LONDON CITY AIRPORT LIMITED

CITY AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

STATEMENT OF CASE

Appeal against the refusal of planning permission of application 13/01228/FUL seeking full planning permission for new airfield infrastructure and extended passenger facilities at London City Airport

15 MAY 2015

2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This document comprises London City Airport Limiteds (the Airport) Statement of Case for

an Appeal against the refusal of planning application reference 13/01228/FUL which seeks full

planning for new airfield infrastructure and extended passenger facilities (referred to as the

City Airport Development Programme, or CADP1).

1.2 On 3 February 2015 the London Borough of Newham (LBN) resolved to grant planning

permission for the proposals subject to the imposition of planning conditions, completion of

a Section 106 agreement, referral to the Mayor of London and referral to the Secretary of

State.

1.3 On 26 March 2015 the Mayor of London (MoL) directed LBN to refuse planning permission

for the following reason:

Application 13/01228/FUL is contrary to London Plan policies 6.6 (Aviation) and 7.15 (Reducing and managing noise, improving and enhancing the acoustic environment and promoting appropriate soundscapes), as it does not adequately mitigate and manage its adverse noise impacts.

1.4 The MoL reached this decision against a recommendation from his officers not to direct

refusal. At the same time the MoL advised that he did not wish to intervene in a related

outline planning application for a hotel at the Airport (LPA ref. 13/01373/OUT). LBN issued a

refusal notice for Application 13/01228/FUL on 12 May 2015 and is expected shortly to grant

outline planning permission for the hotel (Application 13/01373/OUT).

1.5 The infrastructure proposed in the CADP1 is essential to make best use of the existing runway

and is urgently required. The Airport considers that the proposals are acceptable in planning

terms, would not be contrary to the London Plan Policies cited and the noise impacts can be

adequately mitigated and managed. This view was also reached by LBN when it resolved to

grant planning permission and the MoLs own Officers.

1.6 This document comprises the Airports Statement of Case. It explains why the Airport

considers, that taking into account the policies in the development plan and other material

considerations, particularly in respect of noise impacts and mitigation, planning permission

should be granted for application 13/01228/FUL. This document also includes a summary

description of the existing Airport site, a summary of the proposals and overview of the

relevant background to the proposals.

3

2.0 CONTEXT a) The Airport and its Surroundings

2.1 The existing Airport site extends to an area of 48.5 hectares. The Airport includes the runway,

apron, main passenger terminal, the corporate aviation building (or Jet Centre) and other

operational buildings. The Airport primarily serves the business market.

2.2 The runway is surrounded by water in the Royal Albert Dock (circa 30 hectares) and King

George V (KGV) Dock (circa 24 hectares). Aircraft take off and land in both easterly runway

(09) direction and westerly runway (27) direction, depending on the direction of the prevailing

wind; the majority of the time runway 27 is in use. There are currently 18 stands for

operational scheduled aircraft, including 4 larger stands to the east of the existing Terminal

that are capable of accommodating the largest aircraft currently operating at the Airport

including the Airbus A318 (stands 21-24).

2.3 There is a terminal forecourt area to the south of the existing terminal building. To the east

of this is short and long stay car parking and City Aviation House (the Airport main office

accommodation). Land between the car parking areas and the A117 Woolwich Manor Way is

largely vacant or underutilised.

2.4 Companies located at the Airport employed 1,900 full time equivalent jobs in 2012 (2,055 total

full-time and part-time employees). A further 570 full time equivalent jobs through supply

chain effects and induced effects in the local area. The contribution to the local economy is

110million of Gross Value Added and 2,470 full time equivalent jobs. In 2012, of the

employees providing information about their address, 27% resided in LBN and 61% lived in 11

East London Boroughs.

2.5 The Royal Docks ward immediately to the south of the Airport is one of the most deprived in

London. The Royal Docks (including the Airport) lie within an Opportunity Area in the London

Plan. In 2012 land to the north, east and west of the Airport was designated as an Enterprise

Zone in order to act as a catalyst to regeneration.

4

b) Planning History

2.6 The full planning history for the airport is described in the July 2013 CADP Planning Statement

(Table 2.3).

2.7 In July 2009 LBN granted permission (ref. 07/01510/VAR) to allow up to 120,000 annual

aircraft movements (subject to the operation of noise factored movements and daily and

other limits) (The 2009 Permission). The S106 Agreement accompanying the permission

superseded a number of previous agreements and, together with the consolidated planning

conditions attached to the 2009 Permission, control the operation of the existing Airport from

a planning perspective.

2.8 The Airports operational hours are limited principally to the daytime period. No aircraft are

permitted to fly at the Airport between 22:00 and 06:30 during the week, or between 13:00

on Saturdays and 12:30 on Sundays, and additional limits apply on public holidays (condition

6a, 6b, 6c).

2.9 A stringent daytime noise control regime is also in place which, using a noise factoring regime,

controls the noisiness and number of aircraft permitted to operate. Condition 8 of the 2009

Permission imposes an annual limit on air traffic movements (ATMs) (i.e. take-offs and

landings) of 120,000 and also imposes an annual limit of noise factored movements (NFM)

of 120,000. In short, this ensures control over the total number of take-offs and landings of

aircraft and control over the number of noisy aircraft using the Airport.

2.10 As set out in the S106 agreement accompanying the 2009 Permission, the airport operates a

sound insulation scheme which has the lowest (most stringent) daytime threshold for

eligibility for any UK airport (starting at 57dB LAeq,16h). The sound insulation scheme has

two Tiers which can be summarised as follows:

x Within the 57dB LAeq,16h noise contour, Tier 1 currently offers secondary glazing and mechanical ventilation to dwellings and other sound insulation measures for noise-

sensitive public buildings;

x Within the 66dB LAeq,16h noise contour, Tier 2 offers a higher standard of secondary glazing or a contribution towards high acoustic performance double-glazing, as well as

other sound insulation measures for noise-sensitive public buildings.

5

2.11 The S106 agreement also proposed to replace the noise factored movement (NFM) system

with a new Aircraft Categorisation Review (ACR) system. This system has the objective of

further incentivising quieter aircraft to use the Airport. The ACR provides for a budget of noise

Quota Count (QC) points to be established, against which the Airport (in conjunction with the

airlines) would manage their operations in the future. The Airport and LBN have been in

discussions to progress the ACR for the last few years and the approach and underpinning

technical work are still under discussion.

6

3.0 THE CADP APPLICATIONS 3.1 On 26 July 2013 the Airport submitted two related planning applications for CADP (full

descriptions of each development proposal are provided on the application forms):

CADP1 A detailed application for new airfield infrastructure and extended passenger

facilities at the Airport (LPA ref. 13/01228/FUL); and

CADP2 An outline application for a new Hotel with up to 260 bedrooms (LPA ref.

13/01373/OUT).

3.2 In summary, CADP1 sought full planning permission for the creation of a new, full length

parallel taxiway to increase the peak hour capacity of the runway at London City Airport; four

refurbished and seven additional aircraft stands to accommodate next generation aircraft;

extensions to the existing terminal building to accommodate the predicted flow of passengers

and the reorganisation of the terminal forecourt and additional car parking.

3.3 CADP1 is urgently needed to facilitate the introduction of the next generation of aircraft which

are, in comparative terms, quieter and emit less CO2 per flight/passenger and also extend the

airports connectivity to more distant destinations.

3.4 CADP1 does not propose to increase the number of permitted aircraft movements and the

Airport will continue to operate up to a maximum limit of 120,000 movements per annum

(subject to noise controls) approved by the London Borough of Newham in 2009. No changes

are proposed to the airports operational hours.

3.5 The overall site area for CADP1 is 60.1 hectares and includes land outside of the Airports

existing operational boundary, including 7.5 hectares of the King George V Dock which is

decked over to provide the platform for the part of the parallel taxiway and aircraft stands.

3.6 Non-material amendments to the application plans for CADP1 may be made prior to the

exchange of evidence which will be subject to public consultation.

3.7 Application CADP2 sought outline planning permission for a hotel with up to 260 bedrooms

and has been designed to complement enhancements delivered by CADP1. The application

site sits within the larger application site for CADP1.

7

3.8 Together the applications provided an holistic vision for the Airport for the next 10 years and

beyond and would generate approximately 1,500 jobs (direct and indirect) and a net addition

of 51 million of GVA. As indicated above, outline planning permission is expected to be

granted for CADP2 shortly.

3.9 The applications were subject to an extended consultation process which initially ended on 18

December 2013. LBN then sought further comments from statutory consultees and members

of the public following receipt of further environmental information as listed in Table 3.1.

3.10 CADP1 was revised in March 2014 in order to refine the design of the proposals, in part to

respond to a letter from LBN dated 21 January 2014 which provided feedback from the

Councils Design Review Panel. Relative to the proposals initially submitted, the revised

drawings showed the overcladding of existing Terminal faade, modified the cladding

materials and layout for Arrivals Concourse part of the terminal building and showed minor

changes to the terminal forecourt.

3.11 In addition to the application plans, the applications were accompanied by a comprehensive

suite of supporting documentation. Both application proposals were described and assessed

together in an Environmental Statement (ES) and its Non-Technical Summary (NTS), a Need

Statement, Design and Access Statement, Planning Statement and other documentation. The

scope of these documents was agreed with LBN prior to submission.

3.12 LBN appointed specialist consultants to review technical aspects of the submission including

the need case and environmental impacts. Their review informed LBNs consideration of the

proposals and resulted in requests for further environmental information on three occasions

during LBNs consideration of the proposals (see Appendix 1).

3.13 LBNs 3 February 2015 Strategic Planning Committee Report was informed by its consultants

audit of the proposals. The report by the Amec Foster Wheeler consortium dated 13 January

2015 concluded that, taking into account further information, the noise assessment was

comprehensive and the extent of adverse noise effects is not considered to be significant. It

also concluded that air quality impacts were not significant and did not raise any significant

concerns in relation to climate change, sustainability and health.

3.14 To ensure assessments are up to date, it is proposed to update the ES and review passenger

and aircraft forecasts prior to the exchange of evidence.

8

4.0 PLANNING POLICY

a) Aviation Policy Framework (March 2013)

4.1 The Governments Aviation Policy Framework (APF) is a significant material consideration.

The Airport considers that the CADP responds directly to key requirements of the APF,

particularly the need to make better use of existing runways at all UK airports and the

requirements for targeted noise mitigation measures.

4.2 Paragraph 1.60 of the APF identifies a series of key short term objectives for a vibrant aviation

sector which are directly relevant to the CADP application proposals:

Making best use of existing capacity to improve performance, resilience and the

passenger experience;

Encouraging new routes and services; and

Better integrating airports with the wider transport network.

4.3 The CADP proposals in conjunction with proposed conditions and S106 obligations respond to

the Governments stated overall policy on aviation noise is to limit and, where possible,

reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise (paragraph

3.12). The proposals will facilitate the introduction of a quieter aircraft fleet and will deliver

enhanced noise insulation for residents.

4.4 Care has been taken to assess, and where appropriate mitigate, the noise impact of the

proposals in the context of Paragraph 3.17 of the APF which states that the Government will

treat the 57dB LAeq 16 hour contour as the average level of daytime aircraft noise marking

the approximate onset of significant community annoyance. The APF goes on to state that all

people within this contour will experience significant adverse effects from aircraft noise and

notes how people outside the contour may also consider themselves annoyed by aircraft

noise. The CADP ES assesses noise in a range of ways and responds directly to Paragraph 3.19

of the APF which recommends that Airports use average noise contours together with

alternative measures to reflect how aircraft noise is experienced in different locations.

4.5 Furthermore, the CADP proposals are considered entirely consistent with paragraphs 3.36 to

3.41 of the APF which relate to Noise Insulation and Compensation. Paragraph 3.39 of the

APF states that as a minimum Government would expect airport operators to offer financial

9

assistance towards acoustic insulation to residential properties which experience an increase

in noise of 3dB or more which leaves them exposed to levels of noise of 63dB LAeq, 16h or

more. As explained elsewhere in this statement of case, the Airport already implements a

scheme with a lower 57 dB LAeq, 16hr threshold and this is proposed to be enhanced

significantly with the implementation of CADP as discussed further in section 6 below.

b) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

4.6 The Governments NPPF is also a significant material consideration. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the

NPPF state that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of

sustainable development and that there are three dimensions to sustainable development:

economic, social and environmental. The NPPF describes the presumption in favour of

sustainable development (paragraph 14) which paragraph 197 confirms must be taken into

account in decision making.

4.7 The NPPF states that local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive

way to foster the delivery of sustainable development (para. 186). Additionally, decision

takers should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible and

local planning authorities should work proactively to secure developments that improve the

economic, social and environmental conditions of an area (para. 187).

4.8 In relation to Airports, paragraph 33 requires planning authoritys plans to take into account

their growth and role in serving business and other needs.

c) Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE)

4.9 Paragraph 3.13 of the APF explains that its policy objectives are consistent with the NPSE

(2010). Chapter 8 of the NPSE provides discussion on the various effect levels and specifically;

NOEL (No Observed Effect Level), LOAEL (Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level) and SOAEL

(Significant Observed Adverse Noise Effect Level). The policy states that it is not possible to

have a single objective noise based measures that define SOAEL that are applicable to all

sources of noise in all situations. In describing the concepts of noise, the NPSE aligns SOAEL

to the first aim of the NPSE which is to Avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality

of life from environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of

Government policy on sustainable development. The concept of LOAEL is aligned with the

second aim of the NPSE, which is to Mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and

10

quality of life from environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of

Government Policy on sustainable development.

d) Development Plan

4.10 The London Plan (consolidated with Alterations Since 2011), March 2015, represents the

upper tier of the development plan and sets out the Mayor of Londons Strategic approach to

development in the capital. The Airport lies within the Royal Docks and Waterfront

Opportunity Area (Map 2.4 and Policy 2.13). Annex 1. (p27) acknowledges that future growth

at the Airport is anticipated.

4.11 Policy 6.6 (Aviation) of the London Plan is the main policy covering aviation and the first policy

which the Mayor of London has cited as a reason for refusal. Part D of the policy states that

development proposals affecting airport operations or patterns of aircraft traffic (particularly

those involving increases in the number of aircraft movements) should give a high priority to

sustainability and take full account of environmental impacts (particularly noise and air

quality). Policy 7.15 is the Mayor of Londons second reason for refusal. Of particular

relevance to the CADP proposals is the requirement for development proposals to, amongst

other matters, mitigate and minimise the potential adverse impacts of noise on, from, within,

as a result of, or in the vicinity of new development without placing unreasonable restrictions

on development. The Airport considers that the CADP proposals comply with both of these

policies.

4.12 Policy 7.30 (Londons Canals and other Rivers and Waterspaces) seeks to protect and promote

their vitality, attractiveness and historical interest, with Part A of the policy seeking to prevent

their partial or complete infilling and promoting their use for transport. The Royal Docks sit

within the Blue Ribbon Network (BRN) where Policy 7.27 of the London Plan states that

development proposals should enhance the use of the Blue Ribbon Network and that

proposals that result in the loss of existing facilities for waterborne sport and leisure should

be refused, unless suitable replacement facilities are provided. Neither of these policies have

been cited as reason for refusal.

4.13 The Newham Core Strategy (2012) represents the lower tier of the Development Plan. Policy

INF1 of the Newham Core Strategy provides clear and specific support for optimising capacity

at the Airport. Indeed, this support is only qualified for proposals which exceed the existing

120,000 aircraft movements limit, something which is not proposed by CADP1.

11

e) Other Policy documents

4.14 There are various other non-statutory planning documents to which reference will be made.

12

5.0 THE NEED FOR THE PROPOSALS AND THE BENEFITS

a) Need

5.1 The CADP will increase the number of aircraft parking stands at London City Airport from 18

to 25. At the same time, it will provide a step change in passenger facilities with eastern and

western extensions to the terminal building and other infrastructure ensuring that the

predicted circa 6 million passengers by 2023 will be accommodated in high quality buildings

where delays are minimised. No changes are proposed by CADP1 to the permissible number

of aircraft movements or opening times at the Airport.

5.2 The rationale for the project is threefold. First, the Airports runway is almost full at peak

periods. To deliver new routes and increase capacity on existing ones, new peak runway slots

and additional stands are required. Without them business travellers (who represent the

majority of passengers at the Airport) will be unable to travel in morning and evening periods.

The proposals address this constraint by providing a parallel taxilane, increasing peak runway

utilisation and new stands.

5.3 Second, new generation aircraft are getting physically larger and will not fit on all of the

current aircraft parking stands. Airlines have ordered the Bombardier CS100 which is

programmed to begin operations in 2016.

5.4 Third, larger aircraft and increased demand for business travel means more passengers are

predicted to use the Airport. However, the current Terminal infrastructure is nearing capacity.

Without extra space in an extended terminal, passenger experience and level of service at the

Airport would deteriorate and ultimately growth would be constrained. The infrastructure is

therefore urgently needed.

5.5 Whilst the 2009 Permission allows up to 120,000 annual aircraft movements (subject to the

operation of noise factored movements and daily and other limits), it does not provide the

necessary infrastructure to make best use of the existing runway. The submission of those

proposals in 2007 pre-dated fundamental changes to the airline industry arising in part from

the recession and technology advancements. It was thought at that time that up to 3.9 million

passengers could be accommodated from 95,000 scheduled movements together with 15,000

Jet Centre Movements. Forecasts now show a requirement to accommodate 6 million

passengers from 107,000 schedule movements (in generally larger aircraft operating primarily

at and around peak periods) and 3,920 Jet Centre Movements by 2023.

13

5.6 Failure to allow the Airport to expand its infrastructure, to enable it to handle its consented

movements, would impact adversely on business travel demand, particularly inbound

business travellers to the City of London and Canary Wharf. Use of alternative airports would

be costly in terms of lost productive working time, which would have damaging economic

implications.

5.7 The need for the number of proposed stands and increased passenger terminal capacity has

been verified by LBNs consultants CSACL (report dated 13 January 2015). The terminal

capacity assessment in the CADP Need Statement (Figures 4.3 and 4.4) demonstrates a

requirement for the Western Terminal extension at approximately 4 million passengers per

annum and for the new Eastern Terminal Extension at around 5 million passengers per annum.

5.8 As shown in the Need Statement (Figure 4.10), the Airport will be constrained by stand

capacity in the very near future and by runway capacity by 2016 on the basis of the anticipated

rate of introduction of next generation aircraft. Without the timely delivery of new

infrastructure existing constraints will shortly begin to inhibit investment.

5.9 The CADP will help to facilitate the introduction of the next generation of aircraft which are,

in comparative terms, quieter and emit less CO2 per flight/passenger and also have the

potential to reach new destinations.

5.10 Without the CADP infrastructure the Airport would grow more slowly in a piecemeal way and

could only accommodate around 4.4 million passengers. Without the proposals, there would

be no new high quality buildings and infrastructure and the benefits of the CADP, including

additional connectivity, jobs and economic growth, would not be delivered.

b) Benefits

5.11 Accommodating new passengers will allow the Airport to make a more valuable contribution

to the economy of the local area around the Royal Docks as well as to the wider economy of

London. The Airport is highly valued by its business users and companies across East London

and the City and is an important part of making London an ideal base for European and Global

operations. As explained in the Need Statement accompanying the proposals, in 2012, an

estimated 239 million worth of business travel passed through the Airport.

14

5.12 The Airport has not only been an important catalyst in making east London a viable and

attractive place to do business and to visit, it has been and continues to be an important

gateway for overseas visitors. Based on analysis of CAA Survey Data, around 540,000 business

visitors made trips to London through the Airport in 2012, contributing an estimated 347

million in consumer expenditure to the economy.

5.13 The economy of Newham has been underperforming relative to the rest of the London for

some time so the additional 910 FTE jobs which would be created by CADP would be

particularly valuable as would the contribution to local GVA of 51 million. In addition, a

growing network of services at the Airport will enhance wider initiatives to regenerate the

Royal Docks. Its role as a major contributor to the wider economy of London would be

damaged if the development of services was unable to keep pace with the growth of the

economy overall.

5.14 In the UK the Airport currently has the highest proportion of passengers using public transport

(69%). This is expected to rise to 72% with CADP. The proposals will provide major

improvements to transport infrastructure at the Airport including a new passenger forecourt

and taxi feeder park.

5.15 New infrastructure and passenger facilities will help to leverage investment in the adjoining

Enterprise Zone. The importance of the accessibility which the Airport brings is evidenced by

the recent attraction of substantial foreign investments into the area, including the proposed

development of the Asian Business Park at the Royal Albert Docks, the development of the

headquarters of the Indian Sahara Group at the University of East London at the Royals and

the proposed development of an innovation and technology centre at Silvertown Quays.

5.16 Currently land to the south of the Airport is underused and mostly vacant. The CADP will bring

forward airport related development in the medium term and provide help to act as a catalyst

for further regeneration in the longer term. The GLA and LBNs Royal Docks Parameters for

Development vision document sees the Airport's growth as critical to the regeneration of the

local area.

15

6.0 AIR NOISE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

6.1 The CADP ES has assessed noise in a range of ways to ensure there is a comprehensive

understanding of the likely effects. Various sensitivity analyses have also been undertaken

having regard to different potential fleet mixes. In respect of air noise, the ES concludes that,

when comparing the With and Without development cases in 2023, there is only a slight

increase in predicted noise levels resulting from the proposed CADP, generally in the range of

0.5 to 1.0 dB, giving rise to a negligible impact when comparing the two scenarios directly.

Modern aircraft, which can be introduced because of CADP, will be quieter in operation. As a

result, beyond 2023, as the proportion of more modern aircraft increases at the Airport with

the proposed CADP in place, the air noise is predicted to reduce.

6.2 The MOLs reasons for directing refusal of planning permission for CADP1 relate solely to noise

and it is evident that the GLA were primarily concerned about the appropriateness of the noise

mitigation package rather than the noise impacts in isolation. The MoLs Stage 2 report states

that noise matters were satisfactorily addressed with the exception of the sound insulation

scheme and, in particular the noise contour that would be used to trigger noise insulation of

residential properties. Paragraph 17 of the MoLs Stage 2 report states that a significant

number of properties that fall outside of the current noise mitigation scheme would

experience increases in noise when compared to the airports current operations.

6.3 Prior to the MoLs direction being issued, discussions took place with the GLA and their

advisors, who sought to extend the eligibility for noise insulation to a single mode noise

contour, rather than an average mode contour which is the approach adopted at other UK

Airports. The effect of the GLAs request would have been to significantly increase the number

of residents eligible for sound insulation and the Airport does not consider such a request

necessary or reasonable. In policy terms the APF (paragraph 3.39) expects airport operators

to offer financial assistance towards acoustic insulation where residential properties increase

noise by 3dB or more which leaves them exposed to levels of noise of 63 dB LAeq, 16h; which

apply in respect of the CADP proposals. The Airports position is summarised in paragraph

18 of the MoL Stage 2 response as follows:

The airport however has not agreed to use a different noise contour as the trigger for its noise insulation scheme and instead contends that:

x It already operates one of the most stringent airport noise management frameworks in the UK.

16

x The GLA's request is neither necessary nor reasonable, not least as Newham Council found the controls and mitigation measures it resolved to put in place to be sufficient.

x The Mayor and his officers should acknowledge that the airport already has planning permission to increase flight movements from the current circa 75,000 per year to 120,000 per year, and that the noise implications of this permission were deemed to be acceptable at the time and should therefore be used as the starting point to assess the noise impacts of the current application.

x A further set of additional noise controls would be put in place should planning permission be granted.

x The contour it currently uses as the trigger for noise insulation is considered to be the most appropriate to use; the GLA suggested contour has no precedent at any other UK airport, and is not an approach advocated by Government policy or guidance.

x The cost of extending its noise insulation scheme to the 8,500 dwellings it calculates would be newly eligible under the GLA's preferred noise contour would be in the region of 20 million, with a further 7 million arising from permitted but not yet built developments within the affected area.

6.4 These concerns were recognised by GLA officers, with the following paragraph of the Stage 2

response stating as follows:

19 .. all other Mayoral noise concerns have been satisfactorily addressed by the airport and the Council; and as a consequence, the noise impacts of the scheme are considered acceptable in strategic planning terms given the controls and mitigation that Newham Council put in place originally and the additional measures the airport and the Council have subsequently agreed to.

6.5 The Airport will continue to operate and, where appropriate, seek to improve the various

noise mitigation measures in place at the Airport. These have successfully ensured that noise

effects to the local community have been, and will continue to be, controlled to acceptable

levels. As part of CADP the Airport offered to improve still furter its current sound insulation

scheme by paying 100% of the cost of thermal double glazing for single glazed dwellings which

become eligible for the First Tier Scheme and 100% of the cost of high acoustic performance

double glazing for dwellings which become eligible for the Second Tier Scheme.

6.6 In addition to existing controls, in resolving to grant permission LBN sought to introduce the

following improved noise control measures for CADP:

17

Aircraft movements capped to 111,000 per annum draft condition 24

Hourly cap on aircraft movements to 45 draft condition 23

Defined noise contour area to limit noise impacts and requirement to seek to reduce the

contour over time draft condition 31

Enhanced air noise sound insulation scheme, offering 100% funding for dwellings most

affected by noise condition 32, 112/ draft Section 106 Agreement

Implementation of the Aircraft Categorisation Review prior to commencement of CADP in

order to ensure that incentives for quieter aircraft to use the airport are in place as soon

as the scheme in implemented draft condition 18

x Air noise mitigation scheme to compensate landowners and developers for costs of increased insulation against aircraft noise at dwellings and Public Buildings - draft

Section 106 Agreement

x Operation of new noise monitoring system with additional noise monitors draft condition 50.

6.7 Other planning conditions proposed by LBN would also control ground noise from Aircraft

(e.g. conditions 29 and 62 inclusive) and construction noise (conditions 106 to 112 inclusive).

6.8 Prior to the MoL issuing the direction to refuse planning permission, it was agreed with the

GLA and LBN that the Airport would provide a compensatory payment of 500,000 towards

the enhancement of open spaces located within the forecast 57dB average mode noise

contour.

18

7.0 OTHER IMPACTS

7.1 This section summarises the other chapters of the ES most relevant to the principal planning

considerations. None have been raised as reasons for refusal. Both LBN and the MoL were

satisfied with the identified impacts and, where appropriate, mitigation proposed.

a) Other Noise

7.2 The CADP works will change the road traffic noise levels around the airport. A reduction in

road traffic noise is predicted at some receptors. An increase is predicted at others. With the

exception of properties on Woodman Street changes in road traffic flow are predicted to

generate a change of less than 1.6 dB. The ES concludes that this is a minor adverse impact

when considered in the short term, and a negligible adverse impact over the long term.

Properties on Woodman Street, which is the closest residential area to the new access road,

will be exposed to a major increase in road traffic noise.

7.3 The ES includes a construction noise assessment which has been carried out having regard to

a number of representative noise sensitive receptors. As explained in the ES, because of

safety issues associated with maintaining the ongoing operation of an airport it is necessary

to carry out some of the construction works outside of operational hours (OOOH), including

at night. Operational and commercial imperatives mean that this is unavoidable.

7.4 During the consideration of the application LBN asked the Airport to provide further

information on the evening and night-time construction noise levels, citing the concerns about

the duration of construction and the significant amount of works to be undertaken outside

normal hours. In response, a more fine grain analysis, including sensitivity tests, was provided

in the various updates to the ES. Following a detailed feasibility study by the Airport (informed

by ongoing discussions with LBN, construction contractors and other parties), as explained in

the CES Addendum, the Airport demonstrated that OOOH works had been reduced as far as

practicable, taking into account the overriding engineering, operational and safety

considerations which apply to the Airport. The revised programme showed headline

reductions in the amount of night time piling from 70% to 30% and other significant

improvements including a reduction in the duration of night time piling of approximately 10

months (45 weeks) reducing from 77 weeks to 32 weeks.

19

b) Air Quality

7.5 The Airport lies outside of, but adjacent to, an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) which

has been designated by the London Borough of Newham (LBN) for exceedances of the annual

mean objective for nitrogen dioxide and the daily mean objective for PM10. National, regional

and local policies state that considerable care needs to be taken with developments that are

within or close to Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) and it is necessary to ensure that

new developments do not further deteriorate existing air quality conditions and ensure that

new development does not conflict with or hinder any measures that are introduced to

improve local air quality conditions.

7.6 The air quality chapter of the ES explains that during operation, the predicted concentrations

of nitrogen dioxide, PM10 and PM2.5 are all below the objectives and limit values, whether

the proposed CADP proceeds or not. It explains that a large number of properties would

experience imperceptible increases to pollutant concentrations; however, with the

introduction of the new eastern access to Hartmann Road, those properties at the western

access point (close to Camel Road) would experience a reduction in concentrations.

7.7 The overall air quality impact of the proposed CADP is judged to be insignificant. This takes

into account that all predicted concentrations are below the objectives and limit values, and

that the impacts are negligible at the majority of receptor locations, with slight adverse

impacts at a small number of receptors. With regard to the London Councils guidance, it is

judged that air quality is not a significant consideration. Both the MoL and LBN were satisfied

with the position on Air Quality.

c) Heritage

7.8 Overall, there will be a 31% reduction in the amount of open water in KGV Dock and, as

acknowledged in the Heritage Chapter of the ES, there will be mainly minor to moderate

impacts on the heritage assets identified. Given that direct impacts only occur to non-

statutorily listed assets, and many of limited significance, the proposals are considered to be

consistent with the objectives of London Plan policies, particularly when the proposed design

approach is taken into account.

7.9 The design of the development has sought to minimise the physical effects of development

through, for example, the connections to the existing KGV Dock wall and the size/location of

surface water attenuation tanks. The layout of the CADP1 proposals to the south of the KGV

20

Dock has sought to replicate the layout of the former dockside warehouses, which were

arranged in blocks parallel to the retained dolphins with breaks in-between to provide access

to the transit sheds and dock edge.

7.10 English Heritage considered that the proposals would have a substantial impact on the Royal

Docks significance as a heritage asset, albeit in doing so recommended the imposition of

planning conditions to mitigate these impacts. LBN took on board this advice and, whilst

acknowledging that the proposals were contrary to Policy 7.30 and paragraph 7.84 of the

London Plan, considered that the benefits of the proposals would not warrant the proposals

being refused on heritage grounds alone.

d) Surface Access

7.11 A full assessment of the transport implications of the CADP are provided in the Transport

Assessment and further considered in the Transport chapter of the ES. With CADP it is

anticipated that the Airport could handle 45 Scheduled Aircraft Movements per hour in peak

periods; this compares to 36 movements per hour currently. The CADP Transport Assessment

explains that with the CADP development during the morning peak hour the Airport could

handle 2,892 passengers in the peak hour compared to 2,316 passengers without CADP and a

current observed 2012 throughput of 1,650 passengers.

7.12 The CADP proposes to create a further permanent access and vehicle link to the Airport from

the junction with the A117 Woolwich Manor Way/Fishguard Way. This will provide a direct

connection between the eastern end of Hartmann Road and the signalised junction with the

A117 Woolwich Manor Way/Fishguard Way.

7.13 Parking provision is proposed to increase from 974 spaces to 1,252 spaces i.e. a 29% increase.

This compares with passenger numbers which will be increasing by 87% and staff numbers

which will be increasing by 59%, compared to 2011. The car parking will also serve a 260

bedroom hotel.

7.14 The transport assessment demonstrates there will be an increase in traffic on some links and

a reduction in traffic on other links. This is because of the creation of an additional vehicle

access point to the Airport from Woolwich Manor Way through Hartmann Road (East), which

results in a redistribution of Airport-related traffic and a reduction in traffic on some links.

21

7.15 The greatest proportional reduction in traffic is forecast for Royal Albert Way (East) with a -

14.7% reduction and Minor Beneficial effect, and Royal Albert Way (West) with a -13.1%

reduction and minor beneficial effect.

7.16 The ES advises that with the implementation of the Travel Plans and other strategies, overall,

the residual effect from the change in traffic flows will be minor adverse.

7.17 Both LBN and the GLA (including Transport for London and the Dockland Light Railway) were

satisfied with agreed surface access mitigation measures which are summarised in the table

below paragraph 26 of the MoLs Stage 2 report, including 2.9m towards Docklands Light

Railway rolling stock and station management and 100,000 towards walking and cycling

initiatives.

e) Climate Change

7.18 Excluding aircraft emissions (looking just at the Terminal operations), emissions per passenger

decrease by 47% with the proposed CADP compared to the baseline year, due to the energy

efficiency and renewable heat and power generation measures of the proposed new and

refurbished buildings.

7.19 Overall, it is predicted that the proposed CADP will enable the Airport to accommodate the

predicted 32% increase in passenger numbers with only a small increase in GHG emissions per

passenger (within the assumptions of the assessment), compared to if the development did

not proceed.

f) Public Safety Zone

7.20 Policy INF1 of the Core Strategy requires development proposals to have regard to the Airport

Safeguarding Area and Public Safety Zones. Paragraph 6.200 states that future growth at the

airport will need to be carefully considered in respect of any enlarged PSZ and the implications

on the future role and function of the Royal Docks.

7.21 The CADP with Development 1:100,000 PSZ contour is actually 16-18% smaller than the

Without Development scenario with similar proportionate reductions to the 1:10,000

contour. This is primarily due to the change in traffic mix; with a higher proportion of more

modern scheduled aircraft and a lower amount of executive jet and turboprop movements in

the With Development scenario.

22

7.22 Of the sites identified as overlapping the forecast PSZ, none fall entirely within the PSZ risk

contours and none of them are currently intensively occupied. Detailed consideration has

been given to the implications of the forecast PSZ on the various sites (including Thames

Wharf, Silvertown Quays and a potential Thames River Crossing) and it is concluded that the

forecast PSZ will not affect most sites, but where overlaps do occur these can be managed as

part of future planning application proposals without prejudicing regeneration objectives.

7.23 Overall, it is concluded that the CADP proposals will not result in a significant change to PSZs;

no sites will be sterilised and the development potential of sites is not expected to

fundamentally reduce development potential or impact on the ability to deliver safeguarded

transport infrastructure (including the Silvertown Tunnel and the Thames River Crossing).

Indeed, if the CADP proposals do not come forward, the PSZ would be larger in the Without

Development scenario. The MoLs Stage 2 report (paragraphs 33 to 40) confirms that there

are no outstanding concerns in respect of the PSZ or safeguarded surfaces in the vicinity of

the airport (which do not alter as a result of the proposals).

23

8 THE PLANNING BALANCE

8.1 On the balance of planning considerations the proposals are considered to be in accordance

with the development plan and other material considerations and planning permission should

be granted.

8.2 National Aviation Policy is clear and requires the best use to be made of existing runways at

all airports, the Newham Core Strategy (Policy INF1) provides clear and specific support for

optimising capacity at the Airport and the London Plan (Policy 6.6) requires there to be

adequate airport capacity to maintain Londons competitive position. The CADP directly

responds to these requirements.

8.3 The need for the proposals is compelling. It will address infrastructure constraints, facilitate

the introduction of quieter and more fuel efficient next generation aircraft which have been

ordered by airlines using the Airport, provide greater connectivity and provide a step change

in passenger facilities to ensure that the predicted 6 million passengers will be accommodated

in high quality buildings where delays are minimised.

8.4 The Airport sits in one of the most deprived areas in London. The development will support a

net additional 51 million of GVA by 2023 compared to the without development case.

Overall, taking all types of employment into account, the CADP proposals would generate an

increase in local employment of approximately 1,500 compared to 2012, when the full impact

of the hotel is taken into account. This is made up of 1,250 jobs as a result of the increase in

operational activity at the Airport and around 200 jobs in total related to the hotel and other

elements of the CADP2 application.

8.5 The proposals will improve the connectivity of London and allow the Airport to continue to

act as a catalyst to the regeneration of the Royal Docks and Beckton Opportunity Area (as

defined in the London Plan) and help to encourage investment in the Enterprise Zone which

surrounds the site.

8.6 It is recognised that the London Plan (policy 7.30) seeks to resist proposals which partially or

completely infill the existing docks. In strict terms the proposals do neither. A suspended

structure will enable water to be retained beneath without materially altering existing water

levels. Due to the highly constrained nature of the Airport site, the new CADP infrastructure

and passenger facilities must be located on a platform to the east of the existing Airport over

the KGV Dock. Whilst the proposals involve the loss of the openness of the water, they have

24

been carefully formulated to ensure that they enhance the remaining parts of the KGV Dock

and do not compromise future potential uses of the remainder the Dock. The KGV Dock is

not currently used for leisure uses and the CADP proposals will not alter leisure activities in

the Royal Victoria Dock to the north in any way. The CADP proposals are considered a unique

case that will not establish a precedent for future development on, in or over the Blue Ribbon

Network in future. The Mayor of Londons Stage 1 response to the application proposals states

that the benefits of CADP to London could outweigh any harm caused by decking over the

dock, subject to the imposition of an appropriate condition and/or S106 obligation.

8.7 In accordance with the APF and the London Plan the environmental impacts of the proposals

have been thoroughly assessed. The ES concludes that the various environmental effects of

the proposed CADP will be both positive and negative, ranging in significance from 'negligible'

to 'substantial'. Importantly, no significant adverse effects have been identified which could

not be adequately mitigated through appropriate environmental controls, including those

already in place at the Airport and incorporated through the 2009 planning permission and

Planning Agreement.

8.8 With regards to noise in particular, the Airport has provided protection to those people close

to the Airport, and thus most affected by noise, via the Sound Insulation Scheme, which has

been in place for many years. The Airport does not consider that the MoLs reasons for

directing refusal, based on the adequacy of the eligibility criteria used for the existing Sound

Insulation Scheme, are valid given the negligible air noise impacts arising from the proposals

and the policy context. The Airport will continue to operate the Sound Insulation Scheme with

eligibility based on the lowest daytime trigger limit of any other airport within the UK (57 dB

LAeq,16h). In addition, the Airport will significantly improve the Sound Insulation Scheme by

paying 100% of the cost of thermal double glazing for single glazed dwellings which become

eligible for the First Tier Scheme and 100% of the cost of high acoustic performance double

glazing for dwellings which become eligible for the Second Tier Scheme. There will also be a

contribution of 500,000 towards enhancements of open space. This will ensure that all of

those most affected by noise are afforded the maximum noise protection opportunity.

8.9 With regard to air quality and climate change, the proposed CADP will result in absolute

increases in these emissions. However, the impacts will be proportionately less than in the

'Without Development' scenario and no breaches in statutory limits are predicted. They are

therefore not assessed as being significant.

25

8.10 The MoL and LBN have thoroughly assessed other matters in detail, including heritage,

potential changes to the public safety zone, surface access and concluded them to be

satisfactory.

8.11 On the balance of matters, planning permission should therefore be granted.

26

9 CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS

9.1 LBN prepared draft planning conditions in appendix 1 of the Officer Update Report

recognising that they would need to be refined by Officers post committee. Draft conditions

were provided in the Stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London (the Draft Conditions). A

number of the controls are carried over from the conditions and S106 agreement

accompanying the 2009 Permission.

9.2 The Airport was not consulted on the draft conditions prior to the publication of the Officers

report and did raise concerns and the practical consequences of some of them following the

publication of the report. LBNs Strategic Planning Committee resolved to approve the

proposals subject to the Head of Planning and Development finalising conditions without

altering their purpose or intension and discussions are ongoing with LBN in respect of those

conditions.

9.3 A draft of the S106 formed the basis of the Stage 2 referral to the MOL (see Appendix 2)

and was subject to ongoing discussions with LBN, TfL and the GLA Planning Team. In

response to discussions following referral to the MOL, it was agreed that there should be a

500,000 payment for public open spaces enhancement and the MoL should be consulted

on the ACR.

9.4 Overall, the S106 is considered to provide a comprehensive and appropriate set of

obligations which are carefully tailored to the proposals. With the exception of the extent

of the Sound Insulation Scheme there is consensus on the provisions.

27

10 DRAFT STATEMENT OF COMMON GROUND

10.1 The Airport considers that there is significant scope to agree many matters with LBN and the

GLA given the extent of discussions and scrutiny already undertaken.

28

11 CONCLUSIONS

11.1 The sole reason for the MoLs direction of refusal of planning permission for CADP1 relates to

the perceived noise impacts and mitigation. It is evident that the MoL was primarily concerned

with the eligibility criteria of the Airports Sound Insulation Scheme. The noise impacts of

CADP have been assessed as being negligible and not significant, taking account of the

mitigation measures proposed. The Airport already operates one of the most stringent noise

management frameworks in the UK and when combined with the mitigation and

compensation measures already proposed to be imposed by LBN in the form of conditions

and S106 obligations the reason for the direction of refusal is wholly unjustified.

11.2 Other environmental impacts in terms of air quality, climate change, surface access and public

safety impacts are not considered to be significant. The need for the proposals is compelling

and the benefits are substantial. On this basis planning permission for CADP1 should be

granted, in accordance with LBNs resolution to grant planning permission on 3 February 2015.

29

APPENDIX 1: Schedule of Further Environmental Information

ES Update Summary of Matters covered Response to Regulation 22 request from the LB Newham dated

ES Addendum (ESA) March 2014

Minor revisions to the design of CADP1.

Supplementary assessment of air noise, ground noise and construction noise), as requested by LBN.

21 January 2014

Environmental Statement Second Addendum (ESSA) May 2014

- Air and Ground Noise - Construction Noise - Noise data for Bombardier CS100 Aircraft - Cumulative Effects - Other clarifications

23 May 2014

Environmental Statement Third Addendum (ESTA) November 2014

Consolidated addendum to whole July 2013 ES including replacement Chapters 6 (Development Programme, Demolition & Construction) and 8 (Noise and Vibration) - Improved Construction programme - Alternative Construction Method - Construction Noise an Mitigation - Implications of London Airspace Management

Project - Cumulative effects - Alternatives to Hotel - Sensitivity analysis for 120,000 movements - Explanation of proposed ACR quota count

system

20 August 2014

Gallions Quarter Supplementary Cumulative Effects Assessment

Update of cumulative effects assessment to take into account the Gallions Quarter Scheme, Atlantis Avenue, Beckton.

10 December 2014

30

APPENDIX 2: DRAFT S106 SUBJECT TO DISCUSSION (AS REFERRED TO MAYOR OF LONDON)