masterplan scheme development manual€¦ · development of a new north west runway at heathrow...

Heathrow Expansion Masterplan Scheme Development Manual - Final

i | © Heathrow Airport Limited 2017

Commercially Sensitive and Confidential and not for onward circulation without consent

Classification: Public

MASTERPLAN SCHEME DEVELOPMENT MANUAL

VERSION: 5.0


i | © Heathrow Airport Limited 2017



DOCUMENT CONTROL

TITLE Masterplan Scheme Development Manual

DOCUMENT NUMBER HEP06-XX-RP-XXX-000001

STATUS Final

CLASSIFICATION Confidential

AUTHOR Masterplan Manager

DATE 11/06/2018

VERSION 5.0

DOCUMENT APPROVAL

Role Signature Date

Head of Masterplanning & Capacity June 2018

DOCUMENT HISTORY

Version Date Author Changes

5.0 Jun

2018

Masterplan Manager Updates from review through

governance process

4.0 Feb

2018

Masterplan Manager Updates from consultation feedback &

changes to process

3.0 May

2017

Head of Masterplanning &

Capacity

Version issued for consultation


ii | © Heathrow Airport Limited 2017



CONTENTS

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1

2. Background .......................................................................................................... 2

2.1. History of the third runway proposals ................................................................... 2

2.2. Airports Commission ............................................................................................ 2

2.3. Government decision and draft Airports National Policy Statement ..................... 3

2.4. Further work since the Airports Commission’s Final Report................................. 3

3. The Project ........................................................................................................... 4

3.1. Overview .............................................................................................................. 4

3.2. Airspace ............................................................................................................... 4

4. Principles and organisation of the process .......................................................... 6

4.1. Overview of the process ...................................................................................... 6

4.2. Milestones and gateways ..................................................................................... 7

4.3. Organisation ......................................................................................................... 7

4.4. Governance ......................................................................................................... 9

4.5. Key Principles .................................................................................................... 11

4.6. Recording the process ....................................................................................... 15

5. The Scheme Development Process ................................................................... 17

5.1. Overview of the Process .................................................................................... 17

5.2. Stage 1: Strategic Definition............................................................................... 19

5.3. Stage 2: Component Options Development ....................................................... 20

5.4. Stage 3: Masterplan Options Development ....................................................... 22

5.5. Stage 4: Masterplan Finalisation ........................................................................ 25

Appendix A List of Stakeholders consulted on this Manual ......................................... 27

Appendix B Evaluation Criteria Book ......................................................................... 28

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Governance Approach to Scheme Development Process ............................. 10

Figure 2 - Evaluation Four Point Scoring System ........................................................... 14

Figure 3 - Evaluation Six Point Scoring System ............................................................. 14

Figure 4 - Example of Preference Key ........................................................................... 15

Figure 5 – Overview of the Scheme Development Process ........................................... 18


1 | © Heathrow Airport Limited 2017



1. INTRODUCTION 1.1.1. This document is the Masterplan Scheme Development Manual (the Manual) for

the Expansion Programme which is being promoted by Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL). It sets out HAL’s proposed process and methodology for identifying and evaluating scheme options and selecting the scheme that will be the subject of an application for development consent under the Planning Act 2008.

1.1.2. The Manual is intended to guide the design team through the masterplan scheme development process. HAL has consulted local authorities, certain statutory bodies and the airline community on the process set out in the Manual and has had regard to all feedback received before issuing this version. The organisations that were consulted are listed in Appendix A.

1.1.3. In broad terms, the masterplan scheme development process involves four main stages, namely:

a) Strategic definition; b) Component options development; c) Masterplan options development; and d) Masterplan finalisation.

1.1.4. A core principle of the process is that the identification, evaluation and selection of scheme options is based upon properly informed professional judgements. These judgements will be made taking into account criteria within seven ‘discipline’ areas being: operations and service; delivery; business case; sustainability; community; planning and property. The criteria will be applied transparently and consistently throughout the process.

1.1.5. Consultation and engagement with external stakeholders is an integral part of the masterplan scheme development process. The assessment of options and decisions made through the process will be documented, recognising the importance of transparency to enable effective consultation as part of the planning process.

1.1.6. The remainder of the Manual is structured as follows:

a) Section 2 outlines the background to HAL’s proposals for the third runway project;

b) Section 3 identifies the principal elements of the project to be taken though the masterplan scheme development process;

c) Section 4 provides an overview of the process, and explains its main features and the principles that will guide its implementation; and

d) Section 5 describes the four stages of the process.





2. BACKGROUND

2.1. History of the third runway proposals

2.1.1. A third runway at Heathrow was previously endorsed by the Labour Government in 2003. The 2003 White Paper, ‘The Future of Air Transport’ supported the principle of an additional short runway to the north of the airport, to come into operation in the period 2015-2020, in order to address the shortage of airport capacity in the South East. Policy support was conditional, however, on meeting stringent environmental limits, principally relating to air quality, but also preventing any deterioration in noise and improving public transport access.

2.1.2. The programme of studies to consider these issues concluded in 2009, with the Government subsequently confirming its policy that a third runway at Heathrow Airport should go ahead. HAL commenced its preparation of the necessary planning application, only for policy support to be withdrawn by the incoming coalition Government in 2010. This included cancelling a new runway at Stansted.

2.2. Airports Commission

2.2.1. The publication of the Aviation Policy Framework in 2012, which supported growth at regional airports, left the issue of airport capacity in the South East unresolved. The coalition Government therefore established an independent Airports Commission to consider and recommend options for meeting the need for additional runway capacity and maintaining the UK’s global hub status.

2.2.2. During its three-year study, the Airports Commission appraised numerous diverse proposals for new capacity. In July 2013, HAL submitted three proposed options for a third runway at Heathrow Airport in response to the Airports Commission’s call for proposals. The Airports Commission published an Interim Report in December 2013, which as well as making recommendations for actions to optimise the use of existing airport capacity in the UK, also set out its short-list of long-term aviation capacity expansion options. HAL’s north west runway scheme was one of three options short-listed by the Airports Commission, the other two being an extended northern runway (promoted by an entity separate from HAL) and a new runway at Gatwick. In May 2014, following a public consultation, HAL submitted a revised north west runway scheme to the Airports Commission.

2.2.3. The Airports Commission published its Final Report in July 2015. It unanimously concluded that HAL’s proposal for a new north west runway at Heathrow, in combination with a significant package of measures to address environmental and community impacts, presents the strongest case for maintaining the UK’s position as a global hub for aviation. It made a clear and unambiguous recommendation that the Heathrow north west runway scheme is best placed to provide the additional runway that is urgently needed in the south-east.

2.2.4. The Airports Commission’s final report noted that more work would be needed to arrive at the scheme that will be the subject of an application for development consent. The Masterplan submitted by HAL to the Airports Commission forms the starting point for options development in the scheme development process explained in this Manual.





2.3. Government decision and draft Airports National Policy Statement

2.3.1. In October 2016, the Government announced its decision to support the development of a new north west runway at Heathrow Airport, accepting the Airports Commission’s recommendation.

2.3.2. On 2 February 2017, the Government published the draft Airports National Policy Statement (NPS) which confirmed the Government’s preference for the new north west runway at Heathrow airport. Once adopted the NPS will establish the decision making framework against which the development consent order (DCO) application for the third runway project will be considered. The draft NPS describes aspects of the amount, type and size of development which is required. It also sets out assessment principles and provides guidance on specific impacts and requirements.

2.3.3. The draft NPS also recognises that, while the north west runway scheme is the Government’s preferred scheme, this does not limit variations resulting in the final scheme for which development consent is sought.

2.3.4. The scheme development process will take into account and respond to the content of the draft NPS which has been issued and again once formally designated.

2.4. Further work since the Airports Commission’s Final Report

2.4.1. The Government made clear in its October 2016 announcement that the expansion of Heathrow Airport must be the right scheme at the right price and that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), HAL’s economic regulator, should aim to deliver a plan that keeps landing charges close to current levels. The CAA has written to HAL setting out its expectation that cost efficiency must be designed in to the scheme and confirming that it has been directed by the Government to monitor and report on how effectively HAL engages with the airline community.

2.4.2. As part of the design evolution, work has commenced to consider possible options for improving the affordability of the north west runway scheme by reviewing scope and buildability. A potential update to the north-west runway masterplan, known as ‘Quicker & Cheaper’, identified that significant delivery time and cost savings may be achievable against the scheme endorsed by the Airports Commission. It should be emphasised that the components of ‘Quicker & Cheaper’ will be evaluated fully alongside other options, in accordance with the scheme development process set out in this Manual.





3. THE PROJECT

3.1. Overview

3.1.1. In broad terms, the project will provide a new full length runway and new terminal and other handling capacity to enable the airport to deliver at least 740,000 air transport movements (ATMs) per annum, and process at least 130 million passengers per annum (mppa).

3.1.2. The project encompasses development that will lie within the expanded airport operational boundary, as well as development beyond this boundary which is associated with the airport’s expansion such as local road, civil engineering, environmental mitigation works and other airport related development.

3.1.3. The list below gives a short summary of the principal components that will be taken through the masterplan scheme development process in order to arrive at the scheme for which development consent will be sought. It is worth emphasising that this list is necessarily high level and the components are still to be subjected to the full scheme development process set out in this Manual, including consultation with local communities and stakeholders.

a) A new full length third runway to the north west of the existing northern runway, which enables all three runways to operate independently from each other at full capacity;

b) A new taxiway network to link the new runway to the rest of the airport; c) New terminal and apron capacity to enable processing of at least an

additional 260,000 ATMs and at least 130 million passengers. This will include new passenger and baggage connectivity to link the terminals;

d) Improved public transport links that will target an increase in public transport mode share to at least 50% by 2030 and at least 55% by 2040. Rail enhancements will play an important role in helping to meet these objectives;

e) Alterations to the local road network and re-alignment of the M25 carriageway and junctions;

f) New and improved operating procedures to reduce and mitigate the impacts to areas and communities, for instance noise, air quality, property loss and emissions;

g) Environmental mitigation, including river diversions, new areas of flood risk management and new areas of landscaping and bio-diversity mitigation;

h) Supporting land uses including both airside and landside operations, such as cargo facilities, car parking, hotels, offices and industrial uses.

3.1.4. The components identified above have been grouped according to the work-streams within which they will be developed (see section 4.3 below, which explains the organisation of the work-streams).

3.2. Airspace

3.2.1. The airspace in the south east of England will have to be redesigned for both arrivals and departures to enable the new runway to operate. In simple terms this means agreeing a new concept of operations for the three runway airport and the flight path infrastructure and processes to enable its operation.





3.2.2. The main objective when redesigning airspace will be to minimise and where possible reduce the impact of noise whilst at the same time ensuring the delivery of sufficient and efficient airspace capacity to support the proposed three runway operation. Proposals for airspace change are determined by the Civil Aviation Authority under a process which is separate from the DCO process. The airspace change proposals will need to be developed, consulted upon and approved through this separate airspace change process which will follow the DCO process. For the purpose of the DCO process, it will therefore be necessary to undertake an environmental impact assessment of the project based on indicative flight paths.

3.2.3. Collaboration and coordination with other airspace changes in the south east of the UK will also be necessary. Heathrow will need to sponsor the necessary airspace re-design for a three runway operation, but these changes will need to be coordinated with the wider airspace changes by National Air Traffic Services (NATS) across the London Terminal Manoeuvring Area (LTMA) and those proposed by other neighbouring airports.

3.2.4. Whilst a re-design of the airspace surrounding Heathrow is required to support a three runway airport, it is also noted that airspace re-design would be required regardless of the introduction of a new runway, to support the government’s Future Airspace Strategy and the performance of Heathrow’s existing operation.





4. PRINCIPLES AND ORGANISATION OF THE PROCESS

4.1. Overview of the process

4.1.1. This section provides an overview of the masterplan scheme development process, explains how the team implementing the process will be organised and introduces the key principles that will guide its implementation.

4.1.2. An overview of the four stages of the masterplan scheme development process is outlined below. Further detail on each stage of the process is contained in Section 5.

4.1.3. The four main stages of the process can be summarised as follows:

a) Stage 1 – Strategic Definition: The purpose of this stage is to set the objectives for the project and define the key inputs into the process.

b) Stage 2 – Component Options Development: The key components will go through a design development process which will involve: creating a longlist of all options to be considered; reducing the number of options under consideration; and evaluating the remaining options. The component options that are developed in this stage will be consulted upon in the first DCO Consultation (consultation one). The preferred options for each component will be taken forward to Stage 3.

c) Stage 3 - Masterplan Options Development: In this stage, preferred options from the key components will be combined to create assembly options. Feedback received during consultation one, together with ongoing engagement with stakeholders, will be used to review, improve and endorse or change the preferred component options for inclusion in masterplan assembly. The resulting assembly options will go through a similar process to that in the Component Options Development stage, in that the list of options will be reduced and the remaining options will be evaluated. The preferred masterplan will be formed from the options evaluated at the end of this stage.

d) Stage 4 - Masterplan Finalisation: In this stage, the preferred masterplan formed in Stage 3 will be developed further, supported by further stakeholder engagement, ready to be consulted on at the second DCO Consultation (consultation two) along with the alternatives which were considered and rejected. The preferred masterplan will be refined in the light of consultation two feedback and on-going environmental assessment to refine and define appropriate mitigation for the effects of the masterplan on communities and the environment. This stage will conclude with the submission of the DCO application.

4.1.4. The legal framework for the DCO pre-application process is contained in the Planning Act 2008 (‘the 2008 Act’), delegated legislation and the statutory guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government under the 2008 Act (Planning Act 2008: Guidance on the pre-application process – March 2015). Masterplan scheme development will take place within that framework. The process set out in this Manual describes how scheme development work will take place in the context of the requirements of the DCO





regime, in particular the requirement to undertake consultation, to provide sufficient preliminary environmental information to consultees as part of the consultation process, and to undertake environmental impact assessment (taking the form of an environmental statement to be prepared and submitted as part of the DCO application).

4.2. Milestones and gateways

4.2.1. An approach involving milestones and gateways will be used in the masterplan scheme development process.

4.2.2. The milestones guide the scheme development process, in the lead up to the gateways. Milestones mark important points of progress in the process, occurring when preceding activities have been completed or substantially progressed. Subsequent activities may be progressed in advance of reaching the milestone.

4.2.3. The gateways represent decision points. Subsequent activities will not be progressed before the gateway has been passed through. This will include ensuring that all the required inputs exist to enable progression (e.g. resources, data, funding). The gateways will be key points to confirm that appropriate engagement has taken place with internal and external stakeholders on the progress of the masterplan scheme development.

4.2.4. The process includes three milestones and two gateways which together will enable the selection of a masterplan scheme to be the subject of the DCO application. The purpose of each milestone and gateway is described as follows:

• M1 Milestone: To mark the point at which stakeholders have become

sufficiently familiar with the inputs from Stage 1, Strategic Definition.

• M2 Milestone: The completion of the component option reviews.

• M3 Milestone: To confirm the shortlist of assembly options to be taken

forward to detailed evaluation. This milestone is sub-divided into three parts,

M3a M3b and M3c, as explained further in Section 5.

• M4 Gateway: To approve the preferred masterplan option to be taken

forward to consultation two.

• M5 Gateway: To approve the masterplan and supporting materials for DCO

submission.

4.2.5. Section 5 describes the key deliverables and activities which lead up to each milestone and gateway.

4.3. Organisation

4.3.1. The masterplan scheme development process will be organised so that options are developed and evaluated using a multi-disciplinary approach and that decisions are properly informed and made at an appropriate level.

Work-streams

4.3.2. Masterplan scheme development work will be split into seven parallel work-streams. These work-streams reflect the principal components of the scheme:





a) Airfield and Airspace, includes the development of a three-runway system, its interface with the airspace change process, taxiway layouts and operations, and supporting infrastructure such as airside roads.

b) Terminal, Aprons and Connectivity, includes new terminal capacity, new aircraft parking stands, passenger and baggage connectivity, landside zones and VIP facilities.

c) Road network, includes M25 alignment and junction strategy, A4 and A3044 diversions and tying into other local roads such as the Southern Perimeter Road to maintain connectivity to local communities.

d) River diversions and flood storage, includes the diversion of rivers which run through the site of the expanded airport and provision of necessary flood storage.

e) Supporting land uses, includes both airside and landside operations such as cargo facilities, car parking, hotels, offices, industrial use and biodiversity mitigation.

f) Enabling works and Third Party Uses, includes the displacement of other land uses from the site of an expanded airport.

g) Site Wide, includes required earthworks, ground investigation, other surveys and the provision and diversion of utilities.

4.3.3. Although there is a need for the masterplan to respond to and accommodate rail enhancement proposals, these are led by Network Rail and so are not identified as key components above.

4.3.4. Whilst the masterplan scheme development process will be progressed under these seven work-streams, it is important to recognise that they will not work in complete isolation from one another, but rather will regularly interact during the process. This will ensure that any interdependencies between the work-streams are identified and considered.

4.3.5. The design work under each of these work streams will be carried out by the Heathrow Integrated Design Team, made up from the following consultancies working on behalf of Heathrow: Grimshaw, Quod, Arup, Atkins, Jacobs, Mott MacDonald and Wood.

4.3.6. Once all components within the work streams are identified in stage 1 of the process, they will be grouped to form task orders to enable the day-to-day running of the process. Each task order will be managed by a Heathrow project manager.

Evaluation Disciplines

4.3.7. Each of the work-streams outlined above will be supported by professionals from seven disciplines who will undertake the evaluation of options arising from the masterplan scheme development process. The disciplines are:





a) Operations & Service; b) Delivery; c) Business Case; d) Sustainability; e) Community; f) Planning; and g) Property.

4.3.8. These seven disciplines summarise the topic areas that the evaluation criteria will fall within. This structure enables a collaborative and multidisciplinary approach to the evaluation of options, whereby the team carrying out the assessments will have regard to relevant considerations relating to operations & service, delivery, business case, sustainability, community, planning and property.

4.3.9. For each discipline, there will be a Discipline Lead (or Leads) who will be the principal representative for their discipline at multi-disciplinary scheme development workshops. They will be responsible for the discipline’s input into the process, including coordinating the production of written materials.

4.3.10. Within each discipline, there will also be Subject Leads who will be experts on their particular subject areas. For example, the sustainability discipline will have Subject Leads for noise, air quality, historic environment and so on. The Subject Leads will support their Discipline Lead at scheme development workshops and be responsible for producing written materials on their area of expertise.

4.3.11. The Disciplines and the Subjects that will be used for the evaluation of options are documented in the Evaluation Criteria Book (Appendix B), together with the associated detailed evaluation criteria and sub-criteria. The Evaluation Criteria Book was consulted upon at Stage 1 with the bodies listed in Appendix A.

4.4. Governance

4.4.1. The overall governance structure for the scheme development process is outlined in Figure 1 below. This governance structure relates to scheme design and is not a financial governance structure.





Figure 1 - Governance Approach to Scheme Development Process

4.4.2. Workshops are working level meetings at which the content of scheme options will be developed, integrated and improved to ensure that all work produced for the Design & Evaluation Review, and thereafter the recommendations submitted to the OAG, will have been through a robust review process. The attendees include the Discipline Leads, Subject Leads, representatives from the Integrated Design Team and other subject matter experts. The attendance will vary depending on the subject matter and the options being considered.

4.4.3. The Design & Evaluation Review (DER) will be the forum in which the Integrated Design Team and evaluation team, present their option development and evaluation work for review and assurance. The DER will have an agreed membership as per its Terms of Reference and will be attended by the appropriate design team, Discipline Leads and Subject Leads and other subject matter experts.

4.4.4. The Options Design Rummage (ODR) is a sub-group of the Options Approval Group, supported by experts in the fields of masterplanning, design, construction, cost estimating, planning, community and sustainability. This is the forum for further assurance of the output from the DER.

4.4.5. The Options Approval Group (OAG) will be attended by a sub-group of the Expansion Programme Board. For reasons explained in paragraph 4.5.5, the OAG





will include representatives from the airline community. A representative of the Heathrow Community Engagement Board will also be invited to represent community interests. The OAG will have delegated authority to make decisions that enable the process to progress efficiently and in accordance with this Manual, save for certain matters to be referred to the Expansion Programme Board (as set out at para. 4.4.6 and 4.4.7 below). Where matters are referred to the Expansion Programme Board for approval, the OAG will make a recommendation to Expansion Programme Board for its consideration.

4.4.6. The following matters will be elevated from the OAG to more senior programme and business governance:

a) as part of Stage 1, the Strategic Brief; b) as part of Stage 3, the preferred masterplan to be presented at consultation

two; and c) as part of Stage 4, selection of the final masterplan scheme to take forward in

the DCO application.

4.4.7. The Expansion Programme Board (EPB) will receive regular updates on the decisions made at the OAG, and will be responsible for approving any matters which are elevated to it by the OAG. Decisions that may have a significant impact on key aspects of the Programme, such as the operability, affordability, land take and environmental impact of the expanded airport, will be elevated to the EPB.

4.4.8. An administrator will manage the organisation of the scheme development process governance and ensure the coordination of workflow through the governance meeting hierarchy from the DER through ODR and to the OAG and EPB. Written records will be kept of the decisions in the Governance meetings and the main considerations and conclusions reached at each workshop and review meeting.

4.5. Key Principles

Consultation and engagement

4.5.1. Consultation and engagement are integral to the masterplan scheme development process described in this Manual. Feedback from consultation and engagement will help to shape the process itself and will be taken into account in the evaluation and selection of scheme options.

4.5.2. HAL has consulted the bodies listed in Appendix A on the process set out in this Manual. This has helped to ensure that these stakeholders have had an early opportunity to comment on the methodology by which scheme options are assessed and are therefore engaged in the development of the proposals from the outset. HAL has had regard to feedback received during this consultation exercise and has updated this Manual accordingly.

4.5.3. Consultation and engagement are integral to the implementation of the process. At consultation one, HAL will consult on the component options being considered along with other aspects of its proposals. At consultation two, HAL will consult on its preferred masterplan scheme and outline the main alternatives considered. Throughout this masterplanning process, engagement with the external stakeholders will be an ongoing activity.





4.5.4. In addition to consultations one and two, Heathrow will engage with key stakeholders at appropriate points throughout the scheme development process. This will involve engagement with the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group, the Heathrow Community Engagement Board, Highways England and the Environment Agency amongst others. This engagement will ensure to take account of potential sub-regional development impacts.

4.5.5. As a consequence of a direction made by the Secretary of State further to section 16 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, HAL is required to engage constructively with its airline partners, on the appropriate scope, design and costing of new runway capacity at Heathrow airport. The principal forums for airline engagement are the Airline Working Group and the Joint Expansion Board.

4.5.6. The Airline Working Group (AWG) will be attended by the airline community and HAL subject matter experts. This is an engagement forum with the airline community, on materials which relate to the design and cost and are relevant to the issue of affordability.

4.5.7. The Joint Expansion Board (JEB) will be attended by a sub-group of the EPB and representatives from the airline community. The JEB will be reported to on decisions made by the OAG and EPB, for their consideration and endorsement.

4.5.8. To ensure that consultation feedback is properly taken account of during the scheme development process, the feedback from consultation one will be provided to the design team and to the evaluation discipline leads for consideration in the evaluation of options. A Consultation Feedback Report will be prepared and published to explain how the responses to consultation one informed the development of the proposals for the scheme.

Cost and Affordability

4.5.9. Cost, risk and benefits are important factors in the scheme development process. However, cost cannot be the sole factor in any decisions taken concerning scheme development. The overall case must present a viable investment proposition that can deliver a wide range of benefits, within a fair regulatory framework with a predictable cost of capital that appropriately recognises the risks of this major private investment. The draft NPS states that the scheme should be cost-efficient and sustainable for airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime and lists a wide range of other matters such as land use planning, community and environmental impacts and traffic impacts, as well as benefits, to be taken into account in respect of the expansion of Heathrow. The overall scheme therefore needs to provide a viable proposition that is affordable and financeable whilst addressing those other considerations. This has been reflected in our approach to scheme development.

4.5.10. The scheme development process has consequently been designed to take into account affordability and financeability considerations alongside criteria within the other discipline areas. Affordability is not only driven by cost but is materially influenced by capacity and the ability of existing and new airlines to introduce more choice and accelerate traffic growth. This multi-disciplinary approach to scheme development will ensure that all relevant matters are taken into account and potentially competing considerations are appropriately balanced. The process





is being approached on the basis of no pre-set weighting between the main discipline areas.

4.5.11. The CAA economic regulatory regime and DCO regime are separate and have their own objectives and requirements, both of which must be complied with. Under the economic regulatory regime, and specifically as a consequence of the section 16 direction referred to at paragraph 4.5.5 above, HAL is required to engage constructively with its airline partners, on the appropriate scope, design and costing of new runway capacity at Heathrow airport. In the DCO context, Heathrow will consult more widely with communities and other stakeholders, including airlines, on options and proposals for the scheme, and demonstrate that the views of all stakeholders and a range of considerations are taken into account and properly balanced.

Discontinuation rules and evaluation criteria

4.5.12. The function of the masterplan scheme development process is to continually improve the scheme design through detailed evaluation and feedback from a wide range of subject experts and consultees to arrive at the airport masterplan that will be the subject of an application for development consent. This will require HAL to reduce the potentially huge number of option permutations under consideration to arrive at a selected scheme. This sifting process will be achieved through the application of discontinuation rules and evaluation criteria at different stages of the process. The following paragraphs explain the role of the discontinuation rules and evaluation criteria, and Section 5 identifies when in the process they will be applied.

Discontinuation rules

4.5.13. The purpose of applying discontinuation rules is to reduce the number of options from a potentially very large number to a smaller number that can be evaluated in more detail. Each rule will be supported by an explanation of its rationale.

4.5.14. Where a discontinuation rule applies to an option, this will result in that option being discontinued in the scheme development process and being subject to no further scrutiny unless new material information comes to light to warrant a back-check and reconsideration of that option (see para. 4.5.24 below which explains back-checking in more detail). The discontinuation rules will be formulated so that options are discontinued only if there is a high degree of confidence that where they apply the subject option is not feasible e.g. physical incompatibility; not feasible operationally; or is prohibitively costly. The discontinuation rules will be recorded in the Component Options Reports and Masterplan Options Development Reports referred to in Section 4.6 below.

Evaluation Criteria

4.5.15. The purpose of the evaluation criteria is to evaluate, through professional judgement, how well an option meets the wide range of client and other requirements (e.g. statutory, regulatory, operational, stakeholder). The criteria, and associated sub-criteria, will be developed taking into account these requirements.

4.5.16. The criteria will be used to evaluate both component options and assembly options at appropriate points in the process. At the components stage the option designs





will be conceptual rather than detailed and the evaluation will therefore be fairly high level, using those criteria which are relevant at that stage.

4.5.17. If it is not appropriate to derive numeric measures to evaluate performance, then a qualitative assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of each component will be undertaken. Criteria will be formulated for each of the subjects within the discipline areas (i.e. operations & service, delivery, business case, sustainability, community, planning and property). This will ensure that the evaluation of component and assembly options is carried out having regard to all relevant considerations within those disciplines.

4.5.18. The criteria will be formulated as part of Stage 1 (Strategic Definition) based on the known requirements at that time and recorded in an Evaluation Criteria Book (included in Appendix B). The Discipline and Subject Leads may need to refine and improve the criteria and sub-criteria through Stages 2 and 3 to:

a) ensure that the evolving requirements and feedback from HAL and stakeholders are taken into account;

b) help to ensure a consistent or more granular exercise of professional judgement.

The Evaluation Criteria Book will be updated to reflect these refinements and improvements.

4.5.19. To ensure that a consistent approach is taken when applying the evaluation criteria, an evaluation system will be developed. At the component level, this will involve using a four-point scale to enable options to be assessed as being:

a) Unworkable (black). b) Less preferred (red); c) Neutral (amber), or d) More preferred (green).

Unworkable Less Preferred Neutral More

Preferred

Figure 2 - Evaluation Four Point Scoring System

4.5.20. At the Masterplan level, as more detail becomes available, a six-point scale, as in Figure 3, can be used.

Unworkable Least

Preferred

Less

Preferred Neutral

More

Preferred

Most

Preferred

Figure 3 - Evaluation Six Point Scoring System

4.5.21. An ‘unworkable’ score indicates that the option is fundamentally flawed e.g. due to physical incompatibility or prohibitive costs, or because it is not feasible technically or operationally or is environmentally unacceptable even with mitigation. Even if options are not scored as unworkable at one stage, they may still be discontinued later if further analysis and evaluation demonstrates that they are incompatible with other options or otherwise unacceptable.





4.5.22. The application of all criteria will involve the use of professional judgement based on both qualitative and quantitative data sources. For each subject area, the criteria will include a specific measure / target against which options will be evaluated, known as a preference key. An example is outlined in Figure 4 below.

Discipline Subject Evaluation

Criteria

Sub-Evaluation

Criteria

Unworkable (black)

Less Preferred

(red)

Neutral (amber)

More Preferred (green)

Operations & Service

Airfield Performance

Airfield Efficiency

Average Taxi Time

>20 minutes >15 minutes 13-14

minutes <13 minutes

Figure 4 - Example of Preference Key

4.5.23. The use of a framework of evaluation criteria, as described above, will enable a multidisciplinary approach in which professional judgement and detailed analysis will be applied across subject areas in a coherent and consistent way. This will ensure that the evaluation and selection of options is undertaken having regard to relevant considerations in each of the discipline areas and that competing considerations are capable of being analysed and balanced by professionals with appropriate expertise.

Back-checking

4.5.24. Back-checking of option assessments and selections will be triggered if new material information or a material change in circumstances comes to light which warrants a reconsideration of previously discontinued options or other decisions. For example, a back-check may be triggered as a result of new cost information being available, policy or legislative changes, or if the design develops in such a way that discontinued options need to be reconsidered. This will ensure that the information and analysis on which assessments and decisions were based remain valid.

4.5.25. The designation of the NPS will trigger consideration of the need for a back-check. This consideration may or may not result in the need for a back-check of decisions already taken.

4.6. Recording the process

4.6.1. The process will be recorded throughout to create an ‘audit trail’ of how options are identified and evaluated and the basis for preferences and selections arrived at.

4.6.2. In addition, internal written records will be maintained of all meetings and workshops held for the purpose of assessing scheme options in accordance with this Manual.

4.6.3. The following documents will be produced in order to fully record the scheme development process:

Strategic Brief

4.6.4. The Strategic Brief is Heathrow’s strategic vision for an expanded airport. This document will act as Heathrow’s brief to instruct colleagues and stakeholders on the nature and aspirations of the airport we wish to construct and operate.





Capacity Forecasting Book

4.6.5. Future design day schedules will be developed based on a set of assumptions, which will be recorded in the Capacity Forecasting Book. When assumptions are updated during the scheme development process, resulting in an update to design day schedules, the Capacity Forecasting Book will be updated.

Requirements Management Plan & Requirements Register

4.6.6. Building on the Strategic Brief ambition, a process will be identified to capture from HAL and stakeholders the requirements for an expanded airport. This approach will be documented in a Requirements Management Plan.

4.6.7. The requirements that are captured in this process will be documented in the Requirements Register, which will be updated throughout the scheme development process as existing requirements are validated and refined, and new requirements are captured and validated through the engagement and consultation activities.

Component Options Reports

4.6.8. A Component Options Report will be written for each of the components. It will record all design development carried out for that particular component throughout the masterplan scheme development process.

4.6.9. The Evaluation Reports from the evaluation of component options will be included as part of the Component Options Reports.

Consultation One Feedback Report

4.6.10. This document will explain how regard is had to feedback from Consultation One.

Masterplan Options Development Report

4.6.11. The Masterplan Options Development Report will record all scheme development at the masterplan level from Stage 2 of the process until DCO application submission. Where the masterplan assembly process has resulted in component options development, the Masterplan Options Development Report will refer to the relevant Component Options Report.

4.6.12. The Evaluation Report from the evaluation of assembly options will be included as part of the Masterplan Options Development Report.

Scheme Development Reports

4.6.13. Scheme Development Reports will record the implementation of the masterplan scheme development process throughout all four stages. They will form a summary of the Component Options Reports and Masterplan Options Development Report and refer to these documents for more detail where necessary.

Consultation Two Feedback Report

4.6.14. This document will explain how regard is had to feedback from Consultation Two.





5. THE SCHEME DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

5.1. Overview of the Process

5.1.1. Figure 5 on the following page shows an overview of the four stages of the scheme development process and the activities contained in each. These four stages are explained in detail in the following sections.





Figure 5 – Overview of the Scheme Development Process





5.2. Stage 1: Strategic Definition

5.2.1. The purpose of this stage is to ensure readiness for the subsequent stages of the process by setting the objectives for the project and beginning to define the key inputs into the process. Each of these inputs is described in detail below.

5.2.2. These inputs will continue to be developed throughout the process. The following stage will begin once these inputs are sufficiently advanced that they allow the development of component options to begin. Further on in Stage 1, the M1 milestone will mark the point at which stakeholders have become sufficiently familiar with these inputs from Stage 1.

Strategic Brief

5.2.3. Heathrow’s strategic vision for an expanded airport will be defined in the Strategic Brief. This document will act as Heathrow’s brief to instruct colleagues and stakeholders on the nature and aspirations of the airport we wish to construct and operate.

5.2.4. The Strategic Brief will be signed off at the EPB. It will not be regularly revised but may be updated if necessary in order to ensure it remains fit for purpose.

Requirements

5.2.5. Building on the Strategic Brief ambition, a process will be identified to capture the requirements for an expanded airport. This approach will be documented in a Requirements Management Plan.

5.2.6. The requirements that have been captured by this process up to this time will be documented in the Requirements Register. The Requirements Register will be updated throughout the scheme development process as existing requirements are validated and refined, and new requirements are captured and validated through the engagement and consultation activities.

Component Identification

5.2.7. The masterplan for the expanded airport will be a complex and highly inter-related web of different components. In order to understand the options available, the development of the masterplan will be broken down into work-streams (as described in Section 4.3 above) within which all the components will be identified.

5.2.8. Each component has a relatively different importance and impact on the shape of the masterplan. Those with a higher impact, termed ‘key components’, will be prioritised in the scheme development process and they will be the focus of Stage 2. The development of those components that are dependent upon the location / alignment etc. of key components will follow in the scheme development process. Professional judgement will be used to identify the components and differentiate the relative importance of each.

Capacity Forecasting Book

5.2.9. Future design day schedules will be developed based on a set of assumptions, which will be recorded in the Capacity Forecasting Book.

5.2.10. The schedules will be used in high level capacity analysis in later stages of the process to identify peak flows for key facilities, for example the number of aircraft





parking stands and the size of the check-in hall, number of baggage reclaim belts and size of the departure lounge.

5.2.11. When assumptions are updated during the scheme development process, resulting in an update to design day schedules, the Capacity Forecasting Book will be updated. The facility capacity requirements may also need to be re-assessed. Any changes will be assessed against the emerging scheme design and signed off at the OAG.

Evaluation Criteria Book

5.2.12. The Evaluation Criteria Book is contained in Appendix B of this Manual. It sets out the criteria to be applied when evaluating component and assembly options. Criteria are identified for the various subject areas within each of the seven disciplines (operations and service, delivery, business case, sustainability, community, planning and property). Drawing upon professional experience, the Book also identifies a list of sub-criteria that may be applicable in the evaluation of component and assembly options. Discipline Leads and Subject Leads will use professional judgement in applying the evaluation criteria and sub-criteria and assessing the relevance and relative importance to be attached to different considerations. Accordingly, the Book will not be prescriptive in terms of which sub-criteria must be used, but it will provide guidance for those undertaking the assessments.

5.2.13. The Book may be refined during scheme development where this will help to ensure consistency or more granular exercise of professional judgement. Any refinements will cause the Book to be updated and re-issued, following approval at the OAG.

5.3. Stage 2: Component Options Development

5.3.1. The aim of Stage 2 is to arrive at preferred options for each of the key components through the following steps, which are explained in detail below:

Step 1. Identify the options available for each component;

Step 2. Reduce the number of component options under consideration through

the application of discontinuation rules; and

Step 3. Evaluate the remaining options to arrive at a list of preferred options for

each component.

5.3.2. These steps will also be followed for other components which rely on the development of the key components. However, it may not be possible to advance to step 3, or even step 2, during Stage 2 until the learning from later stages, which may be needed to advance options development, is available. Development of component options is not limited to this stage of the process but is expected to continue throughout the subsequent stages of the process.

5.3.3. The work done in this stage of the process will be recorded separately for each component in the Component Options Reports and will be summarised in the Scheme Development Report.





5.3.4. The M2 milestone will be reached once the evaluation of the key component options has been approved by the OAG.

5.3.5. The options developed for each component by the end of Stage 2 will be consulted upon at Consultation One.

Identify Options for Components

5.3.6. For each key component, all credible and feasible options will be identified to form the long-list of options. Multi-disciplinary design reviews will be held with a range of subject matter experts to identify the key choices that are available within a component and form options to address each of these.

5.3.7. A review will be held at the DER to approve the long-list of options for each key component.

Discontinue Options

5.3.8. The longlist of options for each key component will be reduced by discontinuing poor performing options, for example because of physical incompatibility, not being feasible operationally or being prohibitively costly.

5.3.9. The basis for discontinuing an option will be described in a discontinuation rule. Workshops will be held to develop the discontinuation rules and will be attended by the relevant integrated design team members. Each rule will be supported by a written justification to explain its rationale. Technical material will be prepared to document how the number of options is reduced through the application of the rules.

5.3.10. A review will be held at the DER to assure the discontinuation rules and the resulting short-list of options for each key component. This will then be signed off by the OAG. This sign off will include establishing that appropriate engagement has occurred with the relevant stakeholders.

Key Component Evaluation

5.3.11. The short-list of options for each key component will be evaluated by the Discipline Leads and Subject Leads against the criteria set out in the Evaluation Criteria Book. Technical material for the component options will be produced by the design team to enable the evaluation.

5.3.12. Discipline Leads and Subject Leads will develop the evaluation system to enable each key component option in the short-list to be assessed objectively against the criteria and sub-criteria. This evaluation system will comprise of a preference key for the sub-criteria and a definition for the four-point evaluation system. It should be emphasised that this evaluation system will not be applied mechanistically and there will be no numerical scoring or adding up of scores. The Discipline Leads and Subject Leads will evaluate the component options using professional judgement.

5.3.13. An Evaluation Report will be produced by the Discipline Leads for each key component, detailing how the short-listed options perform against the evaluation criteria. Workshops will be held between the design team and the evaluation team to ensure an accurate and aligned understanding of the evaluation. It will identify areas where an option could be improved by understanding why it performs poorly





and what aspects need to be changed. The draft Evaluation Report will be included as a section in the Component Options Report.

5.3.14. A review will be held at the DER to assure the evaluation and recommend a list of preferred component options to be taken forward in the scheme development process. The design team and evaluation team and other senior subject matter experts will attend the DER. The Evaluation Report will be updated and finalised with the outputs from the meeting.

5.3.15. The results of the evaluation will be presented to the OAG to review, challenge and endorse the evaluation work and decide on the preferred component options to take forward.

5.4. Stage 3: Masterplan Options Development

5.4.1. The purpose of this stage is to enable the selection of a preferred masterplan that will be the subject of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR), consultation two and the Environmental Statement. This will be achieved through the execution of the following activities, which are described in more detail below:

1. Masterplan assembly;

2. Consideration of feedback from consultation one;

3. Evaluation of assembly options; and

4. Generation of a preferred masterplan, at which point the M4 Gateway is

reached.

5.4.2. Masterplan assembly will begin once the preferred key component options have been identified. It is expected that this work will progress throughout consultation one.

5.4.3. The work done during this stage of the process will be recorded in the Masterplan Options Development Report and summarised in the Scheme Development Report.

Masterplan Assembly

5.4.4. The component options generated during Stage 2 will be integrated to form assembly options. Due to the complexity of the masterplan, this work will be broken down into the following steps:

1. Key Component Masterplans – the preferred options for the key components

will be used to assemble skeletal masterplans called Key Component

Masterplans, which will be assessed iteratively against the evaluation criteria

to identify weaknesses and opportunities for improvement.

2. Zonal sub-assemblies – zonal sub-assemblies will be formed by integrating

components which have a direct impact upon one another. Again, iterative

assessment against the evaluation criteria will allow investigation of which

options are incompatible or perform poorly once assembled.





3. Preliminary Masterplans – preliminary masterplans will be created to

combine the options for the zonal sub-assemblies. Iterative assessment

against the evaluation criteria will give an indication of the strongest and

weakest elements of each preliminary masterplan.

4. Assembly Options – the learning gained from assessment of the preliminary

masterplans will allow assembly options to be formed, based on the

strongest performing components and combinations of components. Through

further assessment against the evaluation criteria, a short-list of assembly

options for evaluation will be formed.

5.4.5. Throughout these steps, the component options will continue to be developed. This will be recorded in the Component Options Reports.

Feedback from Consultation One & Masterplan Evaluation

5.4.6. The purpose of these activities is to improve the scheme by having regard to feedback from consultation one and through evaluation of the assembly options.

5.4.7. The M3 milestone represents confirmation of the shortlist of assembly options for detailed evaluation. This milestone will be split into three parts to mark the three stages of evaluation. The M3 milestone will not be reached until the conclusion of all three parts.

5.4.8. As explained at paragraph 4.5.8 above, the feedback from consultation one will be provided to the design team and to the evaluation discipline leads in order to ensure that consultation feedback is fully taken into account in the evaluation of options.

5.4.9. The three parts to M3 will be as follows: M3a will be reached at around the end of the consultation one period, and will mark the initial selection of the short-list of assembly options to be evaluated.

5.4.10. The first evaluation period will commence following M3a. As part of this first evaluation, consultation feedback will be in the process of being analysed and consultation responses will be provided to the evaluators to inform their evaluation.

5.4.11. A preliminary preferred assembly option will be recommended at this first evaluation period to allow the work on the PEIR to begin. This selection and the commencing of work on the PEIR should have regard to those aspects of the design which can be fixed at this point, and those which are still subject to improvement through ongoing consideration of consultation feedback and the ongoing evaluation.

5.4.12. M3b will be reached at the end of the first evaluation period. This milestone will approve the changes needed to the assembly options and the criteria against which they are evaluated, having had full regard to consultation one feedback and the learnings from the first evaluation. Following M3b there will be an exercise to update the assembly options accordingly. A second period of evaluation will follow.

5.4.13. M3c will be reached at the end of the second evaluation period. This milestone will set the strategic direction to form a preferred masterplan based on the findings





from the evaluation. Following M3c this preferred option will be evaluated, concluding with the M4 gateway.

5.4.14. The splitting of the M3 milestone in this way allows the evaluation of assembly options to progress efficiently, taking into account a consideration of full consultation feedback and updated client and other requirements which arise during the evaluation process.

5.4.15. Each period of evaluation will follow the same key principles as set out below. Each of these evaluation periods will be carried out in full.

5.4.16. Discipline Leads and Subject Leads will develop the evaluation system that will be aligned with the latest requirements. The evaluation system will be comprised of a preference key for the sub-criteria and a definition for the six-point evaluation system.

5.4.17. The Discipline Leads and Subject Leads will evaluate the assembly options using professional judgement. It should be emphasised that this evaluation system will not be applied mechanistically. All metrics and sub-criteria will have no formal weighting applied. However, in considering the overall balance of considerations, the Discipline Leads and Subject Leads will highlight material issues, including any ‘show stoppers’ which are considered to prejudice the deliverability of the scheme. This could be represented with a black/unworkable score.

5.4.18. Technical material, for example plans and modelling data, for the assembly options will be produced by the design team to enable the Discipline Leads and Subject Leads to evaluate them against the criteria set out in the Evaluation Criteria Book.

5.4.19. An Evaluation Report for the assembly options will be produced by the Discipline Leads, detailing how the short-listed options perform against the evaluation criteria. This Evaluation Report will form part of the Masterplan Options Development Report. Workshops will be held between the design team and the evaluation team to ensure an accurate and aligned understanding of the evaluation. It will identify areas where an option could be improved by understanding why it performs poorly and what aspects need to be changed. The Evaluation Report will be updated at each of the three evaluation periods.

5.4.20. In undertaking the evaluation, a key guiding principle is that unless the operational / functional performance of that option is so poor or unaffordable that HAL would never choose to implement it, an option will not be discontinued where it has the potential to:

a) deliver lesser environmental effects than an alternative; or b) contribute more significant social or economic benefits than an alternative; or c) minimise the extent of land take.

5.4.21. Following each evaluation period, a DER meeting will be held to assure the evaluation work. The design team, evaluation team and other senior subject matter experts will attend the DER. The Evaluation Report will be updated with the outputs from the meeting.





5.4.22. The Evaluation Report, as part of the Masterplan Options Development Report will be presented to the OAG to review, challenge and endorse after each evaluation period.

5.4.23. Following the third evaluation, the Evaluation Report will be presented to the EPB with a recommendation from the OAG.

5.4.24. If approval is not given by the EPB, then the evaluation work will need to be reviewed based on feedback from the EPB. Stage 3 of the process will need to be re-applied as appropriate.

M4 Gateway - Preferred Masterplan Selection

5.4.25. The M4 gateway confirms the selection of a preferred masterplan. This masterplan will be the subject of consultation two and the basis for the Environmental Impact Assessment.

5.4.26. The Masterplan Options Development Report, including the Evaluation Reports, and the resulting Requirements Register will need to be approved by the DER, OAG and EPB for the M4 Gateway to have been completed.

5.5. Stage 4: Masterplan Finalisation

5.5.1. Once agreement has been reached on the preferred masterplan, it will continue to be developed further based on the feedback from the evaluation process, from internal and external stakeholders and input from the environmental assessment work-stream.

5.5.2. Following consultation two, the design team will consider any changes or improvements to the preferred masterplan having regard to feedback from consultation two, on-going environmental impact assessment work and the resulting Requirements Register. Multi-disciplinary design reviews will be held to understand how the feedback from consultation two can be used to change or improve the preferred masterplan option that was consulted on.

5.5.3. The purpose of refinement is to ensure that consultation feedback and stakeholder engagement is taken into account to help shape the proposals and there is greater confidence and knowledge with respect to the chosen masterplan in terms of its performance to meet Heathrow’s future requirements.

5.5.4. The Environmental Impact Assessment work and the mitigation measures will be incorporated into the design of the scheme on an on-going basis through the duration of the masterplan scheme development process. This will be achieved through multi-disciplinary design reviews.

5.5.5. DCO application parameters and detailed drawings will be prepared for submission of the DCO. They will be approved at EPB.

5.5.6. A Scheme Development Report will be prepared to explain the implementation of the masterplan scheme development process to arrive at the final scheme proposals.





M5 Gateway - Ready for DCO Submission

5.5.7. The completion of stage 4 is marked by the M5 gateway and the selection of a proposed scheme. The proposed scheme will need to be approved by the DER, OAG and EPB for the M5 Gateway to have been completed.





APPENDIX A LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTED ON

THIS MANUAL

Airline Community (British Airways / International Airlines Group; Virgin Atlantic; Airline Alliances; Airline Operators Committee; London Airline Consultative Committee; International Air Transport Association representative; The Board of Airline Representatives; Cargo Airline Operators Committee) Civil Aviation Authority Environment Agency Heathrow Area Transport Forum Heathrow Strategic Planning Group Highways England Historic England Natural England Network Rail





APPENDIX B EVALUATION CRITERIA BOOK

This document is the Evaluation Criteria Book prepared further to the Masterplan Scheme Development Manual for the Heathrow Expansion Programme. It sets out the evaluation criteria that have been formulated and will be applied in order to assess both the component and assembly options for the scheme. The criteria and sub-criteria below have been generated by the Subject and Discipline Leads for each of the seven Discipline Areas shown below.

DISCIPLINE: OPERATIONS AND SERVICE

Subject Evaluation Criteria Sub- Criteria with Examples

Airfield Performance

Runway Performance

Ability to physically land / depart the 740k schedule

Ability to deliver respite as defined by AC submission (all 8 modes)

Degree of operational constraint – no. of aircraft movements constrained to a single runway

Resilience

Taxiway Performance

Inbound delay – air holding

Inbound delay – air holding peak

Taxi time (inbound) – average per aircraft and spread for modal consistency

Outbound delay – start delay and runway holding average

Outbound delay – start delay and runway holding peak

Taxi time (outbound) – average per aircraft and spread for modal consistency

Taxi distance – average per aircraft

Taxi complexity (average number of ground interactions per day)

Terminations (number in any mode)

Resilience

Apron Capability

Stand frontage formula

Remote towing demand

New stand depth

Airfield Space Airfield space

Is space in the right place?

Airside Roads Modelled demand v capacity ratio





Trunk route network

Number of vehicle journeys per uncontrolled taxiway crossing

Average vehicle journey distance / time

HoS roads planned for 10m + 3m + 1m width – percentage of new build

Non-Aero

Terminal

Benefit

Space

Quality

Location

Land Use

Benefit

Space

Quality

Location

Baggage Performance

Baggage Performance

Overall distance travelled by bags from bag drop to aircraft, aircraft to reclaim, aircraft to transfer inputs

Square or cubic meterage required to enable a safe & resilient baggage concept to be delivered

Make-up at apron level

Integrated build

Overall layout/ process to support MCIT, MCT & arrivals delivery targets

Hub Connectivity

Passenger Connectivity

Overall distance travelled by pax – direct, arriving and transfer

Square or cubic meterage required to enable safe & resilient pax connectivity solutions to be developed

Overall layout / pax handling process to support MCIT, MCT & arrivals targets

Passenger Experience

Departures (landside passenger journey experience)

Walking distance to check-in area from underground

Walking distance to check-in area from HEX

Walking distance to check-in area from public bus

Walking distance to check-in area from drop off curb

Journey time to check-in area from underground





Journey time to check-in area from HEX

Journey time to check-in area from public bus

Number of level changes from PTI to check-in

Number of mode changes from PTI to check-in

Arrivals (landside passenger journey experience)

Walking distance from immigration to the HEX

Walking distance from immigration to the public bus

Number of >120 degree direction changes in the terminal journey

Walking distance from immigration to the underground

Journey time from immigration to the underground

Journey time from immigration to the HEX

Journey time from immigration to the public bus

Number of level changes immigration to PTI

Number of mode changes from ‘average’ gate to immigration

Number of mode changes immigration to PTI

Departures (airside passenger journey experience)

Distance to walk unaided from IDL to furthest aircraft gate

Distance to walk unaided from IDL to ‘average’ aircraft gate

Journey time to walk unaided from IDL to furthest aircraft gate

Journey time to walk unaided from IDL to ‘average’ aircraft gate

Number of level changes from check-in to ‘average’ gate

Number of level changes from check-in to furthest gate

Number of mode changes from check-in to ‘average’ gate

Number of mode changes from check-in to furthest gate

Number of >120 degree direction changes in the terminal journey

Distance to walk unaided from the furthest aircraft gate to immigration





Arrivals (airside passenger journey experience)

Journey time to walk unaided from the furthest aircraft gate to immigration

Journey time to walk unaided from the ‘average’ aircraft gate to immigration

Number of level changes from ‘average’ gate to immigration

Number of level changes from furthest gate to immigration

Number of mode changes from furthest gate to immigration

Connections (airside connections passenger journey experience)

Distance to walk unaided from furthest aircraft gate to connections area

Distance to walk unaided from ‘average’ aircraft gate to connections area

Journey time from furthest aircraft gate to connections area

Journey time from ‘average’ aircraft gate to connections area

Number of level changes from furthest gate to connections area

Number of level changes from ‘average’ gate to connections area

Number of mode changes from furthest gate to connections area

Number of mode changes from ‘average’ gate to connections area

Surface Access

Mode Share

Rail access – total number of stations connected to Heathrow with 0 or 1 interchange

Bus and coach access – average distance (km) from motorway network to eastern campus bus and coach facilities

Bus and coach access – average distance (km) from motorway network to western campus bus and coach facilities

Bus and coach access – average distance (km) from motorway network to T4 campus bus and coach facilities

Bus and coach access – average distance (km) between CTA, T4, T5

Transport integration





Public Transport Catchment Growth – ratio of public transport catchment vs car catchment within 1-hour

Public Transport Catchment Growth – ratio of public transport catchment vs car catchment within 3-hour

Resilience

Alternative access routes and points of entry

Choices of modes and access options

Community connectivity

Efficiency

Level of service – average journey times

Level of service – total no. of key decision points

Highways capacity and optimisation

Freight routing

Car parking consolidation and accessibility

Aviation Fuel Infrastructure

Fuel Resilience Total site tank capacity

Volume of maximum additional stock to 2R arrangements

Impact on future supply resilience

Fuel Safety Assets of operational activities affected by adjacency to a fuel storage facility and thermal radiation contours

Fuel Security Control of access to critical airport infrastructure

Colleague

Travel to/from work

Travel time by car from home in community X to the workplace is reduced when compared to the baseline (2017)

Travel time from workplace car park to the workplace is reduced when compared to the baseline (2017)

Travel time by public transport from home in community X to the workplace is reduced when compared to the baseline (2017)

Number of modes of public transport from home in community X to the workplace is reduced when compared to the baseline (2017)

Skills and training

Space provision for a Training Academy and Conference Centre

Space provision for a multi-purpose Visitor/Community/Innovation Centre





Travel time from LTZ to the Training Academy and Conference Centre

Travel time from LTZ to the multi-purpose Visitor/Community/Innovation Centre

Engineering Infrastructure for Operations & Service

Lifts

Lift car occupant area

Lift car load factor

Passenger grouping assumption

Space provision for lift systems

Welfare facilities – toilets and changing

Space provision for passenger welfare

Space provision for colleague welfare

Fixed Electrical Ground Power (FEGP)

Space provision for FEGP on each stand

Solutions proposed

Air Bridges Maximum gradient of the floor slope of an airbridge when servicing an aircraft

Extreme weather resilience

Description of the consideration for extreme weather events on airport infrastructure and systems

Engineering Accommodation

Floor space for in-house and third party maintenance support teams

Engineering Resources

Potable water 3R v 2R demand uplift

Non-potable water

Supply capability

Land area safeguarded for receipt, treatment, storage and distribution of non-potable water

Solution proposed

Surface Water Drainage

Flooding event that can be attenuated

Land area for treatment and containment removal prior to discharge

Pollution Control

Treatment solution / technology

Treatment area for containment removal prior to discharge

Discharge locations

Waste Water Solution proposed

Fire Main Solution proposed

Thermal energy

Land area for heating and cooling generation plant

Description of the solution proposed

Electrical energy 3R v 2R demand uplift





Proportion of energy demand which could be met from sustainable on-site generation and description of technology

Land area for on-site generation

Land area for power resilience

Waste Management

Land area safeguarded for waste collection on stands

Land area safeguarded for waste consolidation, transfer or processing

Description of the solution proposed

Security Security

Impact of a road traffic accident on a trunk road requiring 200m exclusion zone

Impact of a vehicle-borne improvised explosion device on adjacent landside roads

Improvement in response time to a CTA or northern tunnel incident through additional access route

Impact on a terminal or critical assets of a blast event at a vehicle control post

Conduciveness of Vehicle Control Post workplaces to support required levels of attentiveness, recruitment, retention of competent colleagues

Impact of Vehicle Control Post queues on landside roads and terminal / LTZ access

Existence of non-conventional airside/landside boundary

Minimum distance between aircraft or aircraft stands and the perimeter fence of landside areas accessible by errant vehicles

Separation of Hostile Vehicle Mitigation track from road vehicles

Number of access routes to LTZ or terminal

Safety Safety

Passenger/colleague segregation from vehicles

Vertical circulation within buildings: number of level changes

Frequency of operations or maintenance interventions needing a live taxi-way crossing.

Emergency Response: Response time to an incident in a terminal or on a stand.





DISCIPLINE: DELIVERY


Delivery

Schedule

Time to open new runway

Time to open new terminal capacity

Capacity delivered at 2035

Buildability

Construction complexity - infrastructure (airfield, rivers, roads, properties, utilities)

Construction complexity - terminals, satellites, ancillary, connectivity

Existing airport operations

Impact to existing operations

Construction Logistics

Logistics solution - freight

Logistics solution - workforce

Logistics solution - temporary construction infrastructure

Safety

Complex activities

Concurrent and adjacent workfaces

Impact on pax and airport operations

Opportunity for threats to construction sites

DISCIPLINE: BUSINESS CASE


Capacity Utilisation Efficiency

Stand efficiency factor

Terminal / satellite efficiency factor

Ability to meet the terminal occupancy strategy

Infrastructure Adaptability

Passenger Demand Ability to meet demand over time

Flexibility

Flexibility to re-phase based on changing demand level

Flexible infrastructure able to support multi-airline / handler operations and varying fleet / passenger mix

Scheme Cost Capex Cost

Total cost including property

Cost per mppa of new capacity

Timing of investment

Heathrow – Aero Revenue

Aeronautical Revenue

Impact on ‘current charge’ by H period

Terminal Benefit





Heathrow – Non-Aero Commercial Revenue

Space

Quality

Location

Land Use

Benefit

Space

Quality

Location

Heathrow Operating Costs

Heathrow Operating Costs

Staff cost

Non-staff cost

Early amortisation / write offs

Level of disruption during works

Airline

Airline Revenue Impact

Airline revenue

Airline cost of operating

Cost of fuel

Cost of servicing aircraft

Cost of servicing passengers

Depreciation Depreciation Depreciation

DISCIPLINE: SUSTAINABILITY


Air quality

Risks relating to Local, national and EU limit values – NOx, particulates

Other emissions (i.e. risk of increased dust, odour)

Agriculture Impacts on agricultural land and holdings

Biodiversity

Impacts on protected sites for nature conservation (e.g. SPA, SSSI, SINC)

Impacts on designated Ancient Woodland

Impacts on priority habitats and species

Carbon

Embodied carbon - quantity associated with materials used in construction of new infrastructure

Carbon emissions associated with airport infrastructure (e.g. energy use)

Carbon emissions associated with airfield operations (e.g.





Carbon emissions associated with surface access

Climate Change

Climate change resilience (of Heathrow and HEP)

In-combination climate change impacts (on receiving environment and community)

Historic Environment

Direct impacts on heritage assets (e.g Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments)

Impact on the setting of heritage assets

Landscape and Visual Amenity

Impact on landscape character, taking into account value attached to the landscape through policy/legislation

Impact on views from visual receptors (including residential properties and Public Rights of Way)

Landscape Design

Green Infrastructure provision - opportunities to provide a network of multifunctional green space to achieve multiple environmental, social and economic benefits

Land Quality

Impacts on landfill sites and contaminated land

Impacts on protected sites designated for geodiversity

Noise

Population exposed to noise from airbourne sources

Provision of predictable relief/respite

Noise impacts due to groundbourne sources

Resource Use

Energy use (predicted use of buildings measured in kWh per unit floor area)

"Energy generation:

% of energy from on-site renewables "

Socio-Economics

Impacts on business properties (i.e. loss and amenity)

Impact on employment

Surface Water and Groundwater

Protection and enhancement of the water environment

Net change to flood risk to people and property

Net change to flood risk to people and property (groundwater)

Waste

Designing out waste: Earthworks (excluding excavated landfill waste)





Designing out waste: Demolition waste

Designing out waste: Construction waste

Designing out waste: Excavated hazardous landfill material

Designing out waste: Excavated non-hazardous landfill material

Designing out waste: Excavated inert landfill material

Direct/indirect effects of landfill or treatment facilities for waste arising

DISCIPLINE: COMMUNITY


Community Impacts

Impacts on residential properties (i.e. loss, amenity impacts, benefits)

Impacts on public open space and public rights of way (e.g. sports ptiches, allotments, amenity greenspace)

Impacts on Community Facilities (e.g. schools, libraries, healthcare, pubs)

Impacts on population sub-groups (priority, minority, vulnerable groups)

Delivery of community commitments (e.g TBF, 2.0 and Strategic Brief)

Community feedback and conformity with community mitigation strategies

Risk of isolation, severance or diminished access due to altered roads or infrastructure

Health

Potential impacts on mental health

Potential impacts on physical health

DISCIPLINES: PLANNING AND PROPERTY


Existing Land Use

Area Impacted Total area impacted

Total Area of Commercial Property (Ha)





Commercial Property

% in Heathrow ownership

No of Hotel beds

Area of Car Parking (Ha)

Area of Logics (Ha)

Warehouseing (Ha)

Area of airport supporting operations (Ha)

Office floorspace (m2)

Residential Property

Total area of Residential Property (ha)

No of properties in HAL ownership

No of properties

Agricultural Property

Total area of agricultural property (ha)

No of residential farm buildings

Listed Buildings

No impacted

Significance (qualitative)

Special Land, including Crown Land and allotments

Area of special land (Ha)

Area of Operational Special Land (Ha)

Green Belt

Total Area (Ha)

Impact on Openess (qualitative)

Acquisition

Strength of CPO case (qualitative)

Landowner appetite for development (qualitative) CONFIDENTIAL

Commercial (qualitative)





Existing Activities Relocation Requirements

Complexity / Opportunity

Communities (qualitative)

Crown Land

Reprovision of IRC on a continuous service basis

Proposed Land

Efficiency

Intensity of use within the proposed operational boundary of the airport (qualitative)

Intensity of use within the off-airport land uses (qualitative)

Area of multi storey stacking (Ha)

Third Party Risk

No of properties in the 1:10,000 contour

No of properties in the 1:100,000 contour

Policy Fit

Local Green Space (Neighbourhood Plan)

Area (ha) lost.

Impact on connectivity (Qualitative).

Extent of encroachment into Colne Valley Park

Area (ha) lost.

Impact on Openness/quality.

Employment Land

Area of designated land lost (ha).

Strategic Employment Land lost.

Minerals Area (ha) of designated Minerals sites to be lost.

Jobs created / loss Number

Consistency with Local Planning Policy

Local Plan Policies affected.

Local Plan designations affected.

Consistency with National Policy Statement

Qualitative – identify key policy tests complied/conflicted with.

masterplan scheme development manual€¦ · development of a new north west runway at heathrow...

Documents