling for
improvements to transportation links.
6.4.2 ABTA expressed support for a new Northwest runway at Heathrow as they
considered it offers opportunities for both the UK economy and the consumer.
They stated that the runway must be cost-efficient, deliver increased competition
and improve international connectivity if the UK is to become a global player in a
post-Brexit world.
6.4.3 The Thames Valley Berkshire LEP and Transport for the South East both stated
that they continued to support the need for the Project subject to an appropriate
package of mitigation measures addressing surface access and air and noise
impacts upon the airport’s neighbours.
6.4.4 Transport for the South East stated that the south-east is one of the highest
performing economies in the UK and one of the key factors that underpins this is
proximity to Heathrow Airport. They stated that the Project has the support of
business because it will bring better connections to emerging markets.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
51 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
Principle of Expansion - objection
6.4.5 The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and World Federalist Party
expressed in principle opposition to the Project. The RSPB stated that it would
oppose any airport expansion in the UK until the government met the Committee
on Climate Change’s recommendation for a plan to limit aviation emissions.
6.4.6 Similar reasons for objecting were also given by the Lambeth/Herne Hill Green
Party and Hounslow Green Party. The latter also cited the impacts of local air
pollution, congestion, the economy, social disruption and environmental
degradation. The Liberal Democrats also stated that they had long opposed airport
expansion in the South East in favour of investment in the Midlands and the North.
6.4.7 The Church of England – Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark expressed
similar long-held views of opposition and queried whether the case for a third
runway had been made. They also identified a number of churches, communities
and open spaces which they felt would be lost or significantly affected by the
plans.
6.4.8 The Mayor of London also stated that he had no confidence that a third runway
could be delivered without severe impacts on the environment and quality of life.
He remained of the view that expansion at Heathrow is the wrong answer for
London and the UK.
6.4.9 The Liberal Democrats opposed the Project and commented that infrastructure
investment should be made to boost economic growth in the Midlands and the
North.
6.4.10 The Colne Valley Regional Park expressed opposition to the Project as they
considered they will fundamentally change the southern third of the Colne Valley
Regional Park. They stated that the project will have a significant impact on the
Park and its wildlife and will affect the way people use and enjoy it. They stated
that if the project goes ahead they would like to help shape the long-term vision for
the natural environment and to provide active input to its Green and Blue
Infrastructure Plan.
6.4.11 The Kingston Environment Forum opposed the Project on the grounds that most of
the air traffic will be for leisure travel, there will be increases in CO2 from planes
and from increased road traffic, which will also emit health damaging pollutants
into the air.
6.4.12 London Wildlife Trust commented that the business case for the Project does not
justify the significant impact on biodiversity and the natural environment in and
around the Heathrow Airport. They also objected to the proposals for expansion
identifying several significant impacts including the permanent loss of the southern
parts of Colne Valley, adverse impacts upon birds using the South West London
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
52 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
Water Bodies SPA, the fragmentation of habitats, effects upon waterways and the
broader environmental impacts of noise, air and light pollution on the natural
environment. Effects on the Colne Valley were also raised by the Surrey Wildlife
Trust who also called for a minimisation of land-take.
6.4.13 Friends of the River Crane Environment objected to the proposals raising concern
about the direct and indirect effects of development. They also raised concern
about the threat to the integrity and potential of the network of green infrastructure
but suggested that there was still time for the scheme to engage with these
concerns and provide a commitment to resolve them for the benefit of the airport
and the wider community.
6.4.14 The London Parks and Gardens Trust and Campaign for Rural England (CPRE)
Surrey and Guildford District expressed concerns about the effects of noise and air
pollution. CPRE Surrey and Guildford also expressed concern about existing
levels of noise from air traffic over the Surrey Hills AONB and maintained its
objection to the Project because of this.
6.4.15 Elmbridge, Richmond and Twickenham and West London Friends of the Earth
expressed opposition to the Project due to significant negative impacts on local
communities, the greenbelt, noise, air pollution, climate change, wildlife and
habitats, heritage and congestion.
Comments on matters raised regarding the principle of expansion
6.4.16 CILT highlighted the need for improvements to surface access infrastructure and
an integrated transport system which would require a clear understanding of the
impact of a new runway upon demand and congestion and would upgrade
capacity in the surrounding local and the national networks.
6.4.17 Crossrail to Ebbsfleet noted that as Heathrow evolves it should form part of the
public transport mix to ensure that its’ environmental impact is mitigated.
6.4.18 Dominic Rabb MP recognised the strong economic case for expanding Heathrow
but also recognised the concerns of residents regarding noise, air pollution and
traffic congestion. He called for the right package of measures to be in place to
protect communities and for legally binding limits on air quality and noise levels.
He also asked for improved transport links to the airport.
6.4.19 The Town and Country Planning Association proposed that the whole of Heathrow
be replaced by a new airport in a different location with the current site turned into
a Garden City.
6.4.20 The Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Natural Environment Partnership
requested Heathrow commit to an approach which minimises harm to
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
53 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1
the environment and prioritises early and strategic planning of green and
blue infrastructure.
6.4.21 Bracknell Forest Economic and Skills Development Partnership recognised the
role which Heathrow plays in the local economy but considered its residents and
businesses would continue to suffer from difficult public transport journeys without
the provision of improved Southern Rail Access to Heathrow.
6.4.22 NATS EN-Route noted that a third runway would have a major impact upon its
operations and infrastructure. It stated that it was working with Heathrow to
address such issues.
6.4.23 Ealing Cycling Campaign considered the Project is both a threat to existing cycle
routes and an opportunity to improve routes through and around the airport. They
suggested that the expansion of the airport to the north and west will remove many
routes that can currently be cycled and that this will result in less choice and
longer journey times for cyclists. The Richmond Cycling Campaign also expressed
concerns about the effect on cycle routes, stating that any runway north of the A4
would have a devastating effect on the last quiet east-west cycle route in the area.
They suggested that maintaining an attractive cycle route south of the M4 is
required as part of the Project.
6.4.24 The Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust raised the issue of biodiversity off-setting
and the amount of baseline evidence collected by Heathrow. They questioned
whether it was sufficient to enable it to accurately quantify and value loss because
of the Project. They also called for a biodiversity metric to be agreed with
stakeholders as well as a legal commitment to manage newly created areas of
habitat in perpetuity.
6.4.25 The National Trust expressed concern over the direct impacts of the Project upon
its members, local communities, visitors, volunteers and staff who value special
places and the time which they spend at National Trust properties.
6.4.26 The Royal Parks said the Project would significantly affect the Longford River and
had several issues of concern which ranged from the physical changes to the river
and the ability to maintain a water supply to Bushy park, effects upon river ecology
and issues of maintenance because of the proposal to place a section of the river
in a tunnel.
6.4.27 The Society of Antiquaries of London suggested that when assessing whether
consent should be given, consideration should be informed by the extent to which
loss or harm to heritage assets can be minimised and if unavoidable, the extent to
which preservation by record can be required.
6.4.28 The British Helicopter Association identified an opportunity to include a helicopter
landing site on the north side of the airport.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
54 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
6.5 Issues Raised and Heathrow’s Responses
6.5.1 Table 6.1 presents a summary of the main issues raised by prescribed consultees, local communities and wider/other
consultees in relation to the principle of expansion, and for which only interim responses were provided in the ICFR
(the prior Table B). This updated table presents Heathrow’s responses to those issues and explains how in preparing
our proposals for the Airport Expansion Consultation we have had regard to that feedback.
Table 6.1
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Any proposal to increase the cap on Air Traffic Movements should be subject to proper planning processes with full consultation and appropriate measures in place to mitigate and compensate for noise and air quality impacts before any new capacity is released.
✓ Heathrow is preparing a Development Consent Order (DCO) application to expand Heathrow Airport, which will include proposals to increase Air Transport Movements (ATMs) to at least 740,000ATMs per annum to respond to the urgent need for additional airport capacity recognised in the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS). Heathrow’s DCO application will include provisions to secure mitigation measures that will control the construction and operation of the expanded Airport within environmental limits. The DCO application will have been the subject of rigorous pre-application consultation and then scrutinised at an examination before a recommendation is made to the Secretary of State, who will make the final decision on whether to approve Heathrow’s DCO application. Heathrow will commit to air quality and noise mitigation as part of the
16 PC - Prescribed Consultees; MC – Members of the Community; WC – Wider Consultees
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
55 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
DCO application. A preliminary assessment of the likely significant environmental impacts arising from the Project is set out in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) which is being consulted on as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation (AEC) (June 2019) (see chapters 7 and 17).
The design of the Project has been informed by Heathrow’s ongoing noise and air quality assessment work. The DCO includes a range of embedded (built in) mitigation measures, for example, noise screening around the perimeter of construction sites/compounds and noise insultation to housing. The PEIR provides more information in relation to mitigation proposals.
Heathrow is consulting on the Noise Insultation Policy as part of the AEC.
Support for the principle of expanding Heathrow because of the right economic benefits.
✓ General support for the expansion of Heathrow is noted, including the importance of Heathrow’s status as a hub airport and its strategic importance to the UK economy.
As part of the AEC, Heathrow has published the document ’Proposals for Mitigation and Compensation, Growing Sustainably’, June 2019. The document explains that “At the heart of the expansion project is Heathrow’s commitment to being a good neighbour to our local communities, as well as to those further afield and to the natural habitats around the airport.” The document sets out how Heathrow will work to
Support for the third runway proposal as the third runway would enable Heathrow to retain its hub status, which is vital for future UK economic growth and productivity.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
56 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Support for the expansion proposals with recognition of the need for the airport to maintain its ‘hub’ status.
✓ achieve this objective including the following:
• On-going engagement with the Heathrow Community Engagement Board;
• The implementation of a Community Fund;
• Investment in the re-provision or enhancement of local facilities, including green spaces, historic assets, and transport networks;
• A comprehensive set of noise insulation measures for homes, schools and community buildings, enabled by over £700m of dedicated funding; and
• A six-and-a-half-hour ban on scheduled flights at night.
Heathrow is undertaking a socio-economic impact assessment of the Project and preliminary findings are provided in Chapter 18 of the PEIR, which is being consulted on as part of the AEC.
Supported the plans for expansion recognising the need to boost trade links, help local businesses spread their products around the globe and grow international trade.
✓
Support for a new Northwest Runway at Heathrow as they considered it offers opportunities for both the UK economy and the consumer.
✓
Expansion via a third runway at Heathrow is the right choice, it would deliver substantial benefits over and above those which had been identified for Gatwick.
✓
Support for the overall principle of expansion and the provision of a third runway.
✓
Expansion is critical to the strength of the UK aviation industry and the number of international businesses who chose to locate near the airport.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
57 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Expansion would provide economic benefits and would benefit local people and communities.
✓
Expressed support for expansion due to the potential economic benefits and opportunities expected in the local area.
✓
Expansion to be the best option for global business growth.
✓
Supported the plans for expansion and considered it would also bring significantly increased competition at the airport which is currently limited.
✓
Expansion would be excellent for both the local and national economies.
✓
Expansion would deliver greater benefits in terms of long-haul connectivity.
✓
Northwest Runway vital to local and national economies and will provide future capacity to ensure investment takes place in the many companies that depend upon the international connectivity that the Airport provides.
✓
To maintain the region's strengths, expansion is required and welcomed.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
58 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The Northwest Runway scheme offers the greatest strategic benefits when compared with the alternative proposals.
✓
Support for expansion at Heathrow as they considered the airport is already operating at a capacity level which is unsustainable and does not allow for disruption arising from adverse conditions.
✓
It a necessity that Heathrow expands the airport and the best way this can be done is by providing a new runway.
✓
The proposals will consolidate Heathrow’s hub status, offer a greater number and variety of long haul connections in the short term and deliver passenger growth and economic benefits which would not be realised without expansion.
✓
Expansion would allow Heathrow to continue to compete with other airports for business.
✓
There would be benefits for passengers and tourists, allowing airlines and fares to remain competitive.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
59 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Supportive of the overall objective of providing good transport infrastructure to support economic growth.
✓
The benefits of expansion would improve airport capacity, would address long term needs and would reduce waiting times for passengers.
✓
Expansion would improve connections and accessibility for arriving and departing aircraft, increase the number of air travel destinations and make it generally more convenient for travelers.
✓
Heathrow was the most suitable or right place for expansion and that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
✓
Additional runway capacity is vital to the UK economy.
✓
Recognition of the relationship between infrastructure investment and economic growth and the benefits this brings to Great Britain.
✓
Support the vision of a world class Heathrow Airport and recognised the role it will play in helping Britain to continue to compete in a global market.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
60 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Expansion of Heathrow is critical to the UK’s continued success, particularly due to continued uncertainty around negotiations for the UK’s exit from the European Union.
✓
Expansion will allow new global connections to be established to drive investment, maintaining and improving the UK’s international competitiveness and indicated that this is made more important by the UK's decision to leave the European Union.
✓
Expansion plans are essential to maintain Heathrow’s hub status and serve the economy, especially with the prospect of Brexit.
✓
Expansion of Heathrow is much needed and should happen as soon as possible to avoid the UK lagging behind the rest of Europe.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
61 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The Slough Local Plan establishes several planning principles relative to Heathrow expansion which includes mitigation measures that are in direct conflict with the information provided during consultation.
✓ Heathrow is aware of the planning policy context set out in the Slough Borough Council Local Plan and is working closely with local planning authorities through the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG). This will ensure that proposals for the Project take account of existing local plan policies, where relevant. The ANPS provides the primary policy basis for considering the DCO application. The PEIR sets out proposed mitigation measures for the Project and individual topic chapters consider relevant planning policy.
Heathrow has considered Slough Borough Council’s planning principles in developing the Preferred Masterplan document. Further information on sites proposed for development (Section 6) and our landscape strategy (Section 4.7) is contained in the Preferred Masterplan document.
A realistic picture of growth in the sub-region should be agreed to allow impacts to be assessed and mitigation measures identified.
✓ Heathrow is working with a range of stakeholders including the HSPG to undertake research to estimate sub regional growth required as a consequence of the Project. Much of this work will be driven through a review of Local Plans that takes
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
62 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Wider sub-regional impacts arising from an expanded airport should also be established and mitigated and expected further details.
✓ account of the growth of the airport alongside other housing and employment needs for which the authorities already need to plan.
Chapter 18 of the PEIR (Socio-economic and Employment) contains Heathrow’s preliminary assessment of the likely impacts on the economy as a result of the Project. It includes proposals for mitigation linked to significant effects.
The assessment uses a baseline which includes assumptions for future growth. It also sets out a range of embedded mitigation measures for the Project. This includes an Economic Development Framework (EDF), published as part of the AEC. The EDF seeks views on the broad approach that Heathrow intends to take to maximise the economic benefits of the Project while minimising negative economic impacts.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
63 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
As Heathrow expands consideration will need to be given to the pressure for housing and associated infrastructure in the Waverley and Wokingham Boroughs and the importance of good surface access.
✓ Heathrow is working with the HSPG to support them in the planning of new housing in the wider area through Local Plan reviews, which will take account of the growth of the airport alongside other housing and employment needs for which the authorities already need to plan.
Waverley and Wokingham Borough Councils do not form part of the group, but the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) require effective cross boundary working to determine housing requirements and inform Local Plan responses. The relevant local authorities should therefore take these issues on board in their Local Plan reviews.
In relation to surface access, a Surface Access Proposals document is being consulted on as part of the AEC.
Potential incompatibility between Heathrow’s plans for airport related development (e.g. hotels and offices) with those set out in its emerging Local Plan review for housing and employment.
✓ Current Local Plan policies and emerging Local Plan review documents may not have been updated to reflect the ANPS. Heathrow is working with the HSPG planning authorities to support them in the planning of new housing in the wider area through Local Plan reviews, which will take account of the growth of the airport alongside other housing and employment
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
64 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concerns about the potential for increased development pressure in Surrey Heath.
✓ needs for which the authorities already need to plan.
The background to our preferred approach for airport supporting development is explained in the Scheme Development Report (Document 4, Chapter 7 Airport Related Development). This includes how potential sites have been considered and why they have been taken forward or discounted, including a consideration of planning and environmental designations. Heathrow’s proposed land allocations (Section 6) and landscape strategy (Section 4.7) is set out in the Preferred Masterplan document.
Heathrow is also working with the HSPG to identify housing growth required to 2041 and the HSPG have started to consider how this can be planned for.
Heathrow has a statutory duty to consult prescribed consultees, which includes Surrey Heath District Council as a neighbouring authority.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
65 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Request for alternative plans to the proposals to demolish approximately 1,000 homes.
✓ The scheme recommended to Government by the Airports Commission in their final report, highlighted an area of land, referred to as the Compulsory Purchase Zone (CPZ) which would fall within the boundary of the expanded airport. To ensure delivery of a scheme that accords with the ANPS, the acquisition of residential and commercial properties situated within the CPZ would necessarily be required.
Chapter 11 of the PEIR, provides information on the number and type of properties within the CPZ likely to be affected. It indicates that 756 homes within the CPZ will be acquired and subsequently demolished. The PEIR indicates that this represents less than 1% of the existing housing stock in the administrative boundaries of the affected local planning authorities. Heathrow is in the process of establishing a Home Relocation Support Service to residents within the CPZ. Further details about the Home Relocation Support Service will be provided as part of the launch of the Home Purchase Bond.
Heathrow has developed a set of discretionary property compensation schemes for which owners or occupiers of affected properties may be eligible. The schemes are set out in the Interim Property Policies, which Heathrow is consulting on as part of the AEC (refer to The Property Policies Information Paper). This provides a guide to the different schemes and how they apply to the various property types.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
66 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Planning principles should be applied to any development at Heathrow including ensuring that there are good public transport links into Heathrow from Slough to protecting Colnbrook and Poyle villages in a “Green Envelope”.
✓ Heathrow is committed to meeting the targets for increasing passenger mode share by public transport and reducing the number of car trips to and from the airport as set out in the ANPS.
Heathrow has published a Surface Access Proposals document (supported by technical information in a Preliminary Transport Information Report) as part of the AEC. This sets out Heathrow’s preferred options for meeting these targets.
The Project represents an opportunity to provide green infrastructure for the benefit of biodiversity, the landscape, water environment and people. Heathrow’s current proposals are set out in the Preferred Masterplan document. Heathrow has reported on the likely significant environmental effects of the Project on local communities and the natural environment in the PEIR.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
67 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The sourcing of minerals required to build the development and the disposal of waste arisings.
✓ A Code of Construction Practice (CoCP), which will form part of the Development Consent Order (DCO) application, will outline the approach to waste and materials management. Compliance with the CoCP will be a legal requirement. A draft CoCP is being consulted on as part of the AEC.
Heathrow’s Construction Proposals document, which is being consulted on as part of the AEC, sets out Heathrow’s approach to sourcing of materials and disposal of waste arisings. Heathrow’s objective is to source as many minerals as practicable and to re-use and/or dispose of as many waste arisings as practicable within the expansion boundary, and to use the rail sidings to transport materials wherever possible. The Construction Proposals document confirms that the Project will utilise borrow pits to source material for earth works and that these will generate a surplus of sand and gravel that will be utilised on the Project, e.g. as aggregate for concrete production.
Improve road and rail surface access. ✓ The ANPS states (paragraph. 3.36) that “Heathrow Airport already has good surface transport links to the rest of the UK. It enjoys 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 connect to Crossrail, and link to HS2 at Old Oak Common. The varied choice of road and rail connections makes Heathrow Airport
Concern relating to surface access ✓
Request for more information regarding the surface access strategy.
✓
Concern that the existing infrastructure will not cope with expansion.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
68 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
There isn’t sufficient public transport capacity or that the local road network in general could not support additional airport related traffic.
✓ accessible to both passengers and freight operators in much of the UK and provides significant resilience to any disruption.”
Heathrow will submit a Surface Access Strategy with the DCO application for the Project, which will meet the requirements of the ANPS. In so doing, the Strategy will set out improvements to Heathrow Airport’s transport links to be able to support the increased numbers of people and freight traffic which will need to access the expanded airport which is consistent with paragraph 5.8 of the ANPS.
A Surface Access Proposals document is being consulted on as part of the AEC (Refer to Section 3 Part 2 – The Surface Access Proposals for strategy information relating to each individual transport mode).
Improved transport links to the airport. ✓
Requested transportation links to an expanded Heathrow be improved.
✓ The Surface Access Proposals document sets out Heathrow’s preliminary proposals for an integrated strategy, encompassing public transport, colleague transport, parking, access charging, taxi and private hire strategy, freight and
Call for improvements to transportation links.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
69 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Improvements to surface access infrastructure.
✓ intelligent mobility (Refer to Section 3 Part 2 – The Surface Access Proposals for strategy information relating to each individual transport mode).
The Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR), which is being consulted on as part of the AEC sets out information on the potential changes to the transport network, encompassing physical changes and changes in their usage and operation with and without the Project.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
70 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Expansion cannot proceed without a firmed-up plan for the Southern and Western Rail Links.
✓ Consultation One set out Heathrow’s objective of putting Heathrow at the heart of the rail network, including proposals to support the delivery of a Western Rail Link and Southern Rail Link to Heathrow. Both proposals are being promoted by Network Rail, with the Department of Transport (DfT) currently considering the ways in which the private sector can help to bring forward the Southern Rail Link. A DCO application for the Western Rail Link is anticipated later in 2019.
Heathrow is fully supportive of both proposed rail links and is working with the DfT and Network Rail to help deliver these. The Public Transport Strategy in Part 2 Section 3.2 of the Surface Access Proposals document, provides further details. The Preferred Masterplan document has been designed to ensure future compatibility with these schemes. However, as delivery of these schemes is not confirmed, Heathrow’s transport modelling has predominantly focused on a scenario in which neither come forward. The Surface Access Proposals document could subsequently be changed to accommodate them should they be brought forward. The Preferred Masterplan document allows for integration with the Western Rail link and the Southern Rail link.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
71 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
An integrated transport system which would require a clear understanding of the impact of a new runway upon demand and congestion and would upgrade capacity in the surrounding local and the national networks.
✓ The Surface Access Proposals document sets out Heathrow’s proposals for an integrated strategy, encompassing public transport, colleague transport, parking, access charging, taxi and private hire strategy, freight and intelligent mobility.
The PTIR, sets out information on the potential changes to the transport network, encompassing physical changes and changes in their usage and operation with and without the Project.
Chapter 7 of the PEIR presents an assessment of the potential for significant effects on transport network users in the construction and operational phases of the Project, taking into account embedded environmental measures.
DfT should co-ordinate nationally significant schemes, align outcomes, timescales and integrate delivery while engaging with the local community.
✓ Heathrow is working closely with DfT to ensure that the proposals for expansion align with the Government’s intentions for transport schemes within the wider area.
Support for expansion on the condition that southern rail access to Heathrow is provided and a satisfactory resolution to several employment and environmental issues is agreed.
✓ Section 2.10, Part 2 of the Surface Access Proposals document sets out key interventions that are relevant to the Project, this includes the proposed Southern Rail project.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
72 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Residents and businesses would continue to suffer from difficult public transport journeys without the provision of improved Southern Rail Access to Heathrow.
✓ A Southern Rail link would provide a direct rail connection to Heathrow for passengers and colleagues in south-west London, Hampshire and Surrey. Current public transport to south-west London is either direct, by local bus services with unreliable journey times, or indirect, travelling via central London. A direct rail link would reduce journey times and make journeys easier to undertake, especially with luggage. Southern Rail would therefore make public transport journey times competitive with cars, taxis and PHVs. It would also provide more affordable fares as passengers would not have to change in central London.
A feasibility study undertaken by Network Rail showed that there is a strong business case for the proposals and that there are credible infrastructure solutions that should be explored further. Heathrow’s analysis to date indicates that the emerging Surface Access Proposals document are not reliant on a Southern Rail Link to deliver the mode share targets in the ANPS (see the PTIR which is being consulted on as part of the AEC. However, Heathrow continues to support the introduction of a Southern Rail Link for its benefits to transport users as well as wider economic benefits across the South East.
Concern that there is no commitment from Heathrow to fund the new southern rail access and that the proposals do not directly link to Woking.
✓ Heathrow is fully supportive of a Southern Rail Link to the airport and is working with the DfT and Network Rail to help deliver it. This proposal is being promoted by Network Rail, with the Department of Transport currently considering ways the private sector can help to bring it forward. The Public
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
73 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
A more direct southern access link from Woking to the Airport would provide the greatest accessibility improvement for residents and employees within this area of Surrey and Hampshire and would provide a realistic alternative to the use of the private car which will assist with the surface access commitments that have been given.
✓ Transport Strategy in Part 2 of the Surface Access Proposals document provides further details.
The proposals set out in the Preferred Masterplan document have been designed to ensure future compatibility with this scheme, where practicable. However, as delivery of this scheme is not confirmed, Heathrow’s transport modelling has predominantly focused on a scenario in which it does not exist. The draft Surface Access Proposals document could be changed to accommodate it should it be brought forward.
Opposition to the proposals due to the potential increase in road traffic and the implications for congestion in the area.
✓ The PTIR reports on the assessment of transport impacts.
Volume 6: Highways, of the Report provides details on the transport network and operation. This includes details about existing conditions on all relevant transport networks and how these conditions are predicted to change in the future with and without the proposed Project. New roads and junctions on the airport will be designed to accommodate the forecast level of traffic.
Volume 7 of the PTIR describes the emerging monitoring and mitigation strategy in relation to transport impacts of the Project.
Opposition to the plans for a third runway primarily due to an increase of traffic on roads that are already heavily congested.
✓
More traffic will only make the situation even worse and raised concern about an increase in pollution where levels are already unacceptably high.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
74 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concern about a lack of detailed costs in relation to surface access improvements
✓ Heathrow is in the process of developing a flexible funding approach for surface access improvements, including:
• developing cost estimates and profiles for the initiatives that will be wholly or partly funded by Heathrow;
• assessing potential funding options that are suitable to each initiative, including analysis of regulatory and other requirements or constraints pertaining to each source; and
• developing a framework for assessing costs and benefits of projects to ensure Heathrow is making investment decisions that maximise achievement of the objectives for surface access and represent value for money, in line with the Monitoring Strategy.
Further information is provided in the Indicative Surface Access Delivery Plan, that is being consulted on as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
75 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Request for measures to manage and mitigate congestion on the M25 and a new southern rail access to Heathrow to improve accessibility by more sustainable modes of transport.
✓ The PTIR sets out how Highways England will increase capacity and relieve congestion on the M25 while maintaining safety using active traffic management techniques. In addition, improvement works to the M25 Junction 10/A3 Wisley Interchange are planned to commence in 2020/21.
The PTIR indicates that these measures will provide improvements to journey times by 2035 when compared to the baseline. The forecast changes in journey times have informed the emerging Surface Access Proposals document. This sets out Heathrow’s proposals for an integrated strategy, encompassing public transport, colleague transport, parking, access charging, taxi and private hire strategy, freight and intelligent mobility.
Heathrow is fully supportive of a Southern Rail Link to the airport and is working with the DfT and Network Rail to help deliver it. This proposal is being promoted by Network Rail, with the Department of Transport currently considering ways the private sector can help to bring it forward. The Public Transport Strategy in Part 2 of the Surface Access Proposals document which is being consulted on as part of the AEC, provides further details.
The proposals in the Preferred Masterplan document have been designed to ensure future compatibility with this scheme, where practicable. However, as delivery of the scheme is not confirmed, Heathrow’s transport modelling has predominantly focused on a scenario in which it does not exist. The draft
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
76 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Surface Access Proposals document could be changed to accommodate it should it be brought forward.
Concern in relation to public transport access to Heathrow.
✓ Heathrow is committed to meeting the targets set out in the ANPS (paragraph. 5.5) for increasing passenger mode share by public transport and reducing colleague car trips to and from the airport.
Heathrow intends to limit the number of freight vehicles to similar levels to today and to help operators clean up the vehicle fleets through a range of different initiatives including increasing efficiency and modernisation of airport cargo facilities.
The Surface Access Proposals document (supported by technical information in the PTIR) sets out Heathrow’s preferred options for meeting these targets. This includes plans for a new parking strategy and freight/logistics strategy.
As Heathrow evolves it should form part of the public transport mix to ensure that its environmental impact is mitigated.
✓
Call for a commitment to deliver projects that enable passengers, workers, commuters and freight to move to more sustainable and accessible modes of travel.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
77 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The impact of the proposals on local boroughs and the wider environment is unacceptable and requesting alternatives be considered.
✓ As required by the Planning Act 2008, the Government has produced an Appraisal of Sustainability in relation to the ANPS.
The Appraisal of Sustainability describes the analysis of the reasonable alternatives to the Project and has informed the development of the ANPS by assessing the potential environmental, economic and social impacts of options to increase airport capacity for each alternative.
The Appraisal of Sustainability concluded that whilst there will inevitably be harm caused to some environmental receptors, the need for airport expansion in the South East of England, the obligation to mitigate such harm as far as possible, and the benefits that the Project will deliver, outweigh such harm (ANPS, paragraph 1.29).
Heathrow is undertaking an Environmental Impact Assessment in order to identify likely significant effects of the Project and to propose mitigation to address any adverse effects. Preliminary findings are reported in the PEIR.
Objection to expansion at Heathrow and advised that if a minor increase in capacity was required (in the South East) this could be accommodated at London Stansted.
✓ The Government set up the Airports Commission in 2012 to investigate how the UK could maintain its position as Europe’s most important aviation hub. This was an independent and detailed study that looked at over 50 proposals (including Stansted) before a short-list of three schemes was identified.
Support the expansion of Gatwick. ✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
78 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Expansion will have negative impacts on far more people than expansion at Gatwick.
✓ The unanimous conclusion of the Airports Commission and the further work undertaken by the government in designating the ANPS has established beyond reasonable doubt that there is an urgent need for new runway capacity in the South East and that Heathrow expansion is the best solution to meet that need. Paragraph 2.9 of the ANPS recognises the importance of aviation to the UK economy, and in particular the UK’s hub status, has only increased following the country’s decision to leave the European Union. As the UK develops its new trading relationships with the rest of the world, it will be essential that increased airport capacity is delivered to support development of long haul routes to and from the UK, especially to emerging and developing economies. Paragraph 2.14 of the ANPS states that the consequences of not increasing airport capacity in the South East of England – the ‘do nothing’ or ‘do minimum scenarios’ – are detrimental to the UK economy and the UK’s hub status.
Paragraph 3.18 of the ANPS states in summary that 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, helping to secure the UK’s status as a
Support the construction of a second runway at Gatwick.
✓
Expansion should either take place either elsewhere, a new runway at both Heathrow and Gatwick, or alternatively at a number of other airports within the UK rather than Heathrow.
✓
Opposition to expansion suggesting that alternative airports could be expanded to fulfil the role proposed for Heathrow.
✓
Proposed that the whole of Heathrow be replaced by a new airport in a different location with the current site turned into a Garden City.
✓
Preference for a new runway in the North of England to spread the economic benefits nationally.
✓
Expansion at Heathrow should be complementary to the expansion of both London Stansted and Southend Airports.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
79 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Heathrow would not be a good place for any airport expansion and that expansion should perhaps be moved to the north of England.
✓ global aviation hub, and enabling it to play a crucial role in the global economy.
The ANPS concludes that overall expansion at Heathrow Airport would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph. 3.74).
The other two shortlisted schemes considered by the Airports Commission were for a new full-length runway to the south of and parallel to the existing runway at Gatwick Airport and for an extension of the existing northern runway at Heathrow Airport to the west.
The Airports Commission’s Final Report (paragraphs 13.2-13.3) concluded “Each of the three schemes shortlisted was considered a credible option for expansion, capable of delivering valuable enhancements to the UK’s aviation
Recognised the need to expand runway capacity in the south east but expected that eventually both Heathrow and Gatwick will have additional runways.
✓
The cost of expansion, in terms of the environment and well-being are too high. A new hub airport should be created elsewhere.
✓
The airport is in the wrong place and that it should be relocated to the Thames Estuary rather than be expanded.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
80 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
There is no justification to expand an airport that already adversely affects many residents.
✓ capacity and connectivity. They would each also have negative impacts, which would need to be carefully managed. The Commission has nonetheless unanimously concluded that the proposal for a new Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport, in combination with a significant package of measures to address its environmental and r impacts, presents the strongest case”.
The ANPS (paragraph 3.75) is clear that the Government considers that the “Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme delivers the greatest strategic and economic benefits and is therefore the most effective and appropriate way of meeting the needs case.”
Maintaining an attractive cycle route south of the M4 is required as part of the expansion scheme.
✓ The provision of sustainable transport modes (including cycle routes) within and to the airport forms one of the key priorities detailed in the Surface Access Proposals document which will be published as part of the AEC.
As part of this exercise Heathrow is seeking consultee responses in relation to the PTIR and the Indicative Surface
Expansion of Heathrow is both a threat to existing cycle routes and an opportunity to improve routes through and around the airport.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
81 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concerns about the effect on cycle routes, stating that any runway north of the A4 would have a devastating effect on the last quiet east-west cycle route in the area.
✓ Access Delivery Plan (appendix to the Surface Proposals document).
Specifically, Volume 4 of the PTIR provides information on the potential changes to active travel networks associated with the Project. This includes both physical changes, and changes in their usage and operation.
Section 8 (Modal Delivery Area 6: Active Travel) of the Indicative Surface Access Delivery Plan focuses on the introduction of improved infrastructure for cycling based around a Hub and Spoke model
The PTIR is a precursor to the Transport Assessment (TA) and both this and the Surface Access Proposals document will help inform the ES which will accompany the DCO application.
Parts of the shared use route to the north of the airport along Bath Road (A4) would need to be removed. However, this will be compensated for in two ways, through the replacement provision for active modes alongside the diverted A4 and through the potential hub and spoke network and green infrastructure loop.
The ‘green infrastructure loop’ is a route around the expanded perimeter of the airport which extends north up to the M4. This is intended to facilitate sustainable travel through the provision of walking and cycling infrastructure and would provide a
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
82 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
greener, smarter and brighter route for local communities and visitors to enjoy.
Expansion should not take place near populated or residential areas.
✓ It is unavoidable that there will be direct or indirect impacts on existing residential and populated areas through the construction phase of the Project and when operational.
As part of the AEC Heathrow has published a document called Proposals for the Mitigation and Compensation: Growing Sustainably. The document sets out how Heathrow will work to minimise impacts on residential areas including:
• On-going liaison with the Heathrow Community Engagement Board, led by an independent chair;
• The implementation of a Community Fund;
• Investment in the re-provision or enhancement of local facilities, including green spaces, historic assets, and transport networks; and
• A comprehensive set of noise insulation measures for homes, schools and community buildings, enabled by over £700m of dedicated funding; and
• A six-and-a-half-hour ban on scheduled flights at night.
Heathrow is also undertaking a socio-economic impact assessment of the Project and preliminary findings are provided in Chapter 18 of the PEIR.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
83 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Queried whether the case for a third runway had been made
✓ The ANPS is clear that the Project is best placed to deliver the airport capacity needed in the South East and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph 3.74). The ANPS sets out specific requirements that Heathrow, as the applicant for the Project, will need to meet to gain development consent. The ANPS (paragraph 1.15) states that “The Secretary of State will use the ANPS 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 ANPS is informed by an Appraisal of Sustainability, which describes the analysis of reasonable alternatives to the preferred scheme. The Appraisal of Sustainability informs the development of the ANPS by assessing the potential economic, social and environmental impacts of options to increase airport capacity.
The ANPS states at paragraph 1.29 that “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.”
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
84 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The UK could not support an additional hub beyond Heathrow as it would not be feasible operationally or financially.
✓ Heathrow is the UK’s only hub airport and the strategic importance of this is recognised by the government in the ANPS (e.g. paragraph 3.18).
The consultation presented multiple and often mutually incompatible options and called for revised proposals to address the recommendations made by the Transport Committee in its report of March 2018.
✓ In February 2017 the Government published and consulted on the draft ANPS, which provides the basis for decision making on applications for a Northwest Runway at Heathrow. It then revised the Airports ANPS later that year and consulted again on the policy.
In June 2018 Parliament voted to designate the ANPS, this considered recommendations made by the Transport Committee in its March 2018 report, principally to provide greater clarity and to reflect updates to wider Government policies.
Heathrow’s expansion proposals must meet the requirements of the Airports ANPS including those relating to noise, air quality, surface access and carbon.
In relation to the consultation process, in January 2018 Heathrow carried out the first Airport Expansion Consultation on initial proposals to expand Heathrow. This was at a very early stage in the design process and presented multiple options in order to inform ongoing scheme development. Heathrow has since had regard to feedback in formulating the Preferred Masterplan document which is being consulted on as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
85 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Any expansion of Heathrow will impose unacceptable constraints on future development of regional airports.
✓ The ANPS recognises that there is an urgent need for new airport capacity in the South East (paragraphs 2.10-18), that the Project is best placed to deliver this capacity and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph 3.74). The ANPS recognises that the Project will mean new domestic connections to other UK Airports which are not currently connected to Heathrow.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
86 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
There is much to be gained by spreading commercial activity across the whole of the country and airport expansion outside south east England would achieve this.
✓ As outlined in the Government’s Aviation 2050 document (published in December 2018), “the government recognises the value of domestic air connectivity and an expanded Heathrow will provide an unprecedented opportunity to strengthen and develop these links, enabling all UK regions to develop new business, tourism and cultural links across the globe”.
Heathrow currently has 11 UK domestic destinations – the highest number of domestic destinations from Heathrow since 2008. Since the ANPS vote in 2018, three new routes have been announced, as well as higher frequency levels on strongly performing routes. Heathrow has taken a range of measures and positions to encourage greater domestic routes, including:
• A £15 passenger discount on domestic flights, committed for 20 years
• Commitment to a £10m Route Development Fund (RDF) to provide start-up support to airlines operating new domestic routes not initially served after expansion
• Being the first UK airport to publicly support the ringfencing of slots for domestic use
Over the next 12 months, Heathrow will continue to engage with both the airline community, to discuss how best to develop new domestic routes from an Expanded Heathrow, and the UK Government, to ensure that any future UK
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
87 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Aviation policy creates the right conditions for Heathrow to develop a thriving domestic route network that connects the whole of the UK, to global growth.
The strategic case for expansion fails as Heathrow is not full and therefore there is no need for expansion.
✓ The ANPS recognises that there is an urgent need for new airport capacity in the South East (paragraphs 2.10-18), that the Project is best placed to deliver this capacity and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph 3.74).
Opposition to the expansion of Heathrow Airport and that it should be ‘better not bigger’.
✓ The ANPS recognises that there is an urgent need for new airport capacity in the South East (paragraphs 2.10-18), that the Project is best placed to deliver this capacity and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph 3.74). A physical increase in infrastructure footprint (e.g. runway, terminals, aprons etc.) is needed to deliver the capacity needed - i.e. it cannot be accommodated within the existing operational infrastructure.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
88 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The case for expansion is underpinned by too many assumptions that are over-optimistic and that none of the expansion options are achievable without significant adverse impacts.
✓ The ANPS recognises that the Project is best placed to deliver the new capacity required and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph 3.74).
The ANPS is clear (paragraph 4.31) that “a good design should meet the principal objectives of the scheme by eliminating or substantially mitigating the adverse impacts of the development, for example by improving operational conditions. It should also mitigate any existing adverse impacts wherever possible, for example in relation to safety or the environment”.
Heathrow is undertaking an environmental impact assessment in order to identify likely significant effects of the Project and to propose mitigation to address any adverse effects. Preliminary findings are reported in the PEIR, published as part of the AEC.
The Preferred Masterplan document is published as part of the June 2019 consultation. The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the evaluation process (that considers seven discipline areas) that has led to the Preferred Masterplan document.
Concern about the impact on its local community.
✓ Heathrow recognises that the Project would have certain impacts during construction and operation and is committed to managing and mitigating them to minimise effects on local communities. The Project will be delivered with a package of
Insufficient weight had been given to the consideration of cumulative effects on local communities.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
89 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concerns with the proposals regarding, air quality, noise, community displacement and traffic.
✓ mitigation measures to minimise potential effects.
Heathrow is considering the likely impacts of the Project on local communities as part of a Community Impact Assessment (CIA). This CIA will identify effects on people, homes and community facilities/ public services (including schools), public open space and routes (including recreation) as a result of the construction and operation of the Project. The early findings of the CIA form part of the PEIR (Volume 1, Chapter 11).
This assessment will draw on the outputs of other environmental topics (such as noise, air quality, landscape and visual amenity and health) and the Equality Impact Assessment (a separate assessment, which will also be consulted on in draft as part of the AEC. Information on the mitigation strategies proposed to address any likely significant effects will also be identified. Reporting in this way aligns with the ANPS which places emphasis on how local communities are affected by the Project.
Concern relating to air quality and noise ✓
Concern about the need to address air and noise pollution
✓
The environmental impacts on air quality across London unacceptably high.
✓
Concern about existing and future air pollution
✓
Heathrow’s effects on air quality is bad and that expansion cannot improve this situation and will only make it worse.
✓
Effects of noise and air pollution. ✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
90 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Residents of Ealing will be affected by easterly take-offs from a third runway who have not previously been affected by noise from Heathrow operations.
✓ Changes to Heathrow’s flight paths required for expansion are subject to a separate consenting process to the expansion of the airport on the ground. These flight path changes will be determined by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) following consultation by Heathrow with a wide range of stakeholders, including potentially affected communities.
The Airspace and Future Operations Consultation (January 2019) provided consultees with an opportunity to consider the proposed operational aspects of the Project and how Heathrow proposes to operate three runways. One of the options being considered is a managed approach to the direction of arriving and departing aircraft (a more balanced easterly/westerly split) to limit overall noise effects on communities and to help deliver periods of relief for them.
The consultation also gave the opportunity for consultees to highlight local factors Heathrow should consider in different geographic areas when designing future flight paths.
The feedback received will influence what is submitted to the CAA in relation to the proposed new flights paths and will follow the Airspace Design Guidance provided in its document known as ‘CAP 1616’.
Heathrow will use feedback received from this consultation to help design future flight paths. The Consultation booklet, available as part of the AEC, explains the relationship between the physical expansion of the airport and the
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
91 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
airspace change process.
The PEIR presents an assessment of noise impacts of the Project (Chapter 17), which is based on an indicative airspace design.
Support the need for expansion at Heathrow subject to an appropriate package of mitigation measures addressing surface access and air and noise impacts upon the airport’s neighbours.
✓ As part of the process of designing the Project, Heathrow has engaged extensively with local communities and other stakeholders to learn as much as it can about their concerns.
Heathrow’s scheme development process has allowed enabled design of a scheme and a range of environmental principles and measures which put mitigation and compensation at the heart of Heathrow’s work.
The Updated Scheme Development Report that is being consulted on as part of the AEC provides more information. This sets out the approach to the consideration of impact on the Green Belt as part of the identification and evaluation of options. Section 3 sets out the results of the consideration of options, including the potential loss of Green Belt land.
Heathrow is also consulting on ‘Environmentally Managed Growth – Our Framework for Growing Sustainably’ – a document that sets out environmental limits or envelopes related to surface access, air quality, noise and carbon. A draft of the document is being consulted on as part of the AEC.
Impacts of local air pollution, congestion, the economy, social disruption and environmental degradation.
✓
Expansion plans would give rise to an increase in existing levels of noise even with the proposed noise mitigation package in place.
✓
Support for the plans to expand Heathrow but was entirely dependent upon Heathrow ensuring that any scheme comprehensively and effectively mitigates noise, traffic and air quality impacts, as well as impacts on the wider environment, infrastructure and local road networks.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
92 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Dependent on ensuring that any scheme mitigates impacts on noise, traffic, air quality, the wider environment, infrastructure and local road networks.
✓ Heathrow is undertaking an EIA and preliminary findings are reported in the PEIR as part of the AEC. This sets out likely significant effects of the Project and proposed mitigation, including consideration of the issues raised here.
Volume 1, Chapter 22: In-combination effects of the PEIR, reports on the potential for multiple effects on one receptor.
To inform development of the Project, Heathrow will set up a Noise Envelope Design Group (NEDG) which will be involved in the development of the noise envelope and will have broad representation of the different stakeholder groups and the different areas affected by aircraft noise. This accords with the ANPS requirements (paragraph 5.60).
The Preferred Masterplan document that is being consulted on as part of the AEC includes proposals for mitigation and enhancement of Green Infrastructure that will seek to improve the quality of the Green Belt and preserve continuity of the Colne Valley Regional Park.
Opposition to expansion due to significant negative impacts on local communities, the greenbelt, noise, air pollution, climate change, wildlife and habitats, heritage and congestion.
✓
A concerted effort must be made to mitigate the direct negative effects of airport operations on local communities - particularly in relation to noise, poor air quality, congestion on the transport network and a loss or degradation of green space and biodiversity.
✓
No confidence that a third runway could be delivered without severe impacts on the environment and quality of life. Expansion is the wrong answer for London and the UK.
✓ Heathrow recognises that the Project would have certain impacts on the environment and quality of life during construction and operation. Therefore, the Project will be delivered with a package of mitigation measures to minimise
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
93 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
A third runway would cause more noise, pollution and traffic that would damage the quality of life of local people.
✓ potential effects.
As required by the Planning Act 2008, the Government produced an Appraisal of Sustainability in relation to the ANPS. The Appraisal of Sustainability describes the analysis of the reasonable alternatives to the Project and informed the development of the ANPS by assessing the potential environmental, economic and social impacts of options to increase airport capacity.
The Appraisal of Sustainability also incorporates a Strategic Environmental Assessment, which assesses 12 environmental topics including ‘quality of life’. The Appraisal of Sustainability (section 7.4) recognises that airport expansion will mean additional air traffic, which impacts upon quality of life and wellbeing of people, particularly through noise, air quality, housing, community facilities, and access to nature and cultural heritage. However, it also demonstrates that the objective of airport expansion, economic growth, is predicted to have an indirect impact upon quality of life.
Building on this work, Heathrow is carrying out further and more detailed studies to measure quality of life and is assessing the impacts of the airport expansion on quality of life through the EIA process.
Heathrow is required to undertake an assessment of the likely significant environmental impacts arising from the Project, including those that affect quality of life, and to identify
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
94 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
measures to minimise and mitigate these effects. The Environmental Statement will be submitted with the DCO application. Heathrow’s initial findings and proposed mitigation measures are presented in the PEIR, which is being consulted on as part of the AEC.
Harmful impacts will reach a far wider area than any DCO ‘redline’. If the benefits of the airport beyond the ‘redline’ are to be highly regarded then so must the harmful impacts.
✓ The scope of the assessments to be included in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) and reported in the ES is set out in the Scoping Opinion received from the Planning Inspectorate. This extends well beyond the DCO Order Limits (‘redline’). Early findings of the EIA will be published in the PEIR, each topic area has defined study areas upon which the assessment is based as well as an assessment of the likely cumulative effects (where impacts interact with other proposed development projects) (see Volume 1, Chapters 7 to 21 of the PEIR for topic assessments).
The EIA also considers in combination effects (where a receptor may be exposed to multiple impacts) (see Volume 1, Chapter 22 of the PEIR).
Other major proposed/approved developments should be taken into account to help address cumulative adverse impacts on the environment and the health of the local community.
✓
Further consideration should be given to the harmful impacts that could arise beyond the development boundary.
✓
Insufficient consideration had been given to the wider cumulative impact of an expanded airport beyond the area directly adjacent to it.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
95 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Disappointment that the scheme does not take account of significant effects felt by the communities to the north of London.
✓ Heathrow is considering the likely significant impacts of the Project on local communities including, where relevant, those to the north of London by undertaking a CIA, which will form part of the ES to be submitted with the DCO application.
The ES will identify effects on people, homes and community facilities/ public services (including schools), public open space and routes (including recreation) as a result of the construction and operation of the Project.
This assessment will also draw on the outputs of other environmental topics (such as noise, air quality, landscape and visual amenity and health) and the Equality Impact Assessment (separate assessment) where they have the same sensitive receptors as the CIA. Information on the mitigation strategies to address any likely significant effects will also be identified. Reporting in this way aligns with the ANPS which places emphasis on how local communities are affected by the Project.
Chapter 11 of the PEIR sets out early findings of the CIA. The PEIR is being consulted as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
96 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Request that disruption to service users and neighbours is kept to an absolute minimum during construction.
✓ The draft Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) is being consulted on as part of the AEC. The CoCP explains what controls are proposed to be put in place to minimise and mitigate impacts arising during the construction stage. This includes measures to manage construction impacts on local communities.
Heathrow will have regard to the feedback received during the AEC when preparing the DCO application.
Further expansion of Heathrow would destroy a vast area and blight the lives of many thousands of people.
✓ Heathrow is committed to bringing forward proposals for the Project which achieve the most sustainable balance between being appropriately located, comprising an acceptable level of land take, and minimising impacts upon the environment and communities as far as practicable.
Heathrow is considering the likely impacts of the Project on local communities through a CIA, which will form part of the ES to be submitted with the DCO application. Preliminary findings are published in Volume 1, Chapter 11: Community of the PEIR as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
97 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Expansion will cause more distress to residents, increase sleeplessness and increase feelings of isolation.
✓ A Health Impact Assessment will be undertaken for the DCO as required by the EIA Regulations 2017 and the ANPS. Preliminary findings are set out in Chapter 12: Heath of the PEIR. The assessment identifies and assesses the positive and negative health effects of the scheme, reporting on likely significant health effects and the measures taken by the Project to enhance positive health effects and reduce negative health effects. It includes a range of health and quality of life outcomes including annoyance, sleep disturbance, cardiovascular outcomes, and children’s learning. The Government’s Web-based Transport Analysis Guidance (WebTAG) appraisal toolkit will also be used, as per policy requirements, to assess the health effects of the Project.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
98 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
There continues to be a failure to address the needs of affected households.
✓ To construct and operate an expanded airport, Heathrow would need to acquire areas of land which currently include residential properties.
Heathrow is developing Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies for Residential Property, as well as an Interim Property Hardship Scheme to minimise and manage any negative impacts.
Drafts of these policies are published for consultation as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation One in January 2018.
Heathrow has had regard to feedback received in respect of these policies and will continue to work closely with the most affected communities to assess, manage and mitigate adverse effects.
Heathrow has proposed compensation payments for those losing their homes and mitigation strategies where it is necessary to intervene to ensure the re-provision of certain types of housing (such as affordable housing).
Heathrow is also working with the HSPG planning authorities to support the planning of new housing in the wider area through Local Plan reviews, which take account of the growth of the airport alongside other housing and employment needs for which the authorities already need to plan.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
99 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Request for a ‘quality of life’ fund to be established to help mitigate the negative impact of the airport on local communities.
✓ In line with the ANPS (paragraph 5.247), Heathrow remain committed to providing an appropriate community compensation package, which will include a Community Fund “proportionate to the environmental harm caused by the expansion of the airport”. A draft of Heathrow’s proposals for a Community Fund is published in the Proposals for Mitigation and Compensation document, published as part of the AEC.
Fair compensation for the affected communities must be provided.
✓
No objection to expansion subject to being able to comment on future plans which set out the location and design of any new water body created for flood storage together with any information regarding new or relocated wildlife habitats.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan for the Project, which is published as part of the AEC, has been designed to accord with the environmental objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), which are reiterated in the ANPS. The new runway would be built partly in the flood plain of the Colne Valley rivers. Existing flood storage would be lost due to the Project. To address this, the Project includes areas of proposed compensatory flood storage to provide for the Colne Brook, River Colne and Wraysbury rivers.
The Project seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between upstream and on-site solutions with a combination of sites providing the required capacity for flood storage if a flood event occurs. The PEIR is published as part of the AEC. Volume 1, Chapter 21: Water Environment includes the Preliminary WFD Risk Assessment and a Flood Risk Assessment and provides details of compensatory flood storage areas.
There should be no increase in flood risk because of the proposed expansion and requested that new development be designed to be resilient to flood risk and climate change.
✓
Need for a detailed Water Framework Directive Compliance assessment and made detailed comments on the proposals to culvert watercourses and the issue of flood risk.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
100 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Heathrow should maximise the potential for water conservation and water efficiency and where possible the use of sustainable drainage methods and a sequential approach to surface water run-off.
✓ The priority for the use of sustainable drainage systems in the Project is recognised in the ANPS (paragraph 5.167).
Information on the suitability of sustainable drainage methods is contained within the PEIR. This is being consulted on as part of the AEC.
Expansion should not result in the deterioration of any of the relevant waterbodies.
✓ Heathrow is committed to protecting the quality of the water environment and are working with the Environment Agency and other third parties to deliver appropriate solutions which mitigate any impact caused by the Project.
The Preferred Masterplan document for the Project has been designed to accord with the environmental objectives of the WFD, which are reiterated in the ANPS. The Project also seeks to protect and enhance the biodiversity associated with the water environment as far as possible.
As part of the AEC, the Preferred Masterplan document for the Project and preliminary environmental assessment in the PEIR are being consulted on.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
101 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Expansion plans would significantly affect the Longford River and had several issues of concern which ranged from the physical changes to the river and the ability to maintain a water supply to Bushy park, effects upon river ecology and issues of maintenance because of the proposal to place a section of the river in a tunnel.
✓ The expansion of Heathrow would extend the Airport's footprint into the Colne Valley, in the path of existing alignments of watercourses and areas of floodplain storage within the valley.
It is proposed to divert the flow of the Longford River through a covered river corridor under the runway to the east. The covered corridor would allow animal and fish passage. The river is proposed to be separated and returned to the current channel and flow conditions downstream of the expanded airfield.
Heathrow is committed to protecting the quality of the water environment and is working with the Environment Agency and other third parties to deliver appropriate solutions. The Project has been designed to accord with the environmental objectives of the WFD, which are reiterated in the ANPS. The Project also seeks to protect and enhance the biodiversity associated with the water environment as far as possible. Further information is contained within the PEIR, which is being consulted on as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
102 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The Government’s Environment Plan, (A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment) published in January 2018 sets out the Government’s aims to improve the environment. They advised that this document should be used to shape proposals for the expansion of Heathrow Airport.
✓ Heathrow notes the Government’s environmental agenda set out in A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment.
In line with statutory requirements, Heathrow will undertake an EIA which will be reported on in the ES submitted with the DCO. The EIA requires Heathrow to identify, describe and assess likely significant effects on human beings, fauna and flora, soil, water, air, climate, the landscape, material assets and cultural heritage, and the interaction between them.
A preliminary assessment is set out in the PEIR. This is being consulted on at the AEC.
Concerned about the issue of biodiversity off-setting and the amount of baseline evidence collected by Heathrow, questioning whether it was sufficient to enable it to accurately quantify and value loss because of expansion.
✓ It is the aim of the Project to deliver demonstrable overall biodiversity gain by using a biodiversity offsetting metric (EIA Scoping Report, May 2018).
However, it is understood that some types of nature conservation measures (e.g. those focused directly on fauna)
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
103 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Call for a biodiversity metric to be agreed with stakeholders as well as a legal commitment to manage newly created areas of habitat in perpetuity.
✓ cannot be valued using an offsetting metric.
Therefore, flexibility in the approach to the delivery of net gain will be maintained to ensure input to any projects highlighted by local stakeholders are considered on their merits and are not automatically discounted (e.g. local species recovery programmes).
The Biodiversity Off-setting Plan will include long term management prescriptions, a monitoring protocol and a method to determine suitable remediation should it be required.
Heathrow has published the latest proposals within the PEIR as part of the AEC.
Heathrow is using Defra’s guidance ’Evidence Plans for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects’ (2012) for all aspects of the biodiversity assessment and has discussed the type and level of evidence required (i.e. baseline information) and approaches to assessment with a range of organisations, including Natural England and the HSPG.
Preliminary information has been published in the PEIR at the AEC. An ES will be submitted with the DCO application.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
104 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Need for a project-level Habitats Regulations Assessment.
✓ As competent authority, the Secretary of State for Transport must comply with the duties under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 prior to granting development consent.
If the competent authority considers it likely that the Project will have a significant effect on a designated European site it must undertake an “Appropriate Assessment of the implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives” (ANPS para 4.19).
In line with ANPS (paragraph4.20), Heathrow is required to provide sufficient information with its application for the DCO to enable the Secretary of State to carry out an Appropriate Assessment or else to conclude that no significant effects on European sites are likely to arise.
A HRA Screening Report has been prepared by Heathrow and is published as part of the information provided in the AEC.
The purpose of the Screening Report is to identify the likely impacts of the Project, either alone or in combination with other projects, upon European sites and to determine (in consultation with statutory consultees) whether these impacts are likely to be significant or uncertain.
In either case an Appropriate Assessment will be required to be carried out by the Secretary of State.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
105 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Objected to expansion citing impacts on the Colne Valley Regional Park and Horton and the scale of the development proposed in an area where environmental quality has already been significantly eroded.
✓ Heathrow is undertaking ongoing engagement with the Colne Valley Regional Park Interest Company who are part of the HSPG. The HSPG was formed by several local authorities, county councils and Local Enterprise Partnerships close to Heathrow Airport to enable collaborative and consistent planning for benefits and impacts that Heathrow brings to the sub-region.
Heathrow is also undertaking an EIA, which includes an assessment of likely significant impacts on the Regional Park. This assessment is informing the design of the Project, through an ongoing evaluation process.
Early findings of this process are reported in the PEIR and the updated Scheme Development Report which are being consulted on as part of the AEC.
The ANPS (paragraph 4.31) is clear that “good design should meet the principal objectives of the scheme by eliminating or substantially mitigating the adverse impacts of the development, for example by improving operational conditions. It should also mitigate any existing adverse impacts wherever possible, for example in relation to safety or the environment”.
The DCO application will comply with this and will include an ES to explain how Heathrow will identify and mitigate any likely significant environmental effects during construction and operation of the airport.
Expansion proposals as they considered they will fundamentally change the southern third of the Colne Valley Regional Park.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
106 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concern about significant impacts on the Green Belt.
✓ Where practicable, Heathrow will seek to minimise the amount of Green Belt which is required for the Project, but the use of some Green Belt land is unavoidable given that almost all the land surrounding the airport (and including part of the existing airport) is designated Green Belt.
In accordance with national policy and guidance, for any elements of the Project proposed in the Green Belt, Heathrow will need to demonstrate very special circumstances to justify an exception being made to the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt contained in the NPPF. This analysis will be contained in the Planning Statement which will accompany the DCO application.
The Updated Scheme Development Report sets out the approach to the consideration of impact on the Green Belt as part of the identification and evaluation of options. Section 3 sets out the results of the consideration of options, including the potential loss of Green Belt land.
The Preferred Masterplan document includes proposals for mitigation and enhancement of Green Infrastructure that will improve the quality of the Green Belt and preserve continuity of the Colne Valley Regional Park.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
107 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concern relating to biodiversity. ✓ Heathrow has committed to achieving an overall net gain in biodiversity and this will include the creation of new and enhanced habitats and management arrangements (EIA Scoping Report). The approach taken to the protection of wildlife and habitats will include use of the mitigation hierarchy to protect wildlife and habitats where possible.
The PEIR sets out the likely impacts of the Project on the natural environment and proposed mitigation measures in the context of Heathrow’s expansion proposals.
Concern about the threat to the integrity and potential of the network of green infrastructure.
✓ The expansion of Heathrow would result in effects on the existing natural environment. However, the Project also represents an opportunity to provide green infrastructure for the benefit of biodiversity, the landscape, water environment and people. This would include biodiversity offsetting areas and the re-provision of public open space to compensate for the loss of these areas due to the Project.
The PEIR presents preliminary details of the likely significant effects of the Project on the green infrastructure network and includes proposals for appropriate mitigation and monitoring. Heathrow will have regard to the Airport Expansion Consultation feedback when preparing the ES.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
108 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concerns about environmental issues. ✓ The construction and operation of the Project would mean some effects on the existing natural environment. However, the Project also represents an opportunity to provide green infrastructure for the benefit of biodiversity, the landscape, water environment and people. This include biodiversity offsetting areas and the re-provision of public open space to compensate for the loss of these areas due to the Project.
Further information regarding likely significant effects on the environment are presented in the PEIR.
Object to the proposals for expansion identifying several significant impacts including the permanent loss of the southern parts of Colne Valley, adverse impacts upon birds using the South West London Water Bodies SPA, the fragmentation of habitats, effects upon waterways and the broader environmental impacts of noise, air and light pollution on the natural environment.
✓ Heathrow received an EIA Scoping Opinion from the Planning Inspectorate regarding the scope of assessments that Heathrow should undertake to inform the EIA required to be undertaken in respect of Heathrow’s proposals for the Project.
The EIA Scoping Opinion deals with environmental matters such as the impact of noise, air, and light emissions on ecological features and designated nature conservation sites.
The ES, to be submitted with the DCO application, will contain Heathrow’s assessment of the likely significant effects of the Project on the range of issues identified in the Scoping Opinion and will set out proposed mitigation measures.
Preliminary information relating to Heathrow’s environmental impact assessments are set out in the PEIR.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
109 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concern over the direct impacts of expansion upon its members, local communities, visitors, volunteers and staff who value special places and the time which they spend at National Trust properties.
✓ The likely significant effects on recreational receptors and identification of mitigation will form part of the ES submitted with the DCO application. A preliminary assessment is set out in the PEIR that is being consulted on as part of the AEC. Volume 1, Chapter 11: Community of the PEIR, reports likely effects and proposed mitigation for recreation and amenity resources.
A new Northwest Runway would be the most damaging in terms of the historic environment.
✓ The ANPS gives great weight to heritage conservation (paragraph 5.200) and states that harmful impacts should be weighed against the public benefit of the Project, “recognising that the greater the harm to the significance of the heritage asset, the greater the justification that will be needed for any loss” (paragraph 5.20).
Early findings of Heathrow’s assessment of impacts on heritage assets will be published in Volume 1, Chapter 13: Historic Environment of the PEIR.
When assessing whether consent should be given, consideration should be informed by the extent to which loss or harm to heritage assets can be minimised and if unavoidable, the extent to which preservation by record can be required.
✓
A further 220 designated heritage assets would experience effects upon their setting and that all harm to the historic environment as a result of any new runway and associated development must be minimised and where it cannot be avoided, must be robustly justified.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
110 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Investment in the airport and the railway must go hand in hand in order to support growth.
✓ Consultation One set out Heathrow’s proposals to put Heathrow at the heart of the rail network, including proposals to support the delivery of a Western Rail Link and Southern Rail Link to Heathrow. Both proposals are being promoted by Network Rail, with the Department of Transport currently considering ways the private sector can help to bring forward the Southern Rail Link. A DCO application for Western Rail is
Significant upgrades to transport links (bus and rail) to Heathrow from the south, south west and west will be required.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
111 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Further infrastructure improvements such as road and rail were needed.
✓ anticipated later in 2019.
Heathrow is fully supportive of both proposed rail links and is working with the DfT and Network Rail to help deliver these. The Public Transport Strategy in Part 2 of the Surface Access Proposals document which is available as part of the AEC, provides further details.
The Preferred Masterplan document ensures future compatibility with these schemes. However, as delivery of these schemes is not confirmed, Heathrow’s transport modelling has predominantly focused on a scenario in which neither exist. The draft Surface Access Proposals document could be changed to accommodate them should they be brought forward.
Heathrow will submit a Surface Access Strategy with the DCO application for the Project, which will accord with the ANPS. In so doing, the Strategy will set out “improvements to Heathrow Airport’s transport links to be able to support the increased numbers of people and freight traffic which will need to access the expanded airport.” (paragraph 5.8).
Heathrow has published a Surface Access Proposals document and PTIR, which are both available as part of the AEC, and provide more information on these matters. Volumes 5 and 6 of the PTIR deal with bus/coach and rail travel respectively.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
112 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concern about effects upon existing transport infrastructure specifically the M25.
✓ Heathrow recognises that the M25 must remain open during the construction and later operation of the Project. Heathrow’s proposals in the Preferred Masterplan document, which is available as part of the AEC, provides for a new, tunneled section of the M25. The tunnel would be constructed alongside and to the west of the existing route and then, once complete, the new section would be switched over in order to minimise disruption to existing users of the motorway. We are working closely with Highways England on these proposals.
Heathrow has published a Surface Access Proposals document and a PTIR, which are both available as part of the AEC and provide more information on these matters. Volume 2 of the PTIR deals with the M25 and strategic road network.
Impact of expansion on traffic flow and congestion, specifically on the M25.
✓
Considered expansion overdue but considered congestion on the M25 would be a future concern.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
113 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Proposals for the Iver Relief Road and that a significant contribution be made to its cost by Heathrow if the proposals put forward as part of the airport expansion generate HGV traffic in the area.
✓ The PTIR explains what measures will need to be taken to deal with the anticipated transport impacts arising from the development. It summarises and illustrates the outputs from the traffic modelling and also sets out a strategy for mitigating any impacts on the surrounding transport network that are considered severe.
Further technical assessment work and consideration of the feedback from the AEC, including comments about the PTIR and the Surface Access Proposals document, will inform the preparation of a Transport Assessment. This will be submitted with the DCO application and will assess the impact of the Project on traffic flows in and around Heathrow. Where necessary, appropriate mitigation will be provided to ensure that disruption to road users and surrounding communities is minimised during construction and operation of the Project.
Call for a minimisation of land-take. ✓ An evaluation of potential sites has been undertaken to identify the preferred location for development, taking into account consultation feedback. Heathrow believes that the Preferred Masterplan document comprises the most sustainable balance between being appropriately located, comprising an acceptable level of land take, and minimising impacts upon the environment and communities as far as possible.
Further information is contained within the Preferred Masterplan document, the updated Scheme Development Report and PEIR.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
114 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concerns that the proposals may not be future proof and may not meet the needs of the airport in the longer term.
✓ The ANPS (paragraph 3.74) states that the Project is best placed to deliver new capacity in the South East and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits. The ANPS is supported by an Appraisal of Sustainability which assessed the potential environmental, economic and social impacts of the reasonable options to increase airport capacity.
The ANPS (paragraph 1.29) states that, “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 the Project 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 as scheme will deliver, outweigh such harm.”.”
The adaptability and future proofing of the airport has been a key consideration of developing the Masterplan throughout. Options have been subject to a full evaluation and infrastructure adaptability has been fully considered as an evaluation criterion within the Business Case Discipline. Further details of the assessment process are available in the Scheme Development Manual, which is available as part of the AEC.
There was not sufficient land or space to expand or that the airport was already too large.
✓
Expansion would not be sustainable, that the airport is unsuitable for expansion, concerns about the disruption it will cause.
✓
Cost of expansion was too high or that it was generally a waste of money.
✓ The ANPS (paragraph 4.39) states that the Project should be “cost-efficient and sustainable, and seeks to minimise costs to
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
115 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The costs of expanding Heathrow have either not been accurately calculated or will result in large inputs from the tax payer and council tax payer.
✓ airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime”.
The scheme development process has been designed to ensure that affordability considerations are fully considered, alongside criteria within the other discipline areas (operations and service, delivery, sustainability and community and planning and property).
This is as part of the Business Case discipline, which involves a review of cost, viability, commercial income, capacity and affordability of infrastructure and viability of the case as part of the development and refinement of the scheme in the Preferred Masterplan document. Chapter 2 of the updated Scheme Development Report provides further information on this process.
Furthermore, the projected costs of the Project are being carefully scrutinised by a range of third parties, including the CAA. Heathrow has worked closely with the airlines in developing the Preferred Masterplan document and the cost effectiveness of the proposals has been carefully considered.
The Project is a privately-funded infrastructure project which will be delivered in a cost effective and sustainable way.
The scheme could be delivered in a more cost-efficient manner.
✓
Moving ahead without a realistic understanding of costs could lead to an untenable situation where the risk of expansion would transfer to airlines and customers, ultimately undermining the goals of expansion.
✓
Expansion would be a waste of tax-payers money and a waste or misuse of public funds.
✓
Concern about a lack of detailed costs in relation to, noise effects and overstated economic benefits.
✓
Concerns about what would happen if government do not fund transport infrastructure.
✓ As noted in the ANPS (paragraph 5.20) “where a surface transport scheme is not solely required to deliver airport capacity and has a wider range of beneficiaries, the
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
116 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concern about how funding will be raised for the proposed road infrastructure projects being proposed as part of the expansion.
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.”
Heathrow has a track record of investing in surface access improvements at the airport and will fund all of the road diversions required by expansion alongside a fair and reasonable contribution to new rail infrastructure, in accordance with the CAA policy on surface access. Discussions regarding the funding of public transport infrastructure are ongoing, and the outcome of these discussions will inform the final Masterplan for the Project.
Heathrow is proposing a range of transport initiatives as part of the Project as set out in the Surface Access Proposals document, which is being consulted on as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation, June 2019. The Surface Access Proposals document sets out the aims and objectives for the provision of surface access to Heathrow during and following the airport’s expansion, as well as the strategy for achieving the targets established in the ANPS. In addition, Heathrow has published a suite of Delivery Plans that explain how it intends to deliver the surface access plans in the near-term. The Delivery Plans include information on funding including the provision of funds or financing to support the capital and operating costs associated with delivering improvements to surface access.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
117 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Expansion should be affordable and not lead to increases in costs to airlines or passengers.
✓ The ANPS (paragraph 4.39) states that the scheme should be “cost-efficient and sustainable, and seeks to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime”. The ANPS (paragraph 3.25) also notes that “without expansion, passengers and other users of airports are likely to suffer from higher fares and more delays.”
The Project is a privately funded infrastructure project which will be delivered in a cost effective and sustainable way. A Funding Statement will be submitted with the DCO application for the Project.
Within that context, the scheme development process has been designed to ensure that affordability considerations are fully taken into account, alongside criteria within the other discipline areas (operations and service, delivery, sustainability and community and planning and property).
The updated Scheme Development Report, which is being consulted on at the AEC provides information on this approach and how the preferred scheme was selected.
It is critical that expansion does not lead to an increase in passenger charges.
✓
Requested a Passenger Cost Guarantee which would set out the total budget for delivering the expansion programme.
✓
Heathrow should be mindful of the cost of the proposals and ensure that passenger charges are not affected.
✓
Proposals too expensive ✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
118 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The runway must be cost-efficient, deliver increased competition and improve international connectivity if the UK is to become a global player in a post-Brexit world.
✓ The ANPS (para 3.18) recognises that Heathrow is best placed to provide the “biggest boost” to the UK’s international connectivity. It also recognizes that, post Brexit “…the country will increasingly look beyond Europe to the rest of the world, and so the importance of maintaining the UK’s hub status, and in that context long haul connectivity in particular, has only increased” (para 2.32) and that (paragraph 4.39) the scheme should be “cost-efficient and sustainable, and seeks to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime”.
Heathrow is committed to delivering the Project in an affordable and financeable way. Reflecting this position, the scheme development process has been designed to ensure that affordability considerations are fully taken into account, alongside criteria within the other discipline areas (operations and service, delivery, sustainability and community and planning and property).
The updated Scheme Development Report, which is being consulted on at the AEC provides information on this approach and how the preferred scheme was selected.
Support for the expansion of Heathrow subject to confirmation of its viability, affordability, mitigation, phasing and delivery.
✓ Heathrow has published a range of detailed information on the Project. The PEIR and the Preferred Masterplan document contain information on the phasing of the Project, construction, mitigation and operation. Both documents are available as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
119 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Expansion may not benefit business, the economy or jobs, there could be a negative impact on business and the economy.
✓ The ANPS recognises that there is an urgent need for new airport capacity in the South East (paragraphs 2.10-18), that the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme is best placed to deliver this capacity and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph 3.74).
Heathrow’s Sustainability Strategy, Heathrow 2.0 outlines the current approach to working with Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs). This includes business summits that have enabled SMEs to meet with some of Heathrow’s largest suppliers and the e-portal – MySoure which allows SMEs and new entrants to register to receive alerts for relevant procurement opportunities. More information on Heathrow’s existing activity is set out in the Economic Development Framework, which is being consulted on as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation, June 2019.
Heathrow proposes to continue to work with UK firms to deliver expansion and support a regional approach to help disperse the economic benefits of expansion to the rest of the UK with tens of thousands of jobs (Airports Commission estimate). This includes the use of logistics hubs to spread the benefits of construction across the UK. These can be used as points of consolidation of goods/products, or through off-site pre-assembly and manufacture. The economic effects of expansion will be assessed within the ES, which will be submitted with the DCO. A preliminary assessment is set out in the Socio-Economics and Employment chapter of the PEIR (Chapter 18).
Economic advantages do not outweigh disadvantages.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
120 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
All of the economic benefits will need to be delivered alongside a package of mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts on local communities and businesses affected by the proposals.
✓ The ES will set out an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects and details of mitigation measures that are proposed to be implemented as part of the Project to reduce any adverse environmental impacts.
The PEIR will set out the preliminary assessment of likely significant environmental impacts and provide details of measures proposed by Heathrow to mitigate such impacts. This is being consulted on as part of the AEC.
Proposed mitigation measures will be legally secured. The Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) will be a legally-binding set of control and measures and standards applicable during the construction of the Project. The draft CoCP is published as part of the AEC. In addition, the DCO will also contain a number of legally-binding Requirements (based, in part, on the findings of the ES) which will have effect before, during and after construction and operation of the Project.
Heathrow must keep their promises to mitigate effects and provide employment opportunities.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
121 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
More runways would need to be ruled out and fair compensation for the affected communities must be provided.
✓ The ANPS is clear (paragraph 5.275) that “The Government agrees with the Airports Commission’s recommendation and the analysis that underpins it, and therefore does not see a need for a fourth runway at Heathrow Airport”. Heathrow accepts this conclusion.
In line with the ANPS (paragraph 5.247), Heathrow remains committed to providing an appropriate community compensation package, which will include a Community Fund “proportionate to the environmental harm caused by the expansion of the airport” in line with Government expectations. Heathrow’s proposals for a CCF are published as part of the AEC.
The proposals fail on all grounds according to the recent report produced by the New Economics Foundation.
✓ The Project is being designed to accord with Government policy set out in the ANPS. Expansion of Heathrow is noted as delivering “the greatest strategic and economic benefits to the UK” (ANPS paragraph 2.27).
In addition to the Northwest runway option, consideration should be given to the extension of an existing runway as this would be a viable and provide a contingency should undue delays affect the new runway being built.
✓ Heathrow has not investigated extension of the existing runways outside of the boundary as this does not align with the scheme recommended by the Airport Commission and which was subsequently endorsed in the ANPS. In any event, the existing runways cannot be extended within the current airport boundary.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
122 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The Northwest Runway would have a negative affect at a UK level and Heathrow's hub status and passengers provide little economic value.
✓ The ANPS recognises that there is an urgent need for new airport capacity in the South East (paragraphs 2.10-18), that the Project is best placed to deliver this capacity and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph 3.74).
As required by the Planning Act 2008, the Government has produced an Appraisal of Sustainability in relation to the ANPS. The Appraisal of Sustainability found that the Project generated the most economic benefits, compared to the reasonable alternatives that were assessed.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
123 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The benefits of expansion have been overestimated, specifically the employment opportunities.
✓ The Government established the Airports Commission (AC) in 2012 to investigate how the UK could maintain its position as Europe’s most important aviation hub. This was an independent and detailed study that looked at over 50 proposals before a short-list of three schemes was identified. After almost three years of study, the unanimous conclusion of the AC was that the Heathrow Expansion Project in combination with a significant package of measures to address its environmental and community effects presented the strongest case and offered the greatest strategic and economic benefits. This conclusion has now been endorsed by parliament in designating the Airports National Policy Statement.
Heathrow has undertaken a detailed analysis of impacts of the Project on employment as part of the environmental impact assessment. Preliminary findings are reported in Chapter 18: Socio-Economics and Employment of the PEIR. The Economic Development Framework contains information on the economic benefits and opportunities offered by airport expansion. Both documents are available as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
124 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Any potential negative effects that might arise from that development are mitigated as far as is possible.
✓ The ANPS is clear (paragraph 4.31) that “good design should meet the principal objectives of the scheme by eliminating or substantially mitigating the adverse impacts of the development, for example by improving operational conditions. It should also mitigate any existing adverse impacts wherever possible, for example in relation to safety or the environment”.
The DCO application will comply with the ANPS and will include an ES to explain how Heathrow has identified and proposes to mitigate against any likely significant environmental effects arising during construction and operation of the Project.
The PEIR reports on Heathrow’s preliminary assessment of these effects and provides preliminary details of the measures proposed to mitigate the effects.
Concern about the direct and indirect effects of development.
✓ The PEIR presents details of the likely significant effects of the Project, including direct and indirect effects, and proposals for appropriate mitigation and monitoring.
Having had regard to feedback received during the AEC, the direct and indirect effects of the Project will be formally assessed and reported in the ES which will be submitted with the DCO application.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
125 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
If Heathrow remains operational at its current level, there would be a reduction in noise levels in the next 10 years with the introduction of quieter planes.
✓ Modern planes and quieter procedures mean Heathrow is quieter today than any time since the 1970s. However, Heathrow continues to work hard to reduce the impact of its operations. Its Fly Quiet and Green programme is an example of this. It encourages airlines to use quieter aircraft and to fly them in the quietest possible way. It is the UK's first ever league table which ranks airlines according to their noise and emissions performance. We also provide a strong financial incentive for airlines to use the quietest planes currently available by using variable landing charges. Heathrow’s committed goal is to expand Heathrow whilst affecting fewer people with noise than 2013. Heathrow believe this can be achieved through a combination of factors - quieter planes, quieter airport design, quieter operations and an extended ban on scheduled night flights.
Expansion is not legally possible if air quality standards are to be brought within the legal limits.
✓ The ANPS (paragraph 5.31) notes that the analysis undertaken by the Government has informed their 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.” Furthermore, the ANPS (paragraph 5.32) requires Heathrow to demonstrate that the Project will not affect the UK’s ability to comply with legal obligations relating to air quality.
Objection to expansion based on air quality.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
126 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Objection to expansion as they considered Heathrow would breach legal air quality limits.
✓ A preliminary assessment of air quality is presented in Chapter 7 of the PEIR. This will be progressed to form part of the Environmental Statement to be submitted with the DCO application.
A well-planned and executed project, respectful of the wider area will establish trust for the future enlargement.
✓ Heathrow is committed to delivering a well-planned and executed Project which has been informed by consultation with local communities. Heathrow already undertakes an extensive programme of community liaison and this has been considerably enhanced by the new Heathrow Community Engagement Board, which will ensure widespread community engagement throughout the planning process for the Project and longer-term into the construction and operational phase of the proposed expanded airport. In addition, Heathrow has an established ongoing working relationship with the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group, involving nearby local authorities and other stakeholders.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
127 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Conditions should become part of primary legislation agreed by Parliament in order to provide the firmest possible guarantee.
✓ The application for the Project will be determined in accordance with the ANPS. The ANPS sets out a series of requirements which the Heathrow DCO application must meet.
A DCO is a statutory instrument which is drafted by the applicant, submitted as part of the application and subject to detailed scrutiny by the Examining Authority during the Examination phase. The DCO must comply with all applicable requirements set out in the Planning Act 2008.
Once made, non-compliance with any provision or requirement contained within a DCO is a criminal offence.
Concern that Heathrow had broken promises regarding other proposals in the past, suggesting a lack of confidence.
✓ Heathrow is committed to consulting effectively with local communities to inform the design of the Project and continues to take account of feedback received in respect of the Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018).
If development consent is granted by the Secretary of State, Heathrow will be legally bound by the requirements set out in the DCO. Non-compliance with any provision or requirement contained within a DCO is a criminal offence.
Further information regarding Heathrow’s emerging proposals, including the Preferred Masterplan document and an Updated Scheme Development Report, is being published as part of the AEC.
The proposals are flawed or badly thought through.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
128 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The process should be sped up as there was a need for a quick decision and faster planning and implementation of proposals.
✓ The Project is defined as a nationally significant infrastructure project, and as such is following a prescribed consenting process in accordance with the Planning Act 2008.
Decisions on land-use requirements be made as soon as possible to prevent losses that may otherwise be incurred as a result of uncertainty.
✓
Only when the Airline Community has seen a high degree of maturity on the preferred scheme, which includes costs, scope and benefits, will unconditional support be provided.
✓ Heathrow’s draft Preferred Masterplan document, which has been prepared in close consultation with the airline community.
The cost and cost effectiveness of the proposals is being considered at every stage of the masterplan scheme development. In preparing its DCO application Heathrow will satisfy the ANPS test (para 4.39) that the scheme is “cost-efficient and sustainable, and seeks to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime”.
Concerns over the lack of maturity of the development proposals and the lack of detail on costs.
✓
A high degree of maturity on the preferred scheme, including costs, scope and benefits, will unconditional support be provided.
✓
Oppose any airport expansion in the UK until the Government met the Committee on Climate Change’s recommendation for a plan to limit aviation emissions.
✓ Heathrow recognises the impact that the airport and the aviation sector have on carbon emissions. Heathrow launched its ambitious sustainability plan – Heathrow 2.0 in 2017, which sets goals to reduce the airport’s and the sector’s environmental impacts, while maximising economic
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
129 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concern that Heathrow will only tackle local emissions and not tackle the wide issue of greenhouse gases.
✓ opportunities throughout the UK. It sets out how Heathrow will play its part in supporting the airline industry as they attempt to decouple aviation growth from climate change.
Regarding carbon emissions, the ANPS states that “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” (paragraph 5.82).
Heathrow is consulting on the PEIR as part of the AEC. The PEIR provides preliminary information on carbon emissions and proposed mitigation measures.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
130 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Oppose expansion on the grounds that most of the air traffic will be for leisure travel, there will be increases in CO2 from planes and from increased road traffic, which will also emit health damaging pollutants into the air.
✓ Heathrow supports the statement made in paragraph 3.22 of the ANPS that ‘the ease with which businesses can move staff around the globe is an important facilitator of trade and for businesses locating and remaining in the UK. The broader range and greater frequency of long haul flights at Heathrow Airport best meets this need. It would deliver benefits for UK passengers (both business and leisure) by allowing them to travel to more destinations flexibly”.
The PEIR, which Heathrow is consulting on as part of the AEC, provides information about carbon emissions and proposed mitigation measures in chapters 7 and 9.
Heathrow is also consulting on ‘Environmentally Managed Growth – Our Framework for Growing Sustainably’ – a document that sets out environmental limits or envelopes related to surface access, air quality, noise and carbon. A draft of the document is being consulted on as part of the AEC.
A lack of information concerning the lack of substantial detail on the relocation of the Lakeside Waste Management facility.
✓ Heathrow has been working with Grundon Waste Management & Lakeside Energy from Waste (EfW) to identify potential suitable sites for the relocation of its facilities. The objective has been to replace these facilities and discussions
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
131 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Related developments such as the relocation of the Grundon Power Station, Immigration Removal Centre and hotels have not been considered in detail.
✓ are well advanced. The Lakeside EfW’s operation cannot meet the definition of Associated Development required for inclusion within the DCO application, nor does the ANPS require its replacement. It will not, therefore, be possible to include proposals for its relocation as part of the DCO application. A replacement facility will require consent from the relevant local planning authority. The Preferred Masterplan identifies as safeguarded site for the replacement of the EfW facility.
At Consultation One four shortlisted sites for the relocation of the Immigration Removal Centre were presented. The selection of these sites was informed by engagement with the Home Office. Since Consultation One Heathrow has undertaken further evaluation of potential sites for the relocation of the Immigration Removal Centre. This has involved the consideration of an additional site, Airport Business Park, suggested by the London Borough of Hounslow as an alternative to the potential Mayfield Farm site. Heathrow propose that the Airport Business Park is the preferred site for the relocated Immigration Removal Centre. Further information on this proposal is set out in Chapter 5, Document 4: Home Office Immigration Removal Centre of the Updated Scheme Development Report, as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
132 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Plans did not include other development proposals such as the Heathrow Express Depot at Langley, the Smart Motorway widening of the M4 and the Western Rail Link to Heathrow.
✓ Heathrow will submit a DCO application for the Project, which is a separate project to those noted, which are promoted by Highways England and Network Rail.
Heathrow is working with Network Rail and Highways England to ensure collaboration between projects.
In addition, Heathrow is considering how other projects will interact with the Project and likely cumulative and in-combination impacts are reported in the PEIR, which is published as part of the AEC.
Conditional support to a third runway given the requirements for additional aviation fuel infrastructure and storage.
✓ Aviation fuel storage is an airport supporting facility that is essential to airport operations. Further details on Heathrow’s proposals for fuel infrastructure and storage are set out in Document 4, Chapter 2: Aviation Fuel Supply, Storage and Distribution of the Updated Scheme Development Report.
A third runway would have a major impact upon its (NATS) operations and infrastructure.
✓ Heathrow is committed to working with National Air Traffic Services, the UK’s air traffic control provider, to ensure operational and infrastructure requirements are in place to support the Project.
Concern that the plans could conflict with approved and proposed uses of their land. Ingrebourne Valley Ltd expressed similar reservations with regard to three mineral sites considered suitable for extraction.
✓ Heathrow has engaged, and will continue to engage, with business owners and occupiers who are both within the proposed DCO application order limits and within proximity to the proposed Project to ensure they are kept fully informed, and to discuss acquisition and/or compensation policies should they be relevant. The Property Policies Information
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
133 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee16
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concern that the proposals will affect the retail operation of their property on the Great South-West Road.
✓ Paper and associated Policies are published as part of the AEC.
Components set out in the Preferred Masterplan document, such as road diversions, are all subject to multi-disciplinary evaluations. Impacts such as the loss of property are considered as part of this process.
Heathrow will continue to develop its plans for the Project and further details are available in the Preferred Masterplan document.
Object to expansion as a site identified for potential development is conflicted with their own ambitions.
✓
Support for expansion provided the impacts on its landholdings and operations are appropriate and proportionate.
✓
Concerned about their properties as a result of the plans for expansion and requested further discussion on the proposals.
✓
Concern about future development affecting their business.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
134 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
7. RUNWAY
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 In response to Airport Expansion Consultation One, Heathrow sought feedback in
relation to the location and length of the proposed runway. A total of 2,364
consultees made comments relating to this topic.
7.1.2 Heathrow provided the following material that is directly related to the location and
length of the proposed runway:
1. Airport Expansion Consultation Document;
2. Our Emerging Plans;
3. Scheme Development Report; and
4. The Case for Heathrow Expansion.
7.1.3 Within Section 2.1 of the Airport Expansion Consultation Document Heathrow
identified the following three options for the new runway with the length varying
from between 3,200 and 3,500 metres:
1. Option A2 – a 3,200m long runway located towards the east;
2. Option A3 – a 3,200m long runway located towards the west; and
3. Option A4 – a 3,500m long runway located between Sipson and Colnbrook.
7.1.4 References to option numbers below are taken from the Airport Expansion
Consultation Document.
7.1.5 Heathrow asked the following questions regarding the runway at Airport Expansion
Consultation One:
1. Please tell us what you think about the options for the new runway.
2. What factors do you think should be important in fixing the precise location and
length of the runway?
7.1.6 This chapter provides a summary of the relevant consultation feedback received
from prescribed consultees, local communities and wider/other consultees. The
issues raised by respondents have also been grouped in table form at the end of
this chapter, which includes Heathrow’s response to these issues.
7.2 Prescribed Consultees
Local Authorities
7.2.1 A range of detailed comments were received from local authorities in relation to
the options for the new north west runway and the important factors in fixing its
precise location.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
135 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Option preference
7.2.2 Of the local authorities that expressed a clear preference for one of the runway
options, Ealing Council, Surrey County Council and Wokingham Borough Council
expressed a preference for Option A4 as presented in the Airport Expansion
Consultation Document.
7.2.3 Slough Borough Council considered that Option A2 in the Airport Expansion
Consultation Document was their preferred option.
7.2.4 Whilst not explicitly stating support for Option A3 in the Airport Expansion
Consultation Document the London Borough of Hounslow indicated that it would
prefer a runway alignment that mitigates the noise and pollution impacts on
residents. It implied that this could be achieved with a runway that is shorter and
situated as far to the west as possible.
General comments
7.2.5 The London Borough of Hounslow stated that there was little information provided
on runway alternation for an expanded Heathrow, and whether the duration of the
predictable respite would be reduced from 33% to 25%. It expressed concerns
about impacts on communities in and around Cranford that would be newly
overflown, as well as the impact on Cedars Primary School, Cranford Community
College and other community buildings.
7.2.6 Runnymede Borough Council expressed concerns about disruption to the
motorway network that would be likely to occur from all of the runway options. It
suggested that every effort be made to minimise disruption through the use of
performance targets with Heathrow’s contractors. It also suggested that failure to
meet the targets should result in heavy sanctions given the importance of the
motorways to the network.
7.2.7 Slough Borough Council commented that a 3,200m runway would provide greater
opportunities to maximise the distance and minimise environmental impacts on
residential property and the Pippins school in Poyle village. It would also reduce
the amount of residential development that would be within the Public Safety Zone
at Brands Hill. It considered that these factors, together with the position of
taxiways, should be key in fixing the location and the length of the runway.
7.2.8 Spelthorne Borough Council made reference to the recommendation from the
Airports Commission that a new scheme needs to deliver at least 260,000
additional air transport movements per annum, and that there must be a full-length
runway to support predictable periods of respite and maximise the use of the
runway. They believed that a shorter runway would be unable to accommodate the
new generation of aircraft, resulting in an increased likelihood that the existing
runways to the south would have to be used.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
136 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
7.2.9 Spelthorne Borough Council also raised concerns about the potential for increased
fuel use and emissions from aircraft due to the proposed raising of the runway by
3-5m above existing ground levels. This concern was echoed by Slough Borough
Council who commented that raising the runway would potentially increase the
impact upon the surrounding area in terms of its visibility, noise and air quality.
7.2.10 Surrey County Council commented that the longer runway as presented in the
Airport Expansion Consultation Document would allow alternation between the
three runways, which would be more beneficial for local residents. This view was
supported by Ealing Council. However, Ealing Council went on to indicate that it
was not possible to assess the merits of each option due to the lack of information
and that in finalising the runway location, priority must be given to reducing noise
impacts on areas of high population density in west London.
7.2.11 Surrey County Council and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
referred to the draft Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), and queried why
Heathrow was consulting on shorter runway options when the ANPS indicates that
the runway should be at least 3,500m long.
7.2.12 The London Borough of Sutton commented that the proposed location for the
runway would not be acceptable given negative impact on homes and
communities.
7.2.13 Wokingham Borough Council stated that whilst there would be no direct effect in
Wokingham, a runway of 3,500m would permit maximum flexibility and respite.
Important considerations
7.2.14 Several local authorities made comments or suggestions about the runway options
and important factors in fixing its precise location:
1. Hampshire Services responded on behalf of Central and Eastern Berkshire
Authorities. They suggested that as the existing aggregate industries depot at
Colnbrook would be displaced with either runway option, an assessment should be
undertaken to determine whether the site should be relocated, what impact the
displacement would have on the market and potential future options for the depot.
2. Kent County Council suggested that the runway options as presented in the Airport
Expansion Consultation Document should be discussed carefully with the
communities either side of the proposed runway, in the context of operational
flexibility and ability to reduce noise impacts.
3. Runnymede Borough Council indicated that if the different runway options as
presented in the Airport Expansion Consultation Document result in significantly
different levels of disruption to the M25 then this should be an important
consideration in the cost benefit analyses.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
137 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
4. Surrey County Council indicated that it was important that the runway allows full
alternation between all three Heathrow runways so that the ability to offer respite to
local communities is maximised and harmful impacts minimised
5. Spelthorne Borough Council suggested that Heathrow must ensure robust plans
were in place to minimise any temporary impacts on local roads and local
communities during construction of a new runway.
6. The London Borough of Hounslow considered that the impact on communities
newly-overflown, noise levels after the Project compared with those before the
Project and existing and new population’ exposure level before and after the Project
should be important factors.
Statutory Consultees
Option preference
7.2.15 Historic England, the Environment Agency and Natural England all indicated a
preference for Option A2 in the Airport Expansion Consultation Document.
7.2.16 Historic England expressed a preference for Option A2 as it would be further away
from a much larger number of designated heritage assets in Colnbrook (including
the Colnbrook Conservation Area).
7.2.17 The Environment Agency considered that Option A2 would have the least impact
on the Colne Brook and commented how surface water run-off from runways can
have impacts on water quality if allowed to enter controlled waters.
7.2.18 Natural England noted that Option A2 would likely have a lesser impact on the
natural environment, leaving more of the Colne Valley Regional Park outside of
the development. It would also potentially make river diversions more feasible.
General comments
7.2.19 Historic England commented that as the new runway would be separated from the
existing northern runway by a minimum of 1,035m, this would result in the loss of a
large part of the Harmondsworth Conservation Area and a number of listed
buildings. This would also have impacts on the setting of several further buildings,
including the Grade I listed Great Barn in Harmondsworth, two listed buildings in
Sipson, and a number of designated heritage assets in Colnbrook. For these
reasons, it was strongly opposed to any proposal to extend the boundary
further north.
7.2.20 The Environment Agency suggested that any runway design should have
appropriate pollution prevention measures and sealed foul drainage. It also
suggested that the diversion of rivers should be considered in the selection of the
preferred runway option.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
138 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
7.2.21 Highways England did not indicate a preference for any of the runway options. It
considered that the location and length of the runway would have a bearing on the
driver’s eye view of aircraft and that the safety impact of potential driver distraction
should be considered. Highways England also made several other suggestions,
including:
1. the height of the proposed runway above the M25 must allow for sufficient
headroom for vehicles, signage/operations and maintenance equipment;
2. the runway must be raised sufficiently above the existing ground level to prevent the
M25 having to be lowered to a level which will result in a gradient on the M25
carriageway in excess of 3% in any location;
3. consideration should be given to the landing zone of aircraft and the impact this will
have on the proposed tunnel structure and on driver distraction; and
4. security should be of paramount importance as two critical national infrastructure
locations will overlap.
Other prescribed bodies
Option preference
7.2.22 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council suggested that a runway location to the east
was favoured.
7.2.23 The Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) stated that individual members
have differing views on the precise location and length of the runway, but that it
preferred a runway that mitigates as far as possible the impact upon local
communities and the environment. They suggested that a shorter runway could be
preferable if it could provide full respite.
General comments
7.2.24 The HSPG commented that the Scheme Development Report indicated that a
shorter runway would not provide full respite and asked Heathrow to clarify its
position. They also sought clarity on why Heathrow presented shorter runway
options given the ANPS sets out a clear requirement for a 3,500m runway.
7.2.25 Thames Water Utilities Limited indicated that it had no concerns with the current
north -west runway proposal.
7.2.26 Bray Parish Council did not consider that there was sufficient information about the
effects on the parish and flight paths to express an opinion on the preferred
runway option.
7.2.27 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council indicated the location and length of the
runway should be determined by minimising the impact on local congestion, air
quality and on residents adjacent to the new development. They indicated that
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
139 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
minimising loss of property, compulsory purchases and impacts on the
environment and historical features were also important factors. They also called
for more research into the “vortex effect” of low flying aircraft on the roofs of
buildings given runways would be operating simultaneously.
7.2.28 Denham Parish Council stated that no additional runway should be built as it
would adversely affect residents.
7.3 Local Communities
Members of the public
Option preference
7.3.1 Members of the public responding on Runway options were often in favour of
Option A4 as presented in the Airport Expansion Consultation Document. The
main reasons for this were that it would provide greater flexibility and address
long-term needs, it would accommodate larger aircraft and would allow aircraft to
reach higher altitudes quicker, which would reduce effects on local communities
around the airport.
7.3.2 Options A3 and A2 as presented in the Airport Expansion Consultation Document
received significantly less support from members of the public. Those who
favoured these options did so as they were considered to have less impact on
local people and local communities and would help to mitigate noise impacts and
impact on the environment.
7.3.3 For those opposed to Option A2 in the Airport Expansion Consultation Document
the main concerns were that it would not address future needs, that larger aircraft
could not be accommodated and that impacts on local communities, including
Sipson village would be greater.
7.3.4 Similar comments were received about the Option A3 in the Airport Expansion
Consultation Document Concerns were also raised about the noise effects of this
option and the disadvantages outweighing the advantages.
7.3.5 For Option A4 in the Airport Expansion Consultation Document concerns focussed
on the impacts on local communities, the impacts of larger aircraft, noise and air
quality. Suggestions were also received that Option A4 should allow simultaneous
landings and departures, that the runway should be higher and that smaller aircraft
should be allowed to take-off further down the runway to minimise effects on local
communities.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
140 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
General comments
7.3.6 In addition to the comments received about the specific runway options, many
members of the public provided general comments or expressed general concerns
about the proposed north west runway.
7.3.7 The most frequent was that the runway options as presented in the Airport
Expansion Consultation Document were unsuitable and unnecessary. Perceived
impacts of the scheme on local communities, the environment and concerns about
disruption during construction and operation were cited.
7.3.8 Members of the public also raised concerns about impacts on local communities in
relation to Sipson, Harmondsworth, Colnbrook, Poyle and the wider West London
area. Comments about the communities being displaced by the development,
effects on communities in general and on the quality of life and well-being of
residents were also raised.
7.3.9 The effect on the environment was raised by members of the public. Concerns
about noise and air pollution, general impacts on the environment, impacts on
green, open spaces and the countryside and the effects of increased air traffic and
emissions on climate change were cited.
7.3.10 Concerns about the effects on motorways and local roads were also raised by
members of the public. This included general comments about traffic congestion
as well as specific concerns about the effects on the M25, M4 and local road
network. Comments were also received which indicated that the local transport
network and road network has insufficient capacity to meet the needs of a third
runway and potential increased journey times to and from the airport.
Important considerations
7.3.11 As well as commenting on the specific runway options as presented in the Airport
Expansion Consultation Document, members of the public made comments or
suggestions about the factors they considered to be important in fixing the precise
location of the runway. These comprised:
1. Safety of the airport and of departing and arriving aircraft.
2. The length of the construction period and disruption during construction.
3. Disruption to the M25
4. The impacts on local people, local communities, quality of life, health and well-being
5. Minimising noise pollution, air pollution and effects on air quality
6. Minimising effects on the environment in general
7. Effects on wildlife and habitats
8. Effects on green, open spaces and landscapes
9. Ensuring operational efficiency and flexibility
10. Ensuring ease of connections and access
11. Proximity of the runway to the terminals
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
141 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
12. Effects on flight paths
13. Ensuring that all types of aircraft can be accommodated
14. Ensuring future need and demand can be met
15. Cost
16. Effects on the local economy and jobs nationally
17. Effects on local businesses
18. Impact on local roads, road users and traffic congestion
Businesses
Option preference
7.3.12 Most businesses that expressed a preference for one of the runway options were
in favour of Option A4. This included Surrey Chambers of Commerce, Virgin
Atlantic Airways Limited (Virgin), The Copas Partnership, Hatton Farm Estates,
Suez UK and Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce. Reasons provided included
that it would be the most sensible option, that it would be most practical and
provide the most flexibly for operational needs and that it would better support
businesses to export goods and services internationally.
7.3.13 The London (Heathrow) Airline Consultative Committee (LACC) and the Board of
Airline Representatives in the UK (BAR) supported the evaluation of options
between 3,200m and 3,500m, but did not express a preference.
7.3.14 The Fuel Trading Company expressed support for Option A2 as presented in the
Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it would encroach on the surrounding
area less. Electron Beam Processes Limited also favoured a shorter runway
option but didn’t specify if this was Option A2, A3 or both.
7.3.15 The Lanz Group and Emerson Group on behalf of Orbit Developments Limited
both preferred Option A3 as presented in the Airport Expansion Consultation
Document as it was considered to require the least land take from their properties.
General comments
7.3.16 Not all of the businesses that responded to the consultation were in favour of the
shortlisted options for the new runway. The Arora Group queried the assessment
methodology, suggested that the consultation was meaningless and that Heathrow
should wait until after the designation of the ANPS.
7.3.17 They stated that runway options that would deliver less property loss have not
been fully consulted upon or have been disregarded. They commented that the
Family C options for the runway as detailed in Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans are
noted as being unworkable from a planning and property perspective, but
insufficient information had been provided to allow them to understand Heathrow’s
conclusions and how the reasons for them.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
142 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
7.3.18 They also questioned the extent to which issues such as air quality and public
transport considerations, have been assessed as part of the evaluation and
discontinuation criteria for individual component parts. They cited the example air
quality impacts that arise through construction and use of the realigned M25 that is
required for Heathrow’s preferred option but not the Family C options.
7.3.19 Petchey Industrial Properties Limited suggested that the development was in the
wrong location, and that it should be positioned outside of the M25 on greenfield
land, with high speed rail connections to the main Heathrow Terminus.
Important considerations
7.3.20 Businesses made comments or suggestions about the runway options and
important factors in fixing its precise location. These comprised:
1. EasyJet suggested that the location for the runway should be determined by the
consultation results, as well as the airspace, related noise impacts and cost to
passengers of the different options.
2. Sunvil Holidays suggested that the chosen option needed to balance cost with time
taken to develop, and the number of extra movements achieved.
3. Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce suggested there was a need to future-proof
the Project to ensure the capacity of the airport and its ability to service the wider
needs of business and leisure passengers, efficiently and effectively.
4. The Airport Industrial Property Unit Trust (AIPUT) stated that whichever option is
chosen should not restrict the ability to handle existing large and future aircraft, to
ensure that the economic benefit of the new runway would not be unnecessarily
compromised.
5. LACC and BAR indicated that the challenges of crossing the M25 pose a significant
risk to the viability and deliverability of the scheme. They suggested that such risks
and costs must be sufficiently addressed, independently verified and costed. They
suggested that displaced thresholds need to be thoroughly consulted and agreed
upon with NATS and the Airline Community. They also indicated that the ability of
the runway to safely and efficiently meet expected demand and operational
capabilities must be an absolute priority.
6. Virgin cited a number of important factors, including safety, operational efficiencies,
ensuring that the runway meets the needs of airlines and their passengers and
effects on other airport buildings as important factors.
7. The Copas Partnership highlighted flexible operation, scope for the Project and
health and safety as important factors.
8. Greengage 21 suggested that Heathrow should undertake an analysis of the costs
and benefits of building the north-west runway in two construction phases.
9. The Pavilion Association Stanwell and Stanwell Moor also mentioned safety and
operational requirements with consideration for aircraft development.
10. Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce highlighted increased capacity of commercial
aircraft and adverse effects on existing businesses in and around the Heathrow as
important factors.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
143 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
11. Surrey Chamber of Commerce highlighted future proofing, international competitors
and meeting demand of exporters.
12. T and CG Limited highlighted the overall cost to the public, minimising disruption in
the construction phase and reducing the impact of overflights to the surrounding
area as important considerations.
13. The Fuel Trading Company highlighted effects the local area as the key
consideration. It also suggested that aircraft noise was a factor which should be
considered.
14. Town Centres Securities PLC mentioned that an important factor was balancing
economic versus social matters.
15. WeMoved Limited suggested that quick and easy access to all terminals for all
passengers was important.
16. The Lanz Group highlighted that minimising land take, ensuring the safety of aircraft
and passengers, minimising disturbance to locals, maximising the opportunity to
allocate land around the airport for airport supporting facilities and employment were
factors to consider.
Community groups
Option preference
7.3.21 Many of the community groups who provided feedback to Airport Expansion
Consultation One expressed opposition to the Project but did not necessarily
include specific feedback on any of the runway options.
7.3.22 Of the community groups that did express a preference for the runway options as
presented in the Airport Expansion Consultation Document, Colnbrook Community
Partnership preferred Option A2 as it would have less impact on Colnbrook, Poyle,
Brands Hill and the Colne Valley Regional Park. However, they went on to indicate
that all runway options would have a devastating impact on these areas.
7.3.23 Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (HACAN), Greengauge 21
and the Camberley Society preferred Option A4 as presented in the Airport
Expansion Consultation Document. This was because this option would increase
flexibility, provide the greatest resilience and allow use by the biggest and fastest
aircraft now and in the future.
General comments
7.3.24 Aircraft Nosie Three Villages commented that none of the options were acceptable
and that it was not appropriate to include options which neither the Airports
Commission (and in turn the government) based its recommendation.
7.3.25 Slough and District Against Runway 3 stated that none of the options are
acceptable due to the massive land grab from Colnbrook with Poyle and the
neighbouring communities of the Harmondsworth, Longford, Stanwell.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
144 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
7.3.26 Stanwell’s Green Lungs stated that all options would have significant adverse
impacts as compared with no third runway.
7.3.27 SCR Residents for a fair consideration of Heathrow expansion stated that all of the
options will degrade the quality of life for local people and across south London,
through noise pollution and loss of homes.
7.3.28 Harrow U3A Sustainability Group commented that previous proposals brought the
proposed runway close to the M4 and housing in West Drayton but the current
proposals will wipe out Harmondsworth. They stated that they were not
confident that the runway could be built across the M25 without disruption and
unreasonable cost.
7.3.29 Richmond Heathrow Campaign commented that they were not clear why
Heathrow is opening up the debate on the runway length and position at this
stage.
7.3.30 Teddington Action Group indicated that none of the runway options as presented
in the Airport Expansion Consultation Document would work. They also
considered that it was inappropriate for Heathrow to consult on runway options,
given the Airports Commission had already recommended the position and type of
runway in the draft ANPS. A similar view was expressed by the Local Authorities
Aircraft Noise Council (LACC).
7.3.31 Richmond Heathrow Campaign stated that no new runways were needed because
there was sufficient capacity at the five existing London airports. They also raised
concerns about noise, cost and safety issues and questioned why Heathrow was
re-opening discussion about the runway length and position.
7.3.32 Local Conversation in Stanwell opposed runways of 3,200m as presented in the
Airport Expansion Consultation Document as the shorter runways would result
in the new generation of aircraft having to use existing runways to the south.
They considered this would have inevitable and unwelcome consequences for
local residents.
Important considerations
7.3.33 A number of community groups made comments or suggestions about the runway
options and important factors in fixing its precise location. These comprised:
1. Wentworth Residents Association indicated that if there was to be a new runway, it
must be sited only where it is clearly and demonstrably more sustainable, in terms of
noise, overflight and air quality.
2. Local Conversation in Stanwell suggested that Heathrow must ensure robust plans
were in place to minimise any temporary impacts on local roads and local
communities during construction.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
145 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
3. Aircraft Noise Three Villages indicated that Heathrow should investigate and
produce facts about environmental and health impacts, infrastructure and costs, and
present these to the public for comment and consultation.
4. Cheyne Walk Trust considered that hazard and noise zones were important factors.
5. The Camberley Society identified that meeting the needs of current and future
aircraft, reducing noise over local towns and not expanding the existing noise
footprint were important factors.
6. Colnbrook Community Partnership identified noise and air quality impacts on
residential properties, open spaces in Colnbrook, Poyle, Brands Hill and Pippins
School as important factors. It also highlighted the need to keep the runway as low
as possible over the M25 to minimise the visual impact of aircraft and the
environmental impacts on the Colne Valley Park. It suggested that whichever option
was adopted, extensively vegetated noise bunds/barriers along the southern
boundary of the Colnbrook Bypass are needed to provide some screening for the
Poyle and Colnbrook communities from the airfield.
7.4 Wider/other Consultees
Option preference
7.4.1 Wider/other consultees that did express a preference included the Guild of Air
Traffic Control Officers (GATCO) and the Chartered Institute of Logistics and
Transport (CILT), both of which indicated a preference for Option A4. They
considered that the longer runway would maximise capacity and resilience and
would reduce the impact of aircraft noise over local communities.
7.4.2 The Church of England, Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark considered
Option A4 as presented in the Airport Expansion Consultation Document to be the
least worst option. However, they stated that as the separation between the
existing north runway and the new runway would be less than between the
existing runways the option would be unsustainable.
7.4.3 The London Parks and Gardens Trust and the London Wildlife Trust expressed
concerns about the effects of the three runway options on the environment. Both
organisations indicated that the runway should be the shortest possible to
minimise these effects. The London Wildlife Trust also commented that the runway
should extend west as little as possible to minimise the diversion of Colne Brook
and land take in the Colne Valley Regional Park.
7.4.4 The Colne Valley Regional Park expressed opposition to the Project but
suggested that if a runway was built it should be the shortest possible in length
and moved further to the east. This would result in environmental and cost savings
as it would avoid the need to divert Colne Brook through a landfill site, divert the
A4 and M25 and relocate a number of businesses.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
146 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
7.4.5 The British Helicopter Association suggested that the best position was to
the west.
Important considerations
7.4.6 Wider/other consultees made comments or suggestions about the runway options
and important factors in fixing its precise location. These comprised:
1. The Royal Parks indicated that any enclosed structure over rivers and the proximity
of the runway above must be designed to allow for maintenance access and
operations
2. Aviation Safety Investigations indicted that clear and graded areas and other safety
areas are important considerations. They also indicated that the jet-blast provisions
were inadequate.
3. Lambeth/Herne Hill Green Party indicated that noise reduction and previous
commitments to reduce air pollution were the most important factors.
4. Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust believed that minimising ecological impacts was
an important factor.
5. London Parks and Gardens Trust suggested that any option which can minimise
impacts on the locally important Green Belt and nature designations should be a
priority.
6. London Wildlife Trust stated that reducing land take, making efficient use of space
across the airport, reducing impact on the Colne Valley and reducing impact on local
rivers and waterways were important factors
7. The British Helicopter Association suggested that surrounding traffic patterns of the
heli-lanes for London should be an important factor.
8. The Colne Valley Regional Park identified minimising land take, making efficient use
of space across the airport and reducing impacts on the Colne Valley Regional Park
as important factors.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
147 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
7.5 Issues Raised and Heathrow’s Responses
7.5.1 Table 7.1 presents a summary of the main issues raised by prescribed consultees, local communities and wider/other
consultees in relation to Runway and for which only interim responses were provided in the ICFR (the prior Table B).
This updated table also presents Heathrow’s responses to those issues and explains how in preparing our proposals
for the Airport Expansion Consultation we have had regard to that feedback.
Table 7.1
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
A runway of 3,500m would permit maximum flexibility and respite.
✓ The Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) was designated by the Secretary of State for Transport in June 2018. The designated ANPS reflects updates to wider Government policies and clarifies the Government’s position on the length of the new runway at Heathrow, stipulating that it needs to be at least 3,500m in length.
In addition, since undertaking Airport Expansion Consultation in January 2018, Heathrow has progressed the scheme design and evaluated the runway length options. The evaluation took into account the effects on property, the e
A 3,200m runway would provide greater opportunities to maximise the distance and minimise environmental impacts on residential property and schools.
✓
A 3,200m runway would reduce the amount of residential development within the Public Safety Zone at Brands Hill.
✓
Support for the evaluation of options between 3,200m and 3,500m.
✓
17 PC - Prescribed Consultees; MC – Members of the Community; WC – Wider Consultees
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
148 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
environment, aircraft operations and the ability to provide respite to local communities.
Following consultation with stakeholders (Aircraft Operators Airfield Evaluation Team – a group including operational teams from major airlines operating at the airport and other international carriers), the 3200m runway option has been discounted due to non-compliance with the ANPS, operational restrictions, reduced resilience and a reduction in the ability to provide balanced respite under certain conditions.
The proposed 3,500m runway is included in the Preferred Masterplan. Refer to the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 1: Runways, which includes a section on Runway Length Across the 3 Runway System, for further information.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
149 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The runway options should be discussed carefully with the communities either side of the proposed new runway, in the context of operational flexibility and ability to reduce noise impacts.
Heathrow agree that runway options should be discussed with local communities.
Following Consultation One, Heathrow have undertaken further engagement with local communities specifically regarding airport operations and noise impacts. We also ran a public consultation on Airspace and Future Operations in January 2018 to seek further feedback on these matters. This consultation was focused on operational noise mitigation measures including, respite through runway and airspace alternation, directional preference and night flight restrictions. Heathrow received over 22,000 responses to the Airspace and Future Operations Consultation. A summary of this feedback and how we have taken it into account is provided in the Future Operations Consultation Feedback Report published in June 2019.
Preference for Option A4. ✓ ✓ The ANPS was designated by the Secretary of State for Transport in June 2018. The designated ANPS reflects updates to wider Government policies and clarifies the Government’s position on the length of the new runway at Heathrow, stipulating that it needs to be at least 3,500m in length.
Option A2 and A3 would have less impact on local communities, and would help mitigate noise impacts, and other impacts on the environment.
✓ ✓
A runway that is shorter and situated as far to the west as possible would mitigate noise and pollution impacts on residents.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
150 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Option A2 is preferred as it would have the least impact on Colnbrook and be further away from a much larger number of designated assets (including the Colnbrook Conservation Area).
✓ At Consultation One three options were presented for the new runway (options A2, A3 and A4) in the Airport Expansion Consultation Document.
Since undertaking Consultation One, Heathrow has progressed the Project design with regard to Consultation One feedback through an evaluation of runway length options. The evaluation considered the effects on property, the environment (including noise, pollution, rivers), the community and airport operations. In addition, further engagement has taken place with stakeholders including the Aircraft Operators Airfield Evaluation Team.
The 3,200m runway options (A2 and A3) have now been discounted due to non-compliance with the ANPS, operational restrictions, reduced resilience and a reduction in the ability to provide balanced respite under certain conditions. The 3500m runway will accommodate a larger range of aircraft, providing airfield resilience and flexibility and allowing balanced respite by delivering runway
Option A4 would provide greater flexibility and address long-term needs, it would accommodate larger aircraft and would allow aircraft to reach higher altitudes quicker, which would reduce effects on local communities around the airport.
✓
Option A2 as it would have less impact on Colnbrook, Poyle, Brands Hill and the Colne Valley Regional Park.
✓
Option A4 would increase flexibility, provide the greatest resilience and allow use by the biggest and fastest aircraft now and in the future.
✓
If an additional runway is built it should be the shortest possible in length and moved further to the east, resulting in environmental and cost savings as it would avoid the need to divert Colne Brook through a landfill site, divert the A4 and M25 and relocate several businesses.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
151 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Balancing economic versus social matters is an important factor that should be considered in identifying the preferred runway option.
✓ throughput across all operational modes.
The 3,500m runway (presented at Consultation One as option A4) is included in the Preferred Masterplan. This has been refined through further design work and is referred to as Option 1. Refer to the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 1 Runways, Runway Length Across the 3 Runway System for further information on the evaluation process.
The preferred runway option should balance cost with the time it would take to develop, and the number of extra air traffic movements achieved.
✓
Concerns that Option A4 would result in impacts on local communities due to the impacts of larger aircraft, increased noise and impacts on air quality.
✓
Diversion of rivers should be considered in the selection of the preferred runway option.
✓
Preference for Option A4 as it will maximise capacity and resilience and would reduce the impact of aircraft noise over local communities.
✓
Concerns about the noise effects of option A3 and the disadvantages outweighing the advantages.
✓
The best position for the runway is to the west.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
152 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Option A4 should allow simultaneous landings and departures, the runway should be higher and smaller aircraft should be allowed to take-off further down the runway to minimise effects on local communities.
✓ The proposed runway, as part of the Preferred Masterplan allows for segregated operations (i.e. landings or departures only) or mixed mode operations (i.e. simultaneous landings and departures).
The runway height would not influence the ability of smaller aircraft to take off further down the runway. Whilst smaller aircraft require less take off runway available (TORA), intersection departures (starting take-off roll further down the runway) would increase the separation between aircraft taking off and mean that Heathrow could not meet the air transport movement (ATMs) requirements as set out in the ANPS. Therefore, the design of the runway in the Preferred Masterplan does not include intersection departure points.
It was not possible to assess the merits of each runway option due to the lack of information provided by Heathrow at the Consultation.
✓ Consultation One took place at an early stage in the design and evaluation process and the Airports National Policy Statement was in draft. However, it was considered important to provide
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
153 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
There is insufficient information provided by Heathrow to express an opinion on the preferred runway length.
✓ an opportunity for early feedback on components and options in order to inform ongoing development of the Project.
An Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 2, Chapter 1: Runway) provided as part of Airport Expansion Consultation (June 2019) summarises the findings of our further evaluation of the runway options and presents the Preferred Masterplan which Heathrow is seeking consultees’ feedback on.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
154 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
It is inappropriate for Heathrow to consult on runway options, given the Airports Commission had already recommended the position and type of runway in the draft Airports National Policy Statement.
✓ At the time of Consultation One – January 2018, the ANPS had not been designated. To retain flexibility, Heathrow therefore presented options for a proposed new runway of varying lengths.
Since the Consultation One concluded, the ANPS has been designated. The ANPS clarifies the Government’s position on the length and location of the new runway at Heathrow.
In addition, since undertaking Consultation One, Heathrow has progressed the scheme design and evaluated runway length and location options. The evaluation considered the effects on property, the environment, aircraft operations and the ability to provide respite to local communities.
Following consultation with stakeholders (Aircraft Operators Airfield Evaluation Team – a group including operational teams from major airlines operating at the airport and other international carriers), the 3200m runway option has been discounted due to operational restrictions, reduced resilience and a reduction in the ability to provide balanced respite under certain conditions. Options to shift the runway from the preferred location identified at Consultation One were discounted due to the
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
155 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
adverse effects on community and sustainability.
Details on the length and location option evaluations are included in the Scheme Development Report Chapter 2.1 Runways, Runway length Across 3 Runway System and Runway West Shift.
Based on the evaluations and the requirements in the ANPS, Heathrow has discounted the runway options consulted on which were less than 3,500m in length and not shifted the runway from the ANPS location.
In finalising the runway location, priority must be given to reducing noise impacts.
✓ Since Airport Expansion Consultation One - January 2018, Heathrow has undertaken additional stakeholder consultation (including the Aircraft Operators Airfield Evaluation Team) and evaluation of runway length and location options. The results of these evaluations are included in the Scheme Development Report Chapter 2.1 Runways, Runway length Across 3 Runway System and Runway West Shift and
The location and length of the runway should be determined by minimising the impact on local congestion, air quality and on residents adjacent to the new development.
✓
Concerns about noise, cost and safety issues related to the Runway Options and a 3rd Runway.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
156 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Minimising loss of property, compulsory purchases and impacts on the environment and historical features were also important factors.
✓ presents the preferred runway option.
The evaluation took into consideration a number of factors including airport operations, costs, sustainability, community and property. The preferred runway is at a length of 3,500m which provides Heathrow with the flexibility to provide balanced respite as required by the ANPS. The 3,500m runway also provides the flexibility to
Noise and air quality impacts on residential properties, open spaces in Colnbrook, Poyle, Brands Hill and Pippins School are important factors in considering the preferred option for a new runway.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
157 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Minimising ecological impacts is an important factor in the development of a new runway.
✓ allocate more aircraft to any runway resulting in fewer delays, shorter average taxi distances and therefore reduce ground noise and emissions.
The preferred runway location is the location of the runway that was presented in Option A4 at Consultation One. Heathrow discarded options to move the proposed runway further west due to adverse community, environmental and property impacts including, impacts on rivers (i.e. Holton Brook), additional land take at the Colnbrook Valley regional park and visual impacts on Poyle and Colnbrook (including the setting of heritage assets).
Heathrow recognises that safety is key to airfield operations and this has been factored into the consideration of options for the location and length of the runway. All runway options considered comply with international standards set down by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).
An assessment of impacts on air quality, biodiversity, community, historic environment and noise from all airfield operations is being carried out in accordance with the
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
158 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
methodologies set out in the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report. The findings of the assessments will be reported in the Environmental Statement (ES) and initial findings are available in relevant chapters of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) as part of Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
159 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Minimising impacts on residential properties, the amount of residential properties in the Public Safety Zone and the position of taxiways should be key in fixing the location of the runway.
✓ As part of Airport Expansion Consultation One in January 2018 a number of runway location options were evaluated and 3 were submitted as part of the Consultation. Since Consultation One, Heathrow has progressed the scheme design and evaluated additional runway location options. The evaluation took into account a number of aspects including impacts on property. Options to shift the 3500m runway to the west were evaluated and discounted due to the increased adverse community and sustainability impacts.
As new taxiways are being provided to access the new runway as part of the preferred masterplan, the location of these taxiways did not significantly influence the runway location.
The 3500m runway between Sipson and Colnbrook is included in the preferred masterplan submitted as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation June 2019. Refer to of the Scheme Development Report, Chapter 2.1 Runways, Runway West Shift for further information.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
160 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Any runway design should have appropriate pollution prevention measures and sealed foul drainage.
✓ The preferred runway design is presented as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019, includes proposed drainage design.
All surface water drainage from the runway pavement will be positively drained, collected and treated in airport facilities, in full compliance with Environmental Agency and other statutory authority requirements. More detail can be found in the Scheme Development Report Document 4 Chapter 2 Drainage and Pollution Control published as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019.
The Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR), Chapter 21 Water Environment, presents the initial results of the assessment of the likely significant effects of the runway with respect to the water environment (including effects on water quality, water quantity, flood risk, drainage and water resources) and mitigation measures proposed to address these impacts. The PEIR is published as part of Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019.
Loss of the Colne Valley Regional Park should be minimised wherever possible including through consideration of a shorter runway alternative.
✓ Heathrow evaluated a range of options for the location of the proposed third runway and three were presented for the Airport Expansion Consultation One. Since Consultation One,
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
161 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The runway should extend west as little as possible to minimise the diversion of Colne Brook and land take in the Colne Valley Regional Park.
✓ Heathrow has progressed the Project design and evaluated additional detailed runway location and length options. The evaluation took into account a number of aspects including impacts on communities, the environment and property in surrounding areas including the Colne Valley.
Following consultation with stakeholders (Aircraft Operators Airfield Evaluation Team – a
Reducing the land required, making efficient use of space across the airport, reducing impact on the Colne Valley and the Colne Valley Regional Park and reducing impact on local rivers and waterways are important factors in the development of a new runway.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
162 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Keep the runway as low as possible over the M25 to minimise the visual impact of aircraft and the environmental impacts on the Colne Valley Park.
✓ group including operational teams from major airlines operating at the airport and other international carriers), the 3200m runway option has been discounted due to non-compliance with the ANPS, operational restrictions, reduced resilience and a reduction in the ability to provide balanced respite to areas under the flight path, including the Colne Valley.
The proposed 3500m runway is included in the Preferred Masterplan. Refer to the Scheme Development Report, Chapter 2.1 Runways, Runway Length Across the 3 Runway System for further information.
In addition, options to shift the runway to the west were evaluated and discounted due to the increased adverse community and sustainability impacts. This includes avoiding additional land take at the Colne Valle Regional Park. The 3,500m runway between Sipson and Colnbrook is included in the Preferred Masterplan (and is the Runway A4 option presented at Consultation One). Refer to of the Scheme Development Report, Chapter 2.1 Runways, Runway West Shift for further information.
Heathrow continue to engage with the Colne Valley Regional Park as part of the Project.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
163 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Chapter 8 Biodiversity and Chapter 15 Landscape and Visual Amenity of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) provide a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the Project on landscape, visual amenity, habitats and wildlife. They also set out the environmental measures and principles proposed to mitigate these effects.
The runway has been kept as low as practicable over the M25 taking into account the slope restrictions on the M25, vehicles clearances and other technical requirements.
A shorter runway would be unable to accommodate the new generation of aircraft, resulting in an increased likelihood that the existing runways to the south would have to be used and this would result in adverse impacts on local residents.
✓ ✓ The Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) was designated by the Secretary of State for Transport in June 2018. The designated ANPS reflects updates to wider Government policies and clarifies the Government’s position on the length of the new runway at Heathrow, stipulating that it needs to be at least 3,500m in length.
In addition, since undertaking Airport Expansion
Concerns about ensuring that all types of aircraft can be accommodated.
✓
Concerns about ensuring future need and demand can be met.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
164 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The proposed new runway should be ‘future-proofed’ to ensure the capacity of the airport and its ability to service the wider needs of business and leisure passengers, efficiently and effectively.
✓ Consultation in January 2018, Heathrow has progressed the scheme design and evaluated the runway length options. The evaluation took into account the effects on property, the environment, aircraft operations and the ability to provide respite to local communities. Airline Stakeholders were consulted via the Aircraft Operators Airfield Evaluation Team to take into account current and future aircraft needs.
The 3200m runway option was subsequently discounted due to operational restrictions, reduced resilience and a reduction in the ability to provide balanced respite under certain conditions. The 3500m runway is included in the preferred masterplan. Refer to of the Scheme Development Report, Chapter 2.1 Runways, Runway Length Across the 3 Runway System for further information.
The preferred runway option should not restrict the ability to handle existing large and future aircraft, to ensure that the economic benefit is not unnecessarily compromised.
✓
Meeting the needs of current and future aircraft, reducing noise over local towns and not expanding the existing noise footprint are important factors in considering the preferred runway option.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
165 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concerns about the potential for increased fuel use and emissions from aircraft due to the proposed raising of the runway by 3-5m above existing ground levels.
✓ The slope on the runway contained within the Preferred Masterplan is extremely shallow (approximately 0.36%) and is well within the gradients permissible in the regulatory design standards.
Runways are very rarely completely flat due to other constraints with local terrain and levels of other airport infrastructure such as the terminals and aircraft aprons. As the runway slope is very shallow, any impact on aircraft performance and hence fuel use and emissions would be negligible.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
166 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Raising the runway would potentially increase the impact upon the surrounding area in terms of its visibility, noise impacts and impacts on air quality.
✓ As part of Airport Expansion Consultation One January 2018, Heathrow explored a number of different options regarding the elevation of the runway. Heathrow have continued to discuss these requirements with the relevant authorities (Highways England, Environmental Agency, Civil Aviation Authority) in order to optimise the alignment.
An assessment of impacts on Air Quality, Landscape and Visual Amenity and Noise from runway operations is being carried out in accordance with the methodologies set out in the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report. The findings of the assessments will be reported in the Environmental Statement (ES) and initial findings are available in relevant chapters of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) as part of Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019, namely Chapters 7 Air Quality and Odour, 15 Landscape and Visual Amenity, and 17 Noise and Vibration.
Concerns about the disruption to the motorway network that would be likely to occur from all runway options.
✓ The Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) was designated by the Secretary of State for Transport in June 2018. The designated ANPS
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
167 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concerns about the effects of each of the runway options on motorways, including disruption to the M25 and the local road network and traffic congestion.
✓ reflects updates to wider Government policies and clarifies the Government’s position on the length and location of the new runway at Heathrow.
In addition, since undertaking Airport Expansion Consultation One – January 2018, Heathrow
Disruption to the M25 due to the runway options should be an important consideration in the cost benefit analyses.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
168 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Suggestion that disruption to the motorway network is minimised through the use of performance targets, failure to meet the targets should result in heavy sanctions given the importance of motorways to the transport network.
✓ has progressed the scheme design and evaluated runway length and location options. The evaluation took into account the effects on motorways and local roads.
Following consultation with stakeholders (Aircraft Operators Airfield Evaluation Team – a group including operational teams from major airlines operating at the airport and other international carriers), the 3200m runway option has been discounted due to operational restrictions, reduced resilience and a reduction in the ability to provide balanced respite under certain conditions. Options to shift the runway from the preferred location identified at Consultation One were discounted due to the adverse effects on community and sustainability.
Details on the length and location option evaluations are included in the Scheme Development Report Chapter 2.1 Runways, Runway length Across 3 Runway System and Runway West Shift.
Design solutions for the motorways and local roads have been developed based on the runway length and location shown in the preferred Masterplan submitted as part of
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
169 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Airport Expansion Consultation – June 2019 (AEC). The preferred Masterplan includes a 270m tunnel that takes the M25 under the runway. The evaluation of alignment options and the preferred masterplan alignment is shown in in the Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of AEC.
In addition, a Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) is published as part of the AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of road and other transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
Heathrow is seeking to minimise any unnecessary disruption to M25 users.
Heathrow is clear that the M25 has to remain open during the construction and later operation of the north west runway, and the construction of the new tunneled section of the M25. The
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
170 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
approach that will be taken is to construct the tunnel alongside the existing route and then once complete, switch over in order to minimise disruption to the existing users of the motorway.
A draft Code of Construction Practice forms part of the AEC and explains what controls will be put in place to minimise and mitigate the impacts during the construction stage. This includes measures to minimise the disruption of the construction to local communities, the strategic road network and airport operations.
Heathrow is working closely with Highways England and is confident that the M25 realignment is achievable within the construction timescales indicated. Impacts on the motorway network and costs were key considerations in evaluating the design and specifications of the proposed new runway.
Concerns about impacts on communities including in and around Cranford that would be newly overflown due to a new runway.
✓ Heathrow’s committed goal is to expand Heathrow whilst affecting fewer people with noise than today. Our submission to the Airports
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
171 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concerns regarding impacts on noise levels when the Project is in operation compared with baseline noise levels pre-Project and existing and new population’ exposure level before and after Project completion should be important factors in the development of a new runway.
✓ Commission showed how a combination of quieter planes, quieter airport design, quieter operations and an extended night flight ban mean that it is possible to grow to at least 740,000 Air Transport Movements while affecting fewer people by noise than were affected in 2013. The Airports Commission’s own analysis confirmed that this is possible.
We have previously set out how there are choices in airspace design between options that minimise the total number of people affected by noise, those that minimise the number of people newly affected and those that maximise respite. Our work has shown that it is possible to affect fewer people than today under all of those scenarios although the exact numbers affected will depend on the final configuration of airspace through the airspace change process.
We are required to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment of the Project in accordance with the Scoping Opinion published by the Planning Inspectorate in 2018. Early findings of the assessment and proposed mitigation measures are published in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) published with the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019. This provides clarity
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
172 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
on the duration, location and severity of impacts in the vicinity of Heathrow, including Cranford. Specifically, Chapter 17 Noise and Vibration of the PEIR presents the preliminary assessment of significant effects on health and quality of life due to noise exposure and the likely significant effects due to noise change from the baseline noise level (adverse and beneficial) that arise from the Project.
Objection to third runway as it would adversely affect residents.
✓ The Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) recognises Heathrow’s North West runway
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
173 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The proposed location for the new third runway is not acceptable given the negative impacts on homes and communities.
✓ scheme as the best option for addressing the issue of airport capacity in the South East. Since Airport Expansion Consultation One January 2018, Heathrow has evaluated a number of runway length and location options and sought to minimise impacts on local communities while ensuring the Project is compliant with the ANPS. However, we recognise that the Project will have certain impacts during construction and operation, and we are committed to managing and mitigating them to minimise effects on local communities. Our preliminary findings are available in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR), published at the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019.
The existing Aggregate Industries depot at Colnbrook would be displaced with each of the runway options. An assessment should be undertaken to determine whether the site should be relocated, what impact the displacement would have on the market and potential future options for the depot.
✓ Heathrow is aware of the Project’s impact on the Aggregate Industries depot at Colnbrook and is working with Aggregate Industries to determine a preferred solution.
Robust plans must be in place to minimise any temporary impacts on local roads and local communities during construction of the new runway.
✓ ✓ As part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, a Code of Construction Practice will be prepared, outlining how construction activities (including those
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
174 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concerns about the length of the construction period and disruption during construction.
✓ relating to the new runway) will be managed. This document will set out the requirements for mitigation and the monitoring of potential environmental impacts throughout the construction programme, such as construction noise, dust generation and traffic management and routing. Compliance with the Code of Construction Practice will be secured through the Development Consent Order.
Early findings of the EIA and the draft Code of Construction Practice are published in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) for consultation as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation June 2019.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
175 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
As the new runway would be separated from the existing northern runway by a minimum of 1,035m, this would result in the loss of a large part of the Harmondsworth Conservation Area and several listed buildings.
✓ In order to provide respite to local communities and deliver at least 740,000 Air Transport Movements (ATMs) per year as required by the Airport National Policy Statement (ANPS), the proposed runway and existing northern runway must be able to operate independently from each other. International standards set down by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) state the minimum separation between runways with independent parallel approaches is 1035m.
While separations of greater than 1,035m would be beneficial to aircraft operations, the proposed additional runway has been located at the minimum separation, so as to minimise the extent of loss at the Harmondsworth Conservation Area, and to retain as much as possible of its historic streetscape and most significant heritage assets and asset groups.
According to the ANPS Annex A Scheme Boundary and the Preferred Masterplan, implementation of the Project would result in the loss of 60% of the Harmondsworth Conservation Area and in the unavoidable demolition of certain designated heritage assets (listed buildings). However, Harmondsworth’s
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
176 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
historic core would be retained within a reduced but viable Conservation Area that would then adapt to the new context of temporary and permanent changes to the existing village, in which individual assets and heritage group associations would be maintained in a recognisable historic rural settlement form, to be sustained in the long term. Heathrow are committed to supporting communities and to working collaboratively to further develop studies and identify opportunities in consultation with relevant stakeholders. For additional information, please refer to PEIR, Vol 1: Chapter 13, Historic Environment. Heathrow welcome feedback, suggestions and mitigation proposals as part of this Airport Expansion Consultation.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
177 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Objection to any proposal to extend the Heathrow Airport boundary further north.
✓ The Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) was designated by the Secretary of State for Transport in June 2018. The designated ANPS reflects updates to wider Government policies and clarifies the Government’s position that a new North West Runway at Heathrow is the preferred solution to meeting new airport capacity in the South East of England.
In addition, since undertaking Airport Expansion Consultation in January 2018, Heathrow has progressed the scheme design and evaluated additional runway length and location options. Refer to of the Scheme Development Report, Chapter 2.1 Runways, Runway Length Across the 3 Runway System and West Shift for further information.
International standards set down by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) state minimum clearance requirements from the runway to the airport boundary. Heathrow have sought to minimise the extent of the boundary to the north while maintaining operational and security standards.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
178 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The location and length of the runway would mean that drivers on the surrounding road network would view aircraft and this would impact on safety in terms of potential driver distraction, this should be considered.
✓ The M25 has to remain open during the construction and later operation of the north west runway and a number of different ways of achieving this have been explored.
Since Airport Expansion Consultation in January 2018, Heathrow have discussed driver distraction, road gradients and the bridge design with Highways England. In the Preferred Masterplan published as part of Airport Expansion Consultation June 2019, the M25 carriageway has been repositioned approximately 150 metres to the west and lowered by approximately 7 metres into a tunnel. The runway height has been raised so that it passes over the M25 between J14a and J15. The tunnel will be constructed alongside the existing route and then, once complete, the new section will be switched over in order to minimise disruption to existing users of the
The height of the proposed new runway above the M25 must allow for sufficient headroom for vehicles, signage/operations and maintenance equipment.
✓
The runway must be raised sufficiently above the existing ground level to prevent the need to lower the M25 to a level which will result in a gradient on the M25 carriageway more than 3% in any location.
✓
The challenges of crossing the M25 poses a significant risk to the viability and deliverability of the scheme. Risks and costs must be sufficiently addressed, independently verified and costed.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
179 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Consideration should be given to the landing zone of aircraft and the impact this would have on the proposed tunnel structure and on driver distraction.
✓ motorway.
This is not a new approach and has been successfully delivered before at other major airports including Charles De Gaulle and Fort Lauderdale. This has also been done on the M25 where the construction of Cobham services saw the M25 realigned. Heathrow is working closely with Highways England and is confident that these proposals are achievable within the construction timescales indicated.
The runway has been designed at an elevation that provides sufficient headroom above the M25 carriageway to accommodate vehicles, signs and operations/maintenance equipment. Both Highways England and the Civil Aviation Authority were consulted as part of this process. The final M25 gradients have not been finalised but will comply with Highways England requirements.
It is not uncommon for airport taxiways and runways to be in close proximity to busy roads. The issues of driver distraction have been considered in the design and simulations produced for the runway bridge and discussed with Highways England.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
180 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The bridge deck structure has not been designed in detail but the loading from all departing and landing aircraft will be taken into account in the design.
More research is requested into the “vortex effect” of low flying aircraft on the roofs of buildings given runways would be operating simultaneously.
✓ An independent study undertaken in April 2019 concluded that Heathrow’s current vortex protection scheme is generally working well. The current roof tile fixing specification is
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
181 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The jet-blast provisions were inadequate. ✓ expected to provide adequate resistance against aircraft wake vortex pressures from the current aircraft fleet. The only reported cases of damage to properties reroofed using the current tile fixing specification are understood to have occurred where roofs have been subsequently altered and then not fixed to current roofing standards.
As part of the Project, Heathrow have identified properties under the proposed new flight paths that could be affected by the ‘vortex effect’. Affected residents will be individually written to and invited to register to have vortex protection of all roofs installed. Further details can be found in the Noise Insulation Policy published as part of Airport Expansion Consultation June 2019.
Jet blast provisions were not shown at Airport Expansion Consultation One as the design was not sufficiently progressed. Jet blast is a key consideration and will be developed fully during detailed design. All provisions will comply with regulatory design standards and will be developed in consultation with Airlines, NATS and other stakeholders.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
182 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concerns about communities being displaced by the development of the preferred third runway option.
✓ Heathrow recognises the uncertainty and impact that our proposals may have on local communities, particularly on those whose properties are potentially affected and who may require additional support.
Heathrow will continue to engage with residents with properties likely to be displaced by the Project.
Heathrow is also undertaking an environmental impact assessment of the Project which will include assessment of the likely significant effects of the Project on the community. The early findings of the EIA process are reported in the Preliminary Environmental Report (PEIR) which is an Airport Expansion Consultation (June 2019) document.
For example, PEIR Chapter 11 explains how impacts on the community have been assessed and the mitigation measures that are proposed. Heathrow are committed to supporting people and businesses through the process of relocation if required and will establish a variety of support services to guide and help owners and residents during this time. Further information can be found within the Property Policies – Information Paper.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
183 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concerns about impacts of the Project on local communities including in relation to Sipson, Harmondsworth, Colnbrook, Poyle and the wider West London area.
✓ We are undertaking an Environmental Impact Assessment which includes an assessment of the likely significant effects of the Project on communities surrounding Heathrow, including Sipson, Harmondsworth, Colnbrook and Poyle. This assessment will inform mitigation measures to avoid and reduce adverse impacts on communities. Early findings of this assessment are provided in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR), Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019 and provide clarity on the location, duration and severity of impacts. Heathrow will continue to engage with local communities, listen to concerns and have regard to feedback received in the design and assessment process.
Concerns about disruption during construction and operation from the proposed third runway, including general impacts on the environment and impacts on the quality of life and wellbeing of residents.
✓ Heathrow are undertaking an Environmental Impact Assessment, which will be reported in an Environmental Statement to be submitted with the Development Consent Order application.
This will contain an assessment of impacts from the construction and operation of the Project. This includes an assessment of noise impacts, impacts on air quality, impacts on climate
Concerns about noise impacts from each of the runway options.
✓
Concerns about air pollution from each of the runway options.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
184 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Noise reduction and previous commitments to reduce air pollution were the most important factors.
✓ change and impacts on the quality of life and wellbeing of residents.
Early findings of this assessment and proposed mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts are reported in a Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) in June 2019. Heathrow will take into account feedback from the Airport Expansion Consultation June 2019 in finalising the environmental impacts assessment mitigation proposals.
Concerns about impacts on green, open spaces and the countryside from each of the runway options.
✓
Concerns about effects of increased air traffic and emissions on climate change from each of the runway options.
✓
Concerns about effects on wildlife and habitats as a result of the proposed runway options.
✓
The local transport network has insufficient capacity to meet the needs of a third runway at Heathrow.
✓ Chapter 19 of the PEIR deals with Transport Network Users and is published as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation (AEC) in June
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
185 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concerns about increased journey times to and from the airport due to disruption from the runway proposals.
✓ 2019. This sets out the preliminary results of the assessment of likely significant effects of the Project upon transport network users and proposed mitigation measures.
In addition, a Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) is submitted as part of AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of road and other transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
Concerns about ensuring ease of connections and access.
✓ Heathrow has published a draft Surface Access Strategy as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019. Part 2 of the Draft Surface Access Strategy explains the public transport, vehicle pricing and parking strategies that are being proposed at the expanded airport.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
186 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concerns about proximity of the runway to the terminals.
✓ The separation distances between the runways, taxiways and other airfield components such as the terminals, are all in accordance with required regulatory standards (specifically European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standards).
The location of the runway shown in the Preferred Masterplan and reasons for the chosen location are included in the Scheme Development Report section 2.1 Runway. The taxiway network has been designed to provide an efficient airfield connecting the runways and terminals that delivers optimised taxiing times and minimal aircraft traffic delays, both on the ground and in the air, while accommodating the required capacity of at least 740,000 air transport movements and providing guaranteed respite periods as required in the ANPS.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
187 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concerns about the cost of the proposed new runway.
✓ The DCO application will be determined in accordance with policies contained in the ANPS, weighing the benefits against the impacts of the scheme. Whilst cost and affordability are relevant considerations in the DCO process, the ANPS’ focus is on ensuring that the impacts of the scheme on communities and the environment are properly considered and, where necessary, mitigated.
Reflecting this position, ANPS states that the scheme should be “cost-efficient and sustainable, and seeks to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime”, but it also lists a wide range of other matters such as land use planning, community and environmental impacts, traffic impacts etc. which will form part of the decision-making process.
Concerns about effects of a new runway on the local economy and jobs nationally.
✓ As part of the Environmental Impact Assessment we will be undertaking an
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
188 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concerns about effects on local businesses. ✓ assessment of socio-economic impacts of the Project. This includes impacts on the local economy and wider and impacts on businesses. Early findings and mitigation proposals are presented in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) at Chapter 18 Socio-economics and Employment, as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019. Heathrow will also publish updated draft Property Policies in June 2019, which includes compensation for commercial properties adversely affected by the Project.
Concerns that whichever runway option is selected will require the DHL property on Lakeside Industrial Estate to be demolished.
✓ Heathrow is engaging with all owner-occupiers of properties situated within the land likely to be required for the purposes of constructing, operating and maintaining the Project. The Property Policies for commercial properties will apply to those properties which would be required to be demolished for the construction of the Project. The Policies set out the compensation process for those affected. See the Property Policies Information Paper submitted as part of Airport Expansion Consultation June 2019 for more information.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
189 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The location for the runway should be determined by the consultation results, as well as the airspace, cost to passengers of the different options.
✓ Since undertaking Airport Expansion Consultation One – January 2018, Heathrow has progressed the scheme design and evaluated runway length and location options. The evaluation took into account a number of factors including cost and airspace/operational requirements.
Following consultation with stakeholders (Aircraft Operators Airfield Evaluation Team), the 3200m runway option has been discounted due to operational restrictions, reduced resilience and a reduction in the ability to provide balanced respite under certain conditions. Options to shift the runway from the preferred location identified at Consultation One were discounted due to the adverse effects on community and sustainability.
Details on the length and location option evaluations are included in the Scheme Development Report Chapter 2.1 Runways, Runway length Across 3 Runway System and Runway West Shift.
Heathrow has had regard to feedback received in respect of Airport Expansion Consultation One and the Airspace and Future Operations Consultation and will continue to have regard to
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
190 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
feedback received in respect of the Airport Expansion Consultation taking place in June 2019.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
191 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Several important factors will need to be considered including safety, operational efficiencies, future proofing, international competitors, increased capacity of commercial aircraft and adverse effects on existing businesses in and around Heathrow to ensure that the runway meets the needs of airlines and their passengers and effects on other airport buildings.
✓ Heathrow must balance a number of factors in designing an expanded airport with the northwest runway. The final position and specification of the runway will be optimised to meet the current and future needs of all stakeholders and to minimise impacts on the local environment and communities whilst achieving compliance with the ANPS.
Heathrow have consulted with Stakeholders, in particular the Aircraft Operators Airfield Evaluation Team (a group including operational teams from major airlines operating at the airport and other international carriers) in order to accommodate current and future aircraft types, different airlines and the needs of passengers when considering runway options.
The Scheme Development Report, chapter 2.1 submitted as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation – June 2019 includes information of the evaluation of runway length and location options. A number of factors were taken into account in the evaluation including operational safety, flexibility and efficiency, local community and property.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
192 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Minimising the land required for the Project but maximising the opportunity to allocate land around the airport for airport supporting facilities and employment are factors to consider in identifying the preferred runway option.
✓ The extent of the Project, including operational land, construction areas, airport supporting facilities and mitigation measures are presented in the Preferred Masterplan as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019.
The Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 2, Chapter 7) presents the preferred option for airport supporting development.
Chapter 18 Socio-economics and Employment of the PEIR presents the impacts and benefits of the Project on employment.
Concerns about ensuring operational efficiency and flexibility.
✓ The airfield has been designed as an integrated operation, so that the third runway operates
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
193 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Quick and easy access to all terminals for all passengers should be an important factor in identifying the preferred runway option.
✓ efficiently in conjunction with the existing two runways. The taxiways have been designed to be fully flexible and provide a route for aircraft from any apron to any runway end.
The taxiway network has been designed to provide an efficient airfield that delivers optimised taxiing times and minimal aircraft traffic delays, both on the ground and in the air, while accommodating the required capacity of at least 740,000 air transport movements and providing guaranteed respite periods as required in the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS). A design which minimises taxi times and reduces aircraft interactions reinforces airfield safety, minimises delays, improves resilience and reduces fuel use and emissions.
The runway and taxiways are shown in the preferred masterplan submitted as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation – June 2019. In addition, the Scheme Development Report in AEC includes information of the evaluation of runway length and location options. Operational efficiency and flexibility and taxi times to the terminals were considered in the evaluation of runway options
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
194 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
An additional runway at Heathrow is not needed because there is sufficient capacity at the five existing London airports.
✓ The ANPS recognises that there is an urgent need for new airport capacity in the South East (paragraphs 2.10-18). In doing so the ANPS confirms that the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme is best placed to deliver this capacity and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph. 3.74).
Concerns about the proposed third north west runway options as they are unsuitable and unnecessary.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
195 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Separation between the existing north runway and the new runway would be less than between the existing runways the option A4 would be unsustainable.
✓ In order to provide respite to local communities and deliver at least 740,000 Air Transport Movements (ATMs) per year as required by the Airport National Policy Statement (ANPS), the proposed runway and existing northern runway must be able to operate independently from each other. International standards set down by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) state the minimum separation between runways with independent parallel approaches is 1035m. This is less than the separation between existing runways however, with appropriate operating procedures and infrastructure, this separation will allow Heathrow to operate the runways independently and meet traffic movement requirements.
Heathrow recognises that safety is key to airfield operations and this has been factored into the consideration of options for the location of the runway and its length. The need to provide sufficient separation between aircraft has helped to inform the identification and evaluation of options for the runway. The findings of the evaluation or options, including in regard to safety issues, is reported in the Updated Scheme Development Report at the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
196 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The proposed new runway is proposed in the wrong location, it should be positioned outside of the M25 on greenfield land, with high speed rail connections to the main Heathrow Terminus.
✓ The proposed location of the new runway is to the north-west of the existing airport as recommended by the Airports Commission and included in the ANPS as the Government’s preferred scheme for delivering additional airport capacity.
A variety of proposals were considered by the Airports Commission and it was concluded that the Heathrow Northwest Scheme was the optimal location for a new runway. Proposals which vary significantly from the ANPS, for example proposals outside of the M25, would be unlikely to be granted development consent as they would not meet the requirements of the ANPS, which is the primary basis for decision making on a DCO application for a new north-west runway.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
197 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Heathrow should undertake an analysis of the costs and benefits of building the north-west runway in two construction phases.
✓ Heathrow have developed a Preferred Masterplan which delivers the minimum infrastructure required to meet anticipated passenger and aircraft demand over time. This minimises the impact and cost of the Project by spreading the works over a number of years. The Strategic Phasing and Schedule of the works is included in the Construction Proposal submitted as part of Airport Expansion Consultation June 2019. The runway will be built in one phase in order to avoid the additional costs and safety issues of constructing adjacent to a live runway. In addition, the full length of runway is required soon after opening to facilitate the runway alternation patterns that provide balanced respite as per the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS).
Heathrow should investigate and produce facts about environmental and health impacts, infrastructure and costs, and present these to the public for comment and consultation.
✓ As part of the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019, Heathrow present the early findings of its Environmental Impact Assessment in a PEIR.
The PEIR includes an assessment of environmental and health impacts considered likely to arise from the Project.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
198 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Whichever option is adopted, extensively vegetated noise bunds/barriers along the southern boundary of the Colnbrook Bypass are needed to provide some screening for the Poyle and Colnbrook communities from the airfield.
✓ An assessment of ground noise impacts is being carried out in accordance with the methodologies set out in the EIA Scoping Report.
Early findings of this assessment and proposed mitigation measures are presented in Chapter 17 of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) submitted as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019. Measures are identified to mitigate the effects of aircraft noise. These include mitigation in built in the design so that elements of the design and layout of the ground-based airport development are selected to minimise ground noise effects, as far as reasonably practical.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
199 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Any enclosed structure over rivers and the proximity of the runway above must be designed to allow for maintenance access and operations.
✓ We have engaged with the appropriate responsible organisations for rivers affected by the Project, including the Environment Agency. The runway elevation shown in the Preferred Masterplan document has been designed to accommodate a covered river corridor with sufficient headroom for maintenance access and operations.
The covered river corridor and diverted twin rivers adjacent to the airfield boundary will be designed to allow access for both operations and maintenance.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
200 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The challenges of crossing the M25 pose a significant risk to the viability and deliverability of the scheme. Risks and costs must be sufficiently addressed, independently verified and costed.
✓ The Project will be privately funded, and no public funds will be required to deliver the airport infrastructure.
Heathrow has a strong track record of investing in surface access improvements. Heathrow are committed to funding the required road diversions. This is consistent with the Government’s Aviation Policy Statement that states "The general position for existing airports is that developers should pay the costs of upgrading or enhancing road, rail or other transport networks or services where there is a need to cope with additional passengers travelling to and from expanded or growing airports. Where the scheme has a wider range of beneficiaries, the Government will consider, along with other relevant stakeholders, the need for additional public funding on a case-by-case basis."
An Independent Fund Surveyor (IFS) has been appointment by Heathrow Airport Ltd and the Airline Operating Committee to help assure that capital funds are invested efficiently to meet agreed project objectives.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
201 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Displaced thresholds need to be thoroughly consulted and agreed upon with NATS and the Airline Community.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan document in Airport Expansion Consultation June 2019 includes displaced thresholds for all runways.
Displaced thresholds are provided to enable aircraft to be higher over local communities when landing at the airport. However, two key factors limit the amount the threshold can be displaced. Firstly, displacing the threshold reduces the Landing Distance Available (LDA) for aircraft using the runway. Analysis carried out as part of the scheme development, based on a range of sensitivities such as aircraft size, runway condition, tailwind conditions, shows the need for a minimum operational LDA of 2,800 metres. Additional airline engagement since Airport Expansion Consultation One in January 2018 (via the Aircraft Operators Airfield Evaluation Team) confirmed the 2800m minimum LDA requirement.
Secondly, when a runway is being operated in mixed mode, i.e. used for both landing and departing aircraft, the take-off aircraft may interact with the wake vortex of the landing aircraft, creating an unsafe wake encounter. This can be managed by creating greater separation between aircraft, i.e. reducing capacity, or designing the runway layout to
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
202 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
minimise these interactions. Initial work done by NATS, who provide air traffic services, showed that 550 metres was the maximum achievable displacement before wake turbulence interaction starts to reduce runway throughput. Since Airport Expansion Consultation One, wake vortex measurements have been recorded at Heathrow. Ongoing analysis of the field measurements support the initial desktop analysis showing that 550m is the maximum displaced threshold on a mixed mode runway.
Heathrow continue to engage with airlines, the Air Navigation Service Provider and the Civil Aviation Authority with respect to displaced threshold and other airfield operational matters.
The ability of the runway to safely and efficiently meet expected demand and operational capabilities must be an absolute priority.
✓ Heathrow recognises that safety is key to airfield operations and this has been factored into the consideration of all options for the masterplan (as set out in the Scheme Development Report). This has included consideration of international standards
Concerns about the safety of the airport and of departing and arriving aircraft.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
203 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Clear and graded areas and other safety areas are important considerations.
✓ (including clear and graded and safety areas) set down by the European Aviation Safety Agency and the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
The preferred runway option is presented as part of the Preferred Masterplan at the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019. The Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 2, Chapter 1) presents the findings of the evaluation process for the preferred runway layout and location, including in relation to matters relating to operational safety.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
204 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Any runway option which can minimise impacts on the locally important green belt and nature designations should be a priority.
✓ As set out in the ANPS at paragraph 5.127, the Secretary of State must assess whether there are very special circumstances to justify development on areas of Green Belt land.
Heathrow will seek to minimise impacts on the Green Belt and other nature designations through its evaluation of runway options. The findings of this evaluation are reported in Document 2, Chapter 1 of the Updated Scheme Development Report at the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019.
Impacts on the Green Belt will be considered as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment process and appropriate mitigation will be proposed in order to reduce adverse effects. Early findings of this assessment are reported in the PEIR in the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
205 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee17
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
There is a need to plan with maximum efficiency in order to minimise the total land required for the development of a new runway.
✓ A detailed evaluation process has been undertaken to consider options for the precise location and size of the North West Runway. This considered a range of disciplines including Planning and Property. The Planning and Property evaluation discipline included criteria such as impacts on existing land uses and the efficiency of the land proposed. The findings of the evaluation of options against these criteria are presented in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 1 Runways at the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019.
Surrounding traffic patterns of the helicopter flight paths for London should be an important factor in the development of a new runway.
✓ Helicopters in London follow pre-defined routes, designed to avoid conflict with commercial air traffic. This will be considered as part of the Airspace Change Process.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
206 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
8. TERMINALS SATELLITES AND APRONS
8.1 Introduction
8.1.1 In response to Airport Expansion Consultation One, Heathrow sought feedback in
relation to future terminal capacity and apron space. A total of 1,941 consultees
made comments relating to this topic.
8.1.2 Heathrow provided the following material that is directly related to the location and
length of the proposed runway:
1. Airport Expansion Consultation Document;
1. Our Emerging Plans; and
2. Scheme Development Report.
8.1.3 Within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document Heathrow identified the
following options for future terminal capacity and apron space:
1. Area 1 – East: Expansion of Terminal 2 and the eastern apron;
2. Area 2 – West: Expansion of Terminal 5 and the western apron; and
3. Area 3 – North: A new satellite and apron between the new north west runway and
what will become the central runway.
8.1.4 References to Option Numbers below are taken from the Airport Expansion
Consultation Document.
8.1.5 Heathrow asked the following questions regarding future terminal capacity and
apron space at Airport Expansion Consultation One:
1. What factors do you think should be important in locating new terminal and apron
space?
8.1.6 This chapter provides a summary of the relevant consultation feedback received
from prescribed consultees, local communities and wider/other consultees. The
issues raised by respondents have also been grouped in table form at the end of
this chapter, which includes Heathrow’s response to these issues.
8.2 Prescribed Consultees
Local Authorities
8.2.1 A range of detailed comments were received from local authorities in relation to
the factors important in locating new terminal capacity and apron space. The most
frequent comment made highlighted the need to ensure public transport access,
particularly by rail. This was followed by minimising noise and pollution to
residents and minimising the size of the airport development.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
207 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
8.2.2 The London Borough of Hounslow highlighted that noise and pollution to their
residents should be minimised in determining the orientation and extent of terminal
and apron space. Surrey County Council expressed a similar view and indicated
that Stanwell Moor should be included in the Wider Property Offer Zone (WPOZ)
given its proximity to the potential west terminal/satellite.
8.2.3 Kent County Council outlined that the new terminal and apron space would
influence the overall land take required for the scheme, as well as the operational
flexibility the airport may have in future. It indicated that local communities and
groups who may have a greater understanding of the local conditions at the
potential sites were best placed to answer this question.
8.2.4 Slough Borough Council commented that there should be direct and easy access
to terminals from public transport. They highlighted that any new terminal should
be located and integrated into the airport in a way that gives access to taxiways
and runways and reduces the need for aircraft ground movements and emissions.
They also identified that focussing terminal and apron space to the west may
enable direct access to be developed off the M25 and A3044, thus reducing need
to travel around the airport.
8.2.5 They commented on the need for a composite plan to understand how the various
options for the runway, terminals and taxiways could operate. They queried why
Area 1 and 2 (as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation
Document) need to extend so far west of the current airport boundary and
requested that the impact of planes in close proximity to property and human
receptors should be assessed.
8.2.6 Spelthorne Borough Council also referred to the potential for rail access. They
indicated that if the preferred option was Area 2 (west of T5) (as detailed in
Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document) there would be scope to
link with a Southern Light Rail option which would link Heathrow to Staines-upon-
Thames.
8.2.7 The London Borough of Sutton stated that compactness would be essential to
mitigate overall impact. It considered public transport access, particularly rail
alignments, should be the key deciding factor. A similar view was shared by Ealing
Council who requested connectivity to the proposed new western and southern rail
access.
8.2.8 Wokingham Borough Council commented that the new terminal should be co-
located with Terminal 5 and further use made of Terminal 2 to maximise their
accessibility from the existing rail facilities. It indicated that apron space should be
located between the runways, together with any required satellites.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
208 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Statutory Consultees
8.2.9 The Environment Agency commented that the north and west options restrict the
width of the open river corridors under the northern runway. They indicated that
these impacts would need careful consideration in option selection and that
the eastern option would allow more space for the river corridors through the
Colne Valley.
8.2.10 Natural England also commented about the effect of the north and west options on
the width of open river channels and indicted that the effects on water quality or
biodiversity should be considered in the options assessment.
8.2.11 Highways England made a number of detailed points in relation to terminal
capacity and apron space:
1. The impact of vehicle surface access to any new terminal capacity and any
associated supporting developments should be fully considered with multi modal
traffic modelling before any final decisions are made on terminal locations. They
indicated that the modelling needs to include sensitivity tests for different levels of
transfer passengers as this has a significant impact on the volume of passengers
using surface access.
2. Locating terminals along the public transport spine would provide the best level of
service to passengers using public transport and will therefore contribute to the
sustainability of the expanded airport.
3. Additional terminal capacity adjacent to the M25 will result in a redistribution of traffic
and an increase in airport related traffic on some sections of the road network. They
indicated that appropriate mitigation for this increase and significant/stringent
measures may be required to minimise this.
8.2.12 They requested that Heathrow clarify the capacity of the proposed terminals,
surface access passengers estimated in each terminal and the proposed phasing
of increased terminal capacity. They also requested details of the phasing of
freight terminal capacity and associated development.
Other prescribed bodies
8.2.13 The Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) indicated that terminal locations
that minimise noise and pollution from taxiing of aircraft on neighbouring areas as
well as maximising public transport accessibility should be prioritised. However,
it requested consideration of the operational impacts in the development of
the scheme.
8.2.14 Thames Water Utilities Limited was keen to ensure that de-icer used on aprons is
appropriately controlled and treated so as not to cause pollution. It requested
clarity on proposals for contaminated surface water and how this would be
addressed.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
209 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
8.2.15 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council commented that the new terminal and apron
space should not result in a further extension to the boundaries of the airport. It
commented that terminal and apron space should be accommodated between
runways, as had been done previously at Heathrow.
8.3 Local Communities
Members of the public
8.3.1 Those members of the public that expressed a preference for any of the taxiway
options were largely in favour of Area 3 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport
Expansion Consultation Document. Areas 2 and 1 received considerably less
support.
8.3.2 General comments were also received which did not support any of the terminal
capacity or apron options or questioned the necessity for the terminal or the
Project in general.
8.3.3 Members of the public made comments or suggestions about the factors they
considered to be important in fixing the precise location. These comprised:
1. public transport links and connections and general accessibility
2. access via the rail network
3. ensure convenience for passengers
4. good connections or access to and between the terminals
5. noise pollution
6. air pollution
7. effects on the environment in general
8. effects on climate change
9. impact on wildlife and habitats
10. impact on green/open spaces and landscapes
11. effects on local people, local communities, homes, housing and residential areas
12. quality of life, health and well-being
13. minimising disruption
14. safety considerations
15. fuel efficiency
16. impact on local roads and road users
17. traffic congestion on the M25 and the M4 and local roads
18. cost and cost effectiveness
19. local jobs, business, jobs and the economy in general
20. the use of taxpayers’ money
Businesses
8.3.4 Businesses provided comments about the factors important in locating new
terminal and apron space.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
210 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
8.3.5 Hatton Farm Estates Limited suggested that the avoidance of excessive taxiing
times and fuel wastage through locating the terminals close to the new runway
was an important factor. A similar view was expressed by the Fuel Trading
Company who suggested that an apron in Area 3 (as detailed Heathrow’s Airport
Expansion Consultation Document) would allow aircraft to easily access all
runways. This would reduce wait time and increase refuelling efficiency.
8.3.6 EasyJet identified cost and efficiency as important factors. It commented that the
cost of the design will be met by passengers and that it must deliver the services
that passengers value.
8.3.7 Electron Bean Processes Limited highlighted accessibility and traffic flow as
important factors.
8.3.8 Greengauge 21 indicated that the design of the terminals must support the goal of
maximizing the number of airline passengers who access the airport by rail, bus
and other high occupancy vehicles. It suggested that the layout of the terminal
facilities needed to be reviewed with this environmental goal in mind.
8.3.9 Town Centre Securities highlighted transport links.
8.3.10 Petchey Industrial Properties suggested that new terminal capacity should be
located away from the current main terminus and connected to it via a high-speed
rail or other link. It believed this would be less costly, less disruptive and would
have less of a negative impact on the Heathrow area.
8.3.11 Suez UK suggested that it was important to ensure the new north terminal is
appropriately located to maintain traffic movements to/from the M4.
8.3.12 Sunvil Holidays highlighted ease of access for arriving/departing passengers and
ease of access for aircraft movements between the runway and apron as
important factors.
8.3.13 Surrey Chambers of Commerce considered that the location of terminal and apron
capacity would depend on the runway length. It identified that access by road and
rail, freight requirements and expected numbers using the terminal were important
considerations.
8.3.14 T and CG Limited queried if the current space could be re-configured to maximise
space. It suggested that apron structures need to be near to the runway.
8.3.15 WeMoved Limited identified the time people spend moving from one terminal to
another as an important factor. It indicated that current arrangements are
inefficient and that getting from T4 to T5 via T123 takes too much time.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
211 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
8.3.16 The Airport Industrial Property Unit Trust (AIPUT) said that the apron and terminal
options should be compatible. It also commented that maximum use should be
made of the land taken to the north and west.
8.3.17 The Arora Group supported the delivery of additional terminal capacity but stated
that it must be developed in line with airline requirements. It believed that its own
western campus approach would achieve this and would be more efficient than
Heathrow’s proposals.
8.3.18 The Copas Partnership identified flexibility of operation as an important factor.
8.3.19 The Lanz group suggested land availability, connectivity of the north west runway
to existing infrastructure and the number of existing commercial businesses
displaced were important factors.
8.3.20 Heathrow Hub Limited/Runway Innovations Limited requested more information
about how the removal of the proposed northern satellite would impact ground
operations, taxiway capacity, resilience and the assumptions made by the Airports
Commission.
8.3.21 The Pavilion Association highlighted that safe working areas, ease of access for
passengers and workforce and rapid rail connecting Staines to T5 should be
considered.
8.3.22 Star Alliance considered that decisions on the location of terminal capacity should
be made jointly between Heathrow and its airline customers. It indicated that the
strategies and growth plans of airlines and alliances were an important
consideration and that the phasing of existing and/or new terminal developments
was crucial to define scheme affordability.
8.3.23 Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce commended Heathrow’s approach to
minimising land take but requested that the highest possible environmental
standards are met, great design standards are built in, mitigation measures are
taken to reduce impacts and that consideration is given to future-proofing facilities.
8.3.24 The London Airline Consultative Committee and the Board of Airline
Representatives UK indicated support for new terminal capacity being located on
the public transport spine. It considered that affordability (capital expenditure,
operational expenditure and revenue) was an important factor to be considered
alongside passenger experience, enabling growth, connectivity, meeting demand
and accessibility. They also stated that provision must be made for the
development and maintenance of the existing terminal infrastructure and facilities.
This will ensure that these facilities remain adequately provisioned to provide an
acceptable or equivalent customer experience throughout their remaining life.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
212 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
8.3.25 Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited considered that choice and competition, the
passenger experience, operational efficiency, resilience, cost and phasing were
important considerations.
Community groups
8.3.26 Many of the community groups who provided feedback to Airport Expansion
Consultation One expressed opposition to the Project but did not necessarily
include specific feedback on the terminal capacity and apron options.
8.3.27 Harrow U3A Sustainability Group indicated that it was broadly content with the
locations identified but did not offer detailed comments on the important factors
that should be considered.
8.3.28 The Cheyne Walk Trust highlighted the reduction of impact on residents and traffic
as important factors. A similar view was expressed by SCR Residents for a fair
Consideration of Heathrow Expansion who indicated that noise, disturbance, local
population, traffic impacts, and parking were all important factors.
8.3.29 The Camberley Society stated that important factors were accessibility for the
public, transport operators and staff and minimising the impact on local towns,
villages and housing.
8.3.30 The Residents Association HVG CA highlighted cost, noise disturbance and air
pollution as important factors.
8.3.31 Local Conversation in Stanwell indicated that if new terminal capacity was
constructed to the west of T5, there would be scope for the Southern Light Rail
option to be implemented which would link Heathrow to Staines-upon-Thames.
This would also allow for a passenger check in at Staines-upon-Thames to enable
a smooth transition at the airport.
8.3.32 The Local Authorities Aircraft Noise Council (LAANC) said it did not support
another runway, or any associated infrastructure. A similar view was expressed by
Northumberland Walk Residents Association who were opposed to any form of
Heathrow expansion, including an additional terminal, irrespective of its location.
8.3.33 The Colnbrook Community Partnership highlighted that the west terminal and part
of the proposed north terminal are located within the Colne Valley Park. They
considered that that compensation or mitigation measures are required for the
Colne Valley Park for the benefit of communities.
8.3.34 Wentworth Residents Association commented that the question relating to terminal
capacity and apron options was leading, given Heathrow had promised there
would be no further terminals built as a precondition of getting planning permission
for T5.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
213 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
8.4 Wider/other Consultees
8.4.1 A range of comments were received from wider/other consultees in relation to the
factors important in locating new terminal capacity and apron space.
8.4.2 The Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust said that minimising ecological impacts
was an important factor.
8.4.3 The Royal Parks highlighted impacts on Longford River as an important
consideration. It favoured the development of terminals and aprons to the east of
the existing airport as this would have least impact.
8.4.4 The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport considered that the location of
the terminals should be determined by their accessibility from public transport. It
supported the terminals being located next to or as extensions to Terminals 2 and
5. It went on to comment that the Eastern Campus should be planned for the
larger throughput (around 80 mppa), with satellites to the east and west connected
by people movers. It considered that there was limited scope to expand the
Western Campus and that the removal of T4 would reduce the need for crossings
of the southern runway and allow options for the location of cargo and car parking
on the south side to be considered.
8.4.5 HFT also supported proposals to expand Terminals 2 and 5 indicating that this
would provide an opportunity to ensure accessibility for disabled travellers is at the
heart of the terminal redesign.
8.4.6 The Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers (GATCO) stated that the new terminal
should be between the existing northern runway and the new north-west runway
option. It considered there was enough space in this area to build a terminal large
enough to deal with the additional capacity provided by the new runway. It also
suggested that if an additional option was needed, the eastern location should be
considered, provided roads and accesses are adapted.
8.4.7 The London Parks and Gardens Trust questioned why expansion of Terminal 3
was ruled out, as well as the need for such a large proposed northern area, which
would have the greatest impact on historic landscapes in the vicinity.
8.4.8 Airlines for America expressed a similar view and indicated that Terminal 3’s
deficiencies such as heating and cooling for the terminal, a reliable water supply,
increased focus on preventative maintenance for critical facilities and
improvements in terminal and ramp custodial protocols must be addressed.
8.4.9 Aviation Safety Investigations believed that proper de-icing and anti-icing factors
were important. The British Helicopter Association suggested options which
minimise turbulence from buildings should be prioritised.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
214 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
8.4.10 The Colne Valley Regional Park suggested that Heathrow should focus on utilising
existing airport land for any terminal or airport extensions. It considered that
minimising land-take within the Colne Valley Regional Park, avoiding impact on
rivers and not exacerbating local traffic problems and air pollution should be key
considerations.
8.4.11 The Church of England, Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark sought clarity
on outbuildings labelled as ‘gateways’ in the Scheme Development Report and
indicated that new or reordered terminals should include faith facilities within
terminals and airside.
8.4.12 The World Federalist Party highlighted the preservation of peace for west
Londoners as an important factor.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
215 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
8.5 Issues Raised and Heathrow’s Responses
8.5.1 Table 8.1 presents a summary of the main issues raised by prescribed consultees, local communities and wider/other
consultees in relation to Terminals, Satellites and Aprons and for which only interim responses were provided in the
ICFR (the prior Table B). This updated table also presents Heathrow’s responses to those issues and explains how in
preparing our proposals for the Airport Expansion Consultation we have had regard to that feedback.
Table 8.1
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Access via the rail network are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.
✓ Heathrow recognises the importance that surface access via rail and the public transport network has in fixing terminal locations. The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are located adjacent to the public transport spine as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals, Satellites and Aprons, published as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation (June 2019) (AEC).
Suggestion that new terminal capacity should be located away from the current main terminus and connected to it via a high-speed rail or other link on the basis
✓ Heathrow recognises the importance that surface access via rail and the public transport network has in fixing terminal locations. While innovative solutions to the location of infrastructure is welcomed, the airfield must
18 PC - Prescribed Consultees; MC – Members of the Community; WC – Wider Consultees
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
216 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
this would be less costly, less disruptive and would have less of a negative impact on the Heathrow area.
also be designed within the parameters of Annex A of the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) which does not provide for terminal locations outside of that area.
Connectivity to the proposed new western and southern rail access is an important factor in considering new terminal capacity and apron space.
✓ Heathrow recognises the importance that surface access via rail and the public transport network has in fixing terminal locations.
The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are located adjacent to the public transport spine as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals, Satellites and Aprons, published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow is also engaging with Network Rail about its Western Rail Link Project, for which a Development Consent Order (DCO) Application is currently being prepared. The Western Rail link will utilise the space safeguarded for platforms during the construction of Terminal 5. However, these works are not part of the Heathrow Expansion Project (the Project).
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
217 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Suggestion that if new terminal capacity was constructed to the west of T5, there would be scope for the Southern Light Rail option to be implemented which would link Heathrow to Staines-upon-Thames. This would also allow for a passenger check in at Staines-upon-Thames to enable a smooth transition at the airport.
✓ ✓ Heathrow would be willing to work with the promoter of a Southern Light Rail to examine the feasibility of a connection between Heathrow and Staines but such works do not form part of the Project. The Department for Transport is currently exploring options for Southern Rail Access to Heathrow to be brought forward by a private developer.
Transport links are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.
✓ Heathrow recognises the importance that surface access via rail and the public transport network has in fixing terminal locations. The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are located adjacent to the public transport spine as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals, Satellites and Aprons, published as part of the AEC.
Ease of access for arriving/departing passengers and ease of access for aircraft movements between the runway and apron are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.
✓ Heathrow recognises the importance that surface access via rail and the public transport network has in fixing terminal locations. The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are located adjacent to the public transport spine. The airfield layout has been designed to provide the most efficient movement for aircraft between runway and apron to minimise taxi times as much as possible. This is explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapters 1, 2 and 3, published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
218 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Access by road and rail, freight requirements and expected numbers using the terminal are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.
✓ Heathrow recognises the importance that surface access via rail and the public transport network has in fixing terminal locations. The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are located adjacent to the public transport spine as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals, Satellites and Aprons, published as part of the AEC. Improvements to Heathrow’s existing cargo terminals have also been considered, as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 5: Cargo, published as part of the AEC.
Suggestion that that if an additional option was needed, the eastern location should be considered, provided roads and accesses are adapted.
✓ The area currently occupied by the Eastern Maintenance Base has not been taken forward as an option for additional terminal capacity. This is explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals, Satellites and Aprons, published as part of the AEC.
Ensuring public transport access, particularly by rail is an important factor in locating new terminal capacity and apron space.
✓ Heathrow recognises the importance that surface access via rail and the public transport network has in fixing terminal locations. The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are located adjacent to the public transport spine as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals, Satellites and Aprons, published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
219 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Public transport links and connections and general accessibility are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.
✓ Heathrow recognises the importance that surface access via rail and the public transport network has in fixing terminal locations. The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are located adjacent to the public transport spine as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals, Satellites and Aprons, published as part of the AEC.
The location of the terminals should be determined by their accessibility from public transport.
✓
In considering new terminal capacity and apron space, public transport access, particularly rail alignments, should be the key deciding factor.
✓
Accessibility and traffic flow are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.
✓ Accessibility and traffic flows are an important consideration for the growth of the airport and Heathrow will deliver key improvements to the road network as part of the Project. Details on the proposed locations for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals, Satellites and Aprons, published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
220 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
A reduction of impact on residents and traffic are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.
✓ Heathrow recognises the importance that surface access via rail and the public transport network has in fixing terminal locations. The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, and associated apron space are located adjacent to the public transport spine to minimise impacts on the road network and local residents as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals, Satellites and Aprons, published as part of the AEC.
In relation to terminal capacity and apron space, locating terminals along the public transport spine would provide the best level of service to passengers using public transport and will therefore contribute to the sustainability of the expanded airport.
✓ Heathrow recognises the importance that surface access via rail and the public transport network has in fixing terminal locations. The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are located adjacent to the public transport spine as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals, Satellites and Aprons, published as part of the AEC.
Support for new terminal capacity being located on the public transport spine.
✓ ✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
221 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Impact on local roads and road users are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.
✓ Proposals for local roads do not determine terminal locations. However, it is important to locate terminals in the public transport spine to promote public transport use. This will have the effect of reducing impact on local roads.
The documents: Surface Access Proposals and the Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) provide information on how impacts on local roads are being assessed and mitigated. The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals, Satellites and Aprons, provides further details about how terminal location has been determined. These documents are published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
222 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Affordability (capex, opex and revenue) are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space which should be considered alongside passenger experience, enabling growth, connectivity, meeting demand and accessibility.
✓ ✓ Heathrow agrees that affordability is an important factor in locating and sizing additional terminal capacity and apron space.
Heathrow has carefully considered how to maximise the capacity of the existing assets to accommodate 95 million passengers per annum.
Terminal gates and aprons have also been designed to accommodate different aircraft sizes which provides greater operational efficiency.
A detailed evaluation including affordability and other criteria has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.
Findings of this evaluation are presented in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals, Satellites and Aprons, published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
223 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Request that the impact of planes in close proximity to property and human receptors should be assessed.
✓ The location of terminal and apron spaces are important factors in determining where aircraft will be situated in relation to human receptors. Heathrow is undertaking an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the Project and early findings are reported in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) published as part of the AEC. For example, Chapter 11 of the PEIR provides information on the ongoing assessment of the impacts on communities and Chapter 17 addresses noise and vibration.
The preservation of peace for west Londoners is an important factor in locating new terminal and apron space.
✓ In developing the terminal and apron locations Heathrow has recognised the importance of minimising any effects for west Londoners as far as possible. Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in the PEIR, published as part of the AEC. For example, Chapter 17 addresses noise and vibration.
Local jobs, business, jobs and the economy in general are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.
✓ The development of Heathrow will contribute to the growth of jobs and the UK economy.
The PEIR provides information about the ongoing assessment of Socio-economic impacts in Chapter 18 – Socio Economics and Employment.
The additional terminal capacity will be located on the public transport spine which will facilitate easy access for local communities.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
224 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Good connections or access to and between the terminals are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.
✓ Accessibility and traffic flows are an important consideration for the growth of the airport and Heathrow is delivering key improvements to the local road network as part of the Project.
Good connections between terminals is a key component for a Hub airport and Heathrow has taken this into consideration in determining the proposed location for additional terminal processing capacity (Terminal 2 extension and T5X). The Preferred Masterplan document focuses on having fewer, larger terminals focused on an Eastern Campus at the Central Terminal Area at Terminal 2, and a Western Campus around the existing Terminal 5.
The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, provides further detail in this regard.
The time people spend moving from one terminal to another is an important factor in locating new terminal and apron space. Concern that current arrangements are inefficient and that getting from T4 to T5 via T123 takes too much time.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
225 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Request that terminal locations that minimise noise and pollution from taxiing of aircraft on neighbouring areas as well as maximising public transport accessibility should be prioritised. However, there is recognition that operational impacts will affect any scheme development.
✓ The airfield layout has been designed to provide the most efficient movement for aircraft between runway and apron to minimise taxi times as much as possible. Heathrow recognises the importance that surface access via rail and the public transport network has in fixing terminal locations. The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are located adjacent to the public transport spine.
These design decisions are explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC. The PEIR is being consulted on as part of the AEC and provides information about the ongoing environmental assessment process, in particular, Chapter 17 – Noise and Vibration and Chapter 19 – Transport Network Users.
The location of terminal and apron capacity would depend on the runway length.
✓ The minimum runway length and position have been prescribed in the ANPS and Heathrow proposals comply with these requirements.
The terminal and apron locations have taken due consideration of the new runway location.
The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC, provides further detail in this regard.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
226 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Air pollution are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.
✓ In developing the terminal and apron locations Heathrow has recognised the importance of air quality. Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in the PEIR published as part of the AEC, in particular, Chapter 7 – Air Quality and Odour.
Flexibility of operation is an important factor in locating new terminal and apron space.
✓ Whilst terminals and apron location is an important factor for operational flexibility, the prime factor is the runway mode of operation.
Further details to this regard can be found in the Future Runway Operations document.
A detailed evaluation for terminal location has been undertaken, taking into account this and other criteria together with the consultation responses.
Findings of this evaluation are presented in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
227 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Choice and competition, the passenger experience, operational efficiency, resilience, cost and phasing are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.
✓ Phasing and increase in capacity has been developed to allow balanced growth across the proposed East and West campuses.
Delivery of new terminals and better use of the existing ones will improve passenger experience, operational efficiency and resilience.
Detailed evaluation including these criteria has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.
Findings of this evaluation are presented in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
228 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Ensuring convenience for passengers are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.
✓ Additional terminal capacity has been located in the public transport spine to facilitate access via public transport.
Heathrow is exploring new innovative technologies to make terminals as convenient for passengers as possible.
A detailed evaluation including these criteria has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.
Findings of this evaluation are presented in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3 published as part of the AEC.
Minimising disruption is an important factor that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.
✓ Heathrow’s track record in building terminal infrastructure, e.g. Terminal 2, shows that additional terminal capacity can be delivered with minimal disruption.
Disruption was a factor in determining terminal locations, in particular T5X. Early options to increase the capacity in the West involved extending the Terminal 5 building to the North, South and/ or East and they were discounted due to the extent of disruption that it would have caused.
Further detail to this regard can be found in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
229 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Accessibility for the public, transport operators and staff and minimising the impact on local towns, villages and housing are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.
✓ Accessibility and traffic flows are an important consideration for the growth of the airport and Heathrow will deliver key improvements to the local road network as part of the Project. Improvements to the local road network will benefit local towns, villages and housing. The document: Surface Access Proposals and the PTIR provide information on how impacts on local roads are being assessed and mitigated. These documents are published as part of the AEC.
In order to mitigate impacts on the road network, the locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are adjacent to the public transport spine as explained in the Updated Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3.
Suggestion that there was limited scope to expand the Western Campus.
✓ Careful consideration has been given to extending the West Campus and the current proposal is an efficient use of the land that is bounded by the re-aligned M25 and rivers and the existing Terminal 5. This is explained in the Updated Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3 published as part of the AEC.
There should be direct and easy access to terminals from public transport.
✓ Heathrow recognises the importance that surface access via rail and the public transport network has in fixing
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
230 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The design of the terminals must support the goal of maximising the number of airline passengers who access the airport by rail, bus and other high occupancy vehicles. The layout of the terminal facilities needed to be reviewed with this environmental goal in mind.
✓ terminal locations.
Heathrow currently benefits from the two existing rail links from London Paddington and extensive bus and coach services.
Through the Project, bus and coach services will be enhanced. The airport may also benefit from Crossrail, an improved London Underground service, a Western Rail Link and Southern Rail Link but these works are not part of the Project.
The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are located adjacent to the public transport spine to minimise impact on the local road network as explained in the Updated Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC.
Suggestion that the new terminal should be co-located with Terminal 5 and further use made of Terminal 2 to maximise their accessibility from the existing rail facilities.
✓
Minimising noise and pollution to residents and minimising the size of the airport development is an important factor in locating new terminal capacity and apron space.
✓ In developing the terminal and apron locations Heathrow has recognised the importance of minimising the environmental impacts to local residents, including noise impacts. Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in the PEIR published as part of the AEC, in particular, Chapter 7 – Air Quality and Odour, Chapter 17 Noise and Vibration and Chapter 11 – Community.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
231 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
In considering new terminal capacity and apron space, noise and pollution to their residents should be minimised.
✓ In developing the terminal and apron locations Heathrow
has recognised the importance of minimising the
environmental impacts to local residents, including noise
impacts. Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project
and early findings are reported in the PEIR published as
part of the AEC, in particular, Chapter 7 – Air Quality and
Odour, Chapter 17 – Noise and Vibration and Chapter 11 –
Community.
Noise, disturbance, local population, traffic impacts, and parking are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.
✓
Noise pollution are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.
✓
Request that Heathrow provide details of the phasing of freight terminal capacity and associated development.
✓ Cargo facilities are being delivered in the southern zone of the airport, in and around the existing cargo area.
Details about the proposals for cargo are shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2 Chapter 5: Cargo, published as part of the AEC. Heathrow is working closely with freight partners to provide capacity in line with demand.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
232 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Suggestion that focusing terminal and apron space to the west may enable direct access to be developed off the M25 and A3044, thus reducing need to travel around the airport.
✓ Accessibility and traffic flows are an important consideration for the growth of the airport and Heathrow is delivering key improvements to the road network as part of the Project. The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are located adjacent to the public transport spine to support the Surface Access Proposals.
Terminal 5 is currently served by a single junction off the M25. Under Heathrow proposals, the extended Western Campus (Terminal 5 and T5X) will be served from two junctions.
It is important to ensure the new north terminal is appropriately located to maintain traffic movements to/from the M4.
✓ Surface accessibility and traffic flows are an important consideration for the growth of the airport. The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are located adjacent to the public transport spine to minimise impact on the local road network as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2 Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC.
The document: Surface Access Proposals and the PTIR provide information on how impacts on local roads are being assessed and mitigated.
Chapter 19 of the PEIR explains the ongoing assessment of the impacts of the expansion on Transport Network
Traffic congestion on the M25 and the M4 and local roads are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.
✓
Concern that additional terminal capacity adjacent to the M25 will result in a redistribution of traffic and an increase in airport related traffic on some sections of the road network. Appropriate mitigation for this increase and significant/stringent measures may be required to minimise this.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
233 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
In relation to terminal capacity and apron space, the impact of vehicle surface access to any new terminal capacity and any associated supporting developments should be fully considered with multi modal traffic modelling before any final decisions are made on terminal locations.
✓ Users.
Heathrow need to provide a composite plan to understand how the various options for the runway, terminals and taxiways could operate.
✓ The minimum runway length and position have been prescribed in the ANPS and Heathrow proposals comply with these requirements.
The terminal and apron locations have taken due consideration of the new runway location and this consideration has factored in a number of criteria such as sustainability, affordability and operation.
The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2,
Chapter 3, provides more detail in this regard.
The Preferred Masterplan document explains how the different masterplan components, including runway, terminals and taxiways work together at a masterplan level.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
234 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Can the current space be re-configured to maximise space for new terminal and apron space.
✓ Maximising the capacity of the existing terminals and aprons has been taken into account by Heathrow in developing the terminal and apron layouts, as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow proposes to process 95 million passengers per annum through the existing terminals facilities by runway opening which is an increase of approximately 15 million passengers per annum over the 2018 volume of 80 million passengers per annum.
Additional terminal capacity has been designed as efficiently as possible in terms of land take and terminal size.
In considering new terminal capacity and apron space, compactness is essential to mitigate overall impact.
✓
Suggestion that land availability, connectivity of the north west runway to existing infrastructure and the number of existing commercial businesses displaced are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.
✓ Heathrow has sought to minimise land take as much as possible. New terminals and aprons have been located between the three runways to reduce the need to displace local businesses and to provide the best connectivity to existing infrastructure. This is explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
235 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Heathrow should focus on utilising existing airport land for any terminal or airport extensions.
✓ Maximising the capacity of the existing terminals and aprons has been taken into account by Heathrow, however this does not provide sufficient space for the expansion proposals, which have been developed in accordance with the ANPS. This is explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3 and the Preferred Masterplan document, published as part of the AEC.
Suggestion that maximum use should be made of the land taken to the north and west.
✓ The additional terminal capacity and apron space proposed by Heathrow are located in the north between the existing northern runway and the new runway which has been located in accordance with the ANPS requirements and to the west of Terminal 5. These locations make most efficient use of the land proposed to be taken.
The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC, provides further detail in this regard.
Minimising land-take within the Colne Valley Regional Park, avoiding impact on rivers and not exacerbating local traffic problems and air pollution should be key considerations.
✓ Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in Chapters 7 and 19 of the PEIR.
Proposed mitigations are described in the document: Proposals for Mitigation and Compensation.
Both documents are published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
236 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concern that the west terminal and part of the proposed north terminal are located within the Colne Valley Park. As a result, it is requested that compensation or mitigation measures are required for the Colne Valley Park for the benefit of communities.
✓ Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project. Early
findings and details of the proposals to mitigate the effects
of the Project are contained in the PEIR, published as part
of the AEC.
Request for more information about how the removal of the proposed northern satellite would impact ground operations, taxiway capacity, resilience and the assumptions made by the Airports Commission.
✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan document includes the
provision of a northern satellite. The Updated Scheme
Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, provides
further detail in this regard and details of the proposals are
set out in the Preferred Masterplan document.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
237 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Why does Area 1 and 2 need to extend so far west of the current airport boundary?
✓ The northern area extends to the west to accommodate the Around The End Taxiways (ATETs) providing efficient airfield operations to support the capacity requirements set out in the ANPS.
The extent of the western area is driven by the need to locate new terminal capacity on the public transport spine to support the surface access targets set out in the ANPS.
The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, and the Preferred Masterplan document provide further detail in this regard.
The document: Surface Access Proposals, published as part of the AEC, details Heathrow’s plans to achieve the surface access targets set out in the ANPS.
Apron space should be located between the runways, together with any required satellites.
✓ The proposed additional terminal capacity and apron space are located within the three-runway system. The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC, provides further detail in this regard.
The apron locations have taken due consideration of the new runway location and this consideration has factored in
Terminal and apron space should be accommodated between runways, as had been done previously at Heathrow.
✓
Apron structures need to be near to the runway.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
238 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Apron and terminal options should be compatible.
✓ a number of criteria such as sustainability, affordability and operation.
The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2,
Chapter 3, provides more detail in this regard.
Terminal and apron capacity have been designed to
efficiently respond to passenger throughput.
Fuel efficiency is an important factor that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.
✓ The location of terminals seeks to minimise taxiing distances as far as possible. However, this was balanced with a number of other criteria (for example cost, passenger access and buildability).
A detailed evaluation has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses. Findings of this evaluation are presented in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3.
For further details regarding airfield performance and design refer to the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapters 1 and 2.
The Updated Scheme Development Report is published as part of the AEC.
The avoidance of excessive taxiing times and fuel wastage through locating the terminals close to the new runway is an important factor in locating new terminal and apron space.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
239 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Any new terminal should be located and integrated into the airport in a way that gives access to taxiways and runways and reduces the need for aircraft ground movements and emissions.
✓ The location of terminals seeks to minimise taxiing distances as far as possible. However, this was balanced with a number of other criteria (for example cost, passenger access and buildability).
A detailed evaluation has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses. Findings of this evaluation are presented in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3.
For further details regarding airfield performance and design refer to the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapters 1 and 2.
The Updated Scheme Development Report is published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
240 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
New terminal and apron space should not result in a further extension to the boundaries of the airport.
✓ The proposed expanded airport boundary as shown in the Preferred Masterplan document reflects the location of the Northwest Runway that is prescribed in the ANPS. Additional terminal capacity and apron space has been located between the three runways. This seeks to minimise the need to extend the airport. For example, the proposed eastern campus in the Preferred Masterplan document is focused on additional terminal capacity at Terminal 2, which does not affect the airport boundary. The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC, provides further detail in this regard.
Safety considerations are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.
✓ Safety is at the heart of the plans for expansion and is being considered at every stage of masterplan scheme development and for all components, not just terminal design.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
241 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Safe working areas, ease of access for passengers and workforce and rapid rail connecting Staines to T5 are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.
✓ Safety is at the heart of the plans for expansion and is being considered at every stage of masterplan scheme development and for all components, not just terminal design.
Heathrow recognises the importance that surface access via rail and the public transport network has in fixing terminal locations. The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are located adjacent to the public transport spine.
Heathrow would be willing to work with the promoter of a rail connection between Heathrow and Staines to determine its feasibility but such works do not form part of the Project.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
242 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
In relation to terminal capacity and apron space, the effects on water quality or biodiversity should be considered in the options assessment including for the north and west options.
✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criteria, including effects on biodiversity and the water environment, has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.
Findings of this evaluation are presented in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3.
Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in the PEIR.
The Updated Scheme Development Report and the PEIR are published as part of the AEC.
In relation to terminal capacity and apron space, modelling needs to include sensitivity tests for different levels of transfer passengers as this has a significant impact on the volume of passengers using surface access.
✓ Heathrow agrees that changes to transfer rates are critical to determine impacts on surface access and it is intending to run sensitivity tests in the lead up to DCO being submitted Applica.
Future monitoring of transfer rates and surface access modal usage will form part of Heathrow’s environmentally managed growth strategy.
Cost and cost effectiveness are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.
✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criteria, including the cost effectiveness of the Project, has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
243 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Cost and efficiency are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.
✓ terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.
Findings of this evaluation are presented in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC.
The use of taxpayers’ money are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.
✓ The cost and cost effectiveness of the Project are being considered at every stage of masterplan scheme development and for all components, not just terminal design. The Project is an entirely privately funded infrastructure project and infrastructure related to the project, such as terminals, will be at no cost to the taxpayer.
A detailed evaluation considering a range of criteria, including cost, has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.
Findings of this evaluation are presented in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
244 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Cost, noise disturbance and air pollution are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.
✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criteria, including noise, has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.
Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in the PEIR, published as part of the AEC.
Suggestion that an apron in Area 3 would allow aircraft to easily access all runways. This would reduce wait time and increase refueling efficiency.
✓ The proposals put forward by Heathrow include an apron in Area 3.
Further details in this regard are presented in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC.
Effects on the environment in general are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.
✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criteria, including effects on the environment has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.
Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in the PEIR that forms part of the AEC, in particular, Chapter 10 – Climate Change and Chapter 8 – Biodiversity.
Effects on climate change are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
245 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Impact on wildlife and habitats are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.
✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criteria, including the impact on wildlife and habitats has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.
Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in the PEIR published as part of the AEC, in particular Chapter 8 – Biodiversity.
Impact on green/open spaces and landscapes are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.
✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criteria, including the impact on green/open spaces and landscape has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.
Findings of this evaluation are presented in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3.
Heathrow is currently undertaking an EIA of the Project
and early findings are reported in the PEIR, published as
part of the AEC, in particular Chapter 11 Community and
Chapter 15 – Landscape and Visual Amenity.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
246 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Minimising ecological impacts are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.
✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criteria, including ecological impacts has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for new terminal and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.
Findings of this evaluation are presented in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3.
Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in the PEIR, published as part of the AEC, in particular Chapter 8 – Biodiversity.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
247 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Impacts on Longford River is an important factor in locating new terminal and apron space. Suggestion that terminals and aprons to the east of the existing airport would have least impact.
✓ At Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018) Heathrow identified three potential areas for future terminal capacity and apron space (Area 1 East, Area 2 West and Area 3 North). All three areas are needed to support the expanded airport.
Whilst the location of additional terminal capacity and apron capacity within the eastern part of the existing airport would likely have less effect on the Longford River when considered in isolation, the expansion of Heathrow would be built partly in the flood plain of the Colne Valley rivers and will result in the requirement for river diversions and replacement flood storage. A detailed evaluation considering a range of criteria, including effects on rivers and flooding has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.
Findings of this evaluation are presented in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3.
Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in the PEIR, published as part of the AEC, in particular Chapter 21 – Water Environment.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
248 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concern that the north and west options restrict the width of the open river corridors after they come under the northern runway. These impacts would need careful consideration in option selection and that the eastern option would allow more space for the river corridors through the Colne Valley.
✓ Heathrow recognises the importance of the river corridors and particularly the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. The consideration of rivers can be found in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 4, Chapter 1: River Diversions and Flood Storage.
Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in the PEIR, published as part of the AEC, in particular, Chapter 21 – Water Environment.
Heathrow’s approach to minimising land is commended but it is requested that the highest possible environmental standards are met, great design standards are built in, mitigation measures are taken to reduce impacts and that consideration is given to future-proofing facilities.
✓ Heathrow is committed to grow sustainably, meeting demand for aviation while creating a positive legacy for the local community, environment, and economy.
As part of the masterplan scheme development, careful consideration has been given to expanding the airport in a sustainable way that meets demand and the needs of the future.
The detailed designs for terminals and environmental standards of new elements of the Project will be carried out at a later stage.
Further information on the masterplan scheme development can be found in the Preferred Masterplan document and details of the proposals to mitigate the effects of the Project are contained in the PEIR and the document: Proposals for Mitigation and Compensation. These documents are published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
249 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Effects on local people, local communities, homes, housing and residential areas are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.
✓ As part of the masterplan scheme development, Heathrow has sought to minimise the effects on local communities as far as practicable. In developing the Preferred Masterplan document, Heathrow has carefully balanced these effects against a range of technical, environmental and economic factors and feedback provided by stakeholders.
Further information can be found in the Preferred Masterplan document, published as part of the AEC.
Quality of life, health and well-being are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.
✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criteria, including quality of life, health and wellbeing, has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.
Heathrow is currently undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in the PEIR, published as part of the AEC, in particular Chapter 12 – Health.
Request for clarity on outbuildings labelled as ‘gateways’ in the Scheme Development Report.
✓ The outbuildings labelled as ‘gateways’ in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 7: Car Parking Facilities, are areas where Heathrow is considering the consolidation of car parking facilities. These are now identified in the Preferred Masterplan document as Parkways.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
250 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Support for terminals being located next to or as extensions to Terminals 2 and 5.
✓ Heathrow’s proposals increase terminal processing capacity by expanding Terminal 2 and through locating T5X adjacent to Terminal 5.
Further information can be found in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC.
Support for proposals to expand Terminals 2 and 5 as this would provide an opportunity to ensure accessibility for disabled travellers is at the heart of the terminal redesign.
✓
The Eastern Campus should be planned for the larger throughput (around 80 mppa), with satellites to the east and west connected by people movers
✓ This option was considered in the Scheme Development Report that was published to accompany the Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018). Heathrow considers that the capacity of this option would be constrained to 55 million passengers per annum as expanding further to the East is not cost efficient due to the need to fully reprovide the eastern maintenance base and extend the automated people mover (APM)
Further information can be found in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC.
Removal of T4 would reduce the need for crossings of the southern runway and allow options for the location of cargo and car parking on the south side to be considered.
✓ The retention of Terminal 4 is essential in making the most of the existing terminal capacity to ensure an affordable Project. It is therefore not proposed for removal as part of the Project.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
251 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Request that Heathrow clarify the capacity of the proposed terminals, surface access passengers estimated in each terminal and the proposed phasing of increased terminal capacity.
✓ The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, describes the phasing of increased terminal capacity in four steps from runway opening to end status.
Further detail about forecasted passenger journeys and mode share is included in the PTIR, published as part of the AEC.
The phasing of existing and/or new terminal developments are crucial to define scheme affordability and are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.
✓
Strategies and growth plans of airlines and alliances are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.
✓ As part of the masterplan scheme development, Heathrow is undertaking an ongoing programme of engagement with key stakeholders and partners. This includes engagement with incumbent and non-incumbent airlines to understand their growth ambitions and future requirements to ensure Heathrow delivers capacity at the right times in line with airline and passenger demand. This engagement has been used to help inform Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan document.
Support for the delivery of additional terminal capacity but it must be developed in line with airline requirements. It believed that its own western campus approach would achieve this and would be more efficient than Heathrow’s proposals.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
252 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Decisions on the location of terminal capacity should be made jointly between Heathrow and its airline customers.
✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criteria has being undertaken to identify the preferred location and options for terminal and apron capacity, taking into account the consultation responses, including airline customers, and feedback received from ongoing engagement.
The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC, provides further detail about the findings of this evaluation.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
253 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Questions about terminals were leading, given Heathrow had promised there would be no further terminals built as a precondition of getting planning permission for T5.
✓ The ANPS provides the policy basis for new terminal capacity, which was established following the Airports Commission recommendation and adopted into policy following Parliamentary scrutiny.
Heathrow’s existing terminals and aprons can serve 95
million passengers per annum which can be unlocked
through various infrastructure and terminal improvements.
To meet the requirements of the ANPS, which states that
expansion should deliver additional capacity of at least
260,000 air transport movements, new terminal capacity,
either in dedicated terminal buildings or ‘satellites’ as well
as apron space is needed. The questions about the
proposals for new terminals were written with that policy
context in mind.
Heathrow is seeking to make efficient use of its existing
terminal infrastructure and land within the airport boundary
wherever possible. It is also seeking to build any new
terminal capacity on the public transport spine to maximise
the number of journeys made to and from the airport by
public transport.
The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC, provides further detail in this regard.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
254 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The new terminal should be between the existing northern runway and the new north-west runway option on this basis there was enough space in this area to build a terminal large enough to deal with the additional capacity provided by the new runway.
✓ This option of locating a terminal (rather than a Satellite) has been considered but was discontinued as it not on the public transport spine and would prejudice the ability to meet the Surface Access targets as laid out in the ANPS. The cost of the extending the public transport spine to the north would be prohibitive.
The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC, provides further detail in this regard.
Assurance sought that de-icer used on aprons is appropriately controlled and treated so as not to cause pollution.
✓ Heathrow has completed an evaluation of surface water drainage and pollution control options.
The evaluation considered the impacts of de-icer, hydrocarbons and other pollutants, in accordance with both the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the ANPS.
Full findings of the evaluation process can be found in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 4, Chapter 2: Drainage and Pollution Control, published as part of the AEC.
Early findings of the likely significant effects are included in the PEIR Chapter 21 - Water Environment, as well as identification of environmental measures to mitigate these effects. The full findings will be included in the ES that will be submitted as part of the DCO Application.
Proper de-icing and anti-icing factors were important is an important factor in locating new terminal and apron space.
✓
Request for clarity on proposals for contaminated surface water and how this would be addressed.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
255 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Why has expansion of Terminal 3 been ruled out?
✓ Heathrow proposes to redevelop Terminal 3 once sufficient capacity has been provided to allow its closure. This will be circa 2035 by which time Terminal 3 will 75 years old.
The Terminal 3 site will then be redeveloped as part of providing a more spatially efficient apron layout, achieved through a linear satellite arrangement.
The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2,
Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC, provides further
detail in this regard.
New or reordered terminals should include faith facilities within terminals and airside.
✓ Heathrow currently provides faith facilities in several places across the airport. Heathrow recognises these are important to passengers, and consideration will be given to the location of further faith facilities as part of the detailed design on new terminal capacity within the Project.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
256 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Request that Stanwell Moor should be included in the WPOZ given its proximity to the potential west terminal/satellite.
✓ Residential properties included in the Wider Property Offer Zone boundary are within areas around the expanded airport where the land is not required for the physical expansion of the airport but which stand to be most affected by the impacts of it, in particular new levels of noise. In setting the boundary of the Wider Property Offer Zone, Heathrow sought to identify those properties that would be in close proximity to the new Northwest Runway that would experience high levels of new noise. Heathrow also sought to enclose whole communities rather than run a boundary through a village.
Since undertaking Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018), the basis on which the Wider Property Offer Zone has been defined and the various ways expansion could have an adverse impact has been reviewed. There are no new areas of Stanwell or Stanwell Moor that are forecast to experience significant new noise levels (66dB leq or above). The forecast improvement in noise means that Heathrow expects an overall long-term improvement in noise levels in these villages.
The temporary impacts of construction will be mitigated through adherence to the legally enforceable Code of Construction Practice. This will be a requirement of the DCO. It will be subject to consultation this summer and will provide mechanisms to engage with the local community and their representatives throughout the construction period. There will also be a Community Fund available to
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
257 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
these communities to provide wider community benefit, off-setting impacts. Information on the Community Fund is in the document: Proposals for Mitigation and Compensation, published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow’s current Noise Insulation and Property Schemes cover Stanwell Moor and parts of Stanwell. This includes the Relocation Assistance Scheme that operates in residential areas around Heathrow that are exposed to a high level of noise. Lastly, under the Statutory Compensation Code it may be possible for people to make a claim for compensation for the loss of value of their property as a result of the expansion scheme.
Options which minimise turbulence from buildings should be prioritised.
✓ Heathrow does not consider that at this stage detailed consideration of potential turbulence from buildings (changes in airflow caused by structures or buildings) is necessary for the development of the Preferred Masterplan document. Heathrow will review the need to assess turbulence from buildings in later design stages.
Suggestion that provision must be made for the development and maintenance of the existing terminal infrastructure and facilities. This will ensure that these facilities remain adequately provisioned to provide an acceptable or equivalent customer experience throughout their remaining life.
✓ In addition to the construction of new terminal capacity proposed in the Preferred Masterplan document, Heathrow regularly reviews the need for the enhancement and improvement to its existing terminal infrastructure. Investment outside of the Project is planned for the next 10 years to ensure existing facilities remain adequately provisioned and that a consistent high level of customer experience is provided.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
258 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Why is there a need for such a large proposed northern area, which would have the greatest impact on historic landscapes in the vicinity?
✓ The findings of the Airports Commission and the ANPS confirm that Heathrow’s Northwest Runway scheme is the most suitable location for additional runway capacity for the south east of England.
The new Northwest Runway must be parallel to the existing runways and separated by at least 1,035m from the existing northern runway to enable independent runway operations.
As well as ensuring independent runway operation, a separation of 1,035m provides sufficient space for any additional terminal, apron and taxiway infrastructure on a northern apron whilst minimising property loss in Harmondsworth and the loss of St Mary’s Church, the cemetery and the Great Barn. Although there would be benefit in having the runways even further apart to deliver flow efficiencies, Heathrow does not consider this provides sufficient benefits to justify moving the Northwest Runway any further north than 1,035m from the existing northern runway.
Further responses to feedback received in relation to heritage assets can be found in the Historic Environment section of this report (Chapter 24). In addition, the PEIR Chapter 13 – Historic Environment contains early findings on the likely significant effects of the Project on heritage assets (including heritage landscapes) and provides details on proposed mitigation measures. The PEIR is
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
259 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee18
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
published as part of the AEC.
Terminal 3’s deficiencies such as heating and cooling for the terminal, a reliable water supply, increased focus on preventative maintenance for critical facilities and improvements in terminal and ramp custodial protocols must be addressed.
✓ In order to make efficient use of existing infrastructure and having regard to affordability considerations, Heathrow proposes to close Terminal 3 once sufficient capacity has been provided in other areas of the airport.
This will also allow for the closure of the terminal without constraining demand at the airport.
As with all existing assets, Heathrow will continue to invest in Terminal 3 until its closure to ensure high service standards and improve ASQ scores.
The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC, provides further detail in this regard.
8.5.2
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
260 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
9. TAXIWAYS
9.1 Introduction
9.1.1 In response to Airport Expansion Consultation One, Heathrow sought feedback in
relation to the location for new taxiways to link the new expanded facilities to the
existing taxiway system. A total of 1,601 consultees made comments relating to
this topic.
9.1.2 Heathrow provided the following material that is directly related to the location for
new taxiways:
1. Airport Expansion Consultation Document;
2. Our Emerging Plans; and
3. Scheme Development Report.
9.1.3 Section 2.3 of the Airport Expansion Consultation Document Heathrow identified
the following three broad areas for new taxiways:
1. Area 1 – West of T5;
2. Area 2 – West of what will become the central runway; and
3. Area 3 – North and south of what will become the central runway.
9.1.4 References to Option Numbers below are taken from the Airport Expansion
Consultation Document.
9.1.5 Heathrow asked the following questions regarding the location for new taxiways at
Airport Expansion Consultation One:
1. What factors do you think should be important in deciding the location of new
taxiways?
9.1.6 This chapter provides a summary of the relevant consultation feedback received
from prescribed consultees, local communities and wider/other consultees. The
issues raised by respondents have also been grouped in table form at the end of
this chapter, which includes Heathrow’s response to these issues.
9.2 Prescribed Consultees
Local Authorities
9.2.1 A range of detailed comments were received from local authorities which
highlighted factors that should be considered in deciding the location of the new
taxiways. The most frequently highlighted factor was minimising noise impacts on
nearby local communities and reducing emissions. This was referred to by Ealing
Council, London Borough of Hounslow, Slough Borough Council, Spelthorne
Borough Council, Surrey County Council and Wokingham Borough Council.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
261 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
9.2.2 Ealing Council highlighted that any proposals should allow for complete alternation
between all three runways to provide respite and minimise harmful environmental
impacts. They considered that the Project provides an opportunity for more
efficient taxiways which could reduce ground-based emissions and requested that
options that avoid aircraft queuing to cross runways and taking longer routes
around the airport to get to taxiways should be avoided.
9.2.3 The London Borough of Hounslow did not have a specific view on the alignment of
taxiways but highlighted that, in determining their orientation and extent, noise and
pollution exposure for local residents must be minimised.
9.2.4 Kent County Council highlighted that the taxiways must improve the safety of the
airport beyond the current operation. It stated that where factors are felt locally,
such as noise, these would be best commented on by those local to the airport.
9.2.5 Spelthorne Borough Council commented that maximising the efficiency of taxiing
would help to reduce unnecessary emissions from ground-based aircraft activity. It
noted that the taxiways at the eastern end would require a significantly greater
land take than those on the western side and identified that if the western taxiway
option was pursued it would have significant impacts on the community at Stanwell
Moor.
9.2.6 In addition to commenting on the importance of considering noise effects, Slough
Borough Council highlighted that taxiways could not be considered in isolation. It
highlighted that:
1. the replacement of the Western Perimeter Road could have a significant impact
upon the ability to provide space for new taxiways to the west of the airport;
2. the amount of land taken for the proposed taxiway south of the third runway should
be reduced. This would retain a “green envelope” around Colnbrook village and
protect the environment and amenities of existing residential properties and the
school;
3. Area 1 and Area 2 should be relocated much closer to the existing airport boundary
to reduce the impact on residents of Poyle and to allow for more local road options
and re-routing options
4. Surrey County Council highlighted that the taxiways shown as Area 1 West of T5 will
impact people living in Stanwell Moor and should be included within the WPOZ.
9.2.7 The London Borough of Sutton considered that there was a potential conflict
between the proposed taxiways and proposals from Network Rail and others for
south western and western rail access to Terminal 5. They commented that these
must be a priority regardless of the Project.
9.2.8 Wokingham Borough Council considered that the positioning of taxiways was an
operational matter on which it did not feel competent to comment apart from
observing that aircraft taxiing should be minimised as far as is practical to reduce
aircraft noise and emissions.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
262 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Statutory Consultees
9.2.9 Historic England commented that the creation of a new taxiway to the north of the
existing northern runway would lead to greater noise effects on designated
heritage assets at Harlington. It also commented that the taxiway would
encompass the Grade II listed memorial to General Roy, which is situated
adjacent to the existing northern perimeter road.
9.2.10 Highways England commented that the taxiway locations west and north of
Terminal 5 should be located as close as possible to the central runway to ensure
they are distant from the M25 and minimise effects on rivers and other
infrastructure between the M25 and the taxiways.
9.2.11 They also made a number of specific comments about important factors in the
design of the taxiways and minimising impacts on the SRN:
1. the location and design of the taxiways must consider the need for surface access to
cross under, over or around them and the need for road access routes from M25
Junction 14 and 14a and the A3113;
2. The design of taxiways crossing the M25 or any other part of the SRN must be of a
sufficient height above the carriageway to allow sufficient headroom for vehicles,
signage and operations and maintenance equipment;
3. the impact of driver distraction should be considered and a driver’s eye simulation
from all approaches on the strategic road network provided
4. the proposed taxiways must not prevent or lead to excessive costs and complexity
in providing access to and operating and maintaining access to M25 J14, M25 J14A
or the A3113;
5. consideration should be given to shortening this runway at its western end to
maximise space between the taxiways and the M25;
6. the taxiways over the M25 must be raised sufficiently above the existing ground
level to prevent the M25 having to be lowered to a level which will result in a
gradient on the carriageway in excess of 3% in any location. This would result in
unacceptable capacity and safety implications as a result of slow moving HGVs;
7. taxiways must not be constructed on an alignment where an accidental overrun
would lead to an aircraft entering or overhanging the M25;
8. taxiways and associated verges crossing the M25 should be designed to be wide
enough for aircraft wing tips not to overhang the M25.
Other prescribed bodies
9.2.12 Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) in its response to the question about
terminals and aprons, requested further engagement on operational aspects of the
airport.
9.2.13 Thames Water Utilities Limited indicated that it had no concerns with the proposals
for taxiways.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
263 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
9.2.14 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council suggested that an important factor should be
closeness to residential properties. It stated that such properties would not only be
affected by noise from aircraft taking off and landing on the new runway but also
by aircraft standing on taxiways stationary for several minutes at a time.
9.3 Local Communities
Members of the public
9.3.1 Those members of the public that expressed a preference for any of the taxiway
options were largely in favour of Area 3. Areas 2 and 1 received considerably less
support.
9.3.2 General comments were also received which did not support any of the taxiway
options or questioned the necessity for the taxiways or the Project in general.
Important considerations
9.3.3 Members of the public made comments or suggestions about the factors they
considered to be important in deciding the location of the new taxiways:
1. operational efficiency of the airport
2. how aircraft would move from terminal to runway
3. how/if aircraft could cross the different runways
4. taxiing time to and from the runways and terminals
5. congestion and air traffic
6. passenger experience
7. the length of taxiways
8. noise and noise pollution
9. air pollution and air quality
10. environmental effects in general
11. impact on wildlife and habitats
12. emissions and climate change
13. the loss of land
14. impact on green and open spaces and the countryside
15. safety
16. fuel efficiency
17. effects on flight paths
18. effects on local people and local communities
19. effects on people’s quality of life, health and well-being
20. convenience, connections and access to and from the new terminal and runways
21. journey times
22. cost and cost effectiveness
23. operating costs and impact on airlines
24. effects on the local road network and road users
25. effects on traffic congestion during construction.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
264 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Businesses
9.3.4 Businesses provided comments about the factors important in locating new
taxiways. These are identified below:
9.3.5 Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited suggested that the taxiways are designed to
minimise the requirement to cross runways and proposals do not restrict ‘Code E’
taxiing. They highlighted the important role the taxiway network plays in providing
a safe, efficient and resilient airport and suggested that minimising taxi times,
interactions and delays, airfield safety and predictability are important factors.
They requested analysis on the potential North Eastern taxiway, particularly
should the airfield modelling show significant inefficiencies and disruptions, were it
not introduced
9.3.6 EasyJet suggested that the location of taxiways should be driven by efficiency and
cost to passengers. T and CG Limited and Hatton Farm Estates Limited made
similar comments about cost and aircraft movements efficiencies. T and CG
Limited also highlighted the importance of a reduction of the noise footprint.
9.3.7 Petchey Industrial Properties Limited suggested that the taxiways should be in a
new location away from the current main terminus.
9.3.8 Staffordshire Chambers of Commerce highlighted the ability to deliver more
predictable journey times, reducing costs for airlines and therefore consumers and
providing greater efficiencies in Heathrow's operations as important factors.
9.3.9 Sunvil Holidays suggested that taxiways need to be designed in such a way as to
minimise taxi times and to allow for the greatest number of movements and ease
of taxi between existing and new terminals.
9.3.10 Surrey Chambers of Commerce highlighted the importance of meeting noise and
air quality requirements along with fitting in with current taxiways.
9.3.11 The Fuel Trading Company indicated that the most important factor was to reduce
airfield traffic and subsequent impacts on the local area. It considered that Area 3
would offer the best solution as it would allow aircraft to land further along the
runway.
9.3.12 Town Centre Securities PLC highlighted airside economies and convenience as
the two most important factors.
9.3.13 Electron Beam Processes Limited highlighted movement, safety and logistics as
important factors.
9.3.14 Greengauge 21 suggested that careful design of taxiways and adjacent roadways
could result in the creation of valuable, usable land to the west of Terminal 5.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
265 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
9.3.15 London (Heathrow) Airline Consultative Committee and the Board of Airline
Representatives in the UK indicated that the new taxiways must achieve an
optimum solution for the whole airport and that safe and efficient operation should
be the underlying principle in assessing taxiways.
9.3.16 Lanz Group questioned whether such large separation distances between the
terminal areas and the taxiways was appropriate and necessary. It expressed
concerns that using the land to the east of the M25 means this land cannot be
used for other infrastructure such as roads.
9.3.17 The Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce commented that it expected to see a
focus on ensuring the highest possible standards of efficient, safe movement of all
traffic around the airport. It also indicated that it would expect to see a reduction of
long term noise, air quality and pollution resulting from these movements.
Community groups
9.3.18 Many of the community groups who provided feedback to Airport Expansion
Consultation One expressed opposition to the Project but did not necessarily
include specific feedback on taxiways.
9.3.19 Those that made comments focussed on the factors that they considered were
important and should be considered.
9.3.20 Harrow U3A Sustainability Group agreed with a need for proper design of taxiways
that would reduce operating cost for airlines, as well as noise and emissions
generated at ground level. It expressed surprise with the current taxiing practice of
crossing a runway to serve Terminal 4.
9.3.21 Richmond Heathrow Campaign indicated that the relatively small footprint of
Heathrow makes it difficult to design the taxiways. It went on to comment that
taxiing aircraft are a sizable contributor to NOx (Nitrogen Oxides) pollution and
non-compliant concentrations.
9.3.22 Dover House Estate Residents Association stated that the most important factors
for taxiway design were those which create the least noise and least pollution.
9.3.23 Englefield Green Action Group requested guarantees that there will be no increase
in noise or air pollution.
9.3.24 Local Conversation in Stanwell suggested that a reduction in the length of the
current northern runway would allow an eastern taxiway around the end of the
runway which would improve aircraft movements on the ground and reduce
ground noise and emissions
9.3.25 Colnbrook Community Partnership commented that Area 2 would bring taxiways
close to Poyle and the residential properties on Elbow Meadow. It queried why a
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
266 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Code E ATET (which moves the taxiways further to the east) had not been
considered. It highlighted noise, visual impact and air quality as important factors
in the location of the new taxiways.
9.3.26 SCR Residents for a Fair Consideration of Heathrow Expansion highlighted noise,
disturbance, local population, traffic impacts and parking as important
considerations regarding the position of taxiways.
9.3.27 The Camberley Society considered that technical factors were important to ensure
the safe movement of aircraft, as well as minimising impact on local towns,
villages and housing.
9.3.28 The Fulham Society supported Taxiway options that would allow inset runway
thresholds so that aircraft arriving from the east could land further down the
runway. It considered that this would allow aircraft to be higher and therefore
quieter on approach.
9.4 Wider/other Consultees
9.4.1 A range of comments were received from wider/other consultees in relation to the
factors that should be considered in deciding the location of the new taxiways.
9.4.2 London Parks and Gardens Trust considered that around and end taxiways
(ARETS) would be best placed nearest to the M25 to minimise noise disruption to
local communities and the surrounding historic environment.
9.4.3 The London Wildlife Trust suggested that all taxiways should be moved as close to
the airport as possible to avoid unnecessary land-take and impacts on rivers and
other habitats. The Royal Parks also expressed concerns about impacts on rivers,
noting that the taxiways will serve the terminals, aprons and runway and will result
in areas of the Longford River being constructed over.
9.4.4 The British Helicopter Association highlighted efficient flow to and from runways
alleviating the need for unnecessary ground taxiing as an important factor.
9.4.5 Aviation Safety Investigations expressed concerns with the design of the layout for
runway exits and entries and commented that the runway holding positions should
be clear of the whole of the runway strip not just the clear and graded area.
9.4.6 The Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers (GATCO) indicated that the taxiway layout
on page 21 of the Airport Expansion Consultation Document was pointless as
there was no information on where the new terminal would be located.
9.4.7 The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport commented that the yellow, red
and blue taxiways shown are all satisfactory. However, they considered that the
North East Taxiway would only have minimal operational benefit which would be
negated by long taxiing distances.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
267 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
9.4.8 The Lambeth/Herne Hill Green Party expressed a preference for Area 3 as it
would reduce airfield congestion and enable aircraft to land further along the
runway so that they are higher over local communities.
9.4.9 Colne Valley Regional Park commented that the taxiways should not take up any
of Colnbrook’s or Poyle’s existing green spaces/recreational areas. It requested
that Heathrow explore possibilities for moving taxiways closer to the airport to
avoid unnecessary land-take and to reduce the impact on rivers and local
communities.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
268 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
9.5 Issues Raised and Heathrow’s Responses
9.5.1 Table 9.1 presents a summary of the main issues raised by prescribed consultees, local communities and wider/other
consultees in relation to Taxiways and for which only interim responses were provided in the ICFR (the prior Table B).
This updated table also presents Heathrow’s responses to those issues and explains how in preparing our proposals
for the Airport Expansion Consultation we have had regard to that feedback.
Table 9.1
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
In designing and positioning taxiways the following factors are important:
Respondents have highlighted a wide range of factors which are relevant to taxiway design and positioning.
In developing the proposed taxiway layout which forms part of the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation (June 2019) (AEC), Heathrow has undertaken a detailed evaluation of possible taxiway options.
The Updated Scheme Development Report,
• maximising the efficiency of taxiing, which would help to improve fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary emissions from ground-based aircraft activity;
✓
• efficient flow to and from runways and terminals, which would alleviate the need for unnecessary ground taxiing;
✓
19 PC - Prescribed Consultees; MC – Members of the Community; WC – Wider Consultees
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
269 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
• a design which allows for complete alternation between all three runways to provide respite and minimise harmful environmental impacts;
✓ Document 2, Chapter 2: Taxiway System, explains in further detail the evaluation exercise undertaken in order to develop the proposed taxiway layout.
In summary, the taxiway layout proposed in the Preferred Masterplan document has been designed to provide an efficient airfield that delivers optimised taxiing times and minimal aircraft traffic delays, both on the ground and in the air, while accommodating the required capacity of at least 740,000 air traffic movements and providing guaranteed respite periods as required in the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS).
As part of Heathrow’s masterplan scheme development, regard has been given to feedback received from consultees in relation to taxiways at Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018).
In particular, taxiway layout options have undergone extensive airfield flow modelling to ensure there is a robust justification for their inclusion and to ensure that they will integrate efficiently into the existing taxiway network. The modelling measures taxiway efficiency using metrics such as taxi times, taxi distances and delays (both ground based and airborne). Maximising the efficiency of taxiing helps to improve fuel efficiency, reduce airline fuel/operating costs and reduce unnecessary noise
• the highest possible standards of efficient, safe movement of all traffic around the airport should be achieved;
✓
• minimising the requirement to cross runways and the proposals should not restrict ‘Code E’ taxiing;
✓
• efficiency and cost to passengers; ✓
• improving the safety of the airport beyond the current operation;
✓ ✓
• operational efficiency of the airport; ✓
• consideration should be given to how/if aircraft could cross the different runways;
✓
• minimising taxi times, interactions and delays;
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
270 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
• more predictable journey times, reducing costs for airlines and therefore consumers and providing greater efficiencies in Heathrow's operations;
✓ and emissions from ground-based aircraft activity (reducing air pollution). Consequently, passengers experience reduced costs, improved predictability of taxi times and a better passenger experience. The results from the modelling have been taken into account when evaluating the different taxiway options.
The airfield flow modelling includes flow to and from runways and terminals and has considered a three runway alternation pattern required to provide equitable respite to surrounding communities.
The design and operation of the airfield, including the taxiways, complies with international standards to ensure Heathrow continues to be one of the safest airports in the world. The airfield flow modelling mentioned above measures the number of anticipated aircraft interactions. Reducing the number of aircraft interactions will improve the efficient and safe flow of aircraft and is a key consideration in the evaluation of taxiway options. The final design, procedures and associated safety cases will be subject to approval by the regulating authority, Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
The Preferred Masterplan document includes Around The End Taxiways to the west to minimise
• congestion and air traffic; ✓
• passenger experience; ✓
• air pollution and air quality; ✓ ✓
• environmental effects in general; ✓
• the effect on wildlife and habitats; ✓
• the loss of land; ✓
• impact on green and open spaces and the countryside;
✓
• the effects on flight paths; ✓
• the effects on local people and local communities, including effects on quality of life, health and well-being;
✓ ✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
271 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
• operating costs and impact on airlines;
✓ the requirement to cross the existing northern runway to access the new runway. Runway crossing options are explored in further detail in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2 Chapter 2: Taxiway System published as part of the AEC.
All new taxiways will be code F compliant, so code E taxiing operations will not be restricted. A code F taxiway can accommodate the largest aircraft expected to use the airfield i.e. aircraft with a wingspan between 65m and 80m. This includes the
• the effects on the local road network and road users;
✓
• the effects on traffic congestion during construction;
✓
• a reduction in the noise footprint; ✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
272 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
• meeting noise and air quality requirements along with fitting in with current taxiways.
✓ Airbus A380 and Boeing B747-800.
Taxiways have been designed to provide efficient access to/from the runways and aprons, while occupying the least amount of land and complying with operational and regulatory spacing requirements. This minimises the impact on land take, wildlife habitats, local communities, open spaces and local roads. The taxiways have been designed as close as practicable to the infrastructure they serve (i.e. runways and aprons). This improves efficiency and reduces taxi times and has the added benefit of reducing land take and moving aircraft noise and emissions further from the airport boundary. An assessment of ground noise, air quality, biodiversity and community impacts from all airfield operations has been carried out in accordance with the methodologies set out in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Report. The findings of the assessment will be reported in the Environmental Statement (ES) and initial findings are available in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) which has been published as part of the AEC.
The taxiways are designed for the ground movement of aircraft only and, therefore, are not influenced by the flight paths.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
273 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Taxiways should be in a new location away from the current main terminus.
✓ A new taxiway network has been designed to link the Northwest Runway to the rest of the airport and to accommodate changes on the existing runways associated with improved efficiency and reduced noise impacts. These requirements mean that proposed new taxiways are located away from the current main terminus, which already has a well-developed taxiway network. This is illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan document, published as part of the AEC.
Important factors in the design of the taxiways and minimising impacts on the Strategic Road Network include:
✓ Heathrow has worked closely with Highways England and the local highway authorities to ensure that the design and location of taxiways proposed within the Preferred Masterplan document minimise any adverse impacts on the Strategic Road Network.
Heathrow has also sought to design the taxiways to comply with the highest safety requirements and all other applicable international regulatory standards (specifically European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standards). These standards
• ensuring the design of taxiways crossing the M25 or any other part of the Strategic Road Network must be of a sufficient height above the carriageway to allow sufficient headroom for vehicles, signage and operations and maintenance equipment;
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
274 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
• the need to avoid solutions which prevent access or lead to excessive costs and complexity in providing access to and operating and maintaining access to M25 J14, M25 J14A or the A3113;
✓ include allowances either side of the taxiway for accidental overruns (taxiway strip).
Respondents highlighted a number of factors considered important when designing a taxiway system which minimises impacts on the Strategic Road Network. Heathrow has had regard to this feedback in the masterplan scheme development. such that the Preferred Masterplan document includes the following:
A new section of the M25 will be built on a revised alignment and at a lower level to accommodate the new runway. The new section will be built off-line and, once complete, will be connected to the existing motorway, in order to minimise disruption to existing users of the motorway. A large number of motorway alignments and elevation options have been assessed. The evaluations of these options took into account the runway/taxiway alignments, costs, maintenance access and operations on the M25, associated junctions and feeder roads. The preferred M25 solution retains much of the existing Junction 14 and 14a infrastructure, has the quickest delivery, is the lowest capex option, has less impact on rivers and communities, is better for operations and wayfinding, provides more resilience for airport access and retains separated local traffic from
• giving consideration to shortening the runways at their western end to maximise space between the taxiways and the M25;
✓
• designing taxiways over the M25 that must be raised sufficiently above the existing ground level to prevent the M25 having to be lowered to a level which will result in a gradient on the carriageway in excess of 3% in any location. This would result in unacceptable capacity and safety implications as a result of slow moving HGVs;
✓
• taxiways must not be constructed on an alignment where an accidental overrun would lead to an aircraft entering or overhanging the M25;
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
275 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
• taxiways and associated verges crossing the M25 should be designed to be wide enough for aircraft wing tips not to overhang the M25;
✓ airport traffic. The details of the preferred M25 option and evaluations can be found in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 3 Chapter 1: M25 and Junctions, published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
276 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
• the impact of driver distraction should be considered and a driver’s eye simulation from all approaches on the strategic road network provided.
✓ The taxiways have been designed to accommodate the preferred M25 layout.
The taxiways (and runway) have been designed at an elevation that provides sufficient headroom above the M25 carriageway to accommodate vehicles, signs and operations/maintenance equipment. Both Highways England and the Civil Aviation Authority were consulted as part of this process. The final M25 gradients have not been finalised but will comply with Highways England requirements.
The taxiways have been designed on bridges spanning the M25 on an alignment parallel to the runway. The taxiway bridges are preferred to a tunnel as the gap between bridges improves air quality for road users, reduces construction and maintenance costs, reduces the environmental impacts and reduces the amount of mechanical ventilation and subsequent maintenance requirements.
The issues of driver distraction have been considered in the design and simulations produced for the taxiway bridges and discussed with Highways England.
The width of taxiway bridges over the M25 is being discussed with Highways England, the Civil Aviation
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
277 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Authority and the relevant emergency services. International regulatory standards (specifically European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) state ‘The width of that portion of a taxiway bridge capable of supporting aeroplanes, as measured perpendicularly to the taxiway centre line, should not be less than the width of the graded area of the strip provided for that taxiway unless a proven method of lateral restraint is provided which should not be hazardous for aeroplanes for which the taxiway is intended.’ According to EASA regulations, the width of a code F (i.e. aircraft up to maximum wingspan of 80m) graded strip is 44m. Examples of taxiway bridges over motorways with widths of 44-60m can be found throughout Europe and the United States. The bridge width will also take into account the requirements of emergency services. The final bridge width may result in wing tips overhanging the M25.
The Preferred Masterplan document proposes to shorten the existing northern runway at its western end to maximise the space between the new Around The End Taxiways and the M25 while providing independent taxiing operations.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
278 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
New taxiways must achieve an optimum solution for the whole airport.
✓ Heathrow agrees that the proposed new taxiways should achieve an optimum solution for the whole airport. The airfield has been designed as an integrated operation, so that the third runway operates efficiently in conjunction with the existing two runways. The taxiway layout contained within the Preferred Masterplan document has been designed to be fully flexible and to provide a route for aircraft from any apron to any runway end.
In formulating the Preferred Masterplan document, Heathrow has undertaken an evaluation of feasible taxiway options. Taxiway options have undergone extensive airfield flow modelling to ensure there is a robust justification for their inclusion and that they will integrate efficiently into the existing taxiway network.
Positioning of taxiways is an operational matter.
✓ Heathrow’s response to the first taxiway issue in this table has highlighted the wide range of factors which are considered relevant to taxiway design. Operational matters have been balanced with other economic, social and environmental considerations as part of the masterplan scheme development undertaken.
There is a need for taxiways to minimise noise impacts on nearby local communities.
✓ ✓ ✓ The masterplan scheme development process ensures that the potential noise and air quality
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
279 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
In designing and positioning taxiways, an important factor should be closeness to residential properties which will not only be affected by noise from aircraft taking off and landing on the new runway but also by aircraft standing on taxiways stationary for several minutes at a time.
✓ ✓ implications of all airfield components, including taxiways, are thoroughly considered. There are a wide range of criteria relating to the planning, property, community and environmental disciplines and these have been applied to the taxiway options to ensure that noise and air quality impacts are properly evaluated and minimised.
The layout of taxiways, as included in the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC, has been optimised to reduce noise, emissions and air quality impacts by ensuring aircraft movements on the ground are highly efficient and engine use is reduced. This has been achieved by keeping distances between runways, taxiways, aprons and stands to a practicable minimum, thereby reducing the distance that aircraft travel when not in flight.
The positioning of taxiways has also been informed by the need to maintain sufficient separation from sensitive receptors, such as residential properties. Furthermore, the location of the taxiways is most efficient when they are closest to the origin or destination of the aircraft traffic movements (i.e. the runway or aircraft stands). This principle naturally locates taxiways closer to runways and aprons and further from communities on the perimeter of the
The expansion of the airport provided an opportunity for more efficient taxiways which could reduce ground-based emissions.
✓
In deciding the location of the new taxiways emissions and climate change should be considered.
✓
Taxiways should be designed and positioned to maximise the efficiency of taxiing would help to reduce unnecessary emissions from ground-based aircraft activity.
✓
In determining the orientation and extent of taxiways, noise and pollution exposure for local residents must be minimised.
✓
Taxiways should be designed to reduce long term noise, air quality and pollution resulting from taxiway movements.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
280 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
In designing and positioning taxiways, the most important factors were creating the least noise and least pollution.
✓ airport.
An assessment of environmental impacts from all airfield operations has been carried out in accordance with the methodologies set out in the EIA Scoping Report. The findings of the assessment will be reported in the ES and initial findings are available in the PEIR which has been published as part of the AEC – in particular Chapter 7 Air Quality and Odour, Chapter 9 Carbon and other Greenhouse Gases and Chapter 17 Noise and Vibration.
Concern that taxiing aircraft are a sizeable contributor to NOX pollution and non-compliant concentrations.
✓
Request for guarantees that there will be no increase in noise or air pollution.
✓
In considering noise effects, taxiways should not be considered in isolation.
✓ Noise effects caused by taxiways have not been considered in isolation. All sources of ground noise are being evaluated in the assessment of the airfield layout, as set out in the EIA Scoping Report. The findings of the assessment will be reported in the ES and initial findings are available in Chapter 17 of the PEIR which has been published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
281 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Taxiways at the eastern end would require a significantly greater land take than those on the western side.
✓ The requirements for the taxiway network were set out in section 5.2 of the Scheme Development Report at Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018).
A wide range of options were initially evaluated and Eastern Around The End taxiway options (i.e. taxiways across or around the eastern end of the existing northern runway) were discontinued as they would have significant impacts on adjacent local communities and would require the relocation of maintenance and other airport activities, with potential land requirement and other implications elsewhere. The north east taxiway option was retained.
Following Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018), a further assessment was undertaken of the north east taxiway. This assessment concluded that greater land take, displaced properties and associated costs required for this taxiway option were not outweighed by known operational benefits.
As explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 2: Taxiway System, the north east taxiway has now been removed from the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
282 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concern that if the western taxiway option was pursued it would have significant impacts on the community at Stanwell Moor, as it would bring aircraft noise considerably closer to the residential properties.
✓ Terminal and apron development has resulted in an apron layout intended to optimise the area west of Terminal 5. This has resulted in the western taxiways moving further west to accommodate the terminal and apron development as shown in the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC.
The dual western taxiways in Area 1 have been reviewed as part of the masterplan scheme development taking into account the apron locations in the Preferred Masterplan document. Firstly, taxiway modelling has been carried out to assess the need for taxiways in this area. Taxiway modelling has shown that dual code F taxiways (i.e. taxiways capable of accepting the largest aircraft anticipated at the airport including the 80m wingspan A380) are needed to provide efficient aircraft movements between the existing southern airfield, new stands to the west of Terminal 5 and the new runway. Without the taxiways, aircraft experience unacceptable taxiway delays during specific modes of operation.
Concern that taxiways shown as Area 1 West of T5 will impact people living in Stanwell Moor and should be included within the WPOZ.
✓
The amount of land taken for the proposed taxiway south of the third runway should be reduced. This would retain a “green envelope” around Colnbrook village and protect the environment and amenities of existing residential properties and the school.
✓
Area 1 and Area 2 should be relocated much closer to the existing airport boundary to reduce the impact on residents of Poyle and to allow for more local road options and re-routing options.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
283 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Taxiway locations west and north of Terminal 5 should be located as close as possible to the central runway to ensure they are distant from the M25 and minimise effects on rivers and other infrastructure between the M25 and the taxiways.
✓ Secondly, detailed interface work has been completed to ensure rivers, roads and other infrastructure can be accommodated between the M25 and the new taxiways. The revised western taxiways are shown in the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC.
Taxiway Area 2, the area west of the existing northern runway, contains the Around The End Taxiways. These taxiways are routed around the ends of the runway and enable aircraft to circulate without impacting the live runway operation. The Around The End Taxiways need to be located at a sufficient distance from the runway threshold and end to not impact on the runway operation. This distance is determined by the size (height) of the aircraft using the Around The End Taxiways. The western end of the existing northern runway has been moved east in the Preferred Masterplan document to allow the Around The End Taxiways to move east and leave a corridor between the taxiways and M25 to accommodate rivers, roads and other infrastructure. This has resulted in an extension to the east end of the runway to maintain an acceptable Take Off Run Available (TORA) of 3500m. A further movement to the east would impact on existing runway navigational aids and increase the noise impact in Hartington at the east end of the
Concerns that using the land to the east of the M25 for taxiways means this land cannot be used for other infrastructure such as roads.
✓
Request that taxiways should not take up any of Colnbrook’s or Poyle’s existing green spaces/recreational areas.
✓
Suggestion that around and end taxiways (ARETS) would be best placed nearest to the M25 to minimise noise disruption to local communities and the surrounding historic environment.
✓
Concerns that using the land to the east of the M25 for taxiways means this land cannot be used for other infrastructure such as roads.
✓
Suggestion the careful design of taxiways and adjacent roadways could result in the creation of valuable, usable land to the west of Terminal 5.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
284 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Request that Heathrow explore possibilities for moving taxiways closer to the airport to avoid unnecessary land-take and to reduce the impact on rivers and local communities.
✓ runway. The location for the Around The End Taxiways is shown in the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC.
Two parallel taxiways are provided to the south of the third runway for aircraft taking off and landing on the new runway. These are essential for airfield operations but increase the overall land proposed to be used in the Colne Valley, and next to Colnbrook and Poyle. To reduce the land required, these taxiways have been located at minimum separation from the runway and each other as allowed by international regulatory standards.
The airfield layout has been designed to the highest safety requirements and to comply with the required international regulatory standards (specifically European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standards). The need for the taxiways in Areas 1 and 2 has been demonstrated through detailed modelling undertaken by NATS, who provide air traffic services. The NATS modelling confirmed that the airfield could not safely and efficiently accommodate the required capacity of at least 740,000 annual air transport movements without these taxiways. In order to minimise land proposed to be used and impact on local communities, the taxiways in Area 1 and Areas 2 are proposed at the minimum
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
285 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
separations allowed within the regulatory design standards. They could not be positioned any closer to the existing airfield without restricting the delivery of additional capacity and Heathrow’s ability to provide guaranteed respite.
Chapter 11 of the PEIR sets out likely significant effects on local community areas, including Stanwell Moor, Colnbrook and Poyle as a result of the Heathrow Expansion Project (the Project).
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
286 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concern that Area 2 would bring taxiways close to Poyle and the residential properties on Elbow Meadow. Why has a Code E ATET (which moves the taxiways further to the east) not been considered?
✓ Code F and Code E Around The End Taxiways were both considered as options at Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018). Since Airport Expansion Consultation One, taxiway modelling has been carried out to measure the effect of code E Around The End Taxiways.
Code F aircraft cannot use Code E Around The End Taxiways and the alternative solution involves Code F aircraft crossing an operational runway to taxi to other parts of the airfield. This requires traffic to temporarily stop operating on the runway and, through modelling, has been shown to lead to airborne delays, taxiing delays and/or restrictions on runway throughput and airport capacity.
In addition, the location of terminals and aprons to the west and north of Terminal 5 prevent the Around The End Taxiways from moving further east than shown in the Preferred Masterplan document.
The Around The End Taxiways are shown in the Preferred Masterplan document at a location which allows code F operations independent of runway operations (c. 1310m from the end of 27C runway)
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
287 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The replacement of the Western Perimeter Road could have a significant impact upon the ability to provide space for new taxiways to the west of the airport.
✓ No provision is made within the Preferred Masterplan document to replace the Western Perimeter Road. Since Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018), the area between the existing runway and M25 has been designed to accommodate the new taxiways along with other necessary infrastructure (utilities, airside access roads, river diversions etc.). The resulting layout is shown in the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC.
Concern that there is a potential conflict between the proposed taxiways and proposals from Network Rail and others for south western and western rail access to Terminal 5. These projects must be a priority regardless of expansion.
✓ The Western Rail Link to Heathrow is being developed by Network Rail as a separate Development Consent Order (DCO) Application. Likewise, the Department for Transport is currently assessing how Southern Rail Access to Heathrow could be brought forward with private sector involvement. Heathrow supports the principle of both schemes and has developed the taxiway design to ensure that there are no conflicts between the rail access to Terminal 5 and the taxiways. The rail access is at a lower level than the taxiways. Heathrow will continue to engage with Network Rail and Department for Transport concerning these schemes.
Concern that a new taxiway to the north of the existing northern runway would lead to greater noise effects on designated heritage assets at Harlington.
✓ Heathrow included proposals for a north east taxiway at Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018). Since Airport Expansion Consultation One, the masterplan scheme
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
288 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concern that a new taxiway to the north of the existing northern runway would encompass the Grade II listed memorial to General Roy.
✓ development has led to a further assessment of the north east taxiway which has subsequently been removed from the Project and therefore the Project does not encompass the memorial to General Roy. The reason for this, among others, was the greater land take required for this taxiway. This change is reflected in the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC. More information on the north east taxiway assessment can be found the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 2: Taxiway System.
Analysis of the potential North Eastern taxiway would be needed, particularly should the airfield modelling show significant inefficiencies and disruptions, were it not introduced.
✓
Concern that the North East Taxiway would only have minimal operational benefit which would be negated by long taxiing distances.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
289 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
In designing and positioning taxiways, the most important factor is to reduce airfield traffic and subsequent impacts on the local area. Area 3 would offer the best solution as it would allow aircraft to land further along the runway.
✓ Heathrow agrees that reducing impacts on local areas is a key factor in designing and positioning taxiways and this is evident through the evaluation process.
The Project requires taxiways in all three areas (Areas 1, 2 and 3) that were identified in Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018).
Taxiways in Area 3 have been designed to connect what will become the central runway with the northern apron and existing taxiway network. Rapid Exit Taxiways (RETs) and Runway Access Taxiways (RATs) to the north will reduce taxiway times to the proposed northern apron and reduce traffic on other sections of the taxiways. RETs to the south have been included to allow aircraft to land further down the runway and reduced noise impacts due to landing aircraft. RATs to the south have been designed to accommodate the relocated runway end (relocated to accommodate the Around The End Taxiways) and to provide capacity for 09C departures (i.e. aircraft departing from the existing northern (future central) runway towards the east).
The location of the taxiways in Area 3 are shown in the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
290 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Query about whether such large separation distances between the terminal areas and the taxiways are appropriate and necessary?
✓ The airfield layout shown in the Preferred Masterplan document has been designed to the highest safety requirements and to comply with the required international regulatory standards (specifically European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standards).
Whilst apron locations have changed since Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018), the separation distances provided between the taxiways and other components of the airfield, such as the terminals, are the minimum permitted within the appropriate design codes. Any reduction in the separation distances would impact airfield capacity and restrict Heathrow’s ability to meet the requirements specified in the ANPS.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
291 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Surprise expressed at the current taxiing practice of crossing a runway to serve Terminal 4.
✓ Runway crossing is the current method used for aircraft moving across the southern runway to reach Terminal 4 and the cargo area. Other options for moving around or across this runway have not been considered, as the current number of aircraft crossings is not sufficient to justify the need for further infrastructure, and at this stage of masterplan scheme development, crossings on the southern runway are not expected to increase and could reduce depending on the final operational model.
However, Heathrow will continue to ensure that its airfield layout is operated to the highest safety requirements and in compliance with all required international regulatory standards (specifically European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standards).
Concern that the relatively small footprint of Heathrow makes it difficult to design the taxiways.
✓ Heathrow does have a relatively small footprint in comparison to other similar capacity airports. However, the taxiways shown in the Preferred Masterplan document have been designed to the highest safety requirements with respect to widths, separations and clearances and comply with the required international regulatory standards (specifically European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standards).
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
292 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Suggestion that a reduction in the length of the current northern runway would allow an eastern taxiway around the end of the runway which would improve aircraft movements on the ground and reduce ground noise and emissions.
✓ An Eastern Around The End Taxiway has not been included in the Preferred Masterplan document due to additional impacts on Harlington and the substantial property, environmental and cost impacts. Eastern Around The End Taxiways options were evaluated and discontinued prior to Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018).
A reduction in length of the central runway to accommodate an Eastern Around The End Taxiway would require a significant physical reduction in runway length at the eastern end. The Take Off Run Available (TORA) of the central runway has already been reduced for westerly departures (which start at the eastern end) to 3500m to accommodate the required clearances above taxiing aircraft on the taxiways at the western end of the central runway. Shortening the TORA for westerly departures below 3500m would compromise the runway’s ability to serve all aircraft types and meet the required capacity of at least 740,000 air transport movements.
Additionally, shortening the physical eastern end of the runway would require the landing threshold for easterly arrivals to be moved back further to the west to maintain the required Landing Distance Available (LDA) of 2800m. This would in turn reduce the aircraft noise benefits of displacement for
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
293 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
communities to the west of the airport
Further information on the runway length evaluations can be found in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 1: Runway. Details of the Around The End Taxiway options and evaluations are included in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 2: Taxiway System.
Both documents are published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
294 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Support for options that would allow inset runway thresholds, so that aircraft arriving from the east could land further down the runway.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC includes displaced thresholds for all aircraft arriving from the east.
Displaced thresholds are provided to enable aircraft to be higher over local communities when landing at the airport. However, two key factors limit the extent to which the threshold can be displaced. Firstly, displacing the threshold reduces the Landing Distance Available (LDA) for aircraft using the runway. Analysis carried out as part of the masterplan scheme development, based on a range of sensitivities such as aircraft size, runway condition, tailwind conditions, shows the need for a minimum operational LDA of 2,800m. Additional airline engagement since Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018) (via the Aircraft Operators Airfield Evaluation Team) confirmed the 2800m minimum LDA requirement.
Secondly, when a runway is being operated in mixed mode, i.e. used for both landing and departing aircraft, the take-off aircraft may interact with the wake vortex of the landing aircraft, creating an unsafe wake encounter. This can be managed by creating greater separation between aircraft, i.e. reducing capacity, or designing the runway layout to minimise these interactions. Initial work done by NATS showed that a value of 550m was the
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
295 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
maximum achievable displacement before wake turbulence interaction starts to reduce runway throughput. Since Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018), wake vortex measurements have been recorded at Heathrow. Ongoing analysis of the field measurements support the initial desktop analysis showing that 550m is the maximum displaced threshold on a mixed mode runway.
An additional evaluation of threshold displacements on the southern runway was undertaken after Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018). Due to the operational benefits related to runway crossings and the reduced noise and community impacts, the maximum displacement of 550m was provided for easterly arrivals on the southern runway. The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 1: Runway, provides further information on this evaluation and decision.
Suggestion that all taxiways should be moved as close to the airport as possible to avoid unnecessary land-take and impacts on rivers and other habitats.
✓ The north-south taxiways situated to the west of the central runway (and shown in the Preferred Masterplan document) have been positioned at the minimum distance permitted by the regulatory design
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
296 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concerns that taxiways will have adverse impacts on rivers including the Longford River.
✓ standards in order to allow independent Code F operations on the taxiways.
Moving the taxiways any closer to the central runway would restrict Heathrow’s ability to deliver the required airfield capacity and respite as detailed in the ANPS.
The expanded airport is proposed to be built partly in the flood plain of the Colne Valley rivers and existing flood storage will be lost. To address this, the Preferred Masterplan document includes areas of proposed compensatory flood storage to provide for the Colne Brook, River Colne and Wraysbury rivers.
Chapter 21 of the PEIR, which is published as part of the AEC, sets out the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant environmental effects on the water environment arising from the Preferred Masterplan document, including effects on the Longford River. It also contains details of the proposed mitigation measures. Appendix 21.4 of the PEIR contains the flood risk assessment.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
297 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concern expressed about the design of the layout for runway exits and entries and that the runway holding positions should be clear of the whole of the runway strip not just the clear and graded area.
✓ International best practice shows that it’s not necessary for runway holding positions to be clear of the whole runway strip as it would not offer benefits in terms of operational efficiencies or reduced impacts.
The runway exits, entries and holding positions are all designed in accordance with the latest regulatory design standards defined by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). In addition, the designs will be reviewed in detail by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to ensure the layouts achieve the appropriate level of safety.
The taxiway layout on page 21 of the consultation document was pointless as there was no information on where the new terminal would be located.
✓ Information on the preferred location of the new terminals and aircraft aprons are included in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals, Satellites and Aprons, published as part of the AEC.
The design of the taxiway layout, evaluation of options and taxiway modelling has taken into account the preferred location for the proposed terminals and aprons. The taxiway elements of the Preferred Masterplan document are discussed in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 2: Taxiway System.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
298 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Yellow, red and blue taxiways shown are all satisfactory.
✓ Since Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018) taxiway modelling has been undertaken considering the apron locations and modes of runway operation.
Modelling shows that all of the yellow, red and blue taxiways (Areas 1, 2 and 3) shown at Airport Expansion Consultation One are required to meet capacity requirements. All of these taxiways, with minor modifications, are shown in the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
299 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Preference for Area 3 as it would reduce airfield congestion and enable aircraft to land further along the runway so that they are higher over local communities.
✓ Heathrow agrees that reducing airfield congestion and noise impacts on local areas are a key factor in designing and positioning taxiways and this is evident through the evaluation process.
The Project requires taxiways in all three Areas that were identified in Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018). Since Airport Expansion Consultation One the layout for taxiways within these Areas has been determined as part of the masterplan scheme development. These are presented in the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC.
Taxiways in Area 3 (north and south of the existing northern runway) have been designed to connect what will become the central runway with the northern apron and existing taxiway network. Rapid Exit Taxiways (RETs) and Runway Access Taxiways (RATs) to the north will reduce taxiway times to the proposed northern apron and reduce traffic on other sections of the taxiways. RETs to the north and south have been included to allow aircraft to land further down the runway and reduce noise impacts due to landing aircraft. RATs to the south have been designed to accommodate the relocated runway end (relocated to accommodate the Around The End Taxiways) and to provide capacity for 09C departures (i.e. aircraft departing from the existing
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
300 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee19
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
northern (future central) runway towards the east). The location of the taxiways in Area 3 are shown in the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC.
9.5.2
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
301 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
10. M25 ALIGNMENT AND JUNCTIONS
10.1 Introduction
10.1.1 In response to Airport Expansion Consultation One, Heathrow sought feedback in
relation to the repositioning the M25 between Junctions 14 and 15 and alterations
to Junctions 14 and 14a. A total of 2,370 consultees made comments relating to
this topic.
10.1.2 Heathrow provided the following material that is directly related to the repositioning
the M25 and alterations to Junctions 14 and 14a:
1. Airport Expansion Consultation Document;
2. Our Emerging Plans; and
3. Scheme Development Report.
10.1.3 Within Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the Airport Expansion Consultation Document
Heathrow identified the following options for the repositioning of the M25 and
alterations to Junctions 14 and 14a:
1. M25 repositioning – repositioned M25 and repositioned M25 with collector-distributor
roads; and
2. Junctions 14 and 14a – Family 1 (both J14 and J14a are retained) and Family 2
(J14a is closed).
10.1.4 References to Option Numbers below are taken from the Airport Expansion
Consultation Document and for broader Families of Options from Section 7 of Our
Emerging Plans and Section 6 of the Scheme Development Report.
10.1.5 Heathrow asked the following questions regarding the repositioning of the M25
and alterations to Junctions 14 and 14a at Airport Expansion Consultation One:
1. Please tell us what you think about the re-positioning of the M25.
2. Please tell us which family of options you prefer for the alterations to Junctions 14
and 14a and reasons why.
10.1.6 This chapter provides a summary of the relevant consultation feedback received
from prescribed consultees, local communities and wider/other consultees. The
issues raised by respondents have also been grouped in table form at the end of
this chapter, which includes Heathrow’s response to these issues.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
302 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
10.2 Prescribed Consultees
Local Authorities
Repositioning M25
Option preference
10.2.1 The London Borough of Brent, Ealing Council, Elmbridge Borough Council,
Spelthorne Borough Council and Surrey County Council all identified that it
was difficult to comment on the options as provided within the Our Emerging
Plans document without further information being provided specifically traffic
modelling scenarios and how specific alignments and junctions would perform
in differing scenarios.
10.2.2 Slough Borough Council expressed a preference for option AB2, as provided
within the Our Emerging Plans document provided this did not inhibit also having a
new perimeter road to the east of the airport.
10.2.3 Surrey Heath Borough Council expressed a preference for M25 Option AB2 as
provided within the Our Emerging Plans Document. Their preference was due to
the safety benefits arising from separation of the 6 lanes on each carriageway of
the M25 reducing potential for motor traffic accidents. However, they suggested
that should this option be progressed clear and well displayed overhead signage
for both the M25 and collector-distribution roads would be required.
10.2.4 Wokingham Borough Council did not state a preference for either option as
provided within the Our Emerging Plans Document but supported the proposal to
re-locate the M25 about 150m to the west of the new runway. They highlighted
that it would be essential to minimise the impact on traffic flow during construction.
General comments
10.2.5 In their response to the consultation, Ealing Council, Elmbridge Borough Council,
The London Borough of Hounslow, Kent County Council, The Royal Borough of
Kingston upon Thames, Spelthorne Borough Council, The London Borough of
Sutton, Surrey County Council and Wokingham Borough Council indicated that
should realignment of the M25 be necessary, given the scale of works, any
changes must be strictly managed to mitigate impacts on traffic on the strategic
road network and local roads.
10.2.6 Kent County Council considered that the benefits of collector/distributor roads
should be carefully assessed in light of future traffic growth to avoid the need for
future alterations.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
303 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
10.2.7 Runnymede Borough Council expressed concern about impacts on air quality
during the construction phase of the Project and any schemes to improve the M25
motorway, as well as during the operation of the expanded airport and realigned
M25.
10.2.8 Slough Borough Council expressed concern that the M25 realignment was much
further to the west than had been assumed and would affect Elbow Meadow,
Galleymead Trading Estate, residential properties in Poyle and Pippins School.
The Council criticised these proposals and requested a realignment that would
reduce land-take to the west, avoid property demolition and would not raise the
runway.
10.2.9 Spelthorne Borough Council indicated that they did not consider that M25 Junction
15 would be unaffected by the realignment.
Suggestions and important factors
10.2.10 Local authorities made comments or suggestions about the repositioning of the
M25 and important factors in identifying the best approach. These comments were
as follows:
1. The London Borough of Brent suggested that building additional lanes is not the
right approach. They commented that schemes which manage the existing road
space on the M25 better and reduced the need to travel, by improving local road
and public transport options, should be investigated. The Council were supportive of
measures being implemented that enable strategic bus corridors to be established
which provide reliable journeys by bus and coach from west London, in particular
Wembley, to the airport.
2. Ealing Council indicated that the road network around Heathrow is the busiest and
often most congested in the UK and full account needs to be taken of this. They
suggested that it is difficult to assess these impacts without more detailed traffic
modelling data.
3. Kent County Council who suggested that all works are coordinated with other
nearby schemes in Highways England’s second Road Investment Programme
(RIS2), which will include major projects in the same timeframe as the Project–
including the new Lower Thames Crossing in Kent.
4. The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames stated that the key challenge will be
the timely delivery of effective mitigation, capable of dealing with increased numbers
of people and the impacts on the local and national transport networks.
5. South Buckinghamshire District Council and Buckinghamshire County Council made
suggestions for transport interventions such as local bus and cycle routes for
Heathrow workers and projects to enable passengers, workers, commuters and
freight to move to more sustainable and accessible modes of travel, including links
by rail and coach to High Wycombe and from other towns in Buckinghamshire.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
304 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
6. Surrey County Council and the London Borough of Sutton identified that
any options for the M25 had to be compatible with the M25 South West Quadrant
Study being undertaken by the Department for Transport and Highways England.
7. Runnymede Borough Council identified that the land on either side of the M25
motorway in Runnymede was declared as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)
in 2001 for both nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter (PM).
Alterations to M25 Junctions 14 and 14a
Option preference
10.2.11 Local authorities who commented on the M25 junction proposals as provided
within the Our Emerging Plans Document regularly highlighted a lack of detail and
requested more information.
10.2.12 The London Borough of Hounslow did not express a preference but noted the
effect of M25 traffic closures on major routes through the borough and requested
that the option which would minimise the length of these closures be brought
forward by Heathrow.
10.2.13 Slough Borough Council tentatively expressed a preference for M25 Junctions
Family 1 as provided within the Our Emerging Plans Document, although they
wanted more information. They considered that this option gave better access to
the airport and would take up less land. M25 Junctions Family 2 Options would
have the disadvantage of removing the existing direct access into Terminal 5 from
the M25 and put more traffic onto local roads and local road junctions.
10.2.14 Surrey County Council, Ealing Council and Spelthorne Council all wanted more
information on potential traffic flows so that the impact of the proposals could be
properly assessed. Kent County Council considered that the M25 Junctions family
of options that were shortlisted in the Our Emerging Plans document seems to
have depended on the choices made regarding the internal layout of the airport,
after the Project.
General comments
10.2.15 Surrey County Council, Spelthorne Borough Council and Kent County Council
raised concern about the impacts on Stanwell Moor, with M25 Junctions Family 2
as provided within the Our Emerging Plans document in particular having
significant short and long-term impacts on Stanwell Moor with the construction of a
motorway standard access link from the M25.
10.2.16 Ealing Council referred to their main surface access priority which is to minimise
the impact on local communities of buses/coaches and non-airport traffic.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
305 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
10.2.17 Slough Borough Council identified that remodelling Junction 14 would be
expensive and would result in a significant land take. They expressed concern that
it was not clear whether this would improve access to the Poyle Trading estate or
make it worse.
10.2.18 Spelthorne Borough Council raised concern that whichever options are chosen for
Junction 14 and 14a, there will be significant impacts on the Poyle Meadows SSSI.
10.2.19 Local authorities made comments or suggestions regarding the M25 Junction 14
Families of options (see Figure 89 in the Scheme Development Report) and
important factors in identifying the best approach. These were as follows:
1. The London Borough of Hounslow identified that any closures of the M25 are likely
to have severe impacts across the wider south east and sections of the Transport
for London Road Network (A30, A312, A316).
2. Slough Borough Council suggested that in order to accommodate the additional
traffic, major changes to Junction 14 would be required which would require the
demolition of some property at Poyle Trading Estate.
3. Slough Borough Council also identified that Junction reconfiguration would be
expensive and result in a significant land take. They indicated that it is not clear
whether this extensive remodelling of Junction 14 would fit with the A3044 Option
2a, Option 2Ai and Option 3d.
4. Surrey County Council identified that any options for the M25 and its junctions had
to be compatible with the M25 South West Quadrant Study being undertaken by the
Department for Transport and Highways England.
Statutory Consultees
Repositioning M25
Option preference
10.2.20 Highways England identified that collector/distributor roads were a top priority and
that they would not accept a design which did not address the problem of weaving
traffic20. They indicated a preferred solution would be a new alignment away from
the existing M25 to reduce disruption during construction.
General comments
10.2.21 Highways England identified that conflicts between river locations, taxiway
locations and M25 alignment options need to be carefully considered. They went
on to suggest that the lowering of the M25 next to flood zones may increase flood
20 Weaving is defined as the crossing of two or more traffic streams traveling in the same direction along a significant length of the highway without the aid of traffic control devices
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
306 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
risk to the M25 compared to the current alignment of the M25. This must be
carefully considered and designed to ensure no increased flood risk to the M25 or
wider strategic road network.
10.2.22 Highways England indicated that consideration should be given to the fact that the
M25 in the location of the proposed realignment is the busiest section of the UK
motorway network. Construction in this location will be challenging and disruption
to motorists during construction must be minimised.
10.2.23 Highways England considered that robust traffic modelling is needed to determine
the number of lanes needed for the M25. They also highlighted important factors in
identifying the best approach as set out below:
5. The new alignment, tunnels and other new infrastructure must be ‘future proof’ and
allow for future expansion of the M25 without the need for major alterations.
6. Heathrow’s multi modal traffic model must be used in collaboration with Highways
England to reach a final agreed position on future proofing requirements once robust
modelling outputs are agreed.
7. Any new route should not be so far from the existing one as to lengthen distances
travelled.
8. Hard shoulders must be provided in the tunnels for safety and operational purposes.
9. Collector/distributor roads parallel to the main M25 are required to reduce the
amount of weaving between lanes.
10.2.24 Historic England suggested that that moving the M25 would take up a lot of land,
and that this would have to be subject to an archaeological assessment.
Alterations to Junctions 14 and 14a
General comments
10.2.25 Natural England identified that all M25 Junction options set out in the Scheme
Development Report, with the exception of JA1, have the potential to impact on
the area, Unit 1 of Staines Moor SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest)21 through
direct land take, construction impacts or air pollution. They expressed concern that
possible options to compensate for any loss or damage to Unit 1 of Staines Moor
SSSI had not been identified.
10.2.26 The Environment Agency considered that both Family 1 and 2 have the potential
to significantly impact the River Wraysbury. They highlighted that Family 1 also
has two additional crossings over the River Wraysbury which will need to be
assessed for WFD compliance and environmental impact.
21 A Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in Great Britain is a conservation designation denoting a protected area.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
307 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
10.2.27 Highways England specified that robust traffic modelling and microsimulation of
the proposed junction arrangements must be undertaken before a preferred option
is chosen to ensure sufficient capacity and safety is provided. They also queried
why Option AB3, as explained in the Scheme Development Report, triggered a
discontinuation rule on the basis of the impact upon airport land and was not taken
forward for further evaluation through the options presented in Heathrow’s Our
Emerging Plans document.
10.2.28 Highways England also highlighted that:
1. In order to reduce or eliminate weaving in the tunnels the location of north facing
slips at Junction 14/14a should be considered carefully in relation to their proximity
to the tunnels.
2. Junction layouts should be capable of allowing traffic to leave the M25 freely, in
order to prevent the danger of traffic queuing back on to the motorway.
3. The road layout should be as simple as possible so that drivers can easily
understand it.
4. Network resilience must be taken into consideration when deciding between
providing a one or two junction solution. Highways England will be able to provide
advice to Heathrow on this issue through technical working groups.
5. The impacts of the Project on M25 J13 and J15 must also be carefully considered
and modelled to determine if mitigation is required.
6. The operations and service criteria in evaluating options are critical and the long-
term operation and maintenance of the proposals must be fully considered when
evaluating options.
7. There appears to be disconnect between the M25 alignment options to be taken
forward and the junction options. Junction options compatible with collector
distributor roads do not appear to have been taken forward.
8. The impacts of multiple major schemes in construction in the area at the time of the
Project also needs to be carefully considered and programmed.
Other prescribed bodies
Repositioning M25
Option preference
10.2.29 Windlesham Parish Council expressed a preference for the option that involves
the minimum loss of residential units and a natural dispersal of traffic.
General comments
10.2.30 The Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) asserted that the repositioning of
the M25 is dependent upon a number of interlinked aspects. As a general principle
the HSPG encourages Heathrow to engage with the most directly impacted
members to consider alternatives and HSPG will support their position unless
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
308 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
there are good reasons not to. The need for a coherent strategy to address
combined aspects is required.
10.2.31 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council identified that the M25 would be closer to
residential areas in Poyle and the Pippins School and would necessitate the loss
of homes at Elbow Meadow with the motorway sunk deeper while left uncovered
creating increased CO2 air pollution. They also highlighted that where the M25 is
proposed to go through the Golf Range there is a potential conflict with an
emergency escape shaft proposed to serve the Western Rail Link to Heathrow.
10.2.32 They went on to state that during construction, clear working hours should be
adhered to, that no work is carried out during unsociable hours and a that all
signage, be it physical road signage or satellite navigation aids and their software
updates is clear.
10.2.33 Windlesham Parish Council expressed concern about the effects of the diversion
on supporting roads in an already congested part of the road network.
10.2.34 Iver Parish Council expressed concern that disruption to traffic during the
construction phase will be considerable and will displace traffic onto local
residential roads. They highlighted that the area cannot tolerate any further
increases in traffic.
10.2.35 Bray Parish Council said that any work on the M25 should bear in mind that this
was a vital piece of national infrastructure, and it should not interfere with local
traffic routes.
10.2.36 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council suggested that alignments should be
determined by what is safest but noted that inclusion of collector-distributor roads
makes the land-take incursion greater.
Alterations to Junctions 14 and 14a
Option preference
10.2.37 Windlesham Parish Council suggested that the Project will affect all collector-
distributor roads to and from Heathrow and as such Family 1 as provided within
Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document would be preferable due to the need
for less civil engineering work and less disruption. Bray Parish Council expressed
the opposite view indicating that Family 2 would be preferred as two junctions
located together have been proven to be accident hotspots.
10.2.38 Accident risk was also important for Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council who
highlighted the importance of safety. They also criticised the use of collector-
distributor roads because these would take more land.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
309 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
General comments
10.2.39 Thames Water noted that the ‘Family 1’ and ‘Family 2’, as provided within
Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document alterations, are adjacent to the eastern
edge of Wraysbury Reservoir. They commented that further detail is required,
including plans, before they are able to fully assess the impact on their asset.
10.3 Local Communities
Members of the public
Repositioning M25
Option preference
10.3.1 Many members of the public who commented on the alignment of the M25 either
made negative comments about the proposals or were not in favour of the options
identified.
10.3.2 Of those members of the public who expressed support this was often in relation
to the use of a tunnel to take the M25 under the new runway, which respondents
generally considered was necessary or overdue. There was also support for the
collector/distributor roads (Option AB2) as these roads were considered necessary
to allow drivers to join and leave the M25 and to ease congestion levels.
General comments
10.3.3 A common concern raised by members of the public regarding the alignment of
the M25 was about its effects on local infrastructure specifically increased
congestion, greater traffic on the M25 and a general increase in disruption both
during construction and afterwards.
10.3.4 Concerns were also raised regarding high traffic levels on the local road network
which already suffers from frequent tailbacks affecting the M25 and local roads.
Respondents expressed concerns that congestion and traffic gridlock would get
worse if the M25 was re-positioned.
10.3.5 Other concerns raised were that it was too expensive, a waste of money and also
unnecessary. The concern about cost and necessity was regularly qualified by
respondents as being attributed to the scale of anticipated disruption and
congestion, the proposals being too ambitious with potential for programme and
budget overruns or that there was no need for the Project and therefore no need to
move the M25.
10.3.6 Concerns regarding negative effects were also widespread. These referenced
concerns about the effects on quality of life for local communities and residential
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
310 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
areas in proximity to the M25 due to noise and reduced air quality, as well as more
general concerns about impacts on the environment and local communities.
10.3.7 The most common suggestion about the re-positioning of the M25 was to increase
the number of lanes or increase capacity. This comment was regularly made with
consideration of the need to future proof the M25 in this section or to address the
current amount of congestion on the motorway. Members of the public also
highlighted the importance of minimising disruption and ensuring the new route
was efficient and safe.
10.3.8 Other considerations proposed reducing the impact of construction and operation
of the new route, including keeping the M25 operational throughout the
construction period.
Alterations to Junctions 14 and 14a
Option preference
10.3.9 Many of members of the public that commented on the Junction 14 and 14a
options as provided within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document either made
general negative comments or were not in favour of the options identified. Where
respondents did express a preference for either of the options there was a greater
level of support for Option JA2 (retaining both junctions).
10.3.10 Those that were critical of the proposals for junction alterations generally
considered that both options were unsuitable with some suggesting that junction
changes were unnecessary. Opposition was very often due to the respondent also
being opposed in principle to the Project.
10.3.11 With consideration of retaining direct access to Terminal 5 from the M25,
preferences for Family Option 1 were often due to better transport access
opportunities as a result of retaining M25 Junction 14a. Keeping M25 Junction 14a
was thought important not only for the airport itself but also for traffic to other
destinations, such as to local business sites. Closing M25 Junction 14a was
thought to place too great a strain on an already congested part of the M25.
10.3.12 Although there was less support for Family Option 2 as provided within Heathrow’s
Our Emerging Plans document those that did express a preference for this option
often considered that a reduction in junctions would make it easier for motorists
with rationalisation improving travel convenience. Often this was qualified by
respondents commenting on the current traffic flow on this part of the M25, with
two junctions and Terminal 5 all in close proximity to each other.
10.3.13 Other comments on Family Option 2 suggested that it was a less complicated
design with some conditionally favouring these options if they included the use of
collector/distributor roads, the correct alignment of the new M25 with the expanded
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
311 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
airport, and putting the land formerly occupied by Junction 14a to beneficial use for
local communities.
General comments
10.3.14 A common concern that was identified by members of the public was that junction
alterations would cause more congestion on an already heavily congested part of
the M25, generating more air pollution. Both Family 1 and Family 2 as provided
within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document were therefore expected to
make a bad situation worse with some people considering that it was too complex.
10.3.15 For those members of the public that provided negative commentary regarding
Family 2, traffic congestion and vehicle access were the main concerns. It was felt
that removing a major junction, combined with the Project would make the traffic
situation even worse than it is now.
10.3.16 Members of the public highlighted that options should improve traffic efficiency,
reduce journey times and ease congestion. Respondents also suggested that
tunnels should be used in the redesign of these junctions.
Businesses
Repositioning M25
Option preference
10.3.17 Businesses that commented on the alignment of the M25 shared a range of
perspectives on the options as provided within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans
document. However, the Airport Industrial Property Unit Trust (AIPUT), Business
South, the Copas Partnership (Copas) Cappagh Companies (Cappagh), Electric
Beam Processes Limited, The Fuel Trading Company, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK),
The Road Haulage Association Limited (RHA), Segro, Sunvil Holidays (Sunvil) and
Town Centre Securities PLC (TCS) all supported the realignment but considered
that the effects must be limited as far as possible.
10.3.18 The London (Heathrow) Airline Consultative Committee (LACC) and the Board of
Airline Representatives in the UK (BAR) and identified significant benefits to
changing the M25 but requested that alterations to the motorway should not make
journeys more challenging. They expressed a preference for an ‘offline’ approach
to the building work, and the use of collector/distributor roads. However, they
indicated that the airline sector and passengers should only help to pay for
improvements to the M25 if there was a clear case for this.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
312 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
10.3.19 Surrey Chamber of Commerce reflected that the project should be mindful that the
M25 already causes major hold-ups every day costing employers money and time,
therefore, minimising disruption would be preferred.
10.3.20 AIPUT wanted the flow of traffic along the M25 and local roads to be affected as
little as possible during building work. As such, it wanted the collector/distributor
roads to compensate for the loss of the Northern and Western Perimeter Roads. A
similar view was held by GSK which stated that access to their GSK Stockley Park
site is being impeded by current traffic levels.
10.3.21 Segro expressed a preference for the re-alignment work to be done ‘off-line’ to
maintain capacity on the motorway. It sought a commitment that construction
vehicle traffic would not worsen the current situation at peak times on or near the
M25. It also wanted any routing plan to be rigorously enforced.
10.3.22 DHL Group commented that, until detailed traffic studies are undertaken and made
available for comment alongside the selected road design, they were unable to
comment in much detail on which proposals they preferred.
10.3.23 Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited (Virgin) supported the principle of the ‘offline’
approach for undertaking the development of the re-provisioned M25, as this has
the potential to minimise disruption to passengers and other users of the airport.
General comments
10.3.24 LACC and BAR expressed concern about the viability of crossing the M25 with a
runway and requested that the risks and costs be addressed and independently
verified in advance of reaching a preferred option.
10.3.25 Virgin, Heathrow Hub Limited/Runway Innovations Limited and DHL Group
referred to a lack of detail and considered that the proposals were not developed
enough. They requested further information about how impacts from increased
traffic and its distribution would work.
10.3.26 DHL Group requested more information on the collector distributor roads and how
Terminal 5 access would be managed. Virgin was keen to understand how serious
incidents such as a fire in the tunnel would be dealt with given the required runway
operations.
10.3.27 The Arora Group (Arora) identified that although the Airports National Policy
Statement (ANPS) envisages the realignment of the M25 could potentially
constitute an NSIP for which a DCO is required, the range of options consulted on
should be broader. They suggested that a suite of options that do not include M25
alignment should be provided for consideration, so that the public are properly
consulted as they do not have confidence in Heathrow’s approach and solution as
currently set out.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
313 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
10.3.28 Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce suggested that that all proposals to alter
road layouts need to be determined in greater detail, and with a more informed
approach provided by the appropriate authorities. They welcomed the opportunity
to be consulted on specific details when these authorities invite their participation.
10.3.29 The RHA identified a need to improve the flow of traffic on this section of the M25
and requested that the results of the M25 South West Quadrant study be
considered so that any realignment of the M25 would work effectively.
10.3.30 The Lanz Group (Lanz) identified that the M25 re-alignment affects the Colnbrook
Golf Driving Range, requiring a significant proportion of this land and other current
rental businesses. Removal of this facility would lead to future parking issues in
and around the area.
10.3.31 The Emerson Group on behalf of Orbit Developments (Southern) Limited (Orbit
developments (southern)) stated further information about Heathrow’s plans to
mitigate construction impacts is necessary, including management of the proposed
alignment of the M25.
10.3.32 DHL Group suggested that all options should be carried forward for further
analysis and should not be dismissed at this stage.
10.3.33 Industrial Properties (No5) Limited (Petchey) suggested that if the new runway
was located to the west of the M25, no changes would be needed to the M25 other
than a new junction taking traffic to the new terminus. If the new runway was
constructed in a Greenfield site to the west of the M25 it would be less crowded
and also less costly.
10.3.34 The following general concerns were also raised:
1. Concern about the scale and ambition of the M25 proposals.
2. Concern about effects on local communities such as
Colnbrook/Poyle/Harmondsworth/Stanwell Moor.
3. Concern that the M25 alignment may result in an increase in capacity
leading to a failure to achieve public transport requirements and significant
air quality implications.
4. Concern about construction phase and major disruption to traffic.
5. Concern about the extent of and arrangements for remediation or removal of
contaminated material that will be required.
6. Concern about the risks, cost and disruption that would come with an M25/runway
crossing.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
314 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Alterations to Junctions 14 and 14a
Option preference
10.3.35 Of the businesses that commented on Junctions 14 and 14a Business South,
TCSPPL/IR Europe and WeMoved Limited expressed no preference for either of
the families of options as provided within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans
document.
10.3.36 LACC and BAR expressed concern about the potential impact of all junction
options. They suggested that the design of the selected option must take full
account of likely demand and be fully integrated into the overall masterplan for the
Project.
10.3.37 Lanz expressed a preference for Family 2 as provided within Heathrow’s Our
Emerging Plans document, however they clearly stated that alterations to the M25
junctions should ensure that their landholding is not unduly affected as a
consequence. They anticipated that to facilitate the M25 alignment works,
materials may need to be stored on their landholding, either temporarily or
permanently. This was not considered acceptable.
10.3.38 GlaxoSmithKline expressed a preference for the retention of M25 Junction 14a
(Option JA2) as provided within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document and
the adjustment of feeder roads as necessary to give access to new terminals etc.
They could not see how M25 J14a can be adjusted to cope with closure of M25
J14a. The RHA expressed a preference for the least complicated option with as
few junctions as possible, to maintain free flow traffic.
10.3.39 Due to the potential scale of M25 Junction 14a (Option JC2) as provided within
Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document, Segro expressed concern that the
DHL/Poyle site would be required in order to construct and enlarge Junction 14.
Their preference was for an option that retains M25 Junction 14a (Option JA2).
They went on to indicate that M25 Junction 14a (Option JC2) or similar, which
would remove M25 Junction 14a altogether, was not supported as it would add all
existing Terminal 5 traffic to M25 Junction 14, which already experiences pressure
at peak times of the day.
General comments
10.3.40 AIPUT considered that Junction 14a on the M25 would need to be closed due to
new taxiway alignments, apron and terminal requirements. They highlighted that
the re-configuration of Junction 14 is therefore critical.
10.3.41 UCH Logistics identified that their property lies marginally within the land take for
both ‘families’ of options as provided within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans
document under consideration for the M25 Junctions 14 and 14a.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
315 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
10.3.42 DHL Group considered that there is limited information regarding junction
alterations and requested further detail on how the junctions will interact with the
airport estate. They provided observations in the context of minimising disruption
to their facility on Horton Road given the information that was provided.
10.3.43 Virgin also felt that it was not possible to give a considered view in the absence of
any cost information around the different options. They requested fully costed,
detailed and independently verified proposals predicated on the ‘user pays’
principle.
10.3.44 Colne Valley Regional Park also requested more evidence-based information on
the different junction options.
10.3.45 Copas and Easy Jet indicated that junction choice should be determined by cost
effectiveness or the capacity it created.
10.3.46 The Heathrow Hydrant Operating Company Limited identified that accident risk
and efficiency should be the determinants for the choice of junction arrangements.
10.3.47 AIPUT considered that an important factor was high quality accessibility to and
from Junction 14 and through the re-aligned A3044 Stanwell Moor junction, as this
is the most important access and egress both from the motorway network and for
the many airport related businesses.
10.3.48 Segro considered that any construction works at M25 Junction 14 are likely to
have a significant effect on the operations of DHL for several years. Due the
topography of the land surrounding M25 Junction 14, which is considerably higher
than Horton Road, it was suggested that the construction costs would be high and
may require, amongst other works, a west to north bridge up to 1km in length
linking the A313 and M25.
Community Groups
Repositioning M25
Option Preference
10.3.49 There was general criticism of the proposals for alignment of the M25 as provided
within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document from Community Groups.
10.3.50 Colnbrook Community Association, SCR Residents for a fair consideration of
Heathrow Expansion, Wentworth Residents Association, Englefield Action Group,
Northumberland Walk Residents Association and Egham Residents Association
(Egham RA) commented negatively on the options as provided within Heathrow’s
Our Emerging Plans document as they were generally opposed to the principle of
the Project. Aircraft Noise Three Villages indicated that the alignment was not
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
316 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
applicable as the Project is not viable. They further commented that this vital
element which is needed to realise the Project ambition had been totally
underestimated in terms of its cost and the engineering solutions that would be
required. They queried who would pay for the M25 realignment.
10.3.51 Colnbrook Community Partnership (CCP) recognised the need to re-align the M25
but suggested that the documentation, specifically for Option AB2, appeared
contradictory or lacking in information with regard to the volume of land
take required.
10.3.52 The Local Authorities' Aircraft Noise Council (LAANC) opposed the proposals for
the repositioning of the M25 because it was against the Project as a whole.
General comments
10.3.53 Community Groups raised a range of concerns focussed mainly on the effects of
increased traffic (noise and pollution) and general disruption created by the Project
and realignment of the M25. These were:
1. Concern about the effects on residential properties on Elbow Meadow.
2. Concerns about the impact of the M25 and the A3044 on the health of the Poyle
Channel watercourse due to the extensive cover.
3. Concern that that the realignment of the M25 to the west is contrary to Slough
Borough Council’s planning policy of improving air quality
4. Concern that the proposed re-alignment of the M25 will cause disruption on the
motorway while it is being constructed.
5. Concern about increased pressure on the M25.
6. Concern about the increased traffic, and heavy vehicle traffic on all west London
main roads during construction and operation.
7. Concern that any diversion of the M25 will force more traffic onto local roads to
avoid congestion during construction.
8. Concern that Heathrow has not conducted sufficient baseline traffic studies to
understand the problem that already exists in Richings Park and the potential impact
on the local community.
9. Concern that increased flights from Heathrow Airport will lead to a lot
more traffic on the M25 (and M4) and will greatly increase congestion and
air pollution.
10. Concerned about the detrimental effect on UK economic productivity, health and
quality of life through lost work hours whilst commuters and vital transport will be
stuck in worsening traffic jams on the M25 and M4 motorways during the
construction period.
10.3.54
10.3.55 Egham RA expressed concerns over the use of collector/distributor roads which
were previously proposed by Runnymede Council in 1992 to widen the M25
between J12 and J15 to dual-seven lanes by the construction of “link” roads.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
317 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
10.3.56 Local Conversation in Stanwell identified that the alignment and junctions on the
M25 would have little effect on Stanwell or Stanwell Moor.
10.3.57 Northumberland Walk Residents Association highlighted that the emerging plan
indicates that the perimeter roads would not be sufficient to handle the increased
traffic volumes, yet in the original proposal Heathrow said they would keep traffic
volumes at current levels. As such they questioned the need to increase road
capacity.
10.3.58 Ealing Aircraft Noise Action Group commented that the interests of the aviation
industry should not be prioritised over the needs, rights, and financial interests of
local residents and taxpayers. They considered that large road projects always
turn out to be well over budget, as well as taking much longer to complete than
projected.
10.3.59 The Pavilion Association Stanwell and Stanwell Moor (Pavilion Association)
suggested that the realignment must minimise disruption to existing traffic. The
Pavilion Association and Residents Association HVG CA both indicated that the
relocation must also minimise air pollution.
Alterations to Junctions 14 and 14a
Option Preference
10.3.60 Of the community groups that commented on the junction options as provided
within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document, Aircraft Noise Three Villages,
Richmond Heathrow Campaign, Teddington Action Group and Englefield Green
Action group all objected in general terms to both of the families of options.
10.3.61 CCP were mindful of the need to make changes to the M25 Junctions but did not
consider that they were qualified to provide suggestion as to which option was
best suited to satisfy local need or that of Heathrow. However, they suggested that
Heathrow should seek to alleviate the existing severe congestion to the local road
network around Colnbrook, Poyle and Brands Hill.
10.3.62 Stanwell Green Lungs and Harrow U3A Sustainability Group and Pavilion
Association favoured Family 1 as provided within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans
document due to cost and speed of construction or that they were concerned
about the effect of losing M25 Junction 14a on local traffic volumes.
10.3.63 Local Conversation in Stanwell did not express a preference but considered that
the junctions would have little effect on Stanwell or Stanwell Moor.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
318 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
General comments
10.3.64 Egham RA requested that Heathrow persuade the government to adopt road
charging on the M25 and the road network.
10.4 Wider/other consultees
Repositioning M25
Option Preference
10.4.1 LAANC opposed the proposals for repositioning the M25 because it was against
the Project as a whole.
10.4.2 The Colne Valley Regional Park did not support the M25 option featuring
distributor roads (AB2) as provided within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans
document as it will result in additional land take from the Colne Valley Regional
Park unless the distributor roads can be provided as an alternative to the A3044.
10.4.3 The Chartered Institute for Highways and Transportation (CIHT) did not express a
preference but indicated that it was vital that the M25 stays in use, that impacts on
road users are minimised and that there is a long term operational and safety plan.
It commented on the ambitious nature of the proposals, and strongly
recommended working with industry partners to ensure the process took place
smoothly.
10.4.4 The Chartered Institute for Logistics and Transport expressed a preference for the
M25 to be realigned without collector-distributor roads (Option AB1) as set out
within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document. They went on to suggest that
the costs of increasing road capacity should not fall to the airport.
10.4.5 The London Parks and Gardens Trust praised the plans to keep the M25 open
during building work, but disliked the collector/distributor roads because of the land
they would take up. This objection was shared by the London Wildlife Trust, who
requested that any land released by the proposals should be used as buffers and
habitat zones alongside realigned rivers. The Trust also expressed concerns about
the effect of lowering the M25 by 7m on local groundwater, the water supply and
local rivers.
10.4.6 The Church of England Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark (CofE –
Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark) doubted whether tunnelling the M25
under the new runway or re-aligning the motorway will prove viable.
10.4.7 Lambeth/Herne Hill Green Party supported the reduction of pollution and noise for
local residents but queried whether the Project has to result in changes to the road
network and existing traffic flows. They further qualified that replacing and
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
319 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
repositioning roads needs to be in line with a commitment to increasing public
transport access to and from the airport.
10.4.8 The Surrey Wildlife Trust highlighted that any land-take south-west of the existing
M25 Junction 14 would impact the Poyle Meadow unit of Staines Moor SSSI, as
well as a non-statutory Local Wildlife Site. They also highlighted that further SNCI
(‘Greenham’s Fishing Pond SNCI’) immediately south of Junction 14 may also be
impacted.
General comments
10.4.9 The CIHT highlighted that there should not be adverse effects on the safety of
road users, construction workers or emergency services. They also highlighted
that the western section of the M25 already experiences regular congestion which
causes problems for Heathrow customers, freight partners and employees
travelling to and from work.
10.4.10 The Colne Valley Regional Park presumed that the existing stretch of the M25 will
be removed, and that space will be used to create buffer/habitat/recreation zones
alongside the diverted rivers. They went on to indicate that it is unclear how the
lowering of the M25 by up to 7 metres will affect groundwater, the local water
supply and the natural functioning of rivers; they requested clarification on this
before any work is carried out.
Alterations to Junctions 14 and 14a
10.4.11 The Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers expressed a preference for Family 1 as
provided within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document but requested that M25
Junction 14a is modified to give more access to Terminal 5 and a new terminal
further north.
10.4.12 The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport also expressed a preference for
Family 1 and M25 Junction Option JA2, and identified that no costs for increasing
road capacity should fall to the airport.
10.4.13 CofE – Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark did not express a preference
but indicated that M25 Junction Options JA1, JA2 and JC1 as provided within
Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document seem relatively innocuous, whereas
M25 Junction Options JA3 and JC2 are more elaborate and intrusive.
10.4.14 The CIHT did not express a preference but reiterated that it was vital that the M25
stays in use, that impacts on road users are minimised and that there is a long
term operational and safety plan. It commented on the ambitious nature of the
proposals and strongly recommended good collaboration with industry partners to
ensure the process took place smoothly.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
320 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
10.4.15 Specific points of feedback identified were:
1. Liability for ongoing maintenance costs must be included in the cost assessment.
2. Concerns that traffic for the Western Campus would need to negotiate the Stanwell
Moor Roundabout, which must constitute a capacity issue.
10.4.16 Lambeth/Herne Hill Green Party stated that both families of options as provided
within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document require the redevelopment of
M25 Junction 14 and indicated that their preference is for options that provide
short journey times for airport and non-airport road traffic and provide good
connections to nearby communities whilst minimising property loss and
construction effects on Stanwell Moor and Poyle.
10.4.17 The London Wildlife Trust and the Surrey Wildlife Trust both discussed the
potential for M25 works to impact areas of sensitive habitat. They highlighted that
all alterations to the M25, its junctions and infrastructure, need to be designed to
cause the least damage and disturbance to wildlife habitats, species and rivers.
Specific reference was also made to avoiding or minimising impacts on:
1. the Colne Valley Regional Park;
2. Poyle Meadows as part of Staines Moor SSSI and floodplains;
3. the ‘East of Poyle Meadows’ Site of Nature Conservation Importance;
4. Greenham’s Fishing Pond SNCI, and
5. The Wraysbury River.
10.4.18 The London Wildlife Trust also commented that more evidence-based information
is required before detailed responses can be made to the different junction options
as provided within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
321 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
10.5 Issues Raised and Heathrow’s Responses
10.5.1 Table 10.1 presents a summary of the main issues raised by prescribed consultees, local communities and wider/other
consultees in relation to the M25 Alignment and Junctions and for which only interim responses were provided in the
ICFR (the prior Table B). This updated table also presents Heathrow’s responses to those issues and explains how in
preparing our proposals for the Airport Expansion Consultation we have had regard to that feedback.
Table 10.1
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
It is difficult to comment on the options without further information being provided specifically traffic modelling scenarios and how specific alignments and junctions would perform in differing scenarios.
✓ As part of the Heathrow Expansion Project, Heathrow is making changes to the road network including the M25, A3044, A4 and A3113. Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan document for the M25 Junctions is Family 1, option JB18, a two-junction scenario which proposes to retain both M25 Junction 14 and 14a. The preferred M25 alignment includes a short tunnel that takes the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges that carry taxiways over the top of the M25. The revised mainline alignment and junction configuration are shown in in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which
22 PC - Prescribed Consultees; MC – Members of the Community; WC – Wider Consultees
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
322 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
forms part of our Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019 (AEC). Further detail of local roads is included in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2).
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the road network serving the expanded airport are based on consultation feedback and ongoing design and assessment work.
This process is reported in the Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR), an AEC document. The PTIR provides preliminary information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
The PTIR presents the outputs of preliminary transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
323 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
The benefits of Collector-Distributor roads should be carefully assessed in light of future traffic growth to avoid the need for future alterations.
✓ The Collector-Distributor roads, which will separate traffic by destination prior to the tunnel in order to avoid weaving through the tunnel, have been designed to provide sufficient capacity based on demands from traffic modelling. The Collector-Distributors consist of 4 all running lanes as shown in the Preferred Masterplan document. This Preferred Masterplan scheme design is shown in the Updated Scheme Development report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
324 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
The road network around Heathrow is the busiest and often most congested in the UK and full account needs to be taken of this. It is difficult to assess these impacts without more detailed traffic modelling data.
✓ Heathrow is proposing changes to the road network including the M25, A3044, A4 and A3113. This is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1 and Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the road network serving the expanded airport is based on consultation feedback and ongoing design and assessment work.
This process is reported in the Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR), an AEC document. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.”
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
Heathrow will also continue to strive to meet its pledge
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
325 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
to have landside airport-related traffic no greater than today as referenced in the Surface Access Proposals (Part 2).
M25 junction proposals lacked detail and requested more information.
✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions is Family 1, option JB18, a two-junction scenario, which proposes to retain both M25 Junction 14 and 14a. The preferred M25 alignment includes a short tunnel that would take the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways over the top of the M25. The revised mainline alignment and junction configuration are shown in in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
More information on potential traffic flows so that the impact of the proposals could be properly assessed.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the road network serving the expanded airport is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1 and Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The options are based on consultation feedback and ongoing design and assessment work. This process is
Robust traffic modelling is needed to determine the number of lanes needed for the M25.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
326 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Robust traffic modelling and microsimulation of the proposed junction arrangements must be undertaken before a preferred option is chosen to ensure sufficient capacity and safety is provided.
✓ reported in the Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR), an AEC document.
The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
In the Richings Park area two traffic count locations were used as part of the model calibration to ensure the correct volume of traffic was modelled at this location.
The methodology to assess emissions from road traffic is reported in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (Chapter 7 – Air Quality and
Transport modelling should assess all possible sites which could be impacted as a result of emissions related to increased vehicle movements.
✓
Until detailed traffic studies are undertaken and made available for comment alongside road design it is not possible to comment.
✓
Request for further information about how impacts from increased traffic and its distribution would work.
✓
All proposals to alter road layouts need to be determined, in greater detail and with a more informed knowledge by the appropriate authorities.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
327 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
All options should be carried forward for further analysis and should not be dismissed at this stage.
✓ Odour) which forms part of AEC.
Requested considerably more evidence-based information on the different junction options.
✓
There is limited information regarding junction alterations and requested further detail on how the junctions will interact with the airport estate.
✓
Concern that Heathrow has not conducted sufficient baseline traffic studies to understand the problem that already exists in Richings Park and the potential impact on the local community.
✓
More evidence-based information is required before detailed responses can be made to the different junction options.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
328 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Heathrow’s multi modal traffic model must be used in collaboration with Highways England to reach a final agreed position on future proofing requirements once robust modelling outputs are agreed.
✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions, option JB18, is a two-junction scenario. The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 mainline, option AB10, includes a short tunnel that would take the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways over the top of the M25. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design has allowed for future proofing based on available traffic modelling data and has been developed in consultation with Highways England.
The developed options are based on consultation feedback and ongoing design and assessment work. This process is reported in the Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) which forms part of the AEC.
The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
329 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
Network resilience must be taken into consideration when deciding between providing a one or two junction solution. Highways England will be able to provide advice to Heathrow on this issue through technical working groups.
✓ A two-junction solution is included in the Preferred Masterplan document and has been created with advice from Highways England in Technical Working Groups. This option, JB18, provides more resilience for airport access and retains separated local traffic from airport traffic as shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1). This forms part of the AEC).
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
330 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Support the realignment but the effects must be limited as far as possible.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 mainline, option AB10, includes a short tunnel that would take the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways over the top of the M25. The revised alignment of the M25 is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of AEC.
The M25 alignment has been moved to the west of the existing M25 allowing construction off line and minimising impact on the travelling public. Measures to minimise and mitigate potential significant effects will be identified under the relevant topic chapters in the Environmental Statement, which will be submitted with the DCO application.
Early findings are set out in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR), which forms part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
331 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
A tunnel to take the M25 under the new Runway is considered necessary or overdue.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 mainline, option AB10, includes a short tunnel that would take the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways over the top of the M25. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1), which forms part of the AEC.
Heathrow recognises the need to carefully plan the changes to the M25 as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed third Runway.
If the new Runway was located to the west of the M25 no changes would be needed to the M25 other than a new junction taking traffic to the new terminus.
✓ The option of locating the proposed runway outside of the M25 has not been considered as this is not consistent with the Government’s policy in the Airports national Policy Statement (ANPS), that the proposed runway should be located immediately north west of the current airport. Annex A of the ANPS shows the indicative scheme boundary map. In addition, locating the proposed runway outside of the M25 is not considered feasible as the proposed runway would be too far from the existing airfield which would result in
Request for a realignment that would reduce land-take to the west, avoid property demolition and would not raise the Runway.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
332 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
If the new Runway was constructed in a Greenfield site to the west of the M25 it would be less crowded and also less costly.
✓ inefficient operations with long taxi times with additional land take. Heathrow does not consider that this option would minimise impacts as communities to the west would be affected. Other negative impacts would also result, such as long aircraft taxi times causing impact on noise and air quality.
As such it is proposed that the proposed runway would go over the M25 which would run through a short tunnel. The revised alignment is provided in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1), which forms part of the AEC.
Repositioning of the M25 is dependent upon a number of interlinked aspects. Engage with the most directly impacted members to consider alternatives and will support their position unless good reason otherwise.
✓ Heathrow has engaged with affected parties such as Highways England and where possible Local Authorities in producing the Preferred Masterplan scheme design which includes a tunnel carrying the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges carrying taxiways above the M25. The
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
333 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Conflicts between river locations, taxiway locations and M25 alignment options need to be carefully considered.
✓ revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
The Updated Scheme Development Report form part of the AEC. This document explains Heathrow’s preferred options for access arrangements and junction designs for the expanded airport.
The full range of environmental disciplines are included within the evaluation criteria in the masterplan Scheme Development Manual. This ensures that environmental considerations have been fully integrated into all stages of the masterplan scheme development. The ANPS is clear (paragraph 4.31) that “a good design should meet the principal objectives of the scheme by eliminating or substantially mitigating the adverse impacts of the development, for example by improving operational conditions. It also mitigates any existing adverse impacts wherever possible, for example in relation to safety or the environment”.
Measures to minimise and mitigate potential significant environmental effects are identified under the relevant topic chapters in the Environmental Statement, which will be submitted with the DCO
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
334 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
application.
Early findings are set out in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR), which forms part of the AEC.
Need to improve the flow of traffic on this section of the M25 and requested that the results of the M25 South West Quadrant study be considered so that realignment would work effectively.
✓ Heathrow has been working with Highways England on their M25 South West Quadrant Study and has also consulted with Highways England during the development of options for the M25 and junctions for expansion.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a tunnel that would take the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways above the M25. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
Heathrow will continue to consult with Highways England to identify opportunities for synergies (in terms of location and timing of works) in the delivery of M25 expansion works and M25 J10 to 16 Smart Motorway improvements alongside the surface access works needed for the Scheme.
Any options for the M25 had to be compatible with the M25 South West Quadrant Study being undertaken by the Department for Transport and Highways England.
✓
Any options for the M25 and its junctions had to be compatible with the M25 South West Quadrant Study.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
335 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Concern that that the realignment of the M25 to the west is contrary to SBC planning principle of improving air quality.
✓ As set out within the Updated Scheme Development Report published as part of the AEC, a number of options were considered for the diversion of the M25.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
336 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
The relocation of the M25 must also minimise air pollution.
✓ This included consideration of an option which would divert the highway to the east (AB3). Given this would provide a major constraint on key elements of the Project Masterplan, this option was discontinued.
The proposed option is to divert the M25 approximately 130m to the west of the current alignment. The design seeks to minimise encroachment of the alignment to the west as far as practicable, whilst facilitating offline construction of the realigned highway. Offline construction facilitates lowering of the existing vertical alignment and will reduce potential disruption during construction, which would otherwise increase the risk of temporary adverse impacts on air quality.
The design includes collector-distributor links to segregate turning traffic from through traffic, therefore reducing the risk of congestion, traffic disruption and associated air quality impacts.
Whilst it is recognised the carriageway encroaches towards receptor locations located to the west of the M25, these remain upwind of the carriageway and prevailing wind conditions will continue to disperse pollutant emissions associated with the M25 towards the east. Volume 2, Chapter 7 of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report published as part of
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
337 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
the AEC reports that NO2 concentrations are predicted to be below the annual mean Air Quality Objective of 40ug/m3 at modelled representative receptor locations in Colnbrook and Poyle with the DCO Project, in all future assessment scenarios (2022, 2027, 2030 and 2035).
Preference for option AB2 due to the safety benefits arising from separation of the 6 lanes on each carriageway of the M25 reducing potential for motor traffic accidents.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design is M25 alignment option JB18, which is an optimisation of option AB2. Option JB 18 includes a short tunnel that would take the M25 under the Runway and two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways over the M25. The existing two junctions are retained but would be modified under the Preferred Masterplan scheme design. The Preferred Masterplan scheme design also includes Collector-Distributor roads. These roads would run parallel to the motorway, segregating airport and local traffic from the main carriageway and adding capacity to the M25, as well as reducing the amount of weaving of cars between lanes. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
This option has been developed in consultation with
Preference for option AB2, provided this did not inhibit also having a new perimeter road to the east.
✓
Collector-Distributor roads are a top priority and no design will be acceptable which did not address the problem of weaving traffic. Preferred solution would be a new alignment away from the existing M25 to reduce disruption during construction.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
338 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Collector-Distributor roads parallel to the main M25 are required to reduce the amount of weaving between lanes.
✓ Highways England and discussions have covered key features such as road configuration, lighting levels, signage, traffic control, and life safety systems.
The rationale for AB2 is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
Support for the Collector-Distributor roads (Option AB2) as these roads are necessary to allow drivers to join and leave the M25 and to ease congestion levels.
✓
Should option AB2 be progressed clear and well displayed overhead signage for both the M25 and collector-distribution roads would be required.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a short tunnel that would take the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways over the M25. The existing two junctions are retained but would be modified under the Preferred Masterplan scheme design. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
This option has been developed in consultation with Highways England and discussions have covered key features such as road configuration, lighting levels, signage, traffic control, and life safety systems. Heathrow is developing a Signage strategy in conjunction with Highways England.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
339 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Alignments should be determined by what is safest but noted that inclusion of collector-distributor roads makes the land-take incursion greater.
✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes proposals for the M25 including Collector-Distributors and was selected in consultation with Highways England. A short tunnel would be used to carry the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges carry taxiways over the M25. The existing two junctions would be retained but modified under the Preferred Masterplan scheme design. The revised alignment is shown the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of AEC.
Heathrow is seeking to minimise any unnecessary disruption to M25 users. In considering the surface access infrastructure needed to support the expansion plans Heathrow must have regard to paragraph 4.39 of the ANPS. This requires Heathrow to demonstrate that its scheme is cost-efficient and sustainable, and seeks to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime. This also means only taking land that is demonstrably needed to construct and operate the expanded airport.
The documentation, specifically for Option AB2 appeared contradictory or lacking in information with regard to the volume of land take required for this option.
✓
Criticism for the use of collector-distributor roads because these would take more land.
✓ Collector-Distributor roads are necessary to achieve desired level of road safety through reducing weaving in a tunnel. This solution has been developed through
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
340 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Dislike of the Collector-Distributor roads because of the land they would take up.
✓ consultation with HE. Further information on how the preferred option was developed since the masterplan Assembly, including Collector-Distributor roads, is included in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
In considering the surface access infrastructure needed to support the expansion plans Heathrow must have regard to paragraph 4.39 of the ANPS. This requires Heathrow to demonstrate that its scheme is cost-efficient and sustainable. This means only taking land that is demonstrably needed to construct and operate the expanded airport.
Opposition for options including distributor roads as it will result in additional land take from the Park unless the distributor roads can be provided as an alternative to the A3044.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
341 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Concern about the impacts on Stanwell Moor, with Family 2 in particular having significant short and long-term impacts on Stanwell Moor with the construction of a motorway standard access link from the M25.
✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 includes Collector-Distributors and was selected in consultation with Highways England. The concerns raised about M25 Junctions Family 2 have been addressed as part of the design. The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions option JB18, is a two-junction scenario (Family 1). The Preferred Masterplan scheme design would keep J14a as the primary access to T5 for motorway traffic, as it minimises intervention at J14 and therefore impact on Stanwell Moor. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for Stanwell Moor is based on consultation feedback and ongoing design and assessment work.
The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
342 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
A PEIR is also available as part of the AEC. It reports on the early findings of the EIA, In particular, Chapter 11 - Community and Chapter 19 – Transport Network Users.
The scheme to be submitted in the DCO application will also include an Environmental Statement (ES) and a Transport Assessment which will provide information about the likely environmental effects and the traffic flow impacts of the scheme respectively, identifying appropriate mitigation where necessary to minimise effects on local communities.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
343 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Family 2 Options would have the disadvantage of removing the existing direct access into Terminal 5 from the M25 and put more traffic onto local roads and local road junctions.
✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 does not include Family 2 options. The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions option JB18, is a two-junction scenario (Family 1). The Preferred Masterplan scheme design would keep J14a as the primary access to T5 for motorway traffic, as it minimises intervention at J14 and therefore impact on Stanwell Moor. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC. This option was selected in consultation with Highways England.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design is based on consultation feedback and ongoing design and assessment work.
This process is reported in the Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR), an AEC document. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
344 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
impacts where appropriate.
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
A PEIR is also available as part of the AEC. It reports on the early findings of the EIA,
The scheme to be submitted in the DCO application will also include an Environmental Statement (ES) and a Transport Assessment which will provide information about the likely environmental effects and the traffic flow impacts of the scheme respectively, identifying appropriate mitigation where necessary to minimise effects on local communities
More information on the Collector-Distributor roads and how Terminal 5 access would be managed.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes Collector-Distributor roads which would run parallel to the motorway, segregating airport traffic from through traffic on the main carriageway and adding capacity to the M25, as well as reducing the amount of weaving of cars between lanes. Both Junction 14 and 14A would provide access for Collector-Distributor traffic into T5. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Assessment Report (Document 3, Chapter 1)
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
345 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
The Collector-Distributor roads should compensate for the loss of certain perimeter roads around the airport.
✓ which forms part of the AEC.
The Updated Scheme Assessment Report is supported by a PTIR document. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow which demonstrate how the Preferred Masterplan scheme design road layout provides sufficient road capacity.
Concerns over the use of Collector-Distributor roads which were previously proposed by Runnymede Council in 1992 to widen the M25 between J12 and J15 to dual-seven lanes by the construction of “link” (that is, collector-distributor) roads.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
346 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Preference for the M25 to be realigned without collector-distributor roads (Option AB1).
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes Collector-Distributor roads which would run parallel to the motorway, segregating airport and local traffic from the main carriageway and adding capacity to the M25, as well as reducing the amount of weaving of cars between lanes. Collector-Distributors were identified as the preferred option following feedback from HE and road safety assessments, which highlighted the need to segregate turning movements from through traffic, in order to minimise traffic weaving inside the tunnel.
The revised alignment is provided in the Updated Scheme Assessment Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC. A section about the consideration of weaving can be found in Section 1.6 within the Updated Scheme Assessment Report (Document 3, Chapter 1).
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
347 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Queried why option AB3 triggered a discontinuation rule on the basis of the impact upon airport land and was not taken forward for further evaluation.
✓ The Airport Expansion Consultation One document Scheme Development Report (paragraph 6.4.18) set out five rules for discontinuing options being considered for the M25 alignment. Rule 5 states that any option which imposes constraints, that would make key elements of the airport masterplan unworkable, should be discontinued. Option AB3 would involve shifting the M25 horizontal alignment to the east, leading to a loss of airport land to the east of the M25, which would impose constraints on key elements of the masterplan. Subsequently, this option was discontinued from the development process as unviable on account of discontinuation rule 5.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
348 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
The family of options chosen seems to depend on choices made regarding the internal layout of the airport post-expansion.
✓ It is noted that the family of options has now been superseded by the Preferred Masterplan scheme design.
The previous options were evaluated against the Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018) document Scheme Development Report (paragraph 6.4.18), which set out five rules for discontinuation in assessing the viability of options being considered for the M25 alignment. This included the level of impact of the option on Junction 15, construction (closure), Wraysbury reservoir, reduced capacity and the masterplan. Any option which did not break one of these rules passed onto the next stage of evaluation. At this stage, a four-point evaluation scale (black, red, amber or green) was applied to the options across varying criteria such as operations, delivery, business case, sustainability and community, planning and property. Through this process, the shortlisted options were selected and consulted on at Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018).
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a short tunnel, which would take the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges which would carry taxiways over the M25. The existing two junctions are retained but would be modified under the Preferred Masterplan scheme design. The revised
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
349 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
Further assessment and consideration of the consultation feedback will inform the scheme that is submitted within the DCO application.
There appears to be disconnect between the M25 alignment options to be taken forward and the junction options. Junction options compatible with Collector-Distributor roads do not appear to have been taken forward.
✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions, option JB18, is a two-junction scenario and would be compatible with the provision of Collector-Distributors. This option was created in consultation with Highways England. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
Further assessment and consideration of the consultation feedback will inform the scheme that is submitted within the DCO application.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
350 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
It is vital that the M25 stays in use, that impacts on road users are minimised and that there is a long term operational and safety plan.
✓ Due to being a critical element of the strategic road network, it is clear that closing the M25 for any sustained period would result in unacceptable disruption to the travelling public. It is therefore clear that the M25 has to remain open during the construction and operation of the Northwest Runway, and so a number of different ways of achieving have been explored.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes proposals for the M25 carriageway position to be moved to the west and lowered into a tunnel. It is proposed that the tunnel would be constructed alongside the existing route and then, once complete, the new section would be switched over in order to minimise disruption to existing users of the motorway. The proposed alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
Tunnels under runways or taxiway bridges are not a new approach or particularly high safety or operational risk and have been delivered before at other major airports including Charles De Gaulle and Fort Lauderdale.
This has also been done on the M25 where the construction of Cobham services saw the M25
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
351 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
realigned.
Heathrow is working closely with Highways England and is confident that these proposals are achievable within the construction timescales indicated and provide a safe long-term operational solution.
The M25 alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
Where the M25 is proposed to go through the [Wentworth] Golf Range there is a potential conflict with an emergency escape shaft proposed to serve the Western Rail Link to Heathrow.
✓ Heathrow is engaging with Network Rail in developing the proposals for the Project and Western Rail Link. The Western Rail Link is a scheme being promoted by Network Rail and which is subject to a separate design, assessment and DCO application process. Land interests affected by Network Rail’s DCO application will be consulted by them as part of the statutory process in the Planning Act 2008.
The need to future proof the M25 in this section or to address the current amount of congestion on the motorway.
✓ A third runway at Heathrow provides an opportunity to improve one of the most congested sections of the M25. The Preferred Masterplan scheme design being consulted on at the AEC includes two 4 lane Collector-Distributors and two 6 lane through routes. The M25
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
352 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Preference for the simplest option with as few junctions as possible, to maintain free flow traffic.
✓ option is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design would increase the capacity of the M25 and is based on available traffic modelling data. A Surface Access Proposals document and updated Scheme Development Report form part of the AEC. They explain Heathrow’s preferred options for access arrangements and junction designs for the expanded airport.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
353 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Both families of options require the redevelopment of J14.
✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions is Family 1, option JB18, a two-junction scenario, which proposed to retain both M25 Junction 14 and 14a. The option proposes an intervention at Junction 14 to improve its capacity and cater for the tie-in with the realigned A3044. This improvement has been designed in order to allow for J14 to remain open during construction and therefore minimise disruption to road users.
The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
A Surface Access Proposal (Part 1) sets s out the strategies and initiatives being adopted to meet the requirements of the ANPS and forms part of the AEC.
Objection to both of the families of options for realignment of the M25.
✓ The ANPS identifies the need for a Northwest Runway at Heathrow and prescribes its general location and length, which means it will cross the M25. This was following consideration of runway locations by the Airports Commission, which recommended the provision of a new Northwest Runway at Heathrow to Government.
A suite of options that do not include M25 alignment should be provided for consideration, so that the public are properly consulted.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
354 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Concern about the scale and ambition of the M25 proposals.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes the provision of a tunnel and two taxiway bridges to carry the M25 under the proposed runway and taxiways. The revised M25 alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
Concerns that realignment was too expensive, a waste of money and also unnecessary.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
355 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Concern about the risks, cost and disruption that would come with an M25/runway crossing.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design has been developed taking into account advice from Highways England.
The ANPS states that the scheme should be “cost-efficient and sustainable, and seeks to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime” (Para 4.39), but it also lists a wide range of other matters such as land use planning, community and environmental impacts, traffic impacts etc. which will form part of the decision-making process.
Heathrow will need to demonstrate how its proposals comply with this policy requirement in order to achieve Development Consent.
Within that context, the scheme development process has been designed to ensure that affordability considerations are fully taken into account, alongside criteria within the other discipline areas (operations and service, delivery, sustainability and community and planning and property).
The airport expansion plan is being carefully budgeted by Heathrow’s advisors to ensure optimal levels of viability.
Heathrow also aims to ensure that the expanded
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
356 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
airport will operate with airport charges close to 2016 levels.
Heathrow remains committed to deliver this project in a way which is affordable, sustainable and financeable.
In addition to investing in the core airport infrastructure, Heathrow plans to invest in airport rail infrastructure links, the local road network and upgrades to the M25 to fully cover the costs of the impact of expansion.
This is consistent with the ANPS (para 5.20) that states that, “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
Support for the principle of the ‘offline’ approach for undertaking the development of the re-provisioned M25, as this has the potential to minimise disruption to passengers and other users of the airport.
✓ Support for an offline construction process is noted. Heathrow is clear that the M25 has to remain open during the construction and operation of the Northwest Runway, and the construction of the new tunneled section of the M25.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
357 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Preference for the re-alignment work to be done ‘off-line’ to maintain capacity on the motorway.
✓ The approach that will be taken is to construct the tunnel alongside the existing route and then once complete, switch over in order to minimise disruption to the existing users of the motorway.
A draft Code of Construction Practice is being consulted on at the AEC. and explains what controls will be put in place to minimise and mitigate the impacts during the construction stage. This includes measures to minimise the disruption of the construction to local communities and airport operations.
Reducing the impact of construction and operation of the new route and keeping the M25 operational throughout the construction period.
✓
Preference for an ‘offline’ approach to the building work, and the use of Collector-Distributor roads.
✓
Should realignment of the M25 be necessary, given the scale of works, any changes must be strictly managed to mitigate impacts on traffic either on the strategic Road network or local roads.
✓ Heathrow is clear that the M25 has to remain open during the construction and later operation of the Northwest Runway, and the construction of the new tunneled section of the M25.
The tunnel would be constructed alongside the existing route and then, once complete, the new section would be switched over in order to minimise disruption to existing users of the motorway. This is not a new approach or particularly high risk and has been delivered before at other major airports including Charles De Gaulle and Fort Lauderdale. This has also been done on the M25 where the construction of
Consideration should be given to the fact that the M25 in the location of the proposed realignment is the busiest section of the UK motorway network. Construction in this location will be challenging and disruption to motorists during construction must be minimised.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
358 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
The realignment of the M25 must minimise disruption to existing traffic.
✓ Cobham services saw the M25 realigned.
Heathrow is working closely with Highways England and is confident that these proposals are achievable within the construction timescales indicated.
A draft Code of Construction Practice is being consulted on at the AEC and explains what controls that will be put in place to minimise and mitigate the impacts during the construction stage. This includes measures to minimise the disruption of the construction to local communities and airport operations.
It is vital that the M25 stays in use, that impacts on road users are minimised and that there is a long term operational and safety plan.
✓
Further details of mitigation relating to highways impact during construction is necessary including management of the proposed alignment of the M25.
✓
Concern about construction phase and major disruption to traffic.
✓
The impacts of multiple major schemes in construction in the area at the time of Heathrow Expansion also needs to be carefully considered and programmed.
✓ The proposals for the M25 have been created in consultation with Highways England and include a tunnel under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges. The revised M25 alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
359 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Suggestion that all works are coordinated with other nearby schemes in Highways England’s second Road Investment Programme (RIS2), which will include major projects in the same timeframe as Heathrow expansion.
✓ Heathrow is seeking to minimise any unnecessary disruption to M25 users. Heathrow is also working with Highways England to look at the interaction of the airport expansion road plans with the RIS2 schemes.
Heathrow will also undertake scoping works with Highways England to identify opportunities for synergies in the delivery of M25 expansion works and M25 J10 to 16 improvements alongside the surface access works needed for the scheme.
The Environmental Impact Assessment will include an assessment of the cumulative impacts of the Heathrow works and other major schemes. The preliminary results of this assessment are presented in the PEIR.
Respondent noted the effect of M25 traffic closures on major routes through the borough of Hounslow and wanted to see the option that would minimise the length of these closures brought forward.
✓ Heathrow is clear that the M25 has to remain open during the construction and later operation of the Northwest Runway, and the construction of the new tunneled section of the M25.
The tunnel would be constructed alongside the existing route and then, once complete, the new section would be switched over in order to minimise disruption to existing users of the motorway.
A draft Code of Construction Practice is being
Any closures of the M25 are likely to have severe impacts across the wider south east and sections of the Transport for London Road Network (A30, A312, A316).
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
360 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Any work on the M25 should bear in mind that this was a vital piece of national infrastructure, and it should not interfere with local traffic routes.
✓ consulted on at the AEC and explains what controls will be put in place to minimise and mitigate the impacts during the construction stage. This includes measures to minimise the disruption of the construction to local communities and airport operations.
The proposed new runway location will result in the loss of the Western Perimeter Road and parts of the Northern Perimeter Road and will result in severance of sections of the A4 (Bath Rd) and A3044 (Stanwell Moor Rd). These changes will require close working, where possible, with a number of interested highway
Concern the effects of the diversion on supporting roads in an already congested part of the road network.
✓
Concern that any diversion of the M25 will force more traffic onto local roads to avoid congestion during construction.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
361 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Concern that disruption to traffic during the construction phase will be very considerable and will displace it onto local residential roads.
✓ authorities: Slough Borough Council (A4 and A3044), TfL (A4, A30 and A312), London Borough of Hillingdon (A3044), as well as Highways England as an interested party operating nearby and parallel roads.
To maintain traffic connectivity in the area and reduce potential effects on road users, the existing Northern Perimeter, A3044 and A4 will be maintained until adequate temporary or final replacement roads are complete. Heathrow will also aim to reduce the effect of construction traffic using these existing roads by creating an internal construction road system as soon as practical.
Further design and programmes of work for the M25 diversion and works to the M4 spur are still being developed so it is not possible to be specific about the duration of any works at this stage. As much as possible of the construction works will be undertaken alongside or near to the existing carriageway as it continues to operate, to minimise disruption to road users.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
362 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Commitment that construction vehicle traffic would not worsen during existing peak times on or near the M25.
✓ Heathrow is clear that the M25 has to remain open during the construction and later operation of the Northwest Runway, and the construction of the new tunneled section of the M25. The tunnel would be constructed alongside the existing route and then, once complete, the new section would be switched over in order to minimise disruption to users of the motorway.
A draft Code of Construction Practice is bring consulted on at the AEC and explains what controls will be put in place to minimise and mitigate the impacts during the construction stage. This includes measures to minimise the disruption of the construction to local communities and airport operations.
During construction, clear working hours should be adhered to, that no work is carried out during unsociable hours and that all signage, be it physical or sat nav is clear.
✓ Detailed designs and programmes of work for the M25 diversion and works to the M4 spur are still being developed so it is not possible to be specific about the duration of any works at this stage.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
363 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Any routing plan should be rigorously enforced.
✓ As much as possible of the construction works will be undertaken alongside or near to the existing carriageway as it continues to operate, to minimise disruption to road users.
A draft Code of Construction Practice is available as part of the AEC and explains what controls will be put in place to minimise and mitigate the impacts during the construction stage. This includes measures to minimise the disruption of the construction to local communities and airport operations.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
364 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Concern about the detrimental effect on UK economic productivity, health and quality of life through lost work hours whilst commuters and vital transport will be stuck in worsening traffic jams on the M25 and M4 motorways during the period that these engineering works take place.
✓ Heathrow is working with Highways England to determine the most appropriate method of re-providing the M25.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a tunnel and two taxiway bridges. The revised M25 alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
Heathrow is seeking to minimise any unnecessary disruption to M25 users. Heathrow is aware of the need to maintain traffic flows on the strategic road network in order to protect the economic health of the nation and maintain access to ports and markets around the UK and further afield.
A draft Code of Construction Practice is available as part of the AEC which explains what controls will be put in place to minimise and mitigate the impacts during the construction stage. This includes measures to minimise the disruption of the construction to local communities and airport operations.
Through the EIA process, Heathrow is carrying out detailed studies to assess the impacts of the airport expansion on quality of life, health and socio-economic impacts. Heathrow will report the potential
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
365 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
environmental impacts that affect quality of life and health, as a result of the construction and operation of the Project, including the preferred option for the repositioning of the M25 and wider socio-economic impacts.
Measures to minimise and mitigate potential significant effects will be identified under the relevant topic chapters in the ES, which will be submitted with the DCO application. Early findings are set out in the PEIR, which is available as part of the AEC. For example, Chapter 19 – Transport Network Users, and Chapter 12 – Health.
Concern about impacts on air quality during the construction phase at Heathrow Airport and any schemes to improve the M25 motorway, as well as during the operation of the expanded airport and M25.
✓ Outside of the airport boundary, the main sources of pollution that influence air quality are non-airport-related; in decreasing order of influence, pollutant concentrations beyond the airport boundary are affected by: the ambient background (pollutants transported from elsewhere, including London and northern Europe); non-airport-related road traffic; airport-related road traffic; and emissions from airport activities.
Given that non-airport-related road traffic is a dominant source of emissions around Heathrow, in addition to the measures proposed by Heathrow,
The land on either side of the M25 motorway in Runnymede was declared as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) in 2001 for both nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter (PM).
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
366 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Concerns about the effects on quality of life for local communities and residential areas in proximity to the M25 due to noise and reduced air quality
✓ national and regional measures to improve air quality will have an important role in addressing the wider pollution issue across the UK that affects concentrations in the area.
Since publication of the Airports Commission’s final report, the Government has undertaken further work on air quality to understand the implications of updates to the tools published by Government to calculate road vehicle emission rates. The Government’s air quality re-analysis and the Appraisal of Sustainability published alongside the ANPS are clear in stating that the Project can be delivered in accordance with legal obligations for air quality.
The ANPS recognises a range of potential mitigation measures that Heathrow could put in place to help meet legal air quality obligations and improve air quality around the airport (Para 5.39-5.40). Heathrow is already delivering a number of these measures today. The expansion of Heathrow 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.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a tunnel that takes the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges that take the taxiways over
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
367 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
the M25. This is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report that is being consulted on at the AEC. The early findings of the EIA relating to a range of topics, including air quality, are set out in this consultation in the PEIR. For example, Chapter 7- Air Quality and Odour, and Chapter 17 – Noise and Vibration.
The motorway sunk deeper while left uncovered creating increased CO2 air pollution.
✓ The preferred option for the M25 includes a tunnel that would take the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways over the M25. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
The early findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment relating to a range of topics, including air quality, is set out at this consultation in the PEIR. For example, Chapter 7 – Air Quality and Odour and Chapter 9 – Carbon and Greenhouse Gases.
Replacing and repositioning roads needs to be in line with a commitment to increasing public transport access to and from the airport.
✓ Heathrow is committed to meeting the targets in the ANPS for increasing passenger mode share by public transport and reducing the number of colleague car trips. Heathrow will also continue to strive to meet its
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
368 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Supportive of measures being implemented that enable strategic bus corridors to be established which provide reliable journeys by bus and coach from west London, and in particular Wembley, to the airport.
✓ pledge to have landside airport-related traffic no greater than today.
Improvements to public and active transport connectivity and access is a key component of the Surface Access Proposals for expansion. Heathrow is working with Network Rail, TfL, National Express and local authorities to investigate options. Heathrow is supportive in principle of schemes being promoted by other operators which would bring increased connectivity to the airport such as the Western Rail Link and Southern Rail Access.
Beyond these measures, as part of a fully integrated Surface Access Proposal, Heathrow is consulting on options to improve the efficiency of road users through measures relating to taxis/private hire vehicles, HGVs, vehicle emissions, car parking and airport layout options which would reduce the need to travel. A vehicle charging strategy is explained in the Surface Access Proposal (Volume 2) and would further encourage the use of public transport and active
Suggestions for transport interventions such as local bus and cycle routes for Heathrow workers and projects to enable passengers, workers, commuters and freight to move to more sustainable and accessible modes of travel, including links by rail and coach to High Wycombe and from other towns in Buckinghamshire.
✓
Building additional lanes is not the right approach and that schemes which manage the existing road space on the M25 better and reduce the need to travel by improving local road and public transport options should be investigated.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
369 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Concern that the M25 alignment may result in an increase in capacity leading to a failure to achieve public transport requirements and significant air quality implications.
✓ travel.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 is set out and explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1), which forms part of the Airports Expansion Consultation in June 2019.
Further technical assessment and consideration of consultation feedback will inform the scheme submitted in the DCO application.
The early findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment relating to a range of topics, including air quality, is set out at this consultation in the PEIR. For example, Chapter 7 – Air Quality and Odour and Chapter 9 – Carbon and Greenhouse Gases.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
370 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
All alterations to the M25, its junctions and infrastructure, need to be designed to cause the least damage and disturbance to wildlife habitats, species and rivers. Specific reference was made to avoiding or minimising impacts on:
• the Colne Valley Regional Park;
• Poyle Meadows as part of Staines Moor SSSI and floodplains;
• the ‘East of Poyle Meadows’ Site of Nature Conservation Importance;
• Greenham’s Fishing Pond SNCI; and
• The Wraysbury River.
✓ Options for re-positioning the M25 and its junctions have been considered against a range of criteria set out in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1). The criteria include “Sustainability & Community” which considers potential impacts on community, landscape, water, socio-eco, and biodiversity, including impacts on SSSIs and other designated areas.
A PEIR is also available as part of the AEC. It reports on the early findings of the EIA, considering the potential for likely significant effects associated with the repositioning of the M25 during both construction and operational phases, including potential effects on SSSIs and other designated areas.
An ES will be submitted as part of the DCO application and will report on any likely significant effects and mitigation measures of the scheme as a whole, including on designated sites.
The potential for M25 works to effect areas of sensitive habitat.
✓
Concern that the Colne and the Colne Brook are directly affected by the airport expansion and both watercourses will need considerable diversion.
✓ The expansion of Heathrow will extend the Airport's footprint into the Colne Valley, in the path of existing alignments of watercourses and areas of floodplain storage within the valley. It is proposed to divert the
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
371 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Family 1 also has two additional crossings over the Wraysbury which will need to be assessed for WFD compliance and environmental impact.
✓ flow of the River Colne, the Colne Brook, the River Wraysbury, the Longford River and the Duke of Northumberland’s River through a covered river corridor under the proposed runway.
All of the rivers are proposed to be separated and returned to their current channels and flow conditions downstream of the expanded airfield. The development of options is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 4 Chapter 1) as part of the AEC.
An extensive and detailed evaluation of potential sites has been undertaken in order to identify the preferred location and routes of the river diversions and flood storage areas, taking into account the consultation feedback received from consultation done to date on the Project.
Heathrow believes that the proposals comprise the
It is unclear how the lowering of the M25 by up to 7 metres will affect groundwater, the local water supply and the natural functioning of rivers and requested clarification on this before any work is carried out.
✓
Concerns about the effect of lowering the M25 by 7m on local groundwater, the water supply and local rivers.
✓
Both option Family 1 and 2 have potentially significant impact to the River Wraysbury.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
372 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Concerns about the impact of the M25 and the A3044 on the health of the Poyle Channel watercourse due to the extensive cover.
✓ most sustainable balance between being appropriately located, comprising an acceptable level of land take, and minimising impacts on the environment and communities as far as possible.
With regard to water quality, Heathrow is committed to protecting the quality of the water environment and is working with the Environment Agency and other third parties to deliver appropriate solutions.
The Project will be designed to accord with the environmental objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), which are reiterated in the ANPS. In this regard, one of the scheme’s overall aims is to prevent the deterioration in status of water bodies, and not to jeopardise the future achievement of good status for any affected water bodies.
A PEIR is available at the AEC. It reports on the early findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment, considering the potential for likely significant effects associated with the scheme both during construction and operational phases, including potential effects on watercourses.
An Environmental Statement will be submitted with the DCO application and will report on likely significant effects and mitigation measures of the scheme as a
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
373 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
whole, including for impacts to watercourses.
Lowering of the M25 next to flood zones may increase flood risk to the M25 compared to the current alignment of the M25. This must be carefully considered and designed to ensure no increased flood risk to the M25 or wider SRN.
✓ The new Runway would be built partly in the flood plain of the Colne Valley rivers. Existing flood storage will be lost due to the expansion of Heathrow.
To address this, the proposed masterplan includes areas of compensatory flood storage to provide for the Colne Brook, River Colne and Wraysbury rivers. The development of these options is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 4 Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
The scheme seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between upstream and on-site solutions with a combination of sites providing the required capacity for flood storage if a flood event occurs.
A PEIR is available for consultation at the AEC. It reports on the early findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment and will provide further information relating to flood risk.
An Environmental Statement will be submitted with the DCO application to report on likely significant effects and mitigation measures of the scheme as a whole, including flood risk.
Junction options C1a, C1b C1c include rivers in tunnels under the runway next to the proposed M25 Tunnels which will be at a lower level Highways Agency considered potential increased flooding risk compared with existing M25 levels. Designs must prevent any increase in flood risk. Also options C2a C2b have similar arrangements.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
374 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
All options, with the exception of JA1, have the potential to impact on Unit 1 of Staines Moor SSSI through direct land take, construction impacts or air pollution.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design, Option JB18, optimizes the previous two junction options and removes the free flow link over Junction 14. As a result, the impact on Staines Moor SSSI has been significantly reduced from previous options. The options for re-positioning the M25 and its junctions were considered against a range of criteria as set out in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
The criteria included ‘Sustainability & Community’ which took into account potential impacts on biodiversity, including impacts on SSSIs such as Staines Moor SSSI and other designated areas.
The Updated Scheme Development Report shows the options considered, the results of the evaluation of options and the reasons for selecting the preferred option.
A PEIR is also available at the AEC in June 2019. It reports on the early findings of the EIA, considering the potential for likely significant effects associated with the repositioning of the M25 during both construction and operational phases, including
Concern that possible options to compensate for any loss or damage to Unit 1 of Staines Moor SSSI had not been identified.
✓
M25 road traffic may impact up to 12ha (10%) of Unit 12 of Staines Moor. Any increased road traffic emissions along this section of the M25 resulting from the expansion project have the potential to increase nutrient loading on this SSSI. Changes arising from increased road traffic could lead to the site declining in condition.
✓
Unit 12 is also bordered by the A30, a major road which could see increased traffic, emissions and resultant nitrogen loading onto the SSSI.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
375 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Concern that whichever options are chosen for Junction 14 and 14a, there will be significant impacts on the Poyle Meadows SSSI.
✓ potential effects on SSSIs and other designated areas.
An ES will be submitted with the DCO application to report on likely significant effects and mitigation measures of the scheme as a whole, including on designated sites including the Staines Moor SSSI and Poyle Meadow.
Any land-take south-west of the existing M25 J14 junction would impact the Poyle Meadow unit of Staines Moor SSSI, as well as a non-statutory Local Wildlife Site.
✓
SNCI (‘Greenham’s Fishing Pond SNCI’) immediately south of J14 may be impacted.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
376 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Moving the M25 would take up a lot of land, and that this would have to be subject to an archaeological assessment.
✓ In advance of the application, Heathrow will undertake research to try to predict the nature of archaeological deposits across the site, above and below ground.
The types of settlement recorded during the excavations around T5 are fairly well-known and understood, and Heathrow thinks it is likely that remains of similar activity may be present within the site.
It is possible that different types of remains may be present, and Heathrow will be undertaking more detailed research and fieldwork over the course of the application, such as aerial photographic interpretation, monitoring ground investigation works, geophysical survey and trial trenching to try to get a clearer picture of what archaeological remains may be present on site.
Archeological deposits will be considered during the DCO examination and the examining authority will need to be satisfied that any impacts on archaeology resulting from the project are acceptable.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
377 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Concern about the extent of and arrangements for remediation or removal of contaminated material that will be required.
✓ A PEIR is available at the AEC. It reports on the early findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment, considering the potential for likely significant effects associated with the repositioning of the M25 during both construction and operational phases, including potential effects with regard to contaminated land and land quality in Chapter 14 – Land Quality.
An ES will be submitted with the DCO application to report on likely significant effects and mitigation measures of the scheme as a whole, including relating to contaminated land and land quality.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
378 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Support the reduction of pollution and noise for local residents querying whether expansion has to result in changes to the road network and existing traffic flows.
✓ The ANPS prescribes the general location and length of the Northwest Runway. The DCO application must be in accordance with the ANPS. The design parameters set in the ANPS mean the type of changes to the M25 are unavoidable.
Heathrow recognises the existing challenges on the road network in the Heathrow area with high traffic levels and local air quality issues.
A Surface Access Proposal is available at the AEC. It explains Heathrow’s preferred options for meeting the surface access targets in the ANPS that require Heathrow to increase the public transport mode share for passengers and reduce the number of staff car trips.
Heathrow will also continue to strive to meet its pledge to have landside airport-related traffic no greater than today as referenced in the Surface Access Proposals (Part 2).
Junction reconfiguration would be expensive and result in a significant land take.
✓ An extensive and detailed evaluation of potential sites has been undertaken in order to identify the preferred location for development, taking into account the
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
379 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Preference for the option that involves the minimum loss of residential units and a natural dispersal of traffic.
✓ consultation responses and the requirements of the ANPS, which prescribes the general location and length of the Northwest Runway.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design is a short tunnel used to carry the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges carry taxiways over the M25. The existing two junctions are retained but modified under the Preferred Masterplan scheme design. This revised alignment shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
Heathrow believes that the proposals comprise the most sustainable balance between being appropriately located, comprising an acceptable level of land take, and minimising impacts upon the environment and communities as far as possible.
Further information is contained in the PEIR that is published as part of the AEC. For example, Chapter 11 – Community, and Chapter 19 – Transport Network Users.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
380 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
In order to accommodate the additional traffic, major changes to Junction 14 would be required which would require the demolition of some property at Poyle Trading Estate.
✓ Since undertaking the Consultation One (January 2018), more detailed design and assessment work has been completed to determine our Preferred Masterplan scheme design proposals for an expanded Heathrow. In order to construct, operate and maintain the Project we will need to acquire a certain area of land. This is referred to as the Compulsory Purchase Zone (“CPZ”).
Beyond the CPZ there are other areas of land identified in the material published for Airport
The M25 would be closer to residential areas in Poyle and the Pippins School and would necessitate the loss of homes at Elbow Meadow
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
381 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
M25 re-alignment affects the Colnbrook Golf Driving Range, requiring a significant proportion of this land and other current rental businesses. Removal of this facility would lead to future parking issues in and around this area.
✓ Expansion Consultation which may be needed for associated infrastructure, environmental mitigation and other uses to facilitate the Project. Heathrow continues to seek to minimise adverse impacts through the design, assessment and evaluation process for the Project.
Heathrow is engaging directly with those who are identified as having an interest in the land likely to be required by the Project, both within and beyond the CPZ. Through this ongoing engagement we will discuss enrolment into the relevant compensation scheme(s) and the variety of support services available. The proposed approach to land acquisition and compensation packages available to affected owners are set out in Heathrow’s Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies for Residential Property, Agricultural Land and Property, and Commercial Property, (as well as an Property Hardship Scheme). These policies and property documents are published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
382 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Concern that the M25 realignment was much further to the west than had been assumed and would affect Elbow Meadow, Galleymead Trading Estate, residential properties in Poyle and Pippins School.
✓ An extensive and detailed evaluation of potential sites has been undertaken in order to identify the preferred location for development, taking into account the consultation responses and the requirements of the ANPS which prescribes the general location and length of the Northwest Runway.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a tunnel that would take the M25 under the proposed runway, two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways above the M25 and two modified junctions. The revised alignment is shown in more detail as part of the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
Heathrow believes that the proposals comprise the most sustainable balance between being appropriately
Concern about effects on local communities such as Colnbrook/Poyle/Harmondsworth/ Stanwell Moor.
✓
Concern about the effects on residential properties on Elbow Meadow, together with that for the A3044 (were it to follow the alignment immediately to the west of the realigned M25).
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
383 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Preference for options that provide short journey times for airport and non-airport road traffic, provide good connections to nearby communities whilst minimising property loss and construction effects on Stanwell Moor and Poyle.
✓ located, comprising an acceptable level of land take, and minimising impacts upon the environment and communities as far as possible.
Heathrow will continue to work closely with the most impacted communities to assess, manage and mitigate adverse effects.
Through the EIA process, Heathrow will assess the likely impacts of the scheme on surrounding communities and the environment. The initial findings of the EIA are available at the AEC in a PEIR. For example, Chapter 11 – Community, and Chapter 19 – Transport network Users.
Consultation feedback and ongoing assessment will influence the design of the scheme prior to the submission of a DCO application. The ES submitted with the DCO application will report on the EIA and identify appropriate mitigation measures, including those to mitigate the effects on surrounding communities.
A Transport Assessment will also be submitted with the DCO application to report on the results of the further detailed assessment work and, for locations where the impacts of the project are determined to be severe, will set out in more detail the proposed
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
384 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
mitigation strategy. Early findings of this assessment are published in the PTIR at the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
385 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Any construction works at J14 are likely to have a significant effect on the operations of DHL for several years.
✓ The preferred option for Junction 14 is JB18. This option minimizes intervention on Junction 14 by extending to the west to accommodate the future A3044. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) as part of the AEC.
The preferred option has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and J14a. With this option, Heathrow is expecting to not only keep the current function of the junctions as unchanged as possible but also to minimise disruption to road users, surrounding communities and businesses, whilst adjusting the layout to accommodate the proposed infrastructure.
The DHL property is likely to be within the operational area of the expanded airport. Heathrow has engaged with DHL to understand the potential implications.
A draft Code of Construction Practice is being consulted on at the AEC. It sets out how construction activities and their effects will be managed and monitored throughout the programme.
Taking into account consultation feedback, a Code of Construction Practice will be submitted with the DCO application and the measures contained in it will be
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
386 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
legally secured through the DCO itself.
Any land released by the proposals should be used as buffers and habitat zones alongside realigned rivers.
✓ It is an aim of the Project to deliver demonstrable overall biodiversity gain. Habitat creation and enhancement proposals will be designed to ensure that the biodiversity interest of designated sites in this area will be maintained and where appropriate enhanced.
How proposals have been developed for landscaping, mitigation and compensation works (green infrastructure) are included in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 4, Chapter 9) as part of the AEC and form a network of connected green spaces and water environments in the vicinity of the Airport.
However, it is understood that some types of nature conservation measures (e.g. those focused directly on fauna) cannot be valued using an offsetting metric and therefore flexibility in the approach to the delivery of net gain will be maintained to ensure input to projects highlighted by local stakeholders are considered on their merits and are not automatically discounted (e.g. local species recovery programmes).
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
387 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
In the anticipation that to facilitate the M25 alignment works, materials may need to be stored on landholdings either temporarily or permanently. This was not considered acceptable.
✓ During construction, land will be needed for a variety of construction purposes (e.g. storage space) in and next to the airport, to minimise journey distances and increase efficiency.
However, in addition to the use of sites around the airport, Heathrow proposes to utilise four remote Logistics Hubs elsewhere in the country – aiming to build as much of the project off-site as possible and spreading the economic benefit of the Project. Heathrow will be the first major infrastructure project in the UK to pioneer the large-scale use of logistics hubs. Remote sites would assist with managing the flow of materials and workforce with the objective to maximise productivity and reduce adverse effects on the public, the environment and airport operations.
No costs of increasing road capacity should fall to the airport.
✓ The ANPS states that the scheme should be “cost-efficient and sustainable, and seeks to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime” (Para 4.39), but it also lists a wide range of other matters such as land use planning, community and environmental impacts, traffic impacts etc. which will form part of the decision-making process.
Heathrow will need to demonstrate how its proposals
Concern about the viability of crossing a runway over the M25 and requested that the risks and costs be addressed and independently verified in advance of reaching a preferred option.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
388 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Doubt as to whether tunneling the M25 under the new runway or re-aligning the motorway will prove viable.
✓ comply with this policy requirement in order to achieve development consent.
Within that context, the scheme development process has been designed to ensure that affordability considerations are fully taken into account, alongside criteria within the other discipline areas (operations and service, delivery, sustainability and community
Request for fully costed, detailed and independently verified proposals predicated on the ‘user pays’ principle.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
389 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
The airline sector and passengers should only help to pay for improvements to the M25 if there was a clear case for this.
✓ and planning and property).
The airport expansion plan is being carefully budgeted by Heathrow’s advisors to ensure optimal levels of viability. Heathrow also aims to ensure that the expanded airport will operate with airport charges close to 2016 levels. Heathrow remains committed to deliver this project in a way which is affordable, sustainable and financeable.
In addition to investing in the core airport infrastructure, Heathrow plans to invest in airport rail infrastructure links, the local road network and upgrades to the M25 to fully cover the costs of the impact of expansion. This is consistent with the ANPS (para 5.20) that states that, “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”.
As the design of the scheme evolves in response to consultation feedback, the cost estimates are evolving too. Following feedback on the proposed masterplan, further cost savings might be identified – including as a result of improvements in construction and delivery
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
390 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
techniques.
The preferred M25 alignment includes a short tunnel that would take the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways over the top of the M25. The revised mainline alignment and junction configuration are shown in in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
The tunnel would be constructed alongside the existing route and then, once complete, the new section would be switched over in order to minimise disruption to existing users of the motorway. This is not a new approach or particularly high risk and has been delivered before at other major airports including Charles De Gaulle and Fort Lauderdale. This has also been done on the M25 where the construction of Cobham services saw the M25 realigned.
Heathrow is working closely with Highways England and is confident that these proposals are achievable within the construction timescales indicated.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
391 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Junction choice should be determined by cost effectiveness or the capacity it created.
✓ There are multiple operational and safety requirements which have influenced the location of the proposed runway and amendments to the existing strategic road network. This also included consideration of environmental, social and economic evidence that has informed our decision-making about the Preferred Masterplan scheme design.
An extensive and detailed evaluation of potential sites has been undertaken in order to identify the preferred location for development, taking into account the consultation responses and the requirements of the ANPS which prescribes the general location and length of the Northwest Runway.
The preferred option has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and J14a. With this option, Heathrow are expecting to not only keep the current function of the junctions as unchanged as possible but also to minimise disruption to road users, surrounding communities and businesses, whilst adjusting the layout to accommodate the proposed infrastructure. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
Heathrow considers that the Preferred Masterplan
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
392 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
scheme design comprises the most sustainable balance between being appropriately located, comprising an acceptable level of land take, and minimising impacts upon the environment and communities as far as possible.
Liability for ongoing maintenance costs must be included in the cost assessment.
✓ The airport expansion plan is being carefully budgeted and the ANPS requires that the scheme is cost-efficient and sustainable, and will seek to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime (Para 4.39).
In addition to the funding of the expansion of the Airport, Heathrow has forecast capital expenditure up until 2035 to cover the ongoing maintenance costs for running Heathrow. This has been taken into account in Heathrow’s budgeting to enable it to meet one of its overarching aims, i.e. that airport charges will stay as close to 2016 levels as possible.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
393 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Options should improve traffic efficiency, reduce journey times and ease congestion.
✓ The expansion of Heathrow will involve some changes to the road network. These changes are described in the Preferred Masterplan scheme design and the development is detailed in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of AEC.
Heathrow has sought to ensure that the proposals for modifying the road network help relieve current points of congestion and provide connectivity for local people, modifying the road network in a way that helps improve traffic flow and provide more reliable journey times.
Heathrow will also continue to strive to meet its pledge to have landside airport-related traffic no greater than today as referenced in the Surface Access Proposals (Part 2).
The Preferred masterplan scheme design road layout has been developed taking into account assessment including traffic modelling and environmental assessment as well as feedback from consultation and is explained as part of the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1 and Chapter 2).
A PTIR, is also published as part of the AEC. The
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
394 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
The area cannot tolerate any further increases in traffic.
✓ The expansion of Heathrow will involve some changes to the road network. Heathrow will seek to ensure that the proposals for modifying the road network help relieve current points of congestion and provide connectivity for local people, modifying the road network in a way that helps improve traffic flow and provide more reliable journey times.
Heathrow will also continue to strive to meet its pledge
The alignment of the M25 will generate increased congestion, greater traffic on the M25 and a general increase in disruption both during construction and afterwards.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
395 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Concerns about high traffic levels on the local road network which already suffers from frequent tailbacks affecting the M25 and local roads.
✓ to have landside airport-related traffic no greater than today, as referenced in the Surface Access Proposals (Part 2).
In the AEC, Heathrow sets out its Preferred Masterplan document which includes the preferred options for the road network serving the expanded airport. This has been based on feedback from the Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018) and ongoing design and assessment work.
The development and design process is reported on in the Updated Scheme Development Report at the AEC.
A PTIR, is also published as part of the AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of
Removing a major junction, combined with the expansion of Heathrow Airport would make the traffic situation even worse than it is now.
✓
Concern that junction alterations would cause more congestion on an already heavily congested part of the M25 causing more air pollution.
✓
Concern about increased pressure on the M25.
✓
Concern about the increased traffic, and heavy vehicle traffic on all west London main roads during construction and operation.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
396 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Concern that increased flights from Heathrow Airport will lead to a lot more traffic on the M25 (and M4) and will greatly increase congestion and air pollution.
✓ impacts where appropriate
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
With regard to construction, Heathrow is clear that the M25 has to remain open during the construction and later operation of the Northwest Runway. In the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, as shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report, the M25 carriageway is moved approximately 130 metres to the west and lowered by approximately 7 metres into a tunnel. The proposed runway height is raised by 3 to 5 metres so that it passes over the M25 between J14a and J15.
The tunnel would be constructed alongside the existing route and then, once complete, the new section would be switched over in order to minimise disruption to existing users of the motorway. This is not a new approach or particularly high risk and has been delivered before at other major airports including Charles De Gaulle and Fort Lauderdale. This has also been done on the M25 where the construction of Cobham services saw the M25 realigned.
The western section of the M25 already experiences regular congestion which causes problems for Heathrow customers, freight partners and employees travelling to and from work.
✓
The key challenge will be the timely delivery of effective mitigation capable of dealing with increased numbers of people and the impacts on the local and national transport networks.
✓
Concerns that congestion and traffic gridlock would get worse if the M25 was re-positioned.
✓
The impacts of Heathrow’s expansion proposals on M25 J13 and J15 must also be carefully considered and modelled to determine if mitigation is required.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
397 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
The project should be mindful that the M25 already causes major hold-ups every day costing employers money and time so minimisation of disruption would be preferred.
Heathrow is working closely with Highways England and is confident that these proposals are achievable within the construction timescales indicated.
A draft Code of Construction Practice Statement is available at the AEC. It sets out how construction activities will be managed and the monitoring of the effects of construction throughout the programme.
Taking into account consultation feedback, a Code of Construction Practice will be submitted with the DCO application and the measures in it will be legally secured in the DCO itself.
The emerging plan indicates that the perimeter roads would not be sufficient to handle the increased traffic volumes, yet in the original proposal Heathrow said they would keep traffic volumes at current levels.
✓ The proposed runway location will result in the loss of the Western Perimeter Road and parts of the Northern Perimeter Road and result in severance of the A4 (Bath Rd) and A3044 (Stanwell Moor Rd). Where possible these changes will require close working with a number of interested highway authorities: Slough Borough Council (A3044 and A4), TfL (A4, A30 and A312), London Borough of Hillingdon (A3044), as well as Highways England as an interested party operating nearby and parallel roads.
To maintain traffic connectivity in the area and reduce
Heathrow should seek to alleviate the severe congestion to the local road network that currently exist around Colnbrook, Poyle and Brands Hill.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
398 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Concerns that traffic for the Western Campus would need to negotiate the Stanwell Moor Roundabout, which must constitute a capacity issue.
✓ potential effects on road users, the existing A3044 and A4 will be maintained until the new replacement roads are complete.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
399 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
An important factor was high quality accessibility to and from this junction and through the re-aligned A3044 Stanwell Moor junction, as this is the most important access and egress both from the motorway network and for the many airport related businesses.
✓ Heathrow will also aim to reduce the effect of construction traffic using these existing roads by creating an internal construction road system as soon as practical.
Detailed designs and programmes of work for the M25 diversion and works to the M4 spur are still being developed so it is not possible to be specific about the duration of any works at this stage.
As much as possible of the construction work will be undertaken alongside or near to the existing carriageway as it continues to operate, to minimise disruption to road users.
A PTIR is available at the AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
400 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
around Heathrow.
It is not clear whether this extensive remodelling of Junction 14 would fit with Option 2a, Option 2ai and Option 3d for the A3044 replacement.
✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions, option JB18, proposes a two-junction scenario. This option proposes an intervention at junction 14 to improve its capacity and would cater for the tie-in with the preferred option for the A3044, which is an improvement of the previously presented A3044 Option 3D. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
Remodelling Junction 14 would be expensive and would result in a significant land take. Respondents expressed concern that it was not clear whether this would improve access to the Poyle Trading estate or make it worse.
✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions, option JB18, is a two-junction scenario. This option proposes an intervention at junction 14 to improve its capacity and would cater for the tie-in with the preferred option for the A3044, which is an improvement of the previously presented A3044 Option 3D. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
The layout as shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report is expected to improve access to the Poyle Trading Estate as the A3044 will tie-in with the M25 J14.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
401 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
In order to reduce or eliminate weaving in the tunnels the location of north facing slips at Junction 14/14a should be considered carefully in relation to their proximity to the tunnels.
✓ As part of the AEC, the Preferred Masterplan document will include Collector-Distributor roads. These roads would run parallel to the motorway, segregating airport and local traffic from the main carriageway and would add capacity to the M25, as well as reducing the amount of weaving of cars between lanes. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
Both Junction 14 and 14a options were unsuitable with some suggesting that junction changes were unnecessary.
✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions, option JB18, is a two-junction scenario. This option has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and J14a. With this, Heathrow is expecting to not only keep the current function of the junctions as unchanged as possible but also to minimise disruption to road users, whilst adjusting their layout to accommodate the proposed infrastructure. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
Family 1 and Family 2 will make a bad situation worse as it was too complex.
✓
Options JA1, JA2 and JC1 seem relatively innocuous whereas Options JA3 and JC2 are more elaborate and intrusive.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
402 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Due the topography of the land surrounding J14, construction costs would be significantly high and may require, amongst other works, a west to north Bridge up to 1km in length linking the A313 and M25.
✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions, option JB18, is a two-junction scenario. This option has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and J14a. With this, Heathrow is expecting to not only keep the current function of the junctions as unchanged as possible but also to minimise disruption to road users, whilst adjusting their layout to accommodate the proposed infrastructure. This revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
As the design of the scheme evolves in response to consultation feedback, the cost estimates are evolving too. Following feedback on the proposed masterplan, further cost savings might be identified – including as a result of improvements in construction and delivery techniques.
Family Option 2 preference as a reduction in junctions would make it easier for motorists with rationalisation improving travel convenience.
✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions, option JB18, which is a two-junction scenario. This option has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and J14a and tries to address traffic capacity requirements as well as providing a level of resilience that could not be achieved with a one junction scenario (Family 2). This option would also allow for the current function of the junctions to remain as unchanged as possible and Family Option 2 is a simpler design ✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
403 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Preference for Family 2, however alterations to the M25 junctions should ensure that landholding are not unduly affected as a consequence.
✓ tries to minimise disruption to road users. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
Family 2 would be preferred as two junctions located together have been proven to be accident hotspots.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
404 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Due to the potential scale of Option J2C, concern that the DHL/Poyle site would be required to construct and enlarge J14.
✓ Option J2C has been discontinued given its wider footprint and potential impact on environmental constraints, surrounding communities and business.
The preferred option for the M25 Junctions. option JB18, has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and J14a. Heathrow is expecting to not only keep the current function of the junctions unchanged, but also to minimise disruption to road users, surrounding communities and businesses, whilst adjusting their layout to accommodate the proposed infrastructure. The revised alignment is shown in the Upgraded Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
The DHL property is likely to be within the operational area of the expanded airport. Heathrow has engaged with DHL to understand the potential implications.
A draft Code of Construction Practice is available at the AEC. It sets out how construction activities and their effects will be managed and monitored throughout the programme. Taking into account consultation feedback, a Code of Construction Practice will be submitted with the DCO application and the measures contained in it will be legally secured through the DCO itself.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
405 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Closing J14a will place too great a strain on an already congested part of the M25.
✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions, option JB18, is a two-junction scenario and has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and J14a. This option addresses traffic capacity requirements and would provide a level of resilience that could not be achieved with a one junction scenario (Family 2). This option would also allow for the current function of the junctions to remain unchanged as far as reasonably possible and would try to minimise disruption to road users. The revised alignment is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
Option J2C or similar, which would remove J14a altogether, was not supported as it would add all existing Terminal 5 traffic to J14
Junction 14a on the M25 would need to be closed due to new taxiway alignments, apron and terminal requirements.
✓ This Preferred Masterplan scheme design takes into account responses from previous consultation and ongoing technical assessment including traffic modelling, as described in the Updated Scheme Development Report.
The Preferred Masterplan document shows both Junction 14 and Junction 14A. This revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1), which also forms part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
406 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Preference for an option that retains J14a.
✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions, option JB18, is a two-junction scenario. This option has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and J14a. This option would address traffic capacity requirements and would provide a level of resilience that could not be achieved with a one junction scenario (Family 2). This option would also allow for the current function of the junctions to remain as unchanged as far as reasonably possible and would try to minimise disruption to road users. Further details are provided in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1), which also forms part of the AEC.
Keeping J14a is important not only for the airport itself but also for traffic to other destinations, such as to local business sites.
✓
Preference for the retention of J14a and the adjustment of feeder roads as necessary to give access to new terminals etc.
✓
Preference for Family 1, this option gave better access to the airport and would take up less land.
✓
Support for Family Option 1. ✓
Favour Family Option 1 due to cost and speed of construction.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
407 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Favour Family Option 1 due to concerned about the effect of losing J14a on local traffic volumes.
✓
Preference for Family Option 1 due to better transport access opportunities as a result of retaining J14a and direct access to Terminal 5 from the M25.
✓
Work ensuing from the Heathrow expansion will affect all collector-distributor roads to and from Heathrow and as such option Family 1 - less civil engineering works and disruption would be preferable.
✓
Preference for Family 1, and Option JA2, no costs for increasing road capacity should fall to the airport.
✓
Preference for Family 1, but J14a should be modified to give more access to Terminal 5 and a new terminal further north.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
408 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Concern about the potential impact of all junction options.
✓ The concerns raised about the junction options, as set out in the Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018) document Our Emerging Plans are noted.
Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan document includes proposed changes for the M25 Junctions. Option JB18, which forms part of the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, is a two-junction scenario. This option has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and J14a. This option would address traffic capacity requirements as well as providing a level of resilience that could not be achieved with a one junction scenario (Family 2). This option would also allow for the current function of the junctions to remain as unchanged as far as reasonably possible and tries to minimise disruption to road users. Further details are provided in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1), which also forms part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
409 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
The new alignment, tunnels and other new infrastructure must be ‘future proof’ and allow for future expansion of the M25 without the need for major alterations.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a tunnel that would carry the M25 under the proposed runway, two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways above the M25 and two modified junctions. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
The proposals for the M25 have been created in consultation with Highways England. Heathrow will ensure that any proposed changes to the M25 will be implemented consistently with the Secretary of State’s statutory directions and guidance / standards set out by Highways England. This includes ensuring that sufficient provision is made to accommodate flexibility and future-proofing in planning the long-term development, improvement and operation of Highways England's network.
Any new route should not be so far from the existing one as to lengthen distances travelled.
✓ Safety is at the forefront of designing an expanded Heathrow. New facilities will reflect the latest standards to achieve a modern, safe environment while maintaining traffic flow, and protecting adjacent operations. There will be careful consideration for key features such as road configuration, lighting levels, signage, traffic control, life safety systems etc. Changes to the road network will be designed in
The road layout should be as simple as possible so that drivers can easily understand it.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
410 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Hard shoulders must be provided in the tunnels for safety and operational purposes.
✓ accordance with current safety standards and regulations.
The design of the road network is also being informed by ongoing technical assessment, including transport modelling, and feedback received during consultation. Heathrow is working closely with Highways England and where possible other transport operators and authorities during the scheme development process.
Alterations to the motorway should not make journeys more challenging.
✓
The operations and service criteria in evaluating options is critical and the long-term operation and maintenance of the proposals must be fully considered when evaluating options.
✓
Junction choice should be determined by accident risk and efficiency should be the determinants.
✓
The importance of minimising disruption and ensuring the new route was efficient and safe.
✓
There should not be adverse effects on the safety of road users, construction workers or emergency services.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
411 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Tunnels should be used in the redesign of these [M25] junctions.
✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes proposed changes to the M25 Junctions. Option JB18, which is included in the Preferred Masterplan document, is a two-junction scenario. This option has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and J14a. This option tries to address traffic capacity requirements and would provide a level of resilience that could not be achieved with a one junction scenario (Family 2). This option would also allow for the current function of the junctions to remain unchanged as far as reasonably possible and would try to minimise disruption to road users. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter1) which is being consulted on at the AEC.
The design of the selected option must take full account of likely demand and be fully integrated into the overall masterplan for expansion.
✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 alignment and junctions, option JB18, is a two-junction scenario, that has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
412 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
The need for a coherent strategy to address combined aspects is required.
✓ J14a. This option tries to address traffic capacity requirements and would provide a level of resilience that could not be achieved with a one junction scenario (Family 2). This option would also allow for the current function of the junctions to remain unchanged as far as reasonably possible and would try to minimise disruption to road users. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter1) which forms part of the AEC.
The alignment was not applicable as expansion is not viable and that this vital element to realise Heathrow’s expansion ambition had been totally underestimated.
✓ The Government has designated the ANPS, which sets out the need for additional airport capacity in the south-east of England and confirms that this need is best met by a Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport.
The ANPS sets out specific requirements that Heathrow as the applicant for a new Northwest Runway will need to meet to gain development
No need for expansion and therefore no need to move the M25.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
413 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Interests of the aviation industry should not be prioritised over the needs, rights, and financial interests of local residents and taxpayers.
✓ consent. “The Secretary of State will use the ANPS 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” (paragraph 1.15).
The Project is being carefully budgeted by Heathrow’s advisors to ensure optimal levels of viability. Heathrow continues to seek to minimise adverse impacts through the design, assessment and evaluation process for the Project.
Heathrow is engaging directly with those who are identified as having an interest in the land likely to be required by the Project. Through this ongoing engagement we will discuss enrolment into the relevant compensation scheme(s) and the variety of support services available. The proposed approach to land acquisition and compensation packages available to affected owners are set out in Heathrow’s Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies for Residential Property, Agricultural Land and Property, and Commercial Property, (as well as a Property Hardship Scheme). Our updated proposals are published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
414 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Although the draft NPS envisages the realignment of the M25 could potentially constitute an NSIP for which a DCO is required, the range of options consulted on should be broader.
✓ The Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018) materials presented the options that were being considered by Heathrow to improve public transport at the airport. These were set out in the Our Emerging Plans and Our approach to developing a Surface Access Strategy documents. The Scheme Development Report (paragraph 6.4.18) also set out how a long list of options were assessed to identify those which progressed through to the next stage of scheme development and those which were discounted.
At the AEC Heathrow has set out its Surface Access Proposals for public transport provision at the expanded airport based on feedback from the Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018) and ongoing design and assessment work.
This iterative approach to consultation on NSIPs is advocated in government guidance on the pre-application process (MHCLG March 2015). Paragraph 70 of the guidance states that, “…applicants might wish to consider undertaking non-statutory early consultation at a stage where options are still being considered. This will be helpful in informing proposals and assisting the applicant in establishing a preferred option on which to undertake statutory consultation.”
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
415 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
The preferred M25 alignment includes a short tunnel that would take the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways over the top of the M25. The revised mainline alignment and junction configuration are shown in in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
416 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
How will serious incidents such as a fire in the tunnel would be dealt with given the required runway operations?
✓ Safety is at the forefront of designing an expanded Heathrow. New facilities will reflect the latest standards to achieve a modern, safe environment while maintaining traffic flow, and protecting adjacent operations.
There will be careful consideration for key features such as road configuration, lighting levels, signage, traffic control, life safety systems etc.
The specific risks associated with tunnels will be assessed and mitigated through design and operating procedures in full accordance with The Road Tunnel Safety Regulations.
Locating a tunnel beneath a runway does present some additional operating and safety issues that are being considered and accounted for as part of the design process during the design process. However, Heathrow already has more than 50 years of experience operating tunnels beneath runways and will supplement this with experience from other international airports (such as Amsterdam Schiphol, Paris Charles de Gaulle and Atlanta) where major roads are located in tunnels beneath taxi and runways.
Lastly, consultation with end users of the tunnel,
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
417 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue
Consultee22
Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
including emergency response teams and other specialist groups, will inform the design and develop a solution which incorporates the latest best practice.
Persuade Government to adopt road charging on the M25 and the road network.
✓ The Surface Access Proposal document contains Heathrow's proposals to seek powers to impose road user charges on vehicles accessing the airport. Details of these proposals are set out in Part 2 (see the Road User Charging section) which is being consulted on at the AEC.
However, it is beyond Heathrow’s remit to implement road charging on the M25 or the local road networks outside the airport boundary, for whom the operator is either Highways England or the local highways authority.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
418 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
11. LOCAL ROADS
11.1 Introduction
11.1.1 In response to Airport Expansion Consultation One, Heathrow sought feedback in
relation to the options for replacing or repositioning local roads around Heathrow.
This included options for the diversion of the A4 and the A3044, the upgrade of
Stanwell Moor Junction and improving resilience and capacity to the Central
Terminal Area (CTA). A total of 1,438 consultees made comments relating to the
A4, 1,059 consultees to the A3044, 972 consultees to Stanwell Moor Junction and
1,218 consultees to the CTA Access.
11.1.2 Heathrow provided the following material that is directly related to the location and
length of the proposed runway:
1. Airport Expansion Consultation Document;
2. Our Emerging Plans; and
3. Scheme Development Report.
11.1.3 Within Section 2.6 of the Airport Expansion Consultation Document Heathrow
identified the following options for the diversion of the A4 and the A3044, the
upgrade of Stanwell Moor Junction and improving resilience and capacity to the
Central Terminal Area:
1. Potential A4 diversion – Options 2E, 3A and 6C;
2. A3044 Replacement – Options 2A, 2Ai, 3D and 3G;
3. Stanwell Moor Junction – Options 1, 2, 3 and 5; and
4. Central Terminal Area Access – Options S5 and S6.
11.1.4 References to Option Numbers below are taken from the Airport Expansion
Consultation Document and for broader Families of Options from Section 8 of Our
Emerging Plans and Section 7 of the Scheme Development Report.
11.1.5 Heathrow asked the following questions regarding local roads at Airport Expansion
Consultation One:
1. Please tell us which option you prefer for the diversion of the A4 and the reasons
why.
2. Please tell us which option you prefer for the diversion of the A3044 and the reasons
why.
3. Please tell us which option you prefer for the Stanwell Moor junction and the
reasons why.
4. Please tell us what you think about the options to improve access to
the CTA.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
419 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
11.1.6 This chapter provides a summary of the relevant consultation feedback received
from prescribed consultees, local communities and wider/other consultees. The
issues raised by respondents have also been grouped in table form at the end of
this chapter, which includes Heathrow’s response to these issues.
11.2 Prescribed Consultees
Local Authorities
General Comments
11.2.1 Ealing Council commented that the road network around Heathrow is the busiest
and often most congested in the UK. They highlighted the importance of ensuring
no impacts on other roads, including trunk roads and local roads particularly in
residential areas.
11.2.2 The London Borough of Hounslow requested that any road closures have as little
effect as possible on routes within the borough.
11.2.3 Reading Borough Council suggested that any diversion or relocation of local roads
should include the provision of dedicated bus lanes (where feasible) to provide an
exclusive right of way for bus services. They considered that this will allow bus
services to operate more quickly and more reliably, will allow more services to be
run for the same cost and will attract more passengers.
11.2.4 They highlighted that Slough Borough Council is implementing bus rapid transit
(BRT) lanes on the A4 to the west and suggested that a complete BRT route from
Slough to Heathrow, operating 24 hours a day should be provided.
11.2.5 Runnymede Borough Council suggested that there should be an integrated
approach to improving strategic infrastructure.
Diversion of the A4
11.2.6 Buckinghamshire County Council said that any changes to the A4 need to
consider potential impacts on local roads in Buckinghamshire and sought
assurances that there would be little or no impact on the local road network within
Buckinghamshire from general traffic flow or diversions.
11.2.7 The London Borough of Hounslow favoured options that minimise the length of
road closures and speed up the delivery of replacement infrastructure. They
indicated support for an A4 alignment that delivers similar east-west journey times
to today to discourage drivers from re-routing to the south.
11.2.8 Slough Borough Council suggested that all options for the diversion of the A4
detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document fail to provide
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
420 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
adequate routes for public transport into the airport and to improve capacity for
traffic in an already congested location. They did not understand how the options
would promote Heathrow’s planned shift towards public transport.
11.2.9 Spelthorne Borough Council commented that A4 Options 2E and 3A (as detailed
in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document) do not appear to take
into account the M25 diversion north of the runway, where the motorway is shown
emerging from the tunnel.
11.2.10 Surrey County Council highlighted the importance of the A4 as part of the
Strategic Route Network and the need for it to act as the airport’s northern
perimeter route and provide access to new development related to the Project.
They commented that the new A4 needs to be of sufficient capacity to provide for
both current and future needs.
Diversion of the A3044
11.2.11 Slough Borough Council objected to all four of the A3044 options as detailed in
Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document on traffic, environmental,
amenity and air quality grounds. They considered that none of the options were
acceptable due to loss of industrial and residential land and the impact on the local
community. They also considered that all options would increase congestion in the
area without improving accessibility or public transport access to the airport.
11.2.12 Spelthorne Borough Council said that A3044 Options 2A, 2Ai and 3D as detailed
in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document would be unfavourable
for non-motorised traffic because the proximity of the M25 would cause poor air
quality and more noise. They said that Option 3G would damage the local
greenbelt and lengthen journey times.
11.2.13 Surrey County Council said the loss of the Western Perimeter Road would impose
a considerable additional burden on the re-routed A3044 and that cycle routes
would be lost.
Stanwell Moor Junction
11.2.14 Slough Borough Council said that Stanwell Moor Junction Option 2 maintains
connectivity with junction 14 and results in less impact for those accessing the
airport. They advised that if Junction 14a on the M25 is retained with a new
perimeter road provided to the east of the M25, then proposals for Stanwell Moor
Junction would have to be reconsidered.
11.2.15 Spelthorne Borough Council commented that all four options as detailed in
Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document have significant impacts on
land adjoining the junction. They said that any decision on the most appropriate or
least damaging option should be made in light of decisions relating to the
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
421 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
upgraded perimeter road and any new southern access to the airport. They
considered that any options which involve grade separation would have a
significant visual and noise impact on the residents of Stanwell Moor and would be
unacceptable.
11.2.16 Both Spelthorne Borough Council and Surrey County Council felt that it was
difficult to comment on the Stanwell Moor Junction options as detailed in
Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document due to lack of detail on
potential traffic flows based on an agreed traffic model.
11.2.17 Surrey County Council expressed concern that the options as detailed in
Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document do not provide enough
capacity if they are to provide the “front door” to the airport. They highlighted the
importance of options promoting sustainable transport such as cycle routes linked
into existing networks and to ensure that sustainable transport links to T5 from
areas such as Stanwell, Ashford and Staines are maintained and enhanced.
Access to the CTA
11.2.18 Most local authorities responded favourably to the proposal to improve access to
the CTA from the south as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation
Document although many commented on the need for more information.
11.2.19 Ealing Council expressed support for southern access to the CTA for public
transport, freight and high-quality cycle provision but it should be restricted to
private motor vehicles. They said that alternative access would add extra capacity
to relieve congestion especially for buses/coaches and freight vehicles as well as
adding extra resilience.
11.2.20 The London Borough of Hounslow also expressed support for southern access to
the CTA stating that it would strengthen the case for improved or new bus services
from Feltham, Bedfont and Hanworth. They raised concerns that general access to
this tunnel by all traffic may not be effective and that consideration should be given
to limiting its usage to public transport and possibly freight/high occupancy
vehicles. The London Borough of Sutton also wanted public transport access to
take priority.
11.2.21 Kent County Council considered that access from the south would improve
resilience and public transport journey times. They went on to say that local traffic
would be negatively impacted and deferred to the views of local interested parties
for these proposals.
11.2.22 The Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames expressed concern that it is likely to
result in increased traffic in the area (including Kingston) and be contrary to the
stated aims of Heathrow’s Carbon Emission Management Plan.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
422 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
11.2.23 Slough Borough Council suggested that any new or repurposed tunnel to the CTA
from the south should be dedicated solely for the use of public transport following
the principles of making the airport more sustainable.
11.2.24 Spelthorne Council expressed general support for southern access to the CTA but
only if it was not open to all forms of private car use. They also requested more
information on transport modelling before it would be possible to make a proper
assessment of the options.
11.2.25 They identified that if an enhanced southern road access is associated with a
significant upgrade to the southern perimeter road, Heathrow must deliver a robust
traffic management system. They also suggested southern rail access, preferably
Spelthorne’s Southern Light Rail proposal, offers greater opportunity to improve
access to the south and help deliver modal shift.
11.2.26 Wokingham Borough Council favoured Option S6 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport
Expansion Consultation Document as the design would be optimised as a
passenger road link.
Statutory Consultees
Diversion of the A4
11.2.27 Comments were received from Environment Agency, Highways England and
Historic England supporting Family 6 (as detailed in the Scheme Development
Report) or A4 Option 6C (as detailed in the Our Emerging Plans Document).
11.2.28 The Environment Agency indicated that A4 Option 6C as detailed in Heathrow’s
Airport Expansion Consultation Document appears to have less risk to the river
waterbodies but may affect groundwater. They noted that other options have
multiple river crossings and impacts on habitats across the river valley and
commented that if these options were to be developed, suitable distance between
the river and road would need to be maintained.
11.2.29 Highways England considered A4 Option Family 6 as detailed in Heathrow’s Our
Emerging Plans Document preferable as it would provide an attractive alternative
route to the M4 to deter A4 traffic diverting through the congested M4/M25
interchange. This option would also align the A4 to the South of the proposed M25
tunnel reducing the infrastructure required between the northern tunnel portal and
Junction 15 of the M25. It would also improve journeys around the airport in
conjunction with the Family 2 (Scheme Development Report) or 4 options (Our
Emerging Plans) and remove the need for additional tunnels under the proposed
third runway to connect the A3044 to the A4.
11.2.30 They suggested that the new A4 accommodate traffic not only from the old route
of the road but also from the closed northern perimeter road, regardless of
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
423 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
whichever route is finally chosen. They indicated robust multi-modal traffic
modelling would also have to be completed before any final decisions are made.
11.2.31 They also expressed concerns about A4 Option 3A as detailed in Heathrow’s
Airport Expansion Consultation Document as a new junction with the M4 spur
could reduce safety and operational efficiency. They stressed the need for
alternative routes for traffic on the A4 in the event of disruption. They also
recommended that public transport access should be maintained along a new A4
and requested confirmation of how it would work to reallocate routes with the
same frequency of service.
11.2.32 Historic England stated that A4 Option 6C as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport
Expansion Consultation Document would potentially have the least adverse impact
on the historic environment due to the use of a tunnel for a portion of the new
road. They noted that this option would result in the least effect of all of the options
on the setting of Harmondsworth conservation area but affect the setting of
Colnbrook conservation area at the western end.
Diversion of the A3044
11.2.33 Highways England and Historic England provided commentary regarding the
options identified for the Diversion of the A3044 but did not express a preference.
11.2.34 Highways England emphasised the importance of keeping the alignment as close
as possible to the existing alignment and stressed that options further from the
existing alignment could result in additional traffic using the strategic road network,
particularly Junction 14 of the M25 and the M25 between Junctions 14 and 15.
11.2.35 They stated that the proximity of Family 2 to M25 Junction 14 as detailed in
Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document may create operational difficulties
depending on the option taken forward. They also said that Option 2Bi as detailed
in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document only works if there is no
M25 J14a in the future and as such it may not be viable.
11.2.36 They requested that further consideration be given to M25 Family 4 as detailed in
Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document given their preference for a Family 6
A4 alignment. They asked for confirmation on how Heathrow will work with bus
and coach providers to maintain services once the A3044 had been realigned.
They asked for robust multi-modal traffic modelling to be completed before any
final decisions are made.
11.2.37 Historic England suggested that, if progressed, A3044 Option 3G as detailed in
Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document must avoid harmful impacts
to the Grade II listed Mildridge Farmhouse on Horton Road and the Grade II Listed
City Post by the Colne Brook. They also highlighted that any changes to the
Northern Perimeter Road would have an impact on the Grade II listed memorial to
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
424 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
General Roy which would need to be considered as part of proposed alterations in
this area.
Stanwell Moor Junction
11.2.38 The only statutory consultee to provide a response in relation to the options for
Stanwell Moor Junction was Highways England. They stated that all options
provide only a short section of road for traffic to change lanes between M25
Junction 14 and Stanwell Moor Junction. They did not consider that this distance
was sufficient.
11.2.39 They also said Stanwell Moor Junction and M25 Junction 14 are in close proximity
and need to be considered together. They stressed that network resilience and
junction capacity need to be carefully considered in design and robust multi modal
traffic modelling must be completed before any final decisions are made.
Access to the CTA
11.2.40 The only statutory consultee to provide a response in relation to the proposals for
the access to the CTA was Highways England.
11.2.41 They agreed that southern access to the CTA would improve sustainability by
increasing public transport options for passengers and staff and may provide
greater resilience if access from the Strategic Road Network affected. However,
they suggested that measures to avoid turning it into a ‘rat run’ should be
implemented and that the design should prioritise public transport. They also said
that a decision on whether or not to build a southern access route could potentially
have a significant impact on traffic flows.
Other prescribed bodies
General Comments
11.2.42 Royal Mail Group Limited did not express a preference for any of the options for
the local roads but said that they own or have an interest in a number of properties
in the vicinity of Heathrow which will be directly impacted by the Project. They
commented that continuity of operations at these properties and their connectivity
with the various parts of the network are vital to the performance of Royal Mail’s
universal postal service functions.
11.2.43 Iver Parish Council did not provide a preference and indicated that it would be
impossible to divert arterial roads without disruption. They indicated that combined
with all the other proposals for infrastructure in the local area, this would lead to
traffic gridlock, non-stop noise and disruption for local communities.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
425 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Diversion of the A4
11.2.44 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council expressed a preference for A4 Option 2E as
detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it provides
access to parts of Lakeside Road, Colnbrook and to the north of the revised airport
boundary and neighbouring communities north of Heathrow. They recognised that
it may also have the potential to provide a junction south of the new runway with a
re-routed A3044. They opposed A4 Option 6C as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport
Expansion Consultation Document as it would encroach on Colnbrook's greenbelt
land and they considered it would increase noise and air pollution.
11.2.45 Bray Parish Council favoured A4 Option 6C as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport
Expansion Consultation Document as they considered that it would provide a more
direct route without additional roundabouts. Windlesham Parish Council also
favoured A4 Option 6C as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation
Document and suggested that it was the only sensible option because it would
involve the least diversion of vehicles.
11.2.46 They also commented that Heathrow has not conducted sufficient baseline traffic
studies to understand the existing problems on the local road network and should
not be seeking views on road alterations without being fully aware of the potential
impacts on the local community.
11.2.47 The Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) considered that the diversion of
the A4 is dependent upon many other factors including the realignment of the M25
and the exact runway location. They requested a coherent strategy to be
developed which links together all of these interdependent elements. They also
considered that Heathrow should engage with those most directly impacted to
consider alternatives.
11.2.48 Thames Water did not indicate a preferred option but highlighted the following
points for further consideration:
1. The A4 Bath Road trunk sewer and the rising mains between the Mogden sewage
treatment works and Iver South Sludge Treatment Centre pass underneath some of
the roadway planned for re-positioning.
2. There are centrate liquor mains from Iver South Sludge Treatment Centre that are
pumped back into the Bath Road Sewer. Appropriate diversion of these assets will
be required in areas with unrestricted access for operation and maintenance.
Diversion of the A3044
11.2.49 Bray Parish Council expressed a preference for A3044 Option 3D as detailed in
Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it would keep traffic
further away from communities.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
426 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
11.2.50 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council specified that they did not agree with any of
the options for the diversion of the A3044 as they considered that they would bring
more airport traffic into residential and business areas increasing congestion,
noise and air pollution.
11.2.51 They suggested that a replacement A3044 should be routed to the west of the
M25 to provide a perimeter road within the airport that will allow non-airside
passengers, staff and freight to move between terminals or other airport buildings
and facilities without using local roads. They also considered that routing to the
west of the M25 would also allow public transport, foot and bicycle access to T5
from Colnbrook and Slough and would re-provide Colnbrook Village and Poyle
residents with a road to access neighbouring communities and the central area of
the Airport.
11.2.52 Iver Parish Council commented that re-routing the A3044 would cause major
negative effects due to noise, traffic and general disruption. They also expressed
concern that overall levels of airport-related traffic could not be controlled.
11.2.53 Thames Water noted the proximity of A3044 Option 3G as detailed in Heathrow’s
Airport Expansion Consultation Document to the Wraysbury Reservoir and
specified that if this option was chosen they would require further details in order
to check that there would be no detrimental effect on the reservoir.
Stanwell Moor Junction
11.2.54 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council highlighted that their priority was for Stanwell
Moor Junction to have as much capacity as possible to prevent tailbacks on the
M25 and on to other local roads. They considered that maintaining access to
Stanwell Moor for its residents and better access to Terminal 5, in the event that
access via the A3044 and the Western Perimeter Road was lost, were priorities.
11.2.55 Bray Parish Council expressed a preference for Stanwell Moor Junction Option
SMJ2 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it
would reduce effects on the local area.
11.2.56 Windlesham Parish Council requested the junction be upgraded, preferring
Stanwell Moor Junction Option SMJ1 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion
Consultation Document as it would take traffic through the A3113 via a
roundabout, with potential free flow access to Terminal 5 at ground level to the
north and Staines and Stanwell to the south.
11.2.57 Thames Water expressed concern that Stanwell Moor Junction Option SMJ5 as
detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document appears close to
the Northern Leg Stored Water Tunnel and commented that if this option was
chosen further engagement would be required with its Reservoir Safety Team.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
427 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Access to the CTA
11.2.58 Bray Parish Council said existing facilities were unfit and did not expect any of the
options to improve the situation.
11.2.59 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council said there was no direct bus access evident
from the west, through Colnbrook, and from Slough and Windsor. It also said it
was not clear how vehicles would now access the CTA other than by a very long
diversion on local roads outside the Airport.
11.2.60 The HSPG supported a new southern tunnel to the public transport hub in the CTA
but wanted the use of private vehicles and freight to be kept to a minimum to
prevent the development of a rat run for local traffic.
11.3 Local Communities
Members of the public
Diversion of the A4
11.3.1 Of the Members of the public that expressed a preference most were positive
towards Option 2E as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation
Document.
11.3.2 Most respondents however expressed broad opposition to all the options as
detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it was
considered that changes would increase congestion or cause more disruption.
Respondents often described existing traffic congestion around the airport and
considered that the Project along with re-routing the A4 would make the situation
worse.
11.3.3 The following suggestions about the diversion of the A4 were also received:
1. impacts on local communities should be minimised;
2. cost-effectiveness should be considered;
3. the impact on traffic and congestion should be minimised;
4. the impact on road users/the local road network should be minimised;
5. it should be a dual carriageway;
6. speed of delivery should a factor in selecting the preferred option;
7. the diversion should not cross the Green Belt;
8. there should be a new route from the Parkway to the top of the runway;
9. it should go around the airport to maintain security;
10. houses should be demolished to make space for the A4 diversion;
11. the solution should provide access to M4 (J3, J5), the airport terminals and the
A3044;
12. the A4 spur should be retained as an alternative to the M4/M4 spur to access the
central areas and reduce congestion;
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
428 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
13. the A4 should be maintained for local residents by building a road connecting to the
roundabout at Sipson;
14. should address future needs and provide a long-term solution;
15. costs should be borne by Heathrow and not taxpayers.
A4 Option 2E
11.3.4 A4 Option 2E as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document
was favoured by most members of the public because it would improve travel
connections for traffic in an east/west direction or through new public transport
routes and would avoid Sipson and Harmondsworth.
11.3.5 Other reasons for preferring Option 2E as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport
Expansion Consultation Document were that it would result in the least impact on
traffic levels and congestion from the M4 spur, would not connect directly with the
M4, cause the least disruption during construction, have less impact than other
options and would be cheaper to construct.
11.3.6 Only a small number of responses provided negative comments and these were
reflective of the impacts of a tunnel and on local traffic.
A4 Option 3A
11.3.7 Most members of the public that expressed a preference for A4 Option 3A as
detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document only provided
general support. Where comments were made, these related to improved
transport connections through the use of the existing infrastructure, offering
greater connectivity or that it would have less impact than other options, either
through being cheaper or through potentially causing the less disruption during
construction.
11.3.8 Responses from members of the public that disliked this option considered it
would cause more traffic problems and congestion on the M4 spur, to and from the
M4 or more generally.
A4 Option 6C
11.3.9 Members of the public that preferred A4 Option 6C as detailed in Heathrow’s
Airport Expansion Consultation Document again also only stated general support.
Where reasons for preference were given, most suggested that it was the shortest
route and provided improved connections, had the least diversions and that it
would have limited effects on existing infrastructure. A small number of members
of the public commented positively that this option closely followed the existing
route of the A4 and diverged much less than the other options resulting in less
impact on communities.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
429 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
11.3.10 This option was however considered too expensive and some were critical of the
use of a tunnel which was considered not to be value for money.
Diversion of the A3044
11.3.11 Members of the public that commented on the diversion of the A3044 provided
comments in general terms with widespread concerns about the effect of re-
routing the road on various aspects of life for local people and road users.
11.3.12 Where preferences were expressed these were similar in number across A3044
Options 2Ai, 3D and 3G as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation
Document. However, many respondents expressed negative views against the
Project and that the diversion of the A3044 was not needed or necessary.
11.3.13 The following suggestions about the diversion of the A3044 were also received:
1. impacts on local communities should be minimised;
2. replacing the A3044 to the east of the M25 with a new perimeter road connecting
with the realigned A4 through a tunnel should be explored;
3. it should provide links between local towns and communities to the airport;
4. loss of properties could be minimised with an A3044 option
through tunnelling;
5. the A3044 would benefit from Tramways;
6. impacts on traffic and congestion should be mitigated; and
7. the proposals should address long-term needs.
A3044 Option 2A
11.3.14 A3044 Option 2A as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation
Document received the least number of comments. The most common reasons for
preferring Option 2A was that it was the most direct of the four options with some
suggesting that it would have the least impact on communities. Some responses
provided qualified support for the use of a tunnel as it would have a reduced effect
on the local community and environment and may also reduce general disruption.
A3044 Option 2Ai
11.3.15 Members of the public commented that A3044 Option 2Ai as detailed in
Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document provides improved transport
connections and generally connected well with the A4, specifically Option 6C.
11.3.16 Where respondents provided less positive comments, it was considered that it
would have a greater impact on local communities through loss of properties and
effects on residential areas through the provision of a tunnel.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
430 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
A3044 Option 3D
11.3.17 Although this option would have the least impact on the community, there were
concerns that it could still result in the loss of commercial and residential
properties that were close to the new road alignment.
11.3.18 Those who opposed this option commented that it would affect the local area
through the loss of homes and would have adverse impacts on local people.
A3044 Option 3G
11.3.19 The main reasons for preferring Option 3G as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport
Expansion Consultation Document were that it would reduce impacts on
communities, minimise property loss and impacts on residential areas and would
provide some benefits to local communities overall.
11.3.20 Those members of the public which did not express a preference or provided
negative comments about Option 3G cited reasons such as increased congestion
levels, greater levels of pollution and negative effects on communities.
Stanwell Moor Junction
11.3.21 Of the Members of the public that expressed a preference most were positive
towards Stanwell Moor Junction Option SMJ2 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport
Expansion Consultation Document as they considered it would ease traffic
congestion and would be the most effective for people to navigate.
11.3.22 The following suggestions about Stanwell Moor Junction were also received:
1. it must be cost-effective;
2. it should address public transport links;
3. it should remain as is;
4. property loss should be minimised;
5. trees should be planted at the junction;
6. it should minimise noise impacts on the surrounding area;
7. there should be a grade-separated roundabout for Stanwell Moor Junction with
priority for T5;
8. impacts on local communities should be minimised; and
9. the proposals should address long-term needs.
Stanwell Moor Junction Option SMJ1
11.3.23 Members of the public that expressed a preference for this option did so in general
terms, with some suggesting that it was the least complicated option and was
likely to cause less disruption during construction. Other suggestions were that it
would be less complicated for drivers to travel through and there would be less
congestion.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
431 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
11.3.24 Respondents that provided details as to why they did not support this option were
limited in number and said that the effects on business, residential properties and
land take influenced their views.
Stanwell Moor Junction Option SMJ2
11.3.25 The majority of comments received were general in support; however, those that
provided more detail indicated that this option was the least complicated for
motorists to travel through, minimised property loss and generally appeared to
have the least effect on residential amenity. Other comments indicated that it
would require less land, would be easier to build and would cause the least
disruption during construction.
11.3.26 Those that were not in favour expressed concerns about congestion due to the
proposed roundabouts and suggested that it would be difficult to construct.
Stanwell Moor Junction Option SMJ3
11.3.27 Comments from members of the public which expressed support for Stanwell
Moor Junction Option SMJ3 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion
Consultation Document were similar to those for Stanwell Moor Junction Option
SMJ2 saying it would have the least impact on residential areas, need less land
which would affect fewer properties, would be easier to navigate for motorists,
ease congestion, give better access to Terminal 5 and be easier or less complex
to build.
11.3.28 Those that were not in favour of this option suggested that the roundabouts would
create congestion and that it would be more complicated for motorists to travel
through.
Stanwell Moor Junction Option SMJ5
11.3.29 Responses on SMJ5 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation
Document were broadly split between those who were supportive and those
opposed. Positive comments were that it would ease congestion, improve
connectivity and would be easier to travel through for motorists. Opposition was
often not qualified with further detail but where it was concerns were raised
regarding congestion and effects during construction.
Access to the CTA
11.3.30 Members of the public who commented on the access to the CTA often did so in
general terms and discussed the current congestion and delays entering and
exiting the main terminals.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
432 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
11.3.31 Where members of the public did comment on a specific option, CTA Option S6 as
detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document was most
preferred as they considered it would provide better transport connections.
11.3.32 Concerns about the impact on traffic levels were the main criticisms of the options,
with many suggesting that the options would have a negative effect on traffic
congestion and air pollution.
1. The following suggestions about access to the CTA were also received;
2. address public transport links in and out of the CTA (Road and Rail);
3. reduce road traffic generally and discourage car use;
4. decision on the preferred option should be based on the cheapest cost;
5. impacts on the environment and wildlife/habitats from the CTA access should be
minimised and mitigated;
6. invest in cycle-paths; and
7. address long-term needs.
CTA Option S5
11.3.33 Positive comments relating to CTA Option S5 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport
Expansion Consultation Document were predominantly general in nature. Where
reasons for preference were provided these were mainly that it would use the
existing cargo tunnel and that there would be less disruption during construction.
Some respondents expressed support conditional on understanding whether it
could cope with the traffic that would result and the effect it would have on the
local road network.
11.3.34 Respondents who expressed opposition to this option criticised the current
location of the cargo tunnel and stated that it would not be adequate.
CTA Option S6
11.3.35 CTA Option S6 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation
Document was the most preferred for access to the CTA. The most common
reasons for support were that it would improve connectivity and access, would
provide a new purpose-built tunnel to the CTA, would impact cargo traffic less and
would provide improved access from the south side of the CTA. The fact that the
new tunnel would be purpose built rather than an adaption of the existing cargo
route was considered to make it easier to construct. Other less common
responses suggested that this option was simpler in design, was a better long-
term solution and would have a beneficial effect on congestion.
11.3.36 Respondents who expressed opposition to this option suggested that it would
have a negative effect on the level of congestion, would be too expensive or would
have a negative impact on the local road network.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
433 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Businesses
General Comments
11.3.37 The Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce suggested that Heathrow must, in
consultation with the appropriate authorities, undertake a detailed impact
assessment to maintain, manage and update recommendations to ensure all
business and leisure passengers along with freight traffic have unhindered
movement and access to the airport. It must also seek to ensure the minimal loss
of property and reduce the impact of development/construction on all local and
regional road networks.
11.3.38 Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited (Virgin) considered that it was not possible to give a
considered view in the absence of cost information. They requested a fully costed,
detailed and independently verified proposal predicated on the ‘user pays’
principle. They also recommended that the developer considers how local roads
will be affected following the loss of Northern and Western perimeter roads.
11.3.39 London Airline Consultative Committee (LACC) and Board of Airline
Representatives UK (BAR) commented that the Airline Community do not have a
preference when considering the options presented and will continue assessing
the options as further information on modelled performance and cost become
available. They identified the need for Heathrow to consider how local roads are
and will be used particularly with the loss of Northern and Western perimeter
roads.
Diversion of the A4
11.3.40 Airport Industrial Property Unit Trust (AIPUT) expressed a preference for A4
Options 2E or 6C as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation
Document due to the continued direct east/west access these two options provide.
They noted that Option 6C was considered shorter and more direct. They also
stated that A4 Option 3A would provide a poor access and egress solution at the
southern end of the M4 spur.
11.3.41 The Lanz Group (Lanz) also shared a preference for A4 Options 2E or 6C
because A4 Option 2E as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation
Document may allow the connection of remaining land at Sipson with a major road
and A4 Option 6C provides a new A4 connection to the Colnbrook bypass.
11.3.42 GlaxoSmithKline expressed a preference for A4 Option 2E as detailed in
Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it would provide a useful
new non-motorway alternative route from the south-east.
11.3.43 Greengauge 21 highlighted that the A4 should not be severed from the M4 Spur
and Colnbrook and should be connected to a relocated Colnbrook Bypass. They
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
434 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
suggested that the A4 could pass under the taxiways then continue on a bridge
over the relocated M25 at a location very similar to that of today. Pedestrian and
bicycle access would need to be maintained.
11.3.44 Segro expressed a preference for A4 Option 2E as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport
Expansion Consultation Document as they considered that it minimises journey
length and the potential for additional unwanted traffic on the A4 via the M4 Spur.
They suggested that other options under consideration tended to increase journey
times and were therefore not favoured.
11.3.45 Lapithus Hotels Management UK Limited preferred A4 Option 3A as detailed in
Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it redirects the A4
towards the Holiday Inn M4/J4 and has connections to the M4 spur. They raised
concerns about the potential impacts of this option on Holiday Inn M4/J4 traffic
during and post construction, and sought a greater understanding about the
approach that would be taken to deliver it.
11.3.46 They also commented that if A4 Option 3A as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport
Expansion Consultation Document reduced congestion surrounding the Holiday
Inn M4/J4, opportunities exist to improve access to the hotel through the creation
of a new entrance directly connected to the new road network. They requested the
opportunity to engage with Heathrow on this.
11.3.47 Emerson Group on behalf of Orbit Developments (southern) Limited identified that
A4 Option 3A as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document
appears to be the only option that does not affect their property. They commented
that A4 Option 2E would impact their property as the new access road would pass
under the proposed third runway via a tunnel.
11.3.48 Suez UK expressed a preference for A4 Option 3A as detailed in Heathrow’s
Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it provides the opportunity for an
integrated "gateway" into the expanded airport from the M4 and M4 spur. Hatton
Farm Estate Limited also preferred A4 Option 3A as it seemed the most cost
effective.
11.3.49 Lewdon Holdings Limited requested further consultation in respect to the potential
A4 diversion route to ensure that this does not preclude or limit the development
its site as envisaged in the A7 allocation.
11.3.50 Land North of Moor Lane, Harmondsworth set out that A4 Options 2E or 3A as
detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document would traverse
their property (north of Moor Lane) and requested further information on how any
local road diversions or infrastructure works involving the property would be
delivered. They also requested clarification on whether such matters would be
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
435 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
subject to separate approvals and compulsory purchase as they would involve
land outside of the CPZ.
Diversion of the A3044
11.3.51 AIPUT expressed a preference for A3044 Options 2A and 3D as detailed in
Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document but caveated their
preference on either Option 2E/6C for the re-alignment of the A4 being selected.
They requested that the alignment be moved further to the east to avoid the
commercial properties in Poyle and tie in with the redesign of Junction 14 with
collector and distributor roads.
11.3.52 DHL Group expressed a preference for A3044 Option 3G as detailed in
Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document as they considered that it
would provide better connections to the airport estate if the proposed car parking
site on Horton Road went ahead however they expressed concern about the
impact of the diversion of the A3044 as the road is its principal access route to
Terminal 5 from the Lakeside Industrial Estate and the proximity of the options to
its building on Horton Road. They also requested more detail about all the options
including how they would connect with Horton Road.
11.3.53 Jayflex Construction Limited also expressed a preference for A3044 Option 3G as
detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it avoids
property loss and minimises impacts on local residents. They suggested that it
would enhance the road from Colnbrook to Horton, eliminating the dangerous
hairpin bend, potentially providing an improved route from Poyle Industrial Estate
to the M4 at junction 5 and enhanced local access to the Colne Valley Park.
11.3.54 They also suggested that there was opportunity to divert the A3044 further south
along Horton Road before it turns east across the Horton Brook Quarry site to
further reduce effects on local residents. They considered that this amended
option would also enhance the opportunity to develop the Horton Brook Quarry
site for Airport Related Development.
11.3.55 The Pavilion Association Stanwell and Stanwell Moor (Pavilion Association) stated
that A3044 Option 3G as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation
Document would be mostly “destination traffic”.
11.3.56 UCH Logistics identified a preference for A3044 Option 3G as detailed in
Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it would have the least
effect on property which they either own or lease. They suggested that if other
options are brought forward, relocation would be essential and it will be necessary
for Heathrow to explain in its DCO application how it intends to relocate all airport-
related businesses likely to be displaced.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
436 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
11.3.57 Poyle Manor Farm/Wiggins Building Supplies Limited expressed a preference for
A3044 Option 3G as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation
Document as a quicker and more straightforward option with lower property
acquisition and capital costs. However, this support was subject to successful
negotiations about acquisition of the land and compensation.
11.3.58 Lanz considered that any new route should be further east, towards Elbow
Meadow and as close to the M25 as possible. They tentatively expressed a
preference for A3044 Option 3D as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion
Consultation Document due to it being the shortest route to connect with Option
6C for the A4 and expressed opposition to A3044 Options 2A, 2Ai and 3G as they
would affect their waste operation at Rosary Farm and would separate the
commercial waste site from the head office. They also stated that Option 3G was
more expensive and would take more land.
11.3.59 Segro expressed concern about all the options as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport
Expansion Consultation Document as they would all have a significant impact on
DHL’s new Southern Hub. They requested a detailed technical assessment to
identify the implications of the proposals on the DHL site.
11.3.60 Viva Express Logistics (UK) Limited expressed concern over the potential isolation
of their business due to the closure of the overpass that links them to the A3044.
They considered that all options as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion
Consultation Document will add considerable congestion to Horton Road near to
the M25 J14 which is already congested due to the poorly functioning traffic
system on the J14 roundabout. They identified that A3044 Option 2Ai would be the
most logical if the A4 was not to be re-routed and that Option 3D is the most
logical if attempting to avoid an A4 tunnel.
Stanwell Moor Junction
11.3.61 Cappagh Companies expressed a preference for Stanwell Moor Junction Option
SMJ3 followed by SMJ2 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation
Document as they would minimise the amount of land for highway infrastructure,
are easily navigable and provide a quick flow of traffic through the junction and into
the airport. They also requested that Heathrow take reasonable measures to
ensure access is maintained in and out of their recycling facility, particularly during
the construction period.
11.3.62 Hatton Garden Trustees Limited and Pickering Properties stated that Stanwell
Moor Junction Option SMJ1 and SMJ5 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport
Expansion Consultation Document would deliver extensive upgrade works to the
junction but recognised that the resultant works would necessitate encroachment
into the surrounding areas. They also acknowledged that Stanwell Moor Junction
Option SMJ2 and SMJ3 would be suitable to deliver additional highway capacity.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
437 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
11.3.63 Segro requested an investigation into whether future widening of the Southern
Perimeter Road could include a dedicated bus and cargo lane between the
Stanwell Moor Junction and J14 of the M25. They want to ensure that any
proposed widening scheme would not affect the land needed for a world class
cargo centre.
11.3.64 The Pavilion Association suggested that Stanwell Moor Junction Option SMJ1 or
SMJ2 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document could
be improved after further technical investigation or advances.
11.3.65 AIPUT did not express a preference as the capacity of each option was not
presented.
11.3.66 The Heathrow Hydrant Operating Company Limited (HHOC) highlighted the
importance of minimising the risk of accidents and maximising operational
efficiency as the key factors for choosing between options. The Copas Partnership
(Copas) also requested that the preferred option should deliver maximum
capacity.
Access to the CTA
11.3.67 AIPUT supported the provision of a new public access route into the CTA from the
south. They said that this would not only provide resilience in the event of the
existing northern access being unavailable but would benefit businesses to the
south and east of the airport by enabling quicker access.
11.3.68 Business South stated that it was for Heathrow to find the right option for its
needs.
11.3.69 Copas suggested that the southern access was needed as soon as possible.
11.3.70 HHOC suggested that if the new access goes underneath existing aviation fuel
infrastructure (mostly likely the T4 fuel hydrant) appropriate provisions will need to
be put in place to minimise and manage the risk of ground movement.
11.3.71 Hatton Garden Estates Limited suggested that it is important to improve the
access, avoid more traffic circling the airport perimeter and have options in case of
accidents or traffic.
11.3.72 LACC and BAR UK supported the idea of increased access via a tunnel from the
south, including pedestrian and cycle access, with benefits for airport efficiency,
journey times and the environment. They also requested that the cost/benefit ratio
to be properly assessed alongside potential risks and pitfalls, that the business
case be more clearly stated with more information on the proposals. They were
particularly keen to avoid disruption to cargo traffic from sharing access with
passengers.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
438 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
11.3.73 Segro suggested that both options as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion
Consultation Document for a new southern tunnelled access to CTA as detailed in
Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document will increase the level of
traffic through the southern east-west routes to and from Junction 14 and will
potentially impact their customers. They asked that Heathrow Airport engage with
them on this and considered that any highways improvements should not
adversely impact the delivery of a new modern cargo facility.
11.3.74 Greengauge 21 opposed the creation of a second general purpose roadway tunnel
to the southern perimeter roadway. They stated that any issue of resilience could
be met by the refurbishment of the existing cargo tunnel to the south to
accommodate buses and emergency vehicles.
11.3.75 Virgin welcomed proposals to improve access to the CTA as detailed in
Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document. They said that as well as
improving capacity and passenger journey times, an additional access route would
also have the benefit of increasing resilience at the airport. However, as
passengers ultimately pay for all new infrastructure at the airport it is vital that any
proposals for the development of new infrastructure are fully costed and modelled
to provide a clear cost benefit analysis.
Community Groups
General Comments
11.3.76 Englefield Green Action Group expressed opposition to the Project and indicated
that there would be no increase in traffic if the third runway did not go ahead. They
said that preparing for increases in local traffic does not align with Heathrow’s view
that it is road traffic rather than activities at Heathrow that contribute to pollution
and congestion. Similar views were echoed by Residents Association HVG CA
and Richmond Heathrow Campaign.
11.3.77 Richmond Heathrow Campaign stated that no new runways are needed and
therefore the diversions to local roads are not needed.
11.3.78 Northumberland Walk Residents Association expressed opposition to the Project
and its impact on the road network. They asserted that the diversion of roads will
force more traffic onto local roads to avoid congestion during construction and that
it will be impossible to divert arterial roads without disruption, leading to a traffic
nightmare and no peace for the local communities.
11.3.79 They perceived that sufficient baseline traffic studies to understand the problem
that already exists in Richings Park have not been undertaken, and therefore the
consultation was premature.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
439 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
11.3.80 Slough & District against Runway 3 commented that none of the options for
diversions to the local roads as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion
Consultation Document were acceptable due to the “massive land grab” from a
range of communities which would lead to blight in the wider area. Stanwell’s
Green Lungs did not support any of the options.
Diversion of the A4
11.3.81 Harrow U3A Sustainability Group expressed opposition to A4 Option 3A as
detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it considered
the M4 spur is already overloaded and will not cope with more traffic from the A4.
They considered that A4 Option 2E would do most to preserve access to current
users of the A4 and preferred this option.
11.3.82 The Colnbrook Community Partnership expressed a preference for A4 Options 2E
or 3A as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document as they
would provide access to Thames Water’s Iver South Sewage Treatment Works
and whatever development is identified for Site H6. They did however state that
these options would involve further loss of the Old Slade Lake Local Wildlife Site
as the proposed road alignment goes through the northern part of Orlitts Lake
South.
11.3.83 They suggested that A4 Option 6C as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion
Consultation Document should not be taken forward as it would have greater noise
and air pollution effects on Colnbrook and Poyle and would affect Pippins Park,
Albany Park and Colnbrook Conservation Area through the loss of certain facilities
and major increases in noise and air pollution.
11.3.84 The Richmond Cycling Campaign criticised A4 Option 3A as detailed in
Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document because it would destroy a
number of cycle routes. They favoured A4 Option 6C as detailed in Heathrow’s
Airport Expansion Consultation Document and felt the general tone of the options
favoured vehicle transport over cycling.
Diversion of the A3044
11.3.85 The Colnbrook Community Partnership criticised all four of the options due to the
potential effect of noise and air pollution and the cumulative effect on the natural
environment around the Colne Valley area, especially along the Crown
Meadow/Horton Brook ‘green corridor’. They expressed opposition to A3044
Options 2Ai, 3D and 3G as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation
Document indicating that these were contrary to Slough Borough Council’s
planning principle of preventing all through traffic and improving air quality. They
did however consider A3044 Option 2A ‘slightly less harmful’ to Poyle.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
440 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
11.3.86 Stanwell’s Green Lungs opposed all options as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport
Expansion Consultation Document for diverting the northern part of the A3044 to
the west. They suggested that Heathrow should be proposing solutions that allow
reasonably free flow of traffic to and from the airport while not exacerbating
problems on the existing road network.
11.3.87 Local Conversation in Stanwell identified that all the proposed diversions of the
A3044 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document are
within Slough and do not directly affect Spelthorne or its residents. They
highlighted that there would be the opportunity to upgrade the southern section
from Stanwell Moor Junction to the Crooked Billet Roundabout.
Stanwell Moor Junction
11.3.88 Local Conversation in Stanwell highlighted that consideration should be given to
upgrading the section of road between Stanwell Moor Junction and the Crooked
Billet Roundabout.
11.3.89 The Colnbrook Community Partnership requested that any changes to the junction
alleviate the severe congestion on the local road network between Colnbrook,
Poyle and Brands Hill.
11.3.90 Stanwell’s Green Lungs opposed any changes which would funnel traffic onto
roads that could not cope with the existing or increased volumes of traffic.
11.3.91 Englefield Green Action Group stated that Stanwell Moor would become a HGV
congestion zone which is not in the interests of the environment or local residents.
Access to the CTA
11.3.92 The Chertsey Society stated that direct access to the central terminals would
reduce travel time significantly for Runnymede residents.
11.3.93 Harrow U3A Sustainability Group agreed access to the CTA should be improved
but wanted buses and coaches to be prioritised through the provision of a priority
lane.
11.3.94 Local Conversation in Stanwell also supported a new southern access to the
central terminals, particularly for airport staff who lived in Stanwell but they also
stressed the need for public transport to be improved. They also did not want the
Southern Perimeter Road to be expanded which would affect two local rivers.
11.3.95 The Ealing Cycling Campaign requested a reopening of the northern cycle route to
the CTA and an alternative route from the north that could be used if the tunnel
was ever closed. They supported having better cycle access from the south
through a new tunnel and requested this link with the northern tunnel to provide a
through route.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
441 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
11.3.96 Stanwell’s Green Lungs thought the plans as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport
Expansion Consultation Document would will cause gridlock on the Southern
Perimeter Road and anywhere else near a new tunnel because of the new traffic.
11.3.97 Englefield Green Action Group stated that Stanwell Moor would become a HGV
congestion zone which is not in the interests of the environment or local residents.
11.3.98 The Residents Association HVG CA felt that Heathrow is already unfriendly,
impersonal and too big and that all options exacerbate these factors.
11.3.99 The Local Authorities' Aircraft Noise Council was against the proposal for Southern
Access to the CTA as part of its overall opposition to the Project.
11.4 Wider/other consultees
General Comments
11.4.1 The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT) said that the costs of
increasing road capacity should not fall to the airport and that any scheme should
include additional capacity to meet general traffic growth and be publicly funded.
11.4.2 Kingston Environment Forum opposed all increases in road traffic because of air
pollution.
Diversion of the A4
11.4.3 CILT expressed a preference for A4 Option 6C as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport
Expansion Consultation Document for the following reasons:
1. Its delivery can be phased
2. It provides resilience by having multiple access points
3. It avoids isolating remaining residential areas
4. It can provide high quality access to new facilities.
11.4.4 The Church of England Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark did not express
a preference but recognised the need to maintain links between villages and
communities via local roads. They commented that reconfiguring the A4 as
detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document would give rise
to severe and unacceptable impacts on Harmondsworth and upon species and
habitats including on the Lower Colne Site of Importance for Nature Conservation
(SINC)23.
11.4.5 Lambeth/Herne Hill Green Party suggested that the solution to the problem is not
to re-route traffic or build roads but to improve rail access. They suggested that by
23 Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI), Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) are designations used by local authorities in the United Kingdom for sites of substantive local nature conservation and geological value.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
442 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
resisting solutions based on individual car ownership, dependency on cars could
be reduced.
11.4.6 The Colne Valley Regional Park and the London Wildlife Trust requested more
detail around the final masterplan that would accompany each of the options,
especially ecological impacts. They highlighted that A4 Options 2E and 3A as
detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document would have a
greater impact on Harmondsworth Moor, will increase the length of the diversion of
the Colne Brook, resulting in more covered lengths of rivers and a greater loss of
land in the Colne Valley Regional Park.
11.4.7 They also stated that A4 Option 6C as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion
Consultation Document would increase the diversion and covered length of the
Colne, Wraysbury, Duke of Northumberland and Longford Rivers, would likely
impact groundwater due to the tunnelling. They acknowledged that it is shortest
route and would result in less land-take.
11.4.8 The Royal Parks expressed concerns about A4 Option 6C as detailed in
Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document indicating that it would be
most detrimental to the Longford River and the most expensive.
Diversion of the A3044
11.4.9 CILT expressed a preference for option 2Ai as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport
Expansion Consultation Document for the following reasons:
1. Its delivery can be phased
2. It provides for resilience by having multiple access points
3. It avoids isolating remaining residential areas
4. It can provide high quality access to new facilities.
11.4.10 Lambeth/Herne Hill Green Party suggested that A3044 Option 3A as detailed in
Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document appears to benefit from
existing infrastructure as it connects the A3044 to the M4 Spur via a new junction
with slip roads.
11.4.11 The Road Haulage Association Limited (Road Haulage Association) expressed a
preference for A3044 Option 3D as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion
Consultation Document as it would have fewer junctions than the other options.
11.4.12 The Colne Valley Regional Park noted that A3044 Options 2A and 2Ai as detailed
in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document require bridging of Poyle
Channel and will affect Wraysbury River. A3044 Options 3D and 3G will require
bridging of the Colne Brook. They suggested that A3044 Option 2Ai would be the
shortest, would result in the least land-take and if combined with A4 Option 6C
may form the least negative option.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
443 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
11.4.13 London Wildlife Trust clarified that the options as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport
Expansion Consultation Document mostly lie outside Greater London and outside
of their direct remit, but they considered that the issues of habitat loss, damage
and fragmentation and bridging of waterways still apply in determining the least
damaging of options. They considered that:
1. A3044 Option 3G would cause increased land-take, fragmentation of habitats and
loss of or damage to sites;
2. A3044 Options 2A and 2Ai will require bridging of Poyle Channel and affect
Wraysbury River, and
3. A3044 Options 3D and 3G will require bridging of the Colne Brook.
11.4.14 They suggested whichever A3044 option is selected must allow sufficient space
for the Wraysbury River including an appropriate river buffer zone and areas for
future habitat restoration. They also stated that before A3044 Options 2A and 2Ai
can be considered, they will need to be re-visited in light of their environmental
impacts on the Colne Valley.
11.4.15 Surrey Wildlife Trust commented that all options appear to have a greater impact
than A3044 Option 3G as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation
Document on the River Wraysbury floodplain although 3G would simply transfer
this impact to the Colne Brook floodplain with associated greater impacts on the
Colne Valley Regional Park. They also highlighted that south of the new tie-in
roundabout featured for A3044 Options 2A, 2Ai and 3D is the Staines Moor SSSI
and two non-statutory Sites of Nature Conservation Importance.
11.4.16 The Royal Parks stated that the proposals do not appear to affect the Longford
River. However, should this change they would wish to have the opportunity to
comment again.
11.4.17 The Church of England Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark suggested that
most of the options as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation
Document were unpalatable.
11.4.18 Aviation Safety Investigations requested jet blast and proper third-party risk
management of the Public Safety Zone, and not just existing provisions.
Stanwell Moor Junction
11.4.19 The Colne Valley Regional Park and the London Wildlife Trust stated that any
option selected needs to minimise land-take from the Colne Valley Park and
Green Belt. They said that Stanwell Moor Junction Option SMJ5 as detailed in
Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document should not be pursued and
that Stanwell Moor Junction Option SMJ2 and SMJ3 appear to be the ‘least worst’.
11.4.20 The Road Haulage Association expressed a preference for Stanwell Moor
Junction Option SMJ2 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
444 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Document due to the fact that it has a simple roundabout system with few
junctions and would be easier to navigate.
11.4.21 Surrey Wildlife Trust identified that Stanwell II SNCI is to the south-east of the
existing roundabout which consists of two separate sections falling within the
operational CEMEX UK gravel works. They indicated that Stanwell Moor Junction
Option SMJ5 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document
would appear to pose the most threat to this site and Stanwell Moor Junction
Option SMJ2 could also have an impact. Stanwell Moor Junction Option SMJ2 or
SMJ3 were therefore identified as their preferences.
11.4.22 Lambeth/Herne Hill Green Party requested that local residents be given a fair
hearing on this and that public transport access to the airport be prioritised.
11.4.23 The Royal Parks commented that the proposals do not appear to affect the
Longford River, but should this change they requested the opportunity to comment
again.
Access to the CTA
11.4.24 CILT expressed a preference for CTA Option S6 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport
Expansion Consultation Document for the following reasons:
1. Its delivery can be phased
2. It provides for resilience by having multiple access points
3. It avoids isolating remaining residential areas
4. It can provide high quality access to new facilities.
11.4.25 The London Wildlife Trust commented that both CTA options as detailed in
Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document have adverse impacts to
existing wildlife habitats.
11.4.26 The British Helicopter Association requested more lanes in the tunnel and to
allocate lanes for specific terminals from the land side of the tunnel.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
445 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
11.5 Issues Raised and Heathrow’s Responses
11.5.1 Table 11.1 presents a summary of the main issues raised by prescribed consultees, local communities and wider/other
consultees in relation to Local Roads and for which only interim responses were provided in the ICFR (the prior Table
B). This updated table also presents Heathrow’s responses to those issues and explains how in preparing our
proposals for the Airport Expansion Consultation we have had regard to that feedback.
Table 11.1
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Slough Borough Council is implementing bus rapid transit (BRT) lanes on the A4 to the west, a complete BRT route from Slough to Heathrow, operating 24 hours a day should be provided.
✓ Heathrow is making changes to the road network including the M25, A3044, A4 and A3113. Further detail is included in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1 and Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of Airport Expansion Consultation - June 2019 (AEC).
Heathrow will work to deliver solutions that achieve local transport priorities that align with the Surface Access Proposals, encouraging more sustainable travel in the local area by all users.
Where possible Heathrow will work with local
All three options for the diversion of the A4 fail to provide adequate routes for public transport into the Airport and to improve capacity for traffic in an already congested location.
✓
How will the A4 options promote Heathrow’s planned shift towards public transport?
✓
24 PC - Prescribed Consultees; MC – Members of the Community; WC – Wider Consultees
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
446 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
authorities to identify new and improved bus priority measures that would improve the reliability and experience of bus users to/from Heathrow.
Heathrow has specifically considered the following bus priority measures for Heathrow:
• implementing an internal campus road network that enables easy access to terminals for buses;
• introducing bus-only priority lane at junctions leading to Heathrow – exact locations to be determined, and
• providing off-campus bus priority measures (re-allocate road space for buses (working with TfL/highway authorities) and coaches (working with Highways England) to improve journey times and reliability.
Heathrow acknowledges that the development of bus priority corridors into the Airport, on corridors where there are larger concentrations of colleagues and passengers, could help achieve a bigger shift towards bus use.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the road network serving the expanded airport is
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
447 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
based on consultation feedback and ongoing design and assessment work.
This process is reported in the Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR), an AEC document. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
448 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Any changes to the A4 need to consider potential impacts on local roads in Buckinghamshire
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4 is a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) is also being consulted on during the AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
The Transport Assessment will be submitted with the DCO application and will report on the results
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
449 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
of the further detailed assessment work and, for locations where the impacts of the project are determined to be high, will set out in more detail the proposed mitigation strategy.
The impact on traffic and congestion should be minimised regarding the diversion of the A4.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4 is a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) is also being consulted on during the AEC. The PTIR presents the preliminary outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
To maintain traffic connectivity in the area and reduce potential effects on road users, the existing A4 will be maintained until the new replacement road is complete.
A draft Code of Construction Practice forms part of the AEC and explains what controls will be put in place to minimise and mitigate the impacts
The impact on road users/the local road network should be minimised regarding the diversion of the A4.
✓
All A4 options should aim to ease congestion.
✓
Favoured A4 options that minimise the length of road closures and speed up the delivery of replacement infrastructure.
✓
Existing congestion around the Airport and expansion along with re-routing the A4 would make the situation worse.
✓
Support for an A4 alignment that delivers similar east-west journey times to today to discourage drivers from re-routing to the south.
✓
Concerns about the effect of re-routing the A4 on various aspects of life for local people and road users.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
450 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Impacts on local communities should be minimised regarding the diversion of the A4.
✓ during the construction stage. This includes measures to minimise the disruption of the construction to local communities and airport operations.
A4 Routes 2E and 3A do not appear to take into account the M25 diversion north of the runway, where the motorway is shown emerging from the tunnel.
✓ The options that were shared in January 2018 were set to illustrate concepts. Both options 2E and 3A considered a bridge over the diverted M25. The Preferred Masterplan document proposes that the A4 would be a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is described in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
451 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Highlighted the importance of the A4 as part of the Strategic Route Network and the need for it to act as the Airport’s northern perimeter route and access to new development associated with the third runway.
✓ The changes to the local road network as a result of the new runway will require close working with a number of interested highway authorities: Slough Borough Council (A4 and A3044), TfL (A4, A30 and A312), London Borough of Hillingdon (A3044), as well as Highways England as an interested party operating nearby and parallel roads.
To maintain traffic connectivity in the area and reduce potential effects on road users, the existing A3044 and A4 will be maintained until the new replacement roads are complete.
These changes to layout are described in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC, and explains Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for re-providing the A4.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
452 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
The new A4 needs to be of sufficient capacity to provide for both current and future needs.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a wide single carriageway for the A4 from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) is also being consulted on during the AEC. The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
Consultation feedback and further technical assessment will inform the design of the scheme subsequently submitted in the DCO application and a Transport Assessment will report on the results of the further detailed assessment work and, will set out in more detail the proposed mitigation strategy.
To maintain traffic connectivity in the area and reduce potential effects on road users, the existing A4 will be maintained until the new replacement road is complete.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
453 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Options 2E and 3A would have a greater impact on Harmondsworth Moor, will increase the length of the diversion of the Colne Brook, resulting in more covered lengths of rivers and a greater loss of land in the Colne Valley Regional Park.
✓ Heathrow is committed to protecting the quality of the water environment and is working with the Environment Agency and other third parties to deliver appropriate solutions.
The Project is being designed to accord with the environmental objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), which are referred to in the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS). In this regard, one of the emerging scheme’s overall aims is to prevent the deterioration in status of water bodies, and not to jeopardise the future achievement of good status for any affected water bodies.
In accordance with the WFD, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design has been developed to protect and enhance the biodiversity associated with the water environment as far as
Option 6C would increase the diversion and covered length of the Colne, Wraysbury, Duke of Northumberland and Longford Rivers, would likely impact groundwater due to the tunneling.
✓
Concerns about Option 6C indicating that it would be most detrimental to the Longford River and the most expensive.
✓
Option 6C appears to have less risk to the river waterbodies but may affect groundwater.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
454 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Concern that options other than 6C have multiple river crossings and impacts on habitats across the river valley. If these options were to be developed, suitable distance between the river and road would need to be maintained.
✓ reasonably practicable.
It is proposed to divert the flow of the River Colne, the Colne Brook, the River Wraysbury, the Longford River and the Duke of Northumberland’s River through a covered river corridor under the runway.
All of the rivers are proposed to be separated and returned to their current channels and flow conditions downstream of the expanded airfield. The covered corridor will allow animal and fish passage.
A preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the Project on habitats and wildlife, including on habitat connectivity, has been undertaken, and environmental measures and principles have been identified to mitigate significant adverse effects. This assessment and the proposed measures and principles are presented in Chapter 8 Biodiversity of the PEIR, further to this a preliminary assessment of impact on WFD species can be found in Appendix 21.3. The final assessments will be included within the Environmental Statement that accompanies Heathrow’s DCO Application.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
455 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Option Family 6 is preferred as it would provide an attractive alternative route to the M4 to deter A4 traffic diverting through the congested M4/M25 interchange.
✓ Family 6 options were not progressed given construction complexity and feedback from TfL.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4, which is an optimisation of Family 2, has gone through a strategic traffic assessment in order to ensure sufficient capacity of the roads. This option is shown in Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) is also being consulted on during the AEC. The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
456 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Option Family 6 would also align the A4 to the South of the proposed M25 tunnel reducing the infrastructure required between the northern tunnel portal and Junction 15 of the M25. It would also improve journeys around the Airport in conjunction with the A3044 family 2 or 4 options and remove the need for additional tunnels under the proposed third runway to connect the A3044 to the A4.
✓ Family 6 options were not progressed given construction complexity and feedback from TfL. The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4, which includes a bridge over the diverted M25 between the northern portal of the tunnel and Junction 15, has gone through a strategic traffic assessment in order to ensure sufficient capacity of the roads. This is shown in Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) is also being consulted on during the AEC. The PTIR presents the preliminary outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
The new A4 should accommodate traffic not only from the old route of the road but also from the closed northern perimeter road, regardless of whichever route is finally chosen.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4 is a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the
Identified the need for alternative routes for traffic on the A4 in the event of disruption.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
457 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Public transport access should be maintained along a new A4 and requested confirmation of how it would work to reallocate routes with the same frequency of service.
✓ AEC.
Heathrow has worked with local authorities to identify new and improved bus priority measures that would improve the reliability and experience of bus users to/from Heathrow. Heathrow has worked with local authorities to identify new and improved bus priority measures that would improve the reliability and experience of bus users to/from Heathrow.
The Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) is also being consulted on during the AEC. A PTIR forms part of AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
The Transport Assessment will be submitted with
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
458 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
the DCO application and will report on the results of the further detailed assessment work and, for locations where the impacts of the project are determined to be high, will set out in more will set out in more detail the proposed mitigation strategy.
Option 3A appears to benefit from existing infrastructure as it connects the A3044 to the M4 Spur via a new junction with slip roads.
✓ Option 3A was to the east of the A3044 where it connected to the M4 Spur via a new junction with slip roads to link into the A4.
This option benefited from using existing infrastructure but would have required the re-classification of the M4 Spur for use by local traffic.
Following evaluation the Preferred masterplan scheme design, which is an optimisation of Family 2, considers a bridge over the M4 spur and ties-in with the existing A4 to the east of Emirates Roundabout. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
Concerns about Option 3A as a new junction with the M4 spur could reduce safety and operational efficiency.
✓
Opposition to Option 3A as the M4 spur is already overloaded and will not cope with more traffic from the A4.
✓
Option 2E would do most to preserve access to current users of the A4 and preferred this option.
✓ The Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018) document, Our Emerging Plans, set out four options for the re-provision of the A4 (2E, 3A,
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
459 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
preference for Option 6C due to:
• Its delivery can be phased
• It provides resilience by having multiple access points
• It avoids isolating remaining residential areas
It can provide high quality access to new facilities.
✓ 6C, DM).
Following evaluation the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4 is a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
Heathrow consider this option to comprise the most sustainable balance between being appropriately located, comprising an acceptable level of land take, and minimising impacts upon the environment and communities as far as possible.
The Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) is also being consulted on during the AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with
Option 2E would do most to preserve access to current users of the A4 and preferred this option.
✓
Preference for Options 2A and 3D but caveated their preference on either Option 2E/6C for the re-alignment of the A4 being selected. They requested that the alignment be moved further to the east to avoid the commercial properties in Poyle and tie in with the redesign of Junction 14 with collector and distributor roads.
✓
Preference for Options 2E or 6C due to the continued direct east/west access these two options provide.
✓
Option 6C was considered shorter and more direct.
✓
Support for A4 Family 6 or Option 6C. ✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
460 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Option 2E would do most to preserve access to current users of the A4 and preferred this option.
✓ Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
A PEIR forms part of AEC. It reports on the early findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment and provides further information relating to flood risk in Chapter 21 – Water Environment.
A4 Option 2E concerns about impacts of a tunnel and on local traffic.
✓
Preference for A4 Option 3A improved transport connections through the use of the existing infrastructure, offering greater connectivity or that it would have less impact than other options, either through being cheaper or through potentially causing the less disruption during construction.
✓
Opposition to A4 Options 3A it would cause more traffic problems and congestion on the M4 spur, to and from the M4.
✓
Preference for Option 3A as it provides the opportunity for an integrated "gateway" into the expanded airport from the M4 and M4 spur.
✓
Preference for Options 2E or 6C due to the continued direct east/west access these two options provide.
✓
Option 6C was considered shorter and more direct.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
461 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Option 3A would provide a poor access and egress solution at the southern end of the M4 spur.
✓
Preference for Option 2E because it may allow the connection of remaining land at Sipson with a major road.
✓
Preference for Option 6C because it provides a new A4 connection to the Colnbrook bypass.
✓
Preference for Option 2E as it would provide a useful new non-motorway alternative route from the south-east.
✓
The A4 should not be severed from the M4 Spur and Colnbrook and should be connected to a relocated Colnbrook Bypass.
✓
The A4 could be passed under the taxiways that it could then continue on a bridge over the relocated M25 at a location very similar to that of today. Pedestrian and bicycle access would need to be maintained.
✓
Preference for Option 2E as it minimises journey length and the potential for additional unwanted traffic on the A4 via the M4 Spur.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
462 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Preferred A4 Option 6C it was the shortest route and provided improved connections, had the least diversions and that it would have limited effects on existing infrastructure
✓
Preferred A4 Option 6C option as it closely followed the existing route of the A4 and diverged much less than the other options resulting in less impact on communities.
✓
Preferred A4 Option 6C it was the shortest route and provided improved connections, had the least diversions and that it would have limited effects on existing infrastructure
✓
A4 Option 2E was favoured because it would improve travel connections for traffic in an east/west direction or through new public transport routes and would avoid Sipson and Harmondsworth.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
463 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
A4 Option 2E was favoured as it would result in the least impact on traffic levels from the M4 spur and congestion, would not connect directly with the M4, cause the least disruption during construction, have less impact than other options and would be cheaper to construct.
✓
Preference towards Option 2E. ✓
Favoured Option 6C. ✓
Option 6C would potentially have the least adverse impact on the historic environment due to the use of a tunnel for a portion of the new road.
✓
Option 6C would result in the least effect of all of the options on the setting of Harmondsworth conservation area but affect the setting of Colnbrook conservation area at the western end.
✓
Preference for A4 Option 2E as it provides access to parts of Lakeside Road, Colnbrook and to the north of the revised airport boundary and neighbouring communities north of Heathrow.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
464 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
A4 Option 2E has potential to provide a junction south of the new runway with a re-routed A3044.
✓
Opposition to A4 Option 6C as it would encroach on Colnbrook's greenbelt land, would increase noise and air pollution. Favour Option 6C as it was considered that it would provide a more direct route without additional roundabouts.
✓
Favour Option 6C as it is the only sensible option because it would involve the least diversion of vehicles.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
465 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
The diversion of the A4 is interdependent upon many other factors including the realignment of the M25 and the exact runway location. Request for a coherent strategy to be developed which links together all of these aspects.
✓ Heathrow is proposing changes to the road network including the M25, A3044, A4 and A3113. Further detail is included in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1 and Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of AEC.
Heathrow’s’ Surface Access Proposals also forms part of the AEC. It explains Heathrow’s proposals for meeting the surface access targets in the ANPS that require Heathrow to increase the public transport mode share for passengers and reduce the number of car trips made by colleagues to and from the Airport.
The Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1 and Document 3, Chapter 2) and Surface Access Proposals show how the consultation feedback, operational and technical requirements have influenced the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, including how the various design decisions have been coordinated with each other to form the Preferred Masterplan.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
466 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Heathrow should engage with those most directly impacted by the A4 diversions to consider alternatives.
✓ The AEC is a statutory requirement as part of the overall DCO process and forms part of the ongoing engagement and consultation philosophy that Heathrow has promoted throughout the development of the expansion proposals.
An initial consultation was held in January 2018 and this has been complemented with ongoing engagement across a wide stakeholder group, including statutory and non-statutory bodies.
All consultation and engagement is recorded and is a fundamental element in the scheme development as illustrated in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1 and Document 3, Chapter 2).
The A4 road alignments were set out in the ‘Our Emerging Plans’ consultation document at Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018). Following Consultation One and ongoing stakeholder engagement a Preferred Masterplan document has been produced. The AEC provides an opportunity for communities, local authorities, businesses, land interests and other stakeholders to comment on Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the re-provided local roads around the expanded airport, including the A4.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
467 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
The A4 Bath Road trunk sewer and the Mogden sewage treatment works to Iver South Sludge Treatment Centre rising mains pass underneath some of the roadway planned for re-positioning.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4 includes proposals for a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is described in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
Heathrow is currently engaging with statutory undertakers (as prescribed consultees) about any infrastructure and/or land interests that may be affected by the expansion plans. Heathrow is currently engaging with statutory undertakers (as prescribed consultees) about any infrastructure and/or land interests that may be affected by the expansion plans. This information is being used to support and define the utility diversions strategies.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
468 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Preference for Options 2E or 3A as they would provide access to Thames Water’s Iver South Sewage Treatment Works and whatever development is identified for Site H6.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for A4 is a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4, Option 2A, shares the same western section with the previously presented Options 2E and 3A. Access to the industrial compounds located to the northwest of the expanded airport will therefore be provided from the A4.
A4 Option 6C is too expensive and criticism of the use of a tunnel which was considered not to be value for money.
✓ The Consultation One document, Our Emerging Plans, sets out four options for the re-provision of the A4 (2E, 3A, 6C, DM).
Following evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4 is a wide single
Cost-effectiveness should be considered regarding the diversion of the A4.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
469 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Preference for Option 3A as it seemed the most cost effective.
✓ carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) is also being consulted on during the AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
The Transport Assessment will be submitted with the DCO application and will report on the results of the further detailed assessment work and, for locations where the impacts of the project are
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
470 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
determined to be high, will set out in more detail the proposed
Costs of the A4 diversions should be borne by Heathrow and not taxpayers
✓ In addition to investing in the core airport infrastructure, Heathrow plans to also invest in airport rail infrastructure links, the local road network and upgrades to the M25 to fully cover the costs of the impact of expansion.
It is also expected that public funding would be spent on surface access upgrades in the vicinity of the Airport that are unrelated to expansion and will benefit non-airport users as well as passengers/colleagues.
This is consistent with the Government’s Aviation Policy Statement that states "The general position for existing airports is that developers should pay the costs of upgrading or enhancing road, rail or other transport networks or services where there is a need to cope with additional passengers travelling to and from expanded or growing airports. Where the scheme has a wider range of beneficiaries, the Government will consider, along with other relevant stakeholders, the need for additional public funding on a case-by-case basis."
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
471 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Preferred Option 3A as it redirects the A4 towards the Holiday Inn M4/J4 and has connections to the M4 spur.
✓ A4 Option 3A, was not taken forward as parkway options to the east of the M4 spur were reintroduced and road access on the east of the M4 spur was required.
Following evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4, Option 2A, is a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4, Option 2A, shares the same section to the west of the M4 Spur with the previously presented Option 3A, and therefore, provides direct access to the Holiday Inn. Access to the M4 Spur is assured by the existing M4 J4 and the proposed reconfiguration of Emirates Junction.
Holiday Inn customers and staff will have constant access to the hotel both during construction and operational stages of the expansion project.
Concerns about the potential impacts of option 3A on Holiday Inn M4/J4 during and post construction and sought a greater understanding about the approach that would be taken to deliver it.
✓
If Option 3A, reduces congestion surrounding the Holiday Inn M4/J4, opportunities exist to improve access to the hotel through the creation of a new entrance directly connected to the new road network.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
472 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Option 2E would impact Orbit Developments as the new access road would pass under the proposed third runway via a tunnel.
✓ A4 Option 2E was not taken forward to the Preferred Masterplan scheme design due to the high cost of tunneling under the runway.
Following evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4, Option 2A, includes a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4, Option 2A, would not pass underneath the new runway in a tunnel. Instead, this option would cross over the M4 Spur and tie in with the existing section of the A4 to the east of Emirates Junction. No impact on Orbit Developments is therefore expected due to the realignment of the A4.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
473 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Request for further consultation in respect to the potential A4 diversion route to ensure that this does not preclude or limit the development of its site as envisaged in the A7 allocation.
✓ Following evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4 includes a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted and these are supported by technical assessment information in a PTIR and a PEIR which also form part of AEC. PEIR Chapter 19 reports on the ongoing assessment work in relation to Transport Network Users.
The AEC provides a further opportunity for consultation on Heathrow’s proposals.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
474 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Options 2E or 3A would traverse property (north of Moor Lane) and requested further information on how any local road diversions or infrastructure works involving the property would be delivered. Clarification on whether such matters would be subject to separate approvals and compulsory purchase as they would involve land outside of the CPZ.
✓ Following evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4 includes a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
Option 2A, which forms part of the Preferred Masterplan scheme design follows the same alignment as options 2E and 3A between the Harmondsworth Barn and Saxon Way Trading Estate.
Heathrow is engaging directly with those who are identified as having an interest in the land likely to be required by the Project. Through this ongoing engagement Heathrow will discuss enrolment into the relevant compensation scheme(s) and the variety of support services available. The proposed approach to land acquisition and compensation packages available to affected owners are set out in Heathrow’s Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies for Residential Property, Agricultural Land and Property, and Commercial Property, (as well as a Property Hardship Scheme). Our updated
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
475 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
proposals published as part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
476 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Opposition to Option 3A as the M4 spur is already overloaded and will not cope with more traffic from the A4.
✓ Option 3A was to the east of the A3044 where it connected to the M4 Spur via a new junction with slip roads to link into the A4. This option benefited from using existing infrastructure but would require the re-classification of the M4 Spur for use by local traffic.
Following detailed evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4 includes a bridge over the M4 spur and ties-in with the existing A4 to the east of Emirates Roundabout. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Preliminary Transport Information Following evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4 diversion is Option 2A. This is an optimisation of the Family 2 options and consists of a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to the Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect with the existing A3044. The design development process for the A4 diversion is detailed within the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2), which forms part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
477 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design follows the same alignment as 2E and 3A to the west of the M25. It is acknowledged that diversion of the A4 to the north of the airfield boundary will result in loss of habitat within the Old Slade Lake LWS. However, alternative diversionary routes to the south of the proposed Northwest Runway were discounted, as explained within the Updated SDR.
Heathrow is working with Natural England and other stakeholders to ensure that current population levels of animals and plants can be maintained. Around the Airport Heathrow is proposing to create linked spaces for both people and wildlife. Information about how proposals have been developed for landscaping, mitigation and compensation works (green infrastructure) is included in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 4, Chapter 9) as part of AEC.
The PEIR is available as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation. It includes technical environmental assessment information related to Landscape and Visual Amenity (Chapter 15), Air Quality and Odour (Chapter 7) and Noise and Vibration (Chapter 17..
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
478 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Option 6C should not be taken forward as it would have greater noise and air pollution effects on Colnbrook and Poyle and would affect Pippins Park, Albany Park and Colnbrook Conservation Area through the loss of certain facilities and major increases in noise and air pollution.
✓ Following evaluation, option 6C is not being progressed following evaluation as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2). The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4, is a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044.
Option 3D is included within the Preferred Masterplan document in which the A3044 would follow the same alignment as A4 Option 6C in its northern section. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The impacts of noise on landscape amenity will be assessed as part of a holistic consideration of those factors which influence the perception of landscape character and includes perceptual aspects such as tranquility. In urban areas landscape may be termed townscape, which includes buildings and urban open space.
The PEIR forms part of AEC and includes technical environmental assessment information related Landscape and Visual Amenity (Chapter
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
479 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
15), Air Quality and Odour (Chapter 7) and Noise and Vibration (Chapter 17). The Preferred Masterplan document has been carefully designed to avoid or minimise adverse environmental consequences of development and, where possible, provide enhancement.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
480 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Option 3A would destroy a number of cycle routes.
✓ Following evaluation, Option 3A is not being progressed following evaluation as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2). The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4, Option 2A, is a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted and these are supported by technical assessment information in a PTIR and a PEIR which also form part of AEC.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4, Option 2A, impacts the same cycle routes as the previous Option 3A. However, Heathrow is redefining and improving Active Travel provision around the Airport.
Heathrow’s Surface Access Proposals form part of the AEC. They explain Heathrow’s Preferred
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
481 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Masterplan scheme design for meeting the surface access targets in the ANPS to increase the proportion of journeys made to the Airport by public transport, walking and cycling and reducing the number of car trips made by colleagues.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
482 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Reconfiguring the A4 would give rise to severe and unacceptable impacts on Harmondsworth and upon species and habitats including on the Lower Colne Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC).
✓ Following evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4, Option 2A, is a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design as well as explaining why other options have been discounted and these are supported by technical assessment information in a PTIR and a PEIR, which also form part of AEC.
The PEIR, which reports on early findings of the EIA, includes technical environmental assessment information related to Landscape and Visual Amenity (Chapter 15), Air Quality and Odour (Chapter 7) and Noise and Vibration (Chapter 17). The Preferred Masterplan scheme design has been carefully designed to avoid or minimise adverse environmental consequences of development and, where possible, provide enhancement.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
483 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Difficult to comment on the Stanwell Moor options due to lack of detail on potential traffic flows from an agreed traffic model.
✓ The proposals for Stanwell Moor Junction included in the Preferred Masterplan document are for a new grade separated roundabout junction increasing capacity, maximising off-line construction and reducing impact on road users. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2)
Concern that the Stanwell Moor options do not provide enough capacity if they are to provide the “front door” to the Airport.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
484 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
SMJ1 or SMJ2 could be improved after further technical investigation or advances.
✓ which forms part of the AEC.
The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted and these are supported by technical assessment information in a PEIR, which form part of AEC.
The Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) is also being consulted on during the AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
All four Stanwell Moor options have significant impacts on land adjoining the junction.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for Stanwell Moor Junction is a new grade separated roundabout junction increasing capacity,
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
485 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Any options which involve grade separation would have a significant visual and noise impact on the residents of Stanwell Moor and would be unacceptable.
✓ maximising off-line construction and reducing impact on road users. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted and these are supported by technical assessment information in a PEIR, which form part of AEC.
The PEIR includes technical environmental assessment information related to Landscape and Visual Amenity in Chapter 15.
Preference for SMJ2 due to the fact that it has a simple roundabout system with few junctions and would be easier to navigate.
✓ Options SMJ2 and SMJ3 were set out as shortlisted options in the Our Emerging Plans document at the Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018).
Following evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for Stanwell Moor Junction is an optimisation of Option 2 and is a new grade separated roundabout junction increasing capacity, maximising off-line construction and reducing impact on road users. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report
SMJ5 should not be pursued and that SMJ2 and SMJ3 appears to be the ‘least worst’.
✓
SMJ2 or SMJ3 were identified as their preferences.
✓
SMJ2 and SMJ3 would be suitable to deliver additional highway capacity.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
486 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Option SMJ3 is the simplest for motorists to travel through, minimised property loss and generally appeared to have the least effect on residential areas and housing and give better access to Terminal 5 and be easier or simpler to build.
✓ (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted and these are supported by technical assessment information in a PEIR, which forms part of AEC.
The PEIR includes technical environmental assessment information related to Landscape and Visual Amenity in Chapter 15.
Option SMJ3 roundabouts would create congestion and that it would be more complicated for motorists to travel through.
✓
Preference for SMJ3 followed by SMJ2 as they would minimise the amount of land for highway infrastructure, are easily navigable and provide a quick flow of traffic through the junction and into the Airport.
✓
SMJ2 is the preferred option. ✓
Option SMJ2 is the simplest for motorists to travel through, minimised property loss and generally appeared to have the least effect on residential areas and housing.
✓
Option SMJ2 would require less land, would be easier to build and would cause the least disruption during construction.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
487 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Concerns about congestion with SMJ2 due to the proposed roundabouts and suggested that it would be difficult to construct.
✓
Preference for SMJ2 as it would ease traffic congestion and was considered the most effective for people to navigate.
✓
Preference for SMJ2 as it would reduce effects on the local area.
✓
Option SMJ2 maintains connectivity with junction 14 and results in less impact for those accessing the Airport.
✓
If Junction 14a on the M25 is retained with a new perimeter road provided to the east of the M25, then proposals for Stanwell Moor Junction would have to be reconsidered.
✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions, option JB18, is a two-junction scenario. This option has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and J14a and tries to address traffic capacity requirements as well as providing a level of resilience that could not be achieved with a one junction scenario. This option also allows for the current function of the junctions to remain as unchanged as possible and tries to minimise disruption to road users. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
488 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
All options for Stanwell Moor Junction provide only a short section of road for traffic to change lanes between M25 Junction 14 and Stanwell Moor Junction. This is not sufficient.
✓ Following evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for Stanwell Moor Junction, is an optimisation of Option 2 and is a new grade separated roundabout junction increasing capacity, maximising off-line construction and reducing impact on road users. Stanwell Moor Junction connects the A3044, A3113 Airport Way (which provides direct access to M25 J14) and the Southern Perimeter Road. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) is also being consulted on during the AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
Stanwell Moor Junction and M25 Junction 14 are in close proximity and need to be considered together.
✓
Stanwell Moor Junction requires as much capacity as possible to prevent tailbacks on the M25 and on to other local roads.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
489 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
SMJ1 is the least complicated option and likely to cause less disruption during construction.
✓ Following evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for Stanwell Moor Junction, is an optimisation of Option 2, and is a new grade separated roundabout junction increasing capacity, maximising off-line construction and reducing impact on road users. Stanwell Moor Junction connects the A3044, A3113 Airport Way (which provides direct access to M25 J14) and the Southern Perimeter Road. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document
SMJ1 would be less complicated for drivers to travel through and there would be less congestion.
✓
Opposition to SMJ1 due to effects on business, residential properties and land take.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
490 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Preference for Option SMJ1 as it would take traffic through the A3113 via a roundabout, with potential free flow access to Terminal 5 at ground level to the north and Staines and Stanwell to the south.
✓ 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted and these are supported by technical assessment information in a PEIR, which form part of AEC.
The Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) is also being consulted on during the AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
491 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Concern that SMJ5 appears close to the Northern Leg Stored Water Tunnel and commented that if this option was chosen further engagement would be required with its Reservoir Safety Team.
✓ Following evaluation, Option SMJ5 is not being progressed following evaluation as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2).
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for Stanwell Moor Junction is a new grade separated roundabout junction increasing capacity, maximising off-line construction and reducing impact on road users. Stanwell Moor Junction connects the A3044, A3113 Airport Way (which provides direct access to M25 J14) and the Southern Perimeter Road. This layout is described in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the Airport Expansion Consultation (June 19).
Stanwell Moor Junction Options must be cost-effective.
✓ The ANPS states that the scheme should be “cost-efficient and sustainable, and seek to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime” (Para 4.39). Heathrow will be required to demonstrate how its proposals, including Stanwell Moor Junction, comply with this policy requirement.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
492 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Stanwell Moor Junction Options should address public transport links.
✓ Following evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for Stanwell Moor Junction, is an optimisation of Option 2 and is a new grade separated roundabout junction increasing capacity, maximising off-line construction and reducing impact on road users. Stanwell Moor Junction connects the A3044, A3113 Airport Way (which provides direct access to M25 J14) and the Southern Perimeter Road. This layout is described in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted. The PTIR and PEIR, which also form part of the AEC, provide further information about the expected transport impacts of the proposals.
A Surface Access Proposals document also forms part of the AEC. It explains Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for meeting the surface access targets in the ANPS that require Heathrow to increase the public transport mode share for passengers and reduce the number of colleague car trips.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
493 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
The preferred option for Stanwell Moor Junction should deliver maximum capacity.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan document includes proposed changes to Stanwell Moor Junction, which will allow for offline construction and minimise disruption to road users, whilst trying to keep the required land take as low as possible. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted. The PTIR and PEIR, which also form part of AEC, provide further information about the expected transport impacts of the proposals.
A Surface Access Proposals document also forms part of the AEC. It explains Heathrow’s proposals for meeting the surface access targets in the ANPS that require Heathrow to increase the public transport mode share for passengers and reduce the number of colleague car trip
Any changes to the Stanwell Moor Junction to alleviate the severe congestion on the local road network between Colnbrook, Poyle and Brands Hill.
✓
Impacts on local communities should be minimised for Stanwell Moor Junction.
✓
The proposals for Stanwell Moor Junction should address long-term needs.
✓
Maintaining access to Stanwell Moor for its residents and better access to Terminal 5 in the event that access via the A3044 and the Western Perimeter Road was lost are priorities.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
494 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
SMJ5 would ease congestion, improve connectivity and would be easier to travel through for motorists.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for Stanwell Moor Junction will allow for offline construction and therefore minimise disruption to road users, whilst trying to keep the required land take as low as possible. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted. The PTIR and PEIR, which also form part of AEC, provide further information about the expected transport impacts of the proposals.
A Surface Access Proposals document also forms part of the AEC. It explains Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for meeting the surface access targets in the ANPS to increase the proportion of journeys made to the Airport by public transport, walking and cycling and reducing the number of car trips made by colleagues.
SMJ1 and SMJ5 would deliver extensive upgrade works to the junction but recognised that the resultant works would necessitate encroachment into the surrounding areas.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
495 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Request for an investigation into whether future widening of the Southern Perimeter Road could include a dedicated bus and cargo lane between the Stanwell Moor Junction and J14 of the M25.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design is to have a 3 lane A3113 / Southern Perimeter Road corridor (D3) from M25 J14 to Stirling Road. The exception is the section underneath Stanwell Moor Junction roundabout, where the A3113 / Southern Perimeter Road includes 2 lanes in each direction only, due to the lane drop / lane gain of the junction slip roads. The third lane between SMJ and Stirling Road is a dedicated bus lane. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design as well as explaining why other options have been discounted.
Volume 6 of the Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR), provides information on the potential changes to the bus and coach networks associated with expansion of Heathrow Airport and forms part of AEC.
A Surface Access Proposals document also forms part of the AEC. It explains Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for meeting the surface access targets in the ANPS that require Heathrow to increase the public transport mode
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
496 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
share for passengers and reduce the number of colleague car trip
Minimising the risk of accidents and maximising operational efficiency are the key factors for choosing between options for Stanwell Moor Junction.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for Stanwell Moor Junction allows for offline construction and therefore minimises disruption to road users, whilst trying to keep the required land take as low as possible. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted.
A Surface Access Proposals document also forms part of the AEC. It explains Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for meeting the surface access targets in the ANPS that require Heathrow to increase the public transport mode share for passengers and reduce the number of colleague car trip
There would be opportunity to upgrade the southern section from Stanwell Moor Junction to the Crooked Billet Roundabout.
✓
Consideration should be given to upgrading the section of road between Stanwell Moor Junction and the Crooked Billet Roundabout.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
497 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Stanwell Moor will become a HGV congestion zone which is not in the interests of the environment or local residents.
✓ Heathrow is currently consulting on the ‘Surface Access Proposals consultation document at the Airport Expansion Consultation.
This includes Freight proposals which aim to minimise the impact of freight vehicle trips and contribute to meeting Heathrow’s ‘No More Traffic’ pledge and air quality targets. It covers vehicle movements associated with logistics at Heathrow, including cargo, airline servicing (in-flight catering), airport servicing (maintenance and improvement activities), delivery of retail goods to terminals and waste removal.
The Freight proposals include proposals to increase the efficiency of these vehicle movements by improving the existing Heathrow CargoCloud app to consolidate goods and increase load factors on vehicles.
Heathrow will also provide two Vehicle Call-Forward facilities, where drivers can wait off-street before being called to the Cargo Centre. This will reduce congestion and HGV parking on local roads.
The Preliminary Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan (POCTMP), also being consulted on at the Airport Expansion
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
498 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Consultation, covers vehicle movements related to expansion-related construction. The POCTMP seeks to ensure that freight vehicles generated by transporting materials for the expansion-related construction are managed to:
• Lower emission levels;
• Limit the noise impacts as far as reasonably possible;
• Reduce safety risks related to construction for local residents, users of the Airport and other road traffic users;
• Reduce congestion from construction related vehicles (over and above business as usual traffic); and
• Minimise impacts to the local community, including Stanwell Moor, such as those from noise and dust from construction traffic.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
499 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Option SMJ5 would appear to pose the most threat to Stanwell II SNCI and SMJ2 could also have an impact.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan document includes proposals for Stanwell Moor Junction which allows for offline construction and therefore minimises disruption to road users, whilst trying to keep the required land take as low as possible. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted.
The PEIR will be consulted on and will include technical environmental assessment information related to Landscape and Visual Amenity (Chapter 15), Air Quality and Odour (Chapter 7) and Noise and Vibration (Chapter 17). The Preferred Masterplan scheme design has been carefully designed to avoid or minimise adverse environmental consequences of development and, where possible, provide enhancement.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
500 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
All A3044 options would increase congestion in the area without improving accessibility or public transport access to the Airport.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for A3044 is a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted.
A Surface Access Proposals document also forms part of the AEC. It explains Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for meeting the surface access targets in the ANPS that require Heathrow to increase the public transport mode share for passengers and reduce the number of colleague car trip
A3044 Options 2A, 2Ai and 3D would be difficult for non-vehicle traffic because the proximity of the M25 would cause poor air quality and more noise.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for A3044 includes a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
501 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Objection to all four A3044 options on traffic, environmental, amenity and air quality grounds.
✓ 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted.
The PEIR forms part of AEC and includes technical environmental assessment information related Landscape and Visual Amenity (Chapter 15), Air Quality and Odour (Chapter 7) and Noise and Vibration (Chapter 17). The Preferred Masterplan scheme design has been carefully designed to avoid or minimise adverse environmental consequences of development and, where possible, provide enhancement.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
502 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
A3044 Option 3G would damage the local greenbelt and lengthen journey times.
✓ Option 3G is not being progressed following evaluation as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2).
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for A3044, Option 3D, includes a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
Heathrow is proposing to create linked spaces surrounding the Airport for both people and wildlife. An explanation of how proposals have been developed for landscaping, mitigation and compensation works (green infrastructure) is included in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 4, Chapter 9) as part of AEC
The PEIR will form part of the AEC and will include technical environmental assessment information related to Landscape and Visual Amenity (Chapter 15), Air Quality and Odour (Chapter 7) and Noise and Vibration (Chapter 17).
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
503 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
The loss of the Western Perimeter Road would impose a considerable additional burden on the re-routed A3044 and that cycle routes would be lost.
✓ The proposed new runway location will result in the loss of the Western Perimeter Road and parts of the Northern Perimeter Road and result in severance of the A4 (Bath Rd) and A3044 (Stanwell Moor Rd). These changes will require close working, where possible, with a number of interested highway authorities: Slough Borough Council (A3044 and A4), TfL (A4, A30 and A312), London Borough of Hillingdon (A3044 and A4), as well as Highways England as an interested party operating nearby and parallel roads.
To maintain connectivity in the area and reduce potential effects on road users, it is proposed that the existing A3044 and A4 would be maintained until the new replacement roads are complete.
Heathrow is currently re-purposing an existing tunnel to provide direct bicycle access to the Central Terminal Area from the north boundary of the Airport. The Southern Road Tunnel could also include dedicated facilities for cyclists. Expected benefits of this option are being considered by Heathrow and may include the ability to improve pedestrian and cycle access subject to design and safety and create efficiency and journey time improvements to vehicular journeys with associated emissions benefits.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
504 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Part 2 of the Surface Access Proposals document, which forms part of AEC explains Heathrow’s proposals for improving provision for cyclists and how Heathrow will meet the targets in the ANPS to increase the proportion of journeys made to the Airport by public transport, walking and cycling and reducing the number of car trips made by colleagues.
Importance of keeping the A3044 alignment as close as possible to the existing alignment and stressed that options further from the existing alignment could result in additional traffic using the strategic road network, particularly Junction 14 of the M25 and the M25 between Junctions 14 and 15.
✓ A3044 Family 2, which proposed to provide the A3044 in close proximity to M25 route, is not being progressed following evaluation as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2). The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes changes to the A3044 including a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. Heathrow’s
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
505 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
The proximity of A3044 Family 2 to M25 Junction 14 may create operational difficulties depending on the option taken forward.
✓ Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions is Family 1, option JB18, a two-junction scenario, which proposes to retain both M25 Junction 14 and 14a. The option proposes an intervention at Junction 14 to improve its capacity and cater for the tie-in with the realigned A3044. This improvement has been designed in order to allow for J14 to remain open during construction and therefore minimise disruption to road users.
The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1 and Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
Volume 7 of the Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR), provides further information on the potential changes to the highway network associated with expansion of Heathrow Airport and includes both physical changes, and changes in their usage and operation.
.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
506 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
A3044 Option [2Bi] only works if there is no M25 J14a in the future and as such it may not be viable.
✓ A3044 Option 2Bi was not taken forward due to the lack of space between the M25 and the taxiways at the ends of the runway.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for A3044 is a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted and these are supported by technical assessment information in a PTIR and a PEIR which also form part of AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
507 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Further consideration should be given to A3044 Family 4 given respondent’s preference for a Family 6 A4 alignment.
✓ The A3044, Family 4 and A4, family 6 were not being progressed following evaluation as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2).
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for A3044 is a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
508 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Request for confirmation on how Heathrow will work with bus and coach providers to maintain services once the A3044 had been realigned.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for A3044 is a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted.
The Surface Access Proposals document explains Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for improving provision for buses and coaches and how Heathrow will meet the targets in the ANPS to increase the mode share for passengers travelling to the Airport by public transport, walking and cycling and reducing the number of car trips made by colleagues. The Surface Access Proposals provides further information as to engagement with bus and coach providers. Further detail is included in Surface Access Proposal (Part 2 – Public Transport Strategy and Indicative Surface Access Delivery Plan) which forms part of AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
509 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
If progressed, Option 3G must avoid harmful impacts to the Grade II listed Mildridge Farmhouse on Horton Road and the Grade II Listed City Post by the Colne Brook.
✓ Option 3G is not being progressed following evaluation as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2).
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A3044 is an optimisation of the previously shared Option 3d – Poyle eastern bypass. This is set out in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2), which forms part of AEC.
Preference for A3044 Option 3D as it would keep traffic further away from communities.
✓ The options that were shared in January 2018 were set to illustrate concepts. This comment on Option 3D has been addressed as part of the design development, keeping the A3044 Option 3D as close to the M25 as possible.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design is an optimisation of the previously shared Option 3D – Poyle eastern bypass. This is set out in the Updated Scheme Development Report which forms part of AEC.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
510 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Suggestion to divert the A3044 further south along Horton Road before it turns east across the Horton Brook Quarry site to further reduce effects on local residents. It was considered that this amended option would also enhance the opportunity to develop the Horton Brook Quarry site for Airport Related Development.
✓ A detailed evaluation of potential sites has been undertaken in order to identify the preferred location for development, taking into account the consultation responses.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for A3044 is a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the re-provision of the A3044 has been selected to achieve the most sustainable balance between being appropriately located, comprising an acceptable level of land take, and minimising impacts upon the environment and communities as far as possible.
The PTIR, which also forms part of AEC, provides further information about the expected transport impacts of the proposals.
(Volume 7 - Highways.)
Concern about the impact of the diversion of the A3044 as the road is the principal access route to Terminal 5 from the Lakeside Industrial Estate and the proximity of the options to its building on Horton Road.
✓
Requested more detail about all the options including how they would connect with Horton Road.
✓
Concern about the impact of the diversion of the A3044 as the road is the principal access route to Terminal 5 from the Lakeside Industrial Estate and the proximity of the options to its building on Horton Road.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
511 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
None of the A3044 options were acceptable due to loss of industrial and residential land and the impact on the local community.
✓
Preference for Option 3D due to it being the shortest route to connect with Option 6c for the A4.
✓
Preference for Option 3G as it would have the least effect on property which they either own or lease.
✓
Preference for Option 3G as a quicker and more straightforward option with lower property acquisition and capital costs.
✓
Preference for Option 3G as it avoids property loss and minimises impacts on local residents.
✓
Option 3G would enhance the road from Colnbrook to Horton, eliminating the dangerous hairpin bend, potentially providing an improved route from Poyle Industrial Estate to the M4 at junction 5 and enhanced local access to the Colne Valley Park.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
512 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Preference for Option 3G as it avoids property loss and minimises impacts on local residents.
✓
Preference for A3044 Option 2A as it is the most direct of the four options and it would have the least impact on communities.
✓
Support for A3044 Option 2A and the use of a tunnel as it would have a reduced effect on the local community and environment and may also reduce general disruption.
✓
Option 2A is ‘slightly less harmful’ to Poyle.
✓
A3044 Option 2Ai provides improved transport connections and generally connected well with the A4, specifically Option 6C.
✓
A3044 Option 2Ai would have a greater impact on local communities through loss of properties and effects on residential areas through the provision of a tunnel.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
513 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Opposition to Options 2Ai, 3D and 3G suggesting that they were contrary to Slough Borough Council’s planning principle of preventing all through traffic and improving air quality.
✓
Option 2Ai would be the most logical if the A4 was not to be re-routed and that Option 3D is the most logical if attempting to avoid an A4 tunnel.
✓
Option 2Ai would be the shortest, would result in the least land-take and if combined with A4 option 6C may form the least negative option.
✓
Preference for option 2Ai for the following reasons:
• Its delivery can be phased
• It provides for resilience by having multiple access points
• It avoids isolating remaining residential areas
It can provide high quality access to new facilities.
✓
Opposed all options for diverting the northern part of the A3044 to the west.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
514 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
A3044 Option 3D would have the least impact on the community, it would likely require the loss of commercial and residential properties to ensure that traffic was moved further away from residential areas.
✓
A3044 Option 3D would affect the local area through the loss of homes and would have impacts on local people.
✓
Preference for Option 3D as it would have fewer junctions than the other options.
✓
A3044 Option 3G would reduce impacts on communities, minimise property loss and impacts on residential areas with some benefits to local communities overall.
✓
A3044 Option 3G would generate increased congestion levels, greater levels of pollution and negative effects on communities.
✓
Option 3G would cause increased land-take, fragmentation of habitats and loss of or damage to sites.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
515 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
All options for the diversion of the A3044 would bring more airport traffic into residential and business areas increasing congestion, noise and air pollution.
✓
Re-routing the A3044 would cause major negative effects through noise, traffic and general disruption.
✓
A replacement A3044 should be routed to the west of the M25 to provide a perimeter road within the Airport that will allow non-airside passengers, staff and freight to move between terminals or other airport buildings and facilities without using local roads.
✓ The proposed new runway location will result in the loss of the Western Perimeter Road and parts of the Northern Perimeter Road and result in severance of the A4 (Bath Rd) and A3044 (Stanwell Moor Rd). These changes will require close working, where possible, with a number of interested highway authorities: Slough Borough Council (A3044 and A4), TfL (A4, A30 and A312), London Borough of Hillingdon (A3044 and A4), as well as Highways England as an interested party operating nearby and parallel roads.
To maintain connectivity in the area and reduce potential effects on road users, the existing A3044 and A4 will be maintained until the new replacement roads are complete.
Routing to the west of the M25 would also allow public transport, foot and bicycle access to T5 from Colnbrook and Slough and would re-provide Colnbrook Village and Poyle residents with a road to access neighbouring communities and the central area of the Airport.
✓
The diversion of the A3044 is not needed or necessary.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
516 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
All options will add considerable congestion to Horton Road near to the M25 J14 which is already congested due to the poorly functioning traffic system on the J14 roundabout.
✓ The Surface Access Proposals document, which forms part of the AEC, explains Heathrow’s Preferred masterplan scheme design for improving provision for buses and how Heathrow will meet the targets in the ANPS to increase the mode share for passengers travelling to the Airport by public transport, walking and cycling and reducing the number of car trips made by colleagues.
A PTIR forms part of the AEC (Volume 7 Part A: Highways). The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
Impacts on local communities should be minimised for the diversion of the A3044.
✓
Impacts on traffic and congestion should be mitigated for the diversion of the A3044.
✓
Options 2A and 2Ai require bridging of Poyle Channel and will affect Wraysbury River.
✓ A detailed evaluation of potential sites has been undertaken in order to identify the preferred location for development, taking into account the
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
517 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Concern about the proximity of A3044 Option 3G to the Wraysbury Reservoir. If this option was chosen further details will be required in order to check that there would be no detrimental effect on the reservoir.
✓ consultation responses.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A3044 is a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
Heathrow is committed to protecting the quality of the water environment and is working with the Environment Agency and other third parties to deliver appropriate solutions.
The Project is being designed to accord with the environmental objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), which are reiterated in the ANPS. In this regard, one of the emerging scheme’s overall aims is to prevent the deterioration in status of water bodies, and not to jeopardise the future achievement of good status for any affected water bodies.
In accordance with the WFD, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design is being developed to protect and enhance the biodiversity associated with the water environment as far as possible.
Further information is contained in the PEIR which forms part of AEC. For example, Chapter 21 –
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
518 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Water Environment.
Any new route for the A3044 should be further east, towards Elbow Meadow as close to the M25 as possible.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A3044 is a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the re-provision of the A3044 has been selected to achieve the most sustainable balance between being appropriately located, comprising an acceptable level of land take, and minimising impacts upon the environment and communities as far as possible.
Further information is included in the PEIR, which forms part of the AEC (Chapter 8 Biodiversity, Chapter 15 Landscape and Visual Amenity)
The Surface Access Proposals document also forms part of the AEC and Part 2 explains Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for re-providing the A3044, supported by the PTIR that contains technical information including traffic projections and modelling outputs on the local road network around Heathrow.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
519 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Opposition to Options 2A, 2Ai and 3G as they would affect their waste operation at Rosary Farm and would separate the commercial waste site from the head office.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan document proposes changes to the A3044 including a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
Heathrow is engaging directly with those who are identified as having an interest in the land likely to be required by the Project. Through this ongoing engagement Heathrow will discuss enrolment into the relevant compensation scheme(s) and the variety of support services available. The proposed approach to land acquisition and compensation packages available to affected owners are set out in Heathrow’s Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies for Residential Property, Agricultural Land and Property, and Commercial Property, (as well as an Property Hardship Scheme). Our updated proposals are published as part of the AEC
Concern over the potential isolation of a business due to the closure of the overpass that links them to the A3044.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
520 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Option 3G is more expensive and would take more land.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan document includes proposals for A3044 to become a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the re-provision of the A3044 has been selected to achieve the most sustainable balance between being appropriately located, comprising an acceptable level of land take, and minimising impacts upon the environment and communities as far as possible.
Further information is included in the PEIR, which forms part of the AEC. For example, Chapter 19 – Transport Network Users.
Concern about all the A3044 options presented as they would all have a significant impact on DHL’s new Southern Hub.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan document proposes changes to the A3044 to make it a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. This layout is in the Updated Scheme
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
521 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Request for a detailed technical assessment to identify the implications of the proposals on the DHL site.
✓ Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The DHL property is likely to be within the operational area of the expanded airport. Heathrow has engaged with DHL to understand the potential implications.
Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the re-provision of the A3044 has been selected to achieve the most sustainable balance between being appropriately located, comprising an acceptable level of land take, and minimising impacts upon the environment and communities as far as possible.
Further information is included in the PEIR, which forms part of the AEC.
The Surface Access Proposals document also forms part of the AEC and explains Heathrow’s Preferred masterplan scheme design for re-providing the A3044,.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
522 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Criticism all four of the options due to the potential effect of noise and air pollution and the cumulative effect on the natural environment around the Colne Valley area, especially along the Crown Meadow/Horton Brook ‘green corridor’.
✓ Heathrow is committed to protecting the quality of the water environment and is working with the Environment Agency and other third parties to deliver appropriate solutions.
The Project is being designed to accord with the environmental objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), which are reiterated in the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS). In this regard, one of the emerging scheme’s overall aims is to prevent the deterioration in status of water bodies, and not to jeopardise the future achievement of good status for any affected water
Whichever option is selected must allow sufficient space for the Wraysbury River including an appropriate river buffer zone and areas for future habitat restoration.
✓
Options 3D and 3G will require bridging of the Colne Brook.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
523 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Before Options 2A and 2Ai can be considered, they will need to be re-visited in light of their environmental impacts on the Colne Valley.
✓ bodies.
In accordance with the WFD, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design has been developed to protect and enhance the biodiversity associated with the water environment as far as practicable.
It is proposed to divert the flow of the River Colne, the Colne Brook, the River Wraysbury, the Longford River and the Duke of Northumberland’s River through a covered river corridor under the runway.
All of the rivers are proposed to be separated and returned to their current channels and flow conditions downstream of the expanded airfield. The covered corridor will allow animal and fish passage.
The development of options is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 4 Chapter 1) which forms part of AEC. Also, the PEIR contains the results of the ongoing assessment work on the Water Environment in Chapter 21.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
524 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Concern that CTA Access from the south is likely to result in increased traffic in the area (including Kingston) and be contrary to the stated aims of Heathrow’s Carbon emission management plan.
✓ The Preferred masterplan scheme design includes a twin bored tunnel under the southern runway to access the CTA from SPR. The tunnel is designed to allow all vehicle types. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) is also being consulted on during the AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
Local traffic would be negatively impacted from CTA Access from the south.
✓
Request for more information on transport modelling before making a proper assessment of the CTA options.
✓
If an enhanced southern road access is associated with a significant upgrade to the southern perimeter road, Heathrow must deliver a robust traffic management system.
✓
Existing CTA facilities are unfit and do not expect any of the options to improve the situation.
✓
A southern access route could potentially have a significant impact on traffic flows.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
525 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Plans for CTA will cause gridlock on the Southern Perimeter Road and anywhere else near a new tunnel because of the new traffic.
✓ A Transport Assessment will be submitted with the DCO application and will report on the results of the further detailed assessment work and will set out in more detail the proposed mitigation strategy.
It is not clear how vehicles would now access the Central Terminal Area other than by a very long diversion on local roads outside the Airport.
✓
Access to the CTA should address long-term needs.
✓
Both options for a new southern tunneled access to Central Terminal Area will increase the level of traffic through the southern east-west routes to and from Junction 14.
✓
Concerns about the impact on traffic levels for all CTA options.
✓
All CTA Options would have a negative effect on traffic congestion and air pollution.
✓
New tunnels should be dedicated solely for the use of public transport following the principles of making the Airport more sustainable.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
526 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Support for southern access to the CTA and proposed that it should be restricted to private motor vehicles.
✓
Concerns that general access to this tunnel by all traffic may not be effective and that consideration should be given to limiting its usage to public transport and possibly freight/high occupancy vehicles.
✓
Support for southern access to the Central Terminal Area but only if it was not open to all forms of private car use.
✓
Measures to avoid turning southern CTA into a ‘rat run’ should be implemented and that the design should prioritise public transport.
✓
Access to the CTA should address public transport links in and out of the Central Terminal Area (Road and Rail).
✓
Access to the CTA should reduce road traffic generally and discourage car use.
✓
Access to the CTA should invest in cycle-paths.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
527 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Support for southern access to the Central Terminal Area stating that it would strengthen the case for improved or new bus services from Feltham, Bedfont and Hanworth.
✓
Access to the Central Terminal Area should be improved. Buses and coaches should be prioritised through the provision of a priority lane.
✓
Support for a new southern access to the central terminals, particularly for airport staff who lived in Stanwell but they also stressed the need for public transport to be improved.
✓
Supported having better cycle access from the south through a new tunnel and requested this link with the northern tunnel to provide a through route.
✓
Support for a new southern tunnel to the public transport hub in the CTA but wanted the use of private vehicles and freight to be kept to a minimum to prevent the development of a rat run for local traffic.
✓
Access from the south would improve resilience and public transport journey times.
✓ The Preferred masterplan scheme design includes a twin bored tunnel under the southern runway to access the CTA from Southern Perimeter Road
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
528 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Southern access to the CTA would improve sustainability by increasing public transport options for passengers and staff and may provide greater resilience if access from the Strategic Road Network affected.
✓ which is referred to as the Southern Road Tunnel. The tunnel is designed to allow all vehicle types. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
The potential benefits of the Southern Road Tunnel could include:
• A reduction of road based journey times and vehicle mileage by providing a road across the campus, helping to contribute to a reduction in emissions
• Greater resilience and flexibility across the road network by providing alternative routes
• Redistributing traffic to the Airport away from air quality hot spots to the north
Support for the provision of a new public access route into the Central Terminal Area from the south providing resilience in the event of the existing northern access being unavailable but would benefit businesses to the south and east of the Airport by enabling quicker access.
✓
Alternative access would add extra capacity to relieve congestion especially for buses/coaches and freight vehicles as well as adding extra resilience.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
529 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Improving capacity and passenger journey times, an additional access route would also have the benefit of increasing resilience at the Airport.
✓ • Opening up north south public transport connectivity – supporting the creation of more direct and reliable bus routes
• Creating new and more viable opportunities for active travel through the tunnel, opening up the area to the south of Heathrow for active transport journeys for colleagues
The Surface Access Proposal forms part of AEC and explains Heathrow’s proposed surface access strategy that seeks to reduces our environmental impact, improves efficiencies and delivers cleaner, greener surface access.
Preference for Option S5 as it would use the existing cargo tunnel and that there would be less disruption during construction.
✓ The preference for Option S5 of the CTA southern road tunnel was noted.
During detailed evaluation the concept of using the existing cargo tunnel as the future southern access to CTA was proven not feasible, for landside traffic, given existing limitations in terms of road geometry and cross section.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the Southern Road Tunnel, is an optimisation of Option S6 as described in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2).
Support for Option S5 conditional on understanding whether it could cope with the traffic that would result and the effect it would have on the local road network.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
530 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Opposition to Option S5 this option due to the current location of the cargo tunnel and that it would not be adequate.
✓ The concerns for Option S5 of the CTA southern road tunnel were taking in to consideration.
During detailed evaluation the concept of using the existing cargo tunnel as the future southern access to CTA was proven not feasible for landside traffic given existing limitations in terms of road geometry and cross section.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design, for the Southern Road Tunnel, is an optimisation of Option S6. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
Preference for Option S6 for the following reasons:
• Its delivery can be phased
• It provides for resilience by having multiple access points
• It avoids isolating remaining residential areas
It can provide high quality access to new facilities.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a twin bored tunnel under the southern runway to access the CTA from Southern Perimeter Road, referred to as the Southern Road Tunnel. The tunnel is designed to allow all vehicle types. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
With regard to traffic impact, the potential benefits of the scheme include:
• A reduction of road based journey times
Favoured Option S6 as the design would be optimised as a passenger road link.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
531 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Option S6 was most preferred as it would provide better transport connections.
✓ and vehicle mileage by providing a road across the campus, helping to contribute to a reduction in emissions
• Greater resilience and flexibility across the road network by providing alternative routes
• Redistributing traffic to the Airport away from air quality hot spots to the north
A PTIR forms part of the AEC, The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road network around Heathrow (Volume 1 – Introduction and Volume 7- Highways).
Preference for Option S6 as it would improve connectivity and access, would provide a new purpose built tunnel to the Central Terminal Area, would impact cargo traffic less and would provide improved access from the south side of the CTA.
✓
Preference for Option S6 due to simpler in design, was a better long-term solution and would have a beneficial effect on congestion.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
532 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Opposition to Option S6 as it would have a negative effect on the level of congestion, would be too expensive or would have a negative impact on the local road network.
✓ The concerns over Option S6 of the CTA southern access tunnel were taken into consideration. During detailed evaluation the concept of using the existing cargo tunnel as the future southern access to CTA was proven not feasible, for landside traffic, given existing limitations in terms of road geometry and cross section.
The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a twin bored tunnel under the southern runway to access the CTA from Southern Perimeter Road, referred to as the Southern Road Tunnel. The tunnel is designed to allow all vehicle types. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
Opposition to the creation of second general purpose roadway tunnel to the southern perimeter roadway. Any issue of resilience could be met by the refurbishment of the existing cargo tunnel to the south to accommodate buses and emergency vehicles.
✓
Support for the idea of increased access via a tunnel from the south, including pedestrian and cycle access, with benefits for airport efficiency, journey times and the environment.
✓ Support for the principle of improving access to the CTA from the southern perimeter of the Airport is noted.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
533 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Direct access to the central terminals would reduce travel time significantly for Runnymede residents.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a twin bored tunnel under the southern runway to access the CTA from Southern Perimeter Road, referred to as the Southern Road Tunnel. The tunnel is designed to allow all vehicle types. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
A PTIR also forms part of AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
With regard to traffic impact, the potential benefits of the southern access tunnel include:
• A reduction of road based journey times
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
534 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
and vehicle mileage by providing a road across the campus, helping to contribute to a reduction in emissions
• Greater resilience and flexibility across the road network by providing alternative routes
• Redistributing traffic to the Airport away from air quality hot spots to the north
The ANPS recognises that there is an urgent need for new airport capacity in the South East (paragraphs 2.10-18), that the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme is best placed to deliver this capacity and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph 3.74).
Request for more lanes in the tunnel and to stream terminals from the land side of the tunnel.
✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a twin bored tunnel under the southern runway to access the CTA from SPR. The tunnel is
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
535 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Against the proposal for Southern Access to the central terminal area as part of its overall opposition to expansion.
✓ designed to allow all vehicle types This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.
A PTIR also forms part of AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
536 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
If the new access goes underneath existing aviation fuel infrastructure (mostly likely the T4 fuel hydrant) appropriate provisions will need to be put in place to minimise and manage the risk of ground movement.
✓ Any new facility will reflect latest standards to achieve a modern, safe environment while maintaining traffic flow. There will be careful consideration for features such as road configuration, lighting levels, signage, traffic control, life safety systems etc. The specific risks associated with tunnels have been assessed and mitigated though design or operating procedures in full accordance with the Road Tunnel Safety Regulations.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
537 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Avoid disruption to cargo traffic from sharing access with passengers.
✓ Heathrow is currently consulting on the ‘Our surface access proposal’ consultation document at the Airport Expansion Consultation.
This includes Freight proposals which aim to minimise the impact of freight vehicle trips and contribute to meeting Heathrow’s ‘No More Traffic’ pledge and air quality targets. It covers vehicle movements associated with logistics at Heathrow, including cargo, airline servicing (in-flight catering), airport servicing (maintenance and improvement activities), delivery of retail goods to terminals and waste removal.
The Freight proposals include proposals to increase the efficiency of these vehicle movements by improving the existing Heathrow CargoCloud app to consolidate goods and increase load factors on vehicles.
Heathrow will also provide two Vehicle Call-Forward facilities, where drivers can wait off-street before being called to the Cargo Centre. This will reduce congestion and HGV parking on local roads.
The Surface Access Proposal forms part of AEC and explains Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the access arrangements to
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
538 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
the CTA and Cargo provisions.
The Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC explains Heathrow’s preferred road layout.
Both CTA options have adverse impacts to existing wildlife habitats.
✓ The approach taken to the protection of wildlife and habitats will include use of the mitigation hierarchy to protect wildlife and habitats where possible. Heathrow has committed to achieving an overall net gain in biodiversity and this will include the creation of new and enhanced habitats.
Further information is contained within the PEIR, which forms part of AEC. (Chapter 8– Biodiversity and Chapter 15 Landscape and Visual Amenity
The road network around Heathrow is the busiest and often most congested in the UK. Heathrow must ensure no impacts on other roads, including trunk roads and local roads particularly in residential areas.
✓ The proposed new runway location will result in the loss of the Western Perimeter Road and parts of the Northern Perimeter Road and result in severance of the A4 (Bath Rd) and A3044 (Stanwell Moor Rd). These changes will require close working, where possible, with a number of interested highway authorities: Slough Borough Council (A3044 and A4), TfL (A4, A30 and A312),
Concern that overall levels of airport-related traffic could not be controlled.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
539 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Opposition to expansion and its impact on the road network. Diversion of roads will force more traffic onto local roads to avoid congestion during construction and that it will be impossible to divert arterial roads without disruption, leading to a traffic nightmare and no peace for the local communities.
✓ London Borough of Hillingdon (A3044 and A4), as well as Highways England as an interested party operating nearby and parallel roads.
To maintain traffic connectivity in the area and reduce potential effects on road users, the existing A3044 and A4 would be maintained until the new replacement roads are complete.
Heathrow will also aim to reduce the effect of construction traffic using these existing roads by creating an internal construction road system as soon as practical.
The PTIR forms part of AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
Combined with all the other proposals for infrastructure in the local area, Local Road diversions would lead to traffic gridlock, non-stop noise and disruption for local communities.
✓
Broad opposition to all the options as it was considered that changes would increase congestion or cause more disruption.
✓
Any road closures have as little effect as possible on routes within the London Borough of Hounslow.
✓
Sought assurance that there would be little or no impact on the local road network within Buckinghamshire from general traffic flow or diversions.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
540 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Heathrow must take reasonable measures to ensure access is maintained in and out of their recycling facility, particularly during the construction period.
✓ The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
The PEIR forms part of AEC and includes technical environmental assessment information related to Landscape and Visual Amenity (Chapter 15), Air Quality and Odour (Chapter 7) and Noise and Vibration (Chapter 17) in the locations referred to
Opposition to any changes which would funnel traffic onto roads that could not cope with the existing or increased volumes of traffic.
✓
Heathrow should be proposing solutions that allow reasonably free flow of traffic to and from the Airport while not exacerbating problems on the existing road network.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
541 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Heathrow must seek to ensure the minimal loss of property and reduce the impact of development/construction on all local and regional road networks.
✓ An extensive and detailed evaluation of potential options has been undertaken in order to identify the preferred location of development, taking into account the consultation responses. The evaluation process is explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1 and Document 3, Chapter 2).
Heathrow believes that the proposals comprise the most sustainable balance between being appropriately located, comprising an acceptable level of land take, and minimising impacts upon the environment and communities as far as possible.
Further information is contained within the PEIR, which forms part of AEC, and provides the preliminary findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Airport expansion relating to both operational and construction impacts of the development. An Environmental Statement submitted with the DCO application will set out the findings of the EIA.
The developer should consider how local roads will be affected following the loss of Northern and Western perimeter roads.
✓ The proposed new runway location will result in the loss of the Western Perimeter Road and parts of the Northern Perimeter Road and result in severance of the A4 (Bath Rd) and A3044
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
542 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Heathrow must consider how local roads are and will be used particularly with the loss of Northern and Western perimeter roads.
✓ (Stanwell Moor Rd). These changes will require close working, where possible, with a number of interested highway authorities: Slough Borough Council (A3044 and A4), TfL (A4, A30 and A312), London Borough of Hillingdon (A3044 and A4), as well as Highways England as an interested party operating nearby and parallel roads.
To maintain traffic connectivity in the area and reduce potential effects on road users, the existing A3044 and A4 will be maintained until the new replacement roads are complete.
Heathrow will also aim to reduce the effect of construction traffic using these existing roads by creating an internal construction road system as soon as practical.
The PTIR forms part of AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
543 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
The PEIR forms part of AEC and includes technical environmental assessment information related to Landscape and Visual Amenity (Chapter 15), Air Quality and Odour (Chapter 7) and Noise and Vibration (Chapter 17)
Any diversion or relocation of local roads should include the provision of dedicated bus lanes (where feasible) to provide an exclusive right of way for bus services. This will allow bus services to operate more quickly and more reliably, will allow more services to be run for the same cost and will attract more passengers.
✓ The proposed new runway location will result in the loss of the Western Perimeter Road and parts of the Northern Perimeter Road and result in severance of the A4 (Bath Rd) and A3044 (Stanwell Moor Rd). These changes will require close working, where possible, with a number of interested highway authorities: Slough Borough Council (A3044 and A4), TfL (A4, A30 and A312), London Borough of Hillingdon (A3044 and A4), as well as Highways England as an interested party operating nearby and parallel roads.
To maintain connectivity in the area and reduce potential effects on road users, the existing A3044 and A4 will be maintained until the new replacement roads are complete.
The Surface Access Proposals document, which forms part of AEC explains Heathrow’s Preferred
No direct CTA bus access evident from the west, through Colnbrook, and from Slough and Windsor.
✓
The solution to the problem is not to re-route traffic or build roads but to improve rail access.
✓
By resisting solutions based on individual car ownership, dependency on cars could be reduced.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
544 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Opposition to all increases in road traffic because of air pollution.
✓ Masterplan scheme design for improving provision for public transport and how Heathrow will meet the targets in the ANPS to increase the proportion of journeys made to the Airport by public transport, walking and cycling and reducing the number of car trips made by colleagues.
A PTIR forms part of AEC, The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
Public transport access to the Airport be prioritised.
✓
Importance of options promoting sustainable transport such as cycle routes linked into existing networks and to ensure that sustainable transport links to T5 from areas such as Stanwell, Ashford and Staines are maintained and enhanced.
✓
Robust multi-modal traffic modelling would also have to be completed before any final decisions are made.
✓ A PTIR forms part of AEC, The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for
Request for robust multi-modal traffic modelling to be completed before any final decisions are made.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
545 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Network resilience and junction capacity need to be carefully considered in design and robust multi modal traffic modelling must be completed before any final decisions are made.
✓ expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
Heathrow has not conducted sufficient baseline traffic studies to understand the existing problems on the local road network and should not be seeking views on road alterations without being fully aware of the potential impacts on the local community.
✓
Heathrow must, in consultation with the appropriate authorities, undertake a detailed impact assessment to maintain, manage and update recommendations to ensure all business and leisure passengers along with freight traffic have unhindered movement and access to the Airport.
✓
Preparing for increases in local traffic does not to align with Heathrow’s views that it is road traffic rather than activities at Heathrow that contribute to pollution and congestion.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
546 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Sufficient baseline traffic studies to understand the problem that already exists in Richings Park have not been undertaken and therefore the consultation was premature.
✓
Request for a fully costed, detailed and independently verified proposal predicated on the ‘user pays’ principle.
✓ The ANPS states that the scheme should be “cost-efficient and sustainable, and seeks to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime” (Para 4.39), but it also lists a wide range of other matters such as land use planning, community and environmental impacts, traffic impacts etc. which will form part of the decision-making process.
Within that context, the scheme development process has been designed to ensure that affordability considerations are fully taken into account, alongside criteria within the other discipline areas (operations and service, delivery, sustainability and community and planning and
As passengers ultimately pay for all new infrastructure at the Airport it is vital that any proposals for the development of new infrastructure are fully costed and modelled to provide a clear cost benefit analysis.
✓
The costs of increasing road capacity should not fall to the Airport.
✓
Any scheme should include additional capacity to meet general traffic growth and be publicly funded.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
547 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Request that the cost/benefit ratio to be properly assessed alongside potential risks and pitfalls, that the business case be more clearly stated with more information on the proposals.
✓ property).
The Updated Scheme Development Report, (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC, provides information on this approach and how the preferred scheme was selected in regard to the criteria referred to above.
Heathrow is committed to deliver this project in a way which is affordable, sustainable and financeable, while keeping airport charges close to 2016 levels.
There should be an integrated approach to improving strategic infrastructure.
✓ Heathrow is developing its plans for an expanded airport taking into account a wide range of considerations, including the impact of options on operations and service, land take, business case, delivery, sustainability and community impacts.
Heathrow is working closely with Highways
Any decision on the most appropriate or least damaging option should be made in light of decisions relating to the upgraded perimeter road and any new southern access to the Airport.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
548 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Requests for more detail around the final masterplan that would accompany each of the Local Road options, especially ecological impacts.
✓ England, Network Rail, TfL, local authorities and transport operators in developing the Surface Access Proposals. Heathrow is working closely with Highways England, Network Rail, TfL, local authorities and transport operators in developing the Surface Access Proposals.
In addition, Heathrow is carrying out ongoing technical assessment and taking account of consultation feedback throughout the scheme development process.
The Updated Scheme Development Report, (Document 3, Chapter 2), which forms part of the AEC, provides information on the approach Heathrow has taken to develop an integrated masterplan for expansion. This sets out the Preferred Masterplan scheme design in the Preferred Masterplan consultation document.
A PEIR also forms part of the AEC and sets out the preliminary findings of the EIA process, ahead of an ES being submitted with the DCO application.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
549 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Any changes to the Northern Perimeter Road would have an impact on the Grade II listed memorial to General Roy which would need to be considered as part of proposed alterations in this area.
✓ The ANPS gives “great weight” to heritage conservation (paragraph 5.200). Harmful impacts will be weighed against the public benefit of Heathrow’s proposals, “recognising that the greater the harm to the significance of the heritage asset, the greater the justification that will be needed for any loss” (paragraph 5.203).
It may be possible to relocate and reconstruct heritage assets where they would otherwise be lost or significantly affected by development, but such actions can only ever be considered on a case-by-case basis and would be prepared in consultation with relevant stakeholders. Chapter 13 of the PEIR reports the ongoing assessment work related to the Historic Environment.
There are centrate liquor mains from Iver South Sludge Treatment Centre that are pumped back into the Bath Road Sewer. Appropriate diversion of these assets will be required in areas with unrestricted access for operation and maintenance.
✓ Heathrow is working closely with Thames Water to develop solutions for diversion of their assets, including the Bath Road Sewer, and Iver South sludge and centrate liquor rising mains.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
550 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
It is important to improve the access, avoid more traffic circling the Airport perimeter and have options in case of accidents or traffic.
✓ Heathrow recognises the existing challenges on the road network in the Heathrow area with high traffic levels and local air quality issues.
The proposed new runway location will result in the loss of the Western Perimeter Road and parts of the Northern Perimeter Road, and result in severance of the A4 (Bath Rd) and A3044 (Stanwell Moor Rd). These changes will require close working, with a number of interested highway authorities: Slough Borough Council (A3044 and A4), TfL (A4, A30 and A312), London Borough of Hillingdon (A3044 and A4), as well as Highways England as an interested party operating nearby and parallel roads.
To maintain connectivity in the area and reduce potential effects on road users, the existing A3044 and A4 will be maintained until the new replacement roads are complete.
The Surface Access Proposal, which forms part of AEC explains Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for improving provision for buses and how Heathrow will meet the targets in the ANPS to increase the proportion of journeys made to the Airport by public transport, walking and cycling and reducing the number of car trips made
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
551 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
by colleagues.
A PTIR forms part of AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.
The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
552 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
None of the options for diversions to the local roads were acceptable due to the massive land grab from a range of communities which would lead to blight in the wider area.
✓ An extensive and detailed evaluation of potential options has been undertaken in order to identify the preferred location of development, taking into account the consultation responses.
Heathrow believes that the proposals comprise the most sustainable balance between being appropriately located, comprising an acceptable level of land take, and minimising impacts upon the environment and communities as far as possible.
Further information is contained within the PEIR, which forms part of the AEC, providing the preliminary findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Airport expansion relating to both operational and construction impacts of the development. In particular, Chapter 19 reports the ongoing assessment worked related to Transport Network Users. An ES submitted with the DCO application will set out the findings of the EIA.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
553 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
No new runways are needed and therefore the diversions to local roads are not needed.
✓ The ANPS recognises that there is an urgent need for new airport capacity in the South East (paragraphs 2.10-18), that the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme is best placed to deliver this capacity and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph 3.74).
The general tone of the options favoured vehicle transport over cycling.
✓ The Surface Access Proposals document explains Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for improving provision for active travel and how Heathrow will meet the targets in the ANPS to increase the proportion of journeys made to the Airport by public transport, walking and cycling and reducing the number of car trips made by colleagues. More detail can be found in the Surface Access Strategy Part 2 and Indicative Surface Access Delivery Plan which form part of AEC.
Reopening of the northern cycle route to the Central Terminal Area and an alternative route from the north that could be used if the tunnel was ever closed.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
554 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
Maintain links between villages and communities via local roads.
✓ The proposed new runway location will result in the loss of the Western Perimeter Road and parts of the Northern Perimeter Road, and result in severance of the A4 (Bath Rd) and A3044 (Stanwell Moor Rd). These changes will require close working, where possible, with a number of interested highway authorities: Slough Borough Council (A3044 and A4), TfL (A4, A30 and A312), London Borough of Hillingdon (A3044 and A4), as well as Highways England as an interested party operating nearby and parallel roads.
To maintain connectivity in the area and reduce potential effects on road users, the existing A3044 and A4 will be maintained until the new replacement roads are complete.
One of the criteria for selecting the preferred route was to minimize land take and impact on biodiversity. The Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3 Chapter 2) explains how the Prefe5rred Masterplan was developed.
An extensive and detailed evaluation of potential options has been undertaken in order to identify the preferred location of development, taking into account the consultation responses. Heathrow believes that the proposals comprise the most sustainable balance between being appropriately
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
555 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response
PC MC WC
located, comprising an acceptable level of land take, and minimising impacts upon the environment and communities as far as possible.
Recreational routes, spaces and facilities within the Colne Valley Regional Park are being considered as part of the recreation and amenity impact assessment which will form part of the community chapter of the Environmental Statement, to be submitted with the DCO application. It will identify recreation and amenity effects resulting from the construction and operation of the DCO Project. Information on the mitigation strategies to address any likely significant effects will also be identified.
The PEIR forms part of Airport Expansion Consultation (June 2018), and sets out early findings regarding the assessment of recreational spaces and likely effects in Chapter 11 – Communities.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
556 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
12. RIVER DIVERSIONS AND FLOOD STORAGE
12.1 Introduction
12.1.1 In response to Airport Expansion Consultation One, Heathrow sought feedback in
relation to river diversions and the re-provision of flood storage. A total of 1,423
consultees made comments relating to this topic.
12.1.2 Heathrow provided the following material that is directly related to river diversions
and the re-provision of flood storage:
1. Airport Expansion Consultation Document;
2. Our Emerging Plans; and
3. Scheme Development Report.
12.1.3 Within Section 2.7 of the Airport Expansion Consultation Document Heathrow
identified the following options for the river diversions and the re-provision of flood
storage:
1. River diversions – Options C1A, C1C, C1D and C1E; and
2. Flood storage – Approaches 1 (On-airport storage) and 2 (New upstream storage).
12.1.4 References to Option Numbers below are taken from the Airport Expansion
Consultation Document and for broader Families of Options from Section 9 of Our
Emerging Plans and Section 8 of the Scheme Development Report.
12.1.5 Heathrow asked the following questions regarding the river diversions and the re-
provision of flood storage at Airport Expansion Consultation One:
1. Please tell us what you think about the options for the diversion of rivers and the
approaches to replacement flood storage.
12.1.6 This chapter provides a summary of the relevant consultation feedback received
from prescribed consultees, local communities and wider/other consultees. The
issues raised by respondents have also been grouped in table form at the end of
this chapter, which includes Heathrow’s response to these issues.
12.2 Prescribed Consultees
Local Authorities
River Diversions
General comments
12.2.1 Ealing Council commented that any proposals must be seen within the wider
context of green and blue infrastructure that seeks to maximise the opportunity of
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
557 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
these important assets through enhancement, improving access (including
facilitating sustainable travel to the airport) and/or compensation/mitigation.
12.2.2 Hampshire Services who responded on behalf of the Central and Eastern
Berkshire authorities highlighted the sharp sand and gravel deposits in rivers west
of Heathrow and near the possible flood storage site west of Orlitts Lake. They
stated that if watercourse management options included the extraction of minerals,
consultation must take place with the relevant Minerals Planning Authority.
12.2.3 London Borough of Hounslow highlighted that total mitigation of potential
downstream impact is required during the construction and operation of the Project
and that an effective monitoring program should be put in place.
12.2.4 Runnymede Borough Council stated that the proposals to culvert the Colne,
Wraysbury, The Duke of Northumberland and Longford Rivers as provided within
the Airport Expansion Consultation Document is contrary to the provisions of the
Water Framework Directive. They considered that some of the options were
based more on expediency and cost rather than making sure that the development
has the minimum impact on the local environment and ecology. They also
considered that the consultation materials presented at Airport Expansion
Consultation One did not address the impacts on local fluvial flood risk beyond that
created by the construction of the new runway.
12.2.5 Spelthorne Borough Council and Surrey County Council expressed concern that
there was limited information and no firm view on how flood risk would be
addressed. They also expressed concern that information was not available on the
proposals to combine the Colne and Wraysbury Rivers, how effects on wildlife
would be monitored, the impacts on river channels and potential changes in
flooding regimes.
12.2.6 They sought reassurance that residents along the Thames would not be at
additional flood risk and specified that any development which will put additional
properties, businesses and livelihoods at risk will not be accepted.
12.2.7 Surrey County Council also commented that the maximum amount of water
courses should be maintained in natural open channels.
12.2.8 The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead expressed concern that the
proposals as provided within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document are
likely to have a detrimental effect on watercourses and their habitats and that the
measures proposed may be simply a matter of undoing the harm. They considered
there was insufficient information available to demonstrate that the measures
proposed would not have adverse impacts on drainage in the area with
consequential flooding, loss of habitat and diversity and potential pollution from
runoff.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
558 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
12.2.9 They also highlighted the following points.
1. It is critical that new river routes are feasible and do not impact flow rates across
associated river systems. This maintains downstream ecological health and assists
with drainage of potential floodwaters.
2. Biodiversity assessments of river impact should not only measure impacts resulting
from directly modified areas but also potential impacts on either side of the airport
resulting from breakages in ecological linkage.
3. Glass panels to allow light onto proposed river areas beneath the airport are likely to
have minor ecological value but could possibly promote algal growth – impacting
oxygen levels downstream.
4. An adequate and enforceable ecological contingency plan should be in place, to
address any unforeseen ecological impacts associated with river diversions.
Option preference
12.2.10 Slough Borough Council was the only local authority to express a preference for
one of the river diversion options expressing a preference for Option C1E as
provided within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document. They indicated that
the routing of Colne Brook should be planned in conjunction with proposals to
improve the connectivity of the Colne Valley Park. They also commented that
rivers should be maintained in natural open channels to maintain habitat
connectivity and maximise the quality of the landscape and amenity value of the
area as much as possible.
Flood Storage
General comments
12.2.11 Slough Borough Council stated that replacement flood storage should be sufficient
to reduce the risk of flooding on airport related development sites as well as
reducing the risk of flooding in Colnbrook and Poyle.
12.2.12 South Bucks District Council provided details of the locations within their District
which can hold water upstream in the event of a flood. These locations comprise:
1. A field in the NW quadrant of the M25/M4 junction (south of The Poynings);
2. Thorney Golf Course land;
3. Land north of Iver Lane;
4. Land parallel to Bangors Road; and
5. New Denham Quarry (recently granted planning permission for a relocated
Hillingdon Outdoor Adventure Centre).
12.2.13 They considered that not all of these sites would be required and highlighted that
those affecting residential properties (part of the Golf Club site) or the Hillingdon
Outdoor Activities Centre were not suitable.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
559 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
12.2.14 They also expressed concern about the HGV movements necessary to create
areas of flood storage and the contaminated nature of some of the sites identified.
12.2.15 Spelthorne Borough Council highlighted that as detailed modelling had not been
provided they were unable to assess impacts on hydrology, flooding and potential
changes in river flows. They stated that flood assessments must be integrated
with work carried out on the River Thames Scheme and that Heathrow must work
with the Environment Agency.
12.2.16 The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead stated that local authorities have
not been consulted on potential sites for flood storage as provided within the
Airport Expansion Consultation Document and expressed concern that the
proposals may impact existing flood alleviation schemes.
Option preference
12.2.17 Slough Borough Council was the only local authority to express a preference for
one of the flood storage options. They preferred Option C1E as provided within
the Airport Expansion Consultation Document because it will provide the
opportunity to improve the landscape within the Colne Valley Park. They objected
to the use of the site West of Orlitts Lake being used for flood storage because this
area should be used for the proposed rail depot and the potential replacement of
the Grundon energy from waste plant.
Statutory Consultees
River Diversions
General comments
12.2.18 Natural England highlighted the proximity of the South West London Water Bodies
Special Protection Area (SPA) and that the possible disturbance effects of the
proposed third runway and the associated aircraft movements must be fully
assessed in order to determine whether there is likely to be an impact on the SPA.
12.2.19 They stated that a large number of lakes to the north west of the airport (including
the Queen Mother Reservoir and other smaller wetland sites) are likely to be
directly impacted by construction and function as supporting habitat for the birds
associated with the SPA. Any compensatory habitat provision would have to be
situated in close-proximity to the SPA or another SPA which supports the same
species interest features. They considered that the location of compensatory
habitat would require careful planning due to the potential for bird-strike issues to
arise and that any compensatory measures must be effective at the time the
damage occurs.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
560 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
12.2.20 Highways England identified that conflicts between river locations, taxiway
locations and M25 alignment options as provided within the Airport Expansion
Consultation Document need to be carefully considered. They suggested that
lowering the M25 next to flood zones may increase flood risk to the M25 compared
to its current alignment and the M25 must be designed to ensure this does not
occur.
12.2.21 They identified that River Diversion Options C1a, C1b C1c as provided within the
Airport Expansion Consultation Document include rivers in tunnels under the
runway next to the proposed M25 and that designs must prevent any increase in
flood risk. They also made similar comments in relation to River Diversion Options
C2a and C2b.
12.2.22 The Environment Agency did not support any of the options as provided within the
Airport Expansion Consultation Document as they involve culverting significant
stretches of the Longford and the Duke of Northumberland Rivers. They
encouraged Heathrow to re-assess the options and pursue a scheme which does
not involve culverting any of the rivers.
12.2.23 They also highlighted the following points:
1. There is no mention of long-term monitoring to assess and understand the impacts
of the Project.
2. No details have been provided that demonstrate how the covered river corridor will
promote connectivity to both flora and fauna.
3. The modified channels will need to allow the full range of natural fluvial
geomorphological process to occur.
4. Improved connectivity will be required through all channels impacted.
5. Complete unhindered fish migration will be important in preventing ecological
impacts outside of the footprint of the Project.
6. Connectivity for terrestrial mammals should be maintained and enhanced.
7. Connectivity should be assessed on a water body25 scale.
8. Severance of the Colne catchment should be considered at an ecosystems level to
understand the scale of impact and mitigation required.
9. Locally occurring channel physical specifications should be used to define the
physical characteristics of the modified channels.
10. Rivers should be defined as having high distinctiveness and corresponding condition
assessments should utilise a wide suite of techniques which measure the biological
quality.
11. The modified river channel and the M25 as provided within the Airport Expansion
Consultation Document appear to be side by side which will limit the quality of the
25 A body of water or water body is any significant accumulation of water. The term most often refers to oceans, seas, and lakes, but it includes smaller pools of water such as ponds, wetlands.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
561 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
wider environment and limit the ability for the rivers to work in a morphologically
active way.
12. The principal aquifer in the gravel deposits which underlie the full extent of both the
current airport and proposed extension should be referenced. The gravel aquifer is
in direct continuity with the surface water in this area and provides some flood
storage capacity.
13. The Lower Thames Gravels groundwater body is Drinking Water Protected and is
very susceptible to contamination and disturbance.
14. The scale and nature of development is likely to have significant impacts on the
waterbodies classified under European Directive 2000/60/EC. The project should
not result in the deterioration of any of the relevant waterbodies and a detailed
Water Framework Directive compliance assessment will be required.
Option preference
12.2.24 No statutory consultees expressed a preference for any of the river diversion
options as provided within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document.
Flood Storage
General comments
12.2.25 The Environment Agency commented that Heathrow should pursue whichever
option as provided within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document, which will
provide the greatest flood risk benefits to the airport and the communities within
the catchment. They considered that the optimum solution may be for a
combination of on and off-site flood storage and as a result combined options
should not be ruled out.
12.2.26 They stated that any areas of land provided for flood storage must be safeguarded
and maintained for the lifetime of the airport to prevent future development. They
also highlighted that detailed assessments will be required and that there must be
no increase in flood risk as a result of the Project.
12.2.27 They also stated that:
1. Floodplain connectivity should be a guiding principle of the scheme selection
process;
2. There is some inconsistency in how the consultation documents discuss the
treatment of rivers; and
3. There is no mention of the connectivity between the rivers and groundwater in the
underlying gravel formations and aquifer.
12.2.28 Historic England commented that the Colne Valley contains sites with peat
deposits and associated early prehistoric archaeological remains which would be
vulnerable to re-contouring operations and changes in the water table. They
considered that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study area should be
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
562 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
reviewed and extended as many of the potential sites lie outside it. They also
stated that hydrological specialists should work with archaeologists to assess and
mitigate risk.
Option preference
12.2.29 No statutory consultees expressed a preference for any of the flood storage
options as provided within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document.
Other prescribed bodies
River Diversions
General comments
12.2.30 Bray Parish Council commented that any proposals must ensure that the risk of
flooding is not increased and that the Project is not detrimental to wildlife and local
ecology.
12.2.31 Thames Water Utilities Limited (Thames Water) opposed the culverting of rivers in
tunnels to cross the runway and considered that further optioneering is required.
They noted that public surface water sewers discharge to the local rivers that
would be diverted or culverted and that as part of any diversions appropriately
sized and designed sewers would need to be reconnected. They also highlighted
that the photographic example of river re-routing in a confined concrete channel
does not meet current policy objectives.
12.2.32 Iver Parish Council expressed concerns about the impact on ecological habitats
and species from the proposals to run rivers through tunnels. They highlighted that
the rear of The Ridings in Richings Park, the field to the south of the Poynings and
under lower Old Slade Lane are already susceptible to flooding. They also shared
concern that each option proposal is considered as a separate scheme without an
overall view on the impact to surface water movements, drainage and flooding.
12.2.33 The Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) suggested that the enhancement
of green and blue infrastructure should be approached as a design
objective/principle and not be the consequence of other decisions. They stated
that as a minimum the Colnbrook should be retained as an open channel for
biodiversity benefits, with as much of the other watercourses remaining as open
channels and designed to minimise impact on biodiversity and the environmental
corridor network.
12.2.34 They also stated that an ecological contingency plan should be in place and that a
coordinated approach is needed in relation to river diversions and the wider
natural environmental.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
563 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Option preference
12.2.35 Whilst not explicitly stating a preference, Iver Parish Council commented that
Colne Brook option C1E as provided within the Airport Expansion Consultation
Document could be acceptable with the necessary mitigation.
Flood Storage
General comments
12.2.36 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council identified that serious floods have taken
place on several occasions over the last 20 years. They indicated that flood plain
located within the Parish should not be built upon or otherwise diminished.
12.2.37 Iver Parish Council suggested that the parish has a high-water table and is already
subject to flooding. They stated that the Colne Brook option was unacceptable,
that there was a lack of information about it and that it appeared to conflict with
previous descriptions that had been provided. They also identified that there are
residential properties close to the Colne Brook near the emergency access to the
M25 which do not appear to have been considered.
12.2.38 They stated that the parcel of land between the M25, Thorney Mill Road and the
railway line includes Thorney Golf Course and will require properties to be
removed to allow the construction of a flood storage area. They considered this
was unnecessary and unacceptable.
12.2.39 They also commented that there is an existing lake in the centre of the land north
of Iver Lane and that this option together with the use of the rest of the land as
landscape mitigation would be acceptable.
12.2.40 The HSPG stated that some of the flood storage locations identified are not
available and further discussion needs to take place with the most directly
impacted local authorities to consider alternatives.
Option preference
12.2.41 Thames Water expressed support for additional flood storage upstream of the
proposed airport. However, they highlighted that this would need to provide
benefits to existing flood locations as well as proposed compensation for loss of
flood plain.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
564 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
12.3 Local Communities
Members of the public
River Diversions
General comments
12.3.1 Members of the public provided general statements of support, the most common
of which supported the use of tunnels to carry the rivers under the proposed new
runway. Other comments requested that rivers should be diverted as little as
possible or that diversions which provided connections for the movement of wildlife
and habitat should be favoured.
12.3.2 Members of the public who expressed opposition to all options did so either due to
an objection to the Project or because of concerns regarding the effects on local
communities or the environment. A smaller number of respondents also stated that
they were unnecessary, cost too much, would have unforeseen consequences or
would increase the likelihood of flooding.
12.3.3 A small number of respondents also suggested that:
1. impacts on waterways/rivers/open river channel should be minimised/mitigated and
there should be no further covering or culverting of rivers beyond those already
proposed;
2. impacts on Longford River should be minimised/mitigated;
3. local businesses affected by the river diversion/flood storage proposals and future
flood risk should receive compensation;
4. diverting watercourses under the runway will offer more protection and be least
disruptive; and
5. the options for the river diversion/flood storage should ensure public safety.
Option preference
12.3.4 Most members of the public that expressed a preference for one of the river
diversion options were in favour of Option C1D as provided within the Airport
Expansion Consultation Document. The main reasons provided for this were that it
minimised effects on wildlife and habitats, provided connectivity to habitats and
would have the least impacts on green spaces and landscapes. Those who were
not supportive of this option often considered that it was more difficult to construct
(due to the M25), would have negative impacts on the Longford River or would
increase flooding.
12.3.5 Option C1A within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document was the second
most preferred option. The main reasons provided for this were that the use of
tunnels limited surface diversions and that it was the least disruptive as it closely
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
565 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
followed the original route of the rivers. Those that criticised this option mainly did
so due to concerns about the effects on wildlife and habitats or that it would
increase the risk of flooding for local communities.
12.3.6 Option C1E within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document was the third
most preferred option. The main reasons provided for this were that it minimised
effects on wildlife and habitats, would keep rivers above ground as much as
possible and would minimise flood risk. Those who were unsupportive considered
that it would be a waste of money or more difficult to build.
12.3.7 Option C1C within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document was the least
preferred option. Where this option was preferred it was because it minimised
effects on wildlife and habitats and retained its direction close to the existing river
courses as well as taking rivers under the runway. Those who were not supportive
of this option often considered that it was too expensive, impractical or would
affect floodplains.
Flood Storage
Option preference
12.3.8 Few members of the public commented on the flood storage options.
Those that more often favoured Approach 2 within the Airport Expansion
Consultation Document (storage outside the airport boundaries) than
Approach 1 (storage within its boundaries) as provided within the Airport
Expansion Consultation Document.
12.3.9 Approach 1 as provided within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document
received general support as it would require less land and less disruption and
would be within the boundary of the airport. Negative comments expressed
concern that it would be too expensive, that there would be a high degree of
disruption during construction, that it would be difficult to maintain and that it would
increase flood risk to the north of the M4.
12.3.10 Comments on Approach 2 as provided within the Airport Expansion Consultation
Document expressed general support and suggested that it would improve the
landscape, protect wildlife and habitats and generally benefit the environment.
Respondents considered that it would improve the efficiency and limit impacts on
airport operations as the flood storage would be sited away from the operational
airport site. Few members of the public that commented on Approach 2 made
negative comments, those that did suggested it would have a greater effect on
communities and a greater potential for flooding.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
566 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
General comments
12.3.11 General comments about flood storage proposals were primarily negative. Those
that were not in favour of the options did so due to the perceived impact on flood
plains and flood risk effects on local communities and the environment. There
were also concerns that the disruption to mitigate flood risk makes the Project
unfeasible, that there was insufficient detail provided, land required for flood
storage should be reduced and that flood storage would be closer to communities.
12.3.12 Positive comments were received which suggested that flood storage had to be
improved, offsite storage would reduce costs, land close to the existing floodplain
could be used for flood storage and that the options provide opportunities for
landscape improvements and wildlife habitat. Others expressed conditional
support dependant on how much the landscape and local open spaces would
be affected.
Businesses
River Diversions
General comments
12.3.13 The Airport Industrial Property Unit Trust (AIPUT) commented that it assumed that
the Project would not detrimentally affect any of the assets (or access to them)
within their portfolio.
12.3.14 The Copas Partnership indicated that Heathrow should do whatever provides the
most capacity.
12.3.15 The Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce supported the need to ensure that
development does not add to flooding risk.
12.3.16 The London (Heathrow) Airline Consultative Committee and the Board of Airline
Representatives in the UK commented that the selected option must be cost
efficient and meet environmental regulations and not impact the operation of the
airport. They outlined that if local authorities seek to develop and fund wider
improvements they must not cause any delay or add additional risk to airport
operations or its users. They also considered that the costs must not be incurred
by airline passengers or added to the Regulated Asset Base of the airport.
12.3.17 Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited highlighted that Heathrow’s preferred option should
be the most cost efficient option that fully meets any legal or regulatory
requirements.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
567 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Option preference
12.3.18 Goodman commented that the ‘West of Orlitts Lake’ option as detailed on page 34
of the Airport Expansion Consultation Document should not be the preferred
option due to constraints on available space and the existence of contaminated
land which may mean that culverting is unavoidable.
12.3.19 Richings Park Golf Club identified that they would like to work with Heathrow to
minimise impacts on the golf course if Option C1E as provided within the Airport
Expansion Consultation Document was chosen.
Flood Storage
General comments
12.3.20 Goodman suggested that a partial catchment transfer upstream from the Colne
Brook into the River Colne would help to reduce flood risk downstream and to
mitigate the works within the River Colne valley.
12.3.21 Global Grange recommended that careful consideration should be given to where
the displaced flood storage area will be relocated and the potential impact upon
the surrounding area. They stated that they will object to any potential expansion
plans which will result in greater levels of flood risk on their land.
Option preference
12.3.22 Goodman identified land at Thorney Mill Road would potentially lend itself to flood
storage and its alignment with the existing hydrological situation may avoid the
need for river diversion work. They considered that Thorney Mill Road also has the
potential to reduce the scale of flood storage downstream on the River Colne.
Community groups
River Diversions
General comments
12.3.23 Harrow U3A Sustainability Group recognised that river diversions were necessary
but commented that it had no expertise or opinion.
12.3.24 Wentworth Residents Association highlighted that flooding is a huge local issue
and any mitigation will be too expensive and disruptive. They considered that as a
result the project will not make commercial sense or the mitigation will not be
undertaken properly.
12.3.25 Stanwell’s Green Lungs opposed the plans including the planned reed beds in
Stanwell Moor, Stanwell or West Bedfont.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
568 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
12.3.26 Local Conversation in Stanwell suggested that any work redirecting the River
Colne must consider its value for species of freshwater fish and invertebrates and
must prevent its flow or character from being altered. They also stated that the
Longford and The Duke of Northumberland's Rivers must remain as a natural
barrier along the airports southern boundary.
12.3.27 Eastcote Conservation Panel stated that the loss of wildlife habitat and putting
rivers underground is totally unacceptable. They stated that any river put into a
culvert loses water quality and that firmer commitments to replacing lost areas
were required.
12.3.28 The Richmond Environmental Information Centre stated that all watercourses,
rivers and streams need to be subject to very careful study and expressed concern
that the Project will increase flood risk in the Datchet to Teddington area.
12.3.29 The Chertsey Society expressed a similar view and requested reassurance that
any changes to watercourses would not adversely affect flooding of the River
Thames or impact the River Thames Scheme for flood alleviation from Datchet to
Teddington.
12.3.30 SCR residents for a fair consideration of Heathrow expansion stated that the
environmental and sustainability impact of the proposed options were appalling
and wasteful.
12.3.31 Residents Association HVG CA stated that flood and wildlife problems were
inevitable in all options.
Option Preference
12.3.32 The Colnbrook Community Partnership expressed a preference for Option C1A or
C1C as provided within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document. They
suggested that of these option C1C would be preferable as it could be
incorporated into an area north of the existing Colnbrook Bypass for green
infrastructure. It could also provide a wildlife corridor and an attractive route for
the Colne Valley Way, as well as flood storage.
Flood Storage
General comments
12.3.33 Northumberland Walk Residents Association stated that they were opposed to any
development that brings flood storage closer to residential properties in Richings
Park.
12.3.34 The Englefield Green Action Group said the diversion of local rivers and flood
storage was unnecessary with the existing two-runway airport.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
569 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
12.3.35 The Colnbrook Community Partnership requested increased flood storage to the
north of Colnbrook, immediately north of the runway (west of Orlitts Lake) and
north of the M4 to reduce the risk of flooding in Colnbrook.
12.3.36 They also expressed concerns about the flow from Colnbrook West Lake being cut
off to the County Ditch (Option C1D and 1E) as provided within the Airport
Expansion Consultation Document.
Option Preference
12.3.37 No community groups expressed a preference for any of the flood storage options
as provided within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document.
12.4 Wider/other consultees
River Diversions
General comments
12.4.1 Surrey Wildlife Trust stated that the Project must not cause significant
deterioration in the quality of the water environment in the Colne Valley. They also
highlighted the tension between the Project and the objectives of the Water
Framework Directive.
12.4.2 The Colne Valley Regional Park sought assurance that Heathrow will work with
stakeholders in planning diversions to reduce overall impact and developing
appropriate and effective mitigation. They specified that there needs to be a
commitment from Heathrow to deliver a legacy for the rivers and to take
responsibility for the proposed river diversions. They considered that this could be
achieved through an undertaking which commits to providing an environmental
indemnity for any unforeseen consequences as a result of river diversions and
their continued management in the future.
12.4.3 They stated that information on the effects of Options C1D and C1E as provided
within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document on the wider catchment for
the Colne Valley Park was limited. They also highlighted that opportunities for river
diversions should not be discontinued merely on grounds of complexity and
suggested that Option C2B (or similar) should be revaluated.
12.4.4 They expressed opposition to the diversion of flows from the Colne Catchment into
Horton Brook due to a risk of introducing invasive species and the effects on the
county ditch if the current flow from Colnbrook West Lake is cut off. They
suggested that Heathrow must address this risk and mitigate for any negative
impact.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
570 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
12.4.5 They also identified that covered river corridors may become suitable passages for
aquatic species but will be inaccessible for other wildlife such as birds, bats, etc.
They stated that Heathrow must address these concerns, provide suitable
alternative habitat and explore whether the extent of land take could be
reduced/narrowed.
12.4.6 The London Wildlife Trust opposed the covering of any waterways and considered
none of the options satisfactory.
12.4.7 The London Parks and Garden Trust recommended that the airport seeks to
maintain as much as possible of what is already present rather than re-
creating/creating new habitats.
12.4.8 Lambeth/Herne Hill Green Party suggested that a flood risk assessment is
required in the context of climate change and further research will help save
people and property.
12.4.9 The Church of England – Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark suggested
that Sustainable Urban Drainage techniques (SUDs) should be considered rather
than causing risks to birds, SINCs, scheduled monuments, agricultural land and
recreational facilities.
Option Preference
12.4.10 Surrey Wildlife Trust stated that Option C1D as detailed in Heathrow’s Our
Emerging Plans Document would have the least impact on the water environment,
including downstream within Surrey.
12.4.11 The Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust suggested that the option selected should
deliver the greatest ecological enhancement. They also considered that the views
of the Environment Agency should be taken into consideration when making the
decision.
12.4.12 The Church of England – Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark suggested
that diversion options C1C, C1D and C1E as provided within the Airport Expansion
Consultation Document were probably the ‘least dreadful’.
Flood Storage
General comments
12.4.13 The Colne Valley Regional Park said that Heathrow’s proposed new flood storage
areas should avoid any land that already serves a single or a combination of the
six objectives of the Park. They highlighted the following points:
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
571 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
1. Heathrow should strive to deliver flood storage areas that are multi-functional and
integrate with existing habitats and recreational areas, as well as forming strategic
habitat connections.
2. The design will need to carefully consider flood frequency, duration of potential
flooding events and habitat resilience to flooding events.
3. The creation of wetland habitats should be a key consideration when opportunities
for flood storage areas are being explored.
4. Biodiversity should be considered early in the process.
5. Heathrow must clearly demonstrate how flood storage areas contribute to the
waterscape and biodiversity value of the Colne Valley Regional Park.
6. Flood storage areas must become part of the Green and Blue Infrastructure Plan.
12.4.14 The London Parks and Garden Trust suggested the use of Natural Capital
Accounting which they considered would provide a fuller picture of the
cost-benefit analysis.
Option Preference
12.4.15 The London Parks and Garden Trust expressed a preference for Approach 1
within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it would minimise the
amount of land buried under water and benefit the natural environment. However,
they stated that a lack of detail made it difficult to comment further.
12.4.16 The Colne Valley Regional Park stated that New Denham Quarry was unsuitable
as it is the proposed site for relocation of Hillingdon Outdoor Activity Centre.
12.4.17 The Church of England – Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark considered
that storage options S2 and S5C as detailed in Section 8 of the Scheme
Development Report are probably the ‘least dreadful’.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
572 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
12.5 Issues Raised and Heathrow’s Responses
12.5.1 Table 12.1 presents a summary of the main issues raised by prescribed consultees, local communities and wider/other
consultees in relation to River Diversions and Flood Storage and for which only interim responses were provided in the
ICFR (the prior Table B). This updated table also presents Heathrow’s responses to those issues and explains how in
preparing our proposals for the Airport Expansion Consultation we have had regard to that feedback.
Table 12.1
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Preference for Option C1E. ✓ As part of Airport Expansion Consultation One numerous options for the diversion of rivers were presented in the Airport Expansion Consultation Document and Our Emerging Plans. Since then, from the numerous options presented, a detailed evaluation has been undertaken to identify the preferred location and routes for the river diversions and is summarised in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated Scheme Development Report (SDR) published at Airport Expansion Consultation (AEC) (June 2019). Following Airport Expansion Consultation One, Options C1A, C1C, C1D and C1E which were presented continued to be refined and developed. These options were refined in the South West, North West
Option C1E was the third most preferred option. The main reasons provided for this were that it minimised effects on wildlife and habitats, would keep rivers above ground as much as possible and would minimise flood risk.
✓
Option C1E would be a waste of money or more difficult to build.
✓
Option C1A was the second most preferred option. The main reasons provided for this were that the use of
✓
26 PC - Prescribed Consultees; MC – Members of the Community; WC – Wider Consultees
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
573 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
tunnels limited surface diversions and that it was the least disruptive as it closely followed the original route of the rivers.
and North Centre zones as part of the Zonal Sub-assembly development, resulting in 11 options across the zones.
During the option development, four further options (1a, 1b, 1c & 1d) were identified in the North West zone and 3 new options (2a, 2bc & 2c) were identified in the South West Zone. The chosen design is a composite of these various elements and they have been shared externally throughout the optioneering process with key stakeholders in 2018. The routes selected need to deliver on the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) requirements for the operational site and also reflect the outcome of the evaluation process which involved balancing a range of competing criteria and feedback received from key stakeholders.
Further detail regarding the selection of the preferred options for river diversions and the evolution from the Airport Expansion Consultation One options to the current option is provided in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR and Chapter 3: Project Alternatives of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR).
Chapter 21 Water Environment and Chapter 8 Biodiversity of the PEIR report the preliminary assessments undertaken in respect of the hydrological and ecological effects of the proposed river diversions.
Preference for Option C1A or C1C. ✓
Option C1C was the least preferred option.
✓
Option C1C was too expensive, impractical or would affect floodplains.
✓
Diversion options C1C, C1D and C1E were probably the ‘least dreadful’.
✓
None of the options are satisfactory. ✓
Opposition to all of the options either due to an objection to expansion or concerns regarding the effects on local communities or the environment.
✓
Option 2CB would have the least impact on the water environment, including downstream within Surrey.
✓
Not supportive of Option C1D as it is more difficult to construct (due to the M25), would have negative impacts on the Longford River or would increase flooding.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
574 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Support for the use of tunnels to carry the rivers under the new runway.
✓ A description of the chosen option is set out in the paragraphs below.
The final design comprises the Rivers Colne/Wraysbury/Duke of Northumberland’s and Longford being taken under the runway to the east of the M25 in a structure named the Covered River Corridor (CRC), while the Colne Brook is diverted westwards after its M4 crossing, around the runway’s western end. This is described in more detail in the text below.
The Covered River Corridor (CRC) is divided into two compartments, one containing the combined Colne and Wraysbury channel, and the other the combined Duke of Northumberland’s and Longford channel. The combined channels would provide variable depth and width conditions to support a range of different habitats.
The CRC would convey both normal flows and flood flows. The river channels in the CRC would be similar multi-stage channels to the open sections of river and would attempt to mimic natural channels with space provided for riparian corridors either side of the channels to facilitate ecological connectivity. Channels would only be lined where they flow over contaminated land. The CRC would be designed to be appropriate for key species groups (fish, macroinvertebrates, macrophytes and phytobenthos, otters and bats). CRC design includes consideration of
Opposed the culverting of rivers in tunnels to cross the runway and considered that further optioneering is required.
✓
Opposed the covering of any waterways.
✓
The loss of wildlife habitat and putting rivers underground is totally unacceptable.
✓
The maximum amount of water courses should be maintained in natural open channels.
✓
Rivers should be maintained in natural open channels in order to maintain habitat connectivity and maximise the quality of the landscape and amenity value of the area as much as possible.
✓
Impacts on Longford River should be minimised/mitigated.
✓
Rivers should be diverted as little as possible or diversions which provide connections for the movement of wildlife and habitat should be favoured.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
575 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
No support for any of the options put forward as they involve culverting significant stretches of the Longford and the Duke of Northumberland Rivers.
✓ appropriate lighting design to promote connectivity and plan growth.
The flows from the Bigley Ditch and Wraysbury River, would combine with those of the River Colne north of the draft Development Consent Order (DCO) Limits at Harmondsworth Moor and pass, in a new single diverted channel, east of the M25 under the airfield (in the CRC).
South of the Bath Road the flows split (via a control structure) and an open channel section of Wraysbury River would head west under the M25 and join the Poyle channel.
The River Colne would continue southwards along the western perimeter of the Site under the existing A3113, connecting back into its existing channel north of Stanwell Moor. The upstream reaches of the Holme Lodge and Stanwell Moor ditches will also be abandoned and infilled to accommodate the airfield expansion to the south west of the DCO Project.
Further modification of the open Wraysbury River channel to the west of the M25 would be carried out to accommodate the modifications to the M25 and
Opportunities for river diversions should not be discontinued merely on grounds of complexity and suggested that Option C2B (or similar) should be revaluated.
✓
Option C1C can provide a wildlife corridor and an attractive route for the Colne Valley Way, as well as flood storage.
✓
As a minimum the Colnbrook should be retained as an open channel for biodiversity benefits, with as much of the other watercourses remaining as open channels and designed to minimise impact on biodiversity and the environmental corridor network.
✓
The Longford and The Duke of Northumberland's Rivers must remain as a natural barrier along the airports southern boundary.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
576 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Diverting watercourses under the runway will offer more protection and be least disruptive.
✓ A3044layout before returning to its existing channel.
The Duke of Northumberland’s flow would be combined with flow from the Longford River and pass in a common channel under the airfield and to the east of the existing M25, so there would be a new single diversion channel for the combined rivers. This river would flow parallel to the Colne/Wraysbury channel along the western perimeter of the Site. The Duke of Northumberland and Longford River would continue in a combined channel, passing south under the SPR next to the River Colne, before flowing east, along the southern boundary of the SPR. The channel would pass beneath the southern spur from the Stanwell Moor Junction roundabout (A3044), to the south of the proposed new Southern Parkway, in an open channel, before splitting back into the existing two rivers further east at Oaks Road. Along the length of this diversion, the combined Duke of Northumberland’s and Longford channel flows within a river corridor. A control structure at the end of this channel would provide the required flow split to return flows (at the existing rates) to the existing Duke of Northumberland River and Longford River south of the airfield.
Final proposals should be the most cost-efficient option that fully meets any legal or regulatory requirements.
✓
The selected option must be cost efficient and meet environmental regulations and not impact the operation of the airport.
✓
Some of the options were based more on expediency and cost rather than making sure that the development has the minimum impact on the local environment and ecology.
✓
Heathrow should do whatever provides the most capacity.
✓
Impacts on waterways/rivers/open river channel should be minimised/mitigated and there should be no further covering or culverting of rivers beyond those already proposed.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
577 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The option selected should deliver the greatest ecological enhancement.
✓ The Colne Brook would be diverted to the north and west of the logistics centre. The diversion begins immediately to the south of the M4 crossing, passes around the northern side of the Thames Water Iver South sewage treatment works (STW) and around the northern and western side of the logistics centre. This requires the infilling (at least in part) of Old Slade Lake and for the diverted Colne Brook to pass under the access road to Thames Water (Iver South) STW.
Preferred Option C1E because it will provide the opportunity to improve the landscape within the Colne Valley Park.
✓ A description of the chosen option is provided in the cell above. Further detail regarding the selection of the preferred options for river diversions and the evolution from the Airport Expansion Consultation One options to the current option is provided in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR and Chapter 3: Project Alternatives of the PEIR.
Further detail on the integration of the river options into the wider green/blue infrastructure concept are described below.
The new channels will be designed to appropriately accommodate flows (including flood flows), providing spatially variable aquatic habitat and with connectivity to a riparian zone. Our current thinking on the design of the
The options provide opportunities for landscape improvements and wildlife habitat.
✓
Support dependent on how much the landscape and local open spaces would be affected.
✓
Information on the effects of Options C1D and C1E on the wider catchment for the Colne Valley Park was limited.
✓
Colne Brook option C1E could be acceptable with the necessary mitigation.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
578 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Options C1C would be preferable as it could be incorporated into an area north of the existing Colnbrook Bypass for green infrastructure.
✓ channels can be found in Section 21.5 of Chapter 21: Water Environment (PEIR) and Appendix 21.3 Preliminary Water Framework Directive Assessment.
With respect to the Colne Brook in particular, the routing is a key part of the landscape strategy for the Project to provide and improve connectivity for both wildlife and people. Plans for commuter and leisurely cycle and pedestrian pathways, habitat connectivity, biodiversity mitigation and offsetting, re-provisions of public open space and enhancement of the existing Green Belt are being developed along the route of the Colne Brook and the surrounding environment, including flood storage areas.
Option C1D would minimise effects on wildlife and habitats, provided connectivity to habitats and would have the least impacts on green spaces and landscapes.
✓
Heathrow should strive to deliver flood storage areas that are multi-functional and integrate with existing habitats and recreational areas, as well as forming strategic habitat connections.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
579 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The creation of wetland habitats should be a key consideration when opportunities for flood storage areas are being explored. Biodiversity should be considered early in the process.
✓ Flood storage areas will be as multifunctional as practicable, without compromising their primary use. This will include integrating amenity/public open space/biodiversity offsetting into these areas. These uses will be refined and developed further prior to DCO submission, as a part of the refinement of the flood storage area extents from the long-list shown at PEIR.
As set out in Appendix 21.3, the work to support the Water Framework Directive (WFD) will also include the identification of sites for river restoration/enhancement up and downstream of the site. This work will comprise a suite of measures, in channel improvements, re-connection with floodplains and removal of instream obstacles to fish passage. Work will be on-going through 2019 to refine this list through stakeholder engagement and further technical studies.
Heathrow must minimise impacts on the golf course if Option C1E was chosen.
✓ As part of the detailed evaluation process, reported in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR, Option C1E and the associated Western diversion channel was discontinued. This avoids physical impacts on the Richings Park Golf Club.
The full findings of the evaluation process are presented in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
580 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concerns about the effects of Option C1A on wildlife and habitats or that it would increase the risk of flooding for local communities.
✓ Option C1A (the diversion of all rivers underneath the runway) was discontinued through the evaluation process. It was decided through technical work and consultation that a better environmental option was to take the Colne Brook around the edge of the runway, to provide one fully daylighted north/south river corridor in the Colne Valley. The rivers to the east of the M25 (Colne/Wraysbury/Duke of Northumberland/Longford) will pass under the runway through the Covered River Corridor (CRC) as testing showed that it was not hydraulically possible to pass them around to the west and still deliver the runway alignment supported by the ANPS.
Further detail regarding the selection of the preferred options for river diversions and flood storage, and the evolution from the Airport Expansion Consultation One options to the current option is provided in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR and Chapter 3: Project Alternatives of the PEIR. Further information on flood risk can be found in Appendix 21.4 Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) of the PEIR.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
581 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concern about the flow from Colnbrook West Lake being cut off to the County Ditch (Option C1D and 1E).
✓ The flow to the County Ditch from Colnbrook West Lake will be lost as this lake will be infilled as a part of the runway construction, however, the ditch will still receive local drainage and inflows from the gravel aquifer. Options are being looked at with respect to how to retain the water/amenity value of this feature. These proposals will be developed further through technical work and consultation in the run-up to the DCO application.
Preference for Approach 1 as it would minimise the amount of land buried under water and benefit the natural environment.
✓ The expansion of Heathrow would be built partly in the flood plain of the Colne Valley rivers and will result in the loss of existing flood storage. Airport Expansion Consultation One presented two high level options for flood storage Approach 1 (on-airport storage) and Approach 2 (off airport storage). Based on feedback from consultation, and technical modelling and engineering design work it was decided that a combination of approaches would be used. The flood storage potential of the newly diverted river corridors has been maximized and additional flood storage has been sited just south of runway, to the west of the M25 (this is an evolution of the S2 flood storage option proposed at Airport Expansion Consultation One). The remainder of the flood provision is located in upstream flood storage sites, which represent a subset of those presented at Airport Expansion Consultation One.
Compensatory flood storage will be provided upstream of the site to re-provide for lost flood plain, this will store the
Approach 1 received general support as it would result in less land-take and less disruption and would be within the boundary of the airport.
✓
Concern that Approach 1 would be too expensive, that there would be a high degree of disruption during construction, that it would be difficult to maintain and that it would increase flood risk to the north of the M4.
✓
General support for Approach 2 and suggested that it would improve the landscape, protect wildlife and habitats and generally benefit the environment.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
582 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Approach 2 would improve the efficiency and limit impacts on airport operations as the flood storage would be sited away from the operational airport site.
✓ 1%AEP (Annual Exceedance Probability) event plus an additional 35% allowance for climate change.
The evaluation process used to identify which flood storage areas to take forward has resulted in not taking forward some options. There was at the outset an over provision allowed for to keep a number of options open for consultation. Specifics to answer the questions raised here are below:
- S5a the most northern sites, New Denham Quarry, East of Bangors Road and West of Uxbridge Estate were dropped as they were in conflict with other potential uses and also considered remote from the development
- S7 Downstream of the development was not taken forward being hydraulically challenging to permit flood waters to travel through the airport
- S5C (West of Orlitts Lake) had significant challenges conflicting with land required for construction and logistics to build the Project.
- S2 had some merit to take forward specific areas; flood storage capacity has been built into the corridors containing the diverted rivers
Approach 2 would have a greater effect on communities and a greater potential for flooding.
✓
Favour Approach 2 (storage outside the airport boundaries).
✓
Storage options S2 and S5C are probably the ‘least dreadful’.
✓
Request for increased flood storage to the north of Colnbrook, immediately north of the runway (west of Orlitts Lake) and north of the M4 to reduce the risk of flooding in Colnbrook.
✓
Replacement flood storage should be sufficient to reduce the risk of flooding on airport related development sites as well as reducing the risk of flooding in Colnbrook and Poyle.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
583 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Objection to the use of the site West of Orlitts Lake being used for flood storage because this area should be used for the proposed rail depot and the potential replacement of the Grundon energy from waste plant.
✓ - S5b the sites north of the M4, as set out set out in Chapter 5 of the Preferred Masterplan Document, closer to the development would provide the flood storage requirements. These sites are going through an ongoing process to optimise the configuration and size of the compensatory flood storage areas, considering the end state requirements and the in-combination requirements during construction but at this stage the project still needs to retain a number of flood storage areas
The preferred sites for replacement compensatory flood storage areas are set out in Chapter 5 of the Preferred Masterplan Document published at AEC, and further detail regarding the selection of the preferred options for river diversions and flood storage, and the evolution from the Airport Expansion Consultation One options to the current option is provided in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR and Chapter 3: Project Alternatives of the PEIR.
A preliminary assessment of the impacts of the Project, including the proposed flood storage areas, is provided in the PEIR. This includes consideration of the impact of the proposed flood storage areas on landscape and visual amenity (Chapter 15 Landscape and Visual Amenity), land contamination (Chapter 14 Land Quality), communities (Chapter 11 Community), the water environment (Chapter 21 Water Environment), and wildlife and habitats (Chapter
The ‘West of Orlitts Lake’ option should not be the preferred option due to constraints on available space and the existence of contaminated land which may mean that culverting is unavoidable.
✓
The optimum solution may be for a combination of on and off-site flood storage and as a result combined options should not be ruled out.
Opposed to any development that brings flood storage closer to residential properties in Richings Park.
✓
Land at Thorney Mill Road would potentially lend itself to flood storage and its alignment with the existing hydrological situation may avoid the need for river diversion work.
✓
New Denham Quarry was unsuitable as it is the proposed site for relocation of Hillingdon Outdoor Activity Centre.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
584 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Not all sites will be required and those affecting residential properties (part of the Golf Club site) or the Hillingdon Outdoor Activities Centre are not suitable.
✓ 8 Biodiversity).
The early findings of the FRA and Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) are presented as Appendix 21.4 and Appendix 21.5 to the PEIR respectively. These documents will be refined prior to the DCO Application as the design of the Project evolves following AEC.
The areas are being tested and refined using detailed hydraulic modelling, this test will confirm which combinations deliver the necessary compensatory flood storage in compliance with the ANPS.
Thorney Mill Road also has the potential to reduce the scale of flood storage downstream on the River Colne.
✓
Careful consideration should be given to where the displaced flood storage area will be relocated and the potential impact upon the surrounding area.
✓
Perceived impact on flood plains and flood risk effects on local communities and the environment from flood storage.
✓
Flood storage must be improved.
✓
Offsite storage would reduce costs. ✓
Land close to the existing floodplain could be used for flood storage.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
585 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Support for additional flood storage upstream of the proposed airport. This would need to provide benefits to existing flood locations as well as proposed compensation for loss of flood plain.
✓
There was insufficient information available to demonstrate that the measures proposed would not have adverse impacts on drainage in the area with consequential flooding, loss of habitat and diversity and potential pollution from runoff.
✓ Heathrow has now refined plans for river diversions, surface water run-off management and flood storage through the evaluation process and have selected a Preferred Masterplan, taking into account responses from Airport Expansion Consultation One. The full findings of the evaluation process are presented in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage and Chapter 4.2 Drainage and Pollution Control of the Updated SDR and Chapter 3: Project Alternatives of the PEIR.
The PEIR includes consideration of the proposed river diversions and flood storage areas. This is reported in the PEIR. Chapter 21 Water Environment considers the impacts of the proposed river diversions and flood storage sites on the water environment. Chapter 8 Biodiversity considers the impacts of the proposed river diversions and
Concern that there was limited information and no firm view on how flood risk would be addressed.
✓
Expressed concern that information was not available on the proposals to combine the Colne and Wraysbury Rivers, how effects on wildlife would be monitored, the impacts on river channels and potential changes in flooding regimes.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
586 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Colne Brook option was unacceptable, that there was a lack of information about it and that it appeared to conflict with previous descriptions that had been provided.
✓ flood storage sites on habitats and wildlife.
Early findings of the FRA and DIA are presented in Appendix 21.4 and 21.5 of the PEIR respectively. These documents include considerations of likely impacts on drainage and flood risk due to the Project. These documents will be refined as the design of the Project evolves following AEC and the final versions will accompany the Environmental Statement submitted with Heathrow’s DCO Application.
The consultation materials did not address the impacts on local fluvial flood risk beyond that created by the construction of the new runway.
✓
Concerns that the disruption to mitigate flood risk makes the expansion proposals unfeasible, that there was insufficient detail provided, flood storage land take and land use should be reduced, and that flood storage would be closer to communities.
✓
Flood assessments must be integrated with work carried out on the River Thames Scheme and that Heathrow must work with the Environment Agency.
✓ In accordance with the requirements of the ANPS and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Heathrow is committed to ensuring that there will be no increased flood risk to people or property as a result of the Project. There will be no removal of property to facilitate the construction of any flood storage area.
As part of the development of the Project, Heathrow is working with a range of stakeholders, including the Environment Agency. This has included discussion of the River Thames Scheme. The flood risk mitigation measures
Reassurance that residents along the Thames would not be at additional flood risk and specified that any development which will put additional properties, businesses and livelihoods at risk will not be accepted.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
587 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Request for reassurance that any changes to watercourses would not adversely affect flooding of the River Thames or impact the River Thames Scheme for flood alleviation from Datchet to Teddington.
✓ associated with the Project are not geographically or hydraulically connected to the River Thames Scheme, they are entirely independent projects.
With respect to flood impacts downstream of the site (on the River Thames) flood risk design for the Heathrow site is being designed to show no change in flood risk once the rivers return to their current channels downstream of the site, this will serve to protect downstream receptors. The hydraulic flood models used to demonstrate this are adapted from the Environment Agency owned fluvial flood
All watercourses, rivers and streams need to be subject to very careful study and expressed concern that expansion will increase flood risk in the Datchet to Teddington area.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
588 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The parcel of land between the M25, Thorney Mill Road and the railway line includes Thorney Golf Course and will require properties to be removed to allow the construction of a flood storage area. They considered this was unnecessary and unacceptable.
✓ models of this area. The adaption has been to inject more site-specific detail into the models to better refine their representation of the channels and structures around Heathrow. These refined models will be passed to the Environment Agency for review in the summer of 2019.
The early findings of this modelling can be seen in the PEIR Report Appendix 21.4 Flood Risk Assessment. The final version of the FRA will accompany the Environmental Statement submitted with Heathrow's DCO application.
Flood storage options have been refined as part of the evaluation process and the preferred locations of flood storage areas are shown on the Preferred Masterplan. As part of the evaluation process, impacts upon the environment and communities have been considered and minimised as far as practicable, and the responses to Airport Expansion Consultation One have been taken into account.
The full findings of the evaluation process are presented in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR and Chapter 3: Project Alternatives of the PEIR.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
589 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Unable to assess impacts on hydrology, flooding and potential changes in river flows as detailed modelling had not been provided.
✓ In accordance with the requirements of the ANPS and NPPF Heathrow is committed to ensuring that there will be no increased flood risk to people or property as a result of the Project.
The hydraulic flood models used to demonstrate this are adapted from the Environment Agency owned fluvial flood models of this area. The adaption has been to inject more site-specific detail into the models to better refine their representation of the channels and structures around Heathrow. These refined models will be passed to the Environment Agency for review in the summer of 2019.
The early findings of this modelling can be seen in PEIR Appendix 21.4 Flood Risk Assessment. The final version of the FRA will accompany the Environmental Statement submitted with Heathrow's DCO application.
Heathrow should pursue whichever option will provide the greatest flood risk benefits to the airport and the communities within the catchment.
✓ In accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and the ANPS, Heathrow is committed to ensuring that there will be no increased flood risk to people or property as a result of the proposed development.
The new compensatory flood storage areas (where excavation is required) undertake the lowering of high ground to ‘natural floodplain’ level, rather than the ‘over deepening’ of areas of natural floodplain to create ‘hollows’
The rear of The Ridings in Richings Park, the field to the south of the Poynings and under lower Old Slade Lane are already susceptible to flooding.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
590 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Serious floods have taken place on a number of occasions over the last 20 years in the Colnbrook with Poyle Parish area.
✓ adjacent to the river; the intent is not to excavate into the gravel aquifer, but rather impound floodwaters at and above the existing ‘natural’ floodplain level, which will vary site by site.
Baseline survey data in the local areas/parishes has made us aware of the groundwater as a constraint on the design, both in terms of the construction elements but also permeant operation. It is to this end that the outline design is developed to factor in this constraint and describe the principles of design that would be implemented to ensure that groundwater was isolated from the flood storage areas. For example, there has been the identification of a need to line the compensatory storage areas with an impermeable substrate. This is also a mitigation measure on water quality grounds to break a potential pathway between the surface and landfill.
As part of the development of the Project, detailed consideration has been given to the risk of flooding and the potential to increase the risk of flooding, taking into account the existing situation. The early findings of this modelling can be seen in PEIR Appendix 21.4 Flood Risk Assessment. The final version of the FRA will accompany the Environmental Statement submitted with Heathrow's
Objection to any potential expansion plans which will result in greater levels of flood risk.
✓
Iver Parish has a high-water table and is already subject to flooding.
✓
Colnbrook with Poyle Parish flood plain should not be built upon or otherwise diminished.
✓
Detailed assessments will be required and there must be no increase in flood risk as a result of the proposed expansion.
✓
Any proposals must ensure that the risk of flooding is not increased and that the scheme is not detrimental to wildlife and local ecology.
✓
Support the need to ensure that development does not add to flooding risk.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
591 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
All of the options are unnecessary, cost too much, would have unforeseen consequences or would increase the likelihood of flooding.
✓ DCO application.
Concern that each proposal is considered as a separate scheme without an overall view on the impact to surface water movements, drainage and flooding.
✓ Heathrow is applying a holistic approach to the design of blue infrastructure, including the proposed flood storage areas, river diversions and drainage design. Heathrow will ensure that surface water runoff from the full range of development is captured and the appropriate level of treatment is applied prior to discharge to groundwater or local rivers.
Early findings of the FRA and DIA are presented in PEIR Appendices 21.4 and 21.5 respectively. The final version of these documents will accompany Heathrow's DCO application and will include proposals for how surface water will be managed.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
592 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The design will need to carefully consider flood frequency, duration of potential flooding events and habitat resilience to flooding events.
✓ Heathrow has evaluated both river diversions and flood storage options as part of the process to develop the Preferred Masterplan. The full findings of the evaluation can be found in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR.
As part of this evaluation, careful consideration was given to flood frequency, duration of potential flooding events and habitat resilience to the flooding events, as part of the sustainability criteria.
In accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and the ANPS, Heathrow is committed to ensuring that there will be no increased flood risk to people or property as a result of the Project. The current design provides compensatory flood storage for the 1% AEP event plus a 35% allowance for climate change.,
Early findings of the FRA and DIA are presented in PEIR Appendices 21.4 and 21.5 respectively. The final version of these documents will accompany Heathrow's DCO application.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
593 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
A partial catchment transfer upstream from the Colne Brook into the River Colne would help to reduce flood risk downstream and to mitigate the works within the River Colne valley.
✓ Where possible, Heathrow favours the use of natural flood management approaches (for example, the use of riparian corridors). Though the flood risk concerns on the Colne Brook are recognized the suggested movement of flow from the Colne Brook to the Colne would change the flow characteristics of both rivers, potentially impacting downstream ecology. In particular the reduction of flows in the Colne Brook could make its ecology more vulnerable to low flow events and hydromorphological re-engineering of the downstream channel to the Thames could be required to offset this. This could have a potentially bigger impact on a much longer stretch of river. The preferred approach is therefore to provide compensatory flood storage within the Colne Brook catchment, upstream of the site.
Flood management approaches and opportunities have been the subject of engagement with the Environment Agency and local authorities. Heathrow will support local stakeholders in the implementation of natural flood management measures in the catchment upstream of the development.
Further detail on the approach to river diversions and flood storage can be found in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of Updated SDR. The early findings of the FRA are presented in Appendix 21.4 of the PEIR. The final version of the FRA will accompany Heathrow’s DCO application.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
594 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
A flood risk assessment is required in the context of climate change and further research will help save people and property.
✓ The early findings of the FRA, which accounts for the impacts of climate change as part of the assessment (as required by paragraph 5.153 of the ANPS), is presented in Appendix 21.4 Water Environment of the PEIR. The current flood storage design accommodates storage for the 1% AEP event plus a 35% allowance for climate change.
The project will not make commercial sense, or the mitigation will not be undertaken properly.
✓ Heathrow has carefully balanced a range of technical, environmental and economic factors and feedback provided by stakeholders as part of the evaluation process for both river diversions and flood storage.
The full findings of the evaluation process are presented in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR
In accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and the ANPS, Heathrow is committed to ensuring that there will be no increased flood risk to people or property as a result of the Project. The current design provides compensatory flood storage for the 1% AEP event plus a 35% allowance for climate change.
The early findings of the FRA are presented in Appendix 21.4 of the PEIR. The final version of the FRA will accompany Heathrow’s DCO application.
Flooding is a huge local issue and any mitigation will be too expensive and disruptive.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
595 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Concern about the HGV movements necessary to create areas of flood storage and the contaminated nature of some of the sites identified.
✓ As part of the identification and development of appropriate access routes for construction (including the development of flood storage areas) Heathrow has considered a range of factors to ensure that the routes identified minimise disruption to the local road network and local communities as far as practicable. This includes dedicated haul routes including the use of bailley bridges to separate construction site traffic from the local road network as far as practicable.
Heathrow is conscious of concerns regarding HGV movements in the local area. In creating some of the flood storage areas we will explore ways of retaining the clean excavated material on site as far as practicable to reduce HGV movements.
These effects of HGV and other construction vehicle movements will be assessed as part of the EIA, submitted at DCO. A draft Code of Construction Practice (CoCP), and a Preliminary Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan have been produced for AEC outlining Heathrow's current thinking on these matters.
Heathrow has now refined plans for river diversions and flood storage through the evaluation process and have selected a Preferred Masterplan, taking into account responses from Airport Expansion Consultation One. The full findings of the evaluation process are presented in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
596 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Local authorities have not been consulted on potential sites for flood storage and expressed concern that the proposals may impact existing flood alleviation schemes.
✓ As part of the development of the DCO Heathrow has engaged and will continue to engage with Lead Local Flood Authorities through the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) and the Environment Agency to ensure any proposed flood storage locations do not impact upon existing flood alleviation schemes.
Some of the flood storage locations identified are not available and further discussion needs to take place with the most directly impacted local authorities to consider alternatives.
✓
The views of the Environment Agency should be taken into consideration when making the decision.
✓
The Principal aquifer in the gravel deposits which underlie the full extent of both the current airport and proposed extension should be referenced. The gravel aquifer is in direct continuity with the surface water in this area and provides some flood storage capacity.
✓ Connectivity between the rivers and groundwater has been considered in the PEIR water environment assessments, in terms of effects on the quality and quantity of both river flows and the groundwater regime.
Appendix 21.2 Groundwater Impact Assessment presents the preliminary assessment of the potential impacts on the groundwater flow regime during the construction and operation phases of the development. This assessment is supported by the use of a groundwater model representing the Lower Thames Gravels WFD ground water body. This is a bespoke model built by Heathrow for this project,
There is no mention of the connectivity between the rivers and groundwater in the underlying gravel formations and aquifer.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
597 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The Lower Thames Gravels groundwater body is Drinking Water Protected and is very susceptible to contamination and disturbance.
✓ building on existing Environment Agency and other environmental data, plus site-specific hydrogeological data collected by Heathrow to support this application. This model is also able to represent the connection between the groundwater and the rivers, and model the impacts of river diversions. The information on groundwater flow pathways from this model will be used to support the DCO assessments of groundwater quality, building on the initial screening on groundwater quality site baseline data present in PEIR Chapter 14 Land Quality. The further work planned to support the DCO application in this area can be found in PEIR Chapter 14 and Chapter 21 Water Environment.
Infiltration testing of the gravel aquifer is planned to be undertaken local to the Heathrow to understand its potential to help mitigation surface water flood risk from the site.
Any areas of land provided for flood storage must be safeguarded and maintained for the lifetime of the airport to prevent future development.
✓ As part of the development of the Project, Heathrow is engaging with Lead Local Flood Authorities through the HSPG and the Environment Agency to review safeguarding of land provided for flood storage areas, as well as ongoing maintenance.
Heathrow must clearly demonstrate how flood storage areas contribute to the waterscape and biodiversity value of the Park.
✓ Heathrow has developed a landscape strategy to give cohesion to the Project and mitigation measures and to ensure high quality landscape design response, this is published as Chapter 4 of the Preferred Masterplan document.
The flood storage areas are part of the overarching
Flood storage areas must become part of the Green and Blue Infrastructure Plan.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
598 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Enhancement of green and blue infrastructure should be approached as a design objective/principle and not be the consequence of other decisions.
✓ landscape strategy that encourages multifunctional use that is beneficial to both wildlife and people, incorporating biodiversity improvements, and where appropriate encouraging community recreation. Further multi-functional use considers habitat connectivity, biodiversity mitigation, biodiversity offsetting, re-provision of public open space, leisurely cycle and pedestrian pathways as well as commuter pathways, historic setting and improvement of existing Green Belt.
Any proposals must be seen within the wider context of green and blue infrastructure that seeks to maximise the opportunity of these important assets through enhancement, improving access (including facilitating sustainable travel to the airport) and/or compensation/mitigation.
✓
Heathrow’s new flood storage areas should avoid any land that already serves a single or a combination of the six objectives of the Park.
✓ Heathrow has engaged and will continue to engage with Colne Valley Regional Park as part of the Project. A detailed evaluation has been undertaken to identify the proposed flood storage areas shown on the Preferred Masterplan, taking into account a range of factors including responses to Airport Expansion Consultation One. The full findings of the evaluation process for flood storage areas are presented in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR.
In line with some of the Park’s six objectives our flood storage areas are designed to be multifunctional in use and function also as biodiversity habitats and recreational spaces that provide connectivity for people and wildlife to maintain and enhance the landscape and rural setting.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
599 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The diversion of local rivers and flood storage was unnecessary with the existing two-runway airport.
✓ The expansion of Heathrow would be built partly in the flood plain of the Colne Valley rivers resulting in the loss of existing flood storage and the need to divert a number of watercourses.
A detailed evaluation has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations of river diversions and flood storage areas shown on the Preferred Masterplan, taking into account consultation responses and stakeholder feedback.
The full findings of the evaluation process are presented in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR.
As part of this evaluation process due consideration was given to minimising impacts on the environment and communities as far as practicable, as well as ensuring that there will be no increased flood risk to people or property as a result of the Project, in accordance with the ANPS and NPPF.
Local businesses affected by the river diversion/flood storage proposals and future flood risk should receive compensation.
✓ Any local business affected by the Project may be eligible for compensation in line with our property policies. The updated property policies, taking into account consultation feedback, have been published as part of the AEC. Heathrow is committed to ensuring that there will be no increased flood risk to people or property as a result of the Project in accordance with the ANPS and NPPF.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
600 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The options for the river diversion/flood storage should ensure public safety.
✓ The need to ensure public safety has been an important factor in the development and evaluation of options for river diversions and flood storage. A detailed evaluation has been undertaken of all river diversion and flood storage options considering a range of factors, including safety in the Delivery evaluation criteria. The full output of this evaluation can be found in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR.
Glass panels to allow light onto proposed river areas beneath the airport are likely to have minor ecological value but could possibly promote algal growth – impacting oxygen levels downstream.
✓ The design of the CRC continues to be developed and refined in consultation with the Environment Agency and a number of specialists, including expertise in lighting, ecology and air flow in order to maximise the riparian and ecological environment. Physical trials are planned to test and refine the requisite conditions to support riparian growth and ecological requirements. Our current thinking for the lighting design of the CRC can be seen in PEIR Annex 21.3 Covered River Corridor Design Report. It can be seen from this report than glass panels to allow daylight in from outside do not currently form a part of the CRC design
An adequate and enforceable ecological contingency plan should be in place, to address any unforeseen ecological impacts associated with river diversions.
✓ Chapter 8 Biodiversity of the PEIR sets out the preliminary assessment of likely significant effects of the Project, including the proposed river diversions, on wildlife and habitats. It also identifies the environmental measures and principles proposed to mitigate these effects. Appendix
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
601 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
An ecological contingency plan should be in place and that a coordinated approach is needed in relation to river diversions and the wider natural environmental.
✓ 21.3 Preliminary Water Framework Directive Assessment presents an initial screening of potential impact against all WFD features, including the rivers. It also outlines the required mitigation measures, which include river enhancements projects up and downstream of the site. The final assessments will be presented within the Environmental Statement which accompanies Heathrow’s DCO application.
Monitoring and maintenance proposals for the newly diverted rivers and proposed off-site enhancement sites are under development and further information will be provided in the DCO submission. This will take into account ongoing engagement with relevant stakeholders.
There needs to be a commitment from Heathrow to deliver a legacy for the rivers and to take responsibility for the proposed river diversions. This could be achieved through an undertaking which commits to providing an environmental indemnity for any unforeseen consequences as a result of river diversions and their continued management in the future.
✓
Complete unhindered fish migration will be important in preventing ecological impacts outside of the footprint of the project.
✓ The design of the River Diversions and CRC continues to develop and will give full consideration to fish migration requirements.
Chapter 8 Biodiversity of the PEIR and Appendix 21.3 Preliminary Water Framework Direction Assessment consider the impacts of the Project on fish. The final assessments will be included in the Environmental Statement which will accompany Heathrow’s DCO application. To support this work fish monitoring and river corridor surveys are being undertaken to better understand baseline populations, movement and habitats.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
602 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The EIA study area should be reviewed and extended as many of the potential sites lie outside it.
✓ The extent of the study area for the assessment of effects on the water environment was set out in Heathrow’s EIA Scoping Report and confirmed in the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government’s Scoping Opinion adopted in June 2018. This study area is described in Chapter 21 Water Environment (and shown on Figure 21.1) of the PEIR as follows:
1. Local Surface Water Study Area (LSA). Includes the catchments of the WFD surface water bodies within the Colne and Crane operational catchments (as defined in the Thames RBMP) that are intersected by elements of the DCO Project
2. Wider Surface Water Study Area (WSA): Incorporates the wider catchment extent of the Colne and Crane operational catchments beyond the LSA to cover the Colne and Crane catchments from their source to the Thames and allow consideration of any effects propagating either upstream or downstream. It also includes the catchments of the River Thames WFD water bodies into which the Horton Brook, River Colne and River Crane discharge
3. Groundwater Study Area (GWSA). Includes the full lateral extent of the Lower Thames Gravels WFD groundwater body, and underlying strata.
This study area forms the basis for the assessment of likely
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
603 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
significant effects, which is presented in preliminary form in Chapter 21. The final assessment will be presented in the Environmental Statement that accompanies the DCO application. Note that Chapter 21 reiterates the study area proposed in the EIA Scoping Report and subsequently confirmed in the Secretary of State’s Scoping Opinion.
The expansion of the airport must not cause significant deterioration in the quality of the water environment in the Colne Valley.
✓ Heathrow is committed to protecting the quality of the water environment generally including that of the Colne Valley and are working with the Environment Agency and the Colne Valley Regional Park and other stakeholders to deliver effective solutions.
Chapter 21 Water Environment of the PEIR presents the preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the Project on water quality and identifies the environmental measures and principles proposed to mitigate these effects, these are laid out in more detail in Appendix 21.1 Surface Water Quality Assessment. Appendix 21.3 of the PEIR presents the early findings of the WFD assessment, which provides a preliminary assessment of the compliance of the Project with the environmental objectives of the WFD, including water quality.
The final assessments will be included as part of the Environmental Statement that accompanies the DCO application.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
604 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Biodiversity assessments of river impact should not only measure impacts resulting from directly modified areas but also potential impacts on either side of the airport resulting from breakages in ecological linkage.
✓ The methodology for the assessment of effects on ecology and biodiversity were set out in Heathrow’s EIA Scoping Report and confirmed in the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government’s Scoping Opinion adopted in June 2018. This has provided the basis for the preliminary assessment of likely significant effects of the Project on biodiversity, which is reported in Chapter 8 Biodiversity of the PEIR. Chapter 8 Biodiversity includes consideration of the effects arising from a loss of ecological connectivity through severance and effects on downstream habitats. Appendix 21.3 Preliminary Water Framework Directive Assessment presents an initial screening of the potential impacts of the river diversions, including the CRC under the runway, and Annex 21.3A Covered River Corridor Design Report provides more information on the environment design measures which will be incorporated into this structure. The final assessments will be included in the Environmental Statement which accompanies the DCO application.
The PEIR is also accompanied by an Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) Screening Report, within Chapter 8 Biodiversity. The HRA Screening Report seeks to identify the likely impacts of the Project on European sites, including the South West London Water Bodies Special Protection Area, considering whether any impacts are likely to be significant and, therefore whether an Appropriate Assessment is required.
Proximity of the South West London Water Bodies Special Protection Area (SPA) and that the possible disturbance effects of a third runway and the associated aircraft movements must be fully assessed in order to determine whether there is likely to be an impact on the SPA.
✓
Concerns about the impact on ecological habitats and species from the proposals to run rivers through tunnels.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
605 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The routing of Colne Brook should be planned in conjunction with proposals to improve the connectivity of the Colne Valley Park.
✓ Heathrow has developed a Landscape Strategy to give cohesion to the Project and mitigation measures and to ensure high quality landscape design response. This is published as Chapter 4 of the Preferred Masterplan.
The routing of the Colne Brook is part of the Landscape Strategy to provide and improve connectivity for both wildlife and people. Commuter and leisurely cycle and pedestrian pathways, habitat connectivity, biodiversity mitigation and offsetting, re-provisions of public open space and enhancement of existing Green Belt are being developed along the route of the diverted Colne Brook and Colne Valley Park.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
606 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
It is critical that new river routes are feasible and do not impact flow rates across associated river systems. This maintains downstream ecological health and assists with drainage of potential floodwaters.
✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criterion (as summarised in Chapter 4.1 River Diversions and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR has been undertaken to identify the preferred location and routes for the river diversions and compensatory flood storage areas, taking into account consultation responses.
As part of this evaluation, the effects of the river diversions on continuity of flows were considered. The preferred options seek to minimise adverse effects of the river diversions and maintain continuity of flows and associated flow rates wherever practicable, both during low flow and high flow (flood) events.
A preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the Project on aquatic ecology has been undertaken. This is reported in Chapter 8 Biodiversity of the PEIR and in Appendix 21.3 Preliminary Water Framework Directive Assessment, for WFD features. An initial assessment of flood risk can be found in Appendix 21.4 Flood Risk Assessment.
The final assessments will be included within the Environmental Statement submitted with Heathrow’s DCO application.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
607 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Opposition to the diversion of flows from the Colne Catchment into Horton Brook due to a risk of introducing invasive species and the effects on the county ditch if the current flow from Colnbrook West Lake is cut off. Heathrow must address this risk and mitigate for any negative impact.
✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criterion (as summarised in Chapter 4.1, Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR) has been undertaken to identify the preferred location and routes for the river diversions, taking into account the consultation responses. Both Options C1D and C1E included flow diversion channels impacting on Horton Brook, following Airport Expansion Consultation One these options were discontinued. Therefore, the Preferred Masterplan does not involve any diversion of flows from the Colne Catchment into Horton Brook.
The flow to the County Ditch from Colnbrook West Lake will be lost as this lake will be infilled as a part of the runway construction, however, the ditch will still receive local drainage and inflows from the gravel aquifer. Options are being looked at with respect to how to retain the water/amenity value of this feature. These proposals will be developed further through technical work and consultation in the run-up to the DCO application.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
608 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The photographic example of river re-routing in a confined concrete channel that does not meet current policy objectives.
✓ Heathrow continues to develop the design of the modified river channels and will seek to maintain naturalized channels with representative fluvial geomorphological processes. The design will also take into account the requirements of the water environment to allow it to function as naturally as possible and ensure compliance with the WFD.
This is reported in Chapter 21 Water Environment of the PEIR alongside the environmental measures and principles proposed to mitigate these effects. In addition, Appendix 21.3 of the PEIR presents the early findings of the WFD assessment, which provides a preliminary assessment of the compliance of the Project with the environmental objectives of the WFD.
The final assessments will be included within the Environmental Statement submitted with Heathrow’s DCO application.
The Colne Valley contains peat deposits and associated early prehistoric archaeological remains which would be vulnerable to re-contouring operations and changes in the water table.
✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criterion been undertaken to identify the preferred location and routes for the river diversions and flood storage areas, taking into account consultation feedback. As part of this evaluation consideration was given to the historic environment,
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
609 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Hydrological specialists should work with archaeologists to assess and mitigate risk.
✓ archaeological remains and peat deposits, within the sustainability discipline evaluation. The full evaluation results can be found in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage, of the Updated SDR.
Heathrow is undertaking research to predict the nature and extent of surviving archaeological remains across the site, this work, and an initial identification of any potentially significant effects, is presented in PEIR Chapter 13 Historic Environment. This presents an initial assessment of the risk to buried assets from changes in groundwater levels. This assessment will be developed further for ES through the use of the Heathrow groundwater model which represents the hydrogeological conditions below the site. A description of the groundwater model can be found in PEIR Appendix 21.2 Groundwater Modelling Assessment.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
610 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The modified channels will need to allow the full range of natural fluvial geomorphological process to occur.
✓ Heathrow continues to develop the design of the modified river channels and will seek to maintain naturalized channels with representative fluvial geomorphological processes. The design will also take into account the requirements of the water environment to allow it to function as naturally as possible and ensure compliance with the WFD.
This is reported in Chapter 21 Water Environment of the PEIR alongside the environmental measures and principles proposed to mitigate these effects. In addition, Appendix 21.3 of the PEIR presents the early findings of the WFD assessment, which provides a preliminary assessment of the compliance of the Project with the environmental objectives of the WFD.
Public surface water sewers discharge to the local rivers that would be diverted or culverted and that as part of any diversions appropriately sized and designed sewers would need to be reconnected.
✓ Heathrow can confirm that any surface water sewers severed as a result of river diversions or culverting would be reconnected and appropriately designed and sized through discussions with Thames Water.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
611 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Locally occurring channel physical specifications should be used to define the physical characteristics of the modified channels.
✓ Heathrow continue to develop the design of the river channels and seek to maintain naturalised channels with representative fluvial morphological processes to ensure compliance with the WFD, including riparian corridors. The principles for the design of new channels can be found in Chapter 21 Water Environment and are discussed in more detail in Appendix 21.3 Preliminary Water Framework Directive Assessment.
Heathrow will continue to incorporate suggestions into the ongoing design and mitigation work, where appropriate.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
612 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Any work redirecting the River Colne must consider its value for species of freshwater fish and invertebrates and must prevent its flow or character from being altered.
✓ As part of the development of the proposals for the re-routing of the River Colne careful consideration has been given to species of freshwater fish and invertebrates and minimising effects on its flow or character. A detailed evaluation considering a range of criterion, including biodiversity as a sub-criteria of the environmental discipline, has been undertaken to identify the preferred location and routes for the river diversions, taking into account consultation feedback. The full evaluation results can be found in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR.
A preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the Project on aquatic ecology has been undertaken. This is reported in Chapter 8 Biodiversity of the PEIR, further to this a preliminary assessment of impact on WFD species can be found in Appendix 21.3. This latter document includes consideration of fish and invertebrates as well as the hydromorphological character of the River Colne. The final assessments will be included within the Environmental Statement submitted with Heathrow’s DCO application.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
613 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The location of compensatory habitat would require careful planning due to the potential for bird-strike issues to arise and that any compensatory measures must be effective at the time the damage occurs.
✓ The development of green infrastructure, including flood storage areas, has considered wildlife strike risk at each stage of its evolution. The aim is to design green infrastructure that manages wildlife strike risk effectively minimising the need for active measures (for example, netting of ponds). The principles associated with habitat creation (including consideration of wildlife strike risk) are provided in Appendix 8.4 of the PEIR. Further detailed information will be developed for inclusion within the Environmental Statement that will accompany the DCO Application.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
614 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Severance of the Colne catchment should be considered at an ecosystems level to understand the scale of impact and mitigation required.
✓ Heathrow agrees that mitigation on a catchment scale is required to ensure that habitat connectivity can be maintained between the upper Colne catchment and the River Thames, including connections to the Crane catchment.
A preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the Project on habitats and wildlife, including on habitat connectivity, has been undertaken, and environmental measures and principles have been identified to mitigate significant adverse effects. This assessment and the proposed measures and principles are presented in Chapter 8 Biodiversity of the PEIR, further to this a preliminary assessment of impact on WFD species can be found in Appendix 21.3. This latter document includes consideration of fish and invertebrates as well as the hydromorphological character of the River Colne. The final assessments will be included within the Environmental Statement that accompanies Heathrow’s DCO Application.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
615 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
There is an existing lake in the centre of the land north of Iver Lane and this option together with the use of the rest of the land as landscape mitigation would be acceptable.
✓ As part of the development of the Preferred Masterplan Heathrow has explored opportunities for both ecological and landscape mitigation with local authorities (via the HSPG) Natural England, the Colne Valley Regional Park and other stakeholders.
Chapter 8 Biodiversity and Chapter 15 Landscape and Visual Amenity of the PEIR provide a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the Project on landscape, visual amenity, habitats and wildlife. They also set out the environmental measures and principles proposed to mitigate these effects.
Concern that the proposals are likely to have a detrimental effect on watercourses and their habitats and that the measures proposed may be simply a matter of undoing the harm.
✓ Heathrow recognises that the Project will result in some effects on aquatic ecology and will seek to minimise these through appropriate working practices and the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
616 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Flood and wildlife problems were inevitable in all options.
✓ Mitigation will comprise the following:
(1) mitigation embedded into the design to minimise the impact of the scheme, protect ecological connectivity and key species;
(2) environmental enhancements off-airport to compensate for lost habitat, this will include a programme of river restoration up and downstream of the site; and
(3) a programme of monitoring and maintenance for the embedded mitigation and off-site habitats to allow for an adaptive approach to mitigation, where appropriate.
Preliminary assessments of the likely significant effects of the Project on the water environment and biodiversity are set out in Chapter 21 Water Environment and Chapter 8 Biodiversity respectively, furthermore an assessment of potential effects on WFD features is set out in Appendix 21.3. The environmental measures and principles proposed to mitigate these effects are also set out within the respective sections.
Heathrow is committed to ensuring that there is no increased flood risk to people or property as a result of the Project, in accordance with the ANPS and NPPF. Early findings of the FRA are presented as Appendix 21.4 of the PEIR.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
617 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The final version of these assessments will accompany Heathrow's DCO application.
The potential for effects on flooding, wildlife and ecology have been a key consideration in the identification of the preferred locations and routes of the river diversions and flood storage area. The full evaluation results can be found in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
618 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Covered river corridors may become suitable passages for aquatic species but will be inaccessible for other wildlife such as birds, bats, etc. Heathrow must address these concerns, provide suitable alternative habitat and explore whether the extent of land take could be reduced/narrowed.
✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criterion (as summarised in Chapter 4.1, Rivers and Flood Storage, of the Updated SDR has been undertaken to identify the preferred location and routes for the river diversions. Heathrow has sought to minimise the extents of covered river lengths where possible. The Updated SDR also outlines the approach to the final land-take of the scheme which is set out in Chapter 5 of the Preferred Masterplan Document, land take has been minimized wherever possible.
Heathrow continue to develop the design detail of the CRC which will convey rivers under the runway to the east of the M25. The evolving design has been informed by consultation feedback and stakeholder engagement, and will continue to give detailed consideration to accessibility for a range of wildlife.
The CRC would convey both normal flows and flood flows. The river channels in the CRC would be similar multi-stage channels to the open sections of river and would attempt to mimic natural channels with space provided for riparian corridors either side of the channels to facilitate ecological connectivity and channels would only be lined where they flow over contaminated land. The CRC would be designed to be appropriate for key species groups (fish, macroinvertebrates, macrophytes and phytobenthos, otters and bats). Further information on the proposed CRC design can be found in Annex 21.3 Covered River Corridor
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
619 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Design Report.
At this stage, reasonable assumptions about the design have been made to allow a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the CRC with respect to terrestrial ecology, this is contained within Chapter 8 Biodiversity of the PEIR. This chapter also contains information on the approach to habitat reprovision and the effect of the Project on birds and bats.
Maintain as much as possible of what is already present rather than re-creating/creating new habitats.
✓ As part of the development of the Project, Heathrow has sought to minimise the requirement for additional land take wherever practicable.
Ongoing surveys have, and continue, to be undertaken to record habitat type and quality, and these have been used to inform the description of the baseline environment set out in Chapter 8: Biodiversity and Chapter 21: Water Environment of the PEIR. Although land is required for the Project, these surveys have informed the evaluation process (the full findings of which can be found in Chapter 4.1, Rivers and Flood Storage, of the Updated SDR and, where possible the design has sought to retain existing habitats and related landscape features, in preference to creating new ones. This follows the accepted hierarchical mitigation approach of avoid, mitigate, offset, which will continue to be applied as the design of the Project progresses.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
620 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
A large number of lakes to the north west of the airport (including the Queen Mother Reservoir and other smaller wetland sites) are likely to be directly impacted by construction and function as supporting habitat for the birds associated with the SPA.
✓ A number of lakes that support birds associated with the South West London Waterbodies SPA/Ramsar site would either be lost or permanently altered due to the positioning of the proposed runway and associated infrastructure. These lakes support different densities of gadwall and shoveler (the designated features of the SPA/Ramsar site) with most supporting small numbers of birds infrequently.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
621 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Any compensatory habitat provision would have to be situated in close-proximity to the SPA or another SPA which supports the same species interest features.
✓ However, as the complex of lakes taken as a whole supports gadwall and shoveler throughout the majority of the winter period their loss will require mitigation. This mitigation would be in the form of further open water provision, the location of which will be both important in terms of the typical movements the local populations of designated features make and the management of wildlife strike risk associated with open water habitats. As the landscape within which gadwall and shoveler in the area is dynamic (i.e. it has changed frequently over the decades as gravel is extracted, voids infilled or water bodies left to mature to be later exploited recreationally) confidence can be placed within plans designed to deliver effective mitigation.
It is noted that Queen Mother Reservoir supports so few gadwall and shoveler on a sporadic basis that any effects within this area on the South West London Waterbodies SPA/Ramsar site would be negligible. However, it should be noted that the Queen Mother Reservoir is not physically altered by the Project and that behavioural data collected over two winters show that wildfowl using this water body react to less than 1% of the aircraft over-flying it (i.e. they are not sensitive to disturbance from aircraft at Heathrow).
The potential effects of functional habitat loss are assessed within Chapter 8 of the PEIR and in the HRA Screening Report which is provided as Appendix 8.5 to the PEIR.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
622 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Conflicts between river locations, taxiway locations and M25 alignment options need to be carefully considered.
✓ Careful consideration has been given to interactions and conflicts between options for river diversions, flood storage, taxiways, the diversion of the M25 and the M25 junctions. The full evaluation process and an explanation of how these factors have been taken into account is provided within Chapter 4.1, Rivers and Flood Storage, of the Updated SDR.
Residential properties close to the Colne Brook in the vicinity of the emergency access to the M25 do not appear to have been considered.
✓ The residential properties close to Colne Brook have been a key consideration in the development of the preferred locations of river diversions and flood storage, and they will continue to be as design work progresses.
This includes the inclusion of increased conveyance through Colnbrook with localized flood walls within the Village to mitigate the impact of where the project cuts off existing overland flood route through the village.
This was assessed within the Planning & Property evaluation discipline within Chapter 4.1, Rivers and Flood Storage, of the Updated SDR.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
623 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Lowering the M25 next to flood zones may increase flood risk to the M25 compared to its current alignment and this must be designed to ensure this does not occur.
✓ As part of the identification of the Preferred Masterplan, careful consideration has been given to interactions and conflicts between options for river diversions, flood storage, taxiways, the diversion of the M25 and the M25 junctions. The full evaluation process is set out in detail within Chapter 4.1, Rivers and Flood Storage, of the Updated SDR.
Heathrow is committed to ensuring that there will be no increased flood risk to the M25 as a result of the Project, in accordance with the ANPS and NPPF. The early findings of the Flood Risk Assessment, including the results of initial “with development” flood modelling for this area, are included as Appendix 21.4 to the PEIR. This will be developed further for the Environmental Statement for submission with the DCO.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
624 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
The modified river channel and the M25 appear to be side by side which will limit the quality of the wider environment and limit the ability for the rivers to work in morphological active way.
✓ Careful consideration has been given to interactions and conflicts between options for river diversions, the M25 and the M25 junctions. The full evaluation process is set out in detail within the Updated SDR.
The channel in this area is being designed to maximise space for the rivers, though there may be some limited stretches along this reach where the full flood channel will abut the M25 (albeit at a lower level, not representing a flood risk to the road), the 1 in 2 year flood channel will be located away from the M25 embankment, within its riparian zone and will allow for morphological variability. Further design work is ongoing in this space to ensure that the best environmental option for the rivers is chosen, whilst acknowledging the constraints of the M25 and airfield extents.
Further information on the assessment of impact on the river corridors can be found in PEIR Appendix 21.3 Preliminary Water Framework Directive Assessment which includes consideration of hydromorphological impacts.
There is no mention of long-term monitoring to assess and understand the impacts of the project.
✓ Heathrow agree that long-term monitoring will be important to assess and understand the operation of the covered river corridor, potential downstream impacts and associated
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
625 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Total mitigation of potential downstream impact is required during construction and operation and that an effective monitoring program should be put in place.
✓ environmental measures that will be put in place. This will allow long-term adaptive management to be applied to ensure the effectiveness of our mitigation. This approach is also noted in the PEIR and will be further developed for the DCO application.
Improved connectivity will be required through all channels impacted.
✓ Heathrow recognises the need for habitat connectivity. With respect to the rivers mitigation will be focused on the potential breaks on connectivity around new/extended river
Connectivity for terrestrial mammals should be maintained and enhanced.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
626 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Connectivity should be assessed on a water body scale.
✓ crossings and river diversions.
A number of design principles around the embedding of aquatic and terrestrial connectivity into crossings have been presented in PEIR Annex 21.3 Covered River Corridor Design report. These design principles will be adapted to apply to other large river crossings, as appropriate and practicable.
New river corridors will be provided with a riparian zone to safeguard corridors for terrestrial and aquatic north/south connectivity. The construction phasing of these rivers will also consider measures for the protection of north/south connectivity.
An initial assessment of the impacts at a WFD waterbody scale is provided in Appendix 21.3 of the PEIR and Chapter 8 Biodiversity provides more details on impacts on terrestrial ecology. These assessments will be developed further for Environmental Statement for DCO submission.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
627 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Floodplain connectivity should be a guiding principle of the scheme selection process.
✓ Heathrow has considered hydraulic connectivity as a priority selection criterion for each of the flood storage area site options through the evaluation process. This will also be factored into the further design of the flood storage areas for the DCO submission. The full findings of the evaluation process are presented in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR.
In relation to river diversion design, Heathrow will ensure that channels will be designed to the required design flood conveyance requirements. Where it is appropriate to connect the channel and its wider floodplain, this will be included in the design. Where it is not appropriate, multi-stage channels will be designed to facilitate natural processes at low, moderate and high flows contained within the channel as appropriate, as well as flood events that would exceed bankfull. Any required flood defences would be set back from the bank top.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
628 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
No details have been provided that demonstrate how the covered river corridor will promote connectivity to both flora and fauna.
✓ The CRC will convey both normal flows and flood flows. The river channels in the CRC will be similar multi-stage channels to the open sections of river and would attempt to mimic natural channels with space provided for riparian corridors either side of the channels to facilitate ecological connectivity. The CRC will be designed to be appropriate for key species groups (fish, macroinvertebrates, macrophytes and phytobenthos, otters and bats). CRC design includes consideration of appropriate lighting design to promote connectivity and plan growth.
PEIR Annex 21.3 Covered River Corridor Design Report presents our current thinking on the CRC design for each of the elements discussed above.
The proposals to culvert the Colne, Wraysbury, The Duke of Northumberland and Longford Rivers is contrary to the provisions of the Water Framework Directive.
✓ Heathrow is committed to protecting the quality of the water environment and are working with the Environment Agency and other stakeholders to deliver effective solutions. A number of meetings have been held with the Environment Agency and HSPG to discuss the WFD and the CRC in particular and the CRC will have embedded within it design measures to promote WFD connectivity.
The CRC will convey both normal flows and flood flows. The river channels in the CRC will be similar multi-stage channels to the open sections of river and would attempt to mimic natural channels with space provided for riparian corridors either side of the channels to facilitate ecological connectivity. The CRC will be designed to be appropriate
The scale and nature of development is likely to have significant impacts on the waterbodies classified under European Directive 2000/60/EC. The expansion project should not result in the deterioration of any of the relevant waterbodies and a detailed Water Framework Directive compliance assessment will be required.
✓
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
629 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
There is tension between expansion and the objectives of the Water Framework Directive.
✓ for key species groups (fish, macroinvertebrates, macrophytes and phytobenthos, otters and bats). CRC design includes consideration of appropriate lighting design to promote connectivity and plant growth.
PEIR Annex 21.3 Covered River Corridor Design Report presents our current thinking on the CRC design for each of the elements discussed above.
Heathrow’s approach to the water environment will be designed to ensure compliance with the WFD. Further details of Heathrow’s proposed approach and associated effects are presented in the preliminary WFD Assessment included as Appendix 21.3 to the PEIR. This assessment will be updated for the DCO application.
Any river put into a culvert loses water quality and firmer commitments to replacing lost areas were required.
Costs must not be incurred by airline passengers or added to the Regulated Asset Base of the airport.
✓ The Project is being carefully budgeted to ensure optimal levels of viability. Heathrow remains committed to deliver the Project whilst keeping the airport charges close to 2016 levels.
Suggest the use of Natural Capital Accounting which would provide a fuller picture of the cost-benefit analysis.
✓ Heathrow is considering the use of the natural capital concept as one of the ways to show the value of nature to society and the effects the Project will have on the local environment. The use of monetary values in this way would not be intended to put a price tag on nature, but would aim to demonstrate one of many services that the local natural environment provide to communities.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
630 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
If watercourse management options included the extraction of minerals, consultation must take place with the relevant Minerals Planning Authority.
✓ Heathrow notes this requirement and, as with any mineral extraction requirements for the Project as a whole, if any of the watercourse management options include the extraction of minerals consultation will take place with the relevant Minerals Planning Authority.
Rivers should be defined as having high distinctiveness and corresponding condition assessments should utilise a wide suite of techniques which measure the biological quality.
✓ As described in the biodiversity offsetting strategy all rivers are automatically classified as of being of high distinctiveness. River habitats surveys and river corridor surveys have been undertaken to understand baseline conditions, this is supported by a suite of water quality monitoring.
The biodiversity offsetting strategy (Appendix 8.5 of the PEIR) confirms that all rivers, regardless of their level of modification, are described as being of high distinctiveness within the biodiversity offsetting metric. This, along with an approach to condition assessment based on a range of indicators used for the WFD has been discussed with the Environment Agency.
Preliminary assessments of the likely significant effects of the Project on the water environment and aquatic ecology have been undertaken. These assessments are presented within Chapter 21 Water Environment and Chapter 8 Biodiversity of the PEIR respectively.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
631 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
There is some inconsistency in how the consultation documents discuss the treatment of rivers.
✓ Our river proposals are set out clearly in Chapter 4.1, Rivers and Flood Storage, of the Updated SDR, as well as, Chapter 21, Water Environment of the PEIR.
It is assumed that the proposals will not detrimentally affect access and egress to any of the assets in the AIPUT portfolio.
✓ Minimising effects and existing land uses, properties and businesses has been and will continue to be an important consideration as the design detail of the proposed river diversions and flood storage develops further.
The current alignment of the rivers and locations of flood storage areas are included in Chapter 4.1, Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR.
If local authorities seek to develop and fund wider improvements, they must not cause any delay or add additional risk to airport operations or its users.
✓ Heathrow will work with the local planning authorities to minimise the impacts of the Project and ensure that any wider improvements being promoted by the local authorities do not result in delays to the Project of affect airport operations.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
632 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Objection to the plans including the planned reed beds in Stanwell Moor, Stanwell or West Bedfont.
✓ Heathrow continue to consider options for surface water drainage and management, including the use of reed beds.
The Preferred Masterplan includes reed beds at the Wetland Facility at Mayfield Farm and options for reedbeds west of Stanwell Moor, to the north of the A4 near Colnbrook and the north of the new runway near Saxon lake. A justification for these locations and further details can be found in Chapter 4.2, Drainage and Pollution Control, of the Updated SDR. The selected reedbed areas will be designed sensitively, to fit in with their surrounding environment.
Early findings of the DIA are presented as Appendix 21.5 of the PEIR. The final version of the DIA will accompany Heathrow's DCO application.
Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation
633 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report
Issue Consultee26
Heathrow Response PC MC WC
Sustainable Urban Drainage techniques (SUDs) should be considered rather than causing risks to birds, SINCs, scheduled monuments, agricultural land and recreational facilities.
✓ Heathrow operates an existing SuDs system which will be expanded to incorporate the new runway and associated airside infrastructure.
Roads and other development outside the airport boundary will be served by their own dedicated SuDs, in compliance with Policy 5.13 of the London Plan and other similar requirements from local planning policy and DMRB guidance. These systems will capture and attenuate surface water before releasing sustainably back into the environment in accordance with the London Plan SuDs Hierarchy.
PEIR Appendix 2.15 Drainage Impact Assessment considers how the SuDS hierarchy will be applied at the sites. The final version of the DIA will accompany Heathrow's DCO application.
Find all the consultation information on our website aec.heathrowconsultation.com
Email any questions about the consultation to [email protected]
There are lots of ways you can contact us or find out more
Follow @LHRconsultation to stay up to date on event details
Call our freephone number 0800 307 7996 (open Monday to Friday, 9am-6pm)
If you would like a large text or alternative format of this document, please contact 0800 307 7996 or email [email protected]